|
|
Evening MorselsWhere I share the thoughts that flicker through my mind while relaxing in the evening study; my favorite herbal tea to one side and a box of morsels on the other as the situation requires. This is my form of meditation and I find it to be much more pleasurable than the more well-known ascetic forms, even if they do intermittently engender an elevation of consciousness. What the East didn’t realize is that a refined taste for tea and chocolates has its own sense of elevation, which is both more satisfying and reliable. One morsel down. * * * A marvelous convergence between GW and Professor James. In the comments of my latest ontology of mind thread, GW wrote the following:
How delighted I was to realize that Professor James said much the same nearly a century ago in Psychology Briefer Course:
How about them apples! Worthy of pause and further “meditation”. * * * Troubling news from the oh so prestigious PNAS, as Professor Lynch seems to be telling us industrialized moderns that the genomic jig is up in a recent paper. In short, it’s a case of too many deleterious mutations and not enough infant mortality, or something like that. Here are some of the paper’s more sobering conclusions:
Presumably, the fitness enhancing powers of natural selection were sufficient to overcome all these deleterious mutations in our pre-modern state. Maybe Desmond can tell us where this was demonstrated, if it has been. * * *
Does anyone else find this kind of evolutionary storytelling to be as unsatisfying as I do? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the extreme cold of the European environment to select for an extra layer of fur and fat than for something as sociologically complex as altruistic punishment. Or what about the prospect of having one’s man parts snugly tucked inside the folds of one’s bosom, which must be of some benefit in the “extreme cold”, and yet, there they are, dangling as always. Moving along. * * * I never understood what all the fuss was about concerning the results of Libet’s now famous experiment, where research subjects were hooked up to an EEG and told to wait for the urge to perform some simple action and also note the position of a dot on an oscilloscope when this urge came. The punchline being that there was a not insignificant discrepancy - the readiness potential - between what the subjects noted on the oscilloscope and what the EEG measured, which suggests that unconscious brain processes are what’s responsible for our actions and not free will. However, as others have pointed out, Libet told his research subjects to “let the urge appear on its own at any time without any pre-planning or concentration on when to act”. Are we to understand that these bodily “urgings” are the equivalent of volitional actions brought about through focused attention? A brief reflection on the more embarrassing experiences of our adolescence should settle the matter decidedly in the negative, there are some bodily urgings for which no amount of consciousness can quell. * * * If you thought the blue eyes puzzle was hard, check out this one:
Be warned, as Mr. Roderick would say, this could be your kind of StairMaster. In either case, the solution to this one is not obvious to me. * * * FYI, the collective unconsciousness of the online Nordicist community can be found in the open threads at n/a’s fine blog. Posted by Notus Wind on Sunday, October 3, 2010 at 12:54 AM in No particular place to go Comments:2
Posted by PF on October 03, 2010, 01:44 AM | # Ooh, Notus, I fear you’re going to have to start doing this regularly. Its very good, although no smart comments come to my mind about anything you said, I still enjoyed reading it. I wonder if that guy who studied deleterious mutations factored in how much cooler we are becoming - you know, the tendency to use interesting slang words and new methods of role-playing in conversations with your friends is just through the roof. Just trying to see the upside to all this silliness…. 3
Posted by Leon Haller on October 03, 2010, 06:45 AM | # I copied this from the Lewrockwell.com site. You will find it very suggestive and interesting. I have to divide it into two parts, as its length exceeds the maximum character allotment. LH —————————————————————- A longtime Washington, D.C., insider, and former adviser to the Obama election campaign and transition team, speaks out on an administration in crisis, and a president increasingly withdrawn from the job of President. 2008 gave America an incredibly charismatic candidate for President of the United States. Speech after speech showed a candidate with increasing momentum as primary race after primary race concluded. And then came the nomination, more speeches, culminating in an election night victory. According to the person sitting across from me, those were incredibly exciting times, even for one who had been a participant with three previous presidential hopefuls. Barack Obama appeared to move from one city to the next effortlessly, gaining confidence and motivation with each campaign stop. He was remarkable to watch. He took the script, elevated it with his oration, left the crowds screaming for more, and then would do it all over again, time after time after time. On the campaign trail, Obama is a machine. When I asked this insider if the media gave candidate Obama an assist throughout his campaign, it elicits a sly smile. Sure — we definitely had people in the media on our side. Absolutely. We went so far as to give them specific ideas for coverage. The ones who took that advice from the campaign were granted better access, and Obama was the biggest story in 2008, so yeah, that gave us a lot of leverage.
Yeah, I think so. As I said, on the campaign trail he is very, very good. The opposition didn’t have near the energy, or the celebrity attraction that Obama brings. Plus, the country was burned out after eight years of Bush. We knew that going in. We knew that if we won the Democrat nomination, we were likely going to cruise our way to the White House — and that is exactly what we did.” But after Obama was sworn in, things began to change? Almost immediately. Obama loved to campaign. He clearly didn’t like the work of being President though, and that attitude was felt by the entire White House staff within weeks after the inauguration. Obama the tireless, hard working candidate became a very tepid personality to us. And the few news stories that did come out against him were the only things he seemed to care about. He absolutely obsesses over Fox News. For being so successful, Barack Obama is incredibly thin-skinned. He takes everything very personally. And you state he despises Joe Biden? Oh yeah. That is very well known in the White House. Obama chose Biden for one reason — to have an older white guy with some international policy credentials. Period. If Biden has all of this international experience that Obama found so valuable, why has he buried him under the pile of crap that became the stimulus bill? What does Joe Biden know about budgets and economics? Not much — but Obama didn’t care. Give Joe a job and get him the hell out of my hair — that pretty much sums up the president’s feelings toward Joe Biden. What about Hillary Clinton? Obama is scared to death of Hillary. He doesn’t trust her — obsesses over her almost as much as he does Fox News. He respects her though, which might be why he fears her so much as well. He talks the game, but when it comes down to it, she has played the game on a far tougher level than he has, and Obama knows that. How about Bill Clinton? I never heard Obama say anything about Bill Clinton personally, though I was told he has cracked a few jokes about the former president since getting into the White House. I have heard that Bill Clinton does not like Barack Obama. That really started when Obama played the race card against him during the primary campaign. Apparently Clinton was apoplectic over that and still hasn’t gotten over it. If there is one thing I have learned in this town — don’t make an enemy of Bill Clinton. So if Obama doesn’t appear interested in the job of president, what does he do day after day? Well, he takes his meetings just like any other president would, though even then, he seems to lack a certain focus and on a few occasions, actually leaves with the directive that be given a summary of the meeting at a later date. I hear he plays a lot of golf, and watches a lot of television — ESPN mainly. I’ll tell you this — if you want to see President Obama get excited about a conversation, turn it to sports. That gets him interested. You start talking about Congress, or some policy, and he just kinda turns off. It’s really very strange. I mean, we were all led to believe that this guy was some kind of intellectual giant, right? Ivy League and all that. Well, that is not what I saw. Barack Obama doesn’t have a whole lot of intellectual curiosity. When he is off script, he is what I call a real “slow talker.” Lots of ummms, and lots of time in between answers where you can almost see the little wheel in his head turning very slowly. I am not going to say the president is a dumb man, because he is not, but yeah, there was a definite letdown when you actually hear him talking without the script. That sounds like you are calling Obama stupid to me. No — I am not going to call him stupid. He just doesn’t strike me as particularly smart. Bill Clinton is a smart guy — he would run intellectual circles around Barack Obama. And Bill Clinton loved the politics of being president. Obama seems to think he shouldn’t have to be bothered, which has created a considerable amount of conflict among his staff. So how bad are things at the White House these days? I don’t know about right now, because I have not been there in over a month. But I still hear things, and I know what it was like when I left. It’s not good. As bad as it might look to voters based on what they do know, it’s much worse. The infighting is off the charts. You got a Chief of Staff who despises cabinet members, advisors who despise the Chief of Staff, a President and First Lady having their own issues… Come again — what about the First Lady? (The insider takes a deep breath) Ok, look, just like any other marriage, folks have issues. The Obamas are no different, except of course they are very high profile. I was told they were having issues before the campaign, and they have even more issues now. Maybe that is why Obama seems so detached — not so much the stress of the White House, but the stress of personal issues. I can certainly relate to that kind of situation. Care to clarify some more on the Obama marriage? No. That is all I will say about that. Don’t ask again. 4
Posted by Leon Haller on October 03, 2010, 06:46 AM | # Part 2
Like I said, it’s been a while since I was last at the White House, but I don’t have a problem saying that the president is losing it. I don’t mean he is like losing his mind. I mean to say that he is losing whatever spark he had during the campaign. When you take away the crowds, Obama gets noticeably smaller. He shrinks up inside of himself. He just doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do the job of President, and it’s getting worse and worse. Case in point — just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days. And you know what? Maybe he is right, who knows? Will Obama run again in 2012? I don’t know. That subject was never brought up again after 2008, at least not around me. If he does, I think it would have more to do with allowing him another year and a half of campaigning again. He just loves it so much. He really needs the crowds, the cheering, the support of the people. Can he win in 2012? Oh — absolutely. Who else campaigns as well as Barack Obama? Nobody. What politician is more loved and supported by the media? Nobody. I don’t see the Republicans offering up a candidate as powerful as Obama. I mean Sarah Palin? Really? Obama would defeat her by a 20 point landslide! Romney? The Republicans will enjoy these midterm elections, but 2012 is Obama’s year if he chooses to run again. As a president, Obama has many flaws, but as a candidate, he is near flawless. But would another four years of an Obama presidency be the best thing for America? (Long pause) Now that is a much more interesting question right there, and a question I think more and more Democrat Party insiders are asking themselves these days, myself included. I am going to come right out and say it — No. Obama is not up to the job of being president. He simply doesn’t seem to care about the work involved. You want to know what? Obama is lazy. He really is. And it is getting worse and worse. Would another four years of Obama be the best thing for America? No it would not. What this country needs is a president who is focused on the job more than on themselves. Obama is not that individual. I actually hope he doesn’t run again. Looking back, as much fun as the campaign in 2008 was, Hillary Clinton should have been the nominee. Hillary was ready to be president. Obama was not ready. He had never lost a campaign. Everything was handed to him. He doesn’t really understand the idea of work — real, hard, get your heart and soul into it work. And frankly, that is very disappointing to a whole lot of us… So you still wish to keep your name hidden from the public? Why? I intend to remain working in this town for a bit longer. A public disclosure might complicate that just a bit given who is in power right now. But I won’t be the last one from the current administration coming forward. After the midterms, there will be a number of us speaking about what is really going on in the Democrat Party, if for nothing else because it’s such a damn mess right now. What do you mean “it’s a damn mess”? I mean just what I said. The Democrat Party is the most chaotic I have ever seen it — and that goes back almost 30 years. So who is to blame? We all are. By “we” I mean those of us who were working within the party power structure the last ten years or so. We got so caught up in the hate Bush mentality, we let the party get hijacked by our own far left. That was disaster the moment it happened. The disaster that will be the midterm election in 2010 started in November of 2006 when Pelosi and Reid took over the Democrat Party. Those two have only brought trouble to the Democrat Party since day one of that time. How do you mean? (A long pause…) Look, I’ve been in the Democrat Party in one way or other, be it campaigns, fundraising, lobbying, whatever…we lost our way in 2006. We put in place a Speaker of the House who is an absolute public relations train wreck. The lady is a… She’s tough. Yeah, she’s real tough. But outside of the halls of Congress, forget it. She’s a nut to the American people because America was and is a right of center country. As a Democrat I say that, because I understand it. Bill Clinton understood it. Pelosi, Reid, Obama…they don’t accept that fact. You mention Clinton a lot. Yeah, I do because Bill Clinton was the very best politician of our time and I got to see it up close for a period of time and I am still amazed at just how good he was. Second, I think Bill Clinton was a damn good president. He should be recognized more for just how good he really was. And you don’t place Obama in the same league as Bill Clinton? (Laughter) Hell no. Obama has only been in office a couple of years, so that isn’t even a fair question right now. But what I have seen of Barack Obama has not left me with the confidence to say he will be as good a president as Bill Clinton. Maybe he will get it figured out before 2012, and I sure as hell hope so because the Republicans are getting some real oddballs running their own show over there and that scares me too. What scares you more as president — Sarah Palin or Barack Obama? (Hands to head) Oh boy. What a choice! People would kill me for saying this — actually you know what, there are more and more of us Democrats saying what I am going to say in one form or another… Sarah Palin understands America more than Barack Obama. Yes, she has a minority of our far left who hates her, and some in our media are part of that group, but overall, she seems to get America. Americans aren’t a complicated people, and neither is Sarah Palin, so that probably works in her favor. But President Obama is just out of touch. He really doesn’t understand what America is. What it’s about. Or who it is. And that is a real problem for him — and the Democrat Party at this moment in its history. Are you saying you would vote for Sarah Palin over Barack Obama? No, I don’t think I could do that. As much as I admire Palin’s ability to connect with the American people, I just can’t stand her politics. I am a pro-choice Democrat. I support unions. I support welfare programs. Sarah Palin understands America, but that doesn’t mean she understands the best parts of America. That being said, I think President Obama understands hardly any of America. That is probably a big reason he appears so lost these days. Last time you mentioned trouble with the Obama marriage. I am not going to ask you to elaborate on that specifically, but could you tell us if you like Michelle Obama? Like is not a word we use in D.C. very much. Do I respect the First Lady? Sure. She seems like a strong woman, a good mother. I wasn’t around her really enough to say anything more than that. Or, at least, I would rather not. Were you afraid of her? No — not anymore than anyone else who was around her as briefly as I was. Here is what I get from the First Lady. She is very much the Chicago ideologue. Nancy Pelosi is the far left of the Democrat Party, right? Well, Michelle Obama might be to the left of Nancy Pelosi. She really doesn’t care for how things work in the country and she wants to see it all changed. I can respect that, though I would guess she is far too liberal even for me — and I consider myself a liberal Democrat. Could she be mean? Mean? She’s the First Lady. She is a strong, influential woman in America. I don’t know what you are trying to ask me there — though I suspect what you are trying to get at and all I will say to that is, “Don’t go there.” If you had President Obama here right now and you could give him some advice that he would follow, what would that advice be? (Long silence. Eyes closed — long sigh) Man, that’s a tough question right there. I have thought about it a lot lately. I know I’m not the only one who left that White House feeling really let down, but maybe that wasn’t fair to the President. Maybe our own expectations got so high that he had no choice but to let us down…some advice, huh? Hopefully without sounding disrespectful, I would tell the President to pull his head out of his ass. To man up, grow up, and start to pay attention to what the American people want and need. That is a big, big flaw with this president. He comes at it from the position of thinking he knows what we need because we don’t have the ability to know for ourselves. And he doesn’t respect any opinion that is different from his own. He just doesn’t care to know any other side to any given issue. I really believe it’s a maturity thing. I think our president needs to grow up. I hate to put it that way, but there it is. President Obama — grow up. 5
Posted by Hamish on October 03, 2010, 08:11 AM | #
The reason why Europeans didn’t develop fur is because they figured out how to wear animal skins during the winter. When people talk about the cold of Europe leading to adaptations, they aren’t talking about the cold per se. It’s the difficulty of surviving winters where it would be hard to find enough food which would’ve been creating selective pressure, if anything weather related was.
Honestly, do you know where the bosom is? Also if you knew anything about evolutionary biology, you’d realize that this question has already been addressed. Too much body heat is bad for sperm. 6
Posted by Notus Wind on October 03, 2010, 09:40 AM | # Hamish, My examples were given facetiously, the serious point behind them is that it’s not hard to cook up stories that explain, prima facie, all sorts of ridiculous things. The technique seems to work too well. 7
Posted by Notus Wind on October 03, 2010, 09:58 AM | # PF,
Glad you enjoyed it, although I’m not sure how capable I am of doing this sort of entry on a regular basis. The mood will have to be just right for another installment of Evening Morsels.
Either we find an upside or have the Black Forest cull out those defects that are accumulating in our germlines, Nature would once again be the judge. If nothing else, these ideas could form the plot of an interesting book. 8
Posted by cladrastis on October 03, 2010, 11:16 AM | # How about this solution: The sovereign state (i.e. the entity that determines the “exceptions”) encourages the “best” (those who have distinguished themselves in various intellectual and physical endeavors) to have extremely high fertility by means of both economic AND political incentives. and simultaneously limits the reproduction of the “worst” via the same (but inverted) measures. Apropos the genetic argument, the “best” would likely posses fewer deleterious genetic combinations (hence, their superior physiological functioning), and the worst more (hence, why they are sickly, stupid, malformed, etc). Children born with deformed bodies would be permitted to die soon after birth (such as the pathetic “girl without a face” who I will assume will not be reading this entry), thus, increasing infant mortality and the “marginal returns on investment”. In such a scenario, introgressions from outside populations that do not engage in the same practices would be likened to genetic pollution of the gene “pool” (to mention nothing of the metagenomic pool) and could not be justified on moral grounds. 9
Posted by Søren Renner on October 03, 2010, 11:52 AM | # O, what foods these morsels be! How puckish of you, Mr. Wind. 10
Posted by Jimmy Marr on October 03, 2010, 01:52 PM | #
That’s sums it up nicely. I too felt that the post left certain things dangling in the Wind. Nevertheless, I was refreshed and amused by the change of pace. Great job, Notus. 11
Posted by Notus Wind on October 03, 2010, 02:38 PM | # cladrastis, I see it largely as a matter of inverting the current cultural values. The best and healthiest among us should be encouraged to have larger families while the sickest and most degenerate should be discouraged from doing so, but in both cases it would be for the sake of the nation’s long-term genetic integrity. The cultural mindset behind this would be that while life isn’t fair (and we all know it isn’t) we still have no excuse for not safeguarding the [genetic] integrity of our nation for the sake of future posterity, otherwise they would suffer because of our negligence and moral cowardice. A sovereign state should poke and prod the Western populace in the right direction with the full awareness that matters of reproduction and family formation are intensely personal. I do not think that an authoritarian regime can explicitly mandate the “right” kind of behavior in all circumstances and be successful at it in the long-term. Jimmy,
Thank you for that Jimmy, I was definitely going for a change of pace. Søren,
Quite puckish indeed. 12
Posted by cladrastis on October 03, 2010, 04:21 PM | #
In general, I agree with the spirit of your comment, although I think Plato (and certainly medieval Europeans) would disagree with you on the first point (which is a modernist sentiment). What is important is that life and the intensification of social complexity continue ever onward (for they MUST); why they must continue that trajectory is ultimately a metaphysical question. Undoubtedly, however, a state cannot micromanage all the social transactions taking place within its confines - to do so would be a monumental waste of energy, and perhaps detract the state from fulfilling its obligations. And yet…it is in the interests of the state - and, therefore, the people who comprise the state - to control the expansion or contraction of the population as the availability of resources dictates (and, of course, to control the quality of the population as well). As for the second point, no state has been successful in the long term, and perhaps no state can be successful in the long term. Whether this is a consequence of the shortcomings of jurisprudence (an interminable problem) is difficult to say. In my own thinking, the state (as a hypothetical entity) is something good, insofar as it is a “good” state (i.e. something that fulfills the intension of the concept “state”); it is a bad state when it fails to solve problems or when it intentionally undermines the long-term viability of its problem-solving capacity. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on October 03, 2010, 08:16 PM | # Notus, The William James find is interesting. How on earth did you dig that up? Does the good Professor explore the special properties of attention?
Neither Libet, I’ll bet, nor James noted the fact that sexual function, like the autonomic, emotional and motor functions, is not at all controlled by the intellect ... does not work at the same speed or speak the same language. So the little pool of light which is our consciousness, which is focussed in the intellectual system, is inevitably much less than we suppose it to be. What the Libet experiment revealed was the genesis in time if not place of the mechanical (ie, unattended) functioning of the Mind/Body, and its importance lies in the restricting effect that has upon our presumption of agency, which turns out to be appropriation after the fact. But attention offers a corrective, that is the important thing. I concur with the general opinion, btw, that this post was a cool idea. 14
Posted by BOMBkangaroo on October 03, 2010, 08:27 PM | # If by “poke and prod” you’re referring to a process of encouraging competition without direct state interference, then I’d agree. You could make it a reality TV show, where the fittest and most intelligent couples are matched for the sake of eugenics. Ideas about what makes a good partner are reinforced on a weekly basis, and the project is a source of revenue, so it can [potentially] sustain itself. (maybe it’ll make rearing children look like too much work for the couch potato untermensch) 15
Posted by Notus Wind on October 03, 2010, 09:51 PM | # GW,
I picked up the William James quotations from a secondary source that focused on neuroplasticity and the casual properties of focused attention on brain processes. The quotations from James really leapt off the page to me as I felt like they were articulating precisely your idea of intentionality as a fulcrum. Seriously, you might consider wrestling with James’ thought, so far as I know all of his major works can be cheaply had on Amazon.
Why can’t the same be said for that bodily urge that Libet told his subjects to wait for when he said, “let the urge appear on its own at any time without any pre-planning or concentration on when to act”? He sure doesn’t seem to be describing an urge that is controlled by the intellect, no.
Thank you for the encouragement. 16
Posted by Notus Wind on October 03, 2010, 10:15 PM | # cladrastis,
Point taken. Perhaps the pre-moderns would object to a managerial (or technocratic) approach to family formation because they would perceive that such an approach would trample on the sacredness of the relevant social forms that attend to certain family events (e.g. birth, marriage, death). The very idea of bringing a technological mindset to bear on matters of life might be profane to them in and of itself.
Agreed. Next entry: Religion of the end of suffering: no fucking brownie points! Previous entry: Oulialia, or how not to dispel preconceived ideas |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Oxybeamma commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/21/12, 05:24 AM. (go) (view) my thinspiration blog commented in entry 'Why Only Fourteen Words?' on 05/21/12, 05:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/21/12, 04:46 AM. (go) (view) HA Creams commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/21/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) property management fort lauderdale commented in entry 'Demography challenge' on 05/21/12, 04:06 AM. (go) (view) alex commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/21/12, 03:12 AM. (go) (view) Leah commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/21/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) alex commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/21/12, 03:02 AM. (go) (view) Leah commented in entry 'Starvation to keep the masses on a leash' on 05/21/12, 03:01 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 1' on 05/21/12, 02:25 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/21/12, 02:21 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on 05/21/12, 02:19 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 02:16 AM. (go) (view) air jordan commented in entry 'Just before the Golden Dawn: Two American White Nationalists on holiday in Greece - Part 3' on 05/21/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) tuttcoavore commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 02:08 AM. (go) (view) best golf sunglasses commented in entry 'The Boer genocide' on 05/21/12, 02:06 AM. (go) (view) baogejianb commented in entry 'Music, freedom, revolution' on 05/21/12, 01:15 AM. (go) (view) Offelfrof commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 01:11 AM. (go) (view) insaleenvency commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/21/12, 12:37 AM. (go) (view) baogejianb commented in entry 'Music, freedom, revolution' on 05/20/12, 11:48 PM. (go) (view) rhypsustott commented in entry 'Were the original Indo-Europeans from Europe, Asia or India?' on 05/20/12, 11:35 PM. (go) (view) James Bowery commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 11:17 PM. (go) (view) assundaGymn commented in entry 'A Line in the Sand' on 05/20/12, 10:41 PM. (go) (view) sedofleenly commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/20/12, 10:32 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:31 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:27 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:22 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:13 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:12 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 10:09 PM. (go) (view) pletcherzxy commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/20/12, 09:50 PM. (go) (view) xiaolily commented in entry 'Maltese Incident' on 05/20/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Haiseelo commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/20/12, 09:05 PM. (go) (view) advansarl commented in entry 'Latest Link' on 05/20/12, 08:56 PM. (go) (view) Haiseelo commented in entry 'Why Only Fourteen Words?' on 05/20/12, 07:42 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Notus Wind on October 03, 2010, 01:11 AM | #
Please let me know what you all think about this style of entry, where I lightly skip from one thought (or observation) to the next instead of laying out a single thesis and arguing it in detail.