Some Choice: Nazi or PC Nutjob

Repost from the old site.

Boy, the Left has really gotten us into a pickle here, haven’t they?

If you are on the Left, support any degree of socialism, or are even a liberal, you are obligated to go along with the whole PC nutjob package: support for the craziest notions of man-hating Western feminism, for White-hating and non-White-worshipping lunatic anti-racism, for the insanity of mass immigration, not to mention illegal immigration of all things, for the idiotic and suicidal notion of Open Borders.

I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.

And fanatical Western feminism is increasingly trivial to the lives of hundreds of millions of non-Western women who labor under the horrors of misogyny and male supremacy vastly worse than what American women endure.

What I have noticed is that Western feminism seems irrelevant to the realities of how heterosexual males and females negotiate sex and relationships in modern times. It is as if Western feminism is broadcasting from some bizarro alternative universe that has nothing to do with the one most of us negotiate on a daily basis.

What I am trying to say is that the Western PC Left, as its constituted, is irrelevant.

It’s hostile to men and Whites, and double so to White men. Any White man who buys into the line of the Western Left must be out of his mind.

It says right on the sidebar that I’m heterodox. You got it. For one thing, I’m a race realist. There are differences between the races and even within the races in terms of minor races and even ethnic groups. These differences are observable on a wide variety of metrics. It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.

To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I’m almost done reading it. It’s pretty entertaining, but I’m warning you, this is toxic stuff.

While most of us don’t even want to think about stuff like this, he does marshal an awful lot of data showing that there are significant differences between the races. Philippe Rushton has done something similar lately and has been raked over the coals for it.

I will say right now that Rushton, Fuerle and the rest may be correct in some of what they say: there are more differences in the races than the obvious ones such as skin color. A quick rejoinder to this argument is typically shot from the Left: that in saying so, we are classifying ethnic groups and races in the same way we classify species and subspecies of animals – as having invariable behavior.

Like most Left rejoinders, this is garbage, but many racists sadly do think this way. I’m not much of an artist, but if I was, I would draw a scatter plot for you. That is what differences, particularly behavioral, psychological, intelligence and other such, but also including athletic ability, would look like between the races if you plotted them out on a graph.

On athletic ability, you would find Blacks more likely to plot superior on certain variables. Some Whites and even Asians would be over with the Blacks. Some Blacks would have very poor athletic ability. Racial and ethnic tendencies are only averages, and there will always be all sorts of individuals who will fall outside the stereotypes for their races.

Unless you understand what a scatter plot looks like, or unless you understand averages and statistics, you can’t discuss racial differences at all.

Why discuss racial differences at all?

Because, for one, the Right keeps throwing them in our faces.

And because the Left’s reaction to any racial or ethnic differences in outcome is wrong. The Left says that all races and ethnic groups are equal, and therefore, any differential outcomes must be the result of racism.

This leads the Left into insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.

All you can do is reduce or increase things like that. I am certain that when I die, racism, sexism and homophobia will be alive and well, and the Left will be insanely waging war “to rid them from the Earth”.

Scientifically speaking, it is certainly not true that if one race or ethnic group scores worse than another or does worse on any sort of variable, it must be due to racism. Surely there are all sorts of reasons why this might happen. The folly of the Left is its refusal to consider that there may be things other than racism causing this.

Problem is that almost anyone online taking a race realist position is simply a racist. And almost all such folks are Whites who are arguing at least for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation and and at most for outright White separatism, apartheid, race war, or ethnic cleansing.

Wow. Breathtaking. You mean that if one acknowledges differences between the races on a variety of controversial variables, one must be a racist, a separatist, a fascist or a Nazi? Yes. This is what it means. Any socialist who steps outside of PC idiocy on race will find himself embraced by some other funny socialists. Almost all such persons will be sympathetic towards White racism, White separatism, fascism and Nazism.

Whew. Well, allow me to step out of the box here for a second. This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist jerks, much less racial separatists.

There are specific, subspecific and racial differences all across the natural world of biology, and none of it necessarily leads to hating this or that brand of organism or critter. For instance, here in California, we have various threatened and endangered species that I know a lot about. We have Tipton Kangaroo Rats and California Red-legged Frogs and Alameda Whipsnakes.

I assure that all of these damned critters act different. I will assure you that a California Red-legged Frog acts a Hell of a lot different than a Foothill Yellow-legged frog, and an Alameda Whipsnake acts a Hell of a lot different than a Pacific Gopher Snake, and a Tipton Kangaroo Rat acts a lot different than a Dusky-Footed Woodrat. I, lover of nature, love all of these critters.

Why be a speciesist, a critter racist, lining up with the Tipton Kangaroo Rats and swearing to drive the California Red-legged Frogs to extinction? I, lover of humans, love all humans. Why should I be a human-critter racist, lining up with the White human critters against this or that non-White human critters? They act different. So? So do all the other critters.

The reason for the Left’s opposition to race realism is quite simple. All we have to do is look at the agenda of those big names promoting hardcore race realism. They’re all White, and almost all, or all, of them are on the Right or the Far Right, and I haven’t found one yet who was not a hardcore racist.

Furthermore, every prominent race realist out there supports getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. The reason being that if there are average differences between races, people ought to be able to discriminate racially or ethnically against individuals on the basis of those averages.

But average differences mean nothing when it comes to individuals. Individuals are individuals, and groups are groups. You can’t tally up group stuff and use it to thumbs up or thumbs down on individuals in the group. Forget it. Group differences be damned, one still must treat individuals as individuals.

With such a bunch of ugly creeps running the show, is it any wonder that decent people run away from race realism in droves?

It’s really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There’s got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

53 thoughts on “Some Choice: Nazi or PC Nutjob”

  1. It’s really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There’s got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.

    I’m not exactly a “Socialist” per se (even though I have generally progressive economic views), but an excellent post, Robert.

    Yeah, if you’re a white American man, those are the only two real options. Either become a hardened reactionary or a self-hating PC turd.

    Me personally, I’m trying to develop a middle ground, where I continue to hate cultural marxists and PC turds, but at the same time maintain progressive views on issues such as the economy.

    But anyway, if I were forced to choose between a Nazi or PC Nutjob, I’ll go with the Nazi option. At least that way, I’m not flagellating myself and apologizing for being white.

    1. Perhaps I was overreaching there. I know people who are generally progressive person but at the same time think that PC cultural marxism is bullshit.

      1. Bay area guy…..rushton is a psychologist talking about evolutionary biology…..hes already been debunked by graves……u are brainwashed racist……..

  2. Any White man who buys into the line of the Western Left must be out of his mind.

    I’ve always maintained that white men who buy into cultural leftism are mentally ill (hey, I’m attacking those I don’t like as being mentally ill! Who’s employed this strategy before?).

    @Lafleur

    It’s still not too late for us! We can still attend the church of Tim Wise and achieve salvation. But of course, we must be sure to pay him handsome speaking fees. Absolution from white racism should never come cheap!

    1. And while your at it, feel free to send me some reparations too BAG. For what? I’m sure you’ll think of something 😀

      1. According to Jane Elliott, we stole the English language from you, so I’ll dig into my piggy bank tout de suite. Check’s in the mail!

    2. It’s still not too late for us! We can still attend the church of Tim Wise and achieve salvation. But of course, we must be sure to pay him handsome speaking fees. Absolution from white racism should never come cheap!

      All that fine wine, great coffee and sushi ain’t free! God forbid he should be reduced to drinking PBR, the consumption of which is surely more worthy of ridicule than that of purple drank. Sure, he acts like shaking down corporations to yell at their employees makes him Dorothy Day, but it’s all in service of the revolution. Brought to you by Pepsi.

      A few months ago this TL;DR screed went viral on the CRT sphere:

      http://www.peopleofcolororganize.com/analysis/word-wise-unpacking-white-privilege-tim-wise/

      I think Timmeh followed his usual protocol with criticism from the left and ignored it.

      1. @ Lafleur

        I read that article you posted, and there’s a few things that come to mind.

        1) I do agree that Tim Wise is a hustler and that he cares more about his lecture circuit and book deals than actually accomplishing anything.

        2) It just goes to show you that as a white person, there’s no point in engaging with these “people of color” (ie. black) anti-racist types. It’s just never good enough for them.

        3) I disagree with the claim that the “white power structure” somehow embraces Tim Wise. The way I see it, most whites either don’t know about him, or they despise him. I don’t agree with the claim that the likes of Wise somehow coddle whites either. Somehow, I don’t believe that whites put up with Jane Eliott’s screeds because they feel “comfortable” doing so.

        4) Regarding Wise’s refusal to debate anyone to the left of him, he’s a lot like Noam Chomsky in this regard. When it comes to the U.S./Israel relationship and Israel/Palestine conflict, Chomsky will debate turds like Alan Dershowtiz, but refuses to debate leftist critics such as Jeff Blankfort. And similar to the anti-racist movement with Tim Wise at the center, a similar cult of personality has developed around Chomsky.

        All I know that is long as it’s just hardcore black radicals and white nationalists critiquing Wise, he’ll continue to enjoy his handsome speaking fees, book deals, and MSM appearances.

        1. However, unlike Chomsky, who is a Zionist and ultimately protective of Jews, I don’t think Wise is somehow trying to sneakily defend white identity.

          I just think he’s an opportunistic hustler, and a pious/sanctimonious narcissist.

        2. “1) I do agree that Tim Wise is a hustler and that he cares more about his lecture circuit and book deals than actually accomplishing anything.”

          But then again, so does Barbara Ehrenreich. She earned $30,000 for lecturing UC Berkeley Journalism students about how poor they would be. It’s more a symptom of our culture’s preoccupation with celebrity than it is about race relations.

        3. 3) I disagree with the claim that the “white power structure” somehow embraces Tim Wise. The way I see it, most whites either don’t know about him, or they despise him. I don’t agree with the claim that the likes of Wise somehow coddle whites either. Somehow, I don’t believe that whites put up with Jane Eliott’s screeds because they feel “comfortable” doing so.

          Your average white person who has a choice, or who isn’t interested in becoming a bureaucrat, isn’t interested in this stuff. Wise and Elliott mostly inflict their stuff on captive audiences. The corporate/academic/government power structure likes them because they give their globalist crap a “social justice” veneer. They also get people used to being controlled, down to their innermost thoughts. It doesn’t seem to occur to the crusaders that being accused of racism by entities that do things like murder union activists in central America might rub some of them the wrong way.

          It would be cheaper to give money directly to people than to fund a million poverty pimp organizations and speakers. But the Wises and Elliotts ultimately aren’t about helping people. They’re about funding an army of bureaucrats like them, who care more about punishing whitey than about helping non-whites, and love telling people what to do.

          I just think he’s an opportunistic hustler, and a pious/sanctimonious narcissist.

          He’s just Angelina Jolie with a BA from Tulane. Look at how righteous I am!

          Wise could try harder to promote non-white speakers, but he appears to have ceased even a token effort to do so. He’s actually editing a THIRD edition of White Like Meeeeeeee! He’s making it even more about him, if you can believe it. As if his dull life wasn’t enough of a drag the first time around.

          Also, he recently gave a speech where he outed his seven-year old daughter as a budding racist:

          “It was a family night and we were flipping through movies we wanted to watch. A preview comes on with that ‘Evan Almighty’ movie, it had been in theaters and now it was on dvd. My little four year old looks at it and says what any four year old would say:

          ‘Daddy is that really God?’

          and so I go on and explain that he is not God, that is Morgan Freeman, he is just an actor who plays God…often. After saying this i thought the conversation was done with but then her older sister who was 7 at the time looks at her little sister and says:

          ‘Oh rachel, that can’t be God’

          at that moment I knew i was going to have to ask her why that can’t be god, but before asking her I looked at my wife for some support. I got the same look i get often, and it was one of those ‘can’t help you here, these is your are of expertise, let me just sit back and watch’ kind of look. I knew i was going to have to deal with this on my own, so i proceeded to ask my daughter,

          ‘Rachel, why can’t that be God?’

          and of course i already knew the response i was going to get before i asked that question but in the few seconds before she answered my question I had ideas bouncing around in my head of possible answers she would reply with besides what i was excepting. Things like

          ‘That can’t be God because God is a woman’ or ‘Oh daddy, what is God anyway..’

          but she answered exactly how i was expecting her to answer

          ‘That can’t be God because God isn’t black, he’s white’

          so at this point I decided to give her a quick lesson. Now, kids have a short attention span so I had to do this quick. So I said to her,

          ‘Rachel where did the first human beings come from?’

