The Company You Keep

|

Over at The Corner, anti-immigration campaigner (both legal and illegal, according to the subtitle of his book) Mark Krikorian is horrified to learn that Sarah Palin isn't sufficiently hostile to the idea of "amnesty." Nothing surprising there. What's interesting, though, is that Krikorian apparently gleaned this information while reading the website of one Lawrence Auster, to whom he approvingly links and "hat tips." And who, exactly, is Lawrence Auster? Put it this way: this is a guy whose conservatism was too extreme for David Horowitz and Frontpagemag.com; the site cut ties with Auster after the Huffington Post published a piece detailing his history of, umm, racial insensitivity.

A few bons mots from Auster, who has published in the racist magazines The Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance: "What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the notion that whites were committing 'genocide' against blacks." Blacks "seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake" and they "are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization." Or how about this fascinating explication of whether or not women should be allowed to vote (Auster says they shouldn't, because while "Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism.")

So a tip to Krikorian: If you don't want people to think that you support immigration restrictions because of some sort of animus towards Mexicans, you should probably avoid linking to the websites of white nationalists like Auster. (And for the record, as far as I can tell, Krikorian has never written about phrenology, eugenics, and bell curves before, though it is troubling that he seems to be a reader of Auster's site. In fairness, I peruse quite a few crackpot websites too—for the purposes of seeing what the mad fringes are reading, I promise—though I wouldn't think of "hat tipping" such nonsense, especially without adding a strenuous caveat.) 

For those of you who suggest that immigrants simply "get in line," perhaps it's time to go over reason's helpful immigration flow chart. And don't miss Reason Foundation's Shikha Dalmia in combat with Krikorian on Bloggingheads.

UPDATE: I missed this post. After reading Krikorian's attempt to blame the collapse of WaMu on the company's affirmative action policies, Professor Bainbridge confessed that such nonsense makes him "embarrassed to be a conservative."

UPDATE II: Krikorian mails to say that I missed this post too.

NEXT: Executive Power and the Election

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “conservatism”? I don’t think so.

  2. I don’t get what is so un-libertarian about an opinion that blacks as a group exhibit any of the qualities he attributes to them. Based on the anecdotal evidence, I’d say he has a pretty strong case. Ditto for the comments about women. Check out the gender ratio at any libertarian gathering. It’s basically the same as a Star Trek convention. The beauty of libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is that it DOESN’T MATTER if blacks are inferior, or if women are predisposed to socialism.

  3. How does one “approvingly link”? Why the scare quotes on “Hat tip”?

    I guess reason never links out unless they fully endorse the site’s idology.

  4. FatDrunkAndStupid,

    There’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about prejudice. It is, however, evidence of a stunning degree of willful ignorance. “Anecdotal evidence” is a terribly foundation for generalization.

  5. It took you one measly link for Bainbridge to be embarrassed of Conservatism? I’ve been embarrassed for some time. And I thought I was a Conservative.

  6. What doe approvingly link mean? How about, linking to someone while expressing gratitude?

    We now know what Gov. Palin thinks about immigration, and the results are not good (h/t Auster):

    Why the scare quotes on “Hat tip”?

    Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I know: because it’s a quote!

  7. Make that a “terrible” foundation.

  8. so they fire C. Buckley and keep this chump?

  9. There’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about prejudice.

    Prejudice is immensely illiberal.

    That’s why liberals get to have the word now, and not libertarians: because racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism, and they are contrary to liberalism. All liberalism, classical or modern.

  10. In before lonewacko!

  11. I don’t get what is so un-libertarian about an opinion that blacks as a group exhibit any of the qualities he attributes to them.

    It’s got nothing to do with libertarianism. It has to do with bigotry and willful ignorance.

  12. Please don’t give unwarranted credibility and undue attention to any writers that continue utilizing the worn-out and historically inaccurate reference to “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

  13. joe,

    I was not endorsing prejudice. I think you knew that, though.

  14. I am one of the few remaining freakazoids who distinguishes between legal immigration (good – but have sponsors post bond that the immigrant will behave well and support himself/herself) and illegal immigration (bad – use constitutionally-valid methods to seed out and deport illegals). It seems that the debate is in terms of Keep-them-all-Out versus Make-No-Distinction-Between-“Documented”-and-“Undocumented.”

    Moynihan seems to be going for the neocon trifecta. Bomb foreigners who didn’t have the foresight to move to the United States? Check! Grant amnesty and benefits to foreigners who illegally immigrate to the U.S.? Check! Call people racists if they don’t swallow whatever bullshit the neocons are trying to peddle? (If you don’t want to invade Arab countries you hate Arabs! If you think Israel is a foreign country, with different interests than the U.S., you hate Jews! If you want immigrants to obey the law, you’re a white nationalist!) Check!

  15. seek out and deport, not seed out

  16. Max,

    I’m curious. What exactly is the justification for immigration laws, again?

  17. Should I feel like a bigoted piece of shit because I wonder whether there really is something to the idea that women’s policy preferences are different from men’s, and perhaps that’s why the domestic programs in our federal government have grown so rapidly since the 19th Amendment came into effect in 1920?

  18. what is wrong Bell Curves?

  19. There’s nothing inherently unlibertarian about prejudice. It is, however, evidence of a stunning degree of willful ignorance. “Anecdotal evidence” is a terribly foundation for generalization.

    I would agree there is nothing inherently unlibertarian about prejudice, but racism – whether it’s white supremacy or afrocentrism – is one of the lowest forms of collectivism.

  20. “Should I feel like a bigoted piece of shit because I wonder whether there really is something to the idea that women’s policy preferences are different from men’s, and perhaps that’s why the domestic programs in our federal government have grown so rapidly since the 19th Amendment came into effect in 1920?”

    No. You should feel like a piece of shit if you think this justifies stripping women of their civil liberties. Or if you, like Auster, flat out deny historical oppression.

  21. I knew that, Mike. Libertarianism is silent on a lot of things that individual libertarians denounce.

    There’s nothing in what you wrote to suggest that you approve; quite the opposite.

  22. “I’m curious. What exactly is the justification for immigration laws, again?”

    Repeal the laws, let anyone come into the country and become eligible for government benefits, and find out for yourself what the justification is!

  23. (In the old days, of course, immigrants were welcome but had to make their own way. That was cool. If we could go back to the old days, that would be great.)

  24. Isn’t that more of a justification for repealing government benefits than outlawing immigration? Couldn’t that very same justification be used to restrict all sorts of voluntary, non-aggressive activities on the grounds that “it may cause more people to become eligible for government benefits”?

  25. “In the old days, of course, immigrants were welcome”

    hokay.

    and the nativist parties of the 19th and early 20th centuries were?

    we got a catholic school system somehow. it had something to do with prejudice against irish catholic immigrants. something…

  26. Isn’t that more of a justification for repealing government benefits than outlawing immigration?

    Immigration laws are a temporary necessity during the transition period before the withering away of the state.

  27. joe are you a libertarian?

  28. Prejudice is immensely illiberal.

    That’s why liberals get to have the word now, and not libertarians: because racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism, and they are contrary to liberalism. All liberalism, classical or modern.

    Surely you are not suggessting that liberalism, whatever the hell that means in your vocabulary, lacks racial and gender prejudice. Or that it is not displayed in it’s policy recommendations.

    Are you?

  29. No, I’m a liberal.

  30. Not one of those “progressives, either.

    Li-

    -ber-

    -al.

    Liberal.

  31. “Immigration laws are a temporary necessity during the transition period before the withering away of the state.”

    Is that your opinion, or your reading of the libertarian opinion?

  32. because racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism, and they are contrary to liberalism.

    Hence your angry support or affirmative action…

    yawn.

  33. J sub D,

    Liberalism is opposed to racial and gender prejudice, in all of its forms. Opposition to those prejudices is as fundemental an element in liberal thought as opposition to economic redistribution is to libertarianism.

    There are no none zip zero nada liberal policy recommendations that display, approve of, or endorse racial or genderal prejudice.

  34. …at 4:04 pm.

    I keed.

  35. Mike,

    It’s an historical/literary reference.

  36. I am so confused about what Liberal and Conservative mean. My best attempt at definitions now:

    Conservative: clinging to a past that never existed.
    Liberal: rushing toward a future that is impossible to realize.

  37. Hence your angry support or affirmative action…

    Precisely. Liberals are so hostile to gender and racial prejudice, and the lasting results of past racism, that we strive to wrench them out, root and branch.

  38. I’ve found that liberals tend to be willfully ignorant and biased against the white man’s intrinsic need to rule the world.

    In fact, they seem to endorse such prejudice against…um..prejudice.

  39. Prejudice is immensely illiberal.

    Zoning is prejudice. You are not a liberal joe…so you do not get to use it.

  40. “we got a catholic school system somehow. it had something to do with prejudice against irish catholic immigrants. something…”

    Let us give props to the 19th-century nativists – sure, they whipped up the public into a frenzy about the Catholic Menace, sure they wanted to limit the right of Catholic and other immigrants to become naturalized citizens, sure they rioted and killed some Catholics, sure they wanted to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit government assistance to Catholic schools (lacking the enlightenment of the modern U.S. Supreme Court, which achieved the same result by judicial decree, without benefit of constitutional amendment). . . . But the nativists didn’t forbid immigration from Catholic countries the way other nativists banned immigration from China. The nativists simply wanted the Catholic immigrants to be second-class citizens, or non-citizens, *subsequent* to their immigration. And they failed.

    The Catholic schools were not some Irish Pride thing – at least, not exclusively. It was just that the Catholics had this paranoid idea that the government schools would be teaching doctrines at odds with Catholicism, so Catholic children would be better off in Catholic schools. In those days, there was no sex ed – but the government schools had readings from the Protestant Bible, and gave what we might call a Protestant-slanted view of the Catholic Church’s role in history.

  41. “In fact, they seem to endorse such prejudice against…um..prejudice.”

    To be fair, I do to. I just don’t want to legislate it.

  42. I’ve found that liberals tend to be willfully ignorant and biased against the white man’s intrinsic need to rule the world.

    Oh, come now, i.t. Minorities are much more racist than white people.

    That’s why we’re better than them.*

    *H/T to whomever I stole this from. I love that joke.

  43. Precisely. Liberals are so hostile to gender and racial prejudice, and the lasting results of past racism, that we strive to wrench them out, root and branch.

    Striving to remove prejudice and actually removing it are two different things. Affirmative action has failed. If you were a liberal you would admit it and look for another way.

  44. Zoning is prejudice.

    Um….

    prej?u?dice? ?/?pr?d??d?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA Pronunciation
    noun, verb, -diced, -dic?ing.
    -noun 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
    2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
    3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

    zon?ing? ?/?zo?n??/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [zoh-ning] Show IPA Pronunciation

    -adjective (esp. in city planning) of or pertaining to the division of an area into zones, as to restrict the number and types of buildings and their uses: zoning laws.

    Not seein’ it.
    4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.

  45. “Striving to remove prejudice and actually removing it are two different things. Affirmative action has failed. If you were a liberal you would admit it and look for another way.”

    There’s nothing wrong with affirmative action in the private sector. Private colleges use it as a way to ensure diversity and create a richer learning experience.

    Once again, it shouldn’t be legislated, but that’s not to say it’s always harmful.

  46. Joe,

    You are a smart guy and I am glad you post here. I mean that sincerely.

    It baffles me though how you can simultaneously contain these thoughts inside your skull:

    Precisely. Liberals are so hostile to gender and racial prejudice, and the lasting results of past racism, that we strive to wrench them out, root and branch.

    and,

    because racial and gender prejudice… are contrary to liberalism.

  47. joe | October 24, 2008, 4:11pm | #
    J sub D,

    Liberalism is opposed to racial and gender prejudice, in all of its forms. Opposition to those prejudices is as fundemental an element in liberal thought as opposition to economic redistribution is to libertarianism.

    There are no none zip zero nada liberal policy recommendations that display, approve of, or endorse racial or genderal prejudice.

    I think the difference here is that libertarian policy prescriptions absolutely demand that the government treat everyone as equal under the law, with equal rights and equal responsibilities, and thus sy any government policy that privileges any racial group as utterly wrong. Liberalism sees racial prejudice as a wrong that must be addressed, and sees government action as an appropriate way of addressing it. Thus libertarians see liberal support for affirmative action as prejudicial, because it’s about treating people differently because of race, whereas liberals see affirmative action as a proper response to racism.

  48. I was listening to npr today and I heard some overt racism.

    A woman from Pennsylvania was describing (and I paraphrase)

    Some thirty years ago a black man would have to step off the sidewalk to let a white man pass, now, I think it’s gonna be the other way around.

    Surely statements like that allow scared, willfully ignorant folks to stir themselves up a frenzy, yeah?

  49. I am so confused about what Liberal and Conservative mean. My best attempt at definitions now:

    Conservative: clinging to a past that never existed.
    Liberal: rushing toward a future that is impossible to realize.

    Those are definitions are pretty good, Zeb.

  50. Liberalism is opposed to racial and gender prejudice, in all of its forms.

    Except when the government does it, then it’s shiny and wonderful and just and good.

  51. Striving to remove prejudice and actually removing it are two different things. Affirmative action has failed.

    Well, the merits of your argument aside, there is certainly room for argument about the best methods of rooting out racism and prejudice root and branch, but that’s a pragmatic concern, not one definition to any political philosophy.

    If you were a liberal you would admit it and look for another way. Hey, now, there’s nothing in the definition of liberalism that requires us to be effective or wise.

    😉

  52. Nix the first “are” in my above comment. (Sorry.)

  53. wayne,

    What’s the problem? We’re opposed to X. We’re really, really opposed to X. We’re so gosh-darn opposed to X, that we do Y and Z to get rid of it.

    What’s the problem?

  54. J sub D,

    Liberalism is opposed to racial and gender prejudice, in all of its forms. Opposition to those prejudices is as fundemental an element in liberal thought as opposition to economic redistribution is to libertarianism.

    Liberalism supports identical physical fitness requirements for both sexes in police departments? In the Army?

    If not, why not?

  55. If Palin is soft on amnesty, then what will lonewacko do with himself now?

  56. “What’s the problem? We’re opposed to X. We’re really, really opposed to X. We’re so gosh-darn opposed to X, that we do Y and Z to get rid of it.”

    joe,

    It’s one thing to say “Y and Z, unfair as they may be to some, are necessary evils to address X.” It’s another to say “what’s the problem with Y and Z?”

  57. And don’t forget me!

    Let’s be honest: liberalism views racism and gender as a struggle, with whites (sometimes Asians) and/or men as the enemy where appropriate. They don’t want a colorblind or genderblind society, they want THEIR gender/color to come out on top, and support massive government intervention to make that happen.

    Libertarians, otoh, just want you to all just shut up already about your stupid race/gender.

  58. “Liberalism supports identical physical fitness requirements for both sexes in police departments? In the Army?”

    Does anybody actually make an argument against this? I think this is a strawman, J.

  59. Jorgen,

    Look at the definitions of prejudice.

    Whatever one may say about affirmative action, in neither practice nor philosophy is it based upon preconcpetions uninformed by knowledge, or upon hostility to people based on their race or gender.

  60. Lots of people who don’t know what the word “prejudice” means.

  61. “racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism, and they are contrary to liberalism. All liberalism, classical or modern.”

    Absolutely! Woodrow Wilson was not a True Liberal (TM), because he supported racial segregation. Nor was FDR a True Liberal, because he supported the evacuation and internment of the Japanese-Americans. The German liberals of the 19th century, the ones who supported and egged on Bismarck’s Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church, were not True Liberals, either.

