October 10, 2007

Damn white males keep benefiting humanity

The three hard science Nobel prizes (Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine/Physiology) have now been announced for 2007 and white males (six out of six in this case) continue to oppress the rest of humanity by discovering and inventing stuff.

The hard science Nobels are remarkably untainted by the Diversity Cringe. The judges just seem to feel, "Hey, we're the Nobel Prize guys. The N.o.b.e.l. Prize. We don't have to degrade ourselves for political reasons, so we won't." It's striking how few other prestigious institutions feel that way.

From 2000 through 2007, there have been 61 hard science Nobel Laureates, and one was a woman (Linda B. Buck in Medicine in 2004), or 1.64%. Since 1965, women have made up 2.13% of the hard science Laureates (6 out of 282), compared to 2.50% (6 out of 240) before then.

If this downward trend continues, I expect Larry Summers will have even more speaking engagements canceled.

They don't hate you for being wrong, just for being right.

Note, some of the recent winners have been pretty elderly, so somebody enterprising could go through the Nobel lists and make up a table of Laureates by decade of birth and see what the trend is when looked at that way. Of course, with just 6 out of the last 282 hard science Laureates being women, there's just not a lot there to work with.

From the Comments:

C. Van Carter said...

Speculations about women's cognitive abilities are obviously a greater impediment to scientific achievement than spending four years living on the streets as a child while your mother is in Dachau.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Steve Sailer white males (six out of six in this case) continue to oppress the rest of humanity by discovering and inventing stuff

In general, I'm not a big fan of ethnic boosterism, and I don't mean to imply such with this post, but this new piece today, about Archimedes, is just fascinating, and really deserves a bump:

A Prayer for Archimedes
 

Peter said...

We also could argued that these greedy senior citizens are oppressing the rest of us, considering that the youngest of the six winners was born in 1941 :)

Anonymous said...

Well, Steve, you know that white males only dominate because they are not burdened with child bearing and rearing, and they are not oppressed by racism and sexism.

Truly they are privileged.

Phil said...

On the other hand this pours cold water on your anti-immigrant rhetoric, since both US winners are first generation immigrants, as were numerous other US nobel prize winners over time.

dearieme said...

Aw, come on. There was the one who died. And the one who was only a research student.

P.S About Archimedes - why is it news that he made early steps towards calculus? We learnt that in school in the early sixties.

C. Van Carter said...

Speculations about women's cognitive abilities are obviously a greater impediment to scientific achievement than spending four years living on the streets as a child while your mother is in Dachau.

agnostic said...

Don't forget that there's no Nobel for math -- there's the Fields Medal, and very recently, the Abel Prize. 100% of the winners of both are male.

Those angry over this imbalance need only look across town to the legions of females who prefer publishing, journalism, PR, law, business, etc. The liberation of women was a brain-drain on science.

hey steve said...

In general, I'm not a big fan of ethnic boosterism...

And have you examined exactly why you are not? And whether or not your ethnic universalism is valid?

I believe your attitude is a fast disappearing luxury. Commenters on this blog are largely white males who have inherited a domestic tranquility from their forebears that was the direct result of white ethnic boosterism. The reason the 1965 Immigration Act didn't happen in 1925 was because of white ethnic boosterism. White ethnic boosterism produced Steve Sailer's childhood Southern California dream.

Anyway, you're a fan of Archimedes. Do you think a man like Archimedes could be the genetic product of universalism? Perhaps you're not aware that the Greeks were intensely aware of their blood lines.

How about Archimedes as a social product of universalism? Do you think a majority-minority society of competing ethnic groups would maintain an intellectual climate of free inquiry?

PS Archimedes' Death Ray as described at his Wiki page is sublime.

Anonymous said...

What up with "white males"? Can you start saying "white men"?

SFG said...

Well, Steve, you know that white males only dominate because they are not burdened with child bearing and rearing, and they are not oppressed by racism and sexism.

There is some truth to that. Women can't put off kids until they're 60, and not many guys would go for a 60-year-old spinster even if she were a Nobel laureate. (Well, there is a small subset of men with smart-woman fetishes who would love to sleep with the next Marie Curie but a woman is seriously foreclosing herself from options if she sacrifices her personal life for her career in a way a man isn't because of the fact that women date up and men down.)

Also, anyone born in the Third World doesn't have the opportunity to go to college and start research that, say, even a poor farm boy from Iowa does. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see more Asian Nobel laureates soon.

I don't argue with your core point that white men have done some very good things for the world indeed. :)

Of course, quite a few of them are JEWS...

Anonymous said...

Wow, no Jews won Nobels in the hard sciences this year. Must be the first time in a long while.

In addition to the Fields medal, the Turing Prize is also 100% male, and I believe only one Asian has won one, despite the enormous overrepresentation of Asians among computer science faculty at elite US universities.

Anonymous said...

"I don't argue with your core point that white men have done some very good things for the world indeed. :)

Of course, quite a few of them are JEWS..."


Svigor in three, two, one...

StephenT said...

Stop suppressing the glorious truth about the groundbreaking scientific discoveries made by the mestizo Mexican culture currently inundating -- and enlightening -- our own society. Like when they invented the wheel, for examp--

Oh, wait ... I forgot.

Never mind.

Centripetal force said...

"Women can't put off kids until they're 60, and not many guys would go for a 60-year-old spinster even if she were a Nobel laureate."

More than a few Noble Laureates probably contributed to the miracle of modern science that makes it possible for a woman to put off having children until age 60. And she can choose the sperm donor by race, IQ and personality traits from a population of select males substantially unlike any of the contributors to this blog who delude themselves that they will parent the next generation of Noble Laureates.

I don't know about you but I find it extremely liberating not to have to depend on finding the mate who is the lesser evil among many evils in order to procreate.

Anonymous said...

