Saturday, October 08, 2011

An Open Letter to Mr. Lawrence Auster

BUMPED TO THE TOP FOR NOW - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWER POSTS

Mr. Lawrence Auster publishes the blog View From the Right.  Recently, he stated his basic credo in an article entitled “Why the Truth About Black Dysfunction is So Important.”  As he has many followers, I think it important that I challenge his racist position with a culturist one.  While I applaud his dedication, his racist suppositions set back our shared desire to defeat multiculturalism.
Mr. Auster's writing focuses on the out of proportion level of violent crimes committed by Black people.  And, he documents the double standard in reporting such crimes well.  He argues that the Western belief in racial equality, leads us to conclude that all differences in attainment and violence must reflect white racism.  This guilt over inequality leads us to “denial of the truth of Black anti-White violence, denial of the tyrannical murderous reality of Islam, and unquestioning acceptance of the mass Third-World immigration” destroying our nation.
As a culturist I agree with many of his premises and goals.  Blaming all inequality on the West has caused our guilt and embrace of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism does cause us to ignore the perils of Islamic immigration and take the blame for the educational and economic achievement gaps between Whites and Asians and other minorities.  But Auster’s racist premise destroys his usefulness.
By replacing his racist view with a culturist view – by swapping out genetic determinism for a cultural explanation – he can actually help right our nation.  His views (on the racial aspect of criminal behavior) offend nearly everyone who reads them and exasperates social divides. 
Mr. Auster wonders why people chaffe at his “endlessly repeated stories” of “black criminality and failure.”  It is because the vast majority of Black people are wonderful law abiding and productive citizens.  I am certainly not alone in having many Black colleagues with fabulous work ethics whom I respect and Black friends who I love.  As such, his constant smear can only infuriate and alienate the majority of us who have such relationships.
The dysfunction in Black culture, that which leads to crime, is cultural.  It only occurs in certain pockets of the population.  The Black population was not as violent in the 1950s or before that.  In fact, the Black marriage rate was higher, than the current rate for Whites, in the 1950s.  Crime and divorce are not genetic.  These changes since the 1950s were not caused by genetic mutations.
As people cannot change their genetic make-up, Mr. Auster's racial lens cannot effect any good policy outcomes.  On the other hand, a culturist lens can allow us to have necessary discussions about the cultural roots of social maladies.  The problem now is that our society calls all judgmental distinctions between ethnic groups "racist."  Therefore, as Mr. Auster is, all who discuss such disparities are immediately and completely marginalized.
From a cultural vantage point, we can discuss the dangers of Islam.  With this vantage point we can work to strengthen both Black and White culture (the falling off of White culture is missed nearly all of Auster's analyses).  And, the overt cultural reference of the word culturist, can help distinguish this hopeful and helpful analysis from the futile and divisive racist one.  Furthermore, the ubiquity of the word multiculturalism can help its opposite, culturism, spread quickly.  I am culturist, not racist.  And, while I appreciate his goal of defeating multiculturalism, Mr. Auster's racist analysis undermines our progress.

 www.culturism.us

28 comments:

Pastorius said...

An excellent post, John. One of your best, I believe.

Lawrence Auster is an intelligent man and an astute commentator. But, his focus on race destroys any good his observations might accomplish.

jeppo said...

A Tale of Two Cities, updated edition:

City A is 1300 yards away from City B across a river spanned by bridges and tunnels. City A is about 4 times more populous than City B. The two cities have a similar history dating back more than two centuries, and people from both cities commonly work, shop and play on both sides of the river.

Both cities share the same predominant industry, and both have been economically depressed in recent years. With such similar economies, both tend to rise and fall at the same time.

Both cities speak the same language and have the same majority religion, and are both governed democratically. They watch each other's TV stations, listen to each other's radio stations, and read each other's newspapers and magazines. The two cities basically exist together as one large, integrated metropolitan area.

But as much as the two cities have in common, there is one glaring divide between the two: crime. Over the past two years there have been more than 600 murders in City A. In the same period of time there have been no murders in City B. None, nada, zero, zip.

From a superficially culturist position, this makes no sense. How could these two cities, so similar in terms of language, religion, economics, governance and history, have such radically different outcomes when it comes to crime, specifically murder?

