Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Racist connotations redux


    by Sunny
    9th March, 2007 at 9:49 pm    

    Racism isn’t always as overt as someone saying “black / Asian people are inferior” or “all white people all supremacists”, as I alluded to below. I was going to explain this more fully but Malcolm Gladwell has already done so better here in defining a racist (via Da Fink). In other words it is also very much about context and the implication of what you’re saying.

    For example, commentators who make events into a ‘Muslim issue’ when the religion of the pratagonist has nothing to do with it are being xenophobic. Good examples are the Paris riots of 2005 when people such as Mark Steyn, Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips dubbed it ‘Eurabia’; when the dad got barred from swimming; when bloggers (including LGF and JihadWatch) were trying to find the religion of the killer in Salt Lake city. In other words they are simply attempts to associate negative events with a religion / community so as to smear by association.

    Now. Here’s the headline on MPAC’s website: Zionist Tory MP Sacked Over ‘Black Bastard’ Comments. Not only has Zionism got nothing to do with this case but we’re not informed of Mercer’s views on I/P because they don’t apply in this context! Asghar Bukhari and his anti-semitic chums use ‘Zionist’ not only as a slur but also without any context, only in a crass attempt to associate Patrick Mercer’s casual racism with Zionism. The hypocrisy is of course that when others do it these imbeciles start foaming at the mouth.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Muslim,Organisations,Race politics






    157 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs


    1. Amir — on 9th March, 2007 at 10:59 pm  

      18 Doughty Street’s Michael Ehioze-Ediae has made some prescient observations…
      I agree with everything he says.

    2. Amir — on 9th March, 2007 at 11:30 pm  

      Sunny Jim

      Malcolm Gladwell is an overpaid and overrated pseudo-intellectual sock puppet. Steve Sailer made him look like a right twat.

      Glady Wady was even taken to task on his own blog. Please read the entire thread; it’s one the most entertaining things I have ever come across on the American blogosphere.

      Jai’s blogging buddy (and Sepia Mutiny regular), Razib, makes a similar assessment.

      Amir

    3. Amir — on 9th March, 2007 at 11:45 pm  

      Here’s an even better de-bunking of Gladwell’s bilge.

      I adore Steve Sailer. The man is breath of fresh air.

      Click here to access his Web site.

      Click here to access his blog.

      Amir

    4. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 12:09 am  

      Malcolm Gladwell asserts:

      “I think, for example, that hate speech is more hateful the more specific it is. To call someone a n***** is not as a bad as arguing that black people have lower intelligence than whites.”

      Steve Sailer responds:

      This statement is virulently anti-empirical, reflecting a deplorable form of anti-science, Politically Correct Creationism in Malcolm’s thinking. The most comprehensive investigation of the size of the white-black IQ gap was carried out by Philip L. Roth of Clemson and colleagues in a 2001 article, “Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability in Employment and Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis,” in the academic journal Personnel Psychology.

      They looked at 105 different studies covering 6,246,729 individuals and found an overall average difference between whites and blacks of 16.5 IQ points, or 1.1 standard deviations. The 95 percent confidence interval runs merely from 1.06 to 1.15 standard deviations(in other words, there is strong agreement among the 105 studies).

      IQ tests are typically set up so the average score is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. Because IQ scores fall according to a normal distribution (or “bell-shaped curve”), you can use the NORMDIST function in Microsoft Office Excel to see where different IQ scores appear in percentile terms.

      For example, if the average white IQ is 100 and the average black IQ is at 83.5 (according to Roth’s meta-analysis), then the typical black falls at about the 14th percentile among the white population. (see here)

      I thought Malcolm was a big fan of social scientists? I guess he isn’t when their scientific studies bring up facts he doesn’t want to hear.

    5. lithcol — on 10th March, 2007 at 12:52 am  

      Who is Amir? To me seems to be a brave free thinking individual. Tells it whatever.

      Looking at the IQ stats, on average whites are below certain Asian groupings. Whatever you believe about the measures, those who score highly generally do better , irrespective of race.

      Obviously there are other factors that determine how well you do, access to good education ,personality , social connections etc.

      Secular democracies do not have the same rate of religious inspired violence, full stop. Its not the religion it’s the type of government. Iran likes to hang people in public for all sorts of infringement of the law mandated by their implementation of Sharia. Saudia Arabia likes to publically behead people and chop off hands and feet etc, again following religious guidelines. America executes people who have murdered others. Not all states, but judicial execution is not mandated by religious belief.

      Now if you criticise a religion you are being Xenophobic. My, this is most peculiar. Sounds as if I can make no criticizism of any religious belief. I must fear and hate all humankind, because you name them, all races have all sorts of irrational religious beliefs.

      I will just debate and criticise the contents of peoples beliefs, and they mine. I don’t give a fig what racial grouping they feel they belong to. Defend your ideas. The most progressive system of thought science doesn’t give a damn who you are, racial, social whatever. You stand or die by the ability of others to test and potentially falisfy your theories, hyootheses etc. If any of your premises are irreducible and cannot be tested, tough. You will be laughed out of court.

    6. lithcol — on 10th March, 2007 at 1:16 am  

      Please excuse me, I made a Xenophobic statement and condemned all of the people of Iran because of the theocratic states religious affiliation. I of course engaged in a course generalization against my better judgement. Many in Iran do not support the theocratic regimen. Some are not even muslims. It is a nation of individuals and almost as ethnically diverse as the UK. Its peoples have many beliefs, unfortunately it does not have a secular democracy. I apologise, and remember secular, leftist friends of mine at university in the late seventies who lost parents and friends during the revolution. Unfortunately they believed the theocrats when they said they were for a new Iran.

    7. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 1:24 am  

      Sunny, I believe, makes a similar mistake to Gladwell:

      “For example, commentators who make events into a ‘Muslim issue’ when the religion of the pratagonist has nothing to do with it are being xenophobic. Good examples are the Paris riots of 2005 when people such as Mark Steyn, Rod Liddle and Melanie Phillips dubbed it ‘Eurabia’”

      Contrary to popular misconception I do not accept Bat Yeor’s “Eurabia” thesis for the same reason Ralph Peters does not accept it. However, I do acknowledge, and think it undeniable, even to the most politically correct of observers, that Europe is faced with an uncomfortably high Moslem birth rate and an increasingly radicalised Moslem Diaspora. To suggest that this is having no affect on the cultural and religious composition of Europe is both dishonest and demagogic. (Sunny take note.) As Mark Steyn put it in his brilliant polemic America Alone:

      “Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out—as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia’s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.

      It says a lot about the MSM’s contempt for truth that fashionable journalists like Sunny Hundal can smear as a “xenophobic” every single social commentator who has ever spoken honestly about the demographic deficit and the rise of political Islam. His apologias are more predictable than the passing of time. All the usual PC bugaboos and gremlins are dragged out and paraded before us: “racism,” “oppression,” “discrimination,” “fear of The Other”, even the latest PC coinage, “Islamophobia,” which is brilliantly debunked by the Asian patriot Kenan Malik.

    8. douglas clark — on 10th March, 2007 at 1:24 am  

      Amir,

      I’d have been more impressed with Mr Sailers analysis if he’d quoted something useful, like say exam results, rather than something stupid like IQ. At twelve, or so, I had an alleged IQ of 120. When I was about 20 a friend gave me a book about how to increase your IQ. In a non mediated test, after reading the book, I pushed that up to 160, IIRC. Fat lot of good it did me anyway. It is a joke measure, based on understanding some fairly simple rules. If you gave the entire Black community that book, you could turn their results around comprehensively, if anyone cared.

      The evidence from exam results in the UK at least, is much more equivocal, with black Afro Carribean boys fighting it out with indigenous whites boys to take bottom place. Whereas Asian boys do OK. Girls are just generally better.

      Is it a better measure of worth? Maybe, given that I’ve never seen an application form that asked you your IQ, and every one I have seen asks you your academic results.

      It was so good to get nostalgic. The Bell Curve, what fights we used to have in the snug in some pub in Cricklewood. The measure of a persons abilities is not measured by IQ tests, IMVHO.

      I recall too the arguement that IQ tests could be culturally biased, as in “Good is to Bad as White is to …..”

      And tests that were just plain wrong. Not IQ but admittance to the US Army. Name the planet that is nearest the Earth. Their ‘correct’ answer was Mars, and anyone that knows anything about celestial mechanics knows that the question is wrong, the answer is wrong most of the time and it all depends on when you answer. The answer, “I haven’t a clue” is probably best.

    9. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 1:45 am  

      Douglas,

      Steve Sailer anticipated your riposte on the Gladwell blog. He said:

      The U.S. military has been using IQ tests since 1917 and has collected an enormous amount of data on the positive correlations between soldiers’ IQs and their performance in training and on missions. From 1992 through 2004, only 1% of new enlistees were allowed in with IQs under 92 (the 30th percentile). The U.S. military provided most of the data to Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein that made up the central section of “The Bell Curve.”

      Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed IQ testing in 2002, ruling that murderers with IQs below 70 couldn’t be executed.

      Read this.

    10. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:03 am  

      Looks like this Steve Sailer chap isn’t keen on promulgating the racial inferiority of black people based on spurious IQ data only. He’s also against inter-racial marriage. Read this bumbaklart:

      Is Love Colorblind

      In the article, he believes Asian males and Black females are so inherently inferior and unattractive by birthright, they will be at a significant disadvantage in finding relationships and will be breeded out of society.

      oooh missus!

    11. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:05 am  

      Lithcol,

      Thank you for your kind words. I’m a working-class Caucasian and a right-wing populist. I oppose (among other things) multiculturalism, mass abortion and immigration, neoconservatism, positive discrimination, violent pornography, the “War on Terror,” ID cards, gay marriage and the European Union. I’m a strong supporter of Israel and Zionism, monarchism and marriage, biodiversity and hereditary peerage, free speech and gun ownership, the re-introduction of hanging and the legalisation of cannabis. I’m very sympathetic to Islam’s socially conservative tendencies, but equally suspicious of its imperial urges and supremacist attitudes to religious minorities.

    12. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:18 am  

      Sid,

      (1) “In the article, he believes Asian males and Black females are so inherently inferior and unattractive by birthright”

      Where does he say this? At what point does he use the words “unattractive” and “inferior.” As far as I’m concerned, Sailer is making an objective assessment about interracial relationships and human behaviour in general.

      (2) “He’s also against inter-racial marriage.”

      Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Sailer supports interracial marriage. Click here and skip to the final few paragraphs. I quote:

      First, if race is a natural, omnipresent potential fault line in human affairs, that suggests to me that we Americans should be extremely wary of using the vast power of the government to exacerbate the natural divisiveness of race by officially classifying people by race.
      Second, in the long run, intermarriage is the most fundamental solution for extended families at odds with each other.
      The effects of interracial marriage are more complex than Tamar Jacoby or Gregory Rodriguez assume—that’s why 500 years of intermarriage haven’t made Mexico or Brazil a racial utopia. Indeed, Brazil has just begun to introduce racial preferences.
      Still, intermarriage is what turned the Angles and the Saxons into the Anglo-Saxons. And one way to raise the intermarriage rate is to cut back on immigration. Here in California, native-born Americans are something like three times more likely to intermarry than immigrants.

      Sid: you’re emotional and intellectual resistance to uncomfortable facts is painful to observe.

      Calm down, and stop trying to smear Steve.

    13. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:19 am  

      More on Steve Sailer. He is the president of The Human Biodiversity Group, a far right eugenics think tank where people with the mindsets of Steve Sailer can discuss and promote academic racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and eugenics policies.

      They frequently base their pseudo-scientific theories on bigoted, right-wing sources like VDare, academic faculty members who were reprimanded or disciplined by their school for unscientific and bigoted research, and biased media mongrels who judge others and perpetuate media stereotypes.

