|
|
Threatened by Salterism? You’re a scientist – fall back on ad hominem.Given comments by an individual from the anti-science blog GNXP about the “quasi-religious garbage, mystical” aspect of genetic information and genetic continuity, I thought it may be useful to provide the following. Richard Alexander stated:-
[A biological interpretation of moral systems. In: Issues in evolutionary ethnics (ed. P. Thompson) pp. 179-202. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. 1985/1992.]
Harpending’s formulae allow kin (“collateral relatives”) to be expanded to the ethnie, a point of view supported not only by common sense (identical genes are identical, regardless of origin) and population history (co-ethnics share, on average more common recent ancestors than do non-ethnics and are thus distant kin), but also by the views of Hamilton and Dawkins, quoted on pages 42 and 43 of Salter’s book. Also of interest is the quote by geneticist Alan Grafen (page 41 of Salter’s book): “Hamilton’s rule is true no matter how genetic similarity arises…” On the same page Salter quotes J.W. Pepper, “...under certain simplifying assumptions the two definitions coincide, but when they do not it is the modern statistical definition rather than the original genealogical version that makes inclusive fitness theory work…” “Mysticism?” “Quasi-religious garbage?” Famous scientist E.O. Wilson had the following to say:-
[Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1975.] Of Salter’s book Wilson said, “On Genetic Interests is a fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans.” Well, then, I guess that according to GNXPers, Alexander, Wilson (and, perhaps, Darwin himself) are just “quasi-religious mystics”, peddling “garbage.” One wonders if Wilson would consider the following quote from GNXP to be a “fresh and deep contribution”:-
How eloquent! How intellectual! How can folks like Salter, never mind Alexander or Wilson, compare with that? A few points, though. How does Razib separate the utility of his “values” from their effect on “bloodlines?” See here. Although I realize, again, that individuals from a Lysenkoist (eg, “a concern for genes is mystical”) blog may not realize this, but any “white”-identified grandchildren of Razib could be distinguished from white Americans by autosomal DNA analysis. A ¼ Bengali “white” can be distinguished from a white European or European-American by genetic assays available today – one can imagine that advancements in technology will make this even easier in the day of Razib’s grandchildren (assuming of course that all scientific progress has not collapsed due to multiculturalism). This, of course, may well be a good reason for GNXPers to mock genetic information, genetic assays, and a concern for such as “quasi-religious garbage.” After all, it would be more difficult for part-Bengalis to “pass” if ancestry was determined in a manner independent of self-identification, or the inability of the average drooling idiot to identify “fuzzy whites.” But, alas, not everyone determines the validity and utility of genetic information based upon - “is it good for Razib?” A final question if I may: if race is so unimportant to Razib and Barlow, why, oh why do they base their mating preferences upon it (in the form of blonde Nordics and East Asians, respectively)? Posted by JW Holliday on Saturday, June 4, 2005 at 06:02 PM in Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests Comments:2
Posted by bb on June 04, 2005, 08:48 PM | # “A 120 IQ black or Hispanic is just as “good” as an IQ 120 white or Asian, with the main disadvantage associated with the nonwhites being political leftism.” Before someone here blows a gasket, the above statment is *not* intended in any way to suggest that Asians (East or South) are white (though South Asians are less distant from whites than other nonwhites). 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 04, 2005, 09:41 PM | # I don’t know why anyone wastes time on Barlow, frankly. 4
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 09:49 PM | # These are fine as religious views. But “the be all and end all” of the current situation is that the other “quasi-mystical” views are suppressed by state force. It is that situation, violating the preferences of tens if not hundreds of millions of ‘whites’ (as well as other genetic/ethnic groups), that “is the be all and end all” of the current reality. By not recognizing this as the greatest current violation of human rights—rather denouncing the victims of this violation—you are a de facto tyrant and a participant in one of the worst tyrannies in history if not the worst tyranny in history. 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 04, 2005, 09:50 PM | # Barlow has no concern whatsoever for the white race, never will, and comes here only to taunt. Why people don’t see that, I don’t understand. I sincerely wouldn’t bother with this piece of ... With this piece of ... (let’s leave it at that). He’s in Robert Lindsay’s league. 6
Posted by bb on June 04, 2005, 09:55 PM | # I do not see why people here would not be satisfied by a simple abolition of civil rights laws—e.g. if a developer said “I want to sell to whites only” they could. Of course with that right would also come my right to call that developer a racist asshole. 7
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 10:13 PM | # I do not see why people here would not be satisfied by a simple abolition of civil rights laws That’s like wondering why a woman who has been repeatedly sodomized by an AIDS-infected rapist would not be satisfied by the simple cessation of rape. Sorry, it’s too late for this relationship. 8
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 04, 2005, 10:46 PM | # “Of course with that right would also come my right to call that developer a racist asshole.” (—Birch Barlow, the racist asshole) You’re always going to get this kind of response from Barlow on race, just as, let’s say, you’re always going to get a show of complete disinterest on the part of someone who feels nothing whatsoever for nature when you tell him the whole country’s going to be paved over into a giant asphalt parking lot (that was just to illustrate my point—race of course is infinitely more important than environmental issues). You’re wasting your breath talking to him about genes, which simply mean race—he couldn’t care less. There are people like that—like Barlow. They’re worse than sick, because the sick can heal. These people are born lacking whole parts of their brain. They can’t heal. Why else does anyone think he was invited to blog at GnXp? Barlow’s an insignificant nothing, a zero. He knows it and draws his sense of existence, his sense of escaping his own nothingness, from what he views as his successes at getting a rise out of the people here. I don’t even see why people here bother with him. They apparently bother with him because they start with the assumption he’s not a piece of excrement. But you can’t always start with that assumption. Some people are excrement. Who was it who criticised me for calling Robert Lindsay that? Random Lurker, was it? Well, Random, I cannot tell a lie—some people are exactly that. Not one word anyone says from now till doomsday to a piece of pitiful, dishonest, mindless, personalityless inadequateness the likes of Birch Barlow is going to change the fact that his only reason for hanging around is to try to taunt the anti-genociders here with his usual deadpan bold-faced comments in support of genocide of whites, phrased in an attempt to get people’s goat. Who knows—maybe in his ur-infantile imagination he pictures himself as a hero riding to the defense of the poor Chinese girl he spends his time secretly ogling in Biology class, poor thing—if she knew, she’d bring a vomit bucket to keep underneath her desk—that is, if she couldn’t change sections to get the hell away from him. Can’t people see this is someone who feels deeply inadequate on a personal level (and for good reason) who derives some sort of sick feeling of self-worth by imagining he can irritate people here? It’s a farce debating someone who comes here solely for the purposes he does, which do not include honest debate of any kind. You cannot make people love what they have no feeling for whatsoever: sometimes people ought to save their breath. Barlow, who has no feeling whatsoever for the white race, cannot be made to regret its destruction through deliberate genocidal attack. For all we know he may even actively loathe it, crave its destruction, as did Robert Lindsay, another Barlow-like asshole whose main motivation in coming here was to taunt rather than discuss. Maybe Barlow has no appreciation of any race’s right to exist, yellow included. But please don’t anyone ask him because in order for someone to answer a question honestly he has to have a personality, has to have self-respect, has to not go trough life loathing first and foremost himself as a person, as a man—he has to not be one-hundred-percent inadequate—otherwise all you get is one lie after another, because “there’s no there there,” not anything you can grasp, but just a heap of insignificant nothingness. 9
Posted by James Bowery on June 04, 2005, 11:16 PM | # Come now, Fred. At least BB is willing to cease raping us. An AIDS-infected rapist who continues to keep his victim captive calling her a “bitch” for not “wanting it” is infinitely better than an AIDS-infected rapist who can’t bring himself to stop sodomizing the poor creature. 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 04, 2005, 11:40 PM | # James Bowery, I for one am not soiling myself any more by addressing this pathetic piece of zeroness. He should go back where the other zeroes are, who were all hand-picked by GC with such unerringly good judgment. Let him stay there with Randy, David, and Arcane. Can’t they send a man next time? Or are there none over there to send? 11
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 05, 2005, 02:25 AM | # Godless might be the only man over there. The actual reason he stopped posting is because he realized that Salter & KMD is right about EGI, and that by posting on these subjects he was helping WNs bury colored immigration. These days he is very much interested in the JQ, which is quite entertaining given how race blind he was just a year ago. I cannot reveal my identify but I can take some credit for his conversion. 12
Posted by James Bowery on June 05, 2005, 03:58 AM | # What public evidence can you show for that conclusion about GC vis Salter & KMac? 13
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 05, 2005, 05:36 AM | # In the comments section of a post GC acknowledged KMD is right (I dont recall which one, but it occurred last September if memory serves). Soon after in the comments section of a genetic interests post (re: Hamilton) he acknowledged that Nazism is very much a natural outgrowth of human nature, though he then mumbled something about hopefully things not going that route. Unfortunately I dont recall which links specifically, other frequent readers of GNXP might remember. Also these days he periodically comments on the JQ, though pseudonymously. 15
Posted by Mark Richardson on June 05, 2005, 08:35 AM | # If GC now thinks that Nazism was a natural outgrowth of human nature, he is falling into even greater error. 16
Posted by JW Holliday on June 05, 2005, 08:50 AM | # With respect to the “naturalistic fallacy” – attempting to derive an “ought” from an “is” – we, contrary to assertions to the contrary, do not do this with EGI. An analogy: The following are facts – Joe has high cholesterol, he has a family history of heart disease, and a diet high in saturated fats is known to promote heart disease. Based on these facts, does Joe have a moral imperative to change his diet? Must he do so? “Ought” he do so? What if Joe has a strong preference for a high-saturated fat diet? Well, we do not have the right to tell Joe to change his diet, the facts put him under no obligation to do so. However, he needs to understand that, of his choices, the choice to change his diet is a better one, if he values his health. One does not commit the naturalistic fallacy when one uses facts to value different choices based on different criteria. Even more important – Joe does NOT have the right to impose his choice on others. If he values “the pleasure of eating” more than health, this does not give him the right to deny the fact that his diet is injurious to health, nor does he have the right to try and prevent some one else changing their diet. If there is conflict – should the local restaurant have healthy or fatty meal choices? – compromise is a reasonable solution. Both choices can be made available. There is also an ordering of interests. The interest of John to drink alcohol where and when he pleases does not equal the interest of others not to be killed by John’s drunk driving. Humans value life over more proximate interests; thus, any reasonable compromise that includes genetic continuity – fundamental to life – cannot be dismissed. The onus is on GNXP in their denial to others the compromise of dividing America based upon considerations of genetic interests. Our right to genetic continuity cannot be dismissed because Razib and Godless have a “need” to live in an undivided America where white Americans are forced to live with them. 17
Posted by JW Holliday on June 05, 2005, 08:52 AM | # Tournament of Champions, We really need more evidence that GC changed his opinions on Salter. One could think of other reasons he stopped overtly posting. Also, do you know for a fact that “God Fearing Atheist” is not GC? GFA appeared on this blog recently attacking Salterism. 18
Posted by Phil on June 05, 2005, 09:00 AM | # Birch Barlow, Why don’t you move to Thailand? Asian women galore…... 22
Posted by JW Holliday on June 05, 2005, 09:14 AM | # Sorry, BB, a repeal of anti-discrimination laws (which could be easily overturned with a shift of political power through demographic change) is worthless. 23
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 05, 2005, 09:16 AM | # GC basically caught on to the concept of inclusive fitness (EGI) after the several posts on Hamilton many months back ago. He also figured out the most important aspects of the JQ- their hand in p.c. and mass immigration, for example. He is still no friend of whites though, conversion or not. God Fearing Atheist is a second rate mind whom regularly makes rounds trolling blogs and rabidly attacking regulars. He is definitely not Godless Capitalist (whom, despicable as some may think he is, is indisputably brilliant). 24
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 05, 2005, 09:18 AM | # Phil, that was 2003. He realized KMD was right sometime near the end of 2004. 25
Posted by James Bowery on June 05, 2005, 09:38 AM | # Maybe GC (and the rest of the gnxp’ers as well as some of the MR’ers) should look at Salter’s graphics starting on page 170 which show the “fitness portfolios” of various ideologies. I can provide a tabular representation of those graphics here. The following columns are labeled S, O, E and H which stand for Self, Other, Ethny and Humanity respectively. The value in each column is the relative level of investment from 0 to 9, with * meaning “not quite 0”: SOEH Universal Nationalism is the optimal strategy that would evolve as an evolutionarily stable state given appropriately long periods of evolution to achieve. In other words, National Socialism is a departure from the optimal strategy. Now, having said that, perhaps what GC is saying is that since humans have not achieved an evolutionarily stable state, they have not achieved a predisposition toward the optimal strategy and in fact their predisposition is toward the suboptimal National Socialist portfolio. Alternatively he may be suggesting that National Socialism didn’t actually value the ethny equally with the self—that it wsa actually closer to the optimal strategy. PS: I don’t think I agree with Salter that the ideology of multiculturalism for minorities is evolutionarily stable. These minorities are aggressors—successful aggressors at that. They are making disproportionate investments in their ethny by harming humanity. I would put it at something more like: 832- Multiculturalism for Minorities Where ‘-’ represents “defection against” or a zero-sum game where resources are acquired from. Likewise, I’d differ from Salter in his estimates of multiculturalism for majorities: 51-5 Multiculturalism for Majorities In other words, multiculturalism asks majorities to invest in themselves like humanists, in their children like capitalists, in their ethny like minorities invest in humanity (that is to say “defect against their ethny”) and in humanity like communists. 26
Posted by JW Holliday on June 05, 2005, 09:41 AM | # ToC: GC basically caught on to the concept of inclusive fitness (EGI) after the several posts on Hamilton many months back ago. He also figured out the most important aspects of the JQ- their hand in p.c. and mass immigration, for example. He is still no friend of whites though, conversion or not. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2005, 09:42 AM | # I feel I should make it clear at this point that I am not John Ray. As far as I know. 30
Posted by ben tillman on June 05, 2005, 01:32 PM | # With respect to the “naturalistic fallacy” – attempting to derive an “ought” from an “is” – we, contrary to assertions to the contrary, do not do this with EGI. Let’s not fetishize the “naturalistic fallacy”. Truth stands on its own. 31
Posted by Phil on June 05, 2005, 02:04 PM | # I feel I should make it clear at this point that I am not John Ray. As far as I know. ROTFL 32
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 05, 2005, 02:36 PM | # Re: GC, as I’ve mentioned he made a few comments regarding KMD & National Socialism. I believe it was in several December posts, not September as I previously said. Sorry, I dont remember exactly which ones, and I’d rather not dig for them. Personally I’m getting a bit tired of gossiping about GNXP, I think consensus on them has pretty much been reached. Oh yea I just saw Arcane threaten to ban someone for “antiwhite comments” there, haha, we finally got him to grow a nut (though he’s still missing 1). 33
Posted by Lurker on June 05, 2005, 04:17 PM | # All very illuminating but I still dont know who or what JQ is. 34
Posted by Guessedworker on June 05, 2005, 04:29 PM | # Well, I suppose that means you are a gentile, Lurker. 35
Posted by Svigor on June 05, 2005, 04:43 PM | # Hehe, I just went to that thread (it’s the one about the debate between Amren’s Jared Taylor and the “white” Tim Wise) and posted simple objections to sr’s comments: <i>What an excellent, enjoyable piece! Thank you, Mr. Malloy! I had read the Wise/Taylor interview transcript already. It is good that you included an attack on White Nationalism; ethnic parochialism is a great evil when practised by non-minorities.
When informed by the few GNXPers with sap still in their branches that in this sense "non-minorities" was not the accurate term and that "non-whites" was, he responded: Sorry; I stand corrected. What I meant of course was that ethnic parochialism is a great evil when, and only when, it is practised by whites. Even extreme racial nationalism among non-whites, if wrong at all, is still only a reaction to racism, overt or covert, which is the fault of whites and only whites. That is why we must denounce white nationalism! Can you believe that tripe? It’s SO very bad that I assumed a WN shill had posted it trying to troll up trouble. I made two posts of very little words (why bother doing more at DELETEOPPOSINGVIEWS.com?) just to point out the fact that sr’s statements were ridiculous. They were deleted within five minutes. Another post is still there: Racial pride is pathetic, and so is the more common racial victimization tactic. Both are attempts to conflate an ancestral closeness with an identity worthy of a binary solidarity, as in armies in battle. Races exist, and have differences in means in various attributes, but it is unfortunate that many people think this must imply total seperateness in attributes, because it inspires both racial separatists (who think purity is good) and racial deniers (who believe race doesn’t exist, or is merely skin deep). What is pathetic is your facile understanding of WNism and ethnocentrism. Let’s see how long that one stands. This is precisely the sort of exchange that got me banned several times there (well, not quite precisely; then I used to explain my positions, before I realized that the free-inquiry facade GNXP erects is a lie) 36
Posted by Lurker on June 05, 2005, 05:16 PM | # GW - pretty much, though possibly not 100%. JQ - OK, think Im up to speed now. 37
Posted by John S Bolton on June 05, 2005, 09:08 PM | # Considering that the topic is whether enemies of EGI’s are especially inclined to go ad hominem, the use of that very same fallacy against some people who post on the internet, looks damaging to the cause of EGI’s. If you have to use ad hominem, doesn’t that give the impression that EGI’s have no rational arguments in their favor? Starting out with the premiss that opponents of the EGI’s which achieve maximum value in populations of hundreds of millions which are long term breeding pools,and coadapted genetically; must use ad hominem and other fallacies against this same premiss, how can one be so weak as to use ad hominem oneself? I say; do not be intellectually unfit! 38
Posted by Svigor on June 05, 2005, 11:01 PM | # Mr. Bolton, there’s a difference between an honest opponent and a skullduggerist; there’s no need to reinvent the wheel twenty times a day to dismiss an already-defeated opponent, appearances of impropriety or no. 39
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 05, 2005, 11:32 PM | # Here’s where you’re wrong, John Bolton: ad hominem qualifies as a logical fallacy only in a universe of discourse wherein other things obtain as well, including (assumed) agreement by all parties on a set of basic understandings such as that two plus two equals four and other common understandings on that elementary level. With Birch Barlow, however, you are dealing with an individual who in the middle of an exchange suddenly shows without the slightest hesitation, excuse, or apology that he does not agree on the assumed set of basic understandings, some of which are the biological equivalents of two plus two equals four, leaving the person engaged with him only two alternatives: to keep dumbly insisting over and over on the most basic biological equivalents of two plus two equals four in the face of Barlow’s persistent smug denials, or to stop insisting on the most obvious basic principles in the bold face of a know-nothing who’ll never agree on them, but rather to explain what kind of person he must be to deny their validity—and the kind of person he must be is what I described in my comment. Do you imagine, John Bolton, that a person who taunts others every chance he gets with his opinion that whether or not the white race is extinguished has no importance—do you imagine such a person can be argued with on some of these matters? If he could be argued with and if the other person’s argument consisted of name-calling, that would be ad hominem. But he can’t be argued with. Do you imagine such a person holds such views for reasons other than the ones I outlined in my comment above, or similar ones? There is no such thing as “the logical fallacy of ad hominem” in a situation like this. There is only calling a spade a spade. 40
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 05, 2005, 11:39 PM | # John Bolton I respect you enormously, based on your posts here, but I must say I haven’t seen you ever attempt to argue with this particular individual on these matters. I’ve only seen others here attempt it, such as JW Holliday, Kubilai, and many others. If you wish to keep chastising me or others for calling this person what he is, and doing that only after it becomes clear that because of his own deep, grave character defects and intellectual deficiencies it is impossible to have a discussion with him, I’d expect you yourself to “show us how it’s done” and take up the cudgel. If you know the right way to do it, show us, please. Otherwise I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn. 41
Posted by JW Holliday on June 06, 2005, 02:25 AM | # Malloy’s critique of Taylor-Salter is incorrect, as discussed here: It is a bit difficult to have to explain simple concepts endlessly to those who either are unable, or unwilling, to understand, but there you go. 42
Posted by JW Holliday on June 06, 2005, 02:27 AM | # GNXP’s misrepresentations of Salter’s work are really something. To clear things up, the following outline is presented: 2. Salter’s work is NOT based upon “green beard” 3. Salter’s work is NOT based upon overall genetic similarity, but rather on distinctive gene frequencies - made abundantly clear in both his text as well as Harpending’s formulae 4. Salter’s work is thus NOT (negatively) impacted by Bamshad’s findings 5. Salter’s own work is based upon functional genes, not randomly picked gene markers. 6. However, as I’ve discussed, Salter’s work can - and should - be expanded to include the genetic interest inherent in patterns of distinctive gene freqs (ie, genetic structure), as well as any distinctive non-functional genes that carry some sort of genetic information 7. Salter’s work is NOT based on why people behave in certain ways, NOT based upon past or present human behavior, and NOT based on “what the gene does” to influence its representation in the genepool - the last part being why genetic structure is indeed a viable genetic interest (keeping in mind DS Wilsonian ideas if higher structures of selection, one can argue that last part as well ...) 8. Loci at which the allele frequencies do NOT vary between two sets of groups is NOT the focus of differences of genetic interest between the groups, as the frequencies will stay the same regardless of outcome 9. In my expanded view, any heritable genetic information is a genetic interest if this information is distinctive. Thus, the sharing of genes between human and mice does not mean that a mouse litter is a greater genetic interest than another human. However, that genetic information that distinguishes mammals from reptiles IS a genetic interest if the issue is mammal vs. reptile. 10. Thus, genetic interest is ALWAYS relative. If the whole world was composed of Irishmen, there would be no genetic interest at the group level (even though any number of “co-ethnics” may share more copies of total genes than an individual relative). In this case, only the extended family constiture genetic interest, because the only gene frequencies that are distinctive in this case are at the level of family vs. ethnie (or, within the family, at higher levels of kinship to self). The other part of genetic similarity would be shared with all members of the population and not subject to competition. 11. When non-ethnics share a greater overall similarity, that is based upon that part of human genetic variation that is “within groups”, and is thus defines humans and not any distinctions within the human family. 43
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 06, 2005, 05:15 AM | # From recent posts I propose a litany of ad hominems: Razib “my grandchildren shall pass for white” Khan ( and presumably be rid of his less aesthetically pleasing hindoo genes) 44
Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 06, 2005, 05:18 AM | # Almost forgot: Birch “Saigon Headache” Barlow or JW’s Birch “Napolean Dynamite” Barlow 45
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 06, 2005, 06:59 AM | # That’s a good list, Tournament. I like that. When they start arguing like grown-ups perhaps we can set that aside. Next entry: South African notes Previous entry: Tony Blair, history and British Euroscepticism |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. DateSoaxiaDot commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 05/25/12, 04:28 AM. (go) (view) UK Dissertations Help commented in entry 'A small anecdote and some reflections on race and culture' on 05/25/12, 02:14 AM. (go) (view) Roof Leaks commented in entry 'YOBS' on 05/25/12, 01:16 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/25/12, 12:41 AM. (go) (view) pletcheroka commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/25/12, 12:36 AM. (go) (view) Graistetrisog commented in entry 'Top Wog embraces his Inner Englishman' on 05/25/12, 12:19 AM. (go) (view) BomeDeddell commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) indernMix commented in entry 'ATTRITION THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Government's Own Data Point to a Cost-Effective Strategy' on 05/24/12, 09:42 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 04:44 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:20 PM. (go) (view) grecian commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 03:10 PM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:04 PM. (go) (view) Salvatore Quinto commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/24/12, 12:47 PM. (go) (view) Classic Sparkle commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 12:07 PM. (go) (view) Cobus commented in entry 'A genocide in South Africa' on 05/24/12, 10:14 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by bb on June 04, 2005, 08:42 PM | #
“A final question if I may: if race is so unimportant to Razib and Barlow, why, oh why do they base their mating preferences upon it (in the form of blonde Nordics and East Asians, respectively)?”
I prefer East Asian women mostly for their *appearance*—it’s really that shallow. I like their “softer” facial features (eg shorter nose), their eye shape, as well as their coloring (which is not only attractive in itself to me, but gives the extra bonus of keeping their skin from being trashed by the southern sun). Certainly my attraction to East Asian women is an additional reason for me to reject WNism, but the main reason I reject it is that under the skin, race is (for the most part) not overwhelmingly important. Sure it’s more important than the PC crowd makes it out to be, but it’s not a be-all and end-all either. Yes there are average differences in intelligence and behavior, but there is considerable overlap between groups here. Even with whites and blacks the distributions only become wildly divergent at the tails—say IQ 120-125+ and 80-<75, and (assuming a 1 SD gap) there is still 80% of variation in IQ within the two groups. Yes it is true that even an average difference can be quite important at a society-wide level, but individually these differences should not matter. A 120 IQ black or Hispanic is just as “good” as an IQ 120 white or Asian, with the main disadvantage associated with the nonwhites being political leftism—but I think that is largely a product of self-hating society rather than an innate tendency for nonwhites to support leftist ideas.