Albert Speer and the "ice people"

Posted on September 26, 2010 by jewamongyou

A few years back, black nationalist Leonard Jeffries made his infamous remark that whites were ice people while blacks were sun people.  Many felt scandalized by those remarks.  Many others tried to interpret them, each according to his own views.  Typically, those views were variations of the theme that whites are, somehow, emotionally inferior to other races.
I just finished reading an essay about the life of Albert Speer.  Speer was a remarkable man and his life holds many lessons.  His parents were aloof from him; he never experienced warmth or love during his formative years and his siblings looked down upon him.  According to the essay, the closest thing to a friend Speer ever had was Hitler.  Throughout his career, as Hitler’s architect and minister of armaments and war production, Speer remained blissfully protected from the suffering his policies wrought.  Intoxicated with power, fleeting glimpses of this suffering did not bring him to question his role as an important cog in the machinery of war and death.  In short, Speer was an “iceman”.
Throughout his 20 years of incarceration at Spandau, Speer struggled to complete himself as a human being both by trying to come to terms with his past and by cultivating the aspects of humanity that he had earlier lacked so sorely: compassion, empathy, love, and a sense of right and wrong.  Prior to his incarceration Speer was, it may be said, half a person.  And yet this “half person” was immensely successful in his endeavors.  The most powerful man in Europe considered him a trusted confidant and perhaps his closest friend.  Clearly, what Speer lacked in the softer attributes of humanity, he made up for in intellectual prowess, ambition and loyalty.
If we look only at the traits that made Speer an “ice man”, we should ask ourselves if those traits are more or less common among non-whites.  Are distant, aloof, parents uncommon among blacks?  Is it so unusual to find a lack of compassion among mestizos?  If we judge NAM societies based on their “family values”, their compassion toward other people and their criminality, any rational person would consider them to be the “ice people”.  I think the reason that the term “ice people” has stuck to whites is because the other virtues whites have (as in Speer) made the “ice” traits stand out in sharp contrast.  If a retarded person drools, we think nothing of it; retards are supposed to drool.  But when we see a physicist drool, we consider it noteworthy.  The physicist might acquire the epithet “the drooler” while the retard will always remain simply a “retard”.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 3 Comments

Sokal's nonsense,the Kabbalah and leftism

Posted on September 24, 2010 by jewamongyou

Long ago and far away I was a teenager attending a Lubavitcher yeshiva.  I plainly remember sitting among other students as the rabbi tried explaining a pivotal Kabbalistic concept to us.  Combining the most serious expression he could muster and animated hand gestures, he would say, “It’s there… but it’s not there…” as if he was sharing a profound secret with us.  At that moment, as other students sat spellbound, a disturbing realization began to percolate through the subconscious of my young mind: the deepest concepts are those that are untrue.
We all have our intellectual limits and, at least in Western society, we are taught to test those limits.  At the boundaries of what we can understand and what we cannot understand is a buffer zone of foggy concepts.  With a bit of effort, we can often resolve those foggy concepts into either “true” or “untrue”.  Most are too lazy to even challenge them, instead deferring to the wisdom of popular faith or those they consider experts.  Just beyond this frontier is the zone of “deep ideas”.   This latter zone is an ideal spot to hide falsities from the gullible, for most can only barely discern the hazy outlines of such concepts and lack the ability to expose their true nature.  Sometimes the ability is there but religious faith prevents this ability from being exercised.  Such was the case with most of my fellow students and, to a lesser extent, myself.
Of course, not everything kabbalistic is nonsense; once the necessary foundations were established, subsequent fantasies could be constructed upon them.  Within the context of previously built mystical illusions, any such later inventions might not (technically) be considered nonsense.  Over many generations, an entire field of “knowledge” was built, complete with various schools of thought, ongoing debates, special terminology and legions of “experts”.  Several Kabbalistic books were written and then erroneously attributed to ancient sages.  This gave the illusion of historical depth and hence the Kabbalah came to be considered a reputable field of study.
Time and time again we see how easily the masses, and even scholars, can be fooled.  In 1996 a man by the name of Alan Sokal conducted an experiment:

The Sokal Affair (also Sokal’s Hoax) was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Prof. Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment testing the magazine’s intellectual rigor, and specifically to learn if such a journal would “publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”
The article “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity,” published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 “Science Wars” issue, proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time the journal did not practice peer review fact-checking, and did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.  On its date of publication, in May 1996, in the journal Lingua Franca, Sokal revealed that the article was a hoax, identifying it as “a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense . . . structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics he] could find about mathematics and physics”.

We all have our intellectual limits and we all like to think we’re smart, so even elite publishers possess a zone of deep ideas.  Even intellectuals sometimes give in to the temptation to annex their zones of foggy ideas or deep ideas into their zones of understanding.  I can only surmise that the root of this flaw is a lack of humility.  They simply cannot bring themselves to admit that they do not understand.  In this regard, honesty and humility would go a long way toward advancing human knowledge.
There might be another, deeper, appeal to nonsense in the human psyche.  In his book “Consciousness Explained“, Daniel Dennett advances the hypotheses (chapter 8) that human speech originates, within the mind, as utter nonsense.  Our minds refine this nonsense into meaningful phrases as the situation demands.  The notion of a homuculus within our heads making fully developed decisions has been discredited, both by Dennett and other researchers.  Dennett supports his hypotheses (which he calls the “pandemonium model”)  by showing us that sometimes humans lose the ability to make sense of their speech even though they still have the ability to speak.  A classic example of this is jargon aphasia.
I wonder if the “zone of deep ideas” and the zone of “pandemonium” reside in the same foggy region of our subconscious.  If people can lack the ability to speak their thoughts in ways that are comprehensible to others, perhaps they can also lack the ability to discern the difference between nonsense and sound logic.
It is a well-known fact that leftists (AKA “liberals”) are incapable of engaging in rational discussion when it comes to certain dogmatic notions that they have – for example about race.  Perhaps they suffer from a form of reverse jargon aphasia.  Since “liberalism” is a religion, we might expand the question further: do all (irrational) religious people suffer from reverse jargon aphasia?  If we consider that the vast majority of humans, since time immemorial, have been religious in one sense or another, the truth may be that such aphasia is the normal state of mankind.  Then it might be fair to say that we, who read/write this blog (and others like it), represent a more advanced stage of evolution.  We have overcome our aphasia.   Illogical Kabbalistic claims no longer hold sway over us.  Leftist racial superstitions no longer intimidate us.  Sokal’s nonsense no longer fools us.

Posted in examples of propaganda, Jewish stuff and Israel, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists | 3 Comments

E-cigarettes and copyleft

Posted on September 22, 2010 by jewamongyou

With millions of smokers eager to kick the habit, and the rest of us just as eager to help them, you would think that innovations such as e-cigarettes would be in good standing with the powers that be.  Apparently, this is not the case.  As Thomas Knapp explains, in this article, not only big tobacco, but the F.D.A., big pharma (see comments) and the American Lung Association are all erecting hurdles to keep people from availing themselves of this technology.

Enter the electronic cigarette: No tobacco involved. Nicotine and flavorings are delivered in a liquid (propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine), slightly heated to produce a fog or vapor. While the full health implications aren’t yet clear, it’s a safe bet that e-cigs are safer than “real” cigarettes. Cigarette smoke is full of carcinogen-laden “tars.” E-cig vapor isn’t. There’s no “secondhand smoke” because there’s no smoke at all.
Even thought they’re currently only a tiny portion of the nicotine market, e-cigs are driving all the usual suspects crazy.
Big Tobacco wants them gone ASAP because they threaten tobacco profits.
The FDA wants to bring them under its regulatory authority because authority is what regulation is all about.
If you’re surprised to hear that the American Lung Association has condemned e-cigarettes, you shouldn’t be. They rake in more than $50 million per year, mostly by leveraging the scare value of tobacco-related lung disease. “Non-profit” or not, the continued solvency of ALA depends largely on the continued popularity of their bête noire, smoking.
The alleged Axis of Anti-Smoking — Big Government and Big Non-Profits — are fully aligned with Big Tobacco on the issue of electronic cigarettes. If we take their claims at face value, smoking kills more than 400,000 Americans per year … and they want to keep it that way.

Whenever a vast infrastructure grows around a “war against… (fill in the blank)”, we should be suspicious of the “warriors” true motives.  There is no doubt in my mind that many, if not most, anti-Cancer activists have noble intentions.  They would probably celebrate if Cancer were eradicated for good.  The same is no doubt true of anti-AIDS activists, anti-hunger advocates, anti-poverty advocates and even those who wish to extinguish “racism” (whatever this means for them).  However, money has a way of talking.  Each morning, when those activists get up for work, money speaks to them and says things like, “don’t you like your job?”, “you sure have a cozy job and good benefits… it would be a pity if, for some reason, you would lose it.”  Yes, it’s true that if Cancer were conquered, most of those doctors and researchers would find equally good jobs in other fields.  But will they all be able to do so and what guarantee do they have that their new jobs will be just as good?  The people we should be more concerned about are the lobbyists, fund-raisers and administrators of “non-profit” groups.  Those people have a great interest in keeping their enemy alive.  For them, Cancer, AIDS, poverty, hunger and “racism” are their bread and butter. Would it be surprising if we found out that some of those activists were secretly working to propagate the very evil they are supposed to be battling?
At the bottom of the above article is a small piece of text that reads: “Copyleft 2010 Center for a Stateless Society”.  Copyleft is a way to retain credit for intellectual work while allowing the work to be freely distributed.  I’ll take this opportunity to say that every one of my articles on this blog is copylefted.
Those who invented electronic cigarettes deserve to make massive profits from their work.  If the powers of evil succeed in robbing them of this profit, my suggestion would be for them to create easy-to-read instructions so that average people could manufacture their own electronic cigarettes.  If they could succeed in doing this, then the victory of big tobacco, big pharm, the F.D.A. and the A.L.A. would be a pyrrhic one.

Posted in libertarian thought | 2 Comments

Shame on Vdare

Posted on September 21, 2010 by jewamongyou

While it is important to forge allies with those who share our beliefs, I think that some sort of standards should be upheld.  I find Vdare’s decision to feature the article “Let My Brothers-In-Law Go – Home” on their front page disturbing.  The author of this piece, a certain Hal Netkin, boasts on his website that he…

… is Jewish, is married to a Latina who illegally immigrated from Mexico in 1989 (now a proud U.S. Citizen), and Hal and his wife have three adopted daughters whose combined ancestry is Mexican, Honduran, and Filipino. An older daughter of Hal’s is married to a Black-American, and Hal’s brother’s wife immigrated from El Salvador. How’s that for family diversity?

Mr. Netkin supposedly believes in principles that are “strong, traditional and decent”.  One wonders whose “tradition” he believes in since his own family seems to have no specific tradition it can call its own.  If he studied American history, he would know that this sort of “diversity” is not what made America great.  Instead, he would realize that the “diversity” he so celebrates is responsible for the very corruption he himself bemoans in Los Angeles.
Vdare is supposed to be one of our greatest allies in the struggle to preserve the white race and its civilizations.   There is no lack of competent writers who share this goal.  What would possess them to scoop sewage sludge from the gutters of Los Angeles in order to populate their website?




Posted in politics and attitudes of the pro-white movements | 11 Comments

Those pesky do-gooder Muslims

Posted on September 21, 2010 by jewamongyou

These days, it is easy to hate Islam and, by extension, to hate Muslims.  After all, they have been responsible for notorious terrorist attacks, for swamping white homelands with demanding immigrants and imposing a regime of fear upon most of the world.  Unfortunately, reality is a bit more complex than Muslim = bad.  It shouldn’t be necessary to list specific acts of kindness or courage done by “Muslims”.  Or, more accurately perhaps, good people who happen to call themselves “Muslim”.   Despite what it says in the Quran, some Muslims have been known to risk their lives to save non-Muslims from death and persecution.
When it comes to Muslim atrocities, such as the recent fatwa issued against a Seattle cartoonist, evil plans are hatched in my mind to put those Muslims in their place.  I am inclined to write pages of the Quran, in beautiful Arabic calligraphy, on pig skin and sell them online  (note to Muslim extremists: for a million dollars, I might reconsider and refrain from carrying out this plan).   But then I think of all the decent Muslims, the ones who would stand up for what is good and right when push comes to shove, and I consider how my actions might radicalize them and convince them that “those infidels really are a bunch of bastards after all.”  I wonder if there is a way to insult only the bad Muslims without inflaming the good ones.
Then, in moments of introspection, I remember my own attitude when I lived in Israel.  At the time I witnessed Arabs being abused by Jews and I knew that, if I ever had the opportunity to save an innocent Arab from a violent Jewish mob, I would do it.  Would my attitude have changed if some Arabs had gotten together and burned a Torah scroll?  Not at all; I would have recognized that the actions of a few do not represent the attitudes of them all.  Furthermore, I would have understood that such demonstrations might simply be protests against Jewish persecution*.  Not necessarily hatred for all Jews.  This is a distinction that must be made.
But there are some questions that need to be asked:
If it was one of the Torah scroll burners whom I had the opportunity to save, would I still save him?
If a Muslim were considering saving me from a violent Muslim mob and he knew that I was the one who wrote the Quran on pig skin, would he still save me?
Furthermore, would an impartial jury condemn the Muslim for not saving me?
I do not have the answers to any of these questions.
*My opinion on persecution in Israel has always been that it is a two-way street.  Arabs persecute Jews and Jews persecute Arabs, each using the tools at their disposal.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Worshipping a mass murderer

Posted on September 20, 2010 by jewamongyou

Who was the worst mass murderer in recorded history?  Many people would instinctively answer “Hitler” – and they would be wrong.  Stalin was certainly worse in this regard; he was responsible for about twenty million deaths (mere statistics, in his view).  I am speaking here of civilian deaths, not military ones.  But even Stalin probably does not take first prize amongst mass murderers.  By most accounts, the man responsible for the most civilian deaths was Mao Zedong.
One disturbing aspect of the above ranking is that the number one murderer is also the only one who is still held in high regard by his victims’ survivors.  Most Russians despise Stalin.  The vast majority of Europeans loath Hitler.  Certainly Pol Pot is not held in high regard amongst Cambodians.  Yet the personality cult of Mao is still alive and well in China.  If most Chinese spit upon his memory, they can only do so secretly because, officially, he is still a god.
I once visited China and, behaving like the typical “ugly American” I was quite outspoken about my disdain for certain things.  I told Chinese, to their faces, that I’d nicknamed Beijing “Mucus City” because everybody smoked and spat their mucus upon the street so that pedestrians must watch where they step.  I was almost arrested for photographing a pathetic amputee beggar clinging to the leg of a passerby.  My tour guide was confused when I told him Mao was the last “emperor”.  He replied, “no.  He was not an emperor; he was Chairman Mao.”  I retorted, “if he wanted you dead, you were dead.  He had absolute power and even had concubines.  How was he different from an emperor?”  The tour guide had apparently never thought of that; he stood there dumbfounded with no answer.  When street vendors tried to sell me “The Sayings of Mao”, I told them, “I do not like Mao”.  It is a wonder I was not arrested.
Perhaps I should have been less outspoken, while in China, about my distaste for Mao and cigarette mucus – well, at least about the mucus.  It is, arguably, a good thing to show your dislike for a brutal dictator who brought about the deaths of tens of millions of people.  Could it be that most Chinese are unaware of his crimes?  I could only imagine the pain and anger of those Chinese whose families and friends were murdered by Mao’s ruthless regime, but who must see him adored publicly.

I also wonder about those street vendors who sell “The Sayings of Mao”.  How many of them were orphaned because of Mao?  There is a certain irony in this situation.  What would a true communist say about his books being sold on the free market in the streets?  Perhaps, at some level, those vendors see this as a small measure of revenge.

Posted in libertarian thought | 7 Comments

Kosher and halal

Posted on September 19, 2010 by jewamongyou

In order for meat/poultry to be kosher, the animal must be slaughtered by an observant Jew.  Its throat must be cut using a sharp blade and in one stroke.  The animal is then inspected to verify it had no maladies or wounds.  The meat must be “kashered” prior to consumption by smearing it with salt and letting most of the blood drain out.  The Torah prohibits the consumption of blood.  It also, according to standard interpretation, prohibits cruelty to animals.  “Cruelty to animals” is only prohibited if there is no benefit from the suffering.  As it so happens, we cannot eat meat without killing the animal (it is also forbidden to eat the limb from a living animal).  Killing is otherwise considered “cruel”.
Islam copied the laws of kosher slaughter along with many other things.  Of course, Muslims do not require a Jew to do the slaughtering.   According to Islam, any food that is kosher is also permissible to Muslims.  This does not work the other way; even though kosher is halal, halal is not kosher.
Through most of history, the kosher way of slaughter was considered humane; it involved less pain than striking the animal repeatedly with a hammer, eating it while it was still alive or inflicting many small wounds all over its body.  With the advance of technology, more humane methods of slaughter were devised.  At the same time, more people developed a new-found conscientiousness regarding the welfare of animals (but not usually insects or microbes).
While advancements in our standards of mercy are generally a good thing, I think it is important to maintain perspective.  Even as the uproar plays out in the U.K. over the sneaking of halal meats into the mouths of non-Muslims, we should take media claims with a grain of salt.  I do not believe that most meat-eaters care about the suffering of animals during their slaughter.  They just want their meat.  The real issue here is not so much cruelty to animals but cultural imperialism.  Those who oppose the mass implementation of halal in the U.K. are probably more concerned with their own suffering – at the loss of their civilization – than with the suffering of animals.  Here we have yet another case of people protesting what is permissible to protest (“inhumane” slaughter of animals) rather than what is forbidden to protest (their own genocide through mass immigration).
I do not see anything wrong with halal (kosher) slaughter.  In nature, animals kill each other in the most cruel and unspeakable ways.  Humans are the only animal that deliberately minimizes the suffering of its prey.  Even then, not all humans share this sensibility.  In Korea, dogs and cats are tortured and cooked alive.  That most of us find this reprehensible puts us on a higher level than those Koreans.  I do not think the solution is for Americans to pass laws against eating dogs or cats.
While it may feel good to adopt a holier than thou attitude about methods of slaughter, in the end such attitudes may force us all to be vegetarians.  After all, if our goal is to minimize animal suffering, vegetarians are the Brahmans of this caste system.  Koreans would be untouchables and the rest of us somewhere in between.  If a plant-rights movement ever gains momentum, then we would all starve.  It seems to me that, when it comes to humane slaughter of animals, there are very few clear-cut cases of “acceptable” and “not acceptable”.  Instead, we have a continuum.  Since there does not seem to be any less painful way to slaughter an animal (in the absence of modern technology) than the kosher/halal way, I think this would qualify it as reasonably humane.
What about those who shudder at the thought of blood, and who cannot accept any pain for the animal?  Those people might consider becoming vegetarians.  Here is a test for those who object to kosher/halal slaughter on humanitarian grounds: visit a modern slaughtering facility and watch the entire process – while eating a hamburger.  If this does not bother you, then we can discuss kosher/halal slaughter on a more meaningful level.
As for halal slaughter taking over Europe, the problem is not excessive pain for the animals but rather excessive numbers of Muslims in Europe.  The sooner Europeans learn to recognize the real issue, and debate it honestly, the more hope for their long-term survival as Europeans.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel, pan-nationalism and multi-culturalism | 9 Comments

The Jewish kingdom of Adiabene

Posted on September 18, 2010 by jewamongyou

Some of you may have noticed a new addition in the links section of this blog.  It is called “State of Exile” and it includes many articles and links of Jewish interest.  One of the links is to a website called kulanu.org, which has a fascinating article about the kingdom of Adiabene.  You can read it here.  Unfortunately, it seems the author was lax in proofreading it (or not a native English speaker) but it is still a great read.
I think it is interesting that all three of the Jewish kingdoms I am aware of, which existed outside the Land of Israel, were founded by converts: The Khazarian empire, the Himyarite kingdom of Yemen and the Adiabene kingdom.  This is probably because the rigors of exile had robbed the Jewish people of both its political self-confidence and its military capabilities.

Posted in Jewish stuff and Israel | 6 Comments

The confusion between SES and race

Posted on September 15, 2010 by jewamongyou

One of the most common tricks leftists use, in order to blind the public to the realities of race, is to imply that by controlling for SES (socioeconomic status), they can reveal that race is of little importance.  Examples of this tactic are far too numerous to list exhaustively.  We find it used to explain away racial disparities in health, crime, education and social pathologies.
In some cases, looking at SES rather than race might be justified.  It would depend on the circumstances and goals of the study.  What irks me is when the focus should be on race but SES is used to confuse the issue.
If controlling for SES does succeed in eliminating many racial disparities, then we might ask: why not simply use SES (or I.Q. if you prefer) to categorize people as we must and ignore race altogether?  Here are three  answers to this question:
1) Ubiquitous institutional racism against whites (“affirmative action”) favors blacks, especially in government jobs.  Therefore many blacks are artificially elevated to higher socioeconomic statuses.  Their incomes are high, they live in nice neighborhoods and they drive new cars – but their inner nature has not changed.  Their lower class habits linger on.  They, and their children, are just as dangerous to be around as their brethren in the ghettos.
2) Nature created biological races over the course of tens of thousands of years.  Though we have known the basics about racial differences for several decades, much remains to be learned.  Progress, in studying racial differences, has been stunted because (with the exception of medicine) it is all but illegal to perform such studies.  Therefore, much about race remains unknown to us.  Faced with a reality of nature and burdened by our own ignorance, the best course of action would be to respect what nature has put in place.  The imposition of mass miscegenation upon the younger generation is akin to burning large areas of virgin rain forest without even knowing which species inhabit it or even studying them.
3) Because so much value is placed on “African-American culture” in America today, most blacks who have rightfully achieved  higher socioeconomic stations will continue to behave like other blacks in some ways.  Even if they choose to “act white”, the odds are that their children will revert to black behavior.  This is what is encouraged in schools, the media and by the government.  Unfortunately, along with the less destructive aspects of black culture, the criminal aspects will often tag along.  Caution is necessary.
The simple truth, which escapes leftist “scholars”, is that SES is a natural outgrowth of race.  To “control” for SES (when trying to determine the importance of race) makes no sense.  Let us turn things around.  Suppose a university wished to show that race has nothing to do with SES – and, in order to accomplish this, their study controlled for I.Q.  Hence, only the brightest blacks would be considered in the study.  Not surprisingly, we would find most of those blacks in the same SES as their white/Asian counterparts.  Such a study would prove nothing.
The underlying fallacy is that low SES, among blacks and Hispanics, is a result of racial discrimination and not lower average I.Q. and higher levels of impulsiveness.  I want to see the studies that support this presumption.  It is amazing to see the level of scholarship that goes into countless papers – and they are all castles built on sand.  No matter how many fancy mathematical formulae, acronyms and specialist jargon their authors pack into them, in the end they have no value because they are built on a false premise.
It is sad to think how much time, talent and brain power has been wasted on “studies” such as these.  For hundreds of years, some of the brightest minds of Europe were wasted on alchemy.  Is this much different?  In the past, they thought they could convert lead to gold.  Now they think they can convert one race to another with jargon and flawed studies.

Posted in nurture vs. nature and I.Q., racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science | 6 Comments

John Stossel's "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity"

Posted on September 14, 2010 by jewamongyou

I just finished reading John Stossel’s Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity.  He deals with many issues in this book; more than can be covered in a review such as this.  It is definitely worth-while reading and very entertaining.  The fact that each chapter (most of them short) stands on its own, without any vital connection to the chapters before it, make it ideal reading for waiting rooms or breaks at work.
There are two chapters I want to mention here, since they are relevant to this blog.  Both topics have been covered, at length, by race realists and serious scholars but it is refreshing to see a respected media personality like John Stossel write words of truth that are usually stifled.
The first topic, “Myth: Some people are just born happy.  Truth: Apparently so” (pg. 271-273) has to do with the heritability of personality traits.  Stossel writes:

Barbara Herbert and Daphne Goodship are absurdly happy…
Barbara and Daphne are identical twins.  You might explain their happiness as the result of a good childhood or their influence on each other – except that as kids, they never knew each other.  They were born twelve minutes apart and were immediately given up for adoption…
Dr. Thomas Bouchard, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota, thought Barbara and Daphne would be good candidates for his ground-breaking study of twins raised apart.  “When they got here, they really shook us up in terms of a remarkable similarity…”
For Barbara, there was no doubt as to whether the cause of their good mood was nature or nurture.  “It’s definitely nature,” she said.  “I don’t think the environment or anything else has affected us, it’s just what we are like.”  Science bears her out:  The outlooks of twins-sunny or not- tend to be remarkably similar, the Minnesota study found, whether they are raised together or apart.  “If only environment shaped our personality, identical twins reared apart would have no similarity,” said Dr. Bouchard, “and yet they’re every bit as similar as identical twins reared together.”

If we accept that there is a genetic component to personality, then it follows that there might also be a racial component to personality – since the only thing that distinguishes one (true) race from another is genes/alleles.  In other words, when we speak of “race”, what we mean is varying sets of (average) genes between populations.
The second topic, “John Stossel is a conservative.  Truth: I’m a libertarian” (pg. 281-284) deals, partly, with the contrast between the conservative establishment (or what passes for “conservative” these days) and the liberal one.  Stossel writes:

Yet conservatives are at least willing to talk about them.  I am continually amazed at how generous conservatives are in debate.  Even those who disagree with my ideas welcome me warmly at their conferences.  The supposedly “narrow-minded” social conservatives politely hear me out.  The liberals, by contrast, don’t want to talk at all.
When I wrote my last book, Give Me a Break, I assumed the high poobahs of the leftist media would be eager to debate my ideas, if only to demonstrate how foolish my arguments were, or to discredit the reporting of their misguided colleague who had gone “over to the dark side”, as one TV writer put it.
I was wrong.
The conservatives were eager to have me… But the liberal media – CNN, NPR, and the New York Times – basically held their noses and ignored me.  Where was the “open debate” the liberals always praise?  Mostly on the conservative broadcasts.

This attitude is painfully familiar to those of us who recognize the biological reality of race.  The main difference, between us and Stossel, is that there is no conservative media when it comes to race.  In racial matters, they are all “liberal”.  I have no idea if John Stossel is a race realist.  I seriously doubt it – and what good is the recognition of truth if it cannot be uttered?
What is the leftist policy regarding race?  Hide it, Bury it, Deny it =  It is the dark side of H.B.D.

Posted in book/movie/video reviews and links | 8 Comments