A pundit tries to be faster than those who are better than him and better than those who are faster. Dennis Dale isn't faster that anybody, but he may be better than everybody.
At Untethered, Dennis explains a key point of Attorney General Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" speech:
At Untethered, Dennis explains a key point of Attorney General Eric Holder's "nation of cowards" speech:
What is more interesting is the unintentional but more revealing subtext, inaccessible to the author, incapacitated as he is by status, position and, appropriately enough, chauvinism. Holder's speech revealed the potential conflicts facing a civil rights movement-turned-industry by Barack Obama's stunning, rapid rise.
Those who most fear the reality of a "transformation" to a "post-racial" America are those who've most benefited from the decidedly racial nature of recent American politics--again, embarrassingly demonstrated with Obama's success. The end game of affirmative action and discrimination-through-litigation is revealed as long overdue. The intent of the "conversation" about race, now more than ever, is to delegitimize that challenge by declaring it unfit for conversation.
If we should start taking seriously the "post-racial" nature of Obama's rise, we might start asking that it mean something beyond assigning a professional and political premium to certain individuals based on Obama's myth of "race and inheritance." But the obvious advantage that race played for the inauthentic son of slavery and segregation contradicts the myth. The notion of a white American jackboot forever on the neck of our culturally most powerful--black Americans--was questionable before Obama's remarkable campaign and the ecstatic reception of his inauguration. Now it is farcical.
But it isn't only that Barack Obama renders the white/black reparations dynamic absurd. The nascent Diversity State finds itself too soon and too totally triumphant. The bogey of white oppression threatens to become no longer plausible, and those groups assigned varying stature within the hierarchy of grievance are already eyeing one another uneasily.
The order now threatened by diversity is not pre- but post-civil rights. That minority became synonymous with oppressed, and "underrepresented" synonymous with denied, once only enhanced the power of the dominant minority, which extracted concessions from a still comfortable majority (that could still afford them and held an expectation of final conciliation). Smaller minority groups were content to follow the leader and accept a subordinate position. But what happens to that dynamic in a "post-racial" ("post-white") America where the majority of individuals have a birthright claim against the white plurality and no sense of obligation toward a black population that is culturally dominant, politically favored and stubbornly lagging in professional and scholastic achievement?
It was therefore Holder's purpose to preclude any challenges to black America's position atop the hierarchy of grievance. Black equality is more than simple equality. Holder is here to defend the primacy of his faction as the vanguard of a revolution now triumphant:In addition, the other major social movements of the latter half of the 20th century -- feminism, the nation's treatment of other minority groups, even the antiwar effort -- were all tied in some way to the spirit that was set free by the quest for African American equality. Those other movements may have occurred in the absence of the civil rights struggle, but the fight for black equality came first and helped to shape the way in which other groups of people came to think of themselves and to raise their desire for equal treatment. Further, many of the tactics that were used by these other groups were developed in the civil rights movement.
By more false accommodation he allows that feminism, anti-war protests and other minority rights movements "may" have happened without the black civil rights movement--insinuating that they probably would have not. When Holder goes on to assert that black history is too little studied, and that "African American history is American history", he declares that black history is more than American history, and greater than any other group's American history.
More
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
46 comments:
Holder is an ass.
Here in Dallas blacks who work for the mass transit system are complaining about being passed over by less qualified Hispanics.
Ditto for Austin. Open conflict has arisen in Austin between blacks and Hispanics over municipal jobs and race based largesse.
When Whitey's hegemony is destroyed by unbridled Third World immigration, then this country will look like a cross between post Tito Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe.
Clowns like Holder should be careful of what they wish for.
That was a powerful analysis.
It is bad news indeed if our race relations pass into the realm of the manufactured and the arbitrary. Think Sunni and Shia.
Yes, this is a pretty reasonable point...
But there's a crucial structural point that pretty much all the ISteveites and also the Holderites both seem to always miss.
Middle-class American blacks are overwhelmingly concentrated in the "Affirmative Action" sectors of the economy, namely those governed by this policy system. Basically, if AA disappeared, then to a first approximation so would America's black middle class. Obviously this doesn't apply to rich black athletes or entertainers, but these numbers are tiny.