Oops, I forgot to mention one possibly salient point: City A is more than 80% black, while City B is more than 80% white and less than 5% black. Maybe, just maybe that might have something to do with it. Is it OK to consider race, along with religion and language, a fundamental building block of culture? Maybe even the most important determinant of culture? Because only by accounting for race can we begin to understand the stark cultural differences between City A and City B.

Can you guess which two North American cities I'm talking about?

Unknown said...

I have no idea which two cities you are talking about. However, you focus on the 600 murders. How many is that per capita? To call all people in city A monsters is to overstate the case.

To say that this solely has to do with race leaves us no room for discussion. To say it has to do with culture, means we can talk about what is really going on. And what is going on is less superficial than your gloss.

You see, Mr. Auster is right about the destruction that Left-liberalism creates. I imagine though they speak the same language, slang in cities A and B is different. Though the history is the same, it is interpreted differently.

To be blunt, let's make this a divide between Black innercity and White culture in general. The negative feelings stirred by the "social Justice" model of Marxist equality speak has justified and fed a feeling of anger which pervades inner-city black culture.

SThis is also fomented in schools. When the multiculti folk say minorities are victimized it creates guilt in one area and rage in another. So this is the dichotomy. But herein skin color is only a superficial marker much like a star belly on a sneech.

Your analogy is superficial; black (a color) is the only relevant variable. It is immutable so there is no benefit from discussing it. Your analogy disregards perception and social attitudes. It does not facilitate the difficult culturist conversations our nation needs to have. Rather it feeds the social justice / racist discourse fed by Wall Street protesters.

jeppo said...

City B

Any explanation of culture that doesn't include race is incomplete. In fact I would argue that race is *the* primary driver of cultural outcomes, or at the very least an equal factor along with religion and language.

There are countless examples worldwide of cities, states and countries that share the same language, religion, legal and political systems, colonial history, etc., but are divided by race. And it is those racial differences that account for vastly different socio-economic outcomes and, especially, crime rates in what are otherwise culturally similar locales.

Australia v. South Africa, New Zealand v. Papua New Guinea, Portugal v. Angola, Spain v. Columbia, Flanders v. Surinam, Quebec v. Haiti, Delaware v. Guyana, Geneva v. Kinshasa, Madrid v. Mexico City, Kingston, Ontario v. Kingston, Jamaica, and on and on.

Race is not the only factor that helps explain cultural differences of course, but like the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room, it can't be ignored.

Also, CJ, I think that you're misinterpreting Auster's "mission", as it were. It's not to build a culturist coalition that can overthrow the pernicious, diversity-uber-alles multicultural mindset. It's to tell the unvarnished truth about race and culture, however inconvenient and ugly it may be, and then let the chips fall where they may.

It's like the mission of this blog, if I may be so presumptuous as to divine exactly what it is and isn't. It's not to simply say that Islam is evil, and to encourage hatred of Islam and Muslims (except for Pasto, who disses Muslims simply for farting in elevators, which should be a capital crime BTW ;) ).

It's to provide information about, and, crucially, tell the unvarnished truth about Islam and Muslims, and then let the interested and intelligent reader make up his or her own mind. Bloggers aren't politicians, they're advocates. So they don't have to talk out of both sides of their mouth, but merely tell the truth instead.

CJ, I think there are two problems with your race-less definition of culturism. One, it doesn't tell the whole truth about cultural differences between population groups. And two, it won't appease the multiculti true believers, who will still attack you as a virulent racist and hater anyway. Like our old "pal" Jeffrey Imm for instance.

Unknown said...

Jeppo,

You write well. Your humor is charming and disarming. Your reference to our Honorary Hall Monitor Mr. Imm, for example, made me feel like an old friend. But, I hope most of the population in our multicultural society aren't as dogmatic as Jeffrey. I hope that you also are not as dogmatically wedded to your position that you're unwilling to consider changing your tune.

One mode to change involves admitting that the other has a point. For example, yes, my quotes from his article don't likely get Mr. Auster's whole writing mission. And, yes, there is disparity between different communities in the same society. And patterns like the ascension of the Chinese hold reasonably well.

But is this the whole "unvarnished truth"? Do you not have any close Black friends? I went out with one last night, she is way more brilliant than I. Last month when my woman went to the emergency room our doctor was a woman of Nigerian descent. When we don't cover over with broad strokes this too appears.

