Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Pointless Waste of Time

Anonymous Coward makes the following observations on my blog and, more particularly, my personality:

"My favorite part is how your blog is read and commented on only by people who are a) amazed at how mind bogglingly stupid you are or b) are unapologeticly racist [read: niggerish] white supremacists.

Where did it all do wrong, Rooland?

I'm serious; what happened to turn you into such a terrible human being? Were you mugged by a black dude as a kid or something? Because, seriously, most people with the reading comprehension of a fourth grader are patently aware that the drivel you spout isn't just racist [read: niggerish] it's also painfully, woefully stupid. Like young earth creationism levels of mind-bogglingly retarded.

What the hell happened to you, man?


I'd planned to transcribe the second part of my video today but alas, mortal limitations have intervened. Apologies for leaving things on a cliffhanger, dear readers, particularly when we'd just gotten down to the very core of the tabula rasa heresy: the idea that people can be inculcated out of their human nature - or even that there's no such thing!

While my mind reels under an antibiotic scouring, it's best for me to address something less intellectually demanding, like the above comment. Unless I miss my guess, the anonymous coward in question is a traveller from Cracked.com, formerly David Wong's Pointless Waste of Time. It's within the realms of possibility, particularly given the familiar "violating my sacred taboo makes you stupid and evil" line of attack, that the message comes from the very desk of David Wong himself. In which case, my check for the article arrived today in good order despite the local post, thanks very much.

So, Cracked is a comedy site I rather recommend, their articles being of a generally high standard. Going by my own experience however, articles which exceed this standard are cut back down to size in editing - but let's leave aside the tired theme of a writer bemoaning his literary circumcision. The reason Anonymous Coward, who for ease of use I'll christen AC after one of my favourite appliances, is here to delight us with his presence is, likely, a rather heated debate I initiated on the Cracked forums.

A formerly content member of said forum, I'd detected a faint, underlying whiff of hypocrisy when I'd objected to an article, written by a person of the black persuasion, entitled something like "X Things Ruined by White People." I raised the point that an examination of "X Things Ruined by Black People," particularly if penned by a white or yellow, would be deemed offensive, if not hateful. For those of you who can't see the M. Night twist coming, my complaint was ignored. Deleted, in fact.

Intent on discovering whether this clear display of a racial double-standard was an isolated case, I created the "Racial Equality" debate thread. That soon brought the worms out the woodpile and the scent of hypocrisy grew to an overwhelming, eye-watering stench. Some of my all-time favourite quotes from the thread include:

"The only differences between ethnicities are the ones people see."
"It's interesting that you should mention Hitler, because the Holocaust is the end result of the last time people entertained eugenics (honestly, that's what you are bringing up here) as a reasonable topic of "rational discussion".

- Oregano Angercock, a clearly delusional or perhaps just willfully ignorant individual, who played the Hitler card in his very first response. Apparently the subtle distinction between a rational discourse on race and the genocide of millions escapes him. In his favour though, one could argue that by "differences we see," he meant to include things like intelligence, behaviour and anatomy.

"Sociologist [sic] don't use race as a factor in studies, or they haven't for a long time."

- Cat, unknowingly revealing the reason sociologists are unable to present workable solutions to any number of social ills. Education, poverty, crime and "failure to thrive," anyone? To the best of my knowledge, the uncoupling of the social sciences from evolutionary biology was an act of sabotage by Franz Boas. From there; the dogma that evolution does not apply to humanity as we're all created equal, by the diversity gods of the racially-representative pantheon of Mount Olymponce no doubt.

"Since "race" is an illusion, and since you've already admitted that the differences between individuals are far greater than the differences between these imaginary "races", your proposal would be a very bad idea."

- Kicsi Viz, who obviously hasn't heard of forensic or ancestral DNA testing, which can very accurately determine an individual's race. He or she also demonstrates the classic misunderstanding of degrees of genetic difference: the average genetic difference between men and women of the same race will always be smaller than average genetic difference between men and women of different races.

"You should also check out Guns, Germs, and Steel. Nutshell: it's not a coincidence that human civilization developed quickest on the huge horizontal eurasian mass, and lagged far behind on the vertical african and american continents.

If you go east-west, the climate stays about the same, and practices are transferable. If you go north-south, you're passing through strata where your established ways of doing things will get you quickly killed...

- Tlogmer who, like Jared Diamond, author of Guns, Germs and Steel, hasn't heard of the Himalayas or Gobi Desert. It's for good, geographic reason that Chinese inventions like printing were invented separately in Europe, centuries later. Likewise, Jared and Tlogmer seem unaware of the horizontal measure of Africa, particularly North Africa, in comparison to South America. Strange then the accomplishments of the Amerindians, no?

"The American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.”

So yeah, genetic differences are greater within groups than between them."

- Cat again. My response: "No, Cat. What you quoted states the exact opposite. [There's a strong disingenuous element in stats like this, taking gender differences as within-group.] Interesting the AAA actually bothered to amend their false assertion though. And how different is "about" or "almost," what percentage precisely? The mere 2 percent difference separating humans and chimps is about almost no difference at all, right?"

The bit she quoted stands as a wonderful example of mealy-mouthed obfuscation by a scientific body under political coercion however. This is the degree to which our intellectuals must twist their words into knots to avoid triggering the "racist" alarm. I suppose we should be thankful that the American Anthropological Association at least possessed the gumption and intellectual honesty not to lie outright.

"Exactly. Now that desegregation is a reality, and science has shown the basis of those racists beliefs to be unfounded, whomever is left in the "racist" camp must be mentally ill, by process of elimination. The same way you would question the sanity of someone who still maintains that the Earth is flat."

- Oregano Angercock again. That guy's a real pistol. Stalinist Russia much?

"First article on that site:

"Principles of the Pro-White Movement."


Yes, that's not Neo-Nazi at all. Nope. Completely, utterly different

- David Wong, who will be shocked to learn of all the neo-Nazi pro-Black, neo-Nazi pro-Hispanic and neo-Nazi pro-Asian organisations within America, to name but a few.

And so on and so forth. Should you wish to extract maximum amusement from the thread, I invite you to note how my accusers, unable to refute common sense and scientific evidence, increasingly resort to ad hominem arguments. I had a good chuckle at their pop-psy attempts to diagnose the pathology I display by continuing to disagree with their opinions. Further, their criticism of my "entrenched views" ultimately becomes a wonderfully unconcious self-parody.

I was eventually overwhelmed by the sheer volume of opposition (outnumbered perhaps, but never outwitted!) and the thread got locked by Wong, who took the opportunity to deliver his final word on why I am Lucifer incarnate. Since then, I've reconsidered my admittedly daft idea of a black warrior caste. According to the the U.S. military, intelligence is necessary even for "donkey work" and as such they apparently turn away many volunteers who don't meet a certain IQ standard.

Oregano's idiocy has already been over-represented, so I'll skip his particularly self-righteous brand of scathing abuse in the examples of private messages which follow:

"Hey Ro0land, now that that HB thread's been locked there's a message I have to pass on.

Nelson Mandela called. He said he fucked your mother

- Evil Sloth, demonstrating his or her rapier wit.

"haha you're a fat nigger and you suck nigger dick"

- Honest Abe, doing the same.

Anyway, enough of all that puerile nonsense. Let's get down to AC's actual message about everyone, ie. all three or four people, who's responded to my blog being: "a) amazed at how mind bogglingly stupid [I am] or b) unapologeticly racist white supremacists."

Apparently he forget c) way high. Ah well, the irony to a) is, of course, that no one has thus far accused me of being stupid. My detractors have only wished me an early death and made the rather amusing assertion that the ANC is doing more for South Africa than any white government could. Why, I bet the Romans could whip this place into shape, toot sweet! As for b) I don't see why any group, black, yellow or white, should apologise for promoting their own interests, so long as they do so through legal means. Of course, according to the wets, Caucasians ought to be apologetic, full stop. How dare we bring civilization to the world? What an evil cancer we are!

AC goes on to suggest that I must be psychologically damaged in some way as I hold a sense of loyalty to my own people. Dear me, that doesn't say much for all the strident members of minority rights groups, now does it? He further speculates that I must be a reformed conservative, ie. a post-mugging liberal. Well, AC, the last black who tried to mug me got shown the sharp edge, and not of my tongue, so you're off-base there.

What I'd like to draw particular attention to is that AC accuses me of promulgating falsehoods to the magnitude of Creationism, yet is incapable of refuting my claims with any rational counter-argument. Not a single point... One almost invariably encounters this phenomenon when arguing for common sense and scientific truth in regards race. Unable to defend the ludicrous denialism that is egalitarian doctrine, its adherents go on the offensive like hysterical old women, screeching shrill accusations and doing their damndest to induce guilt and doubt. In effect, they work themselves into a towering huff and denounce one as a bad, crazy person for saying mean things.

Now, we can't blame ol' AC overmuch for being the cowardly, snivelling, neurosis-projecting pussy he is. Most "men's" minds will bend to prevailing social concensus as being the safe opinion, the one which brings the easiest rewards while avoiding risk and punishment. Rather sad really. Ah well, as he seemed to so enjoy what James Watson had to say, here are some more fun quotes from scientific smartypantsmen for him to chew on. With any luck he'll explode with apoplectic rage and never be heard from again:

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said."
"[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species."

- Charles Darwin

"Man is a mammal and subject to the same biological laws as other animals. All animals, including Man, have inheritable behavioural traits. The concept of complete environmental plasticity of human intelligence is a nonsensical wishful-thinking illusion."

- William Shockley, winner of a Nobel Prize for Physics and inventor of the transistor

"The relationship of the g factor to a number of biological variables and its relationship to the size of the white-black differences on various cognitive tests (i.e., Spearman's hypothesis) suggests that the average white-black difference in g has a biological component. Human races are viewed not as discrete, or Platonic, categories, but rather as breeding populations that, as a result of natural selection, have come to differ statistically in the relative frequencies of many polymorphic genes. The genetic distances between various populations form a continuous variable that can be measured in terms of differences in gene frequencies. Racial populations differ in many genetic characteristics, some of which, such as brain size, have behavioral and psychometric correlates, particularly g."

- Arthur Jensen, Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley

I could go on and on with such quotes but I think the time has arrived to watch a DVD. Take care out there in Loonyland, people. Remember: don't take any guff from these fools!


Anonymous said...

The entirity of your rational argument consists of:

a) a now refuted quote by Charles Darwin. Yes, becuase he was the first to document evolution everything he says about biology must be correct!

b) a quote from a physicist that says nothing about race, and merely posits that intelligence has some - though not being a biologist he offers no insight into what - biological basis. No-one disagrees with this statement; but it lends your racist hypothesis no support.

c) a quote from a psychologist (again, not a biologist) who jumps from the theory that genetic difference might influence intelligence (uncontroversial) to the theory that some races are smarter than others (painfully retarded). Fortuntely, Stephen Jay Gould already pointed out in Mismeasure of Man that Jensen's work is flawed in that he has no idea how heritability even works and that none of his g-thesis madness makes any biological sense at all. But you didn't know that because heavens forfend you read the criticisms of your patently indefencible views.

You keep rocking that ignorant bullshit, Rooland.

My favorite part was where you hand-selected responses from that clusterfuck of a thread you started conveniently ignoring the many people who are far cleverer and more educated than you who pointed out precisely why your bullshit was stupid. Maybe you're just jealous of thier superior racial intelligence...

And in any event, you didn't answer the real question here:

What the hell is wrong with you?

Dante said...

Welcome back, Anonymous Coward.

The "entirity" of my argument consists of far more than that, sir. Papers and studies and books, oh my, t'would fair boggle your mind. Those were simply a few choice quotes to get your mouthbreathing wheezing and hitching in fury. They seem to have done the trick?

a) That species will evolve into new races and from there different species is um, the basis of evolution and not in any dispute. Go back to Russia through the Warp Gate, Commie heretic.

b) You agree that intelligence has a biological basis? Hallelujah, some light breaks through the dark cloudbank of emo-tears! I now direct your attention to all the intelligence testing done since the early 1900s to support my "racist" hypothesis.

c) Heh, oh Stephen Jay Gould and the Mismeasure of Man! Goodness me, where to start. You think I don't know about this joker? I mentioned his Daemon, which stops evolution occuring above the neck, two or three posts ago. Here's one of Gould's own quotes, from the left-leaning Wikipedia no less:

"I grew up in a family with a tradition of participation in campaigns for social justice, and I was active, as a student, in the civil rights movement at a time of great excitement and success in the early 1960s. Scholars are often wary of citing such committments... [but] it is dangerous for a scholar even to imagine that he might attain complete neutrality, for then one stops being vigilant about personal preferences and their influences - and then one truly falls victim to the dictates of prejudice. Objectivity must be operationally defined as fair treatment of data, not absence of preference."

That's right, he comes right out and admits to conducting tainted science in the interests of "civil rights," then goes on to claim this to be perfectly valid. What a joke. For further commentary by various respected scientists, including Dawkins, into the Marxist fraud perpertrated by Gould, read here:

You keep rocking your... Well. You're not really rocking anything, are you, mate?

As for hand-selecting responses, yes, I did say they were my favourite ones after all. And I'm sure everyone will agree they were most entertaining!

And ignoring the people with intelligence racially superior to mine? Hmm. I'm man enough to admit that Jews and Orientals are generally brighter than Europeans, no skin off my nose.

You will note however, that the Jewish chap rather supported my views. In response to the "race is an illusion" bullshit, he raised the point about the medical relevance of genetics. A point later backed up by the fellow working for the pharmaceutical company.

Oh, and an Asian chap later told me in private that I raised some valid points and argued a good case. He went on to say that Hitler's Brain has become increasingly politically correct and over-moderated of late.

Of course, individuals are individuals and these people were not necessarily smarter than me. This is the point you silly billies seemed to have missed, that I was speaking only of averages.

What the hell is wrong with me? Well, kind of you to ask. I did mention I was on antibiotics, yes? Bit under the weather but nothing serious. Take care now.

Rhein said...

You lasted pretty long given the endless stream of liberal ideologies that was tossed at you. Basically all their arguments came down to the classic "race is a cultural construct", wich has it's root in marxism as you mentioned.

I could write a response but i've had a rough day and still have plenty to do... So i'll simply link to a very good article on multiculturalism, wich explains a bit about the race issue and also why liberalism is so prevalent.

Love the warhammer artworks btw. ^^

Rhein said...

Oops, forgot the link. Here it is.


Dante said...

Thanks for the great link, Rhein! Most informative indeed, and I recommend it to everyone, particularly to my opponents who so firmly believe their viewpoint to be morality and not just the Party line.

I've included your link in my latest article which, with any luck, will see a wider audience. And as I say there, liberals fail to realise that it's not biological race but their ridiculous egalitarian notion which is the social construct. Rather obviously to the rest of us really!

Glad you dig the Warhammer pics! I must remember to work some more of the quotes into my stuff too, a lot of them are super funny.