Rushton Debates Race; Suzuki Pitches a Fit
Apr 21st, 2012 by Unamused
Canadian zoologist and environmental activist David Suzuki disgraces himself in this classic 1989 debate from the CBC Digital Archives (also available on YouTube).
THE STORY: David Suzuki and professor Philipe Rushton sit on stage before a politically charged crowd. This one-on-one debate is about race and genetics. Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, has released his controversial study that places Orientals, Caucasians and Blacks in an evolutionary hierarchy. The crux of Rushton’s argument is that Orientals have higher IQ, are more law-abiding and are more sexually restrained than the other races.
Suzuki debunks Rushton’s work as pseudo-science. “I do not believe that we should dignify this man and his ideas in public debate,” Suzuki says to a cheering audience.
Er, not quite. Saying “I refuse to debate this man and his ideas!” is not the same as “debunking” those ideas. The best “science” Suzuki could come up with was Lewontin’s Fallacy.
DID YOU KNOW?
- “I did not want to be here. I do not believe that we should dignify this man and his ideas in public debate. His claims must be denounced, his methodology discredited, his grant revoked and his position terminated at this university. This is not science.” — David Suzuki in the debate.
- While Suzuki was widely accepted as the winner in the debate, some critics felt that he didn’t attack Rushton’s study on a scientific basis.
- Philipe Rushton was removed from the classroom temporarily and delivered his lectures via video. On the basis of intellectual freedom he was subsequently reinstated in the classroom and continues to teach at the University of Western Ontario as of 2003.
That about sums it up: all the facts are on Rushton’s side; Suzuki refuses to debate him and instead calls for him to be persecuted; most but not all audience members are already too brainwashed by political correctness (in 1989) to notice who really won the debate; Rushton is subsequently persecuted for being right and refusing to be silenced.
these are the same type of folks who will talk about how unscientific and intolerant the xtians of the past were. looks like these are their offspring.
Example 8 million of the left not being liberal + open minded when it comes to other opinions and research that conflicts their beliefs.
Rasheed followed couple to their rooms and forced them to perform sex acts in front of him. Then locked the males in the bathroom and assaulted the females.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132933/Gunman-stalked-couples-motels-forced-sex-caught–shows-court-traffic-summons.html
these are the same type of folks who will talk about how unscientific and intolerant the xtians of the past were. looks they these are their offspring.
They are. Get thee to Moldbug.
When I was an undergraduate studying genetics at a Canadian university in the early 1980′s, I had the misfortune of being assigned Suzuki as a guest lecturer for one of my core classes. He was imperialist, pompous and more. We all cheered when he left campus.
None of us learned anything of merit from his tutelage, except that if you don’t have an answer, hector the questioner.
Frank Miele wrote an excellent book “Conversations with Arthur Jensen” which is basically set out as a long interview with Jensen on various issues and his career. I’d be fascinated to see a similar book, or autobiography from Rushton.
He has gone directly into the teeth of politically correct orthodoxy and faced incredible vitriol as a result. Linda Gottfredson is another who wrote a brief biographical essay on his faculty page, setting out the hostility she faced as a result of doing research on group IQ differences.
Check out this video of a white chimpout: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjRxmomNCLc
“You’re right.” OH, HE SNAPPED
Why are white people so violent?
When you think about it, when someone starts calling you a racist when you are pointing out the truth about black people, what they are doing essentially is changing the subject. Changing the subject to you. Women/Feminists do the same infantile bullshit like a child.
I always say, “it doesn’t have anything to do with me. Why are you so interested in talking about me all of the sudden?” Imagine someone talking, “yea, I really liked our trip to Virginia last summer.” And the other person responds with, “yea I had to change my diet- I was getting overweight.” It really is state hospital weird/stupid/crazy.
Call these retards out- point at them and laugh. SHAME them. Make people laugh at them.
“Hey, instead of suddenly changing the subject to me, why don’t you do something new? Like actually prove me wrong. Oh, that’s right.. you can’t – that’s why you’re using sleazy ‘tactics’ like a pickpocket – ‘hey, look over there!’ While you steal my wallet.”
It also means this person is very untrustworthy- certainly not someone I would associate with. A snake. They’re calling your character into question about being ‘racist’ but meanwhile they’re showing themselves as sleazy snakes that would back stab you as soon as they got a chance.
Such silly human beings playing holier than thou games (David Suzuki), et.al). Of course, there are inherent racial differences in behavior and intelligence! And of course, in the evolution of mankind, there were different distinct human races. No “scientific” studies are needed to verify what is in front of your eyeballs, just honesty and courage from the PC crowd. No, the human race did not come from blacks or out of Africa. The blacks migrated into Africa from India which they have genetically regressed since. The blacks were living under and culturally worse than Stone Age conditions until the whites appeared. Although, the blacks are still regressing.
See The Urantia Book (can be read online) on how the different colored races appeared on this planet, Paper 64. Why the white race of today possess the highest IQ, Paper 74, 80. High IQ gives rise to advanced civilizations as reflected in inventions, innovations, types of government, level of culture, social behavior, etc., Paper 81 (Development of Modern Civilization). The biggest challenge of mankind in the future will be the control of the “enormously increasing groups of the subnormal” as is happening in Africa, India, South America, and Southeast Asia, (Paper 68). In Paper 82, page 919, it goes into “Racial Mixtures”. The survival of this country depends on “the quality of the racial factors which are permitted to enter into its present and future populations, as well as by the level of the social culture which is maintained.” Paper 80, page 899. By its present immigration patterns and the cultural level, this country is in deep, deep trouble.
I watched most of this debate a few weeks ago.
I agree with the general theory that Suzuki’s argument was mainly an inflammatory appeal to political correctness. He is a typical educated fool.
Suzuki does refer to one paper from (I think) the 60s (70s?) that he claims refutes the genetic basis of IQ differences – but other than that his invective is fact-free, and even argument-free.
Suzuki is a geneticist but he passes off as the premier Canadian authority on all things climatology, which extends to his attacks on the country’s industries and oil sands operations. His foundation has charitable status which equates to major tax breaks, and on top of that his climate-change propaganda is spewed from his own programs on the state broadcaster, ie. tax dollars.
He also recently produced a fear-mongering bit for children on the North Pole melting endangering Santa Claus. Check out a video of him back in his hippie college days where he talks to a bunch of impressionable kids and refers to humans as maggots. This man is not only insane, he is dangerous in the way that certain insane people convince their listeners that they are the voice of reason.
***I always say, “it doesn’t have anything to do with me. Why are you so interested in talking about me all of the sudden?”***
Very true. I find in online debates, after finding I actually have some data to back up my claims they turn to asking why I am “invested” in the subject.
“Suzuki is a geneticist but he passes off as the premier Canadian authority on all things climatology,”
You have it backwards. He is a comparitive expert on climatology. But he is only passing himself off as a geneticist.
“which extends to his attacks on the country’s industries and oil sands operations.”
As it should. What you have here is called a conflict of interest. Science doesn’t bow down to the interests of conservatives who want to keep doing whatever makes them money or whatever they’ve been doing for decades. Science tells you how the world works, and what effects your actions will have. It says Canada’s industries will have a devastating effect on the world unless they are doing more intelligently with a method that doesn’t emit greenhouse gasses. It says that burning oil from Canada’s oil sands will release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.
His foundation has charitable status which equates to major tax breaks, and on top of that his climate-change propaganda is spewed from his own programs on the state broadcaster, ie. tax dollars.
As it should. That’s because it affects everyone, and the problem is caused by everyone except people like him. So everyone has to pay to fix it.
He also recently produced a fear-mongering bit for children on the North Pole melting endangering Santa Claus.
It’s a good enough metaphor.
This man is not only insane, he is dangerous in the way that certain insane people convince their listeners that they are the voice of reason.
That’s because he says reasonable things about global warming, and then insane and dangerous things about race. You are even more dangerous though, for the same reason, you say reasonable things about race and then insane and dangerous things about global warming. Unfortunately, global warming is an order of magnitude more serious than white genocide, and that’s saying something.
“Very true. I find in online debates, after finding I actually have some data to back up my claims they turn to asking why I am “invested” in the subject.
It’s an unfortunate limitation of human psychology. Most people are interested in people first and the subject is only secondary to them. Plus they’re trying to avoid noticing they have no arguments left. It’s best to try and stop things turning into debates, and to discuss things offline where people are nicer.
BPWP,
The national dialogue IS changing though.
It’s a slow process and takes a lot of well-aimed ammunition (arguments), but eventually the field of fire will be so thick their only two choices will be to hunker down and never pop their heads back up (the whole idea behind suppressive fire is not so much to kill, but to keep the enemy from moving, spotting you, and firing back in any organized or aimed way) or be hit with arguments of truth.
More and more partisans are fighting on our side than ever before. Keep fighting, keep arguing, keep finding new recruits.
BPWP:
“Unfortunately, global warming is an order of magnitude more serious than white genocide, and that’s saying something.”
Actually, most people are moving away from the man-caused global warming theory, so when we pay for this indoctrination (which is just an extension of man is evil, capitalism is evil and will destroy the planet) of our children, it makes us all poorer.
But you know what really pisses me off? The “anti-global warming” crowd wastes billions on things like Obamas pet solar company, but there are people who have already starved and died because of us. The stupid bio fuels trend pushed up the price of wheat in poor countries, causing starvation, for example.
There are already victims of this – which I call pseudo science (refer back to climate gate, etc.). Think about it, all of the same tactics liberals take in the race debate are the exact same tools they use in the global warming debate. It’s all bullshit! All of it! When the same guy is talking about global warming destroying the planet in 75 years (which is nothing on the scale of planetary anything) and then turns around and denounces race as being socially constructed – you can’t believe anything he says.
And here is a perfect example, Suzuki, the guy who does just that. And he’s not the only one.
Actually, most people are moving away from the man-caused global warming theory
Because of media. Most people moved toward the “Zimmmerman shot Martin in cold blood” theory too, because of the media blitz pushing it. We ought to know better than to trust the products of PR firms… shouldn’t we?
AGW-denial is pushed by the same means as race-denial. There are powerful motives for doing this, the latter involving the moralistic fallacy to a greater extent than the former, but both include huge amounts of moral/social posturing and pure self-interest. In the mean time, Hansen’s 1981 predictions have proven “eerily accurate” and even optimistic. That still hasn’t stopped the attacks on him; he is almost as heavily vilified as David Duke.
Nuclear energy is more or less a one-shot solution to AGW. The problem with nuclear energy from the point of view of fossil-fuel interests and shipping companies is that it destroys the market for the only thing they have to sell. Uranium costs a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour, coal several times that, natural gas still more, and petroleum the most of all. Many railroads would go out of business without the money they make from moving coal; uranium is a truckload or two per year. There are a LOT of oxen to be gored. There are also those on the left who hear “nuclear” and get the vapors (which is why “nuclear magnetic resonance” had to be re-named “magnetic resonance imaging”), which is why you won’t find them backing the real solution either. Unless you live in France, that is.
One huge irony is that the natural gas industry touts itself as being “greener” than coal because it emits less carbon, but the greenhouse effect of methane leaks is more than enough to wipe out the difference. The moral is to ignore the PR, only look at facts, and consider self-interest when you wonder if you’re getting the full story. Not just on race, on EVERYTHING.
“Unfortunately, global warming is an order of magnitude more serious than white genocide, and that’s saying something.”
Why is that? Who cares what happens to the universe if white people are dead?
Mimi, it’s good to have contingency plans.
BPWP: actually, you have it backwards, he is a geneticist, as evidenced by close to 40 years teaching it in a university. He also has a PhD in zoology, so nothing anywhere in his academic training having anything to do with climatology (as a comparative expert, whatever that means, or otherwise)
“What you have here is called a conflict of interest. Science doesn’t bow down to the interests of conservatives who want to keep doing whatever makes them money or whatever they’ve been doing for decades. Science tells you how the world works, and what effects your actions will have. It says Canada’s industries will have a devastating effect on the world unless they are doing more intelligently with a method that doesn’t emit greenhouse gasses. It says that burning oil from Canada’s oil sands will release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.”
I don’t think you know what the term conflict of interest means. Canada’s effect on the global carbon footprint is insignificant. Suzuki is against progress period. And he is in a racket that is very lucrative nowadays with an army of gullible people like you to justify his existence.
“That’s because it affects everyone, and the problem is caused by everyone except people like him. So everyone has to pay to fix it.”
Actually, the likes of Suzuki and Gore and the rest of these self-styled environmental heroes, in their day-to-day lives and international moralizing and posturing, have an immense carbon footprint. They are the ultimate hypocrites. And they expect others to pay for them. People who don’t agree with them shouldn’t be forced to pay for them. You seem to think that others (including the state) truly know what’s good for everyone. If Suzuki had a worthwhile message based on facts and arduous research done on his own dime, and if his so-called disciples (of which you seem to be one) really valued it and wanted a stake in the war against global warming by buying his books or contributing to his cause, he’d be independent and worthy of respect. His is not a valid charity, esp with the exorbitant salary he pays himself. Champagne socialism at its finest.
“It’s a good enough metaphor.”
You’re deranged if you think fear-mongering of this type to kids is appropriate. Especially when it’s dishonest and exaggerated. When a person has no scruples or morals as Suzuki clearly has none, the inevitable supremacy of their argument and worldview trumps methods and morality, and even justice. The ends justify the means. Socialism is worth it however barbaric the methods, and however much we ciolate human nature to get there, because after all, the cause is right.
I’m guessing you have no kids, and probably hate them, as most ecolo socialists I’ve had the misfortune to meet.
“That’s because he says reasonable things about global warming, and then insane and dangerous things about race. You are even more dangerous though, for the same reason, you say reasonable things about race and then insane and dangerous things about global warming. Unfortunately, global warming is an order of magnitude more serious than white genocide, and that’s saying something.”
When did I say anything about race? I don’t think anything Suzuki says about what you call global warming is reasonable. He is an extremist of the worst type. He doesn’t tolerate debate n the sunject. This new religion accepts no debate.
Anyway, back to my original points, Suzuki is not by any stretch an authority on the subject (albeit as a scientist, more than Al Gore, I’d bet). Also, if you want to pay for his activities which amount to little more than biased propaganda, fear-mongering, and local industry-bashing, by all means go ahead. One last thing: where is Saint Suzuki when it comes to bashing overseas sources of oil, like the dictatorial Saudis and Chavez regime and China, the latter two’s carbon footprints, it should be noted, exceed that of the oil sands.
Nick, you’re making a few errors of logic yourself. First, David Suzuki is not a climate scientist. What he says about climate ONLY matters insofar as it is backed up by the actual scientists working in the field (and the same for Al Gore). That it is, to the extent that anything that goes to the broader public is scientifically accurate.
If I understand correctly, David Suzuki also says things that are contrary to the science in the area of HBD, psychometrics, etc. When he does this he’s wrong, end of story.
Suzuki does, again IIUC, have a policy agenda. Policy agendas can be informed by science (or not) but they are not science. Therefore, his agenda is irrelevant to the science.
Now, on to Canada. Canada has an estimated 173 billion barrels of recoverable bitumen. That’s quite a bit of fossil carbon, and Canada is already pumping out a significant part of the world’s total oil/tar production. To dismiss Canada’s contribution is as foolish as to dismiss China, especially since China is buying into Canada’s tar sands and intends to consume a lot of them itself.
The real irony is that Canada developed its own heavy-water nuclear power technology (Canada Deuterium Uranium, CANDU) and could have made a mint marketing it to the world, but decided to kill its own child instead. The Canadian government nearly forced all its homegrown plants to shut down permanently. I’m sure David Suzuki, with his anti-everything agenda, was fully supportive.
“Unfortunately, global warming is an order of magnitude more serious than white genocide, and that’s saying something.”
Sadly, your beliefs are not supported in Science and your lead adherents, rather than growing, are retreating. See: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134092/Gaia-scientist-James-Lovelock-I-alarmist-climate-change.html )
Money Quotes:
‘[The temperature] has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.’
‘The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing,’ he told ‘We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear cut, but it hasn’t happened.
‘The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world. I made a mistake.’
James Lovelock- Founder of the Gaia Hypotheses and former Climate Change Nut. Quotes pulled from London Daily Mail Interview.
Can we have our cars back now?
10mm Auto, you’re making three mistakes:
1. You’re taking a piece in a popular (and somewhat tabloid-ish) publication as gospel on a scientific matter.
2. You’re taking words attributed to a very old man (after the reporter and editors got through with them!) as the last word on climate science.
3. You’re not even reading the whole article: “Now he admits: ‘We will have global warming, but it’s been deferred a bit.’“ And he still advocates… nuclear power!
The climate may not be warming much right now because solar activity has been low. But even if that lasts forever, we’re still getting positively weird weather variations (record March heat where I live) and more GHGs will eventually push hard enough to move the mercury up again. The BEST study researchers say variations like ENSO can temporarily swamp a trend. The historical temperature trend is graphed here, and clearly shows Mann’s “hockey stick”.
Warming predictions of 31 years ago have come to pass. The climate models only reproduce observed temperatures when the effect of added greenhouse gases is included. You should take this VERY seriously.
You should think of GHG mitigation as guaranteed employment for White people. Do you think ‘groids can run nuclear powerplants?
I was hugely impressed by the asian girl at 1.15 of the debate who suggests that they haven’t really had a proper debate and Suzuki hasn’t really explained why Rushton was wrong.
btw. Unamused, if you need further images for the top of your site here is perhaps a 60′s or early 70′s long haired Rushton.
http://rushtonj.blogspot.co.nz/2011/01/images-of-professor-john-philippe.html
The pro-Jensen, anti-Rushton faction:
http://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/rushton-is-the-spengler-of-race-realism/
#18: “Unfortunately, global warming is an order of magnitude more serious than white genocide, and that’s saying something.”
“Why is that? Who cares what happens to the universe if white people are dead?”
Correct.