Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Marcus Epstein, Pat Buchanan’s Executive Director to Be Sentenced for Hate Crimes

Marcus Epstein, Pat Buchanan’s Executive Director to Be Sentenced for Hate Crimes

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

“‘Diversity can be good in moderation – if what is being brought in is desirable. Most Americans don’t mind a little ethnic food, some Asian math whizzes, or a few Mariachi dancers – as long a these trends do not overwhelm the dominant culture.’" Marcus Epstein.

On the surface there is no reason to even feature this as a news story for Blogcritics. Marcus Epstein, the 25 year old executive director The American Cause, an organization founded by former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo and former anti-Bush Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, will soon be sentenced for hate crimes.

The only reason the tawdry tale, which will end with Epstein facing up to 180 days in jail and a $1000 fine, (along with a $1000 donation to the United Negro College Fund) is because of a Blogcritics article I did several years ago. At the time, I mentioned that Epstein was an associate of Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, which he denied, but I subsequently proved true. I also highlighted Epstein’s column for the racist and anti-Hispanic Vdare.

That November, 2007 Blogcritics article was attacked by various members of the racist Council of Conservative Citizens. Naturally I was accused of fabricating the article, sources, yada yada yada. It is the usual CofCC slash and burn technique I am now quite familiar with. I was traveling at the time, and spent a long day dealing with Epstein and going back and forth with the very understanding editors here at Blogcritics from my Blackberry.

Defamation lawsuits were threatened by Epstein.  He demanded I retract what I wrote not only here at Blogcritics but also on my blog, The Pink Flamingo. I refused to do either, and went on to explain my reasons on The Pink Flamingo. Eric Olsen stood by every word I wrote. 

Perhaps this is the time to mention that the political editors here at BC, along with publisher Eric Olsen, were great.  Dave Nalle took my side of the argument several times, facing down the usual CofCC harassment.  I was pleased that Dave, after looking into my sources, agreed with me that we were dealing with some very evil people. 

Evidently, while drunk, Marcus Epstein assaulted both verbally and physically an African American woman. He called her the “N-Word,” then proceeded to hit the woman in the head. The woman’s husband grabbed the founder of Youth for Western Civilization, who then escaped. He was arrested a few moments later by a Secret Service agent who saw the whole attack.

One of Epstein’s friends said he had been drinking, which may be true, because as part of his sentence, Epstein had to complete an alcohol treatment program. He was also required to write a letter of apology to the victim, who interestingly now has a restraining order against Epstein. Considering the few words I wrote about Epstein here at BC and on my blog, The Pink Flamingo, and the  response I received, I can understand why the victim would have a restraining order against Epstein and his associates.

The young “activist” has already been briefly profiled by the SPLC.   For all of his “youth,” Epstein has been accepted by leading far right conservatives like Tom Tancredo, Buddy Witherspoon, and the Buchanans.  He has appared on the Political Cesspool, a racist radio show. At a major press conference back in January, where Pat Buchanan, his sister Bay, and racist editor Peter Brimelow chastised the GOP for allowing Hispanics into the party. Epstein was also a featured speaker.  He is a regular columnist for Brimelow’s Vdare, which also features FOX “expert” Michelle Malkin.

Marcus Epstein is planning to attend law school this fall at the University of Virginia.  Currently those plans have yet to change.  It is unknown if the racism conviction will cause the UVA to resend the acceptance.  Allegedly he will be putting his political activities  on the back-burner.

There is a moral to this story. If you set out to verbally and physically assault individuals of a different race, because they are a different race, make sure you’re not doing it around a Secret Service agent. They make great witnesses for the prosecution.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Compelling story and reporting, SJ. Great links, too.

  • Baronius

    “chastised the GOP for allowing Hispanics into the party”

    I can’t find any reference to that.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Bar, there’s a link there to a NYT article about the Buchannan press conference.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    I just reread the article (actually an editorial), and there’s no mention of it. I also skimmed Epstein’s report on The American Cause website.

    I wouldn’t have said that I can’t find references without checking first.

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/ SJ Reidhead

    Baronius;

    It comes from the NY Times article.

    SJR

  • Clavos

    I read the NYT piece too. Baronius is right, there is no reference in it to “chastised the GOP for allowing Hispanics into the party.”

  • zingzing

    well, just google “buchanan hispanics” to see what he thinks. scary, scary man.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    this is one thing I found.

  • Baronius

    Roger, that’s calm compared to some of the stuff I’ve heard from him. But SJ made a specific claim that I haven’t seen supported.

  • Clavos

    Roger, I have long argued on these threads that Latinos in general DO assimilate, and in much the same manner as previous groups: the first generation learns only a little English, but the second and subsequent generations become progressively more “American,” even to the point of no longer being able to speak the mother tongue within a generation or two. I know dozens of Miami-born Latino youngsters who speak perfect English and no Spanish; I myself don’t know any Swedish, yet my grandfather was Swedish-born.

    But, Buchanan is right to this extent: many, if not most, of the Mexican illegals (not necessarily other nationalities) do not come here to become Americans; they come only for the better jobs and a chance to accumulate (and send home) some money — a chance they don’t have at home. Many of them return home after a relatively short stay here. In fact, with the recession on, the kinds of jobs they normally work are fast disappearing, and more than a million of them already have gone back to Mexico, according to border and customs officials.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No quarrel with the second paragraph, Clavos. And the pattern you describe is not in accord with the spirit of immigration – whether they be Mexicans or Indians or whatever. But we have long abandoned the quota system, they’ve all been coming to America just for the spoils – and (some) Mexicans in particular still hold the grudge. It’s kind of too late to do anything about it, just like in the last stages of the Roman Empire. So I do understand Buchanan’s argument.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Baronius, Buchanan is a super-patriot. He’s even for tariffs.

  • Dan

    ” At the time, I mentioned that Epstein was an associate of Jared Taylor of American Renaissance, which he denied, but I subsequently proved true.”—SJ

    What possible reason would Epstein have to deny an association with Jared Taylor? Taylor is a thouroughly scrupulous scholar of race realism, who’s logical, scientific arguments are feared throughout the anti-white spectrum.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That is debatable, Dan.

    Consider the following quote from the Wiki:

    “Taylor has questioned the capacity of blacks to live successfully in a civilized society. In an article on the chaos in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Taylor wrote “when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight.” [5]”

    It may be true that most of those affected by Katrina have been African-Americans. But wouldn’t you say that any people are capable of falling apart or leave behind the thin veneer we call “civilization.” At the very least, the cited comment raises questions.

    Think of The Lord of the Flies, where upper-class, Eton-educated boys become savages.

    “Scientific arguments”? Are we going to re-institute the science of eugenics and cranial measurement?

  • Clavos

    And the pattern you describe is not in accord with the spirit of immigration…

    Of course it isn’t, Roger, they aren’t immigrating.

    Which is why I also advocate a formal Guest Worker program; such a scheme, properly structured, would be to the benefit of all parties, the Mexican government, the US government and the the illegals.

  • Clavos

    But wouldn’t you say that any people are capable of falling apart or leave behind the thin veneer we call “civilization.”

    Absolutely. And all manner of people have in the past and will again, the next time there is a disaster of that magnitude anywhere in the world.

  • Dan

    Lord of the flies? Comparing fiction to history?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Do you find it unbelievable?

  • Dan

    I find it to be fiction Roger. Believable or not, it didn’t happen.

  • Ruvy

    I’m just curious. Epstein is usually a Jewish name, and KKK and neo-Nazi types don’t generally like us folks of the Mosaic persuasion.

    Is Marcus one of the Tribe? Or is he one of the Sheets? Or have the Sheets decided that some folks from the Tribe are OK?

  • Dan

    “”Scientific arguments”? Are we going to re-institute the science of eugenics and cranial measurement?”—Roger

    Probably not. But arguments that aren’t debated, but instead snuffed out through hysterical demonization never really go away.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Yes, Dan, but you brought up the matter of science and “scientific arguments.”

  • Dan

    Yes I did Roger. Why do you mention this?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #11

    Really Roger, you have sympathy for Buchanon’s argument? Even after you heard the argument for the other side, you still felt that way? I’m surprised.

  • http://www.thepinkflamingoblog.com/ SJ Reidhead

    One of the great canards of Marcus Epstein is the Jared Taylor excuse. Taylor is a card-carrying racist. Association with him and his American Renaissance is still not a good thing, even among certain far right circles. It is rather strange. They don’t mind the Vdare – Brimelow association, but still try to distance themselves from American Renaissance. I think there is this futile attempt to appear “mainstream”. This year Taylor will be the special speaker at the joint CofCC/Stormfront National Conference. So far Brimelow has managed to avoid the branding of “white supremacist”, which is fascinating considering his identical twin brother, John was once the head of the National Socialist Party. John B. and Taylor associate with one another.

    There are those who think Brimelow may be grooming Epstein to take over his Vdare empire.

    For Ruvy # 20: The way Epstein wriggles around all the racism charges is the fact that he is Jewish and part Korean. Because of his “racial” mix, he “can’t possibly be a racist!”

    The real problem is the fact that there is this hidden stream of racism and “hate” in certain anti-immigration and far right circles. These are NOT Republican, but third party, with a dash of Ron Paul Bots, a few Libertarians, Constitution Party, this sort of thing. There is this – for want of a better word – conspiracy – to make these people appear to be main-stream Republicans. They have a huge presence on the web, more so than in real life. FOX feeds off them.

    My big complaint is if people like Hannity, Beck, Ingraham, Malkin, O’Reilly are “Independent” and are NOT Republican, then they need to stop defaming the GOP and making problems for us. That’s where the real battle is. As far as I am concerned they are as damaging to the GOP as is the far left press and their fawning over Obama.

    SJR

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan,

    Taylor is a thouroughly scrupulous scholar of race realism, who’s logical, scientific arguments are feared throughout the anti-white spectrum.

    I find Jared Taylor’s ‘scientific methodology’ to be pseudoscience. For example, he refuses to examine confounding variables with respect to his claims. That alone puts him beyond acceptability.

    He is an educated white supremacist, who is able to fool people into thinking he is scientific, when he’s not.

