Posts Tagged ‘Heroes’

Jared Taylor — editor of the race realist magazine American Renaissance, author of the classic race realist text “Paved With Good Intentions” (Peter Brimelow’s review here), and personal hero of mine — has written a new book, “White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century” (review here). Needless to say, it is excellent, and I encourage everyone to read it.

Last night, Jared Taylor appeared on The Political Cesspool, a conservative radio program, to discuss the book with host James Edwards. The full three-hour program is available for download here (the interview is part 3).

Update (May 17): Taki’s Magazine reviews “White Identity” in “Fear of an Erudite White.” Fred Reed of Fred on Everything reviews it in“The Inexpressibly, Unthinkably Obvious.”

Read Full Post »

Believe it or not, the ever expanding “Blacks Mobs” series was originally intended to be a single post (maybe two) simply listing incidents of black flash mob violence. But my research turned up something much more disturbing (and therefore much more interesting): the nearly universal suppression of the “race angle,” i.e., the fact that the violent mobs seem to be 100 percent African-American.

So much for my “Black Mobs” series. I could hardly just list the articles without also exposing their race denialism. And there’s a lot of that to expose. So I blended ghetto black dysfunction (GBD) with liberal media bias (LMB), and somehow the result, “Black Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime” (part 1) is turning out to be much more critical toward blacks than a pure GBD article would have been.

It’s not really a mystery:

  • black people attacking white people: grrr, bad!
  • white people ignoring black people attacking white people: YOU F#@%*^$ IDIOT A*#%^!&@, LOOK WHAT THEY’RE DOING TO US etc.

(My condemnations of white delusions about black dysfunctions are nothing if not enthusiastic.)

Anyway, Unamusement Park has been unusually hard on black people these last few days — hardly in keeping with the (poorly defined) tenets of compassionate reactionism. I therefore resolve to sprinkle in some posts about black people I admire.

First and foremost is Thomas Sowell.

Who is Thomas Sowell?

Thomas Sowell is an economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author, and currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution (a public policy think tank and library) at Stanford University.

He's black, which is very important to liberals, because it means he can't be racist.

Dr. Sowell has written books opposing affirmative action, supporting inherent ethnic differences, and exposing how white liberals are destroying black culture, among many other things. His articles (2000-present) are archived at Townhall.com, and we’ll be looking at a few of them tonight. Some of his essays are collected in Ever Wonder Why? and Other Controversial Essays, available in .pdf format here. Part VII is all about racial issues.

Sowell’s Critics

Some people criticize Dr. Sowell. Some of them criticize his ideas about race. Some of them are black. This post is not about those people. But here’s a taste, anyway: Deborah Toler writing in The Public Eye (September 1993).

For most African Americans the notion of a Black conservative is an oxymoron. The overwhelming majority of us [blacks] reject conservative political positions because we understand in concrete, everyday, practical terms what conservative policies are and who conservatives are, and we know both are racist. Conservative policies are Republican vetoes of civil rights bills, opposition to affirmative action, and Willie Horton campaign ads. Conservatives are Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Jesse Helms, David Duke, and Pat Buchanan. Enough said.

Got that? If you oppose affirmative action (i.e., discrimination against whites and Asians for the benefit of undeserving blacks and Hispanics, motivated by the “race is only skin deep” myth), then you might as well veto civil rights. And Ronald Reagan (“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”) is no better than David Duke (“the Holocaust is the device used as the pillar of Zionist imperialism, Zionist aggression, Zionist terror and Zionist murder”).

Well, that’s not crazy at all.

I'm paraphrasing.

Some Articles by Dr. Sowell

“The Fallacy of ‘Fairness'” (part 1), from February 2010, is a four-part series on — well, you figure it out. “Race and Politics” (part 1), from April, is another good four-parter. “Race Card Fraud” (July 20) is a much needed defense of the Tea Party.

“Bean-Counters and Baloney” (August 13) is all about the fallacy that disparate impact implies disparate treatment.

Anyone who has watched football over the years has probably seen at least a hundred black players score touchdowns — and not one black player kick the extra point. Is this because of some twisted racist who doesn’t mind black players scoring touchdowns but hates to see them kicking the extra points?

At our leading engineering schools — M.I.T., CalTech, etc. — whites are under-represented and Asians over-represented. Is this anti-white racism or pro-Asian racism? Or are different groups just different?

Finally, Sowell’s two-part series “The Multicultural Cult” is particularly appropriate in light of “Black Mobs and the Second Law of Race and Crime.” From part 1 (October 19):

Multiculturalism is not just a recognition that different groups have different cultures. We all knew that, long before multiculturalism became a cult that has spawned mindless rhapsodies about “diversity,” without a speck of evidence to substantiate its supposed benefits.

In Germany, as in other countries in Europe, welcoming millions of foreign workers who insist on remaining foreign has created problems so obvious that only the intelligentsia could fail to see them. It takes a high IQ to evade the obvious.

Multiculturalists condemn people’s objections to transplanting hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families into the midst of people who may have sacrificed for years to be able to escape from living among hoodlums, criminals and dysfunctional families.

The actual direct experience of the people who complain about the consequences of these social experiments is often dismissed as mere biased “perceptions” or “stereotypes,” if not outright “racism.” But some of the strongest complaints have come from middle-class blacks who have fled ghetto life, only to have the government transplant ghetto life back into their midst.

These rioting "teens" certainly defy description.

From part 2 (October 20):

[T]oday, attempts to get black or Hispanic youngsters to speak the language of the society around them are decried by multiculturalists. And any attempt to get them to behave according to the cultural norms of the larger society is denounced as “cultural imperialism,” if not racism.

The multicultural dogma is that we are to “celebrate” all cultures, not change them. In other words, people who lag educationally or economically are to keep on doing what they have been doing — but somehow have better results in the future than in the past. And, if they don’t have better results in the future, it is society’s fault.

And that’s just from 2010.

Some Videos Featuring Dr. Sowell

First: “Thomas Sowell Dismantles Egalitarianism,” in which black people in the United States are found not to express concern, damn it.

Black people have never supported, for example, affirmative action, quotas — anything of that sort. Wherever polls have been taken of black opinion, on such matters of “should people be paid equally?”… black people have never taken the position that you [Frances Fox Piven, socialist, AA supporter] describe.

Second: “Thomas Sowell – Diversity,” in which the magic powers of diversity are disputed.

[“Diversity”] is a word that has become magic! What does it mean, if anything? Are you saying to me that all black people are alike, therefore you’ve got to mix and match by race [i.e., implement affirmative action]?

Third: “Playing the Race Card at Every Turn,” in which race-baiting demagogues are denounced.

[Blacks of my generation] knew there was going to be a barrier. We would just keep going over and through them, around them, and whatever. But now you’ve raised a whole generation of people who think it’s absolutely hopeless.

[“Who’s telling them that?”] Oh, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton — you can run through the whole list of them.

[“But it can’t all be just blacks.”] No, there are all sorts of whites who are saying the same thing, you know: that every statistical disparity is proof that there are these huge barriers out there.

Fourth: “Thomas Sowell – Welfare,” in which welfare is seen for what it is.

What the welfare system and other kinds of governmental programs are doing is paying people to fail: insofar as they fail, they receive the money. Insofar as they succeed, even to a moderate extent, the money is taken away.

This is even extended into the school systems, where they will give money to schools with low scores. Insofar as the school improves its education, the money is taken away, so that you are subsidizing people to fail in their own private lives, and become more dependent upon the handouts.

Fifth: “Liberal Animosity” (short and to the point), in which a phenomenon familiar to conservatives, reactionaries, and realists of all stripes, is remarked upon.

People who have the constrained vision [conservatives] understand that people will make mistakes, and so therefore when someone says something they disagree with, that to them is just one of the examples of it [i.e., making a mistake]. They see no need to question his sincerity or honesty or whatever.

But for those with the unconstrained vision [liberals], what they believe seems so obviously true, that if you’re standing in the way of it, either you must be incredibly stupid, utterly uninformed, or simply dishonest.

As I’ve pointed out on a number of occasions, the more you know about race, the more likely you are to be called “ignorant” by someone who doesn’t actually know anything about the subject, “biased” by someone who will not be swayed by any amount of evidence, and “hateful” by… well, probably the nastiest people you’ll ever encounter.

Our Very First “Hobie”

In conclusion, I am pleased to announce that Unamusement Park’s first annual Big Smelly Hobo Hug Award for Excellence in Being a Black Conservative, or BSHHAEBBC — also known as the Hobie — goes to… Thomas Sowell!

Big smelly hobo hugs!


Read Full Post »

One of the peculiarities of our decadent age is the ongoing undeclared War on Hate. That it is a war waged against an emotion — often a useful and appropriate one — is not its most ludicrous feature. No, more ludicrous by far is that it is being waged by the most hateful and malicious elements of our society. They are the worst hypocrites in the world, and for failing to recognize their hypocrisy, they are also idiots. Here are some of these hypocritical idiots:

  • feminists (second and later waves), who hate men
  • anti-racists (“anti”-racists would be better), who hate whites (but include many of them)
  • liberals, who hate values (traditional or otherwise)
  • socialists in any guise (communists, Marxists, Democrats, etc.), who hate success
  • deviants of all shapes and sizes (e.g., some but not all atheists and some but not all gays/lesbians/bisexuals/other weird shit), who hate a society that rejects them

Hatred is a five-part documentary on their struggle.

Their stupid, useless, confused, evil struggle.

John Derbyshire Redux

I’ll start at the beginning — of this blog, that is, when I discussed John Derbyshire’s attempt to explain black cognitive inferiority at a panel discussion, organized by the Black Law Students Association of the University of Pennsylvania, on how to eliminate the persistent achievement gap between blacks and whites.

You can’t. Race differences in intelligence are largely genetic. Derbyshire knows this, so he pointed out that

  1. reproductively isolated populations diverge genetically over time (for example, Africans and Europeans),
  2. there are race differences in various traits (with an appeal to athletic ability, which favors blacks and is therefore much less embarrassing to liberals than mental ability, which favors whites), and
  3. everyone should just relax, because after all we don’t cry over individual differences, so why all the angst over these abstract, average, group differences?

The aftermath, according to Derbyshire:

This was followed by a sort of stunned silence, into which Madame Moderator interjected the remark that “Mr. Derbyshire is here as a private guest of Prof. Wax [of the law school], not at the invitation of the BLSA.” This was not true. …

Mingling for refreshments afterwards, I found the BLSA students a friendly bunch. The only rancor was from some older guy, either a mature student or an academic, who said that my ideas were “old” and my remarks “hurtful.” Apparently he thought that one or other, or both, of these observations invalidated the truth content of what I had said. Everyone else was either pleasant, or just ignored me.

Not bad at all. I mean, if you acted this way toward a black professor of some made-up bullshit subject like Africana Studies who was spouting some farcical white-hating social theory of black failure, you would be expelled/fired/sued/investigated by Congress/shot at dawn. But given that conservatives are not a designated victim group, and can therefore be freely discriminated against, it’s not a bad reaction at all.

On the other hand, we have this article, “John Derbyshire tells black law students they are inferior,” whose author Downeastdem, safely ensconced in the liberal fortress Daily Kos, is free to lob malice and rage at the conservative Derbyshire without fear of reprisal (i.e., embarrassing rebuttal of his stupid ideas).

The Daily Kos article is almost 100% lies, starting with the first sentence, which calls Derbyshire a “white supremacist,” and continuing with the second, which calls his remarks a “‘Racism 101’ lecture.” The following quote is singled out as particular abhorrent: “racial disparities in education and employment have their origin in biological differences between the human races.” Note that this is a true statement.

Now, there are three important points to consider.

1. This is not what racism sounds like

A “‘Racism 101’ lecture” by a “white supremacist” does not sound like that. It sounds more like this:

end of the [black] race

Im have wondered this, I have even meditaded about this so much suffering has been cause by this race of demons, they are as ungodly as they are ugly, for instance they ar responsible for most or ALL of the worlds evil…

There is no reason to let them keep on living they just hate and hate and hate, they know nothing but hate and hell, they need to go back to hell where they come from, those [black] babies need to burn in hell with their evil satanist parents. … they are guilty of massive crimes against humanity, they are the greatest perpetrators of evil EVER, they are the most evil force to have ever existed. The are murderous, callous and inhuman both in your words and deeds. Where EVER these people go, murder and depravity follow. I have never seen such casual bloodlust.

This is actually the work of black supremacist blogger BLACKPHANTOMX; I’ve simply replaced the original targets, whites, with blacks. (I won’t link his blog, because (1) it’s not worth reading and (2) I know it will infuriate him, as he does not understand the difference between quoting and plagiarizing.)

2. Anti-racists are stupid

Willfully, perhaps, but stupid nonetheless. Here is a particularly stupid quote from the aforementioned particularly stupid Daily Kos author Downeastdem:

Derbyshire then goes on to explain to the black students at one of the most prestigious law schools in the nation the scientific foundation of their inferior intellectual abilities…

Blacks have inferior intellectual abilities on average. The existence of black people smart enough to get into law school at the University of Pennsylvania does not contradict this fact. In fact, the theory of race differences in intelligence, with its infamous bell curves, requires that some black people be smarter than the average white person.

3. Anti-racists are hateful and malicious

Which I have previously mentioned, but I don’t mind repeating myself.

When Downeastdem writes that “Derbyshire was treated with far more civility… than he deserved” (emphasis mine), I wonder: just how little civility did he deserve, for daring to politely point out some uncomfortable truths?

What would constitute a sufficient level of incivility? Should the law students have stormed the stage, seized his microphone, and poured a jug of ice water over his head? Or just waited for him in the parking lot? How is the reader supposed to interpret that remark? If someone disagrees with you about race, they deserve to be treated badly. So much for “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall).

Contrast Derbyshire’s closing remarks:

Group differences are statistical truths. They exist in an abstract realm quite far removed from our everyday personal experience. They tell you nothing about the person you just met.

Group differences are, for example, one degree more abstract than individual differences. We all acknowledge individual differences all the time: she’s fat, he’s thin, she’s shy, he’s outgoing, she’s smart, he’s dumb. …

And yet — look! We don’t lose sleep over this. We don’t sink into rage and frustration at our own individual differences, or agitate for politicians to put balm on our psychic wounds. We accept our individual shortcomings with remarkable equanimity, playing the cards we’ve been dealt as best we can. That is the attitude of a healthy human being. To do otherwise would, most of us I’m sure would agree, be un-healthy. How much more unhealthy, then, to fret and rage and agitate about mere statistical abstractions?

Remind me: who’s on what side of the War on Hate?

Read Full Post »

Update: he’s white; he’s just got a shitty photograph.

Radical anti-white activist Jon Christian (senior at Vanderbilt University, Editor-in-Chief of leftist propaganda rag ORBIS Magazine, and possible affirmative action recipient white guy with shitty photograph) is in a rage just jokingly upset (to the point that he had to post about it) over the disgusting news that Texas State students are offering scholarships exclusively for white males.

Turns out that women, gays, and of course blacks and other racial minorities have their own scholarships. So these uppity white men decided it was “fair” and “right” to have their own scholarships, and formed the Former Majority Association for Equality (FMAE)—”a San Marcos-based nonprofit group that is offering five $500 scholarships exclusively to white male students.” Those FASCISTS.

Colby Bohannan [president of the FMAE] said that when he first applied to college, his family didn’t have a huge stockpile of money set aside to pay for school. He found many scholarships for women and minorities, but none aimed at people like him: white men.

“I felt excluded,” said Bohannan, a Texas State University student. “If everyone else can find scholarships, why are we left out?”

Because you’re white, of course. White people are smart, responsible, polite, peaceful, and law abiding, beautiful, inventive, artistic, and (crucially) nice to all the other races, and people like Jon Christian want to take advantage of that. They want to grab power by using your guilt over things you didn’t do, to people who died a long time ago. You might say they want to enslave you. Metaphorically speaking, of course. At least, for now.

But what’s the future for whites in America?

Majority minority

In his rambling post, Christian seems to have confused taking cheap shots out of racial [self-]hatred against whites with argumentation. It starts with Bohannan’s point that “if you’re not a male, and if you’re not white, you’re called a minority.” This designation is used to distinguish the poor, disadvantaged (good) people from the other (bad) people: white men. And yet, Bohannan continues, “I’m not sure white males are the majority anymore,” to which Christian responds with a stupefyingly tedious, humorless, and myopic explanation of the meaning of the word “majority.” Talk about missing the point:

Recent U.S. census data indicate Bohannan is right, at least in Texas, where Hispanics accounted for two-thirds of the population growth over the past decade and where non-Hispanic whites now make up about 45 percent of residents.

Christian goes on to accuse the scholarship fund of wanting to “roll back that pesky women’s suffrage legislation,” then makes fun of Bohannan’s major, mass communication. That’s some real fine debating there, Jon. But the best (by which I mean worst) is yet to come.

White crime

Christian actually bitches about the FMAE executive’s criminal history (gasp). What criminal history could a couple of white college kids have? Well, here it is, in its entirety:

Bohannan said he was charged with theft after authorities found a county speed limit sign in his Texas State dorm room and with writing a bad check for groceries, also while in college. Lake [the FMAE’s treasurer] said he was charged with writing a bad check while managing a now-defunct business he started. Both said the charges have been disposed of.

Complaining about white crime—in this case, stealing road signs and bouncing a couple of checks? Hm. In other news:

You people make me sick. And by you people, I mean you people.

More “anti-racist” hypocrisy

Bohannan and Lake’s crime sprees aside, we all know this scholarship fund is just a front for white racism and misogyny, right?

Bohannan said the nine-member volunteer board includes three women, one Hispanic and one African American.

Oh. But let’s shut them down anyway!

One opinion column that ran in the Texas State newspaper, the University Star, offered praise for evening the scholarship playing field, while another argued aid should not be given on the basis of race or ethnicity at all.

Yeah, aid should never be given on the basis of race or ethnicity!* (*Unless that race or ethnicity is one of those Designated Victim Groups, who can do no wrong: Negroes, Hispanics, and Muslims, yes; whites, East Asians, and Jews, no.)

This is encouraging, though:

Bohannan’s group isn’t the first to offer scholarships only for white students. In 2006, Boston University’s College Republicans created a program with similar requirements. A Republican group at a university in Rhode Island offered a similar award in 2004.

Maybe whites won’t need that race war after all! Awwwwww. Now I’m a sad panda bear (the least racist of all bears!).


Let’s take one more look at what these crazy racist misogynists think (emphasis mine):

Bohannan said his group is not taking any stance for or against affirmative action.

“It’s time in our society to look at the way our culture views race,” he said. “It’s time to give everyone an equal shot.”

Not according to people like Jon Christian, it isn’t. In their minds, it’s always time to keep whitey down.

(Incidentally, Christian also supports the DREAM Act. Meanwhile, in the waking world, illegal alien filth continues to pile up in our once beautiful country.)

In conclusion: Jon Christian, you’re an asshole. (Full disclosure: so am I. More on race denialist debate tactics here. More on the myth of white privilege here).


This is the mind-numbing details regarding the claim that “if you’re not a male, and if you’re not white, you’re called a minority,” but “I’m not sure white males are the majority anymore” update, also known as the “why do I bother putting thought into my comments when my opponents can barely read at a grade twelve level” update.

See, Bohannan was contrasting minorities, which today means “disadvantaged sociological groups” (e.g., women before suffrage and blacks before civil rights), and does not mean numerical minorities (because every group of interest is a numerical minority, so what would be the point of labeling them as such?), with the majority, which—being the opposite of “minority” in the above sense—would mean the dominant, advantaged group (e.g., white men before suffrage and civil rights). That’s what he meant by “majority” vs. “minority”; I suppose this is why “some writers prefer the terms ‘subordinate group’ and ‘dominant group’ rather than ‘minority’ and ‘majority’, respectively,” according to Wikipedia. Less confusing that way.

Now, white men are no longer “the opposite of a minority,” because they are not a dominant, advantaged group (in light of suffrage, civil rights, and their declining share of the population). Thus, if you insist on calling blacks and women “minorities” (i.e., disadvantaged groups; not minorities in the trivial sense that they are less than 50% of the population), then you have to accept that white men aren’t a “majority” (i.e., dominant group) anymore. Therefore Bohannan is correct.

Just keep staring at it until you see why I’m right.

Read Full Post »

Ladies and gentlemen, at long last, here’s what nobody has been waiting for: the stunning, stupefying conclusion to the great radio debate between Jared Taylor (race realist, editor of American Renaissance, and all-around spiffy bloke) and Tim Wise (hater of white people, firm believer in incest as an adaptive strategy, and all-around chubby twit), hosted by The Infidel Guy, Reggie Finley.

According to Finley, the topic is the “merits of racial and cultural diversity in [American] society,” and “Tim Wise will argue it’s a positive, and should be encouraged and embraced, while Jared Taylor will oppose him.” Unfortunately, Wise’s arguments are about as far from establishing the merits of diversity as a blow job is from pissing on an electric fence—which is to say, quite far.

Quite far indeed.


Last time we covered parts one through five, and learned SEVERAL amazing things:

  1. People of all races, ethnicities and nationalities should put aside their differences and come together to fuck their cousins and kick the shit out of short, slow, weak people. Evolutionarily speaking, that is.
  2. Supposedly a black person has managed to befriend at least one white person. I don’t buy it.
  3. Only white people can be racist.
  4. The family is a social construct, and if you disagree, then it’s straight to bed with no dessert, mister, and you don’t get to fuck your hot cousin. Plus, you’ll have no free will.
  5. The Pharaohs decided a stone marker was enough to keep black people out of Egypt. Have we tried putting up a stone marker next to Mexico? Do the Mexicans even use Egyptian hieroglyphics anymore?
  6. Parents only care for their children because they are legally obligated to do so. That explains so much about my childhood.
  7. My subconscious fantasizes about ravioli.

Let’s see what’s next!

The model minority

Part five ended with a caller asking Wise how institutional racism can be causing blacks’ elevated crime and illegitimacy rates and lower test scores and incomes, if Asians—working away in those same white supremacist institutions like the busy bees they are—are outperforming whites in every way. In part six, Wise responds that Asians only seem to have higher incomes than whites because they have larger families, and these surveys measure family income, not per capita income. Hold the presses: this is actually true. In 2000, Asians were trailing whites in median personal income:

  1. Whites: $23,640
  2. Asians: $20,200
  3. Blacks: $16,300
  4. Native Americans: $14,500
  5. Hispanics: $14,400

On the other hand,

among the five major racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., Asian Americans have the highest college degree attainment rate [one], rates of having an advanced degree (professional or Ph.D.) [two], median family income [see above], being in the labor force [three], rate of working in a “high skill” occupation (executive, professional, technical, or upper management) [four], and median Socioeconomic Index (SEI) score that measures occupational prestige [five]. Yes, in these categories, Asians even outperform Whites.

So that’s one point for Wise—well, half a point, since Asians still outperform all the other races—and eight points for me, after I throw in (six) illegitimacy rates, (seven) crimes rates, and (eight) the black-white-Asian achievement gaps (IQ, SAT, GRE, etc.).

Taylor points out that different kinds of Asians are—well, different. Specifically, North(-East) Asians outperform South(-East) Asians. Referring to everyone from East Asia as simply “Asians,” as if they were all members of the same race, is deceptive.

Tim Wise on dark skin: it doesn’t necessarily make you good at basketball

Wise lies about the statistical significance of a 3–4 point difference in average IQ, then attempts to disprove both (a) the fact that the races differ in intelligence, and (b) the heredity of IQ, claiming (among other things) that American blacks’ IQ scores mysteriously rise 7–8 points during college, i.e., between the ages of about 17 and 21. Quick, someone tell these fifty experts that unnamed researchers at Washington University have debunked a hundred years of IQ testing like a metaphorical Red Kite kills chickens: in one fell swoop! On to part seven.

Wise explains: there’s no reason to believe traits like athleticism and intelligence cluster into these so-called make-believe fake stupid “races.” Well, Tim, there’s one reason to believe they do: because they do. Yes, even though the genes for skin color don’t control intelligence or, uh, morality. There are even sub-racial differences in specific sports, as you seem to be vaguely aware. Running, for instance: East Africans dominate distance running; West Africans, sprinting. Steve Sailer writes

The current record [in the 100 meters] is Usain Bolt’s 9.58 in 2009. Before today, the 10.00 [second] barrier had been officially broken 446 times, 445 of those times by men of West African descent.

By the way, no East African has broken 10.00.

Football is another good example.

At this point, I can only assume Wise suffers a minor stroke. What else could explain . . . this?

  • African Americans dominate the NBA.
  • West Africans aren’t nearly as good at basketball.
  • West Africans are blacker than African Americans.
  • Nasty evil white supremacist Klansmen (like my opponent) think that blackness is concordant with basketball skill.
  • Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I are so smrt.

It’s called “Lewontin’s Fallacy,” not “Lewontin’s Valid Proof of the Non-Existence of Race”

Wise follows up that scintillating gem of argumentation with an equally, but much more subtly stupid claim, called Lewontin’s Fallacy (which I discussed briefly in Part 1). From Wikipedia:

because the overwhelming majority of human genetic variation (85%) is between individuals within the same population, and about 6–10% is between populations within the same continent, racial classification can only account for between 5–10% of human variation, and is therefore of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.

Lewontin’s Fallacy was wrong (so very wrong) when Lewontin said it. (If you don’t believe me, ask Edward O. Wilson. He’s still kicking around.) It’s irredeemably stupid when Wise repeats it.

To make it as simple as possible: consider human height variation. There is enormous variation in both male and female height (from dwarfs to giants), while the difference in average height between men and women is relatively small: 5.6 inches in the United States. Are we to conclude that the height difference between men and women is insignificant?

Also note the backwards direction of Wise’s thinking. An honest, science-y type person would start with the obvious fact that the races differ greatly in intelligence, athletic ability, and many other traits with large heritable components, and conclude that there are significant (not to say large percentage-wise) genetic differences at work. That would agree perfectly with the less obvious historical fact that the races evolved in reproductive isolation for hundreds of generations. Wise, however, starts with the subtle and difficult problem of estimating genetic variation between populations, takes whatever numbers Lewontin came up with in the ’70s, ignores the fact that even an undetectably small change in DNA can be highly significant (indeed, can mean the difference between life and death), and concludes that the obvious differences in hereditary traits between the races must have nothing to do with genetics. This is a man who has already decided what the answer is, and is desperate to justify it.

2105: A Race Odyssey

On to part eight, and the future of America. What will America look like in 2105? Take it away, Jared (from 3:45):

That depends ultimately on what white people decide to do. If white people don’t change, if they are perfectly pleased to be dispossessed by people who are unlike themselves, then there will continue to be immigration from the third world, and the United States will become increasingly a third world country with a third world population, a third world culture, and all the problems the third world has.

If white people wake up and realize that their biological group and that their culture are under threat, then they will put a stop to this; they will maintain Western civilization in North America. It’s really a choice that’s up to white people.

. . . Left to themselves, non-whites from every failed society will continue to come into this country, and they will continue to remake it in their own image . . . [The United States] will become increasingly like Guatemala or Haiti, or some other place where Americans, living here today, would not want to live . . .

“Jeez” is right, Reggie. Wake up, white people!

Wise follows with a typically moronic remark: if race were really genetic, then obviously white people would instinctively vote for more restricted immigration, and we wouldn’t need Jared Taylor to keep reminding us. You see, if white people in this particular country at this particular time don’t rise up and fight their dispossession, we must be genetically inferior. As Taylor points out, culture does sometimes overcome biology, whereas in Tim Wise’s mind, DNA is a strange and magical substance with unlimited power to mold the minds of men, every second of every day.

V. Morrison (1967). “Cardiac arrhythmia, memory loss, and stadium-adjacent sexual promiscuity in brown-eyed females.”

Discriminate on the basis of race? Finley scoffs: “We might as well discriminate against eye color!” Sure, if brown-eyed people were genetically predisposed to violent crime and low intelligence . . .

Again, Wise doesn’t believe Europeans are all the same race. This time he takes it further: he wants to celebrate national achievements, not racial achievements. Well, alright. List for me, please, the cultural and scientific achievements of Zimbabwe. How about Mauritania? Venezuela? Papua New Guinea? (No, cannibalism doesn’t count—although if a cannibal ever asked me that to my face, I might suddenly change my mind.) If we’re counting Excellence in Genocide, we could talk about Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, Cambodia, East Timor, Ethiopia, and the Congo (ooh, cannibal genocide, that’s a new one). Hurray for diversity. This keeps going in part nine.

Taylor talks about black solidarity. Finley doesn’t see it. Wise chalks it up to oppression, just like the (European) Jews. So how are the Jews doing, by the way? After millennia of religious/ethnic/racial persecution, culminating in the enslavement and murder of two thirds of their population (in Europe; over one third worldwide), they seem to be doing pretty okay. Must be all the affirmative action. On to part ten.

The End

Thank FUCK, it’s the last part. Tim Wise babbles about how mythical white solidarity is hurting the economy or some other nonsense. I wasn’t paying attention—someone was sexting me. Then Jared Taylor makes some nice remarks about cultural preservation, which would no doubt be interpreted as virulently racist by the kind of left-wing drones who run the country, especially the schools and universities—that is, if they were listening to Taylor, which they are not. And thus ends the Great Race Debate: Jared Taylor vs. Tim Wise.

Let’s wrap things up on a romantic note. Happy Valentine’s Day! Go fuck your hot cousin!

Mr. Wise agreed to be photographed with his opponent only under the condition that Mr. Taylor's head be clumsily Photoshopped onto a middle-aged black woman's torso. He also insisted on capturing and beheading the middle-aged black woman himself. Unamusement Park reluctantly agreed.

Read Full Post »

Today, in response to my post about Jared Taylor (a personal hero of mine), the optimistically named Truth suggested I link this video (the first of ten, the rest easily accessed from the sidebar). It’s a debate between Jared Taylor and Tim Wise on the merits of racial diversity, hosted by The Infidel Guy, Reggie Finley, on his radio show.

Yes, Tim Wise: the same fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-white bigot you may have heard about in the wake of the November 2010 elections.

I’m a fan of Mr. Finley, and I regret that I missed this debate—not that I missed much, besides the opportunity to ask a few pointed questions of Mr. Wise. The whole thing is so dreary, I have to split my remarks into two posts. I just can’t subject myself to a full hour of Tim Wise. That’s 4.2% of my day!

Without further ado, here is my analysis of parts one through five of the debate.

Introduction to Destruction

Finley sets the parameters of the debate. The topic is the “merits of racial and cultural diversity in [American] society. . . . Tim Wise will argue it’s a positive, and should be encouraged and embraced, while Jared Taylor will oppose him.” Keep that in mind, as Wise’s arguments tend to wander.

Taylor begins by pointing out the undeniable fact that racial diversity is, without exception, a source of conflict all over the world, and always has been, just like religious diversity.

Wise admits he doesn’t disagree—certainly a novel debate tactic, if not a particularly sound one—before professing disbelief in race as a valid scientific categorization of human beings. He’s wrong: see here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Or you could go check to see if white parents have white children, black parents have black children, Asian parents have Asian children, and so on. That might work too.

That last link is a rebuttal to a common race denialist fallacy, Lewontin’s Fallacy, named after one of the two famous biologists who led the politically motivated attacks on Edward O. Wilson’s theory of sociobiology, a precursor to evolutionary psychology, in the 1970s—a theory since vindicated by science. In Wilson’s words:

The question of interest is no longer whether human social behavior is genetically determined; it is to what extent.

Tim Wise’s firm grasp of evolutionary biology

Next, Taylor gives even more evidence that diversity, racial or otherwise, is a source of lethal conflict all over the world, from ancient times up to the present, making it a historical constant.

But Wise explains that Europeans can’t possibly be considered one race—I’m sorry, one “race,” unless of course you’re a white nationalist. He also reminds us that Europeans have waged countless wars against each other in spite of their racial homogeneity. Now, this seems to contradict his previous claim, but in any case, are we to believe racial diversity is “a positive, and should be encouraged and embraced” (Wise’s position) simply because it’s possible to have wars without it? Because it only adds to the existing violence? Let’s embrace gangrene, too: it’s possible for your flesh to rot off without it!

In a characteristically bizarre turn, he tells us that people can’t be biologically predisposed to seek out the company of their own race as a result of evolution, because it would be so much more rational to form groups based on running speed, height, or strength. According to Wise,

. . . it is definitely true . . . that we develop in-groups and out-groups, as a matter of evolution. I don’t doubt that for a second. But what I doubt is the idea that race is the natural delineator or the natural dividing line. So, for example, if you were thinking about it in evolutionary terms, it would actually make a lot more sense for us to divide in-group and out-group on the basis of speed, or height, or strength—things that actually matter in catching prey and surviving in the wilderness . . . not something as silly as skin color.

A brilliant argument. And yet . . .

  1. We did evolve.
  2. We do not divide up into groups on the basis of speed, height, or strength.
  3. We do discriminate on the basis of race.

Of course, speed, height, and strength are all subject to (fairly obvious) evolutionary pressures much more powerful than in-groups and out-groups: if your ancestors didn’t have enough of all three, they would have been eaten by a woolly mammoth or fallen down a crevasse or something. For that matter, don’t women consistently discriminate on the basis of height and strength in choosing mates? I mean, good grief, the mistakes are endless.

Also note how he conflates race with skin color—has he never seen an albino black person?

Then Taylor points out that the aforementioned European conflicts arose largely from diversity: in nationality, in language, in religion.

A zero tolerance policy on facts

Wise claims that the “vast majority” of violence, in schools and in the rest of the country, is between people of the same race. Well, sure, that makes sense—if by “between people of the same race” you mean “by blacks against themselves and everybody else.” In schools:

  1. “An earlier NCES study found that 18 percent of the nation’s schools accounted for 75 percent of the reported incidents of violence, and 6.6 percent accounted for 50 percent. So far as serious violence, murder and rapes, 1.9 percent of schools reported 50 percent of the incidents. The preponderance of school violence occurs in big-city schools attended by black students.” (Source.)
  2. “Anyone who was observing the Chicago schools with even just one eye open could see that disproportionate black student violence is real. The idea that graduates of what is likely the most left-wing educational institution in the country—teachers ed schools—suddenly become red-necked bigots once they start teaching in or managing schools is preposterous. To the contrary, black students are undoubtedly being under-disciplined, not over-disciplined, compared to their rates of classroom violence and disruption.” (Source.)

And in the rest of the country:

  1. “Blacks are 3 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites, and . . . black thugs prefer white victims, selecting them 64 times more than white thugs choose black victims.” (Source.)
  2. “In its last complete National Criminal Victimization Survey (1994), the Justice Department revealed blacks to have committed 1,600,951 violent crimes against whites. . . . While blacks were committing these 1.6 million crimes against whites, whites were reciprocating with 165,345 violent offenses against blacks. Blacks, representing thirteen percent of the nation, committed more than 90 percent of the violent interracial crime. Fifty-seven percent of the violent crime committed by blacks had white victims. Less than 3 percent of violence committed by whites had black victims. In 1994, a black was 64 times more likely to attack a white than vice versa. This is the real story of hate in America.” (Source.)
  3. Look at these pretty pie charts.
  4. Please consider reading Jared Taylor’s classic book Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America. It’s illuminating.

Taylor suggests that the overall decline in school violence is due to the end of forced busing. That is, not forcing different races to mix mitigates the conflict caused by racial diversity. He starts to say how ridiculous it is to think white students commit violence at school at the same rate as black students, but he’s cut off by the end of the video. On to part two.

Babies be hatin’

Wise thinks kids don’t discriminate between races until high school, when the pervasive racism of our (white) society begins to take hold. He’s wrong, and Taylor knows it. Plus, if self-segregation along racial lines really is cultural in origin, it’s universal among human cultures, which suggests there’s an ultimate biological cause (what we used to call human nature).

Here, Finley interjects with an anecdote about how he, as a young black student (of above average intelligence), got along just fine with a white girl. One white girl, by the name of Angela Petty. Taylor suggests that assimilation works when there’s an overwhelming racial majority, whether that majority is black, white, or Asian. I think this underscores the importance of maintaining a white majority in America through sane immigration policies. A little later, Finley wants to know where Taylor would “draw the line.” Well, the lines draw themselves: Iceland wants to stay Icelandic, Japan wants to stay Japanese—why don’t white Americans want to remain a majority? Or do they?

Wise continues to argue that young kids don’t discriminate on the basis of race, while acknowledging that adults do. Am I missing something, or is he still not telling us why racial diversity is a strength?

I was glad to see Taylor didn’t let him get away with baseless accusations of white racist school teacher conspiracies.

People are like noodles: they both stick together, they both taste delicious, and they’re both racist

According to Taylor, racial conflicts are based on instincts that can’t be legislated away. Wise responds: if people naturally tend to stick together by race, then we wouldn’t have needed to pass Jim Crow laws.

I don’t even know how to address a non-argument like that. It seems I have to decipher what he meant to say before I can rebut it. Look, Wise: small numbers of influential people, called “politicians,” can pass laws that force larger numbers of ordinary people to mingle or not mingle. Regardless of the law, racial tensions are still there beneath the surface, and it leads to all those conflicts associated with racial diversity, in all places, at all times, between all different races.

Wise goes on to claim that only white people want to separate themselves from other races. Someone should tell blacks and Hispanics. And blacks. And Hispanics (with Asians on the side). On to part three.

This White Flight Tonight

Taylor introduces white flight as evidence that white people just want to hang out with white people most of the time. Wise immediately counters! White flight could just as easily demonstrate the effectiveness of racial propaganda, which teaches whites that blacks are criminal, and want to rob them, and don’t make good neighbors. “Racial propaganda,” in this case, means “crime statistics.”

Note how far we are from establishing the “merits of racial and cultural diversity.” Are you bored yet? I am. Stay with me, it’s about to get crazy up in here.

Ethnocentrism is like sex: something sticky always gets in your hair. Wait, no. That’s noodles again.

Taylor points out that if ethnocentrism were a cultural construct, it is a universal one. Some people think sex roles are a social construct, too. Doesn’t the fact that these things turn up in every culture, around the world and throughout history, suggest that it’s not a product of culture?

Wise responds to Taylor’s “diatribe” by failing to grasp the point: he’s not conflating ethnocentrism and sex roles, he’s drawing an analogy. That’s still legal in this country. Conflating would be saying that ethnocentrism and sex roles are the same thing, or arguing that one is biological and therefore the other is too.

Taylor gives the same rebuttal he’s been giving all damn day. I think I dozed off for a minute or two here. I was having the most wonderful dream. In it, I was eating two kinds of noodles at once! No, wait, that time it was sex. Anyway one of them was flat and one of them was stuffed with cheese. Moving on . . .

Tim Wise on the family: Darwin wants you to have sex with your sister

A listener poses Taylor a question: isn’t he committing the naturalistic fallacy, arguing that because racism is natural, we should accept it? No, he isn’t, you poor, dumb bastard. He’s arguing that ethnocentrism—to the extent that white people generally prefer to hang out with white people, black people with black people, and so on—is partly biological, and therefore impossible to eradicate. He thinks we should acknowledge that reality; in particular, the fact that diversity has always lead and will always lead to strife.

And this is where Wise’s argumentation really starts to deteriorate. First he denies that races are big extended families—but that’s nothing. He just uses it as a jumping-off point to make perhaps the stupidest claim in the whole debate: that the concept of family is socially constructed. That’s right, family: perhaps the most biological concept known to man.

You see, according to Wise, parents love their adopted children just as much as their biological children. Furthermore, we don’t marry people in our family. Therefore the family is a “socially constructed thing.” What can one possibly say to that? We shall see in part four.

First Taylor demolishes Wise’s claim that race is a recent concept. People have understood race since at least the 19th century BC, when an Egyptian Pharaoh set up a stone marker telling blacks to keep out of his country. (Where’s a Pharaoh and a block of stone when you need them?)

As for this adoption nonsense, a simple internet search for “abuse rates, biological, adoptive” reveals evidence to the contrary:

Children residing in households with adults unrelated to them were 8 times more likely to die of maltreatment than children in households with 2 biological parents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 8.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-21.5). Risk of maltreatment death also was elevated for children residing with step, foster, or adoptive parents (aOR: 4.7; 95% CI: 1.6-12.0), and in households with other adult relatives present (aOR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.1-4.5).

Source: Pediatrics (April 2002), 109:4, p. 615; via Google Answers.

This is in no way intended to disparage adopters, most of whom are perfectly normal, which is to say loving, parents. It is merely a statistical difference—which happens to destroy Wise’s argument. The host agrees since, you know, he’s not an idiot.

Wise, on the other hand, thinks a child murder rate 200–300% higher for adoptive parents than biological parents doesn’t matter, since the child murder rate for biological parents was so low to begin with. And there he goes again with his wife. Did you know that if we can’t choose our families, it follows that we don’t have free will? Then he changes the subject to varying levels of education among white people—I’m sorry, “white” people.

But Taylor’s still on this whole “family = cultural not biological” thing. It turns out half of all marriages end in divorce, but surprisingly, most divorced parents remain attached to their children. Why is that?

Oh, it’s because parents have a legal obligation to care for their kids. That, to Tim Wise, is an equally likely explanation for why divorced parents often fight so bitterly over child custody. Gee, parents must take their legal obligations really seriously, if they’re hiring lawyers to prove they have more legal obligations than their spouses, whose legal obligations apparently should only cover alternate weekends.

Plus, if the family were biological, we would all want to marry our siblings. So there.

Everybody’s favorite study

I’ll skip ahead over a digression into African promiscuity and Taylor’s religious beliefs, which he prefers not to discuss publicly (his beliefs, that is, not the promiscuity). On to part five, where Wise drags out the infamous Chicago study. Here’s the complete abstract:

To measure whether there is racial discrimination in the labor market, we send fictitious resumes in response to help-wanted ads in Chicago and Boston newspapers. We manipulate perceived race by randomly assigning to the resumes either a very African American sounding name or a very White sounding name. Employers are 50 percent more likely to call back resumes with White names for interviews. Moreover, we find that the returns to better credentials differ significantly by race. For White names, higher quality resumes elicit 30 percent more callbacks. For African Americans, however, higher quality resumes elicit a far smaller increase in callbacks. Applicants living in better neighborhoods are also more likely to receive callbacks but, interestingly, this effect does not differ by race. The amount of discrimination is uniform across occupations and, to a lesser extent, industries. Federal contractors and employers who list “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ad discriminate as much as other employers. In Chicago, we find that employers located in more African American neighborhoods discriminate slightly less.

Let’s assume that this prejudice against black names is unwarranted. Let’s assume that even though affirmative action is essentially a concerted effort, by all levels of government, to inflate blacks’ credentials, employers won’t think for a second that an “equally” qualified black might not be. Let’s assume this prejudice—and there’s no evidence it’s conscious—is not the result of actual negative experiences with blacks, possibly as a result of their higher crime rates, lower average IQ, or propensity for racial paranoia. Under those assumptions, I submit that it is perfectly reasonable for white employers—hence most employers—to believe they would get along better with a white person, or at least a person with a white name, than with a Lakisha or a Jamal. That has certainly been my (limited) personal experience. Which, of course, supports Taylor’s case: employers agree, diversity is not a strength.

Bad white people and good white people: it’s all so confusing and depressing

Wise fantasizes for a while about what all the bad white people would do if they were in charge: they would decide they want to live where black people are living now, and then kick them all out. Oh no! As fantasies go, it’s pretty tame. No one—and I mean no one—gets stuffed with cheese.

Plus: miscegenation (inter-racial breeding) wouldn’t solve our racial problems. Taylor wants to know: why not? Good question. Think about it.

Finally, it turns out even Wise knows white people aren’t inveterate racists: they don’t give discrimination a second thought, according to him. However, white institutions are full of discrimination—obviously. Taylor wants to know: are you suggesting we should tear down all our institutions to root out the systematic discrimination (you know, the discrimination that kept a black man out of the White House, and prevents blacks from contributing to popular culture, and won’t let blacks play professional sports?), even though the (white) people in them have done no wrong? Good question. Think about that too.

Okay, that’s it, I can’t watch any more today. It’s just too depressing, listening to this bigoted fanatic spew misinformation.

Meaning Tim Wise, of course.

Read Full Post »

What does Jared Taylor get up to that makes him so damn heroic?

“I hate this show!”

Here he is on BET (Black Entertainment Television), absolutely humiliating his opponents. Watch a civil rights attorney throw a temper tantrum, crying “I hate this show!” after Taylor systematically dismantles his specious arguments with cold, hard facts. And watch Taylor tear apart guest Kenneth Wright’s largely incoherent claims about “preconceived notions” and the racial breakdown of “different types of crime.”

I almost feel sorry for them. Going in, they probably had no idea how badly Taylor outmatches them intellectually—although frankly Wright would be outmatched intellectually by the average white high school student. (No wonder race denialists are afraid to face Taylor. They’d rather just give a “summary of [his] views.”)

As an aside, because he’s already finished demolishing every race denialist in the room and he’s got to fill the airtime somehow, Taylor explains that race realism has nothing to do with white supremacy, noting that Asians commit every crime at a lower rate than either whites or blacks.

I rate Taylor’s opponents 80% funny, 20% sad.

(I regret that the uploader chose to describe the black lawyer as “uppity,” as it is offensive.)

The NBA discriminates against Asians

Here he is on The Alyona Show, pointing out that

  1. affirmative action (AA) is just racism against whites and Asians,
  2. disparate impact is not evidence of discrimination, his perfect example being the NBA, and
  3. “racism is by no means this terrible, overwhelming obstacle to blacks or Hispanics.”

But AA proponent Adam Lerman is having none of it:

LERMAN: Yeah, I would invite you to go to the city of Detroit, and ask them if they think racism is a problem.
TAYLOR: Well, yes, the city of Detroit. They’ve got a black mayor, a black police chief—it is run by blacks.
LERMAN: Go into East LA, and see if it’s a problem in East LA.
TAYLOR: Yes, East LA is likewise run by Hispanics. Who are they going to blame [racial discrimination] on? Some distant white man. This is the constant refrain. . . . When are non-whites going to grow up, is what I’d like to know. When are they going to take responsibility for their own situation?

Then Lerman rambles a bit about how California schools are mostly Hispanic, but elite universities are full of whites. Well, the universities are obviously discriminating against Hispanics, just like the NBA is obviously discriminating against Asians, who as everyone knows are just as athletically gifted as—oh, wait. It sounds incredibly stupid when I put it that way.

My rating: 70% funny, 30% sad.

The N word

What’s the racial distribution of power in the United States today? Taylor has some thoughts on the subject. (No opponents to rate.)

Queen Latifah can’t get a taxi

If you’re not yet at least impressed by his bravery, watch Taylor explain to Queen Latifah, on her own show, why racial profiling is necessary. She puts up a good fight, scoring points with the audience by conveniently neglecting his victimization study data when she blames blacks’ higher arrest rate on police profiling.

Another guest rattles off a list of infamous white serial killers to dutiful applause, as if that had some bearing on the argument—whereupon Taylor explains that it does: it supports his claims about racial profiling.

I particularly enjoyed Queen Latifah claiming she has trouble catching a cab in New York City to further applause. Too bad blacks insist on robbing and murdering cab drivers.

My rating: 60% funny, 40% sad.

Blame Canada

This LOUDER video is the first of six in a substantial debate between Taylor and philosopher professor Peter March, held in Halifax, Canada. The topic: is racial diversity a strength or a weakness for North America?

I can’t sum it up, but the first video alone proves Taylor’s point. Watch until the end of the second video to see Professor March discount Taylor’s entire endless list of problems caused by diversity, by claiming a “racially diverse society” is peaceful by definition, or else it wouldn’t count as a society. Seriously.

My rating: 10% funny, 90% sad.

Here’s a special bonus video for all the Canadian race realists out there.

We can’t catch terrorists because of the Irish

In this 2003 video (part one of six), Taylor makes his second appearance on Phil Donahue’s show. Reading the uploader’s description, I was preparing myself to see Taylor (the “hatemonger”) lose, and lose badly.

Instead, almost the first thing I hear is Donahue defending the idea (floated by a professor of “Chicano studies”) of Hispanics taking over the American southwest and seceding, by pointing out that the western hemisphere is majority non-white. I wish I could say that was the low point, but it’s all uniformly awful. No matter how much Donahue bounces around from topic to topic—illegal immigration, terrorism, the “shifty-eyed” Irish, Jews, the Vietnam War—he can’t faze Taylor. He can only appeal to emotion (“angry, hostile, frightened,” he says of his guest) and count on his audience to fill the gaps with politically correct platitudes about diversity.

Speaking of the audience members: the ones who haven’t come wrapped in an impenetrable bubble of closed-minded, self-righteous smugness don’t seem to know what to think or whom to applaud. They’ve probably never heard someone explain the realities of race to them. What were they expecting Taylor to do, burn a cross and fire off a few Nazi salutes for the cameras?

In a sadly predictable turn, Donahue explains the real problem with race relations today: we (presumably whites) are failing to celebrate diversity. In part two, he even lists the benefits of an interracial society:

  1. food,
  2. culture,
  3. music,
  4. Hispanic Nobel laureates, and
  5. some unspecified “scientific discoveries.”

Three cheers for diversity. Well, two and a half cheers. So what if blacks insist on preferentially killing whites? At least we’ve got African music. Unfortunately, Donahue is totally wrong about the Hispanic Nobel laureates, just like he was about the Hispanic Medal of Honor winners in the first interview. Nevertheless Donahue, oozing sanctimony, insists Taylor is the “ignorant” one.

Note that in this interview, Taylor is taking on the hardest, most controversial aspects of race realism; specifically, the parts that overlap with white separatism, also known as white nationalism. (That’s the outrageous idea that white Americans would be better off if American immigration policies were designed to maintain a white majority, like Japan maintains a Japanese majority.) And he’s doing it in front of a largely unsympathetic audience, while fielding questions from a parade of photogenic minorities, each with his or her own unique sob story or specious argument—an almost perfectly biased sample. How many illegal-immigrant drug dealers, murderers, and rapists did Donahue invite on his show to share their thoughts on the American experience?

I’m especially glad Taylor took the time to mention the white victims of black atrocities in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

My rating: 30% funny, 70% sad.

“He’s not a race realist. He’s a racist.”

On a lighter note, check out Taylor’s interview by The Young Turks. It’s only six minutes long, but I can sum it up for you, if you like:

  1. Taylor states the biological fact that sub-Saharan Africans and Australian Aborigines have much lower average IQs than people of European or Asian ancestry.
  2. The interviewer, Cenk Uygur, goes on a rant, declaring his guest “stupid” (among other things) and whisking us away on a whirlwind tour of history, in which we visit ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, medieval Arabia, and other empires and civilizations, none of which are located in sub-Saharan Africa or Australia, as far as I know. Still, Uygur “has studied history,” so I’m sure he knows better than me.
  3. Taylor hangs up.
  4. Uygur continues his tirade, never stopping to ask himself, let alone answer, the following simple questions: “Why on Earth would one possibly expect different races, which evolved in reproductive isolation for hundreds of generations, to have exactly the same average intelligence? Does it make sense, in light of everything we (or at least, Jared Taylor and I) know about evolutionary biology?”

I rate this Turkish clown 90% funny, 10% sad.

For his courage to speak uncomfortable truth to smugly ignorant power, Jared Taylor is an American hero.

Here’s another bonus video: an interview with Jared Taylor.

Read Full Post »

Oh, you mean the ones in the header?

The header in question.

Just some old white men, and one young woman, who have inspired me in some way, not all of them especially healthy (the ways, that is; the people are pretty healthy, except the ones who are dead). From left to right:

  • Charles Darwin, of course: 19th century English naturalist. The first evolutionary biologist.
  • James Watson: American biologist. Co-discoverer (with Francis Crick) of the structure of DNA. Forced out of his job as chancellor of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 2007, for pointing out that, on average, blacks are less intelligent than whites (see below).
  • Richard Lynn: British psychologist. Researches (among other things) race differences in intelligence.
  • Amy Biehl: American anti-Apartheid activist in South Africa. Beaten and stabbed to death by a black mob in a racial hate crime. Her murderers were pardoned by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission—her family didn’t seem to mind. I did.
  • Jared Taylor: American journalist, editor of the racial realist journal American Renaissance.
  • John Derbyshire: British-born, American, conservative opinion journalist (phew). Two-time winner of Keith Olbermann’s “Worst Person in the World” award.
  • Steven Pinker: Canadian-American cognitive scientist, with lots of interesting and insightful thoughts on the “blank slate” doctrine (video), among many other things.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: