Older Guy Having the Time of His Life with Young Women

I recently received this comment in the comments threads, from an older guy, age 67, who is having the time of his life partying with young women aged 19-23.

I don’t know what to say about this issue; it is mainly because all the old bags have made it to where older guys liking younger women is looked at as something bad. As a consequence, many older guys will either try to stay away or they are married. I am now 67, still in good shape and look maybe 54. Since my divorce, I am having the time of my life with women aged 19-early 20′s. They are a crack up to party with if you party.

I can supply drinks and even some Mollys (MDMA or Ecstasy), and they love to have a safe place to party at. I make sure they make it back to get to their real boyfriends or home safe afterwards. Sometimes I get lucky and one of them likes me. I love them calling each other “bitch” LOL. It’s funny as hell, and you only live once. I been there and done the boring marriage thing.

These young women enjoy doing things and have never done many things or gone many places. They are hot, and they are fun…What the Hell else is there? I am loving life, and of course I help them with gas in their car or school books as that is a part of me I acquired from raising a daughter. No is sex required as I am calm and easy going, so they like that. I’m in Orange County, California and have 3 different girls coming around. Love it…to hell with you rejected old bags that never want sex and only want to bitch.

This is a great article! 67 year old guy partying down with hot young chicks aged 19-23! He is good to them, responsible and doesn’t pressure them for sex, but nevertheless, now and then he gets lucky. If this guy is creepy, then I say let’s hear it for creeps! A lot of older guys are not really interested in young women to be honest, contrary to all of the insane paranoia. Around here, I almost never see an older man with a very young woman. You simply don’t see it. So what’s all the fuss about?

After about age 47, it is very hard to interest them in you anyway, or at least that has been my experience.

I know quite a few young women in my daily life, and as a general rule, they really don’t like me too much. I’m not sure what it is all about, but I suspect they think I am a dirty old man! Of course, I am a dirty old man, not that there is anything wrong with that!

Most of them don’t even want me talking to them, not even the slightest bit of small talk about the most innocuous subjects. They tend to shut the conversations down very quickly, and I get the message all right. I am starting to act pretty rude back to them, so what goes around, comes around. I’m not trying to pick up on any of them; I just want to talk about this, that or whatever.

At my age, I can still get nice looking young women about age 27-29, but that is about as low as I can go anymore. How this guy, who is 12 years older than I am, has these 19-23 year old chicks coming around, I have no idea, but props anyway Pops!

As far as his complaints about older women, in my experience, the female sex drive remains potentially very strong all the way into the forties, from 40-48 at the very least. For some it keeps going pretty strong until 50. So the female sex drive then seems to come on at age 13 (my calculation based on present rates of maturation in the US) and remains quite strong in many cases all the way to age 45-48 or so. I have known some women aged 40-48 who are extreme sex maniacs.

I do not think the female sex drive changes much between 13-48, but studies show it peaks at age 33-39. These same studies also showed that the drive at that age was quite a bit higher than that of teenage girls. This same study showed a high rate of female “sexual responsiveness” whatever that means, extending far past the 40′s and into the 50′s and even old age.

However, after menopause hits, there does seem to be a lowering of the sex drive. This seems to hit women around age ~50 or thereabouts.

This is a Shitty Website

Repost from the old site.

The Poop Report.

One of the all-time great websites about you know what. Shit, poop, crap, call it what you will – if you have a question about Number 2, there is probably an answer here somewhere.

One of my favorite threads is “anal leakage”. Of all the problems that could afflict a poor soul.

They sell books, they sell t-shirts, they sell everything. They even have a newsletter. Check out the names of the most active users.

Other than the obvious scatological humor, the forums are filled with folks with all sorts of anxieties about their shit. I asked a nurse friend of mine once if I were abnormal with my shit worries. She said, “Everyone is obsessed with their shit.”

And maybe it’s not a bad idea, hey. From hemorrhoids to polyps to diverticulosis to constipation to diarrhea to IBS, all sorts of stuff can and does go wrong down there. Be lucky if you are still going on schedule and without problems.

We shouldn’t be afraid of scatological discussion. Most folks think it is off-topic forever, but really, it’s something most of us do just about every day. It’s not a disgusting, horrible, awful, unmentionable thing we do regularly; it’s a very important part of our lives.

Shit isn’t as harmful as you think, your own, that is. You can probably even ingest tiny or microscopic amounts of your own shit, and most of us probably do from time to time. Most people probably don’t believe this, but it’s probably impossible to catch any disease this way. That is because any disease that is in your shit is already in your body (in your intestines that is) and thus you cannot catch a disease that you already have.

Once again, if you eat your own shit in large enough amounts, you might vomit because it’s so disgusting, but I don’t think you could catch any disease.

The big problem with shit is not your own shit but other peoples’ shit. One public health specialist was asked what was the greatest public health achievement of modern times was, and he said, “Getting the shit out of the water.” And so it was, the sewage was cleansed from the well, and lo and behold, the people got so much better when they weren’t drinking that shitty tasting water anymore.

That’s why we wash our hands after we shit. And do it well, hopefully, as I am a maniac about it, having OCD and all never hurts. They fear our shit and we fear their shit, so it’s like opposing shit armies, except truces are made when the armies camp together on the battlefield for about six months, after which they decide to give up this shitty war and go back to the base and listen for the sirens again.

That’s what other people’s shit is all about: it’s dangerous. Hell with your own shit, that’s for others to worry about, not you! Who fears their own shit? No educated man does, that’s who. In lots of countries they never got around to getting the shit out of the water, and so they are grotesquely unhealthy, like the Afghans these days living to be 38 or so, drinking that shitty war and dodging exploding humans and all that.

So be on the lookout for other people’s shit. It’s all about, and it’s dangerous and it’s our problem, not even theirs. Everybody is immune to their own shit, but everybody’s shit is potentially at war with everyone else’s shit. It’s a Shit War to the finish dammit. A war of all shit against all shit.

So shit is like a toxic waste rocket you can shoot at your opposing humans, or any humans that might get in your way, since your army of shit doesn’t care who it attacks or when or who. They’re always ready to fight, kind of like Iraqis.

Lots of diseases you can catch from other people’s shit, like Hepatitis A, parasites, cholera, salmonella, shigella and ameobiasis, crytosporidium and other fine foods. Gay men get a lot of these, because they are always eating shit, so to speak. I figure gay men have been eating it in society for long enough, so they don’t have to eat shit anymore, but I guess they are masochist leatherboys.

The reason you get sick when you go to Mexico and drink the water or suck on a lime is because you start drinking too much other people’s shit. Mexicans don’t mind for the most part, as Mexican shit doesn’t bother most Mexicans. It’s not really a taco de chivo con todo, but hey, it’s edible and unavoidable, and and if you have to eat a turd or even drink a turd tea, you may as well enjoy the experience.

And get a life lesson as it is, since most of us are going to be eating shit for the rest of our lives in one way or another for the rest of our lives. So we may as well lie back and enjoy it and try to engage damage control, so we don’t have to eat too much shit, and we can sort of enjoy life more or less, or at least fake it good enough to pass.

The shit, the shit, nothing but the shit. Apocalypse Now, Poop Later. 2001, A Shit Odyssey. Full Metal Shitjacket. Life’s a turd, and then you flush. 51% nice girl, 49% turd, so don’t flush me. Shit now or forever hold your sphincter. Shit, fart or get out of the bathroom.

Ok, I’m done. I’m scatologicalized out for the time being. That’s all the shitty jokes for one day, and anyway, the day itself was kind of a shitty joke itself in more ways than one, like lots of days, or maybe even every day if you are not stoned or drunk enough to notice?

There’s shitty jokes everywhere. Every time you turn around you hear another one. Life is kind of one big shitty joke after another, but at least half the jokes are lame enough so you can laugh about them for being so stupid.

The stupid, shitty jokes of life. Since I was really depressed, I made a shitty poem out of it.

The shitty years.
The long and oh so shitty years.
The sadness of the shitty years.

Now actually that was kind of beautiful, and it was then that I realized that I was a poet and I didn’t even know it but I hadn’t yet blown it, since there were always those Poetry Review contests, which anyone can win since they are sized down to the crowd at your local supermarket.

My poems would be great if I was a poet, but since they are so much better than everyone else’s, everyone would probably hate them, or else two or three women who are weird literary groupies about as screwed up as the poet nuts they love, might fall in love with me as “the greatest writer that ever lived.”

