Mondoweiss: Let Michael Vick Play Football Again (And Stop Criminalizing Black Youth)

Seems that every society must have its Gladiator-type sport (where 'real men' pit themselves against others to do bodily harm) and NFL Football is ours. But as with all pro sports, it's also a business, and it will be NFL's business decision whether to allow Vick back into their ranks or not.

My guess is that they will, since fan memories are pretty short, and as you point out, this is America where we believe in most anyone's chance for redemption, especially after punishment has been dealt and accepted. If the NFL decides not to be so forgiving (which they have the right to do), Vick can choose between European and US Arena football for his next pro stint --whatever it takes to pay the bills...

But I must once again take exception to one of Phil's allegations -- I don't see how this has anything to do with criminalizing black youth. Dog-fighting is a thug pastime that deserves to be punished whether you're a black hip-hopper, Mexican immigrant, white southern redneck or anything in between.

As to the similarities between dog-fighting and pro football, NFL athletes know what they're getting into and usually are aware of what's happening to them (at least before their 3rd or 4th concussion). And the smart ones (like Tiki Barber) know when to get out.

Dogs have no such choices or awareness. They are doomed to fight until they die due to injuries dealt either by their opponents OR their brutal owners, such as Mr. Vick, the convicted felon who had the world's riches in his hands and chose to throw it all away. I have not one ounce of pity for the guy...

Posted by: Robert Forbes | August 22, 2007 at 01:19 PM

Certainly Joechem, the racist, homicidal, genocidal, racist, khazari, so called Jew influence is at work here. Please enlighten me.

Posted by: Bill Pearlman | August 22, 2007 at 01:27 PM

Perceiving cruelty is a matter of education.

"A Dog's Life" is a fun family film about dog fighting -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048217/

I can be brought to tears by reading accounts of the Holocaust or the Holodomor, but Lev Kopelev told me that most of his fellow Jewish/ethnic Ashkenazi commissars were completely indifferent to the sufferings of the Ukrainian peasantry during the Soviet famines.

We all know how the organized Jewish community would react to the introduction of Holoexaleipsis (the Great Erasure -- Nakba) studies in grades K-12 even though the Holoexaleipsis is the archetypal and most pure genocide in history because racist Central and Eastern Europeans, who had no contact with the native population of Palestine, plotted in cold-blood the murder of Arab Palestine in the 19th century, carried out most of the program in the 20th century, and are trying to finish off the job right before our eyes in the 21st century.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | August 22, 2007 at 01:33 PM

Just curious, if we Jews are really at heart, homicidal, an evil force that has commited genocide against those happy go lucky lads from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the rest of the poor peasants. Well, how come the Palestinian populaiton has increased at a geometric rate over the last century. Explain that one grasshopper

Posted by: Bill Pearlman | August 22, 2007 at 01:49 PM

Philip-

These naive statements reveal the probability that your life experience has included limited exposure to the full spectrum of black lifestyle and behavior. Meaning, outside the Cosby Show blacks near your Manhattan brownstone or highrise.

Visit these links:

http://www.amren.com/color.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus9902.pdf

Updated versions are available on the internet and also for purchase, but these sources should suffice.

In the United States, blacks commit violent crimes at 56 times the rate of whites. They commit intra- and interracial rape at many times the rate of whites. They are about 14% of the population but commit well over 50% of all murders in the US.

This culture and this people criminalizes itself. Spend a few weeks in Birmingham or Detroit or Atlanta, and watch closely the filtered media. Talk to law enforcement in those areas- not the political types, the officers on the street. There are millions of less gifted Vick's roaming the street, and they don't care if you're a self hating Hasidic or a Scots Irish just off the farm. They actively hate and want to kill "white" people while taking their property from them, and they feel fully justified in doing so.

Football players are handsomely rewarded for their questionably foolish decisions. The rapacious street criminals are, in their twisted fashion, also rewarded for their decisions, usually at great cost to white society in terms of lives, security and treasure. Vick is a product of both cultures, the culture of the elite athelete and that of the hopelessly ineducable and irredeemable black gangster. Billions of tax dollars have been thrown at academic programs aimed at narrowing the gap between these blacks and the whites they hate. I would ask you to point to one single enduringly positive result. Aside from the waste of these billions of tax dollars, the result of this pandering has caused untold thousands of injuries and deaths. Please contrast, for instance, the true number of lynchings between 1875 and 1965 with the number of black murders of whites since the 1960's.

By effectively criminalizing traditional Western cultural norms, your tribe has made this country much less safe. The next OJ trial or Rodney King or Duke rape case may be the catalyst for the end result desired by Adorno, Freud, Justice Frankfurter and many others. The extinction of the supposedly authoritarian white European Christian influence in the US is at hand, and the feel-good tikkun olam-ists sharing your ethnic background bear a very heavy load of the blame.

Posted by: cooper | August 22, 2007 at 02:16 PM

The main drive for desegregating American society came from the NSC and not from the American Jewish Community.

The NSC realized that the USA could not provide a credible alternative to the Soviet Union while states had the adoption to impose Jim Crow laws.

That said, I will grant that a segment of the Jewish community opportunistically supported desegregation as a means to move closer to white elites.

But none of this discussion relates to the accusations against African Americans. Give back to African Americans what was stolen during slavery, and their kids will attend prep schools. African American moms will cart their kids to soccer practice, art lessons, dance lessons, music lessons, etc. Their fathers will network in the finance industry, found hi-tech companies etc.

A dollar earned in 1850 is simply much more valuable than a dollar earned in 2007. All those dollars of pay were stolen from African American blacks during the centuries of slavery. African Americans have a legitimate expectation of compensation.

It is not even particularly hard, for a lot of the "our crowd" financial institutions of NY like Lehman Brothers are founded on German Jewish Southern trading that made Southern Slavery economically viable and highly profitable. (As I remember, J.J. Goldberg may a passing reference in "Jewish Power" to the uninvolvement of American Jews in abolition. He neglected to mention how involved NY [and other] Jews were in the Southern economy.)

An indemnity should be imposed on these institutions to compensate the victims of slavery, to restore the wealth of which they were deprived, and to enable American Blacks to build the social networks comparable to those WASPs, Jews and other ethnic groups have built over the centuries.

It is the logic of Holocaust reparations and Jewish claims against Ford and IBM.

It is only fair. The same standard should be applied to Jews as they try to impose on everyone else.

As for the indices of violence that African Americans suffered between 1875 and 1965, it is completely bogus.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | August 22, 2007 at 03:16 PM

Joachim:
I knew it buddy, the Jews were the force behind slavery in this country. And clearly, reparations should be shouldered completely by the Jewish community because it's all out fault. What about the present Spainish and Asian immigration. Clearly this is designed to subvert the country. How do we figure into that one .Looking forward to the answer

Posted by: Bill Pearlman | August 22, 2007 at 03:22 PM

Slavery was a growth industry. A smart banker, willing to take risks and probably contemptuous of white gentiles, would not worry too much about providing mortgages on black slaves or trading in futures for commodities sweated out of black slaves.

In truth the gentile bankers were not much better, but the Jewish bankers were willing to take more risks in the Southern economy. The Jewish traders were rewarded handsomely.

It is time to return this blood wealth to the people that actually earned it.

And what do you care, Bill? You do not strike me as a NY finance guy. Is thus some sort of perverted Pavlovian reflex of Jewish solidarity? I hate to tell you but Lehman brothers is run by an old school chum, who is a goy.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | August 22, 2007 at 03:37 PM

Lehman bros is a public company, interesting out look though. So, how do you propose to wring the money of the wily Jews. Surely, we are smart enough to side step this, what would your plan be.

Posted by: bill Pearlman | August 22, 2007 at 03:44 PM

All presidents of the NAACP through the 1970's were Jewish. MLK was surrounded by Jewish "civil rights" advisors.

I understand that JM is being tongue in cheek re: reparations, but one does have to wonder what was actually taken away from the Africans during slavery. Their alternative was to be eaten by predators or by other Africans, die a horrible death by exotic disease, or live a short live of miserable drudgery if not enslaved to another more powerful tribe (who most likely eventually sold them to Jewish-owned slavers anyway).

I would submit that at best the slate is clean, and a more careful accounting might find that European Americans are owed a debt due to the costs imposed by having Africans attempt to integrate into American society.

Jewish Activism:
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-1.htm
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-2.htm
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/UnderstandJI-3.htm

Posted by: cooper | August 22, 2007 at 04:03 PM

This sort of thing is a nobrainer. Just impose a giant fine, and convert it into stock, warrants and bonds held by a trust designed to benefit African Americans until the structural disadvantages of slavery are eliminated.

There are some City of London, French, German, and Dutch institutions that should be treated similarly.

The deal could be structured to maintain incentives for employees, but I would monitor the informal networks of Jewish financiers, traders and investment bankers, who look out for each other and trade insider info, to make sure that African Americans get their piece of the business.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | August 22, 2007 at 04:06 PM

Guess JM will need some oversight and administration for his new superfund. Since the Bronfmans may be unavailable/disqualified, I'll forward the first few neminations for the board:

-Bishop Eddie Long
-Fitty Cent
-Michael Vick

Others?

Posted by: cooper | August 22, 2007 at 04:27 PM

I had a friend in grad school who spent several years working in West Africa in the late 1970's, soon after Alex Haley's book, "Roots" was published, followed by the TV mini-series of the same name. The popularity of those productions spawned a cottage industry of African "Roots" tours designed for middle and upper class Black Americans. My grad school friend witnessed a number of those tours and spent some of his off-time socializing with the tourists. He was glad, as most of us would be, to spend some time with his fellow Americans while in a foreign land.

My friend said that by far the most common statement made by a black American after spending a couple of days in West Africa was, "Thank God Great-Granddaddy was an American slave!"

I hope that no one misconstrues the above account as any kind of justification or rationalization for the dark era of slavery in American history. It's simply a true story from an eye-witness, and nothing more.

Posted by: Robert Forbes | August 22, 2007 at 04:48 PM

The point is pretty moot; after Vick serves his time, he won't be good enough to play well at the NFL level. His stardom was built around speed, and losing two years in your late twenties is losing a lot. So, it's one time when one doesn't need to agree of disagree with Phil; If Vick loses two seasons because of this, it's Canadian or Arena football at best.

Posted by: scott M | August 22, 2007 at 05:15 PM

cooper wrote: "but one does have to wonder what was actually taken away from the Africans during slavery. Their alternative was to be eaten by predators or by other Africans, die a horrible death by exotic disease, or live a short live of miserable drudgery if not enslaved to another more powerful tribe (who most likely eventually sold them to Jewish-owned slavers anyway)."

You gotta be kidding me, right? Who are you to decide whether people deserved to live free in their land or not, and what kind of bigotry would lead someone to say that enslaving people and putting them in chains is not that bad since their life - supposedly - sucked anyway.

There is no other way to get around this no matter how you try to rationalize it, you look at Blacks and you see untermenschen, human animals that the likes of bigots like you had every right to enslave, whip, lynch, kill, whatever.

This is pure racism cooper, and it makes me wonder who you actually work for. Are you trying to discredit Phil or do you actually believe that crap.

P.S. It was this kind of bigotry that resulted in the slaughter of tens of millions around the world by ignorant, illiterate Europeans who were supposedly morally superior to the indigenous populations they conquered while in truth they were just barbarians with superior technology who were so superstitious they would follow "holy goats" when needing directions. The sort of barbarians Sir Steven Runciman exposed in his magisterial work on the Crusades, the kind of illiterate, obnoxious barbarians who destroyed Constantinople in 1204, who destroyed whatever was left of ancient Greece, including unsurpassed works of art of the kind we see in museums in total astonishment, who burned "heretical" manuscripts that today's scholars would give their life for, who committed genocides everywhere on this planet. The kind of barbarians who took a Chinese invention, gunpowder, which the Chinese were using for fireworks, and made it an instrument of death. The kind of barbarians who burned "witches" while the Arabs were saving whatever was left of ancient literature, including Plato and Aristotle. The kind of barbarians who love praising themselves and their superior "civilization" while making the 20th century the deadliest ever with two World Wars, not to mention the ideologies that made killing tens of millions of humans an imperative of "progressive change"! When it comes to killing and devastation, nobody beats what cooper here thinks to be the White Man's superiority, a representative of which he surely is.

Posted by: Alan | August 22, 2007 at 05:22 PM

Many poor people in the USA live better than people in W. Africa, but as I remember the statistics on W. African immigrants to the USA, they have overtaken African Americans economically and academically.

There are several reasons, but the effects of the disruption of African American social networks as a result of slavery definitely contribute to disparate outcomes even a century and a half later.

West Africans like Jews, Koreans, Arabs, etc., often benefit from social networks considerably more than 150 years old.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | August 22, 2007 at 05:35 PM

Between the Jewish Chauvism of BIll Pearlman, the white supremacism of Cooper, and the bizarre anti-ashkenaziism of Joachim Martillo, this exchange is really distrubing me.

Posted by: Peter H | August 22, 2007 at 06:51 PM

I'm with you Peter H. Pretty creepy stuff here. Not to mention Phil's bizarre thinking about this issue. Here you have a remorseless sadist who lied to everyone who had supported him up until it was in his own self-interest to finally tell the truth. I have no problem with Vick playing football again if that is what the NFL wishes to do with him, but don't make this guy a martyr. He is a scumbag. Perhaps someone will adopt a few of the dogs that Vick abused and whose relatives he killed. What would be more just to see them let loose on the football field and watch Vick try and elude them.

Good thing for the Jews that Vick is not a Jewish. Surely Phil and Joachim would have found a way of blaming the subjugation of domesticated animals on those evil Hebrews.

Posted by: Peta | August 22, 2007 at 09:51 PM

I like my dog, Lester, a basset hound, a lot. He's probably 10 pounds overweight, sleeps most of the time, barks at the mail carrier, waters fire hydrants and, given the chance, buries things for safekeeping. Lester is a big adorable widdle wasscle.

So when I read and heard about some of the dogfighting atrocities Michael Vick is associated with, it turned my stomach.

But the convulsive reaction to the Vick case has made it obvious we've lost our sense of proportion.

Dogs are defenseless, and we humans are quick to protect the defenseless. It is one of our better qualities.

But a woman in the hands of a 230-pound elite athlete is more or less defenseless, too, and I can't remember any case of domestic abuse, sexual assault or murder involving an NFL player that sparked this kind of public outrage.

The O.J. Simpson saga? Perhaps.

But what's interesting is the different public response to the two crimes. At the time of the Simpson trial, most people were more concerned with his innocence or guilt than they were with the butchered bodies of the two people who were stabbed to death.

This case is different.

It's hard to get rid of the image of dogs being drowned or electrocuted or beaten to death. Whether Vick was personally involved in those activities or not doesn't really matter. He is going to plead guilty to charges involving a dogfighting operation apparently run out of one of his properties. Whether his hands were actually around a dog's neck is beside the point. His fingerprints are all over this case.

But if an NFL player beats the hell out of his wife or girlfriend these days, it's greeted with a practiced shrug. It happens so often, we're almost numb to it.

Media coverage has played a huge role in the Vick case. Take one of the NFL's most prominent players and show visceral file footage of pit bulls chewing each other to pieces. What do you have? Something that stabs people right in their hearts.

The networks didn't run file tape of a gun being fired into a woman after Carolina wide receiver Rae Carruth conspired to murder his pregnant girlfriend. Nonetheless, a jury found him guilty in 2001, and he's serving a 19- to 23-year prison term. If there was public indignation to rival the Vick dog charges, I missed it.

In February, Tennessee cornerback Pacman Jones was involved in an incident at a Las Vegas strip club that led to the shooting of three people, including a guard who is now paralyzed from the waist down. Do our feelings of outrage and sympathy extend to the people who absorbed those bullets? I don't think so. Certainly not the way they do to the slain dogs. We're too busy being aghast at Jones' behavior and, more broadly, at the behavior of the legion of unruly NFL players.

As sure as a football field is 100 yards long, Jones will play again. The league has suspended him for a year because of the Vegas incident and a string of additional problems with the law. Yet we hear rumblings that Vick's career might be over. His crime is so heinous, we're told, that he might have forfeited his right to play in the NFL again.

In the mid-1990s, Nebraska star Lawrence Phillips pleaded no contest to trespassing and assault after allegedly beating his girlfriend, who said he dragged her by her hair down three flights of stairs. It was the beginning of a long stretch of criminal trouble involving Phillips. This did not stop the Rams from making him a first-round draft pick, nor did it stop the Dolphins and the 49ers from giving him chance after chance to carry the football again.

Abuse your dog, and people howl. Smack around your girlfriend or face charges of sexually assaulting a woman and people shake their heads and roll their eyes. And they'll eventually cheer you again. If you don't believe that, pay attention the next time Kobe Bryant rolls through town.

The public reaction to Bryant's troubles—he reached a settlement with a woman he was charged with sexually assaulting—wasn't nearly as loud and angry as the reaction to Vick.

This case has legs, four of them, and we're finding out it makes a huge difference in the court of public opinion.

No doubt Vick needs to spend some time behind bars, and no doubt he shouldn't play football for a while. He's the face of what's wrong with the NFL. What he did was vile.

Let's be clear: It's not that the response to Vick's alleged crimes is overboard; it's that the response to athletes' crimes against women is underwhelming. We might want to ask ourselves why that is. Me personally, I blame the Jews. They are notorious dog haters and will kill little poodles in order to use their blood to make matzo. Next time you hear a dog growling at you, it's probably because he mistakes you for a Jew. Can't blame the dog. It's just being vigilant.

So a little perspective, please—especially the next time a player attacks a woman. Another incident should be happening any day now.

Posted by: Frank Z | August 23, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Joechim:
Interested in the reparations thing. The Jewish firms that were pulling the strings on the African slave trade are public companies now. Would you assess just the Jewish shareholders for reparations. How would you make sure that its just Jewish money that your taking for this. And could not those wily Jews put their stock in other names. Interested on your proposal. Please pontificate.

Posted by: bill Pearlman | August 23, 2007 at 08:06 AM

ATLANTA (AP) -- Michael Vick should be allowed to return to the NFL, preferably the Atlanta Falcons, after serving his sentence for his role in a dogfighting operation.

"As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football," said R.L. White, president of the NAACP's Atlanta chapter. "We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country."

White said the Falcons quarterback is a human being who has made a mistake and should be allowed to prove that he has learned from that mistake.

On Monday, Vick said through a lawyer that he will plead guilty to a federal charge of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and conspiracy to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture.

Three Vick associates have pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge and say Vick provided nearly all the gambling and operating funds for the "Bad Newz Kennels" dogfighting enterprise. Two of them also said Vick participated in executing at least eight underperforming dogs, raising the possibility of the animal cruelty charges.

Last month, state and local leaders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People urged the public not to rush to judgment in the Vick case. The civil rights organization said animal rights groups, talk radio and the news media were vilifying the embattled athlete, and that his team and corporate sponsors were prematurely punishing Vick.

White said the Atlanta chapter supports Vick's decision to accept a plea bargain if it's in his best interest, but he questioned the credibility of Vick's co-defendants, saying an admission of guilt might be more about cutting losses than the truth.

"At this point, you're not looking at guilt or innocence," White said, referring to the possible harsher sentence Vick could have received had he taken his case to trial and been found guilty. "You're thinking, 'What I better do is cut my losses and take a plea.' But if he saw this as the best thing to do at this point for his future, then I think he made the correct choice."

White said he regretted that the plea deal will mean all the facts of the case might never be known.

"Some have said things to save their own necks," White said. "Michael Vick has received more negative press than if he had killed a human being."

White said he does not support dogfighting and that he considers it as bad as hunting.

"His crime is, it was a dog," White said.

