When Race Is A Social Invention

an important fact to remember about Jews is that they are fundamentally Orientals, most of them having lived in the Occident for less than 2,000 years in most cases.

This is my problem with the AS. They make crazy statements that undermine race realism. Continents are man-made inventions.

A better argument would be that Middle Easterns are a different race. But Orientals… seriously!?

If race follows continents, then race truly doesn’t exist. Would you say that Russians living east of Ural are Orientals? Would you say that the Eskimo-like tribes in northern Finland are Caucasian?

Take a look at these three picture. Which one doesn’t fit with the other two?

This also can’t be explained away by saying that I found an atypical picture. The AS can’t tell that Aryans like George Steinbrenner and Tim Geithner are not Jewish. JewWatch claims Nancy Pelosi (Italian), Pope John Paul II (Polish) and Rupert Murdoch (Anglo-Saxon) are Jewish. You’d think someone who pays so much attention to Jews would be able to tell who’s who. Is there any confusion about Obama’s African ancestry? Booker T. Washington’s? W.E.B. DuBois’s? (All just half black.)

The standard of race vs. ethnicity is really about how easy it is to tell someone. Race can never be confused even for mixed race people. Ethnicity could be figured out, but it’s much harder.

It could be argued that Jews are a different race if we count the Middle East as a separate race, but please, don’t say stupid things like, “All Asians are Orientals”.

Clearly Indians and Pashtuns, Persians and Koreans, Jews and Indonesians, Russians and Pacific Islanders are not all part of the same race.

Saying so makes race realists look ridiculous when they try to argue that race is real and not a social invention.

Defending Minority Racism

The study tracked about 100,000 employees at more than 700 stores belonging to one, unidentified chain from February 1996 to July 1998.

The report found that replacing an African-American manager with a white, Hispanic or Asian manager resulted in the hiring of fewer African-American employees. The percentage of new workers who were African-American under the non-black managers dropped to 17 percent. Under the previous African-American manager, newly hired employees had been 21 percent black…

Meanwhile, in regions that were at least 30 percent Hispanic, the study said the proportion of new workers who were Hispanic dropped from 59 percent to 48 percent after a white manager took over from a Hispanic boss.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJfeB69LmAh5A2LDN8IY_8OqO54gD9C1E67O0

Just to be clear. Under black management, blacks were 75% overrepresented. Under Hispanic management, Hispanics were 450% overrepresented.

When the race of the manager changed, minorities were still highly overrepresented, but now closer to their demographics.

And whites are the racists here?

The CNN Syndrome

I am watching CNN (yes, I know, always a bad idea) right now and they are claiming that 1 in 6 Americans are starving. This is more liberal propaganda that is completely not based in reality.

One in six Americans isn’t even normal weight. This is a morbidly obese country. You walk on the street behind someone and it’s hard to think because the only thing that goes through your mind is, “damn!”

The average woman is now between size 14-16, which is saying something because most women wear clothes 4 sizes too small with fat bursting from sides. Men are usually not any better.

Starving? Really?

With every kind of welfare program from food stamps and school lunch to general welfare, I don’t believe that anyone is starving.

The poorer the person, the fatter they are. This is not consistent with poor people starving. It is consistent with them being irresponsible. Being five pounds overweight means you have a job and a family, and don’t have the time to keep yourself in a professional athlete’s shape. But if you are a hundred pounds overweight, it’s because you a slob, and if you didn’t have a low IQ, you wouldn’t let yourself slide that way.

It’s the same reason you will never see smart women who are hairy. An intelligent woman who has this problem will deal with it, but a low IQ woman will ignore it.

The media tells us that good looking people are dumb, but the reality is just the reverse. Smart people take care of themselves, dress better and generally speaking, a smart look on a person’s face is more attractive than a dumb look.

Low IQ people may at times be unable to manage their finances and it may cause them occasionally to choose a meal that’s less expensive, but they are not starving. They are still overwhelmingly fat, obese or morbidly obese. Until I begin to see 100-pound poor people, I won’t believe that anyone is starving.

The Wrong Focus

The current issue of American Renaissance deals with Asians again. This time the article is written by Steven Farron.

The first chapter of Farron’s affirmative action book deals with poor Jews coming to the US and despite every effort to exclude them, coming to dominate educational achievement. (He and Prozium were the push-pull factors in my shift in the philo-Semitic direction. Whereas Farron presented admiring facts about the Jews, Prozium, who simultaneously popped into my life, just repulsed me because of his personal attacks against myself and others. Before my first response, the idiot spent two months writing about me and calling on people to burn my effigies, and this call was not even issued over the Jews.)

That’s why I was surprised to see Farron’s name on the article. I would’ve thought there would be a more positive spin on Asians, another high IQ group, coming from him.

My theory on Asians is that they were too nationalist. Multicultism isn’t good for a country’s long-term survival, but neither is extreme nationalism. I wrote before that we shouldn’t just dismiss Eastern medicine just because some hippies embrace it. It may not be better than Western medicine, but it may have some aspects that are useful.

The Asians decided that they know everything better than others. At that point, they actually were ahead of the West in most, though not all, human achievements. They didn’t re-embrace the outside world until after World War II, at which point many countries became Communist. The success of Japan (and diaspora Japanese) in the global economy certainly fits in with the claim that they have superior IQ, as is China’s rapid recovery since the change in its economic policies.

Whatever other explanation for the Orientals falling behind is false. You can’t just pick a particular period of time, ignore the dominant ideology, and base your claims to superiority on that.

In his article, Farron talks about Chinese being fascinated with geometry, geography and science. But did white people find a similar interest in Euclid when they reached Africans or American Indians? Chinese interest shows their ability to understand and appreciate high-IQ tasks.

The three discussions of Asians in Amren are unfortunate. Those who are familiar with Asian history (beyond reading WN blogs) will draw wrong lessons. Orientals fell behind because of too much nationalism. Focusing on Asians focuses the light on what’s wrong with nationalism. But our reality is much different than China’s. We don’t have too much nationalism, we have too little.

When Diversity Isn’t Out Greatest Asset

Hat tip of Chuck for this:

Is genetic diversity, including group diversity, among humanity’s greatest assets?

Society is ill-prepared for results from genetic research showing group variation in biologically important traits according to Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein in Nature this week.

Studies of human genetic diversity are increasingly finding evidence of biological variation among groups of people, not just among individuals. Some of these traits are superficial, such as skin colour, or non-controversial, such as lactose intolerance, but to ignore the possibility of group diversity is to do poor science and poor medicine, the Opinion authors say.

Scientists are naturally wary of making claims that may be interpreted as favouring one population group over another, especially when it comes to important biological traits such as brain biology. Some have even called for a halt to such studies of genetic diversity to prevent any misuse of the information. See previous forum discussion on Untouchable Science here.

In recent decades, ‘biological egalitarianism’ − the view that human groups have no, or very few, meaningful genetically based biological differences − has emerged as the dominant moral position say Lahn and Ebenstein. The authors argue that this position is dangerous. Instead, they urge the science community to embrace genetic diversity, including at the group level, as one of humanity’s chief assets.

What do you think?

* Are the fears of scientists who don’t wish to engage in this research natural and understandable?
* Will genetic information be misused however the debate is framed by scientists and ethicists?
* Do you steer away from controversial areas for these reasons?
* Have you ever had your work misused or misrepresented?
http://network.nature.com/groups/naturenewsandopinion/forum/topics/5623

The problem that people have with genetic diversity is that it results in some people being “better” for some environments and eras. In a post-industrial society, it’s better to be able to do graduate-level science than to be running marathons. Sure, objectively the Kenyans who dominate marathons and the Jews who dominate Nobels are equal. But in the subjective world that we live in, it’s better to be smart than to be able to run.

Whites have more skills that are needed in a post-industrial society. Many of the black skills are not only outdated, but harmful in a modern world. Aggression, for instance, has a purpose, but it’s much more useful in the jungle than a modern city.

At the end of the day, you are better off being a typical white person than a typical black person in a modern society.

What the hell is wrong with you?

There’s now a full on debate on Prozium’s blog as to whether my wife is Jewish. She isn’t. But … damn… what the hell is wrong with these people? Why so much obsessive interest in an obscure blogger? This is exactly what I meant when I said that the anti-Semites are deranged.

Why the interest in making the world safe for the Jews? For the same reason I tookinterest in making the world safe for the Boers. (A far greater interest until Prozium’s obsessive almost daily posts about me for several months before I responded… check this blog pre-Prozium’s campaign to get people to start burning my effigies.) Or Poles. Or Germans. But those white ethnic groups didn’t provoke the same idiotic reaction. Nobody out there is concerned that, say, Stalin’s wife was German.

If you disagree, fine. You want to kill or cleanse the Jews. Fine. Leave. Did I invite you to come to this blog? Am I coming after you? Why is it that Prozium and his bunch can’t sleep at night without wondering about some obscure blogger? Seriously… what the hell is wrong you? Why would you take the time to sit there and debate my wife’s ethnicity? I am not even asking this because of any particular politics you may have. If you wondered about the wife of Michael Jordan or Bob Dylan, I would wonder the same thing, and at least those people are famous. Why such an interest in an obscure blogger? Do you not have anything better to do all day? Really… what the hell is wrong you?

Arthur Kemp a Nazi?

I guess I should thank Prozium for posting this explicitly for me. Maybe I was wrong and Arthur Kemp is a Nazi.

UPDATE: I’ve been told that this is a fake. The picture was altered and the swastika added.

A Leftist Movement?

John J. Ray, Ph.D. wrote before on several occasions that Nazism is a left-wing movement. Dr. Ray, however, is a traditional conservative. It’s interesting that at least some Nazis view themselves as leftist.

NATIONAL SOCIALISM: A LEFT-WING MOVEMENT
by Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

*originally written for Nordland Foblag

For far too many years it has been widely accepted that National Socialists are extreme right-wingers, and only rarely have they hesitated to refer to themselves as such. At a certain point, however, it became the official policy of the World Union of National Socialists to avoid the term “right-wing,” claiming that National Socialism does not fit into the pattern of “right” and “left” and instead ought to be considered as standing above this distinction. This most certainly was a step in the right direction, but at this time and within the context of the current struggle it might, however, be a good idea to reconsider the whole question about political wings and make a few points clear concerning the meaning of the terms “right” and “left” and their application to today’s political scene.

Historically, the words “right” and “left” in reference to political views originated in pre-revolutionary France, where those who wanted to preserve the system of government, more or less as it was, sat to the Right in the National Assembly, whereas those who wanted more radical changes sat to the left. Hence, the term “right” for the reactionaries and “left” for the revolutionaries— terms that have since become universally known and used. Neither the word “reactionary” nor the word “revolutionary,” however, says anything universal about the particular views in question. They are both relative and receive their specific meaning only within a given historical context. The revolutionaries of former times, as for instance, the European National Liberals of the 19th century, do not seem very revolutionary today—quite the contrary!—just as today’s reactionaries would have been considered very revolutionary 200 years ago. When the Communists took over in Russia in 1917 they did so as revolutionaries out to overthrow an ineffective and corrupt regime, whereas today they represent the reactionary establishment facing a new revolutionary challenge.

Obama: Stupid or Lying?

His claim that his uncle liberated Auschwitz must be false because there were no American troops there. Americans did free Buchenwald. If George Bush made a similar claim, he’d be derided by the Left as a stupid liar. Obama says this and nobody says a word. Just as they let him slide when he said that he visited 57 states and has a couple more to go.

Abusing Those Willing To Be Abused

Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign for the Democrat nomination deliberately appealed to white supremacy, fear and anxiety, charged longtime Barack Obama colleague and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers and wife, Bernardine Dohrn.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115923

I’ve always thought that the people who get abused are those willing to take the abuse. The kid who gets beat up in 3rd grade isn’t weaker than others. Kids are kids. Until testosterone kicks in during puberty, there really isn’t a big difference in power, nor can serious damage be caused.

I see the same with accusations of racism. The leftists who are most politically correct are those most likely to to face accusations of racism. We constantly hear how the media is racist. Really? That outpost of leftism is racist? And who faces even more accusations of racism? Universities, which make the media look conservative.

Despite minority outreach, affirmative action, racist scholarships for blacks and tutoring for blacks, universities are allegedly keeping minorities out and failing them because of racism.

Consider big business vs. small business. Small business actually does discriminate (not just white owners, all races). Big business does many of the things that universities do. Who gets sued?

In part it’s a matter of economics – big business has more money. But big business also has the means of defending itself. Small companies often simply can’t afford to pay legal fees to defend themselves and have to settle.

Big corporations can fight to set an example that they won’t be abused. They did it against personal injury lawyers. They used to sue over the smallest accident where nobody was injured. Insurance companies one day just took a stand. They said that they will pay any amount of money to defense lawyers to defend them just to stop the assault from plaintiffs with no real injuries.

It worked. Within a year, law suits for minor accidents with no injuries largely stopped because plaintiffs’ lawyers did not want to take on cases where they wouldn’t get paid. Insurance rates dropped dramatically in some states where such abuse was rampant.

Corporations can similarly afford to take a stand. Spend a couple of million on defense lawyers and end this civil rights crap. Just as insurance companies said that they will pay anything to defense lawyers, but nothing to plaintiffs’ lawyers, corporations should take a similar stand.

People who get Watsoned deserve to be Watsoned. Look at the cop who stood up to the onslaught from the Black President, the Black Professor and the traitor media.

Suddenly it wasn’t the cop who acted “stupid”, it was our Black President.

It’s time to take a stand. Hillary is the farthest thing from a racist. She’ll kiss any black’s ass who offers her to do so. And that’s why she and her last year her husband were attacked.

If the Clintons don’t want to be called racist, they should stand up for themselves, and when they will, most of the nation will be behind them. The vast majority of whites are sick and tired of racism accusations against people who don’t deserve it. But nobody will defend you if you won’t defend yourself.

If Hillary just accepts this, she deserves to be Watsoned.