          I knew she would know this because in her class I had seen a map of Africa showing how the human species spread from there, and she replied quickly as expected

          ‘Africa’

          Good, i said. and what do people from Africa look like?

          ‘They’re black’

          Yess, good. Now what did God do?

          ‘He created everything’

          Yes, so if God created everything, he created Africa and people from Africa are black. Correct?

          ‘Yes’

          and what image is God portrayed to be?

          ‘What do you mean?’

          i mean, what does God supposedly look like?

          ‘He’s white’

          So, let me ask you this. God created Africa, the first humans originated from Africa, Africans are black. Is God white?

          ‘:O , that means God could be Black?’

          Exactly. End of lesson.”

          *puke*

          Frankly I think his anecdotes are about as reality-based as Thomas Friedman’s conversations with cab drivers. It says a lot about him that not even his kid is immune from being ratted out to the Stasi so Comrade Timmeh can look good.

        4. He’s actually editing a THIRD edition of White Like Meeeeeeee! He’s making it even more about him, if you can believe it.

          Wow, are you serious? For a guy who claims that whites need to listen to “people of color” more often, he sure likes making it all about himself. Oh, and by the way, you should purchase his book.

          It says a lot about him that not even his kid is immune from being ratted out to the Stasi so Comrade Timmeh can look good.

          Oh man, I just wanted to vomit upon reading that passage. Timmy seriously has mental issues. Or, he’s just trying to bolster his anti-racist cred (ie. I’m willing to indict even my own daughter) while simultaneously indicting whites as a whole (see, even white kids raised by people like me are racist!).

          I have no doubt that Tim Wise would send white people to the Gulag, given the power to do so.

        5. Wow, are you serious?

          Yep! I look at his Facebook sometimes for laughs. About a month ago he posted that he:

          has finished his re-writes for the new, 3rd edition of White Like Me, and will soon finish up his new book, Dear White America. The first will be released in September, the second, after the first of the year. I’m very pleased with how both are looking…

          and:

          It is a substantially different book, so much so that I am trying to get them to call it White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (The Remix). The chapter structure is different, it is now a strict memoir style rather than thematic in nature and overly analytical. It is, simply put, a better book by far. It is told chronologically from before my birth to the present, just a whole lot of changes.

          Why on earth he thinks the world needs a memoir of Tim Wise is beyond me, but then I’m just a PBR-swilling rube.

          I’m hoping that he goes even further in denouncing his mother and grandparents this time. Hopefully he rips into his boozehound Dad, who appears to have been a deadbeat but got off easier than his poor Mom for some reason.

          Denounce the wife and kids for good measure, and you’ve got some good sanctimonious wank there. Can’t wait.

        6. Hopefully he rips into his boozehound Dad, who appears to have been a deadbeat but got off easier than his poor Mom for some reason.

          I haven’t read “White Like Me,” but I can only wonder what his family situation like that.

          Why his booze bum of a dad got off easier than his mom is beyond me.

          I honestly don’t know what the man’s deal is. I also question whether or not he grew up poor as he claimed. There’s a lot about this man’s life that doesn’t make sense.

      2. Who do you think actually listens to this Tim Wise clown? For the CRT crowd, I think he’s a curiosity, the Bizarro World version of a black conservative like Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas. Does he have any actual power? Is anyone (who counts) actually putting his ideas into practice? Can his ideas actually be put into practice, or are they (as seems to me) stupid and entirely unworkable? Unless you’re getting some enjoyment from it, and I’m not judging you, I would just ignore him. Sure, if he were a KKK member saying this sort of thing about POCs he would be an utter pariah, and that’s not fair. So what?