When the above "facts" sit in conjunction with that the vast majority of Black folks are good citizens, we end up with hope. My position leads to a workable happy ending. I believe we can, as we do, have a mobile society where all individuals live up to their potential. Zimbabwe needn't be our model.

Your racist position leaves many above facts out. And it undercuts our potential to not be Zimbabwe. In fact, it leads towards it. Your clean, coherent writing speaks to a good mind. Blanket denunciations with "Let the chips fall where they may" does not sound worthy of your imagination. Us pontificators should consider nuances and aim at realistic, hopeful plans.

Unknown said...

Finally, if no reply is forthcoming, let me say it would really suck if in a public debate someone said "IBA is just a racist blog" and you said "Yeah we're racist!" Such a tactic, such pronouncements, will kill the movement and totally illegitimatize IBA.

It is important that we make a distinction between culture and race. And it is important that we denounce racism. I would hope that when faced with such charges we say, "No, we're culturists, as such we take diversity seriously and talk of cultural values."

Getting people to debate cultural values will take us farther than coming out as racists. Racism is a useless and dangerous premise. With good reason, no one will discuss our racism with us.

www.culturism.us

Anonymous said...

It's like the mission of this blog, if I may be so presumptuous as to divine exactly what it is and isn't. It's not to simply say that Islam is evil, and to encourage hatred of Islam and Muslims (except for Pasto, who disses Muslims simply for farting in elevators, which should be a capital crime BTW ;) ).

It's to provide information about, and, crucially, tell the unvarnished truth about Islam and Muslims, and then let the interested and intelligent reader make up his or her own mind.



islam a goat-fucker-bronze-age cult.

mohammad was an arab pedophile.

jeppo said...

Thanks, CJ. I'm a big proponent of your work and I hope you can get the culturist message out to as many people as possible. I don't necessarily disagree with any of your writings, I just think that by avoiding the dreaded 'R' word they're somewhat incomplete.

Let's say that someone came up with a theory that purported to explain the social, economic and cultural differences between Europe and the Arab world, the theory being that the light-skinned Caucasian inhabitants north of the Mediterranean had a roughly 10 point advantage in average IQ over the somewhat darker-skinned Caucasians south of the Med.

There may be some truth to this theory, but it's surely not the whole truth. There's a little thing called Islam that explains Arab backwardness vis-a-vis Europe much better than just IQ differentials.

In the same vein, the vast difference in the murder rates of Detroit and Windsor can't be simply explained away by the more stringent gun control laws in Canada, as that CBC article I linked tries to do. The fact is that black crime rates are far higher than white ones everywhere in the world.

Why this is so is a topic up for debate, but the fact that it *is* so is indisputable. Some reasons that I would suggest would be that African Americans have an average IQ of 85 compared to the white average of 100, that blacks have higher levels of testosterone which may lead to more impulsive violence, and that blacks have a lower future time orientation which may prevent them from fully thinking through the consequences of their actions. Please remember that these are generalizations that obviously don't apply to all blacks, but that are readily apparent when comparing blacks and whites as groups.

Like you, CJ, I live in a very multicultural city. I have friends and associates of all races, religions and backgrounds. One of my oldest and dearest friends is a Muslim, and I've dated Muslim girls in the past.

But I can't let my mostly-good personal relationships with Muslims interfere with an honest and cold-eyed appraisal of Islam as a whole. Throughout history, wherever Islam has come into contact with non-Islam there has been conflict. What has the recent flood of Muslims into Europe brought besides higher crime rates, more welfare dependency, terrorism and civil strife?

If anyone wants to call me an Islamophobe for my views, well there's not much I can do about that. But my views came about honestly through research and observation, not through any malice or hatred directed against any individual Muslims, and I'm always open to changing my opinions when the facts change. But judging by the bloody 1400 year history of Islam, things aren't going to change any time soon, at least not in our lifetimes.

And it's the same with race. I believe that racial differences in intelligence and behaviour are incontrovertible and have profound real world consequences. Racial differences should be discussed honestly, morally and fairly without triumphalism, rancour or spite, but they must be discussed if we're going to gain a better understanding of culture and humanity. Face it, the Left are going to call us racists anyway no matter how much we try to avoid the topic of race. So never let the fear of being called names interfere with the search for the truth, wherever it leads us.

Unknown said...

Jeppo,

You and this blog successfully discuss Islam without reference to race. And our goal is to get readers to have an open mind to it. If we argued that Islam is evil because its members are dark skinned, that would not advance our cause.

And if we said Islam is evil because its brown adherents have a low IQ, it would not help us. The fact is that muslims come in many colors. I would guess that the leading Islamic scholars have respectable IQs.

Islam is a problem because it is a twisted ideology. And, yes, many of its proponents are nice folks. But the logical conclusion of it is violent and oppressive. Black people is not an ideology. It has no inherent anti-social quality to it.

IQ does not inextricably lead to violent anti-social behavior. What is the match to that gas? Culture. Inner city culture has been stoked by Leftist counterculture radicalism. That is the enemy.

If you wish to publicize your unvarnished truth that blacks are less intelligent on average, don't expect to make any friends amongst blacks. As such, don't expect to create anything but division in society. And don't expect that you'll further the goals of this blog or help in the safeguarding of Western civ.

And your defense wherein, they are going to call us racist anyway so we might as well be racist argument doesn't work. Take a poll. How many contributors to this blog would walk away if we called ourselves racists who denounce Islam because its people are stupid and brown? Nearly all. And these are your friends!!

Our blog assumes that we are making a culturist argument. Again, let's take the poll. We work to change the MINDS of America, not its genes. Isn't that true?

For the good of the movement, please keep your racist ideology to yourself. As I know you're a positive person who cares about the cause, I thank you.

jeppo said...

"Islam is a problem because it is a twisted ideology."

Really? That sounds kind of, um, Islamophobic to me. Aren't you worried about offending moderate Muslims with hateful statements like that, the kind of people we need on our side in order to fight the radicals? I mean, we have to work to change peoples' MINDS, not take a giant dump all over their religion.

Just kidding. I'm not really worried about offending people, and you shouldn't be either. At the same time I don't particularly *want* to offend anybody, but if someone takes offence at a factual statement or a reasonable bit of speculation, then hey, sometimes the truth really does hurt.

As for my "racist ideology", well, for a change I'm only the second most intolerant commenter on a thread here ("islam a goat-fucker-bronze-age cult. mohammad was an arab pedophile"). LOL. But if you've got an alternative theory on why there were more than 600 murders in Detroit in the last two years compared to none in neighbouring Windsor, I'd love to hear it.

Anytime anyone writes about race or religion, someone is bound to be offended by it. That's just the price of doing business when one is dealing in controversial issues. The truth should be an adequate defense against charges of racism and Islamophobia, but alas that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

"Live not by lies" said Solzhenitsyn. Apparently this has been replaced by the new, politically correct adage, "Live not by hurting peoples' feelings".

Always On Watch said...

Jeppo said: I believe that racial differences in intelligence and behaviour are incontrovertible...

I am about to say something stupid about that.

Here goes....

Are there not different kinds of intelligences?

I have a high verbal IQ. But give me a test in spatial IQ, and watch my quotient drop significantly. Hell, I'm nearly 60 years old and still cannot tell right from left in certain situations, but not in others.

For example, I have always struggled with getting properly dressed for both left and right -- and back and front. But when I'm sitting at the piano keyboard or at the wheel of a car, I can easily tell right from left. The same goes when I'm writing on a sheet of paper.

I think in words, not in pictures -- and always have as far back as I can recall. Is my deficit racial? I have no idea, but I DO know that my paternal grandmother, with whom I had very little contact, was much the same way. She was of German descent, BTW. My parents, who reared me, had no such problems with spatial IQ. I nearly drove them crazy with my deficit!

My neighbor, who is part Cherokee, presents another interesting deficit -- and she does blame the deficit on ethnicity. Her deficit: she gets lost when she's out in big spaces. She claims that the Cherokees were not nomads because they got lost easily. She further maintains that all the Cherokees in her family and all the Cherokees whom she personally knows have the same deficit to some extent.

I believe that racial differences (other than the obvious skin-color differences) do exist. But in my view, those differences do not reflect less intelligence.

Years ago, I saw a movie called The Gods Must Be Crazy. The film contrasted the white man's culture with that of the Bushman. If a Bushman were to design an IQ test, all us white folks would fail that test.

jeppo said...

