Walter E. Williams: Idiot, Tool, Black Conservative

The latest Walter E. Williams article.

A truly insane article by a typical Black conservative nut. This kook points out the logical fact that is known to anyone: What do the Top 10 US cities with the highest crime rates have in common? Guess what? They are chock full of Black people! Duh.

One would draw certain logical conclusions from these obvious facts, but a Black conservative is too much of partisan monkey liar to ever do that. As bad as Black liberals can be (and they can be pretty bad), Black conservatives are by far the worst that the Black race has to offer.

According the Williams, the logical conclusion that we draw here is twofold:

1. These cities are full of Black folks.
2. They are all run by Democrats, for the most part liberal Democrats.

Conclusion: Liberal Democratic administrations cause unbelievable amounts of crime!

I kid you not. Black conservatives really are that stupid. As if Black people would act any better under a hard rightwing administration, not that they would ever elect one.

We have an actual experiment to see if this is true: the South. All Southern states are run by radical rightwing Republicans. Before that, they were run by radical rightwing Democrats. All of those states have been run by Black-hating racist White people for ever and ever. And how do Black people act down South? Perfectly horrible. They act as bad as Black people do anywhere. Why would Black folks suddenly act better if a rightwing Republican racist White massa was in charge, cracking the whip on those niggas? You think is going to stop making them act up? Come on.

The truth is that those cities are full of crime for the precise reason that they are full of Black people. Once you get a city full of Black people, you tend to get a city with lots and lots of crime. Those Black people created all that crime, and they will create about as much crime whether they are under a liberal Democratic administration as when they are under a Republican white racist massa administration.

Williams is truly crazy: a Libertarian Black. Black Libertarians are even more insane than Black conservatives. About 3% of Blacks are Black conservatives. We know this because ~3% of Black voted for Mitt Romney in the last election. However, if you looked at the US news media, you would think that 50% or more of Blacks are conservatives. Black conservatives may be as rare as four leaf clovers, but the “liberal” media loves them, and loves to over-represent them as demonstrative of the politics of US Blacks. If you are a US Black conservative, you are almost guaranteed of getting your own radio or TV show or your own newspaper column.

Does anyone on Earth think that Libertarianism will do anything for US Blacks?

Libertarianism is what exists in the 3rd world. In the 3rd World, the state is almost nonexistent, spends almost no money on the people on social programs, and what money it does have goes solely for police and military to enforce class rule over the lower classes and the workers. If the lower classes and workers get too out of hand, you just call out the cops and army and slaughter them.

Other than that, the government exists solely as an arm of the richest sectors of society and serves to protect their interests. The rich and business classes get to do everything and anything they want to. The state is starved for funds because the businesses and the wealthy pay no taxes, and the elites don’t believe in government spending anyway due to “the threat of a good example.” If the state spends money on pro-people programs, that is socialism, and we oppose socialism. Also the people might come to like this socialism and might want to have a more socialist country. This would interfere with the moneyed interests of the nation’s elites, so we can’t have that.

Libertarianism is what Blacks have in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and a few other places. Probably Haiti is the best example because it is the most Libertarian society ever attempted in a Black country. You can see how well that is working out!

Over in Africa, we can look at Kenya, Nigeria or Zaire as examples of nearly Libertarian Black countries in which elites steal 100% of the money in society leaving the masses with nothing but starvation and disease. As you can see, that is working out just fine!

Most other Black nations are socialist to some degree or another, so it hard to find a Black example of a radical rightwing country, but the above examples are pretty good.

Libertarianism won’t do anything good for Black people. All it will do is turn Black neighborhoods and cities like Detroit and Oakland into Haiti or Nigeria. If you think that is an improvement on the present state of affairs, you are wrong.

James Flynn on 2007 Blacks vs 1957 Whites

Repost from the old site.

Note: this post is both lengthy (64 pages) and highly complex. I have tried to make it as understandable as possible, as this blog is geared towards the general reader, but some stuff is just inherently complex. If you think you can’t handle it, you might just want to bail out now; life is difficult enough as it is without me donating a frustrating reading and thinking experience to you.

If you want to sally forth, anyway, go ahead. Meantime, here is a good introduction by James Flynn that is fairly brief and easy reading. In particular, he deals with Jason Malloy’s notion that the Flynn Effect is worthless and not a rise in intelligence since it lacks a g-factor load. If you enjoy that, come back here and spear some of the red meat:

In recent days a particularly forceful assault has been leveled against my post, The Skyrocketing Black IQ, by Jason Malloy on the Gene Expression (GNXP) blog. Please see both of the linked articles above to get a background on the highly complex issues involved in this debate.

I first saw Malloy in the comments on the Dienekes blog.

Malloy hides his de facto racist message with various pretensions and obfuscations, perhaps unconsciously.

An artist from Madison, Wisconsin, he fashions himself an autodidact scientist and mathematician, and in my opinion, he and his ilk are among the most dangerous de facto racists on the Internet, mostly because they seem so reasonable and non-racist about their message. We need to take on him and his ilk with everything we’ve got.

The Malloy line is that environment does absolutely nothing and genes are everything. His political views? He says he is a liberal Democrat. I don’t understand this at all, but I’ve seen stranger things. To me, the politics he says he has and the politics he promotes in his writings are contradictory, but whatever.

He is neither a scientist nor a mathematician, has no degrees in either field, and has no peer-reviewed publications, yet used to go around to science blogs lecturing actual scientists on how to do science.

Real researchers have a skeptical attitude. Molloy does not.

After making comments on my post on Dienekes’ superb blog, Malloy then reiterated his rejoinders in a new post on the ultra-racist, super-arrogant, disturbing, childish and downright embarrassing GNXP blog.

Malloy insists he is not a racist; he is just dispassionate scientist without a science degree who is looking for the cold, hard truth. After some emails with him, I do not think he is consciously racist, but he is pushing a de facto racist message whether he intends or not.

A lot of these guys fashion themselves as “scientific martyrs” – a modern day Galileo. If only people would realize the unpleasant truth: Blacks are stupid, permanently so, and apparently nothing short of gene therapy will change this sorry state. I’m sure just about every Black person around is dying to believe such wonderful things about themselves.

There is no scientific consensus for such a painful conclusion, so there is no reason for any non-racist or Black-friendly person to take that line. The words of Malloy and the many like him amount to psychological warfare against Blacks. At the end of the day, it is more than that: it is a declaration of de facto racial warfare on every Black person on Earth hiding behind the lab coat of science.

Malloy has some charming things to say about US Blacks in that widely-linked piece. He ridicules their mental skills by calling them “story-telling ability IQ”. Their ancestors in Africa have a high “mosquito-dodging IQ“.

He disagrees with my suggestion that the Whites of the Greatest Generation have lower IQ scores than Blacks, remarking that 1945 Whites could not possibly be “even less intelligent” than our considerably dense Black citizens.

Malloy also claims that modern science proves Blacks are much more inferior as workers than Whites, that this is a serious drag on any employer of Blacks, and that the reason for this is their incurable genetic stupidity. The implication is that Blacks simply should not be employed in any sane workplace.

A White friend of Blacks can make sometimes-painful impressionistic observations about Black culture, without being nasty and racist-sounding about it. See here for an example. Malloy and those like him forgo that route and just slam away at Blacks, then are stunned when people note the racism, intended or not, that shines through loud and clear.

GNXP is a Social Darwinist blog where conceited, know-it-all, rude, immature young upper class “intellectual elitist” manchildren make asses out of themselves, and in so doing, idiotically try to poison their future careers. The racism and general elitism, especially the leaderships of South Indian high caste elitists Newamul Khan (Razib) and Paul Wickre (Godless) of GNXP has been cataloged on the Net in many places.

What’s ticklish is that if US Blacks are idiots, what does that make Razib’s Desis, who are apparently even dumber than the Blacks he scorns? Don’t ask. Like so many insecure narcissists, Razib attacks those above him (in this case Blacks and Hispanics) while projecting his inferiority complex on them. It’s Psychology 101, and it would be funny if it was not so pathetic.

GNXP is a hangout where petulant, conceited, condescending, basically immature cranks can pitch their atavistic and nihilistic misanthropy couched as “science” while they cheer themselves on.

Malloy’s debating and authorial style is sledgehammer-like. I have yet to see him concede a point, and he typically refers to opponents as ignorant. Not a good way to win friends and influence people, and it won’t fly in any peer-reviewed journal.

Malloy’s counterattack has been widely linked around the blogosphere, usually in a laudatory way, and was even discussed in a widely-read NY Times article. Unfortunately, instead of being the tour de force it appears to be, this carefully-penned attack is a de facto racist screed.

The author takes as face value that US Whites have higher IQ’s than US Blacks, that this difference is largely genetic and therefore unalterable by any environmental means (except presumably gene therapy) for at least the next century, and that the Flynn Effect (see below) is not an intelligence gain at all and has no bearing on the Black-White (B-W) IQ gap.

Furthermore and most importantly, Malloy seems to take utter delight in all of the above positions.

Except for the italicized first one, none of these positions are supported by scientific consensus, to put it mildly. Even the first position is widely disputed, at least in the popular press most folks read. Even the US Federation of American Scientists disagrees, though I think they are wrong on that. Bottom line: this debate is very much an unsettled issue, for better or worse.

Anyone who has gleefully taken such an extreme position and argues forcefully against all contrary evidence should have their motives questioned. The truth is that anyone staking out such an intellectual space is arguing from a de facto racist point of view, and unfortunately, Malloy’s widely hailed post is a tour de force of de facto scientific racism.