      More here:


      Members are primarily based in the following categories, and can belong in multiple categories.

      1. Academic Racists: Racists who write in intellectual, scientific terminology to spread their agenda that the non-white races are genetically inferior (e.g. Philippe Rushton, Charles Murray, Edward Miller, Louis Andrews, Chris Brand, Kevin MacDonald)
      2. Academic Homophobes: Gay bashers who write in intellectual, scientific terminology to spread their agenda that non-heterosexuals (homosexuals, bi-sexuals, transgenders, effeminate males, masculine females) are genetic garbage (e.g. Gregory Cochran, Michael Bailey, John Derbyshire, Ray Blanchard)
      3. Media Mongrels: Annoying journalists and media workers who over exaggerate to help perpetuate racial stereotypes, and serve as media outlets to help the scientific racists spread their message (e.g. Jon Entine, Kathryn Jean Lopez)
      4. White Separists: Flat-out racists who want to see anyone who’s not white kicked out of America (e.g. Peter Brimelow, Ron Unz)

      Sounds like your kind of people Amir. ;-)

    14. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:24 am  

      Sid: you’re emotional and intellectual resistance to uncomfortable facts is painful to observe.

      such as?

    15. douglas clark — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:25 am  

      Amir,

      Steve Sailer is no idiot, in fact he is a bright guy. But he, and by default you, are buying into a belief that IQ tests actually measure something useful. I am not at all convinced. At least, not beyond the extremes.

      I’d certainly query the US Army data. What ‘mission outcomes’ did the US Army have in mind? The ability to kill? Or what?

      We have had in this country, laws that say that people who are not responsible for their actions cannot be guilty of a crime. So, if you or I was an imbecile, and we murdered someone, we would not have been hanged, we’d have been sent to Bedlam or it’s equivalent.

      The USA’s decision to define that by means of IQ is frankly ludicrous. I doubt anyone with an IQ of 70 would be able to understand the test, far less write. As my old Mathematics teacher said when asked, “An IQ of 70? See that table over there…”

      All I am saying is that I doubt the relationship between success and IQ. And I doubt that I am going to do the work to prove him wrong.

      And I still think that exam results are a better measure.

    16. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:27 am  

      Sorry, the correct link to the article on the Human Biodiversity Group is here

    17. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:31 am  

      Sid,

      Silly, silly smears. *yawn*

      No attempt whatsoever to engage with Steve Sailer’s substantive points; all you do is regurgitate some weak and weasely arguments about an underlying “racism.”

      Sailer is one of the most articulate opponents of white nationalism.

      Engage with the facts. I can’t be bothered with political propaganda.

    18. Sunny — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:42 am  

      Amir, see the topic on top? It’s got nothing to do with the crap you’re posting. I don’t buy into the Bell Curve and related stuff. You want to try and sell me stuff about how one race is intellectually superior to another? I don’t give a crap. And if you still do anyway, Asians are apparently more intelligent than whites (the BNP man told me this too btw so you’re in good company), so fuck off again.

      In fact kindly stop turning this place into a carbon copy of V-Dare and take this genetics IQ tests shit somewhere else. I hope I’ve made myself clear for the last time.

      As for the so-called refutations of Gladwell. I’ve read them. And they’re crap. End of story. Now engage with the topic in hand and stop wasting my bandwidth space.

    19. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:47 am  

      “Sailer argues that race is not a social construct. He also specifically asserts that IQ is not only “strongly hereditary,” but that there is a “15 point gap between white and African-American average IQs.”

      But what he remains quiet on is the two degrees of separation between him and the KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

    20. Sunny — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:52 am  

      that Europe is faced with an uncomfortably high Moslem birth rate and an increasingly radicalised Moslem Diaspora.

      I’ve said this a lot of times here Amir but I’ll say it again. For you to go on about Muslim birthrates as a cause of alarm sounds xenophobic to me. It may be a statement of fact but the inference is that more Muslim people = bad. You can think that, but it doesn’t refute anything I’ve said. This article is about racist connotations. That statement above is part of that package.

    21. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 2:54 am  

      Sunny,

      The IQ debate is very relevant to our topic because it conflicts with Malcolm Gladwell’s idiotic definition of “racism.”

      If you’re looking for a more direct criticism of your article, let me redirect you to what I said on post 7…

    22. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 3:20 am  

      Sunny,

      “For you to go on about Muslim birthrates as a cause of alarm sounds xenophobic to me. It may be a statement of fact but the inference is that more Muslim people = bad.”

      It’s not at all xenophobic. I’ve visited Pakistan and also the United Arab Emirates and have thoroughly enjoyed myself on both occasions. If anything I am a big fan of Islam’s social conservatism. Its discipline, safety and certainties have an appeal for men and women lost in the churning seas of permissiveness, whose own families have been weakened by the crumbling of the two-parent family, the absence of fathers and the impermanence of husbands.

      However, the inference you draw from post #7 is a correct one. More Moslems = greater tension, periodic culture clashes, more riots and irreconcilable social divisions. It’s as simple as that. When it comes to the ability to assimilate into a principality like the United Kingdom, all nationalities, creeds, and cultures are not equal. To say otherwise is ideology speaking, not judgment born out of experience. As a result, it is vitally important that we clamp down on economic migration from Kashmir-Bangladesh-Somalia, and, in the process, try to halt the importation of overseas brides.

    23. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 3:46 am  

      For one moment, let us put political correctness to one side. We have to be bold about identifying a problem and offering a solution:

      (1) Islamic immigration is not in the immediate interests of the United Kingdom. Fact.

      (2) High birth-rates in the Moslem Diaspora are a source of long-term conflict and potential destabilisation. Fact.

      Solutions? Number 1 : Introduce immigration quotas and restrictions on marital import. Number 2: Try to boost the birth rate of the indigenous population via tax breaks, pro-marriage perks and anti-abortion policies.

      The aforementioned solutions are, I believe, a lot more humane and ultimately more effective than George W. Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” and Tony Blair’s ferocious assault on civil liberties. Limiting the Moslem population would also benefit apostates and enlightened liberal Moslems who’re sick-and-tired of having their reputations daubed by radical imams and aggressive activists.

    24. Sunny — on 10th March, 2007 at 4:02 am  

      Solutions? Number 1 : Introduce immigration quotas and restrictions on marital import. Number 2: Try to boost the birth rate of the indigenous population via tax breaks, pro-marriage perks and anti-abortion policies.

      Who said I wanted your “solutions”? You’re assuming, and you know what they say about assumptions being the source of all f**k ups, that I agree with your analysis and therefore want your “solutions”. I don’t. I find it xenophobic and don’t want to be drawn into a stupid discussion.
      I’m not stressed about high birthrates like you are. So take those “solutions” to other blogs where people care. There is my answer to putting aside political correctness. If you want to increase birthrates - go forth and multiply. Stop infecting my blog with this pseudo-intellectual V-Dare trash.

    25. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 1:25 pm  

      Amir the fuckwit and the MPAKUK fuckwit. Sheesh! Between them they manage to suck up the air in a comments thread can’t they.

    26. Luke — on 10th March, 2007 at 1:31 pm  

      Sorry are you calling all Muslims who agree, support MPACUK Anti-Semitic?

      I’m sure that plenty of the Muslims who read MPACUK can see through the racism and anti-semitism that oozes from Ashgar Bukhari, the financial supporter of Holocaust deniers, the publisher of bestial caricatures of Jews depicted as baboons with horns sourced from a German Neo Nazi website, shown in a Channel 4 documentary supporting the distribution of anti-semitic literature by an affiliated group on the hustings in Rochdale. A racist is a racist is a racist. Describing the racist anti-semitic thug and bigot Bukhari for what he is (an anti semitic racist bigot) is not the same as describing all Muslims who either read MPACUK or not as anti semitic racist bigot. It takes a particular kind of pathetic God complex to conflate the racist anti-semitic bigot Bukhari with all the Muslims in Britain. But then racists and bigots tend to have this totalising and absolutist complex.

    27. leon — on 10th March, 2007 at 3:15 pm  

      18 Doughty Street’s Michael Ehioze-Ediae has made some prescient observations…
      I agree with everything he says.

      Yeah 18DS have a neat little tactic at work here. Every time something relating to race comes up suddenly it’s their only black guy that’s pushed to the front. Clever aint it?

    28. Bert Preast — on 10th March, 2007 at 3:52 pm  

      Operation “Get behind the darkies”?

    29. Ravi Naik — on 10th March, 2007 at 3:53 pm  

      >> But what he remains quiet on is the two degrees of separation between him and the KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

      I think people who promote racial pseudo-science are far more dangerous than the KKK or David Duke, because they give “scientific” credibility to supremacist claims. In fact, if you stroll around white-power forums you have people - who know nothing about science - quoting the bell-curve book as if it was the evidence needed that black and hispanic are indeed inferior and are holding back European civilization.

      It is pseudo-science because the scientific method used by these people is inherently flawed, as it has been reported by Scientific American and other publications.

    30. leon — on 10th March, 2007 at 3:56 pm  

      It’s starting to look that way.

    31. Katy — on 10th March, 2007 at 4:04 pm  

      Dammit why has my “Fuckwits on Parade” comment been deleted? Sunny, put my foul language back immediately dammit.

    32. sonia — on 10th March, 2007 at 4:58 pm  

      is race a ‘natural’ faultline or a social construct..

    33. sonia — on 10th March, 2007 at 5:08 pm  

      heh these links to steve sailer are quite amusing - the responses to the stuff on ‘interracial’ marriage’ well worth a read for a good laugh. its clear some people really do think of ‘race’ as practically a ‘different species’.

    34. Jagdeep — on 10th March, 2007 at 5:16 pm  

      Amir has become a grade A dickwad of a troll

    35. Sunny — on 10th March, 2007 at 5:18 pm  

      Sorry Katy! I deleted the trollish comments, so thought yours would look out of place, and thus deleted them.

    36. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 5:20 pm  

      This sentence on inter-marriage by Steve Sailer made me laugh:

      “I had inserted a few positive remarks about the harmonizing effects of interracial marriage - such as “Intermarriage is what turned the Angles and the Saxons into the Anglo-Saxons.””

      So intermarriage is a harmful and evil unless it’s a bunch of English and Germans doing the intermarrying, in which case, go forth and multiply.

    37. sonia — on 10th March, 2007 at 5:20 pm  

      i didn’t realize ‘asian men’ and ‘black women’ are bitterly opposed to ‘interracial marriage’. did any of you guys?

    38. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 5:26 pm  

      In Steve Sailer’s world, asian men and black women are in danger of being wiped out because asian women and black men are being selected as partners by white people. And their non-selection confirms their inferior status.

      This is “fresh air” stuff for Amir. ;-)

    39. El Cid — on 10th March, 2007 at 6:31 pm  

      Who is Amir? To me seems to be a brave free thinking individual. Tells it whatever.

      *taps nose*

    40. Don — on 10th March, 2007 at 7:13 pm  

      That Human Biodiversity Group is an odd mix; nonenties mixed with some heavy hitters such as Dennett, the notoriously loopy such as Chris Brand mixed with the generally sensible such as Steve Pinker. But Sailer himself is exactly who I’d expect Amir to take as a guru. Well, him or Behe.

      sonia,

      i didn’t realize ‘asian men’ and ‘black women’ are bitterly opposed to ‘interracial marriage’.

      I didn’t even know they’d reached a concensus either way; that must have been a crowded meeting. I actually only know three black women well enough to ask their opinion, and as two of them have white partners it seems a pointless exercise.

      Sid,

      Yeah, Anglo-saxons. Jutes never got a look-in though, did they? And what about intermarriage between Yorkshire and Lancashire? We’re talking melting-pot here.

    41. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 7:51 pm  

      Okay, let me answer your individual points:

      (1) Sonia: “is race a ‘natural’ faultline or a social construct.”

      Race does not exist; it’s just a social construct. According to Steve Sailer, “[Race] is essentially a lineage. A racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent. Thus, race is a fundamental aspect of the human condition because we are all born into families. Burying our heads in the sand and refusing to think clearly about this bedrock fact of life only makes the inevitable problems caused by race harder to overcome.” Read it here.

      (2) Sunny: “I’m not stressed about high birthrates like you are.”

      Of course you’re not. Like Sid, you’re a militant blowhard who can’t see beyond his own idée fixes. Intellectual discourse is completely anathema to your personal temperament and political ideology.

      (3) Sunny: “If you want to increase birthrates - go forth and multiply. Stop infecting my blog with this pseudo-intellectual V-Dare trash.”

      Population equals power. Power equals conflict. Conflict equals more conflict. It’s as simple as that. I don’t expect a small-minded multiculturalist to engage with the bigger picture and the overall effect of demographic change. Reality will prove me right and you wrong. Get used to it.

      (4) Leon: “Every time something relating to race comes up suddenly it’s their only black guy that’s pushed to the front. Clever aint it?”

      Here is an example of actual racism. What you’re suggesting is that Michael Ehioze-Ediae is a traitor to his tribe, or what black nationalists refer to as an “Uncle Tom.” To make matters worse, you’re devaluing his personal capacity to think independently by portraying him as a puppet-on-a-string. Discrimination against black conservatives is ubiquitous and insidious. You’ll see plenty of programmes about the achievements of black radicals and modern-day progressives, but nothing of an equivalent stature about black Republicans like Thomas Sowell or Booker T Washington or Frederick Douglass. The institutional bias against black conservatives must stop.

      (5) Ravi Naik: “I think people who promote racial pseudo-science are far more dangerous than the KKK or David Duke, because they give “scientific” credibility to supremacist claims.”

      Racial pseudo-science? I think not. Racial differences are empirically verifiable. The human race is definitely one species – the most widespread single species of all the large mammals on Earth. Yet, we are also almost endlessly subdividable into partially inbred races, each with recognizable genetic tendencies. Races differ in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, physical acclimatization and liability to certain diseases. (That’s why forensic anthropologists can rather accurately deduce race from DNA left at crime scenes). According to several solid publications (i.e. the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), black men have on average 3 to 19 percent more testosterone than white men. This is something to consider when we’re told that black men dominate certain sports because of economic class rather than black skill. Racial differences, in other words, are a reality. Get used to it.

      Amir

    42. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 7:52 pm  

      Correction…

      That should be: Race does exist; it’s not just a social construct

    43. Jai — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:07 pm  

      Miss Scotland has apparently recently said live on air (she’s been involved in some radio show) that the singer Samantha Mumba “looks like a monkey”. There are some articles about it on the internet. She’s now claiming that she’s not a racist and that her comment isn’t either.

      Given the CBB fiasco and some other events in the UK during the past few weeks (which we’re all aware of and have been covered by PP), I guess there must be something in the water that’s bringing all this out of the woodworks. Yasmin Alibhai-Brown wrote an online article for The Independent a few days ago about how outraged she is that this “racist filth” is seemingly making its way back into mainstream British culture, especially post-9/11. Either the country’s going backwards or some people feel emboldened enough these days to be much more outspoken about expressing such views.

    44. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:08 pm  

      Racial differences, in other words, are a reality. Get used to it.

      That’s a given that no one will argue with, but it’s not what you really though, is it? What you really want to say is that racial superiority exists, in emperical terms. And by that I mean, you have a little league table you’d like to base your politics and your ethical value system on. And that’s what makes you and your guru Sailer, a squalid little racist.

    45. Chris Stiles — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:18 pm  

      Sonia -

      i didn’t realize ‘asian men’ and ‘black women’ are bitterly opposed to ‘interracial marriage’. did any of you guys?

      “Among West Indian-origin men born in Britain, half marry a white woman, and 30% of West Indian-origin women born in Britain marry a white man. Among Indians and East African-origin Asians, 19% of British-born men and 10% of British-born women marry white partners. Hardly any Pakistanis and Bangladeshis do.”

      That’s from an article in the Economist, published at around the time of the trouble in Burnley/Oldham etc. Make of it what you will.

    46. El Cid — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:18 pm  

      Bang on Sid. Couldn’t have put it better.

      Amir,
      here’s somewhere where you “and” lithcol can find like-minded people. Hurry along now:
      http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/ Bang on Sid

    47. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:21 pm  

      El Cid and Sid,

      “Fuck off” – to put it bluntly. I’m not a racist. I just believe in speaking truth to power. The original reference to race and IQ was in response to Malcolm Gladwell’s inaccurate definition of “racism.”

    48. ZinZin — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:22 pm  

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3vFkg8StmI

      Is this what we really want?

    49. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:24 pm  

      Sid,

      I think you’re a hysterical blowhard. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and Israelis to Storm Troopers was a despicable act of intellectual cowardice (just in case you forgot about that little episode). On this evidence alone, I could accuse you of blatant anti-Semitism, so I suggest you shut your mouth.

      Twat.

    50. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:26 pm  

      hahaha

    51. El Cid — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:27 pm  

      Who was that you were quoting in #47?
      Is it Bertrand Russell?

    52. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:30 pm  

      You could accuse me of blatant anti-Semitism but I don’t post links to White Supremacists, Anti-Semites, Xenophobes and Gay bashers as my intellectual references. You do that.

    53. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:41 pm  

      Er,… no I don’t?

      What the hell are you talking about?

    54. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 8:55 pm  

      Sid,

      Calling someone a “racist” is, nowadays, the easiest way to ruin that person’s career. It’s almost never applied to people who have actually harmed a black or brown person, or urged others to harm them; it’s used for those who commit Thoughtcrimes against the politically-correct establishment. Most people don’t really care whether the charge is true anyway. To them, the very fact that it was made is enough to warrant a public lynching. Their reaction may be interpreted as follows: “Yikes! Lee Jasper and Gary Younge are mad at this guy! I’d better steer clear of him, or they may come after me too!”

      It makes me sick.

    55. emmanuelgoldstein — on 10th March, 2007 at 9:09 pm  

      [What the hell are you talking about?]

      He’s referring to your links to Sailer and VDare. He is, in fact, correct.

    56. emmanuelgoldstein — on 10th March, 2007 at 9:33 pm  

      Amir,

      Your argument is slightly shitty. You need to show that blacks have lower IQ, that low IQ and blackness have a common cause, and that IQ is immutable.

      The first is disputable; there’s very little evidence for the second (and an obvious alternative explanation for it, which also explains why other minorites in the same position have low IQ’s - Catholic children in Northern Ireland used to test up to 10 points lower than Protestant children, Burakumin children test significantly lower than Japanese kids…), and there’s a lot of evidence against the third.

      You’ve not really handled these ovbious objections, so your speed in jumping to the conclusion that blacks are inferior is good evidence that you desire it to be true that blacks are inferior, regardless of the evidence. Since to desire the inferiority of blacks is to possess a racist desire, the best explanation of your behaviour on this board is that you are a racist.

      And it’s idees fixes.

    57. mirax — on 10th March, 2007 at 9:35 pm  

      To think that I once thought of Amir as a somewhat brash but generally okay 22-year old kurdish guy…!

      Then there appeared the rather reactionary views on abortion and gays, the loud avowal of a religious identity and now there’s the brandishing of the Bell Curve(good joke!)and statistics on racial IQ differences. Get a grip on yourself, boy, you’ve turned into a grotesque caricature.

    58. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 9:56 pm  

      Emmanuel Goldstein,

      “He’s referring to your links to Sailer and VDare. He is, in fact, correct.”

      So what? VDare is a thought-provoking and intellectually contrarian Web site. I don’t agree with all of their columns or indeed the views of their columnists. At the extreme end of the spectrum, you have a guy called Jared Taylor, a modern proponent of white nationalism. While I disagree vehemently with his political prescriptions, I am intelligent enough to recognise that he is no supremacist or neo-Nazi. Lee Jasper for example, Ken Livingstone’s personal adviser, is the black equivalent to Jared Taylor; and yet you don’t witness the same level of nervousness surrounding the GLA. Notwithstanding the implicit racial hypocrisy, you also forgot to mention that VDare is host to the American-Asian journalist Michelle Malkin. So much for white supremacism!

      In any case, there is a bigger point to be made. Sid accuses me of linking to “White Supremacists” and “Gay bashers.” (Which is incorrect, but I’ll humour him for now.) Well, I could have replied in just those terms whenever Sid provided a link to the Guardian’s online archives. Many journalists, most notably Richard Gott, Jonathan Steele, Faisal Bodi and Azzam Tamimi, are repulsive and morally redundant in their sly polemics against the Israeli people. Why did I not turn those guns on Sid? Because the reasoning would be too puerile and the attempted association too reminiscent of the methods of Stalinism. This is supposed to be an exercise in logic, not guilt by association.

      Amir

    59. Amrit — on 10th March, 2007 at 9:57 pm  

      RIGHT, that’s it. The only way to resolve the arguments on this thread will be for Amir and lithcol to go off and make sweet, SWEET LOVE. It is plainly apparent to me that they are made for each other, as on post #5.

      Btw Amir, on post #41, that’s ‘idée fixe.’ No ‘s’.

      So off with you two, make sweet, SWEET LOVE and do put up some pics of your offspring, won’t you? I’m dying to see the results of THAT particular experiment - I’m thinking Gollum here.

    60. Sid — on 10th March, 2007 at 10:14 pm  

      It makes me sick.

      Oh how my heart bleeds for you. It seems to me that you’re sickened more by the effects of censure than racism itself.

      I don’t know of any cases where a person’s career was destroyed on a false accusation of racism, do you? On the other hand if a person is racist or antisemitic and charged as such, then their careers can’t be destroyed enough. Let’s start with Sailer’s, shall we. ;-)

    61. leon — on 10th March, 2007 at 10:22 pm  

      LOL @ Amrit #59! :D

    62. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 10:28 pm  

      I’m not going to let this rest:

      (1) “You’ve not really handled these obvious objections”

      No I haven’t. You’re right. But that’s not the point. My own views on the genetic link between race and IQ are muddled and contradictory. (Although I recognise that there are inherent differences between the races, I am undecided as to how much the alleles affect intelligence.) I mentioned Steve Sailer for one simple reason: he raises doubt. This, in my opinion, is a good enough reason to raise further doubt about Malcolm Gladwell’s slipshod definition of “racism.”

      (2) “Since to desire the inferiority of blacks is to possess a racist desire, the best explanation of your behaviour on this board is that you are a racist.”

      Again, this is complete and utter nonsense. The whole point about Steve Sailer’s research is that it disproves the eugenic notion of “racial superiority.” Different races are better at different things. Click here.

      If I’m such a “racist,” then please explain the peregrinations of Pakistani blogger Razib - a regular at Sepia Mutiny, and a personal friend of Steve Sailer’s.

      Huh?

      Amir

    63. emmanuelgoldstein — on 10th March, 2007 at 11:12 pm  

      Amir
      [VDare is a thought-provoking and intellectually contrarian Web site.]

      Since even Peter Brimelow admits that Vdare has white-nationalist material, you can stop using that particular euphemism.

      If Jared Taylor isn’t a white supremacist, why has he argued for resegregation? If he isn’t a neo-Nazi, why does he hold annual conferences at which neo-Nazis and anti--semites meet and plot? It’s reasonable to regard him not just as a white nationalist, but a white supremacist.

      One reason why people are not as uncomfortable with Lee Jasper as they are with Taylor is that Lee Japser does not regularly organise conferences at which speakers debate the best way of ethnically cleansing the United States of blacks and Jews. There may be others.
      That Michelle Malkin writes for VDare is not proof that they are not white supremacists (let alone racists) unless you assume:
      (i) that it is impossible Vdare to accept articles from people who do not agree with its editorial stance,
      or
      (ii) that it is impossible for non-whites to be either white supremacists or racists.

      None of the assumptions is true. You rely on the falsity of the first one yourself. As for the others, Michelle Malkin has defended the internment of American civilians of Japanese descent. That’s independent evidence that she is racist. I do not know if she is a white supremacist.

      [In any case, there is a bigger point to be made. Sid accuses me of linking to “White Supremacists” and “Gay bashers.” (Which is incorrect, but I’ll humour him for now.)]

      As I’ve argued above, he is correct. You linked to what is, quite evidently, a white supremacist and gay-bashing site. Further, you relied on the arguments of the openly racist Steve Sailer to make your case. When Sid relies on premisses from an openly racist writer for his arguments, I’ll start to worry. Not before.

    64. Amir — on 10th March, 2007 at 11:36 pm  

      Emmanuel Goldstein,

      You fucking liar. The essay you cite says the exact opposite:

      “But Flynn does go seriously wrong in his mischaracterization of the immigration reform webzine I edit, VDARE.COM, as “white nationalist.”

      “We are certainly politically incorrect—but the merest glance would show that we are not “white nationalist.”

      You little liar.

    65. Chris Stiles — on 10th March, 2007 at 11:55 pm  

      I mentioned Steve Sailer for one simple reason: he raises doubt. This, in my opinion, is a good enough reason to raise further doubt about Malcolm Gladwell’s slipshod definition of “racism.”

      Gladwell has his problems but the definition is in some respects a lot less slipshod than you would like it to be, he goes on: “For instance, (and this is, admittedly, not a great example) I think it’s worse for someone to say that Jews are money-grubbers than it is to make a joke about how Orthodox Jews have large families. The first statement is groundless, and the second is at least statistically defensible.”

      For Sailer to ‘raise doubt’ his claims have to be (at least) statistically defensible, and as both you and Emmanuel allude to this does not seem to be the case at present.

      Incidentally, Brimelow says: “We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist,””, which is all Emmanuel Goldstein said (“Since even Peter Brimelow admits that Vdare has white-nationalist material”), but this is rapidly degenerating into a sort of “She said” “He said” slanging match that would be avoidable with a little less time spent speaking and a little more time spent listening.

      Or is this the point where you tell us that your flatmate has hijacked your computer again ?

    66. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:04 am  

      Chris Styles,

      “Or is this the point where you tell us that your flatmate has hijacked your computer again ?”

      Ha ha! ;-) No. It’s me. No flatmate.

      I’m writing responses. Don’t worry.

    67. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:06 am  

      Emmanuel Goldstein,

      Even Jared Taylor – a man I do not admire – is misportrayed by your hyperlink. It says:

      “ Jared Taylor, too, spoke to the Report, saying, “European Jews are certainly welcome” at American Renaissance conferences. “I don’t think that Jews are the enemy in the way that some people do.” As a matter of fact, Taylor came out against Nazism as early as 1983, in his book, Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the ‘Japanese Miracle’, where Germany was praised for outlawing national socialism. In addition, Jews write regularly in American Renaissance and have spoken at every one of its conferences.

      How, or in what respect, is that anti-Semitic?
      I ask the same question for Steve Sailer. Explain yourself.

    68. emmanuelgoldstein — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:07 am  

      My assertion:

      Since even Peter Brimelow admits that Vdare has white-nationalist material, you can stop using that particular euphemism.

      Peter Brimelow:
      We also publish on VDARE.COM a few writers, for example, Jared Taylor, whom I would regard as “white nationalist” in the sense that they aim to defend the interests of American whites.

      This is what Jared Taylor means by white nationalism:

      …blacks and Hispanics can never, in the aggregate, become like white people

      and

      Racial interests, like family interests, sometimes cannot be reconciled…

      Either you lack basic English reading comprehension, or you owe me an apology. (These alternatives are not mutually exclusive)

    69. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:16 am  

      Emmanuel Goldstein,

      Okay. Fair enough. But I never endorsed Jared Taylor, nor, for that matter, did I imply that VDare is concurrent with all of my political beliefs. It isn’t.

      Linking to Steve Sailer is not the same as a blanket endorsement of VDare’s more “controversial” columnists. I made this perfectly clear. To re-state my case boldly: I’m not a white nationalist. I’m a stalwart supporter of biodiversity. D’ya git me?

    70. emmanuelgoldstein — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:21 am  

      You say

      My own views on the genetic link between race and IQ are muddled and contradictory.

      I agree. Since they’re inconsistent, they’re necessarily false. Why then do you keep asserting things you know to be false?

      2. Your Razib-style defence in your 10:28 works only if one assumes non-whites cannot harbour racist thoughtsor impulses. The assumption has only to be stated to be seen for the piece of silliness that it is.

    71. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:22 am  

      Mirax,

      (1) “To think that I once thought of Amir as a somewhat brash but generally okay 22-year old kurdish guy…!”

      I’m 22. I’m still male [ho ho ho.]. I’m as brash as ever. But I’m no Kurd. What are you trying to suggest? That I was more appealing to Picklers when they thought I was brown? Yeah, thought so. :-(

      (2) “Then there appeared the rather reactionary views on abortion and gays, the loud avowal of a religious identity and now there’s the brandishing of the Bell Curve(good joke!)and statistics on racial IQ differences.”

      Where to start? I don’t despise gays. I’m just opposed to gay marriage on utilitarian grounds. I think sodomy is a sadistic and unhygienic perversion. But this applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. I have no respect whatsoever for men or women who “take it up the arse.” It’s repulsive and unsanitary.

      I dislike abortion because it makes me want to weep. I love children and I love babies. Procreation is a beautiful thing. Having a child with your wife or soul mate is one of the pinnacle of human experience (in my opinion). So, for a generation of liberals who have tried to insinuate that abortion is good, calling it a “constitutional right,” even a “fundamental human right,” to adopt euphemisms like procedure and choice and terminating a pregnancy, to call a child a “foetus” and avoid the word kill, to call their opponents “extremists” who want to “impose their views” on everyone else, is to embark on a discourse that seldom arises above the trivial.

      The Bell Curve is no joke. Read this.

      Why, are you an expert in genetics or something?

      Amir

    72. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:18 am  

      Emmanuel Goldstein,

      (1) “I agree. Since they’re inconsistent, they’re necessarily false. Why then do you keep asserting things you know to be false?”

      I haven’t as yet formed a solid opinion, so I’m keeping an open mind: it’s best to look at both sides of an argument, don’t you agree? There are many kinds of disagreement in social life which must be decided one way or another, because failure to settle it may create new difficulties whose cumulative effects may cause an intolerable strain. A rationalist, like myself, is opposed to the creating Utopian worlds; he appreciates the complexity and unpredictability of human nature.

      (2) “Your Razib-style defence in your 10:28 works only if one assumes non-whites cannot harbour racist thoughtsor impulses.”

      Razib is one of the most generous and intellectually honest men on the blogosphere. If I was homosexual I’d bum him to oblivion. ;-)

      Amir

    73. emmanuelgoldstein — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:24 am  

      The Bell Curve was a surprisingly badly-researched book, as Clark Glymour, and lots of other people argued at the time. But let that pass.

      You point to Sailer’s laudatory review of Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It’s a surprisingly poor book: for over half the countries surveyed, the IQ data is indirect (they simply estimate the IQ in 104 0f 185 countries) ; quite a lot of the primary data is from 1979; they use a quite crude genetic model, etc. See the review by Richardson in Heredity, and the review (also here) by Volken.

    74. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:25 am  

      Amrit,

      I’m dying to see the results of THAT particular experiment - I’m thinking Gollum here.

      By the way, on your MySpace account (and blog) you spell “brane” as “brain”, dya’ git me?

      You’re a very pretty girl. But nowhere near as pretty as my ex-girlfriends. I keep em’ very satisfied under the quilts. Conservatives, like myself, are fucking bastards in bed. ;-)

      No kid of mine is gonna look like Gollum. ;-)

    75. emmanuelgoldstein — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:30 am  

      Linking to Steve Sailer is not the same as a blanket endorsement of VDare’s more “controversial” columnists. I made this perfectly clear. To re-state my case boldly: I’m not a white nationalist. I’m a stalwart supporter of biodiversity. D’ya git me?

      Delighted, I’m sure. You attitude toward biodiversity isn’t quite relevant to the matter at hand. The question was the defintion of racism. As I understood it, you objected to Gladwell’s defintion because you thought you had a strong argument for race differences in IQ. You relied on VDare; Vdare is not entirely unbiased. You also relied on low-quality evidence from people who are clearly biased; you didn’t take opposing evidence into account, and you have recently admitted that your views are inconsistent. It’s not entirely surprising that people have drawn unfavourable conclusions about your beliefs.

    76. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:30 am  

      That was a joke, by the way.

    77. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:36 am  

      Emmanuelgoldstein,

      That’s hilarious! If there is a thing as an “unbiased commentary”, it did not seem to have governed many of the contributions already in place. I thought it legitimate, and a service to the truth, to put right the inaccuracies and to take advantage of the forum to ensure that my position (often misrepresented by opponents and critics) was accurately expressed. I do not believe any such a thing as a “neutral point of view” has ever existed, does exist, or will exist. The truth does exist but has to be discovered, often through arduous effort. The idea that it will be discovered by people trying to pretend that they have no opinions is absurd.

      VDare is biased. So fucking what?

    78. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:52 am  

      Emmanuelgoldstein,

      “You also relied on low-quality evidence from people who are clearly biased”

      Weak evidence? To restate what Sailer has said already: The most comprehensive investigation of the size of the white-black IQ gap was carried out by Philip L. Roth of Clemson and colleagues in a 2001 article, “Ethnic Group Differences in Cognitive Ability in Employment and Educational Settings: A Meta-Analysis,” in the academic journal Personnel Psychology.

      They looked at 105 different studies covering 6,246,729 individuals and found an overall average difference between whites and blacks of 16.5 IQ points, or 1.1 standard deviations. The 95 percent confidence interval runs merely from 1.06 to 1.15 standard deviations(in other words, there is strong agreement among the 105 studies). IQ tests are typically set up so the average score is 100 and the standard deviation is 15. Because IQ scores fall according to a normal distribution (or “bell-shaped curve”), you can use the NORMDIST function in Microsoft Office Excel to see where different IQ scores appear in percentile terms.

      Amir

    79. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:56 am  

      Emmanuelgoldstein,

      I think you should rename yourself to “O’Brien” or “Room 101″ or “Doublethink”.

      It’s good to have some comic relief. ;-)

    80. Amir — on 11th March, 2007 at 2:27 am  

      This is a brilliant thread.

      Leave it be.

      For any newcomers, read it from post #1.

    81. emmanuelgoldstein — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:33 am  

      Amir,
      in re your exegesis of Roth, et. al. at 1:52.

      Oh dear.

      Roth et al explictly point out that they have been unable to take into account the influence of time (and hence the Flynn effect); they point out that they found few industrial studies, so that their conclusions in that area are tentative; they admit they have a disproportionate number of studies with large sample sizes; and they explicitly admit that there may be a range of ‘socio-economic variables which partially obscure the interpretation or causality of the exact effect of job complexity on standardized group differences.’ (pp. 322-323 of the thing.) Roth et al rely heavily on SAT, GRE and ACT test-score data, but that only rules out the environmentalist hypothesis if we can assume that blacks and whites go into these tests equally well-prepared, and that the tests are neutral between racial groups. Manifestly, that was not the case in the past, and it is not universally the case even now.

      Once again, if IQ is an immutable characteristic of a racial group, why are there so many studies showing changes in measured IQ in, and between populations?

      Finally. Rural populations around the world score lower on IQ tests than urban populations. Minorities facing discrmination and violence tend to score lower than settled majorities on IQ tests: the tested IQ’s of Jewish, Italian and Polish immigrants to the USA (in the early twentieth century) appear to have been significantly lower than the tested IQ of resident whites. The effect appears independent of race, since Catholics in Northern Ireland used to much worse on IQ tests than Protestants. There is, in the UK, a North/South gap in tested IQ. The more siblings a girl has, the lower her tested IQ. I await your call for discrimination against country people, new immigrants, Northeners, and girls with lots of brothers.

    82. emmanuelgoldstein — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:54 am  

      The more siblings a girl has, the lower her tested IQ. (evidence)

    83. El Cid — on 11th March, 2007 at 8:56 am  

      EmmanuelGoldstein,
      1) Michelle Malkin’s defence of the internment of American civilians of Japanese descent is independent evidence that she is racist and 2) I do not think that inconsistency is proof that something is necessarily wrong. Depends on the subject.
      However, I’m with you on most things.

      Amir,
      As for the quality of this thread: it’s all over the place in parts. Why do you presume that we want to know about the world according to Amir? Is this where you launch your presidential campaign? First lithcol tees you up — hmm, who is this guy, where can i found out more? — and then you start telling us about your views on abortion as if that was relevant.

      “For any newcomers, read it from post #1.”
      That’s just in case any of you are way back on that bell curve.

    84. El Cid — on 11th March, 2007 at 8:58 am  

      B’jaysus, should read:
      Michelle Malkin’s defence of the internment of American civilians of Japanese descent is NOT independent evidence that she is racist

    85. Sahil — on 11th March, 2007 at 9:43 am  

      Amir, one word on all these studies: Heteroscedasticity and missing variable bias and if you know something about Meta-Analysis you’d know even the most well thought out researched studies are riddled with statistical problems, to essentially render any results or conclusions meaningless. BTW please do define intelligence, I’d especially interested in IQ as a genetic trait.

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

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

      http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/04/amusing_example.html

    86. Ravi Naik — on 11th March, 2007 at 10:28 am  

      >> You point to Sailer’s laudatory review of Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations. It’s a surprisingly poor book: for over half the countries surveyed, the IQ data is indirect (they simply estimate the IQ in 104 0f 185 countries) ;

      That is what I meant by pseudo-science. And in that book, some of the estimations consisted in simply calculating the average IQ of neighbouring countries.

    87. Katy — on 11th March, 2007 at 10:39 am  

      I had a very similar debate with Devil’s Kitchen on the Bell Curve last year.

      Let’s leave aside all of the obvious difficulties with IQ testing as a level playing field for everyone in the world irrespective of differences in background and culture - on which I agree with Emmanuel Goldstein.

      Even if you assume for a moment that the Bell Curve theory is correct and that Group A has a lower IQ on average than Group B, the theory deals in averages. There will be plenty of people in Group A who are significantly above average for the group and plenty of people in Group B who are below average for the group. So, for example, in a job interview situation, the applicant from Group A might be streets ahead of Group B regardless of the average IQ of each group as a whole. And so I have never understood how the Bell Curve could have any practical application even if it were right. It couldn’t possibly justify discrimination on a genetic basis between individual people under any circumstances.

    88. Katy — on 11th March, 2007 at 10:42 am  

      Sorry, that should be “and that IQ is a level playing field and that Group A has a lower IQ than Group B because members of Group A are on average less objectively intelligent than Group B”.

      grr

    89. dobeln — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:08 pm  

      You people cheat!

      Ripped from the thread:

      “Amir, one word on all these studies: Heteroscedasticity and missing variable bias and if you know something about Meta-Analysis you’d know even the most well thought out researched studies are riddled with statistical problems, to essentially render any results or conclusions meaningless.”

      “That is what I meant by pseudo-science. And in that book, some of the estimations consisted in simply calculating the average IQ of neighbouring countries.”

      Why not just quote the original source directly?

      Charles Murray
      “How to Accuse the Other Guy of Lying with Statistics”
      Statistical Science
      2005, Vol. 20, No. 3, 239–241
      DOI 10.1214/088342305000000250

      Samples offer a rich source of smoke. Something is wrong with every sample. Start with that assumption, which has the advantage of being true, seek out that something, and then announce that the data are uninterpretable. If the sample is representative, argue that the data are outdated. If the sample is recent, argue that it is unrepresentative. If it is both recent and representative, you may be able to get some mileage out of missing data. If the author drops cases with missing data, argue that doing so biases the sample. If instead the author uses imputed values, accuse him of making up data.

    90. dobeln — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:11 pm  

      “And in that book, some of the estimations consisted in simply calculating the average IQ of neighbouring countries.”

      While this is true (and they are open about it), the relationship between GDP and IQ holds very nicely even when only using direct observations, which blunts your point somewhat.

    91. dobeln — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:16 pm  

      Re: Flynn effect.

      The problem with the Flynn effect is that it doesn’t cause convergence in IQ scores wrt. to racial groups. Which I reckon is what this debate is about.

    92. dobeln — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:19 pm  

      “And so I have never understood how the Bell Curve could have any practical application even if it were right. It couldn’t possibly justify discrimination on a genetic basis between individual people under any circumstances.”

      This is all true, in an ideal society. But in a context where differential outcomes are taken to prove “discrimination” (a crime usually only detectable indirectly), it can matter a great deal.

      Also, there are obvious implications for, say, immigration policy. Do you want a million more asians (105-ish IQ:s on average) or a million more mexicans (90-ish)?

    93. Katy — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:38 pm  

      Amir,

      This thread isn’t about abortion but I can’t let your comments pass. I do find it vaguely amusing when men, particularly 22 year old men with no children, start waxing lyrical about the evils of abortion and the joys of procreation. When science has advanced to the point where men can gestate and give birth to a baby, you might be qualified to judge. But at the moment you can’t begin to comprehend the horror of bearing a child you don’t want. Men don’t know what it’s like to have another being growing in their bodies. Even if you want to have a baby, some aspects of pregnancy are physically draining and intellectually terrifying. Being pregnant makes women ill - I know it’s not often put that way, but it does. It also puts their lives at risk, albeit to less of an extent than it did 100 years ago. It’s not for you to force women to go through that kind of ordeal.

    94. Katy — on 11th March, 2007 at 12:52 pm  

      And actually, Amir, I’m tired of you banging on about “racial differences”. You are starting to come across as a raging racist, frankly, and it disappoints me. I am very fond of you, most of the time, and I was under the impression that you had a brain, but you seem to have decided not to use it for this thread.

      If you accept that your views are contradictory and inconsistent, I would advise you to actually sit down and reason them through before you refer us to any more studies on the Bell Curve - which, by the way, is only ever quoted by racists looking for an academic basis for discrimination.

    95. Chris Stiles — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:14 pm  

      Also, there are obvious implications for, say, immigration policy. Do you want a million more asians (105-ish IQ:s on average) or a million more mexicans (90-ish)?

      Or - if you want to get to that level - a million more Dutch (IQ 109 on average) or a million Parisians (IQ of 96 on average)

      While this is true (and they are open about it), the relationship between GDP and IQ holds very nicely even when only using direct observations

      Correlation versus causation.

    96. Jagdeep — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:15 pm  

      What a spectacular and whining troll. He has transformed into a troll. This guy trolls like a crazy, playing out his psychodrama on these threads.

      He does make me laugh though with some of his pompous lines like ‘speaking truth to power’. Ouch! Such righteous witlessness! Pickled Politics = Power! What are we going to do?

      A legend in his own bedroom and pyjamas. Imagine how he sees himself, a ‘caucasian’ intellectual titan, atop Mount Olympus, beside Thor and Odin, sending down thunderbolts of racial truth to the screaming and panicking Asians on that blog owned by the emmisary of Black Satan who goes by the name of Hundal.

      And as his chest swells with pride at how he types his words, and he imagines them cowering in fear, he flops his cock on the desk and proclaims to poor Amrit, ‘Yeah baby, we conservatives are great in bed baby, we’re so virile and sexy, hey chick, you’re pretty but not as preety as the ten thousand babes I’ve inseminated, so don’t try and test Aryan conservatives baby!’

      A caucasian hero in his own wet kleenex strewn bed.

    97. Sahil — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:15 pm  

      “While this is true (and they are open about it), the relationship between GDP and IQ holds very nicely even when only using direct observations, which blunts your point somewhat”

      HAHAHAHA, Have you ever wondered that when people conduct such regressions that they’ve already got an answer in mind before they test the data. Have you ever wondered that how IQ is calulated e.g. SATs, might be realted to GDP because countries where SATs are important i.e. America also tend to have more universities. You might also want to wonder whether IQ Granger causes Growth or growth Granger causes IQ. The word for this is Spurious Regression:

      http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2005/08/intellectual_ga.html

    98. Jagdeep — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:19 pm  

      In his imagination we are the Death Star and he is Luke Skywalker in his X wing fighter on the final run to destroy us! And he’s being chased by darkies in outer space firing moon beams and lasers at him! Come one Luke! Use the force!

    99. Sahil — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:26 pm  

      I also guess BRIC’s recent growth in GDPs means that suddenly they have become a lot smarter. Wow I never realised that evolution could work this fast.

    100. Chairwoman — on 11th March, 2007 at 1:27 pm  

      And I had been looking forward to lunch, Jagdeep!

    101. Ravi Naik — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:03 pm  

      >> the relationship between GDP and IQ holds very nicely even when only using direct observations, which blunts your point somewhat

      The methodology used to assign IQ levels to several countries is fundamentally flawed. In particular:

      * As it was said before, of the 185 countries, they only had IQ tests for 81 countries. So in the majority of the cases, they estimated the IQ of a country by averaging the IQs of the neighbouring countries. Think about this for a moment.

      * In countries where IQ tests were administrated, there was not a single standard in respect of age group and samples were very unrepresentative.

      Here is a complete review of this book.

    102. Katy — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:05 pm  

      Dobeln, your comments only show that you don’t understand what averages mean.

    103. Jai — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:06 pm  

      =>”Pakistani blogger Razib - a regular at Sepia Mutiny,”

      Razib is actually of Bangladeshi descent. And for the record, he regards himself as American full-stop.

      I cannot believe people are using this topic as an opportunity to raise the spectre of race-related IQ differences. Black people are inherently intellectually inferior ? Tell that to all the extremely highly-educated Nigerian doctors my father works with at the local hospital where he’s a consultant.

    104. William — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:10 pm  

      Variables variables. Of course there are variables and there are variables in variables and variables outside of the variables, all social ones in this sense. Nothing in all of the studies on intelligence make any simple logical causal connection to whether there is any inherently genetic predisposition as regards to intelligence and it appears most geneticists don’t believe that there is and most scientists don’t believe that there this. In this sense it almost a reminder of say studies into the disposition towards Schizophrenia where those who express most doubt towards the genetic disposition are the geneticists themselves.

    105. Katy — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:19 pm  

      Also, there are obvious implications for, say, immigration policy. Do you want a million more asians (105-ish IQ:s on average) or a million more mexicans (90-ish)?

      If you’ll let me euthanise all of the people of Anglo-Saxon descent in this country with an IQ of less than 110, I’ll let you stop any more people with that IQ from coming in.

      Oh, and you have to take an IQ test first.

      Do we have a deal?

    106. Don — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:23 pm  

      Stats make my head hurt, but I think I can tell when someone is using them to further an existing agenda. Sailer is an egregious example of just that.

      Jagdeep may be being slightly, although very amusingly, unkind to Amir who has let his ‘Young Fogey’ persona get out of hand and nailed his colours to a mast even he now sees as unreliable and unsavoury. But he’s young and has not yet learned the art of admitting he is wrong.

      But confess, Amir, Jagdeep is spot on when he identifies ‘speaking truth to power’ as the most ludicrously pompous four words ever to appear on this site.

    107. Don — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:25 pm  

      And speaking of IQ’s, anyone ever met a member of Mensa who wasn’t a tosser?

    108. Anna — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:43 pm  

      If you’ll let me euthanise all of the people of Anglo-Saxon descent in this country with an IQ of less than 110, I’ll let you stop any more people with that IQ from coming in.

      HA!

      Ps I wonder how I’d do on an IQ test designed in Mexico.

    109. Chris Stiles — on 11th March, 2007 at 3:51 pm  

      And speaking of IQ’s, anyone ever met a member of Mensa who wasn’t a tosser?

      One exception - someone I went to school with. ‘s funny though, there is an entire subculture consisting of smaller and ever more restrictive IQ based clubs. From personal experience, the average member of something like the Prometheus Society makes most Mensans seem normal by comparison.

    110. Don — on 11th March, 2007 at 4:09 pm  

      Anyway, what’s wrong with being thick?

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=I_RxNr5d370

    111. sonia — on 11th March, 2007 at 5:12 pm  

      93. Katy you tell him!

    112. Sunny — on 11th March, 2007 at 7:58 pm  

      Oh boy, isn’t this an amusing thread? The person who used to hysterically accuse me of being a race supremacist being a defender of V-Dare. Sooner or later the true colours come out eh Amir?

    113. Ravi Naik — on 11th March, 2007 at 9:37 pm  

      Have a look at an explanation as to why India will never catch up with China…

    114. Amrit — on 11th March, 2007 at 9:45 pm  

      Amir, post #74: there’s a difference between making a mistake and deliberately misspelling something.

      And er… thanks for the compliment, but why are you talking about your sexual habits? I don’t care about your ex-girlfriends. Conservatives are fucking bastards in bed, eh? I’m sure they are elsewhere too, like on this thread.

      I meant in Gollum in terms of behaviour rather than looks, y’know with the obsessive clinging to a certain thing (or ring), in your case, your views? Although I have to agree with something that I think Jagdeep said on a thread once… I’m starting to think that Sunny is YOUR Precious, and that you, my dear, are quite utterly insane.

    115. a person — on 11th March, 2007 at 11:55 pm  

      “Also, there are obvious implications for, say, immigration policy. Do you want a million more asians (105-ish IQ:s on average) or a million more mexicans (90-ish)?”

      What you imply is collectivist and stupid.

      The real answer is to do what Canada does, and select immigrants on a basis of skills, education, and ability to speak the nation’s languages (in Canada, English and French) - these are important for assimilation and for positive overall economic impact. Canada does it by having a point system; you get enough points, and you’re in.

      Similar idea exists in some Northern European countries, where would-be immigrants have to watch materials to help distinguish them on the basis of cultural match - in that case, videos of gay men kissing and of women sunbathing topless (hey, it’s Northern Europe).

      It is NOT good to make the choice on the basis of what racial group the immigrant comes from. That’s racist. It is also stupid, when you can do much better for the country by focusing on individual qualities.

    116. a person — on 12th March, 2007 at 1:51 am  

      My two(+) bits.

      #10 Sid:

      “Looks like this Steve Sailer chap isn’t keen on promulgating the racial inferiority of black people based on spurious IQ data only.”

      Well, to start, it would have been nice of him to find some stats on the opinions of black women and Asian men.

      Still, you seem to assume automatically that people with a low IQ are inferior. From what I’ve read, he is religious, and thinks that people are all equal in value spiritually. So, when he’s saying “group x has average IQ lower than that of group y”, he doesn’t seem to mean that the group is inferior.

      He does think that it will have practical economic and social implications, but that is different. For example, he claims that large-scale unskilled immigration will, on average, hurt black Americans economically more than white people, even with changes in the educational system.

      I think it is more important to point out that large-scale unskilled immigration makes filthy rich Americans even richer, and makes laboring Americans poorer and more jobless, because it subverts supply and demand dynamics in the labor market. All while taking economic pressure off Mexico’s government to change their oppressive system. But, still, the way he puts it isn’t patently false, unless he can’t back up the connection between IQ, race, and jobs. (The IQ-race connection can possibly be social and historical, and not genetic.)

      “He’s also against inter-racial marriage. Read this bumbaklart:”

      I don’t see anything there suggesting he is against it. He’s describing how it appears to work. His outlook seems to be that environmental pressures gave different racial groups different features, some of which are “trick” the human perceptual systems for determining a good (healthy, fertile) mate.

      He could stand to be clearer on the fact that this is a perceptial “trick” and doesn’t actually mean that men and women of one race are more or less fertile or healthy on average.

      Still, what he’s saying is different from saying that some races make for *actually* better mates than others, and it is different than saying that interracial marriage is a good or bad thing.

      He actually seems to think that interracial marriage is a good thing, at least so far as Tiger Woods is concerned.

      #11 Amir:

      “monarchism [...] and hereditary peerage”

      Wow, are there still people that believe in this stuff?

      That dude’s your better because his great-great-great-great-
      great-great-great-great-grandfather led a charge with a battle ax after the fall of the Roman Empire.

      In comparison, that makes IQ tests and the SAT look like a simply revolutionary way to distingish individuals. Heck, at least that way some Asians and Jews and blacks (etc.) have a shot at the top, whatever their group’s average.

      #20 Sunny:

      “For you to go on about Muslim birthrates as a cause of alarm sounds xenophobic to me. It may be a statement of fact but the inference is that more Muslim people = bad.”

      I don’t think that’s the issue. I think the issue is more one of whether very large cultural differences in one nation, between an established population and a more recent population, tend to cause serious social conflicts - not out or racism but out of radically different ways of seeing the world. And to that, whether a disproportionately-increasing size of the more recent population makes such conflicts more likely.

      The issue isn’t that more babies of the newer cultural group are a bad thing in and of themselves, but whether the increase of those babies in a given country make it less likely that their group will eventually assimilate. (I don’t know is this is actually true, but that’s the argument.)

      Assimilation is arguably important for avoiding a situation of long-term ethnic conflict. Such conflict has the potential to hurt everyone, the babies of the babies of both groups, in the long term. Birthrates might be related in this because they might impact cultural assimilation.

      Yes, I’d bet it is a cover for racism for a lot of people concerned over this, but I don’t think that that’s the case for all.

      #29 Ravi:

      “It is pseudo-science because the scientific method used by these people is inherently flawed, as it has been reported by Scientific American and other publications.”

      Appeal to authority. We’ll have to do the stats to work this out.

      Aside, it isn’t good to choose IQ equality between different ethnic groups as a foundation for politcal equality and social justice.

      Science has a history of changing its story in light of new discovery. Future statisticians using advanced stats methods might find that race is about extended family groups, and that there is a significant genetic component to IQ. DNA analysis is a new field. Don’t bet the rights and worth of people on *that* field going as you’d like it to, of all fields.

      #38 Sid:

      “In Steve Sailer’s world, asian men and black women are in danger of being wiped out because asian women and black men are being selected as partners by white people. And their non-selection confirms their inferior status.”

      Can you find me a quote from him about non-selection in mating confirming their inferior status? That would seal the deal for me against Sailer.

      Also, the way race is thought of in the US, all the daughters of white women and black men would be considered black women. So, even in Sailer’s world, black women aren’t likely to vanish any sooner than anyone else.

      #44 Sid:

      “What you really want to say is that racial superiority exists, in emperical terms. And by that I mean, you have a little league table you’d like to base your politics and your ethical value system on. And that’s what makes you and your guru Sailer, a squalid little racist.”

      You’re guessing about what’s in other people’s heads? Back it up with quotes, and your point will stick. Otherwise it just looks like you’re making stuff up.

      #45 Chris:

      “Among West Indian-origin men born in Britain, half marry a white woman, and 30% of West Indian-origin women born in Britain marry a white man. Among Indians and East African-origin Asians, 19% of British-born men and 10% of British-born women marry white partners. Hardly any Pakistanis and Bangladeshis do.”

      ‘Asian’ in North America almost always means ‘East Asian’ - Korean, Chinese, Japanese. We don’t call people of Indian or of Pakistani origin Asians. I know that’s not how it is with the UK.

      #56 emm.:

      “You need to show that blacks have lower IQ, that low IQ and blackness have a common cause, and that IQ is immutable.”

      1 If IQ is what IQ tests measure, he’s done that. (It might not be, of course; the tests might be bunk while the concept of IQ valid. Or it all might be bunk. Or not. Not seen anything in this thread to point firmly one way or the other.)

      2 The argument is that IQ and blackness are both inherited genetically, and tend to coincide for the same reason, say, red hair and shortness might run in a given family.

      I don’t think that anyone will be proving this beyond a reasonable doubt anytime soon. But I’m not an expert. Still, it *might* happen eventually as genetics and stats progresses, and the intellectual structure upon which blacks’ human worth and their political equality with whites lies best not depend on it never happening.

      3 No-one argues that IQ is immutable. If that’s what he has to show, he’s a goner. Better nutrition as a child has a huge impact on IQ.

      The issue is typically how big of a difference genetics make, or whether other things can make a difference beyond a given point. Not whether other things make a difference at all.

    117. Refresh — on 12th March, 2007 at 3:11 am  

      True colours came out a long time ago. It was confirmed by his turbanned flatmate making contributions on his behalf.

      Humouring Amir is the best thrill a man can get on a blog. You have to admit none of it has been without fun. I’ve enjoyed his contributions in the past and I am sure will in the future.

      He is like a candle to a moth, and we saw very early on that we also have some moths amongst us.

      I am intrigued that he has been able to hold down his very important job with a very important Conservative politician, given the liberal abandon he shows in insisting on exhibiting his intellectual prowess. The more he exhibits the more it diminishes.

      Lets have more, I say.

      But Amir, please. Less of the bad language. It doesn’t quite fit in with the ‘conservative’ cloak of tradition you’ve chosen. Think of the children.

    118. Amir — on 12th March, 2007 at 4:30 am  

      Ha ha! Some interesting points…

      (1) Don: “Jagdeep may be being slightly, although very amusingly, unkind to Amir who has let his ‘Young Fogey’ persona get out of hand and nailed his colours to a mast”

      I myself hope to live long enough to graduate from being a “young fogey” – which I once was – to becoming a curmudgeon. Admittedly, I am lacking in both age and experience. But my disposition to resistance against arbitrary “representatives” or witless opinion-makers will stay with me for the rest of my life. I do not want to live in some Disneyland of the mind, where there is an end to striving and a general feeling of “ideological solidarity.” I have always sought argument and disputation for its own sake (death will supply plenty of time for silence).

      (2) Katy: [I have several bones to pick with you.]

      (2.1) “I do find it vaguely amusing when men, particularly 22 year old men with no children, start waxing lyrical about the evils of abortion and the joys of procreation.”

      For your information I’m one of the proudest parents in the UK. I have a half-Asian daughter, and she means the world to me. Her mother, unfortunately, is not with us any longer: she died in a car crash. But even so, I strongly urge that you do not apologise for your prior misassumption; nor, for that matter, do I expect any words of pity, condolence, support, etc, etc. This is a political blog; nothing more, nothing less. Let’s keep it that way, shall we? ;-)

      (2.2.) “But at the moment you can’t begin to comprehend the horror of bearing a child you don’t want.”

      That of course is what we’re always assured; it’s always a “painful” or “difficult” decision. But somehow nobody ever seems to make the wrong decision…? Every woman who gets an abortion is obeying her conscience, not violating it. Basically, what you’re saying amounts to a single but insidious axiom: We don’t care if an unborn baby is intentionally cracked or crushed, obliterated, pulverised, vanquished or liquidized, etc…, as long the woman FEELS okay about it. Pathetic. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

      (2.3.) “Being pregnant makes women ill.”

      Being aborted makes one deceased… (Engage your brain, please).

      (2.4.) “…would advise you to actually sit down and reason them through before you refer us to any more studies on the Bell Curve - which, by the way, is only ever quoted by racists looking for an academic basis for discrimination.”

      As I pointed out earlier, this is an exercise in logic, not guilt by association. In any case, your assertion is perniciously wrong. The Bell Curve is cited by anti-racist psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, evolutionary biologists, journalists, ethnographers and geneticists (among others). To try to confine it to an “extremist” lunatic fringe is to embark on a nasty Stalinist polemic. The work of scientists like Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton, H. J. Eysenck, Richard Lynn, Richard Herrnstein, and a number of others established that race exists and is a significant factor in human mental traits.

      (2.5.) “And actually, Amir, I’m tired of you banging on about “racial differences”. You are starting to come across as a raging racist, frankly, and it disappoints me.”

      Oh really? Well, sorry missy, but racial difference is an unfortunate reality. Inequality is a brute fact of life. Period. Different races have evolved in somewhat different ways according to their body size and proportions, hair form and distribution, head shape and facial features, blood types, number of vertebrae, size of genitalia, bone density, fingerprints, basic metabolic rate, body temperature, blood pressure, heat and cold tolerance, number and distribution of sweat glands, odour, consistency of ear wax, number of teeth, age at eruption of permanent teeth, fissural patterns on the surfaces of the teeth, length of gestation period, frequency of twin births, male-female birth ratio, physical maturity at birth, rate of infant development of alpha brain waves, colorblindness, visual and auditory acuity, intolerance of milk, galvanic skin resistance, chronic diseases, susceptibility to infectious diseases, genetic diseases (e.g., Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anaemia), and pigmentation of the skin, hair, and eyes.

      I mention this, not out of any spite, but in response to one of Malcolm Gladwell’s more idiotic definitions of “racism.” Basically, he defines a “racist” as a person who acknowledges inherent and immutable differences between racial groups. This, in my opinion, is complete and utter bollocks.

      Amir

    119. Katy — on 12th March, 2007 at 8:22 am  

      I’m sorry about your partner’s death and I am very pleased to hear that you have a half-Asian daughter, although frankly it makes your views on multiculturalism utterly incomprehensible.

      I still don’t really understand what you’re trying to get across to us on this thread. Do you just ramble for shock value? Here are two clear, simple, straightforward questions:

      1. Do you think that the Bell Curve theory justifies discrimination against individual people depending on their race? That because of the Bell Curve theory employers would be justified in saying “I don’t want to employ ANY black Africans or ANY Asians or ANY West Indians because this theory says that on average as a group they have a lower IQ than Caucasians?”

      2. Do you think that any of the physical differences between races that you outlined in your response above justify discrimination against individual people on the basis of their race?

      What I am hoping you might do is stop linking to a billion websites and relying on a perceived weight of authority and think these issues through for yourself.

    120. Kulvinder — on 12th March, 2007 at 9:25 am  

      Katy your use of a libertarian type argument of ‘why does it ultimately matter to the individual’ is lovely. :)

    121. William — on 12th March, 2007 at 9:26 am  

      Katy #119

      You expand on the question of where is the logical connection in all this which is the point I was making in #104. As well as where is the distinct explanation of physical causation in regard to intelligence within all of the social stats that we have been presented with. Further where is the logical connection between the stats even if they proved such a link and how persons should be treated.

    122. Katy — on 12th March, 2007 at 11:18 am  

      Kulvs - that’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me :-)

      William - great minds!

    123. Leon — on 12th March, 2007 at 11:22 am  

      Well aint this fun?

    124. Katy — on 12th March, 2007 at 11:37 am  

      Meh. I quite like Amir, you see, and I don’t actually think he is a racist really, but this white-separatist aspect of his arguments gets me down.

    125. Leon — on 12th March, 2007 at 11:51 am  

      I don’t really have much of an opinion on him anymore outside of the fact that every thread he appears on seems to go a bit crap (imho)…

    126. Sid Love — on 12th March, 2007 at 11:51 am  

      Actually, so am I. I think he’s the brightest kid on the block. The young-fogey parochialism which he has seems to be a misinterpretation of some fundamentally sound ideas based on some of the inherent ignominy of Modernity.

      If Traditionalism is your cup of tea, there are two paths you can take: The Universalist metaphysics of Rene Guenon or the White Supremacism of Julius Evola. We can all see which fork Amir has taken. Tragic really.

    127. Ravi Naik — on 12th March, 2007 at 11:56 am  

      >>Different races have evolved in somewhat different ways according to their body size …

      Except that a lot of what you mention boils down to nurture and not nature: second and third gen are taller and better built than their parents and grandparents. Which is to say, you are what you eat, and of course it also affects your body odour. The ‘sickle-cell’ disease does not only affect blacks, but also people in the Mediterranean, including Italians and Portuguese. And that is because that region was affected by Malaria some centuries back.

      Also, there are no pure races, and a lot of people are descendants of two or more races not long ago, which makes these studies even more dubious.

      >> Basically, he defines a “racist” as a person who acknowledges inherent and immutable differences between racial groups. This, in my opinion, is complete and utter bollocks.

      I think a racist is someone who places a particular weight in terms of intelligence and behaviour on a whole race. This pretty much caps our ability as individuals to do better. As I’ve mention, your pal
      Steve Sailer has written an article on why Indians will not be able to catch up China: because they are literally stupid. This is what the trashy pseudo-science is good for, which is completely devoid of any consistent and rigorous scientific method, nor does it account historic facts that contradict those findings.

      Also, I am confused about what race we are supposed to belong. Are Indians Caucasians? Or mixed-race? Or is there a race called “South Asians”? Funny that Richard Lynn placed Indians in India so low in the IQ scale, but was forced to revise his table for Indians living in Britain, and despite having better SAT scores than whites, he gave them an IQ of 98, short of 2 for the rest of the Britain. It is wonderful what passes as science these days.

    128. Katy — on 12th March, 2007 at 12:18 pm  

      Yes, interbreeding does sort of mess up the whole racial “science” thing. My understanding is that more new blood = more of a fighting chance for survival, but then as the product of a mixed marriage and the proud descendant of East European Jews, Danes, Scots, Irish and English I suppose I would say that. And of course Amir’s daughter will have the benefit of all that mixing up too. Which is why multiculturalism can be fun…

    129. Jagdeep — on 12th March, 2007 at 12:44 pm  

      I’m starting to think that Sunny is YOUR Precious, and that you, my dear, are quite utterly insane.

      You nailed it!

      secretly filmed footage of Amir about to log onto Pickled Politics to destroy Hundal

    130. sonia — on 12th March, 2007 at 1:47 pm  

      people are so dumb about race. if they thought about it in terms of dog-breeding…

    131. Kismet Hardy — on 12th March, 2007 at 2:12 pm  

      Some people, and most dogs, shouldn’t be allowed to breed.

    132. emmanuelgoldstein — on 12th March, 2007 at 2:40 pm  

      [1 If IQ is what IQ tests measure, he’s done that. (It might not be, of course; the tests might be bunk while the concept of IQ valid. Or it all might be bunk. Or not. Not seen anything in this thread to point firmly one way or the other.)]

      The concept of a single numerical measure for human intelligence, whatever that is, is hugely attractive. Is there is such a measure?, Do IQ tests accurately capture it? I think not.

      Intelligence groups together various types of ability: memory, problem-solving ability, good sense, judgement, foresight, etc. It looks a lot like a cluster concept. It’s unclear which, if any, non-trivial property is shared by everything answering to intelligence - apart, perhaps, from the fact that they’re all instances of virtuous mental action? And neither is it obvious that these abilities are all innate. If there’s no non-trivial property which these instances share, it is not unclear why a test which returns a single quantitative measure should be considered an accurate test for the relevant abilities.

      [3 No-one argues that IQ is immutable. If that’s what he has to show, he’s a goner. Better nutrition as a child has a huge impact on IQ.

      The issue is typically how big of a difference genetics make, or whether other things can make a difference beyond a given point. Not whether other things make a difference at all.]

      Typically, what anti-egalitarians want to show is that it’s pointless to try and change IQ differences; and especially IQ differences between races. So, usually, they want not just IQ differences, but IQ differences rooted in something unchangeable. And this is just a general strategy for anti-egalitarians: their characteristic move is to argue that inequality (of whatever kind) is natural (hence unchangeable, hence not worth trying to change: in the past inequality was God’s will; these days, inequality is biologised.)
      That this is what Amir wants is tolerably clear: he believes races possess differential characteristics; we can safely assume he considers intelligence among them. But then he needs to argue not just that there are race differences in measured IQ, but that those differences are both immutable and are caused by the same thing that causes (say) the blackness of black people. For if it turned out race differences in measured IQ were mutable, then race difference in measured IQ can’t serve as a stable property for differentiating races, and it can’t serve as a differentiating property justifying racial inequality. And he also needs the race difference in measured IQ to have come about in such a way that it’s no-one’s fault: for if the race differences in measured IQ have come about by the free actions of others, it doesn’t matter if they’re now immutable, they won’t serve to justify racial inequality, nor will they serve as anything other than an accidental way of distinguishing races. However, Amir has shown nothing of the sort.

    133. Kismet Hardy — on 12th March, 2007 at 2:54 pm  

      IQ. So what? I don’t like people pushing in

      Plus it’s a very British tradition

    134. Kismet Hardy — on 12th March, 2007 at 2:59 pm  

      IQ. So what? I don’t like people pushing in

      Plus it’s a very British tradition so you should too

    135. Kismet Hardy — on 12th March, 2007 at 3:13 pm  

      Hey Amir, you fabulous roman candle you,

      No man has the right to tell a woman whether she should or should not terminate a pregnancy. However blase it may seem to you, it’s the hardest decision in the world and do-gooders (I hate that term, so it’s apt) do them no favours by telling women they have a moral duty to go through an unwanted pregnancy.

      I too am a proud father and I’ve seen both my angels grown from a tiny blip on a monitor to amazing little people, but I still have no qualms about saying the rights of an unborn fetus is secondary to the facts of life that stand in its way.

      When the unwanted child you pioneer to save comes into this world and into a home that does not want or love it, and grows up fucked up – will you be there to save it? Will you fuck.

      You’ll say: bleeding screwed up junky criminal scum. They bring it on themselves don’t they? They should be hanged I warrant thee

    136. Ravi Naik — on 12th March, 2007 at 4:33 pm  

      Brilliant post (#132) emmanuel.

    137. sonia — on 12th March, 2007 at 4:41 pm  

      yeah for kismet hardy!

    138. Ravi Naik — on 12th March, 2007 at 5:34 pm  

      Brilliant post Emmanuel (#132).

    139. Amrit — on 12th March, 2007 at 6:23 pm  

      Jagdeep - hilarious.

      I must agree with the others that Amir is highly amusing, but I can never read what he says. It’s like trying to eat polystyrene. It’s not just what he says, but also how he says it… Mental expansion might be good, but his incessant jargon is DEATH.

    140. ZinZin — on 12th March, 2007 at 6:31 pm  

      Amirs posts can all be summed up as mental masterbation. I am always concerned by anyone who takes a keen interest in the IQ/race debate as they are obviously determined to prove the inferiority/superiority of race x over race y.

    141. Refresh — on 13th March, 2007 at 1:06 am  

      Amir you say quite clearly - that you are disputatious by nature. This, and presumably your other contributions, are exercises in logic. I like that in you. To a point.

      You reached that point a while back. Having known you long enough, I feel I can say that you are the most illogical of all. The simple fact is you do follow logical reasoning (albeit based often on a single misplaced fundamental) within a thread but cannot sustain it across threads.

      But what the heck, I think you are a lovely fellow. And long may you rain on Pickled Politics.

      I think you should have your own blog. We could come visit, and if not we will surely listen out for your exploits a la Young Indiana Jones, when we are all gathered round the wood fire in the drawing room of the PeePee Club

      NO, No, no. Not Indiana Jones, Phileas Fogg.

      And with a bit of David Niven’s panache you may have had Jagdeep as your Passepartout. Now you are stuck seeking Razib.

      You might recall Phileas’ world nearly collapsed for a single misplaced fundamental.

    142. p-ter — on 13th March, 2007 at 2:07 am  

      Nothing in all of the studies on intelligence make any simple logical causal connection to whether there is any inherently genetic predisposition as regards to intelligence and it appears most geneticists don’t believe that there is

      this is false. I recommend this (“Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics”) for a an excellent treatment of the topic.
      http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRN2004_IQ.html

    143. douglas clark — on 13th March, 2007 at 3:14 am  

      p-ter,

      Err, on-line publication?

      It seems to be disputed.

      See:

      http://www.loni.ucla.edu/~thompson/IQ/NRNCorrespondence.pdf

      Anyway, I am the living proof. You, any of you, could change your particular results, just as I did. Think what it would mean for you, or your society!

      “Well, douglas, what do you mean by that?”

      “You could casually drop into conversation down the local greengrocer that you had a huge IQ! He, or perhaps if you are really, really lucky, she, would obviously drop their oranges for you.”

      “douglas, is this a realistic scenario?”

      “Of course it is. My lack of social skills, halitosis and general nerdom will be flushed away in the sexual rush that everyone must feel when they realise that I am one quantile above a monkey, well, some monkeys. Not bonobos, obviously. Smart little bastards.”

      “douglas, do you think your arguement holds water?”

      “Err, maybe aye, maybe naw, but I’m an IQ nerd and I’d like to think it mattered. Gonna leave me alone, I hate all you good looking people who actually have a life. I’ve got my genius, and, by the way, I speak to power.”

      I shall probably publish this information firstly in a profoundly scientific, and peer reviewed journal - “Train Spotters Monthly” - where I expect to find a receptive audience.

      For those of you who can’t wait, and with my phenomenal IQ I can nearly read your minds here, the book is ‘How to Improve your IQ”

      Always remember an IQ is not just for Christmas.

    144. Kismet Hardy — on 13th March, 2007 at 11:42 am  

      Couldn’t resist a bill hicks snippet on the issue of amir’s pro-life stance:

      “What do you say we lighten things up and talk about abortion? You know, I feel like I’m losing some of you here, and I want to win all of you back with this one. Let’s talk about abortion. Let’s talk about child killing and see if we can’t get some chuckles rippling through the room here. Let’s talk about mass murder of young, unborn children and see if we can’t coalesce into one big, healthy gut laugh. Ha ha ha ha!

      Boy, I’ve never seen an issue so divisive. It’s like a civil war, isn’t it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent; they’re totally divided on abortion. It’s unbelievable. Some of my friends, for instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people … are evil fucks. How are we going to come to a consensus? You ought to hear the arguments around my house: “They’re annoying, they’re idiots.” “They’re evil, they’re fucks!” Brothers, sisters, come together! Can’t we once just join hands and think of them as evil-annoying-idiot-fucks? I beseech you. But that’s me …

      “I’m a non-smoker. I’m pro-life. I’m a pro-life non-smoker.” Let the party begin.

    145. Chairwoman — on 13th March, 2007 at 11:56 am  

      People have abortions for many reasons. If we’re talking about abortion as birth control, then I’m against it.

      But there are many more reasons for abortion, all of them legitimate.

      And I am talking not about bone cracking or head wrenching, I am talking about a small collection of cells that aren’t anything at that stage but a small collection of cells.

      And, Amir, I will say to you what I say to all those who say no to abortion under any circumstances. Are you prepared to bring up and devote your life to these unwanted children, bedcause if you’re not, then tone it down a bit please.

    146. p-ter — on 13th March, 2007 at 4:24 pm  

      Err, on-line publication?

      I’m not sure what you mean. that was published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience. my link was to a freely available copy of the paper. It’s worth a read (it’s not *that* technical, and the review or the references within touch on all the technical issues people seem to have with IQ-test validity, malleability of IQ, etc).

      the “dispute” you link to doesn’t seem to be a dispute.

    147. Kulvinder — on 13th March, 2007 at 5:23 pm  

      These types of debates inherently bore me, pretty much for the reason Katy gave (i basically see no point to them unless in advocationg of political/social philosophy), but anyhoo

      this is false. I recommend this (”Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics”) for a an excellent treatment of the topic.

      I read the paper, i personally disagree with their notion of intelligence (yes i know its advocated by the APA, still the discussion on defining intelligence dances on, and around naturalistic fallacy). I don’t see how that article refutes the statement that there isn’t an inherently genetic predisposition to ‘intelligence’ they pretty much make that clear in the abstract, and further disagree with the notion that theres no need to educate or be educated even if you agree with heritability.

    148. Katherine — on 13th March, 2007 at 5:24 pm  

      It doesn’t look as if Amir is on this thread any more, so this may be useless - but I have to break it to him that there is no genetic basis for race. There is more genetic variability between individuals of the small population of Sweden than there is between racial groups. Race is a social construct.

      When you say “a racial group is merely an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some extent. Thus, race is a fundamental aspect of the human condition because we are all born into families” - that is very definition of a social construct my dear.

    149. Kulvinder — on 13th March, 2007 at 6:20 pm  

      but I have to break it to him that there is no genetic basis for race

      That isn’t strictly true. This is what i hate about genetics, its all about semantics and constantly asking ‘what do you mean by that’

      You’re right the ‘black and white race’ is a social construct but using genetics to back that up is valid. Saying gene A causes a certain amount of melanin production and those that have it activated are in race x is fine. In a similar way i wouldn’t have a problem with race being defined according to hair colour, and the genes that correspond to that colour. The problems arise when people start making conclusions from that - therefore all gingers are freaks (which they are).

      Broadly id accept heritability as being a factor in the attributes of an individual (and therefore ‘intelligence’) but disregarding environmental factors as playing a crucial role is quite simply absurd especially as those that defend pure heritability rely on environmental causation (the ice age made northern people plan more or whatever).

    150. leon — on 13th March, 2007 at 10:09 pm  

      Big :D at Kisy and the Bill Hicks quote.

    151. soru — on 13th March, 2007 at 11:04 pm  

      Kulvinder is right: races are socially constructed only to the extent mountains are.

      People make up names, and say where one mountain in a range ends and the next begins, and have arguments about whether an area has one mountain with multiple peaks and buttresses, or multiple mountains. Some of those discussions have right and wrong answers, some of them there is no objective way of settling.

      As it happens, the territory of human genetics happens to be mostly fairly flat, more Holland than Scotland. Of all the major mammal species, only cheetahs are less genetically diverse than humans, and all cheetahs alive are supposed to have been descended from a single breeding pair a few thousand years ago.

      In other words, it’s not especially complicated, and not that important for anyone other than population geneticists.

      Problem is, all the pseudo-intellectual wankery that gets tossed around on this point sometimes makes it seem, to bright and basically well-intentioned young men like amir, like some vastly important political point that can only be settled by sophisticated use of creative ambiguity.

      If you saw some UN diplomat bull-shitting about topological narratives or something while discussing exactly where the boundary between India and Pakistan lies, you would suspect he is trying to find a wording that satisfies neither, but avoids a war. So you make the deduction that war on that point is possible, that it’s a big political issue, that there’s some big dark secret here.

      Thing is, I suspect most of the people pontificating on this point are, rather ironically, doing it to look clever and sophisticated, rather than to deliberately avoid stating a truth.

    152. Refresh — on 13th March, 2007 at 11:40 pm  

      EmanuelGoldstein says it all - in post #132. The rest is just doing an Amir, perhaps from slightly different asapect.

      Fundamentally either we believe we are all equal or we do not. We are egalitarian or we are not.

      If we are egalitarian then we will as a society seek to assist and compensate for each other.

      If we are not we will seek advantage in as many ways as possible, drawing out as many differences as possible - much easier to do by grouping and stereotyping.

      Lets not be blind. Its all economics brothers and sisters.

    153. Ravi Naik — on 14th March, 2007 at 12:26 am  

      >> EmanuelGoldstein says it all - in post #132. The rest is just doing an Amir, perhaps from slightly different asapect.

      Nobody does an Amir, except Amir himself. He is conceited, naive and superficial. Not the best of combinations. And when people easily destroy his limited world-view, he becomes even more arrogant and obnoxious. He disagrees by being very disagreable.

      >> But what the heck, I think you are a lovely fellow. And long may you rain on Pickled Politics. I think you should have your own blog.

      I think both of you should get a blog, and do whatever two people do in blogs. :) Although in all honesty, he sparkled some very good posts from other people in this thread.

    154. Katy — on 14th March, 2007 at 12:38 am  

      Speaking as the token redhead on Pickled Politics, I am concerned about the increasing antititian tone of some of the commenters and the use of the racist epithet “ginger”.

      I am going to speak to Trevor Phillips, who will probably tell me that it is all my fault because I am sleepwalking into segregation.

    155. Refresh — on 14th March, 2007 at 12:52 am  

      Ravi,

      “I think both of you should get a blog, and do whatever two people do in blogs. Although in all honesty, he sparkled some very good posts from other people in this thread.”

      Blogging would have been something I would have enjoyed doing some years back, when I suppose I too felt I had viewpoint I wanted the world to share. Now the whole thing is about spats, little ones and big ones.

      The beauty of having Amir around, is he does stir things. He opens the space for debate at the risk of ridicule, and always has done. He is harmless because he is vulnerable. It shows in his every post. That is why he is so popular with the girlies.

      The other thing I like about him is that he does come back, unrestrained - desperate to control debate and of course destined to fail.

    156. Refresh — on 14th March, 2007 at 1:00 am  

      “whatever two people do in blogs”

      I guess I am biassed, and easily flattered, as I must be the only one he’s ever invited out to (an expensive) dinner from PP.

    157. dark girl — on 28th March, 2007 at 12:42 pm  

      Where does all of this crap about caublinasians being so superior come from? Tiger Woods is one person-was Micheal Jordan mixed? Was a Muhammad Ali mixed?

      What happened to the one drop theory anyway? Funny how everyone gets whiter and whiter the more whites’ numbers diminish. First it was the Irish (in the early 1900s were not considered white)then the Italians and now it’s mixed people. They even call Indians white now! Go figure.

      Soon mongoloid will be the new caucasoid. There will be only two races-black and white. Africans, black and everyone else, white.

      Sailer’s article claims Asians have more in common with whites than blacks so that is why they unite more. Well if that were the case than why don’t blacks and Latinos marry more? Whites and blacks marry more than blacks and browns.

      Funny how when whites have a lot to lose they stay with their own. Maybe the rest of us (blacks and new whites) should try that!

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.