Who am I arguing with now? Vacation edition
Jun 3rd, 2011 by Unamused
I am reminded of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s line from the classic film “Commando” (1985). As I recall, he was eating breakfast with a very young Alyssa Milano:
Why don’t they just call him Girl George? It would cut down on the confusion.
Wait, that’s not right.
The man is serious about cutting down on confusion.
No, he had just shot Sharon Stone in the head on Mars while trying to reach a telepathic mutant rebel leader to recover memories of a terraforming alien artifact while unwittingly acting out the plans of his evil pre-memory-wipe self:
Consider that a divorce.
Wait, that was the markedly superior “Total Recall” (1990).
Fans of the film will recognize this as one of former Governor Schwarzenegger's least ridiculous facial expressions.
Now I’ve got it: he was dangling a man over a cliff with the aid of a clearly visible wire.
Remember when I promised to kill you last?
I lied.
Remember when I promised to stop arguing with Stupid, Liberal, Anti-White Bigots?
I lied.
Don’t worry, I’m not going to drop you off a cliff. Yet.
I’m happy — no, that’s not right either. I’m angry to inform you that I am now restarting the destructive side of ‘Park operations. The constructive side, which includes our awesome flyers, will continue as planned; in fact, will probably accelerate, since our operations are powered by burning racial hatred, and arguing with race denialists is an excellent (and renewable) source of fuel.
Why am I doing this? Same reasons I’ve always done it. It’s fun. It’s relaxing. And I want more people to know we’re out there, we who don’t buy into the race-denialist BS. I want our enemies to know it, and I especially want our allies to know it.
Let us begin.
Attraction
Sofia — whose personal motto is not, but probably ought to be, “a lightning bolt of knowledge blowing out the fuse of ignorance in the shitty old house of our liberal dystopia” — has directed me to another great bastion of social-scientific liberal lunacy: Sociological Images. Recently I’ve been having a blast in the comments over there, and I wanted to let you know.
Sofiastry is your source for... I dunno, fingers? Slightly sticky fingers.
A recent article, “Race and the Problems with Measuring Beauty ‘Objectively'” (note the relativist scare quotes) is a predictable attack on evolutionary psychology Satoshi Kanazawa’s research on the inferior attractiveness of black women. There are two components to this supposed counter-argument. The first is that black women are only less attractive because of evil white men; specifically,
the global history of slavery, colonialism, and race-based systems of domination that make it impossible to separate out our perceptions of what is beautiful and sexually appealing from historical ideologies that insisted that non-White peoples were unattractive.
… Given that history, it’s not shocking that White women would be rated most attractive and Black women least… the outcome of constant, long-standing cultural messages about attractiveness that resulted from efforts to legitimize and justify social and political inequalities.
In other words — and I’m not going to set up a straw man; this is actually what they’re saying — in other words, you may think you find black women less attractive than white and Asian women, but you don’t. You actually find them just as attractive. You love their skin tone and their hair texture — can’t get enough of it! However, we’re all the unwitting victims of a historical ideology (that’s a set of ideas about history) that insists that non-white women are unattractive — er, except Asians and American Indians, who score much higher than blacks and quite close to whites. Hispanics too, probably. Somehow we avoided that part of the historical ideology.
It might not be an "historical legacy," but something is definitely turning me on right now.
The author, Gwen Sharp (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Nevada State College), leaves several things unexplained.
- Like many conspiracy theorists, she doesn’t explain who, exactly, is transmitting these “constant, long-standing cultural messages” — though it’s not hard to guess — or how they accomplish it.
- She doesn’t explain constant, long-standing pro-Black cultural messages, such as the “Black Is Beautiful” movement, which even has its own TV show now.
- She doesn’t explain why, when a qualified scientist actually attempts to transmit a cultural message about attractiveness that disfavors Black women (which happens to match the data), he sets off a “firestorm” (Huffington Post), an “international race row,” and “international outrage” (Daily Mail); the article is promptly removed (along with the author’s biography) and an apology issued by the publisher; his institution begins an internal investigation; and fellow academics call for his dismissal in the name of their “multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution” (Daily Mail again).
- She doesn’t explain the statistics on interracial marriage.
That last one isn’t really Sharp’s fault. We can hardly expect her to examine the world she inhabits (i.e., the “objective” “facts”) before blaming all our problems on (I can only assume) rich white heterosexual men. She’s not some nerd scientist, for crying out loud — she’s a radical social scientist! And she’s very busy with her extremely important work on — um…
She will soon begin a research project interviewing water diviners, and focus on the way diviners and government hydrologists use scientific/rational language to validate their belief systems while disparaging each other.
Sharp’s theories don’t deserve a rigorous rebuttal. They deserve to be briefly mocked and promptly forgotten. So if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to erase my memories of the last two days and replace them with a tropical vacation on Mars.
Race
Before that, I should discuss the second component.
[Kanazawa] treats race like a real, biological, meaningful entity. But race is socially constructed; there is no clear biological dividing line that would allow us to put every person on the planet into racial categories [claim #1], since societies differ in the racial categories they recognize [claim #2] and “race” doesn’t map along unique sets of genes [claim #3] — there is more genetic variation among members of a so-called race as there are between members of different races [claim #4].
This is radical pseudoscience, plain and simple, and any college professor who claims to buy into it is willfully ignorant, promoting a radical political agenda, or both. That’s why claim #2, that “societies differ in the racial categories they recognize,” is inane: societies are not made up of experts on race, and even the people society considers “experts on race,” like Gwen Sharp, aren’t experts on race.
It’s also why so many of my comments have disappeared in “moderation,” including my very first: a detailed, documented explanation of why race is biological, which thoroughly debunks claim #3. See sections 2 and 4 of “Black and white,” supplemented with two rebuttals of race denialism: “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science (part 2)” and “Debunking race denialism 2: Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza.”
If you’d rather just read it here, I don’t mind repeating myself. (I know, I know: you’re tired of the same old links. I’ll dig up some new ones just as soon as someone actually argues against the ones I have.)
Let’s start with the basics. Human beings are scientifically divided up into races (and subraces) according to exactly one criterion: ancestral geography. Blacks (comprising more than one race) came from sub-Saharan Africa, whites came from Europe (basically), Asians (also comprising more than one race) came from… I forget where, and so on.
Anyway, the races evolved in virtual reproductive isolation for tens of thousands of years, except possibly the last few hundred years. Put together four evolutionary forces — founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation — and what do you get? Genetic differences. That’s why you can tell someone’s self-reported race from their genes with 99.86 percent accuracy just from looking at a few hundred genetic markers (American Journal of Human Genetics).
I brought pictures. From Tishkoff et al.’s 2009 paper “The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans” (Science 324(5930) 1035–1044):
Genetic variation all around the world. See the races there?
From Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s “The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994):
Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world. Clearly, races do not exist.
Claim #4 is simply wrong, as Chuck pointed out in the comments on “Black and white.” From Neven Sesardic’s 2010 “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept” (Biology and Philosophy 25:143–162), citing Witherspoon et al.’s 2007 “Genetic similarities within and between human populations” (Genetics 176:351–359):
A good measure of the robustness of racial genetic differentiation is the answer to the following question: “How often does it happen that a pair of individuals from one population is genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” In fact, if many thousands of loci are used as a basis for judging genetic similarity and when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations, the correct answer, which many will probably find surprising, is: “Never.”
Any two white (i.e., European) people are always more similar genetically than any white person is to any black (i.e., sub-Saharan African of the Central Congoid race, or sub-Saharan African generally). Of course, thanks to miscegenation, there now exist people who are 50 percent black (or white, or Asian…), 90 percent black, 1 percent black, and so on. Claim #1 demands a “clear biological dividing line,” but that’s fallacious reasoning that can also be used to “prove” that height doesn’t exist.
Go ahead, draw a clear dividing line (one nanometer thick, say) between short and tall. Try it with slow and fast, big and small, or food and poison. You can’t do it — at least, you can’t do it in a meaningful way. Do you nevertheless learn something useful from statements like the following?
- “the robbery suspect is tall”
- “you’re driving too fast”
- “the chances of decapitation are not small”
- “I’ve replaced all the food with poison”
- “your new high school is full of black kids”
It gets worse. Sharp links another article for support, this one by Sociological Images co-author Lisa Wade (a feminist pseudo-scientist at Occidental College), entitled “A Simple Lesson on the Social Construction of Race.” A very simple lesson indeed: the entire article can be summed up as follows.
There are people of all different skin colors. Therefore race doesn’t exist.
That’s it. That’s all. These women have deluded themselves into thinking race is nothing more than the color of your skin. They should look up “black albinos” sometime. (No, it’s not an oxymoron.)
They should consult a forensic anthropologist like George Gill, who can determine the race of a skeleton (PBS Nova).
They should ask a geneticist, a medical doctor, and a statistician why an “epidemiologic perspective” (that’s with regard to the spread of disease) “strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity” (Genome Biology).
Since they’re so concerned with telling blacks they’re beautiful, they should also check up on how acknowledging those fictitious “real, biological, meaningful” racial differences can help doctors treat patients. (Fatal cardiac arrest has been proven to cause low self-esteem.)
Discussion
I mentioned I’ve been having fun in the comments at Sociological Images. In the beginning, I was quite polite and reasonable, but I began to lose patience around the time I posted the following, for reasons which will soon become obvious.
UNAMUSED: For anyone not keeping up with this (rather pathetic and off-topic) debate about race differences in intelligence, or just race differences period: my opponents are unable to cite even one source to back up their opinions about race differences in intelligence. There are also unwilling to read and understand my sources (see above).
Instead, they use insults (“troll,” “white supremacist”), accusations of “racism” (a word which is now meaningless, thanks to people like them), outright lies (like the claim that I haven’t cited my sources), unsubstantiated assertions (everywhere), appeals to emotion, appeals to popularity, and of course their perfect ignorance of intelligence research.
Don’t be fooled.
Please ask yourself: why would two reproductively isolated populations of an animal species, evolving independently for tens of thousands of years, subject to all the usual natural forces (founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation), somehow come out with
(a) different skin and hair,
(b) different bone structure,
(c) different blood antibodies,
(d) different disease susceptibilities,
(e) different athletic strengths and weaknesses (watch the Olympics), and yet
(f) IDENTICAL BRAINS?Evolution does not stop at the neck. And science is not concerned with your hurt feelings nor with your “progressive” politics.
A representative response (note the total lack of substance):
“JUAN”: Tough to decide which is worst and unamusing from you: Your faulty rhetoric or your faulty science. Now, provide some real evidence and cited that isn’t debunked eugenics or pseudo-science.
UNAMUSED: It’s like… it’s like you see the words I’ve written, which are all true, and then your brain just rejects them. Graft versus host, only the graft is REAL SCIENCE.
From that point on, my new comments mostly disappeared into “moderation,” meaning my distinguished opponents’ nasty, ignorant, insubstantial, promptly approved remarks went unchallenged. This displeased me, with predictable results. (I am, after all, the most hateful man on the Internet.) In the end, the thought-crime spree got so out of control, the entire discussion had to be put on hold pending a purge of hate facts, including my first (and least confrontational) comment, which explained why race is biological, not social.
UPDATE 2: The comments section has largely devolved into a flame war with lots of insults flying around, so I’m closing comments since I won’t be around to moderate them [i.e., delete only the ones I don’t agree with] for the next week. I will go in and clean out the comments threads [ditto] when I get a chance.
Therefore I will reproduce some of my exchanges here, before they get deleted.
Statistics
“SYD”: Plus, what about those of us who ARE significantly and predominantly mixed race? I am half black and half white. I have some distinctly “black” features, and some distinctly “European” ones. Am I “objectively” only half attractive? Or am I just deluded because my black brain-failings have tricked me into thinking I’m any attractive at all?
UNAMUSED: Yes. That’s exactly right. You haven’t misinterpreted at all.
If the average Black woman is less attractive than the average White woman, that means all Black women everywhere are ugly. Thus you are objectively half beautiful, half ugly.
If the average Black person is less intelligent than the average White person (they are), that means all Black people are stupid. Thus you are stupid.
You must have aced Stats 101.
We continued in this vein for some time.
White supremacy
“LETA”: I see you like to flaunt your white-supremacy flag. I don’t see you giving intelligence tests to populations that do better than the average white (like Asians).
UNAMUSED: Yes, yes, white supremacy, “sieg heil” and such and such.
Anyway [table-drawing fail]:
group approx. mean IQ
European Jews 110
East Asians 105
Whites 100
Hispanics 90 ya they’re a race
Blacks 85 in America
70 in Africa
The legend of colonialism: ocarina of hatred
“SIMONE LOVELACE”: … Even if you could make a real case that certain features common in people of African descent were “objectively” unattractive (spoiler alert: you can’t!), culture bias is clearly a huge factor. …
UNAMUSED: Dark skin is a feature common in people of African descent which is “objectively” unattractive, in that all races prefer lighter skin, in general.
“KJ”: And might the legendary of colonialism have something to do with that?
UNAMUSED: Explain exactly what the “legacy” (I assume you meant that) of colonialism is, and precisely how it is causing e.g. Black Haitian girls to prefer White Barbie dolls to Black ones.
Or did you think you could just go “colonialism slavery imperialism white people did it lololz,” and everyone would just solemnly nod and go about their business?
“MOLLY”: Wait, you’re using *Haiti* as an example? … Because it’s not possible colonialism could’ve had ANY impact on Haiti (a nation founded when slaves rebelled against French colonial rule)? …
UNAMUSED: Listen to yourself: you’re claiming that centuries-old colonialism is making modern-day Haitian girls like White Barbie dolls better than Black Barbie dolls.
It’s just… retarded.
Concise
SCOTT: [a whole bunch of crap about the relationship between attraction, sex, reproduction, and evolution]
UNAMUSED: One big straw man argument. No point even addressing this nonsense.
Insecurity
“ALIX”: People who are insecure about their own intelligence/beauty/other factor always seem to want to demonstrate that some other group is inferior.
…
I’ve never really been sure why some people are so intent on proving that their group is *superior* to other groups (especially when those groups are more of a continuum than an actual delineated group). Life isn’t a football game. We all benefit if we are all appreciated for our contributions, and our strengths are utilized appropriately. By writing off an entire group, we are ALL weakened.
UNAMUSED: Gee, thank you for that amateur psychoanalysis.
Look, Alix: the reason why I think Blacks are innately less intelligent is because they score lower on intelligence tests, which are not culturally biased; and further research supports a 50–80% genetic explanation. I am not insecure about my own intelligence, and Kanazawa is not insecure about his attractiveness.
I might as well say “you’re only disagreeing with me because you’re agoraphobic.”
The tests are not culturally biased. [You] have no reason to believe they are — I mean, it’s not like you can find any ACTUAL examples of ACTUAL cultural bias on the WAIS. You’re just speculating because you don’t like the findings.
You don’t understand anything about statistics. No one is claiming IQ tests (or better yet g tests) predict your success in life with 100% accuracy (duh). They do, however, predict group outcomes. In particular, they predict Black failure.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am so intent on proving that Whites are cognitively superior to Blacks is that (1) they are, and (2) shrieking harpies like the ones in the thread above can’t seem to grasp that simple fact, and their ignorance and bias are interesting to me.
We should be “writing off” Blacks as a group, because they are innately incapable of achieving the same success as other groups. That means stopping absurd discriminatory policies like AA and racial quotas.
This “writing off” is not discrimination. It has nothing to do with race. (Watch the race denialists fail to grasp this point.) It is a logical consequence of treating everyone as individuals without regard for race. Since Blacks are generally less intelligent, if you treat them like everyone else — as individuals — it’s going to look like discrimination.
PS Asians are cognitively superior to Whites.
Projection
“SIMONE LOVELACE”: … Even if you could make a real case that certain features common in people of African descent were “objectively” unattractive (spoiler alert: you can’t!), culture bias is clearly a huge factor. …
UNAMUSED: Dark skin is a feature common in people of African descent which is “objectively” unattractive, in that all races prefer lighter skin, in general.
“KJ”: And might the legendary of colonialism have something to do with that?
UNAMUSED: Explain exactly what the “legacy” (I assume you meant that) of colonialism is, and precisely how it is causing e.g. Black Haitian girls to prefer White Barbie dolls to Black ones.
Or did you think you could just go “colonialism slavery imperialism white people did it lololz,” and everyone would just solemnly nod and go about their business?
“MOLLY”: Wait, you’re using *Haiti* as an example? … Because it’s not possible colonialism could’ve had ANY impact on Haiti (a nation founded when slaves rebelled against French colonial rule)? …
UNAMUSED: Listen to yourself: you’re claiming that centuries-old colonialism is making modern-day Haitian girls like White Barbie dolls better than Black Barbie dolls.
It’s just… retarded.
SCOTT: [a whole bunch of crap about the relationship between attraction, sex, reproduction, and evolution]
UNAMUSED: One big straw man argument. No point even addressing this nonsense.
“ALIX”: People who are insecure about their own intelligence/beauty/other factor always seem to want to demonstrate that some other group is inferior.
…
I’ve never really been sure why some people are so intent on proving that their group is *superior* to other groups (especially when those groups are more of a continuum than an actual delineated group). Life isn’t a football game. We all benefit if we are all appreciated for our contributions, and our strengths are utilized appropriately. By writing off an entire group, we are ALL weakened.
UNAMUSED: Gee, thank you for that amateur psychoanalysis.
Look, Alix: the reason why I think Blacks are innately less intelligent is because they score lower on intelligence tests, which are not culturally biased; and further research supports a 50–80% genetic explanation. I am not insecure about my own intelligence, and Kanazawa is not insecure about his attractiveness.
I might as well say “you’re only disagreeing with me because you’re agoraphobic.”
The tests are not culturally biased. [You] have no reason to believe they are — I mean, it’s not like you can find any ACTUAL examples of ACTUAL cultural bias on the WAIS. You’re just speculating because you don’t like the findings.
You don’t understand anything about statistics. No one is claiming IQ tests (or better yet g tests) predict your success in life with 100% accuracy (duh). They do, however, predict group outcomes. In particular, they predict Black failure.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but the reason I am so intent on proving that Whites are cognitively superior to Blacks is that (1) they are, and (2) shrieking harpies like the ones in the thread above can’t seem to grasp that simple fact, and their ignorance and bias are interesting to me.
We should be “writing off” Blacks as a group, because they are innately incapable of achieving the same success as other groups. That means stopping absurd discriminatory policies like AA and racial quotas.
This “writing off” is not discrimination. It has nothing to do with race. (Watch the race denialists fail to grasp this point.) It is a logical consequence of treating everyone as individuals without regard for race. Since Blacks are generally less intelligent, if you treat them like everyone else — as individuals — it’s going to look like discrimination.
PS Asians are cognitively superior to Whites.
An anonymous commenter succumbs to projection, but replacing “Unamused” by “a race denialist” yields perfection. I swear that wasn’t supposed to rhyme.
“ANON”: [A race denialist] will always double-down on the crazy, because he truly and solemnly believes in what he’s saying. A failure on his part to continue to believe in the truth of his and his sources claims will mean that he will have to do a full re-analysis of himself, his morals, his world-view, etc. in addition (most likely) to those of his friends and colleagues (and possibly his family and community members). It’s a truly scary thing to admit that something fundamental to how you perceive the world is absolutely wrong.
This is why you can’t reason with conspiracy theorists who believe what they do, and [a race denialist] is just like the conspiracy theorist whose life is consumed with uncovering the government plot that George W. Bush caused 9/11 or the other conspiracy theorist who believes that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.
Arguing with facts won’t help, either, since it’s likely that — like many conspiracy theorists — he’s incapable of understanding where his logic is faulty: conspiracy justification has become an unconscious reaction to dissonant stimuli that affects him at a level more basic than rational thought. Indeed, it hijacks rational thought and leads to rationalizing thought (of the type that either explains away the potential dissonance or builds a wall of denial against it), instead.
In short, he’s a person that doesn’t understand why the majority of people don’t understand the truth that is so clearly in front of them, and no amount of argumentation is going to change his mind about the truth he sees (let alone the intelligence of the people who can’t see it).
Other highlights
- Commenter “Bah” wonders if I might be Kanazawa himself.
- Commenter Alix thinks Sofia and I are the same person. (We’re not… as far as I know.)
- No one — no one at all — bothers to address the information I presented. Oh well.
Anyway, I had a blast! Expect more. Now where did I put that memory modifier…
"Stop struggling. You're just making it worse." "Worse than getting my mind erased?" "Well... you're not helping!"
Whoa, you are quite a trouper. You have more stamina than me.
There are a lot of things I think are funny about race-deniers and the arguments they use.
First, just an aesthetic note: It is funny how many phrases and peculiar word usages crop up exclusively during race denial. Isn’t it funny that nothing other than race is ever described as a “social construct.” “Construct” is hardly ever used as a noun. Why don’t they ever say that class is a social construct? Academia is a social construct? Because it’s just a buzz-sentence, it has no meaning.
Second, I still don’t understand how mixed-race people are anything but proof that races exist. (They are also proof that humanity constitutes a species rather than several species.) How could you believe you could mix things that don’t exist? I don’t get it.
“What’s that? You think gin and tonic are separate beverages? You hateful bastard, always trying to prove your people are superior. For your information, there is such a thing as a GIN AND TONIC. Haven’t you ever heard of mixed drinks? You’re probably Kanazawa.”
Third, I think it is funny that they always have to put the words “superior” and “inferior” into the mouths of the race-realists. Kanazawa provided evidence (and this part is not based on the opinions of three interviewers, I’ll note) that blacks on average consider themselves much better-looking than others consider themselves to be. Yet Kanazawa never saw the need to write, “Blacks have proven that they believe they are superior to others,” probably because he’s not a liberal.
Fourth, the crap about slavery & colonialism is such a clear example of projection, it’s downright creepy. We know that slavery did not reduce black self-esteem to below that of non-enslaved races, because their self-esteem is so malignantly high. But what about the federally-mediated colonization of white neighborhoods by blacks? Surely this has increased the number of black-white interactions, some fraction of which result in rape.
And what is the result of rape in terms of the victim’s self-esteem? It drops or rather, plummets. There are tons of white women (I’ve known a few) with horrible guilt, rage, feelings of despondence, etc. because of what blacks did to them.
And the horrible thing is, the right knew this was going to happen before it did, but they didn’t control the media. They got Harper Lee’d into obscurity, since whites fearing black rapists is “paranoia” (while women fearing all men is “feminism”). The same could be said of Islamic and Mexican immigration. The more they rape us, the more our self-esteem drops, and it does drop collectively, because the men who have been forced out of their natural guardian role have no natural response except despondency or going numb.
Oh my god. The “Projection” comment is absolutely amazing. I don’t often see such perfect, pure examples of projection in my daily life. As I got into the second paragraph, my jaw just started dropping more and more with every sentence.
I know! He (or she) doesn’t realize I’ve already done the full re-analysis of myself, my morals, and my worldview. He is also operating under the delusion that I’m surrounded by race realist friends and colleagues. I wish! Why do ya think I had to do the re-analysis? Brainwashed by liberal society.
He’s right about how scary it can be “to admit that something fundamental to how you perceive the world is absolutely wrong.” I mean, it wasn’t for me, because I was moving from apolitical ignorance to scientific enlightenment, and things just make more sense on this side; but it will be for the race denialists, who have built their politics on quicksand. I wish them luck.
That whole thread was pretty epic. We constituted a “rare” enough occurrence on SocImages for them to freeze the thread.
We hated them into submission. It was hot, in a racist kind of way.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately. On the surface, it seems blatantly idiotic that people can just be in such fierce denial of these overpowering statistics. But, the more I think about it, the more I realize it’s not idiotic; it’s just really, really painful. I remember my initial reaction on reading “The Bell Curve.” It. Felt. Awful.
I wanted (hell, I STILL want) to believe that everyone is the same and all people are equal and everyone living together in peace and harmony is totally possible if everyone holds hands and sings. Believing that must feel really good. It must feel holy.
In truth, it’s not idiotic to not want to give up something that feels that good. It’s natural to want to cling to it. Unfortunately, sometimes the things that make us feel good temporarily are really bad for us. You know, like race denialism… and crack.
That syd guy is vicious.
Speaking of epic, my brain started looping this while I was reading the thread.
It’s just amazing how good intelligent race realists get pretty good at what they do, and the only defense the egalitards have is to shut down their brain completely… Their true potency is however in the sheer numbers; they might shut down and their world view might take a dent, but there are always two more to replace them. Most thus eventually wear out… but you sir seem to be a veritable real life hero (or villain), nourishing yourself on their tears of cognitive dissonance.
Sofia is less remarkable since she is a (presumably attractive) young woman, thus granting her higher status by default. But still it was remarkable how they almost squealed in terror at the sight of her (no it can’t be! She’s a DL!)… You two make an excellent team.
Come join us for some good old-fashioned reactionary hatin’ sometime.
PS What’s a DL?
Speaking of Arnie reminds me of an argument I had a couple of years ago where I used his character name “Ben Richards” from The Running Man. The host of the site, to his credit, didn’t ban me. He just hurled insults.
http://captainpurplehead.blogs.ie/2009/01/24/sometimes-its-shameful-to-be-irish/
In this one the host, Matthijs Krul, at least makes some arguments but ends up talking about cranks and racist organisations.
http://mccaine.org/2010/04/07/races-and-brains/
Wow, the first guy didn’t even pretend to try. I think your considerable efforts are wasted on the hosts. But hopefully some visitors came away with some good ideas.
Hey, if they want to phrase it as “Blacks are stupider than Whites,” or “Blacks are innately inferior in certain ways,” then fine, whatever. Why should I care about hurting Black people’s feelings if their guardian angels, the SLAWBs, don’t?
On average, Asians have better cognitive skills than Whites? You racist Asian supremacist.
Sometimes it’s effective to demonstrate that “social construction” doesn’t preclude genetic differences. This is how I usually do it:
Logically deconstructing the “social construct” argument takes more time but doing so and demonstrating the above trivial truth is sometimes a necessary first step. As often the reply is, when one is forthcoming, that “there isn’t much genetic difference” (e.g. the “99.5% the same” fallacy or Lewontin’s fallacies), it positions you to launch into a discussion of the reasonableness of genetic differences (e.g. the .5% codes for a 6 sigma range within races and the between-race differences are only .3-2 sigma; if anything, Lewontin’s 15% implies a 1-2 sigma difference).
Unfortunately many HBDers don’t appreciate the strength of logical fallacies. Since they [the fallacies] twist truth they are impervious to correction by fact. (They are logical fallacies not falsehoods.) To combat them, you have to expose their underlying illogic.
Maybe we (read: unamused) should make a chart of the common race fallacies (and name them) so we could all have a list of handy (simple) rebuttals.
1. Subspecies fallacy. Biological races don’t exist; therefore, no racial differences are due to genetics. (Equivocation. Whether or not ancestral defined populations are taxonomic subspecies is irrelevant to whether or not there are social significant genetic differences between the populations, e.g. Pygmies and Watusi are ancestrally defined populations between which…)
2. Race is Color fallacy. One can’t be… just because of the color of one’s skin.
3. The 99.9% fallacy.
4. Lewontin’s fallacies.
5. “Social deconstruct” fallacy.
6. …
My point above is that it’s a mistake to look at this nonsense solely in terms of stupidity. These various fallacies represent rather clever logical tricks that have persuaded quite a few. In response, rebuttals are asking to be crafted.
Loved it, as always. Seeing as how “[your] operations are powered by burning racial hatred, and arguing with race denialists is an excellent (and renewable) source of fuel” you might be interested in this website.
http://microaggressions.com/
Filled with SLAWBs complaining about every possible imagined slight in an attempt to take the moral high ground in a situation, but later on the Internet, safe from any possible dissenting opinions. Anyone who does offer such an opinion is clearly biased by their privilege.
Take it slowly though, you might give yourself an aneurysm from stupid liberal bullshit exposure.
I recommend Chuck’s argument to anyone who debates race denialists.
I don’t understand your logic or, if so, your tactical approach, in this response of yours. I work in a school system in which “NAMs” make up a large percentage of the district; I’ve been involved with countless cases of both individual improvement and failure; within is a lot of merit and fulfillment and also plenty of failure and disappointment.
Now, take away the ideological endgames of ‘Affirmative Action’ and ‘quotas’ (I’ve recently changed my mind about the merit of both), there’s still much practical and individual worth to seeing NAMs of whatever starting level of ability improve their lives through education and other forms of personal improvement; parity is neither the goal or operating principle in these cases. Before I ever thought about it objectively to the point of defining it, my intent has always been along the lines of shooting for intra-group gains when working with largely NAM student bodies — life skills classes, personal-improvement tasks, skills and objectives; value-developing exercises: to the extent these approaches succeed amongst kids who very likely on average have lower than European or Asian average IQ’s, it makes that average disparity of little or no consequence.
In any case, I realize you may just be venting, or responding to a lot of the cant and sanctimony thrown toward ‘you and yours,’ so to speak, by liberal whites. But that understandable cynicism, combined with some of the derogatory statements you put forth (again, more likely with the goal of rebelling against p.c. orthodoxy than perhaps anything else) that makes your ultimate mission that much harder to accomplish, IMHO.
So what’s going on here? (I’m interesting in diagnosing the problem and correcting it — I’m a smelly bug-eyed bum too.) Juan dismisses your cites because he considers your position debunked and his firmly supported. The way to address this is to undermine his confidence by citing some authority figures: James Watson, Francis (“it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection” 2004) Collins, Yang Haunming, etc. We probably should make a list of them with relevant quotes.
nikcrit,
I think the point was: drop the expectation that blacks, as a group, are going to become the new Jews — if only liberated from (Bayesian, explicit, implicit, institutional, micro-, statistical, structural, etc.) racism — and focus on individuals, black or otherwise. This seems to be basically what you said:
Someone needs to write a post on the varieties of racism.
That’s about it. We need to write off the possibility of blacks achieving the same success as Asians, for example. In general, we need to stop operating on the assumption that all groups are identical.
Equal treatment will result in unequal outcomes. Therefore unequal outcomes do not prove unequal treatment. The justification for race quotas and affirmative action disappears, and it becomes obvious they’re just discrimination in favor of NAMs.
It’s pretty much what I wrote. “Writing off” are Alix’s words, used to set up a straw man argument, but I ran with it. Also: I hate stupid people.
The types of racism: another good idea for a flyer. Boy you’re full of good ideas today.
Certainly that is a good way to address it, and I think a big list of race quotes would make an excellent flyer.
Sadly, at that point in the debate (summarized in my preceding comment), it was clear that I was wasting my time on commenters like Juan. If he’s not willing to address my arguments, even the really simple ones about evolution not stopping at the neck — and what he wrote doesn’t count — then there is no point continuing.
Three flyer ideas in one day. You’re on a roll. Now if only a certain lazy blogger (*cough*Unamused*cough*) would actually make those flyers…
Default Liberal? Dubious lady? Fucking internet acronyms.
I stumbled onto this website from reading a flyer you posted on some psychology website. Fucking brilliant stuff, I’ve never seen such a concise group of science whoopass on a pretty lie probably ever. Pure comedy gold at the hamster spinning you cause.
I get frustrated arguing with people who think I’m crazy for eating like our ancestors did (caveman diet) and drink unfiltered water for the minerals. They’re all fat and miserable and look at me like I’ve got a dick growing out of my forehead even though I’m the healthiest guy they know. And that is just diets.
Got this blog bookmarked now.
I agree with this. The problem with not having a clear point at which whiteness ends, however, is that it makes it difficult to impossible for white nationalists to develop a non-arbitrary criteria for who stays and who goes in their desired future white ethnostate.
I’ve read threads on Stormfront that debate this issue, and there doesn’t appear to be much consensus. Some adopt the old adage of “it looks, acts and fights white…,” whereas others want to run an autosomal DNA test and exclude anybody that’s less than 100 percent European. The later would of course exclude almost all Europeans, except for isolates like Sardinians and Basques. Most European groups are 15-20 percent West Asian in terms of polymorphisms: http://i.imgur.com/sITkL.png. “Near whites” like Turks, Georgians, Armenians, and Iranians have significantly greater West Asian ancestry, but even the Adygei, who are the most prototypically West Asian group, are about 40 percent European in terms of polymorphisms. Euros and West Asians cluster together — the distinction is one of degree, and not qualitative. That said, many of those groups are Muslims, which creates a conflict, but that’s a non-genetic factor.
I’m not a white nationalist, but I do consider the preservation of the European phenotype to be desirable, in addition to recognizing the tribal nature of humans. Genetic similarity might be one precondition for tribal affinity, but it’s not a sufficient condition. Tribes and nations will form organically, and while they may involve some degree of genetic similarity, it won’t be upon the basis of a one-drop rule.
More flyers please! The two you’ve already done have been extraordinarily handy. I don’t frequent the SLAWB sites; I don’t have your patience with idiots. I do, however, visit some movement conservative (i.e. right-liberal) sites where the “we’re all created equal” logical fallacy still reigns supreme. Linking a flyer saves me a tremendous amount of time in debunking their pseudo-arguments (I’m impervious to name-calling and “shaming”), and just occasionally gets someone to check out your site (and then perhaps your linked sites?) and if I open only one individual’s eyes, I’ve done well and am pleased. I’m sure this will get me banned more and more as time goes on, but for now I link you, and SBPDL, whenever the opportunity arises.
People are always saying they’re “not white nationalist” and I’m not sure what it means any more. Do you mean you’re not part of any WN group or you disagree with WN on some policy point?
I’m stumbling towards putting together some idea of what people think WN means. Is it too exceptionalist? Too mean? Too Jew-critical? Something else?
OK. I absentmindedly neglected to take note of the italics around “as a group,” and so took it to mean ‘writing off blacks en masse,’ in terms of educational development, etc.
But I think I’m onto something in implying that much of the resistance you and yours encounter is of your own making. To make such measured statements within posts in which more base invective flies is to invite trouble; it’s difficult to jump from modes of serious scientific-based inquiry and discussion to venting-and-bonding amongst one’s group and not create misunderstandings.
Here — and i’m usually hesitant to put on my amateur-psychologist hat — I think that’s because many of you are pissed off and resentful from having been ex-communicated by your age-and-ethnic demographic peers, save their SWPL-profiles; e.g., how many of you are still pissed at those hottie SWPL undergrads you sat beside in your undergrad days but disavowed you because of your oh-so un-p.c. world views? I say this because, it seems to me, much of the overall tone of resentment you find in sites like these seem to be directed at some hypothetical SWPL monolith rather than, say, minorities, stereotypical or outlier in profile, or some other non-peer group. That’s understandable, but it also explains some of the enmity you create, however intentional or not.
Speculation, I know — but an ongoing strain that i can’t help but seem to notice and believe is manifesting here and at similar sites.
If anything else, I think a “kinds of racism” post would, among other things, help further parse a sense of just who the collective ‘other’ is you are often addressing during the more casual and subjective moments of these posts and comments.
For me, one of the biggest problems with it is that it’s a mismatch for my personality type. Operationally, I’m basically a loner, with a handful of friends who don’t really think like me and aren’t fully aware of my views on things. I can’t say that I relate very well to most white people, nor do I enjoy their company that much. In short, I’m somewhat alienated from mainstream society, although I act “normal” for the sake of keeping interactions smooth so that I can get what I need and want in the world. I don’t really have a tribe or people that I belong to. Additionally, about half of the friends and acquaintances that I’ve had over the course of my life have been West, South or East Asian, and I’ve never really experienced any hostility or tension with said groups. So while I identify with the cultural achievements of Western civilization, find white women the hottest (although not exclusively — I think a lot of Caucasian’esque mixed race women are pretty smokin’), and would like to see both Western civilization and the white phenotype preserved in the future, I don’t feel that I actually have an identity as a member of a group. That said, I recognize the danger of this in a world in which most peoples are unapologetically group-identified.
Also, the most visible white nationalists over the course of the past thirty years have been sociopaths and mentally ill. You know who I am referring to: those who wear Halloween costumes all year round — SS/SA uniforms, skinhead garb, Klan robes, etc. I don’t view these groups as unrepresentative of the movement either, as I have spent enough time perusing Stormfront — which is THE most popular WN site — to know better. WN’s associated with the HBD-sphere tend to have a decent analysis how the world operates, but 14/88’ers are complete morons. Their views are not merely simplistic, but they’re often completely false, and they have very little concern about researching anything thoroughly before opening their mouths. Also, the stereotype of them being mean assholes is not inaccurate — “n*gger lover,” “race traitor,” and various racial slurs are all used pretty liberally, and they make no secret of their desire for an apocalyptic race war where the traitors are purged. These people are sociopathic nutcases, and I would never want to be associated with them in any way, much less have any of them as a friend. The Jew-hatred is also pathological. There might be something to the notion of elite Jews advocating multiculturalism as a survival strategy, but intermarriage rates suggest that most Jews are not as ethnocentric as is commonly claimed.
Thirdly, “white” is not a nation or cultural identity unto itself. America itself consists of a number of white subcultures that despise each other on ideological, cultural and religious/non-religious grounds. I don’t see their common genetic heritage as much of a basis for unity.
Fourthly, I don’t view the WN program as being especially realistic. Sure, I can foresee the race denialist intellectual paradigm breaking down in the future with new revelations in population genetics, increased ethnic tensions due to the cutting of social programs and changing demographics, among other causes. That said, even with a renewed rise in tribalism, I don’t see things shaking out as WN’s hope. For example, I think white Americans will end up integrating with Asian Americans, even if we decide that we want to avoid “NAMs.” In my experience, upper-middle-class whites are legitimately non-racist toward Asians, not just in theory as they are in relation to blacks, but in practice they are willing to share the same neighborhoods, have them as friends, intermarry with them, etc. Take a look at this map: http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer. Zoom in on San Francisco and look at the Richmond and Sunset districts. You will see almost a 50/50 White/Asian split with no block-by-block segregation. The recent Pew Study on interracial marriage shows that 46 percent of U.S.-born Asians married non-Asians (mostly white) in 2008: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1616/american-marriage-interracial-interethnic. U.S.-born Hispanics intermarried at a rate of 39.4 percent during the same year. American Jews intermarried at a rate of 52 percent during 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism. The future of the dominant demographic group in America will be predominantly European with some Middle Eastern, Asian and Amerindian admixture, and that will be the case even if race realism gains mainstream respectability.
I’m pissed off because the leftists who control the government and media are relentlessly attacking my ethnic group, subjecting us to everything from screaming fits to gang rape to taxes, and then laughing at us when our suffering is revealed.
Acknowledged.
I was speaking specifically about some of the tangents in tone that arise from the commenters here and at similar blogs, and how that may cause some of misunderstanding and misinterpretation (as it did in my initial response to Unamused’s, a few comments up), whether that’s a particular concern by regulars here or not.
Regarding “much of the resistance you and yours encounter is of your own making”: my earliest comments, some of which have been deleted (or deleted and then restored), were patient and reasonable.
My distinguished opponents responded as follows (I had fun putting this list together): “GOD DAMNED BLINDINGLY STUPID,” “SO FUCKING IGNORANT,” “RACIST ASS,” “illiterate ass,” “shut your fool mouth,” “bullshit methodology LIKE THE ENTIRE FIELD OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY,” “racist junk science,” “you like to flaunt your white-supremacy flag,” “troll,” “[t]rolling,” “I, for one, am okay with him starving to death,” “[s]crew the pseudoscientists,” “ass backwards white supremacist balderdash,” “I’m surprised you weren’t aborted a long time ago,” “[o]bvious troll is obvious,” “[g]o back to your cave,” “provide some real evidence and cited that isn’t debunked eugenics or pseudo-science,” “[t]hese theories honestly have no fucking purpose other than to subjugate others,” “I got too sick of reading this junk science to refer to any of Unamused’s other ‘sources,'” “[r]acists attract other racists, and complaining about racist ‘research’ sure does bring out the racist trolls,” “insecure about their own intelligence/beauty/other factor,” and this gem from Syd:
I want to emphasize that those were their counterarguments. Here, in its entirety, is the solitary attempt to cite a source:
Now, if they provided some way to find this study, I could either debunk it (immigrants means sample bias), debunk this interpretation (what were they testing?), or put it in the context of all the other research on race differences in intelligence (like much bigger and more recent adoption and twin studies). But they did not. Also, I had already been effectively banned.
My patience is not limitless, nikcrit.
Regarding your highly presumptuous amateur psychoanalysis: please refrain from doing that.
I might as well say “you disagree with me about the relative influence of genes on the intelligence gap because your mommy didn’t love you enough.” It’s on exactly the same level.
I have not been “ex-communicated by your age-and-ethnic demographic peers” because I do not discuss politics with my friends, except the ones I meet through this blog. I am not, nor have I ever been, “pissed at those hottie SWPL undergrads you sat beside in your undergrad days but disavowed you because of your oh-so un-p.c. world views” because I do not argue about race with “hottie SWPL undergrads.” Have drinks? Yes. Hit on? Yes. Stare at their breasts? Absolutely. Argue about race? No.
Our resentment is indeed directed toward stupid, liberal, anti-white bigots (for reasons which must now be obvious), and not minorities. We don’t hate (non-Asian) minorities at all, though we do hate their crime rates.
OK. Point taken. But I don’t think that’s the same.
Why? You and many commenters here often specifically target SWPL-lib types and rhetoric in your posts and replies. That’s all fine, and actually, IMHO, justified. And sometimes I think that is so to the extent that some here actually up the invective and gall in their replies specifically because of that exasperation with said types and rhetoric. So, from there, all I’m saying is that possibly might be the cause of some of the misunderstanding when some lump your site alongside the Stormfront-type ventures. (And please note that I stated that such a presumption may or MAY NOT be a specific concern of your regular commenters here.)
Now what’s that got to do with you talkin’ mess ’bout my mama? :)
PS to Unamused,
And just for the record and for clarification:
I don’t necessarily at all disagree with you over “the relative influence of genes on the intelligence gap”… perhaps just over what to do about it from there.
Let me second this. Many of us, nikrit, “resentful at having been excommunicated by your age-and-ethnic demographic peers,” were actually raised as leftists and actually matured both intellectually and physically, as opposed to merely aging and becoming ignorant adults like so many around us. No one has excommunicated me, but I have excommunicated many (former) friends and relatives. At 52, and deeply concerned about the country my children and potential grandchildren will be forced to survive in, I have no time or patience left for the race-blind, the do-gooders, or the sanctimonious.
It’s heart warming, I’m sure, that you’ve chosen to devote your life to teaching NAMs life skills and achieving their limited individual potential. After decades of experience, however, I fully understand that beneath the surface of those blacks “who are not like that,” roils the same resentment and rage and entitlement.
I have disengaged socially as much as possible from proposition-nation society, and being lectured about my intellectual disengagement/resentment on a race-realist blog is really a bit much, especially on a relaxed Saturday at home enjoying the company of my White family.
Our rhetoric (about their rhetoric) is certainly a possible topic of debate. Our motives, however, are not. Psychoanalytic meta-argumentation, as in (hypothetically) “you only say that because you’re angry at the world,” crosses a line. It’s always baseless, and it’s always insulting.
As for the rhetoric itself: I generally agree with you. In this case, I’ve obviously been intentionally rude. Justified? Possibly. Productive? Probably not. Do I care, in this case? Not really. It’s not my usual arguing style, but it can be relaxing, from time to time.
Regarding your clarification: sure, I didn’t mean you disagreed about genes and the intelligence gap. It was an example of the sort of thing I might say to a hypothetical opponent if I were inclined to psychoanalyze him. A confusing analogy, I know.
Sheila et al.,
Hold off a moment please.
RE. “excommunicated by SWPL’s.”
My deepest apologies; it was just an expression (and in hindsight, perhaps a rather tepid one at that); just saying that it often seems to me that, when imagining some hypothetical audience for many of the commenters here, I can’t help but see this rank SWPL collective, and however justifiably, the added invective and rancor this creates in the comments probably confuses those less-initiated amongst sites like these, as I was not so long ago. That’s all I was saying…
RE. “It’s heart warming, I’m sure, that you’ve chosen to devote your life to teaching NAMs life skills and achieving their limited individual potential.”
Not so fast. This biracial NAM has only been up to his neck in the public-school mire for just over three years. Before that? He spent a decade in the altruistic pursuit of serving as a popular-music critic for a large mid-Western newspaper. And for that record, I’m likely to take a buyout from my ‘life’s devotion’ sometime over the summer — before post-traumatic stress disorder gets the best of me.
Well, that’s what happens when a certain level of invective is allowed to see print, however little of it, at a blog. And that’s why so many such race blogs are a waste-of-time pissfest.
So why allow even limited amounts of that kind of ‘discourse’ at a blog that mainly features principled studies and debate?
I mean, it’s all yours to decide of course, but if so you can only expect more of the same, right?
Why are blacks so oily? What’s up with that? Who thought it was a good idea to comb their hair with a pork chop?
More importantly, why are blacks so greasy-looking in this day and age?
True, there are probably too many tangents and too much invective. I try to control my anger and adopt as genial a tone as possible. Sometimes I am successful.
@ nikcrit
That happened at Sociological Images, not here. And a blog doesn’t need debate to be productive. I’d rather write a new flyer than try to convince some (demonstrably) ignorant person that black people aren’t merely white people with dark skin.
anon666 wrote:
I’m merely speculating but I think the issue with regards to the popularity of Stormfront is that frustrated whites who are upset by the course which the U.S. is taking have no other explicitly white forum that gets the kind of media exposure Stormfront gets. More intellectual (and more useful) venues that are explicitly white, such as AmRen, are practically blacked out by the MSM. Meanwhile, Stormfront is occasionally paraded on the news as a sort of freak show. Some upset whites see this and curiously check it out, then get addicted to futilely venting their frustration, never actually learning anything as they would if they were exposed to Jared Taylor’s work instead. Thus, people get sucked into the angry conspiratorial circle-jerking because it is, unfortunately, the only thing that can relieve their fears over a vague notion that something is not right, but their ignorance of scholarly sources regarding HBD and white identity leave them in the dark as to exactly what that something is. I suppose it’s sort of like that plant that lures flies into its trap and slowly digests them.
(DL) Double log in, a sock puppet. I’m afriad I picked that up from my old forum lurking days…
@ Sheila
Glad to hear it. Yes, I’ve noticed you’re sending a number of people my way. Some of them are now fans. And yes, I will write more flyers. The only problem is I hate doing the research.
Yeah, the hosts are often too far gone, but you get some open minded people on mainstream forums. They just need to see the evidence presented in a fair manner.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=31913285
You make some good points here:
The multicultist position is that somehow the forces of “sexism-racism-homophobia-xenophobia” (did I leave out anything?) are dominant in Western society. Yet the opposite is the case. It has been the PC branch of liberalism-cultural Marxism which is the dominant ideology in the Western world, especially its propaganda organs: media, academia, corporate foundations, government flakes, etc.
Her statement is a product of ideology. She attempts to deal with a discordant scientific message not by challenging it on the facts but rather by plugging in the usual sloganeering to distance and discredit unorthodox findings. It just may be that Kanazawa is wrong, but this is a matter for dispassionate scientific debate, which will not be forthcoming when people’s jobs are at risk for making un-PC statements.
Look at it in the bigger picture. We are told that racism (and sexism, et cetera) is a major issue in the USA. Yet one can not find a single law which discriminates against blacks, nor a single major institution which does not have some kind of pro-black program (such as university black studies departments). The multicultists have gotten their promised land, but it seems to be not quite what their own propaganda promised them it would be. So they start their witch hunts, and Kanazawa is one more victim.
Just wanted to let you know, as a random reader, that you are a mean guy and pretty much on the ball. It’s people like you that make the Internet a revolutionary technology.
Don’t ever think that what you do does not have an impact.
But why do you cite The Racial Compact? It’s rubbish.
I disagree. I haven’t read every article, but I generally agree with what I’ve seen so far. The article I cited looks like a good introduction to race and human evolution.
Ditto what Anon666 wrote except my friends/acquaintances are Jews not Asians. Not to self-aggrandize but I was a member of Mensa until I realized how insipid a group of SLAWB puzzle freaks it was and quit. My point here is that “whites” have an average IQ of 100 and that is painfully dull. Think cop-level or TSA-stooge-level IQ. I have zero in common with them other than basic Western mores. Jews and Asians are typically smarter but still I find my own company to be most comfortable.
anon666, that was a very nice reply and I’m thinking about it more. I don’t go much to Stormfront for the reasons you’ve outlined.
I too am pretty much a loner. Mainstream white culture seems to have gone wacky of late, something that was very obvious to me from about age 10 to age 15 as I watched people get mesmerized by musicians with weird hair and TV personalities with weird facial expressions. From about age 15 to 30 I told myself all sorts of weird lies about how at least mass culture wasn’t as bad a rednecks.
“Not as bad as rednecks” is a formulation I used to keep myself at peace with the whiter people for quite a while. If I had discovered Evola earlier I think I would have been much happier. Too bad.
It often makes me wonder why I care about white preservation at all. Basically, I was able to come up with the following: 1) Whites make good neighbors — even if I don’t want to hang out with most of them — and create/maintain prosperous and stable civilizations (at least when not following self-sacrificial ideologies). The same could probably also be said about East Asians, however, although their civilizations appear to demand a stifling level of conformity that I would buck under. 2) Caucasian women are the prettiest, and it would be a shame for features like blue/green eyes and blonde/red/light brown hair to become more rare. 3) This isn’t so much a racial reason, but I basically subscribe to a realist philosophy based upon a combination of influences from Darwin and Nietzsche that views politics as little more than a competition between competing interests, and that one should never apologize about striving the power necessary to do what you want with your life. I admire the west during the periods where it was the most Nietzschean, and would be inspired if that spirit were revived. 4) Blacks and Mexicans regard me as “white”, even if I don’t happen to identify with most whites.
On the subject of Asians, I often find myself watching Japanese anime because many series still revolve around epic “Will to Power” themes that celebrate the exceptional, whereas western entertainment seems to celebrate the degenerate. I also listen to heavy metal and black metal because I enjoy its vast and epic atmosphere and lyrical themes.
But nobody else around me cares about any of this.
Ah yes, “Ride the Tiger” and whatnot?
I have a number of SWPL tendencies, at least as far as food and drink are concerned. I am also one of those urban bicyclists who doesn’t own a car and who has a minimalistic lifestyle. Still, the ideology of most other SWPLs makes their company pretty hard to tolerate for extended periods and impossible to actually desire.
I though I already told you that I went through ALL these studies. Here is the study: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tizard-1974-race-and-iq.pdf.
I discussed this in “Race, genes, & intelligence, part 2” point 20: Controlled Environment Study (Tizard et al., 1974).
To put the results in perspective, we can ask how much would the hereditarian hypothesis constrain us when it comes to explaining the difference, assuming the following IQs (W=101, BW= 109 BB= 106) (refer to figure above)?
First, we have to make some assumptions about the genotypic IQs of the parents, assuming a hereditarian point of view. The ancestrally African parents were immigration selected UK West Africans. Their IQ’s were unknown but Tizard tells us that “in both studies genetic aspects were neither controlled for nor adequately known, that is, the children had not been randomly assigned to different environments and no parental IQs were available. It could therefore be argued that the non-white parents may have been of higher IQ than the white parents… [w]e found no evidence to support such hypotheses… the occupations of a third of the natural fathers was unknown, but for the rest there was not significant difference between the proportion of manual and non-manual workers in the different racial groups or different home or nursery environments.” Tizard makes the case that the parents of the Black and Mixed children did not have higher IQs than the parents of the White children; by the same logic, of course, it follows that they did not have lower IQs. Any difference between the offspring, therefore, would have to be due to regression towards the mean (.6 x n; where n is the parental SD above the population mean).
Let’s assume that the adult European-West African genotypic gap is 1.3 SD. Based on this, we would predict that the Black and biracial orphans (mean age 3.5) would have IQs .16 SD and .08 SD below the White IQs, respectively. (Black: 1.3 (parental SD above the population mean) x .6 (regression) x .2 (heritability at age 3.5); Biracial: 1/2 Black.)
Now, to account for the gaps, environmentalists would have to maintain that the Black and biracial orphans had a superior environment equivalent to .6 SD and .37 SD, respectively. (Black = .53 SD above white; .53/sqrt of environmentality at age 3.5 (.8) = .6SD; Mixed = .33 above white; .33/sqrt of environmentality at age 3.5 (.8) = .37.) We know they likely did have a superior environment, because Tizard tells us “..one the other hand, in both studies the relationship between the children’s test scores and measured aspects of the environment was shown to be large and significant.”
What about hereditarians? Hereditarians would have predicted that the gaps would be slightly less in favor of the Blacks and Mixed orphans (Black= .6-.16 SD = .44 SD; Mixed .37-.08 SD = .29SD. (Environmental advantage minus genotypic disadvantage.) This is an important and often missed point: given a Black and mixed environmental advantage and given the low H^2 at this age, hereditarians would not have predicted that the Black and Mixed orphans would have lower IQs.
Effectively, to account for the difference, hereditarians would have to maintain that the Black and biracial orphans had a slightly extra superior environment — equivalent to .77 SD and .46 SD instead of the environmentalists .6 and .33 SD. (Black = .53 + .16 SD above white; .69/sqrt of environmentality at age 3.5 (.8) = .77SD; Mixed = .33 + .08 above white; .41/sqrt of heritability at age 3.5 (.2) = .46.) Given the N’s, the difference of +.17 and + .13, relative to what the environmentalists themselves have to maintain, is not statistically significant.
In general, while this study does support the environmental hypothesis (against the global hereditarian hypothesis), it doesn’t provide more than weak support. As demonstrated by the many US early intervention programs (e.g Perry, Abecedarian, and Chicago Early Childhood program) and adoption studies (Scarr and Moore), environmental differences can lead to substantial differences in intelligence at young ages but this difference later washes out. Basically, studies that measure differences at low ages without controlling for environments or genetics are not too informative and so cannot be given much weight.
One can compare this with the results of Willerman et al. (1974).
Hahaha, I should have known. I couldn’t even find this study, but you’ve already found and dealt with it.
My understanding of the research is, essentially, “Chuck has already dealt with it,” but sometimes I do not actually bother to look up where you do.
RE: the “invective” at Stormfront and other more base sites,
You have two dynamics here. One is simply duller whites posting their frustrations and anger as a result of forced contact with still duller Africans and others lacking Western mores. The second is brighter whites utterly fed up with the nonsense and imbecility inherent in the belief system that claims a race which has landed its people on the moon and its machines on Mars has the same intelligence as a race that never developed a written language or evolved past the Stone Age.
I, for one, completely lack the patience to debate such a believer in absurdly obvious nonsense. At the same age I realized Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy were make believe I realized too that Negroes were intellectually deficient and an admission that one progressed into adulthood with any of these beliefs is an admission of either mental deficiency or a delusion based on fanaticism. In either case, such believers are simply best avoided.
Anyone that can reconcile Western History and Science in elementary school with African History without cognitive dissonance and rejection of the “equality” fairy tale is an imbecile or junior tool who will grow to become a cult member in adulthood.
Why should we worry about saving them in either case?
[…] Unamused – “From Norway with (Nonconsensual) Love“, “More Hot White Girls“, “Who Am I Arguing With Now? Vacation Edition” […]
Unamused, I wish I could write as well as you. Anyway, at first blush, it appears that you were debating a bunch of cretins. Cretins or fanatical cult-members — or maybe a combination of the two.
Your blog continues to be a highlight of my day.
The energy it takes to argue with these incredibly obtuse pollyannas is draining. (Note the ‘argue’ as opposed to ‘debate’. These twinkies don’t debate. They’re insecure 14 year old girls.)
You are a great crusader. Keep the chin up. Never lose the humor.
Injun Jimmy Swaggart
Cross posting a new comment I belatedly made at Abagond’s on an old thread I commented on heavily when it was current.
As I said, that’s essentially what I’ve done. Or rather what Cavalli-Sforza has done.
Except when talking about “major geographic populations” i.e. races, he leaves off Pygmies, since they’re tiny in number and only live in a couple of relatively tiny areas of Africa. One could have put Khoisan/Bushmen on your list too but they’re omitted from the major races list for the same reasons. Also native Australians and New Guineans are nearly always combined for similar reasons. Then, using more popular names I’ll slightly reframe your list thusly:
1. Australian Aborigines
2. SE Asians/Austronesians/Pacific Islanders
3. Amerindians
4. NE Asians
5. Caucasians /Arabs/Iranians
6. Sub Saharan Africans
And maybe
(7). S. Asian Indians
Which is what I said on this site initially.
One can make a pretty good case for having a 7th major geographic race, S Asian Indians. They appear from genetic studies to be a complex mixture of an early substrate of Austronesians/Aborigines (before those groups slip apart on the beach combing migration that ended up in SE Asia and Australia), and Caucasians from Mesopotamia (Dravidians), Iran and Central Asia. In eastern India and Bangladesh there’s some E. Asian admixture as well. Extensive genetic work on India has only been coming in more recently. There’s also a good bit of internal Indian sensitivities involved. There are caste differences and regional ones. Also Indians have historically liked to think of themselves as more (entirely) Caucasian than they now appear to be (probably as a result of British colonialism, with the early plausibility that linguistic study of Sanskrit, an Indo European family language, gave to that).
Voila. This division is WIDELY culturally recognized in America, Europe and elsewhere. I think Indians are widely seen as a separate major race by most, especially non-Indians. We have all of these races in fairly substantial numbers in the US, other than Australian Aborigines who don’t get around much.
Nope, it works very well with commonly held social constructs of race, as I’ve slightly reworked it.
As for people thinking about 3-4 races only, nope. Europeans and Americans may tend to forget about Aborigines and no they aren’t very important historically or at present to other groups, but they are socially recognized as being very racially different from Caucasians and NE Asians. Many Americans and probably more Europeans combine North and SE Asians into East Asians, but everyone with much familiarity of NE and SE Asians realizes they’re pretty different.
Brits talk mostly about Europeans, Asians and blacks, and by Asians they have in mind S Asian Pakistanis and Indians, but they definitely recognize NE Asians such as Chinese as a distinctly different race.
No, my group of 6 or 7 based on biology and how major the group is (which is part of the argument for splitting out S. Asians from Caucasians), works VERY well with socially constructed notions of what the major races are in societies around the world, provided they’ve come into sufficient contact directly or vicariously with each of them.
*******************
I posted this because there was a moment there when he wasn’t arguing with me or perceived enemies where Abagond WAS persuaded by the evidence that race has a strong biological substrate after all. Of course he’s long since gone back to asserting that it’s merely a social construct.
Unamused —
It would be great to see you take apart Nisbett’s counter-evidence and purported refutation of the hereditary evidence on IQ. I did some of that with suspect studies on one Abagond thread a few months back, but your style of thorough, collected, and ironic amusing taking apart would be great.
I guarantee you Chuck has already dealt with it.
I enjoyed Mira’s “argument from non-expert opinion”: “since [I claim that] a bunch of people, who don’t know anything about genetics or human evolution, only mostly agree with your genetic definition of race (e.g., they can’t see the difference between Pygmy and Central Congoid), it follows that I don’t have to address the uncomfortable ramifications of genetic race.”
@ J.A.Y. and I.J.
big smelly hobo hatred-hugs all round
When you get a chance I’d love a link.
Unamused,
Perhaps a few of us could collaborate on some of these proposed flyers. In case you are interested, I set up a google group. Email: HBioD@googlegroups.com
@ Chuck
Let’s do it.
This is not even an issue, let alone a problem.
WN’s don’t desire a single “future white ethnostate.” They desire as many as necessary to make everyone happy.
If this ever ends up in a flyer, I’d suggest replacing antibody production with perhaps something more popular, such as mutant hemoglobin (sickle cell), because:
1.) Antibody production is largely a function of exposure to antigen, and subsequent clonal B-cell response. So your serum antibody profile (excluding auto-antibodies) is pretty much a result of environment. Genetics may determine the frequency of HLA molecule classes, but VDJ recombination is responsible for the B-cell receptors that recognize antigen (blah, blah, blah, genetics shapes the immune system’s architecture, but antibody production isn’t directed by genetics).
2.) Everybody’s heard of sickle cell anemia, and everyone knows that it’s found only in African/African American populations. Its genetic basis is well documented, and its frequencies are well known, Evidently it arose in response to malaria. Cool fact: the Plasmodium parasite’s metabolism adds oxidative stress to the hemoglobin molecule, and in response, cells containing sickle hemoglobin become misshapen and are removed by the spleen. A good thing when removing parasite filled cells, a bad thing when you’re trying to run/climb at high altitudes and your cells are all contorting at once, plugging up capillaries all over the damn place. Could genes that contribute to enhanced intelligence arise in response to different pressures? God, I sure hope so.
Thank you, RR, that’s better. I believe I was thinking of blood groups (A, B, O, and so on), but I didn’t pause to look up an accurate description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABO_blood_group_system#ABO_antigens
@ Doug1,
I totally flaked on the Nisbett rebuttal: “Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It” (Rushton and Jensen, 2010). A PDF version is available here.
[…] unamusementpark.wordpress.com […]