Posted by: MLK (Turning over in his grave) | August 23, 2007 at 08:50 AM

Alan-

Excellent response. You did forget to mention those gentle Maya who were interrupted from ripping the hearts out of many thousands of their own people by those terrible Europeans. Also the "native Americans" who had to table their program of flaying and burning every possible member of competing tribes when the eeebil Europeans floated over. Good catch on the amiable Chinese, although somehow the slaughter of millions by the good Chairman escapes notice. Oh, and while you were ignoring the sources I presented, you also neglected to compare how many "witches" were burned against how many innocent whites have been slaughtered by criminal blacks that are enabled by your feel-good philosophy. But dang it all, it just comes down to the fact that the plight of those Africans and their levitating pyramids are solid evidence that Western Europeans really pissed the pot.

Slavery continues today in Eastern Europe, Israel, Africa, and elsewhere. It's an ancient practice that was developed and employed by just about every culture, not just Europeans. I would ask you, Alan- What right do you have to say that Africans were "deprived" by not being able to experience the joys of slavery on their own continent, or by not being able to die a horrible death that was an almost certain feature (and still is) of their existence? Who do you work for- and for what agenda? Why do you deny that there is any value in the civilizations that were undeniably built through the achievements of Western European men?

You think I'm a bigot, but I know by your words that you're a cultural Marxist. The 20th century may well have been the deadliest ever, but the slaughter was enabled by those like yourself who deny the reality that is front of your face, and who choose to express their resentment over the failure of their utopian goals by blaming a politically correct target. The very fact that we're discussing a black man's callous torturing of animals gives the lie to your implication that White Europeans are coldly insensitive killers. Nope, you'll find that demographic represented in the statistics gathered by our own government, and in the daily reality that you choose to ignore.

Posted by: cooper | August 23, 2007 at 10:33 AM

Great response Cooper. This blog has taught me to hate Jews and Blacks.

Somewhere David Duke is smiling...

Posted by: Roger Staunch | August 23, 2007 at 12:15 PM

cooper,

You are missing the point. You chose to forget a very inconvenient fact: No matter what the Mayas or the Chinese or the native Americans were doing amongst themselves, they didn't invade Europe to supposedly "advance civilization" while slaughtering millions and stealing everything of value. WE did that. And your lame line of reasoning, that well, they were killing each other anyway, doesn’t absolve our responsibility under any system of Law I can think of. If you don't agree, next time you see 2 guys fighting in a bar, shoot them both with your handgun and present that kind of argument in court. I don't think it will help you!

And no, I'm not a "cultural Marxist", whatever that means. I am a realist who acknowledges that in every civilization there is a dark side. And for every Goethe and Shakespeare and Plato or Newton of the Western Civilization, there is someone like you who is ready to annihilate millions, blinded by your sense of superiority and outright bigotry.

If you had understood anything of Western Values, you wouldn't see exploitable animals where other humans live. So spare me your bs, you are just another barbarian who needs to put down the "other", and blame for everything and your own impotence the "other". That's where we differ. Like I said, you are a pure representative of that very dark side of Western Civilization - and the fact that there is such a dark side in every civilization won't change the fact that you are part of the problem, even though you think you are part of the solution to the decline of the West.

Posted by: Alan | August 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Because of their enslavement African Americans were deprived of wages that other Americans would have received for doing the same work. Obviously, African Americans were deprived of their freedom of movement, freedom to raise their children, who were often sold away from their families, and their freedom of association.

The value of these freedoms are hard to quantify, but the loss of wages is not, and we can identify institutions that still exist today and that were enriched effectively by the wages withheld.

It only makes sense to attempt to restore the wealth of which African Americans were deprived by imposing leavies on such institutions like Lehman Brothers and several other New York financial institutions.

Posted by: Joachim Martillo | August 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM

Alan-

According to your reasoning, Mexico, Guatemala and huge portions of South America would be better off now if they had been able to continue the wholesale slaughter among themselves. You also seem to believe that, given the capacity to develop weaponry, transportation and logistics, the noble savages of South America and Africa would have refrained from using those developments against white people wherever they found them. They would have and they will in the future. The incredible statistics showing how often blacks murder whites- as opposed to the reverse- bears that out here in the U.S., just as the revolution in Haiti illustrated that fact 200 years ago.

Obviously I'm not blaming the "other". I'm quoting the hard facts to which you've conveniently blinded yourself. There is no "blame" to be apportioned, at least not to the 85 IQ average black community. How else would/could this group choose to act, in the aggregate? If there is blame to be apportioned, it is to simpering fools who ignore truth in favor of comfortable politically correct torpor. It is a statistical fact that blacks are astronomically far more likely to murder whites in the US than the reverse. The fact is that this culture has turned its rage against white America and performed wholesale slaughter. How does that square with your barroom equation? Is Nat Turner one of those barroom denizens? Do you pray at his altar nightly, as the education and "civil rights" establishments in the US seem to do?

Your obfuscation and refusal to deal with the facts at hand are quite telling, as is your resentment against those you imagine are somehow set up as "superior". You can call names to your hearts content, but the truth that you have not denied, and cannot deny, is that in the US, blacks commit violence, murder, rape, property crime and other acts against whites at amazingly disparate rates. And your willingness to ignore this in order to pat yourself on your back, and tell yourself that you represent some sort of tikkun olam brigade (and the darkside "other" doesn't) makes you a party to the crime. People like me didn't annihilate millions; utopianist fools like you and Walter Duranty and Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt did. Behind each of these figures stood an army of Alan-ite visionaries, just as surely pulling the trigger as did Stalin and Mao and their henchmen. Now, here in the States, Alan-ites are willing to sacrifice the safety of millions in order to feel some sense of moral accomplishment and acceptance within the correctly vetted social group.

This:
"If you had understood anything of Western Values, you wouldn't see exploitable animals where other humans live."

-means absolutely nothing. But it does illustrate the vapid, scattered reasoning you attempt to employ.

Posted by: cooper | August 23, 2007 at 01:21 PM

cooper, I am not a psychic and I don't know or care who would have been better off or not if we hadn't done the crimes we did, and neither do you. What I do know is that you can't pretend to have a higher morality and a higher civilization, yet commit the same crimes "uncivilized peoples" commit and on a much larger scale and see no problem with that.

Second, again you use your psychic powers to state that if others had our technology they would have done the same things, but this doesn't change the fact that it was us who committed those crimes. You can go to Australia and kill an aboriginal and then go to court and say to the judge that, well, if he had a gun he would have killed you, and see how it goes!

Third, understandably you won't deal with the core argument, so let me restate: Your lame line of reasoning, that well, they were killing each other anyway, doesn’t absolve our responsibility under any system of Law I can think of. If you don't agree, next time you see 2 guys fighting in a bar, shoot them both with your handgun and present that kind of argument in court. I don't think it will help you!

Fourth, you constantly talk about "hard facts", yet you only cite statistics and ascribe to them racial explanations out of thin air. I know of no reputable scientist who does the same and you are welcome to present someone who does. Do those statistics have anything to do with poverty? Do those numbers have anything to do with the ghettos, the environment those people live in? Are other factors at play? For you, it is all a matter of skin color. Present scientific facts that prove this and I will consider them. Until then, all I see is another bigot falling for classic logical fallacies.

Fifth, I am not a utopian. I am a humanist. I accept and respect the human dignity of every human being on the planet. It is those who don't who commit genocides and drop atomic bombs. People like you who see others as untermenschen. You can twist it all you want, but that's what it comes down to.

Sixth: "If you had understood anything of Western Values, you wouldn't see exploitable animals where other humans live."

To help your reading comprehension, it means that if you had understood anything, you would have been a humanist and not a bigot.

Finally, I don't understand your problem with Blacks anyway. It is people like you and your mentality who made it possible to bring them here. Right? But now you complain you don't like them being here! Ever heard of the phrase "you reap what you sow"?

So what is the problem. That they are not slaves anymore? So what would you do, bring slavery back? Deport them? Annihilate them?

Talking about utopians!

P.S. Until you present the scientific (not circumstantial) evidence linking crime rates and such statistics to skin color, I don't think you should bother responding. I'll be waiting for your "hard facts".

Posted by: Alan | August 23, 2007 at 02:29 PM

Here is a start:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm

American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race"
(May 17, 1998)

The following statement was adopted by the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association, acting on a draft prepared by a committee of representative American anthropologists. It does not reflect a consensus of all members of the AAA, as individuals vary in their approaches to the study of "race." We believe that it represents generally the contemporary thinking and scholarly positions of a majority of anthropologists.

In the United States both scholars and the general public have been conditioned to viewing human races as natural and separate divisions within the human species based on visible physical differences. With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century, however, it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective.

Historical research has shown that the idea of "race" has always carried more meanings than mere physical differences; indeed, physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them. Today scholars in many fields argue that "race" as it is understood in the United States of America was a social mechanism invented during the 18th century to refer to those populations brought together in colonial America: the English and other European settlers, the conquered Indian peoples, and those peoples of Africa brought in to provide slave labor.

From its inception, this modern concept of "race" was modeled after an ancient theorem of the Great Chain of Being, which posited natural categories on a hierarchy established by God or nature. Thus "race" was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation. It subsumed a growing ideology of inequality devised to rationalize European attitudes and treatment of the conquered and enslaved peoples. Proponents of slavery in particular during the 19th century used "race" to justify the retention of slavery. The ideology magnified the differences among Europeans, Africans, and Indians, established a rigid hierarchy of socially exclusive categories underscored and bolstered unequal rank and status differences, and provided the rationalization that the inequality was natural or God-given. The different physical traits of African-Americans and Indians became markers or symbols of their status differences.

As they were constructing US society, leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each "race," linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians. Numerous arbitrary and fictitious beliefs about the different peoples were institutionalized and deeply embedded in American thought.

Early in the 19th century the growing fields of science began to reflect the public consciousness about human differences. Differences among the "racial" categories were projected to their greatest extreme when the argument was posed that Africans, Indians, and Europeans were separate species, with Africans the least human and closer taxonomically to apes.

Ultimately "race" as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world. It became a strategy for dividing, ranking, and controlling colonized people used by colonial powers everywhere. But it was not limited to the colonial situation. In the latter part of the 19th century it was employed by Europeans to rank one another and to justify social, economic, and political inequalities among their peoples. During World War II, the Nazis under Adolf Hitler enjoined the expanded ideology of "race" and "racial" differences and took them to a logical end: the extermination of 11 million people of "inferior races" (e.g., Jews, Gypsies, Africans, homosexuals, and so forth) and other unspeakable brutalities of the Holocaust.

"Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.

At the end of the 20th century, we now understand that human cultural behavior is learned, conditioned into infants beginning at birth, and always subject to modification. No human is born with a built-in culture or language. Our temperaments, dispositions, and personalities, regardless of genetic propensities, are developed within sets of meanings and values that we call "culture." Studies of infant and early childhood learning and behavior attest to the reality of our cultures in forming who we are.

It is a basic tenet of anthropological knowledge that all normal human beings have the capacity to learn any cultural behavior. The American experience with immigrants from hundreds of different language and cultural backgrounds who have acquired some version of American culture traits and behavior is the clearest evidence of this fact. Moreover, people of all physical variations have learned different cultural behaviors and continue to do so as modern transportation moves millions of immigrants around the world.

How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances.

Posted by: Alan | August 23, 2007 at 03:53 PM

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm

American Anthropological Association
Statement on "Race" and Intelligence
(adopted December 1994)

The American Anthropological Association (AAA) is deeply concerned by recent public discussions which imply that intelligence is biologically determined by race. Repeatedly challenged by scientists, nevertheless these ideas continue to be advanced. Such discussions distract public and scholarly attention from and diminish support for the collective challenge to ensure equal opportunities for all people, regardless of ethnicity or phenotypic variation.

Earlier AAA resolutions against racism (1961, 1969, 1971, 1972) have spoken to this concern. The AAA further resolves:

WHEREAS all human beings are members of one species, Homo sapiens, and

WHEREAS, differentiating species into biologically defined "races" has proven meaningless and unscientific as a way of explaining variation (whether in intelligence or other traits),

THEREFORE, the American Anthropological Association urges the academy, our political leaders and our communities to affirm, without distraction by mistaken claims of racially determined intelligence, the common stake in assuring equal opportunity, in respecting diversity and in securing a harmonious quality of life for all people.

Posted by: Alan | August 23, 2007 at 03:57 PM

And another quick one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Race:_social_construct_or_genetic_reality.3F

Race: social construct or genetic reality?

Many scholars maintain race to be a social construct with potent social and political effects but no basis in biological science.[5][6][7][8][9][10] Scholars such as anthropologist Audrey Smedley (2007) point out that the very idea of 'race' implies inequality and hierarchy. It has also been claimed that biologically there are no scientific classifications that delineate human groups into 'races' (Graves 2004). Historians such as Theodore Allen (1994; 1997) have analyzed colonial records from Virginia and concluded that the idea of a "white race" was originally invented in the early 18th century to splice together various European ethnic groups who never before thought they had anything in common. Noel Ignatiev (1995) has written an historical analysis of how the Irish became members of the "white race" in the 19th century. Smedley and Smedley (2005: 16) state: "The consensus among most scholars in fields such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, and other disciplines is that racial distinctions fail on three counts--that is, they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful."

Posted by: Alan | August 23, 2007 at 04:06 PM

"you are a pure representative of that very dark side of Western Civilization."

Alan, we are common people here, no? Even Pearlman is not known for being a pure representative of that very dark side of Jewish Civilization...has much has he would like.

Some things are science, some are called science, but are mostly literary movements. It's easy to discern one from the other. The more a science is against our "wishes", the more it is scientific.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 23, 2007 at 04:17 PM

Anonymous wrote: "Some things are science, some are called science, but are mostly literary movements. It's easy to discern one from the other. The more a science is against our "wishes", the more it is scientific."

Please elaborate.

Posted by: Alam | August 23, 2007 at 05:13 PM

A very interesting book review:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18.html

Posted by: Alan | August 23, 2007 at 05:37 PM

"Please elaborate."

Alan, science will not help you there. Closing your ears to dissenting oppinions and making use of "consensus among most scholars" (did you notice the odd "most"?), will lead you to court decisions, not theorems.

As a humanist you don't need science. It won't bend to your will. Nature is unforgiving, so is science.

Also, I would very much appreciate if people of good will like you should avoid using guilty as a weapon, because guilty only serves evil purposes.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 23, 2007 at 11:22 PM

Allan-

Statistics are facts expressed as numbers. The burden is square on you to refute these facts. I do appreciate you citing Wikipedia and the AAA, if only because it reveals the sad insufficency of your argument. Boas and Mead were among "most scholars" of the consensus; at least for Boas there was a mendacious agenda in play and for both there was a staggering amount of naivete, ego and chutzpah injected into their work.
You're cut from the same mold, Humanist.

Take these feel-good arguments to your next reading club meeting and share them with the other women. You'll find an appreciative audience, I'm sure.

Posted by: cooper | August 24, 2007 at 04:44 PM

Allan-

Statistics are facts expressed as numbers. The burden is square on you to refute these facts. I do appreciate you citing Wikipedia and the AAA, if only because it reveals the sad insufficency of your argument. Boas and Mead were among "most scholars" of the consensus; at least for Boas there was a mendacious agenda in play and for both there was a staggering amount of naivete, ego and chutzpah injected into their work.
You're cut from the same mold, Humanist.

Take these feel-good arguments to your next reading club meeting and share them with the other women. You'll find an appreciative audience, I'm sure.

Posted by: cooper | August 24, 2007 at 04:46 PM

cooper, I challenged you to present ANY scientific work linking those numbers to genetics or biological predisposition of Blacks to crime, that this is really about race, and you couldn't.

Case closed.

P.S. Some observations on this exchange:

1) You see what you want to see because, as a bigot, you are predisposed to read into statistics what you want to find, without considering factors that might challenge your bigotry - like poverty, environment, education or any other factor - as the real explanations. To you it's all about skin color. What else is new.

2) The fact that Blacks kill far more Blacks than Whites is another issue you dodge. Following your logic, that would actually mean that Blacks are more interested in collective suicide than slaughtering the White Race.

I have to thank you though because your posts made me look closer into those issues. Needless to say, my research didn't find anything proving your "case". Quite the contrary. It's hard to argue with anthropologists, biologists AND geneticists. I learned a lot though, so once again, thank you.

My sympathies.

Posted by: Alan | August 24, 2007 at 05:33 PM

Keep working that wet paper bag, Allen.

l There is more black-on-white than black-on-black violent crime.
l Of the approximately 1,700,000 interracial crimes of violence involving
blacks and whites, 90 percent are committed by blacks against whites.
Blacks are therefore up to 250 times more likely to do criminal violence to
whites than the reverse.
l Blacks commit violent crimes at four to eight times the white rate.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at approximately three times the white rate,
and Asians at one half to three quarters the white rate.
l Blacks are twice as likely as whites to commit hate crimes.
l Hispanics are a hate crime victim category but not a perpetrator category.
Hispanic offenders are classified as whites, which inflates the white
offense rate and gives the impression that Hispanics commit no hate crimes.
l Blacks are as much more dangerous than whites as men are more
dangerous than women.
l When blacks commit
violence they attack whites 50 to 55 percent of
the time. When whites commit violence they attack
blacks only two to three percent of the time.
l However, fewer than 20 percent of black
attacks on whites are robberies; rape and assault do
not usually have economic motives.
l of the 1,140,670 black-onwhite
acts of violence reported in 1994, only
173,374 were robberies. The remaining 84.8 percent
were aggravated assaults, rapes, and simple assaults,
which presumably were not motivated by
profit. Rape, in particular, has nothing to do with
the presumed wealth of the victim. More than
30,000 white women were raped by black men in
1994, and about 5,400 black women were raped by
white men. The black interracial rape rate was 38
times the white rate.

My friend who was killed by black men probably didn't have time to ask about their economic status. I doubt white victims of black rapists even care about their education or environment. Most likely
Channon Christian and Christoper Newsom weren't given the opportunity to commiserate with their executioners over their lack of exposure to the gifted program's physics lab during high school. Look 'em up; you can even find them in Wikipedia, Allen.

Here's your information, Allen. No Wikipedia, no flowery dissertation. Just hard facts collected by the FBI and published in the UCR.

You won't address them because you can't refute them.

QED.

Posted by: cooper | August 24, 2007 at 10:52 PM

cooper, this is so boring. I don't need to refute those numbers, they are real, I accepted them obviously. What YOU need to do, and I'm stating this for the millionth time, is to prove that this is because of "race" (meaning genetic or biological factors) and not social or other factors. Got it?

For my part, I refuted your racial explanations quite easily, afterall you can't argue with science, especially when the whole concept of "race" is discredited today. Nevertheless I challenged you to present any scientific counterevidence that this is about race and NOT social or other factors and you couldn't.

Case closed.

My sympathies.

Posted by: Alan | August 25, 2007 at 04:49 AM

Allen-

You've presented opinion, not fact. The correlation between race and propensity towards violence is undeniable.

There is no pressing need to address "social factors" because they are irrelevant. The facts on the table are that blacks are far more likely to commit violent crime than whites. A racial group with an average 85 IQ would understandably be more likely to resort to violence as a means and as a recourse. It is also far more likely to be unable to change its economic, social and cultural standing for the better. There is indeed more poverty and less educational achievement- as you note- in the black community. What of it, in the context of the topic at hand? The fact remains that blacks commit violent crime at a rate far greater than whites, and they direct that violence against whites at astoundingly disparate rates.

You're part of the crime by refusing to acknowledge the truth and its significance. At some point in the future, this type of willing denial and obfuscation by liberal "humanists" will become known and noticed for the cowardly treason that it truly is, and sympathies will indeed be in order.

Posted by: cooper | August 25, 2007 at 06:08 AM

Dersh-

Your f-Scale leanings are revealed by constant appeals to authority. These quotations from the world of genetics will set your mind at ease:

The Marxist-Lysenkoist denial of genetics, the emphasis on environmental determinism for all things human, is at the root of it (Davis, 1986; Medvedev, 1971; Pearson, 1991; Weiss, 1991). Economic oppression is at the root of all group differences and don't you dare say anything else. The Marxist invasion of left-Iiberal political sentiment has been so extensive that many of us think that way without realizing it.

It has been suggested that I should talk about "Marxitis" that is, the Marxist infection of ideas. Many of the scholars that suffer from Marxitis do not realize that they are infected. The symptoms of this disease include an intellectual bias, an insistence on environmental determinism as the acceptable cause of group differences. In severe cases, it includes an unbending intellectual absolutism akin to medieval scholasticism. It is lethal to honest science.

A couple of quotes from heretics that have left the movement: "the utopianism of the Left is a secular religion ... However sordid Leftist practice may be, defending Leftist ideals is, for the true believer tantamount to defending the ideals of humanity itself. To protect the faith is the highest calling of the radical creed. The more the evidence weighs against the belief, the more noble the act of believing becomes" (Collier & Horowitz, 1995, p. 246).

There is a "readiness to reshape reality to make the world correspond to an idea" (Collier & Horowitz, 1995, P. 37). There is a "Willingness to tinker with the facts to serve a greater truth" (Collier & Horowitz, 1995, p. 37). And so it has obviously been with many of the critics of behavior genetics. Over the last 25 years, as the scientific data accumulate, as the paradigm shifts, the stridency of the critics intensifies. Driven by ideology and not constrained by the truth, when all else fails they engage in misrepresentation and character assassination. They accuse their targets of committing the very propagandistic excesses that they themselves are doing (Avery, et. al.,1994; Beardsley, 1995; Brimelow, 1994; Gould, 1994; Kamin, 1995; Lane, 1994; Miller, 1994; Murray, 1994; Weyher, Lynn, Pearson, & Vining, 1995).

Some one among them coined the term "Jensenism". Near as I can tell "Jensenism" consists of scientific integrity, outstanding technical competence, and objective honesty.

Well, Jensen's first sin was to venture outside the Left-Liberal Marxist dogma of environmental determinism. His second sin was even less forgivable, he violated a Taboo: He mentioned race outside the environmental envelope. The Behavior Genetics Association has been in existence for 25 years. The end of the Second World War was 50 years ago. Peter Brimelow (1995) has suggested that since the second world war we have been suffering what he calls "Adolf Hitler's posthumous revenge on America" (Brimelow, 1995, p. 1). The posthumous revenge is that the intellectual elite of the western world, both political and scientific, emerged from the war "passionately concerned to cleanse itself from all taints of racism or xenophobia" (Brimelow, 1995, p. xv). The aversion to racism has gone so far that the scientific concept of race itself is frequently attacked. The results are often ludicrous. For example, on three adjacent pages of a recent issue of Science we are led to believe that races do not exist, but that it is important to assess the genetic diversity of remaining native populations, and a black scientist at a black university should be funded to investigate the black genome as a route to appropriate treatment of diseases of blacks! (Kahn, 1994). The many and important distinctions between objective investigation of group characteristics, and prejudicial pejorative values are lost in apolitical atmosphere where objective reality is sacrificed to political creed.

Brimelow suggests that the term "racist" is now so debased that its new definition is "anyone who is winning an argument with a liberal". (Brimelow, 1995 p. 10, italics in original). He suggests that we feel uneasy because we have been trained - like Pavlov's dog - to recoil from any explicit discussion of race.

Glayde Whitney
Presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/gw-icbg.html

Posted by: cooper | August 25, 2007 at 06:45 AM

Dersh-

Another authority figure to set your humanist heart to pattering:

The "naturalistic fallacy," identified by philosopher David Hume (1711–1776), occurs when reasoning jumps from statements about what is to prescription about what ought to be.

An example of the naturalistic fallacy: approving of all wars if scientific evidence showed warfare was part of human nature.

The converse of the naturalistic fallacy is the "moralistic fallacy"- jumping from prescriptions about what ought to be to statements about what is.

An example of the moralistic fallacy: claiming that, because warfare is wrong, it cannot be part of human nature.

The term "moralistic fallacy" was coined by Harvard University microbiologist Bernard Davis after calls for ethical guidelines to control the study of what could allegedly become "dangerous knowledge"…such as the genetic basis of IQ.

For well over a generation, the study of the genetic and racial aspects of I.Q. has given rise to the best examples we have of the moralistic fallacy in action. Happily, under the sheer weight of evidence, there are now signs this anti-intellectual and unscientific prohibition is breaking down, at least in the academic world.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, there has been no narrowing of the 15- to 18-point average IQ difference between Blacks and Whites (1.1 standard deviations). The differences are as large today as when first measured nearly 100 years ago. These differences, and the associated gaps in living standards, education levels etc., are rooted in factors that are largely heritable, not cultural. IQ differences are attributable more to differences in brain size than to racism, stereotype threat, item selection on tests, and all the other suggestions given by the commentators.

It is time to meet reality. It is time to stop committing the "moralistic fallacy" that good science must conform to approved outcomes.
-----------------------------------------
Basic genetic theory predicts that the IQ of offspring will regress towards the mean IQ of the population group from which the parents come. This has been amply documented for a number of physical traits in humans and in other species.

Regression to the mean is seen, typically, when individuals with high IQ scores mate. Their children tend to show lower scores than their parents. The converse happens for low IQ parents; they have children with somewhat higher IQs. This is because the parents pass on some, but not all, of their exceptional genes to their offspring. It is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6’s or two 1’s. The odds are that on the next roll, you will get some value that is not quite as high (or as low).

Genetic theory predicts the precise magnitude of the regression effect. Culture-only theory makes no systematic or quantitative predictions. Black children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the Black IQ average of 85, while White children with parents of IQ 115 regress to the White IQ average of 100. Regression to a lower average IQ helps to explain the fact that Black children born to high IQ, wealthy, Black parents have test scores 2 to 4 points lower than do White children born to low IQ, poor White parents.

J. Phillipe Rushton
University of Western Ontario
Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective.
http://www.vdare.com/misc/051207_rushton_fallacy.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0965683613/vdare

Posted by: cooper | August 25, 2007 at 07:02 AM

This is what I call bizarro world. I presented the INTERDISCIPLINARY consensus of evolutionary biologists, geneticists and anthropologists, thousands of scientists, but according to you I am "stating an opinion". Then you make the following statements within three sentences(!!):

1) "The correlation between race and propensity towards violence is undeniable."

Oh really? According to whom? Your sources? You are not confusing stastistical data with the INTERPRETATION of that data again for god's sake, are you? Names of scientists and their works interpreting the data as you do, please.

2) "There is no pressing need to address "social factors" because they are irrelevant."

LOL. You are kidding me, right? Any scientific evidence for that? Because it seems that across disciplines scientists believe the exact opposite. The only question is a matter of degree. I would like you to provide the names of scientists who agree with you. I did provide my evidence proving you don’t know what you are talking about. Prove me wrong.

3) "A racial group with an average 85 IQ would understandably be more likely to resort to violence as a means and as a recourse."

Oh really? I'd like to see some proof of that. You are not making this up, are you? Sources please.

- So cooper, you ignore the AAA and evolutionary biologists and geneticists, because they state "opinions". But your assertions, which you still can't back up, are "facts". Ok. And btw, Rushton is an interesting guy but he happens to be a psychologist. If that's the best you can do, give me a single psychologist's book - who is very suspect of having his own agenda btw - against an interdisciplinary consensus between anthropologists, evolutionary biologists and geneticists, then I'm sorry, but you really are wasting my time.

However, I don't think that even Rushton agrees with you when you say "[t]he fact is that this culture has turned its rage against white America and performed wholesale slaughter", or "[t]hey actively hate and want to kill "white" people while taking their property from them, and they feel fully justified in doing so." Those may be "facts" in your world, but in the real world they are just the paranoia of a classic racist. Not to mention that there is no way anyone can possibly prove such psychological motives of a whole “race”, culture, ethnic group, whatever you want to call it. You still don’t get it, do you. It’s your opinion, and that’s it.

If there is one person here consistently presenting his strong opinions as facts, while also confusing data, which is one thing, with the INTERPRETATION of that data, which is a whole other ballgame, that would be you. All you presented so far is a psychologist's book on racial differences that runs against the scientific consensus, but even that one psychologist doesn't interpret the available data as you do.

Are you wasting my time cooper?

P.S. I’d like the proof of the three assertions you presented as “facts” or you lost whatever credibility you had left.

Posted by: Alan | August 25, 2007 at 06:46 PM

Followup:

I could take a lot of cheap shots at you for citing Glayde Whitney (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glayde_Whitney ), but I won't because it wouldn't be fair. However, even he doesn't agree with you! You omitted some crucial passages from his presidential address to the Behavior Genetics Association.

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/gw-icbg.html

For example:

You state: "The correlation between race and propensity towards violence is undeniable."

Whitney: "Like it or not, it is a reasonable scientific hypothesis that some, perhaps much, of the race difference in murder rate is caused by genetic differences in contributory variables such as low intelligence, lack of empathy, aggressive acting out, and impulsive lack of foresight."

So even your poster boy considers what you say is "undeniable" as only a "reasonable scientific hypothesis".

He also clearly accepts social factors, which you call "irrelevant".

No other comment needed. Credibility lost.

My sympathies.

Posted by: Alan | August 25, 2007 at 07:23 PM

"Are you wasting my time cooper?"

Anything to keep you from defending OJ again, Dersh.

So keep typing, Humanist Girl. Tikkun Olam and your book club demands it.

Oh, by the way: You've yet to present any argument other than fashionable conjecture among anthropologists, and you've yet to refute any of the facts that have been presented.

Case closed.

Posted by: cooper | August 25, 2007 at 09:02 PM

Hmmm, "Humanist Girl"? "Dersh"? "Tikkun Olam" and my "book club"?

You are probably upset because I did in fact read Whitney and found out he didn't exactly agree with you. Guess what, I also ordered Rushton's book! Curious to see if he also believes those evil Blacks are out to get "white America and perform wholesale slaughter".

P.S. I've been active on this blog since Phil's Observer days. Calling me "Dersh" and all those other things shows you don't do your homework, probably because you don't mind running the risk of being out of touch with reality. Never mind. I bet that you confusing me with Dershowitz has probably even Pearlman - who totally hates me - laughing his butt off!

Take care.

Posted by: Alan | August 25, 2007 at 09:55 PM

"I've been active on this blog since Phil's Observer days."

I have in fact made note of that, and have wondered if this current defense of a serial animal abuser tracks along with your candid and surprisingly avid past endorsements of what by law amounts to pedophilia.

Here's some more literary investments; thanks for the funds from the "dark side", Ms. Humanist:

http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Critique-Evolutionary-Twentieth-Century-Intellectual/dp/0759672229
Book Description
MacDonald provides a theoretical analysis and review of data on the widespread tendency among certain highly influential, Jewish-dominated intellectual movements to develop radical critiques of gentile culture that are compatible with the continuity of Jewish identification. Particular attention is paid to Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, leftist political ideology and behavior, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the efforts to influence United States immigration policy.

http://www.amazon.com/Paved-Good-Intentions-Relations-Contemporary/dp/0965638340

Posted by: cooper | August 26, 2007 at 01:42 AM

pedophilia? Ms Humanist?

cooper, you are a seriously disturbed person. I guess this is what happens when someone kicks your sorry ass, which was way too easy. And you can quote McDonald and Whitney all you want, it can't hide the fact that your paranoia about "race wars" makes you only a scared shitless neonazi.

Posted by: Alan | August 26, 2007 at 06:18 AM

Keep punching that wet paper bag, short eyes.

You have not and cannot refute the reality of the statistics in front of you. Resorting to insults and ersatz claims of some WMD-like reference library doesn't hide the fact that your argument rests on Wikikpedia and the pitiful attempts by supposed anthropologists to follow Boas into the Marxist PC soup. Keyboard warriors always do their best chest-beating when they're cornered like a rat, and all that's left is to jump ship.

Oops, you've already done that. Godwin's law has been put into play. It's a pitiful sight.

Mach schnell, rat.

Posted by: cooper | August 26, 2007 at 06:59 AM

LOL! Yeah, whereas you citing the discredited guy who forwarded David Duke's book and citing a psychologist was really convincing.

It does hurt, doesn't it. Good thing you can't delete past posts, everyone can see who started the insults game.

I bet it was me reading Whitney and showing he doesn't agree with you that got to you. And Godwin's law? Not when we have a scared shitless neonazi here who believes in race wars.

Tomorrow you'll feel better.

My sympathies.

P.S. Mach schnell? I speak German very proficiently. I can't see the relevance, but then again, you have a habit of incoherent thinking and posting.

Auf Wiedersehen Herr Cooper, morgen werden sie sich sicher besser fuehlen!

Posted by: Alan | August 26, 2007 at 09:03 AM

"supposed anthropologists".

Thousands of them. Read again and weep: