Agreed. The bit about the marvelous self confidence is simply steaming hot psychobabble horse shit. The stupid sentimentalism and narcissim of the Jews and their self-pity are revolting and profoundly subversive.

Cockburn is MSM and drinks the kool-aid like the rest – hence the comments re Assad using gas….

so his analyses are only partially useful and mainly only to the sheeple.

but if it makes them question a bit more then that helps.

wish he would grow some balls and tell the truth tho – especially re the timings (just before UN inspectors start work), the MI6 connection with the staged attack and Gerasimov’s warnings from March 13th…

better than nothing but still a LONG way short of good

In one of your links, you state:

As such, conservative thought favors curbing these benefits, to try to get those at the bottom to “stop draining the system” and act more responsibly; but in reality what they’re after is to get this group to stop breeding so prodigiously (especially when subsidized by the tax payer).

The problem with that line of thinking is that that is no way for a civilized society to be. I’m not on board with most conservative thought because on this. Back in the day, the poor often just died (especially in cities), from illness or starvation. In today’s world we can’t just go back to that.

The correct solution is to encourage this group to not breed so much.

I didn’t concretely understand what you were trying to say with the present post, but I can see the intent in this particular citation, and I wager that you are trying to communicate the same point in both the post and the citation. And that point doesn’t make sense.

You say that conservatives want “to get [the bottom] to stop breeding so prodigiously.” I’d agree. Then you say “that is no way for a civilized society to be.” I disagree — I think that is exactly what an engine-of-progress society should strive for. And I think you disagree yourself, because you go on to say that society should “encourage this group to not breed so much.”

You also write that you are “not on board with most conservative thought because on this.” But if conservatives want to get the bottom to stop breeding so prodigiously, and you think society should encourage this group to not breed so much, it rather sounds like you’re a conservative, doesn’t it?

Of course, you are a self-identified liberal, so that can’t be the case. But you do appear to agree with the conservative aim of curbing the reproduction of the bottom.

So, whence dystopia?

Well, in the above citation, you do include the descriptors of a distasteful society, one where “the poor often just died […] from illness or starvation.” I also would not want that. But what does that have to do with conservatives vs. liberals?

From what I can tell, the key point you want to make in the above citation is something like the following: “in a conservative world, the poor will be left for dead.” This also appears to be one of the key points you want to make in this very blog post.

But you never actually make it.

"An Asian kid, or even Jewish one with the same profile probably wouldn't get in either."

But you are far, far less likely to find a kid like that with an Asian or Jewish background.

Throw a dart at Gentile america. Odds are, he's going to be brought up in a value system that says "after school, you should do your homework, then play sports with your friends and have dinner with your family."

Throw a dart at Jewish america. While not a certainty, relative to Gentiles, this kid is *much* more likely to be brought up in a value system that says, "After school, you should do your homework, then seek a leadership position in a trendy cause, play sports that you can WIN, practice violin, study some more, work on your spanish for that trip to Argentina we have coming up, etc…"

(I say this as a guy with a foot in both Jewish america and Gentile america, but really, is this such a controversial observation that I have to play my part-Jew card? I hope not.)

One could say that "well see, the jews just want it more." Ok. But another way of looking at it is that "assessing more than GPA and SAT score provides a way of signalling Jewishness."

Both of these statements can be true. It's possible the bigger issue is how our meritocracy is currently defined. Would we be better off with the Oxford model, where academic performance is all that counts in admissions? (As I understand it.) I'm inclined to think so, because I expect that Murphy's law applies to corruption and nepotism (if it can happen, it will happen), and it's pretty clearly that the inclusion of non-academics in the admissions process opens the door to corruption and nepotism. As it stands right now, elite schools select for students who are much more than intelligent and conscientious, but also adhering to a particular value system — one that is pretty obviously Jewish (playing that card again pre-emptively if I have to).

Could this be explained by degree inflation? We can think this through using totally arbitrary numbers to examine the idea.

Let's start of by saying that in 1950 there are 1,000 people going to college, of whom 1,000 are intellectually elite. Let's also say there are 10 colleges: HYP and everybody else. So each college takes on 100 students, and they are all elite. Therefore, a sheepskin from any accredited institution is sufficient indication of elite intellectual caliber.

Fast forward to 2000. Now Everybody Goes To College (TM). Let's say that we still only have 1,000 elite brains in the general college attending population, but 1,000 vanilla brains, for a total population of 2,000. Let's say we still have the same ten colleges, but each college now takes on 200 students. In this scenario, a sheepskin alone no longer has a 1-to-1 correspondence to an elite brain — in fact, there is a 50% chance that the sheepskin holder possesses a vanilla brain.

Now, let's imagine that the administration of HYP is clever enough to realize the value of signalling elite brains. So they campaign to get the smartest students in the country. This makes the 600 students enrolled at HYP the elite of the elite. A few years later, a couple other schools — call them Cornell and Brown — might notice that this is working well for HYP, and decide to get in on the action. These schools also begin to campaign for the best and brightest, but since HYP already has brand recognition, they wind up with the the second tier of the elite. Regardless, these five schools would now have the original 1,000 elite brains, while the other schools would have the 1,000 new vanilla brains.

(In effect, it looks like HYP+CB gained prestige, while everybody else lost prestige. Perhaps prestige is by nature a zero sum game. But that's a digression.)

I think this logic illustrates that merely inflating the college attending population and diluting its quality would be enough to explain the rise of HYP in particular, and the ivies in general. Perhaps someone else has the time and inclination to try this idea out with actual data.

*slow clap*

This absolutely needed to be done. Great work. You and dalrock are bringing empiricism to the whatever-we-are-calling-it-these-days-sphere, and god bless it.

Any chance you could make your source spreadsheet available? I’d love to play around with those numbers by seeing what assumption for male partner count inflation and female partner count deflation results in parity – because just by eyeballing the two charts, it looks like it wouldn’t take much to have them meet almost completely in the middle.

In the final analysis, assortative mating may turn out to trump all.