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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Magna Carta Says:

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

  4. 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.

  5. Mike Says:

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

  6. Xrlq Says:

    Good idea, Mike! I just added it.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. mikem Says:

    Groan.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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?

  16. 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.

  17. 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?”

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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*.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. catroina Says:

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

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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”.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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?

  33. 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.

  34. 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?

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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!

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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.