damnum absque injuria

September 6, 2005

Truth or VDare

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:29 am

I rarely do public de-linkings, and as a general rule, am more like inclined to mock than to follow those who do. I’m making an exception for VDare, however, as I’ve been a frequent critic of phony, hair-trigger charges of racism in the past, and therefore feel I owe it to the truth to harp just as loudly on the real thing when it raises its ugly head. Just last week, I pissed a lot of race-baiters off by defending the Associated Press against the looting vs. finding canard. I’m not too worried about any regular readers mistaking me for a shill of the Ass. Press, but I am concerned by the possibility that my frequent criticism of phony charges of racism could be construed to mean I think all charges of racism are phony. They aren’t. Most are, I suspect, but that doesn’t make the real cases any less real or any less worthy of condemnation. One such example appears in today’s article by Steve Sailer of VDare which was, until today, on my blogroll:

In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan — because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s ass mouth: the world is divided not into Americans and non-Americans, rich vs. poor, civilized vs. uncivilized or even educated vs. non-educated, but but between blacks and non-blacks. It doesn’t get any uglier than that, folks.

While conservatives and common-sense border control advocates scramble to distance ourselves from this idiot, watch for the illegal immigrant lobby to make all the hay in world out of it. I can hear the line already: “See, we told you that talk of border control is really just a ‘code word’ for racism. That Sailer dude just screwed up by saying out loud what everyone else in the movement really means!”

Adding insult to injury, Sailer’s racist remarks are directed at a non-immigrant segment of society, and therefore don’t even have the potential to promote the border control cause. No, I’m not suggesting that racism directed at Hispanics would be any less odious than racism directed at blacks. What I am saying is that to the extent a person is obsessed with the border control issue – as VDare appears to be – one can almost understand some of them going a little overboard with their cause and making a semi-racist statement directed at the groups that tend to immigrate illegally in large numbers. Blacks are not part of that group, however, so a racist statement against them does not even have that fig leaf of an excuse. It wasn’t racism for the cause; it was racism for racism’s sake.

The only silver lining here, if indeed there is one, is that this blatantly racist comment against a class of native Americans may cause Professor Bainbridge to re-think his knee-jerk habit of applying the word “nativist” to just about anyone who opposes open borders. Maybe now he’ll finally stop calling us nativists and start calling us racists instead! Oh, wait, I guess that wouldn’t be much of an improvement, would it? Never mind…

UPDATE: Rather than apologize for his idiocy, Sailer non-explains his scapegoating by whining how everyone but him is guilty of “Stevegoating” instead. Lame, lame and double-lame. Meanwhile, Radley Balko, with whom I’ve differed in the past (to put it lightly), gets this one exactly right:

I have never understood why Steve Sailer gets taken seriously. Even by people I respect.

One can only hope that after this vile screed, said serious-taking will cease.

Indeed.

UPDATE x2: Sailor has linked back to this entry, so now it’s troll time. Enjoy. And yes, I do know that he spells his own name “Sailer” rather than “Sailor.” He also spells the name of this blog (which he attributes to me rather than to the blog itself) is “damnus absque injuria,” so I’m taking his orthography with a grain of salt. So much for that superior white intellect.

UPDATE x3: If I had any doubt that de-linking VDare over one bad apple was a mistake, this response pretty much seals it. According to Sailer’s co-blogger, John Brimelow (who, to his credit, can at least spell the word damnum, publicly criticizing a web site constitutes “wimping out,” and linking directly to the offending entry to explain why it’s offensive constitutes an attempt to “ban your readers from seeing the offending material.” That’s right, if you can read this entry, I just banned you from ever enjoying the wit and/or wisdom of VDare. Don’t you feel repressed already? He also compares me to Victor Davis Hanson, which presumably was intended to be an insult, and claims I had recently been “trying to widen [my] appeal by some mild harrumping on the immigration and race issues.” In fact, I’ve been giving both issues their due (which, admittedly, is less than what may seem “due” from the perspective of someone obsessed with the issues) for as long as this blog has existed, and for many years before that on Usenet and in other forums. My first blog entry on affirmative action was posted on Christmas Eve of 2002, when this blog was less than three weeks old. It took a few more months to get around to illegal immigration, but I did blog about it during the lead-up to the recall election and for an “Administration cheerleading blog,” I was pretty quick to pounce on the Bush Administration’s non-amnesty amnesty proposal, long before I’d heard of, let alone linked to, these Vdaredevils.

UPDATE x4: John Hawkins has more on this moron.

99 Responses to “Truth or VDare”

  1. Rick Says:

    Good for you. Though you de-linked a site I’d never stumbled upon, well, THAT GOES FOR ME, TOO.

    Wonder why Sailer didn’t portray them with bones through their noses, as long as he was at it.

    Cordially…

  2. SayUncle Says:

    He also has the gall to perpetuate the stereotype that the Japanese are inclined to follow directions and strictly adhere to authority.

  3. McGehee Says:

    If I’d ever read or even heard of this guy, I’d have the perfect comment:

    “My days of not taking Steve Sailer seriously have certainly reached a middle.”

  4. mikem Says:

    Taken alone, that quote is a provocative, badly timed, crudely stated, and probably widely held opinion. It could easily be applied to whites and a number of other racial or ethnic groups, as Japanese people are famous for orderliness and subjugation of individual desires for the good of their society.

    HOWEVER, I read the entire article and that quote is just one of many seemingly intended to paint blacks as a ‘subhuman’ people. His intent is not provocative discussion but racial vilification and I agree with your decision. I also see his timing as deliberate and further condemning of his motives. The majority of the dead and dying victims of Katrina in New Orleans are, undoubtedly, black. To assign to the still uncounted victims some twisted self fulfilling racial karma is beyond the pale and eminently worthy of condemnation.

    I am just as angry as the next guy at some of the racist bile vomiting from a few of the ‘black spokespersons’, but the answer to hate is not more hate. And that article, in total and in most parts, is hate.

    PS: I agree, that explanation is lame, lame, lame. Why did he bother?

  5. john Says:

    I think you might find the most recent article on the blog eject!eject!eject! quite interesting. Whittle posits that culture, philosophy and inhereted traits are what is at play–none of which are tied to race, but to other causes. I don’t know if I agree with all his points, but it is the most incisive analysis I’ve seen. It also explains so much of our political discourse between right and left.

  6. perroazul del norte Says:

    Got any FACTS, dipshit? All you are doing is denouncing someone who differs from a part of PC dogma.

    [Yup, you got me there. When one Einstein pegged me as a racist, I figured that was par for the course. But calling me PC? That’s a first. -X]

    I guess some Multicultist dogma is bad(like open borders); but other aspects of it(like IQ being irrelevant to anything important)is sacrosanct.

    [Either that, or you're the kind of idiot who follows a link from your hero's web site and posts a comment without bothering even to read the post you're commenting on to figure out what it's about.]

    You must be the type of idiot who supports the Iraq War.

    [With that, I hereby induct you into the Non Sequitur Society, where we may not make sense, but we do like pizza.]

  7. RR Says:

    I was bothered by the Sailer piece too, although it seems to be largely data driven. Wouldn’t it be better to show a fellow he is an idiot by dismantling his argument rather than calling him an idiot and refusing to link to him? Has Sailer has struck a nerve? Can the truth or falsehood of his piece be objectively determined?

    [Which piece are you talking about? The one I criticized, or the irrelevant one that linked back here? The piece I was talking about had almost no data to back it up. -X]

  8. Zetjintsu Says:

    So, Stever Sailer is a vile man for implying that Japanese are less prone to civil disorder than black? But wait, last time I checked blacks _are_ much more prone on average than Japnese to civil disorder, so I’m not sure what you’re getting so bent out of shape. If you want to refute an argument then show how it is _factually_ wrong instead of just morally showboating.

    [No, thanks. If you have to have it shown to you that dark skin doesn't cause looting, I'm not interested in engaging you. And no, I also don't think medium-dark skin caused Japanese people to fly planes into American ships, nor that it causes Arabs to fly planes into buildings today. Thank you for not asking.]

  9. Big Bill Says:

    Let me say some uncomfortable things. Feel free to damn me, too. You need to build a coalition with bleeding hearts on immigration, I understand. First, the median measured black IQ in Africa is 70, pretty much for all countries.

    [He said, quoting no sources. Most sources put the median black IQ around 85, which is nothing to write home about, but it’s a hell of a lot better than 70, and nowhere near anyone’s definition of the mildest form of retardation. – X.]

    That means that 50% of African people are 70 IQ or lower.

    [Either that, or it means Big Bill is talking out of his Big Ass. I report, you decide.]

    Second, our Supreme Court said that people with a measured IQ of 70 cannot be held responsible for their actions.

    [Wrong again, of course. What the Supremes did say was that mentally retarded people could not be executed. Mental retardation was generally understood to top out at an IQ around 55, though in this case the guy’s IQ was slightly higher, at 59. could not be given the death penalty, but could otherwise be held responsible for their actions. Even your hero Stevie, whose talking points you’re attempting to recycle, acknowledges that the Supreme Court left it up to the states to decide where to draw the line on mental retardation.]

    Liberals say that.

    And WTF gave you the idea I give a rat’s ass what liberals think?

    In fact, Liberals damned the President for holding a black man with an IQ off 70 to the same standard as an average white man and executing him. Our Supreme Court now says that one cannot executing folks with a measured IQ of 70 or less. They cannot be held to the standard that we hold the 98% of adult white folks who are above 70 IQ.

    [See above.]

    Think of it like this: half of Africa is retarded

    [Or would be, if your numbers were close, which they're not.]

    and does not have the intellect (according to American Liberals and the Supreme Court) to be a full moral actor. They are somewhere between children and adults in mental and moral capacity. I say, “so what?” They are still God’s children and we still owe them the same care and concern we owe smarter folks

    How white of you.

    Steve would agree, I am sure. He would be the first to say that you don’t let the retarded die, whether in Africa or in New Orleans. Indeed, as he has noted on many occasions white liberals who refuse to admit that there are cognitive differences condemn black people to lives of misery.

    [Ah, yes. The po' folk in N'Orleans suffered because whitey kept trying too hard to get them high-paying jobs in air-conditioned offices. How could I have possibly missed this?]

    Even the UN say Africans are as dumb as a box of rocks.

    [I'm sure God enjoys hearing one of his children describe another that way.]

    They say it in order to get help for them, to figure out the cause and to find a cure. In fact, Steve noted that 15 IQ points of racial difference may be due to missing micronutrients.

    [Did your buddy Steve also teach you that 100 - 15 = 70, or did you figure that part out all by your own widdle self?]

    But we won’t know that, will we, if we keep insisting that blacks are our equal in every respect. No need to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, right? Wrong.

    [Even less need to create a problem where none may exist. If you bothered to read the Bell Curve, you'd know that there is no shortage of smart blacks or dumb whites, whether the overall proportions balance out or not. Besides, it's not as though you and your buddy Steve are out offering any solutions to this problem.]

    What Steve asks you to do is recognize that this blindness does no one any favors. It caused FEMA and Nagin to anticipate (foolishly) that the NO ghetto would act like some nice Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, with everybody pitching in and helping each other, etc. Tell me, how many died because they underestimated the black urban violence and expected the ghetto to “act white.”

    [With that you are officially an idiot. The notion that Ray Nagin, a black from New Orleans, had any illusions that other blacks from New Orleans would "act white" is too silly to fisk. I'd respond to the rest of this comment but my big - or, more importantly, white? - brain is starting to hurt.]

    Are you happy with that? Happy because they died to uphold your ideas of absolute moral, intelligence and behavioral parity with Jews or other white folks?

    Frankly, I wish to hell someone had stood up at those meetings and said, “Friends, this is the New Orleans ghetto we are talking about. It is going to blow sky high. Brothers will be trashing the stores, looting the shops, stealing guns and shooting at everything that moves. This ain’t Old Metairie! There better be a WHOLE lot of police on the streets tonight!” Had they done that, thousands, possibly tens of thousands more would have been alive.

    Look, anybody who pretends that an inner city black neighborhood with a shocking percentage of dumb folks (compared to generaic whites, moreso to Asians, and particularly so to Jews)is going to behave like the mythical “average citizen” is willfully blind. “We didn’t imagine that looting would break out!” they say. Steve says, “why not!”

    You do ghetto blacks a disservice to pretend that their collective behavior under stressful emergency conditions is going to be anything like the behavior of a Jewish community, for example. (Speaking of which, give me a single example, ANY EXAMPLE, of Jews flipping out shooting, raping and looting under stress. Go ahead … Pick any time in the last 2000 years. … I’m waiting …)

    Race and ethnicity make a difference, and pretending they don’t exist condemns black folk to misery.