AoW, this is from Steve Sailer's review of Arthur Jensen's "The g Factor":

"Men, Jensen reports in passing, tend to be better at visual-spatial skills (especially at mentally rotating 3-d objects) and at mathematical reasoning. Women are generally superior at short-term memory, perceptual speed, and verbal fluency. Since the male sex is stronger at logically manipulating objects, while the female sex prevails at social awareness, that explains why most nerds are male, while most "berms" (anti-nerds adept at interpersonal skills and fashion) are female."

So it would seem that your high verbal IQ and low visual-spatial IQ is entirely normal amongst women. It's a gender thing, not a racial thing.

That's an interesting anecdote about your neighbour. I always thought that aboriginal peoples were known for *not* getting lost. I remember a Mohawk guide telling us half-jokingly that Indians never get lost in the woods, but sometimes the trail wanders. I've also heard that although Aborigine children in Australia score far below white kids on conventional IQ tests, they excelled at pointing to the direction of their homes from inside the classroom, unlike the white kids who did terribly at this. That would speak to a high visual-spatial IQ I think.

The Gods Must Be Crazy was a great movie. According to Lynn and Vanhanen's "IQ and the Wealth of Nations", Bushmen score lower than any other ethnic group on intelligence tests, with an average IQ in the 50s. Of course when it comes to eking out a living as a hunter-gatherer in the Kalahari, they have a huge advantage over us. But when it comes to living in a modern agricultural-industrial society the opposite is true.

Anonymous said...

"Men, Jensen reports in passing, tend to be better at visual-spatial skills (especially at mentally rotating 3-d objects) and at mathematical reasoning. Women are generally superior at short-term memory, perceptual speed, and verbal fluency. Since the male sex is stronger at logically manipulating objects, while the female sex prevails at social awareness, that explains why most nerds are male, while most "berms" (anti-nerds adept at interpersonal skills and fashion) are female."

So it would seem that your high verbal IQ and low visual-spatial IQ is entirely normal amongst women. It's a gender thing, not a racial thing.



that's not so.

Anonymous said...

I believe that racial differences in intelligence and behaviour are incontrovertible and have profound real world consequences.



why do you say darker-skinned and don't say asiatic?


Let's say that someone came up with a theory that purported to explain the social, economic and cultural differences between Europe and the Arab world, the theory being that the light-skinned Caucasian inhabitants north of the Mediterranean had a roughly 10 point advantage in average IQ over the somewhat darker-skinned Caucasians south of the Med.

Unknown said...

I don't think the statement "those folks are dumb," "Those are smart" "those see farther" present us with a more nuanced understanding of humanity.

Always On Watch said...

Jeppo,
So it would seem that your high verbal IQ and low visual-spatial IQ is entirely normal amongst women. It's a gender thing, not a racial thing.

Interesting.

But both my mother and my grandmother, both mathematicians, had high spatial IQs. Their verbal IQs were not as high as mine.

In my experience, different Native American tribes show varying levels of spatial and verbal IQs.

jeppo said...

Anonymous: "that's not so."

Tell it to Arthur Jensen, one of the world's most prominent intelligence researchers.

Anonymous: "why do you say darker-skinned and don't say asiatic?"

Because those darker-skinned Caucasians living south of the Med are North Africans, not "Asiatics".

Culturist John: "I don't think the statement "those folks are dumb," "Those are smart" "those see farther" present us with a more nuanced understanding of humanity."

Maybe not, but I didn't say any of those things. How about "Millions of IQ tests conducted worldwide over the past century lead us to believe that there are significant differences in average IQ between various population groups, and that the IQ gaps between these groups have remained relatively stable over time, leading us to believe that these differences are largely genetic rather than environmental", would that present us with a more nuanced understanding of humanity?

Always On Watch: "In my experience, different Native American tribes show varying levels of spatial and verbal IQs."

Yup, I think you're right. There's a lot more diversity, genetic and otherwise, between different Native American groups than most people generally assume.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: "that's not so."

Tell it to Arthur Jensen, one of the world's most prominent intelligence researchers.


so what?
my mom fixes everything at home, pipes, electric wiring problems, electronic objects, etc. it's not even her professional field. LOL

arthur jensen must have a constipation going on in his brains! LOL

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: "why do you say darker-skinned and don't say asiatic?"

