Monday, September 19, 2016

Race is Reality, Reality is Race

As much as we'd like to make it otherwise sometimes, race is front and foremost in all serious discussion of human affairs. The human races simply behave differently and have different potentials. The left gave up on disproving that many years ago, and now simply assert that it's been disproven and anybody who says otherwise is a bigot.

But the facts are otherwise. About the only difference there is between the popular conception of racial differences today and that of a few centuries is our acceptance of the "bell curve" principle, which clarifies the phenomenon that yes, there are Thomas Sowell's out there, smarter than 99% of White men. And some White men are spectacularly stupid. The bell curve math fits.

But what we have to fight for is the acceptance of the obvious fact that on the average the races differ in intellectual capacity and temperament. Some people accept these facts and think they can come up with a workaround. Well, maybe they can. They certainly can't come up with a workaround without accepting them.

If you insist that the races are equal, you distort policy. If they're equal, you see, the wide disparities in outcome can only be attributed to one kind of discrimination or another. Whitey's fault, always. If you accept the very real, very consistent disparities in intellectual capacity and temperament, the outcome disparities are predictable and lead to a "Good job, well done" and pat on the back instead of shrill Hillaryesque cries of bigotry.

But that's not likely to happen soon. At
http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/open-letter-to-jonah-goldberg/#more-66129
Spencer Quinn takes Jonah Goldberg to task for buying into the racial equality scam:

Open Letter to Jonah Goldberg

Dear Jonah,
You are a cuckservative. But I say this with the utmost respect and affection, so please read on. 
Recently, you have been opining about the Alt Right and the legitimacy of the NeverTrumpers. Specifically, you recommend that conservatives “John Birch the Alt-Right,” referring to how your former boss Bill Buckley slipped a stiletto between the ribs of the John Birch Society over 50 years ago and effectively ousted them from the mainstream. Furthermore, you continue to withhold your endorsement of Donald Trump and argue with your critics about the philosophical meaning of patriotism, conservatism, and the like. This all makes for some great reading, of course, but I believe your positions on the Alt Right and Donald Trump amount to little more than stodgy bunkum. This, in my opinion, makes you just a wee bit dangerous to the future of this country, if we want to maintain our first-world standards of life, that is.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. “Who the hell is this guy and why does he presume to know more about politics than I do?” I can understand that. You’ve been writing for National Review since the 1990s, and I burst on the scene way back in March of 2016. You have the benefit of decades of study and close contact with some of the best conservative minds of the last and current centuries. Meanwhile, I’ve read a few books in my spare time. You’ve appeared on national television and debated world-famous personalities, whereas I’ve appeared only before my monitor and debated nothing more than my conscience. But instead of viewing me as some ignorant upstart challenging one of the giants of political punditry, please view me rather as a savvy, number-crunching baseball fan who takes issue with a PhD dissertation on the statistics of baseball. Every once and a while the woodwork produces some good stuff.
Anyway, my issue with you stems from the fact that Leftists have won the day in our culture wars and that you are the exactly the kind of conservative these people permit in our mainstream society. Trump and the Alt Right are not permitted, of course (albeit for mostly different reasons), and this is essentially why you have joined your colleagues on the Left in standing against them. Yes, they are your colleagues despite your deep and profound philosophical differences with them. I say this because if they were truly displeased with you, you’d be out of a job. I’m sure your ex-colleague John Derbyshire can tell you more about it if you’re interested.
So here you are sticking it to the Alt Right:
There is a diversity of views among the self-described alt-right. But the one unifying sentiment is racism — or what they like to call “racialism” or “race realism.” In the words of one alt-right leader, Jared Taylor, “the races are not equal and equivalent.” On Monday, Taylor asserted on NPR’s “Diane Rehm Show” that racialism — not religion, economics, etc. — is the one issue that unites alt-righters.
Only, you really aren’t sticking it to us. You are accurately describing us, as if this description alone were enough to convince reasonable conservatives to pick up their torches and pitchforks and chase us out of town. After this, you admonish some conservatives like Hugh Hewitt for ignoring or downplaying the racial aspect of the Alt Right, and then conclude that the Alt Right has to go.
Do you not see the critical gap in your thinking here? You fail to ascertain whether there is any truth or justice in the Alt Right’s racialism to begin with. You don’t even go there. You just assume that there isn’t just like your colleagues on the Left. Imagine a 17th-century cardinal or similar Catholic muckamuck condemning Galileo’s work on astronomy as blasphemous without actually doing the research required to prove Galileo wrong. Sure, the cardinal would be correct in his assessment of Galileo, just like you are correct in describing the Alt Right as racialist, but that doesn’t mean the people being condemned are wrong, either morally or factually. One does not have to “live and breathe politics and political philosophy” like you do to see this.
In order to break the Alt Right, you would have to demonstrate that the biological notion of race is irrelevant or trivial with regard to human affairs. In order to do this, you must prove that there is no significant genetic correlation between race and human attributes such as strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, et cetera. Can do this, Dr. Goldberg? Are you qualified? Where did you get your Ph.D. in genetics from, doctor?
Read the rest here:
http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/09/open-letter-to-jonah-goldberg/#more-66129
-------------------
Quibcag: Three races represented in the first, from Black Lagoon (ブラック・ラグーン Burakku Ragūn), the second has an anime version of Alice that I found here

2 comments:

  1. Those who deny race matters are often in non-diverse gated communities.

    If race doesn't matter, let Israel give Palestinians full rights and then apply whatever the magic thing is that fixes everything. Oh, and is "Jewish" a religious or racial term?

    Europeans are both more intelligent, but less aggressive an conformist. They change the landscape they don't like. Asians are even smarter but conformist so make fireworks instead of canon. Africans have their own, but African-Americans have become oreos (Clarence Thomas, George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglass, Booker T Washington...). You don't find great inventors or Contitutional lawyers among Asians.

    One can theorize a citizen who can overcome through force of will and virtue their genetically dealt cards and become better, but we have not demanded that for a generation.

    Most cannot correctly state the propositions our nation was founded upon - KrisAnne Hall can - but if no one knows what they are, we have a multicultural multipropositional nation. And that doesn't work.

    Lord Acton or William Wilberforce could have moved to the USA and assimilated without much fuss. Shaka Zulu or Fu Manchu could not. But they were successful where they were with what they did based on their own propositions.

    The US Constitution and attending documents and implementation isn't copyrighted or patented. Every other country across the globe is free to adopt it. The UK didn't. The EU didn't. Central America adopted the letter during the cold war but didn't understand the spirit so failed. Mexico and Venezuela can adopt it any time they want. Or even Canada. They didn't. I hope someone does - original intent - so I can move there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apparently the science is settled. Now that they've removed all the psychometrists, biologists and people who cling to the outdated scientific method, they've finally reached a consensus. Sure its a consensus of Marxists, Fat Lesbians and people who put bombs in dumpsters because they do their shopping there, but correlation doesn't mean causation is only accepted by people with little or no understanding of statistical analysis.

    ReplyDelete