Which I agree with in principle, as most accomplished scribes are, since that is the only reason we even write anyway, we all think we are the greatest writers that ever lived, otherwise why waste time scribbling?

I had a university lit professor once who thought I was the next Thomas Pynchon. He’d hardly ever seen anything like this, this fiction I was writing. I kept on writing the novel, and got to about page 213, but it was turning into this totally insane and sick William Burroughs type novel, and it just got uglier and uglier with the following year or two, kind our like our mugs over time.

There are a few scribblings of fiction here and there, and I have brilliant friends who read and say, “Wow, this is like James Joyce or William Shakespeare,” but of course they are clearly deluded, and I think it pretty much sucks probably. Or else it’s the greatest thing ever written, almost kinda maybe sort of a little bit.

Since women do love writers, after all, even though most writers are pretty crazy.

Smart women can love writers, but not so women not so smart. They hear the guy’s a writer and start laughing. Anyway, most of them read menus and checkbooks and birthday cards, but otherwise they regard books like you do a kid’s object in the middle of the floor.

Definitely one of the web’s greatest websites if you’ve got copro-obsessive qualities, as most of us do. The Poop Report FTW!

Genetics and Evolution of IQ and Head Size in Antiquity and Modernity

Objectivity, a very strong HBD type, writes,

All of the race realist ranting about dysgenics grows very tiresome. Humans are intelligent creatures. It’s only logical that the evolution that drove us to this point is ongoing

But the selection that drove us to this point was probably NATURAL selection where only the smartest few could SURVIVE long enough to have children. Since the advent of agriculture, there’s been enough food for everyone, so evolution has been more about SEXUAL selection and that slightly favors low IQ classes and races because these tend to be the most promiscuous (see Rushton).

That’s why there’s probably been virtually no GENETIC increase in brain size or IQ in the last 10,000 years aside from perhaps a decrease in inbreeding. Actually the malnutrition caused by abandoning our hunter/gather diet probably shrunk brain size and IQ for thousands of years, and only with the advent of 20th century nutrition are we reverting back to our big brained selves. This explains the secular rise in brain size and IQ performance, though probably only half of the Flynn Effect is a real rise in intelligence; the rest is just that our increasingly educated society is good at faking high intelligence on IQ tests.

And I don’t think the black-white IQ gap is narrowing. You’re only looking at a small sample of tests. Rushton & Jensen examined the totality of data and found no shrinkage in the gap, and in fact they speculate that the true black American IQ might be only 78 if samples included blacks living in parts of the inner-city so scary it’s too dangerous for psychologists to even test them.

This argument is simply wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. There are so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to start.

No evidence for genetic increases in brain size or IQ for the last 10,000 years. Fine, but there is also no evidence that there has not been any genetic increases in IQ over 10,000 years. Certainly certain groups such as Ashkenazi Jews, via widespread inbreeding, have evolved extremely high IQ’s. NE Asians have also evolved some very high IQ’s, possibly through preferential breeding with the brightest. There is no evidence that the NE Asian IQ of 105 is not the result of an increase in the past 10,000 years, and in fact, that is exactly what is suggestive. I would suspect that Confucian culture whereby females sought to breed with the smartest males is part of the answer. The same mechanism occurred with the Jews, whereby men not smart enough to study the Torah and Talmud simply left Judaism and converted to Christianity. The females then competed for the most intelligent young males. Females continue to preferentially select for the brightest males in Chinese society today.

Furthermore the article in which this comment appeared involves a comparison of White and Black skulls from colonial times to the present. The study found that skulls of both races grew dramatically larger and more progressive over a 200-300 year period. The study author said some of the result was due to environment (especially in the Blacks) but that most of the changes were genetic. Therefore, there were large increases in Black and White skulls over 200-300 years in the US favoring larger skulls and more progressive features. At the same time, we have seen dramatic increases in US Black IQ versus Caribbean and African Black IQ (Caribbean and African Black IQ = ~70 while US Black IQ = 87). Only a couple of those points can be attributed to White genes, leaving the rest unaccounted for. The changes in US Black skulls occurred since 1900 and involved a trend towards larger and more progressive skulls.

What happened was this. Since colonial times, Whites and Blacks have been selecting for more progressive features and less archaic features. As more progressive features tend to have higher IQ’s than more archaic features, these changes led to increased IQ. There was also selection for larger heads, possibly on the part of females choosing more intelligent males. The selection only occurred since 1900 in Blacks. After Liberation, Blacks were now free to make money. In Black communities, considerable money could be made. More progressive or “Whiter” features were valued and more archaic or “Blacker” features were devalued by both males and females. Black females preferred females with more progressive features for beauty purposes. Black males with more progressive features may have been less discriminated against and more able to pass. Further, more intelligent Black men made more money in the Black community and hence were preferred by females for breeding purposes due to status and income. Before 1900, most Blacks were very poor and very Black looking and there was not a lot to select for in terms of income or progressive features.

In fact, the selection has been so dramatic that Blacks and Whites today resemble each other more than they do their own ancestors! That is, modern Whites look more like modern Blacks than they look like Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Modern Blacks look more like modern Whites than they look like Sally Hemmings or other slave ancestors from Colonial America.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the agricultural revolution led to a decrease in brain size and IQ. In fact, as civilization expanded dramatically during this era, the opposite seems true.

There is also no evidence whatsoever that the Agricultural Revolution led to increased malnutrition as opposed to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In fact, most hunter-gatherers have experienced extreme famines with horrible natural selection events possibly involving the deaths of 90-95% of the population. Thus they have thrifty constitutions and are subject to diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure, etc. Agricultural populations have no such thrifty constitutions. Hence, it appears that hunter-gatherers have experienced more famine events than agriculturalists which means that hunter gatherers are more subject to malnutrition than farmers. In our modern era, agriculturalists have the highest IQ’s of all and hunter-gatherer IQ’s tend to be lower than that of agriculturalists. This holds true even within races, as African hunter-gatherers are thought to have lower IQ’s than African agriculturalists.

It is not true that only half of the Flynn Effect is an increase in real intelligence. There is just about zero effect of test taking on the Flynn Effect. All of the FE is real. It’s just a matter of what you think it all means. In some ways, we really are smarter than our grandparents, but in other ways, we are not. Increased eduction also makes humans smarter, contrary to your POV.

The B-W IQ gap is definitely narrowing in children. That much is beyond dispute. I say that the adult B-W gap is narrowing by ~2 points for adults also, but that’s a lot more controversial. Even Charles Murray agrees that there has been a 7.5 point narrowing of the B-W IQ gap among adults since 1920.

There is no evidence that the Black IQ is 78, not 87, in the US. Tests are routinely conducted at inner city schools, no matter how dangerous they are. This has been going on for decades now, and at any rate, Black ghettos were much less dangerous 50 years ago, IQ’s were not 78 then.

The Breast of the Web

Repost from the old site.

Breasts, tits, titties, boobs, boobies, knockers.

In Venezuela, they are called hangers.

I was talking to a woman from Venezuela once, and she kept asking me if I wanted to see her (Spanish word for hangers). Well, I looked up the word in my Spanish dictionary, and all I got was “hangers”. You know, the things you hang clothes on? It took me another 5-10 minutes or so of my half-assed Spanish to figure out that “hangers” means tits in Venezuelan Spanish slang. Haha.

Anyway, there is more to boobs than sex appeal. These organs are used to feed babies, and many women and girls have enormous complexes about them. How to prevent sag? What causes sag? At what age to breasts begin to sag and why? To wear a bra or not to wear a bra? Plastic surgery? Flat-chested women? Effects of pregnancy and breast-feeding on breasts? And on and on.

I remember once, when I was 20, I was having sex with an 18 year old woman.

“Nice tits,” I remarked while nuzzling one of them.

She cried out plaintively, “They’re too small!”. She obviously had a complex.

“But they’ve got a really nice shape,” I said honestly. And they did. Not too large, true, but perfect, round and firm.

Well, look no further than 007Breasts, everything you always wanted to know about boobs and then some. Written by feminists who oppose the commodification of breasts as only a sex symbol and nothing more, this site is the end-all and be-all of Tit Sites.

It’s especially useful for females who worry and wonder about their boobs. I didn’t find it particularly erotic, but then I’m 55, and maybe I’m hooked on porn boobs, which don’t look a heck of a lot like average boobs at all. I especially liked the galleries showing the many shapes and varieties of the human female breast at various ages and in various females.

They come in all shapes and sizes. Small and round, small and saggy, medium and saggy, medium and firm, skinny and long, fat and wide, fat and long, big and saggy, big and full, tubular, small little bumps, you name it.

Energy Efficiency Makes You Stupid

Here.

I hate these new energy efficient buildings. I worked at one of them, and the place was literally making me sick. I would be feeling great until I showed up at work, then I would gradually get very sleepy and stuffed up over time. Finally, I would be so tired that I would have to leave early. By the time I got home, I was all woken up again.

One that I go to now is simply freezing cold all the time. It may well be 88 degrees outside, but inside, you best button up. The air conditioner never stops running and the whole place smells like something that’s way too new.

The brain needs oxygen. I assume that too much CO2 lowers oxygen levels and starves the brain.

The Death of Johannesburg

Although of course I opposed apartheid, supported the ANC and the transition to democracy, let’s face it. It hasn’t all been peaches and roses, now has it? On balance though, I would say that it was the right thing to do. One man one vote is the only way to go. Apartheid, racist rule by a tiny minority, was just wrong, period, whatever benefits it may have had for whoever.

Sometimes doing the right thing causes more problems than doing the wrong thing. In that case, as a Western Christian, I would still say that we should do the right thing anyway for no other reason than to do the right thing. Doing the right thing is proper and correct in and of itself, regardless of whatever consequences flow from that decision.

Besides, the notion that Blacks lived in paradise under apartheid is highly dubious!

Reading through the comments, many of which are racist, one point keeps getting hammered home over and over. The nonracist side of me cringes when I hear it, but nevertheless, all arguments should be entertained in the quest for truth. Just because an argument is racist doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Sadly, racist arguments may indeed be correct even if the people making them are bad people.

The argument is that Blacks not only cannot create higher civilization in the first place on their own, but when handed a higher civilization created by another group (typically Whites) in a matter of time, a few decades or less, they pretty much unravel that advanced civilization and turn the place into a dirty, dangerous, chaotic, polluted, unhealthy slum. Those pictures in that video could be of Detroit, East St. Louis, Camden, Newark, Chicago’s South Side or Oakland.

Whether or not Blacks are civilization destroyers once they become a majority is an interesting question, but once one accepts the premise just for the purposes of argument, one still wonders at the reason.

One argument is IQ. However, the US Black IQ is ~87. That’s certainly high enough to create stable civilization. The African IQ is controversial. One paper says it is only ~69. In that case, civilization wrecking would seem to be par for the course. Yet a new study puts the African IQ at ~80.

I am not sure if that is correct, but if it is, that should be high enough to create a functional society. After all, the Moroccan IQ is 82, the Indonesian IQ is 79 and the Qatari IQ is 78. All of these peoples have produced more or less functional societies with ~80 IQ’s, so an 80 IQ should be plenty enough to create a working society.

Another argument is high testosterone. High testosterone may explain higher Black crime rates until age 33. Would Black crime alone in and of itself be enough to completely unravel civilization in that way we see in Detroit and in the video? Isn’t there more going on there than just crime? At any rate, Black women commit little crime, and after age 33, Black men’s testosterone is lower than that of Whites. Surely Black women and older Black males ought to be able to create functional societies as they don’t have testosterone to blame.

At the end of the day, the arguments just don’t seem to be make sense. The, yes, racist argument that Blacks are civilization wreckers in at least quite a few cases stings, but even non-racists must wonder painfully if it’s true. Yet that arguments put forward for why Blacks dismantle civilization seem to lack explanatory adequacy.

Even more painfully, let us suppose that Blacks have civilization dismantling properties. Are they doomed to do this forever and ever? Is there any hope for Blacks? Are admixed Blacks (mulattos, zambos, etc.) also likely to do this? If so, do they do it at the same rate or a lesser rate?

I’m sure that quite a few Black people like to live in chaotic, filthy, disordered, and dangerous places. On the other hand, we have Black commenters and authors on this site who are as repulsed by these places as I am.

Before attacking Blacks wholesale for dismantling civilization, let us keep in mind that the primary victims of Black civilization dismantling are Blacks themselves. Other races suffer from the downside of this unraveling at a dramatically reduced rate. As Blacks dismantle civilizations, they inflict an unbelievably horrific cost of suffering, pain, illness and death on their very own kind. That right there is as sad as a bottomless well. That Blacks are the primary victims of this entropic impulse makes it even more imperative that we get to the bottom of it.

Racial Testosterone Differentiations Caused by the Environment?

Is it possible that the higher average in “Black” in early age and higher average higher count in older “White” men could be explained by environmental causes, and not genetic predetermined ones? That maybe this could explain itself as an alternative?

“Black” culture in America at least has a definitive ‘machismo’ streak to it that often values and commands certain traits where you could say testosterone friendly traits are often expounded more. I wouldn’t say changing their culture would lowers these levels – perhaps they are more likely shaped in teenage years – but they are far more hypersocial and leave “Black” individuals vulnerable to cultural and environmental traits.

I know at least our urge to take risks has been shown by neurologists to shape hormonal levels in men’s teenage years that determine our ability to take risks for the rest of men’s lives.

While White culture often is more forgiving of anti-competitive males – in fact it is arguably the source of concepts like transgenderism and feminism. Feminism itself could be argued to be still in a process of osmosis in American culture.

I think of psychologists like Steven Pinker who describe the ‘feminization’ of modern males when I think of such things, and how this allows for greater (or “feminizing”) social organization and success, something ideologically ‘Eurocentric’ in origin. Whenever we talk generally about this ‘modern male’, one should further consider, measuring this from norms and averages, we are de facto talking about “White” men, who represent the vast majority.

Testosterone I would also say has been shown to be effected by environment in some way or another – stress is known to reduce it for example – as is stamina related exercise. I guess I’m saying whatever factor that might be might be inherent to a “black” teenagers testosterone and hence future young adult level might be as inherent as is his increased propensity to be from a lower economic status or listen to hip hop music and watch BET.

My explanation would be some cause and effect exhaustion of the male capacity to produce testosterone, perhaps some aging effect on the “Black man’s” thyroid, or some other such physiological explanation.

While my explanation may not be correct, what has to be considered moreover is that nevertheless there may be some other ‘secondary explanation’.

And to implement such measures as a pill for “Blacks” could have arbitrary effect – misinformation about things that determine their whole physical existence is touchy stuff – where mistaken belief can leave to acts such as the Holocaust (not to go Hitler ad reductium on you, you are far from Hitler!) or even the unnecessary sterilization of criminals, disabled and such individuals in the western world during the earlier half of the last century.

Whether you are right or not, you have to consider the ‘what if’ of such suggestions, the what if I’m wrong would there be any consequences in any case. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong in acting on assumptions like yours, but the consequences you have to consider.

I had a hard time understanding some of this comment, but the gist of it is clear.

My understanding is that the racial differentials in testosterone scores are worldwide. That is, Blacks have higher levels in their early lives the world over, Asians have lower levels their whole lives the world over, and Whites are in between the world over. I am not sure how true that is, but that’s how I understand it. If this hasn’t been proven yet, we ought to do some studies to see if it is true or not. Personally, I doubt if environment is causing racial differentials in testosterone scores.

As far as my thought experiment about giving Blacks a testosterone lowering pill, it’s just that – a thought experiment. We already give men pills and shots to raise their levels with few known ill effects. It stands to reason we could lower men’s levels without ill effects either. At any rate, such things ought to be rigorously studied.

Are Liberals Anti-Science Too?

WMarkW writes:

The article is a review of the latest book by Chris Mooney, whose previous works were The Republican War on Science, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.

While I agree that modern conservatism has become entirely too faith-based, there’s such a thing as liberal anti-science, too. Much of it has to do with HBD. But there’s also things like the fact that not a single nuclear power plant has been built in the USA in thirty years.

DDT is being used only minimally worldwide to eliminate malaria, after having done so in the developed world before being banned. And the way science has been completely ignored to advance a political agenda about gay sex is the uttermost hypocrisy.

HBD is not accepted by science at this point in the same way that global warming is. It’s still pretty much totally up in the air. There’s no scientific consensus on HBD.

There’s no scientific consensus that nuclear power is safe enough to go around building nuke plants everywhere. In fact, there is a huge debate on the subject, with many scientists saying it’s not safe at all.

DDT is clearly a catastrophe for the environment. That is was used in the developed world was a tragedy. It’s not anti-science to oppose DDT.

How has science been ignored to advance an agenda about gay sex? I don’t understand Mark’s question.

Conservatives continually throw out this argument that liberals are anti-science too. It isn’t really correct.

But let’s get real here for a second. Conservatives are anti-science because science is starting to show that a lot of the core principles of conservatism are crap and lies. In other words, science itself is invalidating conservatism. So conservatives have reacted by waging a jihad against science. Surely if science was backing up conservative beliefs, then conservatives would be all over the place shouting the praises of science.

Surely liberals will come out as anti-science where science conflicts with core liberal beliefs. HBD is one case, but there is no scientific consensus that HBD is true, and it’s not anti-science to oppose the core notions of HBD. Anyway, the truth is that 99% of the promoters of HBD are White racists who are pushing a racist agenda about Blacks and Browns. They aren’t promoting science or anything like that.

They are hiding behind the skirts of science to shroud their arguments in empiricism in order to hide their ugly racist agenda and give their arguments are veneer of respectability. They hope that HBD will go mainstream, make conservatism victorious and kill liberalism forever. Because liberalism and HBD can’t co-exist. But it won’t happen. People will always believe in fairness, no matter what the realities of race are.

It’s entirely possible however that liberals are only pro-science because science tends to back up the core principles of liberalism.

That there might be something more riding on this than just science opposing core conservative principles is implied by the findings that conservatives are opposed not only to science but to the truth itself. This is reflected in findings that the more Fox News you watch, the more wrong you are about just about everything.

Conservative ideology is simply constructed on a pack of lies, and that’s the way that they like it. They don’t want to believe in either facts or science. They want “truth,” of which science is a part, to not be actually factual, but to instead back up their conservative beliefs.

A Look at the Conservative Brain

Great article, Understanding the Ideological Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives: Is it Possible for Us to Get Along?, on why and how conservatives reject reality. A Bush Administration official derisively referred to the opposition as “the reality based community,” implying that Bushies were not reality-based. Of course they were not. Ideologues never are.

Can liberals and conservatives get along? The answer is no, it isn’t possible for us to get along. Conservatives reject reality, and how can you have a conversation with someone who rejects reality itself? It’s not possible.

One of the most difficult and irrational of all conservatives is the authoritarian type. This is very common in the US. The major trait of these folks is closed mindedness. They have a need for “closure.” They have fixed ideas about things, and they deliberately seek out information that proves those ideas correct and reject all contrary evidence.

Factors in making someone a liberal include years of education and openness to experience. Yes, that is correct, the more years you spend educating yourself, the more liberal you get. That’s because you get smarter about how the world really works. As you get smarter, you get more liberal. Well of course.

Openness to new experience is fascinating, and conservatives score very low on this. Conservatives are almost literally people who are afraid of the dark. Liberals are very open to new experience. They are open and exploratory people who like to try and think about new things. In a word, they are open minded.

The factor that correlates with conservatism other than closed mindedness and need for closure is amount of income. The more money you make, the more conservative you are. This is a robust finding, and of course it is true the world over.

In terms of parenting, liberals want a nurturing and caring environment for their children. In contrast, conservatives want a disciplinary environment. The conservative dislikes creativity in their children, while this is something the liberal relishes.

What pushes your buttons? What makes you angry?

Liberals’ buttons get pushed primarily by unfairness and protecting people from harm, especially the most vulnerable. As the latter overlaps heavily with the motherly instinct, one can see why so many women have flocked to liberalism and fled cold-hearted conservatism lately. Mothers bear and raise children. Caregivers are not receptive to the Hobbesian Social Darwinist view of conservatism. That’s not the world you raise your child in.

Conservatives’ buttons are pushed by other things. If conservatives see someone disrespecting a person in authority, betraying loyalty to some sort of a group, or doing something disgusting, sexually disgusting, they go off.

As we can see, of the two, only conservatives’ views have deep roots in sexuality, and the correlate of conservatism in the sexual realm is sexual disgust.