    The supporters of eugenics, of course, were not True Liberals, despite the reluctant concession by Elof Axel Carlson in

  62. Oh just shut up about your race and gender already!

  63. Each of the following terms has its own meaning:

    prejudice

    racism

    discrimination

    hatred

  64. What’s the problem? We’re opposed to X. We’re really, really opposed to X. We’re so gosh-darn opposed to X, that we do Y and Z to get rid of it.

    Let X=whitey
    Let Y=oppression of whitey
    Let Z=more oppression of whitey

    Hmmm… Nothing at all wrong with it, I guess, as long as you are not whitey and as long you are not at all concerned with equal treatment of all.

  65. Liberalism is opposed to racial and gender prejudice, in all of its forms.

    Liberalism is opposed to prejudice.

    “Racial and gender prejudice” are small circles found within the big circle of “prejudice”.

    What joe is attempting to do is make prejudice OK in general but only bad in regards to race and gender. Once again Joe is no liberal.

  66. noun – Oprah’s kids getting extra points on their SATS while refugees from Burma get points off for being “Asian”

  67. Let’s be honest: liberalism views racism and gender as a struggle, with whites (sometimes Asians) and/or men as the enemy where appropriate. They don’t want a colorblind or genderblind society, they want THEIR gender/color to come out on top, and support massive government intervention to make that happen.

    You got me. What I really want is for white males to rule the world. Hence, my liberalism and support for desegregation efforts like affirmative action.

  68. Even if they *were* liberals, they were not motivated by prejudice against any race or sex when they practiced racial segregation, because that was what was best for both races. They weren’t motivated by prejudice when they interned the Japanese-Americans, because they were upholding national security. They weren’t motivated by prejudice when they forcibly sterilized the unfit, because they simply supported race-neutral measures to purify the gene pool.

  69. I think somebody has a prejudice towards liberals.

  70. And who, exactly, is Lawrence Auster? Put it this way: this is a guy whose conservatism was too extreme for David Horowitz and Frontpagemag.com; the site cut ties with Auster after the Huffington Post published a piece detailing his history of, umm, racial insensitivity.

    Is Lawrence Auster his real name? Or is it just one of lonewacko’s many alias’s?

  71. Does anybody actually make an argument against this? I think this is a strawman, J.

    Of course they don’t, that was the point. “Liberals” don’t want equality except where it benefits them.

    You don’t see the NAACP demanding racial quotas for the NBA, do you?

  72. I predict that this discussion of affirmative action is going to be productive, acrimony-free and full of facts and well-developed critiques.

  73. Mad Max,

    Liberalism is a political philosophy. It is not defined as “whatever any liberal might believe at any given time.”

    Liberals have believed all sorts of things throughout history.

    Unlike conservatism, liberalism’s reach often exceeds its grasp; that’s what makes it a progressive philosophy.

  74. I guess now that William Buckley is dead, those at National Review are welcoming back with open arms the once vanquished members of the John Birch Society.

  75. I predict that this discussion of affirmative action is going to be productive, acrimony-free and full of facts and well-developed critiques.

    Damn funny….

  76. Let X=whitey
    Let Y=oppression of whitey
    Let Z=more oppression of whitey

    No. I’ve already used those terms, and they don’t mean that. If you wish to make some argument about “whitey,” you need to use different letters, or somebody might confuse your unrelated point with mine.

  77. joe,

    You claimed that “”racial and gender prejudice . . . are contrary to liberalism. All liberalism, classical or modern.” You thus opened up the issue of the historic stance of liberals on these subjects. Unless, of course, you hold that people in history who hold such views are *by definition* not liberals, because no true Scotsman, etc.

  78. You are welcome to clarify the terms as you see fit.

  79. Damn, it’s easy to make goons crawl out the woodwork and man the barricades for the race war.

    Some of them have the stones to put their names on their words, but most don’t.

    Good. You should be embarrassed.

  80. “Liberalism supports identical physical fitness requirements for both sexes in police departments? In the Army?”

    Does anybody actually make an argument against this? I think this is a strawman, J.

    If your question is “Does anyone make an argument against having differing physical fitness standards based on gender for soldiers and LEOs?”, the answer is yes. Mostly soldiers and cops.

  81. Also, few of the people I’ve listed would have claimed to be motivated by prejudice, even when they supported racial or sex discrimination. FDR, when he supported internment, thought he was upholding national security, not that he was acting on prejudice against people of Japanese descent.

    And, yes, even the supportes of Jim Crow claimed not to be acting on prejudice, but on what was best for all races.

  82. Damn, it’s easy to make goons crawl out the woodwork and man the barricades for the race war.

    Amen, Joe… Amen

  83. Zeb | October 24, 2008, 4:12pm | #

    I am so confused about what Liberal and Conservative mean. My best attempt at definitions now:

    Conservative: clinging to a past that never existed.
    Liberal: rushing toward a future that is impossible to realize.

    I liked this so much I felt it just had to be posted again.

  84. You got me. What I really want is for white males to rule the world. Hence, my liberalism and support for desegregation efforts like affirmative action.

    No, you’re just a gullible socialist who buys into the minorities-are-all-victims-of-racism (except Asians!!) narrative, and because politically it dovetails nicely with the whole gov’t redistribution of wealth agenda that allows you to seize more wealth from the productive people (who tend to be the ones penalized in both cases).

  85. won’t somebody please think of the polar bears?

    oops…wrong topic

  86. It’s nice to see liberals are still racists pretending to be better than the other racists.

  87. “Unlike conservatism, liberalism’s reach often exceeds its grasp”

    I see this as a bug; you see it, apparently as a feature.

  88. Mad Max,

    LiberalISM. LiberalS.

    Two different things.

    Look upthread – “Mike” explains that libertarianism is silent on prejudice, but he personally (a libertarian) despises it.

    Historically, individual liberals have believed all sorts of things at odds with liberal ideals. So have conservatives about conservative ideals, and Christians about Christian ideals.

    I’m talking about a political philosophy. Particular beliefs by individuals, especially if they are the common or default positions of people in society, and are thus unquestioned by all or most people in a certain time or place, have little to do with the different political philosophies (such as liberalism, socialism, communism, or libertarianism) that those people adhere to.

    Many Russian communists were anti-semites. That tells us nothing about communism, but about Russians. In fact, commuinism explicitly repudiates ethnic discrimination as being a false-consciousness intended to keep the workers from uniting.

    Many American liberals, especially from the south, in earlier times harbored prejudice towards black people. Many people in th early 20th century, including liberals, believed in eugenics.

    It’s rare to find a person who has nothing going on in his head except the tenets of a defined political ideology.

  89. No, you’re just a gullible socialist who buys into the minorities-are-all-victims-of-racism (except Asians!!) narrative, and because politically it dovetails nicely with the whole gov’t redistribution of wealth agenda that allows you to seize more wealth from the productive people (who tend to be the ones penalized in both cases).

    I find your ideas interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    Socialism, you say? How fascinating.

    Backing away slowly towards the subway station exit now.

  90. MCM,
    Being a Motown denizen, the names Kerkorian and Kavorkian are constantly in the news and my head. Adding Krikorian to the mix just ain’t fair.

  91. joe,

    What’s the problem? We’re opposed to X. We’re really, really opposed to X. We’re so gosh-darn opposed to X, that we do Y and Z to get rid of it.

    What’s the problem?

    The problem is you’re not doing y and z, you’re doing x to a different group.

  92. joe | October 24, 2008, 4:26pm | #
    Jorgen,

    Look at the definitions of prejudice.

    Whatever one may say about affirmative action, in neither practice nor philosophy is it based upon preconcpetions uninformed by knowledge, or upon hostility to people based on their race or gender.

    It is, though. It is based on the preconception that a person’s race is a good predictor of the hurdles they have had to overcome to get to where they are. Affirmative action advocates giving preferential treatment to a black male over a white male with similar qualifications, for instance, based on the assumption that getting those qualifications was more difficult for the black male due to racial prejudice. This is a preconception based on race rather than the particular history of these two individuals.

    The other justification would simply be that it’s good in and of itself to have the same proportion of every race be educated, but that’s not an argument concerned with eliminating prejudice.

  93. TAO @ 4:33-

    Making predictions that are contrary to both all prior experience and contemporary data?

    You can be a federal reserve board chairman!

  94. sorry, I should really use quotes or italics to make that less confusing.

  95. A pacifist would say the same thing about any soldier going to any war, oldshady.

    I find that there can be meaningful distinctions made, based on circumstances.

  96. Damn, it’s easy to make goons crawl out the woodwork and man the barricades for the race war.

    Some of them have the stones to put their names on their words, but most don’t.

    Good. You should be embarrassed.

    And so joe goes off swinging at the trolls into a canyon never to return. Go get em slugger.

  97. A pacifist would say the same thing about any soldier going to any war

    So, you’re not a pacifist joe, which then makes you…

    joe the liberal race-warrior

  98. Affirmative action advocates giving preferential treatment to a black male over a white male with similar qualifications,

    Well, no, not really. AA gives preferential treatment to black males regardless of the qualifications of their white competitors.

    That is what all those successful lawsuits were about: Bakey, Univ of Texas Law, U of M Law…

  99. There is nothing un-libertarian about not wanting women or blacks to vote if women and blacks voting tends to promote socialism. The purest form of libertarianism doesn’t believe anyone has the right to vote because Democracy itself violates the non-aggression principle.

    I just don’t see a problem with anything he wrote from a libertarian perspective. He thinks blacks are dumber and more primitive than whites. I think the evidence to conclusively prove that is non-existent, but the reality is if you put a gun to my head and said my life depended on answering that question correctly, I’d agree with him. That’s not because of “racism”. It’s because of an objective analysis of a lifetime of experience.

    The idea that we are all “equal” is irrelevant from a libertarian perspective. Hysteria over the idea whites might be smarter than blacks is the province of liberals, not libertarians. Liberals are obsessed with propagating the equality myth because of their adherence to collectivist doctrine. If blacks really are inferior, there are all sorts of morally horrible consequences that could logically follow. They don’t want to face those consequences, so anybody who questions the completely unfounded idea that we are all equally smart or advanced is branded a “racist”.

  100. Many American liberals, especially from the south, in earlier times harbored prejudice towards black people. Many people in th early 20th century, including liberals, believed in eugenics.

    And American liberals of the late 20th/Early 21st centuries supported affirmative action.

  101. joe,

    Where can I find out about the tenets of this True Liberalsm, and how can I distinguish the True Liberalism from the fake stuff which others (who claim to be liberals) try to peddle?

    Also, which forms of racial and sex discrimination *not* motivated by prejudice? Only affirmative action? Or other types? How can we tell if prejudice is the motive? If the discriminators are not prejudiced, by what standards do we decide whether the discrimination is justified or not?

  102. “wayne | October 24, 2008, 4:51pm | #
    Affirmative action advocates giving preferential treatment to a black male over a white male with similar qualifications,

    Well, no, not really. AA gives preferential treatment to black males regardless of the qualifications of their white competitors.

    That is what all those successful lawsuits were about: Bakey, Univ of Texas Law, U of M Law…”

    You’re right; systems based on racial quotas don’t make as much sense in terms of adjusting for the perceived extra hurdles that being black or hispanic involve, than do systems that award extra points based on race. They seem much more tailored toward trying to get the upper levels of society to be a certain color. I was trying to focus on the versions of affirmative action that are most related to fighting prejudice.

  103. “I don’t get what is so un-libertarian about an opinion that blacks as a group exhibit any of the qualities he attributes to them. Based on the anecdotal evidence, I’d say he has a pretty strong case.”

    My neighborhood is diverse and yet if one reads the precinct police report, the overwhelming number (90%+) of shootings, stabbings and assaults are perpetrated upon black people by black people. Granted, these crimes are committed by a very small percentage of the black population (I’m guessing less that 1%), but why is it so disproportional to the general population?

    http://4thprecinctcare.org/article/read/4th_precinct_highlights_week_559_october_7_october_13_2008

  104. Well, no, not really. AA gives preferential treatment to black males regardless of the qualifications of their white competitors.

    Thus falsifying the statement that affirmative action is, or demonstrates, prejudice.

    Affirmative action relies upon not making judgements about people’s qualifications or merit. Affirmative action doesn’t involve passing judgement, on declaring its beneficiaries to be superior to anyone. That isn’t the basis for it, practically or theoretically.

    Affirmative actions proponents don’t assume minorities to be superior or white males to be inferior; its based around granting benefits to accomplish social or political or economic ends, not on judgements about individual applicants.

  105. “Many Russian communists were anti-semites. That tells us nothing about communism, but about Russians.”

    Have you read Marx’s Marx’s essay on the so-called Jewish Question? Some excerpts:

    “Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

    “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

    “Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.”

  106. Also,

    “Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    “The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

  107. “I’m curious. What exactly is the justification for immigration laws, again?”

    La Raza.

  108. Mad Max,

    If you wanted to make a good-faith effort to understand what liberalism is, there is no shortage of places to start. There’s a liberalism page on wikipedia.

    But, of course, you don’t. You’re just snarking away, because you really can’t formulate an answer to my point about the distinction between a political philosophy and the assorted beliefs of individuals who, in addition to other inspirations, subscribe to that philosophy.

    I could no doubt find a libertarian who likes Toyotas. Where, oh where, can I find a definition of TRUE LIBERTARIANISM, unpolluted by the beliefs of actual libertarians?

    A lot places, actually, as I can admit pretty easily, seeing as how I have no need to make an asshole of myself by pretending not to grasp rather simple concepts.

  109. The Crowd hates certain ideas, on both right and left, and denies them, despite nods from science and great empires of the past.

    No wonder the Crowd runs societies into the ground every chance it gets.

    I am disappointed in the writer of the original post for playing to the Crowd, and not refuting these ideas with science or reason.

  110. Mad Max,

    Certainly, I’m familiar with that. I’m also familiar with the fact that communism, as it was proclaimed and practiced in Russia, was avowedly opposed to ethnic discrimination, to the point of drawing support for a significant minority of Russian Jews.

    Which is whay I wrote about Russian communism.

    Might it be a better idea to try to talk about ideas than play “Gotcha joe?”

    Actually, it probably wouldn’t be.

  111. joe | October 24, 2008, 4:59pm | #
    “Affirmative action relies upon not making judgements about people’s qualifications or merit. Affirmative action doesn’t involve passing judgement, on declaring its beneficiaries to be superior to anyone. That isn’t the basis for it, practically or theoretically.

    Affirmative actions proponents don’t assume minorities to be superior or white males to be inferior; its based around granting benefits to accomplish social or political or economic ends, not on judgements about individual applicants.”

    Joe, do you consider Affirmative Action a program intended to address prejudice? If so, then it is making judgments about individual applicants, by seeking to determine whether they have been victims of discrimination. If not, than it represents Liberal willingness to use racial discrimination for purposes other than addressing or resolving racial prejudice. If that’s the case, I really can’t see the argument that Liberalism is, at its core, against prejudice, racism or discrimination.

  112. Carter Holmes, were you not aware that the white man invented black on black violence?

    and aids

  113. “are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible

    That’s not what I’ve heard.

    Now I’m gonna get banned for sure.

  114. “What’s the problem? We’re opposed to X. We’re really, really opposed to X. We’re so gosh-darn opposed to X, that we do Y and Z to get rid of it.

    What’s the problem?”

    Using X to get rid of X.

