Here's the opening of my new VDARE.com column:
Freud noted that human beings like to "project" their own undesirable feelings onto others. The wisdom of that observation became clearer than ever last week as a mounting hysteria infected the elites of the English-speaking world. The rage of the privileged classes was on full display as they projected onto citizens their own vices: ignorance, resentment, and irrational anger.
- The signing of the Arizona immigration law, followed by the slow realization from opinion polls that it was broadly popular, elicited paroxysms of hatred for the American people from the Establishment.
For example, veteran New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s May 1 op-ed included a full helping of the standard code words that enraged members of the media traditionally use to denounce voters who aren’t obeying their rightful masters: "angry," "virus," "hysteria," "vicious," "bigoted," "apoplexy," "slimed," "snarling," "notorious," "incendiary," "rage" and so forth and so on.
- Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown called a cheeky voter "bigoted" after she dared question his immigration policy.
- And in Massachusetts, , the dean of the Harvard Law School, Martha Minow, one of President Obama’s oldest confidantes, denounced one of her own students for writing an email expressing open-mindedness on the forbidden topic of race and IQ.
Bizarre as it may seem, the potential Supreme Court nominee publicly condemned a private message to a few acquaintances written six months ago—even though it had only been dug up and leaked to the Black Law Students Association by a romantic rival in a petty catfight!
In other words, citizens are winning the debates, so elites would rather demonize than discuss.
Yet, as comical as the last week has been, the power of elites to shut down freedom of speech, to ostracize, to impose dumb dogmas as loyalty tests, must never be underestimated.
Arizona’s SB1070 and immigration: by the end of a tumultuous week, Democratic Party leaders were in disarray as their efforts to turn the illegal immigration controversy into a racial struggle between Hispanics and whites had badly backfired.
The Democrats have long tried to goad Latino voters into viewing enforcement of the laws as a racial insult. But there has never been overwhelming evidence that the average Hispanic-American citizen really shares the Latino Democratic elites’ obsession with opening the border.
For example, in 2006 Arizona voters passed—over the usual bipartisan opposition of the states’ elites—Proposition 200, which required individuals to furnish proof of citizenship when applying for benefits or to vote. Latinos gave it 47 percent support. That’s far more than you would expect from elite assumptions that Hispanic voters' race makes them mindlessly biased in favor of illegal immigration.
Read the whole thing there and comment upon it here.
Posts
104 comments:
ON FIRE!
I thought last week's column was the best you'd written. This tops it.
Nice touch about the petty catfight. Seems the desirable guys even at HLS are pretty thin in supply. Otherwise why fight over them?
"Indeed, in all the parsing of the victim’s email to show she had it coming to her for violating reigning norms, there’s a distinct whiff of Junior High School. It’s reminiscent of how the In Clique of popular girls dissects the clothes of a newcomer to decide whether they’ll admit her to the club or destroy her with gossip."
MATRIARCHY IS CRAP.
Remember the media treatment of Linda Tripp?
I guess the media isn't going to attempt to find the identity of the young woman who held onto a email for six months, and then leaked it to the Black Students Association in a catty backstabbing because another girl has the attention of a choice boy.
Where is the sisterhood on this? She attempted to derail her fellow woman's career over a (gasp!) man?
Race trumps sex yet again. I think any potential employers, co-workers, friends, or aquaintances would like to know just what a potential backstabber this person is.
Needless to say, having vast throngs of foreigners march through our cities waving Mexican flags on May Day, the day when the Soviet Politburo used to review a parade of nuclear missiles aimed at America was never exactly a political masterstroke.
Somehow the parade of uteruses aimed at America now seems far more frightening.
Of course, when the unemployment rate in California is 12.5 percent, amnesty’s not looking so hot right now. But the long term political trend is against amnesty too.
Double digit unemployment - here to stay.
Easy credit - gone for good.
The claim that illegal immigrants are "doing jobs Americans won't do" - tar and feathers for anyone who makes it.
Result? Illegal immigration has produced its own cure. Now the only problem is...how do we get our old America back? Brazil, here we come.
The Sailer Solution:
Scoff at them.
Make fun of them.
Point out their moral and intellectual failings at every opportunity.
That way, when a Martha Minow declaims, Americans will roll their eyes and fail to stifle their giggles.
--------
I agree. We need our intellectuals like you and Lawrence Auster, but anyone of any level of social skill can do the above. Best of all, it's effective.
--------
If Ms. Grace was exposed because of jealousy over a guy... how completely typical. The young guys here who think we women need convincing that girls can be bad, too, don't have a clue. Women know that a girl who is cruel to a guy will turn on her "friends" in a heartbeat.
I had one friend turn my hair to "straw" in color and texture after a. complaining she didn't have my hair and saying it was what got me attention and b. pestering me for three weeks to let her "temporarily" dye it... for fun.
I was shocked to see her say "I'm so sorry" and the giggling she couldn't stifle and the grin of pure joy she couldn't suppress as she said it, each time over several days. It took along time to accept that she had done what she did on purpose. Pure, unadulterated jealousy.
A commenter on another blog made mention of a "peacock hypothesis" concerning why some of our elite is so liberal on racial matters like the (latest) Harvard brouhaha, and open-ended migration to the West from wage-suppressing excessive third-world labor.
He equated it with a sexual selection trait of peacocks evolving huge tails that actually hinder their escape from predators and why they have the seemingly physically uneccessary appendage. Its as if they are saying to the potential female mate: "look at how superior my genes are, that I can sport this ridiculously large tail and still escape from mammals that hunt me, while many smaller-tailed peacocks get killed and eaten."
Our liberal elite supporting programs that inhibit their closest competition, other white people just down the ladder from themselves, is a form of signalling their superior status and genes over their rivals.
They (white liberals) seem to be the only human group that does so at this point as Asians, Indians, Arabs, and blacks seem to be playing very much by the old rules without regards to status-signalling of this type amongst each other by sporting token white employees in their organizations.
"- Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown called a cheeky voter "bigoted" after she dared question his immigration policy."
The Eastern European issue she raised was a tertiary point. She probably forgot she even mentioned it hence why she asked why Brown called her a bigot. Her overall point was that the system was broken and that the people who need help can't get it when people who don't need it use up all the services. Letting more people in just makes matters worse. Keep in mind that leftists are defending this woman and there is no way they would do so if they thought she was an immigration restrictionist. Gordon Brown is just an idiot, when he hears the word "immigration" it makes his brain think "racist".
I recall hanging out with the San Diego Georgists at Foundation For Economic Justice while I was active in the Sierra Club there. One of the more influential members (I don't recall his name) had become so exasperated with the stupidity of the "populists" in not recognizing the importance of shifting to a land value tax, that he quit and went into real estate buying up land in Southern California.
Needless to say, he made a fortune.
It was in fact a local Labour party hack who was thrust in front of Gordon Brown tasked with asking presumably a soft question for the cameras.
She went off script, but was careful to qualify her question on immigration by saying "what about the eastern European immigrants ",in her street.
Whether she meant there was a surfeit of Polish plumbers or newly free-to-roam gypsies from Bucharest ,who she thought might be fair game being of a similar hue.
Prolly why Gordon Brown used the word bigoted instead of racist.
thing which does not make sense: if barack obama considers himself a champion for black americans, then it does not make sense to be against what arizona wants to do. it makes even less sense to maintain an open borders policy. in a nation with 10% unemployment, and 20% unemployment for black americans, it simply makes no sense to not go after illegal aliens and reduce the pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labor.
after barack obama was elected president of the united states, arizona governor jan brewer sent him a letter, requesting help in securing the border with mexico. she got no response. she sent an additional 4 letters over the next 16 months. she got no responses to any of them. only then did she consider exercising states rights.
so, what could barack obama's objection possibly be about other than:
1) the more innocuous case: keeping that steady, sweet inflow of future democrat voters going. he opposes anything which deactivates this reliable stream of additional future democrat voters, because it slows down the inexorable process by which democrats can simply overwhelm republicans with simple voting numbers. perhaps this was the reason why suddenly, out of the blue, democrat politicians again brought up the idea of turning puerto rico into a state. perhaps they thought they would counter the loss of guaranteed new democrats in arizona by pursuing the guaranteed new democrats in puerto rico.
2) the less innocuous case: the president, and many other elected US politicians, simply do not like european peoples, and would literally prefer to demographically purge them. for barack obama, it does not matter if this course of action badly hurts the economic prospects of black americans, because that is less important than the most important thing in the whole world: disenfranchising and displacing europeans. anything which hurts europeans is a great thing, even if it also hurts black americans.
note the prevalent, persistent idea by the opponents of the new arizona law: arizona absolutely, positively MUST allow itself to be overrun by illegal aliens. because a few unscrupulous police officers will abuse the new arizona law, nothing else matters. it is far, far more important that zero civil rights violations occur, than arizona politicians be allowed to do their jobs and make arizona a safer, better place.
of course, few opponents entertain a genuine concern about the (very likely low rate of) civil rights violations. they hide behind this idea because what they really think is that mexicans have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want. they think mexicans need not obey a single law, and anybody who thinks any mexican should obey any law is wrong, and, it goes without saying, a racist.
Great column as always, Steve.
"For example, veteran New York Times columnist Frank Rich’s May 1 op-ed included a full helping of the standard media code words used to denote that voters aren’t appropriately obeying their rightful masters..."
This say so much. It's a theme I don't think you've touched on before, and I hope you continue to write about it.
Let's call the Emperors Clothes what they really are...
BTW, Minow is a great example of Crimestop - http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/crimestop.html
In David Remnick’s hagiography The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, the Chicago political consultant Don Rose describes on p. 225 her crucial role in the launch of Obama’s political career:
"First, [Obama] comes to Chicago with a reference from Newton Minow’s daughter, Martha. Then Newt introduces him to a circle of high-class liberal lawyers. ... There are also liberal, elite funders and agency heads: Bettylu Saltzman was also part of the Minow grouping and she has lots of friends."
What's the timeline here?
Is it supposed to be circa 1984/1985, when Obama left BIC & the NYPIRG, to head to Chicago [almost certainly at the urging of Frank Marshall Davis], or is it supposed to be circa 1991, when Obama returned to Chicago from Harvard Law?
Because if it's supposed to be the latter, then please be aware that Newton Minow was working with Bernardine "Dohrn" Ohrnstein & Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, at Sidley-Austin, in the mid-1980s, and it is generally acknowledged that Martha Minow was instrumental in getting Obama accepted to Harvard [as a quota admission] in the first place.
I.e. Obama was already in bed with William Ayers, Ayers's father, Thomas Ayers, Ayers's wife, Bernardine "Dohrn" Ohrnstein, and Ohrnstein's employer, Newton Minow, in the mid-1980s.
And Martha Minow has known Obama for at least a quarter-century.
OT
Idiocracy closer than you think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PmyYZqoGIw&feature=related
I've been trying to figure you (the blog-author) out for a while now. I've wondered how it is that you can be against Affirmative Action but be in favor of protectionist measures. After all, Affirmative Action is anti-competitive and favors certain groups. Could not the same thing be said about protectionism and unions?
I finally have the answer! The answer is White People.
What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people.
For those reasons, I can never take you completely seriously.
There's a pretty cool book named the 48 Laws of Power that personally made it a lot easier to understand the behavior of our elected officials.
Well, the 13th law is "when asking for help, appeal to people's self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude".
The Democratic Party has failed miserably on this score with respect to blacks, and the party will pay a huge price in the fall election as blacks stay home. What can the party deliver that's bigger than Obama? Most people expect increase year over year, and Obama's leaving office in 2016 is a huge decrease in status for blacks. What can white America in general deliver to blacks that's comparable to Obama? How does white America pay Sailer's slavery tax?
Of course the party will say, remember the joy of November 4th, but most will respond to this appeal to gratitude with "what's in it for me"? Even if the Democrats lose badly, Obama will veto a repeal of health care reform; the Republicans likely won't have enough votes in the Senate to remove Obama from office; a younger version of Justice Stevens will keep Roe safe for another generation; most people don't pay taxes and don't care about tax cuts. What's in it for the activists, women, and blacks? Cap and trade is boring.
I suspect the Democrats won't do anything to benefit Hispanics vis a vis immigration reform or amnesty. If the Democrats did anything, then Hispanics will feel safe, and may even revert back to conservative voting patterns on gay marriage and abortion.
Doing nothing is a far better option for Democrats as it will give Democrats something to fight for go-forward since issues like health care reform and abortion are off the table. Who knows what liberal whites and blacks think about illegals, but who cares? The Hispanic vote is growing fast, like a growth stock, and Hispanics are Google and existing constituencies are like ancient Bethlehem Steel.
Hispanics will end up dependent on the Democrats since liberal "inaction" is a fair superior choice to politicians like Jan Brewer.
It's house money if any whites or blacks join the pro-amnesty bandwagon.
I've been covering a bunch of these issues at my blog as well:
AZ Immigration Law: Reposne to Liberals
Implication of AZ Law
Tea Party is About Race
The bill actually contains a few good ideas... For example, Reid concedes that we finally must upgrade the Social Security card, which is pathetically easy to counterfeit.
I haven't seen my Social Security card in 30 years. How necessary can it be?
I think this Harvard imbroglio is just another example of how PC is a religion, and the more counter-intuitive its tenets the more there is a chance for the acolyte to demonstrate a good-faith commitment.
The problem is that religion, just like desire for status, is an ineluctable aspect of human nature; to destroy this religion - or even to moderate it somewhat, the way Christianity has been moderated - will require a huge effort. But you're right, mockery is a good start. The only pop-cultural beachhead we've got right now though is South Park.
I've been trying to figure you (the blog-author) out for a while now. I've wondered how it is that you can be against Affirmative Action but be in favor of protectionist measures. After all, Affirmative Action is anti-competitive and favors certain groups. Could not the same thing be said about protectionism and unions?
The reason why so many people are against immigration is because we don't want to see the United States turn into a Third World country like Mexico or the rest of Latin America.
It's heartening that an American has picked-up on the 'Neathergate' scandal.
Strangely enough after being widely publicized in Britain last year, the scandal had very little actual impact.
People do talk about the jobs that illegal immigrants will do but that Americans (or Japanese or Europeans) won't do.
But how many of these jobs are there relative to the number of potential immigrants?
Would the people who argue that immigration allows us to get people who do the jobs Americans won't do actually agree to specifically cap immigration at around the level that supports a working population that we have of jobs that Americans won't do?
If they wouldn't, would they either present a market based case or would they just admit that they have no interest in what contribution immigrants do or do not make to the economy?
It's very simple: To the elite, all those Hispanics who were out protesting on Saturday were begging for the 'right' to work as cut-rate nannies and gardeners.
When Frank Rich repeats the line that illegals threaten nobody's job, he means that illegals don't threaten Frank Rich's job. Who cares about unemployment among lower status white and black Americans? They don't read the NYT's OpEd page.
According to what Flip Wilson might have called “The Church of The What’s Happening Now,” the only important human personality characteristic that is explained by genes is homosexuality, a trait which, while not impossible to partly explain in evolutionary terms, is a lot more difficult to explain than a difference in average cleverness among groups that were genetically isolated from one other for tens of thousands of years.
Ah, but the curia of The Church of The What’s Happening Now is intellectually nimble.
First they sugget you shut up; the next step is outright dictatorship.
Remember the times when PC was fun? It then turned into sinister. Soon, you'll learn to love PC. Or else.
Regarding that Harvard girl issue, has anyone outed the outer? Would only be fair. Maybe the libs will hail her contribution to diversity.
I am getting pretty damn sick of hearing that immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won't do.
"Anonymous said...
I've been trying to figure you (the blog-author) out for a while now. I've wondered how it is that you can be against Affirmative Action but be in favor of protectionist measures. After all, Affirmative Action is anti-competitive and favors certain groups. Could not the same thing be said about protectionism and unions?
I finally have the answer! The answer is White People.
What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people.
For those reasons, I can never take you completely seriously."
You - whoever you are - have posted almost this exact same post several times before. What is wrong with Steve, or any of the rest of us, supporting our own people? What is wrong with the idea that one's people is and ought to be one's principle?
Oh, and by the way, your periodic, identical troll-posts make you seem like an idiot, and I don't imagine that anyone here takes YOU seriously.
"For the sake of amusement, here are the titles of some books Dean Minow has authored or edited: Just Schools: Pursuing Equality in Societies of Difference; Breaking the Cycles of Hatred: Memory, Law and Repair; Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies; Not Only for Myself: Identity, Politics and Law, and Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law."
What is it about academics these days, that the title of everything they write has the same cookie-cutter like form?
"Cutesy Little Title: Buzz-word, Buzz-word, Buzz-word"
Whence comes this infatuation with the colon. What motivates these "Colon People".
It's astoundingly hackneyed, cliched, and unoriginal. Is that the best these Harvard elites can do - are they really so talentless?
BTW, such people - the Colon People - can often be found sitting up on the stage at those panel discussions shown on CSPAN. Yes, the "Panel People" are virtually the same tribe as the "Colon People".
A good observation is the difference between blacks and Hispanics and the reaction to racial issues.
Blacks mobilize, react a lot quicker, and as a result the girl that sent this email has been absolutely destroyed. She'll never be accepted by polite society.
On the other hand, the Latino community has not responded with similar force to confront the Arizona immigration law. Maybe Puerto Ricans and Cubans see it as a Mexican problem. Maybe insouciant illegals in northern tier cities like San Fran, Chicago, and New York are insulated from the problems on the border.
So the girl involved in the Harvard Law fiasco has her life ruined whereas Jan Brewer saw her poll numbers go up. She could conceivably run for president and win the Tea Party vote.
So if you are gonna pick on a minority, are you gonna pick on blacks or Hispanics?
One of your best. Let's all of us email it to tons of friends.
Freud noted that human beings like to "project" their own undesirable feelings onto others.
Steve, how dare you. You keep talking about this race stuff so that you become popular with low-IQ whites, get 6-digit-figure book deals, become a celebrity, find yourself a position in some prestigious university, and then bang some hot white chicks there, don't you?
Uhm, errr..., I've probably said too much. No, no, I'm not like that at all. I wrote that because I wallow in agony for all the downtrodden races of the world every day. Please.
JT
I soft spot in my heart for Poujadiste movements like the Tea Party, but name me one that's ever succeeded. They burn themselves out and fail, because they lack elite leadership.
But as you point out, the elite are firmly in the grasp of PC ideologues:
Let's be frank about what this ridiculous Harvard Law School brouhaha is all about. It's about whether you have internalized the elite class dogmas sufficiently to be allowed into the elite. The more unbelievable the dogma, the better it serves for demonstrating your class loyalty. The more you rat out others for heresy, the more you prove your fealty.
Ridicule is not going tear these lovers apart.
Nothing will, but the whole existing elite, with their ideology, could fall and be replaced by a new elite*, if America, under their leadership, encountered a sufficiently humiliating defeat. A change of elites can do wonders: look at Germany and Japan. Total defeat in a world war is not something I'd wish upon any people, but fortunately, owning to the fragility of the American ego (viz 9/11), nothing like that is required. Being replaced by China as the world's superpower (should do the trick, and may just come in time to do some good.