    Now I know you have to Bork Steve in order to protect your own butts in your immigration alliance, but please don’t lie to yourselves that Steve intends anyone, black, white, orange or purple, any ill will, suffering, or ill treatment because they are black or dumb.

    If anything I suspect his bluntness (I won’t use that magic leftie term “hate”) was a visceral response to the racial attack directed at white people of this country by virtually every black leader–an attack that held all white folks responsible.

    Yeah, they used the magic code words “America” and “our society” but we all know who they were talking about. And if you have to suck up to them to get an anti-immigration thing going, God help us all.

  10. Danny Green Says:

    In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan — because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks.

    So are you outraged because that comment was clearly false, or because it was “insensitive”? you don’t really clarify.

    [Both. It’s one thing to note correlations, and quite another infer causation, especially on a topic as incindiary as this one. If you want to argue that blacks have a higher crime rate than Japanese, fine. If you want to argue that Japanese culture is far more cohesive to the point of creating a deadly personality cult in WW II, that’s fine, too. But if you want to argue that race causes either of these behaviors, then you’d damned well be able to back that up with a lot more evidence that Sailer has, or can.]

    In your opinion did the widespread anarchy after Katrina have anything to do with the people, or do you see it all as rational choices that anybody would have made based on special exterior circumstances? Why was there no looting or violence after the complete destruction of Kobe, Japan? Why did the common people who lost everything work together so well to deal with the situation?

    [I don’t know that to be true, and certainly am not inclined to take the word of a hack like Sailer, but assuming it is true, it speaks volumes about the people of Kobe. Anyone who expects that kind of order in the wake of a disaster in the U.S., Mexico, Iraq or almost anywhere else is an idiot. In fact, even Japanese officials would be idiots not to have a plan to deal with widespread chaos; just because it didn’t happen this time in Kobe doesn’t mean it won’t happen next time in Tokyo.]

    Is it possible that differences in social values (that vary with culture and ethnicity) are something that effect social outcomes and are something that conservatives used to find worth talking about because under a certain value system, grassroots social controls are preferred to the top-down whip, and attendant loss of freedoms, of government social controls?

    [Of course that's possible. If Sailer had written about cultural differences, that would have been fine. Culture can be a problem, but culture can and does evolve - as evidenced by the fact that Japanese don't fly planes into our aircraft carriers anymore. Race, by contrast, is immutable. If Sailer is right that blacks looted simply because they're black, there's not a f'ing thing anyone can do about that. Which is all the more reason why he ought to have been more careful to make a factual assertion he can't back up.]

  11. Luke the Drifter Says:

    I’d offer a reply, but because of your profound and execrable intolerance, I’ve publicly de-linked your site.

    [Not that it matters, but he’s lying. This guy’s white supremacist site has no blogroll, and the links it does have are to other white supremacist sites. -X]

    You are unworthy of my intellectual engagement, and I will henceforth simply pretend that you and your site do not exist.

    [Good, I never asked you racist fucks to turn your faux intellects on me in the first place. If you’re looking for a real right talk to this idiot who thinks I am a racist.]

    Fellow ostriches, please follow my example.

    [Please do.]

  12. Luke the Liar Says:

    [Didn't you promise to fuck off and pretend I didn't exist?! Go.]

    OK, I’ll make one comment, in regards to the idiotic contention that the conduct in question can be explained by “culture, philosophy and inhereted traits… none of which are tied to race”.

    Leaving aside the patently obvious, (inherited traits are an inseparable component of race), let me say this:

    Culture is an autochthonous, organic outgrowth of the people from which it arises.

    You can’t blame the former without also blaming the latter.

  13. Patterico Says:

    It’s tempting to link the guy so I can de-link him, but what the hell, I’m too lazy. I guess I’ll leave him off the blogroll, and chuckle at the idiocy of his followers.

  14. Danny Green Says:

    Both. It’s one thing to note correlations, and quite another infer causation, especially on a topic as incindiary as this one.

    Its more than “correlations” when its based on predictable and well-studied attributes of ethnic groups. African-Americans have an IQ that’s 1 SD lower than the white average, and that’s one of the best supported findings in the sociological literature. It doesn’t shift avbout wildly each time its measured, because its a replicable finding, and replicable property of said ethnic group. Ir mayt change but it hasn’t, even a little, in 100 years of measurement.

    If you want to argue that blacks have a higher crime rate than Japanese, fine. If you want to argue that Japanese culture is far more cohesive to the point of creating a deadly personality cult in WW II, that’s fine, too. But if you want to argue that race causes either of these behaviors, then you’d damned well be able to back that up with a lot more evidence that Sailer has, or can.]

    Um, if Japanese act such and such way, and blacks act such and such way, then race is by definition, the underlying factor. This is race is the sociological sense. Of course what has you so riled is the suggestion that it is *genetic*. I don’t see why genetics need to be a moral issue. References to the Nazis as a reason genes are “dangerous”, overlooks that communism, which used genetic *equality* as an ideological weapon, took many more lives. Stephen Pinker deals with this double-standard in the Blank Slate. I reject it as rational or necessary.

    Why, for instance, shouldn’t people get angry at *you* for claiming something *isn’t* genetic? Where’s your inpregnable “proof” that IQ differences aren’t genetic. You don’t have any such proof. Anyway if you knew the literature you’d know that the inference that black IQ has a genetic component has been better supported than any other idea about the cause of the difference (this includes ideas such as “culture”, “racism”, and “socio-economic status” which have all failed to offer much of any evidence, while there are diverse lines of evidence pointing to genes). RE: crime. Blacks commit more crime than whites for the same reason men commit more crime than women – higher testosterone and androgen sensivity. The Japanese in turn have lower testosterone than whites and blacks, and have less violent crime. Those genes have been identified.

    I don’t know that to be true, and certainly am not inclined to take the word of a hack like Sailer

    Check Nicholas Kristoff’s Thunder from the East.

    but assuming it is true, it speaks volumes about the people of Kobe. Anyone who expects that kind of order in the wake of a disaster in the U.S., Mexico, Iraq or almost anywhere else is an idiot.

    No, looting is actually very rare after disasters. NO was unique, there was no violence or widespread (‘luxury) looting along the mostly white Gulf Coast of MS.

    In fact, even Japanese officials would be idiots not to have a plan to deal with widespread chaos; just because it didn’t happen this time in Kobe doesn’t mean it won’t happen next time in Tokyo.

    It won’t. Statements like this accentuates why Sailer’s real crime in your eyes was common sense. No one making predictions from or casually incorporating ideas about male and female differences like this would get such hyperbolaic vitriol. You remind of some feminists that once chewed me out for saying that women aren’t big enough to play pro-football. They swore up and down that it was “discrimination” that keapt them out and “socialization” that made them smaller. Like you they thought my unproven genetic “speculations” were Very Evil. How about this, follow the courage of your disturbing religious convictions and bet me a large sum of money that Tokyo (or any big Japanese city) *won’t* have widespread violence and looting after the next big disaster. How much?

    Didn’t think so.

    Is it possible that differences in social values (that vary with culture and ethnicity) are something that effect social outcomes

    [Of course that’s possible. If Sailer had written about cultural differences, that would have been fine. Culture can be a problem, but culture can and does evolve – . . . If Sailer is right that blacks looted simply because they’re black, there’s not a f’ing thing anyone can do about that.

    Dude this utterly false and ridiculous. Did you even *read* the Sailer column or do you just like to defame people? His whole point *was* that blacks *could* be helped. The point was that they are predisposed to greater social pathology so need *more* moral guidance and pressure from society to behave. It doesn’t *matter* if that predisposition is genetic or cultural, it matter that it exists, and it does. Calling Sailer a “racist” is shooting the messenger.

    Now maybe you disgaree that blacks need any social pressure at all from larger society, and that such a suggestion is “racist”. Fine. But don’t call yourself a conservative because the conseravtive position has always embraced shame and grass-roots social controls as preferable to the liberal alternative of putting more resources into the clean-up after the fact (e.g. welfare for single moms because there was no shame in the father ditching out on her, because such criticims are “racist”, more abortions for these abandoned women, etc.)

  15. Xrlq Says:

    Its more than “correlations” when its based on predictable and well-studied attributes of ethnic groups.

    No, it isn’t, moron. Do you even know what the word “correlation” means?!

    Um, if Japanese act such and such way, and blacks act such and such way, then race is by definition, the underlying factor.

    Oh really? So if guys with semi-dark skin and slanty eyes have trouble distinguishing their rs from ls, then their race must be the underlying factor, too? By “definition,” I presume (assuming you do know WTF that word means)?

    References to the Nazis as a reason genes are “dangerous”…

    Please cite to the post where I made a reference to the Nazis, or argued that genes were dangerous.

    …overlooks that communism, which used genetic *equality* as an ideological weapon, took many more lives.

    Once you find the non-existent quotes about Nazis and genes, be sure to dig up the post where I praised communism.

    Why, for instance, shouldn’t people get angry at *you* for claiming something *isn’t* genetic? Where’s your inpregnable “proof” that IQ differences aren’t genetic.

    I don’t know. Probably right next to my assertion that IQ differences aren’t genetic, which is hiding out somewhere near the post where I bashed Nazi genes and praised communism. Jesus, boy, how fucking stupid can you be?!

    Blacks commit more crime than whites for the same reason men commit more crime than women – higher testosterone and androgen sensivity. The Japanese in turn have lower testosterone than whites and blacks, and have less violent crime. Those genes have been identified.

    Of course they have, by your favorite witch doctor who I’m sure can also explain why those testosterone-challenged Japanese wreaked so much havoc during World War II, and why other Asian cultures continue to do so today. I’m sure the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians and the Koreans (but only the ones racially predisposed to live north of the DMZ) all have a lot more testosterone than the Japanese.

    Calling Sailer a “racist” is shooting the messenger.

    Sailer wrote that Japanese don’t loot because they aren’t black – and conversely, that blacks do loot because they are. To call that anything but racist is to define “racism” out of existence. For one who considers himself smarter than the entire black population, you don’t strike me as particularly bright yourself.

  16. mikem Says:

    I spend a lot of my internet time aggressively deploring the hypocrisy of liberals, the left and many ‘civil rights spokespeople’ on issues of race. For that reason I have several times come across Vdare, especially after googling a subject like “reverse discrimination” and so on. I rarely read the entire articles, but came away with the impression that Vdare was a valuable source of information that the MSM either ignores, most commonly, or distorts.
    Reading Sailer’s article and especially the comments here from his apologists (hell, fans) certainly changes my view of Vdare. I’ve tried unsuccessfully to find on the Vdare website just how Sailer is tied up with them. If this pseudo-intellectual racist bullshit is par for the course there, then conservatives and supporters of equal rights for all need to know it so that we are not compromised by association. If anything, Sailer and his brood sound like some of the infamous Southern Democrats that white Americans continue to live down in shame. Thanks for nothing, guys. Hope your trailers weren’t damaged.

  17. Danny Green Says:

    Oh boy, a belligerent dumb guy, that’s always a winning combination.

    Its more than “correlations” when its based on predictable and well-studied attributes of ethnic groups.

    No, it isn’t, moron. Do you even know what the word “correlation” means?!

    Look, the price of milk and my age are “just a correlation”. Someone punching me in the face and my face bleeding are a cause and effect. Both are correlations but one isn’t just incidental. The pathways from IQ and testosterone to antisocial behavior are well-researched and are not just things that just happen to be found together.

    Um, if Japanese act such and such way, and blacks act such and such way, then race is by definition, the underlying factor.

    Oh really? So if guys with semi-dark skin and slanty eyes have trouble distinguishing their rs from ls, then their race must be the underlying factor, too? By “definition,” I presume (assuming you do know WTF that word means)?

    Yes, belligerent dumb guy (BDG from now on), the sociological identity of the Japanese person and the Engrish are a function of that sociological background. The trait of interest might be genetic it might be social, but the trait shows a pattern as a consequence of being part of that race. That’s *why* the black guys don’t mix up the r’s and l’s, and the Japanese guys do, and it why this can be predicted beforehand.

    References to the Nazis as a reason genes are “dangerous”…

    Please cite to the post where I made a reference to the Nazis, or argued that genes were dangerous.

    I never said you said anything about the Nazis BDG. I referenced them as the reason that genes are moralized. You admitted that you think opinionating that racial differences are genetic is insensitive and that this is part of the reason for your outrage. You also admitted that extra caution is necessary because the such an opinion is “incendiary”:

    “especially on a topic as incindiary as this one.”

    In other words genes demand more caution, are almost inherently “insensitive” to discuss, and carry the likely penalty of censure when people express such opinions, and that you suport these values. A big part of the *reason* that these values and taboos are in place is in reaction to the Nazis, and this reason is illogical given the greater death toll of Communism under the opposite ideology of denying genes. Again I refer you to The Blank Slate or Carl Degler’s ‘In Search of Human Nature’ that deal further with this topic.

