ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, May 05, 2014

Exploding orthodoxy

Charles Murray anticipates that "A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History" by Nicholas Wade, is going to explode more equalitarian minds than his own landmark work did:
The orthodoxy's equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance." The second, popularized by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that "human equality is a contingent fact of history," as he put it in an essay of that title in 1984.

Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, what is known by geneticists has increasingly diverged from this orthodoxy, even as social scientists and the mainstream press have steadfastly ignored the new research. Nicholas Wade, for more than 20 years a highly regarded science writer at the New York Times, has written a book that pulls back the curtain....

At the heart of the book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong.

Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. But, as Mr. Wade reports, that's exactly what happens. A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide the best statistical fit. If the subjects' ancestors came from all over the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea. If the subjects all come from European ancestry, the clusters will instead correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the rest of Europe's many ethnicities. Mr. Lewontin was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. It appears that the most natural of all ways to classify humans genetically is by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified from time out of mind.

Stephen Jay Gould's assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa has also proved to be wrong—not surprisingly, since it was so counterintuitive to begin with.
Those who still stubbornly cling to their antiscientific belief in human equality are the Flat Earth Society of our day. There is truly nothing surprising here except the name of the author; for a New York Times columnist to abjure liberal race orthodoxy is like a sitting cardinal of the Catholic Church publishing a book declaring that God does not exist.

All the dogma goodthink with which we were raised, all the statements about "race is only skin deep" and "it's not genetics, its the culture" and "deep inside we're all the same" are nothing more than children's tale meant to obscure the frightening truth. Science is gradually peeling away the orthodox falsehoods; soon it will be impossible to conceal the important and necessary discussions about reality under nonsensical accusations of racism.

It will be interesting to see how science-loving equalitarians react to the discovery that they will have to choose between science and their faith. I expect that most of them will react as they did when economics made incontrovertibly clear the intrinsic contradictions of socialism and stubbornly cling to their antiscientific beliefs without admitting that they have openly rejected science.

Labels:

237 Comments:

1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Outlaw X May 05, 2014 4:46 AM  

It will be interesting to see how science-loving equalitarians react to the discovery that they will have to choose between science and their faith.

Vox, you just got a way with words that makes the mind go DING!

Blogger finndistan May 05, 2014 4:49 AM  

Genes be raciss...

I don't expect that to change the minds of the leftoid swarm though. When I mentioned the lowest estimate of false paternity being at 10%, I got to hear that it must be the fault of the hospitals mixing babies. I told him, that would be called false maternity, and people would hang from the gallows, he said, it can't be.

Now, wait for it....

this man's wife cheated on him.

Borg mind does not deviate.

Anonymous Crude May 05, 2014 5:04 AM  

All the dogma goodthink with which we were raised, all the statements about "race is only skin deep" and "it's not genetics, its the culture" and "deep inside we're all the same" are nothing more than children's tale meant to obscure the frightening truth.

As interesting as the fallout from the book will be, why can we trust scientists this time as opposed to those other times when they got things wrong?

I suppose the reply could be a comparison between the quality of the evidence then and now, but I ask it anyway.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni May 05, 2014 5:08 AM  

Ham, Shem and Japeth called: They want their classification back.

Anonymous Red May 05, 2014 5:11 AM  

Wade's an interesting guy. His 2 earlier books:
"Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors" and "The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures" were mild challenges to the existing progressive order. Before the dawn on particular ripped up the noble savage idea with great gusto and the topic has largely been dropped by the left since then. The faith instinct is a very fascinating book that lacks convincing punch because the ideas underlying it (human warfare drives human selection and that Religion is the key to providing synchronization and solidarity in group combat) are far too radical for progressives to think about which leads Wade to understate his case and drift into stuff like music and religion without evidence of a lot of understanding of the subject. Both books are worth reading.

Blogger JP May 05, 2014 5:19 AM  

The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that "racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance."

And yet the Eclectus parrot needs seven subspecies because some are slightly bigger or prettier.

Anonymous zen0 May 05, 2014 5:20 AM  

Ham, Shem and Japeth called: They want their classification back.

Maybe their classification was not racial.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 May 05, 2014 5:47 AM  

Mitochondrial Eve Vox,

all humanity bottlenecks through one set of moist legs. So what's the argument about.

Genetic drift? Accumulation of information destroying mutations? Inbreeding?

Entropy doeth her thing, and God is not mocked. The scientific consensus on this is no better than the one that turned atmospheric plant fertilizer into a planet frying catastrophic poison.

The bomb shells are all unexploded. Physics can't even acknowledge evidence for changes in fundamental physical constants. He who sits in the Heavens laughs at men shaking their puny dying fists.

Fundies got it right. Product differentiation is everything.

Blogger Lud VanB May 05, 2014 6:01 AM  

I don't hold with equality in all things, just equality before the law, nothing more.

-Thaddeus Stevens

Anonymous MPC May 05, 2014 6:07 AM  

It will be interesting to see how science-loving equalitarians react to the discovery that they will have to choose between science and their faith.

They'll just ignore it or double-think it away like they do with everything else.

Anonymous Roundtine May 05, 2014 6:16 AM  

I will make sure to call them Creationists and science deniers at every opportunity that presents itself.

Anonymous TroperA May 05, 2014 6:18 AM  

In the movie "Stalag 17", there's a scene of an American prisoner of war receiving a letter from home. It's from his wife who is telling him about a baby boy she found on their doorstep that has exactly her eyes and nose. For the rest of the movie, the prisoner mutters to himself , "I believe it, I believe it," trying to convince himself that the story is true. When a person's happiness hinges on a lie, then that lie will be believed, however crazy and illogical it might seem to anybody else.

Anonymous FrankNorman May 05, 2014 6:19 AM  


Stephen Jay Gould's assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa has also proved to be wrong—not surprisingly, since it was so counterintuitive to begin with.


I suppose the best argument for it was that the amount of time that was supposed to have passed since was insignificant in evolutionary terms.
Ironic, considering who it was that was making that assertion.

But then, perhaps Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theories were all along just a reflection of his political ideology. Being a Marxist, he believed in violent, revolutionary change, not gradual progress.

Anonymous FrankNorman May 05, 2014 6:23 AM  

Roundtine May 05, 2014 6:16 AM

I will make sure to call them Creationists and science deniers at every opportunity that presents itself.

Hey, don't slander us Creationists like that!

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 05, 2014 7:02 AM  

It's funny - the race-as-social-construct infectant is present in the Southern Baptist Church. The sleight of hand? Race is a construct, but, ethnicity exists, and has real, explanatory power. Of course, there's also a denial that New World blacks have established their own ethnic group, because then we might be tempted to assume that, since it would coincide exactly with the socially constructed racial category, and we might blunder into saying that there's some utility to the racial category.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge(c)2014 May 05, 2014 7:04 AM  

It's time to call an ergonomically considered utilitarian multifunctional agricultural implement a spade; all the quantum leaps is civilizational self destruction were wrought by darwiniotards.

Nothing has shaped your world like cultural evolution; a feces by any other name stinketh no less - was not the Bard.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni May 05, 2014 7:17 AM  

Race is simply family, extended. Does anyone really believe all families are the same?

As to all being equal before the law, is it not the job of the law to differentiate on moral grounds?

Blogger ScuzzaMan May 05, 2014 7:39 AM  

It's surely interesting. I guess I am an equalitarian, but not because any godless unbeliever told me my genes were the same as my brothers-from-other-mothers, but because God says 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. In the light of THAT categorisation, these questions seem to me rather moot.

For the record, I'm an unreconstructed fundamentalist Christian, iow a literal creationist, what some would call a 'young earth creationist' (never pausing to consider that 6,000 years or so is actually rather old).

I am most emphatically not any kind of leftist. Politically, I'm a libertarian, taking (again) my cue from God who made men free moral agents so that our characters might be revealed by our freely made moral choices.

I dont doubt that significant genetic differences exist between the major human racial groups. The question, though, is what these differences portend? The godless have recently altered the definition of 'species' so as to better represent their atheistic axiom, such that simple geographic separation and minor anatomical variations (e.g. the beaks on Darwin's Finches) constitute the makings of distinct species.

However, the recent research on the Galapagos Islands show that the finches continue to interbreed across all the (alleged) species boundaries, thus confirming the utility of the older definition, which has to do with the ability to produce viable offspring.

On that measure, all the races of humanity on this planet, however we may classify ourselves internally, remain adamantly one species.

It is no more radical to note that different races display differing genetically-determined probability distributions with regard to any readily identified characteristic than it is sexist to note that the two sexes display different probability distributions with regard to height, weight, strength, etc.

I am not personally convinced that IQ tests, for example, are culturally neutral, nor would I be easily convinced that such tests should inform some kind of racial policy differential (which Mr Wade's reviewers seem to be very carefully hinting at but not saying in their recent articles on his work), but nor will I ever be convinced that a subject ought not be discussed merely because it is troublesome to a cherished belief.

We have most definitely been THERE before, and I have no wish to return.

It is understandable that some people will take great exception to this entire debate, and some will be greatly troubled by it. I see no reason for either response. To me, this is simply evidence that, although the races of men are degrading, each according to their peculiar circumstances and predilections, they remain men.

Anonymous daddynichol May 05, 2014 7:42 AM  

Mr. Wade can expect to be unemployed soon and I wonder how many of his fellow science authors will come to his defense?

Blogger Lud VanB May 05, 2014 7:58 AM  

"As to all being equal before the law, is it not the job of the law to differentiate on moral grounds?"

the law's job is to enunciate clearly to all what behavior will get you what treatment within society...not to decide which genetic ancestry should receive harsher or lighter sentencing for equal crime.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 8:09 AM  

@ScuzzaMan

The question, though, is what these differences portend?

This question has been asked and answered, over and over.

First and foremost, it means the trillions of dollars we spend on education, Title VII, wars to turn Afghan tribesmen into Occidental social democrats, and other efforts for equality of outcomes are WASTED. Zero,nay, NEGATIVE returns. The bleeding should be stopped immediately.

Second, once we stop that enormous system of transfer payments from the K-selected to the r-selected, it becomes obvious, as if it isn't already, that such divergent groups only exist as a single polity because an all-powerful central government keeps things together. Multicultural polities require a lot of tax dollars to bribe various groups not to tear each other to pieces, and to keep that immense law enforcement and national security apparatus going. It's never enough, of course, so the government must issue debt as well.

As a self-described libertarian, you can take it from there. This whole post-modern experiment is running out of time. Break it up now before the shooting starts. If you want to see how this ends up, look at places like the Balkans, Libya and Syria.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 05, 2014 8:13 AM  

But then, perhaps Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theories were all along just a reflection of his political ideology. Being a Marxist, he believed in violent, revolutionary change, not gradual progress.

No, punctuated equilibrium is necessary to explain why the fossil record doesn't match the theory of Darwinian gradualism. It used to be called saltation, and before the blind acceptance of Darwin's theory, it was widely seen as a major mark against Darwin's theory.

It was later swept under the rug, until various lines of discussion about the processes of evolution in paleontological discussions in particular made it obvious again. Gould had to address it, so he gave it a fancier new name and adapted it to neo-Darwinian theory, and bam! there it was. There's still no explanation from Darwinists about how it works or why, but at least they now don't have to pretend that saltation followed by stability in species doesn't exist.

Anonymous DrTorch May 05, 2014 8:15 AM  

Since racial features are a product of gene expression, the initial part of this claim is trivial, perhaps even tautological. The fact that secular biologists (stop calling them scientists!) are stunned by this is not that big of a surprise.