    Slavery, segregation and science

    “Revolutionary thinkers like Thomas Jefferson, seeking to justify their exploitation of other human beings, tried to explain their role as slavemasters in scientific terms. While ‘all men are created equal,’ later 19th-century academics argued, black Africans were not really men at all. They were smaller-brained ý an assertion that Glayde Whitney repeats today ý and endowed with larger genitals. By the 1830s, American race scientists had developed a full-blown defense of slavery based on this kind of alleged African inferiority.

    Even the abolitionist movement was not free from racism. Often, Republicans of the period opposed the extension of slavery simply because they did not want blacks in the new territories. Emancipation, in fact, did not become a war aim until the end of 1862. Thus, it is little wonder that after the Civil War a second system of white supremacy ý codified in Jim Crow laws ý would emerge. White supremacy was the consensus nationwide.”

    That is just an excerpt from the entire article that I wanted to put in the thread for posterity. (Never miss a chance to pass out a snippet of real history.)

    Try not to guess that we have gone beyond that ugly history. I recommend reading the entire article before you decide that.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dave,

    If you happen by, you may wish to check out what Barry Mehler has to say about Republican opposition to slavery. Paragraph two of my quote above.

    Any insights?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    SJ,

    I enjoyed your article very much. But I wondered how Epstein can even consider going to Law School after such a crime. I thought that they has standards one must meet regarding that sort of thing.

    You have to be a law-abiding tax-payer and all, I thought. Makes me wonder how a racist who assaults people thinks he’ll manage to get accepted.

  • Ruvy

    For Ruvy # 20: The way Epstein wriggles around all the racism charges is the fact that he is Jewish and part Korean. Because of his “racial” mix, he “can’t possibly be a racist!”

    Thank you, SJ,

    From what you say, it sounds like Epstein’s father was a Korean war vet who married a Korean girl. Unless she converted to be a Jew, Epstein is not Jewish at all, no matter what anyone in his family says – including Epstein. A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother – end of discussion.

    My real question is, do the KKK and similar pathetic scum accept such semi-Semites in their ranks these days? If so, they have really changed from what they used to was. What Epstein says or does is of little interest to me. If he, a public figure, assaulted a black woman and called her “nigger” in view of witnesses, he certainly does not have a Jewish head on his shoulders. Ugly mud fences have more brains. Even Israelis have more brains!

    Cindy,

    When Dan went to law school and when I went to law school years later, you had to keep your nose clean – at least until you got your license to practice law! Things may have changed (for the worse) since then….

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #28 I thought that they has = I thought that they have

    Also, I really didn’t mean get accepted to law school. I meant the Bar.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, the John Birch society proudly claims several Jewish members. I think these groups welcome people who have turned against their own ethnic group in some cases.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, historically Mehlman’s argument is just crap. While the early republican party did eventually attract Whigs whose opposition to slavery was primarily on economic grounds and did have members — including many who were black — who opposed any kind of integration or mixing of the or mixing of the races, the nucleus of the party and the founders of the party were free soilers and abolitionists who opposed slavery on principle wherever it existed.

    Dave

  • Ruvy

    Ruvy, the John Birch society proudly claims several Jewish members. I think these groups welcome people who have turned against their own ethnic group in some cases.

    The Birchers are not the Sheets, Dave. The Sheets had this ugly habit of causing strange fruit to be harvested from Southern trees. Some of that fruit had mysterious features for fruit – like circumcised penises….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    23# Dan,

    There’s nothing “scientific” about Taylor’s argument; the very fact that you’d try to represent it at such is quite revealing; your own language betrays you;

    #24, Cindy

    Just because I understand Buchanan’s argument doesn’t mean I’m sympathetic with it or agree with it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #23,

    What’s even of greater interest is that somewhat like Taylor and his followers (like Dan, here) would consider it important to try to marshal evidence on behalf of “the racialist thesis”).

    There’s only one way to understand it: there’s still a market for it, which is to say the white supremacists that are still around.

    I guess the old South refuses to die.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “someone like Taylor …”

  • Doug Hunter

    “‘Scientific arguments’? Are we going to re-institute the science of eugenics and cranial measurement?”

    The concept that there are differences between races through genetics is both extremely difficult to discount scientifically, and impossible to accept politically. Confounding variables do make it possible to believe anything you want though. As soon as you say being dumb makes you more likely to be poor, someone else will chime in that being poor makes you dumber or point to a dumb person that is rich. Those things may be true but have no bearing on the original statement. That’s generally the type of ‘disproving’ you get of scientific racism.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Are you desirous of establishing a thesis of racial superiority?

  • Doug Hunter

    No.

  • Doug Hunter

    The idea that there are differences based on ethnic origin is as clear to me as the idea that Ethiopians are taller than Pygmies. Yes, there may lots of Ethiopians shorter than Pygmies. Yes, dietary intake effects height. That doesn’t change the basic facts.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, that’s the point of the matter, Doug. There’s no denying there are racial differences, as well as biological differences between men and women. But as a member of a civil society, it’s more important to me to uphold the credo that man was created equal.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Doug,

    I can’t entirely agree with you on the genetic aspect. You don’t find geneticists, who actually work in the field, accepting racist theory. You only find these characters like Taylor.

    I think I generally agree about the rest. Except I find no evidence that race is biological–only a cultural construct. But yes, because there are confounding variables that cannot be controlled for, racists simply claim everything they say is about race and ignore the rest of the variables.

    Taylor uses information and skews it blatantly to arrive at his suppositions. Leaving out any other possibility. So, if you don’t like poor people and your agenda calls for making it appear that laziness cause poverty, you will simply leave out anything else that could cause poverty. That’s not science. That is just bigotry dressed up.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Oh, by ‘in the field’, I meant those who work as scientists. There are apparently plenty of racists within academia.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Even terms like “laziness” have a significant racist/discriminatory content.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    i.e., when applied to a group rather than an individual.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #42

    Perhaps I was agreeing with you, in reverse, Doug. The burden of proof rests with the one who makes the claim.

    I think maybe you claim there are differences, as if this is a fact, then complain that those who discount the differences are merely making unfounded claims.

    Well, that isn’t quite how it works. Scientific method requires us to control for confounding variables. Otherwise no statement can be made.

    Roger,

    There’s no denying there are racial differences…

    There is though. There are no racial differences. You are pointing to human variations and calling them racial. There is no biological basis for race.

    You can certainly disagree with me. But to say there is no basis for denying something, that is discounted by evolutionary scientists is a step too far.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Besides, Taylor is neither a scientist nor a geneticist – only a journalist. The only kind of “scientific” argument he can possibly advance is what has already been said by others, giving it his own spin. So never mind Taylor. Let’s go to the sources.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t have anything at stake at how one calls it here. Probably is it a cultural construct, but even if it were biological, I don’t think it wouldn’t disturb me. So I kind of “conceded” that point to Doug saying – So what?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    SJ –

    The ‘Council of Conservative Citizens’…is that affiliated with the “Citizens Council” that began in the Mississippi Delta (under the guidance of Democratic Senator James O. Eastland) and spread nationwide after Brown v. Board of Education?

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hmmm, I’ll have to look at things you say more carefully. You are all about the argument, nothing about the facts, I think. I am the opposite. The facts are all that matter to me as best as they can be discerned.

    To discuss a subject using all sorts of verifiable misinformation and say that it is an argument that is successful or is working in some way strikes me as being a sport or a game. What is the point of arguing about whether Batman can beat up Superman and winning the argument?

    Besides when doing this it has the appearance of people actually learning something. But all they are doing is spreading and agreeing to misinformation.

    I mean, sure you can do that. But, I find it confusing. Probably why I find it difficult to understand what you stand for half the time. Defending a one-sided argument, on the one hand and conceding points for whatever purpose I haven’t a clue on the other hand.

    So, you can concede the point to Doug. However, I won’t concede the point to either of you.

  • ma rk

    Cindy, I think your attitude trivializes the theory that all facts are theory-laden. Do you think that you will convince Doug with a list of facts…isn’t the way that you present them just as important?

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “What is the point of arguing about whether Batman can beat up Superman and winning the argument?”

    Cindy, unless Batman has access to kryptonite, I don’t see how that argument can be won. ;)

  • Dan

    SJ, Jared Taylor is speaking at the CofCC National Conference. It is not the “joint CofCC/Stormfront National Conference”.

    There seems to be a McArthyite tendancy to tie individuals and groups of varying levels of integrity together. The intent, I suppose, is that if a forlorn irrational group of klansman attend a conference where Jared Taylor speaks, then mainstream, respectable people can scuttle compelling, but uncomfortable arguments without debate.

    Jared Taylor is a man of impeccable integrity which is why I question why someone would hide an association with him.

    “There’s only one way to understand it: there’s still a market for it, which is to say the white supremacists that are still around.”—Roger

    I guess it depends on what you mean by “the racialist thesis”. “White supremacists” is a term of degradation. It doesn’t seem accurate to me when I read many of Taylors’ and others works.

    We are occasionally called on by politicians and other social policy makers to have an “honest dialogue on race”. Yet the focus of “dialogue” seems to be a monologue about examining whites for any sort of personal, institutional, or subconscious racism that might explain the racial inequalities we see in the real world.

    Over a decade ago, a couple of academics named Herrnstein and Murray,(one I think is Jewish Ruvy. Not sure if they’re “pathetic scum”) wrote a book on social policy called The Bell Curve.

    The scholarship covered many areas, but a small portion included scientific finding on varying, average, cognitive ability between racial groups, and how social policy might be adjusted to benefit the common humanity and equal worth of all people.

    Despite the carefully sensitive treatment of the subject, the authors were subjected to a vicious campaign of smears and inuendo (similar to what Taylor experiences daily) that threatened their career standing and even their physical safety.

    The media lynching over the “psuedo-science” of a very small portion of the material was so relentlessly profound that the social scientists’ academic peers authored and published a paper titled Mainstream Science on Intelligence. This served to shut up a few of the more ardent critics with scientific reputations to uphold. But there was no widespread re-examination, and the damage to Herrnstein and Murray was done and still flourishes today.

    This is what happens when the honest dialogue on race is joined.

  • Doug Hunter

    Cindy,

    I won’t deny that race is a somewhat arbitrary construct, although I think if you put a group of prototypical Ethiopians in one group and Swedish in another even a child without race training would probably eventually notice the difference in skin color. That is the seed from which the concept of race grows.

    Anyway, I don’t care for the science of racism I simply point out that they may have one thing correct (they have completely ignorant views on a host of others, for example there is vastly more genetic diversity in the ‘black’ race than the traditional 3 pronged raceview implies. It’s more like whites and asians are simply two small branches on the black tree of humanity)

    You’re right that it cannot be rigorously proven, just as most things involving study of humans. There is no way to ensure identical environments, there is no such thing as a real control group. You never can recreate exact conditions or control an adequate number of factors to definitively say anything about anything.

    That doesn’t mean I won’t have my opinion. I think the evidence leads towards some overall average differences based on racial groupings. I think society then magnifies those differences through a range of social biases.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Mark,

    You might be surprised to find that I agree with you. I do think the way things are presented make all the difference in whether or not information will even be heard. What good are facts without the possibility of receiving them?

    But I am at a loss for convincing people who aren’t actually interested in being convinced. When I talk to Doug, maybe wrongly, I am talking past him. My audience is not really Doug but the person who reads the argument and being already ameniable to it, will benefit from it being stated or will add to their own store of information.

    I think, so far, that the way people change is voluntarily and often with great effort on their part. For example, I find that to willingly engage in changing one’s own perspective, one might have to be willing to be angry at the very idea that one’s whole viewpoint has been wrong for a lifetime, and yet continue past that anger, for whatever reason, and keep trying to see in the new way despite that. If this is true–then how could I ever hope to casually convince anyone who did not want to be convinced?

    So, if I don’t have cooperation or consent…I think I just don’t even bother doing anything besides putting down the truth as I see it and challenging falsehood as I see it.

    I’m always thinking about these things. But unfortunately, I am not in a setting to get much feedback or discussion. I’d like to hear your opinions and experience on this sort of thing.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hmmm, Mark,

    Maybe this is better: while I am talking to Doug, or whomever, I’m also talking to another audience.

    Sometimes it’s just me I’m talking to. I have trouble writing and this sort of chat lets me put down ideas where I can’t do it otherwise.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Thanks, Mark (#51). I’d like to think that we’ve transcended the times of the Third Reich when the proponents of eugenics had to be fought tooth and nail (although some commenters here make me wonder and think that vigilance is always a good thing). I was appealing to certain eternal Truths, which go beyond the usual human variations, whether with respect to individuals or group of individuals.

    I believe you were aware of that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    What is the point of a racialist thesis, Dan, I’ll ask you straight out, if not to propagate a thesis of important racial differences and therefore, ipso facto, racist supremacy. For the love of truth, love of science? The truth than any such theory would hope to uncover pales in comparison to the basic equality of humankind, men and women, black or white, and the liberal democracies which take this equality as one of its basic postulates.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    My question to you, Doug, is: What’s the point of the proof? What’s the underlying interest? Who wants to know?

    I would say that the very project is more suspect here than whatever results might obtain. Can’t you see that?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #50,

    “Defending a one-sided argument, on the one hand and conceding points”

    1) “concede” was in quotation marks,
    2) Cindy’s always around to argue the point of fact; Roger’s doing it would be duplication of effort.
    3) Roger’s attack is in the realm of ideas, which Cindy considers less important than matters of fact.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Regarding Bell Curve:

    “It is doubtful whether any book in the entire history of psychology has been so extensively attacked as The Bell Curve.[6] Perhaps the most prominent critic of The Bell Curve was the late Stephen Jay Gould, who in 1996 released a revised and expanded edition of his 1981 controversial book The Mismeasure of Man intended to more directly refute many of The Bell Curve’s claims regarding race and intelligence. Specifically, Gould argued that the then current evidence showing heritability of IQ did not indicate a genetic origin to group differences in intelligence. Murray claims that Gould misstated his claims; for instance, Gould says Murray boils down intelligence to a single factor while Murray denies making such a claim.
    The initial positive reception of The Bell Curve in media such as newspapers and television talk shows was troubling to critics such as economist Edward S. Herman and evolutionary biologist Joseph L. Graves who felt that it indicated an acceptance of what Herman calls “deterministic racist doctrines.”[7]
    The second wave of reviews, which did not arrive until much later, was composed of expert opinion in the relevant fields. It provided a belated substitute for the peer-review process to which Murray and Herrnstein did not originally submit their work.
    Melvin Konner, professor of anthropology and associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at Emory University, called Bell Curve a “deliberate assault on efforts to improve the school performance of African-Americans”:
    This book presented strong evidence that genes play a role in intelligence but linked it to the unsupported claim that genes explain the small but consistent black-white difference in IQ. The juxtaposition of good argument with a bad one seemed politically motivated, and persuasive refutations soon appeared. Actually, African-Americans have excelled in virtually every enriched environment they have been placed in, most of which they were previously barred from, and this in only the first decade or two of improved but still not equal opportunity. It is likely that the real curves for the two races will one day be superimposable on each other, but this may require decades of change and different environments for different people. Claims about genetic potential are meaningless except in light of this requirement.[8]
    [edit]Assumptions
    Much of the criticism of The Bell Curve has focused on potential flaws in the basic assumptions made at the beginning of the book. William J. Matthews and Stephen Jay Gould list four basic assumptions of The Bell Curve:
    Intelligence must be reducible to a single number.
    Intelligence must be capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
    Intelligence must be primarily genetically based.
    Intelligence must be essentially immutable.
    According to Gould, if any of these premises are false, then their entire argument disintegrates (Gould, 1994).[9] Similarly, in “Science” in the service of Racism, C. Loring Brace writes that The Bell Curve makes six basic assumptions at the beginning of the book:
    Human Cognitive ability is a single general entity, depictable as a single number.
    Cognitive ability has a heritability of between 40 and 80 percent and is therefore primarily genetically based.
    IQ is essentially immutable, fixed over the course of a life span.
    IQ tests measure how “smart” or “intelligent” people are and are capable of rank ordering people in a linear order.
    IQ tests can measure this accurately.
    IQ tests are not biased with regard to race ethnic group or socioeconomic status.
    Brace proceeds to argue that there are faults in every one of these assumptions. The Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman writes that two assumptions made in the book are questionable:
    “g” [the one-ability model of human intelligence] accounts for correlation across test scores and performance in society.
    “g” cannot be manipulated.
    Heckman writes that a reanalysis of the evidence used in The Bell Curve contradicts this story. The factors that explain wages receive different weights than the factors that explain test scores. More than “g” is required to explain either. Other factors besides “g” contribute to social performance, and they can be manipulated.[10] Murray responded to a shorter version of Heckman’s critique in an August 1995 letter exchange in Commentary magazine.” (Wiki)

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan,

    What Roger said, in #57.

    Roger,

    I’d like to think that we’ve transcended the times of the Third Reich when the proponents of eugenics had to be fought tooth and nail…

    Have a look at the article I linked to. According to the author, racists like Taylor are making headway. Racist thinking by college faculty is on the rise.

    I understand your concession better since you don’t see that it’s an issue. I conceded the nature vs. nurture question with Baronius. But, we’re not discussing gayness here–which doesn’t reflect on superiority or inferiority. And it seems it is an issue.

    Conceding the race biology point, opens the door for biologically based arguments for race discrimination. And although biological racial differences shouldn’t matter on the level of human rights, you know they do.

    They also matter in how ordinary people legitimately or illegitimately assess others in terms of intelligence, etc. We have enough information to determine satisfactorily that race is not a biological issue. When people like Taylor, et al come along and couch their claims in science, they have the effect of convincing a lot of people of these very wrong ideas.

    Conceding the biology issue prevents heading off racist arguments. The argument then changes to one that is open to considering racial differences. In my opinion, it is a grave mistake to let things get this far when all that we know tells us there are no racial differences.

    So, perhaps you can see where I would have a problem with doing that.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan,

    Are you a racist, a pedophile, anti-gay? Where exactly do you stand Dan?

    Was Dr.D right? You are against gay marriage and were trying to steer us into a logical trap?

    I bought that idea. But now I am not so sure. You have some pretty disturbing views.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    you know that they do = you know that they would

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I am beginning to have a serious doubt about Dan (perhaps even Doug). You guys seem reasonable enough in most other contexts – much more so that many other voices here (I shan’t name them) which are clearly biased – to find both of you now propagating racialist theories.

    No wonder some of our more respectable voices from the right (like Nalle or Baronius) won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. Even Clavos picks an argument with me (trivial in comparison) rather than face you guys head on.

    Personally, I think it’s a shame that none of the people alluded to above won’t step and stay above the frey.

    Luck of courage? I have no fucking idea.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #62,

    “And although biological racial differences shouldn’t matter on the level of human rights, you know they do.”

    How do they matter? Only to bigots, is my answer. If I’m missing something, tell me.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    El B,

    lol, forgot about the kryptonite.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I understand why Clavos and Nalle and Baronius won’t come in and participate.

    They don’t want to be stained by association. And I don’t blame them.

  • Doug Hunter

    Cindy,

    You seem to have a good grasp of the situation. You can’t concede what might be objectively right, if unpalatable, about race because that would open the door for hateful people to abuse it. That’s essentially the same way I see it except I’m more interested in what is objectively most correct that what makes people feel good.

    I think we can agree that it would be better if the concept of race would simply disappear.

  • Dan

    “…a thesis of important racial differences and therefore, ipso facto, racist supremacy….”—Roger

    Is it your contention Roger that important racial differences constitute supremacy? Do you feel like individual intelligent people are worth more than less intelligent people?

    Sometimes it seems like the most ardent anti-racists are like what gay activists say about obsessed anti-gay activists; that they are suppressing their own closeted homosexuality.

    The scientists who accept the evidence on group differences are usually the smartest people in the room. If they were of the belief that intelligence equals self worth they wouldn’t need to pull the wool over everyone elses eyes.

    Your notion that some truths are too damaging to know is common.

    Studying things like Evolutionary origins of species doesn’t seem to bother many people. If such science actually were ever able to make God improbable, wouldn’t that be an uncomfortable truth as well?

    Social policy is currently set on the premise that white people and white society are uniquely racist. If that premise is wrong, who are the real victims of social injustice? A firefighter in New Haven?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Conceding the race biology point, opens the door for biologically based arguments for race discrimination.”