        I look at Tim Wise and I see performance art. Or even a very funny SNL character. I suggest you try to do the same.

        1. I take it this is directed at me?

          BAG can probably speak to how widespread Wise’s ideas are, as a denizen of the Bay Area and a current college student.

          Wise himself is just one small part of a movement that has turned the Western left away from economic issues and toward advocating the same neoliberal globalism that corporations want. They’ve taken a righteous cause, anti-racism, and have turned it into a SWPL cottage industry and a tool for corporations to put a happy face on their global power grab. Whether or not people like Tim Wise and Jane Elliot realize what they’re part of is irrelevant.

          We mock Wise a lot here because he’s such a pompous twat and an intellectual car wreck. He doesn’t have much power himself, but when companies like Pepsi and Walmart pay the likes of him and Elliott upwards of $6,000 a day to yell at their employees, it appears his ideas are definitely being put into practice all over corporate America and academia.

          I could ignore Wise in particular, but I can’t really ignore what people like him have done to the left. He’s just one representative of the intellectual rot of the Western left.

        2. Point taken. He represents a lot of what’s wrong with the left. Except I know a lot of people who are more or less leftish, and he doesn’t really represent them. On the other hand, most “sensible” leftists would be afraid to take him on in public, and that is dangerous.

          Walmart pays him to lecture employees? Really? That is scary. Two types of totalitarianism getting together. But I suspect it’s like the money Saudi royals give to Salafi types so that they’ll leave them alone to drink and gamble and chase infidel women.

        1. Joey: Hey Ross. If homo sapiens were in fact “HOMO sapiens”, could that be why they’re extinct?
          Ross: Joey, homo sapiens are people.
          Joey: Hey! I’m not judging here.

      1. That’s true. It’s become a real “pain in the ass” for the city’s animal control department to get a handle on.

  3. Been looking up Tim Wise a bit. I must say I like him. In fact, I’d positively love him if he were in Israel.

  4. I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.

    Quick question, how many of them do reject socialism?

    1. It’s really a trick question, nike. Perhaps in Colombia, supporting socialism or not is a reasonable question. Here it’s not.

      We have two parties:

      Republican Party: generally an extreme rightwing party on the model of a typical Latin American shithole elite oligarchic party.

      Democratic Party: Basically a center-right party at the moment, trying to split the difference with the Republicans, terrified of the Republicans and moving ever rightward to try to stay in office as the Republicans keep moving the goalposts further to the right.

      There’s nothing on the Left. There are no Left parties. There’s a Left wing of the Democratic Party, but no one calls them socialist. There’s one socialist Senator. Socialism in the US is for all intents and purposes dead in the water, so it’s a dumb question. No one is pushing socialism, so no one is asking your question.

      What we are trying to do here is to hang on to whatever meager scraps are left out of safety net and we are also trying to expand it if we can, but it’s pretty much a losing battle here. No, I don’t know how you define socialism. Does safety net = socialism?

      1. Let’s make it simple: What’s their opinion of Cuba? A safety net is a socialist measure, but even conservatives support that. The US is very atipical in that respect.

        1. Some of my friends support Cuba and some of them don’t. To tell the truth, it is unusual to find open support for Cuba among Americans. But the people I hang out with do acknowledge that Cuba has made major gains in many areas. It’s just that they don’t think that that’s enough to support them.

        2. Well, then they are not too crazy about socialism. Maybe you would do better following their lead in that respect too and becoming a watered down liberal, which is what they seem to be according to your description. A lot of people are just like that, even most of my friends.

          1. Look man, I am banning you again. I don’t like your tone. Violation of comments rules: hostile tone. We put up with you for ages before, then we banned you. You came back with a new name, and we let you stay. Then we warned you again. Then I had a commenter email you to describe the rules to you.

            I really get the impression that you just don’t like me. Apparently it’s because you’re a PC race-denier and I’m a race realist and a racialist, as you put it. And obviously, you don’t like Left economics even one bit, which is understandable, as you’re an upper class Colombian.

            You argue with me all the time, contradict me constantly, and you’re downright contrary.

            Bye.

            I had a feeling this would not work out.

            Have a good life.

        3. And obviously, you don’t like Left economics even one bit, which is understandable, as you’re an upper class Colombian.

          That’s the most irritating thing about these bastards: the way they mask their will to power behind a “social justice” veneer. Where are my knitting needles?

  5. Also, Erectus walks amongst us is mostly crap. A lame attempt at politicized polemic full with flawed arguments.

    1. Unfortunately, I thought a lot of his science was probably pretty accurate. If we say his science is bad, we ought to point it out. He points to a lot of ways in which Blacks can be said to be a more primitive form of man (more ape-like). I hadn’t heard of these arguments before, but he had a lot of good cites backing them up. If he’s wrong, we need to take him on and show that his science is crap.

      Sure, he’s a jerk and his project is crap, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

      I’m acquainted with the guy. Not that I want to know him that much.

      1. The problem is a lot of the “science” he presents started with the conclusion and then searched for the data to support it, the polar opposite of how science is done. The most notorious offenders in that respect are IQ research and craniometry. But that’s not all there is. He grounds a lot of his argument in R/K selection theory, which was widely discredited at the time he wrote the book, and in the notion of positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggresion, which is spurious and seems to be upside down with respect with the actual correlation. And the claim about Africans not producing any “high culture” is just an appeal to the lowest common denominator. The only people in the world who produced “high culture” were the Sumerians, the Egyptians and the Chinese, the rest just built upon that foundation. And Africa wasn’t nearly as cultureless as the guy tries to depict it. He basically paints a picture of Africa where people run around naked, hunting animals with stone spears, which we know today is basically BS. So, in the science part he is just repeating some discredited arguments that racialists love to claim aren’t really but are suppressed by the PC establishment (yeah right, and the same establishment is suppressing the Biblical truth about the origins of the world and humanity, claim the creationists). From which follows the last part about what to do about these “differences” can’t be anything but morally repulsive to any self-respecting person. He is preaching to the choir, basically.

        1. He was willing to state the obvious. Genetic research at Max Planck is confirming his thesis. About 14% of subsharan DNA comes from an unspecified hominid.

      2. There’s one more thing: One can play around with “facts” and find Eurasian-ape, White-ape and Asian-ape paralells. For example, Eurasians and apes have mostly straight hair, Africans don’t. Ergo, Eurasians are more ape-like than Africans. Or, Asians have the smallest penises, apes have smaller penises than humans, ergo……..you know how it goes. Or you can say Whites are the hairiest humans, therefore the most apelike.

        1. The problem is not just listing traits as more primitive or derived, even though there’s some cheating on that as well (sloppy suggestions of homologies/ignorance of homoplasies, dismissal of traits that would allow black/asian supremacists to say that whites are throwbacks or weirdos). It’s not done in an innocent fashion like listing the patterns of beetles colors, but to try to add “weight” to the notion that races are significantly different in other aspects with no direct connection.

          There’s an implied fallacy that is more or less “this given angle/color/hair/gland/whatever trait can be said to be closer to apes (or specifically chimps just in case it’s something that one could say that whites are closer to orangutans or gorillas something), therefore blacks can’t help but rape white women and rob stuff to survive“.

          Or, as some care to emphazise in order to make it look less racist,” they have a harder time suppressing these impulses than whites or yellows”. Even though the latter are at the other extreme, actually; they are so asexual and androgynous that they must do things like “one child policy”, which was to make mandatory that every couple will have at least one child, so the country does not go extinct.

    1. Not surprising, considering Commies generally don’t like racialism. Which is weird, given the nasty things old uncle Karl said about certain European ethnies. He was supportive of blacks, though.

  6. I am really getting tired of it, Le Fleur. They have a right to think this way, but they can take it somewhere else frankly. It’s simply not really a progressive point of view.

    Nikephoros was bad for a long time, then he got banned. He went and got a new name and came back, like they always do. Then he started doing the same stuff all over again. These people are taking advantage of me. They think I’m nice, so they take advantage of that. They’re being assholes, in a word.

  7. “This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist jerks, much less racial separatists.”

    I agree that there’s quite a bit of naive “race denial” from the left, but in the other hand I think it’s for all practical effects more true than those vague “non trivial” differences. By non-trivial I understand something like that the “big picture” of society is significantly/non-trivially explained by racial differences (biologic differences, not coincidental societal differences). That is, whether one is well off or not in society is non-trivially connected with his or her particular genetic endowment. If there’s emphazis on race rather than non-triviality of individual variation, then there’s the addendum that even though some whites or Asians are not well off, there may be hope for them, depending first on their sub-race, second on luck of individual variation, but that’s not so much the case with blacks or australoids; with them there are genetically lottery-prized lucky ones, but for the bulk of them there’s no much hope without miscegenation and/or eugenics.

    At least that’s what “non trivial” sounds to me. Whereas my view is that, even though there may be/probably are average differences for different cognitive and behavioral outcomes, it’s probably negligible in the determination of socio-economical outcomes, at least in contrast with other factors. I believe that for all we really know, the true biological “ranking” of average potentials could be other than the apparent one(s). Not that it’s particularly more likely that it would be, I just think that there’s too much “noise” to allow us to ascertain such ranking with any significant degree of certainty. And it would probably be nearly insignificant at least out of some sci-fiesque alternative society where there are several mechanisms to live under a true “genetic meritocracy”.

    The “reality” of races is only “non trivial” in some medical matters and biological minutiae. Other than that the pivotal mechanisms behind racial differences in society are purely social. And not only racism, but also group dynamics to a great extent. PC nutjobs also love to condemn the latter family of explanations as “blaming the victim, therefore wrong”.

  8. Just stumbled onto this site.

    There is a lot of evidence coming out today that suggests Subsharan Africans mated with subspecies of humans present in the continent that have since gone extinct. Gene flow of on average 14% Hominid X shows up. Europeans are on average 2% hybridized with Neanderthals.

    1. Which isn’t even the only possible interpretation of the genetic diversity. The other (not mutually exclusive) is just the continuation of the pattern of increasingly populational structure as we go back into the past, and into Africa. It’s true on humans, and it’s stronger with chimpanzees, and so on. Not surprising that even earlier modern/late-archaic humans would be even more distant from one another, and that there could have been remnants of rare genetic diversity. There are things like, Europeans happening to have alleles that are shared with fucking orangutans, but not with Africans or Asians. That doesn’t imply in any semi-zoophilic or otherwise unusual scenario of hybridization, and even if it hybridization somehow is involved, this instance doesn’t lend support to “the mongol in our midst” just as African rare variation doesn’t support all the notions of “erectus amongst us”, which are way stronger than this.

  9. To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I’m almost done reading it. It’s pretty entertaining, but I’m warning you, this is toxic stuff.

    The garbage thrown out by racists is way exxagerated and motivated by hate. It’s scary to think someone intellegent enough to get a PHD would write crap like that.

    1. Books like the one he wrote doesn’t explain why black PHDs exists, or for that matter any intellegent blacks, or why blacks can read and write or produce great music (Motown etc..). It totally negates the influence of a toxic moral environment in causing black crime etc..

    2. that is absolute garbage. Proven false. Not a debate.
      It’s that humans evolved with different survival niches. Blacks with athleticism, Asians with brains. Caucasians in the middle.
      It’s about how they/we evolved, not the rate of evolution and/or how long it has been going on.
      Blacks may have more Ape-Like countenances because of such, but it’s a fact that they are not genetically closer to apes.
      What a joke.
      #gas the alt-right
      (just kidding)

  10. I’d rather err on the side of compassion. Anyhow, the definition of a PC nutjob for me is way worse than for Robert. Anyway, most reasonable people can tell what a PC nut-job is. Normally, they would be saying outrageous things like “Scottish Americans should volunteer for castration.” 😆

    However, though, putting up with pc-nut jobs isn’t dangerous – normally, cause they’re easily ignored and laughed at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *