Status Warfare In Action

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312542/tolerance-enforcers-mark-steyn

Clearly if the fight about gay marriage were really about gay marriage, gay rights, or even gay safety, this juxtaposition would not occur.

If on the other hand you assume it is a status struggle between SWPLs/Elites against 'the wrong kind of white people'/Christians who take Scripture seriously/et al, then this makes perfect sense.
The Islamics aren't viewed by them as a status threat, more as a client group, so from the SWPL perspective, who the hell cares what they say/want/do.

Eventually the non-SWPL white crowd is going to have to declare total political warfare on the SWPLs.  Do things like put nasty Section 8 in THEIR neighborhoods.  Destroy the undercover arrangement that allows NYC to be a functional city (they're allowed to do 'stop and frisk' and all kinds of things that NO OTHER CITY is allowed to do).  Continue destroying things that are precious to them until they beg for mercy.  Then, and only then, can you have a peace treaty.

Just For Fun: Who SHOULD Be In The Back Of The Bus?

Just as a Saturday morning amusement, let's consider this question.  Who SHOULD be in the back of the bus?
By this, we mean what group should enjoy the lowest group status in our society?
We know that SOMEONE must be in the back of the bus, it is practically a tautology.
Just for fun, let's approach this from a utilitarian perspective---one familiar to the both the wielders and those under the scourge of Universalism.
Well, what are the downsides of being at the proverbial back of the bus?
The biggest one is that it hammers your position in the SMP/MMP.  Women go for status, enough said.
The second is that having low status contributes to inflammation markers in the body.

Not much can be done about the second---perhaps in the future we'll see GMO humans that don't care as much about status, or perhaps when Jesus returns, everyone would be overjoyed to be even a street sweeper in His Kingdom.  Or perhaps through meditation, we might develop such insane state control that we effortlessly transcend status.

But meanwhile, back in the world we presently live in, it will remain a major concern.

But look at the first consideration.  There's an easy way around it.  Any group that has a largely self-contained SMP/MMP will suffer FAR less from being at the 'back of the bus'.
So what does this imply?
Consider geeks---since they're largely competing with the rest of society in the MMP/SMP (female geeks being vastly less common AND willing to date/marry non-geeks), geeks did suffer much/continue to suffer some from the status hit they suffered more in the past/still suffer to a lesser degree.
But blacks, for instance, have always had a largely self-contained MMP/SMP.  The black man around the 80th percentile among blacks in status usually got around an 80th percentile attractiveness black woman as perceived by blacks.
So, from a utilitarian perspective, it made excellent sense to relegate blacks to the back of the bus back in Jim Crow days.  They were the group least injured by it.

Note that I am NOT a utilitarian.  By this argument I'm simply humorously pointing out how inconsistent must purported utilitarians actually are.  In practice it's just a contest of glibness when universalism is the hegemon of 'SHOULD'.

Notice how nobody these days argues about the flip side of their proposed increase in status---just what group would you like to REDUCE in status to balance your proposed increase.

Is There A Such Thing As A Grateful Group?

A couple of groups have had their status raised substantially (primarily by the reduction of their status penalty) within society within my memory.  One such group is blacks and another is the non-neurotypical/geek/nerd group.  Does either group act grateful that society has reduced substantially the status hit (in the case of the latter), or effectively given a bonus (in the case of the former) to its social standing?

Obviously the answer is no.  It's kind of funny honestly, even a group with a high fraction of non-neurotypicals is still pretty collectively short on gratitude.  But perhaps there's more to it than this.  Think about it---what's the killer app of high status?

Yes, it makes men treat you a bit more deferentially, but, the big deal is that it, in the immortal words of Londo, makes women 'come to find you attractive'.
If we look at what a geek with poor neurotypical emulation got back in the early 60s in terms of the SMP/MMP, versus today, what do we see?
Well, we see that he might have been able to boost his standing from the 40th percentile to perhaps as high as the 70th---solid 'Greater Beta' territory in Roissy's taxonomy, or high Delta in Vox's.

But the incredible increase in obesity from then to now swallowed up all of his gains.  The women his present day version gets now are no hotter than the ones his 60s counterpart got back then, despite lots of effective social climbing through the 'emancipation of the geek'.

The black guy is more or less in the same boat---perhaps even more so given that black women in the US have even higher obesity rates than do white women.  Not only that, the black man's lowered social status back then relative to society as a whole hurt him a lot less, because he effectively had a separate, parallel, and captive SMP/MMP.  As a rule, barring a few exceptions, he didn't have to compete with white guys for the best looking black women.  There's a bit more blurring of that market now, but honestly not a whole lot more, especially in the MMP.

Are groups annoyed because they've gotten a promotion that seems purely nominal---like a job promotion that doesn't carry any meaningful raise?

Choose!

http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/

http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/ukrainian-legislators-proposing-ban-on-propaganda-of-homosexuality/

Interesting juxtaposition here on Volokh.  You can either outlaw homosexual behaviors or it will effectively be illegal to criticize them.  The space between illegal and illegal to be against is VERY narrow indeed.  I find it encouraging that the Ukrainian legislators are propaganda realists---they know what the most effective propaganda actually is (low-key positive depictions of a group with high status markers, not afterschool special preaching), and are seeking to ban it.

Interesting Times Indeed?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/deja-food-will-social-unrest-surge-corn-prices-soar

Food prices are likely to rise fairly sharply soon, as the price of corn is boiled into the prices of almost everything edible these days.  If you're looking for a silver lining, HFCS may be substituted out of more things in favor of sugar due to prices.

Kiddie Pool Counter Intelligence

One thing I'm certain that most of my readers who have children know is this:
Little children LOVE to hear/read/see the same stories or cartoons over and over again.

One of the great joys of my two little ones is to climb up into my lap and ask for a song or a cartoon.  Yes, they absolutely love to watch or listen to these on YouTube while asking lots of questions (cue the 3 year old's recursive 'why'.  The fare they prefer tends towards 1930s-1960s cartoons and music from the  either the 1970s and 1980s or from classical sources.

Just as a way of amusing myself, I decided to play around a bit with the comments, likes, and comment up/down system on said site.  It turns out that likes are several order of magnitudes smaller than views, and that comment ratings are several orders of magnitude smaller still.  It also turns out that the 'top comments' are sitting there right in the bottom field of view of the typical watcher.
It is also true that a lot of these videos on youtube have not hundreds, or thousands of hits, but rather millions and tens of millions.

What's more, the top comments are pathetically easy to hijack.  There's not even an implied social convention against non sequitur.   You can toss a 'Free Zimmerman!' into the middle of, say, a comment section on a Pat Benatar video and if people agree/like it, they'll upvote it.  There doesn't appear to be a self-appointed policing force regarding staying 'on topic' at all.
In addition, there appears to be an aging policy on the top comments---they aren't determined solely by the highest number of upvotes minus downvotes (only the result shows, not the number of negatives and positives, so 'discourse poisoning' a la Occidental Dissent isn't even obvious).  So you can often dethrone a top comment with way more upvotes than yours.  It is also true that there are very few 'Chicago Safeguards' in the voting algorithm, so you can vote early and often--I suspect some sort of session cookie is being used.  If you downvote everything above you and get 3-4 positive net upvotes that are fresh votes, you can take control of a billboard viewed by millions.

Why is this important?  Well, people see the top comments and assume that they reflect the feelings of lots of people like themselves.  They then slot them into their brain as potential norms that they can conform towards.  There's no reason that the Left should have a monopoly on this sort of manipulation.   If you like, you can even make the comments somewhat relevant, for instance, on an old 1970s or 80s video from a live performance, you can comment on how much thinner and more attractive the prole women of that era were, and make an implied connection to how diversity has spoiled that.  Of course this tactic won't work forever, but it is just that, a tactic, and a useful one at that.

The Horrible Truth About Public Education

As I've mentioned before, I actually don't WANT public education by the government to be fixed.  You see, the performance of the system could be improved a great deal WITHOUT compromising the primary mission of Cathedral indoctrination.  If it was improved, less people would homeschool or seek non-Cathedral private school options.  Obviously I don't want that.
So why am I going to tell you how you could make governmental public education suck less?
Because the knowledge that it COULD suck less creates rage in the population, and rage is what we need.  Like a chemical reaction, even one that is highly energy releasing, a certain activation energy has to be reached, possibly with the assistance of a catalyst.  If I thought that the system was capable of taking this action, even through an 'unprincipled exception', I'd stay silent.  But since the elements of the Cathedral are practically petrified in their positions owing to their conflicting factions and contrary goals, we'll reason today.