    I agree. But there’s no way stop bigots from being bigots because they’ll latch on to anything to perpetuate their own sense of insecurity and lack of self-esteem.

    The only solution – we must stop breeding them.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Your notion that some truths are too damaging to know is common.”

    I haven’t said that. I said that whatever results might or might not obtain from these inquiries – results, not truths, Dan, that’s not one and the same thing – pale in comparisons to the kinds of Truths upon which this country was founded.

    Again, what is your interest or motivation behind such studies other than to establish what you deep down hope to establish. And I’m going to say that again – your very interest in this project is more suspect than anything else. I could understand it better, perhaps, if you were a geneticist or a social scientist, or whatever. But you’re not.

    Oh, I get it now. You’re a lover of truth and objective fact. Honestly, I don’t understand your motivation.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #60

    Roger,

    Knowing that, I can look at your posts in a different way and make allowances.

    Also, I am thinking probably I will need to understand philosophy more.

    I was reading an article last night, to try and understand what you were saying about language and development better, called Chomsky and Knowledge of Language. In there it mentioned ‘the problem of poverty of evidence’. I think it would help if I had a developed understanding of what things like that meant without just looking them up helter skelter.

    I like philosophy when it regards personal thinking. Like in the Philosophy for Children program. (Or maybe it’s just that is about my level of competence, lol). However, I still think reading philosophers is boring and it’s not my preferred way of thinking. I’d rather think in terms of testing theory in a scientific way.

    So, if you can offer me any instruction here and there, if possible, I would appreciate it. Hopefully, it won’t include suggestions I read Plato’s Republic or things like that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I thinks it’s rather confusing having to deal with Dan and Doug on the same subject. Why don’t you two get together first, have a pow-wow or something, and come up with a comprehensive position. I detect significant differences between you two, yet perhaps even more significant agreement.

    It’s difficult to deal with what comes across as a splintered/psychopathic view.

  • Doug Hunter

    Roger, you’ve resorted to attacking the person rather than the argument. That’s very typical when these subjects are broached.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Dan,

    “Is it your contention Roger that important racial differences constitute supremacy? Do you feel like individual intelligent people are worth more than less intelligent
    people?”

    Yes, then, especially as regards native intelligence – which historically (apart from conquest) has been the justification of slavery.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I spoke of apsychopathic view only in a sense that is being splintered – Dan’s version and yours. And I referred to the view, not the person.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, #73,

    Just pose your questions. There’s that much difference about philosophical thinking and thinking in general – except for the subject matter. In the first case, I’d say the greatest interest is with concepts – rather than matters of fact or theories (empirical sciences). There’s no set way. You learn by doing.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “there isn’t”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    How do they matter? Only to bigots, is my answer. If I’m missing something, tell me.

    It matters to the real people bigots end up hurting. It’s not a matter of whether bigot’s opinions matter to us. It’s whether their opinions have effect in the world and they do. They influence others (including students) and they cause suffering. They provide, to some, justification for racist acts. Not you or me, but, we’re not the only ones we need to be concerned about. We need to be concerned with the breeding of more racism. These ideas create more people who will commit hate crimes, more gang violence and all the other things fueled by racism.

    Also, enough bigots ‘legitimize’, in an authoritarian society, depriving people of rights. Consider why homosexuals cannot marry. That is a tangible effect of belief on real people.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I agree. And it’s really an eye-opener for me that such thinking is still around. So you’re right – they have to be opposed. But remember Mark’s earlier comment – about not being able to convince …. You can’t really stop a bigot from being one. It’s a psychological condition.

    The ideas definitely have to be opposed. You can do little with individual persons except what I suggested already – stop breeding them or lock them up.

    That’s why I didn’t discuss “facts” with either Dan or Doug but tried to appeal to their more noble instincts, in particular, by suggesting that the entire enterprise is suspect to begin with. I tried to have them look within and find the answers for themselves.

  • Dan

    “I could understand it better, perhaps, if you were a geneticist or a social scientist, or whatever. But you’re not.”

    That is something you couldn’t know Roger.

    “Oh, I get it now. You’re a lover of truth and objective fact. Honestly, I don’t understand your motivation.”

    It likely wouldn’t matter what I told you was my motivation. You’ve already taken up an unbudgeable assumption.

    That’s why science isn’t an objective inquiry. Maybe it never has been.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Dan. For one thing, it would help me understand your interest in the subject matter and perhaps get that “nasty business” out of the way. I can understand the interests of such as Steven Gould, cited earlier; and perhaps even the interests of Herbert Spencer or Spengler who took the Darwinian theory to a social realm. But that was ages ago.

  • Dan

    “That’s why I didn’t discuss “facts” with either Dan or Doug but tried to appeal to their more noble instincts, in particular, by suggesting that the entire enterprise is suspect to begin with. I tried to have them look within and find the answers for themselves.”—roger

    Perhaps you should examine your more noble instincts. I find your contention that a persons worth should be based on their level of intelligence somewhat ignoble.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    54

    Doug,

    Yes, we notice differences in others. Visual differences can be dramatic. Children at a certain awareness will point these out. Variations don’t make for race.

    I disagree with your assessment that because we can not say anything about anything definitively. That this means we don’t have enough tentative information to make reasonable decisions about reality.

    All science is tentative. When Newton thought he had laws, it was later found that these laws didn’t work in every case. In order to be definitive something would have to be observable under every possible circumstance.

    This is not only impossible with human behavior, it was not possible for Newton with the law or motion. It doesn’t mean there cannot be a preponderance of good evidence. An yes, we can create valid control groups, and other acceptable practices in the study of human behavior.

    I hear you saying that because we can’t arrive at any definitive conclusion, then we can say whatever we like without having to pay much attention to the rigor or validity of the method used in obtaining the results. Is that right?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I never said that and you’re misquoting me. First off, the application wasn’t made to an individual but as intended – to a group of people of an ethnic or racial background. And people’s conception as to the levels of intelligence have always been used to downgrade the others. We certainly don’t accord the animals the same status as we to do humans. Well, the effect of some such proposition would be to regard a great chunk of humanity as a subspecies.

    So my quote unquote “agreement” as to worth was only hypothetical. And you should see what I was responding against.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To turn the table on you, Dan – what would be import of trying to establish that, say, black, are less intelligent than whites if not for the purpose of claiming white supremacy? Is it so that we could enslave them again and treat them benignly and with respect?

    I hope you see the irony.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “I hear you saying that because we can’t arrive at any definitive conclusion, then we can say whatever we like without having to pay much attention to the rigor or validity of the method used in obtaining the results. Is that right?”

    To this I’d like to add that the notion of human equality (even as it’s stated in the Constitution) is not established or pronounced on the basis of any empirical study or evidence but represents a fundamental moral tenet, the Truth we live by.

    Apparently, the BC site features some detractors.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    But remember Mark’s earlier comment – about not being able to convince …. You can’t really stop a bigot from being one. It’s a psychological condition

    That’s not quite what I understood. This is my interpretation of what Mark said. If fact are always interpreted, how can I hope to convince someone by simply giving them the ‘right’ facts. It’s important how we present information.

    For example, when I discuss things with my nephew. I would never think of just telling him a bunch of facts. It’s practically the opposite of what I do. I almost always pose him questions. He then has to go out in search of the facts himself.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Doug, I missed your #69 before I posted. I think a lot of things I said in #85 might have been resolved by that.

    I’ll think about that before I reply.

  • Dan

    “I never said that and you’re misquoting me. First off, the application wasn’t made to an individual but as intended – to a group of people of an ethnic or racial background.”—Roger

    My question to you which you reposted in #76 and answered affirmatively to: “Do you feel like individual intelligent people are worth more than less intelligent
    people?”

    “So my quote unquote “agreement” as to worth was only hypothetical. And you should see what I was responding against.”—Roger

    We don’t “agree” on that Roger. Your emotional assumptions cloud reason again. I can think of many, many qualities that would trump intelligence as a metric of human worth. Honesty is one.

    But first you say yes, then you say no. OK we’ll go with no. I can give the benefit of the doubt because I really don’t think you would feel that way. I’ve read your stuff. It would be nice to get the same deference.

    I have to go out now. I’ll check in later.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #69,

    “I think we can agree that it would be better if the concept of race would simply disappear.”

    In that case, how could you be able to express “the more objective results”? In what other terms?

    So is this a wishful thinking on your part?
    I have a difficulty reconciling your belief that there are “more objective results” with your conclusion in #69.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    #81

    Roger,

    That’s why I didn’t discuss “facts” with either Dan or Doug but tried to appeal to their more noble instincts, in particular, by suggesting that the entire enterprise is suspect to begin with. I tried to have them look within and find the answers for themselves.

    When you put it that way, I understand the technique and the purpose. I don’t know why I didn’t recognize that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There was no emotional response there then, and I explained to you why I answered in the affirmative.

    And now you’re enlarging on the context. The context was very limited – as you well know – and it had to do with racialist theories – again, with focus on intelligence and intelligence tests and groups. And it is only with that context in mind that the answer was given and should be taken. And the answer provided was partly “a devil’s advocate” type of answer – because in that limited context, findings of significant differences as regards intelligence between different ethnic/racial groups, we all know to what conclusions they were put.

    Now you’re shifting gears by enlarging the context to encompass the full moral spectrum and choose to interpret my response in the larger context. Nice ploy, but it doesn’t work.

    And why would you care, Dan, to become so preoccupied with intelligence studies if you’re operating from a totally moral point of view? That’s a pertinent question,

    You can’t have both. The latter makes the former specious; more strongly, perhaps, the former undercuts the latter.

    Thank you, however, for acknowledging that my response to the loaded question was partial to say the least. We both agree on that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    It’s always been a war of ideas out there. Fact, like statistics, can be used to whichever purpose, especially if people are unscrupulous or just adamant about their views. You’ve got to destroy their ideas to make a headway.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Doug,

    You can’t concede what might be objectively right, if unpalatable, about race because that would open the door for hateful people to abuse it.

    I’m having trouble understanding your sentence. Why would I concede something that was objectively right, for example?

    What I think you are saying, is this:

    Even if race were biological and objectively right, I couldn’t concede that it was, for fear of abuse by hateful people.

    Actually, I could concede if it were objectively right. Then I would be forced to deal with the issue on a human rights basis.

    However, since that’s not the case. I cannot seriously concede it. I could, technically, set it aside for the moment, say for the sake of argument, to make progress on another point.

    But, Roger was conceding it, thinking it a minor and irrelevant point. That is why I told him I think it is a mistake. It’s not only the best and most objective evidence we have, it’s of extraordinary significance. Why should it be conceded, for the sake of argument, when it could cause more damage than benefit?

    That’s essentially the same way I see it except I’m more interested in what is objectively most correct that what makes people feel good.

    Yes, and hopefully now you see that so am I interested in reality, whatever it is.

    I think we can agree that it would be better if the concept of race would simply disappear.

    Yes, I agree. But, unlike some people, I don’t think saying we are colorblind will work. In my thinking, race cannot disappear before the ways in which people treat each other differently, based on race, disappear.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Actually, I could concede if it were objectively right. Then I would be forced to deal with the issue on a human rights basis.”

    That’s a correct response.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan,

    It likely wouldn’t matter what I told you was my motivation. You’ve already taken up an unbudgeable assumption.

    That’s why science isn’t an objective inquiry. Maybe it never has been.

    I can’t agree with you. That is specifically why we need scientific method. Because we are irredeemably biased.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But I see a contradiction, Cindy, in Doug’s statement “he wishes that race could disappear” with his apparent belief that there are significant results that obtain with respect to race. At the very least, he’s paying here a lip service.

    If he truly wishes that race would disappear, what would be the status of “the significant and objective results”? What would they measure?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #99 is amplification of #92.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    95

    Or they should destroy ours.

    (don’t forget that part)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #98,

    My point in questioning Dan’s motivation and interest in group intelligence studies was to undercut the legitimacy of such a project in the 21st century world – unless it was to have us revert 200 years back.

    The needs of society determine which scientific pursuits are “legitimate” or not. Thus, the experiments of Giordano Bruno and Galileo were forbidden by the Church, only to become legitimized in the Age of Reason or Enlightenment. The science of eugenics was “legitimate” because it served the express purposes of the Third Reich, but no longer.

    To seriously embark on studying the intelligence quotient of ethnic/racial groups given the present framework of an open and egalitarian society – concepts I have taken us so long to put into practice – would run against the grain, unless the motivation was to undermine such a society.

    So it’s not that science cannot be objective; only that what is regarded as a legitimate scientific inquiry is dictated and determined by the society’s needs, approval, funding, and so on and so forth.

    Of course, no one can stop Dan, Doug, and the like from embarking upon any area of their interest. And they’re free to espouse any theory whatever. But it’s entirely another thing to accord such efforts the status of legitimacy, as though there were part of some larger, scientific community. And if there is some such “scientific community” whose sole purpose is intelligence testing, then either I’m unaware of it or they operate sub-rosa.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    And people’s conception as to the levels of intelligence have always been used to downgrade the others.

    That is a good example of a cultural indoctrinated idea that can be overcome.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #101. Correct, except that the stronger ideas always win out, sooner or later. It’s not all-relative. (And I’d like to think that I’m operating from the position of strength. To think otherwise would be acknowledging defeat from the outset.)

    That’s why conservatism is eventually bound to lose to progressive ideas. Think of defending/retrenching vs. attacking. Or of the prey and the predator.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    102

    Yes, I understand your point. Just so you know I only was speaking to Dan’s claim that personal bias precludes the possibility of objectivity in science. Nothing is perfect, but that is the point of having method, peer review and replicability–because humans cannot be objective.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Downgrade and enslave them. It provides a perfect justification to treat someone as a slave if you think they’re a subspecies. When Hitler and Co gased Jews in the concentration camps, they thought of them as cockroaches. Because you don’t do such things to another human – even a good Nazi wouldn’t.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #105,

    Of course. That’s why we have scientific communities. And even within those, there are pivotal points of disagreements – Thomas Kuhn’s, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” That’s why the claim that, what’s his name, was presenting a scientific argument was a joke – nothing but an attempt to make us think favorably of a racist’s cogitations. Plus, the guy is just a journalist, everything he says is second-hand.

    Show me the community and I might go along with the point.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    95 + 104

    This presumes that you are right and the other person is wrong though doesn’t it?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I am right but only in the context of the idea which I regard as inferior. And I’m determined to put it to rest with my challenge.

    If I am challenged, on the other hand, the same rules apply and I may be proven wrong. I don’t have a stake in my ideas, only in the winning ideas.

    I’d like to believe that about myself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    BTW, you have the same kind of progress in the evolution of the natural language. Concepts which are found to be somewhat deficient/defective/no longer reflective of the unfolding reality become obsolete and yield to more powerful concept. Same with scientific concepts – the language of physics, chemistry, genetics, molecular biology, etc.

    That’s how we progress.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    107

    What of the times when the idea comes from outside the community–and it’s the whole community that is wrong? What about when it comes not only from outside but from those not holding ‘expert’ status?

    (Now, conceivably, it’s difficult to imagine in the case of genetics…but, maybe you get my point.)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, there is a danger there, of course, that people like Jared Taylor and his followers may sway a whole bunch of people already predisposed to this kind of thinking. Same as Limbaugh, and Hannity, and Savage and Beck whose hateful words fall on welcome ears. And you have to fight it.

    But I was concerned here mainly with Dan, I believe, attributing to Jared Taylor any kind of scientific credence. That’s even more dangerous and has to be fought tooth and nail.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You should check the Clavos’s thread on the murder of an abortionist doctor. A perfect example of what religious bigots – with or without instigation – a capable of.

    Scary!

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I am only talking about this: You suggested that the convincing or best resolution would be associated with the community of experts. But, if you disqualify everyone on the basis of not being an expert, then what happens when it is likely that the best solution will be found from a non-expert and outside the community? I mean, if we are to exclude any non-expert/outsiders as relevant.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I’m a non-expert…:)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    I was talking only of Jared Taylor’s racialist ideas as not being in any way “scientific,” in spite of claims to the contrary. And then, we were talking about scientific communities in general.

    I don’t know, now, what you mean by “experts.” I haven’t legitimized the idea of an “expert” in any way by what I said above. So I’m not quite certain what you’re talking about. You’ve got to give me an example.

    To give you an example. In Europe, Italy and France in particular, the intellectuals have sort of a voice and influence on the popular mind. They often publish in daily/weekly papers (Umberto Ecco is a good example). We don’t have the same situation here – though people like Chomsky, Zinn, et al are sort of spokespersons for some of us. As a matter of fact, the American attitude is to distrust “experts.”

    You really have to give me an example.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good for you, Jeannie. And I certainly wouldn’t want to be regarded as one either – perhaps only in chess. But I’m more a master level.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    And if you ask this NON-EXPERT what she thinks of Pat Buchanan she will tell you he is not the nice affable man he pretends to be on Morning Joe or Chris Mathews. The veneer is wearing thin!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jeannie,

    We moved way beyond Pat Buchanan. There are some people here who try to argue a racialist thesis and the application of the Bell Curve to ethnic/racial groups. That’s way more dangerous than what Buchanan can devise.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Cindy when you and Roger get going I sometimes think “What can I possibly say here i don’t even understand the conversation” but you two always include me anyway and I thank you both for that.
    While the rest of the peanut gallery here does not even want to admit I exist! I think they are snobs…:(

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Jeannie, you’re always included. And we do need you on the Politics threads if only because you excel in your kind of weapons to combat these ignoramuses. So even if you’ll be publishing in Culture, we do need you here.

    See, all the big guns – both from the conservative and the liberal side – decided to stay above the fray rather than combat these forces of darkness. Apparently, there’s only Cindy and me.

    That’s why you’re so badly needed.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think I understand what you are after. What’s the best way to propagate the winning ideas to the community at large? Is that it?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    You know, you guys can philosophize till the cows come home and it won’t mean a damn. I want the answer to a simple question -= will the Sheets, the KKK – accept Semites like me (or semi-Semi-Semites like Epstein?)?

    I’m standing here wearing a sheet trying to keep a hose tame so I can go riding through the Arab countryside spreading terror – but waiting for you to answer has resulted in the horse shitting on my shoes three times, rearing on me when I tried to feed it Cheerios (I didn’t have oats), I’m cold in the mountain wind – and it’s three a fucking clock in the morning! If I wait much longer, it’ll be daybreak!

    NU???

    An answer already?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And so you’re posting from your laptop?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    If I stay out here any longer, it’s going to be a mud-top!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, I thought I was doing my job. Didn’t want the new interest in the study of eugenics and racialism take off the ground.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    At least you’re connected – with life, even if it means shitty weather and danger. At this point in my life, I’d gladly exchange places with you.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Ruvy you and Adeena should move back to the states..:)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    I’m stalking Roger..

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Don’t give him a heart attack. At least he’s alive where he’s at. Every second counts.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s even worse.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    SJ, I read your article early this morning and wanted to make a comment but after I saw YKH I left.. now I can’t remember what my comment was.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    An example: I was extrapolating on this:

    Of course, no one can stop Dan, Doug, and the like from embarking upon any area of their interest. And they’re free to espouse any theory whatever. But it’s entirely another thing to accord such efforts the status of legitimacy, as though there were part of some larger, scientific community. And if there is some such “scientific community” whose sole purpose is intelligence testing, then either I’m unaware of it or they operate sub-rosa.

    So, instead of the matter at hand, if one substitutes some other matter. I’ll use the case of the development of the Son Rise Autism Center. Where the parents of a very young autistic boy with an IQ of 30 were told there was no hope for their son and that institutionalization would be an eventuality. What they did was against all accepted science on autism. They devised a program that was actually opposite everything that people in the field had said needed to be done with autistic children. Not only were they successful, but their son was completely cured, ended up with a near genius IQ and graduated from an Ivy League College.

  • Doug Hunter

    “But I see a contradiction… with his apparent belief that there are significant results that obtain with respect to race. At the very least, he’s paying here a lip service.”

    Not really. I didn’t create the concept of race and would strongly prefer it gone or a colorblind society. As Cindy indicated it’s you guys who don’t want that. You want to use race and beat me over the head with it at your pleasure. Then when I try and take a look at reasons for why thing are the way they are in regards to race you claim it doesn’t exist and question my motives. That’s the crazy contradiction.

    As for my general interest in genetics, I am very much in the nature rather than nurture category even if that is a bit depressing. I suspect strongly (although nothing can ever be proved) with my kids and from observations of others and just life in general that genes play a huge role in shaping how we develop in our environment. Active kids make active teenagers and adults, same goes for smart kids and fat kids and ugly kids and aggressive kids. My own two children are as different as night and day. They were born different and stayed different in the exact same environment.

    As for whether or not intelligence is equal to worth, I believe success in our current system is based on three factors (which I believe all have genetic ties). We’ll call it the Doug Hunter three prongs of success: First and most important is social ability or EQ if you will, then work ethic/motivation, with intelligence being the least important.

    I know it makes me a horrible person to even consider the possibility that perhaps there are genetic differences among our so called races other than what we can plainly see with our eyes, but I can’t in good faith deny the conclusions my instinct and admittedly limited research has led me to. I think a dispassionate observer would come to the same conclusion.

  • Doug Hunter

    Cindy,

    That is very interesting. I’m certainly not beholden to what is considered established when it goes against my gut. I was looking through my baby book a few years back and my mom kept a pamphlet on how to care for a newborn written be respected doctors at the time. Everything they ‘knew’ then was almost in complete and utter opposition to everything we currently ‘know’ about child rearing.

    I applaud the parents and individuals who would go the extra mile in regards to autism. Now if we could just figure out how to educate and deal with (hyper)active children without labeling and drugging them.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    My own two children are as different as night and day. They were born different and stayed different in the exact same environment.

    If by environment we mean everything that happens to a person…or the sum total of one’s experiences, can two children even in the same household ever have the exact same environment?

    For example, if you had a brother or a sister, did your parents treat you both exactly alike?

    Another example: When there are more than one child in a household the younger child/children are generally exposed to a pool of language that is ‘diluted’ from what the older child experiences. I know this isn’t clear. Let me try an example:

    If you are a first born among adults, you converse with the adults and are exposed to adult language. The next born will talk to adults but also to you, with your limited language skills, the third will have two children and two adults in the language pool…

    These are just two examples supporting the idea that environment isn’t as much about where we are (in the same household) as much as what we experience.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Hi Jeannie,

    I am a non-expert too. I just have had the same interest for most of my life. So, I talk about it tirelessly.

    Sometimes when I don’t understand things it’s because they bore me and I can’t pay attention. Maybe we just bore you.

    But, I don’t think we say anything you can’t understand if you are familiar with the –ese, you know like legalese–the lingo.

    So, if you are interested, just ask a question. It would be great to hear your perspective. Unless we bore you. Then just change the subject. :-)

  • Doug Hunter

    #136 True. I know it seems to contradict what I said earlier but I believe almost any genetic predisposition can be overcome with the proper environment. The problem is that many environments are becoming more uniform than customized and uniform environments put the weight back on genetic factors.

    Additionally, I suspect alot more advanced constructs and things currently attributed to free will are really genetics manifesting themselves. For instance, when someone says a person is lazy I’m wondering in the back of my mind if the person doesn’t have some genetic predisposition for lower metabolism and just didn’t react in a substantially similiar environment the same way their more active cohorts did.

    Also, I’ve noticed that a couple of times I released a venom filled tirade against you calling you basically a leftist propagandist and commie bitch, as lame as it may be I apologize for that.

  • Dan

    “Now you’re shifting gears by enlarging the context to encompass the full moral spectrum and choose to interpret my response in the larger context. Nice ploy, but it doesn’t work.”—-roger #94

    I missed the part where you acknowledge that your accusal of my misquoting you was wrong. I also don’t see where you acknowledge that my question to you was as I said it was, not the way you misquoted me.

    Did you even go back to look? I can accept that you gave a “Devils advocate” response to something you misinterpreted. I won’t accept glossing over that you were wrong and choosing to carry on as if you weren’t. “Loaded question” indeed.

    “And why would you care, Dan, to become so preoccupied with intelligence studies if you’re operating from a totally moral point of view? That’s a pertinent question,”

    Defending honorable people who are being smeared is a legitimate moral position. In order to defend them it became necessary to point out the mainstream scientific position on cognitive differences. Others can choose to keep their head in the sand about the science, but they should also remain silent in regard to hateful attacks on an honorable mans character. Leave the debate to adults.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Ruvy you and Adina should move back to the states..:)

    I don’t think so, Jeannie. I want to be as far as I can when the American dollar hits the toilet and the American economy gets flushed away….

    Besides, you can’t get a decent cup of kafé hafúkh in the States, no matter how much money you lay out, nor a guarantee of kosher food, nor a life-style that does not continually bow to the Christian majority there….

    I have many many complaints about living in Israel. But, even taken all together, they do not constitute a reason to leave my home – or my destiny.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Doug,

    If I understand you–the person, from your example, with the low metabolism might be better off in an environment customized to her/his needs, but instead she/he is typically put in a uniform environment that is geared toward meeting, say, an average person’s needs?

    You know that reminds me of something happening in education. Did you every hear about learning styles? There are conceptions of different styles like auditory, visual, tactile, etc. and there is a move to include information in a variety of ways to reach children who may understand information in one way better than another.
    —-
    And I am sure I have called you names myself. I had a long time of nurturing anger toward the world. It doesn’t get undone all at once, even if I want it to. So, I am sorry for that. And thank you for your apology. It helps to speed up that process.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    ” I suspect strongly (although nothing can ever be proved) with my kids and from observations of others and just life in general that genes play a huge role in shaping how we develop in our environment.”

    So what’s the problem with that? We’re all different and what Cindy called “human variation” is a fact of life, across all human groups. The question is – what are you going to do with that belief. It seemed that your original intent was to go beyond. And so my question still stands – Why?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And then, in the next breath, you speak of “genetic differences between races.” If you really think that the race concept is a bogus one, than you shouldn’t be using it with a straight face. And if you don’t think it is bogus, then your statement “I wish the race …. would go away” is to say the least empty. Why say something (as you do in the latter case)to the effect that you wish reality wasn’t what it is while all along you believe it is what it is? Are you trying to humor us, perhaps, or express a sentiment that you’re not just a bad person because even though you believe there are significant genetic differences between races – especially as regards intelligence – you wish it weren’t so, because you’re really such a good person.

    I find the latter motivation, if not phony, than at least insincere.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A third point before I close: You speak of “Doug’s formula for success”: social ability or EQ if you will, then work ethic/motivation, with intelligence being the least important.

    It’s all fine and dandy in a perfect world. But have you considered the environmental factors, the detrimental psychological effects that some may incur through years of discrimination.

    Besides, why should we consider your notion of success – in terms of accumulating wealth. Would the many jazz musicians who were starving and didn’t “make it” (either because the record companies were ripping them off) qualify in your eyes? And that’s just one example.

    I’m not here to judge, but it seems to me more and more that this enterprise (for you) is triggered by your own desire/need to justify yourself in your own eyes, the worth and value of Doug who worked so hard all his life, played it by the rules, and made it. And so if Doug had made it, then anyone else with equal abilities and skills ought to have done it too. If if they don’t, they either they’re lazy, or haven’t played the game right, or simply belong to a category of people who, by virtue of their genetic makeup, cannot rise the ladder of success. So therefore, we can understand their failure and still act towards these lesser beings with charity and understanding; but we can’t expect them to become like us.

    I admit, this is rather convoluted, Doug, but I do see some such thinking behind your fine words.

    I think it’s all to the good, Doug, that you do have serious doubts (I truly believe that) about yourself, your notion of success, whether you’re doing what you really think deep down you should be doing). It’s far better than most people who are rarely in the habit of questioning themselves, the life they lead, the path they took. Now is your next assignment (just kidding): start rationalizing and deal with your doubt(s) head-on. We all have them now and then – self-doubts, that is – and it’s not unmanly to own up to that. But it’s how we deal with them that matters.

    I’ve said too much already, and so I’ll fade away.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #139,

    I don’t buy that. Now you’re being disingenuous to say the least. The original context was a limited context as given by intelligence testing. When I answered in that context, then you decide to enlarge it to encompass a full moral spectrum and fault my answer for not being up to snuff. You can’t have it both ways, and you’re not stupid not to be aware of the fact that lots of things we say (if not most) are contextually-defined. And now you trying to come across claiming “a high moral ground,” whereas your very interest in the intelligence-measurement project is, as I expressed my view of it, morally suspect.

    The stance you’re taking represents the height of hypocrisy and obstinacy. I see no further purpose continuing this conversation. Try to engage others.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy, #133;

    I’ll get back to you later. I thought you had some other things in mind. The problem at hand, the one you’re presenting, has to do with what can one do when faced by the predominant opinion of, and pressure by, “the experts.”

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com Elvira Black

    Very thought provoking article; here’s my two cents:

    We are fast becoming a predominantly “multiracial” country, though arguably not so much in certain more segregated areas. When folks tout President Obama as African American, I must point out that he has a white mother (in his own words, he considers himself a “mutt.”

    From a, er, “eugenic” point of view, it seems to me that blending of races is a “good thing” biologically, since among other things it lessens the likelihood of certain ethicnically based diseases from flourishing (Tay Sachs, Sickle Cell Anemia, etc.) Plus, it seems to reinforce the view that despite humans’ natural instinct to distrust the “other,” love (or lust) can and does trump this territorial imperative.

    A friend of mine once pointed out to me that American Indians tend to have more of a problem with alcholism, and at first I was a bit put off by this observation. However, political correctness can be very counterproductive. I see nothing wrong with racial diversity, and since the general society is now much more tolerant about intermarriage, it seems (in general terms) like a very positive phenomenon both from a biological/evolutionary perspecive as well as a societal one.

    “Diversity” can also be a knee jerk, hackneyed phrase (someone from Riverdale a little north of my mostly black/Latino ‘hood joked that there’s lots of diversity up there; they have Protestants as well as Catholics). In NYC, there is plenty of racial tension despite being arguably the most diverse city in the country if not the world. Thanks to redlining and, yes, racial prejudice and fear of the “other,” most ethic groups still tend to stick to their own kind (esp first generation, which is understandable and customary in NYC).

    Since moving to the Bronx, I’ve been on the receiving end of some reverse xenophobia from some Latino “immigrants” of dubious legal status, which does infuriate me no end since they don’t seem to understand that discrimination is illegal here. There are a large number of Dominicans in my ‘hood, and though most are very nice, some would likely consider me an “americano blanco diablo.” When the term “americano” is used in a derogatory fashion in “my” native city, it does tend to infuriate me, and I don’t keep quiet about it (being a prototypical loud mouthed NY Jewgirl).

    I just tend to bristle at any hint of political correctness when it turns a blind eye to some irrefutable realities of human nature. Like it or not, our survival instinct compells us to initially see the “other” as a possible threat to the “tribe.” This is as true of the erstwhile warring Native American tribes as it is of yuppies who fear people of color and vice versa. There are some empirical realities at work, and living in the midst of a multiracial, “diverse” city, direct observation leads me to conclude that racism and bigotry cannot simply be willed away…but as we become more and more multiracial and multicultural, tolerance and appreciation of what makes us similar yet different seems like an undeniably positive phenom. I also tend to think it’s more of a class issue than a racial one, as it has always been in NYC whenever any new group of any race starts to emigrate. Only thing I object to is the fact that my Spanish is better than some residents’ English, and that some native NY’ers haven’t even mastered their native tongue. (lol) but that’s another story.

    Sorry for rambling; been a long time since I commented or wrote here.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I see you’ve skillfully avoided the heart of the debate on the thread – the value of intelligence studies across the racial divide and the purported scientism attributed to these studies by the proponents.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Elvira , I agree with your comment! I believe ethnocentrism is unhealthy and that we can be “dumbed down” by our limited gene pool.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com Elvira Black

    Er, not sure if that’s a “compliment” or the opposite, but IQ tests are very culturally biased, are they not? If anyone here has read the book(s) on emotional intelligence, it seems rather clear that the question of traditional “intelligence” is absurd. If one defines intelligence in terms of the ability to adapt and prosper to one’s environment, then how can anyone still take tradtional IQ tests (let alone SAT’s LSATS, etc where those with bucks can take courses designed just to pass them) seriously?

    It is a statement of fact that virtually all modern American music is derived from African Americans–whether it be jazz, rock, R and B, hip hop, etc. The Brits worshipped them even when we did not (hence the heavy R and B influence in most Brit Rock of the 60s and 70s), and the fact (or so I’ve read) that the predominant fan base for hip hop is white males). Some folks with autism can be “idiot savants” with extraordinary abilities in one area; take a look in Wikipedia to see how many “geniuses” were purportedly suffering from Asperger’s syndrome (including Einstein, Andy Warhol, et al–revenge of the nerds indeed). Some people are more artistically inclined; others musically inclined and so on.

    I think the most important thing is a good education…one where each child can discover and explore their own individual innate talents. If these are cultivated, than there is no particular shame in, say, getting D’s in math and science but being a musical prodigy. That’s what makes the world–and the human race–go round.Would be awfully boring otherwise. Without art, science is a pretty cold, lifeless endeavor.

    Plus, cheating is endemic at all levels due to our society’s obsession with “test scores” as an end justifying the means (i.e, “success” and prestige at all costs).

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com Elvira Black

    Thanks Jeannie–was referring to Roger’s comment but your’s popped up just after I posted mine…

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com Elvira Black

    Ruvy, don’t know the answer to your query but it must be out there somewhere (again, I’d try Wikipedia for starters). But the concept of self-hating Jews is hardly a novel one (from what I hear,it’s pretty likely that Hitler’s grandmother was Jewish; hence his insistence on destroying every trace of his hometown).

    As I often remind people, Jesus was a Jew, and an observant one at that. An ex-b/f of mine was surpised to discover he was Jewish (as well as African-American). Jews come in all colors of the rainbow, so the Jewish/racist thing is hardly an oxymoron, no? (Just as there were plenty of Bushies of color in the Repub administration).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Elvira,

    Well, you mustn’t have read the thread then, because the bulk of it concerned this and no other issue. Of course I don’t disagree with the positive things you say. Just feel like a lone ranger, if you will, having to fight bigoted ideas and people who espouse them practically all by myself.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Elvira,

    Your ex-b/f is Jewish and African-American or Jesus was? Pretty sure Jesus wasn’t an American…

    :)

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    Elvira and Roger, I am sorry that I commented in the middle! Now I am lost again…and which one of you agrees with my #149?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Stop it, Jeannie. We’re good at both being multicultural and multitasking. And so are you. One big happy family.

  • Doug Hunter

    “If you really think that the race concept is a bogus one”

    Why are you willfully ignoring my response? Again, in simple terms. First off, I don’t consider race any more bogus than eye color, just arbitrary. If we suddenly decided to compare people with blue eyes and brown ones and set national policy based on the assumption blues were oppressing browns I’d certainly have an opinion even though I’d think the argument was inappropriate and should go away.

    I don’t understand why you can’t grasp that. I think perhaps it’s because you don’t want to, you want me to have some devious desire or selfish goal so you can discount my arguments instead of addressing them.

    As for your critique of my little theory, I have stated my interest in politics here before and I feel that stands. I did develop that originally in regards to education which is a training ground for a job which I know is terrible, evil wage slavery.

    It’s a silly story how that came about but I’ll share it anyway. I was taking an Literature course with my future wife. One of the assignments was to read short stories and write paragraph responses to questions provided by the instructor, etc. I would dutifully read the story at hand, then in the ride to school, my wife (who hadn’t read a lick) would ask me to give her the Cliff’s notes version. The funny thing was that her answers consistently got better marks than mine.

    She was the kind of person who really got to know all her professors and this was one who was particularly (overly IMO) friendly with her. It’s then I realized that all my advantage in SAT scores could simply be overcome by having a friendly chat with one’s professor and the theory sprang from that.

    Her EQ was such that she had a friend (me) to read and summarize the story for her and she had a friend in the professor who overlooked the shallow nature of her arguments because of their relationship. Other people didn’t have that and had to rely on sheer intelligence to get them through and still others just worked their butt off or some combination of the three. I later noticed that the theory seemed to explain workplace results and outcomes in life for people. It’s not perfect, but it is a rudimentary method of analyzing such things.

    I shared it because I thought someone else might find it a useful, or perhaps not.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Nice to hear from you again, Elvira. It’s been a while, that’s for sure. Go to Ruvy’s Roost and contact me at my g-mail address – which is different from my old e-mail address.

    Truth is I don’t care if the Sheets like Jews. I was just shitting everybody. Though, if you are still stuck in the States, it may matter to you…. And this Epstein idiot is a self-hating half-Jew – we both know of this phenom, but another example is Michel Chossudovsky, who runs GlobalResearch.ca. It’s a great site – except for his addiction to “the poor Palestinians” and his anti-Israel bullshit.

    According to the IQ tests I took years ago, I was just short of genius (129). But being a “genius” doesn’t guarantee you success in school or in anything else. It sure as shit don’t get you laid.

    As for race and intelligence, well the IQ in Israel is pretty low on average. Jews are not smarter than anyone else – unless they are bred for smart – or chained to a Talmud for a dozen years or so. But this Talmudic training often kills off independent thinking. It’s the independent thinkers, Aspbergers and all, who get the world off whatever dime it is on stuck on any given day.

    I would suggest to you all that the smartest bellyscratchers are the ones who are forced to read Bibles (or similar texts) and forced to figure out what they mean independently – In the States, this would mean Protestant sects that don’t have a State clergy to back them up. You read the Good Book and have to actually think – without any priest or rabbi to tell you what you are supposed to think.

    There is another measure of “smart” – the ability to improvise on the spot. You see this in cultures like Israel (or Russia or Poland), where you never have everything you need according to the rule book – life is just one improvisation after another. So, in spite of the not so high IQ’s here, you see loads of hackers, high performances on joint military exercises against countries like the United States, and a general creativeness you do not see except where deprivation sharpens the mind. This more than makes up for the loads of “dumb Israeli bastards” (DIBS for short among us Anglos) arrogant backslapping braggarts and other lovelies who inhabit this nation.

    We’re doing alright – sorta. Just finished editing a very interesting historical novel. Adina is still babysitting. One of our boys is set to go into the army in not too long, and he’s got a girl-friend. The other one is twenty, going on twenty-one. Boy do these kids grow up fast! Anyways, Elvira, don’t forget to give me a holler! I’d love to hear from you!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Very insightful, Doug. Understand, though, that I have nothing at stake – nothing to gain, in other words – in attributing to you unsavory motives. It’s just that our discussion of the subject took, IMO, that turn and I simply used the attribution to flesh out your argument.

    The EQ – I don’t know exactly what it stands for, “social intelligence” quotient, I suppose – is definitely an important factor in “success.” There’s more to it of course – you do know – than meets the eye. All communications are predicated on the nature of our relationships. So it stands to reason that establish rapport with someone will go a long way towards positive receptions. First, we tend to listen more acutely. And second, we tend to read into the message what we want, especially if we find it amiss – for rapport’s sake.

    I don’t have any particular stake in whether race is a biological or cultural concept. Ultimately, I don’t believe it really matters a great deal which is which. And for that reason, I don’t seem to have any problem with it. And the reason why I don’t is that I do believe that – everything else being equal – intelligence variations between races is too insignificant to be concerned with. Besides, there are all kinds of intelligence and aptitudes; no to mention that how we do on these tests is also greatly affected by our upbringing, our home culture, the community, and so on and so forth. So why should I wish for “the race thing” to go away?

    So now perhaps we’ve cleared sufficient ground to move on to whatever’s the point of contention. You say I misunderstand your argument. What are you arguing for, then? It’s kind of difficult to go back to the beginning of the thread to try to sort it out, partly because the other commenter, Dan, appeared to share similar views to yours, and I may have got the two of you mixed up.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “As for race and intelligence, well the IQ in Israel is pretty low on average. Jews are not smarter than anyone else – unless they are bred for smart – or chained to a Talmud for a dozen years or so. But this Talmudic training often kills off independent thinking. It’s the independent thinkers, Aspbergers and all, who get the world off whatever dime it is on stuck on any given day.”

    Surprising to hear this from you, Ruvy. That’s definitely not the popular opinion. And if one considers the proportion of scientists, people in creative arts, etc., the numbers are staggering. I understand that parts of it is “natural selection.” But can this be the total explanation. People talk of “the Abraham gene.”

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan,

    How do you reconcile your claims that science is incapable of being impeccable, but, Jared Taylor has impeccable science?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    What you need to consider is that Jews oompeting against goyim will excel. If we don’t, well, life gets pretty nasty. Which would you rather be – a college prof of the guy who cleans the bathroom? If you’re a janitor you can’t give your kids a whole lot, you don’t sense advancement, etc. etc.

    In Israel, Jews traditionally competed against cheaper Arab labor under the Mandate, but when they won independence, Jews were the supervisors – and Jews did the shit-work – both. So an Israeli culture arose that did not feature the Jewish “intellectual” class like it does in Exile. Yes, there was a such a class – Ashkenazi Polish or German Jews who had influence and protection and who discriminated against S’faradi who didn’t. But with time, S’faradi kids also went to university or got rich in business.

    Now it is Russian Jewish immigrants, Ethiopian Jews or French Jews who do a lot of the shit-work. Arabs used to get hired more, but the increasing hostility of Arab workers has made them a security risk in spite of their cheap wage demands.

    But overseas, in Britain, France, and the Americas, Jews are still the intellectual class, involved in management, research, etc. etc. etc.

    But don’t every forget, Roger, my father was a truckdriver, and a manual laborer. Now non-Jews do the work he excelled at in the States.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Of course a lot depends on the kind of work you’re forced to do. But I didn’t have exposure to Jewish laborers. Even within my own family, my mother’s side, there was a certain arrogance – not altogether unjustified or divorced from native intelligence – even though none of them were professionals. And I’ve always had “the inner drive” in me. And how else are you going to make any kind of comparison if not against “the goyim”?

  • Doug Hunter

    “Besides, why should we consider your notion of success – in terms of accumulating wealth. Would the many jazz musicians who are starving… qualify in your eyes?”

    First of all I’ve rarely seen anyone who was starving except in pictures. You’ve asked me this sort of question a couple of times and I’ve never understood what you were getting at. If you are asking me why people who don’t choose to pursue money don’t have any then I suspect the answer is self evident. If you’re asking if there are other valid measures of success than wealth, then that is certainly true. If you’re trying to say that choosing a different meaning for success should mean that you receive the trappings of material success I’ll disagree with you.

    If you choose to follow Jazz Musicianry (forgetting that can lead to gobs of cash) instead of money I don’t understand why you would expect to receive monetary reward, just like a person who spent their life chasing money shouldn’t complain because they aren’t famous and don’t know how to play an instrument. In any case, I’ll try and not conflate wealth and success in the future if it confuses you.

  • Dan

    “How do you reconcile your claims that science is incapable of being impeccable, but, Jared Taylor has impeccable science?”—Cindy

    Cindy, I think I said that Jared Taylors integrity was impeccable. Which is something I would not now say of Roger.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Anyway, Doug, that was a peripheral point, more or less – only to highlight the idea that there may be substantial disagreement as to what constitutes success. A successful life to some may be regarded as wasteful by others. We don’t have to go too far with the starving … analogy either – just a figure of speech.

    There is still a main issue to resolve, which is . . .?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Reread again my last remark to you, Dan, and come again. Unwittingly perhaps, because I don’t want to accuse you of bad faith yet, you’re full of contradictions.

    Get it in your head that responses have to be evaluated in context. There are no such things as stand alone statements, unless one choses to inhabit the fictional universe in which you apparently feel comfortable. Questioning my integrity is but a feeble attempt on your part for not having an adequate response.

    I understand now that your main object for you was to defend the integrity of Jared Taylor. Well, it wasn’t entirely clear to me that such was the case, so I have no problem with that. It is an honorable thing to do as long as you believe Jared Taylor is as impeccable as you say. I have no problem with that, and so be it.

    However, the point of contention is not Jared Taylor but the motivation behind such studies, what purpose do they serve, your particular interest in them, etc, etc. etc. Forget Jared Taylor. I don’t want to talk about a ghost. Let’s talk Dan and the question at hand – regardless of personalities.

    And here I’m going to reiterate what I said in #98 I believe:

    “why would you care, Dan, to become so preoccupied with intelligence studies if you’re operating from a totally moral point of view? That’s a pertinent question,

    You can’t have both ways. The latter makes the former specious; more strongly, perhaps, the former undercuts the latter.”

    So don’t be coming on to me from a higher moral ground standpoint or be accusing me of lack of integrity until you find your way out of this dilemma.

  • johannes Climacus

    UVA has announced that Mr. Epstein was never enrolled nor will ever be enrolled in its law school. There’s a little question on the app about crimes, if I do recall. Looks like this guy’s boorish, racist behavior has cost him his law degree. But I am sure right wing groups will try to make some kind of perverse hero out of him. Nevertheless, he’ll be paid handsomely to pitch his swill. Beyond that, the guy is a mediocre writer.

  • Dan

    Roger, is the accusation of “bad faith” more severe than previous charges of “disengenuous” and “height of hypocrisy and obstinance”?

    I’m unimpressed with your “stand alone” and “contextual” weaselment.

    But I’ll duly note the threat of your latest sanction of “bad faith”, and consider what it implicates for me in the “context” of my appraisal of your argumentive style.

  • http://elvirablack.blogspot.com Elvira Black

    Jeannie: I agree with (and appreciate) your comment 149.

    Ruvy: I’ve missed this site (and you) immensely. Will e-mail you for sure.

    Roger: Re: your(?) comment re: the goyim, here’s an old joke:

    Q: What’s the diff between Jews and goyim?
    A: Goyim buy retail…

    However, my dear friend and his family–all pure goyim–know how to pinch a penny and find a bargain better than anyone I’ve ever met. Must be the Scottish in them…

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Dan,

    I looked at the comment #13, you used ‘scientific’ as a positive descriptor. It’s moot though, since you don’t choose to reconcile the two ideas.

    #70 Social policy is currently set on the premise that white people and white society are uniquely racist.

    Where does that idea come from I wonder?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t give a hoot whether you’re impressed or not. You decide to hide behind Taylor’s reputation and/or credentials rather than discuss the issue on its own merits as outlined in #167 – questioning the very purpose of racialist studies.

    I have no interest whatever in labeling or sanctioning you. You’re taking this exchange way beyond my original intent – into the personal. My interest here is not in you but in the dangerous idea you’re espousing. And I don’t give a shit if your ego got bruised in the process. That’s inconsequential and secondary to me. Yes, I used terms such as “bad faith,” “obstinate,” etc., in order to shake you up. Since it didn’t work – I say, fuck it! Consequently, I withdraw them.

    But I am not going to give you a free ride while you’re trying to legitimize racialist studies under the cloak of scientific objectivity until you specify the reasons behind and interest in such a project. And in view of your persistent refusal to provide a reason or the motivation, I am going to claim that the predominant interest is racist supremacy, and the root nothing but bigotry.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “In a speech delivered on 28 May 2005, to a British far right group, Taylor made clear his feelings on the offspring of interracial marriages when he said “I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don’t want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Foo Man Chu or Whoopi Goldberg.” (Wiki)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Cindy,

    You might find this interesting. It is on topic.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    Roger,

    He gave his reason as defending Taylor’s, reputation.

    However, if one listens to Taylor, my question then becomes why? Taylor promotes racial segregation for the general population.

    I think the two defenses Dan made of the ‘white race’ are more important to his motivation. I think he’s being disingenuous.

    Here’s the other quote (#70 is above):

    Taylor is a thouroughly scrupulous scholar of race realism, who’s logical, scientific arguments are feared throughout the anti-white spectrum.

    I can think of few reasons to use ‘anti-white’ to describe people speaking out against white domination.

    One reason might be out of defensiveness and/or failure to comprehend. Another might be a denial of white domination. This would be difficult to defend to me. A third might be out of out of justification for white domination as biologically based and the implication that it’s natural.

    This last one is the one that I think is relevant in the context of Dan’s words. I think he’s too sophisticated a speaker to simply hold either one of the first two.

    I could be wrong. And obviously there could be more reasons than I can think of, but so far I think I would judge Dan to be in the white supremacist camp. His justification seems to be this: Just because whites are more intelligent, doesn’t make them more superior or more valuable as human beings. (Based on his comment to you about the individual and intelligence.)

    He claims at impartiality, I think are revealed as false by his use of the ‘anti-white’ description as he does it.

    If you look at the views of white supremacists, you will find some in this ‘camp’, just like Jared Taylor, who don’t come from a position of expressed hatred.

    People in this ‘camp’ might very well defend the very nasty and hate-spewing racists too. They could justify the rage of the angry white supremacists, at least in theory, by claiming it’s them–the white supremacists (i.e. those acting in accordance with human nature) who are really the injured party.

    Or Dan might simply be someone who amuses himself by taking extreme positions and then arguing for them in an effort to reveal peoples’ logical mistakes.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Regarding your first paragraph, Cindy, yes he did; and I accepted that as far as it goes: defending what he perceives as Taylor’s integrity. Fine.

    But the question still stands about the integrity and rationale of such projects in and of themselves? What are they trying to accomplish? To what purpose? The underlying motivation?

    I’m interested here in the idea itself. What are the forces which provide it with a momentum? And these questions he definitely did not answer.

    I’ll get to the rest of your comment next.

  • http://twitter.com/tolstoyscat Cindy

    I have an hour or so worth of work. I’ll come back and look at your link.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “A third might be out of out of justification for white domination as biologically based and the implication that it’s natural.”

    I happen to think this is the reason, but mind you, I didn’t want to be getting into the guessing game. I asked him straight out, and his persistent ducking the question is more significant to me than anything else. Defending Taylor’s integrity is a side point and a pretext.

    What gets me, though, is this. He tried to chastise me on my answer that significant intelligence differences between races do in a way imply superiority (although he couched his question in terms of worth). And after I answered it, then he pulls his ace in hole and speaks of “honesty” and other virtues – as though I was the one who is morally insensitive while he is free to propagate theories of superior intelligence on behalf of whites.

    So if we’re talking here about natural white supremacy, it’s a very odd animal indeed. The whites are a super race, and all others are treated with a sense of respect and worth appropriate perhaps to the way in which you would be benign and kind to your slave. It’s mind-boggling.

    That’s how I see it. And no, he’s not amusing himself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    OK, get back to me then.