On the other hand, only a negligible fraction of Latinos (and other immigrant groups) work in those AA sectors. In fact, a pretty large fraction of Latinos work in job-sectors which are overwhelmingly, sometimes almost exclusively Latino, making AA totally impossible. Hence, employment AA provides almost zero benefits to Latinos, and is actually rather resented, since it almost always (in practice rather than in theory) amounts to favoritism toward blacks (whom Latinos strongly dislike).
Anyway, Latino culture tends to be very strongly "class" rather than "race/ethnic" based, and big on "solidarity", absolutely 180 degrees reversed from black culture.
As a byproduct of this, ordinary Latinos tend to enormously resent people who've gotten really rich through connections (and "corruption"!) and done so without having ever really held a normal job, which is exactly the case with Holder, and also with Obama himself. By contrast, a Latino hero(ine) is someone like Hilda Solis, who's been in politics longer than Obama, but, being honest, hasn't gotten rich.
One of Obama's problems is that his Cabinet is filled to the brim with Eric Holder-types (including white ones!), but only has one or two Hilda Solis's (probably Steve Chu falls into a similar category).
A gigantic economic downturn is really not the wisest time to fill you government with rich black (and white!) influence-peddlers and other assorted crooks and thieves...
When Whitey's hegemony is destroyed by unbridled Third World immigration,
Tensions between blacks and Hispanics could very well boil over much sooner than 2042; especially during an economic depression when the Great White Father won't have quite so much bribe money to pass around to various interest groups.
An incident I witnessed earlier tonight illustrates this dynamic. My girlfriend and I were eating dinner at a table in the bar area of a restaurant. Two black men were sitting at the bar watching the basketball game and having an amiable conversation with the white bartender. A black waiter, who apparently knew the black patrons, came over and said hello to them. One of the patrons used the "n-word" in his greeting in response. The waiter, sotto voce, said something like, "what are you doing calling me that with white people around?". And one of the black patrons said, "What's the difference? They're calling you that when you're not around anyway."
My girlfriend and I were a little shocked by this bit of persecution complex. We don't use the "n-word" to describe black people when they're not around. I said to her, "What would it take for black guys like that to not think that every white person is a closet racist? Electing a black man President wasn't enough?"
- Fred
what is the job of the attorney general anyway?
i'm thinking these ideas might not be compatible with being tough on crime.
No educational bureaucrat will ever publicly admit that -- given current parameters -- we're doing about as well as can be expected in educating the young, and to throw more money into the educational trough will produce little to no improvement.
No environmental advocate will ever concede that protecting natural ecosystems involves difficult trade offs, and that, all things considered, we're doing about as much as we reasonably can to protect the environment.
It may or may not be true in the two cases above that we are meeting some realistic standard of success. The point is that for advocates of this kind, there can never be any realistic standard of success, because what the hell would you do if it looked like you were approaching it? You'd have to raise the standard, of course.
Neverthless, I suspect that time is running out on arguments of the kind Holder makes. Forty years ago, it was far easier to make a convincing case that discrepancies in income and achievement were primarily the result of ethnic dicrimination. In the new, majority-less America that Holder looks forward to, such a conviction will prove more and more difficult to sustain. Affirmative action no doubt will continue as a group spoils system, but nothing more, and blacks will not be at the head of the line among its beneficiaries.
Heh, there is every chance that Barack Obama will go down in history as the Affirmative Action President.
My girlfriend and I were a little shocked by this bit of persecution complex. We don't use the "n-word" to describe black people when they're not around. I said to her, "What would it take for black guys like that to not think that every white person is a closet racist? Electing a black man President wasn't enough?
I agree with the black guy. It's the most normal thing in the world to expect others to refer to your kind with racial epithets. I'm actually surprised that you're "shocked" at the black's assumption. Would you really be shocked to learn they refer to you as a "cracker"?
S. Europeans in Australia were universally called "wogs". The term was taken up S. Euros to refer to themselves (like the n-word) and over time lost its venom. Many of you would be surprised at how white one can be and still be a wog even today. Until the internet era, I never realized how determinedly pee-cee some Anglos were that they'd censure each other for using racial epithets. I just assumed that if, say, I visited an Anglo friend, and he had a friend there, the friend would ask, "Who was that wog who came over?"
"Racism" to me only ever meant doing something to someone, or spitefully calling them something. Heck, I've been to football matches and listened to jeers of "[name] you effing dago" when an Italian or Greek player would get the ball, even screamed standing right next to me, and I wouldn't have described it as "racism", it being justified by the context.
It was only when I started reading academic denunciations of it and descriptions of its power to keep people down that I started to see it as some sort of "ultimate evil."
If black people had spent 1% of the time and effort the white people have spent trying to end racism within their own ranks this country would look like utopia.
I'm shocked frequently about the depth and ease with which the few black people I see in a day express open racism toward white people. I won't even get into the anti-American sentiments. The ethnic studies industry makes sure no good deed of America can be mentioned except that one of their students is ever ready to tamp down the patriotism with some incident.
I think some in the black community share the same view Victor Davis Hanson describes about liberals' felling toward America; America's not perfect so it's no damn good.
Some fringe white man can say some racist comment and that proves America is beyond redemption. However, Africans can take turns trying to destroy whole swaths of that continent and that just signifies Africans need more aid or the impure thoughts of the nearest white guy caused the trouble in the first place.
Nobody is challenging black people to end racism, it's open and common, from what I know. There's hardly even a recognition there is any racism among them. "Blacks aren't racist, we have no power."
Given that Holder's family hailed from Barbados, he surely had slave ancestry.
The moral blackmail of whitey over slavery will never go away, rather like Israeli moral blackmail over the Holocaust. It will always be used to justify grievance and special treatment.
Dennis Dale isn't faster that anybody, but he may be better than everybody. Insinuating that he isn't?
"Blacks aren't racist, we have no power."
In the context of institutionalized racism (or whatever made up term they use for that made up, hate-whitey concept), this is true. Whites are predominantly the only ones in positions of authority; thus they're the only ones ABLE to discriminate. Of course, the whites now discriminate most readily against fellow whites and Asians, but that's besides the point.
As far as socially, it's appalling how pathological white hatred is amongst blacks. This "disease" festers, in part, because the SWPL whites reinforce the victimhood mentality amongst blacks. The blacks whine and complain about racism while affirmative action, minority set-asides, rap music, and the first black President exist in the social and political landscape.
Only in America, a country whose educational system glorifies Harriet Tubman and Rosa Parks over Ben Franklin and Neil Armstrong, could such lunacy exist.
There's a symbiotic relationship between blacks and whites, or a truce in which blacks get the unionized bus driver jobs which the higher-status whites never wanted anyway. Hispanics disrupt this whole arrangement . . . they have as a good a claim to AA as the blacks. And blacks realize that if 40% of the population is eligible for AA, then nobody is. The paternalism of the age of AA was much more lucrative and stable than an ethnic free-for-all in which each group is out for itself.
I have been reading Sailer for longer than I can remember, and this post seems like a good time to make a particular suggestion that might forward the debate.
Sailer has written that it makes more sense for our society to deal with the unpleasant truth of human bio-diversity than to deny it, because otherwise America cannot effectively address the problems that racial diversity causes. You can't fix a problem if you won't acknowledge its source. This makes sense to me.
Sailer does a better job than anyone else I have read of laying bare the problems that racial diversity and denial of HBD have caused and continue to cause. He has written that without a clear understanding of HBD and how it affects society we'll forever be chasing our tales instead of finding fixes. Probably so.
But at the same time he seems short on solutions. I recall him suggesting some kind of sales occupation that was a favorable fit for a black man's typical mental attributes, and of course ending immigration from Latin America getting all illegal alien Latinos back on the other side of the Rio Grande. But I think that's about it.
Now that the reality of HBD is well-established, albeit still taboo, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what HBD-aware solutions there are to inter-racial resentment and inequality. Legalization of some forms of segregation? Constitutionally enshrined affirmative action programs for NAMs - and maybe white gentiles in the higher universities? Perhaps simply a wider and more open recognition of HBD itself would tone down the resentment.
Building some real solutions might help get the word out. Coming up with realistic fixes that are respectful towards all groups involved and, importantly, how they might be implemented, might make HBD arguments more palatable to the public in general and specifically to editors who are on the fence about printing stories on HBD.
As it is right now, many people won't allow themselves to think about HBD because they have been conditioned to believe that once it is acknowledged, it can only lead to discrimination, riots, men in white pointy hats, etc.
Perhaps the response to my suggestion is that the solution to these problems is simply to acknowledge HBD, because the problems are largely caused by a denial of HBD.
In that case, maybe more emphasis can be put on how society can responsibly integrate HBD into its discussions in a way that won't cause people to become irrationally fearful of it being misapplied a la discrimination, the KKK, etc.
"We might expecially target individuals below IQ 80 for special support, intellectual as well as material. This is the cognitive ability ("trainability") level below which federal law prohibits induction into the American military and below which no civilian jobs in the United States routinely recruit their workers. It includes about 10% of Whites and a third of Blacks in the United States and the segment of both groups most at risk for multiple health and social problems, regardless of family background and material resources (Gottfredson, 1997, 2002). Moreover, the risks that lower-IQ people face in relation to more able individuals have been growing as the complexity of work, health care, and daily life has increased. The g theory suggests that their relative risk might be lowered if (a) education and training were better targeted to their learning needs (instruction is more narrowly focused, nontheoretical, concrete, hands-on, repetitive, personalized, and requiring no inferences); (b) they were provided more assistance and direct instruction in matters of daily well-being that we expect most people acquire on their own (e.g., learning how best to avoid various kinds of illness and injury); and (c) health care providers, social service agencies, and other institutions removed some of the unnecessary complexity (e.g., inadequate or overly complex labeling, instructions, and forms) that often impedes full and effective use of services, medical regimens, and preventive care by the less able. Less favorable genes for g impose constraints on individuals and their helpers, but they certainly do not prevent us from improving lives in crucial ways."
Linda S. Gottfredson, U of Delaware
Part of the problem is that our society has put such a premium on intelligence, that any suggestion that one group is not as intelligent as another is taboo.
Invest in paper bags.
Tortured and over-reaching.
The democrats were simply a better party to the republicans by a large margin. Obama was also more dynamic, articulate, PERSONABLE, at every debate, every turn.
George Bush the Second inherited his position and his incompetence and sense of priviledge nearly eviscerated the US. Hilary rose by being the scandalized WIFE of a popular SAXOPHONE improvising adulteror president.
Got it? It's not rocket science.
Think Cognitive Dissonance - in reverse.
Festinger's book When Prophecy Fails is a helpful paradign for current American politics. In Festiger's book he observed that when an apocalyptic cult's doomsday prediction passed, member's faith redoubled.
Today we have the widespread phenomenon that when a social/political problem has been solved or eliminated the advocacy groups redouble their efforts as if things had gotten worse.
The best example of reverse cognitive dissonance or the failure to accept success is the environment. It is easy to show that by every measure possible our environment today is better than it has ever been. This success is met with widespread hysteria to "save the planet".
We are suffering through the coldest winter in recent memory and the Obama administration plans to spend billions on hare brained schemes to reduce carbon dioxide. Gore predicted warming twenty years ago and it is cooler now than when the prediction was made. It doesn't seem to matter. Global warming rallys are so routinely held in blizzards that is no longer much of a news story.
When the Democrats choose a blackish man as their leader the Republicans immediately also choose a blackish man as their leader (Micael Steele). It is pretty clear that in national politics a black skin is an inestimable advantage, yet Democrats and other liberals want to redouble their efforts to fight white racism through more and more severe Afirmative Action.
In housing policy, government efforts to help the poor get into their own houses, succeeded to such an extent that it crashed the whole economy. Yet we hear liberal politicians trying to illicit sympathy for the eviction of "home owners" who never made a single mortgage payment. No one seems to ever mention that millions of poor people were sucessfully given a shot at home ownership. The theory, such as it was, was that the simple status of being a home owner was transformational. No previous society in human history had ever conveyed the benefits of owning a home to the poor on such a massive scale. The government programs succeded at least in getting people under roofs.
In education we have succeded as no other society in history at educating the lower classes. Yet this tremendous accomplishment is not just overlooked but it is considered a failure. Today we routinely expose children with IQs of 80 or so to American History and Algebra. At great expense and suffering we manage to graduate much of this segment of the population from high school. It hasn't been easy but we have produced millions of High School graduates that previous generations would have considered ineducable. In the face of this astounding success, Obama wants these kids now to all go to college.
Previously I foolishly thought that government failure the problem. I was wrong. The much bigger problem is what happens when a government programs succeed.
I'm shocked frequently about the depth and ease with which the few black people I see in a day express open racism toward white people.
Another one who's "shocked." Are you really shocked? Or does it just rub you the wrong way? To say you're "shocked" suggests you never would have expected it. And I find that just incredible. It's so thoroughly normal to notice race, I have a lot of trouble believing someone could expect to be around distinct "racial others" and not encounter something.
I've spent a long time in Thailand, all of it in the one city, so this anecdote might not apply to the whole country but I suspect it does. Thais are generally quite friendly and smile a lot (it's knowns as LOS -- Land of Smiles -- which is exaggerated but not untrue). I stayed in a city quite inundated with Europeans. I found that if you stick to where you're supposed to be, no one will bother in the slightest. But even on some major commercial thoroughfares, there are side-streets leading off them that are Thai residential zones, and that if you venture 50 yards up them the funny looks people give you tell you very quickly that you're not supposed to be there. And yet 50 yards back, the thoroughfare itself will be thronging with Thais completely unconcerned about your presence. Do any liberals really expect me to be "rattled" by this Thai "racism"? Doesn't it seem perfectly normal -- okay, we've got people here we'd perhaps rather not have here, but as long as they know their boundaries it can work?
Nobody is challenging black people to end racism, it's open and common, from what I know. There's hardly even a recognition there is any racism among them. "Blacks aren't racist, we have no power."
Ah, now you're getting into the nitty-gritty. Steve's a pretty hard-hitting truth-teller, but I'm not sure even he'd like to tackle this one.
The "no power" thing is just a cloak for what's really at play. Is there a comparable racial remark to the n-word a black could say to you? Or do you both know that you'd just shrug it off and that's why blacks get to say them but you don't?
silver, it doesn't matter how much you "agree" with the black patron, most white people don't call black people the "n-word" behind their backs. Obviously I haven't been privy to every private conversation in the country but I can tell you that racial epithets are anathema in this country among whites, except for some lower-class sectors, and even then they aren't all that common. Obviously your reality was shaped by growing up in another country where apparently racial epithets are still accepted in mainstream discourse, but they aren't here and haven't been for quite some time. Don't make the mistake (as Americans are always accused of doing) of assuming your personal experience in your country means the same situations exist in other countries where the culture is similar.
Now I'm not saying that this reluctance to use racial terms like "dago" and so on means there isn't prejudice and even racism in the US. But middle-class American culture places a great deal of importance on being "nice" and "polite," so blunt and crude speech is discouraged. It occurs, of course, but it's considered shocking and a breach of the peace.
Re silver's comments:When i was a kid,my best friennds brothers invited me to the old Chicago Stadium to see a Blackhawks game. needless to say,I was thrilled. I was able to get the $2.50 required for the 2nd balcony seat(!!!!)from my mom,and off we went. The Hawks had a player named Phil Esposito,a center. He was called The Garbage Man because he would score a lot of goals off of rebounds from his linemen Bobby Hulls shots,and my friends brothers often poked fun at him. Their pet name for him was "Dago Phil" for reasons you may be able to guess. I of course happily took up the name,having no idea what a "dago" was.So off we go to my first hockey game. As we watched the pre-game shootaround, I spied Esposito,and cheerfully yelled out,as loud as I could,"HEY!!DAGO Phil!!!!!" I was taken aback when my friends brothers panicked and quickly "counseled" me that the Chicago Stadium may not be the most appropriate place for such language! Speaking of foolhardiness.their was a story going around among the brothers that one of their cousins was able to hget an autograph from the much-hated Gordie Howe. Supposedly on recieving the autograph,the cousin casually ripped it up and dropped it on the ground. If I ever meet Eric Holder....
Attorney General Chided for Language on Race
BO does damage control:
1) Holder used improper language
2) Holder was not giving whitey permission to speak up for himself
The Times is very specific about how long BO waited to respond when asked if he agreed with Holder.
He's just so post-racial and conflicted!
His answer was a BO translation of what everyone in race-realist and ethnic nationalist circles has been saying: the racial spoils system is a luxury whites will quickly cross out of their budgets.
"Holder like 0boma is a no slave blood fraud. Holder's parent's were both born in Barbados and immigrated
This parasite grasps on to America's slave days to try and beat up on whitey. But his people were never slaves here"
Surely they were slaves in Barbados (or in his case mulattos descended from slaves and the slave owners).
Steve, have you seen this recent article from the Economist?
"People’s creditworthiness, it seems, can be seen in their looks"
a
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13253590&source=features_box_main
Perhaps the MSM is catching on to the idea that lending to certain peoples maybe isn't the best idea...
Is there a comparable racial remark to the n-word a black could say to you? Or do you both know that you'd just shrug it off and that's why blacks get to say them but you don't? - Silver
A damn good question. Racism against blacks tends to take the obvious form of dirty words. Hard to make the case that attitudes, e.g. the attitude that blacks average lower IQs and more criminality, are racist, because those attitudes are true.
In contrast, most racism directed at whites is imbedded in nuance, and has to do with misleading presentations of history and truncations of the frame of reference. It's common to talk about trans-Atlantic slavery (white slavers, African victims) without talking about trans-Mediterranean slavery (African and Turkish slavers, European victims). But if you did the reverse you'd be accused of (of racism and) "ignoring" something (that arguably can't be ignored, because American history as its taught is nothing but the history of white-perpetrated oppression).
It is my contention that our artificially narrowed frame of reference regarding slavery is caused by anti-white bigotry. The perpetrators of this anti-white bigotry are one of the most truly post-racial groups around ... one of the few places whites and blacks are on an even playing field is in the competition for Blame Whitey Points.
So in short, the answer is, No, there is no anti-white word comparable to rhymes-with-outrigger. Anti-whiteness is conveyed by sentences, not words.
Tom Merle - that shirt - fail.
"Now that the reality of HBD is well-established, albeit still taboo, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what HBD-aware solutions there are to inter-racial resentment and inequality."
In white-black relations I think there is one reasonable solution. Marcus Garvey figured it out a long time ago.
White people create a certain structure in their societies that black people, on the whole, cannot cope with. We make schools; blacks flunk them even more badly than their IQ's would predict. We make laws; blacks break them. And in everyday life there are all sorts of hoops a person has to jump through, which black people never even notice.
For instance, in a job interview, or talking to your boss after you've been hired, there is a certain level of bs required, although nobody talks about it. You're just supposed to pick up on it. Say, you don't admit to cutting corners in a certain manner, even though everybody (including your boss) does it.
But black people don't notice these little invisible verbal traps. They don't understand formalisms or legalisms.
There is no way that they can prosper in a white society without a permanent handicapping system, with the unending condescension that that implies. And they like condescension about as much as everyone does.
Albertasaurus said: In Festiger's book he observed that when an apocalyptic cult's doomsday prediction passed, member's faith redoubled.... In housing policy, government efforts to help the poor get into their own houses, succeeded to such an extent that it crashed the whole economy. Yet we hear liberal politicians trying to illicit sympathy for the eviction of "home owners" who never made a single mortgage payment.
Its worse than that (or a better example of your phenomonemon): From the New York Times In the last six weeks alone, the Obama administration has essentially transformed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into arms of the federal government. Regulators have ordered the companies to oversee a vast new mortgage modification program, to buy greater numbers of loans, to refinance millions of at-risk homeowners and to loosen internal policies so they can work with more questionable borrowers.
Racism against blacks tends to take the obvious form of dirty words.
Yes, and racism against Whites tends to take the form of violent crime, homicide, rape and charges of racism when caught underperforming at work.
Albertosaurus said...
Previously I foolishly thought that government failure the problem. I was wrong. The much bigger problem is what happens when a government programs succeed.
You are still granting the Liberals their good intentions. What makes you think that Liberals really wanted to achieve anything positive? You have to consider that maybe the real intention is destroy society, not fix it. Otherwise they Libs wouldn't be agitating for more immigration.
Steve, you think the Culture of Critique won't just find another prop to veil it's agenda? Poor people, blacks, war, women, immigrants... what next? Won't it just be something else when the "black thing" burns out? Enviromentalism? Hasn't the shift already started? Will people like you, who sacrificed your time and reputations to prove HBD, realise that you've simply been chasing a phantom when you find yourself back at the bottom of the hill having made no real progress, the CoC having calmly pulled another ace from it's sleeve? Why can't we all just be firm in the conviction that being aware of the CoC doesn't make one a Nazi any more than libertarianism makes one an anarchist?
"Now that the reality of HBD is well-established, albeit still taboo, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what HBD-aware solutions there are to inter-racial resentment and inequality."
Anonymous huh? Well as for 'showing the greatest propensity to' and in honor of the great Oscars, I nominate YOU as most promising specimen.
Congradulations.
"Anonymous huh? Well as for 'showing the greatest propensity to' and in honor of the great Oscars, I nominate YOU as most promising specimen."
Are we having trouble dealing with the obvious, Anonymous?
Nothing is bought until it is sold.
Or stolen.
Amazing to continue to speak of slavery without mentioning the unmentionable.
African and Arab slave traders made a bundle on the other side of the trade.
And Muslim Arab slave traders are still doing it to Africans in places like the Sudan.
When will the likes of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter and others bust Holder on this?
Holder's comments are the equivalent of shots being fired across the bow.
What makes you think that Liberals really wanted to achieve anything positive? You have to consider that maybe the real intention is destroy society, not fix it. Otherwise they Libs wouldn't be agitating for more immigration. - Ronduck
This is my own personal way of distinguishing leftists from liberals:
Leftists know history, and they want to annihilate Western civilization and culture, and they see liberals are naive hippies that they can use to make their alliance seem less dangerous.
Liberals are naive hippies that don't want to destroy anything. They want freedom. Mostly, they seek freedom from having to read history. (Occasionally they will read Zinn's Peaple's Digest on the way to the outdoor naked showers at the Burning Dope Art Festival, but that hardly counts.) Another liberals love is coolness, and coolness means resisting authority. While the liberals resist authority by singing songs and wearing ugly sandals, leftists resist it much more vehemently and are thus cooler.
Thus, the liberals look up to the leftists, and believe everything they say. If the liberals remember their commitment to freedom at an inconvenient moment, the leftists can always disappear them.
Blode, I've thought about the difference between "useful idiots" and the actually evil men who run the Left in this country. Having thought about the difference, I no longer care. The useful idiots have to make a conscious effort to deny reality, while the genuinely evil know the score, but lie about it. One commits a sin of Omission the other commits a sin of Commision, as far as I am concerned both wish this country ill.
Let me give you an example of the willful denial of reality that these liberals engage in. This was written by a liberal in a locally owned paper in Niagara, NY after the 2004 election:
The top 16 states in the nation with the highest average IQs all voted blue, based on measurements in the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. All 19 Blue States are in the Top 25 and, of course, the bottom 25 IQ states are all red. This is not meant to be smug, but just to point out that, the lower the IQ, the more appealing George W. Bush is and vice versa.
Now what would a solid red state like Mississippi not have in common with a solid blue state like Vermont? Millions of Blacks maybe? Everyone on this blog would know that the Blacks in Miss. drag the states IQ score, and so should a person who has read IQ and the wealth of nations. The author twists good information to smear White conservatives, while ignoring the racial basis of the very book he cites.
In honesty you could classify the author as a leftist since he knows and still lies, but in the end they all deny the truth even when in some rare case they are hit in the head with the brick of reality.
There has been much talk recently of the proposed "fairness" policy for political radio shows in the US.
Given this concern for "fairness", why aren't the attitudes of whites towards slavery explored in more detail in American politics and academia? Why isn't the debate more "nuanced" - to use one of the Obamanauts favourite terms? Some of the best minds in our history have addressed the issue, starting with Shakespeare.
There has long been the recognition in European culture that slavery was a brutal business which demeaned us as civilized human beings - and Christians. Arguments and attitudes which led to the abolition of slavery in Britain's colonies two hundred years ago.
This sort of reflection and self-criticism hasn't occurred in many other parts of the world - notably Africa - where enslavement, particularly of children, is still common.
As a footnote: Brits have been slightly amused and bemused by the behaviour of Mr & Mrs Obama towards the Browns on their recent visit to Washington. Brown is a nightmare, but one would have thought that his gift of a penholder made from the timbers of an 18thC Royal Navy anti-slave ship might have held some significance for the first Black President of the United States - and warranted an equally thoughtful response. Instead, Brown got a boxed set of 25 DVDs - which won't even work on a UK DVD machine!
"Now that the reality of HBD is well-established, albeit still taboo, wouldn't it be interesting to explore what HBD-aware solutions there are to inter-racial resentment and inequality."
It’s not as if the US is the first country to go through this. There was a time when HBD was publicly acknowledged, albeit in more crude, non-scientific and empirical terms. Basically diversity sucks for whites but is great for everybody else because diversity has never been implemented in terms where whites could benefit from it. So whites need to take care of their interests. Why should the others do so? There have been attempts to do so in the past, but all of them were shouted and fought down violently under the premise that they were “racist”, “xenophobic”, “immoral”, Euro-centric and “Crimes against Humanity”. Yet most of them were there for good practical reasons, their injustices notwithstanding.
The collapse of these systems and the resultant damage to white interests proved ipso facto the validity of their existence. The MSM deals with this fallout by ignoring the mess (e.g. Zimbabwe), reversing cause and effect and misrepresenting the facts.
Now that all past attempts at securing the interest of whites have been demolished, we are back to ground zero. Since the past systems did not survive the international front against "racism", "xenophobia" and Euro-centrism, I doubt that new attempts have much chance. Especially so as those forces opposing the interests of whites (non-whites, SWPL’s, humanist churches, NGO's, Muslims) are more powerful than ever. This is the reason why Steve offers no suggestions. Because the obvious solutions have no chance of survival. Effectively it means that in the current international order of things, barring a resurgence of European Christendom, there will not be a solution for securing white interests.
Their pet name for him was 'Dago Phil' for reasons you may be able to guess.
Yeah, I would guess it was because they couldn't tell an Italian from a Sephardic Jew.
Ronduck
The fact that Mississippi has the lowest IQ scores is still an indictment of its political (white)class. As Steve has pointed out, black children in the most liberal cities in America(San Fran,Seattle, Atlanta,Boston) have IQs approaching the white US mean, although they still trail the white children in their immediate vicinity.
Explain that.
I'm going to go waaay out on a limb here and guess that Andrea was not born in the southeast, hasn't lived long among them, and thinks southerners are just like everyone else.
They aren't. And that awful, awful, awful, awful, awful, never-to-be-spoken-word is not uncommon. Especially not when the fairer sex isn't around.
Are we having trouble dealing with the obvious, Anonymous?
HA!
No more than you anonymous.
Anonymous said...
As Steve has pointed out, black children in the most liberal cities in America(San Fran,Seattle, Atlanta,Boston) have IQs approaching the white US mean, although they still trail the white children in their immediate vicinity.
Explain that.
How much White blood do these "Black" children in liberal cities have? Here is a nice quote from Wikipedia showing that Blacks vary regionally in the amount of White blood in them, and therefore in intelligence:
Today the vast majority of African-Americans possess varying degrees of European admixture (the average Black American is 20% European) ... some estimates put average African-American possession of European admixture at 25% with figures as high as 50% in the Northeast and less than 10% in the south.
Second, I expect that Black children of similar intelligence to Whites will still trail their White counterparts because of the destructive nature of Black culture. Anything that is considered Black either glorifies rape, murder and drug dealing or blames Whites for the plight of Blacks, without accepting any responsibility for their own actions. They dream of failure and they achieve their dreams, so even the urban Blacks with higher IQ's still end up as failures.
Third, Mississippi has lower Black crime rates than major urban areas with significant urban populations. If you go to this page and look at the second table you will see that Mississippi's homicide rate has averaged 10 per 100k people and in 2007 had dropped to 7.1 per 100k. The Detroit-Warren-Livonia metropolitan statistical area, which like Miss. is one third Black had a homicide rate in 2006 of 11.4 for the whole metro area about 30% higher. The same page I linked to shows that in 1992 back when Detroit was 90% Black the city itself (not metro are) had a homicide rate of 57 per 100k in line with crime ridden South Africa. Now Michigan is a very Blue state and Mississippi is one of the most conservative states in the US, and it is the conservative state that is safer for Blacks. And Miss doesn't yet have the urban wastelands that Michigan has in Flint and Detroit. Clearly the politicians of Mississippi are better.
"As Steve has pointed out, black children in the most liberal cities in America(San Fran,Seattle, Atlanta,Boston) have IQs approaching the white US mean,.."
huh? I think Steve needs to re-elucidate, if he ever pointed to such a thing. Atlanta? Wouldn't you include D.C. there? The academic status of blacks in D.C. (where more money is spent on school than anywhere, and the school board is black) is average for blacks. The IQ's are somewhat higher than the deep southern rural areas, but they are not at the "white mean" by which I guess you mean 100. Only 10% of all blacks have IQs at or above 100. I have seen where some cities in northern areas, with a very small minority of blacks, do have IQs averaging in the upper 90s, but these do not include major U.S. urban areas with large numbers of blacks.
Second, I expect that Black children of similar intelligence to Whites will still trail their White counterparts because of the destructive nature of Black culture.
Might want to make some room in there between IQ and culture for non-IQ expressions of behavioral genetics.
IQ is far from the sum of the latter. Races differ on a host of behavioral traits. Some of them (e.g., time horizons) could easily be due to IQ, or just correlated, and others are easier to distinguish (e.g., aggression).
Post a Comment