Phil said:
"On the other hand this pours cold water on your anti-immigrant rhetoric, since both US winners are first generation immigrants, as were numerous other US nobel prize winners over time."

I don't believe Steve has ever said immigration should be abolished completely. But I do think he believes our immigration policy should admit more Nobel Prize winners and less unskilled laborers.

Roger Chaillet said...

Why doesn't Steve mention all the white males who have done so much in the field of computer science?

Hmmm...

There's Claude Shannon, the father of information theory. Here's Wikipedia on him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon

Or how about Alan Turing, a British homosexual considered to be the father of computer science?

And let's not forget the three white males who jointly invented the transistor.

Or Corning, the firm that invented fiber optics.

And who can overlook the incomparable Xerox PARC (Palto Alto Research Center)? PARC invented the GUI, the laser printer, Ethernet, and a host of other goodies.

And the integrated circuit was jointly invented by the folks at Intel together with Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments. Kilby is noteworthy as well for patenting the electronic portable calculator and the thermal printer used in data terminals.

Douglas Engelbart invented the computer mouse, and hypertext.

And the relational database was invented by a white male.

Anonymous said...

"there is a small subset of men with smart-woman fetishes.."

Hey! I'm an intelligent woman, happily married and expecting #5. I stay home because I believe that is the intelligent and moral thing to do.

Martin said...

It's interesting to note that in those dark oppressive days before the modern women's liberation movement began, two women won Nobel prizes in physics: Marie Curie in 1903, and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963.

(Parenthetically, there was one further woman who, as many people now recognize, should have won. Lise Meitner should have shared the 1939 prize for the co-discovery of fission).

Since 1963 however, as women have become empowered to be all that they can be, and to break through all those glass ceilings, there have been exactly.................zero.

DYork said...

What up with "white males"? Can you start saying "white men"?

And can you capitalize White. It's a noun not an adjective, it's a race not a color.

It's OK to say/write White men.

Anonymous said...

While Steve may be right in that the hard science Nobels don't feel the need to parcel out awards by race, they certainly feel the need to do so by the politics of their division.

For example, there is intense speculation amongst chemists as to which field of chemistry will be the next to have its key concepts' discoverer awarded. It's quite political, in my opinion, just not in a skin color / bathroom sort of fashion. Death is also rumored to play a role, as one cannot award a Nobel to a deceased scientist.

Others in the thread have note the time lag of Nobels. It's also a nearly random time lag from "publish" to "award". The 2005 Chemistry Nobel's main awardee(IMHO) had 14 years between the "key paper" to the trip to Stockholm. That was considered short, but I think most people expected him to make the trip because of his significant contribution. One 2003 Chemistry awardee had ~25 years between publishing and recognition.

This scientist believes that the time to really start expecting the key contributions of women to be awarded is somewhere around 15-25 years from now, ceteris paribus. They (women) have only begun to be significant amongst Ph.D.-granting faculty within the last 15 years or so.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand this pours cold water on your anti-immigrant rhetoric, since both US winners are first generation immigrants, as were numerous other US nobel prize winners over time."

Does it really? How many winners were mexican laborers and peasants? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess zero or almost zero in the last 50 years. All immigration is not equal. This is not a hard concept to understand.

Anonymous said...

let's not forget that white males have invented a whole lot of stuff that probably wasn't a good idea to invent in the first place, like, oh say, depleted uranium, land mines, napalm, and television. science and technology aren't inherently good. They are tools, nothing more. They are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. A knife, for example, can be used to prepare food for people to eat, or it can be used to kill. Science and technology have to be used in a humanistic fashion, and, more often than not, they haven't. Unfortunately, the West's collective obsession with "Progress" blinds us to the very real human suffering that such "Progress" often entails. American Indians, African slaves, Hiroshimans, Nagasakians, 19th century railroad workers, coal miners and countless other groups are often written off, whether conciously or not, as just so many broken eggs; tragic, of course, but not nearly as important as the larger omelet of Efficiency, Progress, Science, and Reason.
Ironically, the same people who are the most anti-Communist of all tend to think in exactly the same way as the Communists did. Stalin and Mao murdered millions because, after all, thats the only way they could build the classless society, right?

When Steve says that "white males... continue to oppress the rest of humanity by discovering and inventing stuff," he may be more right than he realizes.
So before us white males give ourselves a hearty pat on the back for all the neat gadgets we've brought to the world (leaving aside the fact that probably most, if not all, of the white men who like to brag about the genius of other white men haven't contributed much to human knowledge themselves) we might do well to consider the human suffering that all our white male genius has brought to a considerable portion of the globe's inhabitants, including ourselves.

Mark said...

On the other hand this pours cold water on your anti-immigrant rhetoric, since both US winners are first generation immigrants, as were numerous other US nobel prize winners over time.

Mario Capecchi is not an immigrant. His mother was an American poet who married an Italian airman. She was thrown into Dachau not for being Jewish (she wasn't) but because she was an outspoken critic of Nazism.

A son of an American citizen isn't an immigrant.

Mark said...

Well, Steve, you know that white males only dominate because they are not burdened with child bearing and rearing, and they are not oppressed by racism and sexism.

Well, all these men had mothers. They were only born because their mothers chose to bear children, and are probably successes at least in part because their mothers bothered to raise them well.

If instead their (probably brilliant) mothers had chosen to vigourously pursue careers and passed up (as so many smart women do) the opportunity to bear children, the world would be a poorer place.

I won't show contempt for motherhood because I'm not real fond of a world where only dumb women bother to breed.

Anonymous said...

hey steve: And have you examined exactly why you are not? And whether or not your ethnic universalism is valid?

No, my point was that I'm not exactly sure what good will come of us wandering around the globe and saying to people, "Ha, ha, ha, we're smarter than you."

But of course, my other point is that it's always been this way [dating back 2250 years to Archimedes, and even earlier than that]: White males have always been the movers and the shakers [with a handful of exceptions, like Kiyoshi Oka, Kenkichi Iwasawa, Yutaka Taniyama, Goro Shimura, Shiing-Shen Chern, Chen Ning Yang, etc].

By the way, Archimedes is flat-out the most intelligent man who ever walked the face of the earth [as these new findings prove yet again], and no one else even comes close to him.

Ben Capoeman said...

Anonymous 10/10/2007 wrote:… we might do well to consider the human suffering that all our white male genius has brought to a considerable portion of the globe's inhabitants, including ourselves.

And all hope of alleviating that suffering lies in whom?

Phil said...

"I don't believe Steve has ever said immigration should be abolished completely. But I do think he believes our immigration policy should admit more Nobel Prize winners and less unskilled laborers."


Well, from what I can assess sites like Vdare also agitate against skilled immigrants, like students, engineers etc.






"Mario Capecchi is not an immigrant. His mother was an American poet who married an Italian airman. She was thrown into Dachau not for being Jewish (she wasn't) but because she was an outspoken critic of Nazism.

A son of an American citizen isn't an immigrant."


Irrespective of whether you want to consider Mario Capecchi an immigrant (he was born in Italy), plenty of other US nobel prize winners were immigrants. By some estimates up to a third of US nobel prize winners were foreign born.

Anonymous said...

phil said:
"On the other hand this pours cold water on your anti-immigrant rhetoric, since both US winners are first generation immigrants, as were numerous other US nobel prize winners over time."

Well phil, there is a slight difference between these highly trained academic immigrants - who usually come to America to take advantage of the lavish research spending by Ivy league institutions, instead of rotting away in an underfunded lab in some socialist European country - and the Mestizos who illegally cross the border to pick fruit or innocent victims. But I think Steve has made that point more than once.

Tom Merle said...

Another Anon wrote "This scientist believes that the time to really start expecting the key contributions of women to be awarded is somewhere around 15-25 years from now, ceteris paribus. They (women) have only begun to be significant amongst Ph.D.-granting faculty within the last 15 years or so."

This seems intuitively correct; but surely we can ascertain where the important scientific work is being done in the 21st century and further determine how many female scientists are at the forefront of their fields. So while The Nobels lag, it appears, in acknowledging ground breaking work, we have other measures of talent closer to the output of that talent.

EPI

Anonymous said...

Martin said:

"It's interesting to note that in those dark oppressive days before the modern women's liberation movement began, two women won Nobel prizes in physics: Marie Curie in 1903, and Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963."

Another thing to remember is that back then women did not get an artificial advantage. It means that those Nobel prizes were truly worth their salt.

On the other hand, maybe men were especially courteous to women back then, and the excessive AA-push for women is beginning to backfire in that the Nobel men are now measuring the female contributions on par with men.

I guess I am not cut out to be a social scientist...

Anonymous said...

Ben Capoeman:
"And all hope of alleviating that suffering lies in whom?"
It lies in the hands of those who choose to use technology as a tool for the upliftment of the human race, not as a weapon of death and destruction. Scientists alone will not save this planet, and they may well destroy it. "All hope of alleviating that suffering" lies in those who would beat swords into plowshares.

If someone were to ask me why I admire Einstein, I wouldn't rattle off a list of his scientific achievements, as I'm afraid most would. Don't get me wrong, his achievements were impressive, but thats not why I admire him as a human being, and I'm sure that's not the reason he would want people to admire him. Instead, I admire him because, in addition to being a wonderful husband, father, and person, he used his scientific prestige for good purposes and devoted his life to the cause of nuclear disarmament and world peace. A highly intelligent robot could, theoretically, make discoveries similar to Einstein's. But could a highly intelligent robot devote its life to peace and brotherhood between all peoples? I doubt it.

And just so you don't think I'm singling out white folks, I think plenty of other peoples have succumbed to the technological temptation over the years. The Arabs, Indians, and Chinese were all technologically advanced civilizations at a time when much of Europe was painting its collective face blue and chucking spears at each other. Recent evidence suggests that sub-Saharan Africans invented iron metallurgy independently thousands of years ago, well before such technology reached western Europe or China. The Arab-Islamic world has on several occasions nearly overrun the Christian West because of the military superiority it enjoyed then. It is only until very recently that the Europe has achieved technological superiority over other civilizations. And in each of those instances, the technologically superior group (whether Arab, Bantu [although not much is known about Bantu expansion], or Chinese) succumbed to the dangerous habit of thinking itself to be superior to all competing groups. And they all payed for it. So will we, sooner or later. The problem is, when we go down, we might take the whole world with us this time.

Anonymous said...

mark: I won't show contempt for motherhood because I'm not real fond of a world where only dumb women bother to breed.

Dude, wake up and smell the coffee: That's precisely the world that you're living in right now!

IQ and the Wealth of Nations

List of countries and territories by fertility rate

Charles Murray has even tried to quantify what the catastrophic collapse in high-IQ fertility rates has meant in the way of loss of human progress over the course of the last fifty years.

And all of this feminazi nonsense about pushing young girls into these idiotic careers only serves to accelerate this catastrophe towards our impending doom [which, of course, the feminazis, as charter members of the greater Culture of Death, are cheering on in thralls of ecstasy].

Phil said...

"in some socialist European country"

Ok smartass, it's not like the US is doing too well either, just compare the development of the Euro/USD exchange rate in the last five years.

Anonymous said...

On a related note, if you see the rankings at topcoder.com, you'll notice the overwhelming superiority of Eastern Europe. India, that great IT 'powerhouse', is ranked 16, and that too with the second highest number of contestants. Sure, there's a huge number of them, but how good are they exactly?
vg

Anonymous said...

here's the link:
http://www.topcoder.com/stat?c=country_avg_rating

Vol-in-Law said...

anon:
"Stalin and Mao murdered millions because, after all, thats the only way they could build the classless society, right?"

It's one thing to kill members of a rival group, like the USA did when expanding across north America - this has been standard practice for all human societies since before we came down from the trees.

It's quite another to slaughter millions of *your own people* the way Stalin and Mao did. That's what's uniquely evil about them, and other lesser 20th century totalitarians like Hitler.

Vol-in-Law said...

anon:
"The Arabs, Indians, and Chinese were all technologically advanced civilizations at a time when much of Europe was painting its collective face blue and chucking spears at each other. "

That's a severe exaggeration. A case can be made for Chinese technological superiority, and that there were relatively advanced Indian cultures coexistent with relatively primitive European tribes, but you're comparing the least advanced Europeans with the most advanced non-Europeans. Likewise Arab general technological superiority over northwest Europe was pretty brief and confined to military affairs. They did have an advantage in architectural knowledge for a long time though.

Even today you could compare Hong Kong with Saami Lapland and say the Chinese HKers are more advanced than the European Saami tribesmen, but the only sensible comparison is between the most advanced parts of a civilisation. Western civilisation is only 500 years old, in that time it has clearly progressed further and achieved far more than any other civilisation has ever done.

dearieme said...

Before gushing about what a wonderful chap Einstein was, it might be wise to consider the child he discarded to an unknown fate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieserl_Einstein

Anonymous said...

"It's quite another to slaughter millions of *your own people* the way Stalin and Mao did"
Dead people are dead people. It doesn't make it any less evil that the murder was committed against people who look different from you. I don't care if "everybody did it." That doesn't make it right, and for you to suggest otherwise is utterly despicable.
Also, your not even technically correct. First of all, people kill "their own people" all the time. Abraham Lincoln did it. Jefferson Davis did as well. Human beings love to form in-groups to fight against out-groups, whether we call those groups religions, nationalities, races, or whatever. Thats part of our evolutionary stragety. But that doesn't mean that once we've formed these groups, intra-group conflicts cease to exist.
Also, Stalin and Mao didn't technically even kill only "their own people." Stalin was a Georgian who killed millions of Russians, Ukranians, ethnic Germans, and even ethnic Koreans, among countless others. Mao, a Han Chinese, killed a million Tibetans, according to some sources, in addition to the millions of fellow Han Chinese he managed to starve to death or execute.
Finally, as I mentioned in the previous post, white Americans have on numerous occasions killed members of "their own people." Millions of white railroad workers, white coal miners, and white factory workers (not to mention their non-white counterparts) DIED on the job in the 1800s and early 20th century from workplace accidents and diseases that could have EASILY been prevented by their white bosses. (It still happens today, albeit on a much smaller scale). Gangs of strongarmed white thugs hired by white employers murdered white workers (and non-white ones too) because they had committed the unspeakable crime of wanting to organize themselves in a union to better their conditions. All these white people, along with their black, red, brown, and yellow brothers and sisters, were, and are, in the eyes of elites, just obstacles to be bulldozed over by the Unstoppable March of Progress known as American history.
"Likewise Arab general technological superiority over northwest Europe was pretty brief and confined to military affairs."
It wasn't just over northwestern Europe. Muslims repeatedly wooped the Byzantine Empire and even made it as far in to eastern Europe as Poland. Likewise, Arabs did a pretty good job of conquering Spain.
And it wasn't just in the field of military technology that they were superior either. Arabs picked up the study of medicine, making great strides at a time when the West had largely given up on the project. Similarly, Arabs did pretty well for themselves in the fields of astronomy, chemistry, navigation, and mathematics. Europeans, in fact, were inspired to get their act together because of the threat they felt from the Islamic world. After the sack of Baghdad in 1258 by the Mongols, however, Islamic civilization began its steady decline.
Its true that the Arabs were superior to the West for a relatively brief period of time, but it still happened.
You didn't even mention my point about sub-Saharan Africa inventing iron metallurgy independently before Europe or China received the technology from others, according to many reknowned Africanists such as Basil Davidson, Christopher Ehret, Hamady Bocoum, and Louise-Marie Maes-Diop. However, I recognize that the last two scholars are black, (and the last one is a woman!) so you might be inclined not to believe them... :)
Even if it turns out that sub-Saharan Africans didn't invent ironworking independently, there can be no doubt that Africans invented a vast number of often ingenious methods of metallurgy, such as furnaces made from the trunks of banana trees.
But all this is beside the point. None of this means that one group has more moral worth than another. The only reason I bring up these historical facts is so I can challenge the "progressive" view of history and the West on its own terms.

Roger Chaillet said...

Steve's not being fair to unskilled, illiterate and feral mestizos from Mexico.

Let's not forget their sublime achievements such as the low-rider and the Tex-Mex combo plate.

Nor can we overlook the automated tortilla making machine.

But there's is a solution awaiting this problem. Do what George Bush has done: gut admissions standards to Texas colleges and universities in order to have a more DIE-verse student body. Allow in thousands of marginal brown folks, who will flunk out in droves or switch to social work or ethnic studies.

Martin said...

"If someone were to ask me why I admire Einstein, I wouldn't rattle off a list of his scientific achievements, as I'm afraid most would. ....... Instead, I admire him because, in addition to being a wonderful husband, father, and person, he used his scientific prestige for good purposes and devoted his life to the cause of nuclear disarmament and world peace."

I think you got the wrong guy - perhaps you need another subject for your hero worship.

By all the accounts I've read, Einstein was not a particularly good father, an indifferent husband, and lent his name to alot of left-wing peacenik causes in the most naive manner. He was not a man of the world, and his judgements relfected that.

Justin said...

Someone wrote: "So before us white males give ourselves a hearty pat on the back for all the neat gadgets we've brought to the world (leaving aside the fact that probably most, if not all, of the white men who like to brag about the genius of other white men haven't contributed much to human knowledge themselves) we might do well to consider the human suffering that all our white male genius has brought to a considerable portion of the globe's inhabitants, including ourselves."

As I get older one thing becomes clearer and clearer: how we raise, discipline and inspire our children impacts society at large. The person who wrote the above comment does not realize that all men who raise their children in a proper manner are helping to advance knowledge and society. The more stable the society, the more civil and the more respectful, the greater focus can be applied to advanced topics such as science. If men where to leave their childrens rearing to chance, then surely scientists would live in a world ill-conducive to scientific inquiry. To overlook the role of the average person in helping craft a society where the brilliant can do their magic, is to miss on of the greatest facts of life.

Justin

Anonymous said...

I’m taking bets as to when institutions like the Nobel and Fields Medal at least pay tithing to the multi-culti demands for diversity like other awards like the Pulitzer and Booker. It may be too much to expect a Black physicist winning, but I could see a greater number of women awarded medals in medicine and physiology above the level of their contribution.

Perhaps the Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes are the PC counter weight to the evil white man dominance of medals in the hard sciences. Like many PC-dominated areas, the Peace Medal in particular tend to be very trendy, multi-culti and sometimes even ludicrous when viewed outside fabricated mainstream meta-narratives about history.

1964 - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
- PhD plagiarist
- violent sexual deviant “reverend”
- racist hypocrite

1973 - Henry A Kissinger
- Vietnam
- Cambodian
- Indonesia
- Chile
- can’t travel in parts of Europe due to crimes against humanity charges

1986 - Elie Wiesel
- tacit support of Sabra and Shatila massacres

1994 - Yasser Arafat
- corrupt leader of terrorist organization

2001 - Kofi Annan
- oversaw and even covered up systemic UN corruption and scandals

Anonymous said...

"...consider the human suffering that all our white male genius has brought to a considerable portion of the globe's inhabitants, including ourselves."

Then it is clear what we as guilty white men must do. First, we must send all people of African descent back to Africa. Next, make sure all latinos get back to their native lands. The same goes for any other non-whites in the United States. This should be done as quickly as possible because obviously the US is very unsafe and of course oppressive and exploitative toward them, to say the least. Forcing them to stay here is a crime of massive proportions. Once these non-whites are safely away from us brutal and monstrous caucasians we can allow no contact in any way between whites or any non-whites as the final safety measure. The chances of us harming these people again is too great.

Anonymous said...

"Western civilisation is only 500 years old"
Western civilization is much older than that. It's true, the West has dominated the Americas for that long, and thats about the time when the West really started to take off, but Western Civilization itself goes back way further than 500 years, and originates with the ancient Greeks.

Anonymous said...

"Hey! I'm an intelligent woman, happily married and expecting #5. I stay home because I believe that is the intelligent and moral thing to do."

Madam, I salute you. We need many many more ladies like you.

Mr. Noah said...

There is, of course, an alternate explanation for the dearth of women in the hard sciences: namely, women have an incentive to enter careers with lots of options (meaning less depth), since they don't tend to do as well in vertical hierarchies.

Take my field, economics. Most of the women in my dept. are in international trade, which is very mentally and mathematically challenging - much more so than fields in which women have little presence, such as public finance. However, it is worth noting that international trade is the subfield of econ with the most outside options.

daveg said...

I am not an arab revisionist, but they did kick off chemestry (alchemy and alcohol are arab words).

jody said...

Within the last 3 years, a white player has won the NFL MVP, the MLB MVP, and the NBA MVP. A white team won the world cup and a white team won the olympic basketball tournament. And now a clean sweep of the Nobel science prizes.

Nobody needs to pat themselves on the back, but a moment of quiet pride is clearly reasonable for any european person.

Provided it is not yet illegal for european peoples to have a quiet moment of pride.

Anonymous said...

"I am not an arab revisionist, but they did kick off chemestry (alchemy and alcohol are arab words)."
So are algebra and algorithm.

Anonymous said...

"As I get older one thing becomes clearer and clearer: how we raise, discipline and inspire our children impacts society at large. The person who wrote the above comment does not realize that all men who raise their children in a proper manner are helping to advance knowledge and society. The more stable the society, the more civil and the more respectful, the greater focus can be applied to advanced topics such as science. If men where to leave their childrens rearing to chance, then surely scientists would live in a world ill-conducive to scientific inquiry. To overlook the role of the average person in helping craft a society where the brilliant can do their magic, is to miss on of the greatest facts of life."
Where in any of my posts did I attack the notion of scientific inquiry, or raising one's children for that matter? All I said was that we ought to be careful about what uses we put science to?

Anonymous said...

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but it isn't like white scholars and scientists are up against the stiffest competition:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301141,00.html

Anonymous said...

"Then it is clear what we as guilty white men must do. First, we must send all people of African descent back to Africa. Next, make sure all latinos get back to their native lands. The same goes for any other non-whites in the United States"
Well, if we're gonna talk repatriation, I think it would be much more sensible for us whites to go back to Europe. After all, blacks didn't choose to come here. They were kidnapped, brought here, forced to work without pay, and in doing so helped this country enormously. After all, it was black slaves who picked the cotton that made the industrial revolution possible. Blacks certainly deserve a peace of the pie that their ancestor's baked. As for Native Americans and Mestizos, they were here first. The entire southwestern United States belonged to Mexico before us white men stole (and let me stop you right now before you try to make the argument that the Mexican War was just. It wasn't, not even in the eyes of the guy who conducted it, Ulysses Grant, who later said the biggest regret of his life was participating in that war. http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/Willis/Civil_War/documents/Grant.html)
And the American economy would not be the same without California's gold and ports, and Texas' oil.
So I think the most sensible solution would be for us to head on back to our home countries in Europe.

Mark said...

By some estimates up to a third of US nobel prize winners were foreign born.

Which is to say that two-thirds of American Nobel Laureates are not immigrants. And America wins a disproprtionate number of Nobels.

The other thing is that the immigrants who are winning these Nobels are extreme minorities. They are almost all European immigrants, while the vast overwhleming majority of immigrants to America are not.

[Muslims] did have an advantage in architectural knowledge for a long time though.

And where did they get their original architectural knowledge from? From the Eastern Roman Empire - aka, Byzantium.

And all of this feminazi nonsense about pushing young girls into these idiotic careers only serves to accelerate this catastrophe towards our impending doom

Well that was my point. I'm uncomfortable with implying that women are somehow lesser than men because they're less likely to win Nobels. I know that's not what Steve meant, but some people will inerpret it that way. Any woman who, having other options, chooses to have children and to bother raising them is doing valuable work. It would be best not to fall into the trap laid by feminists by validating their view of the world.

Anonymous said...

"Within the last 3 years, a white player has won the NFL MVP, the MLB MVP, and the NBA MVP. A white team won the world cup and a white team won the olympic basketball tournament. And now a clean sweep of the Nobel science prizes."
No, a white player did NOT win the NFL MVP 3 years ago. A player of English descent did (at least I think thats what Peyton Manning is). Neither has a white player won MVP in either the national or american leauges in the last three years. In the American League, a French-Canadian player named Justin Morneau did win the MVP award, but he is not "white." He is French-Canadian. In the NBA, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki are not "white." They are British-Canadian and German-Slavic, respectively. A "white" team didn't win the world cup either. An Italian team did. And an Argentine, not a "white," team won the Olympic Basketball tournament.
As for the Nobel Prize, no "white" men won anything. In physiology/medicine, an Italian (Mario Cappechi), an Englishman (Martin Evans), and an English-American (Oliver Smithies) won the Prize (and before all you right-wingers celebrate about how a bunch of "white" men won the Prize, bear in mind they won it for their work with embryonic stem cells) http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2007/index.html
In Physics, also, I can't find any "white" people. I can find a Frenchman (Albert Fert) and a German (Peter Grunberg), but no "white" people. Similarly, a German (Gerhard Ertl) won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, but I'm not aware of any "white" people who have won it.
As for it being illegal for European peoples to feel pride, it isn't, and I can't see any reason why it would be illegal, or even immoral. There is nothing wrong with English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Germans, French, Poles, Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, or any other people on the European peninsula celebrating their particular heritages. However, there IS something very wrong with "white" people celebrating their "heritage," and if you think for a moment, I'm sure you'll see why.

Proofreader said...

Anon:
However, there IS something very wrong with "white" people celebrating their "heritage," and if you think for a moment, I'm sure you'll see why.

Go on, I prefer to be enlightened by you, anon. Why, indeed?

Anonymous said...

"As for the Nobel Prize, no "white" men won anything. " etc.

If there are no white people then how come we have things like "whiteness studies", and "white priviliege". If you want people who regard themselves as "white" to stop, then would you also be happy about having minorities (non-whites) ceasing to identify as minorities? Also, are you confortable with having Jews abandon all Jewish self-identification replacing it with the purely geographical notions of nationality that you evidently prefer?

However, there IS something very wrong with "white" people celebrating their "heritage," and if you think for a moment, I'm sure you'll see why.

I've thought about it for a moment and I don't see why.

none of the above said...

In the US, "white" just means "people who get treated like normal folks." For my grandfather, Jews and Irishmen and Italians were probably not quite "white." For my kids, East Asians will probably be "white." (That is, they'll think it no weirder to date a girl of Chinese descent than I thought it to date a girl of Italian descent.)

IMO, the best possible future for multiethnic America is for essentially everyone to become "white." Multiculturalism and racial identity politics are tools to prevent that happening, at the cost of all kinds of trouble to everyone. (At the extreme end, you get evil stuff like bilingual education, apparently pushed partly to maintain a Latino voting block that wasn't too proficient in English. Pure evil.) The sad thing is, I think most of the multicultis think they're working toward my goal.

none of the above said...

phil:

I'm pretty sure most of us are in favor of letting in the guys with advanced degrees in the hard sciences. It's the guys who can't read or write, but who are willing to work cheap at the Tyson's plant, that we're a bit less excited to have.

And even there, it's mostly not the individuals, it's the numbers. Roberto who comes here to work in a factory may be a fine guy, hardworking and honest. A single Roberto is probably an addition to the society. But importing a million Robertos will have a completely different effect, it won't be a million times the effect of the first guy.)

Anonymous said...

If there are no white people then how come we have things like "whiteness studies," and "white priviliege."
Perhaps I misspoke. I did not mean to imply that there are no white people. What I meant to say is that there should be no white people. The purpose of "whiteness studies" is to deconstruct and destroy the identity of whiteness. As for "white privilege," that is the reason why whiteness exists. Whether it should exist is a completely different question.
If you want people who regard themselves as "white" to stop, then would you also be happy about having minorities (non-whites) ceasing to identify as minorities?
Yes I would. I think the term "minority" is terribly misleading. The whites in Apartheid South Africa were a "minority." I would much rather have Blacks identify themselves as Black, Asians as Asian, Latinos as Latino, etc. In order to destroy whiteness, people of color need to contradict it with Blackness, Browness, Yellowness, Redness, etc.
Also, are you confortable with having Jews abandon all Jewish self-identification replacing it with the purely geographical notions of nationality that you evidently prefer?
Jews, in the 19th century in Europe before the first major wave of Jewish immigration to the United States, had no national identity, because their neighbors systematically refused to let them be a part of their nation. Jews in France couldn't be French because of the Dreyfuss affair. Jews in Russia couldn't be Russian because the Czar and the Cossacks wouldn't let them be. Now, when Jews came to the United States, the United States was a "white" nation, and it still is. I don't mean demographically, I mean conceptually. Americans conceived of their community as white. Thus, "American" was a synonym for "white." When Jews first landed on Ellis Island, anti-semitism prevented them from being either American or white. Jews, as foreigners, had no conception of the racial hierarchy that existed in America. After a while, they learned to accept and embrace racism, and self-identified, and became accepted as, white. Israel, today, is a "white" nation, in fact it is the last bastion of old-fashioned colonialism. That is why so many Americans, even those of non-Jewish origin, support Israel so virulently. Israel reminds us, as Americans, as whites, of our own history: the spread of "civilization" against the barbarous, vicious, "natives." In the Jewish settlers, we see the western frontiersman that we learned about in school. In the Palestians, we see the vicious Indians of the old Westerns we used to watch. Naturally, we side with the cowboys against the Indians.
So I would like to see Jews stop self-identifying as "white," and remember their Jewish heritage. Eventually, I would like to see the Jewish State in Palestine dismantled, and a new Jewish homeland established in Europe.

I've thought about it for a moment and I don't see why.
I didn't think you would. Let me explain.
Celebrating "whiteness" means celebrating power. Whiteness does not mean anything except negatively. Whiteness is only defined against non-whiteness. But it isn't only folks of color that whiteness hurts. It is also spiritually damaging to those who identify themselves as "white." When a person of, say, Polish descent identifies himself as white, he forgets about his own heritage as a Pole. This is what James Baldwin referred to as the "price of the ticket." When Europeans sailed to America on boats in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the price of their ticket was to subjugate their national and cultural heritages to this vague notion of "whiteness." As a "white" person myself, I can testify to the profoundly psychologically disturbing effects this has had. When my Irish ancestors came this country before the Civil War, fleeing famine and British imperialism, they had a chance to see in Blacks a reflection of the persecution and oppresion they had faced at the hands of the English back home. Here were a group of people who were being oppressed by the same Anglo-Saxons that brutalized my ancestors in Eire. And indeed, in the 18th century, poor white indigenous servants, many of them Irish, did find common cause with blacks: living with them, communicating with them, miscegenating with them, and even fighting with them, such as in the Great New York Slave Insurrection of 1741. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Slave_Insurrection_of_1741
But in the 19th century, my Irish ancestors decided to accept the bargain offered them by their Anglo masters, and instead of fighting side by side with blacks as they had done in the previous century, the New York Irish rioted and slaughtered blacks in the streets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_riots
This is a shameful part of my history as an Irishman.
For years, I was taught to call myself white, and the result was that I knew next to nothing about Ireland or Irish history. This wasn't the fault of black or brown people or multiculturalism or any other left-wing bogeyman. It was the fault of whiteness. It wasn't until I threw off the yoke of whiteness, and began to see myself as a proud Irishman, that I regained spiritual sanity. I now feel an intimate connection with the history of the Irish people and all other oppressed peoples, rather than the "history" of an artificial and soulless group like "white" people. I have spiritually disowned those of my ancestors who participated in the New York Draft Riots and other such celebrations of whiteness, and instead embraced those of my brethren who participated in the New York Slave Insurrection. I only wish that other "white" folks could rediscover their own rich national heritages and stop falsely identifying with whiteness.
Seeing as how its Columbus Day, lets start with Italians. I'd like to suggest to any Italian-American who might be reading this to consider dropping Columbus as an Italian-American icon, and instead naming a holiday for Sacco and Vanzetti.

Anonymous said...

"it won't be a million times the effect of the first guy."

How do you know a million of the first guy won't end up being worse? I already see signs, have experienced it myself. A group of people stereotyped as more intelligent and having the not necessarily correlating traits of greater morality or integrity can be just as dangerous as a mob of unruly illiterates, albeit in different ways. Smarter people aren't necessarily more honest or trustworthy than average. The belief that they are is called the halo effect in psychology.

The propaganda or mythology that gets built up around groups of immigrants can often have more effect on society than the immigrants themselves. From what I've experienced, the impact of blindly adhering to an accepted stereotype is always negative for the host country and may be either beneficial or harmful to the individual immigrants. We become unable to see when an individual from that group is behaving badly or mistreating us because someone from that race or ethnicity simply wouldn't behave that way.

Though not the only example, the fact that I had to fight to get a Korean male arrested after he broke into my home and was waiting there for me when I returned from an errand is a very good case in point. The policeman decided it was too extraordinary an occurance for it to be a straight forward case of breaking and entering with intent to steal or harm. I, however, knew the guy had made odd, threatening remarks to me just a few weeks before. Why wasn't even the fact that the guy was in my apartment uninvited enough for the police? Because he was Asian!

You guys being the quintessential white males are somewhat insulated. I'm not. This is one of the main reasons I'd prefer we didn't import populations the size of states/countries because some ridiculous mythology gets built around the newcomers that ends up taking a life of its own - as a defendant or witness in court, the reason a town that has none of the population transforms itself to welcome them, etc.

Anonymous said...

" I now feel an intimate connection with the history of the Irish people and all other oppressed peoples, rather than the "history" of an artificial and soulless group like "white" people."

Your revision of Irishness is charming yet inaccurate. The Irish did not embrace the ex-slaves here in America. Any who did were the exception not the rule. Also, the Irish settled into little ethnic enclaves just like everyone else. They felt that the Irish and Irishness were superior. I don't have a problem with that. It's natural and a good counterbalance to the the Jews, the Poles and the Italians felt the same way. Unfortunately, you haven't escaped the whitewashing of history yourself. I wonder if you are even an Irish American with a tale like the one you just spun. I grew up with the real deal out of Baltimore who was a turn of the century (last century) Irishman. Who the hell are you?

Anonymous said...

The Irish did not embrace the ex-slaves here in America.
Where did I say that they did? What I said was that Irish indentured servants in the 17th and 18th communicated with, befriended, miscegenated, and fought with Black slaves, not ex-slaves. If you don't believe me, pick up a book and read about the New York Slave Insurrection.

I'm well aware of the racism that many Irishmen in America have had since those days, and as an example, I even pointed to the New York Draft Riots.

Proofreader said...

Anon:

Eventually, I would like to see the Jewish State in Palestine dismantled, and a new Jewish homeland established in Europe.

And where would that be? Do you really suggest deporting native Europeans from their lands to establish a new Israel in Europe?
Whatever happened to the Madagascar project? LOL!
After writing that, I´m pretty sure you´re not Irish.

Anonymous said...

and where would that be?
If Jews feel that they need a homeland (which I would question, given the current lack of anti-semitism in the first-world, and anti-semitism in the third-world is primarily due to Zionism), I would much rather have them take land in Germany than Palestine. The Palestinians were not responsible for the Shoah. The Germans, and plenty of other Europeans, were. Why should Arabs be punished for the crimes of Europeans?

Anonymous said...

"What I said was that Irish indentured servants in the 17th and 18th communicated with, befriended, miscegenated, and fought with Black slaves, not ex-slaves."

You didn't say "indentured" in your first comment. Anyway, I"m not certain this earlier group had much to do with the group identity formed by Irish arriving in America in the 1800s. When it comes to group identity, it's no good arriving much earlier or later than the majority of immigrants from that country.

David said...

Hey! I'm an intelligent woman, happily married and expecting #5. I stay home because I believe that is the intelligent and moral thing to do.

My heart soared when I read this. Humanity needs more of you.

"The hand that rocks the cradle..."

Anonymous said...

Anyway, I"m not certain this earlier group had much to do with the group identity formed by Irish arriving in America in the 1800s.
You're right, it didn't. I said as much in my post. The story of how New York Irishmen went from fighting in slave rebellions to killing blacks in cold blood in the streets is indeed a shameful one, one that almost (almost!) makes me ashamed to be an Irishman.
My point was that how we construct our group identity is a choice on our part. The Irish indentured servants chose to identify with black slaves in the 17th and 18th centuries. The Irish of the 19th and 20th centuries chose to accept whiteness and hate blacks, just like the rest of white society. Not in all cases, mind you, because there are honorable exceptions, but in far too many of them.
The point is that you have a choice. You can choose, as Camus said, to be on the side of the executioners, or you can choose to be on the side of the victims. I, for one, don't hesitate to choose the latter.

Anonymous said...

"My point was that how we construct our group identity is a choice on our part. "

Yes, memory is reconstructive on the individual or the group level. I have qualms about providing a false history based more on "facts" than reality in order to achieve the goals of some agenda. I also hesitate to judge 19th century Irish immigrants for identifying themselves with white society rather than coming here to start a revolution. They saved their families. It makes great movies to revision the holy Irish destabilizing a corrupt regime without thought for the consequences but how many Irish would've been let in had they started kicking up a fuss about the status quo in their new country. Of course immigrants today think nothing of coming here with the express purpose of subverting the social order. But I think it's easy to see the greater wisdom in blending in when you are beggars in a new land.

Your view of victim and perpetrator may be a bit black and white too. Slavery was bad but it still goes on today. Unfortunately, the movies about this won't be made for another 50 years if ever. Out of sight, out of mind, eh? What are you doing about this in the present other than chastizing Irish immigrants who successfully assimilated into a new country in droves? Child abuse is a bad thing too but most parents in the 1800s practiced it...

Anonymous said...

Quote:
------
If Jews feel that they need a homeland (which I would question, given the current lack of anti-antisemitism in the first-world, and anti-antisemitism in the third-world is primarily due to Zionism), I would much rather have them take land in Germany than Palestine. The Palestinians were not responsible for the Shoah. The Germans, and plenty of other Europeans, were. Why should Arabs be punished for the crimes of Europeans?
------
End of quote.

Jews need not a state because of antisemitism. They need a state because they are a nation. Judaism is their national religion, and other people can join the religion and thus join the nation (just like naturalizing in a country), but it is still (also) a national identity and not (just) a religion.
The choice of Israel as their state has nothing to do with the Shoah. The first Zionist congress was held in the end of the 19th century and there waves of Zionist immigration to Israel before that.
Actually, there was constant Jewish presence in Israel ever since their exile from Israel by the Romans, 1900 years ago.
I remind you (in case you didn't know) that the Jewish nation/religion evolved in the land of Israel 3300 years ago, while the Arab culture/language/religion of Islam arrived there as apart of a colonial struggle to take over the world 1350 years ago.

As the jewish religion represented the jews' nationality, they kept their national identity through it. Since the exile jews have prayed to return to Israel. Jews pray three times a day. In each of the prayers the wish to return to Israel and Jerusalem and establish a self rule there is included. Also when thanking for food it is mentioned. The return to Israel has been the single most important feature of the jewish 'religion' after monotheism in all the years of exile.
Even before the exile, the land of Israel itself had strong religious meanings in Judaism.
Throughout the exile, many rabies called for immigration back to Israel. Still, the official religious stance was that it had to be by god's hand and not by human hands, this is why it never happened until Jews became secular. Shortly after, they began implementing this vision.

As for your suggestion of Europe as the place for the Jewish homeland, I remind you that the Jews were scattered all over the world and not just in Europe. Why should Iraqi Jews immigrate to Europe? they have a connection to Israel but not to Europe.

As a side note, I've heard that Mario cappechi is Jewish. Even if he's not, the three economics laureates this year are Jewish, as are 19% of the Chemistry laureates, 41% of the economics laureates, 13% of the literature laureates, 28% of the medicine laureates, 9% of the peace laureates and 26% of the physics laureates.
See www.jinfo.org for more details