  115. Mad Max | October 24, 2008, 5:01pm | #
    “Many Russian communists were anti-semites. That tells us nothing about communism, but about Russians.”

    Have you read Marx’s Marx’s essay on the so-called Jewish Question? Some excerpts:

    “Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

    “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

    “Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.”

    Mad Max | October 24, 2008, 5:02pm | #
    Also,

    “Once society has succeeded in abolishing the empirical essence of Judaism – huckstering and its preconditions – the Jew will have become impossible, because his consciousness no longer has an object, because the subjective basis of Judaism, practical need, has been humanized, and because the conflict between man’s individual-sensuous existence and his species-existence has been abolished.

    “The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.”

    Well it seems pretty obvious now where Hitler got his ideas….the same place where joe gets his ideas.

  116. re: Update II on this article…

    Not much of an update, really.

  117. Scientific research tends to trending towards the conclusion that Mr. Auster already has. That isn’t to say that it isn’t distasteful or even that Auster has overstated the case… it shouldn’t matter.

    If it ends up that IQ and personality traits are primarily genetic, and measureable along racial lines, then that is something that we as a society will have to deal with.

    It is absurd to simply characterize anyone who holds those views as a white nationalist or horrible bigot. Both of those terms suggest an implicit malice which isn’t necessarily true. One can hold the view that the races and sexes differ without also being malicious, hostile, or angry.

    This is supposed to be REASON magazine and we, more than anyone should embrace where legitimate science takes us – the truth.

    Now, is that view legitimate? That is an entirely different question… one that I, nor Lawrence Auster should feel entirely comfortable answering yes to.

  118. “Carter Holmes, were you not aware that the white man invented black on black violence?

    What makes it all so strange to me, is that the bulk of the perpetrators are teens. No one is oppressing these kids. No one is forcing them to shoot indiscriminately into a crowd of black kids celebrating some kids birthday. No one is forcing a 16-year-old kid to shoot another kid (e.g., Courtney Brown) for his throwback jersey. For some reason, these kids, and again it’s a very small percentage glorify violence. Identifying the root cause is what interests me. I have no answers.

  119. Might it be a better idea to try to talk about ideas than play “Gotcha joe?”

    Your ideas were proven dead wrong…why should we continue to talk about them?

  120. joe the neo-Platonist says,

    “you really can’t formulate an answer to my point about the distinction between a political philosophy and the assorted beliefs of individuals who, in addition to other inspirations, subscribe to that philosophy.”

    Then you refer me to Wikipedia’s article on Liberalism, which is here.

    Despite one reference to historical “pure forms of liberalism,” the Wikipedia entry is top-heavy on actual historical events and actual historical personages. The article isn’t helpful if you’re looking for a Platonic “pure forms” of liberalism, divorced from historical experience and the actions and beliefs of actual liberals. Specific people mentioned in the article include Thomas Jefferson (who speculated about possible natural inferiority of black people), John Stuart Mill (who supported the idea of civilized countries ruling over less-civilized peoples who weren’t prepared for self-government), John Locke (whose theories of religious freedom did not apply to Catholics because they were a subversive element), not to mention racists like Herbert Spencer and Adam Smith (racist because they didn’t call for the government to wipe out private discrimination), and Maximilien Robespierre (not a racist, to be sure, because he chopped of people’s heads regardless of race or sex).

    FDR (he of the Japanese-American internment) is described as one of the “[k]ey liberals” who rejected laissez-faire in the Great Depression.

    It must have been exhausting, putting their liberal hats on and off as they worked on different issues.

  121. “It is absurd to simply characterize anyone who holds those views as a white nationalist or horrible bigot. Both of those terms suggest an implicit malice which isn’t necessarily true. One can hold the view that the races and sexes differ without also being malicious, hostile, or angry.”

    No. Diversity teaches us that we are all the same. Only different in food and customs.

  122. I suppose I need to add the usual disclaimers.

    Yes, lots of liberals were fierce warriors against racial discrimination. Some even oppose affirmative action.

    Yes, there are racist non-liberals.

    No, I didn’t shoot Bambi’s mother.

  123. Affirmative actions proponents don’t assume minorities to be superior or white males to be inferior; its based around granting benefits to accomplish social or political or economic ends, not on judgements about individual applicants.

    Oh, OK. Now I get it.

    AA oppresses caucasians and asians because they are not black and rewards blacks because they are black…

    You’re right, nothing racist about that!

  124. “What’s the problem? We’re opposed to X. We’re really, really opposed to X. We’re so gosh-darn opposed to X, that we do Y and Z to get rid of it.”

    The problem is with the idea that you, or anyone for that matter, is wise enough to balance that equation.

    Just the same if there are indeed genetic differences between races, law should not differentiate because individuals are not statistics.

  125. “Identifying the root cause is what interests me. I have no answers.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUkpR2Q6Oy8

    I’m at work so I can’t access YouTube. But if you can open the link above, there is an easily accessed interview with the creator/producer of “D’Mite – Read a Book” that is quite intersting and insightful.

  126. intersting = interesting in moronspeak

  127. law should not differentiate because individuals are not statistics.

    This always rings true to me.

  128. The law should not differentiate due to race because the law should only be protecting violations of property and those have nothing whatsoever to do with race.

    But Joe-schmoe can do whatever he wants and “discriminating” is an important part of making decisions. What’s wrong with someone being racist?

    I would say nothing if his views were true.

    He still wouldn’t have the right to violate another persons rights which is what happens everyday in this country with wealth-distribution and hate-laws.

  129. ZOMG! Someone linked to a bad person. That makes them a bad person too!

    I didn’t look at the links, but SP recently gave an interview on this topic to Univision. Read my commentary on the interview here, and you’ll learn something.

    Bonus: why exactly is the Kochtopus so supportive of loose borders?

  130. Jorgen,

    Affirmative action is sometimes intended to address individual prejudice – when a court order a company with an established history of discrimination to implement a hiring program.

    But more commonly, it’s used as a desegregation measure, intended to address the ongoing consequences of historic racial injustice which manifest themselves through geographic, social, and economic segregation.

    Personal prejudice certainly played a significant role in that historic racial injustice.

  131. Mad Max,

    I’ll try to explain this to you again. I didn’t think the Toyota example would go so far over your head, so I’ll make an effort to dumb it down further.

    The psyche of individual human beings consists of more than their political philosophies, and an individual’s overall political philosophy can consist of more than one influence.

    You brought up Karl Marx. Karl Marx was a German living in Germany in the mid-19th century. He had a communist ideology. He was also an anti-semite. Now, maybe you can make a case that his anti-semitism was part and parcel of his communism, but it would probably be a better idea to look at the role of Jews, and opinions about them, among Germans in Germany in the mid-19th century.

  132. It’s rare to find a person who has nothing going on in his head except the tenets of a defined political ideology.

    I met one once. He was *fucked up*.

  133. Mad Max,

    Locke actually equivocated somewhat on Catholics (and Atheists). As something of an aside he makes a point about “Mahumetans” being loyal first to the “Mufti of Constantinople” forgoing any right to toleration via that allegiance, something which obviously would also encompass Catholics who are loyal first to the Pope. However, that does leave room for Catholics (or “Mahumetans”) who don’t hold their primary allegiance to the Pope (or the Mufti). For Locke toleration depends on what your religion does vis a vis the health of the commonwealth (particularly with regard to individual safety or the safety of an individual’s property), but he makes the argument that mere disagreement over matters of religious faith is no danger to such. It has to be something like one of the examples he uses: human sacrifice.

  134. “joe | October 24, 2008, 5:58pm | #
    Jorgen,

    Affirmative action is sometimes intended to address individual prejudice – when a court order a company with an established history of discrimination to implement a hiring program.

    But more commonly, it’s used as a desegregation measure, intended to address the ongoing consequences of historic racial injustice which manifest themselves through geographic, social, and economic segregation.

    Personal prejudice certainly played a significant role in that historic racial injustice.”

    Agreed. The issue though, is whether the idea is that each particular black, hispanic, etc person deserves a boost to compensate for the ill effects that prejudice, both contemporary and historical, have had on them, or whether it is seen as a societal good for black and Hispanic people in general, whether they’ve gained or been hurt by historical injustice, to gain admission, or be hired, or whatever it is that is being affirmatively actioned. In other words, does affirmative action try to use race as a proxy for injustice, and then address that injustice, or does it try to change where different colored people reside in society with no view towards doing right or wrong by individual people?

  135. You’re right, nothing racist about that!

    The subject of my statement, wayne, is prejudice. I’m not addressing the issue of racism.

    Once again, and again, and again (because repetition has been found to be an effective teaching tool when training an animal), the subject is prejudice. Not racism. Prejudice.

    Do I need to repost the definition of prejudice for you again?

  136. “Once again, and again, and again (because repetition has been found to be an effective teaching tool when training an animal), the subject is prejudice. Not racism. Prejudice.

    Do I need to repost the definition of prejudice for you again?”

    Joe, I appreciate that you post here as a liberal, because it makes the place more interesting, but it bothers me that you have to be such an asshole.

  137. Jorgen,

    Affirmative action done for the purpose of desegregation is uninterested in individual desert, just as the removal of racial covenants over homeownership is unconcerned with whether any individual member of a minority group “deserves” to live in a certain subdivision.

  138. joe,

    FYI: Marx spent over half of his life outside of Germany. The work in question was probably written in Paris.

  139. Jorgen, I do unto others as they do unto me.

    I’ll treat Max like someone worthy of respect when extends the same courtesy to me. Though I’m not holding my breath.

  140. And now, my favorite part of any affirmative action argument, the Platonic God-King of All Appeals to Authority:

    Martin Luther King endorsed affirmative action.

    Why We Can’t Wait: “Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic.”

    I suppose it’s possible to argue that MLK was racist, or prejudiced, but it’s not likely. A better explanation would probably be that, unlike affirmative action opponents, he was more concerned with accomplishing an actual state of racial equality than in the mere accomplishment of race-neutral laws.

  141. If desegregation was the primary purpose of AA, then it has been a manifest failure. Self or voluntary segregation is the norm in the U.S.

  142. “joe | October 24, 2008, 6:07pm | #
    Jorgen,

    Affirmative action done for the purpose of desegregation is uninterested in individual desert, just as the removal of racial covenants over homeownership is unconcerned with whether any individual member of a minority group “deserves” to live in a certain subdivision.”

    But it is! The reason to remove racial covenants over home ownership is because every member of a minority group is being done an injustice when they are denied the privilege to bid on a piece of property due to their race. There is no member of a minority that gets anything he or she doesn’t deserve when racial covenants are removed.

    If Affirmative Action, in your eyes, is about changing the ethnic mix of a given institution with no regard for the justice or injustice of the approach for the individuals involved, then, even if it’s not prejudiced, it is racist. It is about granting special dispensation to some people over other due to race. If liberalism is ardently opposed to prejudice, but indifferent to racism, then liberalism doesn’t particularly appeal to me.

  143. The most prominent libertarian in American history published “The Ron Paul Political Report.”

    What does the racial agenda of those newsletters tell us about libertarianism as a political philosophy?

    Very, very little. It tells us that there were some people from a certain time and place, with a certain set of ideas about black people, who were libertarians.

  144. “joe | October 24, 2008, 6:09pm | #
    Jorgen, I do unto others as they do unto me.

    I’ll treat Max like someone worthy of respect when extends the same courtesy to me. Though I’m not holding my breath.”

    Especially if he takes the same view.

  145. Update 2 reminds of the punchline to the joke that goes like:

    “I meant to say ‘Please pass the salt’ but it came out as ‘You ruined my life you f****** bitch!'”

  146. If desegregation was the primary purpose of AA, then it has been a manifest failure.

    What evidence do you have for this statement?

    On the other side of the scale is the fact that the professions and academia have desegregated, and integrated economic and professional networks grown up in place of the old, segregated ones, exactly as affirmative action intended to happen, during the period that affirmative action has been in place.

  147. Jorgen,

    The reason to remove racial covenants over home ownership is because every member of a minority group is being done an injustice when they are denied the privilege to bid on a piece of property due to their race.

    OK, that is one reason, but not the only reason. The desire to accomplish an equitable, integrated community and society is another.

    If Affirmative Action, in your eyes, is about changing the ethnic mix of a given institution with no regard for the justice or injustice of the approach for the individuals involved, then, even if it’s not prejudiced, it is racist. I tend to agree more with Martin Luther King than you on this subject; that’s not racism. You could make a case for “discrimination,” but as affirmative action neither promotes racial inequality, nor holds anyone to be inferior because of their race, nor seeks to keep races divided, but in fact seeks precisely the opposite of those things, and to undo them where they have been done, it doesn’t make sense to describe it as “racism.”

  148. joe,

    Sorry that the Wikipedia link which *you* suggested I follow didn’t pan out for you – in fact, it harmed your case because it discussed liberalism in the context of actual, real-world events and persons, not in the Platonic, ahistorical context you prefer. Of course, in your defense, the Platonic, ahistorical context is the only context in which you can justify your silly position about liberalism and racism.

    Bear in mind that the statement you are defending is “racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism, and they are contrary to liberalism. All liberalism, classical or modern.” You yourself referenced history, in a context suggesting that liberism is more free from racism than libertarianism. I’m not libertarian, but I can see how any libertarian could disavow racist statements and acts by other libertarians as easily as you could disavow racist statements and acts by liberals.

    Taking your ideas to self-parodic lengths, you add this about Karl Marx’s anti-semitism:

    “Karl Marx was a German living in Germany in the mid-19th century. He had a communist ideology. He was also an anti-semite.”

    The founder of communism happened to be anti-Jewish. But never mind, that’s an irrelevant biographical detail, like his beard. It’s not as Marx’s views of the Jews were ever taken seriously by Marxists. (Bear in mind that you started out arguing that communism shouldn’t be blamed for the anti-semitism of Russian communists).

  149. I can see your point, Joe, and I suppose I can agree with you that it is discriminatory rather than racist. I guess the basic issue is whether you care more about equality between people or equality between races. If you care about equality between people, than a system that privileges some people over others, whether because of race, gender, religion, height, etc, should make you deeply uncomfortable, even if it helps promote equality between races.

  150. I’m out of here, btw.

  151. Joe,

    Your citation of MLK’s endorsement of AA is uninspiring. It was a different time when he uttered those words fifty years ago. Maybe AA was legitimate then, not now.

    I don’t understand your tangential rant about “prejudice vs racism”. “The subject” is determined by content of the conversation and it vaires accordingly. I was never talking about “prejudice”, although prejudice and racism seem inseparable.

  152. “The most prominent libertarian in American history published ‘The Ron Paul Political Report.’

    “What does the racial agenda of those newsletters tell us about libertarianism as a political philosophy?

    “Very, very little. It tells us that there were some people from a certain time and place, with a certain set of ideas about black people, who were libertarians.”

    It tells us that libertarianism, because of what this prominent libertarian said, has something of a race problem. Dr. Paul insulted 95% of black people (or maybe even all of them). I do not wish to consider libertarianism Platonically, as if it wasn’t a predominantly-white movement with prominent people who make statements like this.

    So, in fact, it says a great deal. It says stuff I don’t like, but it does say something.

    Now, Dr. Paul could have gone on to the next level, and proposed to implement policies reflecting these unfavorable views. He could have advocated that the U.S. rule over brown “uncivilized” people, as advocated by J.S. Mill.

    (Note – Dr. Paul can be considered as a conservative libertarian or as a libertarian conservative. I am discussing him as a libertarian because of his numerous libertarian supporters).

    “I’ll treat Max like someone worthy of respect when extends the same courtesy to me. Though I’m not holding my breath.”

    Oh, I’m sowwy, joe, did I huwt your widdle feewings?

  153. joe,

    From Wikipedia:

    According to the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, the desegregation of U.S. public schools peaked in 1988; since then, schools have become more segregated. As of 2005, the proportion of Black students at majority white schools was at “a level lower than in any year since 1968.” [5]

    Anecdotally I would note that there appears to be plenty of voluntary segregation in America’s neighborhoods.

    On the other side of the scale is the fact that the professions and academia have desegregated…

    One thing I hear often in the media on the medical profession is discussions about how few black doctors are produced by that profession every year. Indeed, if I recall correctly, today blacks make up a smaller percentage of the medical profession than they did in the 1930s. Now, I’m not suggesting that black people are on average incapable of becoming doctors; I am suggesting that affirmative action (at least as it has historically been constituted) has done little to deal with whatever issues are associated with phenomenon. Then again, I’m also rather suspicious of aggregating people this way in the first place.

  154. Well, Mad Max, maybe you’d have better luck finding out what liberalism is from a more specialized web site, rather than a general interest one.

    Good luck.

  155. While your searching, maybe you can detour into some history about anti-Semitism in Russia. I have the niggling feeling you could stand to familiarize yourself with it.

  156. I googled “content of his character” intending to refresh my memory about MLK’s speech and I came across this:

    http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/content-of-his-character.html

    interesting editorial.

  157. “Well, Mad Max, maybe you’d have better luck finding out what liberalism is from a more specialized web site, rather than a general interest one.”

    Perhaps you could have referred me to a Web page which backed up your views rather than refuting them.

    Here’s what you said: “If you wanted to make a good-faith effort to understand what liberalism is, there is no shortage of places to start. There’s a liberalism page on wikipedia.”

    You probably should have examined that page to see whether it confirmed or refuted your prejudices. Whoops.

  158. Joe, careful tossing aroung the niggling word…

    🙂

  159. Mad Max,

    It is fair to say that there are a number of different and probably contradictory (yet valid) definitions of liberalism. The term takes in a very wide swath of thinkers, movements, etc. historically and ideologically.

  160. Jorgen,

    I guess the basic issue is whether you care more about equality between people or equality between races.

    Races are made up of people. When there is racial inequality, there is inequality for the people within those races.

    C’mon, you know this. You know history, you know how the “inequality of races” manifested itself in individuals’ lives.

    wayne,

    If affirmative action was appropriate at one time, are you saying that racism was once appropriate?

    That’s how I know that this “AA is racism” line of argument can’t be taken seriously.

    In practical terms, I think things have changed considerably since the mid-60s, owing to desegregation efforts including affirmative action, and other (dare I say?) liberal efforts to remove barriers and promote integration. Affirmative action itself is changing, moving its focus more to class than race, and I think that’s how it should be.

    BTW, that’s another reason why I can’t take the “affirmative action is disgusting racism” argument seriously – because the people making it always talk about how it should be based on socio-economic status instead of race. Either they’re big ol’ class warriors, promoting discrimination based on economic group, or they’re not really being serious when they claim that affirmative action is the equivalent of racism.

    I don’t understand your tangential rant about “prejudice vs racism”. “The subject” is determined by content of the conversation and it vaires accordingly. I made a comment about prejudice, in response to someone else bringing up the subject of prejudice, and it was that statement that people disputed.

  161. Seward,

    Precisely so. Liberalism does not rule out racism.

    And thank you for the clarification on John Locke.

  162. Racism in not inherently part of liberalism, or foreign to it, any more than with, say, libertarianism. It depends on the liberal. Anything else is True-Scotsmanism.

  163. Mad Max,

    It tells us that libertarianism, because of what this prominent libertarian said, has something of a race problem.

    It tells us that about libertarianism as a movement, but not about libertarianism as a political philosophy.

    Now, relate this to me being a liberal, being an advocate of liberalism, and how that ties in to the history of liberals being racists. The liberal movement of the past had a race problem, like every other political movement, but I’m not part of the liberal movement of 90 years ago. I am also an advocate of liberalism, the political philosophy, and the fact that there were liberals in the 30s who believed in eugenics is meaningless to what the liberal political philosophy I endorse is.

    Maybe I am a neo-Platonist. I think there is this philosophy called “libertarianism” that is distinct from the actions, and even the non-libertarian thoughts, of actual libertarians.

    Oh, I’m sowwy, joe, did I huwt your widdle feewings? No. Jorgen asked, so I answered him.

  164. Seward,

    Interestingly, 1988 was a few years into the Reagan era, when affirmative action was increasingly being called into disrepute.

    Though I think it’s significant that school integration peaked just about exactly one generation after the invention of affirmative action.

  165. When you find yourself doing a touchdown dance because the first reference someone tossed off while trying to get you to go away isn’t the best source on the subject, the argument probably isn’t going very well for you.

  166. joe
    I don’t think AA is based on “racism” in that the people who propose it don’t hate white people and want to see them do worse, they instead just want to see black people do better.

    However, I oppose affirmative action. It’s simply unfair to sacrifice some individual’s opportunities to rectify wrongs they never perpetrated or to promote some social engineering (wanting a certain portion of college grads or whatever to be black or whatever). And to do it on an ascribed criteria makes it even more smelly.

    Another problem is that it is such a blunt instrument. It’s a tired cliche, but is does seem rather silly to give Bill Cosby’s kid a preference over an Appalachian farmer’s kid because of all the “disadvantages” the former has had to face in his life because he’s black.

  167. I’d like to see the races think better of each other. I’m not willing to support a built in disadvantage for my kid, or hell for me, to do that.

    Socio-economic based preferences are in theory available to all people if, there but for the Grace of God, they fall into that category one day, so to accept that I’m not disavantaging myself or my kid.

  168. If your boss came to you and said “joe, we know you’ve won this job outright and earned it by your hard work and qualifications, but we’ve got this minority person here, and you know if he had your job it would make more people think highly of his race and it would allow him to mix with other professionals so that everyone could see that they are fundamentally alike, so we are asking you to step aside for such racial gains, and hell, you can always take a job somewhere else doing something else” would you say “well of course sir!”

    If not, how can you ask other people to do this?

  169. Prejudice is good, saves headache.

    http://www.mises.org/story/2282

  170. Border control.

    Conservatives’ favourite unenumerated power.

  171. “[Blacks] are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization”

    What’s Africa like?

    “though it is troubling that he seems to be a reader of Auster’s site.”

    When is Reason going to officially change its slogan to just “Free Markets”? Or maybe “Moralizing prigs, except when it comes to heroin and bestiality, and free markets.”

  172. The idea of “equality” is the silliest, most pervasive myth in modern society. While liberals continue to insist that we are all “equal” in our abilities and must all be treated “equally” or else, science draws ever closer to proving that intelligence and character are largely inherited, and that there are dramatic differences based on race. The eugenicists were right, and they’re coming back in a big way.

    Joe, if you really wanted a more high-functioning society, wouldn’t you rather acknowledge the truth? Do you really think that Mexicans are as responsible as Asians, that Arabs are as competent at business as Jews, or that Hutu tribesmen can assimilate as easily as Europeans? Or are you only interested in science if it involves stem cells?

  173. “I’m curious. What exactly is the justification for immigration laws, again?”

    I’m curious, what exactly justifies property rights, again?

  174. If affirmative action was appropriate at one time, are you saying that racism was once appropriate?

    No, I don’t think AA was appropriate then either.

    In practical terms, I think things have changed considerably since the mid-60s, owing to desegregation efforts including affirmative action, and other (dare I say?) liberal efforts to remove barriers and promote integration. Affirmative action itself is changing, moving its focus more to class than race, and I think that’s how it should be.

    You refute this position in your very next paragraph.

    BTW, that’s another reason why I can’t take the “affirmative action is disgusting racism” argument seriously – because the people making it always talk about how it should be based on socio-economic status instead of race. Either they’re big ol’ class warriors, promoting discrimination based on economic group, or they’re not really being serious when they claim that affirmative action is the equivalent of racism.

    Well, it is infuriating to see a poor white/asian kid get the boot while a middle-class (or higher) black kid gets accepted despite being less academically qualified.

    The reason AA boosters don’t want socio-economic status to be the prime consideration is because it would result in the vast majority of slots being filled by poor white and asian kids.

    I don’t understand your tangential rant about “prejudice vs racism”. “The subject” is determined by content of the conversation and it vaires accordingly. I made a comment about prejudice, in response to someone else bringing up the subject of prejudice, and it was that statement that people disputed.

    My apologies. I thought the comment was directed at me.

  175. joe,

    Are you even *trying* anymore?

    Yes, indeed, you must be winning the debate, as you continue to emphasize. Repeatedly. Because it might not be obvious to anyone else unless you kept mentioning it.

    I am simply responding to your assertion:

    “Prejudice is immensely illiberal.

    “That’s why liberals get to have the word now, and not libertarians: because racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism, and they are contrary to liberalism. All liberalism, classical or modern.”

    Note that you said *all* liberalism. You didn’t say, “all liberalism, except the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, etc., etc.”

  176. You also said all liberalism *classical or modern.* This cuts off your usual escape route of denying any association with liberals of the past.

  177. …because racial and gender prejudice are not contrary to libertarianism…

    Libertarianism advocates dealing with each person as an individual rather than as a member of some group. This individualist stance precludes racism.

  178. Gotta change my answer a bit before joe rightly calls me on it.

    Libertarianism is anti-racist in the aspect I described above. It advocates individualism before the law.

    However, there is the good old purist libertarian argument about a motel owner having the right to exclude black people from staying on his property. They are probably libertarianally correct in their derivation of that right from their libertarianly axioms. Personally, I solve that conundrum by not being a purist libertarian.

    And by holding suspect all axiomatic reasoning that hasn’t been quality tested in the laboratory that is the real world. Anybody who makes their living writing software knows that you can be oh so logical as hell, and still find yourself debugging a piece of code that turned into a steaming turd when tried out with real users.

  179. Gotta say… Whole lotta honkeys in this thread…

  180. “I’m curious, what exactly justifies property rights, again?”

    I’m curious, what exactly is utilitarianism again?

  181. It is as if most of the commenters here, Moynihan in particular, are engaged in skating on a sheet of ice consisting of 3″ of repetitive superficialities, libertarian idealism and sophomoric argument. Kind of like LGF 2.0. Meanwhile the cold water below represents Truth and you dare not come in contact with it lest you drown or freeze.

    Groups like yours maintain a self-defined, defensible position of rationality because you stay on your platform, not even looking over the edge once in a while. Not to see what the fringe elements are up to *but to search for something meaningful*. A site like Auster’s admittedly exists off the edge somewhere and you deride it so but do not really not discussed it, a pity as it contains much that would make a man actually think honestly about his sense of morality and justice in the midst of contemporary American life. Difficult subjects usually require difficult destinations.

    Moynihan cherry-picks a few VFR topics in a misleading way and expects, I suppose, that this will suffice to convey its essence for Reason readers. Why not read it for your self? Tough it out and visit for a while. There is much thought-provoking material, especially regarding the nature of liberalism.

    Why not graduate from Star Trek conventions and try ice fishing?

  182. “I’m curious. What exactly is the justification for immigration laws, again?”

    I’m curious, what exactly justifies property rights, again?

    Indeed. Restrictive immigration laws are a massive violation of property rights, both of prospective immigrants who are prohibited from access to property in the US, and of present denizens who are prohibited from employing, housing, and otherwise associating with whomever they want on or with their property.

  183. Racial egalitarianism requires intentional disregard of the palpable differences between blacks and all other human types. There is no shortage of this.

  184. Star Trek was that show that had the first inter-racial kiss on TV. That was pretty cool.

  185. Racial egalitarianism requires intentional disregard of the palpable differences between blacks and all other human types.

    Most people, racial egalitarian or not, don’t go around discerning the palpable differences between people they don’t know very well. It’s a good way to get slapped.

  186. “And who, exactly, is Lawrence Auster?”

    Author of “The Path to National Suicide” (http://www.jtl.org/auster/PNS/PNS_Contents.html) and probably one of the most articulate, intellectually honest conservative pundits out there.

    By the way, since when did wanting to preserve the historic majority population and culture of the United States make one a “white nationalist”?

    The Japanese restrict immigration on ethnocultural grounds. Does that make them “yellow nationalists?”

  187. The Japanese restrict immigration on ethnocultural grounds. Does that make them “yellow nationalists?”

    Well, it makes them Japanese nationalists. They’re not really yellow, you know.

  188. @RD,
    America is, by definition, a culture in flux. It’s not about history, it’s about the present. The market is open. If you have an idea about how to corner it, by all means, build your tent. You’ll quickly find out your objective worth. If you don’t like it, move to France, or some other society that doesn’t mind instituting imperialist metaphysics over logic. In the meantime, fuck off, and stop staining libertarianism with your racial sour grapes.

  189. Moynihan really disappointed me with this one. Fact-free finger-pointing, blech.

  190. A few bons mots from Auster, who has published in the racist magazines The Occidental Quarterly and American Renaissance: “What really convinced me of an inherent, dangerous weakness in black ways of thought, however, was their widespread belief in Afrocentrism and the notion that whites were committing ‘genocide’ against blacks.” Blacks “seem to have much less interest in knowledge or beauty for its own sake” and they “are in fact less endowed with the qualities that make civilization possible, particularly Western civilization.”

    My God! How dare he draw conclusions about black characteristics and behavior based on observations of their behavior in all places at all time? Just because blacks commit the most crime in all Western nations where they are located, no sub-Saharan black people had ever invented a written language or anything resembling human civillization and a scary percentage believe in silly Afrocentrism and the idea that the government that makes their lives possible through our tax dollars is trying to kill them?

    Here’s Auster responding to you attack.

    “In response to my entry about the attack by Michael Moynihan of Reason magazine on Mark Krikorian because Krikorian gave a hat tip to VFR for the transcript of Sarah Palin’s interview on immigration, VFR’s Canadian leftist reader Ken Hechtman made this comment:

    In a free country I expect to be called to answer for what I write. I do not expect to be called to answer for what I read.

    Mr. Hechtman’s comment opens a window on a new and amazing possibility which is perhaps not that far off.

    In Canada, with its human rights commissions, and in cases like Mark Steyn’s and Ezra Levant’s, people are being routinely called before government bodies-bodies with the power to sue them-to give an accounting of what they have written and published. Even some leftist Canadian politicians are starting to be disturbed that their PC regime has gone so far.