Conservatives hate seeing authority disrespected. That’s why the French and Russian Revolutions and the 60′s Counterculture in particular drove them up the wall. The Counterculture was all about saying F you to The Man in his myriad forms and manifestations. That stuff sent conservatives up the wall.

Though my father was a liberal, he was a deeply authoritarian man and was frankly very conservative in his views towards life. My teenage rebellion sent him through the ceiling and broke his heart. His dear Bobby was betraying him. Such rage he felt.

Even my Mother felt it. She often said that people rebelled in her generation. Then she looked at my severely, “But no one ever said fuck you to their father. That was just not done.” Even my Mother has a conservative streak.

My siblings and I, particularly my brother and I, took saying F- you to my father to a highly advanced art form! We did it with relish and delight, and I must say I continued to do it nearly up until my father’s death, when he was tottering in his 80′s.

Our defense would be that my father was frequently an infuriating man. And both my brother and I are on the opposite end of the authoritarian scale. If there’s an artifice out there somewhere, we will find and smash it down, just for the Hell of it. Of course we are both liberals.

Conservatives also hate it when someone betrays loyalty. This is why they worship the flag, nation and military. This is why they go after whistle-blowers. And it’s why they will never overcome their hatred for Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” This is what was behind the flood of death threats to the Dixie Chicks during the run-up to the Iraq War. Conservative are the ultimate patriotards.

In addition, conservatives are individualistic. You either succeed or fail purely on your own merit and nothing else. If you’re not rich, it’s your own damn fault. You’re a loser. You failed. You screwed up. This is America, and anyone can be as rich or as successful as they want to be. If you haven’t reached your goals or achieved “success,” it’s because you blew it. You either didn’t try hard enough, or you screwed up. It’s all your fault.

They also believe that no one should pick you up if you fall down. If you fall, you fall. Too bad, better luck next life. They don’t believe that society should step in to pick up people who have stumbled in life for whatever reason. No safety net, zero, nada.

On the other hand, liberals believe in communitarianism, where society steps in and protects us from the ravages of life and the market, especially the most vulnerable of us. They’re all about the safety net. That’s why Barack Obama, whose main goal in life seems to be to utterly eviscerate the US safety net, cannot possibly be a liberal in any way, shape or form.

Conservatism is based on fear. Studies have now shown that conservatives either have larger or more active right amygdalas, which is known to be the body’s fear center.

Conservatives are much more likely to engage in something called hot reasoning, which is emotional reasoning or emotive reacting. Liberals, on the other hand, prefer cold reasoning, in which responses are more thought out.

In conservatism, we see the “smart idiot” effect, in which the more educated the conservative, the more wrong he is. The more educated conservatives have been exposed to more things that contradict conservatism, so they have many more facts to deny.

Conservatives also do something called doubling down a lot. They will take a position. You then show them information that is contrary to their position. Instead of questioning the condition, they double down and believe in their position twice as hard as before.

Do Group IQ’s Always Crash Back Down to the Mean?

Gregory comments on the post about African immigration, apparently taking the “no more niggers in the US” approach:

Even if they did have a 107 IQ* , they would regress back towards the mean. Also they have been shown to have more testosterone than other racial groups.

*The article stated that African immigrants to the US had IQ’s of 107, making them the smartest immigrant group of them all to come to the US. White racists were very upset by this factoid.

Groups can’t keep endlessly regressing and crashing back down to the mean, otherwise no population would have ever seen an IQ increase. In addition, smarter people and groups of smarter people would not tend to have smarter kids and even lines of smarter kids for centuries as long as they keep marrying bright people. Everyone would just forever crash back to the mean and we would end up with no bright genetic lines.

Isolate a population of high IQ Blacks, allow them to only breed among themselves, and they won’t crash back down to 73.5 IQ over time. You will eventually evolve a population of Africans with a higher IQ than the rest of them

And higher IQ Blacks commit much less crime than lower IQ Blacks. Setting IQ around 113, Blacks only commit about 2X more crime than Whites, while on average Blacks commit about 8X more crime than Whites.

n addition, testosterone is inversely related to brains. The smarter a male is, the lower his testosterone tends to be. The dumber he is, the higher his testosterone. This is even true within races. It’s quite possible that testosterone makes you stupid!