RSS Feed MenuTim Mak is right: the website Alternative Right is run by a white nationalist, for white nationalists.
I happen to intermittently know Richard Spencer, the site’s director. Through a couple of mutual contacts, I met him in the midst of CPAC 2009 and received a ride from him from Washington DC’s Dupont Circle, where we were each protesting the censorship imposed upon Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, to the Marriott Hotel where the convention was being held.
Along the way, things got a little testy. We somehow got into discussing biological differences between the races. Our ideological differences soon emerged, though, because, simply put, I am an individualist and he is a collectivist.
“Show me one black nation that’s ever been run competently,” he challenged me.
“That’s a ridiculous methodology. I’ll accept that claim for argument’s sake and still say that it’s bogus: African nations have not failed because the skin color of the people is black. The skin color is just a coincidence. It’s the culture that’s the problem.”
“Not true,” he said. “You look at Liberia, where ex-slaves went back to Africa, tried to bring American ideals to the country, and failed, because the blacks wouldn’t accept them.”
“This is not Western,” I said. “How can you possibly claim to stand for Western civilization? What’s brilliant about our values is that they stand for the individual, not the supremacy of the group. You come to America, you’re judged by your merits — not by what you look like.”
After a few more back-and-forths, we arrived at our destination, and as our car-mates went ahead, he told me to stay with him for a minute so he could talk to me. As the others faded into the background, he moved just inches away from my face, gave me a menacing look and yelled: “You little child. How dare you talk to me — me! — about the West! You don’t know the first thing about the West! You’re a little twelve-year-old who thinks he knows shit. Don’t you ever talk to me like that again or I will beat your face into the fucking ground!”
As with my infamous argument with gay-basher Ryan Sorba, my confrontations with collectivists always tend to end up degenerating into threats of physical force. Richard Spencer is a fairly tough guy, and I’m, well, kind of scrawny. So I kept my mouth shut. But I was frightened.
I let him walk ahead of me, and it ended there. But that is the real Richard Spencer: a white nationalist, a bully, and an intellectual coward.
sinz54 // Mar 14, 2010 at 4:27 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead: I’m also aware of a study that shows that Liberals and atheists have higher IQs than conservatives and religionists.
But the probability distributions do overlap.
I’m thankful to the Lord for having made me so–exceptional.
Patriot628 // Mar 14, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“Before I retired due to some health problems,
I was an engineer who had a reputation of being ruthless on weak logic and flimsy evidence.”
Doesn’t matter what you were, if you think blacks are a first world population you’re a fool.
Patriot628 // Mar 14, 2010 at 5:46 pm
By the way, it’s funny to hear that you’re proud of your analytical skills. On another thread you said race doesn’t matter because only a few genes affect skin color. I showed you that race wasn’t just skin color, as one can see by looking at the skulls of various races side by side (or by looking at a black albino). Some logician you are.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 14, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Sinz wrote: “But the probability distributions do overlap . . . I’m thankful to the Lord for having made me so–exceptional.
”
Very funny, but also true.
rbottoms // Mar 14, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Doesn’t matter what you were, if you think blacks are a first world population you’re a fool.
Like stink on sh*t you can always count on some variation of any discussion taking on this direction anytime white folks decide to have a discussion about race and IQ. Such vile people are the reason that blacks despise the Republican party in general, and conservatives in particular.
These Stormfront rejects have learned to leave their swastikas at home, and never to say nigger first, but they are really just the same bastards that subjugated us for 400 years, now in pin stripped suits and minty fresh breath.
By all means, turn up the volume. Let’s see if the GOP can mange a 1% showing among Latinos and other non-white communities in the next presidential election. Between the teabaggers, the birthers, the shrieking anti-abortion closet cases, and the militia nuts the Republican party is like a little clown car, vomiting its misbegotten contents onto the shoes of the American public every four years.
agentprovocateur // Mar 14, 2010 at 8:08 pm
“Doesn’t matter what you were, if you think blacks are a first world population you’re a fool.”
