Charles Murray: State of White America

[JewishPhysics]

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WhiteAm

Charles Murray gave a speech and Q&A regarding his most recent analysis of White America.  I found it quite fascinating, as is to be expected from Murray.

[Saif al-Malik]

This bodes ill for The United States.  Even though each group is arranged in a hierarchy as a reflection of nature, the working-class is essentially the blood of the nation in that they are an integral body of the people which produces the workers who produce products, food, and even beyond that in some cases a national culture which is elevated and civilized.

[scourge]

Labor is going to continue to be automated out of existence. The underclass is going to expand and it is going to end up an unwanted problem. All bets are on technologies being able to manage this enormous logistical burden. But the great mass of people were never a strictly technical problem unless and only if they are to be systematically eliminated as needless. Our technocrats have a blind spot for the probable outcome.

[Heydrich]

The underclass is going to expand and it is going to end up an unwanted problem. All bets are on technologies being able to manage this enormous logistical burden.

How so? I'm very curious what you mean here specifically.

[Conservationist]

Mahajan and her team also devised a method for figuring out whether the monkeys harbor negative feelings towards outsiders. They created a monkey-friendly version of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). For humans, the IAT is a computer-based task that measures unconscious biases by determining how quickly we associate different words (e.g. “good” and “bad”) with specific groups (e.g. faces of either African-Americans or European-Americans). If a person is quicker to associate “bad” with African-American faces compared to European-American faces, this suggests that he or she harbors an implicit bias against African-Americans.
For the rhesus monkeys, the researchers paired the photos of insider andoutsider monkeys with either good things, such as fruits, or bad things, such as spiders. When an insider face was paired with fruit, or an outsider face was paired with a spider, the monkeys quickly lost interest. But when an insider face was paired with a spider, the monkeys looked longer at the photographs. Presumably, the monkeys found it confusing when something good was paired with something bad. This suggests that monkeys not only distinguish between insiders and outsiders, they associate insiders with good things and outsiders with bad things.
Overall, the results support an evolutionary basis for prejudice. Some researchers believe prejudice is unique to humans, since it seems to depend on complex thought processes. For example, past studies have found that people are likely to display prejudice after being reminded of their mortality, or after receiving a blow to their self-esteem. Since only humans are capable of contemplating their deaths or their self-image, these studies reinforce the view that only humans are capable of prejudice. But the behavior of the rhesus monkeys implies that our basic tendency to see the world in terms of “us” and “them” has ancient origins.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-prejudice

From the ORLYfiles.

[scourge]

How so? I'm very curious what you mean here specifically.

For a specific example, see Kurzweil's Singularity. He is not an authority on the political as described by Schmitt however. Multiply by however many similar industry leaders affecting policy making.

That isn't to say there haven't been steady incremental advances in technologies up to right now like in microprocessors and a slew of nanotechnologies that are just beginning to move past the initial inert substance stage. This is to say that technocratic leaders in general subscribe to the erroneous Economic Man/Enlightenment theory of mankind.

[Heydrich]

How so? I'm very curious what you mean here specifically.

For a specific example, see Kurzweil's Singularity. He is not an authority on the political as described by Schmitt however. Multiply by however many similar industry leaders affecting policy making.

That isn't to say there haven't been steady incremental advances in technologies up to right now like in microprocessors and a slew of nanotechnologies that are just beginning to move past the initial inert substance stage. This is to say that technocratic leaders in general subscribe to the erroneous Economic Man/Enlightenment theory of mankind.

I see your point now - thanks.