    But it can go much farther. Under the regime implied in Michael Moynihan’s attack on Mark Krikorian, people could be called before the bar of public opinion, or even before a government body, to give an accounting of what they have read. ”

    http://amnation.com/vfr/

  191. Why is racism, the taste for certain “races” over others (even if race is itself simply a social construct, justified by privileging certain physical attributes) viewed any differently from other preferences? If a person has a taste for red sweaters over blue ones, then he is assumed to seek satisfaction by offering more in exchange for a red sweater than he would offer for a blue one. If a person has a taste for “white” chauffeurs over “black” chaffeurs then he will be willing to pay a higher price to hire the services of a “white” chaffeur than a “black” one. Is this irrational? Not according to the internal logic of free market economic theory. The consumer of chaffeur services is simply revealing, in his market exchange decisions, underlying racial preferences. His racism is, by definition, rational, so long as he acts consistently

  192. Why is racism, the taste for certain “races” over others (even if race is itself simply a social construct, justified by privileging certain physical attributes) viewed any differently from other preferences? If a person has a taste for red sweaters over blue ones, then he is assumed to seek satisfaction by offering more in exchange for a red sweater than he would offer for a blue one. If a person has a taste for “white” chauffeurs over “black” chaffeurs then he will be willing to pay a higher price to hire the services of a “white” chaffeur than a “black” one. Is this irrational? Not according to the internal logic of free market economic theory. The consumer of chaffeur services is simply revealing, in his market exchange decisions, underlying racial preferences. His racism is, by definition, rational, so long as he acts consistently

    You reveal an internal contradiction of politically correct libertarianism (which Reason supports based on their reaction to the Ron Paul newsletters). If people are left to their own devices, they seperate by race.

    http://amren.com/ar/2008/02/index.html#cover
    http://amren.com/ar/2008/03/index.html#cover

    You can like freedom or you can like diversity, but not both. The latter requires an army of consultants and social engineers working in conjuction with a regime of PC police, the likes of which brought down Larry Summers and James Watson.

  193. Larry Auster replies to this Stalinist behavior by REASON

    David Horowitz and Professor BrainDead aren’t conservatives. They’re lousy NeoCons. Reason really has hit low point this.

  194. no sub-Saharan black people had ever invented a written language or anything resembling human civillization

    This is just false.

    Sub-Saharan Africa had any number of politically complex, metallurgical, agricultural civilizations prior to contact with Europeans.

    Africans were perceived by early explorers to be “uncivilized” for primarily climatological reasons – Africa’s climate made European norms of clothing and housing inappropriate. To Europeans too stupid to adapt to local conditions, near-nakedness was an unforgiveable sign of savagery.

    And as far as the alphabet thing goes – no northern European culture independently invented the alphabet, either. They adopted writing by diffusion from Semitic cultures. So I guess Germans, English, Norwegians, Danes, etc. are “naturally” inferior, right?

    By the way, since when did wanting to preserve the historic majority population and culture of the United States make one a “white nationalist”?

    The Japanese restrict immigration on ethnocultural grounds. Does that make them “yellow nationalists?”

    It definitely makes them Japanese nationalists. They are nationalists who define the nation by the unifying factor of being Japanese.

    Since “white” Americans span a large number of ethnicities, we can’t tie your nationalism to ethnicity in that way. We have to tie it to its cross-ethnic unifying factor, whiteness. That means that if you want “to preserve the historic majority population and culture of the United States” you are in fact a white nationalist. Sorry.

    Under the regime implied in Michael Moynihan’s attack on Mark Krikorian, people could be called before the bar of public opinion, or even before a government body, to give an accounting of what they have read.

    Um, leaving aside the “government body” nonsense, since Moynihan is not an agent of the government, let me point out that –

    I can fucking base my opinion of you on whatever I fucking want.

    It’s kind of amusing that people who want to defend their freedom to judge others based on their skin color want to simultaneously decry my freedom to judge me based on the fact that they employ such judgments.

    Under the “regime” I favor, each individual gets to judge every other individual based on whatever criteria they want. If some of you guys want to judge black people based on historical accidents of minor timeline differences in the adoption of certain technologies, that’s your affair. If I want to judge you to be douchebags as a result, that’s mine. And if Moynihan wants to judge Auster based on his writing output, and to judge Krikorian on his fondness for Auster, that’s his affair.

  195. That should read “…decry my freedom to judge them based on…” etc. Pronoun trouble.

  196. “Women are the natural care-givers and are naturally focused on the home and the family and its protection. But those same priorities, when expressed through the political sphere as distinct from the private sphere, inevitably lead a society in the direction of socialism.”

    So, then government didn’t have a massive growth in size and scope post women’s suffrage?

  197. So, then government didn’t have a massive growth in size and scope post women’s suffrage?

    Yup, the USSR and Nazi Germany were all women’s fault. Women ran the whole show and were directly responsible for the growth in government. Little known fact.

  198. Well, it makes them Japanese nationalists. They’re not really yellow, you know.

    This just in. White people aren’t white, the red man is not red, and black folks aren’t black.

    Film at 11.

  199. I’m sure all you morons have read the Bell Curve but have not the intellectual fortitude to understand the Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. Then again, you all love your anecdata, not your biology.

  200. I have the intellectual fortitude to read The Mismeasure of Man. Indeed, I’ve read most of his books. The Mismeasure of Man is a jumbled mess whose primary purpose seemed to be to shoot down a straw man argument of determinism that exists only in Gould’s head.

  201. Restrictive immigration laws are a massive violation of property rights, both of prospective immigrants who are prohibited from access to property in the US, and of present denizens who are prohibited from employing, housing, and otherwise associating with whomever they want on or with their property.

    Maybe if we were back in the feudal times, bud. But were aren’t. Property rights are not God-given — indeed they couldn’t be because your typical libertarian doesn’t believe in God. Nor can they be ‘Reasoned’ into existence. My reason tells me that if I can obtain something by hook or crook, I should do that. Moreover, I never ‘agreed’ or ‘contracted’ with, say, Donald Bren of Irvine that he should have exclusively use of X his lands.

    No, property rights in a democracy are given and enforce by the community. We don’t really ask much in return, but importing vast numbers of foreigners is something that a lot of us really would rather you not do. Of course, no one actually pays the full costs of their imported labor these days, everything from healthcare costs to ‘education’ costs are externalized. (Look that one up in Palgrave’s)

    And no, we restrictionists aren’t violating your liberty. You are perfectly free to take off to Mexico or Bangladesh in search of cheap labor.

  202. If some of you guys want to judge black people based on historical accidents of minor timeline differences in the adoption of certain technologies, that’s your affair.

    It’s a historical accident that in not a single school in America do blacks do as well as whites.

    It’s a historical accident that not a single black nation that wasn’t run by whites has ever reached a first world standard of living.

    It’s a historical accident that there has NEVER been an IQ test anywhere, anytime, or any other proxy for intellectual capacity (like the ACT or SAT) where blacks comes close to doing as well as whites.

    It’s a historical accident that blacks have an IQ one standard deviation lower than whites. It’s also a historical accident that when blacks are adopted into whites homes they are still one SD behind.

    It’s a historical accident that blacks are 12% of the US population but commit 50% of the crime.

    It’s a historical accident that in London blacks are 12% of the population and commit 50% of the crime.

    It’s a historical accident that South Africa once maintained it’s existence as a first world country when run by whites but now that “social justice” has been achieved it’s joining the rest of Africa in the third world, with the electricity going out and everything like a scene out of Atlas Shrugged. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/world/africa/31safrica.html)

    It’s a historical accident that in every country where there are blacks and on every continent they are the most criminal, lowest socio-economic group. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1593680287/reasonmagazinea-20/

    It’s a historical accident that out of the 1500 most important inventions in the history of man according to Issac Asminov, not a single one came from a person of black descent.

    It’s a historical accidnet that every group in the world comes to America and ends up doing better than blacks. Our native blacks think that their faliure is due to discrimination and want government help to fix it.

    It’s a historical accident that blacks in France are faliures relative to the rest of society and want government intervention to fix it.(http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/01/in_officially_c.php)

    It’s a historical accident that blacks in Iraq are faliures relative to the rest of society and want government intervention to fix it.(http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2008/08/iraq_black_iraq.php)

    And I suppose the sun coming up every morning is a historical accident too?

    Look at the world. Blacks are told that they are equal to whites. They look around and see that they are at the bottom in all societies, everywhere, at all times by any objective measure. Is it any wonder they hate whites and listen to the rantings of Rev. Wright?

  203. Property rights are not God-given — indeed they couldn’t be because your typical libertarian doesn’t believe in God. Nor can they be ‘Reasoned’ into existence. My reason tells me that if I can obtain something by hook or crook, I should do that.

    Your reason should also tell you that if it the person you are taking the property from is more committed to holding on to the property than you are to taking it, then there will be an expensive conflict that you will lose. That is the natural, constructive definition of property. The encoding of that concept into societal norms that avoid continuous and costly conflicts is the definition of property rights. See David Friedman’s “A Positive Account of Property Rights“.

    No, property rights in a democracy are given and enforce by the community.

    This, on the other hand, is the foundation of tyranny.

  204. It’s a historical accident that out of the 1500 most important inventions in the history of man according to Issac Asminov, not a single one came from a person of black descent.

    I guess Isaac never heard of fire.

    This is a perfect example of what I mean. The history of man extends back hundreds of thousands of years, and that of “men” extends millions of years. I hate to break it to you, but no event that took place in the last couple of centuries is really a large enough data set to use to measure.

    In 200 AD, Nordic people would have “always” been inferior to Semites, to anyone occupying a literate society and using the historical records at hand. Residents of, say, southern Anatolia or the Levantine coast would have been entitled to say, “We had agriculture, metallurgy, trade, a written language, and everything that has to do with human culture for centuries while Germans were still living in huts.” And most Germans in civilized areas occupied the lowest possible social strata as slaves. Tell me, how did that data set “proving” superiority hold up over time?

    Over the span of a human history of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, a difference of a couple of centuries in adopting certain inventions or modes of life is a trivial difference that can’t be said to prove anything. Sorry.


  205. Over the span of a human history of hundreds of thousands or millions of years, a difference of a couple of centuries in adopting certain inventions or modes of life is a trivial difference that can’t be said to prove anything. Sorry.

    True. And today we have cross adoption studies, IQ tests done all over the world, MRI measurements of brain size and test scores from thousands of schools all over the world. There’s more objective data to be had from one year in today’s world then hundereds of thousands of years before the present era. And all evidence points in the same direction.

    And Semites, at least Jews (IQ 115), are “superior” to Europeans by the same standard that Europeans (IQ 100) are “superior” to blacks (IQ 70-85 depending on enviornment and level of white admixture). I harp on the black/white differences because differences in life outcomes are seen as evidence of discrimination while current political climate doesn’t see the fact that Jews are 2% of the US and overrepresented at the top levels of society as something government should correct. And the influx of Mestizos (IQ 90) are going to take us to the third world.

  206. True. And today we have cross adoption studies, IQ tests done all over the world, MRI measurements of brain size and test scores from thousands of schools all over the world.

    All of which are pretty brutally demolished by the Flynn effect.

    It sounds like you’ve read some Charles Murray, but were too stupid to understand it when it tried to teach you that the apparent heritability of IQ is not necessarily genetic in origin. And if IQ is heritable but not genetic, your argument about race is meaningless. And again, you’ve now narrowed the data set even further, to the span of years during which tests of the kind you describe were systematically employed, which is only a few decades. I’ll bet that if the Romans had devised an IQ test, residents of Italy would have outscored residents of France for longer than that – again without proving anything substantial.

    And you can spare me the “clever crafty Jews” bit, too, because Jews were not the only residents of the Mediterranean basin in 200 AD, and you’d have to show the same persistent “superiority” over Nordics continuing down to the present day for all of those other groups, too [Arabs, Berbers, Egyptians, etc] – and I don’t think you can.

  207. In 200 AD, Nordic people would have “always” been inferior to Semites, to anyone occupying a literate society and using the historical records at hand. Residents of, say, southern Anatolia or the Levantine coast would have been entitled to say, “We had agriculture, metallurgy, trade, a written language, and everything that has to do with human culture for centuries while Germans were still living in huts.” And most Germans in civilized areas occupied the lowest possible social strata as slaves. Tell me, how did that data set “proving” superiority hold up over time?

    Just to add, this is why we invented the scientific method. To test theories of how the world is. People in Anatolia or Rome could’ve tested their theory that Germanic people were inferior by seeing the life outcomes or IQ test scores of Germanic people who were adopted into families from the more advanced society. They would’ve found that their theory of Germanic inferiority was false.

    In today’s world, we have cross adoption studies that show that blacks adopted into white homes in both America and Europe still do poorly showing that the theory of black inferiority is correct.

  208. I’m sure all you morons have read the Bell Curve but have not the intellectual fortitude to understand the Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. Then again, you all love your anecdata, not your biology.

    Gould has long been p0wned. Comprehensively, decisively and finally.

  209. Tom P, I think you touched one of Fluffy’s exposed nerves.

  210. The same racial egalitarians who quickly gainsay any scientific finding — I mean “finding” — that is inconsistent with their views are quick to embrace Nineteenth Century anthropologists’ supposed reconstruction of the “Semitic” history of the ancient Middle East. The first figurine I ever saw of that area’s earliest known civilizers, the Sumerians (who are not classed as “Semites,” as far as I know), was that of a young woman — with eyes of blue stone and, I think, pigtails. She looked like a little Dutch girl.

  211. Tom P, I think you touched one of Fluffy’s exposed nerves.

    Yes, I put my last response up before seeing his where he resorted to name calling. That’s all people can do on emotional issue where all the evidence says that they’re wrong. Either that or locking people up for telling the truth, like they’re doing in Europe and Canada.

  212. In the final analysis the relative genetic “intellectual abilities” of various “races” (however you wish to define those loaded term) just doesn’t matter. The yeah for our side “whites” posting here this evening are far below the smartest “blacks” I’ve known intellectually. Yet I’ll still treat them with the respect that a human deserves.

    If you want to run around the internet sceaming in ALL CAPS WITH BOLD TAGS, “whites” are somehow superior, go right the fuck ahead. LIfe is easier when the halfwit assholes self identify.

  213. In the final analysis the relative genetic “intellectual abilities” of various “races” (however you wish to define those loaded term) just doesn’t matter.

    If quality of life of a country depends on race/IQ, we might want to discuss the whole whites becoming a minority thing.

    http://www.presstv.com/Detail.aspx?id=67006&sectionid=3510212

    Good luck preaching small government to crime ridden, welfare dependent blacks and Mexicans who think the whites do well in school and refrain from crime due to “privillege.”

    http://vdare.com/taylor/080929_malaysia.htm

    What does this suggest about the future of the United States? Most Americans can hardly imagine preferences for the majority and-if they even think about it-assume that racial preferences will fade away as the U.S. becomes more diverse and they become a minority.

    They shouldn’t count on it. As Malaysia proves, groups don’t have to be minorities to develop a taste for preferences.

    The crucial factor no one talks about-either in Malaysia or in the United States-is IQ. The average IQ for the Malays and Indians is about 87 while that of the Chinese is around 103. That is why the Chinese thrive despite the Bumiputra Program but the Indians don’t.

    Preferences for bumis were supposed to be temporary-just as in the United States-to give them just enough of a boost so they could compete with the Chinese. The trouble with preferences is that they don’t raise a group’s average IQ, and temporary programs become permanent.

    In America, blacks and Hispanics will not lose interest in preferences just because they become the majority. On the contrary, once they have enough political power, I suspect they will not hesitate to legislate in favor of themselves. Racial preferences may seem to be on the wane now, but when the balance of power shifts they will be back.

  214. “LIfe is easier when the halfwit assholes self identify.”

    Your message made this last bit unneeded, really.

    It has been said, and it seems sensible enough, that one finds individuals in *all* ethnic and racial groups comprising the most intellectually superior percentile of humans. Maybe that is dangerous “incomplete” information that could be misused easily. The larger point is that measurable indicators of *average* intelligence and behavior in these same groups is something that should be of genuine concern to us all.

    To be unconcerned with these matters makes one a pious egalitarian, while focusing on what is going on with human diversity makes on a racist according to some. What makes us wonder about these things in the first place is living shoulder-to-shoulder and paying attention. Which is the more “natural” condition– to be sensitized to or oblivious to the race of our fellow man– is a curious question.