The real danger in this stuff (there are many more like Malloy out there) is the fact that it is very well researched and written and sounds quite convincing and reasonable. A maniac in a sheet or giving a Seig Heil can be scornfully dismissed. The de facto racism of a mild-mannered, reasonable-sounding liberal is much more frightening in its allure and potential to intoxicate.

The reason this is a racist position is that there is as yet no scientific consensus whatsoever about the B-W IQ gap. All we know is that it exists. All else is pretty much up for grabs right now (for exhaustive overviews of the state of the enormously complex debate, see here and here).

Many libertarians and extreme rightwingers are now taking a hardline, “Blacks are stupid” line on the B-W gap. That few Western Blacks or Mulattos, Hispanics, Amerindians, Polynesians, Black Africans, Southeast Asians or Arabs, not to mention Leftists, Liberals, Centrists or even mainstream conservatives take this position is telling.

This hard line is both unwarranted and unproductive.

On the other hand, it is important to not go to the other extreme. Pointing out the verifiable fact that IQ scores are low in Africa or there is a Black-White gap in the US is not racism at all, yet Western society seems to treat it as if it is. The treatment of James Watson’s basically reasonable remarks (other than the remarks about Black employees) is a sad testament.

And those of us opposing scientific racism need to come up with better arguments than, “No such thing as race,” “No such thing as intelligence”, “No such thing as IQ”, “IQ does not measure intelligence”, and on and on.

For instance, IQ is positively correlated with glucose metabolism, frontal grey matter and cerebral blood flow in the brain. A brain that works more, faster or better is likely to use more glucose and blood and to have more tissue than one that does not. This would hardly be the case if IQ had nothing to do with intelligence.

My post cited a phenomenon of rising IQ’s in the West for 80 years called the Flynn Effect (FE – named after James Flynn, the man who discovered it)¹ and claimed that Blacks today have the same IQ score as Whites in 1957. 2007 Blacks also have IQ scores four points higher than Whites in 1945. If 1957 Whites were not stupid and did not have low IQ’s, neither are Blacks today stupid, nor do they have low IQ’s.

Here are Malloy’s complex charges:

He first asserts that there is something called g, or general intelligence factor (conceived by Charles Spearman)², and that this is pure, or real, intelligence. Everything not g is not real intelligence. Instead, it’s just garbage, test-taking practice, “bias”, cultural bias, statistical noise, nothing at all, this or that, or whatever.

Then he asserts that FE rises are not on g, twisting and misrepresenting (Apparently deliberately!) several statements by Flynn. Malloy says they are not on g because the rises are not something called factor-invariant. On the other hand, Malloy notes the fact that the B-W gap is factor invariant.

In fact, Malloy is conflating two different ways of measuring g-factor here, one elaborated by Arthur Jensen, and another way of measuring g, called factor invariance, used by a team out of the Netherlands in 2004 (N2004)³.

The Spearman-Jensen g -factor (SJGF) does indeed correlate with the FE as shown by Flynn in a counterargument to Jensen who said his g-factor did not correlate with FE (the highest FE rises have been on the most SJGF-loaded tests of them all – see Raven’s Progressive Matrices⁴).

However, there is no correlation between the FE and the N2004 factor-invariance method of measuring the g-factor (but see here ³ for quotes from the study that imply that the authors felt there was some correlation).

Also, note that the same authors issued a paper three years prior in which they called into question Jensen’s prize argument, that the B-W gap was due to g and that it was genetic and irremediable – i.e., Blacks are doomed to be stupid forever.⁵

It’s confusing, and overviews of several studies indicate that whether or not the FE is correlated with g is still very much up in the air, in part due to varying ways in measuring g. A cautious conclusion is that the FE shows a fluid-g gain but not a crystallized g gain.

Fluid intelligence is a rough measure of how fast and efficiently one’s brain works, and tends to decrease with age. Crystallized intelligence is more what you know, rather than how fast or well your brain works. It is also the sum total of life experience that we call “wisdom”. As one might expect, crystallized intelligence tends to increase with age, and even aged people can score very high.

The FE is not about knowing more stuff (young people today often seem strikingly ignorant to me, at the same time that I am shocked by how well their brains seem to work), nor is it about wisdom (see my post here that shows that Black pathology in the US increased wildly in the past 50 years while Black IQ’s went through the roof due to the FE⁶).

Malloy concludes that FE gains are not real intelligence gains since they are not g gains (but see above), and hence are worthless. He also states that 2007 Blacks do not have the same IQ scores as 1957 Whites, nor do their scores surpass 1945 Whites. Flynn disagrees.

There is indeed a paradox between the FE and the B-W gap. The B-W gap shows the stereotypical g-factor pattern – that is, the g-factor will measure the degree to which superior test-takers will tend to have a score lifted across all subtests, or across the board.

We could say that they seem smarter in an “across the board” way. It is true that the Blacks of today are not smarter “across the board” than the Whites of 50 years ago, but neither is the converse true, as Malloy implies.

Flynn and others offer some intriguing theories on the differences between g and the FE, and Flynn suggests that the g construct is not terribly important. Flynn suggests that the FE shows gains in intelligence within groups over time, like a movie. If you stop the movie at any time and take a snapshot, you see g. Start the movie again, and you see the FE.

Therefore, it seems wrong for Malloy to bash the FE on the basis that it is not on g, since the FE and g seem to be two entirely different things.

Put another way, we are comparing apples and oranges. It is true that apples do not correlate well with some hypothesized “orange factor”, but they need not and should not, and anyway, the fact that they do not does not imply that an apple is not fruit. It’s just that there is no reason to be comparing them.⁷.

Furthermore, Malloy and Jensen have problems when trying to say that the more a test taps g, the more genetic it is. B-W differences are highest on the subtests that are greatest in g, and the more a test taps g, the more genetic it is. How then to explain the massive FE, which is mostly on the most heavily g-loaded tests of all?

Malloy is also incorrect to imply that non-g FE gains are “hollow”, worthless, or not “real intelligence”. For instance, Malloy repeatedly states that IQ differences between ethnic groups (he often compares Blacks and Whites) are g-based, hence real, genetic and irremediable.

However, comparisons of Whites with some 3rd World groups show that the difference is on non-g. Hence, it follows that these 3rd World groups have the same intelligence as Whites.⁸.

A hallmark of the B-W gap genetic theorists rests on the scores of US Blacks, who strangely score 85, while African and Caribbean Blacks score 67 and 71 respectively. The hereditarian notion is that White admixture is what raises the US Black score, since African Blacks are pure Black and Caribbean Blacks are mostly Black. There are serious problems with this approach.⁹

Malloy is fond of several other claims.

Foremost, they believe that the B-W gap is wholly genetic, and hence cannot be remedied by any environmental factors or interventions. Blacks are hopelessly stupid forever, and the implication is that all money spent trying to give them a brain is down the drain.

They are doomed to wail, “If I Only Had a Brain“, in the wilderness forever, like the Strawman in the Wizard of Oz. The implication is that, as a hopeless race, Blacks must be cast off onto the proverbial ice floe as in the Eskimo custom, set free to fail and die as evolution deems fit.

In particular, Malloy attacks adoption studies, saying that adopting Blacks into White homes failed to raise their IQ’s. However, the evidence from adoption studies is far more complex than that, and many have shown gains for Blacks in these situations.¹⁰

Furthermore, even the model that holds that IQ scores within families are heavily genetic and owe almost nothing to shared home environment has been challenged, with radically different loadings for poor and high-income households on these factors.¹¹

An anomalous study in Germany (Eyferth 1961) based on the children of Black and White soldiers and White German women found no differences at all in IQ among the White and Mulatto children.

Note that many pushing a hardline “Blacks are forever stupid” line today are extreme rightwingers or libertarians. They are almost all Whites, and, in particular and creepily, Northern European Whites. There are a few high-caste South Indians and a Chinese here and there.

Jensen’s first article in 1969 stated that Blacks were dumb, that it was genetic and permanent and that Head Start should therefore be abandoned.

There is a reason for this political stance and there is a reason that almost everyone saying this far to the Right politically. There is an agenda being pushed here. If we can prove scientifically that Blacks are a hopelessly moronic race, and that their stupidity is embedded in their genome with no way of fixing the matter, we can cut off Blacks of any and all social programs designed to help them, educate them or make them smarter.

More savagely, the implication is that they are a useless evolutionary dead end that needs to be “phased out” in the frightening words of Richard Lynn. All money spent to help this dead-end hopeless race of idiots, either in the US or in Africa, is down the rathole. We should not give them medical care, income, rent, welfare, food stamps, disability, WIC or any other assistance or help in any way.

Africa, a continent reeling in disease and poverty, needs to be thrown out of the nest like a baby bird and told it is on their own, cutting off all food, medical and developmental aid. The result will be massive death and suffering in Africa. In the US, similar policies will be less severe but still frightening and tragic.

It is important to see the cruel and deadly racist motives behind scientific racism, even when promoted by consciously non-racist people. Even if their arguments are correct, the prescriptions most of them are pushing, if adopted, will mean chaos and widespread death and suffering for countless Blacks. It amounts to a declaration of war on Black people everywhere.

Scientific racism also claims that evidence shows that educating Blacks is useless, and most are ineducable. Many point to an set in stone “achievement gap” to show that Blacks are permanent dolts and need to be cut off. However, there is impressive evidence that the achievement gap is closing and that spending money on Black education does improve Black scores,

From Malloy’s piece:

An additional popular argument is that the Flynn Effect, the observed rise in IQ scores over time, is evidence that African-Americans or African countries will eventually reach parity with white norms. This typically includes the premise that white intelligence in the recent past was even lower than modern black intelligence. A typical example:

US Blacks, with an average IQ today of 85, have the same IQ as US Whites with an IQ of 100 in 1957. If 1957 US Whites were not stupid, then neither are US Blacks today. It’s time to shut up about the “low Black IQ”, since by any reasonable standard, it is not really low at all.

These arguments are wrong for the simple fact that the Flynn Effect is not a gain in real g factor intelligence, while the differences between nations and ethnic groups are differences in g factor intelligence. These findings led a 2004 team to state:

It appears therefore that the nature of the Flynn effect is qualitatively different from the nature of B-W [Black-White] differences in the United States… [so] implications of the Flynn effect for B-W differences appear small…

James Flynn, namesake of the secular increase, reiterates (DOC) these points:

Factor analysis is a way of measuring this tendency of some people to do better or worse than average across the board; and it yields something called g (a sort of super-correlation coefficient), which psychologists call the general intelligence factor…When you analyze IQ gains over time, you often find that they do not constitute enhancement of these latent traits — they do not seem to be general intelligence gains, or quantitative factor gains, or verbal factor gains (Wicherts et al, in press).

In the language of factor analysis, this means that IQ gains over time tend to display ‘measurement artifacts or cultural bias’. For a second time, we are driven to the conclusion that massive IQ gains are not intelligence gains or, indeed, any kind of significant cognitive gains (pp 27-28).

Flynn believes the secular increase represents important changes in specific narrow aspects of developed cognitive style, but not a rise in g intelligence. It is therefore incorrect that 1945 US whites were less intelligent than 2007 US blacks. The Flynn Effect has little apparent bearing on racial intelligence gaps.

A brief perusal of the Flynn links that Malloy provided above showed clearly that Malloy grotesquely took Flynn’s words out of context, possibly deliberately.

For one, Malloy implies that Flynn concedes that FE gains are not gains in any kind of real intelligence. For years Flynn did think that the gains were a practice effect or test artifact, but in recent years, he has changed his tune, and now really does believe that we are smarter in some ways. Even racist blogger Steve Sailer agrees.

Further, even scientific racists Steve Sailer, Richard Lynn and his co-author Tartu Vanhanen believe strongly in the FE, Lynn so much so that Sailer calls it the Lynn-Flynn Effect.

Malloy has been staking out this extreme scientific racist stance for years now – see here from 2003. Ole Eichhorn, a colleague of his at GNXP, does not share his views and believes strongly in the FE. Malloy at times parrots scientific racist hardliners Jensen and Charles Murray. Murray is a libertarian and Jensen is apparently an extreme rightwinger.

In a recent paper with fellow scientific racist Rushton, Jensen laid out his position: that an acceptance that Blacks are genetically less intelligent than Whites should logically lead to an end to anti-discrimination lawsuits. The burden of proof in such cases would fall on the plaintiff in proving that the employer was motivated by bias and not by Blacks’ scientifically proven genetic intelligence deficits.

This is the brave new world that the scientific racists have in store for us: where Blacks are forever resigned to much lower socioeconomic, health and educational status, with no way for them to equalize things even a bit. It’s this, and not “search for truth”, “science” or Galileo-martyr complexes, that motivates scientific racism, and it is for this reason that we must fight it with all we have.

I sent Flynn an email linking both my post and Malloy’s counterattack. He emailed me back¹³. Flynn made three rather confusing points, quoting from a book of his now on sale at Amazon:

• The FE gains are on g but at the same time they are not on g.
• The FE gains are real intelligence gains in spite of the fact that they are not factor-invariant.
• Flynn agreed with me that Blacks today have the same IQ’s of Whites of 1957, but he made a confusing statement that seemed to imply that Blacks may continue to gain on Whites, and possibly even move to close the gap.

Here is the statement for you to play around with: Blacks do match the whites of 50 years ago but that does not settle the debate. It can be argued that they are the beneficiaries of the effects of modernity over that time and this could be either more or less than the environmental disadvantage they suffer at any given time.

According to this mail, Flynn disagrees with Malloy’s assertions above and also disagrees with all views that Malloy has attributed to Flynn above. However, in a recent email, Malloy agreed that he and Flynn disagree about the meaning of the FE.

There are a lot of confusing terms in here – g factor, factor invariance, etc. See the footnotes and click some of the links to try to understand it better, but this is stuff is not easy going.

Notes

1. The FE in the US shows a 18 point gain over the 70 years from 1947-2002. In my opinion, Blacks have scored higher, reaching 23.5 points.

There are many possible causes of the FE in modern life. According to Flynn in his new book, they may be: Increased demands from more professional, technical, and managerial jobs; increased leisure time; changing cognitive demands of personal interactions; or changing attitudes toward intellectual activity. Nutrition, better schooling, video games, television, computers, cell phones and the increased complexity of modern life are all thought to play a role.

2. The g-factor is best thought of as a correlation coefficient that shows the extent to which superior test takers, if they score better on one test, tend to score better on other tests across the board. It indicates a brain that works “better all across the board” than others with lower g.

A group higher in g than another group will tend to score better than the lower group in an across the board kind of way. Like IQ, g also correlates with quite a few correlates of intelligence such as increased grey matter in the brain.

Jensen’s original extension of Spearman’s g involved the concept that that g-factor is what he called “Level 2 conceptual learning” – the ability to solve problems = conceptual learning = synthesizing ability. Non-g factor was conceived by Jensen as a “Level 1″ type of learning, and is roughly the retention of input and rote memorization of simple facts and skills = associative learning = memorizing ability.

Most IQ subtests would appear to measure Level 2 conceptual learning quite well. Actually, by Jensen’s own reasoning, he felt that the B-W gap was only 60% in g.

3. Raven’s, the most g-loaded test ever made, shows the largest FE of any test. The test was in fact specifically designed to measure g-factor intelligence only. The test has more predictive validity than any other test used in occupational groups and especially predicts mobility in jobs. It measures ability to “make sense out of the buzzing confusion of life”.

Scientific racist Philippe Rushton shows that Raven’s has no cultural bias whatsoever.

4. This extremely complex paper notes: gains cannot be explained solely by increases at the level of the latent variables (common factors), which IQ tests purport to measure.

In other words, according to this study, some of the:

…inter-generational difference in IQ is attributable to bias or other artifacts, and not real gains in general intelligence or higher-order ability factors…A cautionary conclusion would be that part of the gains (excluding the sub-tests Similarities and Comprehension) could be explained by genuine increases in intelligence.

Whereas implications of the FE for B–W differences appear small, the implications for intelligence testing, in general, are large.

As we can see, even Malloy, Jensen and Rushton’s favorite study indicates that part of FE gains could be on their version of g.

5. Dolan and Hamaker 2001 reanalyzed the data from several earlier studies and concluded that Spearman’s hypothesis is not an “empirically established fact” (i.e., that Black-White IQ differences may be due to differences in common factors other than g) due to insufficient power in the data to choose between alternative models.

The paper said:

This leaves the validity of Spearman’s hypothesis, considered a central justification for the genetic explanation, an unresolved question…

However, they did confirm that the Black-White IQ gap is not due to measurement artifacts, and is instead due to some measured factor that varies both within and between groups. These same people stated that the g factor did not explain the B-W gap as it was not explanatorily accurate.

The paper reanalyzed the data from several previous studies (Jensen and Reynolds 1982; Naglieri and Jensen 1987) that used the statistical method invented by Jensen (the method of correlated vectors – g factor) with a more recent and improved method (multigroup confirmatory factor analysis).

Quote:

On the basis of the present, as well as other results (Dolan 2000), we are convinced that the Spearman correlation cannot be used to demonstrate the importance of g in b-w differences with any confidence…

It is possible that the analysis of all available data sets (perhaps using an appropriate meta-analytic procedure) will demonstrate that a model incorporating the weak version of Spearman’s hypothesis provides the best description of the data. However, until this work is undertaken, we cannot accept Spearman’s hypothesis as an “empirically established fact [139]

6. There is quite a bit of existing evidence suggests that FE gains across subtests may indeed be positively correlated with g loading. See Colom 2001 for good correlations between FE and g, and Juan-Espinosa 2000 for much stronger correlations between g loadings and FE gains.

Jensen’s The g Factor, pp. 320–21, reviews a number of studies of the relation between FE subtest gains and g loadings, all of which show weak positive correlations. However, Rushton 1999 finds that a measure of g developed on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) has loadings that are negatively correlated with FE subtest gains in several countries.

Yet this was challenged in Flynn’s new book, Extending Intelligence: Enhancement and New Constructs, where he makes the argument that FE gains are greatest on tests of fluid g rather than crystallized g. Flynn finds a positive (though statistically insignificant) correlation between a measure of fluid g he develops and FE gains in the data used by Rushton.

Two tests in Estonia did not find a correlation between g loadings and FE gains on those tests, but these are achievement tests with a strong crystallized bias. See Must 2001 and Must 2003.

7. For an introduction to Flynn’s new book in which he explores the various paradoxes of the FE, see Amazon’s page on the book. For a much more complex take on how FE gains can be on g but not on g, see this paper.