I would imagine that anti-Semitism isn’t tolerated on this website. I would hope that racism isn’t, either.
Occidental Dissent » Blog Archive » Faux Right // Mar 14, 2010 at 8:15 pm
[...] hasn’t happened. The Frumbots lashed out. Imagine 2050 and Red Jeffrey piled on. I’ve addressed them all in previous posts. Some [...]
JL // Mar 14, 2010 at 9:00 pm
“2. A little more than half of the variation in IQ is heritable. But “heritable” does NOT mean the same thing as “genetically inherited.” The reason is that a whole lot of factors affect a child’s intelligence, including pre-natal care (or lack of it) and post-natal exposure to an intellectually stimulating environment. That’s not genetic, but it is cultural.”
The heritability of IQ in adults is in the range of 70-90 percent, according to twin studies. The shared pre-natal environmental likely makes twins more different from each other rather than more similar. There is no evidence that an intellectually stimulating environment results in notable permanent IQ gains.
“IQ scores have been rising steadily for the past 100 years, at an average rate of 0.3 IQ points per year, most of the rise occurring in the lower and mid IQ ranges. And the IQ scores of blacks, while still lower than those of whites, are rising faster than those of whites, so the gap is closing. ”
The Flynn effect and the black-white IQ gap are qualitively different. Whatever narrowing, if any, of the b-w gap there may have been in recent decades, it is unrelated to the Flynn effect.
Regarding Flynn and Dickens’s claims that the b-w gap has narrowed, Rushton and Jensen have disagreed with it on several grounds: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2006%20PSnew.pdf
At GNXP, they made a graph which included studies and data sets that Flynn & Dickens had omitted: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/08/narrowing-of-white-black-iq-gap.php. It seems that there is some narrowing among children, but none among adults. Whether the gains will persist when the kids in the younger cohorts grow up is uncertain, as childhood IQ scores are less reliable than ones obtained in adulthood.
According to Charles Murray, the b-w difference got narrower up until the 1960s, but not thereafter: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4NB2SK3-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=12163df3903a0f804cb3a6bb0b9f7f23
“I was an engineer who had a reputation of being ruthless on weak logic and flimsy evidence.
And anyone who attempts to draw genetic conclusions about the races of humanity based on IQ tests is guilty of both.”
That’s BS. Many if not most intelligence researchers think that the b-w IQ gap is at least partly genetic in origin. They believe this because multiple independent lines of evidence point towards this answer. In contrast, the hypothesis that there are no hereditary IQ differences between races is very poorly supported empirically. For example, I have never heard of a good environmentalist explanation of what is described in this graph: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.png
We now have reliable methods of estimating a person’s ancestry. Considering that African-Americans usually have both black and white ancestors, ancestry tests could be used to test the hereditarian thesis, in the manner described by Charles Murray:
“To the extent that genes play a role, IQ will vary by racial admixture. In the past, studies that have attempted to test this hypothesis have had no accurate way to measure the degree of admixture, and the results have been accordingly muddy. The recent advances in using genetic markers solve that problem. Take a large sample of racially diverse people, give them a good IQ test, and then use genetic markers to create a variable that no longer classifies people as ‘white’ or ‘black,’ but along a continuum. Analyze the variation in IQ scores according to that continuum. The results would be close to dispositive.”
Naturally, the hereditarians are very eager to conduct such an experiment, whereas the other camp isn’t.
SFTor1 // Mar 14, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Patriot628, are you really discussing skull size?
Now you’re talking physiognomy. This is getting ugly.
Physiognomy was good enough for Hitler (who had a large skull I suppose), so why shouldn’t it be good enough for you?
Galtonian // Mar 14, 2010 at 9:18 pm
sinz54 wrote
“But at least a couple of African nations decided to try free markets, a stable currency, and foreign investment. And those nations, notably Senegal and Botswana, are doing quite well. I very much doubt that the genetics of the Botswana people are all that different from the genetics of the Zimbabwe people.
What is different is that the former are capitalist and the latter are socialist.”
This is an interesting comparison (Zimbabwe cf. Botswana) that is perhaps analagous to comparing N. Korea to S. Korea. Probablay because of the much higher average IQs of the East Asian Koreans compared with the sub-Saharan African Botswans, South Korea is light years ahead of Botswana. It is probably also true to say that North Korea is way more advanced than the current Zimbabwe eventhough they probably have equally extremist Marxist governments.
Patriot628 // Mar 14, 2010 at 9:32 pm
“Patriot628, are you really discussing skull size?
Now you’re talking physiognomy. This is getting ugly.
Physiognomy was good enough for Hitler (who had a large skull I suppose), so why shouldn’t it be good enough for you?”
Do you know Hitler thought the sky was blue too?
Alex Knepper // Mar 14, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Poor Charles Murray! To see his work and name dragged through the mud by these primitivists.
Charles Murray is a proponent of the night-watchman state, and finds the politics of the alt-righters abhorrent.
His main idea — shared by me and most sensible people — is that while group averages can explain certain discrepancies, trying to form cultural or governmental policy around it is absurd, because no group statistic can ever predict the outcome of an individual.
‘Alternative Right’ new Alternative. « Octoberfreedom's Blog // Mar 14, 2010 at 10:58 pm
[...] http://www.frumforum.com/alternative-rights-ugly-racismAnd Here: [...]
DanielKnightSchwartz // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:52 am
Alex,
I’m a young college student too who can emphathize with you as I know how being a young man can make some people think you don’t know what your talking about (all though I think Spencer was going by what you said). However, I’m a devote reader of Vdare.com and Taki’smag and AlternativeRight and I take exception to be called a white nationalist.
Skin color is not what matters in itself. National IQ is what matters and their tends to be a correlation between IQ and race (do you deny that?). If a region or a nation has a national IQ of about 70 or 75 as is the case with Sub-Safhran Africa it (and it’s nation-states) really have very little chance of flourshing into a Japan or Sweden. National IQ and GDP are very tigthly related.
So if America wants to stay as prosperous as possible it would probably be wise to consider the orgins of immigrants (or is that racist in your eye’s? I’m I guilty of “white nationalism” now?).
And by the way what is your criteria for labeling someone with the menacing tag “white nationalist” (you might aswell say “Nazi”)? If your an America who faced who would prefer America to not be transformed demographicly, are you a “racist” and a “white nationalist”?
Is a Chinese person who would prefer for China to not become, let’s say, 60% Turkish in 30 years a bigot and a racist?
Why must people be so scaried of saying that they’d prefer that America were not delibratly transformed demographicly?
I’d personally prefer if European Americans did not become a minority in America sometime in the next 30-40 years, WHY IS THAT SO WRONG? WHY DOES THAT MAKE ME A RACIST AND A WHITE NATIONALIST?
Alex Knepper // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:59 am
There is no such thing as a “National IQ.” Only individuals have IQs.
“Is a Chinese person who would prefer for China to not become, let’s say, 60% Turkish in 30 years a bigot and a racist?” — I was unaware that blacks and Hispanics could not be Americans. Idiot. You’re a white nationalist. Embrace the label.
“I’d personally prefer if European Americans did not become a minority in America sometime in the next 30-40 years, WHY IS THAT SO WRONG? WHY DOES THAT MAKE ME A RACIST AND A WHITE NATIONALIST?” — Because you care about unchosen heritage and not about values. Yes, you are a white nationalist. This is what I want lurkers to take away from anything I’m writing — the real question before humanity is: do we want to divide ourselves up by chosen values — or by unchosen biology?
DanielKnightSchwartz // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:05 am
Alex,
I’m a young college student too who can emphathize with you as I know how being a young man can make some people think you don’t know what your talking about (all though I think Spencer was going by what you said to him). However, I’m a devote reader of Vdare.com and Taki’smag and AlternativeRight and I take exception to being called a white nationalist. I know how our generation has been PC policed since we were infants but you and Tim Mak really must come to terms with some difficult and important truths.
Skin color is not what determines the wealth of nations in itself. National IQ is what matters (especially in our age) and their tends to be a correlation between IQ and race (do you deny that?). If a region or a nation has a national/average IQ of about 70 or 75 as is the case with sub-safhran Africa it (and it’s nation-states) really have very little chance of flourshing into a Japan or Sweden. National IQ and GDP are very tigthly related. I recommend you check out the 2002 book, “IQ and The Wealth of Nations” before you call me a racist kook for this suggestion.
So if America wants to stay as prosperous as possible it would probably be wise to consider the orgins of immigrants (or is even that racist in your eyes? am I I guilty of “white nationalism”?). If mass 3rd world immigration or mass non-European immigration is going to lower America’s national IQ (aswell as educational achievment) like immigration since 1965 undoubtably has is that something we must ignore and say nothing about for fear of being called bigots by people like you (i hope i’m wrong)?
I mean surely you are aware of the myraid problems that engulf our inner-cities (hip hop/ghetto culture and all the rest), regardless of wheather you belive that these things can be “overcome”, why on earth would you want to make the problem bigger? Black and latino inner-city schools are a huge problem that have sucked up huge sums of tax dollars why would you want to create more of such schools via insane immigration policies (that Americans never asked for by the way)?
FINALLY: THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS FOR YOU
And by the way what is your criteria for labeling someone with the menacing tag “white nationalist” (you might aswell say “Nazi”)? If your an America who faced who would prefer America to not be transformed demographicly, are you a “racist” and a “white nationalist”?
Is a Chinese person who would prefer for China to not become, let’s say, 60% Turkish in 30 years a bigot and a racist?
Why must people be so scaried of saying that they’d prefer that America were not delibratly transformed demographicly?
I’d personally prefer if European Americans did not become a minority in America sometime in the next 30-40 years, WHY IS THAT SO WRONG? WHY DOES THAT MAKE ME A RACIST AND A WHITE NATIONALIST?
you reach me at dkschwartz847@yahoo.com
DanielKnightSchwartz // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:36 am
OK, SO IT’S CLEAR:
IF YOU DO NOT EMBRACE THE DELIBRATE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA DEMOGRAPHICLY INTO A NATION WITH A MINORITY MAJORITY WHERE JESSE JACKSON’S EQUIVALENT WILL BE PRESIDENT THEN ALEX KNEPPER THINKS YOU ARE A RACIST AND A WHITE NATIONALIST.
p.s.
I do care about values. I can see how Spencer would get pist off by you if you put words in his mouth like you do me.
I feel bad for you like I do with hardcore liberterians who are for open borders. You are too blind to see that this crazy mass immigration policy you defend will result in the death of conservatism. When whites become a minority in America it won’t matter how good conservative arguments are. It won’t matter how right we are about taxes or whatever because sadly african americans and latino-americans tend to vote by race. I hope you like it when people like Rev. Wright and the most radical LA RAZA operatives (who you sound like) are our President and our Speaker of the House. How dare you say that if I don’t want be dispossed that I’m a racist. I’m not I just like my country the way it is-I didn’t know that was wrong.
Yeah and keep on telling yourself that national IQ is meaningless. It’s all just a coincidence that sub safrhan Africa is the poorest region on earth and also has the lowest average IQ.
And this idea that anyone who thinks IQ is real and a real factor is a “collectivist” is worthless. Go get a job at LA RAZA. You could really be a writer for Keith Oblermann when he calls conservatives racist for daring to oppose immigration. You’ve got a future as a PC policemen.
M Pearle // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:03 am
***That’s a ridiculous methodology. I’ll accept that claim for argument’s sake and still say that it’s bogus: African nations have not failed because the skin color of the people is black. The skin color is just a coincidence. It’s the culture that’s the problem.” ***
The issue here is that there is a growing body of research showing cognitive ability (particularly smart fractions) is a prerequisite for macroeconomic growth.
Populations show different average levels, which robustly predict economic performance.
“A large amount of studies published in the last two decades has shown that cognitive ability
levels of societies are relevant for the development of positively valued aspects of peoples
and countries. Following an economic research tradition “human capital” is relevant for
economic growth and wealth (Hanushek & Kimko, 2000; Lynn & Vanhanen, 2002, 2006; Jones &
Schneider, 2006; Weede, 2006; Rindermann, 2008a). In addition, cognitive ability of nations has
a positive impact on political development, in that it helps building up democracy, the rule of
law and political liberty (Simpson, 1997; Rindermann, 2008b). Intelligence, knowledge and
the intelligent use of knowledge also have beneficial effects on health, for instance they act as
a brake on the spread of HIV (Oesterdiekhoff & Rindermann, 2007; Lakhanpal & Ram, 2008;
Rindermann & Meisenberg, 2009). Finally, cognitive competence is relevant for the
development of modernity as a societal and especially as a cultural phenomenon consisting of
education, autonomy, liberty, morality and rationality (Habermas, 1985/1981; Meisenberg,
2004; Oesterdiekhoff, 2008; Lynn, Harvey & Nyborg, 2009). Societies at a higher ability level
develop more complex, more evidence-based, more ethical and more rational world views.
For some scholars like Georg Oesterdiekhoff (2000) or Michael Hart (2007) intelligence is the
driving force of history.”
‘The impact of smart fractions, cognitive ability of politicians and average competence of peoples on social development’ Rindermann et al Talent Development & Excellence
Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, 3-25
http://iratde.org/issues/1-2009/tde_issue_1-2009_03_rindermann_et_al.pdf
As noted by Geoffrey Miller in the Economist, future gene research may identify reasons for this:
“We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.
If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such politically awkward and morally perplexing facts, we can expect the usual range of ideological reactions, including nationalistic retro-racism from conservatives and outraged denial from blank-slate liberals. The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species-including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies.”
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737
A similar observation was made in Edge by University of Virginia Psychologist, Jonathan Haidt:
“the most offensive idea in all of science for the last 40 years is the possibility that behavioral differences between racial and ethnic groups have some genetic basis. Knowing nothing but the long-term offensiveness of this idea, a betting person would have to predict that as we decode the genomes of people around the world, we’re going to find deeper differences than most scientists now expect. Expectations, after all, are not based purely on current evidence; they are biased, even if only slightly, by the gut feelings of the researchers, and those gut feelings include disgust toward racism..
A wall has long protected respectable evolutionary inquiry from accusations of aiding and abetting racism. That wall is the belief that genetic change happens at such a glacial pace that there simply was not time, in the 50,000 years since humans spread out from Africa, for selection pressures to have altered the genome in anything but the most trivial way (e.g., changes in skin color and nose shape were adaptive responses to cold climates). Evolutionary psychology has therefore focused on the Pleistocene era – the period from about 1.8 million years ago to the dawn of agriculture — during which our common humanity was forged for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
But the writing is on the wall. Russian scientists showed in the 1990s that a strong selection pressure (picking out and breeding only the tamest fox pups in each generation) created what was — in behavior as well as body — essentially a new species in just 30 generations. That would correspond to about 750 years for humans. Humans may never have experienced such a strong selection pressure for such a long period, but they surely experienced many weaker selection pressures that lasted far longer, and for which some heritable personality traits were more adaptive than others. It stands to reason that local populations (not continent-wide “races”) adapted to local circumstances by a process known as “co-evolution” in which genes and cultural elements change over time and mutually influence each other. The best documented example of this process is the co-evolution of genetic mutations that maintain the ability to fully digest lactose in adulthood with the cultural innovation of keeping cattle and drinking their milk. This process has happened several times in the last 10,000 years, not to whole “races” but to tribes or larger groups that domesticated cattle.
Recent “sweeps” of the genome across human populations show that hundreds of genes have been changing during the last 5-10 millennia in response to local selection pressures. (See papers by Benjamin Voight, Scott Williamson, and Bruce Lahn). No new mental modules can be created from scratch in a few millennia, but slight tweaks to existing mechanisms can happen quickly, and small genetic changes can have big behavioral effects, as with those Russian foxes. We must therefore begin looking beyond the Pleistocene and turn our attention to the Holocene era as well – the last 10,000 years. This was the period after the spread of agriculture during which the pace of genetic change sped up in response to the enormous increase in the variety of ways that humans earned their living, formed larger coalitions, fought wars, and competed for resources and mates.
The protective “wall” is about to come crashing down, and all sorts of uncomfortable claims are going to pour in. Skin color has no moral significance, but traits that led to Darwinian success in one of the many new niches and occupations of Holocene life — traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, docility, or the ability to delay gratification — are often seen as virtues or vices. Virtues are acquired slowly, by practice within a cultural context, but the discovery that there might be ethnically-linked genetic variations in the ease with which people can acquire specific virtues is — and this is my prediction — going to be a “game changing” scientific event. (By “ethnic” I mean any group of people who believe they share common descent, actually do share common descent, and that descent involved at least 500 years of a sustained selection pressure, such as sheep herding, rice farming, exposure to malaria, or a caste-based social order, which favored some heritable behavioral predispositions and not others.)
I believe that the “Bell Curve” wars of the 1990s, over race differences in intelligence, will seem genteel and short-lived compared to the coming arguments over ethnic differences in moralized traits. I predict that this “war” will break out between 2012 and 2017.
There are reasons to hope that we’ll ultimately reach a consensus that does not aid and abet racism. I expect that dozens or hundreds of ethnic differences will be found, so that any group — like any person — can be said to have many strengths and a few weaknesses, all of which are context-dependent. Furthermore, these cross-group differences are likely to be small when compared to the enormous variation within ethnic groups and the enormous and obvious effects of cultural learning. But whatever consensus we ultimately reach, the ways in which we now think about genes, groups, evolution and ethnicity will be radically changed by the unstoppable progress of the human genome project.”
http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_4.html#haidt
lesacre // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:34 am
I love this quote:
“I’ll accept that claim for argument’s sake and still say that it’s bogus: African nations have not failed because the skin color of the people is black.”
But it’s good to see, that sinz54 now tacitly accepts basic population genetics. Anyways, Current Biology has a good series on this:
Archaeogenetics — Towards a ‘New Synthesis’?
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2809%2902071-5
The Evolution of Human Genetic and Phenotypic Variation in Africa
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2809%2902065-X
The Archaeogenetics of Europe
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2809%2902069-7
The Genetics of Human Adaptation: Hard Sweeps, Soft Sweeps, and Polygenic Adaptation
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2809%2902070-3
sinz54 said:
“I was an engineer who had a reputation of being ruthless on weak logic and flimsy evidence.
And anyone who attempts to draw genetic conclusions about the races of humanity based on IQ tests is guilty of both.”
Here’s the argument:
WHAT IF THE HEREDITARIAN HYPOTHESIS IS TRUE?
J. P. Rushton and A. R. Jensen (2005) review 10 bodies of evidence to support their
argument that the long-standing, worldwide Black–White average differences in
cognitive ability are more plausibly explained by their hereditarian (50% genetic
causation) theory than by culture-only (0% genetic causation) theory. This commentary
evaluates the relevance of their evidence, the overall strength of their case,
the implications they draw for public policy, and the suggestion by some scholars
that the nation is best served by telling benevolent lies about race and intelligence.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf
Here’s an interview
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2009interview.pdf
lesacre // Mar 15, 2010 at 8:44 am
DanielKnightSchwartz said:
“Is a Chinese person who would prefer for China to not become, let’s say, 60% Turkish in 30 years a bigot and a racist?”
Let’s not forget a Jewish-Israel. I’m sure Dave and gang are equally multicultural when it comes to that. Ya. http://www.frumforum.com/?s=israel
Henry W. III // Mar 15, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Just a terrible back-and-forth.
Smearing people as “racists” and “supremacists” scores the easy points but will fail in the long run.
Dispassionate inquiry into intelligence has long since shown that intelligence levels among certain types of persons is generally lower than average. This requires statistical analysis of a level that is usually beyond most journalists. When a study shows that ON AVERAGE the IQ of a black person is lower, one can immediately produce an example of a really bright black and say “see, you’re all wet!” Someone making such an argument in all likelihood has a low IQ himself!
The empirical evidence will show that all Olympics 100 m dash finalists for the last 7 or 8 Olympics have been West African descended blacks. Not a white or a chinese among them. If genetics matters for such a simple activity as running, why should it suddenly not matter for a complex activity, like thought? Athletic parents tend to produce athletic children, physically attractive parents produce physically attractive children, and intelligent adults tend for a myriad of reasons (heredity being only one) to produce intelligent children.
The blather about “not believing in group identification,” while noble on some fronts, is meaningless when it comes to inherited traits. A tiger is a tiger whether or not he want to be, and a tall, skinny black kid will jump high and run fast no matter how hard you pretend otherwise.
Bottom line: Show me the black or even Asian, or Middle Eastern, Sweden complete with technology, the arts, the practical mechanical skills, etc. ad infinitum and I’ll become a True Believer in conditioning. Better yet, start a family and raise children and then tell me that all their behavior is the result of conditioning and “opportunities” and I’ll believe you. Otherwise, the empirical evidence of history is in, and everyone, even those dastardly “Alt Righters,” can clearly see it.
And who the hell ever said the US was just an “idea”? It was founded by Christian men and women who hailed from the British isles and other parts of Northern Europe. America is not an abstract idea, it is very much a nation founded like most others by a group of people whose intellectual and character traits (and religion) are almost identical. “Diversity” for the founders meant that Methodists could tolerate Presbyterians and possibly Lutherans.
Please don’t presume to rewrite history!
M Pearle // Mar 15, 2010 at 2:30 pm
***But that is the real Richard Spencer: a white nationalist***
Can you see that this is perhaps an inevitable development as identity politics continue and demographics change?
“Swain: White identity politics may well be the next logical stage for identity politics in America. As long as racial and ethnic minorities push separatist agendas, we can expect white Americans, especially as they decline as a percentage of the population, to begin to behave like self-interested minorities.”
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20346
sinz54 // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:21 pm
DanielKnightSchwartz:
There’s NOTHING wrong with saying you want Americans to be smart and well educated.
The question is how strongly is that correlated with race.
Let’s say that you’re right, and black Africans are maybe 10 points lower in IQ on the average than European whites. That still leaves a lot of overlap in the probability distributions; there are still going to be millions of black Americans who are more intelligent than millions of less intelligent white Europeans.
So given a choice, which would you prefer as an immigrant? A black African who has a Ph.D. from the University of Nairobi–or some white European washroom attendant with below-average intelligence?
Which could help build a more prosperous America: A Mexican immigrant who has a Master’s Degree in computer science from Tecnologico de Monterrey (I’ve met some)–or some “poor white trash” from the Deep South?
agentprovocateur // Mar 15, 2010 at 11:59 pm
It’s surprising that no one has lovingly refered to the Rivers of Blood speech. I am curious, when this country no longer has a majority white population, what will some of you do? Try to form a white confederacy in Montana, perhaps?
DanielKnightSchwartz // Mar 16, 2010 at 5:03 am
Dear agentprovocateur ,
I’m not a “white nationalist” in fact I’m not sure I even know what that means. But I can’t wait till you people who sneer at people who would prefer to live in a Scotland as opposed to a Zaire are living in the America that is majority minority. According to you, it’s going to be just glorious and everyone who even demurs from that future is a evil bigot who loves Hitler (I’m jewish by the way). You don’t have the intellectual courage to face difficult truths so you sneer and jeer and laugh at people who have the balls to face these facts. Do you think their will be any conservative momevment in 2040 if people like you continue to make immigration policy?
ALEX KNEPPER AND HIS ILK ARE COWARDS.