  215. Just to add, this is why we invented the scientific method. To test theories of how the world is. People in Anatolia or Rome could’ve tested their theory that Germanic people were inferior by seeing the life outcomes or IQ test scores of Germanic people who were adopted into families from the more advanced society. They would’ve found that their theory of Germanic inferiority was false.

    No, they wouldn’t have.

    Because they probably would have conducted the equivalent of the Minnesota Cross Adoption study: they would have examined the children of German mothers who had failed in life so completely that they had to surrender their children for adoption, and when those children did not perform the same as the children of the most socially successful and intelligent Romans they would have concluded that this proved that all Germans were inferior no matter how they were raised. Oh, and they would have tested a grand total of 138 subjects. So that dumbasses could go online and push phrenology-like pseudoscience that they picked up at White Power meetings.

    Nice that you met up with your buddy who has created his own anthropology and archaeology where the residents of ancient Sumer were Dutch.

    Maybe you guys can go ride off on dinosaur Jesus horses later and meet up with some scientists who can prove for you that the Mississippi mound builders were Welsh or something. Or maybe you can track down the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot and test their IQ’s.

  216. Fluffy,

    I thought I was done replying to you when you resorted to childish name calling but I can’t help but wonder why you assume someone who thinks the intelligence of whites is intermediate between Jews and Asians on one side and Blacks and Native Americans on the other is a white supremacist.

  217. The mound-builders were Welsh? I wonder. So, in a way, did Alexis de Tocqueville:

    Although we have here traced the character of a primitive people [the American Indians], yet it cannot be doubted that another people, more civilized and more advanced in all respects, had preceded it in the same regions.

    An obscure tradition which prevailed among the Indians on the borders of the Atlantic informs us that these very tribes formerly dwelt on the west side of the Mississippi. Along the banks of the Ohio, and throughout the central valley, there are frequently found, at this day, tumuli raised by the hands of men. On exploring these heaps of earth to their center, it is usual to meet with human bones, strange instruments, arms and utensils of all kinds, made of metal, and destined for purposes unknown to the present race.

    The Indians of our time are unable to give any information relative to the history of this unknown people. Neither did those who lived three hundred years ago, when America was first discovered, leave any accounts from which even a hypothesis could be formed. Traditions, those perishable yet ever recurrent monuments of the primitive world, do not provide any light. There, however, thousands of our fellow men have lived; one cannot doubt that. When did they go there, what was their origin, their destiny, their history? When and how did they disappear? No one can possibly tell.

    How strange it appears that nations have existed and afterwards so completely disappeared from the earth that the memory even of their names is effaced! Their languages are lost; their glory is vanished like a sound without an echo; though perhaps there is not one which has not left behind it some tomb in memory of its passage.

    — Democracy in America: Volume 1, Chapter 1 (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/1_ch01.htm)

  218. …someone who thinks the intelligence of whites is intermediate between Jews and Asians on one side and Blacks and Native Americans…

    OK, please explain why you racists are so fixated on dividing everyone up into groups (black people, white people, left-handed people, people who can curl their tongue) and rating each groups’ intelligence, crime rates, per-capita ownership of cardigan sweaters. Do you have some kind of mental block when it comes to dealing with people as individuals?

  219. You can like freedom or you can like diversity, but not both.

    YOU CAN LIKE BASEBALL OR YOU CAN LIKE HOT DOGS, BUT NOT BOTH.

  220. Yes, Laursen, we have some kind of mental block when it comes to dealing with people as individuals. That’s because we’re not as good as you.

  221. Is reality optional? Should we not speak about things that are true because they are not pleasant or the preferred utopian viewpoint? Does being a libertarian mean that I must ignore truths that others do not like? If so, why bother at all?

  222. Yes, Laursen, we have some kind of mental block when it comes to dealing with people as individuals. That’s because we’re not as good as you.

    That’s true. You’re not.

  223. OK, please explain why you racists are so fixated on dividing everyone up into groups (black people, white people, left-handed people, people who can curl their tongue) and rating each groups’ intelligence, crime rates, per-capita ownership of cardigan sweaters. Do you have some kind of mental block when it comes to dealing with people as individuals?

    Because the science of group differences allows us to predict what will happen as this country becomes more and more filled with Mexicans. While many Hispanics who come here will be intelligent, law-abiding and hard working, their overall low IQ means we can expect more crime, more welfare dependency and a lower standard of living in the future.

    Also, if you’re a libertarian, you should be concerned that differences in life outcomes are seen by the left as evidence of discrimination and used as justification for expanding government power. There’s anti-white and Asian discrimination in the form of affirmative action, the assault on freedom of association that comes from “civil rights” laws, the assault on free speech at universities aimed at stopping anybody from thinking too hard and finding out that populations are different, the ACLU suing school districts for not being able to make Mexicans and Blacks as smart as Whites and Asians, allegations that the criminal justice system is racist because we end up locking up so many Blacks and Mexicans, etc.

  224. OK, why do classify immigrants by ethnic grouping, as opposed to some other grouping: say, level of education, gender, age, household wealth at time of immigration? Was it because of a pre-supposition that ethnicity is the factor that matters more than any of those other possible grouping criteria?

  225. *smirk* Today’s taboo is tomorrow’s fashion statement.

  226. Many libertarians imagine that all economic and political problems will be solved if only the proper economic and political framework is established: free enterprise, limited government, clear recognition of individual rights. But the question is, How can such a framework, such a “house,” be preserved? It can’t be preserved if people must continually be convinced, by the tens of millions, that liberty is a good idea, better than the welfare state or some structure of political repression and intolerance. It can be preserved only by a culture in which the vast majority of people assume that individual liberty and responsibility are the ultimate political good. Not every culture makes these assumptions.

    It would not be difficult for a few million representative citizens of, say, the Arab countries to take up residence in the United States and seriously disrupt or even destroy the American political economy. The cost of immigration is now the lowest in history. For just a few hundred dollars, you can get to the United States from any country in the world. If you already have an uncle or a cousin in the States – something that is very likely – you may find it easy to take up residence and get a job. If not, welfare assistance will not be hard to obtain; no one starves in America. And suppose that you are, indeed, one of the great majority of immigrants who want a job and work hard when they get it. What then? Does this mean that the political and social attitudes to which you have been accustomed will simply disappear? I don’t think that they will. I think you will probably keep most of those attitudes. I think that the longer you stay in America, the more self-confidence you gain, and the more you and your children are exposed to modern multicultural propaganda, the more likely you will be to insist that America conform to your own cultural assumptions.

    The best we can do is to admit immigrants sparingly, not by the tens of millions; to judge their economic fitness by their skills and education, not by their mere presence, and to be especially restrictive about immigration from cultures that do not prepare people for life in a libertarian society.

    http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2006_10/cox-immigration.html

  227. Mike Laursen for the win! Sorry, honkies.

    How do we get more of those disproportionately brilliant epileptics to move here?

  228. Tom P,

    Strictly speaking, when I said you were too stupid to understand the Murray you were badly quoting and interpreting, that was adjectival, and not the application of a name.

    It’s not name-calling until I call you a queef. You queef.

  229. Bruce, do you ever personally interact with immigrants, or is all of your understanding of them theoretical?

  230. I hate persons who attempt to justify their racism with economics or philosophy. I just dislike blacks.

  231. I have not many concrete contacts with immigrants. Significant pieces of my everyday knowledge as who these people are, how they live, where they come from, why they come, is derived from reading and by watching the political debate that has been going on for the last several years.

  232. “the political debate that has been going on for the last several years.”

    Read “the fringe-right blogosphere.”

  233. Reason this is not. This is the closing of one’s eyes to a real problem so as not to appear “xenophobic” or “racist.” You pat yourselves on the back for being balanced and magnanimous, but you’re really just being cowardly.

  234. “Reason this is not.”

    Drink!

    And, yes, I agree that immigration is a “real problem,” if you get all your information from VDare.

  235. I have not many concrete contacts with immigrants.

    It would change your views a lot. I live in a place that probably has more people that just arrived from foreign countries. When I take a walk in the local park on a Sunday every family I walk by strolling around the lake is speaking in a different language: Spanish, Russian, Hindi, French, Chinese, Japanese.

    Here’s the deal. They all love America and American values. That’s why they bothered to come here. Plus they bring with them all kinds of interesting culture, food, and good-looking women of all descriptions. I can’t imagine how anybody could take in this whole scene and think it was anything but fun and fascinating.

  236. “Here’s the deal. They all love America and American values.”

    Bullshit strawman argument about La Raza and/or al Qaeda cells in 5, 4, 3, 2…

  237. When we finally get the mass deportations that you VDare guys want, could we throw out the Irish, too? They’ve gotten really smug. They’ve hijacked the punk scene from those of us with British ancestry. And their Jameson comsumption and dick size are statistically troublesome. Maybe they don’t bother you in Hayden Lake, Idaho, but in Chicago, it’s gotten out of hand.

  238. I like when collectivism rears its ugly head too. And thanks to the people who corrected me on Gould, I knew the book was old but was unaware of responses to it which made it obsolete.

  239. Plus they bring with them all kinds of interesting culture, food, and good-looking women of all descriptions.

    We’ve already heard about immigration being good for the stomach and good for the cock. Some of us have other priorities, however.

    “Here’s the deal. They all love America and American values.”

    Bullshit strawman argument about La Raza and/or al Qaeda cells in 5, 4, 3, 2…

    Bullshit strawman? Tell that to the British.

  240. Plus they bring with them all kinds of interesting culture, food, and good-looking women of all descriptions.

    Blond hair, blue eyes and red hair would be whiped off the face of the earth forever after one generation of random mating. You leave the European continent and you only have one choice for hair and eye color. You like diversity and physical beauty? Fight against race mixing.

    As far as “interesting cultures” go, well, headlines like “Muslim Rape Wave” sure make the politics of the country more interesting.

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/fjordman.htm

  241. Bullshit strawman? Tell that to the British.

    Don’t forget the French, the Dutch, the Swedes,and the Germans

  242. We’ve already heard about immigration being good for the stomach and good for the cock. Some of us have other priorities, however.

    And those are?

  243. Blond hair, blue eyes and red hair would be whiped off the face of the earth forever after one generation of random mating.

    Wouldn’t that require non-random mating? As in forcibly preventing people of European heritage from having children with each other? I hope you’re not wasting your time lying awake at night worrying about that happening.

  244. As far as “interesting cultures” go, well, headlines like “Muslim Rape Wave” sure make the politics of the country more interesting.

    So, I relate how immigrants are a blessing and a joy to be around. That I have lived in that world every day for years and years, right here in America. And the best you can do to counter is to dig up some story from Sweden?

  245. So, I relate how immigrants are a blessing and a joy to be around. That I have lived in that world every day for years and years, right here in America. And the best you can do to counter is to dig up some story from Sweden?

    Mexicans rape too. The “Hispanic” crime rate is 5 times that of Whites. They are faliures by every objective measure.

  246. Wouldn’t that require non-random mating? As in forcibly preventing people of European heritage from having children with each other? I hope you’re not wasting your time lying awake at night worrying about that happening.

    Whites are about 15% of the world’s population. A minority of them have light hair and light eyes. They build socities that attract the other 85% of the world that has black hair and black eyes. Some whites will mix with non-whites every generation and if the influx of the latter continues eventually blond hair and blue eyes will be something they read about in anthropology text books.

    Look at who Mexicans, Indians and Arabs choose to look at on TV. An old joke is the only channel in America where the actors are still all white is Telemundo. I oppose immigration because whites are the only physically attractive race.

  247. “I oppose immigration because whites are the only physically attractive race.”

    Wow.

    Good luck with that.

  248. Mr. Laursen — you haven’t related “how immigrants are a blessing and a joy to be around.” You’ve said you find it pleasant to be amid a variety of them during weekend strolls in your local park. Whether or not that’s true, it has nothing to do with intimacy — not even with the minor intimacy of good neighbors. In my own observation, the increased presence in the United States of non-Europeans has reduced human connection, which has been replaced by obsessive — almost desperate — small talk — about professional sports, television programs, and pop musicians. There seems to be an unuttered notion that within a few generations, all of those non-concerns will become the basis of some new ethnicity — and not only an American one, a World one. That is a delusion. The divide that is race is great; one either accepts the limits of the connections that can be made across it or one does not.

  249. I oppose immigration because whites are the only physically attractive race.

    I gotta, say, Mike, you’ve got me with that one. It was so bizarrely wrong-headed and close-minded, I have no idea how to continue debating with you.

  250. it has nothing to do with intimacy

    Oh, no. Didn’t mean to imply I don’t have intimate relationships with any immigrants. I do.

    — not even with the minor intimacy of good neighbors. In my own observation, the increased presence in the United States of non-Europeans has reduced human connection, which has been replaced by obsessive — almost desperate — small talk — about professional sports, television programs, and pop musicians.

    You’ll have to explain further how this perceived lack of intimacy ties in with immigrants. Or why you don’t have the problem when you’re interacting with Europeans.

  251. “Blond hair, blue eyes and red hair would be whiped off the face of the earth forever after one generation of random mating.” (…)

    “I hope you’re not wasting your time lying awake at night worrying about that happening.”

    This reply is quite ironic in an age when self-proclaimed conservationists, preservers of nature, environmentalists and ecologists, and their various and sundry organizations, express constant concern over the depletion and shrinkage of the earth’s biological richness and diversity, implement programs to maintain the diversity of the earth’s gene pool, and recommend that the public be educated in the need to protect species and make the preservation of biological diversity an issue of global importance!

  252. “I oppose immigration because whites are the only physically attractive race.”

    Here is a delemma.

    The greatest accomplishment of American culture, did not come from mainstream whites.

    Jazz came from a black culture that drew back on its long-standing and uniquely African traditions. Without the African tradition brought over to the United States, jazz would not exist – nor would the blues and rock ‘n roll!

    Millions of white people like jazz, blues, rock ‘n roll and music related to that genre.
    So, my question to Mike is: do you think America would have been a better place if jazz and the people who created it would have been left in Africa?

  253. Millions of white people like jazz, blues, rock ‘n roll and music related to that genre.
    So, my question to Mike is: do you think America would have been a better place if jazz and the people who created it would have been left in Africa?

    I would trade jazz for a 50% (blacks share) drop in the crime rate, getting rid a block that voted 90% big government and whose faliure is used as an excuse to keep expanding government power and rap “music.”

    So yes, of course this country would be better off without blacks.

  254. This will be my last post here, Mr. Laursen, simply because I can give no more time to the present page. Race itself is the divide. If a handful of persons of one race live among those of another, human connection suffers little. The members of the majority interact with each other as they had been interacting, and the behavior of the members of the minority is modified by their consciousness of their status as guests, so to speak. Members of the majority, if they choose, can embrace those minority members who are inclined to be embraced sentimentally. If, alternatively, the minority’s numbers are fairly large, human connection can be preserved by segregation, as via Chinatowns, which limits the interaction between members of the two groups and permits the vast portion of life to be carried out as if they were not in the same country: the borders of the ethnic enclaves become something like national boundaries within a nation. A third condition — which is arising in America — denies every person a social sphere populated exclusively by members of his or her own race. Constantly in contact with each other, members of every group have only two options: to remain aloof from each other or to substitute the false intimacy of chronic small talk. Most choose the latter.

