12 Stereotypes that Exist for a Reason

Wikipedia - Education for Death
Wikipedia - Education for Death

From Walt Disney’s Education for Death

Everybody’s talking about “racists,” but no one agrees on the word’s definition. Do racists hate other races? Do they fear them? Is it racist to make fun of other races? To cynically pander to them?

The meaning is elusive because racism exists on a spectrum. Look carefully, though, and you’ll start to notice certain patterns.

Here are twelve handy peel-and-paste labels you can stick on any racists you come across:

1. THE HATER RACIST

Hates for the sake of hating.

The Hater Racist seethes with misanthropic disgust for all that is not him. You’ll find this Id-driven bigot spitting venom at your local bar or gleefully trolling the comments section.

Nasty, dehumanizing slurs roll off his forked tongue for the sadistic pleasure of offending sensitive people. He gets off on triggering your revulsion reflex. It’s about control. His reptilian mind constructs a subhuman parade of “bamboo-chewing sleepwalkers,” “needle-dicked bird turds,” or “melon-eating mooncrickets.” He’d blow Hitler’s corpse just to see you squirm. 

The Hater Racist doesn’t need a reason to hate—he just needs a target. If he somehow exterminated every ethnic group he detested, he wouldn’t know what to do with himself.

2. THE DATABASE RACIST

Wired for cold logic and robo-voice:

Genetics determine intelligence. Ice Age conditions culled simpler brains from the Northern Hemisphere. Agriculture selected for more complex brains.

Asians and Europeans, on average, have higher IQ scores than sub-Saharan Africans. Modern economic success is determined by intelligence. Both are inversely correlated with crime.

More American blacks occupy housing projects and prison cells than whites per capita—and more Asian Americans are mathematic rock stars—because of natural selection. Refer all social justice complaints to Mother Nature.

But wait, what if poor test scores and higher criminality are influenced by poverty and alienation? Isn’t there a parallel with plants deprived of sunlight? How do genetics explain historical fluctuations?

Twin studies. Margins of error. Logical fallacy. Does not compute.

3. THE RELIGIOUS RACIST

Also known as “The D&D Racist”—as in elves, humans, dwarves, and ogres.

The Religious Racist imagines racial variation the same way: a Creator magicked up various peoples and then segregated each according to their kind.

The biblical “Curse of Ham” was used to justify African slavery. After the Flood, each of Noah’s three sons founded his own distinct bloodline. But not before Ham glimpsed his drunken father’s ding-a-ling. The self-conscious Patriarch cursed the boy’s progeny, saying, “lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” Ham’s dark-skinned descendants went on to populate Africa and sail to the Americas in chains. It says so right here in the Bible.

The Nation of Islam teaches that six millennia ago the mad scientist Yakub engineered genetically degenerate “white devils.” These pale mutant monkeys ran amok and will continue to use their “tricknology” to wreak havoc across the planet until Allah sends liberators in a spaceship

Nobody told these moldy yarn-spinners that every great D&D quest begins with a ragtag band of race-mixers.

4. THE JOINER RACIST

Takes refuge under a kinship banner.

He joins the Ku Klux Klan. He joins the Brown Berets de Aztlan. He joins the New Black Panther Party. Skin is kin, brother. The neat costumes are just an added bonus.

Unwilling to sort through complicated social landscapes and the subtleties of moral character, Joiner Racists determine fellowship on the basis of blood and soil, plain and simple. It’s like a genetic Order of Odd Fellows. No fence-sitters allowed.

By signing on the dotted line, he gets bumped up to the ethnic VIP list, and really, who could blame him? If your personal genius amounts to zero, why not take collective credit for the Renaissance, the Aztec Empire, or the Great Pyramids?

5. THE PRISON RACIST

Got forced off the fence.

If you take two different species of marine sponges, run them through a sieve, and toss the individual cells into the same Petri dish, they separate and reaggregate into sponges of their own kind. So do shirtless dudes out in the yard.

Prison gangs pick teams based on Nature’s original jersey: skin tone. They gather into the Aryan Brotherhood, Nuestra Familia, and the Black Guerrilla Family. Inmates may mingle across bloodlines, but when shit gets heavy, a man is loyal to “family”—or else.

This is cited as evidence that racial solidarity is a hardwired instinct. “Universal human nature” emerges when you cram feral males into a concrete terrarium, deprive them of females, give them bologna and barbells, and observe their patterns of violence.

6. THE STEREOTYPICAL RACIST

Distills the wild diversity of homo sapiens into easily conceived caricatures.

7. THE COMICAL RACIST

Comes up with jokes to make The Stereotypical Racist laugh.

8. THE RUNWAY RACIST

Your typical fascist fashionista.

This month she wants to photograph Nubian males in nude profiles. For next month’s issue: teen Asians in disheveled uniforms. A glistening Arab with his sweat-soaked keffiyeh? Redskin headdresses? Hoes in kimonos?! Fabulooouuus!

The Runway Racist is the queen of appropriation. She wants a random Afro American choir singing in the background. She wants Bengali girls doing black magic Tantra. She wants the Nazi uniform, but without the swastikas. Nah, fuck it, with the swastikas!

Aesthetics come down to genetics.

9. THE XENOFETISH RACIST

The reason that porno DVDs are categorized by race.

The Xenofetish Racist isn’t looking for love—the goal is erotic novelty. Foreign nations and cosmopolitan cities are ethnic salad bars of delectable, multicolored genitals picked fresh from the World Garden. She’s obsessed with the lyrical passion of Latino lovers. He hops on the first flight to Thailand, consumed by Yellow Fever.

Boy meets girl in an airplane bathroom. She’s living out a romance novel written in a foreign language. He’s checking off a hit list that looks like a census form. It’s all about happy endings.

10. THE SAVIOR RACIST

Is most certainly NOT a racist!

Like a parasite that evolved to mimic good intentions, The Savior Racist has learned to exploit the plight of the marginalized. She knows dominant interests in media, academia, corporate culture, and politics are keen to reward diversity and inclusion. So her social circles are engineered to look like a UN meeting. She parades minorities like a handler in a self-congratulatory dog show. She unpacks her invisible knapsack of privilege, only to fill it back up with tangible career opportunities.

As with any politician, her conspicuous gestures are less about kindness and more about power.

11. THE ANTI-WHITE ANTI-RACIST

Simple mathematics: POWER + PREJUDICE = RACISM.

It is unforgivably racist to hurl ethnic slurs—unless the target is white. Then it’s “punching up” for “social justice.” It’s not racist to exclude members of another race, because preserving ethnic identity is the essence of pluralism—unless it’s white identity. That equals POWER + PREJUDICE.

And no, regional power doesn’t count.

Therefore it’s not “racist” for Tokyo proprietors to refuse service to whites while pointing to a “JAPANESE ONLY” sign. Nor is it “racist” when a group of black youths kick the dogshit out of a random white bystander. It is mathematically impossible because when you count up every human power in the known universe, the tally comes to white supremacy.

That’s how Anti-White Anti-Racists rise to prominence. Most of them are white.

12. THE UNDERCOVER RACIST

You’ll never know who they are.

As the social response to unpopular speech escalates from ridicule to ostracism to total ruin—rather than, say, rational counterargument or agreeing to disagree—more and more people learn that dishonesty is the only policy. A politically correct society is not the product of moral development—it is a flock of nervous sheep getting fat on fluff, each wondering if the other is a hypocritical wolf in disguise.

That’s how clever devils collect humanitarian awards while earnest simpletons get tagged with peel-and-paste labels that read “RACIST.”

Like an atheist preacher facing his congregation, The Undercover Racist learns to perform under threat of utter condemnation. Here in Oceania, his survival depends on it.

© Joseph Allen

Joe Allen

Joe Allen is a writer and fellow primate who wonders why we came down from the trees. A lifelong student of religion and science, he's also kept his hands dirty as a land surveyor, communal farm hand, kitchen servant, and for over a decade, by climbing steel as an entertainment rigger. His work appears in various outlets from left to right because he prefers liberty to security.

Daily interjections: @EvoPsychosis

Latest posts by Joe Allen (see all)

  • http://www.wwiiigaming.com/ ittabena

    I grew up in Illinois, home of the Union President Abraham Lincoln. After thirty-five years I moved to Mississippi, Home of the Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

    There was huge racism in both States. Mississippi appeared to be a little more honest about it as Illinois tried it’s best to keep it from being seen. Illinois failed at that.

    But racism is not unique to the US by any means. Right now Sweden is being invaded, sort of, by Somali’s who come in and buy whole areas up. It is causing a lot of friction there.

    How do we stop this being in people’s minds? Very good question. I suggest the Upanishads, but that is just me.

    • BuzzCoastin

      my grandaddy was a GA chain gang warden
      think “cool hand luke”
      and
      in my genealogical research I discovered
      he had once prevented the railroading on a murder charge
      of one of his escaped Black prisoners in the 40’s
      it made the Jacksonville, Fla papers
      because the prisoner had already confessed to the murder
      he couldn’t have committed
      according to grandaddy

      interestingly
      no one in his immediate family seemed to know this story

      like you
      I have found the racism of the south
      to be more open & mostly benign
      whereas the northern racism seems to be more harsh
      even though the stereotypes are reversed in reality

    • kowalityjesus

      what? where do Somalis get money to buy land in Sweden?

      • http://www.wwiiigaming.com/ ittabena

        Good question. Piracy maybe? Though I have heard nothing about any Somali piracy activity on the Fjords of Norway (nest door to Sweden) and I have friends in both countries.

      • Number1Framer

        If I had to make up a completely unsubstantiated guess out of thin air (which I will do right now), my first guess would be warlords cutting back room deals with US military entities or private contractors who unofficially represent US military entities. But that’s just where my mind goes every time…

  • BuzzCoastin

    the tendencies called racism
    are mostly hard wired by evolution
    and not easy to overcome without conscious effort
    coupled with an uninhibited desire to explore belifes and prejudices
    in order to discover their source and experiencial validity
    unfortunately, it’s a road less traveled

  • Mr B
    • BuzzCoastin

      is that Harry Potter and gang from Hogfart?

  • Number1Framer

    And here all this time I thought I enjoyed dating interracially and across national lines because I thought learning the cuisine, celebrations, and customs of other people who don’t live like I do was interesting & stimulating and added an element my previous white American/white American relationships never had. Turns out my current 7 year relationship is a manifestation of my racism (against other whites?). Guess I’ll go break the bad news…

    • InfvoCuernos

      Just another racist. Aren’t you glad you got on the internet today? Ever wonder what the 21st century witch trial would look like? Look no further.

    • Juan Faisess

      In a sense they are correct, and you even mention it yourself: you didn’t write you did it for love, but as a sort of experiment. You never mentioned you did it because your heart lead you there. You wrote that you did it because “learning the cuisine, celebrations, and customs of other people who don’t live like I do was interesting & stimulating”. Sorry, but it sounds like a fieldtrip to me.

      • Bob Johnson

        >>”Sorry, but it sounds like a fieldtrip to me.”<<

        Jack Kerouac in “On the Road” (1957):

        At lilac evening I walk with every muscle aching among the lights of 27th and Welton in the Denver colored section, wishing I were a Negro, feeling that the best the white world had offered was not enough ecstasy for me, not enough life, joy, kicks, darkness, music, not enough night. I wished I were a Denver Mexican, or even a poor overworked Jap, anything but what I so drearily was, a “white man” disillusioned. All my life I’d had white ambitions; that was why I’d abandoned a good woman like Terry in the San Joaquin Valley. I passed the dark porches of Mexican and Negro houses; soft voices were there, occasionally the dusky knee of some mysterious sensuous gal; and dark faces of the men behind rose arbors. Little children sat like sages in ancient rocking chairs.

        Same shit. Different time period.

      • Andrew

        Re dating, you are partially correct. But regarding learning the customs of other cultures, it’s very useful for one’s own individual growth and survival to learn multiple methods, and what is a culture but a method for growth and survival?

        Field trips are good.

        • Juan Faisess

          Field trips are good, but not when the other does not realize they are part of one.
          If your loved one said to you, “Well, I went out with you to experience what was different. I didn’t really love you at first, but I love you now,” would you feel “good” about that field trip?

          • Number1Framer

            I find that loving someone before going out with them is sorta putting the cart before the horse. How do you even fall in love with someone you don’t yet know? Which is why all dating is nothing but fieldtrips.

          • Andrew

            If she loved me now, I’m not sure how much difference it would make at what point along the line she fell in.

      • Number1Framer

        How is all dating not a field trip? And way to read between the lines about where my heart led me. My 7 year relationship is actually just a 7 year stand I guess. Next you’re going to tell me you have absolutely no preferences whatsoever, right?

        • Juan Faisess

          Number of years don’t amount to sincerity. It doesn’t amount to anything, but time. I was in a 5-year relationship, that began as a relationship of sexual convenience, though I later fell in love with the person.
          And, yes, I do have preferences. That’s what kept me in the 5-year relationship, but I didn’t steer it because “learning the cuisine, celebrations, and customs of other people who don’t live like I do was interesting & stimulating.”

          • Number1Framer

            I’m just going to go ahead and apply your other reply below to the second half of what you just said:

            “No, you (she) should send someone packing if you (she) feel uncomfortable by what
            they (I) do and say. Apparently, you (she) did not in that situation.”

            I’ve known people from a few different parts of the world and find it enlightening to learn about another way of life from the person who lives it – the same reason they came here to study, visit, or live. As for where I am now, there’s no deception going on with us; we are both upfront about what we enjoy and value in relationships and other people. It’s an honest policy and prevents things like being played for five years. If that makes me a racist, then fine, I’ll just be a (happy and fulfilled) racist.

      • Number1Framer

        And also when she told me she “only likes whiteboys” I probably should of sent that damn racist packing rather than acknowledge the perfect symmetry of what we value and find desirable, right?

        • Juan Faisess

          No, you should send someone packing if you feel uncomfortable by what they do and say. Apparently, you did not in that situation.

      • misinformation

        None of that equals racism. Stop it.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      I kno rite? I’m in a quandary now…is my dating history involving an almost exclusive streak of several dozen Caucasians (plus one 1/2 Japanese 1/2 Irish….and one 1/2 Filipino 1/2 Irish) symbolic of aggressive subconscious racism by novelty-seeking…

      …or is it default racism because there isn’t enough variety and I’m being exclusionary? Should I seek out other POC regardless of any personal attraction and collect them based on their viability as evidence of non-racism…or should I lock the doors to all but the snowy white and reject contact with anyone who might impugn my reputation by appearing to be a racism motivated exploitative theft of their culture and heritage?

      Frankly, good intentions count for nothing in the minefield of cultural appropriation wars. To be white is to lose either way…unless you just wallow in self hate and beg forgiveness in between retreating into total cultural isolation.

      The cruel irony is that sterilized cultural enclaves…the ultimate side effect of appropriations based thinking or action…ARE the factories in which historical acts of violent racism and brutality are most adeptly spawned. Being a person more or less unilaterally opposed to explosions of ethnic cleansing and violence against minorities…it’s hard for me to reconcile with people cheerleading for the exact conditions that propagate more of the same.

      • http://andrewhendricksart.com/ Number1Framer

        My experience has been that being involved with people from other cultures/races/nations adds something to a relationship that my white exes never could. I guess the easiest way to sum it up would be to say that there’s an extra exchange of new ideas and realizations about how different others’ lives often are from our own. The flipside is that it can also present new additional layers of complication that need to be worked out and mutually understood. I find this little extra work to be worth it for the payoff of opening my mind a bit and broadening my horizon. I can only get this by associating with people different than myself.

  • Roger Mexico

    The definition isn’t that hard. “Race” isn’t even a meaningful scientific concept. There are groups of people definable through their ancient genetic lineage, but by that standard we’re pretty much all “multiracial” at this point because of how much contact and genetic exchange has taken place, unless you happen to be a member of an extremely remote and isolated group somewhere.

    Now, “race” as an ideology is a more prevalent and meaningful concept, but that’s what it is. It’s a belief system. Anyone who actually thinks there are substantive, categorical differences between groups of people whose very recent ancestors happened to come from a particular continent (this is pretty much meaningless in actual genetic terms) is a subscriber to this ideology, and to any extent that they treat this mostly imaginary distinction as non-trivially relevant to any other issue, they’re exhibiting “racism.”

    • Kudzu_Bob

      “Race” isn’t even a meaningful scientific concept.

      If so, then the Nazis never committed genocide. How long have you been a Hitler apologist?

      There are groups of people definable through their ancient genetic lineage, but by that standard we’re pretty much all “multiracial” at this point because of how much contact and genetic exchange has taken place

      And yet, most of the time all I have to do is look at someone to tell tell whether his ancestors hailed from Europe or Asia or Africa. Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

      Anyone who actually thinks there are substantive, categorical differences between groups of people whose very recent ancestors happened to come from a particular continent (this is pretty much meaningless in actual genetic terms) is a subscriber to this ideology, and to any extent that they treat this mostly imaginary distinction as non-trivially relevant to any other issue, they’re exhibiting “racism.”

      Anyone who actually thinks that there no substantive, categorical differences between groups of people whose very recent ancestors happened to come from a particular continent is a creationist. Evolution did not stop from the neck up 50,000 years ago–nor from the neck down, for that matter, as anyone familiar with how Tibetans’ adaptation to high altitudes came about in just the last several thousand years. (Indeed, their genetic ability to cope with thin mountain air and the inability of the Chinese to do so is why the Tibetans haven’t been wiped out.)

      • Roger Mexico

        No, genocide is a legal/political term that refers to the attempt to eliminate an entire culture or ethnic group, which are socially constructed anthropological concepts (a question of how people perceive their own identities and those of others).

        Whether humans can actually be scientifically classified into different races has nothing to do with that question.

        Your eyes and brain can identify specific, individual phenotypes that are more prevalent among certain regional populations. Genetic studies have demonstrated that these phenotypes and the genes that go with them are distributed independently of other genes. A person whose skin color or facial features indicate they have recent ancestors from the same place you do may well have less distant ancestry in common with you than a person whose recent ancestors are from a different continent. You can easily have more genes in common with someone from a different “race” than you than you have in common with someone from the same “race.” This may not apply to people from certain groups with a long history of extreme isolation, but for the most part probing into your deep genetic history would reveal that any current “race” you belong to is a question of recent phenotype clustering and has nothing to do with any traits you possess which aren’t directly related to those particular phenotypes.

        Your Tibetan example illustrates this. If it only took a few thousand years for short-term natural selection to produce a population that is unusually tolerant of high altitudes, then a few thousand years from now the descendants of Chinese people migrating there now will have these same traits. It won’t be a way to distinguish whose ancestors arrived in the area first. So altitude tolerance is not an attribute of a Tibetan “race”–it’s an attribute of anyone whose ancestors have been living in Tibet for the last few thousand years, regardless of how recently those people’s own ancestors got there.

        Any other genes the Chinese migrants are bringing in which aren’t selected out will still be prevalent. (And probably more prevalent, as people tend to interbreed with whoever is around–another example would be the fact that most African-Americans actually have recent European ancestors despite the taboo against “interracial” sex that supposedly existed during the slavery and segregation era.)

        So perhaps one could say that “races” exist in a very ephemeral sense, but evidence indicates that they pop into and out of existence so frequently as to make the concept irrelevant from a genetic standpoint.

        Social construction of race is, of course, a different story. If you live in a place like Europe or the Americas, you can probably easily tell whether someone is “white” or “black” based on the phenotypes that your culture treats as definitive of these identities, despite the fact that most “black” people in these places have “white” ancestors and vice versa.

        • BillMiller66

          So much of what you wrote is just plain wrong. Forensic anthropologists can examine bones and determine the subject’s race (or “continental ancestry” if you prefer that term) with a high degree of accuracy. Forensic serologists can examine DNA left behind at a crime scene and determine with 99%+ accuracy the racial makeup of the unknown suspect. Cross-racial marrow transfusions are contra-indicated because doctors are keenly aware of the risks. Medical research is starting to take account of people’s race. http://www.economist.com/node/6795348

          Suggested reading: Why Race Matters by Michael Levine.

          • lastsoldier

            Did you even read the whole article that you have a link to? It contradicts the statements you’ve been posting on this thread.

            “….We may even appear to be suggesting something that I know is not true: that there are bright lines between populations and that races are biologically distinct….”

          • BillMiller66

            That doesn’t contradict anything I have written. I never suggested that there were bright lines between populations. If there were, we’d be talking about different species (although even the term “species” has fuzzy boundaries albeit not as fuzzy as “race”). Did you even read what I’ve been writing in this thread?

          • Roger Mexico

            Who?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Levin

            “Michael Levin (/ˈlɛvɪn/; born 21 May 1943) is a philosophy professor…”

            Oh, OK. I see he’s a recognized authority on genetic science.

            “Levin’s central research interests are in epistemology (reliabilism and Gettier problems) and in philosophy of race.”

            ‘Philosophy of Race’? Is that a thing?

            So, this is something of a… personal interest this guy has?

            Torture

            In a 1982 essay “The Case for Torture” Levin argued that “there are
            situations where torture is not merely permissible but morally
            mandatory.” Levin reiterated this view in 2009.[1]

            Economics

            For Christmas 2000, Levin published a libertarian critique of Dickens’s popular novella A Christmas Carol
            in which he defends Scrooge as “an entrepreneur whose ideas and
            practices benefit his employees, society at large, and himself.”[2]

            Homosexuality

            Levin has questioned the morality, wisdom, and naturalness of homosexuality.[3]
            He argues that homosexual acts are abnormal because their participants
            are not using their sexual organs for what they are for, and that this
            abnormality must be a source of unhappiness, even though it may go
            unrecognized. Philosopher Roger Scruton has criticized Levin’s attempt to show that homosexuality is abnormal, calling it absurd.[4] Timothy Murphy has criticized Levin’s arguments about homosexuality in detail.[3]
            Murphy states that while Levin “more or less accepts that there is a
            strong biological basis for homoerotic orientation” he nevertheless
            believes that discrimination against gay people may be defensible on
            several grounds, including the possibility that there is a biologically
            based dislike of homosexuality.[5]

            Feminism

            Feminist Susan Faludi writes that Levin’s 1988 book Feminism and Freedom characterizes feminism as an “antidemocratic, if not totalitarian, ideology” without a single redeeming feature.[6]

            Race

            Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differences—a view that has been criticized by scholars such as Leon Kamin of Princeton University.[7][8]”

            Ah, a full-spectrum kook, I see.

            Well, riveting as that sounds, unfortunately I probably have better things to do than read the ramblings of some quack obsessed with white superiority speaking completely outside his area of expertise.

            Let me guess. Your response to this will include the words “Politically Correct.”

          • BillMiller66

            Wikipedia? lol…

            By the way, Leon Kamin is an avowed communist who places his ideology before science. Kamin perfectly epitomizes cultural Marxism.

          • Roger Mexico

            “Leon Kamin is an avowed communist who places his ideology before science”

            –[Citation Needed]

          • BillMiller66

            Leon J. Kamin confessed that he joined Communist Party USA in the 1940s while at Harvard. See his letter to the editor, The New York Review of Books, 26 May 2005. (Hint: learn to google.)

          • Roger Mexico

            That doesn’t prove that his research is invalid, nor that he “places his ideology before science.”

            It also has nothing to do with the fact that Michael Levin is not an authoritative source of conclusions about genetic science.

            Learn to logic.

          • BillMiller66

            I wasn’t trying to prove anything. Outside of math or formal logic, you can’t really “prove” anything, especially in the short space of comments on the article.

            My conclusions about the rich diversity across the various branches of the human family are not contingent on the political opinions of the scientists involved. I follow the evidence.

            And yet, it is instructive that to examine the people who tell us that race doesn’t really exist, that man is a blank slate, that all traits are equally distributed across the human population, that if one group typically performs better than another group it’s because of “oppression,” that non-whites are incapable of “racism,” that it’s racist to study average group differences or to follow the evidence for genetic bases for average group differences.
            Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, Tim Wise, Stephen J. Gould, Stephen Rose, and too many others to mention. Dig deep and you’ll find that they’re quite fond of Marx. Just sayin’.

            Tim Wise openly proclaims that Angela Davis (a CPUSA official) is his hero. If your heroes are communists, what does that make you? Lewontin has identified himself as a Marxist, and has admitted that his ideological views have affected his scientific work (Levins and Lewontin 1985). Gould was on the advisory board of the journal Rethinking Marxism and stated that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism “at his daddy’s knee.” Gould was also exposed as a fraud in 2011. Just google the terms “Stephen J. Gould”+fraud.

            It’s like when you start noticing that every creationist is also a Bible-thumper. And every time you knock down their ridiculous claims with evidence, they simply come back the next day and repeat their nonsense. What is to explain their ideological gyrations and purposeful obfuscations? And look at how they attempt to silence their opponents! Arthur Jensen’s seminars were frequent targets by kranky Marxists, as were Edward O. Wilson. When Prof. J. P. Rushton was writing his epic “Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective,” some lefty reported him to the Canadian thought police, which – are you ready for this? – actually opened a criminal investigation into Rushton’s research.

          • BillMiller66

            One striking difference between race realists and race deniers is that realists pore over the writings of the social constructionists and other Race Deniers, but the Race Deniers themselves prefer to stay ignorant of all troubling facts.

          • BillMiller66

            I did not attempt to prove that his research is invalid. In fact, outside math or formal logic, you can’t really “prove” anything.

            What you can do is read the research and come to your own conclusions. Kamin is known in some circles for his position that the heritability of IQ could be zero (Mackintosh, 1998).

            Do YOU think that there inheritability of IQ is zero? That it’s all nature?

            Michael Levin’s book “Why Race Matters” is probably the best book for a popular audience that I have read on the subject. He’s a professor of philosophy so of course he doesn’t do original genetic research, but he nonetheless writes authoritatively on the subject, and traces the contours of the contemporary debate of race, heritability of IQ and temperament and the like. He asks not merely “what are the facts” but “what does it mean?” I really like the fact that he is so well-acquainted with the arguments of his opponents.

            So how did the cultural Maxists react to his writings on race? His position at the College of the City of New York was threatened in 1991 when attempts were made to revoke his tenure because of his public statements related to race
            differences. These efforts were turned back by a Federal court decision.

            Again and again, we see how the social constructionists react when their stupid little fairy tales about “white privilege” and invisible nap sacks are demolished by hard science. They seek to punish and silence their opponents. Political correctness is a religion of insanity which tolerates no heresy.

          • Roger Mexico

            Ah, so it took you two whole posts to make this about some “political correctness” conspiracy.

            Do you have a lot of experience in academia? A lot of it relies on something called “peer review”, in which work within a specific field is evaluated by other people working in that specific field. One’s conclusions about genetics are considered valid if one can convince other geneticists, one’s conclusions about psychology are considered valid if one can convince other psychologists, and so forth. Properly evaluating conclusions requires extensive knowledge of research procedures and prior findings in the discipline that produced them–otherwise a personal opinion is just that, and disagreements are assumed to be the result of inadequate expertise until proven otherwise.

            Levin is not an authority on genetics unless he has actually done his own research in genetics. Otherwise, he’s not qualified to evaluate the conclusions of people who have actually done the research. This is a pretty straightforward rule, and people who claim it doesn’t or shouldn’t apply to them are seen as violating standard academic protocol, for which things like revocation of tenure are often among the potential penalties. Actual sanctions for this tend to be demanded mainly when the person’s commentary provokes some kind of controversy (otherwise it’s usually ignored), but that doesn’t mean there’s some cabal of politically motivated academic authorities trying to suppress everything that conflicts with some covert agenda they have. It just means that the profession is where the code of professional ethics tells you to expect people outside your field of expertise to defer to you on questions within that field, and reciprocate when talking about someone else’s field of expertise.

            You can find people from all over the political spectrum in any profession, and the scientific world is no different. The Communist party used to be more popular than it is now, so it’s not very surprising to find that there have been notable scientists who belonged to it. Everyone has their personal opinions, but again, there are fairly strict protocols in place in the academic world meant to distinguish between someone’s personal beliefs about something and their authoritative conclusions about a subject they have done professional work on. A scientist’s job is to find data and draw logical conclusions from it according to a specific procedure–the validity of their findings depends on convincing their peers in the field that they have followed those procedures, and nothing else.

            Unless you can specifically back up the claim that Kamin or anyone else deliberately misrepresented the data they found or its logical implications–which would be very serious misconduct on their part for which they would likely have faced sanctions themselves–then merely observing that they happened to have unorthodox personal opinions about some other subject is completely irrelevant.

            *I* have no idea what the “probability of hereditability of IQ” is. I don’t have a lick of the necessary expertise to determine that on my own. I could give you my opinion, but my opinion on that subject would be nothing but uninformed speculation. Kamin was a professional psychologist–if he did research and found data from which it can be logically extrapolated that the range of possible probabilities for IQ being heritable includes 0, well, he’s far more likely to be right about that than I would be, as I have done exactly none of such research myself.

            Pythagoras was the leader of some nutso cult that basically told people to avoid eating protein because it corrupted their souls or something. I don’t have to agree with him about that to be aware that “A^2 + B^2 = C^2” is a valid maxim of mathematics which has stood up to the standards of mathematical logic for thousands of years.

            Saying “well, I think the Pythagorean Theorem is probably bullshit–the guy was the leader of a nutso protein-hating religious cult, you know” would be pretty much the definition of an Ad Hominem Fallacy. If some asshole was running around saying that his PhD in modern Serbian literature made him qualified to make this argument and not be laughed at, I’d say he probably deserved to have his tenure brought up for review at any university where he worked.

          • BillMiller66

            “Unless you can specifically back up the claim that Kamin or anyone else ..”

            Thank the gods there is a cure for your ignorance!

            Google these search terms: Stephen Gould fraud exposed.

            Read the literature yourself. Kamin and his social constructionist brothers seem to think that IQ is all nurture and no nature. Then read Steven Pinker, Arthur Jensen, Rushton, Levine, Jared Taylor, Cyril Burt, Audrey Schuey, and a host of others.

            Did you know that the brain of the average Negro adult is about 100 grams lighter than the average Caucasian? That the Negro IQ is one standard deviation below the average Caucasian IQ?

            “But that’s racist!” scream the social constructionists – as if liberal temper tantrums constituted any kind of rebuttal.

          • Roger Mexico

            Uh huh. So, now we’re trying Guilt by Association instead of Argumentum ad Hominem?

            Googling “Leon Kamin fraud” just brings up articles about Kamin asserting he’d found misinterpreted or potentially fraudulent evidence in Cyril Burt’s “hereditarian” research. Googling doesn’t really count as research, but for the sake of argument, your ‘research’ method still doesn’t back up your assertion.

            “IQ is all nurture and no nature” could easily be a valid scientific conclusion. That would depend on the evidence any particular study turns up.

            The mere fact of someone arriving at a scientific conclusion you don’t like doesn’t make them a “fraud.”

          • BillMiller66

            Roger wrote: “”Unless you can specifically back up the claim that Kamin or anyone else ..”

            I gave you an example of “anyone else.” Google will point you in the right direction.

            Gould has been exposed as a fraud. See The New York Times, “Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim,” by science reporter Nicholas Wade, 13 June 2011.

            While we’re on the subject, you might want to read Nicholas Wade’s latest book, “A Troublesome Inheritance.”

            Hunter Wallace sums up the debunking of Gould pretty well:
            “For decades, the biologist Stephen J. Gould was the darling of ‘anti-racist’ science, and one of the most implacable enemies of human bio-diversity until his death in 2002. Gould was the modern day successor of Franz Boas.

            “In 1981, Stephen J. Gould wrote an infamous book called The Mismeasure of Man, which was a wildly influential attack on nineteenth century ‘scientific racism.’ In the 1990s, Gould savagely attacked The Bell Curve, which had just been released at the time, in the second edition of his book and was treated as a respected authority figure by the MSM.

            “The polemical book attempted to show that nineteenth century racialists like Samuel Morton had falsified their scientific findings to justify ‘racism’ against African-Americans. It played a huge role in fostering the myth among the DWL [delusional white liberal] intelligentsia that ‘scientific racism’ was pseudoscience.

            “Steve Sailer and other ‘race realists’ have long pointed out that The Mismeasure of Man enjoyed far more acclaim among DWLs than it ever did with Gould’s peers in the scientific community.

            “Stephen J. Gould had a reputation for being an ideological charlatan and a publicity hound who flattered the anti-racist prejudices of the DWL media in order to promote himself as a scientific celebrity. Jared Diamond of Guns, Germs, and Steel fame is another example of a ‘scientist’ of this persuasion.”

            When it comes to the role of nature vs. nurture in connection with IQ, there is in fact a huge disconnect between what is reported in the mass media and what actual scientists have concluded. See Snyderman and Rothman. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-iq-controversy-by-mark-snyderman-and-stanley-rothman/

          • Roger Mexico

            And your source for this evaluation of Gould’s findings is noted Rhodes Scholar and Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Hunter Wallace.

            Oh, wait, no, that’s not right. I googled Hunter Wallace and it turns out your source for this evaluation of Gould’s findings is actually:

            Hunter Wallace, RAOTI (Random Asshat On the Internet), whose notability is apparently limited to his status as a darling of the NNDB (Neo-Nazi Dipshit Blogosphere).

            Duly noted. (It still has nothing to do with Kamin though–even if Mr. Wallace does happen to be correct, which I doubt, any misconduct on Gould’s part would not discredit anyone’s research other than his own.)

            If you’d actually ever read any of Diamond’s writing, you’d be aware that “Guns, Germs, and Steel” isn’t about the distribution or heritability of IQ . He makes one off-handed comment in the preface about his personal experience with New Guineans (basically that the people he met there exhibited an ability to improvise wilderness-survival skills that most people in the US probably lack), but this doesn’t represent his actual conclusions, which are about an entirely different topic.

            The central thesis of the book is that modern-day differences in economic development between countries can be explained using geographical, ecological, and historical evidence, without reference to either intrinsic biological traits of individuals or vague, amorphous concepts like “culture.” It’s only a challenge to racial theories about intelligence by implication–in the sense that he concludes these non-genetic factors are entirely sufficient to explain the outcomes he studied. (That is, IF you assume, as he does, that traits like intelligence are distributed relatively evenly across human population groups, you can still predict the emergence of unequal development patterns between societies composed of about equally intelligent people based on the advantages that some of these groups’ ancestors derived from conditions in their environments.) Thus, his point is simply that we don’t NEED a theory of “human biodiversity” or “cultural superiority” to explain these other things, not that he can comment on the validity of any such theories per se.

            It’s an interesting book. You should read it some time.

          • BillMiller66

            “And your source for this evaluation of Gould’s findings is noted Rhodes
            Scholar and Nobel Prize-winning geneticist Hunter Wallace.”

            Re-read my piece and see if you can see my reference to The New York Times coverage of the study which debunks Gould.

            Here, I’ll re-post it for you.

            The New York Times, “Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim,” by science reporter Nicholas Wade, 13 June 2011.

            Wallace wasn’t the source; he just had a spot-on analysis of.

          • Roger Mexico

            Fine.

            What exactly is your point, though? The only factual conclusion in any of that is that Gould was in error with his accusations that Morton falsified his own data. That’s hardly a refutation of the entire body of work on social construction of race, much less of the validity of the concept itself.

            I could just as easily point out that Kamin’s conclusions about Cyril Burt (someone you yourself told me to go read) falsifying the results of his twin studies have been validated at least as extensively as any critique of Gould, and that Burt’s misrepresentations directly undermine his own theories, not merely his criticisms of someone else’s theory.

            Somehow I doubt that would convince you that your entire line of reasoning here is false, though–and rightly so, as one scientist’s malfeasance is not a logically valid argument against everyone who has ever reached a similar conclusion–so I hope you’re not expecting as much from me.

            Notably, nothing you have supplied contains any indication that even the expert researchers who have concluded that intelligence is heritable and differentiated by ancestral group actually deny that sociological factors like institutionalized racism or poverty contribute to outcomes such as disparities in educational outcomes or income between racial groups. That false dilemma (that observing differences in scores on intelligence tests between one racial group and another somehow refutes the assertion that artificial disparities created by structural forces in society exist) is mostly the province of the NNDB and related “white nationalist” communities at this point.

            Even if Gould was overzealous in his attacks on Morton, his zeal was for an idea which even most of his critics would agree with in the abstract–that the likes of Morton’s studies do not constitute some sort of “scientific” justification for racial segregation or institutionalized racial inequality.

            All of which brings us back to my original point–racism largely consists in the overestimation of the practical significance of observed phenotypic differences between human population groups.

            Anyone who would take the bit of information that someone found a collection of Caucasian crania to be larger than a collection of African crania and think “A HA! Well, this explains everything!” is probably a racist.

          • BillMiller66

            “Kamin’s conclusions about Cyril Burt…”

            Please provide a source for this.

            Listen, I have no beef with you. I’m not angry with you, and I don’t hate you. I used to run in leftist circles a long long time ago. There’s one thing about leftists that’s admirable, and that’s that they tend to be readers. I just think that you’re wrong is all. Read Rushton, Jenson, Taylor, Glade Whitney, Wade, Pinker, Schuey, Burt, et al. Read it with an open mind. Whenever I pick up something by Kamin or Diamon, I always think to myself, “What makes me think that I am right and that they are wrong? What if I am wrong? What if I am simply reading stuff that reinforces my own preconceived notions?” Look at the Minnesota twin studies. Identical twins raised together, identical twins raised apart, fraternal twins raised together, fraternal twins raised apart, testing their IQs over the years. Black infants raised by white adoptive parents, white infants raised by black adoptive parents. There is enough data that they can tease out the influences of nature and nurture. IQ correlates with ancestry far more than with environment. Testing black IQ and then researching their genealogy. Turns out that the IQ correlates with the amount of European (white) ancestry that they have. White kids in trailer parks have a higher IQ than black kids from affluent backgrounds.

            If we met in person, I would not insult you. I would simply simply throw book titles at you.

            “Why Race Matters,” by Michael Levine. Yes, he’s a professor of philosophy, not genetics, but he deals with race, crime, the debate over IQ, genetics, and most importantly, “What does it all mean?” Love him or hate him, you cannot ignore him.

            “Paved With Good Intentions” by Jared Taylor. Also his follow-up book which was mislabeled “White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.”

            “Race, Evolution and Behavior” by J.P.Rushton.

            “Race: The Reality of Human Differences” by Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele.

            Read those five books, and read the other side by Kamin, Gould, Lewontin, Wise, Diamond, Feagin. I have read all these writers. Just read them with an open mind. One side has the intellectual high ground, the other side is desperately clinging to an untenable ideology: that man is born a blank slate, that we’re all created equal, that all talents are equally distributed across the various branches of the human family, that average group differences are the result of “oppression” of slavery, or colonialism, or apartheid, or whatever.

            With each passing day, the data show that the social constructionists’ view of the world is outdated.

          • Roger Mexico

            “After Burt’s death, striking anomalies in some of his test data led some
            scientists to reexamine his statistical methods. They concluded that
            Burt manipulated and probably falsified those IQ test results that most
            convincingly supported his theories on transmitted intelligence and
            social class. The debate over his conduct continued, but all sides
            agreed that his later research was at least highly flawed, and many
            accepted that he fabricated some data.”

            Encyclopedia Brittanica

            http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/85886/Sir-Cyril-Burt

            To be honest, I’m not that well read on this subject, but the reason for that is that I don’t find it all that interesting. That there are some genetic factors at work in some dimensions of human psychology is not a controversial observation. Perhaps that does include cognitive ability, but I find that to be an idle scientific curiosity at best, as I’m neither a geneticist nor a psychologist.

            History and cultural anthropology are more up my alley, so I can tell you that this:

            “the other side is desperately clinging to an untenable ideology: that
            man is born a blank slate, that we’re all created equal, that all
            talents are equally distributed across the various branches of the human
            family”

            is mostly a straw man.

            ‘Social Construction’ refers to the observation that human thought and behavior change in response to sociocultural inputs. Making this observation does not require presupposing that sociocultural inputs are the only factor influencing human thought and behavior, but merely that they represent one such factor. Hence, even if we assume for the sake of argument that heritable differences in cognitive ability exist and are clustered among groups of people with similar geographic ancestry, that would not necessitate denying that people’s thought patterns about racial identity are subject to social construction. The definition of a “race” is largely arbitrary for the reasons I elaborated before, and this is significant because behaviors which are based upon perceptions of racial identity reflect the influence of a social construction process.

            Demonstrating that is as simple as observing that people from different societies think about race in terms of differing systems of categorization. As it happens, I am of European ancestry and come from the United States, but currently I am living in Central America–there is just as much racism here as there is anywhere else, but for obvious reasons there is functionally no such thing here as a distinction between “white” and “Latino” ethnic/racial identity as there is in the US. I haven’t been to Haiti, but I’m told that a person is not considered “black” there unless he or she has no known non-African recent ancestors. The culturally significant distinction there is between people of “pure” African ancestry and those of mixed ancestry, who constitute a separate “racial” group–chiefly these are people of mixed African/European ancestry, since there are few living descendants of the island’s pre-Colombian population but large numbers of both “pure” Africans and “mulatto” African/European people–this is essentially the opposite of how “black” and “white” racial identities are socially constructed in the United States, where one must have little or no known non-European ancestry to be considered “white” since longstanding historical social custom led to the possession of non-European ancestry implying exclusion from a privileged social class.

            I have read some of the work of Jared Diamond, whom you keep bringing up, so I can reiterate that you seem to be less than familiar with his research, which is not about the question of intelligence being hereditary at all. (Unless he’s published something recently I’m not aware of.) “Guns, Germs and Steel”, his most famous work, is about the role of ecological and geographical factors in explaining why some modern societies are comparatively more economically developed than others. The distribution of traits like IQ doesn’t play a significant role in his analysis, and it’s not a topic he even directly addresses–beyond offhand observations like “there were plenty of intelligent people in all of these societies” designed to emphasize the thesis that the civilizations currently on the dominant end of the global economic/political spectrum can trace their present condition to a historical inheritance from the ancient societies who inhabited the regions of the earth where the key components of technological development and political dominance were most easily available.

            The only people who generally seem to find Diamond offensive are those who are very attached to some questionably monocausal explanation of their own for the same things Diamond tries to explain–usually some variant of the idea that the world’s currently dominant civilizations could only have attained that position by being composed of human stock who are somehow superior to their counterparts in other civilizations. This of course is a blatant logical fallacy (affirming the consequent), and Diamond’s findings amply demonstrate the fallacy involved. (Long story short–there are a lot of reasons to think that the descendants of a moderately intelligent person living in New Guinea in 10,000 BC would have ended up wealthier than the descendants of an equally intelligent person living in continental Europe or Asia at the same time.)

            Otherwise, his thesis is not inherently provocative, and I’d even call it downright mundane–economic development tends to be furthered by access to valuable natural resources and to information that facilitates the effective exploitation of those resources, and THESE factors have been far from equally distributed across human population groups throughout history. I honestly don’t really understand how that idea would piss anyone off, with the possible exception of people for whom it happens to gore a particular intellectual sacred cow.

          • Andrew

            Read up on neuroplasticity.

          • misinformation

            You seem acutely tied to the idea of an IQ score being a useful measure of ‘intelligence’. How do you define ‘intelligence’? I’ve skimmed through a lot of the conversation up ’til now so forgive me if I’ve missed it. I’ve had to sift through a lot of noise to get the signal with regards to the whole ‘back and forth’.

          • BillMiller66

            Excellent question. Arthur Jensen said that experts in psychology have not been able to agree upon a precise definition of intelligence, so he abandoned it in favor of “general mental ability” of “the g factor.” (The latter is also the title to a book which he wrote.)

            I recommend the book by Frank Miele titled Intelligence, race and Genetics: Conversation with Arthur R. Jensen (Westview Press: 2002). Chapter 2 is “What is Intelligence?”

            See also Chapter 3 “Race Difference in Intelligence and Temerament,” in Why race Matters by Michael Levine.

            What’s really lame about Joseph Allen’s article here is that he lumps together people who study racial differences with deranged Nazis. It’s as if someone were to invent a word “workerism” and then applied the word “workerist” to anyone trying to form a labor union as well as to anyone who advocated eliminating private property and exterminating every last capitalist.

          • misinformation

            Well, I’m not likely to go buy, in the immediate, nor do I feel it acceptable to allocate the time, to read the books, or chapters that you have suggested (thanks for those, however). I’ve taken a wikipedia glance at your suggestions and, after stepping aside the fact that Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton are mentioned in the first paragraph, I wasn’t able to get a clear picture of your idea of intelligence.

            Perhaps you could distill it down for me, as if I’m in middle school, or something?

            How does your definition of intelligence relate (or not) to something like Howard Gardner’s ‘multiple intelligences’?

          • BillMiller66

            Cognitive ability, capacity to learn, real world problem-solving ability, the ability to detect patterns. Richard Weinberg (1989) describes intelligence as “the ability to learn from experience and perform mental tasks expertly and effortlessly.” IQ tests correlate with how well one does in college, income, and how well one does in life generally. (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994).

            Isamu Akasaki won the 2014 Nobel Prize for physics. Look at his accomplishments and I think it’s safe to say that he is highly intelligent. Genius level, in fact.

            By the time he was five years old, Wolfgang Mozart was competent at violin and keyboard, and was composing music. In addition to his native German, as an adult he also spoke Latin, Italian, French, and English. He even wrote operas in French and Italian. He also excelled at math. I usually hate Wikipedia since it is a generally rotten source afflicted by PC-think for anything political or controversial, but in this case it observes that Mozart “composed over 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, operatic, and choral music.” They didn’t have IQ tests back then, but I think that it’s safe to conlcude that Mozart was super intelligent. Another genius.

            Gardner argues (1983) that IQ tests only one type of intelligence, namely logico-mathematical intelligence whereas he discerns “musical, “bodily-kinesthetic,” and “personal” intelligences. The trouble here is that calling them “intelligences” arbitrarily extends the word “intelligence” to abilities it did not previously cover, in effect redefining it. The basic point here is quite simple. As most people use the word “intelligent,” Einstein was the paradigm of intelligence; Babe Ruth was not. As Gardner uses it, Babe Ruth is apparently just as much a paradigm as Einstein. Normally, anyone who announced, “On my definition, Babe Ruth was as smart as Einstein” would be accused of playing with words. By this standard, the multiple intelligence theory is mere wordplay, pouring new wine into old verbal bottles. Gardner is merely playing with words.

            Gardner’s departure from received usage plainly does not join issues of fact. Gardner is talking past, not disagreeing with, the rest of us because he evidently rejects the usual criteria for intelligence.

            “Michael Jordan sure is intelligent. Just look at how well he plays basketball!” said nobody.

            I’ve noticed that when it comes to racial differences, social
            constructionists often want to nitpick words that in any other context
            are perfectly understandable. (I’m not saying that you’re doing this,
            just that I’ve noticed others do it as a matter of course.) People who
            claim that race doesn’t really exist have no trouble determining race
            when it comes to government-mandated racial preferences aka “affirmative
            action” in housing, employment, and and government contracts. The same
            people who claim that intelligence doesn’t really exist, or that IQ
            tests don’t really measure it, will be the first ones to cite the
            reliability of IQ tests when it come to, say, getting a convicted
            murderer off of death row. The same people who scoff at detectable
            differences in DNA patterns within the context of racial differences
            wholeheartedly embrace DNA testing when we’re talking about the
            Innocence Project’s efforts to use DNA testing to get an innocent man
            out of prison.

            I have noticed a pattern of what can only be called deliberate obfuscation by Gould, Kamin, Rose et al.

          • BillMiller66

            Cognitive ability, capacity to learn, real world problem-solving ability, the ability to detect patterns. Richard Weinberg (1989) describes intelligence as “the ability to learn from experience and perform mental tasks expertly and effortlessly.” IQ tests correlate with how well one does in college, income, and how well one does in life generally. (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994).

            Isamu Akasaki won the 2014 Nobel Prize for physics. Look at his accomplishments and I think it’s safe to say that he is highly intelligent. Genius level.

            By the time he was five years old, Wolfgang Mozart was competent at violin and keyboard, and was composing music. In addition to his native German, as an adult he also spoke Latin, Italian, French, and English. He even wrote operas in French and Italian. He also excelled at
            math. I usually hate Wikipedia since it is a generally rotten source afflicted by PC-think for anything political or controversial. Wikipedia observes us that Mozart “composed over 600 works, many acknowledged as pinnacles of symphonic, concertante, chamber, operatic, and choral music.” They didn’t have IQ tests back then, but I think that it’s safe to conlcude that Mozart was super intelligent.

            Gardner argues (1983) that IQ tests only one type of intelligence, namely logico-mathematical intelligence whereas he supposedly discerns “musical, “bodily-kinesthetic,” and “personal” intelligences. The trouble here is that calling them “intelligences” arbitrarily extends the word “intelligence” to abilities it did not previously cover, in effect redefining it. The basic point here is quite simple. As most people use the word “intelligent,” Einstein was the paradigm of intelligence; Babe Ruth was not. As Gardner uses it, Babe Ruth was apparently just as much a paradigm as Einstein. Normally, anyone who announced, “On my definition, Babe Ruth was as smart as Einstein” would be accused of playing with words. By this standard, the multiple intelligence theory is mere wordplay, pouring new wine into old verbal bottles. Gardner is merely playing with words.

            “Michael Jordan sure is intelligent. Just look at how well he plays basketball!” said nobody ever.

            Gardner’s departure from received usage plainly does not join issues of fact. Gardner is talking past, not disagreeing with, the rest of us because he evidently rejects the usual criteria for intelligence.

            I’ve noticed that when it comes to racial differences, social constructionists often want to nitpick words that in any other context are perfectly understandable. (I’m not saying that you’re doing this, just that I’ve noticed others do it as a matter of course.) People who claim that race doesn’t really exist have no trouble determining race when it comes to government-mandated racial preferences aka “affirmative action” in housing, employment, and government contracts. The same people who claim that intelligence doesn’t really exist, or that IQ tests don’t really measure it, will be the first ones to cite the reliability of IQ tests when it come to, say, getting a convicted murderer off of death row. The same people who scoff at detectable differences in DNA patterns within the context of racial differences wholeheartedly embrace DNA testing when we’re talking about the Innocence Project’s efforts to use DNA testing to get an innocent man out of prison.

            It comes off as deliberate obfuscation.

          • misinformation

            Okay, I’ve lost a lot of text, twice. I don’t have it in me anymore.

            I see some contradiction in what you want to lay down as ‘intelligence’ and what you won’t accept from others. Just as one, small, quick example…if you remove Mozart’s musical accomplishments, why would you even bring him up? A lot of people speak four languages. Therefor, his intelligence is mostly based on ‘musical’, an idea you disparage. Even though etymologically, ‘art’ was an early example of intelligence.

            This whole quote you present, as a definition for intelligence: ‘IQ tests correlate with how well one does in college, income, and how well one does in life generally. (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994)’, describes Michael Jordan rather well. As I said, I don’t have the stamina to try and recraft my whole response.

            Ultimately though, I’m curious to know the point you’re driving at? What are you hoping to accomplish with the research you’re presenting? What is it that you object to that others here, are saying?

            Sorry if that’s a bit of a cop-out on my end. I was several paragraphs deep on my second attempted response and i had just copy and pasted a small slice of your text which, foolishly, replaced the copy I had just made of my text.

          • BillMiller66

            If Mozart were alive today and given IQ tests, how do you think that he would score? I’d bet 145 or above. That’s a mere fraction of a percent of the population. (IQ tests are more accurate when testing people in the middle than people at the extremes.) His intelligence – the g factor, if you’ve read Spearman – manifested itself chiefly in musical output, but that’s hardly confirmation for Gardner’s hypothesis. It doesn’t mean that there’s some separate “musical intelligence.”

            >A lot of people speak four languages.

            An indication of high IQ, right? Especially if you can compose operas in foreign languages.

            Intelligence *correlates* with overall socio-economic status. (The correlation is .4 according to Jensen and Sinha (1993)). That doesn’t mean that every rich and successful person is intelligent. Michael Jordan majored in geography at college. I don’t know what his grade are. He might have a high IQ or not. Nonetheless, nobody ever says, “Look at how well so-and-so plays plays a sport/dances/sings. He sure is intelligent!” We might say that he has talent and dedication.

            Calling athletic ability “intelligence” no more changes the intelligence of athletes than calling dogs “horses” will make them whinny.

            When I say that Einstein was more intelligent than Babe Ruth, and that Babe Ruth had more athletic ability than Einstein, I simply mean that Einstein was better at abstract reasoning, and that Babe Ruth was better at hitting baseballs.

            People like Gardner pretend not to understand “intelligence” in order to avoid embarrassment over race. Positing many kinds of intelligence or meanings for the word “intelligence” allows them to select an ability prominently displayed by blacks, dub it “intelligence,” and announce that, in different ways, the races are equally “intelligent” – another example of deliberate obscurantism about race differences.

            “Ultimately though, I’m curious to know the point you’re driving at?”

            I enjoy bouncing these ideas off of others. After all, what if I am wrong and I am simply reading those writers who confirm my own narrow prejudices? How would I know?

            “What are you hoping to accomplish with the research you’re presenting?”

            Joseph Allen’s article doesn’t even attempt to shed light on the issues. It might as well be titled “12 Ways to Denounce People Whose Ideas I Don’t Like.” Can’t refute the message? Simply accuse the messenger of racial heresy. (“Racist!”)

            I actually have several books by Disinformation in my library. I’m disappointed that they decided to publish such obvious dreck.

          • BillMiller66

            >A lot of people speak four languages.

            Learning foreign languages correlates with IQ.

            >if you remove Mozart’s musical accomplishments, why would you even bring him up?

            Mozart undoubtedly had a high IQ. It doesn’t mean that there is some special “musical intelligence.”

            High IQ correlates (correlation is .4 according to Jensen and Sinha) with socio-economic status. Being rich and successful does not mean that you have a high IQ. Jordan studied geography in college. We don’t knwo what hsi grade were, or how he scored on an IQ test. Maybe he’s intelligent, maybe not, but my point is that *nobody* says, “Look at how well that guy can play basketball/run fast/throw balls/dance/sing! he sure is smart!” It would be a misuse of the word “smart.”

            In 2002 the US Supreme Court ruled that a mentally disabled defendant convicted of capital murder may not be executed. Imagine a prosecutor arguing to the ourt something like, “Your Honor, while it’s technically true that the defendant scored 68 on an IQ test, we think that per Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, that test doesn’t accurately capture how profoundly intelligent the defendant really is. Watch this video and see how well the defendant shoots hoops and dances. Clearly he is intelligent.” Absurd, yes? Gardner’s “theory” is absurd.

            More bad news for the social constructionists as science continues to demolish their cherished little myths.
            “Our Futile Efforts to Boost Children’s IQ,” Nov 14, 2014
            http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-14/our-futile-efforts-to-boost-childrens-iq

            “Taken together,” the authors write, “the results … indicate that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variations in IQ scores.”

            The second study breaks new ground. Six of its eight authors come from King’s College London, home to what is probably the world’s leading center for the study of the interplay among genes, environment and developmental factors. The authors applied one of the powerful new methods enabled by the decoding of the genome, “Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis,” to ask how much effect socioeconomic status has on IQ independently of genes. The technique does not identify the causal role of specific genes, but rather enables researchers to identify patterns that permit conclusions like the one they reached in this study: “When genes associated with children’s IQ are identified, the same genes will also be likely to be associated with family SES.” Specifically, the researchers calculated that 94 percent of the correlation between socioeconomic status and IQ was mediated by genes at age 7 and 56 percent at age 12.

          • BillMiller66

            Leon Kamin went so far as to join the Stalinist Communist Party USA in the 1940s. This was LONG after the crimes of Stalins and failure of communism had been abundantly documented. How do we know this? Leon Kamin admitted it himself in a 2005 letter to The New York Review of Books.

  • mannyfurious

    One of the biggest problems with the “Intelligence” model of racism is that it assumes that Western Kulture, with all it’s violence, greed, selfishness and brutality is somehow more intelligent than the less vicious cultures it has destroyed. Does being better at violence equal intelligence? For me it doesn’t, but whatever.

    • Bob Johnson

      Very well put. Unfortunately, this truth you express will never register with western culture because the idea of violence and domination equaling intelligence, is an older and more entrenched philosophy in the culture, than racism-white supremacy itself.

      • Kudzu_Bob

        You got the equation backwards. It isn’t violence + domination = intelligence, it’s violence + intelligence = domination.

        Or to put it another way, American Indians were violent as fuck, so much so that many of them practiced torture and cannibalism, but they possessed little more than Stone Age technology. Too bad for them that they were found by a race that was not only violent but smart enough to create firearms.

        • Bob Johnson

          Actually Kudzu I do not have any equation wrong because I was not expressing an equation. I was expressing the underlying mythos and ethos of western society, that is still very strong. And I see you fully subscribe to this western philosophy as in your equation, the sum of violence and intelligence equal domination, which is the popular view. Tell me all about how intelligent it is to dominate a people.

          If I may correct your equation I would make it :

          violence + intelligence = wholesale destruction. And there is nothing intelligent about that.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            So it is more intelligent to be dominated by other races than it is to dominate other races. Sounds pretty convincing to me!

          • Bob Johnson

            How unfortunate, I’ve read some of your comments in this thread and it seems that you are undoubtedly a racist and not open to reason. I am ending this back and forth. I hope you find a way to be free of the hatred you hold. I’ve known quite a few racists, and many have changed. So I know it is possible.

            Also I would like to point you to some white scholars that have dissected western culture and came to the conclusion that it is guided by an irrational death urge. Start with Freud and Derrick Jensen, and go on from there. Good luck.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            Also I would like to point you to some white scholars that have dissected western culture and came to the conclusion that it is guided by an irrational death urge. Start with Freud and Derrick Jensen, and go on from there. Good luck.

            Ooh, you’ve got some literature you want me to read, do you? The Jehovah’s Witnesses do too. Take a number.

          • Andrew

            No, it’s more intelligent to cooperate.

        • Blu Blood

          Europeans couldn’t have developed firearms if the Chinese hadn’t first developed gun powder (and mainly used it for fireworks…)

          Have you ever read or seen Guns, Germs and Steel? I don’t think much of Jared Diamond for other reasons, but you should check it out, anyway.

          The series is on YT (you know, so you can avoid “literature”).

          • BillMiller66

            Jared Diamond is a joke. According to Diamond, no differences in intelligence have been detected between races. The truth is that average group IQ differentials ( in other words, racial differences in intelligence) have been abundantly documented by scientists. See “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability,” J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen, in Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235–294.

            And then a few pages later Diamond contradicts himself by claiming that New Guineans are more intelligent than Westerners.

            As scientists explore the human genome, they are honing in on the genes that affect intelligence. See Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings, by R. Plomin and I.J.Deary, Journal of Molecular Psychiatry, September 2014. The heritability of intelligence among adults is about 80%.

            Why anyone still takes Diamond seriously is a mystery.

          • Blu Blood

            So, I guess that would make you stereotype #2?

            I know which part you’re talking about and his point wasn’t that New Guineans are *more* intelligent; it was meant to illustrate the different ways their intelligence is used, which may make it difficult to quantify via a modern society’s testing methods.

            But, whatever. Like I just said, there are other reasons I don’t think much of the man. The book is still an interesting explanation of the various lucky factors which lead to differences in cultural development, no matter your personal theories about the possibility of other contributing factors.

          • BillMiller66

            Ritual denunciation in lieu of argument is a salient feature of political correctness. They aren’t my personal theories; I’m not nearly intelligent enough to conduct scientific research. But I am capable of reading the scientific literature, and I am not brainwashed by cultural Marxists operating in the shadow of Franz Boas.

          • lastsoldier

            Race as it is commonly understood is no longer a viable scientific idea. It is an artificial, social construct. It has been used to justify the enslavement of entire groups of people and treat them as sub-human. Certain people hold on to these antiquated notions out of fear, fear of someone who is different. Individuals are a product of their environment, not of the color of their skin.

            There’s plenty of empirical evidence in the field of genetics disproving it. One can easily have more genetic similarity with someone of a different “race” than with someone of the same “race”.

          • BillMiller66

            I disagree. When I use the term “race” I am not referring to someone’s pigmentation. I am simply referring to continental
            ancestry. If in the year 1500 AD your ancestors lived in Europe, then
            you are Caucasian or white. If they lived in Sub-sahara Africa, then
            you are Negro or black.
            You’re trying to make the term “race” do too much.

            See “Confusions about race: A new installment,” by
            Neven Sesardic.
            http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

            See also Dr. Michael Levin – “Current Fallacies About Race”
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVgkbsaiKPs

          • BillMiller66

            On August 11, 2004, an African-American man named Derrick Todd Lee was convicted for the first of a series of murder and rape cases in south Louisiana. In the early 2000’s, seven women in the Baton Rouge area had been violently murdered by a serial killer. Lee’s eventual convictions were largely based on his Y-chromosome STR DNA profile that matched DNA from samples found on the serial victim’s bodies. Before this, however, Lee’s DNA underwent a specific genetic analysis that successfully placed him within one of four continental racial groups. Thus, Lee was the first person in the United States to be identified as a possible suspect by an unconventional DNA test that racially profiled his DNA left at a crime scene.

            Forensic serologists can examine DNA left at a crime scene and identify the racial makeup of the unknown suspect. Hint: if you can see it under a microscope, it probably isn’t merely a “social construct.”

            Don’t like the word “race”? Fine, use whatever word you like.

          • Blu Blood

            It wasn’t “in lieu of argument”, it’s for actual reasons in reality. Try fucking with some other bitch. I’m not interested in playing with you.

            (Besides, please, “scientific literature”? Very revealing comment. It was a pop-science book. Any literate 15 year old should be able to handle it.)

          • BillMiller66

            “Genetics, not upbringing, main influencer in a child’s IQ, study says” The study is published in the November-December 2014 issue of the journal Intelligence.
            tinyurl.com/l8jmsea

            You actually thought that when I used the term “scientific literature” that I was referring to Jared Diamond’s risible “Guns, Germs and Steel”? Right now I am ROFLMAO. Diamond’s speculations have about as much to do with real science as “Llewellyn’s Complete Book of Astrology” has to do with astronomy.

          • Blu Blood

            “Any literate 15 year old should be able to handle it.”

            Okie dokie. So we agree. Good job. Now go fuck off.

          • BillMiller66

            I see that you’re in touch with your anger. Or perhaps you’re just in a bad mood because your party got trounced at the polls last Tuesday.

          • Blu Blood

            Not at all surprised that you can only think in two parties. Go to bed, grandpa.

          • BillMiller66

            Who said that there were only two parties? I saw four parties on the ballot where I live, and I managed to vote for various candidates from the four parties.

            Ever notice how lefties preach tolerance but then when confronted with evidence that undercuts their cherished myths they become hostile and intolerant?

            Or perhaps that you’re angry that you in your late 20s, up to your eyeballs in debt, you have half a degree in a worthless major (art), so you rage at faceless strangers across the internet.

          • Blu Blood

            Yes, I can read your other comments on Disqus too.

            No debt, though. I paid every cent of it back on my own, with no support from anyone.

            Who have you leaned on in your life? You scummy Republican-types always talk about how some people can’t carry their own weight, but are *ALWAYS* depending on someone else.

            Every Republican-voting person my own age, of the upper-middle-class, that I’ve ever met has had *every calorie of food put into their mouths paid for by their parents*. Every single one of you hypocrites is an ass-licker to whoever has money and a permanent-bitch to the ideals of your dominant family patriarch. No sense of individuality or making it on your own in the world.

            (Oh, I’m sorry, is that just the under-30’s? Boy, that really inverts the stereotype, doesn’t it? Maybe Republicans will start to get a reputation as momma’s-boy / daddy’s-girl, spoiled “Sweet 16” lay-a-bouts, who never hold a job for more than 3 months or pay for anything…Or maybe you were always trust-fund shit-bags and now we all know it. Spoiled, lazy, dependent, weak, Republicans…what? Isn’t that “liberal hipsters”? No! It’s both…which is [part of] why…I’m not a Democrat, either).

            You called me a Democrat. In your mind “not-Republican” = Democrat. Probably because you have severe learning disabilities, on account of inbreeding.

            I have told you I am not interested in a conversation with you. You are not an interesting person. I don’t come to this site to talk to people I could talk to by walking outside. You’re not half as smart as my toothless, old, redneck neighbor, either. XP

            Seriously, I’m not responding any further. I don’t care about you or your points of view. They are utterly irrelevant.

          • BillMiller66

            Actually I find your liberal temper tantrum quite amusing. Michael Savage was right: liberalism is a mental disorder.

            (I grew up in a family headed by a single mother. I lived in poverty for many years although I didn’t know it at the time.)

          • Blu Blood

            What a fucking wanker.

          • BillMiller66

            Jared Diamond: New Guineans are “on the average, more intelligent,
            more alert, more expressive, and more interested in things and people
            around them than the average European or American is.” His words, not mine. And his evidence? He offers none.

          • Blu Blood

            Pop science books frequently include opinions and subjective statements. Not my problem. Take it up with Jared.

          • Eric_D_Read

            i don’t know about more intelligent, but it seems to follow that the average New Guinean would be more alert and interested in things around them by necessity.
            Failure to do so is much more likely to get you dead in New Guinea than it is in most places in Europe or the U.S.

    • Kudzu_Bob

      Another creationist. In evolutionary terms, there is no “better,” only “more successful” or “less successful.” One out of of every 200 men in the world shares Genghis Khan’s DNA thanks to his proficiency at violence, and that makes him a winner.

      • mannyfurious

        Yeah, and what a wonderful world he left for his progeny. You reap what you sow, and we all continue to live in a world where violence reigns and where everybody is miserable. Not a coincidence. Whether God or Nature, I don’t think very highly of the mechanism responsible.

        • Kudzu_Bob

          Bummer, man.

        • BillMiller66

          Miserable? Speak for yourself.

    • InfvoCuernos

      Being better at violence worked for the Aztecs-right up until the met with the Spanish. There is a certain level of intelligence that is demonstrated on the battlefield. I do not profess that this intelligence is genetic, but cultural, and it can be acquired or lost over the course of a generation. If the Aztecs had encountered a group of, say, French philosophers, they very probably would have sacrificed them easily. The Aztecs were also capable of building a city that was larger and cleaner than anything in Europe at the time.

      • Kudzu_Bob

        Then you also profess that the great intelligence of Border Collies as compared to, say, Afghan Hounds is because of culture. The logic of your position demands it.

        • InfvoCuernos

          Are we talking about the dogs’ IQ scores now? Are we talking about dogs at all? What about the price of tea in China? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if I couldn’t give a flying fuck?

          • BillMiller66

            We notice clusters of alleles among dogs, and we call these “breeds.” When i observe that pit bulls *on average* are more aggressive than beagles, no one gets upset. No one accuses me of being a “breedist,” or of being a wicked person. (“Why do you hate pit bulls?”) When I observe that men are nine times more likely to commit a violent crime than women, no one denounces me as an evil sexist. Alas, but when the subject is humans……the rules change. The true believers in the myth that “we’re all the same” can’t stand the science.

          • InfvoCuernos

            number 2.

      • mannyfurious

        Aztecs couldn’t conquer the Purapeche (Tarascan), who were a primarily peaceful fishing and agricultural tribe. Intelligence is definitely exhibited on the battlefield. But it’s situational. The true test of intelligence is what you are fighting for. Gold and reputation are pretty stupid reasons to destroy other civilizations and it’s all the Western Europeans have been doing for the past 3,000 years.

        • InfvoCuernos

          O, do you mean the ones that the Spaniards called the “Tarascans”-one of the only indigenous tribes to have used metal weapons? I’m sure greater intelligence had nothing to do with them fending off the Aztecs.

          Gold and reputation are what the Mongols fought for, and they can’t be classified as “western”.

          • mannyfurious

            Yeah, I was talking about the “Tarascans.” I said so in my first sentence.

            My grandmother was a Purapecha born in Michoacan, so I’ve done plenty of studying on this group of people, as it’s of particular interest to me. The tribe was one of the only indigenous tribes to use metal weapons, quite well too… and strictly in self-defense. They were not a conquering, warmongering people. They were fishermen, agriculturalists and occasional hunters.

            Far east Asia, like “The West,” has a long history of war and discord. That’s part of why they’re usually lumped together with white Europeans for having IQs. At least those Asian cultures also gave us Taoism and various forms of Buddhism and Shinto and various kinds of shamanism in reaction to all the brutality…..

          • InfvoCuernos

            Number 11.

          • mannyfurious

            Haha. Really?

          • InfvoCuernos

            Don’t worry, there’s room for everyone here in the new witch hunt. It will be the new unifier of the 21st century.

          • mannyfurious

            Nothing unites people quite like hate. I look forward to it….

          • Andrew

            Fear is more powerful than hate.

          • mannyfurious

            Eh. They’re pretty closely related. You don’t really hate what you don’t fear.

          • lastsoldier

            Fear is stronger though because it is a part of our evolutionary biology. It came from our animal ancestors; whereas hate is a human concept.

          • Number1Framer

            If you can’t hat everyone equally, then don’t be a hatter at all…
            https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn01.mishkanyc.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2012/05/DR_hat_1.gif

  • Red Mercury

    Race is a European/American slaver’s term, deployed as justification for their actions. It has no basis in reality. If you doubt this, answer a simple question: how many races are there?

    For example, as we look across the continuum of peoples – are the Polynesians a different race to South Americans, to the peoples of South East Asia? Or indeed to the darker Melanesians? Are the Japanese, the Chinese different races? And to be contentious, the Koreans? Are the Greeks a race? The Arabs? And if you’re into colour, are the dark peoples of East Africa a different race to the lighter peoples of sub-Saharan West Africa?

    This is not to deny the existence of prejudice and the use of the idea of race as an underpinning for it. Or indeed old words like the latin ‘gens’, meaning tribe or people, which gets translated as race.

    • Andrew

      Not to mention how many Europeans used to not be considered “white,” and now are.

      • Kudzu_Bob

        You must be thinking of Ignatiev’s “How the Irish Became White.”

        In truth, nobody ever considered the Irish to be non-white. Rather,when they came to America in large numbers in the 19jth Century they were regarded as being especially prone to violence, drunkenness, criminality, and family abandonment, which they indeed were. Over time, the Irish more or less assimilated to Anglo norms, however, unlike blacks.

        Or perhaps the Irish are genetically more resistant to the “legacy of racism” than blacks are. Now there’s a thought!

        • Andrew

          Nope, I wasn’t thinking of Ignatiev’s “How the Irish Became White.”

          If the Irish are more (epi)genetically resistant to the legacy of racism than American blacks, it’s probably due to them not having been subjected to hundreds of years of eugenic slavery.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            If you weren’t thinking of Ignatiev’s book, that means I know more about your position than you do. You are not tall enough for this ride.

          • Andrew

            False dichotomy. The Italians, Finns, and Jews weren’t always considered white either.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            Re “false dichotomy”: Maybe, but as Damon Runyon would put it, that’s the way to bet, shorty. As for the Jews, Mike Wallace of CBS fame did not consider himself to be white. Neither did this Jewish Ethiopian lesbian I once knew, but that is a long story.

          • Andrew

            Well I’m not betting that way.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            There’s one born every minute, they say. PS. If epigenetics accounts for the achievement gap between blacks and, well, everybody, then it must explain why the children of the traumatized survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Holocaust have such low IQs. Oh, wait. Never mind.

          • Andrew

            Going back and editing insults in, eh? I guess that’s what you have to do when you’re losing an argument and refuse to admit it.

            Not all trauma is the same, and anybody willing to think can see the huge difference between Hiroshima, Nagasaki,and the Holocaust on the one hand, and hundreds of years of eugenic slavery on the other. Never mind, indeed. But, as you’ve said, you’re not willing to read literature that might disprove your opinion.

            I sense your ego demands you always get the last word, so go for it. There’s no reason for me to debate someone who so clearly refuses to learn.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            Oh, I left the insult intact. The P.S. was tacked-on; that’s why it was a P.S., you know.

            Your use of the term “eugenic slavery,” is incoherent. Eugenics means breeding up, not down. Dysgenics is the term you’re looking for. I told you I understand your own views better than you do, and this is another example of what I mean.

            In any case, if you think that biology accounts for the race gap, there really isn’t that much difference between our positions save for a disagreement over the cause.

            Oh, and here’s another tacked-on P.S. for you, shorty: Saying that my ego demands that I always get the last word is exactly what somebody who’s losing an argument would write. Of course, if I hadn’t responded to your last comment, then you would have puffed up your chest and said, “See, I really told him!” What’s it like on Planet Havin’-it-both-ways, anyhow? Do they let you ride the adult rides there but only charge you children’s ticket prices?

          • Andrew

            Please stop lying. You added “you are not tall enough for this ride,” to your second comment about Ignatiev and “shorty” to your Runyon comment. They’re not as ugly as racial epithets, but doing so is awfully petty.

            Also, dysgenics is no longer used as the antonym of eugenics. Try actually reading something beyond a glance at a dictionary about them. Literature and learning are not bad things. But even by the old definitions, dysgenics for a slave was eugenics for the master.

            I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and not call your claim that you understand my views better than I do another lie. I’ll just chalk it up to willful racist ignorance.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            Well, to tell you truth, as Dirty Harry once put, it,in all the excitement I kinda lost track myself.

            But you do agree with my contention–my very central contention, the main point in dispute, yes?–that the reason for black dysfunction is rooted in biology, or you wouldn’t have dragged in epigenetics and “eugenic slavery.” Everything else in your posts is just quibbling.and butthurt. I may be a big old meanie, but you have admitted that I’m right. That is sufficient for my purposes, shorty.

          • Andrew

            Please stop lying. I said “if,” and even then corrected your use of “genetic” rather than epigenetic. You know I don’t agree with your main contention. American “black” dysfunction, to the degree that is exists, is far more psychological than biological, just as American “white” dysfunction, to the degree that it exists, is. I don’t consider myself an individualist, but racist pseudo-explanations are too collectivist for me to buy.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            Once I point out what you’re really saying about the origins of black dysfunction, all of a sudden you start talking about psychology while furiously waving your hands. But you can’t walk back your affirmation of the belief that the race gap is rooted in biology, just the same as any paid-up member of the KKK.

          • Andrew

            Oh please, people can read. You’re not fooling anyone.

          • Kudzu_Bob

            What they will read is your talk of eugenic slavery and epigenetics.

          • Andrew

            Yes, they will. And they’ll understand what I’ve written despite your shallow, transparent mischaracterizations. Most people know what the word “if” implies. They’ll read the lies, bluster, changing stories and insults you’re pulling out of your ass and given that context conclude you’re either trolling or you’re desperate. Possibly both.

            You’re going to have to go back and edit your comments much more heavily to fake intellectual honesty here, and that includes your comments to other commenters. You can’t edit mine.

          • Potted Plant

            The irish were sold into slavery by the english from 1612 – 1839.

    • Kudzu_Bob

      Can you tell me exactly where the edge of a cloud is? You cannot. Therefore clouds do not exist.

    • BillMiller66

      How many different breeds of dogs are there? Does that mean there’s no difference between Chihuahuas and Great Danes? How many colors are there in the rainbow? Three? Five? 122? Does that mean there’s no difference between red and blue? How many different languages are there? Is Dutch really a different language from Afrikaans? If so, then why are they mutually intelligible? Are dogs really a different species than wolves? Depends on which biologist you ask. Within the field of biology, there are in fact 29 different definitions of “species.” It’s called “the species problem.” These are leaky categories, not discrete groups.

      “Race is merely a social construction.” So is the periodic table of elements. Does that mean there’s no difference between hydrogen and helium? Of course not. Different elements are grouped together in a way that makes sense. “Race” is just a shorthand way of describing someone’s ancestry. If your ancestors spent the last 60,000 years evolving in Africa and my ancestors spent the last 60,000 years evolving in Europe, then you could expect there to be average group differences.

      Race, breed, sub-species, variety, cluster of alleles. It doesn’t really matter what word you use. To argue over the word is to engage in what philosophers call “the word argument.” The esteemed geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza published The History and Geography of Human Genes in 1994. In the opening pages he of course repeats the politically correct nostrum that race doesn’t really exist, but then he spends the next 1088 pages documenting the very thing he says doesn’t exist. Instead of the word “race,” he sues the terms “groups” and “populations.” Lo and behold, they just so happen to line up with our everyday understanding of race.

  • Juan Faisess

    I think another to add would be the ONE UP RACIST: The one who mistook the map for the territory. The one whose idols played with fascist symbols, so they just became outright fascists. The ones who decided to push the envelope, but cower when called out. The ones who read a bunch of Nietzsche, and took in everything he said of power, but nothing he wrote of love.
    Also, I find it odd that some of these entries are defined as “he”, and some as “she”. The brute bigots are male, while the arty-fashionable ones are female, as if they are exclusive.

    • Guest

      As if they are… stereotypes.

    • Andrew

      > The ones who read a bunch of Nietzsche, and took in everything he said of power, but nothing he wrote of love.

  • kowalityjesus

    This is edgy, but not complete.

  • ellipse73

    makes me wanna be a racist just to spite this guy. i guess that would be another category in his list

    • Kudzu_Bob

      No, he’s already got a category for that, namely, Hater Racist, since your purpose would be just to spite him. He beat you to it!

  • BillMiller66

    How dare anyone suggest that genes play a role in who we are above the neck! A “racist” is simply someone who is winning an argument with a Marxist.

    • lastsoldier

      Labeling someone a Marxist is counter-productive and just shows your own ignorance.

      • BillMiller66

        When a leftist cannot refute the science, he resorts to ad hominem. He stomps his feet and shrieks “racist!” over and over (or denounces you as a “number 2”) as if that somehow wins the argument. When such leftists come to power, they institute laws to control speech in order to fine and incarcerate their philosophical adversaries. It’s what Marxists do always and everywhere that they come to power whether it’s a country or a university campus. Political correctness aka cultural Marxism is a totalitarian ideology which cannot survive critical scrutiny.

  • Robert William Alexander Jr.

    As an older white rural southerner, I have to say you missed a real variety, the Southern Tribal racist: afraid that Blacks are in some way (probably sexual) superior to them, inferior, and must be kept down or “they’d be over the white man”. Love him some Civil War, but don’t want to hear that race or racism exist. The beneficiary of decades of federal largess, and still receiving more federal dollars for much of the region than it pays into the treasury, feels the poor (mostly black in his mind) don’t deserve help…Buys a false history that partakes of “Birth of A Nation” (a sensation of the early silent cinema: the KKK are the good guys…) and that romance novel made Hollywood Blockbuster, the stunningly ahistorical “Gone with the Wind”. (Said to be Gobbels favorite American film, BTW..). Christian, probably Shiite Baptist, and Republican: gets his news from the radio haters and Fox and his church..He has midwestern cousins, and spawn all over the country. Guns, God, Glib ignorance. Would torch the planet for money. He (or she) partakes of the above taxonomy in individual variations. He just won the midterm election, sadly.