In your average class, the teacher attempts to teach to some level beneath the median of the capability of the members of said class.  At the college level in hardcore STEM subjects---which is my own direct experience, that level ranges from around the 20th percentile to the 40th percentile (although in a few courses, none of which I had the experience of teaching, that level shoots upwards to the 60th-75th percentile, these are the proverbial 'weeder' courses).  This is the level of institutional 'acceptable losses'---that percentage that the institution is willing to countenance failing.  Typically this is achieved by repeating the instruction, sometimes from slightly different angles, over and over until the desired Nth percentile has 'gotten it'.  From all indications, at the grade school level this is somewhere around the 5th to 10th percentile, it may be even lower than this, as even 5% to 10% failing courses at grade school level would raise a lot of eyebrows at the typical high school.

So essentially what is going on is that every level of class (remedial, average, honors, AP) is being taught to the lowest performing member of that level.  While this doesn't show up necessarily on things like 'No Child Left Behind', it represents the waste of colossal amounts of potential.  How much potential?

Consider that an awful lot of homeschoolers do 'school' for only a couple of hours a day, and still manage to clock in a standard deviation above their public school peers.  When they choose to go hardcore, which in my experience some will in their areas of particular interest or obsession, they tend to rule the competitive area where the appear (e.g., your various spelling or geography bees, academic competitions, and the like).
Furthermore, I've never met a homeschooled kid who didn't finish the high school equivalent by around age 15 or 16, about the age of typical high school freshmen or sophomores.  Most of them weren't even breathing hard to do this, those who actually WERE trying to the best of their abilities are ready for college level work several years before that.
Another hint is this:  People from all over the world come to the US for its college system.  Do they seek out the K-12?

Ok, enough teasing.  Say you want to engineer a governmental public school system that sucks less.  How do you do it.
Well, first, I'm going to tell you the reason why YOU'LL NEVER DO IT.  Doing what I describe will be at least equal to the status quo for almost everyone in the system.  It will, however, massively advantage the capable to the point that they seriously 'leave behind' their putative peers.  So inequality will be massively increased, even though nearly everyone will be helped, at least a little.  Here's what you do:

Discard the notion of age-segregated grade levels entirely.  Instead, you've got a list of courses/certifications that you've got to demonstrate mastery of to reach various checkpoints.  I recommend the checkpoints of  approximately what we call 6th grade level, approximately what we presently call 10th grade, and what we'd call a high school diploma.  It would be preferable to link goodies to some of these levels, for instance:

When you can demonstrate 10th grade equivalent mastery, you can test for a driver's license if you wish.  You can also do anything that presently requires a 16 year chronological age to do if you like (e.g., hold a job).
When you can demonstrate high school diploma equivalence, you can then register to vote and do all other things that an 18 year old is capable of doing.
These goodies would not replace but would be in addition to your regular chronological advancement.  It makes no sense to allow for earlier completion of schooling if you're not willing to allow for earlier assumption of adult roles commensurate with same.

The next thing you do is you establish 4 levels of nearly every course you offer.  For instance, English 1 would have 4 levels.  The first level is slow, it is taught over 4 quarters, like most courses are now.  The second level is slightly accelerated, and would be taught over 3 quarters.  The third level is accelerated, and taught over 2 quarters.  The fourth level is highly accelerated, and taught over 1 quarter.  The actual subject material in each would be nearly identical, excepting for whatever needs to be changed to smooth the teaching of it to the audience in question.  There would be no expectation that any individual takes the same level of acceleration in every area they study, no even the expectation that they take the same level of acceleration in the same subject at each subsequent course.
On the first day of class in each course, you'd take the comprehensive final exam for said course.  If for some reason you passed, you'd receive credit for that course and be bumped into the next one.  If you failed, but not terribly badly, you might be slotted into a more accelerated version of that same course. 
Classes like physical education/recess would work the same way.  You'd be in classes with students of similar levels of physical mastery, size, and fitness, and I'd encourage adherence to the old reactionary 'sound mind in a sound body' approach.

If you did this, a lot of present day students would finish a couple of years sooner, and, what's more, they'd actually be frequently CHALLENGED.  A lot of your members of the Second Sigma might learn their own limitations as well, which would be desirable.  Autodidacts would be allowed to RUN, instead of crawling.

But it'll never happen, at least until 'Comes the Reaction'.  Makes you angry, doesn't it?

Good.

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste: Aurora

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/07/robert-farago/cinemark-theaters-no-legal-firearms-allowed/

It seems to me that a useful legal theory could be pushed here in the civil courts.  That is this:

If you deny your customers the right to carry when they otherwise have the right to do so, being licensed for CCW, you have implicitly taken responsibility for their defense.  Therefore you can have the bejesus sued out of you if they are killed by some random massacre shooter when sufficient CCW density MIGHT have reduced the body count.  Seems a clear case of negligence to me, assuming, of course that said theatre had no armed guards.
Could Cinemark be sued into oblivion over this issue and a head planted on a public pike for other businesses to see and reconsider similar policies?

That would be not letting the crisis go to waste.

Yes, you could say that the shooter was a Democrat, and probably a member of OWS and its more extreme fringes, and such might be a useful counter-narrative to push, and it is probably true.
It's also really fishy that the whole thing happens so close to a UN treaty signing on small arms, but advancing a theory that it is a false-flag conspiracy is also unlikely to be terribly useful.

But wouldn't it be better to put the ambulance chasers to work for a good cause?

UPDATE:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-sales-aurora-colorado-shooting-spike-tuscon-161409369--finance.html

Apparently lots of the population agrees with this sentiment, judged by their revealed preferences.

Yglesias On Pot: Legal Marijuana Would Be Extremely Cheap

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/07/how_much_would_legal_marijuana_cost_a_new_book_says_it_would_be_nearly_free_.html

Several states will have effective legalization initiatives on the ballot come November, including Oregon.
Yglesias here is actually performing a decent journalistic service---he is providing information and estimates of how much legal marijuana would actually cost---as well as some useful information for other purposes on the price to bring various crops to market.  I'm sure he'll forget all this next time it is his turn to argue that without illegal labor we'll all starve or that the prices of produce will go all go into hyperinflation, but it is a useful piece, regardless of the side of the issue that you happen to be on.

Many Lights Are Presently Out In This Sphere

http://mangans.blogspot.com

http://onestdv.blogspot.com

http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/

All of these are presently protected and apparently no longer supplying content to this little confluence of blogging spheres.  We at the Chariot miss all three of these blogs, and we wish their authors well (and hopefully a swift return).  Does anyone know the narrative behind this---assuming, of course, it is not confidential?

How Much Free Will Does the Average Person Have, Anyway?

It has often been said that You are not 'You', You are the Ambassador of 'You'.  This implies a level of self-deception that is probably true for most people below about the first sigma of self-control.  Can you live within your means (surprisingly independent of what your means actually are) and avoid any major dysfunction?  At least half the population can't.  We often like to mock the dysfunction of the professional athlete, but very few of us have experienced even the half as much of their daily temptations.

The people I know who have the most apparent self-control would be best described as being akin to the Prime Minister of an internal parliament, wherein they presently preside over a somewhat fractious coalition of parties and interests.  Sometimes these Prime Ministers face a vote of no confidence, or have to tack in the direction of one interest or another.  Their apparent Will, isn't all that free at times either.  I suspect quite a number of our readers will recognize themselves here.

So what does actually free Will look like?
Near the end of the Purgatario, Dante has Virgil 'crown and mitre Dante the Lord of Himself', basically at the point of sanctification wherein the corruption of the seven deadly sins has been cleansed from him.  Essentially only saints have this level of self control, to be accurately described as being the Lords of Themselves.

Recommendation for Romney: Taking Civil Defense Seriously

The recent events after the Derecho in DC and several swing states (Virginia, Ohio) point to one possible area where Romney can distinguish himself from both Obama AND Bush.

Here's your talking point:
Obama and Bush have spent godawful amounts of money on the supposed War on Terror and 'Homeland Security'.
Why the hell is it that the state of actual civil defense is so wretched?  Why is it that it takes two weeks to get power on near the nation's capital?
Why is it that a solar storm on the scale of the 1989 storm that took down power for so many Canadians would hammer us so badly and for so long today?  To say nothing of a more 1859-ish solar event?
Why is it that government acts as if it doesn't give a damn about the fate of ordinary Americans?
Why is it that government avoids so strongly the things that governments going all the way back to Joseph in Egypt are ACTUALLY GOOD AT, instead choosing to do the sorts of things that it to put it mildly, has a very large competitive disadvantage at?

The population I believe gets this at a subconscious gut level---witness the large sales of all things post apocalyptic.  Frame it in terms of values and organizational competence and I believe you've got a theme you can add to your message that actually will work for Romney.  Even the Mormon identity works congruently with the theme, since such preparedness and provision is a key point of their theology and praxis.

Closing the Cafeteria in the Arlington Diocese?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/sunday-school-teachers-balk-at-oath-agreeing-to-all-church-teachings/2012/07/11/gJQAcAvGeW_story.html

Obviously the article above is hostile to this movement, but I find it quite encouraging.  This demonstrates that at least part of American Catholicism has gotten serious in the eternal war against heresy.
If your prospective Sunday School teachers don't agree with your teachings, OF COURSE you shouldn't allow them to teach, regardless of what Spirit they claim to be moved by.

For those who would like a little extra encouragement, let me relate something said recently by a Quaker woman who attends our church.
She said that she felt led towards promoting the education of boys AS boys, not like they were suboptimal versions of girls.  My guess is whatever Spirit led her wasn't the same one the cafeteria Catholics were being led by.
In our church we've generally done quite well by our young men and boys.  This is primarily the result of one thing:  We don't hate them or wish that they were girls.  Because of this, they keep showing up and bring their friends.

Word to the Wise Regarding Civil Defense

The recent 'Derecho' storms from DC to Ohio, timed to coincide very nicely with the Supreme Court's Obamacare announcements, display one thing extremely clearly.

The state of effective civil defense insofar as recovering the power grid is abominable.  There exist neither stocks of spares nor apparently an effective plan nor even sufficient initiative to get the job done should unfortunate events happen.  The Derecho is small fry by comparison to most of the threats and this was THE FREAKING CAPITAL CITY.  What the hell kind of country has unreliable power for more than a day or two in its capital?

Here is my word to the wise:  Solar maximum is coming soon, if its not already here now.  Late 2012 and 2013 promise a very active Sun indeed.  Consider the possibility of millions of people without power.  Your government won't.  I suggest you take what steps you feel necessary and prudent for the safety and comfort of your own families.

Call For Retaliation: Lamar Smith Attempts Legislative Necromancy

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/10/resurrected-lamar-smith-plans-piecemeal-attempt-to-zombify-sopa/

Concentrated interests have always had a massive advantage in the legislative arena over diffuse ones.  This is probably the central axiom of rent seeking.  So how do you stop this sort of behavior?  Institute a pogrom against its advocates?

All joking aside, the reason why Lamar Smith hasn't stopped, and won't stop, and why the industries in question will continue attacking until they get their way is that there is essentially NO DOWNSIDE for them for failure.  Anti-SOPA interests need to create a downside. 

Here is my suggestion.  Get a sympathetic Representative and a sympathetic Senator to introduce a veritable RAFT of bills into their houses of Congress.  All of them should be contrary to the interests of the copyright industries.  Get creative.  Some might, for instance, massively expand the definition of parody to include satire.  Others might reduce the term of copyrights or the maximum damages you can claim for same.  Others might create taxes on the holders of copyrights that increase swiftly as the copyright ages.  Still others might just attack the business model of the industry.  Essentially tell your bill writing staffers---brainstorm on HOW CAN WE SCREW THIS INDUSTRY GOOD AND HARD, and then write scores of bills to exactly that effect.  Don't spend any particular effort on the bills, just get them into the appropriate committee and let them run silent, like submarines.

What you want to do with these bills, besides the 'Sword of Damocles' effect, is to have them ready to go whenever you've got Congress hot and bothered against SOPA, Son of SOPA, or Night of the Living SOPA.  Your biggest problem is that it is hard to maintain your mobilization for long, because of the nature of your supporters, and it's not presently feasible to launch a physical pogrom or program against them.  So stack the rack with punitive legislation motivated by animus that goes way beyond the 'mere animus' that lawyers sometimes speak of.  Then, whenever you parry the strike of a concentrated interest, deliver a club to their teeth with an immediate counter stroke.  Your initial counter strikes can be quite moderate---like, say, rolling back recent legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  But repeated offenses are to be punished more and more aggressively.  This is probably the only non-violent way to deal with crony capitalist rent-seekers.

A Little Bit of Encouragement For Reactionary Christians

http://blog.adw.org/2012/07/did-you-know-that-atheists-have-the-lowest-retention-rate-of-any-religious-group-some-interesting-data-from-cara/

Many of us worry about whether our children will 'breed true', so to speak---whether they will inherit our Faith.  This is a prudent and very real concern.

But here's the encouragement.  Check out the chart.  High Church Atheists have the very worst retention rates of them all (high church atheists are the ones that call themselves that, low church atheists usually say 'no religion', when they say anything at all).

Minnesotans Join the CCW Party

http://www.startribune.com/local/161684225.html

The above article laments that fact that over 100K Minnesotans now have CCWs---over 1 in 40 adults in that state.  I do so love to hear their lamentations. 
Add one more state with a fairly high CCW density.  Is it any accident that we've never heard of a (successful) mass shooting in any area where it is legal for the prospective victims to be armed?  Minnesota went 'Shall Issue' in 2003.

Interesting Times?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-biggest-financial-scandal-in-history

It remains to be seen just how this affair is going to play out this summer.  Will the rules actually be enforced when it's not just the little guy who suffers?

Deciding Who To Free and Who To Blame?

To borrow from the departed Cash.

Suppose that in a nation, there were large numbers of partnerships that specialized in moving things.  These partnerships consisted of two partners, one specialized in moving the front, and the other in moving the rear of the objects in question.

Suppose further that on the order of 30-50% of these partnerships are highly dysfunctional, even to the extent of dissolving the partnership.
The front half-ers claim that the problem is the result of the back half-ers, that they aren't carrying their share of the load.  Of course the back half-ers claim precisely the opposite.

So who do you free, and who do you blame?  Or how do you apportion the criticism resulting from the massive wake of destruction they have left behind?

Well, from a status perspective, the answer is easy---you blame whoever will give you the most status points.
From a who---whom perspective, the answer is also easy---you blame whoever your Whom is and absolve your who.

But suppose you actually care about truth, believing that in this instance, a solution that sucks less in general is possible?

Well in that case, you're in a quandary---perhaps even a literal he said--she said.

But there's a way to resolve this.  You ask other furniture movers, ones without any dog in the fight---ideally...foreign furniture movers from cultures not highly alien to the one you are in these questions:
To the foreign front half-ers:  Hey, would you want to form a permanent partnership with a back half-er from this country?
To the foreign back half-ers:  Fancy a partnership with a front half-er from THAT country?

Even better than asking, you can just observe their revealed preference.  If you see that one group is much more desirable as a partner than the other, you have your answer, in proportion to the ratios observed.

The application of this parable to marriage in the US is left as an exercise to the reader.

What Would White Privilege Actually Look Like?

If White Privilege actually existed, we'd expect to see the following:

Affirmative action in favor of non-elite white people.  In essence, any group that does better than white people in X would be expected to occupy no more than their own population percentage in X.  So you'd see pre-1930's 'Gentleman's agreements' limiting the number of Jews and East Asians in elite positions or institutions.
Governments promoting affordable family formation for non-elite white people.  Net transfer of fertility FROM other groups TO non-elite white people.
Immigration rules designed to benefit white people.  Quotas for white countries much larger than those for non-white countries.  Quotas massively reduced by multiples of the number of illegals from said country.
Massive law enforcement resources directed against X on white crime compared to vice-versa.  Zimmerman case would be a non-event, black flash mobs would be ruthlessly suppressed.
Media would very rarely make negative or low status depictions of white people, especially white males.  Other groups would be depicted more negatively than their actual fraction of negative behavior in reality.

So for those who profess to believe in White Privilege, does the US look ANYTHING like this?
For those who say this is 'over the top', most nations historically have done exactly this---just replace 'non-elite white people' with the group with demographic hegemony (e.g. Malays in Malaysia, Pacific Islanders in their own islands, etc).  'Affirmative action' to benefit the hegemon is really more the rule than the exception.  Considering that neutrality seems to be impossible in practice, perhaps such 'White Privilege' is something to be in favor of, if one must be either hammer or anvil.

New Hampshire Descralizes the Judiciary

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2012/07/new-hampshire-passes-jury-nullification.html

Libertarians are often dead stupid about a lot of things---like being in favor of open borders when the only ethnic or racial group with any meaningful level of sympathy for their cause are Euro-Americans of English or German extraction.  But they also frequently unwittingly serve the cause of reaction.  Here's a case in point.  New Hampshire basically just passed a FIJA (fully informed jury association) law.  This is a massive step forward in the campaign to desacralize the judiciary, probably the center pillar of the Cathedral.  You see, there's something I doubt most of those who pushed this legislation understand about jury nullification.

It is an inherently escalative tool, leading to cycles of retaliation between the Cathedral and the unreconstructed public.  What does the Cathedral do, for instance, when lots of people start getting 'not guilty' by reason of 'who...whom'?  What do they do when their retaliation draws a counter-retaliation and so on?  What do they do when loose cannons decide to put down an 'archbishop' and 'who...whom' nullification is used in the ensuing  homicide trial?

Students of history know the answer to these questions.  They're not exactly alien to our American tradition.  In fact, jury nullification is mentioned indirectly in the Declaration of Independence.

How Much of A Hit in the SMP/MMP Does a Woman Take For Short Hair?

I've heard some commenters equate short hair on a woman to effectively being 30 pounds heavier.  At first glance, that strikes me as rather excessive---I mean that's often the difference between being nicely petite and occupying somewhere in the 70th-80th percentiles these days and being down in the 40th-50th percentile.  Does it REALLY make that much difference?  Is the pixie cut THAT cursed?

Then I recall my own history.  You see, I provided myself with a nice unplanned experiment in revealed preference back in my early days during college.  We're talking late 80s here, so keep in mind that only 20% or so of women back then were even overweight, much less obese.

For my first serious girlfriend in college, I actually had two choices, both of whom broadcast indications of interest loud enough that even the non-neurotypical friends of a non-neurotypical running a pretty primitive emulation could recognize them as such.  The choice between the two of them also was very unclear.  Neither one was clearly more attractive than the other.  Both were very smart girls with abnormally even and stable temperments.

Both were, at that time, pretty representative of the 55th to 60th or so percentile of attractiveness---in layman's terms, exclude all of the women at the time their age that were overweight or obese, they're probably invisible to you mostly anyway, they're right in the center of what remains.  Now, that gets you to the 75th or so percentile as a woman, because so much of your competition has taken itself out of the running, but back then a fairly average looking woman with around a 21 BMI wasn't very noteworthy.

But here's the catch, one of these girls, let's call her woman B, could have easily been 75th-80th percentile on the scale of her day.  She had a nice athletic body and objectively nicer features than woman A.  So why was she occupying such a low spot in the SMP/MMP that she had to compete with woman A for a man her social circle collectively evaluated at that time as being just marginally above average?

The reason was that she had a pixie cut.  It really was that simple.  Unless you're a woman with such ultra-feminine features that long, touchable hair is just gilding the lily, it will hammer your position in the SMP or MMP that much.  Even in cases like that, you'll still take a pretty big hit.  Don't expect your girlfriends or beta orbiters to be honest with you on that score.  Effectively, woman B had marked herself down a lot, and, perhaps unfortunately, the younger Jehu didn't have either the lens of caritas to view her with or even a 'value investing' frame of reference with which to approach the decision.  With either he'd have realized that she was a bargain and could easily be convinced to let her hair grow long.  How do I know this?  A few years afterwards when I saw her again, she HAD grown her hair fairly long, a bit below shoulder length, and that change gave pretty much precisely the boost to her attractiveness that we've been discussing.

So despite the fact that pixie cuts and the like seem to be going through a resurgence in fashion, I recommend strongly against them.  They really are, as other commentators have pointed out, almost as bad as 30 extra pounds. 

Liberal Propagandists Betray Indigenous American Workers

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ariz-homebuilders-worry-about-labor-shortage-3676010.php

There's no such thing, in 9999 out of 10000 cases, as a 'Labor Shortage'.  Let's do a thought experiment here.  If you offered $30 an hour plus benefits to do home construction, would you have any 'shortage' of skilled applicants? 
Absolutely not.  What the homebuilders mean by this is that they're upset that they'll have to offer more to workers to get them to accept their terms of employment.  Poor babies.  Piss on them and their abuse of both moral language and the language of economics to get their who...whom concerns advanced.  And to hell with the supposedly liberal SF newspapers for giving them an uncritical trumpet---or is it strumpet, with which to advance their deceit. 
How about this headline:
Immigration enforcement allows indigenous American workers to command higher wages in the construction industry, strengthening their marriages and position in the MMP/SMP.