  255. Re: Race and beauty

    Don’t libertarians trust the market to give people what they want?

    http://www.amren.com/search.html?cx=009148206432049679303%3Aublljjeli10&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=african+fashion#1415

  256. It is very, very rich that your comment was posted by someone with the last name, Bonaccorsi. I suggest you go back and read what was said about “Papists” when they first came over to America in large numbers.

  257. Bruce, it’s a big stretch to tie this discussion into environmentalism, but if, in this far-fetched scenario, environmentalists planned all human mating and preferred preservation of human genetic lines with traits like blond hair, blue eyes, etc. wouldn’t that be in harmony with your goals?

    By the way, why are we worried about blond hair disappearning? We’ll always have blond hair around as long as we have corner drug stores.

  258. When you guys post statistics about black or hispanic people having higher crime rates, do you go beyond the statistics to attribute the factors behind those rates? May I venture the guess that you consider race per se as the primary factor, as opposed to, say, economic status?

  259. Both low SES and high crime are due to genes. Do research on nature/nurture and get back to us.

  260. The traditional races have no correspondence to any genetic classification of population groups. In other words, they are pre-scientific and vague. Do the research and get back to us.

  261. “preservation of human genetic lines with traits like blond hair, blue eyes, etc. wouldn’t that be in harmony with your goals?
    ” -Mike Laursen

    What’s wrong with these goals?

    The Nordic race has created the only civilizations to place a significant value and emphasis, in concept and practice, on individual rights, freedom, dignity, importance and sovereignty.
    The objectivity which is a common characteristic of the Northern race – the ability to approach new experiences and situations, and perceive reality, with an unbiased open mind, free of prior judgment, and appreciate other points of view – has fostered the creation and development of science and, to a significant extent, liberated the North from the doctrinaire dogmatism, obscurantism and narrow perspective of subjective thought.

  262. The greatest accomplishment of American culture, did not come from mainstream whites.

    Jazz came from a black culture that drew back on its long-standing and uniquely African traditions. Without the African tradition brought over to the United States, jazz would not exist – nor would the blues and rock ‘n roll!

    That’s not exactly an uncontested fact.

    That’s a statement that gets made frequently. Strangely, no one is ever able to cite any examples of African music that could be considered precursors of American music.

    Tertian harmony, 4/4 beats and I-IV-V type chord progressions have existed in European music for centuries. Where do you find any examples of those in African music?

  263. The Nordic race has created the only civilizations to place a significant value and emphasis, in concept and practice, on individual rights, freedom, dignity, importance and sovereignty.

    Oh, sure. Just dangle Godwin bait right in front of me. I’m not gonna bite.

  264. That’s not exactly an uncontested fact.

    I’m not a musicologist, so I’ll leave you to debate the roots of jazz with Bruce.

  265. The traditional races have no correspondence to any genetic classification of population groups. In other words, they are pre-scientific and vague. Do the research and get back to us.

    You’ve proved yourself to be the left wing equivalent of a creationist.

    I hope there’s a special place in hell for those of you who are leading us to the third world due to your cowardly inability to face reality.

  266. Apparently, you didn’t do the research before getting back to us.

  267. “Do the research and get back to us.”

    Read the book by Michael H.: Understanding Human History: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution (Washington Summit Publishers, pp. 484, $24.95).

    UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY is a history of humanity, beginning about 100,000 years ago and going through the 20th century. It includes discussions of developments in every major area of the world. Unlike other books on world history, it explicitly discusses racial differences in intelligence, and explains how, why, and when they arose. The book also discusses the many consequences that those differences have had on human events, starting in prehistoric times and continuing to the present. The book includes an abundance of data and tables, together with sixteen maps, three tables, an extensive bibliography, and a thorough index.

  268. When the U.S. is divided up into three racially-separated states, as Michael H. Hart proposes, I want to live in the mixed-race one please. Sheesh, this is your supposed objective scientific historian?

  269. Is this another one of those threads that will require me to have the last post?

    I’ll do it, I swear.

    I can get really into that sort of a contest.

    Tell ya’ll what – I’ll ramble, ramble, ramble ramble, ramble on, and after you think you’ve read enough of what I wrote, you all take a guess what my ethnic heritage is. It’ll be fun.

    First I will write about pumpkin seeds, sometimes known as pepitas. A lot of folks eat pumpkin seeds year round. They buy them at grocery stores, both shelled and unshelled. Few people, though, make them at home at any time other than Halloween. It’s a tradition in many American homes to hollow out a pumpkin and carve a face on it, creating a Halloween decoration that is known as a jack-o-lantern. The seeds from the pumpkin are saved and roasted. Yum!

  270. I’m gonna take a wild-ass guess: Are you of Hispanic heritage?

  271. Here you go,

    http://vdare.com/rushton/080616_lynn.htm

    In Caribbean countries such as Cuba, Trinidad, and Guyana, it was the Chinese and South Asians who were brought in after the end of slavery. Subsequently, they too began to do well, with the Chinese excelling and the South Asians placing intermediate to Whites and Blacks.

    In Britain large numbers of Blacks from Africa and the Caribbean, and South Asians from Africa, India, and Pakistan began to enter the country in the 1950s and 1960s. Twenty-two studies find Afro-Caribbeans have a median IQ of 86, which is similar to the African American mean of 85. Twelve studies find the South Asians have a median IQ of 92.

    In Africa and Australia too, South Asians average intermediate to Whites and Blacks in IQ scores, educational achievement, and economic success.

    At the other end of the IQ distribution, seven studies of Jews in Britain yield a median IQ of 110. In educational achievement, East Asians in Britain also outperform the indigenous Whites.

    Similarly in Australia, East Asians (mostly Chinese and Vietnamese) average higher than Whites in IQ, educational achievement, and earnings. Lynn describes pockets of ethnic Chinese elsewhere in the world such as in Mexico, Argentina, and especially Hawaii, where they also do well.

    In Canada too, there is an IQ hierarchy: Jews (109), East Asians (101), Whites (100), Amerindians (89), and Blacks (84).

    These results are remarkably consistent over time, place, and situation, irrespective of the original status of the people, or the language, history, and political organization of the country concerned.

    The same data holds all place and all times. While you’re education yourself, you might want to check out what science says about diversity.

    http://amren.com/ar/2007/11/index.html#cover
    http://amren.com/ar/2007/12/index.html#cover

  272. I love you, Urkobold.

    Is there ANY source for this shit that isn’t AmRen, VDare, or some underground historian who wants to split up the country? There’s a slight whiff of confirmation bias. Science at large rejected eugenics a long time ago, and there doesn’t seem to be a credible effort to bring it back, outside the outwardly racist fringes. If most scientists aren’t interested, is it because of a massive PC conspiracy, or is it because your ideas are horseshit? Occam’s razor sez B.

    Your movement is completely irrelevant. But don’t worry. I assume Mr. Whitefolks will land on his feet – he’s always done all right for himself in the past, under all sorts of weird circumstances.

  273. You calling me lazy?!

    Well, yeah, but not as part of a race or anything. Just lazy as an individual. 🙂

  274. Yes. I understood that.

    The pumpkin seeds turned out great. I’ll try to save some for the block party on Friday. Stop by.

  275. John Bonaccorsi– too bad you cashed in on commenting (though I don’t blame you). Thanks for sharing some interesting ideas about ethnic cooperation and social-geographic relations between races. I think that if one group retains historical social and political dominance– usually racial but not necessarily so– then relations can be harmonious even if they seem “unfair”. But as soon as a disenfranchised minority attains and exercises an increase in political power, all the historic resentments will accompany that ascendancy, probably with increased force (rather than being lessened due to the expression of greater power). In turn this brings out stereotypes and hostility from the predominant class or group because it feels threatened.

    If you are saying that the “one world race” idea is laughably mindless, I agree, and would add that even as a conceptual goal it is a recipe for strife and violence rather than a bogus harmony. Equality in terms of expectations of outcome by race is a mental delusion and its social and academic promotion has brought only discord and pain. We can still do a lot with the presumption of basic equal rights and the idea of equal opportunity.

  276. I think that if one group retains historical social and political dominance– usually racial but not necessarily so– then relations can be harmonious even if they seem “unfair”. But as soon as a disenfranchised minority attains and exercises an increase in political power, all the historic resentments will accompany that ascendancy, probably with increased force (rather than being lessened due to the expression of greater power). In turn this brings out stereotypes and hostility from the predominant class or group because it feels threatened.

    Translation: Everything would be harmonious and fair for us white guys if we can just keep all of the other races under our domination.

  277. “When the U.S. is divided up into three racially-separated states, as Michael H. Hart proposes, I want to live in the mixed-race one please.”

    If Northern Europeans had been limited to multiracial societies in the past they would NOT exist today, and if present interracial trends continue they will not exist in the future.

    See also the monograph by sociologists Glaister and Evelyn Elmer, Ethnic Conflicts Abroad: Clues to America’s Future?

  278. No, I did not see that, but do you know what I did see? Go on, guess.

  279. Woohoo! Day three!

    Did you see a puppy? I don’t think puppy breeds should mix, by the way.

  280. Translation: Everything would be harmonious and fair for us white guys if we can just keep all of the other races under our domination.

    We want to keep them away! That’s the difference between us White Nationalists and our black and brown equivalents.

    Is there ANY source for this shit that isn’t AmRen, VDare, or some underground historian who wants to split up the country?

    A lot of those guys writing for AmRen and VDare are psychologists from the top universities in the world. Do you expect tthem to be published in the Washington Post?

    There’s a slight whiff of confirmation bias. Science at large rejected eugenics a long time ago, and there doesn’t seem to be a credible effort to bring it back, outside the outwardly racist fringes. If most scientists aren’t interested, is it because of a massive PC conspiracy, or is it because your ideas are horseshit? Occam’s razor sez B.

    As far as most scientists rejecting eugenics, that’s a political/moral position, not a scientific one. Political/moral positions can be influenced by scientific findings though and the consensus is that nature matters more than nurture. Even the New York Times admits it.

    Dr. Segal has found that identical twins were the most alike in their thinking, fraternal twins somewhat less so, and virtual twins strikingly different. When it comes to intelligence, for example, her research has found that only 25 percent of the differences between twins – virtual, fraternal or identical – can be accounted for by their environment, 75 percent by genetics.

  281. So, Bruce, Annonymous, where do you guys live? What do you do for a living? Do you have any hobbies? How much of your time do you spend thinking about the fate of the Northern European race?

  282. Hey, do you guys like to cook? Ever watch Top Chef? Would you agree that Padma Lakshmi is a very good-looking woman?

  283. Laursen:

    “Translation: Everything would be harmonious and fair for us white guys if we can just keep all of the other races under our domination.”

    Behind the Translation: “Life is unfair so long as any group enjoys dominancy, even on their own territory: Greeks in Greece, Iranians in Iran, etc. It is morally wrong for them, or whites in America, to defend the culture and systems they have built.”

    If you had said something more intelligent, such as that it seems the case that there is a natural turnover of dominant groups over time/space (again, Greece, Egypt, Persia, Russia, etc.)– nothing stays the same– then we could perhaps agree. But it sounds as though you cannot tolerate for a moment any hierarchy of social status for any reason since this amounts to racism and prejudice.

    Individuals of all races and creeds find their natural place in the world, according to ability and desire, and groups have the same tendency. Sometimes unfairness and racism are involved in both cases. Still there is hardly a more naturally evident fact in observing human tendencies than this unavoidable “inequality”.

    Isn’t your sense of outrage mainly an overwrought sense of morality projected onto others? Haven’t we been shaped by disparities of all kinds for oh, I don’t know, 10s of thousands of years? Time for that evolutionary nonsense to come to a close you say?

  284. Mike,

    Yes, I spend a lot of time worrying about the future of the white race. Anyway, we’ll have a lifetime to see what “diversity” brings to the Western world. Nice chatting with you.

  285. thumbtack,

    I’m no longer allowed to speak for anyone else (court order), but if I may answer for Mr Laursen:

    1. No.
    2. Was that supposed to make sense?
    3. Consider this: If I put 100 tadpoles into a bucket and put that bucket into a freezer, what do you think would happen? Would it make more or less sense to add water to the bucket first?

  286. “So, Bruce, Annonymous, where do you guys live? What do you do for a living? Do you have any hobbies? How much of your time do you spend thinking about the fate of the Northern European race?”

    I live in Belgium, Flanders to be correct, and my native tongue is Dutch.

    I retired 10 years ago at age 53.

    I love to go biking and walking, I also like to read, especially anything having to do with philosophy, and I also like listening to music.

    Regarding your last question: as a wild guess I’d say more than you would like to.

  287. WTF, I’ve been spending all of this time debating with you about immigration and racial purity, and actually paying attention to your theories on jazz music, and you just now get around to mentioning that you live in Belgium, not America.

    I don’t really care what you think about immigration or race then, or jazz. Here in America most of us get why the multi-cultural “melting pot” is so great, and we instinctively understand how that melting pot creates marvelous cultural explosions of creativity like jazz.

  288. Isn’t your sense of outrage mainly an overwrought sense of morality projected onto others?

    Nope. My opposition to your views centers around an objection to your seeing yourself and others primarily as members of groups, rather than as individuals.

  289. @Bruce Graeme

    Flanders, eh? They’ve been in the news quite a bit lately. What do you think the chances are Flanders will secede from Belgium anytime soon? I notice Vlaams Belang has been the largest political party in Belgium for some time now – do you think they’re a viable model for nationalist parties in other parts of Europe? In America?

    They’re seems to be quite a bit of nationalist sentiment brewing under the radar in Europe. I’d expect that’s the natural effect of a.) sovereignty being taken from the citizenry via the unelected EU. b.) having massive immigration inflicted on the citizenry by their elites (see a.).

    Believe it or not, despite the example of Europe, there are quite a few people here who think open borders and a North American Union would be a great idea for the US. I suspect those people haven’t been paying a whole lot of attention to the experience of Europe.

  290. Here in America most of us get why the multi-cultural “melting pot” is so great, and we instinctively understand how that melting pot creates marvelous cultural explosions of creativity like jazz.

    We do?

  291. We do?

    I stand corrected. We’ll that’s disappointing.

  292. I understand why no one responded to my tadpole metaphor – it was poorly chosen. Let me try again with hot links. Imagine ten packages of hot links (any brand will do), 6 hot links per pack. You have seventy guests on their way over. The hot dog stand is right around the corner, but your wife still wants help cleaning the bathroom. Do you run to Pete’s Red Hots right away and sneak a smoke while doing that, or do you fire up the grill, finish cleaning the toilet bowl, and then run out to pick up the polishes? Maxwell style or no? Oh, and you just noticed that the hot links are made with pork and you don’t eat pork.
    And you’re not sure if Meena is coming, and she’s a vegetarian.

    Now do you see what I mean?

  293. For our Belgian friends, a “hot link” is a lot like a waffle except it is made of spices and meat, and is typically prepared on a barbecue grill. It is just one of the delicious foodstuffs available everywhere in the cornucopia of dining variety that exists in our multi-cultural county.

  294. End Affirmative Action!
    Sign NPI’s Petition Today
    Affirmative action is unfair, un-American, and just plain wrong. A bill to end it has been languishing in Congress since 1995.

    Join NPI in demanding that Congress finally take action, and pass the Equal Opportunity Act of 1995.

    Read-and then, please sign-NPI’s Petition

    http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/petition/

  295. All right, I’m getting nowhere. How about this?

    You wake up in the living room on the sofa. Last thing you remember, you had been partying with your roommates and were quite tired. Not that anyone could blame you – you were out driving the wrecker for 20 hours straight before you got home. Now, though, when you try to open your eyes, there’s something weighing down your eyelids. What the hell?! What’s going on?! Your hands grab madly at your face. Theres something taped over your eyes. It’s coins. What the fuck?! What the fuck are COINS doing taped on your motherFUCKING eyes?!! MIIIIIKKE!!!! YER A DEAD MAN!!!!!!

  296. Assuming you are of Northern European descent and Mike, your roommate, is also of Northern European descent, you two would be living in harmonious harmony. So, therefore, nothing like your proposed scenario could occur.

    Unless … Is this a trick question? Is there another roommate, who is not a Northern European?

  297. I am not one of the roommates.
    (but I did make a suggestion to Mike)

  298. Believe it or not, despite the example of Europe, there are quite a few people here who think open borders and a North American Union would be a great idea for the US.

    Care to name one?

    In my experience, people who are for open borders are against a North American Union.

    Trade and migration blocs should be as large as possible. Political blocs should be as small as possible. It’s a simple principle, really, that maximizes the autonomy of the individual.

  299. Trade and migration blocs should be as large as possible. Political blocs should be as small as possible. It’s a simple principle, really, that maximizes the autonomy of the individual.

    I totally agree.

  300. Well, I think there is no coherent discussion with someone who applies the either/or mentality to individuals vs. groups. Maybe you want to erase group identity altogether, but look around the world– and the US– and you will find you belong to a very small group (!) that is elitist and idealistic.

    Groups and individuals are both real. They are not natural adversaries.

  301. The maximum expression of individual autonomy cannot be realized without the tyranny of a higher organizing force with this as its goal, viz., the legal-political State. This renders the autonomy-as-greatest-good argument both absurd and dangerous, as well as circular in its reasoning. If you believe that the individual (autonomy) is more important than the general culture, family, ethnicity, class, etc., you are stuck in a nightmare of rules meted out by invisible bureaucratic rulers. How else could this unnatural condition possibly arise? The EU is this principle incarnate and it violates the very spirit of man and humanity.

    Such seemingly simple and idealistic “smart” thinking is *always* a warning sign. But the arguments always sound so good to the incautious ear!

  302. thumbtack,

    You ever play with a ball & cup toy? Hours of fun.
    Seriously.
    Hours.
    Find a nice painted wood one if you can.

  303. highball– I suppose it shows I could use more fun on some days. Thanks for th’ tip. I will look for one that is wooden with nice ethnic design flourishes.

  304. No! Simple stripes. Listen to me.

  305. I don’t know what you were getting at with that “ethnic design flourishes” thing, but really, I feel strongly enough about this that I have to double post to emphasize: simple stripes, four colors max.

  306. Well, I think there is no coherent discussion with someone who applies the either/or mentality to individuals vs. groups.

    I was going to elaborate, but was tired and in a hurry. It’s not just seeing people primarily as members of groups rather than as individuals. It’s also that the particular groupings you pick are so fundamentally meaningless, superficial, and rooted in a centuries-old history of ignorance and cruelty.

  307. This is going to keep me up all night.
    K.i.s.s.
    Do you know what that stands for?
    Very fucking important.

  308. The maximum expression of individual autonomy…

    Jesus Christ, pushpin, I’m not even talking about politics and power when I accuse you of not relating to people as individuals. I’m talking about just everyday relationships with your neighbors and acquaintances. Does everything with you racists have to be tied in with some elaborate theory?!

  309. If Northern Europeans had been limited to multiracial societies in the past they would NOT exist today, and if present interracial trends continue they will not exist in the future.

    Wonder if Mr. Bonaccorsi lies awake at night worrying about the future of the Northern European races. Oh, that’s right, he’s of Southern European heritage. What do you think of the papists, pushpin?

  310. The EU is this principle incarnate and it violates the very spirit of man and humanity.

    The EU is exactly not this principle incarnate. The European Community was excellent — increasingly free trade followed by completely free migration. The principle of maximal trade and migration blocs with minimal political blocs was clearly evident. But as governments, and collectives in general, are wont to do, the greater political powers in the EC tried to build a government one level higher to guarantee their oligopoly in perpetuity. Thus the mistake that is the EU.

    I hardly think that any of the US, Canada, or Mexico want to chart a similar political course for a post-NAFTA regime. There is no way the smaller partners want to be dominated by the largest. And the largest would have significant trouble giving up its sovereignty — trouble caused mainly by the cultural bias toward those very individual rights you malign.

  311. Something as simple as a gottdam ball & cup. You fuck that up. What the fuck do you value? Is truth fucking meaningless? Are you that fucking bankrupt?

    STRIPES, DUDE!

  312. Not sure why I’m bothering to reply, but I guess that is my expression as an individual. When you say “when I accuse you of not relating to people as individuals” where do you get any idea of how I regard such relationships in my personal life? And because I have shared some views (sorry, “elaborate theories”) on society and community you call me a racist?

    “It’s also that the particular groupings you pick are so fundamentally meaningless, superficial, and rooted in a centuries-old history of ignorance and cruelty.” What are you talking about? The Russians and the Greeks or class, family, etc.? Do we have a real intellectual disagreement/s or are you just pissed about something I said? Maybe the mistake is mine in assuming you actually care about anything under discussion here.

    highnumber, you are obviously pissed and all I can say was that I assumed your initial comment about ball and cup (they don’t sell these at my local 7-Eleven, sorry) was pointedly condescending, implying need to have fun, lighten up etc. But I see by your reaction to my *playful* response that it held much deeper meaning for you.

    I’m out. The free use of the “f” word and pathetic, if unsurprising, stabbing with the “r” word tell me this thread has reached a point that cannot sustain civilized dialogue. Sorry if that sounds too uppity for you both.

  313. And because I have shared some views (sorry, “elaborate theories”) on society and community you call me a racist?

    “I think that if one group retains historical social and political dominance– usually racial but not necessarily so– then relations can be harmonious even if they seem ‘unfair’.”

  314. How does my assertion here translate to racism? The most harmonious arrangements involving different groups (or individuals if you like) have historically been hierarchical and markedly non-egalitarian. Do you think this condition– the story of human history– is an absolutely immoral one? Have you thought about the disastrous consequences that would develop among the poor as well as the monied classes (or classes of higher social status) if you rearranged Arab or English or Chinese societies to suit your notion of equality?

    I do not believe it is worth experimenting with Marxism or ueber-libertarianism in order to satisfy some bug that a few people have for what they think is a missing equality. Equal rights is something we work toward– and there is a hell of a lot more of it about these days– not something we tear down existing civilizations to rebuild on top of.

  315. Eurowatcher,

    My estimate is that the chance of splitting up at the moment is only small. cf. http://www.misesyouth.org/Decentralisation.pdf

    I can only confirm that the party is a viable model for nationalist parties in other parts of Europe and America.

    The party defends the free market, wants to reestablish traditional values and mores, rejects multiculturalism and openly opposes massimmigration and warns against the Islamification of Europe.

    By the way, I was one of the early pioneers to warn about that possibility. But I had a nasty experience with that!

    Angered by the many errors in religious truth claims and motivated by injustices experienced at the hand of religious intolerance, since I was 15 years old (1960), I became an atheist and I considered the elimination of religious error a noble task.

    As an abolitionist, I wrote various articles attacking Christianity, the bible and defending atheism. Within the freethought movement this was appreciated; but this was ‘before’ there was massive immigration of Muslims in my country. Since then things have changed….I have been excluded from the local Free thought Organization. Why? Because I criticized the Islam in the same and harsh way as had been the case with Christianity. But this time the leftist freethought movement considered my critique as “political incorrect”. Six years ago – thus before the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers – I predicted terrorist attacks in Europe and incidents (as have happened all ready in France, Spain, Great Britain and in Denmark); they called me a racist and agitator!

    That’s why I am very sensible for every apologetically tone I detect sometimes in articles regarding Muslims and their religion by many freethinkers and atheists as well – in particular those on the ‘left’ – who manifest themselves as Islamic apologists, taking a soft tack on Islam. [e.g. when Muslims around the world reacted with violence and anger to the remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI on Islam, ‘atheist’ Austin Cline commented shamelessly in one of his posts: “Benedict XVI doesn’t have what it takes to be a pope in the modern world where marketing, image, and communication both move quickly and are vitally important.” – cf. http://atheism.about.com/

    If I had known beforehand (when I was 15) what I went through the last five years, because of the turmoil in the wake of my political incorrect letters about Islam (*), I would never have grieved my mother with my break of faith, and certainly never would have felt the need to be debaptised. I have never been personally repressed by the Catholic Church’s clergy; on the other hand, the repression by ‘secular freethinkers’- the only repression I have been victim of in my whole life – has been going on for about five years!

    (*) I was actually stalked about 5 years ago by the secret police on command of the Belgium Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and, last year in March I have been put in a mental hospital for six months.

    Guy Verhofstadt is a highly emotional, narcissistic person, who – for the sake of power – veers from one pole to its opposite. Back in 1991, in his second ‘Burgermanifest’, he had still the audacity to criticize Islam. But after he fell upwards – with the blessing of “the dioxinecrisis” – and became Prime Minister, he took a 180 degree turn from earlier made comments and is now a hater of Muslim critics (such as me), because they criticize him as well.

    Here is what he wrote in 1991: “Is the Rushdie-case not ultimate proof of the impossibility to fit Islam in our society? Does this case not demonstrate how Islam at its core is a totalitarian ideology, colliding with the cultural, moral and legal regulations which apply in an open and democratic society?”

    In that mental hospital, I have been forced to swallow anti-psychotic meds simply to try to space myself out and not to focus on the the danger of Islamization.

  316. The most harmonious arrangements involving different groups (or individuals if you like) have historically been hierarchical and markedly non-egalitarian.

    Perhaps I have a different idea of what “harmonious” means. What do you mean by that word?

  317. OK, Bruce, we’ve been debating four days and you just now mention that you have spent a lot of time in mental hospitals because of your hysterical political views? What else do you have left to reveal?

  318. ” What else do you have left to reveal?”

    Among those who knew about this flagrant violation of individual rights there are influential ‘libertarians’ and atheists, professors to boot! I still consider it inexcusable that they failed to support me morally and didn’t voice or express any protest.

  319. By the way, why is your name, Bruce Graeme, but your email address is Gilbert de Bruycker?

  320. A fair question regarding “harmonious” and without an easy answer. I suppose to me it means a system that works well because all participants understand the stakes both personally and communally and so may forsake certain idealistic ‘equalities of result’ in exchange for stability and prosperity. At the same time, harmony implies, in the West, a great deal of freedom on different levels. What many liberal-minded folks fail to appreciate, however, is that the exercise of these liberties depends upon a *non-liberal* framework in order to operate. By non-liberal I mean traditional, concrete and particular aspects of society– those aspects that you may reject. In this way both “conservative” and “liberal” features of society can be in balance (on average) but it is not a system that can serve non-Western societies well and we should not expect it to.

  321. The objectivity which is a common characteristic of the Northern race – the ability to approach new experiences and situations, and perceive reality, with an unbiased open mind, free of prior judgment, and appreciate other points of view – has fostered the creation and development of science and, to a significant extent, liberated the North from the doctrinaire dogmatism, obscurantism and narrow perspective of subjective thought.

    Bruce, do you attribute such qualities to the Southern European race or races? Italians, specifically?

  322. It’s hard to understand your explanation, pushpin, because it is vague. Are you aware that Hit & Run is primarily an online hangout for libertarians, not liberals or conservatives?

  323. “By the way, why is your name, Bruce Graeme..”

    Because my real name is difficult to pronounce.

    Public Enemy No. 1 by Bruce Graeme (a pseudonym for Graham Montague Jeffries) was the first English book I have read through from the beginning to the end.

    Bruce Graeme is a nice name. Has a ring to it!

  324. “Bruce, do you attribute such qualities to the Southern European race or races? Italians, specifically?”

    All the races of humanity have certain accomplishments that would likely not have been if they had not been. These accomplishments are appreciated and valued in different degrees by different people. But I am concerned with the preservation of the European peoples, who happen to be the peoples whose continued existence is currently under assault.

    The racial differences between Northern and Southern Europeans seem to me minor, I would even say even trivial, compared to the differences between Europeans and the races of sub-Saharan Africa or East Asia. There is even a degree of racial overlap between the native populations of Northern and Southern Europe.

  325. What do you consider the big accomplishments of Southern Europeans?

  326. What do you consider the big accomplishments of Southern Europeans?

    The Roman Republic/Empire, the Catholic Church, the Renaissance, the individual work of Michaelangelo, Rafael, Da Vinci, Dante, Galileo, etc.

  327. When you guys post statistics about black or hispanic people having higher crime rates, do you go beyond the statistics to attribute the factors behind those rates? May I venture the guess that you consider race per se as the primary factor, as opposed to, say, economic status?

    Well, given that those rates are higher even when controlled for, say, economic status, you figure it out.

  328. OK, please explain why you racists are so fixated on dividing everyone up into groups (black people, white people, left-handed people, people who can curl their tongue) and rating each groups’ intelligence, crime rates, per-capita ownership of cardigan sweaters. Do you have some kind of mental block when it comes to dealing with people as individuals?

    While there are plenty of contexts in which is is both possible and appropriate to deal with persons as individuals, there are also plenty of contexts in which it is appropriate to look at their group characteristics. The insurance industry, for example, depends on making underwriting decisions on potential policyholders depending on the characteristics of groups they are members of.

  329. The Roman Republic/Empire, the Catholic Church, the Renaissance, the individual work of Michaelangelo, Rafael, Da Vinci, Dante, Galileo, etc.

    Pretty damned good for a race that doesn’t have a lot of blond hair nor blue eyes.

  330. Well, given that those rates are higher even when controlled for, say, economic status, you figure it out.

    Sources, please.

  331. While there are plenty of contexts in which is is both possible and appropriate to deal with persons as individuals, there are also plenty of contexts in which it is appropriate to look at their group characteristics.

    That didn’t answer my question. My question was about your psychological fixation.

  332. My question was about your psychological fixation.

    Mostly because they’re obvious, and consideration of the distinctions yield useful information.

    Would you care to explain your pathological determination to ignore the obvious?

  333. Would you care to explain your pathological determination to ignore the obvious?

    I’d be happy to answer your question, but it was vague. Can you give an example or two of an obvious fact I’m ignoring?

  334. Africa for Africans! Asia for Asians! White countries for Everybody!

    BOB’S MANTRA

    “Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”

    “The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”

    “Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”

    “What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”

    “How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”

    “And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”

    “But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”

    “They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.”

    “Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”

  335. No, Day Five! Yay!

    It never ends.

    Well, it will end, and I know when. The end is not nigh…nor is it far off. When the end comes, you will ask yourself, “Why did I fight? Why did I hate?” You may expect tumult as it ends. You will be disappointed. You may expect struggle and conflict. The end will be quiet and peaceful. It will not bring you peace though. It brings peace only to those who bring peace themselves. It is all around you, and, although it can be hard to find, it is not elusive.

    More messages will follow as the end approaches.

  336. You know what else is ending?
    The presidential campaigns.

    Thank FSM, god, God, Kali, Jesus, Vishnu, Buddha, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, G_d, yer mom, L Ron Hubbard, Karl Marx, Judas Priest, Joseph Priestly, and the Energizer bunny.

  337. Whew! The election is over, the wannabe intellectual racists are gone (probably crying in their dank corner of mom & dad’s basement). Can I get on with my life now? Cyber-squatting is a tedious task.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.