The initial question that needs to be answered is this, to what extent do those genetic differences make? Are they primarily physical features, or does this run much deeper into psychology? Or deeper still into ethical and other religious and philosophical questions?

Science is about precision. The importance of that is clear for interplanetary spacecraft, and photolithography. What does it mean in genetics?

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 8:17 AM  

the law's job is to enunciate clearly to all what behavior will get you what treatment within society.

Precisely. But there are fundamental, biologically-based differences between groups as to what behaviors are and are not socially acceptable. Most Anglo's, for example, do awful in societies with lots of petty corruption and casual violence, so they build polite, complex societies that stress Lockean ethics. Most latinos and negroes, on the other hand, find such a society stultifying and oppressive, so they argue for socialist economics and preferences for their tribe.

These differing worldviews are simply irreconcilable. The reason the place doesn't explode is because we pay a bunch of police and military enough money that they have a personal stake in the status quo.

When that money runs out, the police and military will soldier on for about a week. Then they'll leave to go protect their families.

Anonymous MrGreenMan May 05, 2014 8:18 AM  

@ScuzzaMan

I don't disagree with most of what you say, but here's where we part ways, and, perhaps it's because you haven't seen it:

Have you seen black kids, sent to the elite schools, because the school needed more diversity? And then watched them fail and be replaced by another group, sold on the exact same lies? The Dean wants to look across the quad and see a mixed-race hacky-sack ring. Does he know that they are under-prepared and unqualified? If you had the Detroit Free Press article from Graettinger v. Bowler, you would have the University of Michigan chief academic officer saying that they were deliberately lowering criteria to get the human props of the right skin tone on campus. Graduation rate was a separate concern.

Have you talked to the "girls in tech" girls who burn out and then become lost 30-somethings who don't know why the script broke? There's another line of girls coming in the door on the left as the machine spits out the used up, broken women at the far right end of the diversity racket assembly line.

Have you done ministry or missionary work with black people, and noticed that there's one of you who's inclined to suggest we sit around a circle and have a deep, close reading of a verse, and there's a different one of you who's inclined to suggest we pour out some emotion into a song to memorize and memorialize that verse? And it's usually the black guy who seems made in the mode of Apollus - vehement, charismatic, earnest, but needing more depth of learning? He is also able to create an emotional connection with the crowd.

Have you then wondered why we live in a country that says we must have equality of outcomes, even though your eyes teach you that people's own natural inclinations make this impossible? We're supposed to have boards of directors - representing the culmination of people in their field who now are the white beards to explain and oversea operations - that have a racial and gender makeup wholly different from the companies they oversea. Then, the federal government makes up a tort so people can sue since the outcomes didn't come out "equal".

If we have to put the scales over our eyes and say that all are equal in preferences, and aptitudes, and abilities - we wind up shoving people through a sausage making machine not of their own real choosing, but what the education-government apparatus brainwashes them into, and then they emerge broken and chewed up on the other side, having had years wasted living out somebody else's life. This fundamentally rejects the Christian idea of gifts of the spirit - we all expect to receive some gift of the spirit as a sign of grace and the inner working of the Holy Spirit. However, we do not expect the same gifts. A gift for evangelism, a gift for apologetics, a gift for caring for end-of-life people -- these are all different gifts. They are suited to who we are as people. The leftist worldview where we must pretend that we'll make the New Man by smashing enough people through the mold of what the prince of the air's minions who run America feel like today is directly counter to a religion where we have a direct, personal relationship with God, and we each live out a life designed to provide us with specific tutoring in preparation for round two.

Anonymous Erik May 05, 2014 8:28 AM  

finndistan: But the lowest estimate of false paternity isn't 10%. More like 1%.

http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/by-blows-paternal-age-and-all-that/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/20/opinion/la-oe-zuk-paternity-20100620

Anonymous Charles Peguy May 05, 2014 8:33 AM  

Here's how I think it will pan out:

1) In the short run, Wade will be condemned by the company he is seen to be keeping (the most prominent mentions of the book so far come from a veritable rogue's gallery: Murray, Derbyshire, Vox Day, Sailer, VDARE, Amren...) by the polite (read: cowardly) centre-left elites. The usual suspects (Tim Wise and the SJW express) will go for the throat, and Wade will backpedal as far as he can without conceding the central thesis. He'll disown most of the above mentioned hatethinkers (save for perhaps Charles Murray). Some of the braver STEMmy lefties with a bit of cultural capital to burn will stick their necks out an inch or two (Pinker, who has poked around the fringes of HBD in his previous books, and maybe Dawkins) in Wade's defence.

2) In the long run, as the White population continues to shrink as a percentage of America's total and things keep getting worse and worse, and the evidence of the truth of HBD continues to pile up, the genetic narrative will seamlessly be woven into the white privilege narrative (and arguably, arguing that genetic privilege is unfair is a much more coherent position than arguing about something as mutable as 'white privilege'). Some 'brave' writer will test the waters by writing an 'even if...' piece for Slate/The Atlantic/Salon ("even if Wade's argument is true, doesn't that mean we should increase affirmative action blah blah blah"). Once permission is given from the appropriate cultural gatekeepers, the switch from RACIST to WELL OF COURSE THERE ARE GENETIC DIFFERENCES....will happen pretty quickly, as most milquetoast liberals and NRO conservatives will feel relieved that they've finally been liberated from the imperative to not notice the bleedingly obvious. The White privilege narrative will possibly even be strengthened by the acceptance of HBD.

Anonymous paradox May 05, 2014 8:38 AM  

It will be interesting to see how science-loving equalitarians react to the discovery that they will have to choose between science and their faith.

Meh... it's predictable what they will do. They'll revoke science degrees, like they stripped a basketball owner of his team.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 8:43 AM  

Good stuff, Green Man.

Have you done ministry or missionary work with black people, and noticed that there's one of you who's inclined to suggest we sit around a circle and have a deep, close reading of a verse, and there's a different one of you who's inclined to suggest we pour out some emotion into a song to memorize and memorialize that verse? And it's usually the black guy who seems made in the mode of Apollus - vehement, charismatic, earnest, but needing more depth of learning? He is also able to create an emotional connection with the crowd.

That was, idealistically any way, the whole thinking behind Orthodox ecclesiology: every Nation gets its own Church. Universalism is heretical, but that's just me talking.

Anonymous CLK May 05, 2014 8:45 AM  

"It will be interesting to see how science-loving equalitarians react to the discovery that they will have to choose between science and their faith."

As an observation .. we seem to arbitrarily pick and choose what scientific ideas we accept and what we don't. Here we accept a scientific theory that fits what we believe.

To play devils advocate.. the way that you feel regarding this seems similar to how others might feel about young earth, evolution etc... The race thing is particularly interesting because it always seemed that the drive to human equality was a religious based concept (albeit mistaken) that was adopted into science in the second half of the 20th century --- so to see that now analysis of actual DNA actually results in differences between the previously discredited race classifications will be interesting... but if that same technology would also to show that man has evolved from apes I wonder if we will be a open in accepting it...

Anonymous Michael May 05, 2014 8:56 AM  

finndistan, "Genes be raciss..."

God created and separated us into different races/ethnicity. I'm certain that He had a reason, although I'm uncertain as to what that may be. Perhaps there's a clue in the story of the Tower of Babel.

One thing's for sure. I prefer that each ethnic make-up remain intact because it creates a beautiful diversity of culture, art and ideas. As with ice cream, there are times when one wants vanilla or chocolate, strawberry or coffee, et al. If everything was this nondescript neapolitan mix, wouldn't that be awful.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 9:02 AM  

@CLK - I think Fred Reed has done a good job asking the right questions. Some sort of genetic selection is clearly taking place, but there are a lot of nuts-and-bolts problems that nobody seems interested in tackling. I'm not a scientist, so maybe somebody has already demolished Fred on this point but I don't think so.

Anonymous Mike M. May 05, 2014 9:04 AM  

Mr. Green Man hit it out of the park and into low earth orbit.

Different people have different talents and capabilities. Those differences do not, however, eliminate the duty to follow the Golden Rule. To deal honestly with your neighbor...and insist that he deal honestly with you.

A sensible society will do this, and every individual in that society will be as successful as his innate abilities and strength of character will allow.

Ours is not a sensible society. Not yet.

Blogger tz May 05, 2014 9:06 AM  

This may be like our increasing ability to find contaminants - parts per million becomes parts per billion and the three molecules of bichlorinated-nasty in the glass of water makes headlines. But how meaningful? I forget which cytochrome we are closer to a duck than any primate.

Data needs interpretation. Like Climate.

And this works for human bodies, but what about human souls?

Anonymous joe doakes May 05, 2014 9:08 AM  

I know the Truth. This book denies the Truth. It threatens to lead astray the unwary in our society. The book must be destroyed. Its author must be destroyed. The evil we face is so great that any means are justified, to protect our society and its freedoms, the most fundamental of which is the right to speak Truth to Power, but only Truth, not lies, which I alone can distinguish.

The same lines could be written by a Catholic in the Middle Ages, an Islamic Fundamentalist or a modern American Liberal.

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 9:13 AM  

"soon it will be impossible to conceal the important and necessary discussions about reality under nonsensical accusations of racism."

It's unimportant that the various races and ethnicities vary genetically. What's important to a society is the way by which it may not insist upon equality under the law for all the races. Historically, this has been the damaging proposition in the United States. Whether or not a person, upon seeing a black man, believes that he is justified treating that man differently because of their skin color or physical traits isn't that important...as long as the civil rights of all citizens are the same and protected.

That's the only issue of "equality" that is important.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 9:15 AM  

@tz - you just hope by asking a different set of questions that you'll eventually get the answer you like. This is how Progressivists convince themselves they're open-minded.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 9:22 AM  

as long as the civil rights of all citizens are the same and protected.

But all citizens are not the same, and they have wildly divergent ideas about what their "rights" are. Unless you have similar averages among groups, it's awfully hard to have a viable society without putting everybody in the same straitjacket.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 9:23 AM  

> As to all being equal before the law, is it not the job of the law to differentiate on moral grounds?

No. The law, being a tool, differentiates solely on legal grounds. It's the responsibility of the people to craft laws which have a moral basis.

But when all cultures are considered equally valid and there is no recognized objective morality, how is that supposed to happen?

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 9:28 AM  

"But all citizens are not the same, and they have wildly divergent ideas about what their "rights" are. Unless you have similar averages among groups, it's awfully hard to have a viable society without putting everybody in the same straitjacket."

Of course they are not all "the same". Some are women, some men, some old, some young, some white, some black, some rich, some poor. All citizens have never been the same. However, the definition of "citizen" applies to all equally, regardless of differences. As should protection under the law.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 9:31 AM  

Yes, all citizens should be treated equally under the law. But our laws have hugely disparate impact because we have hugely disparate citizens. Third World peoples have poor outcomes in First World societies so this is a hole we need to stop digging.

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 9:33 AM  

"Yes, all citizens should be treated equally under the law. But our laws have hugely disparate impact because we have hugely disparate citizens. Third World peoples have poor outcomes in First World societies so this is a hole we need to stop digging."

So, are you suggesting that with each law that is on the books there ought to be a clause the outlines which ethnic group it applies to?

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 9:38 AM  

"The law, being a tool, differentiates solely on legal grounds. It's the responsibility of the people to craft laws which have a moral basis.

But when all cultures are considered equally valid and there is no recognized objective morality, how is that supposed to happen?"

Most every law has a "moral basis" of some sort. What's interesting in your comment however is the idea of an "invalid cultures" or "invalid people". It's not an unusual idea, just weirdly worded. The law does distinguished....most commonly on the basis of whether or not we consider a group capable of exercising responsibility. Here I'm thinking of children. And of course at one time, we applied something like this thinking to women and non-whites. However, those latter two exceptions have been stripped from our legal code, happily.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 9:41 AM  

So, are you suggesting that with each law that is on the books there ought to be a clause the outlines which ethnic group it applies to?

No. I'm saying ethnic groups need to be free to form their own polities with laws that reflect their preferences. Multi-ethnic societies that purport to treat everybody the same despite vastly different ethno-cultural preferences are not healthy.

The Amish and Hasidim try, as fully as they are allowed, to carve out their semi-autonomous areas in an officially secular (atheistic) society. But that's probably not a good idea for Muslims and Sharia. The solution is not to let them in to secular or Christian society--the two worldviews are just too disparate

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 9:44 AM  

And of course at one time, we applied something like this thinking to women and non-whites. However, those latter two exceptions have been stripped from our legal code, happily.

Now, American women are heavily medicated and non-whites are bitter and discriminated against by pricing. Happy now?

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 9:49 AM  

"Now, American women are heavily medicated and non-whites are bitter and discriminated against by pricing. Happy now?"

Versus a status quo that did not treat women and non-whites equal under the law? Yes, very happy.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 9:50 AM  

> What's interesting in your comment however is the idea of an "invalid cultures" or "invalid people".

When two cultures have differing views on a matter, can both be valid at the same time in the same place, or is one valid and one invalid?

Anonymous MarkP May 05, 2014 9:50 AM  

"I expect that most of them will react as they did when economics made incontrovertibly clear the intrinsic contradictions of socialism and stubbornly cling to their antiscientific beliefs without admitting that they have openly rejected science."

Correct. Take the "Climate Change" ruse, as another example, and rinse and repeat.

It's only scientific truth if it supports leftist politics. Otherwise it's unscientific hogwash that must be tweaked until the 'correct' results are obtained.

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 9:56 AM  

"When two cultures have differing views on a matter, can both be valid at the same time in the same place, or is one valid and one invalid?"

You think race=culture. It doesn't. So, yes, despite differing views on a matter, two "cultures" can co-exist.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 05, 2014 9:57 AM  

Their views were so mainstream at the time it would have been career ending academic heresy to have said otherwise. Genetic Haplogroups were barely theoretical and genetic haplotypes hadn't been typed.

The argument of Nature vs Nurture had been settled by Scientific Consensus.* Anything that hinted of eugenics carried the whiff of Nazism and Leftists have always believed there is no behavior trait that can't be change with a little education (or Reeducation) anyway.

Now we are seeing paradigms shifted without a clutch everyday. Behavior traits are now linked to haplogroups.

For instance the L3 splitoff of supergroup N: subclades: A S and Y; have shown no ability to innovate. They never invented a way to create fire, they could use it but if it went out they were in trouble. They stuck with animist religions that a less enlightened age would call primitive. A lot of other examples but the bottom line was they couldn't invent things.

Another apple cart kicked over is the amount of Caucasian genes carried by African Americans. When I was kid, it was viewed as a fact that this number was around 90% therefore any problems the AA community had was strictly cultural and could be solved by (sigh) education. Turns out only one third of that community carries European haplotypes. Scarlett was keeping a sharper eye on Rhett than we thought.






*The only thing scientific about Scientific Consensus is the name.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 10:02 AM  

You think race=culture. It doesn't.

People generate culture. Africans and Anglo's, for example, generate extremely different cultures.

So, yes, despite differing views on a matter, two "cultures" can co-exist.

That's what the Ba'athists in Syria thought. That's what the Habsburgs thought. That's what the Soviet Union Central Committee thought.

Anonymous Alexander May 05, 2014 10:07 AM  

If differing cultures can so easily and naturally co-exist, then it shouldn't be necessary to shift ever increasing amounts of the national wealth from one group to another, nor should it be necessary to use the force of government to compel the groups to integrate.

Yet they do both, and fully accomplish neither.

Anonymous Athor Pel May 05, 2014 10:07 AM  

"Righter May 05, 2014 9:38 AM
...
And of course at one time, we applied something like this thinking to women and non-whites. However, those latter two exceptions have been stripped from our legal code, happily. "



It's funny you bring up women in this discussion, implying but not stating that they are a separate culture/race.

I'm sure the women in your life will be thrilled with your assessment.

Anonymous Alexander May 05, 2014 10:11 AM  

"Citizens" are not the same, are not treated the same, and have never been treated the same.

Half the citizens in this country, for instance, have conditional citizenship on the premise that they will be cannon fodder should the nation demand it.

Likewise, some "citizens" have the right to live and work at will in China, the EU, Israel, etc. etc. and some do not. Yet the citizens who have the legal right to escape to foreign lands have as much say as those who do not.

All citizens are equal, but some are clearly more equal than others!

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 10:11 AM  

Charles Murray: Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities.

That is incorrect. The nested hierarchy would still be evident.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 10:32 AM  

> You think race=culture. It doesn't.

So you're at telepath now? I never said it does.

> So, yes, despite differing views on a matter, two "cultures" can co-exist.

Sure they can. But which takes precedence when their differing views come into conflict?

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 10:34 AM  

James Dixon: But which takes precedence when their differing views come into conflict?

We might hope that dialogue, mutual respect, and the political process can lead to some sort of compromise.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 10:36 AM  

Reading Murray's review in the WSJ I kept recalling the prog mantra since the 80's, "Evolution in humans stopped 40,000 years ago" and "evololution stops at the neck". Not so baldly stated, of course. This book explodes both, as did the book "10,000 year explosion" a few years back.

Nicolas Wade has been hiding in plain sight at the NYT for a couple of decades. He writes in an accurate and mostly dispassionate way about topics that often are simply not to be mentioned anywhere else in the NY hivemind. He probably will catch some flak for the last few chapters, as Murray points out, but I do not expect him to lose his job.

"Equality" in the US has become a bed of Procrustes for far too many people, thanks to the myth of "all people are the same under the skin". It is hurting all of us in different ways. In the longer run it will do serious damage to the polity, to the economy, and thus to each of us in different ways.

The progs used to go around babbling "subvert the dominant paradigm" in the 80's. Wade is doing exactly that. More power to him.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 05, 2014 10:37 AM  

She eventually became a science teacher

Yeah, lying for science is no big deal after you have lied about being a victim of a hate crime so you could avoid responsibility for not doing your homework.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 10:38 AM  


We might hope that dialogue, mutual respect, and the political process can lead to some sort of compromise.


Can you show us a place where this is actually happening? Zimbabwe? Rwanda? South Africa? Kosovo? Syria? Anywhere?

Anonymous The other skeptic May 05, 2014 10:38 AM  

We might hope that dialogue, mutual respect, and the political process can lead to some sort of compromise.

You cannot compromise with a hungry lion.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 10:40 AM  

> We might hope that dialogue, mutual respect, and the political process can lead to some sort of compromise.

You can hope all you like. But some differences don't yield to compromise easily. There are numerous historical and even current examples of such.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 10:43 AM  


I wonder how much longer the progs and other lefties will insist they are "reality based" as reality is continually revealed to contradict their beliefs?

Throwing away a couple of centuries of mythmaking will be tough to do, but what other choice do they have?

Here's a fun meme: "Murray is just like Galileo, speaking unpleasant truth to the Church".

Anonymous The other skeptic May 05, 2014 10:43 AM  

That is incorrect. The nested hierarchy would still be evident.

Could you explain more of what you meant?

AFAIK, Lewontin's claim was that since there is more genetic variation within 'so-called' races than between, you can not create any nested hierarchy. That is, you cannot create any branching, and that a white person is indistinguishable, genetically, from a Hottentot.

Anonymous LES May 05, 2014 10:52 AM  

The reason there is no affirmative action in professional sports is because sports is too important.

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 11:00 AM  

The other skeptic: AFAIK, Lewontin's claim was that since there is more genetic variation within 'so-called' races than between, you can not create any nested hierarchy. That is, you cannot create any branching, and that a white person is indistinguishable, genetically, from a Hottentot.

There can be all sorts of intratribal variation, but still a nested hierarchy between tribes. For instance, assume a species evolves a high ridge brow. There may be a great deal of variation in the high ridge brow, but it still distinguishes the species from its relatives.

As for humans, there is more variation in aboriginal African populations, than in the diaspora.

As an example of within group variation, for human head shapes, there is more variation within groups than between groups. See Keita & Kittles, The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence, American Anthropologist 1997.

In addition, the reason race is considered a social construct is because the orthodox racial classification only has a tenuous connection to racial groups, for instance, grouping Khoisan with Bantus, for instance. Racial classification is much a result of the colonial experience.

OpenID whoresoftheinternet May 05, 2014 11:06 AM  

On a separate note, the fact that Wade has been writing this badthink for years in the very pages of the New Jerk Times proves that the New Jerk Times readers en mass never read their paper's science sections and only have them as window-dressing to make them appear science focused. Much like a woman who devotes her time "to charity for the homeless" but only yesterday discovered the homeless shelter that's been on her block for 20 years.

And now it will be cleansed, lest property values disintegrate.

The cult of leftism marches onward.

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 11:11 AM  

Charles Murray: But there is a depressing alternative: that social scientists will continue to predict planetary movements using Ptolemaic equations, as it were, and that their refusal to come to grips with "A Troublesome Inheritance" will be seen a century from now as proof of this era's intellectual corruption.

Ending with the Galileo Fallacy! Nicely done!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

OpenID cailcorishev May 05, 2014 11:19 AM  

We might hope that dialogue, mutual respect, and the political process can lead to some sort of compromise.

I knew this saying by the time I was six years old: spit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills up first. Maybe the main problem with liberals is that they never tried it.

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 11:20 AM  

cailcorishev: I knew this saying by the time I was six years old

Turns out that negotiation doesn't always work, but it does work sometimes.

Anonymous peppermint May 05, 2014 11:20 AM  

As an agnostic Catholic, I think it's more like a cardinal saying that sin doesn't exist.

The Church holds as an article of doctrine that some day, someone will come up with a satisfactory proof that God exists. Perhaps someone will.

The existence of sin and the need for salvation is knowable through observation and reason alone; which the progressives claim about their racial orthodoxy; to deny racial orthodoxy is to deny an entire class of sin, and call into question the entire purpose of the progressive movement; like how if God existed, but sin didn't, as so many people believe today, there is no reason to have a Church with sacraments.

Blogger RandalThorn May 05, 2014 11:21 AM  

@Zachriel

The link you just shared with us declared that the scientific consesus has been settled in regards to Global Warming. I hope you do not seriously take your ideas from that kind of page.

Anonymous Logo May 05, 2014 11:23 AM  

Ending with the Galileo Fallacy! Nicely done!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit


From the link you posted:

The Galileo gambit, or Galileo fallacy, is the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right.

Murray has not expressed or implied that vilification of a person proves the rightness of his ideas. So he has not committed any "Galileo Fallacy".

Anonymous NorthernHamlet May 05, 2014 11:27 AM  

Vox,

To pick up where we left off: because our measure of value was survival (per you), while genetics are only necessary for culture but since culture still affects genetics, by changing the unique genetic code of a race, culture is now necessary for genetics. Therefore, Blacks as a distinct cultural and genetic group would be deemed inferior in both regards, assuming we assigned probabilities of survival as you have.

I sum up your position as isolate and wait and the leftist position as ignore and dilute.

I humbly submit for your approval whether this means you met my definition as per our last conversation on racism. If anything I've said is unclear here, I won't belabor the point further.

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 11:28 AM  

RandalThorn: I hope you do not seriously take your ideas from that kind of page.

The definition of the Galileo Fallacy doesn't change with your opinion of the source. More technically, it's an undistributed middle.

"They laughed at Galileo, and he was right. They laugh at me, therefore I must be right."

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 11:28 AM  

Zachriel

We might hope that dialogue, mutual respect, and the political process can lead to some sort of compromise.


Once again I ask, can you show us a place where this is actually happening? Zimbabwe? Rwanda? South Africa? Kosovo? Syria? Anywhere?

We might hope for all sorts of things. But then we have to come back to reality.

Anonymous Rex Little May 05, 2014 11:36 AM  

Murray mentions five races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Where do South Asians (Indians/Pakistanis) fit into this? To my admittedly uninformed eye, they appear to be a race separate from any of those listed.

Anonymous Alexander May 05, 2014 11:37 AM  

How's this for a compromise:

Group A can have *this* geographical area, Groub B can have *that* geographical area, and anyone that wants to try A+B can go hang out in this other area.

But that sort of negotiation is hatecrime and 'ploitation and raciss.

No, as per usual, the only *negotiation* we're allowed to have is the one we're gonna get, right up until enough people decide they're not going to take it.

But at no point will it resemble a negotiation.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 11:39 AM  

> Turns out that negotiation doesn't always work, but it does work sometimes.

But when happens when it doesn't?

Anonymous Ted LeBee May 05, 2014 11:40 AM  

Wade is notorious for using selective facts. As an example he states that "Europeans and Asians gained the paler skin necessary for living in northern latitudes." African-Americans who live, say, in New York City may be surprised to learn from Wade that they lack "the paler skin necessary" to live where they live. But indeed, Wade's stubborn belief in the biological realness of race leads him to just such a foolish claim.


Hopefully, this mental midget will be ignored into obscurity where he belongs.

Blogger Zachriel May 05, 2014 11:40 AM  

A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents: Once again I ask, can you show us a place where this is actually happening?

Many place. For instance, the U.S. reformed its system of Jim Crow segregation largely through political means. Most of the world resolves differences politically.


Anonymous Roundtine May 05, 2014 11:41 AM  

Hey, don't slander us Creationists like that!

I know, Creationists actually do science. The left is truly denialist on this issue.

Anonymous Gibbons May 05, 2014 11:42 AM  

The only civil rights the regime is interested in protecting and extending are those of non-whites. When they changed the immigration laws in 1965 to favor non-whites, they set in motion the purposeful slow motion genocide of my race in the US.

Regime approved programs called Diversity and Multiculturalism, are aimed at eliminating all areas that are "too white", whether they be towns, schools, neighborhoods, companies, States or Nations. Anything and Everything that is still primarily white, is being targeted. They are literally chasing down the last white man. They talk about equality and fairness while they implement white genocide.

Anonymous Logo May 05, 2014 11:42 AM  

"They laughed at Galileo, and he was right. They laugh at me, therefore I must be right."

Who are you quoting? Can you give any examples of people actually making this argument?

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 05, 2014 11:45 AM  

The same lines could be written by a Catholic in the Middle Ages, an Islamic Fundamentalist or a modern American Liberal.

The myth of the Dark Ages Catholic who didn't believe in anything "scientific" is a tiresome one already. And I'm not even a Catholic.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 11:46 AM  


Many place. For instance, the U.S. reformed its system of Jim Crow segregation largely through political means.

American Schools Are More Segregated Than Ever

Anonymous civilServant May 05, 2014 11:50 AM  

If the subjects' ancestors came from all over the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea. If the subjects all come from European ancestry, the clusters will instead correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the rest of Europe's many ethnicities.

Why stop there? There are so many more divisions to be had.

utterly inexplicable to the Morlocks, who have no imagination, and need none.

We sons of Adam are exiles here on this world. It does not suit us.


Why stop with Morlocks and "sons of Adam"? There are so many more divisions to be had.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 11:55 AM  

Why stop there? There are so many more divisions to be had.

As I put it, people are more diverse than even the diversitarians want to admit. I also like to ask them where they think 'diversity' came from. So far it's been a conversation-stopper every time.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 11:57 AM  

> Most of the world resolves differences politically.

I'd have to disagree with that assertion. It's my observation that political resolutions are the rarity, not the norm, worldwide. Readers are advised to take a look at the evidence and decide for themselves.

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 05, 2014 12:04 PM  

...you cannot create any branching, and that a white person is indistinguishable, genetically, from a Hottentot.

Well, if you stand on your head..... But the KhoiKhoi people (AKA Hottentots)* are around 50% Haplogroup A, the rest distributed across a few other haplogroups at much lower frequencies, with less than 1% or so in R1b.

My own ancestors stomping ground, Great Britain, OTOH, also has multiple haplogroups (multiple waves of immigration and settlement and all that) with R1b being most frequent. There is ONE familial lineage in Yorkshire that falls into A1... the result of a vigorous Roman Alpha Male on Hadrian's wall from West Africa.

There is always a bit of haziness around the edges, as there has been more mobility in the human population than we like to think.

There was always an alpha male around somewhere that was exploring with more than just his feet.

*AKA The People People or The Real People or The Only People or The Only Real People Who Should Not be Killed and Cannibalized Indiscriminately Without Local Admonishment Yes I Am Talking to You Zachriel People.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 12:06 PM  

The myth of the Dark Ages Catholic who didn't believe in anything "scientific" is a tiresome one already.

Others have done the same, but atheist engineer Lawrence Brown wrote a book destroying that myth in about 1960:

The Might of the West

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:14 PM  

> Resolved in this context just means enough accommodation to avoid the alternative of violent conflict.

As I said, I'd have to disagree. Violent conflict seems the norm worldwide. A far higher percentage of people seem to use it than any political process. As noted, the reader should decide for themselves based on the evidence. YMMV.

Of course, there are schools of thought which say that violent conflict is just another political process, but I assume you don't hold to them.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 12:17 PM  

The last we checked, there was no campaign of genocide in the U.S., and whites have very strong representation in government.

Whites who conform to nutty cultural Marxist dogma are the only ones allowed in government.

Paleoconservative Intellectual Paul Gottfried Interviewed
(...)
Paul: “So you’re saying that these people who have chosen the role of victimizers have a right to organize in self-defense in the same way that all the groups whom they’ve privileged as victims have been able to do. I see it as a non-starter. I don’t think whites have a nationalist sense. I don’t think they’ve had a nationalist sense. My concern is not with the lack of nationalism but with the masochism they are expressing, the self-destructiveness. Nationalism is always organizing against other groups. What whites need to do is to stop beating themselves and treating other groups according to their just deserts.”

Luke: “You see no hope for whites organizing in their group interest like Jews and Chinese and blacks?”

Paul: “But whites are not successful at it. They destroy themselves. Most whites at most times do not buy into this white nationalism. There are other things that have united white people — ethnicity, religion, being a part of a particular nation. It is rare that whites have seen themselves in terms of racial nationalism.”

(...)
I don’t think the problem is that whites are beleaguered but that whites behave in a lunatic fashion. They just have to stop being lunatics. They don’t have to hate blacks or exclude them, just don’t be crazy. I worked at a college. I think most of the people I worked with were certifiable. The feminists, the anti-whites, they were just loony tunes. The answer is not to organize them as white nationalists, it is getting them to [stop] behaving in a crazy way.”
(...)

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:22 PM  

> However, violent conflict seems to be the exception nowadays...

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts would seem to disagree. And that's organized armed conflicts, not individual violence. Again though, YMMV.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:23 PM  

> There are virtually no Marxists in the U.S., in government or otherwise,

Does the name Barack Hussein Obama ring any bells with you?

Anonymous Logo May 05, 2014 12:24 PM  

Charles Murray just did.

No he didn't. He used "Ptolemaic equations" as an analogy for beliefs that have been proven false. Remember, the "Galileo Fallacy" is:

the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right.

For Murray to have committed this fallacy, then, he would have needed to express that the proponents of a certain idea -- in this case, HBD -- were vilified, and attempted to use this vilification as proof of the truth of that idea. Which he has not done. In fact, he quotes evidence from Wade for HBD's truth. But nowhere does he cite any opposition, to Wade or his ideas, as proof of the rightness of that idea.

So where exactly has Murray commit this fallacy? What exact words of his are you referring to? By what method have you derived this meaning from his words?

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:26 PM  

> Looks to be a minority of the world's population actually involved in the conflict.

At any given time. Take the span of a lifetime and see if that's till true.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic May 05, 2014 12:26 PM  

However, violent conflict seems to be the exception nowadays, at least in terms of war.

Practically every hot war on the globe right now is civil, which underscores the irresponsibility of promoting multiculturalism in a society.

Blogger Desiderius May 05, 2014 12:27 PM  

"Wade is notorious for using selective facts. As an example he states that 'Europeans and Asians gained the paler skin necessary for living in northern latitudes.' African-Americans who live, say, in New York City may be surprised to learn from Wade that they lack 'the paler skin necessary' to live where they live. But indeed, Wade's stubborn belief in the biological realness of race leads him to just such a foolish claim."

Well, he has it backwards - it was the ancestors of the Euros and Asians who didn't need all the melanin anymore after they got kicked out of the sun by the ancestors of Africans. But your conclusion does not follow.

"Hopefully, this mental midget will be ignored into obscurity where he belongs."

Hope is not a plan. Shoot that messenger and the drops of his blood will be as seeds for hundreds more. Truth will out.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 12:27 PM  

That doesn't even begin to make sense. There are virtually no Marxists in the U.S., in government or otherwise, unless you redefine the word into irrelevance. Ted Cruz is not a Marxist. Rick Perry is not a Marxist. Eric Cantor is not a Marxist.

Read this:

yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:28 PM  

> You said only nutty cultural Marxists are allowed in government.

I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out a prominent counter example to your claim.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:34 PM  

> Looks to be a minority of the world's population actually involved in the conflict.

Also, please note that while the US is shown as having no conflicts, at this very moment US troops are involved in multiple conflicts around the world. So the map understates the problem.

Anonymous Clayton Bigsby May 05, 2014 12:35 PM  

“First and foremost, it means the trillions of dollars we spend on education, Title VII, wars to turn Afghan tribesmen into Occidental social democrats, and other efforts for equality of outcomes are WASTED. Zero,nay, NEGATIVE returns.”

Well, what is it? Zero or negative returns? Major difference here. Please provide us with insight as to how you are able to make this generalization.


“that such divergent groups only exist as a single polity because an all-powerful central government keeps things together.”



Actually, individuals and the groups they belong to historically in America have collectively agreed through a social contract that their liberties are protected under the rule of law; this “central government” is reflective of the general will of the people to live their life separate from certain groups they find “objectionable” OR to immerse themselves, to varying degrees, into a community.


“Most Anglo's, for example, do awful in societies with lots of petty corruption and casual violence, so they build polite, complex societies that stress Lockean ethics.”



“Polite” meaning the use of jackboots to subjugate groups deemed “inferior”.


“Have you seen black kids, sent to the elite schools, because the school needed more diversity? And then watched them fail and be replaced by another group, sold on the exact same lies?”



No.


“Have you talked to the "girls in tech" girls who burn out and then become lost 30-somethings who don't know why the script broke?”



In some cases, sure. In other circumstances, no.


“If we have to put the scales over our eyes and say that all are equal in preferences, and aptitudes, and abilities - we wind up shoving people through a sausage making machine not of their own real choosing, but what the education-government apparatus brainwashes them into, and then they emerge broken and chewed up on the other side, having had years wasted living out somebody else's life.”



If we tip the balance by insisting that only certain groups are above or below average predicated on the subjective use of objective data, we end up casting aside an entire generation based on preconceived constructs, with a perverted interpretation of Christianity serving as the conduit for widespread subjugation.


“To deal honestly with your neighbor...and insist that he deal honestly with you.”



Except that this ideal had failed miserably in the past. See “legalized segregation”. See the categorization referred to as “third world peoples”. At its core, "tribalism" is used by political and religions leaders to further their own nefarious agenda. Take Zimbabwe, for example. An unprincipled Shona politician simply has to shout “Mundevere” to rally Shona voters to defeat a Ndebele politician. It has no bearing what one stands for--the Ndebele politician is deemed “a threat”. Similar to when claims of “Swaart Gevaar” (black danger) were employed by Afriakanner politicians to generate white support against black rule, or the labeling of opponents as “Communists” used by Ian Smith to win white support against black rule in Rhodesia in the early 1960's (he had outright refused to discuss a new constitution that would incorporate blacks into the political order). These tactics might work for the politicians, but they lead to the ruination of a country.


“But that's probably not a good idea for Muslims and Sharia. The solution is not to let them in to secular or Christian society--the two worldviews are just too disparate.”



ASSUMING that the majority of Muslims are thoroughly incapable of rejecting radical fundamentalism.


“Africans and Anglo's, for example, generate extremely different cultures.”



Which may be construed as “savage” or “civilized” depending on one’s world view.


“nor should it be necessary to use the force of government to compel the groups to integrate.”

It’s not coercion by government, but by the general will of citizens in a particular location.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:36 PM  

> Obama is hardly a Marxist. Do you even know what the term means?

Yes, I do. By which I can only conclude that your observations of reality bear little to no relationship to the real thing.

Anonymous twitter May 05, 2014 12:37 PM  

Zandar ‏@ZandarVTS 5h
When John Derbyshire and Vox Day cite your book's review by Charles Murray as proof their racist crap is proven by science, you lose big.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 12:37 PM  

That doesn't even begin to make sense. There are virtually no Marxists in the U.S., in government or otherwise, unless you redefine the word into irrelevance. Ted Cruz is not a Marxist. Rick Perry is not a Marxist. Eric Cantor is not a Marxist.

The evolution of America's current hegemonic ideology:

Minority Rule: The Rise of Political Correctness

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:38 PM  

> That's where you would normally put your definition.

You didn't ask me for a definition. You asked me if I knew what it meant.

Blogger Miguel D'Anconia May 05, 2014 12:42 PM  

It's also hilarious to see the same idiots that say race is only skin deep then turn around and say the homosexuality is genetic. Their twisted "logic" would be humorous if it wasn't for the damage it does to those who haven't taken the red pill.

Anonymous Porky May 05, 2014 12:44 PM  

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

- Clausewitz

Anonymous civilServant May 05, 2014 12:50 PM  

Why stop there? There are so many more divisions to be had.

As I put it, people are more diverse than even the diversitarians want to admit.


Oh no. No no no. They long to proclaim the ultimate division - "Me" vs "Most People". But it is not yet time.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:50 PM  

> It's called good faith conversation

Again, with the need for telepathy, I guess.

Really? And where exactly has that been taking place?

> How are you using the term Marxism?

I'm not. I do state that based on his past actions and statements Obama is a Marxist, however.

However, if you want a definition of Marxism, then let's start with Oxford:

"The political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels"

I would add "and their successor theories, such as communism, fascism, naziism, and revolutionary socialism", since there is a clear line of descent from Marx.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 12:52 PM  

> "War is the continuation of politics by other means." ... - Clausewitz

As I said, Porky, there are schools of thought...

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 1:00 PM  

> So the theory that the class struggle will intensify until there is a socialist revolution.

Carefully ignoring my addition, I see. Like I said, where is that good faith conversation taking place?

Anonymous Jack Amok May 05, 2014 1:01 PM  

African-Americans who live, say, in New York City may be surprised to learn from Wade that they lack "the paler skin necessary" to live where they live. But indeed, Wade's stubborn belief in the biological realness of race leads him to just such a foolish claim.

You don't know much about Vitamin D deficiency I guess. Darker skin protects against the sun, but inhibits Vitamin D production. Blacks living near the equator have no problems because they get more intense sunlight, but in higher latitudes, absent supplements they suffer from a deficiency. We've been supplementing milk with Vitamin D for decades, so the effect is somewhat muted, but if you go down the list of health risks for Vitamin D deficiency, it reads like a list of problems Black Americans (but not Black Africans) experience at a much higher rate than Whitey does.

You should try to have your facts straight before accusing someone else of being sloppy with theirs.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 1:01 PM  

Here's some help with the concept of cultural Marxism:

Yes Virginia [Dare], There Is A “Cultural Marxism”
(...)
Still and all, the Frankfurt School, and especially its second generation as represented by the fervent “anti-fascist” Jürgen Habermas, has been far more interested in social engineering than in government ownership of the means of production distribution and exchange—the classic definition of socialism. From The Authoritarian Personality, edited by Adorno and his collaborator Max Horkheimer and brought out in 1950 by the American Jewish Committee (then and now funders of Commentary), to the repeated attempts by Habermas and his fervent followers to make German education politically useful to the anti-national Left, the Frankfurt School has focused on “anti-fascist” attitudes and behavioral patterns. Whether this can be extracted from Communist practice, or from Marx’s materialist view of class and history, are open questions.

But whatever the case, Frankfurt School-intellectuals rallied to Lenin’s Russia and later sympathized variously with the Communist DDR , were close to, if not always members of, the German Communist Party, and traced their work back to Marxist concepts. In short, they were social reformers in a hurry who also claimed to be Marxists.

I would however note that we’ve allowed things to happen that go well beyond anything that the founding generation of the Frankfurt School might have wanted. To my knowledge the original members never called for gay marriage or for handing over Western countries to hostile non-Westerners. Nor did they exhibit the loathing for ethnic national identities that has become characteristic of the multicultural Left (and the Respectable Right).

(...)
Is it possible, however, to talk about “cultural Marxism” as a purely descriptive term? Does “cultural Marxism” describe in a neutral enough fashion the movement of ideas that came out of the Frankfurt School and which has gained a powerful hold on Western countries?

In my book, The Strange Death of Marxism, I argued that these ideas established themselves as leftist programs and progressive rhetoric throughout Western Europe, Canada, and the US before the fall of the Soviet empire. They evolved into a form of leftist radicalism that could coexist with consumer societies and mixed economies, because they focused on culture and society much more than they did the economy. Frankfurt School ideas have encouraged a war without quarter against bourgeois institutions and national identities—but that war does not necessarily require far-reaching change in the structure of the economy.

(...)

Anonymous Logo May 05, 2014 1:02 PM  

He's clearly making a comparison to Galileo and the Inquisition.

He said nothing about Galileo or the Inquisition. He used Ptolemaic equations as an analogy for beliefs that have been disproved but which people still cling to. That is the extent of his "comparison". That the controversy over the Ptolemaic system is linked in common opinion with the Galileo affair is irrelevant to your accusations. Nowhere has he claimed that "if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right." Which is what he'd have to do for him to have committed the Galileo fallacy.

Don't laugh at us. We're Galileo!

You are making a fool of yourself. This is not any quote written by Charles Murray, nor does the quote resemble any sentiment expressed or implied by him. The quote and its sentiments are the product of your own imagination. You are attributing to reality the qualities of the figments of your own mind. Can you tell the difference between the two?

Murray has not expressed this sentiment. None of it follows from anything he has said. Drawing an analogy between a system of belief, and the Ptolemaic system, is not the same as expressing agreement with "the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right." Nor for that matter would "making a comparison to Galileo and the Inquisition," amount to this "Galileo fallacy" either. Any more than drawing a comparison between the red of apples and the red of blood amounts to a claim that apples are made from blood, or blood from apples. It does not follow.

To have committed this Galileo fallacy, one would have to express his agreement with "the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right." Charles Murray has not done this. You cannot demonstrate that he has, nor have you even given us the method by which you have determined he has done so. Do you even have a method? Have you reached this conclusion by some conscious thought? Or was it that you read his words, and just jumped unconsciously to the conclusion that he must have been committing this "Galileo fallacy". Because a conscious reading of the text does not bear this conclusion out.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 1:02 PM  

And in any case, given his actions so far, what would you call Obama's attempt to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" if not a socialist revolution?

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 1:04 PM  

cont'd

However, despite this semantic history, it still seems to me that “cultural Marxist” may still be applied in a non-derogatory and impartial manner. For example, the discussion of it found in Wikipedia, which is certainly no collection of rightwing opinions by rightwing contributors, is entirely non-judgmental.

The entry discusses a disagreement between William Lind and myself on whether cultural Marxists are actually Marxists in any meaningful sense. Bill takes the position that they are, while I disagree—to quote me in The Strange Death of Marxism, “Cultural Marxists” have “moved beyond Marxism … into a militantly antibourgeois stance that operates independently of Marxist economic assumptions”. I think they should be viewed as heretics or a breakaway sect (like Mormonism?)

But our debate has nothing to do with differing ideologies, since the two of us hold almost identical political views. I simply come down in the company of orthodox Marxists in stating my judgment, while Lind seems to accept a more expansive definition.

It is hard for me to imagine that the founders of the Institute, when they began their enterprise in 1923, would have objected to being called “cultural Marxists”. They defined themselves as social-cultural critics and theorists who had been influenced by Marxism. Why would “cultural Marxist” be an inaccurate way of characterizing their identity or vocation—before that term acquired a pejorative sense?

Similarly, it seems to me that we entirely justified in describing leftist vigilante groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC—$PLC to VDARE.com) as “cultural Marxist”. They may or not have views on government control of the economy, but they are unmistakably totalitarian in their drive to suppress and destroy deviationists from the party line on race, gender, “discrimination” etc.

A final argument for retaining the term: we should not surrender any more ground to leftist shrieking and blackmail. For the last forty years, the Left has had its way semantically completely—except perhaps for the popular acceptance of the terms “politically correct” and “War Against Christmas”. We abandoned Negro for black and then for African-American; we were browbeaten into calling homosexuals “gays” and pushed into celebrating cultural-social disintegration as “diversity.”

Why allow the “anti-fascist” enemies of freedom in Europe and America to take away the term “cultural Marxist” and force us to use in its place their own flattering description of what they like?

If they want to reject our term for something more soothing to their ears, then that’s all the more reason to hold on to it.

An observation made by Schelsky decades ago still holds: once the Left becomes sovereign over meaning (Deutungshoheit), then all discussion must take place on its turf.

This, of course, is why the Left hates the fact that the term Political Correctness has entered the language—and why they are fighting so hard to discredit to the concept of the War On Christmas.

Let’s not give up “cultural Marxism”! By now, it sounds refreshingly non-leftist.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 1:16 PM  

> So you're saying Obama's a Nazi? Or a communist? All of them? Maybe something in between?

I said he was a Marxist. You then asked for a definition, which I supplied. You then grabbed onto what you thought was the most egregious usage and objected. When I pointed out exactly how it applied, you now claim I must mean something else.and grab onto what you hope are even more egregious usages.

But yeah, you want "good faith conversation".

Anonymous DrTorch May 05, 2014 1:17 PM  

The Amish and Hasidim try, as fully as they are allowed, to carve out their semi-autonomous areas in an officially secular (atheistic) society.

Somewhat off topic, but last week I was driving in NY state, and came across a town that was dominated by Hassidic Jews.

What struck me was that this one neighborhood was a slum. Nice looking suburban townhomes were surrounded by trash. Looked like a landfill. Very odd.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 05, 2014 1:19 PM  

That doesn't even begin to make sense. There are virtually no Marxists in the U.S., in government or otherwise, unless you redefine the word into irrelevance.

Conservatives are often guilty of being over-eager to label someone with the communist or socialist (or other derivative Marxist) label, but liberals have been equally over-eager to create new labels in order to pretend that they have no association with past ideologies that have fallen from favor.

While few would deny that there are differences between them, few should deny that Progressivism, fascism, communism, socialism, the New Deal, modern liberalism and a host of other big-statist government philosophies are not mostly the same set of failed ideas dusted off, rearranged slightly, slapped with a new coat of paint and a superficial change to some ancillary doctrines and presented anew as if they are all not various heads of the same hydra.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 05, 2014 1:20 PM  

As to all being equal before the law, is it not the job of the law to differentiate on moral grounds?

No, it's the legitimate job of The Law to hold everyone - regardless of their race or culture - to the same moral standards. If some group is less capable of meeting those standards, you can either allow them to be members of society but expect they will be punished more frequently, or you can exclude them from your society as incompatible with it. If you don't want to exclude a people from your society, then you've got to hold them to a standard that only a few of them will meet. If you don't want to hold them to a standard like that, then you've got to kick them out. Trying anything else just won't work.

Now, there are two important aspects that most people - caught up in their own philosophy - overlook. One, some members of the "other" race will absolutely be able to meet your standards. There may be more Trayvon Martins that there are Thomas Sowells, but the Thomas Sowells still exist. If you uphold race-blind standards, you can let the Thomas Sowells in a citizens and gain from their abilities. You can't do that if you have different standards for different groups, because that will eventually lead to kicking Thomas Sowell out along with Trayvon Martin because you can't allow the Martin's in for very long before society falls apart.

The other thing people miss is that the fewer "you musts" and the more "you shoulds" that you have, the better two ethnicities can get along. "You musts" are non-negotiable, everybody not only has to follow them, but also has to assist in enforcing them. Gray areas with "you musts" are very bad. "You shoulds" are optional, and work well for gray areas. Negotiation can be successful with "you shoulds" because either party is free to walk away, which tends to keep both sides more honest.

A small government that applies a limited number of laws equally to all ethnicities? Maybe we could try that...

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... May 05, 2014 1:23 PM  

Cultural Marxism is an utterly philosophical facade, devoid of substantive intellectual meaning, whose purpose by its adherents is to brainwash and shame conservative and liberal parents into believing that their fundamental choices regarding educational and social policies are psychologically destroying their children and morally bankrupting society at large.

As far as Obama being labeled as a "Marxist", 'fascist", "communist", or "socialist", take your pick. The acolytes who make these pronouncements are equally contemptible as those who claim that conservatives as "racist", "sexist", or "homophobic". These philosophies in today's society are utterly meaningless to the lives of everyday people, save for the talking heads and eggheads on the Internet.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 05, 2014 1:26 PM  

Um, yes. It really is.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 1:26 PM  

> You provided multiple definitions with any guidance as to which you meant.

I provided a single definition, with multiple examples.

> No, Naziism would be the most egregious.

Which you included in your question.

> You still haven't told us which definition you are using.

I quoted your "socialist revolution" in my response.

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 05, 2014 1:27 PM  

These philosophies in today's society are utterly meaningless to the lives of everyday people, save for the talking heads and eggheads on the Internet.

In other words, it's a weapon for taking the fight into enemy territory.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 1:29 PM  

> Modern liberalism is not the same as fascism.

Brandon Eich and Donald Sterling might have a few words of disagreement for you.

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 05, 2014 1:35 PM  

"In addition, the reason race is considered a social construct is because the orthodox racial classification only has a tenuous connection to racial groups, for instance, grouping Khoisan with Bantus, for instance. Racial classification is much a result of the colonial experience. "

Ahhh, I see you are committing Lewontin's fallacy.

Anonymous bob k. mando May 05, 2014 1:36 PM  

Zachriel May 05, 2014 12:21 PM
There are virtually no Marxists in the U.S., in government or otherwise, unless you redefine the word into irrelevance. Ted Cruz is not a Marxist.


Zachriel May 05, 2014 12:39 PM
It's called good faith conversation.



so much for 'good faith conversation'.

who the hell would assert that Ted Cruz is a marxist? Cruz is in the Republican MINORITY in the US Senate. only someone who was trying to muddy the waters and derange the conversation would do such a thing.


Obama appointed a self-avowed communist ( Van Jones: "'By August, I was a communist.' In 1994, the story states, Jones formed a socialist collective ) .

Anita Dunn considers Mao one of her favorite 'political philosophers'.

Obama himself was a member of the New Party and had signed a contract with them to publicly affiliate himself with them if elected.

and that's not even going into Obama being raised by a marxist family, in a marxist school and then consorting with convicted marxist domestic terrorists Ayers and Dorhn in Chicago.

Harry Dexter White and Alger Hiss are only two of the more notorious agents who worked directly for Stalin's Soviet Russia.

Bernie Sanders, today, right now, sits on the US Senate.

so ... no 'marxists' in American government? go fuck yourself.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 1:36 PM  

To be fair, The Frankfurt School's The Authoritarian Personality was the one really influential work of what came to be Cultural Marxism:

here
(...)
Paul Gottfried writes:
You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the postwar reconstruction of German “civic culture’ and the work was deeply admired by SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly. Adorno was only half-Jewish and raised as a Catholic but nonetheless paraded his Jewish genes in explaining how he had arrived at his critique of bourgeois, Christian society. It is furthermore is silly to pretend that Jews have not played a DISPROPORTIONATE role in greasing the skids for our moral and social disintegration. To recognize this is to recognize reality. What is more dubious is that Jews have caused this ruin, without the enthusiastic support or at least cowardly acquiescence of the white Christian majority. Although it is correct to note the significant Jewish contribution to the present decadence, it is naive to think that Jews are the only culprits in what you and I deplore.

(...)
Prof. Gottfried replies:
Christopher Lash’s True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the mainstream liberal support for The Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s. Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno’s ideas.

(...)



Anonymous Josh May 05, 2014 1:42 PM  

Whenever I see someone use the terms cultural marxism and the Frankfurt school, my default is to ignore that person.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 1:47 PM  

Well, Josh, when I see several screens of text per post, my default is to ignore that person. Strange how those have the same result, isn't it? :)

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 2:01 PM  

An ex-Marxist WN thinks it's all the fault of Anglo-American liberalism:

here
(...)
Once conservatism discredited liberalism, they claim it was replaced by an even more potent ideology—that of Political Correctness or multiculturalism (as if these weren’t also forms of liberal thought).

In their view this new ideology is a form of “cultural Marxism,” as developed by the Frankfurt School, whose goal was allegedly to destroy Western Civilization for the sake of imposing the “soft totalitarianism” described in Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel Brave New World.

(...)
The first point that needs raising, then, is that the left in general and Marxism in particular (including the Frankfurt School) have almost nothing to do with what today passes for the left—which instead of defending the popular classes from the market’s predatory forces endeavors now to remake them in the therapeutic image of the postmodern tribes (feminists, gays, nonwhites, etc.) it champions. (In this context it’s worth noting that white nationalism, like fascism and National Socialism before it, owes as much to the historic working-class left as it does to the anti-liberal nationalist right).

Historically, both liberalism and the anti-liberal left (Marxism, anarchism, utopianism, etc.) arose as political offshoots of Enlightenment rationalism. Rationalism’s critique of Catholicism, aristocracy, and the traditional organization of Indo-European society served, as such, as a political/intellectual battering ram to clear away whatever impediments the ancien régime had posed to the ascent of the newly emancipated forces of late 18th and early 19th-century capitalism.

(...)
Yet however anti-Catholic and subversive, liberals, socialists, and Marxists were not consciously subverting “Western Civilization.” In the eyes of these leftists, they themselves were the true representatives of the Renaissance humanism, Reformation individualism, 17th-century science, and 18th-century Enlightenment constituting the fundament of modern European civilization. (Consider the cultural history of the former Soviet Union, which was culturally truer to the Western cultural heritage than the liberal, bourgeois regimes of the West.)

Today, of course, we know that the left’s vision of “Western Civilization” threatens not just the existence of Europe’s cultural heritage, but its genetic heritage as well. This, though, is something quite different than arguing that such was its self-ascribed aim.

(...)
What Lind, Weyrich, and most conservatives seem unable (or unwilling) to recognize is that the nihilism assaulting our culture—along with the family, the existing institutions, and everything else that once made up our historic way of life—is a product not of a tiny group of exiled German Jews...Rather, this nihilism grew out of a political-economic system indigenous to the American experience.

In other words, the cultural/psychological conditioning that has turned most of our countrymen into giant digestive tubes wasn’t the work of a few exiled Jewish misfits intent on destroying Western Civilization. As the most cursory glance of the last century’s developments suggests, it was, instead, a product of Big Business and the consumer capitalism necessary to its new forms of production. All the things that Lind and Weyrich identify with cultural Marxism were, in fact, already at work in the early 1920s, before the Frankfurt School had even come into existence. It was only the Crash of 1929 that temporarily sidetracked the ascent of the subversive cultural forces associated with the new corporate forms of mass production.


(...)










Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 2:01 PM  

> There's nothing fascist about people being able to complain about Eich or Sterling, or of private organizations cutting ties with people who bring their organization into disrepute.

Since you seem to like being pedantic, I'll merely point out that I didn't say they would be correct, only that they might disagree.

However, like I said, I can only conclude that your observations of reality bear little to no relationship to the real thing.

Anonymous civilServant May 05, 2014 2:03 PM  

As far as Obama being labeled as a "Marxist", 'fascist", "communist", or "socialist", take your pick.

Actually all these systems (and all the others such as capitalism libertarianism et al) tend to converge to a single endpoint - an elite ruling over non-citizen serfs. People argue and fight over the definitions and merits of the various starting points but the end point is the same.

Anonymous fnn May 05, 2014 2:04 PM  

Whenever I see someone use the terms cultural marxism and the Frankfurt school, my default is to ignore that person.

Yeah, it's all them dam yankees!

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 05, 2014 2:14 PM  

It is amusing that the media is ready to speculate about how much money Putin has acquired during his time in office and where he has secreted it:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/02/tunnelling-wealth-to-vladimir-putin/

However, they wont entertain the same speculation about any holders of high office in the US.

The interesting question is, given that the US has the largest economy in the world, what is the value of the Presidency to the individual or family who holds it? Is it $1 per citizen per year of office? Is it $10 per citizen per year of office?

There must be a value.

Anonymous Josh May 05, 2014 2:15 PM  

See how this thread has devolved?

Anonymous Logo May 05, 2014 2:16 PM  

Logo: This is not any quote written by Charles Murray, nor does the quote resemble any sentiment expressed or implied by him.

It's exactly the comparison he made.

No it isn't. He used an analogy, saying that HBD was proven, and that its opponents would be like the opponents of the Copernican system, holding onto beliefs that can shown to be false.

That's all he said. You are the one who brought Galileo into it. That is an association that exists in your own mind.

If people wish to continue to oppose HBD after its being proven true, then they would in fact share qualities with the Ptolemaic promoters who continued to push a geocentric model after it had been disproved. So the analogy works.

By extension, in the confines of the analogy, HBDers would take the role of Copernicans. But this does not make HBDers "Galileo". There were after all many proponents of Copernicanism, Copernicus and Newton among them. Is there a "Copernicus fallacy" you'd like to accuse Murray of? You are the one who brought up Galileo, presumably because "opponent of Ptolemaicist" has an overpowering connection to "Galileo" in your unconscious head. If you consciously think about it, you would see there are more possibilities.

At any rate, even if he were drawing an analogy between HBDers and Galileo, it still would be irrelevant to the question of whether he'd committed the "Galileo fallacy" or not, as the Galileo fallacy is "the notion that if you are vilified for your ideas, you must be right," which he has not claimed. Even if he were drawing a parallel between himself and Galileo, this is not sufficient to demonstrate that he committed such a fallacy.

Galileo, after all, never claimed that because he was vilified, he was right. He claimed the evidence supported his position, which is all Charles Murray has done. He never claimed that because anyone was vilified, he was right. He is saying the evidence supports HBD. That is why you should believe its true. It is also why you should "not laugh" at HBDers. Not because "they're Galileo". But because they're right, a rightness which does not stem from their "being vilified" but rather, from the fact that the evidence supports their position.

And this reading of Murray's words is plain to everyone here. But you, a slave to illusion, lost in darkness, have, for some reason unknown to me and the rest of humanity, had his words twisted in your mind to try to fit him in to some little pigeonhole your imagination has prepared for them. It is time for you to wake up from the shadows of your deceit, and rise from the misery of ignorance. Change your mind. You'll be better for it.

Blogger finndistan May 05, 2014 2:19 PM  

Erik...

If it is 1% why are the feminists up in arms against paternity testing? Why do women not openly encourage paternity testing as a proof of their value? Why has germany banned paternity testing without the mother's consent?

1%? The number is so low, that it sounds like a joke, and to me it is a joke.

It's like sayiong the number of women who forget the pill is 1%...

1%... someone is trying to pull the curtain to keep the hubbies in check..

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 2:53 PM  

A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents: Once again I ask, can you show us a place where this is actually happening?

Zacharial / Righter
Many place. For instance, the U.S. reformed its system of Jim Crow segregation largely through political means. Most of the world resolves differences politically.

That case would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. More generally, as we saw in Zimbabwe after independence, a majority will not negotiate with a minority, but rather will suppress it by force. The same is being seen in Syria right now, the same has been seen in Iran, the same has been seen elsewhere.

Your hope does not seem to match reality. What should be done about that?

Please do attempt to drag discussion further away from the scientific reality of genetics and the role it plays in both cognition and behaviour.

Blogger El Borak May 05, 2014 2:55 PM  

CLK: but if that same technology would also to show that man has evolved from apes I wonder if we will be a open in accepting it...

I suspect not, but it's not really the same measurement. For the equalitarian committed to both science and equality, a cognitive dissonance arises because they presume (and many claim) that science is the only way to measure truth. It is not only the highest source of truth, but the only source. So when science and equality collide, they have a problem.

The Christian who does not believe in evolution has no such contradiction because he (usually) does not accept science as the highest source of truth - for him, revelation trumps it.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 2:55 PM  

Josh
See how this thread has devolved?

Yes, and what's worse, your buddy Thordaddy should be along any time now to contribute.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 2:58 PM  


Those seem to represent only a small fraction of the world's population.


So?


Who is "we", Zachriel / Righter / etc., eh?

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 05, 2014 3:14 PM  

"Many place. For instance, the U.S. reformed its system of Jim Crow segregation largely through political means. Most of the world resolves differences politically. "

Funny. I thought I saw a Polish guy in another thread telling us that people resolved their differences by killing each other. Certainly that seems to be default behavior among the diverse peoples in the US. Well, killing whitey, at least.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 3:15 PM  

> Those seem to represent only a small fraction of the world's population.

So you repeat. And as I note, this is both a snapshot in time it and ignores the US involvement completely.

Anonymous Don May 05, 2014 3:19 PM  

Zachriel is a troll. He believes he is a 'jester' thus excusing his falsehoods, half truths, and prevarications because he is pointing out the truth while (he believes) entertaining people. If not people at least himself and that's what's important right, himself?

That's why he answers no direct questions directly, uses endless bales of straw, pretends to misunderstand the questions directed at him or answers a different question entirely, waves away his falsehoods as 'misunderstandings' etc. He is merely amusing himself by stroking his conceit that he is more intelligent than the people he is engaging with. Of course, he is engaging with no one but himself.

It's nothing but performance art in the same manner that 'Annie Sprinkles' one woman show is art.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 3:27 PM  

What will the prog / left do as science continues to overturn their faith-based worldview? Medical science works around the edges of the leftist / prog prohibitions on reality, and will continue to do so - in time it will become even more obvious that homo sapiens sapiens has a somewhat different set of medical problems and solutions from others with Neanderthal and/or Denisovan genes in the mix. The cognitive dissonance required to believe in the blank-slate theory of learning, i.e. "evolution stopped at the neck", can only increase. One way out may well involve simply suppressing genetic research outright, even if it harms the West in many ways, to maintain ideological purity.

But make no mistake, even if genetic reseach is controlled in the West to a degree not seen since the days of T.D. Lysenko, the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese will not slow down. The Chinese will continue to search for genetic and epigenetic drivers of intelligence, for example, regardless of what know-nothing leftists desire.

More and more, prog / lefties will have to become opposed to science and averting their eyes from reality, like some VIctorian lady grasping for her smelling salts at the mere glimpse of an uncovered piano limb.

Blogger Eric Wilson May 05, 2014 3:31 PM  

Logo: Who are you quoting? Can you give me examples of people actually making this argument?

Calvin made a very similar argument

Blogger Joshua Dyal May 05, 2014 3:31 PM  

We address that topic above.

So you're back to the "we" again, your Majesty?

I think I'm done addressing anything this troll says.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 3:46 PM  

> Zachriel is a troll.

It's called a "good faith conversation" now, Don. :)

Anonymous VD May 05, 2014 3:48 PM  

Go away, Tad. For those who haven't realized it, Zachriel is Tad.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 3:53 PM  

So instead of "trolling for flames", it's "good faith conversationing for flames"?

Got it. Thanks.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 4:01 PM  

> Go away, Tad. For those who haven't realized it, Zachriel is Tad.

I must be slow today. I knew he was trolling, but didn't realize it was Tad.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 4:02 PM  

> So instead of "trolling for flames", it's "good faith conversationing for flames"?

Well, Tad says it is. :) That should have been my clue, admittedly.

Blogger Lud VanB May 05, 2014 4:03 PM  

"I know, Creationists actually do science. The left is truly denialist on this issue."


well of course they do...quite a lot of it in fact...they just don't do any science actually involving creationism and that's unfortunate...I really wish they did

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 4:06 PM  

Josh,

"See how this thread has devolved?"

Seen worse. It's at least spurred Logo to some fine writing. We'll be needing some of that since the equalists will not be content to just keep on keepin on in their error, they'll be hell-bent on burning more and more heretics.

Zach is one of the most dangerous sorts of trolls - he feigns ignorance so badly it seems almost real.

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 4:08 PM  

Susceptibility to trolls involves underestimating the moral hazard involved in rewarding bad faith with good.

OpenID pancakeloach May 05, 2014 4:16 PM  

Go away, Tad. For those who haven't realized it, Zachriel is Tad.

FINALLY. That was so tedious, it didn't even rate half a bowl of popcorn.

Going way back to what JP said: "And yet the Eclectus parrot needs seven subspecies because some are slightly bigger or prettier." THIS.

That's what gets me about scientists and their claims of "speciation". Whatever standard they're using to describe other kinds of organisms and classify subspecies, they're obviously not using the same standard for humans. Why do humans get to be a special case? Because the scientific community is terrified of eugenicists or something?

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 4:21 PM  

CivilServant,

"Actually all these systems (and all the others such as capitalism libertarianism et al) tend to converge to a single endpoint - an elite ruling over non-citizen serfs. People argue and fight over the definitions and merits of the various starting points but the end point is the same."

Agreed

"Oh no. No no no. They long to proclaim the ultimate division - "Me" vs "Most People". But it is not yet time."

Sublime

The two are not unrelated. This is your best work.

In the not-so-Ancien Regime of Lake Wobegon, everyone imagines that they will be in that elite.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 4:23 PM  

pancakeloach
Why do humans get to be a special case? Because the scientific community is terrified of eugenicists or something?


Well, because equalism has become a de facto religious faith, and any mention of inequality being due to nature and in fact not correctable by man makes a lot of people queasy. It seems a short step from "the racial math score gap cannot be closed via educational means" to Dachau's ovens, for a lot of people.

So, we can't have real science because Hitler.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 4:24 PM  

Shut up, Tad.

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 4:25 PM  

"Because the scientific community is terrified of eugenicists or something?"

They're terrified of the mob with pitchforks, or, worse, offended grantors, who might suspect that they're up to eugenics in public.

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 4:27 PM  

"Well, because equalism has become a de facto religious faith, and any mention of inequality being due to nature and in fact not correctable by man makes a lot of people queasy. It seems a short step from "the racial math score gap cannot be closed via educational means" to Dachau's ovens, for a lot of people."

That's true, but the taboo arose in an atmosphere of benign white supremacism that is itself no longer scientifically tenable.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 05, 2014 4:41 PM  

Actually all these systems (and all the others such as capitalism libertarianism et al) tend to converge to a single endpoint - an elite ruling over non-citizen serfs. People argue and fight over the definitions and merits of the various starting points but the end point is the same.

The fact you can't recognize a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. And the fact you think there is an actual "end state" rather than just a point along the path says something too.

There is a significant difference between, say, North Korea today and the United Kingdom of 1890, though both had a ruling elite. And Kim Jong Un's crapsack empire is no more an "end state" for Koreans than Queen Victoria's England was for Englishmen. Or Sulla's Rome was for Romans.

Yeah, there are elites. They come and go. There's all the difference in the world in how that happens.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 4:49 PM  

the taboo arose in an atmosphere of benign white supremacism that is itself no longer scientifically tenable.

So?

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 4:53 PM  

James D. Said:

"Does the name Barack Hussein Obama ring any bells with you? (in suggesting that Obama is a "Marxist"

This is stupid...in the extreme. Tell us...in what ways is President Obama's Marxism demonstrated?

Anonymous Porky May 05, 2014 4:55 PM  

What makes you think modern humans make up more than a single species?

Well, when a population of fruit flies changes it's selective mating behavior it is referred to as a speciation event (according to talkorigins.com).

So why shouldn't the Tads of the world get their own species? They are obviously reproductively isolated.

Homo Tadius.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 5:02 PM  

Shut up, Tad / Righter / Zachriel

Anonymous Concerned Rabbit Hunter May 05, 2014 5:04 PM  

"Homo Tadius."

Shouldn't that be Homo turdius?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 5:09 PM  

Shut up, Tad.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 5:15 PM  

> This is stupid...in the extreme.

If you say so.

> Tell us...in what ways is President Obama's Marxism demonstrated?

Again with the royal we? Gee, I wonder how it comes that some many posters of different names are using it today.

I doubt Vox would appreciate a book length post on his blog, which is what a comprehensive account would take. For the discerning reader, Obamacare by itself should be enough of a demonstration.

Blogger James Dixon May 05, 2014 5:17 PM  

Tad must be slipping. Normally one fake account per thread has been enough for him.

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 5:29 PM  

"the taboo arose in an atmosphere of benign white supremacism that is itself no longer scientifically tenable.

So?"

The purpose of the taboo was to prevent the (obviously superior) whites from being mean to the poor little brown people.

If that superiority is no longer obvious, let alone true, then the taboo loses its raison d'être.

Anonymous Shut Up, Tad May 05, 2014 5:29 PM  

Shut up, Tad.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 05, 2014 5:31 PM  


The purpose of the taboo was to prevent the (obviously superior) whites from being mean to the poor little brown people.


Says who?

If that superiority is no longer obvious, let alone true, then the taboo loses its raison d'être.

Your premise appears to be faulty. Therefore so is your conclusion.

Anonymous civilServant May 05, 2014 6:03 PM  

And the fact you think there is an actual "end state"

Ah. You are correct. Thank you.

Rather than an "end point" consider it as a natural - what is the term? - equlibrium state? To achieve anything other than that state requires continuing effort.

Yeah, there are elites. They come and go. There's all the difference in the world in how that happens.

Perhaps. But the trend - the ongoing decline to the elite/serf state - is ever-present and endless regardless of any system in place. And this trend is always - always - supported by whatever elite happen to arise including "sons of Adam" libertarians.

OpenID pancakeloach May 05, 2014 6:32 PM  

So, we can't have real science because Hitler.

That's been my observation, as well. The only plausible excuse I can come up with for an even halfway consistent rule is that domesticated animals are divided by breed and not by subspecies, which is basically a semantic quibble but could meaningfully indicate that the "speciation" in question is due to artificial selection rather than natural selection. Wild animals get subspecies; domestic animals get breeds and domestic plants get varietals. One could say that humans domesticate themselves (humans get race/ethnicity); cultural pressures that influence women's mate selection criteria hypothetically function as artificial selection rather than natural selection, and if "subspecies" is for natural selection only, it wouldn't apply. But "subspecies," "breed," "varietal," and "race" and "ethnicity" are basically different words for the exact same idea: genetic variation differentiating population groups.

I dunno that I actually think culture functions as artificial selection, though, since it's natural to humans!

Anonymous Red Skull May 05, 2014 6:39 PM  

Blah, blah, blah. Its all about Race and always has been. You're either White or non-White, and percentages are wonderful for baseball and meaningless for Race.
You can't negotiate with "Gibs me dat". Its not a request but a demand. Savages and uncivilized (non-White) people view kindness as a weakness. Never smile at a nigga, because that's an invitation to robbery and assault.
The Leftists ignores any evidence that they are wrong. It is necessary for them, because they are wrong about everything. Seriously, have you ever heard a Leftist say anything that was true?
Egalitarianism, Moral Relativism, the moronic "Race is a social construct", etc. are all just symptoms of their Clinical Insanity. These people are simply mentally defective.
Anyone who believes calling someone a racist is an argument is so stupid that reasoning is completely lost on them.
Non-Whites cannot assimilate to White culture, because most of them have no culture to begin with. Look at the primitive state of the negro with his clay pottery, magical thinking and of course the belief that rhyming is art and music. This creature couldn't spell culture!
Most of these primitives come from pre-agricultural hunting and gathering social groups. They don't even know or understand what a nation is, because they have never advanced beyond a tribe. Gangs are simply an attempt by primitives to return to their primitive ways in a world that is alien and incomprehensible to them!
War is inevitable. Savages only understand Violence and Force. Reason is beyond their pay grade.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 05, 2014 6:42 PM  

Rather than an "end point" consider it as a natural - what is the term? - equlibrium state? To achieve anything other than that state requires continuing effort.

I think what you're looking for is "ground state" but it's not really true of politics. There is no equilibrium. You're still trying to define an end state, a place where all human politics tends to gather. In that, you're a Progressive. You think we're on a conveyor headed for a particular destination.

But we're not.

The ground state you're thinking of doesn't really exist. You even mentioned the key as to why, though you didn't realize it. Continuing effort. You said it yourself, that's what's needed to avoid the ground state.

And humans continue to provide that effort. Always will, for if your elite/serf state tendency is human nature, so to is the serf class expending effort to overturn it. Not all of the "serfs", no, but the more ambitious. That means that the smaller the elite gets, the larger will be the class of people who will put effort into dumping them overboard. Conversely, the larger the "elite" class, the fewer "serfs" with the motivation or competence to revolt.

That is why there's a difference. If you have a relatively broad-based patrician class that is open to the more able plebs, you have stability. Sure, sure, you'll always have a certain number of patricians who want to pull up the ladder, but if they succeed, they're only guaranteeing an eventually violent overthrow. If your society prevents them from closing the door on social promotion (which implies social demotion as well), you can prosper.

But if all you see is someone in charge and someone who isn't, you'll never, ever understand.

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 7:04 PM  

"I think what you're looking for is "ground state" but it's not really true of politics. There is no equilibrium. You're still trying to define an end state, a place where all human politics tends to gather. In that, you're a Progressive. You think we're on a conveyor headed for a particular destination."

Oh, bullshit. Progressive dne stuff Jack didn't come up with first.

He's just speaking of the state of nature, fallen man, our base instinct. And it is tribal and it is hierarchical, for men.

"That is why there's a difference. If you have a relatively broad-based patrician class that is open to the more able plebs, you have stability."

Sure, and the more broad-based, given constant standards for membership, the better, and the further away from the base. You're not disagreeing.

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 7:05 PM  

"I doubt Vox would appreciate a book length post on his blog, which is what a comprehensive account would take. For the discerning reader, Obamacare by itself should be enough of a demonstration."

This makes Obama a Marxist? Affordable healthcare?? No. Sorry. Not even close. You've seen fit to broaden the meaning of "Marxism" to the point that it means nothing at all. Anything else make him a Marxist? Anything?

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 7:07 PM  

"The purpose of the taboo was to prevent the (obviously superior) whites from being mean to the poor little brown people.

Says who?"

That is my experience with how it functioned among those who instituted it and still does among the dwindling number who sincerely maintain it. Is yours different?

"If that superiority is no longer obvious, let alone true, then the taboo loses its raison d'être.

Your premise appears to be faulty. Therefore so is your conclusion."

Well, by all means, elucidate that appearance further for those of us less discerning. The dominance cues in the contemporary culture point the opposite way.

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 7:07 PM  

"Savages and uncivilized (non-White) people view kindness as a weakness."

Let me guess, these "savages" would be better off as slaves, right?

Is it ALL blacks that are savages and uncivilized?

Anonymous Desiderius May 05, 2014 7:09 PM  

"Anything else make him a Marxist? Anything?'

Nope, not a thing; he's the second coming of Hayek himself. As in all things, Righter, you're right as rain.

Anonymous Jack Amok May 05, 2014 7:36 PM  

Lumping Marxists in with Libertarians doesn't bother you, Desiderus?

You don't think we're disagreeing? He says it doesn't matter, it's all the same. No, it's not all the same. We are disagreeing, so butt out.

Anonymous zen0 May 05, 2014 7:39 PM  

Righter

This makes Obama a Marxist? Affordable healthcare?? No. Sorry. Not even close. You've seen fit to broaden the meaning of "Marxism" to the point that it means nothing at all. Anything else make him a Marxist? Anything?

You have narrowed the definition of Marxism so it means nothing at all.

Anonymous zen0 May 05, 2014 7:46 PM  

Righter bleeds:

Let me guess, these "savages" would be better off as slaves, right?

Actually, one of the last bastions of slavery in the US is the penal system. So, in treating everybody equally under the law, we find that blacks and hispanics form the majority of the enslaved.

So I guess the answer, under the criteria of all equal under the law, is yes.

Anonymous The other skeptic May 05, 2014 8:08 PM  

Human readily interbreed, and even in ancient times, there has always been substantial gene flow between populations.

Define substantial, and tell me, how is it that Chinese people look different than sub-Saharan Africans than Whites?

Also, tell me how this segregation in sporting abilities was maintained in the face of your claimed substantial gene flow between populations?

Looks to me like the common bits were already there and there has been nowhere enough gene flow to bring black IQ averages up and white averages down.

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 8:21 PM  

"Actually, one of the last bastions of slavery in the US is the penal system."
How so?

Anonymous Righter May 05, 2014 8:27 PM  

"This makes Obama a Marxist? Affordable healthcare?? No. Sorry. Not even close. You've seen fit to broaden the meaning of "Marxism" to the point that it means nothing at all. Anything else make him a Marxist? Anything?"

You have narrowed the definition of Marxism so it means nothing at all."

This is the president that has pushed for tax breaks for business. It's the president that has the marketplace, not the state, running the healthcare reforms. It's the president that has reduced the size of government with few government employees now than in decades.

The fact that no on accusing the president of being a "marxist" can define what makes him a marxist or why what he had done shows him to be a marxist tells me that these claims are either worthless or those making them don't have any clue what marxism is.

OpenID pancakeloach May 05, 2014 8:44 PM  

It's the president that has the marketplace, not the state, running the healthcare reforms.

ROFL

"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!"

Anonymous The other skeptic May 05, 2014 9:04 PM  

Rabbits want a safe place to learn but don't realize fear helps you learn more ...

Anonymous The other skeptic May 05, 2014 9:06 PM  

Just because there is gene flow doesn't mean there is complete geographic identity. Not sure why you would think otherwise. The question raised was whether Homo sapiens is a single species. It clearly is.

Well, of course there is gene flow, but there is also strong selection that keeps the bad shit from sub-Saharan Africans out of the mainstream of the East-Asian and White gene pool. That bad shit is mostly at the level of lower intelligence and bad behavior.

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... May 05, 2014 9:10 PM  

"Actually all these systems (and all the others such as capitalism libertarianism et al) tend to converge to a single endpoint - an elite ruling over non-citizen serfs. People argue and fight over the definitions and merits of the various starting points but the end point is the same."

Depends upon how one defines "elite" and "non-citizen serfs". Because even these concepts are notoriously vague.


"So, in treating everybody equally under the law, we find that blacks and hispanics form the majority of the enslaved."

Enslaved to what? Big gummint? Kentucky Fried Chicken? Reruns of "Chico And The Man"? Please elucidate.

Anonymous civilServant May 05, 2014 9:11 PM  

In the not-so-Ancien Regime of Lake Wobegon, everyone imagines that they will be in that elite.

Perhaps rather they can imagine nothing else.

Anonymous Johnny Rico Says... May 05, 2014 9:11 PM  

"but there is also strong selection that keeps the bad shit from sub-Saharan Africans out of the mainstream of the East-Asian and White gene pool. That bad shit is mostly at the level of lower intelligence and bad behavior."

Blame your male European ancestors for "polluting" that gene pool.

Anonymous zen0 May 05, 2014 9:17 PM  

Righter May 05, 2014 8:21 PM

"Actually, one of the last bastions of slavery in the US is the penal system."
How so?


Do the research. Because internet.

Anonymous kh123 May 05, 2014 9:22 PM  

" but if that same technology would also to show that man has evolved from apes I wonder if we will be a open in accepting it..."

Given the theoretical distances and hurtles involved, it'd be a much more challenging sell to anyone who isn't already predisposed to seeing man as an animal, or of being part of a crowd/institution/magazine subscription that affirms the same.

Anonymous YIH May 05, 2014 9:22 PM  

This is what I want Santa to bring me for Christmas!

1 – 200 of 237 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts