* “Publishing this today would risk prosecution under the hate laws. Unless Johnson (who, like Orwell, has never been much of a fan of the Irish) publishes it to shame Darwin. Then it’s legally okay.” It might be amusing to try something Straussian like this in France or on a U.S. university campus. Lay on the political correctness with a trowel, but include juicy quotes for the discerning reader. We might hook a few intelligent young lefties that way.
* My point is you don’t decide how many wives you require – the beliefs of your culture decide this for you (see also collective unconscious). We are sensate animals – we feel first and maybe think later. This is our biology. We are not computers. Please note, even computers have to be programmed with equations to elicit a result that someone values. The question of whose equations we follow is not a purely rational undertaking. We are not quantitative beings – we are qualitative.
More comments to Steve Sailer:
* Liberals do not pay any political cost due to having their own version of Creationism (Creationism from the neck up), because accusations of “racism” serves as a crime-stop to prevent crime-think about differences between the races due to differences in evolutionary history. It works too, and most people don’t even recognize that such a thing as liberal Creationism exists, so effective is this particular form of brainwashing. “Anti-Science” is a tag that liberals and leftists can put on conservatives without any fear of turnabout, and this won’t change as long as present social taboos about discussing the facts of race persist.
* You can’t get around the ‘racism’ thing, and no mainstream reporter will ever ask about HBD because their career would be over.
Your other problem is you’ve got no research studies to cite, because no scientist wants to ruin his career. Even now the ‘gender does not exist’ crowd has lots of fake sociology studies to cite, and the average person can’t tell ‘science’ from science.
My argument in casual settings was: If there are differences in genes between populations for things like the ability to digest milk and skin color, how is it likely that there are *NO* differences in any of the thousands of genes controlling brain function?
Usually you get people accusing you of racism rather than actually coming up with a counterargument, but you can convince people right of center.
I think a smarter idea (which is already being done) is to spread crimethink through channels like Unz and Youtube. Then have huge letter/email campaigns launched from conservative sites. And you can identify the few MSM guys like Richard Bradley who actually care about the truth and try to spread ideas through them.
Honestly, your efforts are probably better spent fighting this immigration thing. Once you have a Republican president you’ll have 6 years before the Democrats retake Congress (the opposition party always seems to get in then). I’d push him as hard as you can. If you put enough nasty laws on the illegals, they’ll self-deport.
* It would seem like modern liberals have become creationists in their denial of the science of IQ and how it pertains to socioeconomic outcomes . Denialism over IQ involves includes, but is not limited to, the belief that IQ is not important (it measures nothing important) , that IQ is malleable and non hereditary ( costly education programs will boost scores), or that IQ must come at the expense of another skill (smart people are inherently unethical and socially inept, for example).
* One topic that Steve have not written about enough is the role NeoCons have played in discrediting Darwin in order to keep the Christian Zionists on board with IWx3 aka (Invade the World, Invite the World, Indebt to the World).
Steven Pinker to his credit in “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” calls out a number of NeoCons for their hypocrisy in criticizing Darwinism on the alleged behalf of protecting the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians.
Once again Kevin MacDonald is right on target. Here he points out the ridiculousness of the NeoCon former game show host Ben Stein’s Intelligent Design apology Expelled.
Ben Stein’s Expelled: Was Darwinism a Necessary Condition for the Holocaust?
Consider Ben Stein’s film Expelled. Stein depicts Darwinism as a stifling orthodoxy that suppresses free inquiry into how things got this way. And in particular, the triumph of Darwinism has meant that the theory of intelligent design has been banished from the realm of reasonable discourse in the academic world.
Of course, intelligent design is not a reasonable alternative at all, but a highly motivated effort to legitimize a religious world view in the sciences. But why would Ben Stein produce a movie that panders to religious conservatives? It would doubtless be pretty hard to find anyone in the Jewish intelligentsia who in the privacy of their innermost thoughts believes in God.
in his film promoting intelligent design Stein argues that Darwinism was a necessary condition for the Holocaust. In making a movie that attempts to legitimize “Creation Science” in the academic world, Stein is thinking not so much about intellectual honesty or the relative adequacy of Darwinism and Creation Science in producing testable hypotheses and mountains of supporting evidence. He is asking an age-old question: “Is it good for the Jews?” If Darwinism is not good for the Jews, then so much the worse for Darwinism.
In mounting a war on Darwinism or at least attempting to control it, Stein is entirely within the mainstream of Jewish opinion, at least for the last 100 years or so. The triumph of the Boasian school of anthropology over Darwinism in the early years of the 20th century was a watershed event in intellectual history of the West — in effect more or less obliterating what had been a thriving Darwinian intellectual milieu.