*Most likely 2/3s of the rats from SS PC would swim across to SS non-PC, but that's not important. By nature, elite convictions are malleable, just not under current conditions, as you point out.
That zuch fellow on the Volokh Conspiracy link appears to be Gould himself. I thought he died 8 years ago.
The term "racial profiling" first came into the public consciousness after an ABC documentary in 1996 called "Driving While Black." The public and almost all political accepted that it was wrong without really thinking through the consequences for law enforcement. Now the Arizona legislature has amended SB 1070 to ban any consideration of race and ethnicity in forming a reasonable suspicion. How can any cop avoid doing this? The fact is that nearly all of the illegals are hispanic, and 23% of the hispanic residents of the state are illegal. At least the amendment doesn't ban consideration of poor English speaking ability.
Keep in mind that leftists are defending this woman and there is no way they would do so if they thought she was an immigration restrictionist.
They would do so if they think it's politically expedient close to election time.
When Frank Rich repeats the line that illegals threaten nobody's job, he means that illegals don't threaten Frank Rich's job.
The Center for Immigration Studies has the numbers on the percentage of immigrants (legal or otherwise) employed in different occupations. The two professions with the fewest immigrants - journalists and lawyers - are the two professions most happy with high levels of legal and illegal immigration.
Anonymous writes: "What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people."
Perhaps, but you obviously are ignorant of what Steve has said of his own principles. See Citizenism vs White Nationalism.
"What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people."
What benefits Americans, my friend, Americans. The rest of the world has their own way of doing things, let them succeed or fail on their own without bringing us down.
"What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people."
So wait, its "principled" to allow third-worlders to undercut your wages because they have a third-world standard of living, but its "not principled" to say "lets look out for ourselves"?
Heh, I love it when the free-market trolls trot out their usual tired arguments about the supremacy of economic forces (their particular idealized notion of them, anyway).
Furthermore, why shouldn't white people look after themselves when every other race does it for themselves? Why is it "principled" for white people to perpetuate their own demise?
Nutter.
Now don't start making fun of Harvard Law School women! Don't Be Mean! You don't know how hard it is untill you have walked a mile in their shoes. So let me tell you a story.
Back in the Olden Days when Obama was a 1L at Harvard, a nice 2L Jewish girl from Chicago, roughly 30, was bemoaning her lousy luck in the hook-up department. She was most definitely not interested in the sensitive dweeby Jewish mammoni, so she would go to dance bars near Fenway Park that attracted a lot of Guidos, looking for guys who knew how to lay some pipe. Her description of the mating calls was hysterical and sad. They would buy her a drink, go dance, then come back to the bar and start the casual chit-chat:
"Where you from?" "Chicago." "Whatcha doing in Boston?" "Going to school." "Where?" Cambridge." "Simmons [College]?" "No". "Where?" "Harvard Law School." [pregnant pause] "Oh".
At which point her Potentially Pipe-laying Guido would scan the room and go off looking for a more likely candidate. Even Guidos have standards.
It really is sad for HLS women looking for manly men. The competition for anything remotely approaching a manly man is fierce. The filtering process at HLS leaves you with largely Dershowitz-looking, Dershowitz-thinking, and Dershowitz-acting dudes.
But in all fairness to the guys, what HLS guy is turned on by a (metaphorically speaking) Rambam pilpulling Yentl or a feminist Harridan like Ayelet Waldman?
By the time they get to HLS both boys and girls are insufferable egghead twits. Which is why they don't breed with each other (in captivity as it were) and are going extinct.
The mayor of Phoenix was on Tv the first nite calling the people for this great and totally necessary and overdue law "Nazis",of course. I wondered how did this guy ever get elected;no doubt women and minorities strike again. Steve why arent you on TV!?? They can put on that drip Sarah Palin,not to mention any number of commentators and experts,like the hideous Bernie Goldberg,who called Rep John Lewis,after N-wordGate,a "man of integrity",lol!,but you would be so awesome,being smart and honest and stuff like that!!The station that employed you would get a huge ratings bump and make money--isnt that the(ir) point??
"Who are the illegals’ real leaders?
To the extent that anybody organizes them, it appears to be primarily Spanish-language radio disk jockeys. Funny DJs got them to turn out in 2006. Apparently, it didn’t happen in 2010."
A very insightful observation. I'm really enjoying watching the so called "cognitive elite" shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly. Illegal alien marches on May Day, a clueless President calling immigration enforcement misguided, the media refusing to cover illegal alien riots. Keep it coming boys and girls.
I should also add that many of those funny DJ's on spanish language radio were financed by advertising from sub-prime mortgage lenders. That revenue stream obviously dried up in 2010.
I posted the following at the Harvard Crimson, and it was allowed - the consensus there seems to be pretty much: we are all sick and tired of this crap (excuse the typos):
the patterns of difference in cognitive ability between the human race is is consistent over a century, and is consistent worldwide.
blacks are less intelligent than whites on average worldwide.
there is no controversy whatsoever about the data (no one to date has offered alternative data).
the question of how much of this difference is due to cultural factors and how much to hereditary has yet to be solved definitively, but survey after survey strongly suggests that the vast majority of researchers worldwide believe it is a mix of the two.
but until the current censorship regime is lifted WE WILL NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK - BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID TO TELL US.
there are two questions at stake here:
number one: is the universally recognized difference in the intelligence between blacks and whites partly caused by hereditary factors?
number two: is it permissible to pose this question publicly (or privately) without being vilified or blacklisted?
the first is a scientific question, the second is a free-speech/First Amendment question.
I would expect the dean of an Ivy League university to know the difference.
I would also expect her to know the difference between a public declaration and a private e-mail.
Good one, Steve. This rage of the privileged class shouldn't come as a surprise. We were warned over a 150 years ago here.
One reason Hispanics are more skeptical of illegal immigration than you think comes out in your section on how easy it is to forge Social Security IDs.
Say you're a counterfeiter who caters to illegals.
Would you rather steal the identity of third-generation Bostonian Joseph Kennedy or of seventh-generation Texan Jose Garcia?
There was a story about one such Latino victim of ID theft being harassed by the IRS for evading taxes on the ~17 jobs he never knew he had.
Because of such issues, there is more division between Latino citizens and illegals than you think.
Breaking: Neocon about-face on illegal immigration! But don't worry, all of you fans of Elect-A-New-People politics. The neocons undoubtedly have a scheme to double or triple legal immigration in order to maintain the flood of multicultural aliens coming across our borders.
Conservative America's high profile champion/critic, advisor/scold, Canadian citizen, Mr David Frum, gets an "editor's pick" showcase spot on the CNN front page today:
Ending illegal immigration benefits economy
Why do you continue to omit the name of the "friend" who "leaked" the e-mail? Her name is Yelena Shagall.
I love this guy "anonymous"! Every time he shows up he throws a slow soft one right over the middle of the plate! And (let's be honest, here) he throws like a girl.
So let me get this straight, Anny, protecting the black race with affirmative action is a matter of principle, but protecting all jobs of all Americans regardless of race is white supremacism?
Whoa! What is this? Protecting the SEIU is white supremacy? Have you seen those folks? The only white folks they let into the SEIU are colored folks with vitiligo, Anny.
And speaking of racist, Anny, you ever sat down with a bunch of Mexican wetbacks from Oaxaca? They'll tell you straight: the laziest damn folks they EVER saw are black folks. Ask their President, Vincent Fox. He said the same damn thing on Mexican National TV.
And you know what, Anny? Those Mexicans are right! Black folks ARE lazy. But you know what else, Anny? They are Americans and no damn Mexican gets to sneak into this country and force them out of their jobs because they "they work harder" or "they just want to better their families" and all that other bleeding heart gooshy white liberal nonsense.
If Mexicans want to make more money they need to stop sneaking over the border, stay at home and make their own country better instead of stealing jobs from poor black folks and bad-mouthing them. And if that makes Steve and me racists, so be it.
Does anyone on here ever comment about how the ordinary people like the tea party protesters are fiercely anti-intellectual? I like to poke fun at the elites to for their blank-slate views but don't forget the huddled masses and their contempt for anyone in the top 2 percent of the intelligence distribution.
I'll second our alleged "Scotch/Irish" (and, likely, Neanderthal) pal Whiskey: you're on fire bub, good article.
About the Neanderthals: I have a theory that Scots and Jews are distantly related, mostly because of the parsimony and lack of term for forbearance in both Gaelic and Hebrew, but also the red hair and fierceness. I've seen not a few Scottish full on Zionists whose zeal is matched only by actual Jews. There's a common thread here and I think it's the Neanderthals.
Protip: If Steve is right that proof of Neanderthal admixture is going to be released shortly watch for our enemies to use this as a basis for committing genocide against us.
@Jody: there are sane black people around. Plenty of them. Hang around the black middle class and church folks and you will hear many of them speak up. Thi is what "Al", a black man commenting at "What About Our Daughters" had to say about the Black Elite in a slightly different context:
" Have you ever noticed the trend in which Black legislators on the state, local, and national levels often represent districts where there are high rates of Black on Black victimization? And those on the national level are oddly silent about this. Then there are the members of an unelected body called “Black Leadership” who say next to nothing about this. Lately this oligarchy of Leaders and politicians have been beating a drum about how we, Black people, ought fear a bunch of white survivalists in the backwoods of Michigan and Tea Partiers while saying nothing about the Black on Black terrorism that has gripped our communities. Its as if, these Black officials derive their livelihood off our blight and misery."
Jody, there are plenty of black folks who all to painfully see black dysfunction. "Integration" has always been about black folks trying to escape black dysfunction to come live with white folks where it is safe. Sadly, they are unable to fully escape and almost inevitably bring it with them.
But they do know that the Black Elite lives off their suffering like a vampire squid, sucking the life out of their communities. Read Al's comments above. He KNOWS they are jerking his chain, and I'll bet he knows that the Black Elite is jerking regular black folks' chains about immigration, too.
as per normal, the television media did not report that several of the pro-illegal alien protests on may 1 turned violent.
mexicans got pretty excited in santa cruz, rioting for a while and doin' some damage. it's just healthy civic participation when mexicans riot. no cause for alarm, and certainly not anything worth reporting.
i bet janet napolitano would also prefer that the media not report that a judge let all of those michigan "militia" people go free until a trial starts. DHS and FBI have such a weak case, these dangerous "militia" members were deemed safe to leave jail.
want to be these people get put on trial before malik nadal hasan? what is taking the united states government so long to execute this guy?
White middle class people are now the Kulaks.
Yelena Shagall is the name of the Harvard student who leaked Stephanie Grace's email the HLS.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1299093&mc=60&forum_id=2&PHPSESSID=01ea54a6ff746a155ac5289265cf4d76
What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people.
For those reasons, I can never take you completely seriously.
Wow, dude, you don't say? It shows, eh? You mean, he should be "principled" in his treatment of the umpteen human lineages of the world the vast majority of whom wouldn't give a rat's flying fig about things like, well, being principled towards other races so that his race gets trampled over by them? How unbecoming of him.
The biggest irony of your perspective is that you can't make the clear-as-daylight observation that by being pro-White, Steve might have way more of a chance of supporting "being principled" since whites happen to be the only ones that built civilizations that give a toss about that "being principled" thingie. In case you haven't noticed.
For that reason -- before everything else -- I would still support him -- even though his "native" readers would consider me, Johnny Turk, non-White.
JT
I have a theory that Scots and Jews are distantly related, mostly because of the parsimony and lack of term for forbearance in both Gaelic and Hebrew
Actually genetic studies show that Ashkenazi Jews and Northern Europeans are not closely related. You don't need to invoke wacky theories involving language.
I like to poke fun at the elites to for their blank-slate views but don't forget the huddled masses and their contempt for anyone in the top 2 percent of the intelligence distribution.
The reason why most Americans have contempt for that top 2% is because they are the ones promoting the asinine multicultural/diversity agenda that is destroying this country.
"The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy", by Christoper Lasch, perfectly diagnosed this situation back in 1994. Here's a brief overview.
http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/lasch.html
(From Gawker) "Yelena soon embarked on a mission. She began posting mean messages on pictures of Stephanie on Facebook..."
Retarded 13 year old girls get into Harvard Law School, apparently.
What ever benefits White People is what you favor; not principles, but your people
Sure sounds like a principle to me. A principle not to your liking, perhaps, but a principle all the same.
And we have confirmation..... The personal email was distributed 5 months after the fact by Grace's vindictive friend Yelena Shegall.
Even worse, it would seem that Shegall is the one who most plausibly took the genetic position in the original conversation!
"Steph, Yelena and Jen were very close friends...... November 16, 2009, the three met up for dinner....... The conversation turned to affirmative action. Steph and Yelena oppose it; Jen is in favor........ During the dinnertime debate, Steph did not argue in favor of a genetic basis for racial disparities in intelligence. After the dinner, however, she sent an email — just to Yelena and Jen, not a wider group — clarifying her views....... Upon further consideration, she decided to go agnostic on that question, sending out the clarifying email. "
This is Soviet Union level insanity. Where people are reliably rewarded for accusing their neighbors of thought crimes, and people are reliably destroyed just by being accused.
God help us, the VDARE site is atrocious.
Direct confirmation that Yelena Shagall is the forwarder.
Big Bill - What About Our Daughters is an extremely interesting website.
But I can't find the particular comment to which you refer.
I'd very much like to find it. Can you help?
Yelena Segall is not exactly a raving beauty. With as noted, the maturity of a 13 year old.
Scots vs. Jews: both are smart and forward looking, but Jews are far more verbal. Scots do better under a free market system where everyone is free to try out their ideas and see what works. Jews do a lot better under the Court system, where it's necessary to argue with others for years for the privilege of permitting a building or a factory. Can you imagine Andrew Carnegie trying to build an empire today? He'd probably end up working for an overseas division of Haliburton, just to get away from the control of the nanny state crazies.
"Blacks mobilize, react a lot quicker, and as a result the girl that sent this email has been absolutely destroyed. She'll never be accepted by polite society."
Rubbish. A lot of supposed HBD types here are more cowed than people at mainstream outlets like Above the Law: Some defenders of Steph have worried about how this might damage her career. We tend to doubt it will have any lasting effect. She’s clearly a brilliant young woman, as reflected in her many accomplishments — Princeton (with highest honors), HLS, Harvard Law Review, Kozinski clerkship. She just had the misfortune of sending a poorly-worded email — an email that a majority of you don’t even believe to be “racist” — to two “friends,” one of whom betrayed her. (Not surprisingly, we understand that mutual friends of Steph and Yelena are taking Steph’s side and have stopped talking to Yelena.)
Heck, this episode probably won’t even stop Steph from landing a Supreme Court clerkship. If I were in her shoes, I’d focus my efforts on Justice Clarence Thomas. Of all the members of the Court, he’d probably be most open to hiring the victim of what some conservatives might call, to paraphrase CT himself, the “high-tech lynching [of conservative females] who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas.”
>Does anyone on here ever comment about how the ordinary people like the tea party protesters are fiercely anti-intellectual?
define anti-intellectual please.....the tea partiers generally want the nation to move back toward constitutional small 'r' republican government.....the question becomes: is modern 'intellectualism' mostly an endless project to legitimize the destruction of our constitution? in other words is the new american 'intellectualism' a gigantic post modern deconstruction exercise in the marxist tradition?
>The two professions with the fewest immigrants - journalists and lawyers - are the two professions most happy with high levels of legal and illegal immigration.
just wanted to repost this commenter's paragraph in case it was missed by people scanning this thread.......this paragraph should be on billboards across america.........human relations usually can be boiled down to a matter of $$$
Yelena Shagall is the name of the Harvard student who leaked Stephanie Grace's email the HLS.
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1299093&mc=60&forum_id=2&PHPSESSID=01ea54a6ff746a155ac5289265cf4d76
Well well, the spirit of McCarthyism witchhunt seems to be very much alive with Jewish girls.
It was a RAT BITE, not a Cat Fight.
Anonymous (commenter on the "peacock hypothesis"):
It is very likely (though not certain) that I am the origin of the "peacock hypothesis" to which you refer, It is a theory of mine going back at least somewhat over 50 years to a time when, although not a "liberal" in the typical modern definition, my ordinary beliefs were liberal-influenced by "default," if nothing else.
I've explained the gist of such idea a number of times in comments going back about 8 or 9 years on the web (in such venues as John Jay Ray's blog , who put up a short essay back in 2001 and, as well, in comments at gnxp.com and at the mises.org site).
Actually, there's nothing terribly complex about the idea, nor do I actually think it particularly equivalent to a "peacock's tail"; it's both more and less important with a distinction I'll explain following, separately.
On a related note: Reddit hipsters wrestle with whether or not Christian ministers should be jailed for preaching the Gospel (Hate Speech):
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/bze26/christian_preacher_arrested_for_saying/
Minow the biatch says she's for free inquiry and social justice, but the dumbass biatch doesn't seem to understand that free inquiry IS social justice. A just society allows free debate and seeks to solve its problems by finding the truth, on which all social solutions must be based.
Solutions based on lies and falsehood can never solve real problems. Just look our all the delusional educational policies.
We have all these 'progressive' experts looking for solutions to problems in black education, but they don't allow any discussion of the MAIN reason as to why these problems exist. The main reasons are biological. Of course, it's also cultural, but then blacks would do best with conservative cultural values--family, social hierarchy, respect for elderly, sexual restraint, etc--but liberals have trashed these values too. Also, we should not be looking for ways to close the racial gap but to provide ways for black to do the best within their ability. After all, we don't try to close the gap between white/Asian runners and black runners. We try to make whites and Asians run as fast they can within their biological limitations.
Calling for free inquiry AND(or versus) social justice is like Christians promoting both freedom of thought AND spiritual justice. Suppose Harvard was run by Christian Fundies who said free inquiry is okay AS LONG AS one doesn't violate the principle that all humans were created equally by God. If someone argues for evolution--which allows for biological variation and diversity--, he could be persecuted for violating the principles of spiritual justice since the theory of evolution might lead people to believe that all people were NOT created equal--or may not have been created by an higher being to begin with.
If we are to find better ways to solve our social problems, we need to find the truth, and real solutions can only be founded on truth. Any suppression of truth in the name of social justice is a social injustice for (1) it violates our freedoms and (2) forbids the discovery of truth, thus the search for REAL solutions.
Steve, this was one of your best essays. I've long felt that the diversity-shibboleth crowd is highly vulnerable to mockery, that most potent of weapons. Kudos to you for getting the word out - this needs to become a movement strategy! (Lord knows the left has used it against us for long enough, and our beliefs make sense, for crying out loud).
Yeah I've always though projection was one of Freud's rare non-quacky observations. But then it's kinda common sense that people's reactions give an insight into what they're really thinking. You know, the guilty flee when no man pursueth. When everyone's a homo, you might be a homosexual; when everything's "racist!", you might be a racist.
When I was in grad school, I once posited to my Dad that maybe we had some Jewish blood in us, since all of the Scots/Scots-Irish-men in our family had such striking cowlicks and hook-noses.
I think that took him aback for a moment.
And apparently Glenn Gould got so tired of being asked whether he was Jewish that he took to saying, "When people ask me if I'm Jewish, I always tell them that I was Jewish during the war."
BTW, one of the more fascinating recent DNA studies has the Scots travelling all the way over the North Pole to spread their genes in Siberia:
Orkney Islanders have Siberian relatives
23 May 2008
telegraph.co.uk
I have often thought that various of the Japanese peoples [to include the Ainu] had eerily Scottish features.
And what about the "immigrants will do the job Americans won't do!" canard?
As I exit the office building for lunch, to walk around instead of eating a fattening chemical mix at a local fast "food" place where all the morbidly obese isteve readers flock, I see around me a different set of people.
Not a white guy in sight.
Nor a black.
Just folks with names that roll off the tongue such as Rajnaranaram, Madhupusparakadam, Venkatarebakan...
Because, you know, Americans don't want to work in a yukky office environment programming code for $40 to $100 an hour.
We Americans are so blase like that we would rather work in construction, right?
OT - the New York Times is reporting that the Time Square SUV was purchased 3 weeks ago by a man of Pakistani origin who had recently visited Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/nyregion/04bomb.html?hp
And what about the "immigrants will do the job Americans won't do!" canard?
As I exit the office building for lunch, to walk around instead of eating a fattening chemical mix at a local fast "food" place where all the morbidly obese isteve readers flock, I see around me a different set of people.
Not a white guy in sight.
Nor a black.
Just folks with names that roll off the tongue such as Rajnaranaram, Madhupusparakadam, Venkatarebakan...
Because, you know, Americans don't want to work in a yukky office environment programming code for $40 to $100 an hour.
We Americans are so blase like that we would rather work in construction, right?
NeverLyingTruthTeller sed:
The Democratic Party has failed miserably on this score with respect to blacks, and the party will pay a huge price in the fall election as blacks stay home.
What are u smoking? Blacks will always turn out for voting if it's a black guy against a non-black. In Africa it's their tribal chief against the rival tribe's man. Africans care a shit about service delivery when their tribe is on the line. Proven over and over again, in Africa and every US city.
josh sed:Steve why arent you on TV!??
Steve reminds me of Prof. William Black who roasted all the pretentiousness of Big Dick Fuld at the congressional hearing on Lehman. Steve just needs to be more forceful in making his points, like the Prof. is. Maybe a tenure will help Steve be more forceful.
In the process of maturing, whose result will be the adult "persona" (or "personality"), half is spent in the latter phase--puberty, adolescence, young adulthood. The individual, partly deliberately, learns to provide "signals" to attract the opposite sex in many ritualized fashions familiar to all (especially pronounced in males. Females, pushed by social norms into fewer modes,focus on a narrower range--usually emphasis of femininity and secondary sex characteristics. What must be borne in mind is that techniques of the type are heavily influenced--and differentiated--by the particular society in which they take place. My comments are particularly applicable in the individualistic mileau of society in what we call "western civilization."
The challenge--or job--of each individual is, somehow, to "distinguish" himself, to "stand out," in some fashion, from "all the rest," to render himself, somehow, unique, and, thus, desirable.
There are many obvious routes. Most spectacular and most widely traditional are display of physical prowess. Traditional (and obvious) routes include not only athletics but other, essentially competitive fields, whether in scholastic accomplishment or in activities such as debate, student government, chess, dramatics, music, etc.
The problem (for the majority) is the number distinctions in these activities is severely limited; worse, some gifts and skills are transferable between several, so the same individuals will tend to achieve in more than one activity. Not everyone can be strongest or fastest or the best at chess or the male dramatic lead. It's enough to make mediocrities (as most of us tend to be) feel--well, mediocre.
But there is a field in which anyone--or virtually anyone--can "stand out" from the crowd. That's the category of being a "rebel," not usually in the sense of rejecting authority (although various levels of that attitude may accompany) but of being "countercultural," possessed of some political orientation seemingly at odds with accepted norms. It's originality and uniqueness on the cheap--everyone can have some, especially combined with other expression of "uniqueness" (dress, haircut ornamentation, manners of speech, musical tastes, etc.).
It might be just amusing, except for an actual tragic aspect: the positions, ideas, and prejudices adopted more or less in sham, as markers of a "distinctive" and thus, desirable, personality actually "harden" or become real features of the persona to which the subject becomes wedded, as it were. Ordinary arguments composed of logic and even evidence of experience become, more and more, powerless in dissuading adherents of many spurious interpretations of reality underpinning such beliefs. Further, recognition of such personae by associates sharing similar beliefs serve, very effectively, to prevent questioning of basic assumptions. (Note here the phenomenon that even "men of science,"--whom one might expect to shelve inferior theory in the face of more powerfully explanations seem, to the extent that their "science" is of the sort used to shore up "liberal" interpretations of reality, to behave similarly to espousers of reloigious dogma. We also see what happens when someone (Whittaker Chambers, David Horowitz, Christopher Hitchens, Bjon Lomborg, etc.) have "second thoughts" about their beliefs or "leave the fold" (as though a religious belief from which one becomes "apostate" and thus, an object of vilification).
Big Bill - what HLS guy is turned on by a (metaphorically speaking) Rambam pilpulling Yentl or a feminist Harridan like Ayelet Waldman?
Bill, you could probably remove that redundant HLS there.
Whiskey - Yelena Segall is not exactly a raving beauty. With as noted, the maturity of a 13 year old.
Yelena Segall? Freudian, slip there? I was wondering to what degree SHagall might be of Scots-Irish origins, going by the name. Maybe thats been answered.
And no, she's not a raving beuty, not unattractive but its clear Stephanie is out of her league.
Damn--I'm amazed that nobody's punned upon the name Shagall. They'd have a field day with it over at Tim Worstall's brit-site (as in "shag all") or see some ominous connection to the dread disease (Chagall's) spread by the "kissing bug." It's even likely the gal's actually got the same, but anglicized, name.
I'll start it off by observing that the unnamed guy was put off by the prospect of contracting Chagall's from someone who'd shag all (much preferred to risk a bit of a Steph infection).
Limerickers arise and do thy duty!
The conversation turned to affirmative action. Steph and Yelena oppose it; Jen is in favor. The three had the kind of argument that all of us have probably had, in college or law school — spirited, engaging, passionate...During the dinnertime debate, Steph did not argue in favor of a genetic basis for racial disparities in intelligence. After the dinner, however, she sent an email — just to Yelena and Jen, not a wider group — clarifying her views. In that email, Steph wrote, “I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.” "
I'm just really surprised that these women debated each other & discussed topics like affirmative action & genetic basis for intelligence amongst themselves, taking it seriously enough to follow up with long emails expounding on their positions. My impression of women is that they mainly talk about shoes, each other, & dudes.
Scots do better under a free market system where everyone is free to try out their ideas and see what works. Jews do a lot better under the Court system, where it's necessary to argue with others for years for the privilege of permitting a building or a factory. Can you imagine Andrew Carnegie trying to build an empire today? He'd probably end up working for an overseas division of Haliburton, just to get away from the control of the nanny state crazies.
And so the iSteve-o-sphere continues to re-discover the concept of legalism.
Peggy Noonan [God bless her otherwise papally-legalistic little heart] referred [at least obliquely] to this looming orientalistic nightmare in the opening paragraph of her most recent column.
Steve, can you break out the "white" stats for college degrees any further? Irish, English, German, Jewish, Swedish, Italian, whatever?
Obviously Jews are going to have massive rates, but how do they compare with Italians, for example?
"Steve, why aren't you on TV?"
I propose that Steve and Kevin MacDonald do a "Hannity and Colmes" type TV show where they debate the issues of the day from 2 distinctly different American viewpoints. Logistically, they both live in SoCal, so it should be doable. It might be the best political show in television history! Roger Ailes, are you listening?
Grace was marked by Shagall.
Shagall the hag gal.
"Yeah I've always though projection was one of Freud's rare non-quacky observations."
Freud was never a quack. He may often have been wrong but even there he was brilliantly wrong and sincere(if also intolerant and arrogant). A quack comes up with bogus cures to fool people to get rich. This was never the case with Freud who, in his own way, searched for the truth and in the process came up with many fascinating theories and ideas--even if some of them proved wrong. But wrong theories are the pathways to the eventaully correct theory. The human mind is so complex that we still know the truth and won't know until... who knows when.
Um, “adadfasdfasf,” the promotion of “wrong theories” is not the pathway to knowledge. Freud was essentially a huckster with a stereotypically Jewish talent for self promotion along with an authoritarian mindset (also often exhibited by those nice Ashkenazi folks.) Carl Jung for example wrote that Freudian psychoanalysis with its bizarre fixation on childhood sexuality and the withholding of peeing and pooping was more suited to the Jewish mind, and was not an appropriate method for analyzing the heroic Germanic psyche.
Freud is a joke. Nobody takes his “wrong theories” seriously any more. Quack, quack, quack.
"Carl Jung for example wrote that Freudian psychoanalysis with its bizarre fixation on childhood sexuality and the withholding of peeing and pooping was more suited to the Jewish mind, and was not an appropriate method for analyzing the heroic Germanic psyche."
This sounds fascinating. Would you care to elaborate on the appropriate form of psychoanalysis for the heroic German psyche?
Um, “adadfasdfasf,” the promotion of “wrong theories” is not the pathway to knowledge. Freud was essentially a huckster with a stereotypically Jewish talent for self promotion along with an authoritarian mindset (also often exhibited by those nice Ashkenazi folks.) Carl Jung for example wrote that Freudian psychoanalysis with its bizarre fixation on childhood sexuality and the withholding of peeing and pooping was more suited to the Jewish mind, and was not an appropriate method for analyzing the heroic Germanic psyche.
Freud is a joke. Nobody takes his “wrong theories” seriously any more. Quack, quack, quack.
If Freud was a quack for his self-promotion, misleading theories, insistence on loyalty among followers, and arrogance, it applies to Jung too, who also dabbled in the occult.
The 'heroic' German psyche. Now, that is quackery. There's a lot a good things to be said about the German people but collective heroism is racial fantasism.
Freud is a joke. Nobody takes his "wrong theories" seriously any more.
Except that Freud [intentionally or unintentionally] does offer us a little window into the insanity of the phariseeical id.
What's the opposite of projection?
Reflection?
PS: As regards the prurient stuff, Spengler wrote an essay about that - apparently the tribe has been in that bidness for a LONG time.
The 'heroic' German psyche. Now, that is quackery. There's a lot a good things to be said about the German people but collective heroism is racial fantasism.
Really? Ancient Greek and Roman writings are littered with references to the war-like peoples of the North, as contrasted with the soft warm-weather peoples.
>can you break out the "white" stats for college degrees any further? Irish, English, German, Jewish, Swedish, Italian, whatever?<
For safety, first check with the ADL and make sure "college degree stats" is an area where Jews feel comfortable defining themselves as "white." As opposed to those areas in which they don't feel comfortable defining themselves as white, such as anything related to "colonialism," "racism," "Eurocentricism," "privilege," immigration, etc. When is a Jew white, and when is he NOT white, is a ticklish question, best asked of Jews ad hoc.
As opposed to those areas in which they don't feel comfortable defining themselves as white, such as anything related to "colonialism," "racism," "Eurocentricism," "privilege," immigration, etc. When is a Jew white, and when is he NOT white, is a ticklish question, best asked of Jews ad hoc.
I asked about this in another recent iSteve thread, but does anyone know anything about the blurb in his Wikipedia entry which claims that Alexander Hamilton's mother was once married to a Jew in St Croix [presumably operating there as part of the triangular trade in sugar, rum, and slaves]?
The 'heroic' German psyche. Now, that is quackery. There's a lot a good things to be said about the German people but collective heroism is racial fantasism.
Really? Ancient Greek and Roman writings are littered with references to the war-like peoples of the North, as contrasted with the soft warm-weather peoples.
War-like and Heroic are two different things. One can be war-like and stupid and brutal, not necessarily heroic. Indeed, heroism is the use of courage for a higher or moral purpose, not just go around bashing heads and going arrgh.
afafasfsadf sed
War-like and Heroic are two different things. One can be war-like and stupid and brutal, not necessarily heroic. Indeed, heroism is the use of courage for a higher or moral purpose, not just go around bashing heads and going arrgh.
An I guess your crowd get's to decide who is "heroic" and who is "War-like", coz you are morally superior by birth or religion or whatever. WTF.
53% of Mexicans living in the US supporting illegals getting welfare shows what a farce civic nationality is. This means that more than half of them who have legal stay in the US support law breaking illegal aliens and act as enemies to the US. It's quite funny that whites don't understand that out of group altruism is plain idiocy - the Mexicans are way ahead of us in this field and we better learn it again.
On another note, isn't it funny how you must make politicians remember that they are civil servants with pitchforks once in a while? And what can be more bigoted than a liberal is beyond me related to the Gordon Brown issue.
Post a Comment