    I don’t know. Probably right next to my assertion that IQ differences aren’t genetic, which is hiding out somewhere near the post where I bashed Nazi genes and praised communism. Jesus, boy, how fucking stupid can you be?!

    Look, BDG, you can’t have it both ways, either chalking up racial differences to genes pisses you off and is worthy of condemnation or it isn’t. If it is, then you are supporting a taboo with historical roots and justifications and are tacitly holding nongenetic explanations as a respectable default position. You’ve *admitted* a primary reason for your outrage is his insinuation of genes.

    Of course they have, by your favorite witch doctor who I’m sure can also explain why those testosterone-challenged Japanese wreaked so much havoc during World War II, and why other Asian cultures continue to do so today. I’m sure the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Cambodians and the Koreans (but only the ones racially predisposed to live north of the DMZ) all have a lot more testosterone than the Japanese.

    This is reductionist. The whole can’t always be reduced to little similar parts – that’s why your conscious brain isn’t made up of little conscious cells. Socially organized societies have low intra-social violence, which is one reason *why* they are so organized, and one reason why they are capable of great inter-social violence. Think of a military platoon: which one do you think will be capable of greater violence against the enemy – one where the soldiers are victimizing and stealing from eachother, or one where they trust and cooperate with eachother? Obviously a platoon with greater cooperation among the *us* will be able to shed more blood from the *them*. Again, though the path from testosterone to criminal violence is not terribly controversial and is not mere “speculation”. Its safe to say that racial differences in T are indeed important for explaining racial differences in violent crime.

    Sailer wrote that Japanese don’t loot because they aren’t black – and conversely, that blacks do loot because they are. To call that anything but racist is to define “racism” out of existence.

    No! I’ve already gone over why these statements are correct. It has nothing to do with immutability, but how things are. “Racism” is best defined as legally treating individuals differently, or with intent to harm or exclude, based on their race. Racism should be a sin based on harm, injustice and discrimination, not simply pointing out or opinionating that there are differences in group averages, thats a thought crime, and that’s nonsense. Sailer has never supported legal discrimination against blacks and is on record praising MLK and the civil rights moverment.

    “For one who considers himself smarter than the entire black population, you don’t strike me as particularly bright yourself.”

    No, BDG, we’re talking bell curves and distributions not, “everyone in this group has this IQ, and everyone in that group has this IQ”. There are individuals in both groups across the entire IQ (and crime) spectrum. Its only the group averages that are different. Think of it like men and womens height. Some women are taller than some men, and some men are shorter than some women. But men are, on average, taller than women.

  18. mikem Says:

    This is like reading a William Shirer book on how the Germans tried to intellectualize their Jew hatred. It is just too rich for words, especially as how I doubt that our visiting sociologists from Wake Up White America normally place much value on the language or discipline of sociology.
    Next week, perhaps, Danny Boy will prove that the Irish are an inferior race, just as the British have said for centuries.

  19. Magna Carta Says:

    The bottom line is Sailer’s point, whether correct or not, is acceptable as a rebuttal to the ridiculous assertions of white racism causing the chaotic situation in New Orleans. First, there is plenty of hard scientific evidence to back him up, even if what he is saying is offensive. Second, we should all know by now that the NO mayor is black, the police chief is black (he even tried to hire Louis Farrahkan’s chief of security to institute a community relations program until whites protested, how’s that for stupid is as stupid does), and it’s a majority black city. They screwed up as much as anyone else.

  20. TalkSoftly Says:

    He also spells the name of this blog (which he attributes to me rather than to the blog itself) is “damnus absque injuria,” so I’m taking his orthography with a grain of salt. So much for that superior white intellect.

    What’s that? ‘He also spells the name of this blog…is “damnus absque injuria,”…’? He’s obviously not the only one whose orthography should be taken with a grain of salt. So much for that superior anti-racist intellect, and so much for engaging Sailer’s arguments rather than his minor misspelling of a language no longer widely taught in our “socieyt” (sic).

    Mickem writes:

    I spend a lot of my internet time aggressively deploring the hypocrisy of liberals, the left and many ‘civil rights spokespeople’ on issues of race…

    Does your hatred of liberal hypocrisy explain why you use standard-issue ad hominem liberal tropes?

    …pseudo-intellectual racist bullshit…Sailer and his brood…Hope your trailers weren’t damaged.

  21. Chris Says:

    In fairness to Steve S., 85 is the average IQ of *American* blacks. African blacks are said (by Sailer et al) to show lower average scores, typically around 70. That’s where Sailer gets the the notion that malnutrition etc. might be shaving 15 points off the average scores. That’s 70 + 15 = 85, not 85 + 15 = 100.

    These are his claims, not mine.

  22. Luke the Dillhole Says:

    The snide asshole who authors this self-aggrandizing blog

    [Is there any other kind? -X]

    egotistically leaps to the ridiculous conclusion that a reputable and scholarly site like amren.com would ever actually link to his site.

    [Either that, or the snide asshole naively assumed that Luke, a probable member of the Really Smart Race, would have been smart enough to figure out that if the "Name" and "Email" fields in a blog comment area are intended to be filled in with the commenter's own respective name and email address, and not some random name and email address having no connection with the commenter, then the same rule probably applies to the URI field, as well. But perhaps I erred in ignoring a key fact about the bell curve, which is that even among members of the Smart Race, half the population is still stupider than average.]

    A couple of relevant facts:

    1) Amren.com is not my site.

    [Then you shouldn't have listed it in the comment as though it were.]

    It’s illogical to presume that every person who posts here will have their own site, or that no-one will list any site other than their own.

    [You’re right, it is illogical to assume every commenter will be smart enough to figure out whether they have a web site of their own they’d like to include in the comment, or whether they don’t and should therefore leave that field blank. Just because Rick, MikeM, John, perroazul del norte, RR, Zetjintsu, Big Bill, Danny “RDG” Green, Magna Carta, Talk Softly, Chris, Giacomo, Effra, Alpha, Iconoclast, Joel Parshall, SR, Matt O’Hallaran, Petit Bourgeois, Luniversal and Catroina all managed to figure this out, that doesn’t mean I should have expected Slow Hand Luke to be able to do the same.]

    Of course, the lack of reasoning evidenced by your presumption is reflective of your lack of reasoning in general.

    2) Your gigantic ego leads you to call me a “liar” for having satirically claimed that I de-linked you from amren.com. Are you familiar with the concept of satire? Evidently not. Again, this is indicative of your self-absorbed stupidity.

    [Either that, or your satire just ain't as friggin' brilliant as you seem to think it is. I report, you decide.]

  23. Xrlq Says:

    No, it isn’t, moron. Do you even know what the word “correlation” means?!

    Look, the price of milk and my age are “just a correlation”.

    I didn’t think you did. Here’s a free clue: your age did not cause the price of milk to rise, nor did changes in the price of milk cause you to age. To the extent inflation is something you think “just happens” over time, I suppose the price of milk may be weakly correlated with your age, which also “just happens” over time. But any simultaneous increases in your age and the inflation-adjusted price of milk is a coincidence, not evidence of a correlation.

    Now that you finally know what a “correlation” is, would you care to change your prior statement about race causing criminal behavior? It depends on which of the following three possibilities you think is most likely to be correct:

    Having dark skin causes you to loot.
    Looting causes your skin to go dark.
    Some other factor causes a disproportional number of dark-skinned people to loot.

    If you think #1 or #2 is right, you need to get your head checked. If you think #3 is right, the word you’re looking for is correlation.

    The trait of interest might be genetic it might be social, but the trait shows a pattern as a consequence of being part of that race. That’s *why* the black guys don’t mix up the r’s and l’s, and the Japanese guys do, and it why this can be predicted beforehand.

    No, racist dumb guy (RDG from now on), the Japanese mix up their rs and ls because their native language doesn’t distinguish these sounds as separate phonemes. It has nothing whatsoever to do with their race. Americans of Japanese descent have no trouble distinguishing the r and the l sounds, despite being racially indistinguishable from Japanese people in Japan.

    You admitted that you think opinionating that racial differences are genetic is insensitive and that this is part of the reason for your outrage

    No, RDG, I admitted no such thing. Of course racial differences are genetic. My son just as white as I am, which surprises no one. Nor did I deny that intelligence is largely hereditary; of course it is. What I did say, is that discussions about race causing intelligence are highly incendiary, and that society rightly demands a higher standard of proof for statements like those than they do for garden variety assertions on most other topics.

    This is reductionist. The whole can’t always be reduced to little similar parts – that’s why your conscious brain isn’t made up of little conscious cells. Socially organized societies have low intra-social violence, which is one reason *why* they are so organized, and one reason why they are capable of great inter-social violence.

    Funny how the less socially organized U.S. prevailed in World War II over the extremely socially organized Japanese and the Germans (who, FWIW, were racially indistinguishable from many Americans). I guess your testosterone theory comes and goes when it’s handy.

    No! I’ve already gone over why these statements are correct. It has nothing to do with immutability, but how things are.

    Of course, your ideas aren’t racist, they’re just right! Silly me, how could I have overlooked that? I almost forgot that real racists generally describe their own views as “wrong,” so if someone comes by and tells me his views are correct, well, I suppose I should just take them at face value.

    “Racism” is best defined as legally treating individuals differently, or with intent to harm or exclude, based on their race.

    Maybe it’s so defined by a RDG who doesn’t know what “correlation” means, either. For those of us who know how to look up a word in the dictionary, racism need not have a discriminatory component, nor does it have anything to do with the law (though laws can, of course, be racist, as could anything else). If you believe that race accounts for differences in human character or ability, and that any particular race is superior to others, then guess what, RDG? You are a racist.

    Racism should be a sin based on harm, injustice and discrimination, not simply pointing out or opinionating that there are differences in group averages, thats a thought crime, and that’s nonsense.

    I never said it was a thought crime, nor even a crime at all, to be racist. Nor did I say it was wrong to acknowledge the differences between the bell curves. As usual, RDG, you simply made that crap up.

    It is wrong, however, to argue that race causes people to act the way they do, and it’s even more wrong to argue that governments ought to treat individuals differently solely on account of their race.

    Sailer has never supported legal discrimination against blacks and is on record praising MLK and the civil rights moverment.

    A lot of people praise MLK, he’s a cultural icon. I praise him too, but mostly for his famous dream that people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That, in turn, requires treating everyone you encounter as an individual, not as a member of a group – even if that group as a whole demonstrates some trends you may find unpleasant. And the same goes for intellect: it’s all well and good to point to Murray and Herrnstein’s bell curve when discussing statistics or debating affirmative action, but it’s not OK to use it as an excuse to assume any black guy you meet is probably dumber than you.

    Since you’re so fond of IQs, RDG, mine is about 137. What’s yours? MENSA material, I’m sure.

  24. Mean Mr. Mustard 2.0 Says:

    That’s Funny, I Don’t Feel Like a Racist

    Eh, I guess I’m on the officially wrong side on this one, but Steve Sailer is mostly right about Bill Whittle’s new essay. When I first read this… I believe that the human animal – the raw material of our…

  25. SayUncle Says:

    Xrlq, I think you have sock puppets :)

  26. Giacomo Says:

    I seem to have wandered on to a site which belongs to another planet. In Australia I have only met four people of West African descent, an Edinburgh trained doctor from Barbados (and his wife) who is a successful sports psychologist, and a charming, honest and efficient mechanic-cum-motor-garage proprietor (and his wife) from Trinidad. So excuse me for abstaining from emotion and the insulting language which is apparently natural to discussion touching on race in the US when I follow up on what I have read here.

    To follow up I went to what the unspeakable, excommunicated, Sailer actually said. I interpret it thus: “There is a social pathology amongst poor black inner urban communities (whether caused by genes, upbringing, residues from enslavement or whatever else) which makes it highly likely, indeed predictable, that the community will be badly run and policed, and that events like earthquakes, tsunamis or hurricanes will lead to more than usually prevalent violent crime and theft, including crime directed against their own ethnic and social group. In contrast, the Japanese (despite the existence of organised crime, the Yakuza, and a small police force) exhibit minimal social pathology and can be predicted to respond co-operatively and peacefully when disaster strikes (even when, as in Kobe, their central government was no more competent than the one in Washington).”

    Remove my interpolated comments if you like. Is what is left a fair assessment of what the evidence shows? Or is it so far from the truth that no one could suggest it without being motivated by an unreasoning dislike or disdain for African-Americans? Or is it just terribly insensitive to say it so that truth is irrelevant? That could be so if it had no practical significance, but it is surely not hard to think of reasons for paying attention to such alleged facts.

    For example, it is material to assessing the blame for inadequate planning to cope with the disaster and attributing the blame to the right people; it is material to what should have been anticipated and planned for. If it wouldn’t necessarily lead to the assumption that a large part of the New Orleans police would forsake their duties (quite unlike New York firemen on 9/11)it might possibly have led to closer supervision and direction of police, and it might have led to earlier and more vigorous employment of the National Guard; etc.

  27. Chris Says:

    Hey Xrlq,

    My IQ’s in the same neighbourhood as yours, meaning I’m smarter than the average bear, but not smart enough to be considered smart by the really smart people. If I had to hang my self-esteem on my MENSA-worthy intelligence, I’d end up as one of those angry nerds who infest the comment boxes of blogs like this one.

    (*Mind you, that didn’t prevent me from *forgetting to drive my kids to school today* till my wife phoned me up.)

  28. Effra Says:

    Whenever someone such as the author of this blog foams at the mouth and heaps insults on another author, I suspect

    (1) Said insulter has an uncomfortable feeling the other guy is on to something unpalatably true. And so he tries to smother the thought in objurgation rather than addressing the specifics of the argument, for fear he will be convicted of non-PC-ness if he buys it.

    (2) Given that the other guy writes more civilly, with more citations and stronger reasoning, he is likely to be nearer the truth than the Tourette’s impersonator.

  29. Hugo Schwyzer Says:

    Another reason to de-link VDARE: they still link to Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, which is a unabashedly racist outfit, just an inch or so from David Duke.

  30. Magna Carta Says:

    Giacomo, you should take a look at Sailer’s review of what happened to an Australian professor who suggeted that immigration should be managed by race. http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050731_fraser.htm

  31. alpha Says:

    tourette’s impersonator

    ah, xrlq isn’t so bad. He sez:

    And the same goes for intellect: it’s all well and good to point to Murray and Herrnstein’s bell curve when discussing statistics or debating affirmative action, but it’s not OK to use it as an excuse to assume any black guy you meet is probably dumber than you.

    So as the genetic dominos continue to fall, I wager he’ll keep an open mind.

    People claim that genetic difference affect intelligence, aggression, promiscuity, industriousness, even the very capacity for morality itself. genetic science is going to show us whether those claims have any basis in fact.

    personally i welcome the demonstration. Maybe it will turn out that we are all equal inside, from Japan to Djibouti, and that every nationality has exactly the same distribution of behavioral traits despite radically different distributions of external physical traits.

    interesting to see.

  32. Iconoclast Says:

    What the Supremes did say was that mentally retarded people could not be executed. Mental retardation was generally understood to top out at an IQ around 55, though in this case the guy’s IQ was slightly higher, at 59. could not be given the death penalty, but could otherwise be held responsible for their actions.What the threshold IQ for mental retardation might be has long been influenced by political correctness and “racial sensitivity,” as this quote from the website La Griffe du Lion makes clear:In 1959, AAMD set the IQ threshold for mental retardation at It doesn’t take much imagination to see how the concept of “mental retardation” is being manipulated in the 2002 Supreme Court case to correspond more to the range of average IQ scores for blacks as opposed to whites, in order to absolve blacks convicted of capital crimes from execution (since it is otherwise taboo to discuss the racial gap in average IQ scores). Sailer deduces the unremarkable corollary from this average IQ gap (which has been about as stubborn and persistent a phenomenon in nearly a century of intelligence testing as any other in the field) that the average range of black IQ’s relative to the average for whites and Asians (see, “Japanese”) also means that blacks *tend* to possess less native judgment to deal in an orderly and rational fashion with the challenges of modern urban life, not to mention a disaster such as Katrina. That’s a deduction which is certainly debatable, but nothing which merits your hysterical reaction, histrionic “de-linking” of VDare, or childish refusal to debate Sailer’s premises.

  33. Luke the Dicknose Says:

    I was browsing your site, trying to obtain a clearer picture of the type of person who would try to improve his character by egotistically excommunicating a perceived heretic from the regimented fellowship of p.c. “conservatism”, when I came across a statement (offered with unabashed pride, no less) that you had attended Boalt Hall.

    Your attendance there goes a long way toward explaining your stance. And the fact that you are actually proud of having done so is truly laughable.

    [So I had to settle on Boalt for my law degree. Sue me. I'm sure you got yours at Yale, right? No, Yale is a prestigious university, not that barbwired facility you "yust" got out of. -X.]

    It all becomes clearer and much uglier.

  34. Turque Says:

    Xrlq

    Did anybody tell you that you are a moron? I bet they did, and I bet you shrugged it off.

    Morons have a tendency to shrug off when they are called morons, even though they themselves don’t flinch from calling others morons.

    I happen to be a regular reader of VDare from Istanbul — specifically Sailer. Let *me* – someone who will be automatically lumped with “diversity” in the US, and should therefore be free to say the following – state my opinion of you in no uncertain terms – at the risk of lowering myself to your level: you’re not a moron; YOU’RE A SHAMELESS, GUTLESS, DICKLESS, SPINELESS MORON.

    That’s because Sailer is telling the truth, only the truth, and nothing but the truth. Despite all the sophistry you sputter to make your pointless points.

    Skin-color causing people to loot? By that logic, if we claim a basketball player who is 7’5″ can slam dunk better, we’re claiming the amount of calcium in his body is causing him to shoot better. Go on, find other nonsensical proxy qualities to pull your demagoguery: A man who is hung 8″ is fancied by women because of his elongated urinary track? A hawk who can see a rabbit a mile away can hunt better because of his larger pupils? My car is faster than yours because its shaft looks fuzzier when it rotates? A lion can bite better because it has more enamel? I mean, surely, a lion’s quantity of enamel and his biting power must be correlated; so when scientists say a lion’s chin can apply a force of 150 lbs, they obviously mean its his enamel causing this, right?

    Similarly, if people stay away from lions in order not to be eaten, they just misinrepret lion behavior – rumored to be controlled by a genetically determined nervous system, since that includes the characteristics of the brain also. It’s all because people are consufing correlation (by loosely associating jaws, meat, chewing, death, etc.) with causation (lions eating them); the poor lions have hemorroid problems, and people piss them off when they’re in anal pain; they just try to communicate that it hurts so bad, they want to bite somebody. Just when they open their mouths to say that, people’s limbs randomly happen to be there.

    C’mon, Xrlq, the possibilities for sophistry are always limitless. Don’t be shy.

    If the above doesn’t work, try tricks with generalization: women are not shorter than men; there’s at least one woman who is shorter than at least one man, therefore… natter natter. Or how about, how can you call mountain gorillas stupid just because a few of them turned out to be so? (A self-justifying statement, as it shows you don’t have to be a mountain gorilla to be stupid.) Hey, you’ll definitely like this one: isn’t it racist to generalize a trait – such as shape – to a whole group… of fruits, such as bananas [when in fact the very ability to recognize categories, which is recognizing groups thanks to their... sorry to surprise you but common traits, is the foundation of thinking]? That’s discriminatory. We need affirmative action to end the insipid jokes about the shape of bananas. Or pears, for that matter.

    Believe you me, you PC’ed (that’s “politically corrected”) nitwits look so charming while you make a public spectacle of yourselves with these “illogic tantrums”.

    The day you can train a babboon to play a Chopin sonata, and when a Norwegian and a Bantu breeds and miraculously a Dakota indian baby is born, will be the day “race” – or, more accurately, the “unique genetic profile of a partly inbred population” (the biological definition of all populations, tribes, nations, ethnic groups, etc.) – will become irrelevant.

    (Save the priceless joke on “inbred”, dammit. By that logic, all animals should be terminally retarded because they inbreed with their own species.)

    Until then, the only thing that I – a member of a distant (“diverse”?) population – can say is, if you or your kind is what is left of that European brand of folks who have built America, obviously it is time for America to fall.

    (I don’t believe that that is the case with those European folks, just that your ilk is speeding up the process towards that Day of Reckoning when no charlatan will be able to pull these stunts any more.)

  35. mikem Says:

    “Does your hatred of liberal hypocrisy explain why you use standard-issue ad hominem liberal tropes?”

    Please, can’t we keep this discussion within sociological parameters?

    There are numerous studies, and common sense assessments, that have shown that white supremacists are, to a remarkable degree, retarded. In an attempt to maintain the racial purity of their ‘superior’ blood lines, they tend to breed too close to their familial genes and the results are a high incidence of heartbreaking intellectual deficiencies.

    It is not an attack on you personally to point out that the subset of white society to which Sailer’s supporters belong is burdened by generations of inbreeding resulting in a large percentage of cognitively handicapped individuals. To employ your language, “[Sailer's supporters] cannot be held to the standard that we hold the 98% of adult white folks who are above 70 IQ.”
    That is NOT an ad hominem attack. As whites, we love you and Steve. Sailer’s followers “are still God’s children and we still owe them the same care and concern we owe smarter folks.”
    We merely want what is best for you, and ignoring genetic and intellectual deficiencies merely results in unnecessary deaths and frustration as you attempt feats and lives better suited to your betters. You are like a delicate blossom that requires special care. Too much sunshine and you will wilt. Too much freedom and you will outgrow your natural habitat and starve. You need tending, and patient understanding support. We love you. Will you dare call that hate?

  36. Joel Parshall Says:

    Mr. Sailer, whose articles I have read for some time, establishes clearly enough that he is discussing a small minority of blacks in New Orleans when he is talking about looting.

    Excluded implicitly are the “light-skinned ‘creole of color’ elite” that politically runs the city and surely fled to safety. Likewise excluded, and far more numerous, are the “more prosperous and/or foresightful blacks” who also left New Orleans on their own. Those who did not leave included persons “too poor to own a car, or too untrustworthy to get a ride with neighbors, or too shortsighted to worry.” Implicit in his statement is that most of those who could not afford cars simply would have left the city (and not looted) had they been able to afford a car or commercial transportation. Whether specific looters owned cars or not, they would mainly fall within the second group of persons recognized by their neighbors as “untrustworthy.” It is possible that some looters had no prior bad reputation, but highly unlikely. Thus, Mr. Sailer’s reference to the third group among those remaining in the city, those “too shortsighted to worry,” implicitly describes people who are probably not looters.

    Concerning the statement of Mr. Sailer’s you found so offensive about the substantial looting after Katrina versus the minimal looting after the severe Kobe, Japan, earthquake in 1995, you could summarize Mr. Sailer’s view thusly: A small minority of the affected black population in New Orleans looted, while an infinitesmal minority of the affected Japanese population in Kobe did the same.

    Mr. Sailer’s statement is amply supported by the empirical evidence. Similarly, Mr. Sailer’s larger point is well taken that a more forthright, truthful prior assessment of the propensities among that population most likely to remain in New Orleans after an area-wide disaster would have led to better planning and more effective protection of life in the rescue, relief and evacuation efforts.

    Having surveyed your web site and this discussion in particular, it is perfectly plain that you are more interested in holding political opinions than in pursuing a truthful understanding of the human beings who would be governed. Truth can be tough to take, but the only sound, sustainable political actions that can be taken — absent tyrannical control — are those rooted in truth, not wishful thinking. Politics is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

    To avoid offending people is good manners in person-to-person relations. In making broad, public statements about ethnic groups, nationalities and members of religious groups, one should strive to remain civil and avoid the invidious use of generalizations, as well as clumsy analogies and gratuitous insults. However, we should all beware of people — especially, it seems, those presuming to speak for a wider ethnic, national or religious group — who make it a point to be too easily offended. In today’s political climate, the offense of such people is simply a calculated posture to lobby for the policies they want and raise money. Mr. Sailer’s articles, including this one, are civil, carefully reasoned and worded, often artful and always well-supported by data and other empirical evidence. His generalizations about groups are not invidious at all but but used in close combination with supporting evidence to lead toward deeper, more truthful understanding of these groups as a foundation for sound public policy.

    Your web site appears to be almost haunted by the penumbras and emanations of those would-be mouthpieces whose raison d’etre is to be offended for political and not infrequently monetary gain. If you had any testicular fortitude, you would see these people for the smarmy hustlers they are.

    Joel Parshall
    Katy, TX

  37. mikem Says:

    Regarding the update, if that is the official Vdare reply to their readers’ concerns then I am guilty of a serious misjudgment in occasionally relying on them as a source for non-PC news. I fully expected them to offer an explanation on First Amendment grounds and a clear distancing from Sailers views. What a shame. Honestly. What a waste of energy and resources.
    The word needs to spread before more of us get dragged down with them.

  38. mikem Says:

    “…you could summarize Mr. Sailer’s view thusly: A small minority of the affected black population in New Orleans looted, while an infinitesmal minority of the affected Japanese population in Kobe did the same.”

    Yeah, sure, that’s what he said. All that writing and you needed to use a bald face lie to anchor your argument?

  39. sr Says:

    What “white supremacists”? I thought that Jared Taylor was a white nationalist. Of course, Sailer is not even that. He is a great journalist, though. Hey, I have a heads-up for all of you: Gregory Cochran el al have a paper coming out in Science this Friday that is supposed to be a big cat-bag deal. Out of, that is.

  40. Matt O'Halloran Says:

    It is amusing to hear the howling panic of so-called conservatives such as the writer of this website, as the terrible demon of Race comes stalking back across the landscape. All those funny old scientists like Darwin and Galton whom we thought we’d finally buried! All that DNA and psychometric evidence we tried so hard to explain away as influences on the behaviour of different subspecies of mankind! All that blether about cultural or environmental or educational influences which we post-Marx faux cons played along with to try to get the black vote, or at least flatter them into not rioting! All that careful pretence of color-blindness from behind the safety of our electronic gates…

    Of course, in our hearts we knew all along that if different breeds of dog can vary in aggressiveness or stamina, so can different strains of humanity. You have to be a liberal prof who never watches sprints on TV to think otherwise. But in modern America, you gotta be polite above all things, and to hell with inconvenient truths and abiding facts of human nature.

    Well, one flood and the mental levees come crashing down for anyone who’s forgotten Watts, Detroit or Rodney King. The New South turns out to be the same old law of the jungle, and neocons who think conservatism means a bloody enormous state and high taxes at home so we can fight unnecessary wars overseas have got to find a new schtick.

    Race never went away, kids. Now it’s back with a vengeance. Not only are a lot more climatic catastrophes coming down the pike; by 2050 one-quarter of this nation will be black and another quarter Hispanic, mostly Mexican Indian. How much neglect and tension is that going to breed? Well, better not worry, after all diversity is our greatest strength and El Presidente’s first wise words on Katrina was that “America will be stronger for it”.

  41. The Colossus of Rhodey Says:

    Xrlq gets tough!

    One of my favorite bloggers, Xrlq, takes on real racist comments and thought here. And it’s not what you may think (i.e. liberal racists). Be sure to read the comments, too. If you ever want to argue with Xrlq, be…

  42. ThoughtsOnline Says:

    Sailer isn’t doing anybody on the right any good…

    … the likes of Sailer not only moblize those on the left, they leave many of us on the right running for cover lest we be associated with their rantings. I hate having people like that anywhere near me on ANY political/social discussion. I don’t lik…

  43. matthewstinson.net » Delinking the Evilcons Says:

    [...] XRLQ engages in a righteous public delinking of VDare.com, an anti-immigration site named after the first white girl born in America, following VDare contributor Steve Sailer’s racist filth. The passage which so incensed XRLQ… In contrast to New Orleans, there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks. [...]

  44. TalkSoftly Says:

    Mickem (who’s either a liberal troll or an alcoholic) writes:

    There are numerous studies, and common sense assessments, that have shown that white supremacists are, to a remarkable degree, retarded.

    Another standard-issue ad hominem liberal trope: If a white criticizes non-whites in any way, he must be a white supremacist.

  45. TalkSoftly Says:

    ThoughtsOnline writes:

    …the likes of Sailer not only mobilize those on the left, they leave many of us on the right running for cover lest we be associated with their rantings.

    No, running for cover because, unlike Sailer, you’re scared of the left and won’t stand up to their smear tactics and bullying. That’s why you collaborate with them to suppress the truth about racial difference.

  46. Magna Carta Says:

    I don’t understand the resistance to Sailer’s article. We know that there are physical and physiological genetic differences between the races. What evolutionay mechanism exists that kept MENTAL genetic differences from developing between the races? No answer. Therefore, Sailer’s hyppothesis is legitimate, and not irrational, prejudiced hate speech.

  47. petit bourgeois Says:

    Jeff is wrong on this one: race riots are historic in New Orleans, with four of them in the past 150 years. History always trumps the psuedo-science of sociology or political correctness. The Big Easy has always been inter-generationally corrupt, inebriated and violent, just like any other third-world backwater. Let the Good Times Roll.

    Let’s not forget the more recent occurrences of this social phenomenon known as “genetic trait behavior” towards criminality memorialized and codified as acceptable by Pan-Africans in Bob Marley’s song “Burning and Looting,” to wit:

    11 Aug 1965 Los Angeles: Watts Riots. (35 killed, 1000 wounded);

    1966 Los Angeles: Watts again;

    23 Jul 1967 Detroit, Michigan: (43 killed);

    17 May 1980 A three-day race riot breaks out after an all-white jury acquits four white Miami police officers of killing Arthur McDuffie, a black insurance salesman. The cops had beaten him with their flashlights and billyclubs, and he died in the hospital. 18 fatalities and more than $100 million in property damage are the final result.

    16 Jan 1989 Three days of race riots begin in Overtown, Miami when a black man fleeing on motorcycle is killed by a hispanic police officer. 125 blocks are sealed off during the riots.

    29 Apr 1992 Los Angeles: Rodney King Riot: (52 killed, 3000 wounded). (Rotten dot com library).

    Those are just some of the many examples in this country. Why do these things happen across the globe, this “Burning and Looting?” To say that these things do not happen and are not glorified and sanctioned by those engaged in the “struggle” is a complete denial of the historical truths cultural artifacts of such events. Furthermore, I don’t recall any tenet of Confucianism being prevalent in African American society. You would be better to engage the welfare state-plantation policy in this country (adopted from the Scandinavian model of social welfare, entirely ill-suited for a black population), if you want to get at the core of such behavior.

    I am amazed at how squishy the Bear Flag League has become of late. Why are the most prominent members of the BLF becoming more like Jim Robinson when it comes to public discourse? Why should the rest of us listen to a bunch of lawyers expound upon things they know nothing about?

  48. mikem Says:

    “Another standard-issue ad hominem liberal trope: If a white criticizes non-whites in any way, he must be a white supremacist.”

    No, of course not. But Sailer (and many of his fans commenting here) clearly is a white supremacist. Either that or he does a deceptively comical imitation of one. And reading the responses of his supporters, I don’t see anyone seriously trying to paint him differently.

    Protest all you like. I and a growing segment of the conservative blogosphere have become aware of Sailer’s racist article and are disgusted that his views are, apparently, well received at Vdare. My views are inconsequential, but I am in good company. Hawkins at Right Wing News, like Xrlq about as un-PC as one can get, is spitting nails over Sailer’s “bigoted garbage”.

    Sailer’s supporters aren’t even trying to seriously defend him. It appears they are playing at being ‘cute’, reciting the old standard Democrat’s rationalizations for slavery and Jim Crow while professing great concern for its victims.

    Hell, you guys are just old fashioned ignorant bigots trying to pass yourselves off as decent folks. (Is that clear enough?)

  49. petit bourgeois Says:

    Yes, charges of “racism” always abound around such topics, because the facts are irrefutable. Is that clear enough?

    Refute the facts and you may have some credibility; otherwise, you are just a tool. What constitutes a “serious” defense of Sailer when you cannot address the facts to begin with? There is not anything to defend, you fucking idiot. Certain truths will remain truthful and rise above all of the ad hominem. Read your history before you shit your brains out with keystrokes on a blog that has recently become irrelevant.

    The previous commentator does not have the civility of a lawyer. At least Jeff gets bonus points for civility, except for his “moron” name-calling.

  50. petit bourgeois Says:

    Oh, this one is great for the debate:

    http://www.sptimes.com/2005/09/07/Worldandnation/Times_reporter_shot_i.shtml

    “A St. Petersburg Times reporter covering the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was shot and wounded late Monday night in Baton Rouge, La.”

    Black on black crime, virtually unreported in the aftermath.

    Quit being a bunch of criebabies ignoring reality. Lysenko really did not grow lemon trees in Moscow.

  51. Udolpho Says:

    The very confused, emotional arguments made in your post really don’t help your case. Who cares if you de-link someone, but you manage to make it look like a big tantrum, which slightly undermines your intellectual superiority claim. Also, you could do with practicing concision; there is nothing as brain-numbing as verbose histrionics.

  52. Magna Carta Says:

    Mikem, there is a growing number of conservatives who find that Sailer’s observations and writings are some of the best from the right. He’s definitely no White Supremacist. He is in fact respectful of diversity, as he has written several times, and admiring in a way of those who engage in interracial marriage. No White Supremacist holds those views. At the same time, however, he is trying to keep it real and for that he has my admiration.

  53. Magna Carta Says:

    Mikem, don’t refuse to read anything Sailer writes. Then you become close minded.

  54. mikem Says:

    “Mikem, there is a growing number of conservatives who find that Sailer’s observations and writings are some of the best from the right.”

    Yeah, that’s why conservative websites like Xrlq’s here at damnum absque injuria, Right Wing News and National Review are condemning Sailer’s views, and Vdare for supporting him. Not all attacks on conservatism come from the left. Sailer is an embarrassment and I give Xrlq buckets of credit for taking on the unsavory task of reading and exposing Sailer’s racist views. Sometimes a bloggers role is not to point out the foolishness and hypocrisy of the other side, but to expose and publicly condemn the same when it appears on his own side. I think that we, the right, do that much better than the left and it adds to our credibility with voters. Xrlq and his colleagues in the conservative blogosphere are not shirking from the less enjoyable responsibilities of having a public voice. And much credit to them for that.
    There is no mistaking Sailer’s motivations. The article, and his supporter’s comments here, read like a primer on ‘white superiority’. It disgusts me.
    I’ll pass, on reading Sailer in the future. In fact, barring a change in Vdare’s support for Sailer’s views, I’ll pass on them too. The web is a big place. There are more credible voices to hear.

  55. Mike Says:

    Wow! Compared to Victor Davis Hanson!! That’s a badge of honor. You ought to put it on your “Others Say” list.

  56. Xrlq Says:

    Good idea, Mike! I just added it.

  57. Magna Carta Says:

    Xrlq, there is an article in the New York Times showing that allelles controlling for brain size have different frequencies in different races. Here it is,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/science/08cnd-brain.html?ei=5094&en=7f83ee9b96d40611&hp=&ex=1126238400&adxnnl=0&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1126212523-Sy51vhmKhac0/YQeUBpASA&pagewanted=all

    The objective science is supportive of Sailer’s argument, and therefore the Times must be a horribly racist newspaper! Better not link to it!

    Keeping it Real.

  58. Xrlq Says:

    I saw that article, but couldn’t find the part that says black people have a looting gene. I did, however, find this:

    But several experts strongly criticized this aspect of the finding, saying it was far from clear that the new alleles conferred any cognitive advantage or had spread for that reason. Many genes have more than one role in the body, and the new alleles could have been favored for some other reason, these experts said, such as if they increased resistance to disease.

    Even if the new alleles should be shown to improve brain function, that would not necessarily mean that the populations where they are common have any brain-related advantage over those where they are rare. Different populations often take advantage of different alleles, which occur at random, to respond to the same evolutionary pressure, as has happened in the emergence of genetic defenses against malaria, which are somewhat different in Mediterranean and African populations. If the same is true of brain evolution, each population might have a different set of alleles for enhancing function, many of which remain to be discovered.

    And this:

    Dr. Lahn said there may be a dozen or so genes that affect the size of the brain, each making a small difference yet one that can be acted on by natural selection. “It’s likely that different populations would have a different make-up of these genes, so it may all come out in the wash,” he said. In other words, East Asians and Africans probably have other brain enhancing alleles, not yet discovered, that have spread to high frequency in their populations.

    Of course, I fully expect racist “science” nuts like Sailer to ignore such details and misquote the story as though it vindicated everything they said. IOW, I expect Sailer to quote it just as recklessly as you did.

  59. Magna Carta Says:

    The point is that these differences in genes, along with others that the experts above speculate may well exist, mean that it is possible if not likely that there are mental differences between different races that will cause them to behave differently. It’s not so shocking when you think about it. We know that there are physical differences, as well as physiological differences, that cause our bodies to function differently. WHAT EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM WOULD INHIBIT MENTAL DIFFERENCES FROM FORMING AS WELL? None that we know of. Therefore, Sailer’s speculation is not some racist rant that can be easily dismissed.

  60. mikem Says:

    Groan.

  61. Xrlq Says:

    Interesting logic, MC. Basically, it boils down to this:

    Genetic differences between races exist.
    Therefore, some mental differences between races might exist.
    Therefore, all differences Steve Sailer alleges do exist.

    Looks to me like the Non Sequitur Society has just doubled its membership.

  62. Luniversal Says:

    Xrlq thinks the brain floats free of vulgar materiality, unlike the pancreas or the elbow. Evolutionary differences in the body could not possibly be paralleled in the mind, could they? Not with all those black Nobel Prize winners in the hard sciences.