From the paper:

Numerous studies indicate that measures of intelligence reliably produce a latent general factor, referred to as g, which is associated with real world competence and is highly heritable (see Jensen 1998).

However, analysis of measurement invariance between normative cohorts in gains on five standardized measures of intelligence indicated that IQ gains cannot be attributed to change in a general latent factor but primarily reflect systematic variation in specific aspects of cognition leading to bias between cohorts on a number of subtests of intelligence measures (Wicherts et al., in press).

Something in the experience of successive generations is bringing about changes in aspects of cognitive functioning that are associated with g within but not between cohorts.

See also Flynn’s superb but hard to follow lecture (based on his new book) at the Psychometrics Centre in Britain where he made fascinating points and intriguing allegories while offering fascinating examples. From the lecture:

(1) The factor analysis paradox: Factor analysis shows a first principal component called g or general intelligence that seems to bind performance on the various WISC subtests together. However, IQ gains over time show score gains on the WISC subtests occurring independently of one another.

How can intelligence be both one and many?…

(1) The WISC subtests measure a variety of cognitive skills that are functionally independent and responsive to changes in social priorities over time. The inter-correlations that engender g are binding only when comparing individuals within a static social context…someone who tended to be superior on any one would tend to be above average on all.

Let us assume that the 100 meters, the hurdles, and the high jump all had large and similar g loadings as they almost certainly would. A sprinter needs upper body strength as well as speed, a hurdler needs speed and spring, a high jumper needs spring and timing.

I have no doubt that a good athlete would best the average athlete handily on all three at a given place and time. However, over time, social priorities change. People become obsessed with the 100 meters as the most spectacular spectator event (the world’s fastest human). Young people find success in this event a secondary sex characteristic of great allure.

Over 30 years, performance escalates by a full SD in the 100 meters, by half an SD in the hurdles, and not at all in the high jump. Although average performance has risen “eccentrically” on various events, the following is still true: superior performers still do better than average on all 10 events and are about the same degree above average on various events as they were 30 years before.

Arithmetic, Information, Vocabulary, and Similarities all load heavily on g(IQ) and on a shared verbal factor. Despite this, Americans gained 24 points on Similarities between 1947 and 2002 (1.6 SD’s), 4 points on Vocabulary, and only 2 points on Arithmetic and Information…

To sum up. Factor analysis and g(IQ) describes a static situation where individual differences are compared and social change is frozen. The degree to which superior people are above average on the various subtests sets their respective g loadings.

IQ gains over time describe a dynamic situation in which social priorities shift in a multitude of ways. No better math teaching, more leisure but with the extra leisure devoted to visual rather then verbal pursuits, the spread of the scientific ethos, and a host of other things all occurring together.

The average on Similarities rises but the average on Arithmetic and Vocabulary does not. How odd it would be if social trends mimicked factor loadings in determining what real world cognitive skills progress and which mark time! If they did so, IQ gains would appear factor invariant, but that would be purely accidental (Wicherts et al 2004).

Although radically different trends alter average performances on various WISC subtests between Time 1 and Time 2, note that this leaves a certain stability untouched. Superior performers are much the same degree above average on each and every subtest at both Time 2 and Time 1. Therefore, much the same g will emerge.

Our first paradox is resolved. At any particular time, factor analysis will extract g(IQ) — and intelligence appears unitary. Over time, real-world cognitive skills assert their functional autonomy and swim freely of g — and intelligence appears multiple. If you want to see g, stop the film and extract a snap shot; you will not see it while the film is running. Society does not do factor analysis.

It is a juggernaut that flattens factor loadings and imposes its own priorities. Similarities requires you to solve problems on the spot without a previously learned method. The Performance subtests… require … arranging pictures to tell a story.

General information, math and vocabulary show only small gains on most tests, though the Dutch scored high gains. There have also been IQ identical rises in NAEP tests. Children are learning to read at an earlier age, but they are no better at reading adult literature than before. Basic math skills have shown impressive gains, but mathematical reasoning has been flat.

That means people are no better at geometry and algebra than they were in the past. Ability to solve problems without a previously learned method will be good for managerial, professional, and technical jobs to fill — jobs that often require decisions without the guidance of set rules. We are better at solving novel problems verbally, visually and abstractly.

Previous generations were more rule-governed and less likely to “think outside the box”. Previously, people engaged in pre-scientific, more concrete operational thinking. Now, they are post-scientific and more abstract.

What do dogs and rabbits have in common? They are not retarded, they use syllogistic logic, but they will appear retarded on Similarities. There is more lateral thinking now, and the human mind has been liberated – the liberation of reason from the concrete. There has been the spread of the language and categories of science and on the spot problem solving has been enhanced.

So, Flynn shows that IQ gains are real and that they are the result of environmental progress. The artifact, test taking or bias options cannot be supported by evidence. Test sophistication shows a particular pattern that is not present in the Flynn Effect. Flynn also resolutely shoots down cultural bias.

A series of studies were undertaken by a Russian researcher in first decade of the 20th Century amongst Siberian peasants. He was studying their cognitive styles. Looking at their test answers today, we can see how they were not retarded at all, but would have scored retarded on some of our modern IQ tests.

From the lecture:

Q: All bears are white where there is always snow; in Novaya Zemlya there is always snow; what color are the bears there?

A: I have seen only black bears and I do not talk of what I have not seen.

Q: But what do my words imply?

A: If a person has not been there he can not say anything on the basis of words. If a man was 60 or 80 and had seen a white bear there and told me about it, he could be believed.

This indicates that the Siberian peasant uses syllogistic or concrete logic that was useful for him at the time. As you can see, the questioner tries to get the peasant to think scientifically, but the man stubbornly refuses to, possibly because he is not able to. Not because he is stupid, but because he has never learned how to think this way.

If you tried to explain to the peasant the more abstract and rational way of looking at the problem, he might have argued with you, but more likely he would give you a look that says, “Why do you think that is important?” There was little use in his world for abstract thinking.

Again, in the lecture, Flynn shows that if you asked a boy in 1920 what dogs and rabbits have in common, he would probably have given you an “odd” answer like, “You use a dog to hunt a rabbit.” Nowadays, if someone gave an answer like that, people would crinkle their eyes, look puzzled and say that that answer was “Idiotic!”.

This means it shows contempt for scientific norms, not that it is incorrect – one may indeed use a dog to hunt a rabbit – but modern science does not deem that relationship the most important one between the two animals.

Even a youngster in the ghetto with poor grades nowadays may be able to give the answer we deem “correct”: “Both dogs and rabbits are mammals”. The boy in 1920 is not slow or retarded, he is just using concrete and pre-scientific thinking. The boy in the ghetto, despite his gangsta language and clothing, may at least be able to think like a scientist.

Flynn also shows how Rosenau and Fagan (1997) compare the 1918 debate on women’s suffrage with recent debates on women’s rights and make an excellent case that the latter shows less contempt for logic and relevance. This shows that we are becoming less illogical and irrelevant in our thinking over time.

That our ancestors were illogical or irrelevant in some aspects of their thinking does not mean they were retarded or slow. Illogicality and irrelevance were useful to them in some ways as argumentation styles and in making sense of the world in pleasing and comforting ways; they were culturally sanctioned and incurred little to no penalties.

The Darrow Trial in the 1920′s is another example. They were not retarded or stupid, just unscientific.

8. For instance, B-W IQ differences in South Africa are not factor invariant, so according to Malloy, these differences are not real at all. Malloy’s position would have to be that there are no differences between White and Black IQ’s in South Africa, despite a White score of 100 and a Black score of 67. Is this a position that he is willing to take?

Furthermore, in his book, The g Factor , Jensen himself says that White – South Indian IQ differences are not based on g. Therefore, according to both Jensen and Malloy, Whites and South Asians score the same on IQ tests, despite a White score of 100 and a South Indian score of 81. Is Malloy willing to concede this?

9. Clearly, US B-W differences compared to US White – African differences cannot be explained by the European admixture in the blood of US Blacks. US Blacks are 17.5% White on average. Adding 17.5% White (IQ 100) to the African IQ of 67 gives us 67 + 6 = 73. Instead of the expected 73, we get 85. Clearly, something other than genes is raising US Black IQ.

In addition, numerous studies have been done to try to determine whether or not White admixture in Blacks is correlated with IQ. These studies have found nothing – there is little or no correlation between the degree of White blood in a Black and their IQ score.

Since the US B-W gap is said to be based on g and purely biological, yet there is no difference in Black IQ based on White ancestry level, this takes apart Jensen’s notion that both the B-W difference and g are biological.

10. For instance, Tizard 1974 showed that the Black orphans raised in an orphanage were smarter than the White orphans. Moore 1974 and Willerman 1986 found that Blacks adoptees raised by White mothers had higher IQ’s than adoptees raised by Black mothers.

Scarr and Weinberg (1976, 1983) in a study of Blacks adopted into upper-income White homes in Minnesota, showed that Black children benefited by adoption into high-income white families. Black children had IQ’s of 94 (5 pt gain) and mixed-race (mulatto) adoptees had IQ’s of 99.

The effect wore off by late adolescence and adulthood, but this just shows that home environment only benefits Black children, and the effect wears off by late adolescence to adulthood. But late adolescent to adult Blacks may need a new sort of stimulating environment to maintain their gains from childhood.

Most adoption studies, as noted by the Minnesota trans-racial study above, show gains only in childhood, with gains wearing off by adulthood. However, one study did find lasting gains into adulthood. This effect lasted into adulthood.

11. For instance, from Turkheimer 2003: The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse.

12. Huang and Hauser 2000 show that, controlling for social background, Blacks made significant gains in closing the Black-White achievement gap from 1974-1998. Since then, they have begun to lose ground as rightwing policies to cut back on education funds for Blacks have taken hold, harming Blacks. Boozer and Cacciola 2001 show that reducing class size caused an impressive increase in achievement test gains.

13. It is normally a violation of netiquette to print private emails without someone’s permission, but the folks at GNXP demanded that I post Flynn’s letter in its entirely. I do not reprint the whole letter, but I do reprint the parts that are important.

I bold the parts of his letter that are at least a bit confusing to me. A characteristic of the narcissistic young men on GNXP is that they never admit that there is anything they don’t understand, and they never concede a point. Being a grownup and all, I do both.

You raise three questions and my current book (What is intelligence?) illuminates all three. You can get it from amazon.com for $14.96 or probably from a Border’s bookstore:

(1) IQ gains are significant despite not being factor invariant – see chapter 2;

(2) Black gains on white are gains in g even though they are not g gains – sounds odd but true – see pp 60-63;

(3) Blacks do match the whites of 50 years ago but that does not settle the debate. It can be argued that they are the beneficiaries of the effects of modernity over that time and this could be either more or less than the environmental disadvantage they suffer at any given time.

References

Blair, C., Gamson, D. Thorne, S., Baker, D. “Rising mean IQ: Cognitive demand of mathematics education for young children, population exposure to formal schooling, and the neurobiology of the prefrontal cortex”, Intelligence 33 (2005) 93–106.

Boozer, Michael A. and Cacciola, Stephen E. “Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Project STAR: Estimation of Peer Effects Using Experimental Data,” Discussion Paper 832 (Economic Growth Center, Yale University, 2001).

Colom, R., Juan-Espinosa, M., and García, L.F. “The Secular Increase in Test Scores Is a ‘Jensen effect,’” Personality and Individual Differences 30 (2001): 553–58.

Klaus Eyferth “Leistungen verschiedener Gruppen von Besatzungskindern in Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest fur Kinder (HAWIK),” Archiv fur die gesamte Psychologie 113 (1961): 222–41.

Flynn, James R. “The History of the American Mind in the 20th Century: A Scenario to Explain IQ Gains over Time and a Case for the Irrelevance of g,” in Extending Intelligence: Enhancement and New Constructs, edited by P. C. Kyllonon, R. D. Roberts, and L. Stankov (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, forthcoming).

Huang, Min-Hsiung and Hauser, Robert M. (2000) Convergent Trends in Black-White Test-Score Differentials in the U.S.: A Correction of Richard Lynn

Jensen, Arthur The g Factor: The Science of Mental Abilities, pp. 320–21. (Westport, CN: Praeger, 1998)

Juan-Espinosa, Manuel and others “Individual Differences in Large-Spaces Orientation: g and Beyond?” Personality and Individual Differences 29 (2000): 85–98.

Moore, Elsie G. J. “Family Socialization and the IQ Test Performance of Traditionally and Transracially Adopted Black Children,” Developmental Psychology 22 (1986): 317–26.

Must, O., Must, A.. and Raudik, V. “The Flynn Effect for Gains in Literacy Found in Estonia Is Not a Jensen Effect,” Personality and Individual Differences 33 (2001).

Must, Must, and Raudik, V. “The Secular Rise in IQs: In Estonia the Flynn Effect Is Not a Jensen Effect,” Intelligence 31 (2003): 461–71.

“Myth: Social intervention cannot raise IQ;”, in “Intelligence Quotient”, chapter in The Encyclopedia of Adoption.

Rushton, J. Philippe “Secular Gains in IQ Not Related to the g Factor and Inbreeding Depression—unlike Black-White Differences: A Reply to Flynn,” Personality and Individual Differences 26 (1999): 381–89.

Scarr, S. and Weinberg, R. A. “IQ Test Performance of Black Children Adopted by White Families,” American Psychologist 31 (1976): 726–39.

Scarr, S. and Weinberg, R. A. “The Minnesota Adoption Studies: Genetic Differences and Malleability,” Child Development 54 (1983): 260–67 .

Tizard, Barbara “IQ and Race,” Nature 247, no. 5439 (February 1, 1974).

Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B. and Gottesman, I. I. “Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children”, Psychological Science 14 (6) (2003), 623–628.

Wicherts, J. M., Dolan, C. V., Hessen, D. J., Oosterveld, P., Baal, G. C. M., van Boomsma, D. I., & Span, M. M. “Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect.” Intelligence 32 (2004), 509–537 .

Willerman, Lee and others, “Intellectual Development of Children from Interracial Matings: Performance in Infancy and at 4 Years,” Behavioral Genetics 4 (1974): 84–88.

When White Nationalists Complain About Jews

Repost from the old site.

Problem is, there is almost no way to do this without sounding like this guy.

German nationalism probably only dates to the 1880′s, and Italian, Russian and Pan-Slavic nationalism barely to the turn of the century.

Otherwise, nationalism in the modern sense really only arose in Europe with the French Revolution (though it was present first in England in the 1600′s with the defeat of the Spanish Armada), but it took the other nations mostly until the end of the century to adopt nationalism. Modern European nationalism is a relatively new phenomenon.

These modern nationalists pretty quickly took an interest in race, along with the usual volkisch blood and soil bullshit. And most European nationalists agreed on one thing: the Jew was no good.

More recently, in the very early 20th Century, Nordicism began to evolve in Germany and in the US and the UK. I once had a copy of a proto-Nazi book by a German race scientist delineating all of the races in Europe and the surrounding area detailed down to the last detail. It was published in 1918.

This newer nationalism transcended the older nationalism of the one nation in an attempt to unite all Northwestern Europeans under some sort of a superior Nordic or White Race. At the same time, pan-Slavism and even Islamism developed (Yes, modern Islamism only dates to around 1900 or so).

Southern Europeans were quickly defined out of the equation by Nordicists, especially in the US where they were widely despised, but Hitler actually put Meds second only to Nordics. He hated Slavs, but this was mostly because he said they were a “slave race”.

They were a slave race apparently because they had allowed themselves to be enslaved by Jews in the form of Jewish Bolshevism or Communism. The fascists’ main beef with Communists was that the Communists tended to be anti-nationalist.

And it’s simple to see why Jews have been in the forefront of seeing that White ethnic consciousness or nationalism is dead and buried forever.

This is why the anti-racists (who, granted, do bash away at Whites) are so often Jewish. This is why Noel Ignatiev has founded an organization to make Whites go away forever. This is why Tim Wise exists. This is why Jews so often decline to identify as White. This is why there are so many Jews on the board of the NAACP. This is why Jews pushed the 1965 Immigration Act and could well be why they pushed civil rights so hard.

Let’s face it: it’s hard to believe that US Jews really care about civil rights while they supported their KKK-Jewish brethren in Israel. Forget it. There must be another motive.

All of this Jewish behavior made the White Pride crowd dislike Jews more and more with every punch in the ring.

Anti-Semitism is not monolithic; some of it is pretty harmless stuff. But when you start talking about your blond hair and blue eyes and your White race and White blood and then start slamming away at Jews, people, especially Jewish people, do tend to see historical parallels that are not necessarily present in other anti-Semitic brands.

And who could blame them?

The Problem with HBD

Most folks who are against HBD theory are opposed to it on theoretical grounds. That is, they agree that while there are obvious differences between the races, they disagree that there are differences in complex traits like intelligence and aggression.

I actually think that races do differ on complex traits like aggression and intelligence on average. But I don’t like to talk about it too much. Why? Because it’s gross and disturbing, and there’s not much to be done about it anyway assuming it’s true, which I think it is.

What is to be gained by discussing such things even if they are true. If these differences are genetic, then there is probably not much to be done about them, right? Ok, so what to do? Exterminate the inferior races?

Furthermore, almost all HBD’ers are far rightwing White people, Republicans to Libertarians, who love the rich and hate the poor. Think about it. How many folks espousing HBD are liberal or even leftwing people? How many are even moderates. Most of them are the most ferocious sorts of reactionaries. Screw that. There is just nothing here for a leftwing person.

This all backs up into standard conservative to reactionary thinking. If Blacks are naturally inferior, then it’s a waste of money to spend any money on them, especially on education. Intellectually inferior Blacks obviously benefit little if at all from education due to genetic inferiority.

It gets worse than that, and almost all HBD’ers argue that not one single dime should be spent on the inferior races for any reason whatsoever. What this means is why should the superior race, Whites, spend one nickel on the inferior race, Blacks? And it gets even worse than that. Many to most HBD’ers also want to get rid of integration altogether, wipe out the civil rights and housing rights laws, etc. Why should superior Whites be forces to hire inferior Blacks? Why should superior Whites be forced to live with inferior Blacks?

Also, all such HBD discussions degenerate into talk to superior races and inferior races. While appears to be true that some races are more or less intelligent (therefore superior or inferior on that one trait) or more or less aggressive (superior or inferior depending on how one values aggression) it’s simply gross and disturbing to talk about whole races as being superior races or inferior races. You start talking like that, and most folks either tell you to shut up or leave the room. There’s no reason to use terms like that when talking about whole races of people. It’s rude.

Look at the ferocious reaction to my meager attempts to delve into HBD with the Blacks-testosterone theory. That piece was written as sensitively as possible, but almost every Black who has come here and commented on it has been so angry and mean that they had to be banned instantly. The same is true for most White liberals who commented on the piece. As it stands, the piece has generated very little to no serious discussion and it’s simply been relegated to flame-bait. I almost wonder what the point of even writing it was. Any further articles I write along HBD lines will simply promote more armies of angry Blacks and White liberals who need to get banned. Why bother?

As an obvious corollary, most HBD’ers are the most vicious of racists against Blacks and the other “inferior” races (nastily referred to as NAM’s). For those of us who object to racist thinking, what’s in this for us? Truth is that HBD is just another way to beat up on Black people. People have been beating up Blacks forever. Why join in on the pummeling? My bullying phase ended in high school. It’s also a very lame way for most young White STEM types, probably failing in almost every other aspect of life, to feel better about themselves as members of a superior race who are better than the lowly inferior NAM’s.

Bottom line is it doesn’t even matter if this stuff is true or not. If it’s true, there’s nothing to be done about it anyway, so there’s no point talking about. The size, shape and smell of the shit I took this morning is a fact too, should I discuss it with everyone I meet? Why talk about it? Why talk about HBD? Problems are only worth discussing if you can do something about ameliorating them.

If it isn’t true, which seems unlikely, you simply end up in a debate that goes on forever with no end in sight.

US Republicans and the South Africa Question

Repost from the old site.

It’s pretty common nowadays to call US Republicans racist. That is often true. After all, the South didn’t turn from Democrat to Republican after the Civil Rights Act was signed for no reason. Nixon’s Southern Strategy was explicitly racist, as were his Wars on Crime and Drugs.

So was Bill Clinton’s ending of “welfare as we know it” (done under extreme Republican pressure), and so is, in my opinion, the entire Republican war on federal government spending. Federal government social spending is so unpopular precisely because it is assumed that White families do not benefit from it and Blacks and Browns do.

To put it explicitly, the federal government taxes “hard-working Whites”, takes their hard-earned money, and gives it to Blacks and Browns who are “lazy, criminal, parasitical, hostile to Whites and a scourge upon our nation”. Or so it is constructed, in my opinion, in minds of tens of millions of White voters.

It is important to note that the rightwing trend for US White voters began in the 1960′s, with the new immigration bill that expanded the ranks of preferred immigrants from White Europeans to include non-Whites the world over (especially Asians and Hispanics). At the same time, the federal government passed many civil rights laws, primarily effecting US Blacks, but to a lesser extent also Hispanics.

Simultaneously, government social spending was dramatically increased with the advent of Medicaid, AFDC, food stamps, general relief, WIC, federal housing and Social Security for the disabled non-elderly. Around the same time, Black riots rocked our land and the US crime rate skyrocketed for largely unknown reasons. The increase in the crime rate was heavily driven by the skyrocketing crime rate of young Black men.

In the 40 years since, Black and Hispanic street gangs have become a blight on our big cities and have become so entrenched as to prove almost ineradicable.

Appallingly, the advanced country of the US was actually exporting vile and wicked street crime gangs to the backward, feudal, fascist nations of Hispanic Central America, notably Honduras, and especially El Salvador. These two nations, especially El Salvador, are now in the midst of a street crime wave that boggles the mind.

Here in the US, we are now in the midst of a wild, rollicking debate about illegal immigrants that pits the outraged average American against distant elites of both the US Democratic and Republican Parties. The Democrats love the illegal alien criminals because to oppose them, in PC lingo, is de facto racism. Also, the Democrats need the Hispanic vote.

The Republicans love illegal alien job thieves because they are a source of hyper-exploitable labor that has devastated the wage structure of many working class occupations in the West, especially California, in the last 15 years.

I bring all this up to point out to you to the salience of race in US politics. Most US Whites won’t admit to being racist, but the fact is that White racism has been the principal factor driving Whites towards conservative politics for 40 years now. Not that we are allowed to talk about it.

Now, there are a lot of conservatives that are not racist. I know this because I know these people. I would like to toss something out to these non-racist Republicans (including Black and Jewish Republicans). What exactly, I want to ask them, do you think about South Africa?

Do you realize that under the Reagan Administration, the US government supported South Africa to the hilt, against the will of virtually the entire international community?

Do you realize that those Republicans who were in the forefront of support for South Africa are still in power in the US Republican Party and include George Bush’s father, Dick Cheney and almost all Republican Congressmen who date back to the 1980′s?

We should allow people and political parties to make mistakes in life and we should accept their apologies.

I want to ask non-racist Republicans if they are aware that the Republican Party has never apologized for supporting South Africa, and that not one Republican politician, including Cheney and Bush Sr., has ever apologized for supporting that nation?

How do you feel about the fact that your political party supported apartheid 100%, has never apologized for it, and never will? Do you realize what apartheid was all about?

Keep in mind that our media gave us only whitewashed version of apartheid. How about, from this excellent comment on Daily Kos, the lowdown on what apartheid was really all about?

It was the white terrorist government of apartheid South Africa that declared Mandela a terrorist. There is no conundrum about Mandela vis-a-vis freedom fighter/terrorist. Repeat – no conundrum, no conundrum. Mandela fought the oppression and exploitation and land expropriation of South Africa’s 87% majority African population.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR APARTHEID, NONE, NONE, NONE. South Africa’s whites never bought a drop of land on any fair terms (they stole 99.99% of it), they never provided a sustainable land base for the majority black population.

Apartheid separated men into horrific labor camps in E Goli, Tshwane, E Tekweni, Cape Town and all of South Africa’s cities. Women were not allowed to stay with their husbands. Apartheid encouraged the spread of AIDS in its dying years. It planted false propaganda that AIDS was a western creation to keep Africans from reproducing. They took no action to educate about AIDS.

Apartheid South Africa created a dual economy trapping poor people in horrendous conditions in Bantustans; they built walls around their white homes and kept Africans in “their place”. They stirred up ethnic conflict by dividing Venda from Tshangan from BaPedi, from Zulu from “coloured” from !Xhosa.

There is no way under God that there is any construction of anything Nelson Mandela ever did that was terrorism. Each and every white voter of apartheid South Africa declared war and terror on the African majority EACH AND EVERY TIME they voted for the National Party.

Forced Removals was terrorism. The Bantustans project was terrorism, the labor system was terrorism, funneling weapons to the IFP was terrorism. Mandela was NEVER, NEVER, NEVER a terrorist, He reacted to a terrorist state. And a terrorist state that DICK Cheney supported. This is why I so hate Dick Cheney and am confident that his space in hell is reserved.

Wow, reading what apartheid was really about, an inescapable conclusion becomes clear. I read major US newspapers (Los Angeles Times) read major US newsmagazines (Time and Newsweek) and watched US TV News (CBS, NBC and ABC) during the apartheid tumult of the 1970′s and 1980′s.

Never once was the real story, portrayed above, spelled out for me. Instead, as I recall, the issue was obfuscated with moral relativism to the point where you could not tell the good guys from the bad guys. Barring other theories for now, is there no other conclusion other than that the US media (as described above) is profoundly White Supremacist, or at least was 15-30 years ago?

Anyway, back to my Republican friends. Do you support apartheid? Do you realize that if apartheid existed today, the US Republican Party and almost all Republicans would probably support it, based on past conduct? Does this bother you? If so, why do you vote Republican?

Is Israel an Apartheid State?

Repost from the old site.

This is one of the more hot-button issues surrounding the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The very issue has aroused horrible controversy on the heavily Jewish and Zionist-dominated Wikipedia, as you can see by the preposterous, typical allegations at the top of the page.

This is what Jewish activists do to any issue that criticizes the Jews or Israel – unleash a torrent of lawyerese garbage, threats, attacks, character assassination, logical fallacy, red herrings, ad hominem, diversion, phony comparisons, you name it.

The Zionist Jews on Wikipedia are up in arms over the Israeli Apartheid article and have been attacking it for over a year with everything they have. It’s amazing it is still up there.

But meanwhile, let’s examine the issue itself. Is Israel an apartheid state? Shall I count the ways? Thanks to the anti-Harry’s Place blog, Jihad and the City, for these facts.

*****
1. Israel: A separation wall tears communities apart and steals land. Furthermore, inside the Green Line, abhorrent “Judaization” policies are pursued in Arab districts, which involve surrounding Arab areas with Jewish settlements.

South Africa: Bantustans were set up for the Black natives, comprising about 10% of the land, while the Whites stole almost all the rest (similar to Israel, where 93% of the land – mostly stolen Arab land – is reserved for Jews only) .

2. Israel: In West Jerusalem, Jews wait for government services in short waits in air-conditioned rooms. Arabs in the same area (East Jerusalem) must line up overnight in hopes of getting seen that day. When the office opens, they must wait outside for hours in the heat before they get the main gate, where they are endlessly grilled for what should be routine document examination. Many times, they go home with nothing.

South Africa: In Johannesburg, Whites, Coloreds and Blacks were sent to separate entrances of government offices and were given services or not depending on their skin color – Whites had the shortest wait, then Coloreds and last Blacks.

3. Israel: In East Jerusalem, Palestinians have strict regulations regarding who they can marry, where they can live, where they can go to school and where, or if, they can go to a hospital. Jews face no such restrictions.

South Africa: There were identical restrictions based on who one could marry, where one could live, attend school or go to a hospital. It was all based on race.

4. Israel: Palestinians in East Jerusalem, many of whom were born there, are nevertheless classed as immigrants with “permanent resident” status and are denied citizenship in Israel.

South Africa: Similarly, most of the Black population were denied citizenship in South Africa and were labeled as immigrants in the cities and states they resided in. Most were said to be citizens of the Bantustans, but many of them had never been to these Bantustans,

5. Israel: Israel is now the only Western country that denies building permits based solely on race.

South Africa: Construction permits were issued or denied with race being the only criterion.

6. Israel: Urban planning (Judaization) has had the goal of trying to eliminate Arabs from Israeli cities or relegate them to slums. This is especially true in East Jerusalem, where the gross inequality, a product of exquisite state design, grows each year.

South Africa: Similar to Judaization, the “group areas” policy had the effect of trying to make Blacks invisible by moving them away from White districts.

7. Israel: As noted above, through the Jewish National Fund (Jewish Microsoft billionaire and all-around jerk Steve Ballmer is a major contributor to the JNF) and the Israeli Lands Agency, Israel has reserved 93% of Israeli lands for Jews only. Much of this land was stolen Arab land, and the Arab owners were never compensated for it.

South Africa: 87% of South African lands were reserved for Whites (compare to the 93% figure above for Israel). The Population Registration Act lumped South Africans into racial classes that determined who would be permitted to live on White-reserved lands.

8. Israel: Israel has separate school systems for Jews and Arabs, ostensibly due to language differences, but actually as a cover for state-mandated discrimination in schooling. As an example, Jewish schools receive far more funds than Arab schools.

South Africa: Separate but unequal school systems were an essential part of the system, designed to siphon Blacks off into menial labor in the mines, factories and fields. The school system has yet to recover from this dual system to this day, though Apartheid has been history for over a decade.

9. Israel: Israelis who marry Palestinians are not allowed to bring their spouses to live with them inside the Green Line.

South Africa: Until the Komani Ruling in the mid-1980′s overturned the pass laws, these laws were used to break up Black families by preventing spouses living in rural areas to unite with their spouses working in urban areas.

10: Israel: Part of the dominant paradigm underlying Zionism is that the Jews are a people chosen by God and that their Holy Books justifies their racism and exclusivity. Many Israelis see their victories in four wars against the Arabs as meaning God sided with the Jews against the Arabs.

South Africa: Similarly, the Dutch Reformed Church also used the backwards, tribal and barbaric (Jewish) Old Testament to claim superiority for the Afrikaners. Based on their victory over the Zulus at Blood River, they believed that God had sided with the Whites against the Blacks.

11. Israel: The victimized population has been demonized as terrorists to justify the Apartheid policies. Israel blames the victims for the oppression that Israel hammers them with. Israel absolves itself of all charges of Apartheid and immorality by blaming the victim.

South Africa: The South African regime did the exact same thing, calling the Blacks oppressed by Apartheid terrorists and blaming the victims for the misery that Apartheid saddled them with.

12. Israel: Israel represents itself as the last outpost of civilization, democracy and Western Values on the frontiers of (Arab, African, Middle Eastern, Islamic = non-Western) barbarism and dictatorship.

Nevertheless, bizarrely, instead of being compared with the West that Israel aligns herself with, Israel demands to be compared with the backwards non-Western societies she is surrounded with and with which she is defending the West against. Chutzpah!

South Africa: South Africa also represented herself as a last outpost of civilization, Western values and democracy amidst Black African barbarism, backwardness, dictatorship and just general non-Western values.

Similarly, South Africa also refused to be compared with the West she aligned with and demanded to be compared with the backwards African societies that surrounded her and against whom she was defending the West.

13. Israel: Israel is building a network of parallel roads in the West Bank – one much superior road system for Jews, one vastly inferior road system for Arabs.

South Africa: South Africa maintained a very similar system of dual roads for Whites and Blacks.

14. Israel: The Security Wall is actually also intended to grab quite a bit of land from the Palestinians. Israel’s colonization policy in the West Bank has been all about grabbing the best land and most all of the water for the Jews and relegating the dregs to the Arabs.

South Africa: Similarly, Apartheid was all about grabbing the best land for the Whites and pushing the Blacks into the least livable and serviceable parts of the country.

15. Israel: The Israeli state, both inside and outside the Green Line, is continuously seizing, destroying and bulldozing Palestinian homes, fields, orchards, businesses and lands in order to give them to Jews or use them as “security buffers” to protect Jewish colonists from the people the Jews stole the land from.

South Africa: Although this went on to a much lesser extent in South Africa, there were population relocation programs that involved the destruction of Black property.

David Hirsch, a fave Zionist Jewish academic from Britain, is one of the point men in International Zionism’s war against the Israeli Apartheid meme. He is a professor of sociology at Goldsmith’s College at the University of London. He played a leading role in the reversal of the British AUT Teachers Union decision to boycott Israeli academics.

Although he is an ardent Zionist, curiously, he is also a specialist in genocide. No, he doesn’t advocate genocide, he supposedly opposes it. That’s the curious part.

International Zionism has unleashed the usual torrent of bullshit, nonsense, lies, dissimulation, sophistry, lawyer-speak, politician-speak, Pravda-style propaganda, and the usual Jewish avalanche of logical fallacy all in an attempt to fight off the notion that Israel is an apartheid state.

A good overview of this very clever silliness, in which all 15 points above are brushed aside in favor the numerous differences between Israel and South Africa, can be seen in the Wikipedia piece, which the Wikipedia Jews have now “protected from editing”. That means that no one can do any more work on the article until all the phony Jewish complaints have been resolved, if that ever happens.

Is Israel a Racist State?

Repost from the old site.

Let’s look at this question from a strictly deterministic point of view, absent the avalanche of Zionist bullshit such a question usually provokes. Does Israel, or does Israel not, discriminate, as part of official Israeli state policies and not informal societal policies, against non-Jews?

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

We can argue like Jewish lawyers about the nature and degree of the discrimination, we can compare the shitty little country of Israel to all the shitty countries of various sizes she delights in comparing herself too, but none of that changes the bottom line.

In Israel, discrimination is written into the very existence of the state. If you support Israel, this is the Jim Crow garbage that you are supporting, de facto.

Let’s suppose the US was run like Israel.

Actually, it was for much of its existence. Indians only became citizens in 1920, the year women finally got the vote. Indians were put in boarding schools until recently. Discrimination against Hispanics, to a Jim Crow degree, was rife in the West.

So was open discrimination against Jews in all of the US. And the war against Jim Crow led to open warfare, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the loss of the US South by the Democratic Party as the racists left and went Republican.

Nevertheless, in 2012, we can still make an interesting comparison. Let’s pretend for a moment that the US is Israel. Thanks to Charley Reese for the theme:
*****
Let’s say that the US is a White Christian state, and that this fact is written right into its Constitution. In fact, the US is defined not as the state of its citizens, but as the state of all White Christians everywhere on Earth. It’s Whitey Homeland.

Any White Christian anywhere on Earth can come to Whitey Homeland, the US, and automatically become a citizen. White Christian criminals wanted anywhere on Earth for any crime can flee here and we will protect them. Why? Because they are White Christians.

The White Christian homeland of the US was formed some time ago, when 80% of the non-White Christians were thrown out of the country in a war and their land was seized. Now, 93% of the US is reserved for Whites only, although 20% of America is non-White Christian. This 93% was purchased by an organization called the White Christian National Fund.

Its donors are Whites throughout the world who support the White homeland. Once the WCNF bought the land, they forbade the sale of it to anyone who was not a White Christian.

The non-White Christians who were evicted decades ago linger in refugee camps in Canada and Mexico, where they destabilize those countries and clamor for right to return, which the US refuses to grant. Almost all White Americans are living on land stolen from the non-White Christians, and many are living in homes that were previously lived in by non-White Christians.

In big US cities, a similar development reigned. White Christians were routinely approved for any development they wanted, while non-White Christians were usually denied all building permits, including merely refurbishing or adding on to a home.

Many US neighborhoods were designated, officially or not, as White neighborhoods. By official decree of the state, non-White Christians were forbidden by renting or buying land in these neighborhoods.

Many non-White Christians have refused to live the lands they and their ancestors have lived on for many years. US military jets fly over these lands and spray poison the non-White Christian crops. Non-White Christian towns on White lands are denied all government services.

When they still won’t leave, the US Army shows up in the non-White Christian village and gives the residents 10 minutes to pack up and leave. Then the Army bulldozers begin to destroy every structure in the town.

The US government, at federal and state levels, issues Whiteification Plans, meant to “Whiten” non-White Christian areas. This involves surrounding non-White towns with White towns in order to “Whiten” the area.

Just for a moment, imagine the reaction of every Jewish organization in the US, not to mention the Israeli government, if the US pursued such a course. Recall that the US government on all levels would brutally discriminate against Jews, who, though White, would be non-Christians, and subject to the full brunt of US government racism.

Does anyone doubt that Jews were be screaming about this racism til the cows came home? But then, why do these same Jews support the same racist nonsense in Israel?

Fifty-five Years from Little Rock

Repost from the old site.

The Volkh Conspiracy, quoting Shelby Steele, noted that fifty years ago from the date the article was published, on September 26, 1957, (just over 55 years ago) nine brave young Black boys and girls braved a blizzard of seething White racist hate in order to attend segregated, all-White, Little Rock’s Central High School in Arkansas.

The foul fog of vicious White racism was so thick in the air that they had to be escorted by armed National Guard troops past hissing, jeering Whites, faces contorted and twisted with irrational hatred for their fellow man.

I fear to say that these daring young Blacks have more guts that I do. A shout out to them, for all time!

This was the beginning of the end for institutionalized White Supremacy in America, notes Steele. Sure it was. Fighting like a cornered, doomed animal, it flared for a decade or so, fighting for its life. Its dying heaves were drawn out, and they continue to this day as we see in the last gasps and lunges of Jena. There is some life left in the beast, but not much.

And we may thank those gallant young Blacks, the Little Rock Nine, for risking their lives for the liberation of their people, and for the advancement of the American vision itself, temporarily stuck as it was in the mud of virulent segregation and White racism. They liberated not only themselves, but they lit the way to liberation for all of the rest of us, if only we chanced it.

Looking at these fine upstanding looking Black kids, who could not let them into your school, and welcome them with open arms?

What cold heart would not swell with pride to share a classroom with these bright-eyed, well-dressed, well-behaved youngsters?

Looking at the Little Rock Nine today, do they not represent the very assimilated Black middle class that they hacked a trail for?

The Little Rock Nine today. They led lives of decency, hard work and respectability, like so many Blacks you meet in their 50′s and 60′s.

What would a Little Rock Nine look like nowadays?

They would probably look something like this:

The Little Rock Nine would probably look something like this today – the Crips Nine. I wouldn’t let them integrate a doghouse, much less a learning institution full of fully modern Homo Sapiens. How far have we fallen! These are the sort of animals the race-hustlers, the Jesses and Als, champion today.

If, today, the Crips Nine tried to integrate a school that had sensibly kept them out, 60,000 Black college kids would descend on the town and order the school to self-mutilate by letting them in.

Would you let them in your high school? Would you let them walk down your street? Would you let them set one foot in city limits? Hell no!

Angela Owanuchi, a Black intellectual writing on the Blackprof site, complains that US schools are as segregated now as they were in the early 1970′s. But that segregation is largely voluntary.

Whites and Blacks have voluntarily chosen to go to separate schools, Whites mostly to preserve their boys and girls from the depredations that many feral Black boys will surely wreak on them. Blacks, in many cases, because they simply prefer the company of their own race; as one young Black man told me, “Robert, I wouldn’t want to live with all those White people anyway!”

She feels it is a tragedy that Whites are in schools that are at least 80% White. That’s not racism, Angela, it’s self-preservation. The fewer Blacks in a school, the less likely your White son is going to get get taunted, hunted, bullied and beaten with mind-numbing continuity by Black boys.

White parents are running from the many predatory, stronger, aggressive Black boys who prey on the weaker and less aggressive non-White boys as wolves prey on sheep.

One commenter notes:

One of the ancillary benefits of the sub-prime mortgage lending and artificially low interest rates may indeed have been to integrate more communities.

Well, that’s all coming to an end, now, commenter, with the sub-prime crash.

A few or a moderate number of assimilated Blacks in any mostly-White town, or even a decent mixed neighborhood in a city, is no major hassle. I have lived in such towns and neighborhoods for years of my life. We have 4% Blacks in Madera, California, and that’s not yet a critical mass large enough to wreck the town, so things are relatively tolerable. The 70% Hispanics are the real issue.

But once the Black underclass population gets beyond a certain percentage, the result seems to be dramatically increasing crime, daily beatings of White and Asian boys in school, and a slow descent into Ghetto Hell as the Whites that are able to take off hightail it out of town. The Black underclass is so sick nowadays that even the Blacks with enough money and sense are fleeing the pathology and danger.

From the Little Rock Nine to the Crips Nine, such a journey.

Journey to Hell.

High Rates of Racism Among Young Swedish Females

Here.

The article is in Finnish, but if you can read Finnish, it says that recent surveys show very high numbers of Swedish girls and young women (25% of females aged 13-25) are racist against Arabs, especially Arab males.

Well, sometimes it pays to generalize. A very high percentage of rapes of Swedish young females are committed by Arab males. Comparatively speaking, Swedish males commit relatively few rapes against these same females. So consequently, young Swedish females have negative views of young Arab males, whom they see as a bunch of rapists.

Sweden is an officially antiracist country, and the Left, which has been in power for a long time now, has had an official policy of importing as many non-Europeans as possible into Sweden. The result has been a catastrophe as Arabs and other Middle Easterners formed ghettos that erupt regularly and have become more or less no-go zones for public safety personnel.

Why Discuss the Blacks = Apes Meme in the First Place?

Car Guy, a Black man from Ghana, writes:

Tulio (a US Black) is right. This is a silly topic.

This Justin guy says Africans are closer to apes and then uses the fact that they have “flatter faces and noses, flared nostrils, big lips, etc” as evidence. As a poster already mentioned above, many East Asians have those features, including relatively thick lips (not that apes have thick lips), so what does that make them?

If East Asians don’t look like Apes, then neither do the Khoisan, supposedly the earliest humans on earth, who happen to look rather East Asian.

He says,

“You can pick any black out of a crowd in America, strip ‘em of his clothes and place him in a jungle and he’d look right at home. Just give him a spear and wish him good luck.”

The guy clearly has an agenda, so why would you even entertain his comment, Robert?

I didn’t intend to agree with Justin’s comment, and I’m not sure why he made those comments. Justin is a politically nonracist White man whose heroes are JFK, RFK and MLK from the Sixties. In particular, he honors the Civil Rights movement. However, like many White liberals, as you can see, he has his racist moments.

One of the things that I have been trying pound into people’s heads forever on this site is that many good White liberals and even Leftists have at least some, and sometimes more than some, racist feelings.

They don’t express them politically, but they sometimes do in private, often after a few drinks, and only in certain company. Racist jokes are also likely to be entertained with select company behind closed doors. At the same time, this identical leftwing Whites take offense at a lot of what they consider to be extreme racism, political racism, out front racism, hard racism or even racism that goes too far.

For sure they are often frightened of Blacks and avoid them. Many are wary of having relationships, friendships or especially romantic and sexual ones, with Blacks. Many have a generally low opinion of Black culture, especially the lower class culture. Quite a few are a lot more “race realist” than you might think. In general, at worst their attitudes about Blacks are what you might call “cynical.”

On the other hand though, they get mad about a lot of racism. They oppose all discrimination. They oppose all overt racism. They hate political racism and often discuss the racist politics of the Right, which they hate.

I remember my mother told me about the father of my cousin’s wife, a man who lived in rural southern Illinois. When his daughter was pregnant and had to go to the hospital, they had a Black doctor. He pulled his wife out and got her another doctor because he said something along the lines of, “No nigger is going to deliver my daughter’s baby!” My mother was outraged and offended by that sort of high octane racism, and it just went to show that he was an inferior Southern cracker.

I want to point out to Blacks that liberal and even Leftist Whites are not so free of racism as you might think! That’s not necessarily a good thing, but I think Blacks ought to know that. Are all Whites racist? Not really, but there’s more to White racism especially the covert varieties, than you think. Now what should Blacks and antis do with this information? I am not sure. I guess that is up to them to decide.

Let’s get real here for a second. The Blacks = apes, gorillas or chimps meme is as old as forever. A lot of people think it’s very offensive, but is there anything to it? What’s the basis for it anyway? Are there features in common that cause this offensive stereotype? How should antis and Blacks react to this comment other than just shouting it down and screaming censorship?

By the way, shouting down and ordering people to shut up is all that Blacks and their anti allies ever do. What’s the point of that? Why don’t Blacks and their allies attempt to counter the argument is some other way other than jumping up and down screaming, “You can’t say that!”?

I would think that mature folks including relaxed Blacks and their anti and nonracist allies could have a reasonable discussion about this topic without screaming and yelling and telling people to shut up or degenerating into racist bullshit.

So that’s in part what I was trying to do with that post.

It’s also an interesting question, ugly and hurtful though it is, and it deserves investigation as all scientific questions do to see if there is anything to it or not.

Now in the crowd that I run in, saying Blacks = apes, monkeys, chimps, gorillas, etc. is considered to be extremely rude, gauche, an undignified and dishonorable statement lacking of a nonracist White of some refinement. It’s really gutter talk, and if you start talking like that, people will sort of tell you to shut up.

An anecdote will illustrate.

I used to know a famous writer named Avram Davidson. He came to visit me and stayed with me near the end of his life. I was trying to find him a place to stay nearby, but nothing would work out. Avram was a former Orthodox Jew, one of the smartest men I have ever met.

But it was said that he didn’t like Blacks too much. As a well-behaved Jewish intellectual, Black crime just scared the crap out of him. However, he had lived for a number of years in British Honduras, a place that is filled with Blacks.

Avram was a friend of my family’s – really my father’s friend and not mine. He and my father had met as medics on Okinawa in the Pacific and then went to China together after the war. They kept in touch for the rest of their lives, and he used to visit when I was a child and young man living at home.

My mother was fond of repeating one of Avram’s anecdotes about Blacks, which involved mass integration with White communities and breaking up large concentrations of Blacks that tend to descent to the lowest common denominator by reinforcement and egging on.

“A Black a block!” he would say forcefully. “Spread em out and civilize em!”

But in 1991 when he was visiting me, I mentioned that some Blacks looked like apes. Avram got rather offended by this and acted like was marginally not-OK conversation.

“Some of them do,” he said forcefully. “Some of them do.” He said it as if he wanted to put the conversation to rest.