The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 23:
In the comments section, Rob, a smart former commenter away for a bit, comments. Rob's comments are in italics followed by my responses.
If White Nationalist predictions end up being more accurate than liberal and conservative predictions, will there be a large-scale correction?
RL: Nope. They already have come true, and I don't think anyone cares. White racism has reduced dramatically in tandem with some very extreme rightwing US White politics in the past twenty years and in tandem with increasing evidence for hereditarian views in hard areas like intelligence. White people really do not give a flying fuck about this stuff.
If they have money, they run and run to get away from Blacks and Hispanics, and even when they get overwhelmed, they just say, "Oh well," go wigger, and make friends with Blacks and Hispanics. The town I am living in now is basically part of Mexico.
The Hispanics own this place. The Whites used to, but now they are overwhelmed. Young Whites cannot walk the streets late at night because the Hispanics will kick their ass for the sole reason that they are White. These same Whites typically have an Hispanic girlfriend or wife and deny racist feelings.
White nationalists tell me that the Whites here should be the most furiously racist of all, but I have found that the opposite is true. The Whites in Madera, California, are some of the least racist Whites I've ever met. I keep looking for White racism here, and I can't seem to find it.
The Whites almost all hang out with and are friends with Blacks and Hispanics, even though a lot of these Whites are real "redneck" types with tattoos. A lot of them have just flat-out gone wigger.
When they are in the majority, Whites stay put in a White town, or run if it starts turning. When they are overwhelmed, they go anti-racist and wigger and just figure that's the way it is.
And why should there not be?
RL: Because most Whites just basically don't care.
It may be very hard for the mainstream politicians and intellectuals to say either, "Yeah, but we were lying last time, we understood the consequences of our policies. Keep us in charge". Or would they say, "We broke the US, so we're the only ones who can fix it"? Getting large numbers of people to give them a second chance will be even harder.
RL: We've already passed that point, and Whites still don't care. Many of the Whites around here in California even take insane positions on illegal immigration. I think there may be something to the White nationalist notion that Whites are suicidally altruistic in some ways, at least nowadays in the PC Era. Also, California Whites really, really, really are terrified of being called racists.
When the blank slate dies and the fact that genetic variation underlies a large fraction of correlated physical, behavioral and cognitive functional differences between both populations and individuals, wouldn't it be wise for both progressives and the mainstream right to prepare for the possibility?
RL: This is the big hereditarian delusion. I've talked to a lot of White people about this, and most of them are not PC at all.
First of all, the whole conversation is unpleasant, because California Whites now do not wish to discuss anything that even smacks of racism in even the tiniest sense.
Second, most Whites here just don't give a damn. I've told them about B-W IQ disparities and that I feel that this means that Blacks (at the moment) are less intelligent than Whites, and they just say, "Really? Yeah, well, haha. But so what? I always figured they weren't as smart. Big deal." And then they shrug their shoulders and change the subject.
Further, the only people who even comprehend this whole subject have usually gone to college. If they haven't, they just don't even understand the whole genes-environment debate, so it makes no sense to them. I think most Whites think there are differences between the races that go beyond skin color, but they just don't give a flying fuck about it.
This whole thing is really a delusion by a bunch of White rightwing, mostly racist, intellectuals with a college education who understand this stuff. They dream that "society is going to catch on one day" and then some kind of White Revolution or Libertarian Society or an era of low taxes and an end to all social programs (transfers from Whites to Blacks and Browns) or whatever is going to ensue.
They don't understand that your average White American idiocrat doesn't even understand the nature of the debate, and if he does, he could care less.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
White Nationalism: An Ignorant and Hopeless Movement
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 23:
I would add ineffectual and doomed to the title, but I only have a bit of space to write a usable headline.
White nationalism is an interesting movement. At the very least, it appeals Whites, formerly the vast majority of this people in this nation, and to their sense that they are being replaced and displaced in this, their homeland, mostly by mass immigration and illegal immigration.
A recent survey said that 77% of US Whites say that US Whites have a culture that is worth preserving.
That's an interesting figure, but what's even more interesting is that anyone who says that in public will be labeled racist, Nazi, White power, White supremacist, skinhead, KKK, etc. So, according to our lunatic society, 77% of American Whites are Nazis! Do you believe that?
Of course it's not true. They aren't even racists. They're just normal ethnocentric, nationalistic, patriotic people who love their culture and people and think it ought to survive. Just like almost every ethnic group all over the world.
The problem with White nationalism is that they ought to be appealing to this 77% of ethnocentric White Americans, the majority of whom are not racists. Instead, it's an ugly movement shot through with racism from one end to the other. Non-racist White nationalists exist, but they are rare birds. Even the most moderate outliers like Ian Jobling and American Renaissance are pushing one Hell of a nasty-ass racist project.
As most White Americans are not a bunch of racist assholes (anymore - they used to be), this project is doomed.
Furthermore, like all ethnic nationalist movements, it attracts vast numbers of fools spouting the silly theories planted in pride typical of these movements.
Where to begin?
Ainus are and Kennewick Man was White. China used to be White. Southern Europeans, Armenians, Turks, Lebanese, people of the Caucasus, Bulgarians and Lapps are non-Whites. Whites never stole this land from Indians. The South was right in the Civil War. Blacks in Africa never had agriculture or metalworking or any kind of civilization before Whites showed up. Vietnamese IQ is low.
There's such thing as pure races and mongrel races. Primitive people speak primitive languages. MLK was a Communist who beat up prostitutes. Communists run the civil rights movement. They aren't any native Whites in the Middle East, South Asia or North Africa. Whites got to America before Indians, so it's our land.
All Hispanics hate Blacks. There are no intelligent Blacks or Black Africans. All accomplished Blacks and Africans are recipients of affirmative action and frauds. If Obama gets in, he will import 30 million Africa immigrants and Blacks will declare race war on Whites.
Dumb, huh? Jesus, if the racism didn't turn this 77% off, the sheer tsunami of stupidity might at least offend some of them.
All valid movements should have solutions that they propose to policy questions. Otherwise, there is no point to them.
How about the solutions of the White nationalists? They have no workable solutions. Even if this movement appealed to me, and it does not, I'd never be a part of such a depressing movement.
White nationalism is reactionary, hopeless, dead-pessimistic about our fellow humans and offers absolutely nothing to be happy about. Many of the people in it are nasty, ugly, mean, rude and just objectionable, as you might expect a bunch of rightwing racists to be.
It's just one endless Wretched-fest starring lots of really horrible humans. This has to be one of the most miserable movements on Earth.
Here are some of the fanciful follies and delusions called "solutions" offered by White nationalists, none of which, I believe, will ever occur.
We can ship all the Blacks back to Africa. We can ship all the non-Whites out of the US. We can have a military coup and put in a pro-White regime. We can set up a White separatist state in Idaho or wherever. We can get Whites to have 18 kids like they used to.
A race war is coming and we're going to win, and then afterwards, we can deport all the non-Whites. We can get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. We can reduce legal immigration to zero.
Although there is a slight chance that some of the above is possible but not likely (they may be able to whittle away at civil rights law), but in general, none of this stuff is going to happen.
I've talked to White people about all of this stuff and they usually either start laughing and look at me like I'm from Mars. "They actually believe this?" they ask with incredulous eyes. "Yeah, they do," I say. Then they shake their heads, laugh and say, "What's wrong with these people? So move to Idaho or Iceland."
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated August 23:
I would add ineffectual and doomed to the title, but I only have a bit of space to write a usable headline.
White nationalism is an interesting movement. At the very least, it appeals Whites, formerly the vast majority of this people in this nation, and to their sense that they are being replaced and displaced in this, their homeland, mostly by mass immigration and illegal immigration.
A recent survey said that 77% of US Whites say that US Whites have a culture that is worth preserving.
That's an interesting figure, but what's even more interesting is that anyone who says that in public will be labeled racist, Nazi, White power, White supremacist, skinhead, KKK, etc. So, according to our lunatic society, 77% of American Whites are Nazis! Do you believe that?
Of course it's not true. They aren't even racists. They're just normal ethnocentric, nationalistic, patriotic people who love their culture and people and think it ought to survive. Just like almost every ethnic group all over the world.
The problem with White nationalism is that they ought to be appealing to this 77% of ethnocentric White Americans, the majority of whom are not racists. Instead, it's an ugly movement shot through with racism from one end to the other. Non-racist White nationalists exist, but they are rare birds. Even the most moderate outliers like Ian Jobling and American Renaissance are pushing one Hell of a nasty-ass racist project.
As most White Americans are not a bunch of racist assholes (anymore - they used to be), this project is doomed.
Furthermore, like all ethnic nationalist movements, it attracts vast numbers of fools spouting the silly theories planted in pride typical of these movements.
Where to begin?
Ainus are and Kennewick Man was White. China used to be White. Southern Europeans, Armenians, Turks, Lebanese, people of the Caucasus, Bulgarians and Lapps are non-Whites. Whites never stole this land from Indians. The South was right in the Civil War. Blacks in Africa never had agriculture or metalworking or any kind of civilization before Whites showed up. Vietnamese IQ is low.
There's such thing as pure races and mongrel races. Primitive people speak primitive languages. MLK was a Communist who beat up prostitutes. Communists run the civil rights movement. They aren't any native Whites in the Middle East, South Asia or North Africa. Whites got to America before Indians, so it's our land.
All Hispanics hate Blacks. There are no intelligent Blacks or Black Africans. All accomplished Blacks and Africans are recipients of affirmative action and frauds. If Obama gets in, he will import 30 million Africa immigrants and Blacks will declare race war on Whites.
Dumb, huh? Jesus, if the racism didn't turn this 77% off, the sheer tsunami of stupidity might at least offend some of them.
All valid movements should have solutions that they propose to policy questions. Otherwise, there is no point to them.
How about the solutions of the White nationalists? They have no workable solutions. Even if this movement appealed to me, and it does not, I'd never be a part of such a depressing movement.
White nationalism is reactionary, hopeless, dead-pessimistic about our fellow humans and offers absolutely nothing to be happy about. Many of the people in it are nasty, ugly, mean, rude and just objectionable, as you might expect a bunch of rightwing racists to be.
It's just one endless Wretched-fest starring lots of really horrible humans. This has to be one of the most miserable movements on Earth.
Here are some of the fanciful follies and delusions called "solutions" offered by White nationalists, none of which, I believe, will ever occur.
We can ship all the Blacks back to Africa. We can ship all the non-Whites out of the US. We can have a military coup and put in a pro-White regime. We can set up a White separatist state in Idaho or wherever. We can get Whites to have 18 kids like they used to.
A race war is coming and we're going to win, and then afterwards, we can deport all the non-Whites. We can get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. We can reduce legal immigration to zero.
Although there is a slight chance that some of the above is possible but not likely (they may be able to whittle away at civil rights law), but in general, none of this stuff is going to happen.
I've talked to White people about all of this stuff and they usually either start laughing and look at me like I'm from Mars. "They actually believe this?" they ask with incredulous eyes. "Yeah, they do," I say. Then they shake their heads, laugh and say, "What's wrong with these people? So move to Idaho or Iceland."
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The War Between The Sexes
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 23:
Ok, look man. If you're heterosexual and involved with women, especially sexually involved, you're going to get into fights. That's pretty much just all there is to it. The more women you date and sleep with, the more fights you will get into. If you act bad, like Sexmaniacman does, or are probably incapable of monogamy, as Sexmaniacman is also, you're going to really attract a lot of fury.
But you're also going to get it if you're just a mild and soft-spoken, non-macho type guy. This will bring out the shrieking, cackling dominatrix in most any woman, and these guys often end up with real bitch types.
Why? In part because no other man would put up with these bitches. Any normal, macho type guy, paired with an evil bitch like this, well, he would just leave. Sexmaniacman says he would either leave, or if not, he would just have to kill the bitch.
So the only guys who won't murder them or run out the door are wimpy guys. Also, normal, feminine, submissive type women don't really like wimpy guys, so they go for macho guys. Wimpy guys and bitches are stuck with each other. They both hate their roles, but there's no alternative but singleness and masturbation.
I asked Sexmaniacman what he felt about this and this is what he said:
Updated August 23:
Ok, look man. If you're heterosexual and involved with women, especially sexually involved, you're going to get into fights. That's pretty much just all there is to it. The more women you date and sleep with, the more fights you will get into. If you act bad, like Sexmaniacman does, or are probably incapable of monogamy, as Sexmaniacman is also, you're going to really attract a lot of fury.
But you're also going to get it if you're just a mild and soft-spoken, non-macho type guy. This will bring out the shrieking, cackling dominatrix in most any woman, and these guys often end up with real bitch types.
Why? In part because no other man would put up with these bitches. Any normal, macho type guy, paired with an evil bitch like this, well, he would just leave. Sexmaniacman says he would either leave, or if not, he would just have to kill the bitch.
So the only guys who won't murder them or run out the door are wimpy guys. Also, normal, feminine, submissive type women don't really like wimpy guys, so they go for macho guys. Wimpy guys and bitches are stuck with each other. They both hate their roles, but there's no alternative but singleness and masturbation.
I asked Sexmaniacman what he felt about this and this is what he said:
Thanks Bob, for letting me post on another sex-related topic. I've dated, or slept with, or whatever, something like 10 Black or mulatto women. I don't really mind em. They are kind of aggressive though. But the ones from the Caribbean, North Africa and even Black Africa are much less so. They are often quite submissive and feminine. I'm not really into aggressive women. I've dated enough bitches for 20 lifetimes, and one of my mottoes is no more bitches! I don't have to worry about the former girlfriend bitches, because I already killed all of them! LOL! Just kidding! That's funny, huh?Interview pauses for about five minutes while he falls off his chair laughing, rolling on the floor.
No, really man, I'm going to be single for the rest of my life before dating another emasculating, ball-breaking, cruel, mean, sadistic bitch.Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
I'm having a hard time figuring just what is a bitch though. I mean, women have a right to get mad at us, right? I really think they they do. Women have a right to get furious at me, throw non-lethal objects at me, threaten me, push me, shove me, threaten to kill me, threaten to cut my balls off, call me every evil name in the book as long as it doesn't imply I'm not a man.
I guess what I'm saying is I don't mind women getting mad at me as long as they are getting mad at me as a man, and acknowledging that I am a man in that process. It would be helpful if I did something to piss her off, but it's not necessary. All women are bitches sometimes, whether we provoke them or not.
I don't mind if it feels like she is retaliating, getting back at me, fighting back against me, calling me cruel, mean, evil, bastard, asshole, etc. It's not ideal, but it's probably inevitable. She's attacking me from the point of a view of an outraged women defending herself against a masculine, objectionable, caddish, rougish, man.
She's a victim of a cruel, mean, evil, asshole-ish, aggressive man who has hurt her terrible. She's fighting back, as a victim retaliating against an aggressor, and that feels ok. I'm sitting there laughing in her face the whole time and she's getting even more pissed.
Plus, this is the way relationships are supposed to be - I'm the masculine, dominant male and she's the feminine, submissive female, albeit a highly combative one at this point.
Ok, so why does some of it feel so objectionable? I guess I don't like blatant sadism, attacking me in public just to publicly humiliate me, laughing in my face, condescending towards me, mocking me, belittling me, ridiculing me, or certainly attacking my masculinity in any way or implying that I'm not much of a man.
It's like she's the aggressor and I'm the victim. She's beating up on me. I'm a wimp and I'm just sitting there taking it and I haven't even done anything to fucking provoke her, except maybe not make enough money for her money-grubbing hands to grab and shove into her purse!
I feel like a pussy, or a fag, or a wimp, or not much of a man. If they do it in public, Mexican men and women look at me like, "You fucking pussy! You wimp! You wuss! You LET your woman talk to you like this public! Faggot!" And she's doing this to me in public of course just to provoke precisely that sort of reaction.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
The Litmus Test For Academic Racism
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated December 2:
You wonder why I call these people names. Ok. There is a very good reason for that, and it is not just what they write. I really don't give a damn what they write, although in most cases, there's a problem of tone.
The main problem is their position on civil rights and anti-discrimination laws (and I am not including affirmative action as one of these laws). If you're against civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, you're a racist. It's really that simple.
There's just no way around it. Although this makes all libertarians and anarchists de facto racists, people who always write about disparagingly about certain non-White races, and then want to get rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, well, they're just racists in both intent and praxis, period.
When you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws for whatever reason, you are promoting racism. Whether you are consciously racist or not, you are engaging in racist behavior and promoting a racist project and agenda. It’s as simple as that.
How many Blacks oppose civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws? Almost zero. How many Whites do? Wow! All sorts of Whites do, but they’re not really racists, they’re just “libertarians”. Holy Moses! Almost no Blacks take this Black-hostile stand, but tons of Whites do, but they’re not racists . Hmmm.
Let's look at these folks:
Charles Murray: Mr. Murray, famous author of The Bell Curve. I have read it many times; it is excellent, and it really makes a mockery of his later life as he moved much to the right of that book. He has not yet made his position known on civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. However, he has taken a negative, hopeless, very hereditarian point of view on race and intelligence that is extremely controversial to say the least.
Recently, he also admitted that he is a libertarian. That's strange for a long-time and high-profile Republican public figure like him. It seems clear that Murray's libertarianism is based mostly or solely on his desire to end civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Going out on a limb here, I am going to argue that Murray is a racist, against Blacks and Hispanics anyway (he married a Thai woman and has two biracial Thai-White kids).
Arthur Jensen: It has been very difficult to pin down Jensen as a racist, since he tends to keep his mouth shut and does excellent scholarly work. James Flynn has praised him and says he's not a racist. Nevertheless, early on, in 1969, he took an extremely hardline hereditarian stand on race and IQ, and he has not budged even one millimeter since then.
Mr. Jensen, obviously a brilliant man and a giant in intelligence research. He's been able to escape the racist charge for all these years by watching his tongue, but as he's recently come out for getting rid of civil rights laws, into the dump he goes. His writings also have a hopeless, hard-edged and nasty tone to them, but maybe all rightwingers do? Despite Reagan, conservatism isn't exactly land of the optimists.
The rest of his career has been mostly spent fighting off attacks on his early claims and expanding on them. It doesn't seem that he's the kind of guy who will admit he's wrong. Jensen has come out in the last couple of years and stated that he wants to get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, Arthur Jensen is a racist.
Philippe Rushton: As if his exasperating books were not enough (although Race, Evolution and Behavior is definitely a good and thought-provoking read at the very least), and they have been widely challenged, he has made some disparaging remarks about Blacks.
For instance, he said that Canada is starting to go downhill because more Blacks are moving there. We'll let him slide on this for now, and on his problematic books.
Rushton has also taken a very hardline hereditarian stance on race and IQ, though recently, he and Murray admitted that Blacks have closed the B-W IQ gap by 3 points. However, Rushton has recently come out as opposing all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, Philippe Rushton is a racist, at least against Blacks, who are the source of most of his authorial attacks (he's married to a Korean woman).
Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins University: He works in sociology and is the former husband of Linda Gottfredson. This is the little-known fellow behind the Le Griffe Du Lion website.
An old photo of sociologist Dr. Robert Gordon, who is not only a racist like all of these folks here, but is also a White Supremacist based on his writings on "The Claw of the Lion", or the Le Griffe Du Lion website. Photos of this character are hard to come by, but you can see the characteristic short-trimmed beard combined with glasses and balding head. He's a very intelligent fellow, but he's put his mind in a bad place.
He is not only a White racist like the rest, but unlike many of them, this guy is actually a White Supremacist. A good portion of his site is given over to studies showing how Whites are actually superior to Northeast Asians.
His work is exceedingly problematic and should well earn him the racist tag right there. For instance, he claims that Black criminals "deliberately prey with a hunter's mindset for White victims to the exclusion of other victims". Wow. But let us give him a break on his most unpleasant work and website for now.
Mr. Gordon, in the form of The Lion's Claw, has definitely come out for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, or at least that is my reading of Le Griffe's blog. If I am wrong, let me know in the comments or in e-mail. Therefore, tentatively, Robert Gordon is a racist.
Sociologist Dr. Robert A. Gordon in a 1999 photo. You can see the trademark trimmed beard, balding hair and glasses, except now his hair is White. He's kind of funny-looking in this photo, but a lot of these eggheads are kind of quirky folks. I'm quite certain the Dr. Gordon is in fact Le Griffe Du Lion, but it's not proven conclusively. How could it be when he won't admit it?
Richard Lynn: Mr. Lynn is a professor in anthropology at the University of Ulster. His writings are pretty unpleasant like a lot of this stuff, but he's also engaged in some academic or scientific fraud in my opinion, or nearly so, or at least some funny theorizing.
Mr. Lynn is usually a fine scholar, like all of these folks, and a lot of his work is interesting. He runs around the globe administering IQ tests and collecting IQ data. I don't mind such an enterprise, but it seems like the only folks doing this stuff are racist assholes like Lynn, which is too bad. Further, his enterprise is rendered somewhat dubious by his crystal-clear biases, which he finds it hard to bury.
He's has unfairly downgraded the Vietnamese IQ from 99.5 (based on tests) to 95 (based on taking a fake-low 100 figure for "rural China" and combining it with 90 for Thailand and averaging the two). He did this in order to make a wacky Ice Age Theory of his work whereby it takes 10,000's of years to evolve smarts, and you have to go through Ice Ages to do it.
Vietnam and South China messes that up, so he plays games with figures. In this review, Lynn says he agrees with 99% of Richard Feurle's racist (but worth a read) book, Erectus Walks Among Us, Lynn has also said, charmingly, that we need to think about "phasing out" low-IQ races. Phew.
I notice an awful lot of these "race realist", "racialist", "racially aware" or "White nationalist" folks, almost all of whom are White by the way, really take umbrage to being called racists. Though I'm not so obtuse or grotesque as to call anyone who adopts a name like the above a racist, I think one thing is clear.
If you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws (other than affirmative action), that's the litmus test for racism. You oppose them, you're a racist. It's really that simple. If you folks want people to quit calling you racist, maybe you should reconsider your position on these laws. Just a thought.
If you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination law, don't BS around. Just come right out and admit you're a racist. It's not the worst thing on Earth to be, and there are hundreds of millions of humans just like you. Hey, some of my friends are even racists. What the heck? Say it loud and say it proud!
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated December 2:
You wonder why I call these people names. Ok. There is a very good reason for that, and it is not just what they write. I really don't give a damn what they write, although in most cases, there's a problem of tone.
The main problem is their position on civil rights and anti-discrimination laws (and I am not including affirmative action as one of these laws). If you're against civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, you're a racist. It's really that simple.
There's just no way around it. Although this makes all libertarians and anarchists de facto racists, people who always write about disparagingly about certain non-White races, and then want to get rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, well, they're just racists in both intent and praxis, period.
When you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws for whatever reason, you are promoting racism. Whether you are consciously racist or not, you are engaging in racist behavior and promoting a racist project and agenda. It’s as simple as that.
How many Blacks oppose civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws? Almost zero. How many Whites do? Wow! All sorts of Whites do, but they’re not really racists, they’re just “libertarians”. Holy Moses! Almost no Blacks take this Black-hostile stand, but tons of Whites do, but they’re not racists . Hmmm.
Let's look at these folks:
Charles Murray: Mr. Murray, famous author of The Bell Curve. I have read it many times; it is excellent, and it really makes a mockery of his later life as he moved much to the right of that book. He has not yet made his position known on civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. However, he has taken a negative, hopeless, very hereditarian point of view on race and intelligence that is extremely controversial to say the least.
Recently, he also admitted that he is a libertarian. That's strange for a long-time and high-profile Republican public figure like him. It seems clear that Murray's libertarianism is based mostly or solely on his desire to end civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Going out on a limb here, I am going to argue that Murray is a racist, against Blacks and Hispanics anyway (he married a Thai woman and has two biracial Thai-White kids).
Arthur Jensen: It has been very difficult to pin down Jensen as a racist, since he tends to keep his mouth shut and does excellent scholarly work. James Flynn has praised him and says he's not a racist. Nevertheless, early on, in 1969, he took an extremely hardline hereditarian stand on race and IQ, and he has not budged even one millimeter since then.
Mr. Jensen, obviously a brilliant man and a giant in intelligence research. He's been able to escape the racist charge for all these years by watching his tongue, but as he's recently come out for getting rid of civil rights laws, into the dump he goes. His writings also have a hopeless, hard-edged and nasty tone to them, but maybe all rightwingers do? Despite Reagan, conservatism isn't exactly land of the optimists.The rest of his career has been mostly spent fighting off attacks on his early claims and expanding on them. It doesn't seem that he's the kind of guy who will admit he's wrong. Jensen has come out in the last couple of years and stated that he wants to get rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, Arthur Jensen is a racist.
Philippe Rushton: As if his exasperating books were not enough (although Race, Evolution and Behavior is definitely a good and thought-provoking read at the very least), and they have been widely challenged, he has made some disparaging remarks about Blacks.
For instance, he said that Canada is starting to go downhill because more Blacks are moving there. We'll let him slide on this for now, and on his problematic books.
Rushton has also taken a very hardline hereditarian stance on race and IQ, though recently, he and Murray admitted that Blacks have closed the B-W IQ gap by 3 points. However, Rushton has recently come out as opposing all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, Philippe Rushton is a racist, at least against Blacks, who are the source of most of his authorial attacks (he's married to a Korean woman).
Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins University: He works in sociology and is the former husband of Linda Gottfredson. This is the little-known fellow behind the Le Griffe Du Lion website.
An old photo of sociologist Dr. Robert Gordon, who is not only a racist like all of these folks here, but is also a White Supremacist based on his writings on "The Claw of the Lion", or the Le Griffe Du Lion website. Photos of this character are hard to come by, but you can see the characteristic short-trimmed beard combined with glasses and balding head. He's a very intelligent fellow, but he's put his mind in a bad place.He is not only a White racist like the rest, but unlike many of them, this guy is actually a White Supremacist. A good portion of his site is given over to studies showing how Whites are actually superior to Northeast Asians.
His work is exceedingly problematic and should well earn him the racist tag right there. For instance, he claims that Black criminals "deliberately prey with a hunter's mindset for White victims to the exclusion of other victims". Wow. But let us give him a break on his most unpleasant work and website for now.
Mr. Gordon, in the form of The Lion's Claw, has definitely come out for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws, or at least that is my reading of Le Griffe's blog. If I am wrong, let me know in the comments or in e-mail. Therefore, tentatively, Robert Gordon is a racist.
Sociologist Dr. Robert A. Gordon in a 1999 photo. You can see the trademark trimmed beard, balding hair and glasses, except now his hair is White. He's kind of funny-looking in this photo, but a lot of these eggheads are kind of quirky folks. I'm quite certain the Dr. Gordon is in fact Le Griffe Du Lion, but it's not proven conclusively. How could it be when he won't admit it?Richard Lynn: Mr. Lynn is a professor in anthropology at the University of Ulster. His writings are pretty unpleasant like a lot of this stuff, but he's also engaged in some academic or scientific fraud in my opinion, or nearly so, or at least some funny theorizing.
Mr. Lynn is usually a fine scholar, like all of these folks, and a lot of his work is interesting. He runs around the globe administering IQ tests and collecting IQ data. I don't mind such an enterprise, but it seems like the only folks doing this stuff are racist assholes like Lynn, which is too bad. Further, his enterprise is rendered somewhat dubious by his crystal-clear biases, which he finds it hard to bury.He's has unfairly downgraded the Vietnamese IQ from 99.5 (based on tests) to 95 (based on taking a fake-low 100 figure for "rural China" and combining it with 90 for Thailand and averaging the two). He did this in order to make a wacky Ice Age Theory of his work whereby it takes 10,000's of years to evolve smarts, and you have to go through Ice Ages to do it.
Vietnam and South China messes that up, so he plays games with figures. In this review, Lynn says he agrees with 99% of Richard Feurle's racist (but worth a read) book, Erectus Walks Among Us, Lynn has also said, charmingly, that we need to think about "phasing out" low-IQ races. Phew.
I notice an awful lot of these "race realist", "racialist", "racially aware" or "White nationalist" folks, almost all of whom are White by the way, really take umbrage to being called racists. Though I'm not so obtuse or grotesque as to call anyone who adopts a name like the above a racist, I think one thing is clear.
If you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination laws (other than affirmative action), that's the litmus test for racism. You oppose them, you're a racist. It's really that simple. If you folks want people to quit calling you racist, maybe you should reconsider your position on these laws. Just a thought.
If you oppose civil rights and anti-discrimination law, don't BS around. Just come right out and admit you're a racist. It's not the worst thing on Earth to be, and there are hundreds of millions of humans just like you. Hey, some of my friends are even racists. What the heck? Say it loud and say it proud!
References
- Herrnstein, R. & Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
Rushton, J.P. 1995. Race, Evolution and Behavior. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Publishers.
Suzuki, L. and Aronson, J. 2005. The Cultural Malleability Of Intelligence And Its Impact On The Racial/Ethnic Hierarchy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
California Truth
The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.
Updated August 23:
There is something to be said for deep, hard and cold honesty and realism, like this great article, My Negro Problem - And Ours, from Norman Podhoretz in 1963, back when he was still a liberal and Commentary was still a Jewish liberal magazine, before the Henry Jackson - Patrick Moynihan-fueled transformation into neoconservatives in the 1970's. Read it!
More along the same lines, from the comments page of American Renaissance, commenting on an article about illegal immigration:
And it's not necessarily about race either. Growing up in the Los Angeles area in the 1960's and 70's, there were Blacks around, but only some, and in the circles I ran in, all college-going and middle-class. There were assimilated Hispanics too, like my best friend since 4th grade, but they were just like everybody else other than having some quirky ancestry, and they were definitely a minority anyway.
There were scattered Asians here and there - Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, all assimilated Americans. That was the thing - everyone was an American. I didn't know any immigrants except the Bolivian exchange student at my high school.
There was no such thing as people who didn't speak English - everyone did. There weren't any signs in foreign languages, unless you went to Chinatown or Olvera Street.
If you wanted to see Chinese people and eat Chinese food, you went to Chinatown. If you wanted to see Mexicans and listen to mariachis, you went to Olvera Street.
On a recent trip back to Orange County, the nature of this catastrophe really hit home for me. Orange County is now a 3rd World country. There's a group of very well-off rich and upper middle class people of various races living lavish and ultra-lavish lives, and then another vast, usually darker-skinned group, that looks like the teeming masses of the Third World, and they are often right in proximity to each other. There's a White working class that looks broken, in debt and exhausted.
I'm sure the rich and upper middle class love it this way, as studies show that they have made out like bandits since 1980 while most everyone else has gotten creamed, and this transformation neatly corresponded with Reaganism and the Republican free market revolution of the past 30 years. It also corresponded with California liberalism. Our very own Jerry Brown liberals from the 1970's got together with the Reaganites and ruined my city and my state. It doesn't make sense.
Looking at the 3rd World country that Orange County has become, with it's Latin American gaps between an opulent, venal and indifferent upper class (At what point will they become an "oligarchy"?) and hordes of teeming 3rd World-like impoverished and overworked masses (At what point will they become revolutionary?), the rich with their gated communities and their security guards and the poor shoveled 30 to a dwelling, how could any progressive person not despair?
What's next? Biweekly riots by the Right, the Left or just college kids? Violent, striking teachers in the streets, broken up with tear gas and clubs? A military coup? The army in the streets? Armed leftwing revolutionaries? Right-wing death squads? If not, why not?
If there's a monument to the failure of mass illegal immigration and even mass immigration, it's Los Angeles and the surrounding area. When you go to downtown LA, you are in shock. Most parts of the world that look like that need a passport to get to them. Yet this is purportedly part of our country.
I'd like to point something out.
How would Japan like it if we flooded 40 million East Indians or Mestizos into their country? How would India like it if we flooded 300 million Chinese into their country? How would fucking Mexico like it if we flooded 35 million Koreans, East Indians or Africans into their country?
No sane, decent or self-respecting country or people puts up with this shit.
Every country has an ethnic group that makes up the majority, and a culture that goes along with it. Along with that, a language or languages. We can sit back and bitch about India or Mexico, but those are their countries and their cultures. If you're an Indian or a Mexican, you want to speak your native language, be around mostly folks who look like you, and be a part of your national culture.
Mexicans don't want 35 million Japanese flooding into Mexico, speaking Japanese everywhere, putting up signs in Japanese, playing Japanese music, eating Japanese food and turning Mexico into the Mexipan.
Yet this is what we have done here in California. We, the native peoples of this state (not including the Amerindians, who are nearly extinct), have sat back and allowed a bunch of foreigners to displace us and replace us in our homeland.
Hardly any other decent or self-respecting people on Earth would allow that. Why? Because it's normal to resist being displaced and replaced in your homeland. It's not rightwing or conservative or reactionary or racist or Nazi or anything like that. It's just...normal.
For feeling alienated by this, we are not skinheads or KKK members. We are normal human beings, reacting the same way any normal human would in the circumstances.
Much as I dislike White nationalists for the blatant racism of the overwhelming majority of them, it seems that it is only they who give voice to these most plaintive feelings that any rational native Californian must harbor. Almost no one in the media can tell our story. The media is full of the glories of diversity - the diversity that is our de facto displacement and replacement.
Anyone giving voice to these feelings, which so many of us must feel, is accused of racism. But how can merely being normal and human be conflated with racism?
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Updated August 23:
There is something to be said for deep, hard and cold honesty and realism, like this great article, My Negro Problem - And Ours, from Norman Podhoretz in 1963, back when he was still a liberal and Commentary was still a Jewish liberal magazine, before the Henry Jackson - Patrick Moynihan-fueled transformation into neoconservatives in the 1970's. Read it!
More along the same lines, from the comments page of American Renaissance, commenting on an article about illegal immigration:
Look at Los Angeles in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, 70's. Blue sky, snow-covered mountains, beaches, orange groves. Streets and highways that were uncrowded. Modest middle-class White Americans with full employment in American industries and whose only direct connection with crime was watching a Hollywood gangster movie with George Raft, or Bogart.The "illiterate Mestizos" in the text above are illegal aliens and in many cases, their horrific spawn. I would add I don't want to get into race reality or any of that, but this is a perfect description of my state and my city, my home. I will never go back to my home as long as I live, or at least I pray I will not. It's not my home anymore. It's like it's been taken over by body snatchers or aliens.
Look at Los Angeles now. A third world jungle. Air filthy, orange groves long gone, graffiti and gang slogans everywhere, infrastructure collapsing. The middle class replaced by super-rich behind gated communities and the teeming hordes of the permanently poor. Jobs gone replaced by minimum wage service industries, schools worse than useless.
Whites replaced by illiterate mestizos. The Golden State destroyed in one generation. Thats quite an achievement.
And it's not necessarily about race either. Growing up in the Los Angeles area in the 1960's and 70's, there were Blacks around, but only some, and in the circles I ran in, all college-going and middle-class. There were assimilated Hispanics too, like my best friend since 4th grade, but they were just like everybody else other than having some quirky ancestry, and they were definitely a minority anyway.
There were scattered Asians here and there - Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos, all assimilated Americans. That was the thing - everyone was an American. I didn't know any immigrants except the Bolivian exchange student at my high school.
There was no such thing as people who didn't speak English - everyone did. There weren't any signs in foreign languages, unless you went to Chinatown or Olvera Street.
If you wanted to see Chinese people and eat Chinese food, you went to Chinatown. If you wanted to see Mexicans and listen to mariachis, you went to Olvera Street.
On a recent trip back to Orange County, the nature of this catastrophe really hit home for me. Orange County is now a 3rd World country. There's a group of very well-off rich and upper middle class people of various races living lavish and ultra-lavish lives, and then another vast, usually darker-skinned group, that looks like the teeming masses of the Third World, and they are often right in proximity to each other. There's a White working class that looks broken, in debt and exhausted.
I'm sure the rich and upper middle class love it this way, as studies show that they have made out like bandits since 1980 while most everyone else has gotten creamed, and this transformation neatly corresponded with Reaganism and the Republican free market revolution of the past 30 years. It also corresponded with California liberalism. Our very own Jerry Brown liberals from the 1970's got together with the Reaganites and ruined my city and my state. It doesn't make sense.
Looking at the 3rd World country that Orange County has become, with it's Latin American gaps between an opulent, venal and indifferent upper class (At what point will they become an "oligarchy"?) and hordes of teeming 3rd World-like impoverished and overworked masses (At what point will they become revolutionary?), the rich with their gated communities and their security guards and the poor shoveled 30 to a dwelling, how could any progressive person not despair?
What's next? Biweekly riots by the Right, the Left or just college kids? Violent, striking teachers in the streets, broken up with tear gas and clubs? A military coup? The army in the streets? Armed leftwing revolutionaries? Right-wing death squads? If not, why not?
If there's a monument to the failure of mass illegal immigration and even mass immigration, it's Los Angeles and the surrounding area. When you go to downtown LA, you are in shock. Most parts of the world that look like that need a passport to get to them. Yet this is purportedly part of our country.
I'd like to point something out.
How would Japan like it if we flooded 40 million East Indians or Mestizos into their country? How would India like it if we flooded 300 million Chinese into their country? How would fucking Mexico like it if we flooded 35 million Koreans, East Indians or Africans into their country?
No sane, decent or self-respecting country or people puts up with this shit.
Every country has an ethnic group that makes up the majority, and a culture that goes along with it. Along with that, a language or languages. We can sit back and bitch about India or Mexico, but those are their countries and their cultures. If you're an Indian or a Mexican, you want to speak your native language, be around mostly folks who look like you, and be a part of your national culture.
Mexicans don't want 35 million Japanese flooding into Mexico, speaking Japanese everywhere, putting up signs in Japanese, playing Japanese music, eating Japanese food and turning Mexico into the Mexipan.
Yet this is what we have done here in California. We, the native peoples of this state (not including the Amerindians, who are nearly extinct), have sat back and allowed a bunch of foreigners to displace us and replace us in our homeland.
Hardly any other decent or self-respecting people on Earth would allow that. Why? Because it's normal to resist being displaced and replaced in your homeland. It's not rightwing or conservative or reactionary or racist or Nazi or anything like that. It's just...normal.
For feeling alienated by this, we are not skinheads or KKK members. We are normal human beings, reacting the same way any normal human would in the circumstances.
Much as I dislike White nationalists for the blatant racism of the overwhelming majority of them, it seems that it is only they who give voice to these most plaintive feelings that any rational native Californian must harbor. Almost no one in the media can tell our story. The media is full of the glories of diversity - the diversity that is our de facto displacement and replacement.
Anyone giving voice to these feelings, which so many of us must feel, is accused of racism. But how can merely being normal and human be conflated with racism?
Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