Because those darker-skinned Caucasians living south of the Med are North Africans, not "Asiatics".



you suggest race to the discussion and give only africans/darker-skinned as an example. if we were to take your suggestion serious, why would we consider what you say about africans/darker-skinned and wouldn't consider the pedophilia among asiatic cultures?


did you know asiatics invaded middle east and north africa?

Anonymous said...

Whether there are heritable biological IQ differences between groups like, for example blacks and whites, is a scientific question of fact. The answer is either yes or no.

It doesn't matter what you want the answer to be. I guess it's non-racist to want there to be no differences, and it's racist to want there to be differences, but unfortunately wishing will not make it so.

With all the scientific evidence collected at this point, denying biological group differences in inherited intelligence is substantially more unrealistic than young earth creationism and infinitely more harmful. Accusations of 'racist' and related slurs can only keep the truth suppressed for so long.

The real result of this truth is not as horrible as you probably imagine. You will not have to think of blacks as 'inferior'. You will simply have to discard the often self-serving custom of attaching moral worth to intelligence. People who are born very smart are no more worthy than people born very tall.

In short, admitting that intelligence is hereditary should make you more compassionate and tolerant of your fellow man, not less. The only people hurt by this revelation are those 'intellectual' elites who think their intelligence is of their own making rather than a gift from God.

Anonymous said...

Culture comes from race, and if you replace the race you lose the culture. Sure politics and cultural warfare have their parts, but race is the main determinant. Blacks are incapable of building or sustaining an advanced civilization, and, more to the point, they're not capable of sustaining OUR civilization. What's happening to whites all over the world is genocide through colonialism, and even if your "culturalist" approach worked (and it won't) I'd prefer the physical survival of my people to the survival of some artificial "culture." "Culturalism" is like a man who has been thrown out of his own house and about to watch his family be executed being happy that at least the house will continue exist.

This is the first time I've ever seen this blog (from Auster's), I assume it's a anti-Islamic fundamentalist site. Shouldn't you welcome Muslim immigration sure in the belief that a few tweaks in the culture will solve all the problems Islam brings? Do you seriously believe that if enough people moved from Nigeria to where ever you live to make you a minority that tweaking the media or passing a few laws will ensure that your culture doesn't change? That the new Nigerian state and population will treat you with respect, that New Nigeria would be as advanced as the country you now live in? (You'd be lucky if they refrained from killing you.) You cannot believe it.

Unamused said...

"...the vast majority of Black people are wonderful law abiding and productive citizens."

What is your evidence for this claim? (And are you referring to "the vast majority" of American blacks, or including Africa and the West Indies too?) Your "many Black colleagues" are not statistically significant (plus there is an obvious sample bias).

"The dysfunction in Black culture, that which leads to crime, is cultural."

Again, what is your evidence? The first law of behavior genetics is that all human behavioral traits are heritable. The second law is that the effect of genes is greater, much greater, than the effect of shared environment, which includes culture.

"The Black population was not as violent in the 1950s or before that." Compared to the black population now, you mean, not compared to the white population then or now.

"Crime and divorce are not genetic." This statement is trivially true with a stupid definition of "genetic," and false with a reasonable definition of the term.

Hesperado said...

I've long noticed and thought about this particular problem in Auster's writings, and most recently put up a notice about the same article about which Culturlist John (CJ) wrote the above essay; and while I share some of the concerns of CJ, I find myself a tad less effusively pro-black than he apparently seems to be.

As I noted in my notice linked above, one problem with Auster's formulation is that he puts the cart before (or athwart of) the horse in this regard: The problem of whites deferring anxiously to blacks in various ways is not the overarching problem, as Auster seems to imply, but is rather a subset of a much broader, and historically longer, problem which spans centuries in development: the problem of the irrational respect for, and deference to, non-white non-Western cultures in general (a phenomenon I call "PC MC", or Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism).

PC MC is not equally applied to all ethnicities; some are "more equal" than others. For a long time, blacks did seem to be the #1 Most Privileged Ethnic People; but that has clearly changed in the past quarter century (dramatically increasing post-911): Muslims have elbowed blacks off that podium, and not only are more privileged than other ethnicities, but also cause PC MCs to throw other causes under the bus for Muslims, such as gays, animal rights, feminism, anti-religion attitudes; etc.

Beyond this, there is a much larger problem with Auster's formulation and his ongoing black-critical efforts on his blog; though I'll have to leave that larger problem mostly unattended here, due to time constraints. In a nutshell, it involves a failing for which Auster frequently takes others to task on other issues (particularly the Muslim problem) -- namely, Auster spends a lot of time pointing out the problem, but precious little actually offering a solution. The only solution, given Auster's roundabout gingerly occasional stabs at that aspect of the problem, would be a wholesale segregation -- which at this stage of the game is a preposterous proposal; even more preposterous when Auster implies now and then that blacks would acquiesce to it non-violently.

Kiwiguy said...

***As people cannot change their genetic make-up, Mr. Auster's racial lens cannot effect any good policy outcomes. ***

Mr Auster has responded to your post on his blog . In relation to this point he comments:

"Of course it can. We get rid of all laws and regulations and judicial decisions which assume that any failure of blacks to attain equality of outcome with whites is due to racial discrimination."

Several academics have noted the importance of appreciating human genetic diversity. I'd recommend you read Linda Gottfredson's articles on her faculty page.* University of Chicaogo Geneticist Bruce Lahn & Lanny Ebenstein's 'Let's Celebrate Human Genetic Diversity'. Peter Singer's 'A Darwinian Left'. Professor Steve Hsu's post post on the scientific basis for race.

* Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2006). Social consequences of group differences in cognitive ability (Consequencias sociais das diferencas de grupo em habilidade cognitiva). In C. E. Flores-Mendoza & R. Colom (Eds.), Introducau a psicologia das diferencas individuais (pp. 433-456). Porto Allegre, Brazil: ArtMed Publishers.

Kiwiguy said...

***Crime and divorce are not genetic.***

Really? So it's purely cultural that men commit far more crime than women? Have you read any work by Anthony Walsh, Kevin Beaver, Anthony Raine or JP Wright? Read up on bio-social criminology.

Also, in terms of average population differences be aware of gene-culture evolution? Different cultural environments can favour different behavioural traits. For example, see the discussion of cad/dad societies or useful search engine or Greg Clark's research research.

Anonymous said...

Auster's position in a nutshell, is that black dysfunctionality exists, and is immutable. He is not so much into hbd, just the products of observation.

"1950s"

They were caused by lifting the police state we forced blacks to live under, and lifting the mechanisms we used to shove our culture down their throats. Since it is unlikely that we'll return to that, it isn't too likely that there will be any "fix".

Anonymous said...

"the problem of the irrational respect for, and deference to, non-white non-Western cultures in general (a phenomenon I call "PC MC", or Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism)."

You can call it whatever you like but it isn't respect for non-Western cultures, it's a genocidal hatred of white societies and people. That's why the left flits from group to group, and why it can "throw other causes under the bus" - the political dis-empowerment of whites followed by their extermination through breeding is the program, and these "other causes" are just supplemental and less important than the main goal. Thus they are acting in a practical and consistent manner when they throw their other causes under the bus. The leftist/non-white coalition are vicious white-hating racists, not people with a naive respect for other cultures. Solutions are certainly not going to happen if we can't even name the problem.

The left intends to destroy Western civilization and exterminate "whiteness", which really means exterminating white people. They're not going to let you escape just because you use a word, just because you call yourself a "culturist." These are people who think Republicans are Nazis. Haven't you been called a racist already? Establishment conservatism and the Republican Party have been operating in a non-racial "culturist" mode for decades, how's that working out for them, and the nation?

Hesperado said...

Anonymous,

I wasn't talking about Leftists; I was talking about PC MC, which as a sociopolitical movement or process of a sea change in Weltanschauung has affected the hearts and minds of vast swaths of people outside the delimited category of "Leftists" -- including the majority of conservatives and centrists, as well as that large and amorphous demographic one could, for want of a term that exists yet, call "comfortably apolitical".

The precise problem of PC MC is that it has come to possess people outside the category of "Leftist": That cultural victory came at the process of watering down and decaffeinating its Leftist roots in terms of many sociopolitcal issues; but on the one issue of the problem of Islam (which I maintain is the most important issue now), it has swayed nearly everyone on all points of the political spectrum and of all sociological classes and stations, with the effect of nearly universalizing and standardizing a disastrous "respect" for Muslims and for their normative Islam (as artificially and anxiously distinguished from an "Islamism").