Culture, politics, science, philosophy.
General manifesto *****
The deep Crisis of the West
Keep the Caucasians down!
31.01.2010. Excerpts from an article by Stanislav Mishin in Pravda (emphasis added)
Throughout the totalitarian West, the Marxist internationalist elites, while busily flooding their countries with tens of millions of third worlders, have introduced specific measures to keep the native populations down and in check.
These measures have come in the form of Hate Crimes Laws. The laws state that a crime is not just a crime if we can find a deeper motive, such as hate of a specific race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. Thus the Lords of Humanity have given themselves the power of God to know what is inside the hearts of men.
In America, anti white violence is exploding, an average of 12 people per day are killed by their illegals and three times more whites and Asians are killed by blacks than vice versa. The same can be found in England. The head of the Justice Department, Hader, even stated that he approved the double standard used on whites. He did this in front of a parliamentary committee, with no real out cry by the totalitarians. As if any should be expected.
When five blacks kidnapped a white couple, raped and murdered the man, than kept the woman for further rapes and poured bleach down her throat to kill her, there was no hate crime, even though those five became the idols of black racist groups in American. When blacks in Los Angeles target Koreans for robbery and murder, also nothing. Nor when Mexican gangs ethnically cleanse one street after another. When Islamic Pakistanis in England beat an Anglican priest almost to death, in front of his church and screamed how they were going burn down the church, or when other Islamics poured acid in the face of a raped school girl, nothing happened. No hate crimes. When Islamic Turks murdered the white, Christian boyfriend of a Turkish girl, in Germany, not a hate crime. When Arabs and Pakistanis in Athens attack and burn Greek Orthodox businesses, not a hate crime. When the director van Gogh is brutally murdered by an Islamic assailant, not a hate crime. However, his Dutch film, showing the plight of the women under Islam, beat and abused, well, most definitely that is a hate crime...the film, not the wife beating, that's just quaint multiculturalism, supported by the Western femiNazis, who have a secret lusting for this type of treatment.
Luckily, in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia and all none EU, none West Christian nations, this idiocy does not exist. Murder is murder, regardless of what is felt by the killer and defense of the local culture is paramount.
Westerners, truly I believe, you deserve this, since the vast majority of you take it and swallow it, like the good little castrated serfs you are. Enjoy your extinction, as you loaf around on your Chinese couches.
Read the entire article in Pravda.
Advocacy By Omission: Richard E. Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It
27.01.2010. Excerpts from a recent article by Phil Rushton at Vdare:
In his book, Intelligence and How to Get It, Richard E. Nisbett, a social psychologist at the University of Michigan, asserts that cultural factors alone are sufficient to explain all the race differences to be observed in IQ and educational achievement.
Nisbett [Email] criticizes the nature + nurture model Arthur Jensen and I presented in 2005 in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. [Thirty Years Of Research On Race Differences In Cognitive Ability (PDF)] Nisbett claims the heritability of IQ is lower than assumed, that Blacks have substantially narrowed the gap on Whites, that any remaining differences can be eliminated through educational and social intervention, and that any assertion of a mean IQ of 70 for sub-Saharan Africans is “desperately wrong”.
The dust jacket blurb puts Nisbett’s book in the tradition of Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man (1981, 1996). What is striking, however, is how much ground the egalitarians have given since Gould’s effort to debunk race, genetics, and IQ.
Nisbett concedes that general intelligence exists, that IQ tests predict success at both school and work, that scores are influenced by genes, and that in White populations, genes contribute to social class differences. He even accepts that IQ is related to brain size and that “Blacks are sometimes found to have smaller brains than Whites”. Gould must be spinning in his grave!
Such is the state of expert opinion today that Nisbett simply had to make these concessions lest his book be disqualified as serious scholarship. But while he admits that genes play a role in accounting for within-group differences, he still maintains they play no significant part in between-group differences.
Nisbett acknowledges that measured group differences exist: Jewish (mean IQ = 113), East Asian (107), White (100), South Asian (87), Hispanic (87), African American (85), and sub-Saharan African (70), although he erroneously claims that South Asians score as highly as East Asians. But Nisbett asserts that family pressure for success leads East Asians and Jews to high levels of achievement, while low expectations and a lack of opportunity lead Hispanics and Blacks to much lower levels of achievement.
Jensen and I have provided a long point-counterpoint review of Nisbett’s book in The Open Psychology Journal. [Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It (PDF)] We found much that was admirable and informative in it, such as the cost-benefit survey of the literature on educational interventions and what can be done to increase school performance. But, sadly, we concluded it was mainly a work of advocacy, not scholarship.
Nisbett misrepresents much of the available information using highly selective reviews of the literature. Especially egregious are his many errors of omission. For example, while complaining of unrepresentative samples in a 1991 review paper by Richard Lynn, Nisbett side-stepped the very much larger compilation of data in Lynn and Vanhanen’s 2006 book. Nisbett completely ignores the adoption studies of East Asians, as well as those on brain size showing a genetic contribution to their high achievement.
I’m going to group Nisbett’s flaws under seven heads: [...]
Continue reading at Vdare.
Selling Out And How To Do It—The Case Of Richard E. Nisbett
26.01.2010. Excerpts from a recent article by Steve Sailer at Vdare:
When James D. Watson was driven from his post at the famous Cold Spring Harbor medical research laboratory for making politically incorrect remarks about IQ, Richard E. Nisbett, a psychologist at the University of Michigan [email him], helped put the boot in, publishing an op-ed in the December 9, 2007 New York Times under the memorable title All Brains Are the Same Color.
Now, Nisbett has a book out entitled Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count , which has greatly excited such intellectual luminaries as New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, who nominated Nisbett for Time's Top 100 Most Influential People in 2009, and NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof [Rising Above I.Q. June 6, 2009].
Strikingly, however, Nisbett’s new book on the IQ controversy never mentions Watson’s fate.
Indeed, Intelligence and How to Get It seems to be set in some alternative universe in which Watson’s heresies are the almost-unchallenged orthodoxy and Gladwell is some pixel-stained wretch barely scraping by, while I’m pulling in the big bucks making speeches to national sales conventions. Poor Nisbett is a just a lonely dissident bravely speaking truth to power—in Nisbett’s book.
It resembles a book-length version of one of those David Brooks’ columns in the NYT in which he tries to exorcize the voice of his conscience telling him that I’m right.
Nisbett never explains his bizarre polemical strategy. But, I presume that after a few drinks, he might justify it like this:
“Well, sure, a bunch of innumerate journalists and excited ideologues like Stephen Jay Gould convinced themselves and a lot of their more naïve readers that all this IQ stuff was hooey, but you know and I know that the kind of thing you write in VDARE.com about IQ is actually the conventional wisdom among those few who know what they are talking about!”
Nisbett’s book thus concedes vast swathes of normally disputed territory: according to Nisbett, 1] IQ is real and important; 2] IQ tests measure it accurately; 3] there are sizable racial gaps in average IQ; and 4] IQ tests are not culturally biased (which will come as a big surprise to Sonia Sotomayor). On many of the issues I covered in my FAQs on the subjects of IQ and race, we wouldn’t have much to disagree over.
Nisbett, however, tries to draw a line in the sand in two places by:
* Denying absolutely that heredity plays any role in the existing black-white IQ gap
* Asserting vociferously that IQ is highly malleable
As for Nisbett’s first dogmatic decree, well, time will tell. Soon—the DNA data is flooding in. [...]
Continue reading at Vdare.
Evolution in action
25.01.2010. Read the fascinating story of Moscow's stray dogs in Financial Times.
Article about Little Green Footballs in NYT
24.01.2010. Excerpts from a rather long article about LGF in New York Times:
Still, if you read L.G.F. today, you will find it hard to miss the paradox that a site whose origins, and whose greatest crisis, were rooted in opposition to totalitarianism now reads at times like a blog version of “Animal Farm.” Johnson seems obsessed with what others think of him, posting much more often than he used to about references to himself elsewhere on the Internet and breaking into comment threads (a recent one was about the relative merits of top- versus front-loaded washing machines) to call commenters’ attention to yet another attack on him that was posted at some other site. On the home page, you can click to see the Top 10 comments of the day, as voted on by registered users; typically, half of those comments will be from Johnson himself. Even longtime commenters have been disappeared for one wrong remark, or one too many, and when it comes to wondering where they went or why, a kind of fearful self-censorship obtains. He has banned readers because he has seen them commenting on other sites of which he does not approve. He is, as he reminds them, always watching. L.G.F. still has more than 34,000 registered users, but the comment threads are dominated by the same two dozen or so names. And a handful of those have been empowered by Johnson sub rosa to watch as well — to delete critical comments and, if necessary, to recommend the offenders for banishment. It is a cult of personality — not that there’s any compelling reason, really, that it or any blog should be presumed to be anything else.
Continue reading in NYT.
Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
23.01.2010. I've just stumbled accross an old article from The Brussels Journal that is still well worth reading. The article begins as follows:
Vladimir Bukovksy, the 63-year old former Soviet dissident, fears that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union. In a speech he delivered in Brussels last week Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.
Mr Bukovsky paid a visit to the European Parliament on Thursday at the invitation of Fidesz, the Hungarian Civic Forum. Fidesz, a member of the European Christian Democrat group, had invited the former Soviet dissident over from England, where he lives, on the occasion of this year’s 50th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Uprising. After his morning meeting with the Hungarians, Mr Bukovsky gave an afternoon speech in a Polish restaurant in the Trier straat, opposite the European Parliament, where he spoke at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, of which he is a patron.
In his speech Mr Bukovsky referred to confidential documents from secret Soviet files which he was allowed to read in 1992. These documents confirm the existence of a “conspiracy” to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. I attended the meeting and taped the speech. A transcript, as well as the audio fragment (approx. 15 minutes) can be found below. I also had a brief interview with Mr Bukovsky (4 minutes), a transcript and audio fragment of which can also be found below. The interview about the European Union had to be cut short because Mr Bukovsky had other engagements, but it brought back some memories to me, as I had interviewed Vladimir Bukovsky twenty years ago, in 1986, when the Soviet Union, the first monster that he so valiantly fought, was still alive and thriving.
Mr Bukovsky was one of the heroes of the 20th century. As a young man he exposed the use of psychiatric imprisonment against political prisoners in the former USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1917-1991) and spent a total of twelve years (1964-1976), from his 22nd to his 34th year, in Soviet jails, labour camps and psychiatric institutions. In 1976 the Soviets expelled him to the West. In 1992 he was invited by the Russian government to serve as an expert testifying at the trial conducted to determine whether the Soviet Communist Party had been a criminal institution. To prepare for his testimony Mr Bukovsky was granted access to a large number of documents from Soviet secret archives. He is one of the few people ever to have seen these documents because they are still classified. Using a small handheld scanner and a laptop computer, however, he managed to copy many documents (some with high security clearance), including KGB reports to the Soviet government.
Continue reading in The Brussels Journal.
Determined to commit suicide
23.01.2010. Excerpts from an article at GalliaWatch:
France has been engaged in a "debate" on national identity for several weeks. The purpose of the debate, far from being one of reaffirmation of patriotism, has proven to be a long exercise in anti-French, government-sponsored propaganda calculated to remind the French people that they are nothing. Minister of Immigration and National Identity Eric Besson, a man who has little French identity himself, has been leading this phony hot air marathon with visits everywhere, appearances on national talk shows, and a website where people can post their views on national identity (provided of course you have the right point of view. If you don't, your comment is likely to be censored.)
A few days ago Besson ventured into the department of Seine-Saint-Denis to the project they call La Courneuve, bringing his debate to the residents of the suburban ghettoes. There, he made some of the most shocking statements ever made by any French minister about the people he supposedly represents.
[... For example Besson made the following statement:]
"France is neither a people, nor a language, nor a territory, nor a religion, it is a conglomerate of peoples who want to live together. There is no ethnic Frenchman, there is only an ethnically mixed France."
Note: Besson actually said: "There is only a France of 'métissage'", i.e., "there is only a France where the blood is mixed." Besson has written off completely the existence of a white, European France.
Continue reading at GalliaWatch.
HonestThinking comments: This is folly of a higher order. All human beings should be treated with respect, irrespective of their race or ethnicity. But to try and construct a state where these parameters are irrelevant, is just plain stupid. Human nature will ensure a more or less catastrophic outcome of this experiment.
Why I Stand with Geert Wilders
20.01.2010. Excerpts from Pipes' article in National Review:
Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.
That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population’s withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: Will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari’a)?
Wilders must also overcome his opponents’ dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after two and a half years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor’s case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to $14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.
Remember, he is his country’s leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?
Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum’s Legal Project has worked on Wilders’s behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance of talking freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.
Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably improve his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak have implications for us all.
Continue reading in National Review.
An International Free Press Society Symposium
20.01.2010. Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders goes on trial in Amsterdam on Wednesday, January 20, on charges related to his political campaign to stop and reverse the Islamization of the Netherlands. The International Free Press Society has asked an array of legal experts, authors and journalists to reflect on this momentous event.
English reports from Dutch media
20.01.2010. Gates of Vienna is following the developments of this case closely:
Not in multicultural Netherlands
20.01.2010. Multiculturalism is at odds with democracy since it cannot tolerate free speech. Diana West has collected comments on the Wilders trial from Filip Dewinter, leader of the Vlaams Belang party in Belgium, Oskar Freysinger, a member of Swiss parliament for the Swiss People's Party (lately in the news for the recent victorious Swiss referendum banning minaret construction in Switzerland), and Morten Messershmidt, a member of European Parliament for the Danish People's Party. See The Brussels Journal.
Defiling the heritage of Spinoza
20.01.2010. “It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”. Unexpected and breaching court procedures the detailed indictment of 21 pages, which Wilders received on the 4th of December and sums up in verbatim all of his Islam and Koran critique in interviews and Fitna, was amended with new accusations of racism against muslims and Moroccans. On top of this, Paul Vellerman, the public prosecutor of the Amsterdam Court decided that the Wilders trial had to be regarded as “an ordinary trial open for public and with a normal procedure, which doesn’t deserve the Department of Justice’s highly secured bunker. His is a normal case and we’ll treat it as such”.
It’s sad to note that Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh, and Volkert van der Gaag, the assassin of Pim Fortuyn, were tried in this specially designed bunker, but that Wilders has to rely on his personal bodyguards and full metal jacket to ward of terrorists. No safe room for him, which recently secured Kurt Westergaard and his granddaughter, but for months on end the vulnerability of a sitting duck. Continue reading at Document.no (in English).
We all need a varied diet
20.01.2010. Excerpts from a new article by Fjordman at The Brussels Journal:
The most common flaw in many cultures is a total lack of self-criticism or appreciation of "the Other." Islamic culture constitutes an extreme case of this problem. Muslims will never concede, either individually or as a group, any flaws of their own. It’s always the fault of the Jews, the Hindus, the Crusaders, the Americans etc. This blame game is deeply unhealthy in the long run because it prevents real progress. One of the beneficial aspects of Christianity is that it states that all human beings are sinners. Because of this it is not necessarily shameful to admit that you are flawed since all human beings are so by definition. Admitting the possibility that you could be wrong means that you can address your flaws and work to reduce or perhaps remove them. This will be impossible as long as you consistently project all of your flaws unto others, as Muslims and many Africans in particular often do.
A culture that never admits its flaws can survive for a long time, yet its progress will be seriously impeded. In contrast, a society that considers itself just one big flaw will not survive for long as it will be unable to defend itself. This is where the white West is today. Our self-criticism, which runs deep in our psyche, is a virtue provided that it is counterbalanced by a healthy dose of self-confidence. If you remove the latter ingredient then the first one, which used to be a virtue, suddenly becomes a vice. Again, the key word is “balance,” not first and foremost the individual ingredients, although that matters, too. Self-confidence is like vitamin C, which means that we currently suffer from a potentially fatal case of cultural scurvy.
HonestThinking comments: Like so often before, I cannot follow Fjordman to his end conclusions about Islam. I still think the above paragraphs hit the nail on the head more than once.
Migration threatens the DNA of our nation
15.01.2010. If we are to stop the extreme Right, we must respond to real fears over the number and nature of those coming to Britain, writes George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, in The Times Online.
If you thought the EU was bad, try EuroMed
15.01.2010. The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, also known as EuroMed, has been pretty much under the radar for 15 years. When it caused some public discussion in 2007, it was renamed “Union for the Mediterranean”, and quietly permitted to proceed. Not much was heard of it, but now EuropeNews has the scoop: It is being established now — and we have a window of merely 14 days to protest it. Continue reading at Gates of Vienna.
See also UK's Ashton seeks 'more credible' EU (BBC).
No Western assault rapists in Oslo's streets
15.01.2010. The police in the Norwegian capital Oslo revealed that 2009 set yet another record: compared to 2008, there were twice as many cases of assault rapes. In each and every case, not only in 2008 and 2009 but also in 2007, the offender was a non-Western immigrant. At the same time, in 9 out of 10 cases, the victim was Norwegian, not just by nationality, but also by ethnicity.
— Two men followed me home. When I opened the door to my apartment, they assaulted me, and raped me one after the other, a young woman tells NRK, the Norwegian public broadcast service. She is one of the victims of an assault rape of 2009.
According to the police, not a single one of the offenders had a Western background. Four people have been arrested. In all other cases, the victims reported that the offenders either looked like non-Western immigrants, or they spoke a non-Western language. Not a single case has been connected to a Western man.
Twenty-one cases were reported in 2009, the highest number since police started recording them in 2006. Nine of out ten victims were Norwegian – ethnically Norwegian – both in 2009 (17 out of 21) and 2008 (9 out of 11). Hanne Kristine Rohde, the spokeswoman for the Oslo police, raises the question what sort of view these offenders have on women.
She knows that these statistics are very controversial. Asked whether it isn't stigmatizing for a whole community that the police releases figures like this, she replied that she wants to contribute to a better and safe world. That's why she wants the truth to be told, and hopes that the debate will focus on that, she told NRK.
The above text was taken from The Brussels Journal.
A black scholar gets smeared as "an apologist for white supremacists"
06.01.2010. Excerpts of an article in The Wall Street Journal by James Taranto:
"Carol Swain is an apologist for white supremacists," Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center tells the Tennessean. Carol Swain is also a friend of this column. To our mind the charge seemed awfully far-fetched, so we decided to get to the bottom of it.
Swain, who is black, is a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University. She is an expert on white supremacists, having written a book on the subject, "The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration," which was published in 2002 by Cambridge University Press and drew plaudits from scholars both liberal (Harvard's William Julius Wilson) and conservative (Princeton's Robert P. George).
Readers may remember that we criticized Swain back in June for a comment she made to the Washington Post. She contacted us through Facebook and told us we had misunderstood her intent. We offered her an opportunity to respond, which she accepted. We became Facebook friends and started keeping up with her writings. While we don't always agree with her (on immigration, for instance, her views are closer to Lou Dobbs's than to ours), we've been impressed by her integrity and independence of mind.
The current kerfuffle involves an hourlong documentary film, "A Conversation About Race," whose Web site prominently features a blurb from Swain: ". . . Outstanding . . . Meticulously done . . . I highly recommend this film . . ." Deeper in the site is the full review, which is more qualified:
This outstanding film provides an opening salvo for the long-awaited national debate on race. Meticulously done, it offers people of all races a rare opportunity to engage in cross-racial dialogue. I highly recommend this film for social science courses dealing with race, class, and ethnicity.
According to the Web site, the filmmaker, Craig Bodeker, "redefines the conventional wisdom on Race and Racism" by asking "a diverse group of Colorado residents" questions about their attitudes toward and experiences of racism.
Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal.
HonestThinking comments: I am disappointed by some of the comments Craig Bodeker appears to have made in discussion forums at YouTube, but still think his film A Conversation about Race is thought provoking and well worth seeing.
History of climate gets 'erased' online -
More than 5,000 entries tailored to hype global-warming agenda
03.01.2010. A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message. Thus begins an article in WorldNetDaily.
Further down in the article the following paragraphs can be found (emphasis added):
Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.
"When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand," [Financial Post's Lawrence] Solomon wrote. "When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions."
Meanwhile, followers who adhered to Connolley's climate views "were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings," Solomon contends.
Through his control of the Wikipedia pages, Connolley is said to have "turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia's pages.
Continue reading at WorldNetDaily.
HonestThinking comments: A Wikipedia administrator abusing his power to block unwanted views, is a serious matter.
Permalinks to older articles