  63. mikem Says:

    There once was a man, Steve Sailer,
    Who thought that blacks were inferior.
    He opened his eyes, and saw with surprise
    Three ears, six toes in the mirror.

  64. Magna Carta Says:

    ‘…all differences Steve Sailer alleges do exist.” – Xlrq

    No, I am saying only that his speculation is not the product of runaway racism.

  65. TalkSoftly Says:

    Magna Carta writes:

    WHAT EVOLUTIONARY MECHANISM WOULD INHIBIT MENTAL DIFFERENCES FROM FORMING AS WELL? None that we know of. Therefore, Sailer’s speculation is not some racist rant that can be easily dismissed.

    Xrlq cranks up that 137+ IQ of his and responds:

    Interesting logic, MC. Basically, it boils down to this: Genetic differences between races exist. Therefore, some mental differences between races might exist. Therefore, all differences Steve Sailer alleges do exist. Looks to me like the Non Sequitur Society has just doubled its membership.

    Not having an IQ of 137, I’m puzzled how you extract “MC is claiming that all differences SS alleges do exist” from “Sailer’s speculation is not some racist rant that can be easily dismissed”.

    As for Mickem: Is he in fact a conservative troll pretending to be a liberal troll pretending to be an alcoholic (or some permutation thereof)? Or is he, like Xrlq, just another example of how liberals have induced Stockholm Syndrome among those conservatives who wet themselves and flee shrieking for cover at the merest threat of the r-word?

  66. TalkSoftly Says:

    Different populations often take advantage of different alleles, which occur at random, to respond to the same evolutionary pressure…

    Yep. Europe, Asia, and Africa have all exerted “the same evolutionary pressure” on genes for behavior and cognition.

    If the same is true of brain evolution, each population might have a different set of alleles for enhancing function, many of which remain to be discovered.

    Yep. And each population’s different set of alleles might enchance brain function to exactly the same extent and with exactly the same effects.

  67. Steve Burton Says:

    Xrlq: there is, of course, no “looting gene.” If there are any genetic influences on human behavior, they operate at a much higher level of generality.

    For example: there might be genetic influences on degree of impulsiveness, length of “time horizon,”, dominant-aggressive tendency, etc.

    Obviously, these examples are not chosen casually: isn’t it possible that someone with a genetic predisposition for high impulsiveness, short time-horizon, and greater than average dominance-aggression might be quicker to resort to looting in Post-Katrina NOLA-like circumstances than someone with the opposite tendencies?

    And isn’t it possible that “racial” groups differ in the relative frequency of the related alleles – if there are any?

    Or does even entertaining such possibilities make me a “racist moron?”

  68. Xrlq Says:

    TS:

    No 137 IQ is needed. An average white boy’s IQ of 100 should be plenty to see the disconnect between the theoretical possibility that there may be some measurable (albeit as yet unmeasured) mental differences between the races on average, and Sailer’s claim that blackness causes looting. If you’re smart enough to type your own comments without assistance, you’re smart enough to see that error, unless of course you don’t want to see it.

    SB:

    Entertaining possibilities does not make anyone a racist or a moron. Claiming such possibilities as though they were established facts very well might. To argue that anyone can claim blackness causes looting and not be a racist is to define racism out of existence. And to make such an inflammatory claim without proof, and then have the nerve to whine about how everyone else is the one scapegoating, well, let’s just say that moron is as moron does.

  69. Steve Burton Says:

    Xrlq:

    Sailer did not write that “blackness causes looting.”

    He wrote that “there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks.”

    An uncharitable reader might take Sailer to be claiming that having dark skin causes people to loot.

    But do you really think that is what he was trying to say?

    It is precisely when one disagrees with someone very strongly that one must avoid the temptation to read him uncharitably.

    Just as an exercise, you might try paraphrasing Sailer’s point in terms that you think he might accept.

  70. Xrlq Says:

    An uncharitable reader might take Sailer to be claiming that having dark skin causes people to loot.

    But do you really think that is what he was trying to say?

    What the hell else could it have meant?! “Because” means “because,” as in, “caused by.” If he meant anything else, he could, should, and in all likelihood would have said something else. I’m all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but that only works when they give me the benefit of there being a doubt to begin with. Sailer didn’t, and Vdare didn’t, either in the original post or when responding to it afterward.

  71. alpha Says:

    What the hell else could it have meant?!

    skin color correlates with the presence of other genes. for example, dark skin does not confer susceptibility to sickle cell anemia, and light skin does not confer susceptibility to cystic fibrosis.

    however, there are dark skinned individuals who have the hemoglobin variant that predisposes them to sickle cell, and light skinned people who have the ccr5 variant that predisposes them to cystic fibrosis.

    as the recent lahn paper showed (cited above), not all population groups have the same frequencies of brain-related alleles. What’s more, not all populations have experienced the same selection pressure for brain related alleles…and in the case of certain variants (like the ASPM and MCPH variants studied by Lahn), there is actually not very much overlap between some ethnic groups at all. In particular, sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians have quite different frequencies of these strongly selected, brain-related variants.

    in other words, the statement could have meant that skin color is not the only difference between population groups. neurological alleles can — and, as the lahn paper shows, do — differ between groups.

    it may turn out that different populations have differentn complements of alleles that all lead to exactly the same distribution of every behavioral trait.

    it may turn out that every human population group has the same exact propensity for doing nuclear physics, for empathy, for improvisational jazz, and for sacrificial braveness as every other.

    But I don’t think that’s the way to bet. sociological observations, economic statistics, and international academic performance is not the same as molecular evidence. but it’s not *nothing*.

  72. Luniversal Says:

    Interesting to see how unimpressed so many of xrlq’s correspondents are by his attempts to exorcise anyone who dares to proffer scientific evidence for racial distinctions.

    I suspect more and more conservatives are tired of playing along with liberal pieties for a quiet life. Faced with the overwhelming real-world evidence that different races behave differently, they are looking for answers in evolutionary genetics.

    Bruce Lahn, author of the latest paper, is a Chinese post-Tiananmen exile. He knows how free intellectual inquiry can be stifled by ideological fanatics who insist that all human beings can be programmed to act the same way.

    Conservatives, even neocons, ought to be more sceptical of blank-slate utopianism, and more respectful of the idea that our genomes influence our different heritages and traits. But the xrlqs of this world have given so many hostages to liberal fortune that they cannot retreat in the face of the mounting, overwhelming DNA evidence confirming common sense. Instead they resort to name-calling and anathemata, just like the ex-commie neocons who captured the mind and soul of American GOP conservatism and led it to disgrace and absurdity in the world’s eyes.

    In the end– as John Derbyshire, the lone race realist on National Review, says– science walks, BS talks. BS here stands for Blank Slate: the faith in the infinite malleability and interchangeability of human beings which fauxcons such as xrlq share with marxists.

  73. TalkSoftly Says:

    …there was only minimal looting after the horrendous 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks.

    What the hell else could it have meant?! “Because” means “because,” as in, “caused by.”

    Try this: “Jazz in Tokyo is much less exciting than jazz in New Orleans—because, when you get down to it, Japanese aren’t blacks.” Is that racist? Is that claiming “blackness” causes good jazz? No: it’s claiming that there are differences — for unspecified reasons — between two races that explain why members of one produce better jazz, on average, than members of the other.

    In fact, you could explain better black jazz in similar ways to worse black criminality. Both are related to extraversion, impulsiveness, the ability to improvise, etc, i.e. mental traits that are partly under genetic control and that differ, on average, between races.

    An average white boy’s IQ of 100 should be plenty to see the disconnect between the theoretical possibility that there may be some measurable (albeit as yet unmeasured) mental differences between the races on average, and Sailer’s claim that blackness causes looting.

    Hold on: how can you refer to an “average white boy’s IQ of 100″ and then say mental differences between races are “as yet unmeasured”? What do you think IQ tests measure if not something mental? It is not a theoretic possibility but a fact that there are measurable mental differences on average between the races — and between the genders and sexualities. Why these differences exist and how malleable they are is another matter, but they explain all sorts of patterns in sports, the arts, criminality, etc. As Sailer often points out.

    But I’m wondering: are you black? That would explain why you’re refusing to accept some of these points.

  74. catroina Says:

    what’s the excuse ?
    new o leans is a democratically engineered sewer.
    wake up.

  75. Xrlq Says:

    Luniversal, you’ve proven yourself to be most adept at debating strawmen. I never said anything about blank slates, malleability, interchangeability or any of that other rubbish you addressed. As to my allegedly unimpressed “correspondents,” you might want to go back to check the earlier comments by Rick, Uncle, McGehee, MikeM, John, Patterico, Hugo Schwyzer, Dave Huber, Steve Sturm, Matthew Stinson and Mike Zorn, all of whom agreed with my position. Russell Wardrow didn’t, but did acknowledge that even if Sailer himself isn’t a racist, several of his defenders in this comment thread are. The rest of the commenters in this thread are people I had never heard of prior to this exchange, and who in all likelihood had never heard of thsi blog until Sailer and or Vdare linked back to it.

    TS: there is no possible meaning of “because” that does not include causation. That’s what “because” means. Suggesting that blackness causes jazz, or even a better variety of jazz than a group of musicians in Tokyo is likely to reproduce, would be far less offensive than what Sailer wrote, but no less silly. The average black African is blacker than the average black American, but that doesn’t mean they’d be able to put together a very good jazz band, any more than I would expect the Brits and the Germans – both racially indistinguishable from many white Americans – to be able to put together a good baseball team.

    Hold on: how can you refer to an “average white boy’s IQ of 100″ and then say mental differences between races are “as yet unmeasured”?

    I was responding to his claim that the new study on varying alleles produces some mental differences. It might, or it might not, but if any such connections exist, those connections – as opposed to IQ – are as yet unmeasured. Even less measured is Sailer’s claim (and yours) that average IQ differences cause crime. Contrary to old-style political correctness, crime does pay, so it’s wishful thinking to assume smart people will be more law-abiding than dumb people, rather than simply being more adept at avoiding being caught.

    If anything, I’d expect criminal behavior to correlate with a combination of a high IQ and a low level of formal education. They’re the ones smart enough to understand the real trade-offs involved, while not having a realistic alternative of doing well in the licit market. Genuinely dumb people are less likely to know what they’re missing, more likely to believe facile slogans like “crime doesn’t pay,” and far less likely to have the good sense to mistrust other people who, by Sailer’s own admission, they are right to mistrust. I attribute the latter more to nurture than nature; people who grow up around criminals learn to adjust their habits accordingly. But if it’s really innate, that implies that blacks possess more than whites of at least one kind of smarts that can be measured somehow but doesn’t get measured in IQ tests.

    The color of my skin doesn’t have a f’ing thing to do with any of this discussion.

  76. Cobb Says:

    Hey X,
    When you told me you had a troll infestation, I didn’t realize the dimension of the problem. Unfortunately I have disassembled REMA, the Racist Emergency Management Agency, for lack of funding. I would have been able to mount some assitance by dropping in some troops, but that was another life. Right now you appear to be doing a Bruce Lee number on your own and the RDGs are dropping like flies. However, like most zombies, they don’t seem to realize that they are dead and may spontaneously arise and regenerate.

    I will monitor the area, and you may count on me for some assistance. BTW, I really like the way you interject within comments. I think I’ll be trying that from here on out.

  77. Cobb Says:

    Caring about Black People

    Here you have an opportunity to see right wingers do battle with white supremacists. It’s almost as good as Celebrity Deathmatch.

  78. carter Says:

    “But if it’s really innate, that implies that blacks possess more than whites of at least one kind of smarts that can be measured somehow but doesn’t get measured in IQ tests”

    So the reason blacks commit rape at higher rates than other races is because blacks have some unmeasured facet of intelligence other races lack? What a novel idea. You should contact Howard Gardner and suggest he make CI, or ‘Criminal Intelligence’ the eighth type of his silly “multiple intelligences”.

  79. Xrlq Says:

    Yes, Carter, that’s exactly what I said. Jeebus, how many dumb whites are there in the world who’ve convinced themselves they’re smarter than all blacks?

  80. TalkSoftly Says:

    The color of my skin doesn’t have a f’ing thing to do with any of this discussion.

    I think it does, because when someone argues the odd way you have some extra-rational factor seems to be at work. Ethnic loyalty could be that e.r.f., which is why I’m guessing you’re black. I think there are linguistic clues too, which got a lot stronger in your last post.

    …there is no possible meaning of “because” that does not include causation. That’s what “because” means. Suggesting that blackness causes jazz, or even a better variety of jazz than a group of musicians in Tokyo is likely to reproduce, would be far less offensive than what Sailer wrote, but no less silly.

    I think part of the problem is the definition you seem to be giving “causation” and “blackness” (a fuzzy category in any case). Sailer is not saying that blacks necessarily loot because they are genetically black, which would be silly. He’s saying certain traits found (not exclusively but) at higher rates among blacks than among Japanese (for whatever reason) caused looting. To quote him:

    From the point of view of Sowell and myself, our observations that there are areas where blacks are particularly strong [or weak] are either true or not true. If true, then they are an addition to knowledge. The secondary question is whether it’s all a coincidence.

    Whether the cause is nature or nurture is tertiary.

    http://www.vdare.com/sailer/unthinkable.htm

    If anything, I’d expect criminal behavior to correlate with a combination of a high IQ and a low level of formal education…

    And I’d expect statements like that to correlate with a low level of formal reading on relevant topics.

  81. Xrlq Says:

    I think it does, because when someone argues the odd way you have some extra-rational factor seems to be at work. Ethnic loyalty could be that e.r.f., which is why I’m guessing you’re black. I think there are linguistic clues too, which got a lot stronger in your last post.

    If you’re thinking of pursuing a new career as either a detective or a linguist, don’t quit your day job.

    Sailer is not saying that blacks necessarily loot because they are genetically black, which would be silly.

    Actually, that’s exactly what he said.

    He’s saying certain traits found (not exclusively but) at higher rates among blacks than among Japanese (for whatever reason) caused looting.

    If he had said that, this blog entry and the ensuing discussion would not exist. He went far beyond acknowledging a correlation everyone knows to exist – blacks in America have a higher crime than do Japanese in Japan (or America) – and made a crazy assertion that blacks loot because they are black. All the sophistry and word games in the world are not going to change that. The only thing that would change it is an apology from Sailer himself. I’m not holding my breath.

  82. memer Says:

    The thing about the rabid racist trying to squelch his real feelings for wider consumption is that he never succeeds completely. There will arise, at some point or t’other, some event that will cause leakage. The truth will out, subconsciously, or because a tongue can only withstand so many lacerations.

    This post of Sailer’s was my first. I’m amazed he’s managed to do such a skilful softshoe for as long as he has. Anyway, unless he rewrites the post (someone should keep a cache of originals), he’s exposed himself for all the borderliners to see.

    Good on ya, X. I will watch this space.

    p.s. where’s your ‘about’ page?

  83. Xrlq Says:

    p.s. where’s your ‘about’ page?

    I’m working on it. Meanwhile, almost anything any reader might want to know about me is bound to be buried in the archives somewhere.

  84. Luniversal Says:

    xrlq: “If anything, I’d expect criminal behavior to correlate with a combination of a high IQ and a low level of formal education…”

    This is just typical of your approach. You’d rather indulge in paradoxes, sentimentality and name-calling than study the hard facts. Never mind what you’d “expect”– ditch your wonderful warm intuitive genius and read a few studies. Then you’ll discover that most habitual criminals are below-average IQ and that’s why they keep getting caught, because they lack the empathy to foresee how they might be detected. But you’d rather nurse a hunch that smart, poor people turn to crime because the “licit market” won’t let them succeed any other way. Such faith in America, already.

    Steve Sailer is the kind of “rabid white supremacist” who keeps emphasising that Asians and Jews have higher intelligence than whites! Terribly cunning, these evilcons…

    The violent crime rate is 30 times as great among blacks (average IQ 85) as Asian Americans (average 105). That’s how big a difference gaps in testosterone, impulsivity and brainpower can make, but don’t worry about it– just keep staring at the evidence of your own eyes on the boob tube and in the press, and keep denying it until you turn blue in thee face. Who needs liberal fatheads when they’ve got conservatives such as xrlq?

  85. Xrlq Says:

    This is just typical of your approach. You’d rather indulge in paradoxes, sentimentality and name-calling than study the hard facts.

    No, Luney, it’s more typical of your little cult, which confuses various and sundry inferences and innuendos, plus a few hand-picked facts here and there, with the facts. I never denied that an inverse correlation between IQ and criminal behavior exists; of course it does. What I did suggest is that this may have as much to do with education and/or the availability of lawful alternatives (e.g., rapidly disappearing blue collar jobs) as it does with intelligence as a proxy for morals. None of your “hard” facts do anything to prove or disprove that, nor did it even occur to you that the very studies you quote may be skewed in favor of solved crimes, which tend to be poorly planned and are committed by dumber people than carefully planned ones. By your logic, if a crime was never solved, it must not have happened, and even entertaining the possibility that it might have is “nursing a hunch.”

    Steve Sailer is the kind of “rabid white supremacist” who keeps emphasising that Asians and Jews have higher intelligence than whites! Terribly cunning, these evilcons…

    Not all that cunning, really. I don’t think you’ll find too many Asians or Jews among Sailer’s followers, even though they’re the smartest guys in his book, and should therefore be the first to grasp his self-evident truths. Past versions of Steve Sailer, including those who offered the “scientific” excuses for Nazism, identified Jews and Asians as weak races rather than strong ones, but that version of racist “science” would never fly today; we all know too many successful Asians and Jews.

    That said, I must admit that it would be fun to watch the Sailers of the world make any real effort to apply their “innate intelligence is everything” theories consistently. Take, for example, the Middle East. Israeli Jews are generally well educated and highly law-abiding, while neighboring Arabs, particularly in “Palestine” and in various hot spots in Iraq, are anything but that. Does Sailer really think that one group of Semites is really that much innately smarter than the other? If in fact two closely related races from the same exact region of the world can diverge that sharply, then given the huge number of separate, non-intermarrying races scattered across sub-Saharan Africa, isn’t it a bit odd that Sailer & Co. haven’t managed to locate a single genius race among them? I mean, seriously, what are the odds of that?

    Who needs liberal fatheads when they’ve got conservatives such as xrlq?

    Conservatives do. You and your quaint little race-baiting, isolationist cult are not conservatives, but reactionaries. There is a difference between the two, as you’d know if you had spent a little less time lecturing me about “hard facts” you pulled out of your butt and more time consulting a dictionary.

    Semantics aside, it’s doubtful that either major party will ever produce a President more conservative than George Bush, and it is highly unlikely they’ll ever produce a leader more conservative than me, except on a few isolated issues such as abortion. If, from the perspective of the reactionary bubble you’re living in, you really can’t appreciate a difference between liberals and real conservatives (read: not you), then maybe you should boycott the next election. And the one after that, and so on ad infinitum.

  86. Luniversal Says:

    “If in fact two closely related races from the same exact region of the world can diverge that sharply, then given the huge number of separate, non-intermarrying races scattered across sub-Saharan Africa, isn’t it a bit odd that Sailer & Co. haven’t managed to locate a single genius race among them?”

    So where is this genius negroid subrace? Have you found it? Do let us in on the secret.

    The sad fact is that *all* subspecies of sub-Saharan African have evolved less in intelligence than whites or Asiatics, chiefly because savannah hunter-gatherers lacked the selectional pressures of intermittent glaciation. Hence the lawlessness, lack of foresight, dumbness and childish helplessness more characteristic of the Africans’ NO descendants than of Louisiana whites. It’s manifest to everyone (including you), indeed it is privately admitted by many of them, and its obviousness has to be howled down by your absurd non-sequiturs and ad hominems.

    Ashkenazi Jews (*not* Sephardim, whose IQ is ordinary) have obtained higher IQs by a programme of endomgamy and selective breeding for intelligence. It has been going on for centuries and is not replicated among Arab semites. Judaism is exclusionary, Islam inclusionary. See Kevin MacDonald, seriatim.

    Fauxcons like you, parroting yesterday’s liberal platitudes as though you’ve just made them up, always call real conservatives reactionaries. You betray yourself thus (as in so many other respects) as prisoners of marxism, which originated this slur. If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams and Alexander Hamilton– to whose principles true conservatives adhere, are reactionary isolationists– count me in. You can keep your Civil Rights era superstitions and I’ll keep thousands of years of inherited wisdom, now radiantly vindicated by the most modern science.

    Absent lying globalist MSM propaganda, most Americans are natural-born isolationists and instinctive believers in racial difference and separation. The bitter experience of life under neoconnerie has reaffirmed their inclination to mind their own business and let the rest of the world do likewise.

    PS: As if a bozo such as Bush Minor could be called a “conservative” or any other label that implies he can think coherently for ten seconds on end! As if there was any difference between branches of the Warfare/Welfare Party worth leaving home to make a hanging chad for! Washington, Adams, Jefferson… George W Bush. God help America.

  87. Xrlq Says:

    So where is this genius negroid subrace? Have you found it? Do let us in on the secret.

    Luni, I never said any such race existed, only that the odds are overwhelming that it would exist if your pathetic excuse for “science” had any merit. I’d call you an idiot, but then again, maybe you’re just a member of some moron sub-race of Caucasians – not generally perceived by other Caucasians as a separate “race,” of course, but shunned nevertheless for your idiocy, and therefore highly unlikely to cross breed with any non-idiots.

    Ashkenazi Jews (*not* Sephardim, whose IQ is ordinary) have obtained higher IQs by a programme of endomgamy and selective breeding for intelligence.

    Ah, yes, the “intelligent design” theory all over again. My history books are missing the chapter when all the Ashkenaz were kidnapped by aliens, selectively bred for desired traits, and returned to earth to see how the experiment would turn out. And you still haven’t explained all those lawless Arabs, who can’t seem to hold a society together. If all this boiled down to intelligence, what to do with the people who brought us al-Qaeda, al-Jazeera and algebra? Feel free to use Arabic numerals in your answer.

    Fauxcons like you, parroting yesterday’s liberal platitudes as though you’ve just made them up, always call real conservatives reactionaries. You betray yourself thus (as in so many other respects) as prisoners of marxism, which originated this slur.

    Translated: I own a dictionary, and unlike you, I actually use it from time to time. Since we’ve already established that you are a member of some moron race, and therefore likely incapable of consulting a dictionary, I’ll let you in on a secret. Contrary to your whining, “reactionary” is not a slur, but a value-neutral term to describe anyone who favors “reaction,” or a return to the status quo ante. This stands in contrast to “conservative,” which describes a person who advocates “conserving” the status quo. Of course today’s real conservatives advocate many of the same ideas yesterday’s liberals did; ideas that were new and radical then are the status quo today. Duh.

    So keep your idiotic (my opinion) reactionary (not an opinion) views if you must, but spare me your crap about them being “conservative,” when in fact they are anything but that.

  88. Luniversal Says:

    “Luni, I never said any such race existed…”

    Just as well, since it doesn’t.

    “My history books are missing the chapter when all the Ashkenaz were kidnapped by aliens, selectively bred for desired traits, and returned to earth to see how the experiment would turn out.”

    Instead of salivating over straw men, read MacDonald’s trilogy. Or try converting to Talmudic Judaism, then you’ll find out how hard and painful it is, and what a premium is placed on verbal-ability IQ. Hence all the Jewish preachers, teachers, media mavens and judges in the benighted USA.

    “And you still haven’t explained all those lawless Arabs, who can’t seem to hold a society together.”

    Neither can the Zionists- is Israel more safe and stable than Syria, as opposed to richer? Read more carefully. I have attributed the *relatively* low general intelligence of Arab semites to the hybridisation prompted by their universalist religion. The smartest peoples are careful not to outbreed: Ashkenazi Jews, Japs and Scandinavians. They’re ‘racist’ all right. But there is a role for environment too, and the restlessness of Ashkenazim helps explain why they never construct or create– only criticise and cling on to other, more organic societies, while spreading dangerously destructive nostrums such as those you have fallen for.

    If you turn from your dictionary definitions to the market place, you will hear the term reactionary used almost exclusively as a pejorative. It always has been. And don’t pretend that when you were dissing me, bro, you didn’t call me a reactionary to be rude. Insults is pretty well all you do, but that’s what comes of soaking yourself in Faux News and the Wall Street Journal, instead of looking out of the window. All that misdirected anger is externalising your dim awareness of how you’ve been conned.

    If you studied the view from the window you’d notice that

    (1) Neocon foreign policy has turned America into a detested laughing stock, and it is about to be driven out of Iraq by a rabble of religious fanatics, brigands and remnants of an army which The Greatest Superpower In World History was supposed to have shattered 14 years ago. Menawhile China is quietly preparing to take over world economic leadership.

    (2) America’s racial strains– from which it sought distraction in this futile overseas adventure– are getting worse and worse as the burden on the cognitively gifted Whites, Jews and Asians of carrying a faster-growing population of blacks and Mexican half-castes becomes intolerable. By 2050 whites will be a minority in America. There are only so many states, neighbourhoods and electronically monitored stockades they can flee into to escape the consequences of that exciting, vibrant, diverse, multicultural, immigration-ridden playground created since 1965 by liberals and their “conservative” water-carriers and echo chambers. Good night, and good luck.

  89. Xrlq Says:

    If you turn from your dictionary definitions to the market place, you will hear the term reactionary used almost exclusively as a pejorative. It always has been.

    Baloney. The word is generally viewed negatively because most people think reaction (in the political sense) is a bad thing. Indeed, your particular racialist brand of reaction is exactly why most people assume reaction is wrong generally. I’m not going to allow people like you to do to the word “conservative” what the socialists did to the word “liberal.” If you oppose the basic policies that 90% of the population calls “conservative,” you’re not a conservative, and should quit pretending to be one. You are reactionary. The shoe fits, so wear it. Or make up some other word if you must, but “conservative” is taken.

    Neocon foreign policy has turned America into a detested laughing stock

    Ah, yes, I almost forgot how much the international community (a code phrase for “Europe,” which is itself a code phrase for France and Germany) just luurrved the U.S. when our foreign policy was more to the liking of the moonbats and the reactionary nuts like you who pretend to be conservatives (and would be if you held the same misguided views a century ago). The sad part is that no matter what the outcome in Iraq, it’s bound to go down as a failure in most people’s minds, for the simple reason that it will probably never be a model democracy by U.S. or Western European standards, some bad things will always come out of Iraq, and we’ll never get reports from the parallel universe of all the worse stuff that would have happened there if your buddy Saddam had been allowed to remain in power, probbaly with all the WMD back shortly after sanctions were lifted. Oops, I almost forgot, you were against the first war and the sanctions, too, so forget about speculation of Saddam getting his WMD back; under your long since discredited version of “conservatism” he never would have lost them in the first place.

  90. mikem Says:

    I keep checking back here and this is still going on. Bless you, Xrlq. You are like Mother Teresa with the patience of Job, tirelessly working among the lepers.

  91. Luniversal Says:

    xrlq: I didn’t use the phrase ‘international community’ and I didn’t say what I thought of the First Gulf War or Saddam. Your need to invent straw men out of imaginary straw is compulsive. Why so angry all the time? Because in your heart, to quote proto-neocon Barry Goldwater, you know I’m right. You know America has lost in the ME, you know most Americans are sick of the phoney Crusade, you know that El Busho fouled up big time over Katrina for entirely characteristic and predictable reasons, and you know the cauldron here at home is going to go on boiling until it boils over, unless we get real about race. But you never will: you’re too worried about being a ‘racist’, pussywhipped to perdition by the liberals you affect to oppose. All you can do is bluster while the US burns, preen yourself on what a humane guy you are and avoid addressing realists’ predictions by concocting fantasies about our motives.

    Anyway, what’s so terrible about being a reactionary? Ronald Reagan, who was worth a hundred GWBs, turned the clock back in all sorts of ways. Your straight-line, only-way-is-forward idea of historical change is sooooo 19C Whig. Try reading about black holes and multiverse physics and apply the lessons to politics.

    “The sad part is that no matter what the outcome in Iraq, it’s bound to go down as a failure in most people’s minds…”

    Yep, you’ve surrendered in *your* mind all right. One heard just the same rationalising BS about Vietnam when the warhawks of the day finally got hit in the gut by the fact that they’d lost their own fellow citizens. America came home and left the bullies and war profiteers behind, sobbing for more mothers’ sons to die for others’ beliefs. Luckily these days Americans realise they’ve been fooled much faster.

  92. Xrlq Says:

    The Looney says:

    “And you still haven’t explained all those lawless Arabs, who can’t seem to hold a society together.”

    Neither can the Zionists- is Israel more safe and stable than Syria, as opposed to richer?

    Of course the Israeli society is safer and stabler than Syria. The crime rate among Israeli citizens, of any religion or ethnicity, is quite low. If it weren’t for all those non-Israeli Palestinian thugs looking for every conceivable opportunity to wipe Israel off the map, Israel would be one of the safest countries on the planet.

    The smartest peoples are careful not to outbreed: Ashkenazi Jews, Japs and Scandinavians.

    “Japs,” huh? Nice. I suppose that in your world, that word isn’t racist, either?

    They’re ‘racist’ all right. But there is a role for environment too, and the restlessness of Ashkenazim helps explain why they never construct or create– only criticise and cling on to other, more organic societies, while spreading dangerously destructive nostrums such as those you have fallen for.

    Ah, I should have known your damning of the Ashkenaz with faint praise was going to turn to criticism at some point or another. Never mind that most American Jews, Ashkenaz or otherwise, are liberal Democrats whose views on foreign policy have more in common with yours than with mine. Who cares about the details? Just blame the Jooz!

    I didn’t use the phrase ‘international community’ and I didn’t say what I thought of the First Gulf War or Saddam.

    You didn’t have to, John. When you accused the current administration’s non-idiotarian foreign policy of having “turned America into a detested laughing stock,” it was pretty obvious you were blaming Bush for this country’s image abroad,not at home. And when you claimed that the U.S. was “about to be driven out of Iraq by a rabble of religious fanatics, brigands and remnants of an army which The Greatest Superpower In World History was supposed to have shattered 14 years ago,” it was plain as day that youweren’t a big fan of the first Gulf War, either. And while you have not stated a personal opinion on Saddam, you have advocated policies that would have left him in power in Iraq, with the caveat that the very definition of “Iraq” would be substantially broader than it is today.

    You know America has lost in the ME,

    You may “know” this, but I sure as hell do not. Between Iraq and Afghanistan holding elections, Libya disarming, Lebanon kicking Syria out and Egypt & Saudi feeling the need to at least feign democracy, I’d say we’re a lot closer to winning in the ME than we’ve ever been before. We’re certainly not in any danger of “losing” any major battles that were winnable in 2000.

    you know most Americans are sick of the phoney Crusade,

    So sick that just last year, they swept Howard Dean into office. Or was that Pat Buchanan? I forget – who exactly is President right now, and why?

    you know that El Busho fouled up big time over Katrina for entirely characteristic and predictable reasons,

    How, exactly? By assuming that between Louisiana’s white governor and New Orleans’s black mayor, somebody in the state knew WTF they were doing?

    and you know the cauldron here at home is going to go on boiling until it boils over, unless we get real about race.

    Where “getting real” means agreeing with you? Get real.

    Anyway, what’s so terrible about being a reactionary?

    You tell me. You’re the one that objected to the term. I merely suggested it as a value-neutral alternative to you pretending to be a conservative. Calling a position reactionary does not necessarily make it wrong. Depending on the issue, I could be characterized as a reactionary myself.

    Ronald Reagan, who was worth a hundred GWBs, turned the clock back in all sorts of ways.

    He didn’t call for a return to Jim Crow, as you effectively did when you told me I could “keep your Civil Rights era superstitions.” He did, however, enact the neo-con foreign policy you’re so hot and bothered about, so I’m not sure why you’re pointing to him as an example. If the current President Bush is a “fauxcon,” so was President Reagan.

    Yep, you’ve surrendered in *your* mind all right.

    I’ve surrendered the propaganda war, sure. Ever since it became fashionable in the Vietnam era to root against one’s own country, it’s become almost a given that any war will be widely portrayed in such negative terms, and if a lie is repeated often enough, eventually people will believe it. The good news is that there aren’t that your lies about race are repeated too seldom, and by too few people, to catch on anymore.

  93. Luniversal Says:

    (1) Israel is a failed state by its own professed intentions, as well as a rogue state. Created as a safe haven for the world’s Jews, but two-thirds of them no longer want to emigrate there, and many native-born sabras want to leave. Expansionist Zionism is more popular among the stay-at-homes who want America to fight their battles than among Israelis themselves.

    Absent US aid and arms, Israel would be dead in the water. It will be fighting for survival in any case within 30 years as the effects of the difference in birth rate between Arabs and Jews works through. (In this Israel resembles its paymaster, the USA, which will face colossal strains as the non-white, low-IQ fraction of the population outbreeds the hard-working, clever ones.)

    (2) My judgement of America’s worldwide reputation is based on Pew Center polls. Bush’s descent into the toilet among his own people did not occur during the last election but over the past few weeks, as the depths of pork-barreling incompetence over Katrina has become clear to some of his holdout idolators– e.g the editor of The Federalist who wrote on townhall.com that the GOP is no longer an effective vehicle for the dissemination of conservative policies and principles. Don’t be the last one left with your tongue up El Busho’s grand canyon!

    Reagan was no neocon. He kept America out of stupid overseas wars despite facing a genuine, nuclear-armed opponent rather than a concocted conspiracy. Ronnie was in the Ike tradition of masterly inactivity in foreign policy. The Israeli Amen Corner made no headway with the man who took the Marines out of Lebanon. The Bush clan, with their international business and oil connections and their ideological vacuity, were the fall guys for the fauxconnerie of the warmongers.

    Glad to hear you admit you can no longer mount a convincing defense against the great, central US tradition of staying at home and tending our own backyard. Even GWB in 2000 knew he had to blather about practising a “humbler”, less activist diplomatic line than Clinton to crawl into power. Katrina has recalled American whites to reality. God knows there’s enough to be done building the stockade and circling the wagons to resist the onslaught of black and brown savagery that is going to sweep up the Shining City on the Hill over the next few decades. For an idea of what is in store, read the updated “Color of Crime” analysis from American Renaissance and reflect that there are going to be more and more of these unemployable, fecund youths around… Hasta la vista!

  94. Xrlq Says:

    Absent US aid and arms, Israel would be dead in the water.

    Possibly true, but only becaus of the non-Israelis elsewhere in the Middle East who have been hell-bent on destroying it for as long as it has existed. Are you really as stupid and uninformed as you purport to be, or are you just another troll?

    Reagan was no neocon. He kept America out of stupid overseas wars despite facing a genuine, nuclear-armed opponent rather than a concocted conspiracy.

    Oh, sure. Unlike today’s President, who wages pointless wars against countries that murder us by the thousands or shoot at our planes almost daily, Reagan limited his war-making powers to such major threats as Libya, Nicaragua and Grenada.

  95. Luniversal Says:

    “Oh, sure. Unlike today’s President, who wages pointless wars against countries that murder us by the thousands…”

    The last man in America who thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. And how many Americans did Afghans murder? This is what the missionaries used to call invincible ignorance, courtesy of Faux News.

  96. TalkSoftly Says:

    In fact, Xrlq, and much as I hate to admit it, I think you were maybe right and I wrong about Sailer and racism. His essay about NO was picked up and re-published on the net by a neo-nazi cult called National Vanguard (founded by William Pierce of Turner Diaries/Oklahoma bombing infamy). I’ve now checked in their archive and discovered they’ve used more essays by him — the apparent common denominator being criticism of blacks for their criminality, low IQ, etc. This re-publishing started way back in May ’04, but Sailer’s not said a word on his blog and I can’t believe he doesn’t know about it. Okay, I don’t say that you have to denounce them to oppose them, but if you do oppose them, denouncing them is one sure way of proving it. Ichabod, Sailer!*

    *1 Samuel 4:21.

  97. Xrlq Says:

    TS: Thanks for the update. I agree it’s implausible that Sailer wouldn’t know about Vanguard, or for that matter, that the stuff he puts out is all but guaranteed to be used, misused and abused by hard-core racists eager to believe the worst about blacks, Jews or anybody else. That in itself would not be reason not to say it, of course, but it would be a reason to be more circumspect in the presentation, and maybe to include a few preemptive strikes against the more obvious suspects. If, for example, Sailer had prefaced his more controversial statements with something along the lines of “I fear that some idiot from the Klan is going to read too much into this, but …” I might be inclined to give him a pass for overlooking Vanguard in particular. But from what I gather, he doesn’t seem to be the least bit bothered by anyone who takes the most extreme of his ideas and runs with them. He didn’t even seem all that concerned by the commenters in this very thread – Lunitunes, for example – who took his ideas in wild directions Sailer himself did not contemplate. And we know Sailer is aware of this comment thread; he linked to it.

  98. TalkSoftly Says:

    …include a few preemptive strikes against the more obvious suspects. If, for example, Sailer had prefaced his more controversial statements with something along the lines of “I fear that some idiot from the Klan is going to read too much into this, but…”

    A very good point. That wouldn’t stop the Klan and related groups using his material, but it would mean they’d have to quote his criticism of them with everything else or censor him. Either way they’d look stupid. But as as you’ve pointed out, Sailer doesn’t seem to care who uses what he’s manufacturing, as tho the truths he’s claiming to express (and which I admit I largely accept) can’t be perverted or misapplied.

  99. arp Says:

    Crime stats certainly back up sailer’s claims. The massive disparities in crime between Asian and blacks could be due to fact that blacks have significantly higher testosterone levels, making them more aggressive and impulsive. This is backed by the fact that whites, whose testosterone levels sit in between Asians and blacks, also sit in between Asian’s and blacks in crime stats.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe without commenting

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.