Sunday, June 8, 2008

Condi Rice on Barack Obama’s victory

“The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that ‘We the people’ is beginning to mean all of us.”
– Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (June 4, 2008)

“Under liberalism, only the ideal of a perfectly equal and inclusive America is good. America the actual country as it has existed up to this moment is no good. ... That’s the at least implicitly accepted view today, and not a single conservative other than at this website has ever criticized the vile Condoleezza Rice for using her position as Secretary of State to put down this country....”
– right-wing blogger Lawrence Auster (June 4, 2008)

51 comments:

DRE said...

This is the first time I ever clicked on LA's website. I read his blurb as well as the comments and found him to be comfortably insane. Sometimes you can find SOME valid points in the arguments of conservatives, but this man is cartoonish, which insults good cartoons like the Simpsons.

DRE said...

....and maybe Condi can come to the backyard barbeque after all.

Michael Fisher said...

What I don't quite get about you, David, is what your beef with Auster is. Look at what you write about "black" people. You make the exact, and I mean exact same arguments as to black folk's supposed genetic mental inferiority and use the Bell Curve etc as your yardstick.

You really can not have it both ways. Mount a "fight" against these white racists and import the same memes into our community.

And then, when you are concretely challenged about your racist genetic gobbledygook you generally just stop replying instead of dealing with challenges in a logical manner.

On balance that makes you a much more dangerous white racist than Auster. And I am using "white" with great deliberation here. Because "white" is, above all, a behavior and only loosely associated with actual skin color.

That is especially the case given that you can, and do, live your daily life as a white man rather than a black one.

But to get back at this. So where, as far as "black" folks are concerned lie the differences between you and Auster? I don't see them.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ What's the use of arguing about it, Michael? You know what I think, I know what you. Life's too short.

Genomic science is gonna have that one figured out within our lifetimes.

Thordaddy said...

michael fisher,

If black "genetic mental inferiority" is true then simply stating this fact cannot meet the definition of racism.

If black "genetic mental inferiority" is false then only if such falsity is spread knowingly and maliciously can you even begin to assess whether one is racist.

You think Mr. Auster is racist therefore he must be spreading false information as it pertains to blacks "genetic mental inferiorty?"

Can you elaborate on the "falsity" of Mr. Auster intelligence arguments so as to substantiate your charges of "racism?"

Mr. Mills,

I take it that your non-response to Mr. Auster's argument implies your tacit agreement?

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"What's the use of arguing about it, Michael? You know what I think, I know what you. Life's too short."

I' not arguing about anything, I'm asking a question. What, if any, is the difference between your view of black people and Auster's?

Michael Fisher said...

thordaddy...

Define a "black person" please and give a definition that encompasses all people you classify as black.

Undercover Black Man said...

What, if any, is the difference between your view of black people and Auster's?

Auster's belief, as I perceive it, is that Africans are so profoundly different than white people, each and every black person is tainted by the difference. Thus he argues things like: No black person can represent the United States as president, because a black person can't be representative of white culture, which created America.

I don't believe anything like that.

odocoileus said...

No offense, Dave, but most definitely not in your lifetime, if you live another fifty years or so.

The function of the human brain is the most complex biological phenomenon in the known universe. This phenomenon can in no way be explained by one or two simple linear equations.

When we finally do understand the human brain, centuries from now, the understanding will of necessity involve chaos theory, quantum mechanics, as well as the most advanced developments of biochemistry and genetics.

Now if advances in technology allow us to all to live for centuries with a decent quality of life, then maybe you will live to see such an understanding. Rest assured, it will be much more complex that the neo eugenicists are claiming.

Remember a year ago or so when Lahn and some other researchers had found what they thought was the holy grail - a gene that supposedly coded for bigger brains. The neos thought they finally had the goods to "prove" that Africans were inherently, genetically dumber.

It turned out that the Han Chinese largely lacked the gene in question, whereas the stone age cannibals of New Guinea had the gene in abundance.

People in the legit scientific community laughed so hard that the collective gale blew Lahn and his eugenicist fanboys back into obscurity. It wasn't leftist oppression, but widespread derision that shut down this particular doomed line of research.

I could go into a lengthy discussion of just why Rushton et al are using a seriously flawed argument. Why, if cold adaptation is so wondeful, aren't the Inuit and Canadian Natives crowding white folks out of North America's leading universities. Why the super cold adapted Ruskies kill each other as often as black Americans do.

The eugenicists theories fail on a factual basis. Barring extraordinary new evidence, they will continue to do so.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ We'll see, odocoileus. I ain't pressed.

Meanwhile, I see nothing to bolster the egalitarian assumption that 12 percent of any given elite law school class ought to be black (to take one example) or else it's racist.

The egalitarians have nothing to go on except their own pure-hearted wishes.

odocoileus said...

Considering that AA has been under attack and in decline for decades, I don't think it's a major issue.

As a practical matter, our society has way too many lawyers, and not enough good diesel mechanics. If half the lawyers dropped dead tomorrow, we'd get along just fine. If half the diesel mechanics disappeared, a lot of stuff would literally grind to a halt.

Too much is made of college AA, both pro and con. The con side figures that if the law school class were just five per cent larger, they or their kids could squeeze in at the bottom.

The pro side figures refuses to admit that kids in the 20th percentile are rarely competitive with kids in the 1st percentile. so putting them in the same college class room amounts to throwing the slower kids to the wolves in the name of diversity.

Black kids have effed up test scores because they (on average) read less, study less, don't eat as healthily, and are exposed to a less stable, less nurturing environment from conception onwards. None of this is white people's fault, but none of it is genetic, either.

(And when you consider the persistence of irrational, self destructive behavior among certain subcultures - the Catholics in Northern Ireland, working class Russians in Russia, English dole recipients, Native Americans on reservations, etc. The behavior patterns may be just as hard to change as if they were genetic.)

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"Meanwhile, I see nothing to bolster the egalitarian assumption that 12 percent of any given elite law school class ought to be black (to take one example) or else it's racist."

Who here is talking about egalitarianism?

Look at it in terms of probability statistics.

In a population pool of people with randomly assigned mental capabilities, the sole determinant of whether someone achieves scholastically should be just that, mental acuity.

When you can successfully correlate scholarly achievement with anything other than pure mental acuity, that is with "race", and you find that people of a certain "race" have either more or less of scholastic achievement than people of another "race", then it would not be unreasonable to assume that "race" is a determinant in such achievement.

Well, that would be all fine and well. The problem is, that no one, including you, David, can objectively, scientifically determine what a biological "race" is in the first place. All the genomic science now or in the future won't be able to do it, because there is no socio-politically value-free way to do it.

I know it is hard for people to do away with the concept of "race" because clearly you can identify a "black" person from a "white" person.

Well, in actuality you can't. We've been trained to look at certain people and place them in "racial" categories, but that does not make it a biological reality.

Let 's do a thought experiment.

Let's assume all of humanity is shows certain characteristics. That is:

All humans are either 5 feet tall or 6 feet tall and all humans are either the exact same color black and the exact same color white.

How many "races" and "sub-races" are there?

Are there two races of 5 foot and 6 foot people respectively the sub-races of which are 5 foot people colored black and five foot people colored white?

Or are there two races of black colored people and another of white colored people respectively the sub-races of which are black colored people who are five feet and black colored people who are 6 feet as well as white colored people who are five feet and white colored people who are 6 feet?

How is the determination which is the "race" and the "sub-race" made? Who makes it? Based on what objective scientific criteria?

It can not be done except on the basis of socio-political values and decisions.

Thus any observable "race" based phenomena, such, for example, that the "race" of so-called blacks do not constitute 12% of the law school students are socio-political phenomena.

To make socio-political phenomena a reality to make them "stick", socio-political power needs to be applies on a continuous basis, else there would be no socio-political phenomena present.

The question then becomes "who does the sticking"? Logically it would be those or agents of those who benefit from the existence of the socio-political phenomena in evidence.

Moreover it's got to be a deliberate effort.

What many folks, particularly "black" folks do not understand or just do not want to understand (likely because they can not fathom that a clique of people would be so inhuman and outright evil) is that "white" people, particularly the ones at the very top, the ones that make this shit "stick" are well aware of the fact that there is no such thing as a biological "race". The are pumping the notion into the general populace and, in doing so shrewdly ascribe and infuse, via "education" and "entertainment" (thus your complicity I referred to in another comment, David, etc memes of behavior into the persons they got to self-identify as a member of one "race" or another.

Thus all of a sudden we got "black pathologies", "Asian achievements", "white ingenuity", etc.

It's a big mind game the key to which is to keep people from thinking about these things with cold logic.

Logical observation also tells us that it is very deliberate.

And that is why, David, when you advocate this stuff you are a white racist. Not a bit different from Auster, David Duke, Menachim Begin, Lev Jabotinsky, D.W. Griffith, or Adolf Hitler.

Undercover Black Man said...

So, Michael, let me get this right: You are against affirmative action? You are against any sort of "race-based" criterion to boost the number of blacks in elite schools?

Then we truly have nothing to argue about.

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"So, Michael, let me get this right: You are against affirmative action? You are against any sort of "race-based" criterion to boost the number of blacks in elite schools?"

As soon as the socio-political construct of "race" and the socio-political System that supports and maintains it is done away with, of course.

If you wanna get rid of affirmative action, get rid of the racist system that necessitates affirmative action as some small measure of relief for the victims of that system. Especially, given that the system is, by definition, nothing BUT a gigantic affirmative action system for the people who socio-politically are classified as "white".

You gonna help get rid of this racist system, David?

Undercover Black Man said...

As soon as the socio-political construct of "race" and the socio-political System that supports and maintains it is done away with, of course.

Thus have you painted yourself into a corner, Michael. Affirmative action institutionalizes the defining of individuals as "white" and "non-white."

It perpetuates what you claim to want to destroy.

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"Thus have you painted yourself into a corner, Michael. Affirmative action institutionalizes the defining of individuals as "white" and "non-white."

Absolutely not. I said that the entire System of Racism is designed as a gigantic institution of affirmative action for "white" people. That is, preferential treatment of white people on the average in jobs, housing, access to credit, health care, entertainment, corporate governance and ownership, finance, politics (Obama not withstanding), and whatever else you can think off.

All that despite the fact that the average white person is not any more "genetically" intelligent than the average non-white one.

Now, compared to that, the so-called "affirmative action" programs (which have no teeth whatsoever) that are designed to ameliorate some of the, not past, but current effects of the real affirmative action system designed for "white" folks that is in place, is but a drop of water on a red hot piece of lava. The institutionalization of race is accomplished via that real currently functioning affirmative action system of "white" racism, not that piddling band-aid called "affirmative action" for non-whites (and above all for white women).

Thus my question still stands, David:

You gonna help get rid of this racist affirmative action system for "white" people, David?

Undercover Black Man said...

With the absences of explicitly racist laws and policies, Michael, how can one define the effects of your presumed system of white supremacy?

Seems to me the only thing you have to go by are certain observable unequal outcomes in society.

For instance, the small number of blacks in the incoming freshman class at UCLA. Or the poor performance of black students as a class on the SATs.

But one can't say with any confidence that such unequal outcomes are the result of an external oppressive system.

That's an ideological belief on your part... and in no ways provable.

Furthermore -- and most importantly -- that ideological belief on your part will only make matters worse, because it fosters a thoroughgoing resentment against society... and a sense of grievance against those who succeed in society.

And those feelings don't inspire one to work hard and sacrifice and study and invest and do what it takes to improve and prosper.

No, they inspire one to blame others for one's own failures.

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"With the absences of explicitly racist laws and policies, Michael, how can one define the effects of your presumed system of white supremacy?"

If you recall, I went through that argument with Cobb already.

First, there haven't been any explicitly racist laws and policies since 1865 in this country. The "Jim Crow" laws of "separate but equal" were explicitly non-racist. That is they purported to be equally applicable to "whites" as to "blacks".

Nonetheless...

"Seems to me the only thing you have to go by are certain observable unequal outcomes in society."

Correct.

"For instance, the small number of blacks in the incoming freshman class at UCLA. Or the poor performance of black students as a class on the SATs."

Now you gotta define what a biological "black" person is before you proceed.

Which you, David Mills, as has already been demonstrated can not do. 'Cause there is no such biological thing.

"But one can't say with any confidence that such unequal outcomes are the result of an external oppressive system."

One can say with confidence that if there is no such thing as a biological "black" person, then any correlation of any outcome of anything with the achievements or non-achievements of a non-existing biological black person is not a function of that person's (non-existing) biology.

Thus if one can (and one certainly can) correlate such achievements and non-achievements with people who have been socio-politically classified a black, then any such outcomes must logically be the result of socio-political determinants and behavior.

"That's an ideological belief on your part... and in no ways provable."

That's not an ideological belief at all. It is the result of logical deduction and therefore fully proved. You show me where the logic I present is wrong, and then you got a case.

The sole ideological belief here is the one that posits that there are such things as biological races and intelligence correlated with the same. There is no proof at all for this contention and you, my friend, have consistently failed to deliver the same.

THAT's an ideological belief.

"Furthermore -- and most importantly -- that ideological belief on your part will only make matters worse, because it fosters a thoroughgoing resentment against society... and a sense of grievance against those who succeed in society."

The question is why people succeed in society and others do not. If it were only a question of hard work and ingenuity there would be no need to discuss anything. But the data shows that it is not. Since the lagging behind of "blacks" can not be ascribed to biology or genetics, it has to be socio-political. And socio-political is just another word for a system of power. What you, euphemistically, call "society".

"And those feelings don't inspire one to work hard and sacrifice and study and invest and do what it takes to improve and prosper."

The question then becomes, what induces such counterproductive behavior? If it isn't biological, what is it then? Where does it come from?

The only logical answer is that if it ain't a function of biology, then these people are being taught by someone to be irresponsible.

By the way, if your objection is to such irresponsible behavior, what do you have against the Nation of Islam and Black Nationalists who insist that such irresponsible behavior be reversed?

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher,

If blackness (generally understood as not white and more often than not meaning brown to very dark brown skin) is not a biological attribute then from where does your skin color derive?

Are you claiming that you're NOT a black man?

And if you are to speak of a black "race" that does not exist then please explain the outrageously monolithic vote of "blacks" in the Democratic primary?

Anecdotally, it seems blacks are not only ideological conformists but racially-conscious ideological conformists.

This conformity is derived at the individual level utilizing the brain capacity of the given black man.

Race and intelligence are legitimate areas of inquiry to any society looking to successfully organize. Wouldn't you agree?

Andrew said...

Anecdotally huh? That's always such a great qualifier from which to stem your arguments.

Michael Fisher said...

thordaddy...

"If blackness (generally understood as not white and more often than not meaning brown to very dark brown skin)..."

This is your scientific definition of a black person?

First, since the term "not white" would include everybody including people with a pinkish skin color, no one except dead people would be considered a white person.

Second, where does "brown" begin exactly?

Third "more often than not". Does this mean that in cases that are non more often than not people of this brown category are white?

Now, do all of these people have the same anus diameter? What about those people who have a anus diameter of two inches rather than those who have an anus diameter of 2 1/2 inches? Don't either of them constitute a race in and of themselves? Have you checked how anus diameter correlates with IQ?

If yes, why, if no, why not?

Have you checked how a particular shade of brown correlates with IQ?

If yes, why, if no, why not?

If yes, why, if no, why not?

Have you checked how the length of the left pinky finger correlates with IQ?

If yes, why, if no, why not?

Now, obviously skin coloration is usually a biological attribute. So is anus diameter. Which one of the two attributes is of greater racial significance?

"And if you are to speak of a black 'race' that does not exist then please explain the outrageously monolithic vote of 'blacks' in the Democratic primary? "

Who said that black doesn't exist - as a social construct. "Whites" created the social category.

As I said elsewhere, I wish they'd send some truly intelligent white racists on to these boards rather than these run-of-the-mill examples of the dumbest least sophisticated ones out there.

David Mills deserves better.

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher,

So you are a socially-constructed "black" man, but not a scientifically-based "black" man?

How can we rest assured that you haven't socially-constructed "white racism" which by your own admission has NO scientific basis?

Andrew said...

How can we rest assured that you haven't socially-constructed "white racism" which by your own admission has NO scientific basis?

Jesus Christ. Of course there's no scientific basis for racism. This isn't some startling revelation. It should go without saying. Racism is a social/psychological mindset, pure and simple.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Michael, let me try to move the ball here.

You believe that whiteness is entirely a social construct, an idea. And that the only way to destroy the intrinsically unjust "System of White Supremacy" is to reject the very idea of whiteness.

Have I accurately representated your position? If so, let's go from angels-dancing-on-the-head-
of-a-pin to something concrete:

Can you, for purposes of illustration, point to a human being who has done what you recommend? That is, rejected the identification of himself as "white"?

Actually, forget a real-life example. Theoretically, what would such a human have to do to serve the cause of justice? How would his life change? What would it look like?

Consider R&B music legend Johnny Otis... the son of Greek immigrants. He dedicated his life to black culture as a leader of black bands, as a black-radio deejay and as owner of a blues club; he married a black woman and fathered black sons; he worked on the staff of a prominent black politician in California; he even founded a black church where he preached.

Question: Was Johnny Otis "white"?

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"You believe that whiteness is entirely a social construct, an idea. And that the only way to destroy the intrinsically unjust 'System of White Supremacy"' is to reject the very idea of whiteness."

I don't believe jack shit, I know.

"Have I accurately representated your position?"

Incompletely but let's keep it at that for now.

"Can you, for purposes of illustration, point to a human being who has done what you recommend? That is, rejected the identification of himself as 'white'?"

Yeah, apparently that'd be a guy named David Mills, for example.

"Theoretically, what would such a human have to do to serve the cause of justice? How would his life change? What would it look like?"

Simple. Stop mistreating people on the basis of color and help those people who need help the most.

"Was Johnny Otis 'white'"

That depends. Was he mistreated by people classified as "white" on the basis of color?

If so, he was "black" (that is, non-white), if not, he was "white".

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

thordaddy...

"How can we rest assured that you haven't socially-constructed "white racism" which by your own admission has NO scientific basis?"

Hmmmm...

Lemme look over my calender of the last few years.

Nope, I didn't socially or otherwise construct the most powerful (supreme) military organizations on the globe which are all run by people who classify themselves as "white".

Nope, it looks like I also did not socially or otherwise construct the most powerful (supreme) financial and currency systems and organizations on the globe which are all run by people who classify themselves as "white".

Lemme see about this one...

Nope, I also did not socially or otherwise construct the most powerful (supreme) entertainment systems and distribution organizations on the globe which are all run by people who classify themselves as "white".

I also did not socially or otherwise construct the most powerful and sophisticated (supreme) education systems and organizations on the globe which are all run by people who classify themselves as "white".

I think all that should suffice for now, or would you like me to continue?

Now, Thordaddy (which, I guess would make you Odin), what about answering at least two of my questions?

Namely these two:

Which one of the following two attributes is of greater racial significance, anus diameter or skin coloration?

And why?

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher,

Can your order these entities in their degrees of social construction from most socially constructed to least socially contructed?

Modern Homophobe
American Indian
Black Man
White Woman
African Mother Land

Undercover Black Man said...

Michael, it has taken me quite a while to conclude that you're a total waste of time. But I can be kinda slow.

From one blog to the next, I've seen you get crushed by more sophisticated intellects -- Cobb, Nulan, Denmark Vesey.

You're welcome to hang out here and mix it up with whoever has time to kill. But don't expect to mix it up with me.

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"Michael, it has taken me quite a while to conclude that you're a total waste of time. But I can be kinda slow.

From one blog to the next, I've seen you get crushed by more sophisticated intellects -- Cobb, Nulan, Denmark Vesey.


If I am so unsophisticated you should be able to deconstruct my unsophisticated arguments and thus dispense with them in no time.

Neither I, nor I imagine, anyone else here, has seen you do that as of yet.

However, since you did make the above statement, you should at least provide a short summary of, or provide links to, the "crushing incidents" by Cobb, Nulan, and "Denmark Vesey", that supposedly took place.

"But don't expect to mix it up with me."

Unfortunately I never was able to because you unfortunately never did provide answers to any substantial questions put to you that went beyond statements such as (to paraphrase) "genomic science will likely prove my point it in the future".

Though, to be frank, your final excursion into attempted insult is highly disappointing.

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Dude... what did I just say about the value of my time?

Michael Fisher said...

thordaddy...

"Can your order these entities in their degrees of social construction from most socially constructed to least socially contructed?

Modern Homophobe
American Indian
Black Man
White Woman
African Mother Land"


Unless a being a "Modern Homophobe" is the function of biology it just a socio-political construct which is expressed via the person's behavior.

Seems to me that the "American Indian" was invented by folks that came from Europe and thought that they had landed in India. Another social construct/classification of a people who do not have the power to overturn the same in daily life without the consent of those that labeled them as such.

We already went through "black man" and "white woman".

"African Motherland". Definitely a social construct. What is African Motherland? A piece of land is someone's mother? Or do you man a geographic region where someones mother came from? The former would be a social construct, the latter a statement of geographic origin of a particular person or persons.

Thus all of these terms are equally socio-politically constructed.

Now that I answered your questions, Thordaddy, would you please answer mine?

Which one of the following two attributes is of greater racial significance, anus diameter or skin coloration?

And why?

If you are not comfortable dealing with anus diameter, select any body part you'd like. Nose, eyelash, left nostril, right nostril, or hey, (since we wanna go sophisticated) even "dopamine level", or any combination thereof. Just explain on what objective, scientific, value-free reasoning you chose these particular attributes as being that of a race.

Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"Dude... what did I just say about the value of my time?"

Why are you continuing to "mix it up" with me, David? Just don't read what I commented. No time lost.

Michael Fisher said...

ummm...

One more thing...

To me, Mills has a double standard when it comes to bigotry. When I pointed this out to Mills, he dismissed me on his Blog as someone incapable of rational (or better yet, sophisticated) thought, and he cut off any further discussion.

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher,

I'm not limited by your understanding that "science" equals Truth. Science is a far too limited endeavor to encompass this very complex debate.

If one is limited to "science" and assumes that there is no black gene as you do then we must agree that Michael Fisher is NOT a black man?

Is that true, Michael?

You ARE NOT a black man?

Michael Fisher said...

thordaddy...

"Michael Fisher,

I'm not limited by your understanding that "science" equals Truth. Science is a far too limited endeavor to encompass this very complex debate."


Well, in that case you are entering the realm of belief and conjecture, and, above all, prejudicial judgment and bias.


"If one is limited to 'science' and assumes that there is no black gene as you do..."

Assumes? The is no evidence of a gene that makes one a member of a "black race" anywhere. Do you know of any "white gene"?

"then we must agree that Michael Fisher is NOT a black man?"

I already told you that there is no such thing as a biological black race. Clearly then I am not a member of a biological black race, or, a "biological black man".

Nor are you, by the way, a biological "white man". Unless, of course, you can come up with value-free biological attributes that are common to all persons you classify as white.

In any case, I really find white racists such as yourself despicable to the nth degree. Racists are an abomination before nature and everything that is good and holy.

Rot in hell.

The same goes for those who give you... things... (animal would be an insult to the lowliest creature and the appellation human certainly does not apply) aid and comfort as well.

Big Man said...

If you're on the same side as folks like thordaddy you might want to reconsider your lot in life.

Just saying.

I read both Fisher (when he had a blog) and Mills fairly regularly. I agree with some stuff they say and disagree with other stuff.

But, Mills, when thordaddy is holding it down for your side, don't you wonder a little about what you've decided to embrace. Fisher can come off as a little fanatical, but at his core he is advocating for the abolishment of white supremacy and aid for those affected by white supremacy.

I can agree with those goals.

Undercover Black Man said...

But, Mills, when thordaddy is holding it down for your side, don't you wonder a little about what you've decided to embrace.

Thanks for commenting, Big Man.

It is irrational to base one's moral thinking on something so trivial as who else happens to reach the same conclusions.

Fisher can come off as a little fanatical, but at his core he is advocating for the abolishment of white supremacy and aid for those affected by white supremacy.

That's the problem. Those two positions are positions of psychological weakness. That is: "The world ain't right until somebody else does something for black people."

Fisher's sitting around waiting for "aid" (handouts? reparations? whatever you call it, you've defined yourself by a weakness, by a position of need that only someone else can satisfy; meanwhile, non-white immigrants from all over the planet are coming to the United States and thriving.

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Mills...

"Fisher's sitting around waiting for "aid" (handouts? reparations? whatever you call it, you've defined yourself by a weakness, by a position of need that only someone else can satisfy"

Now you're just getting into the realm of lies, David.

You know full well, both via the blog convos as well as the convos on the phone, that the last of all things that I've ever done is sitting around waiting for handouts. Or have you built a highly profitable company out of nothing without taking out a single loan that grossed in excess of 200 million dollars with offices in NYC, London, and Berlin and affiliates in Sao Paulo?

You think I did that sitting around waiting for hand-outs?

I know you know better.

Getting rid of white supremacy and racism is not about reparations, it is about getting rid of the unjust obstacles that are deliberately and continuously placed before "black" people world-wide. It also means getting rid of the racist Nazi ideology as espoused by you and Thordaddy that at the very least seeks to imply, if not outright state that "black" people are of a mentally inferior "race" and serves as a justification in mistreating black folks throughout the globe.

You owe me an apology for this lie and distortion, David.

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher,

So biologically-speaking, you ARE NOT a "black" man.

You are only a socially-constructed "black" man.

But, this means nothing as it concerns intelligence. In fact, it only has meaning in the context of "white racism." A social construction undoubtedly proposed by your ideological heirs.

The debate leads one to conclude that your ideology requires you to disbelieve in the validity of the first "scientifically-challenged" social construction as you inexplicably embrace the latter "scientifically-challenged" social construction.

Why should we believe you?

Michael Fisher said...

Look Thordaddy. Even you can see that you are making no sense whatsoever. So why are you avoiding answering my questions?

To wit:

"Nor are you, by the way, a biological "white man". Unless, of course, you can come up with value-free biological attributes that are common to all persons you classify as white."

Well, what are these biological attributes that are common to all persons which you classify as white, Mr. White Man? Since you are a white person you should know what they are.

And furthermore:

"Which one of the following two attributes is of greater racial significance, anus diameter or skin coloration?

And why?

If you are not comfortable dealing with anus diameter, select any body part you'd like. Nose, eyelash, left nostril, right nostril, or hey, (since we wanna go sophisticated) even "dopamine level", or any combination thereof. Just explain on what objective, scientific, value-free reasoning you chose these particular attributes as being that of a race."


Or do you keep insisting that "Science is a far too limited endeavor to encompass this very complex debate.
"


Thus science figured out quantum physics, landed a number of vehicles on Mars, and created the computer and the internet, but for this simple racial categorization of human beings, is too complex for science?

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher says,

Clearly then I am not a member of a biological black race, or, a "biological black man".

That statement alone should raise a few eyebrows.

But the question is one of credibility and contradiction.

You say that the notion of a black "race" is scientifically implausible.

Yet, at the very same time you posit the notion of "white racism" which has no scientific validity.

Can you have it both ways?

Andrew said...

^^^It's like watching an infant try to understand the multiplication table.

Thordaddy said...

Andrew,

Most buffoons would recognize that if one requires scientific validation to prove the existence of a black "race" then the exact same criteria must be required to prove the existence of "white racism."

Therefore, via Michael Fisher's own belief in scientism, he cannot with any certainty posit the existence of "white racism." Hence, "white racism" doesn't really exist.

This parallels Michael Fisher's own acknowledgment that he is NOT a black man, biologically-speaking.

Michael Fisher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Fisher said...

Ok, thordaddy, let me indulge you. But after that, finally answer my questions. Logically, the very reality that there are people that run round and can successfully classify themselves as being of a "white" race and thereby classify everybody else as "non-white" and are able to make it stick on everybody anywhere, in off itself is already an act of racism and mistreatment and thus proof for white racism. Racism isn't about calling names it is about a power relationship. Just the act of being able to define people as "non-white" whether they like it or not is an act of illegitimate power - racism.

Now, answer my questions if you would.

Curious Bystander said...

Is race a social construct? In some ways, yes it is. But, what do we mean when we say that a particular person belongs to a particular race? We’re essentially making an assertion about her lineage, about which continent or geographic subregion her ancestors hail from. So when we identify a person as Caucasian, Negroid, East Asian, etc., we are making an assertion about which racial family she belongs to. I would argue that while the “white” race might be a social construct, the Caucasian race is a biological fact.

Is the idea of family and of familial relationships a social construct? Again, in some ways, yes it is. The question is which factors determine whom you consider to be a member of your immediate (nuclear) and extended family. Obviously, some of us have friends who are so close to us that we consider them like family, meaning we feel such a close bond to them it is as if we shared common parentage or lineage. That is one example of how family can operate as a social and psychological construct. Conversely, there are many people who have fathers they have never met, who’ve been absent from their lives since birth. Is the absentee father a member of the hypothetical child’s family? Philosophically speaking, maybe not. However, are the hypothetical child and her absentee father related? Absolutely. Why? They share a genetic bond, which means if you examined their respective genomes, you could identify predictable patterns of genetic inheritance. The same for grandparents, siblings, half-siblings, and cousins, etc.

Now, if you take any single gene on an individual’s genome, it’s my understanding that you could find a multitude of matches within the population, but that if you examine a large enough swath of genetic material, that is when you can make determinations about inheritance and parentage. Now I’m pretty sure you can find fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, and brothers and sisters who, while they may resemble each other to variable degrees, differ on a whole host other phenotypic traits, including skin tone, anus diameter, nostril circumference, and the like. The point is that despite the differences on any number of discrete traits, they do share a genetic profile that (when taken in sum) renders them what we would call related. Can’t we assume that it is the same for population genetics as well? Of course, any individual dark skinned person from sub-Saharan Africa is likely to share many individual genetic traits in common with any light-skinned person from Northern Europe. That’s why individual features or genes examined in isolation are poor markers of lineage. However, it is possible to make accurate judgments about lineage when you examine multiple phenotypic traits or, especially, hundreds of genes in the aggregate.

Race as a biological truth means nothing more than that if you examine large quantities of genes in large populations you will find correlations between certain subgroups within the larger population that will allow you divide them into large “extended” families that evolved in relative (obviously not complete) isolation in a particular geographic region of the globe. Race as a biological fact is value free; it’s simply a means to classify groups of people. It’s possible there are dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of races.

Michael Fischer has fallen victim to Lewontin’s Fallacy. And, I suspect he is engaging in sophistry when he makes such arguments. But, I can understand why he might feel he is engaging in a lesser of two evils by doing so.

I am suspicious of Fischer’s demands for absolute empiricism since he is essentially making an ethical judgment about the evils of white supremacy without having offered a basis for establishing his ethical judgment as an objective truth. When Fischer says the “global system of white supremacy (GSWS)” is an evil system, he is merely stating an opinion. There is no objective way to verify the truth of an ethical judgment; most of us rely on intuition and emotion when we make moral statements and judgments, which is not scientific. Thus, even if we accept Fischer’s position that a GSWS exists, what makes it wrong?

Curious Bystander said...

Sorry for the broken link.

Lewontin’s Fallacy

Michael Fisher said...

Curious Bystander...

"Race as a biological truth means nothing more than that if you examine large quantities of genes in large populations you will find correlations between certain subgroups within the larger population that will allow you divide them into large “extended” families that evolved in relative (obviously not complete) isolation in a particular geographic region of the globe."

Name the genes, bystander.

"Can’t we assume that it is the same for population genetics as well? Of course, any individual dark skinned person from sub-Saharan Africa is likely to share many individual genetic traits in common with any light-skinned person from Northern Europe."

Ok. I acknowledge it. Race exists. In fact, the primary biological attribute for race is height. There are primarily five races. They are people who a have a height of 6'2" and over, those of 5'10" and over (excepting those of 6'2" and over) those of 5'6" and over (excepting those of 5'10" and over) and those of 4' 8" and over (excepting those of 5'10" and over) and anyone below 4' 8".

The short people (anyone less than 6'2"), of course, have no reason to live.

"Michael Fischer has fallen victim to Lewontin’s Fallacy."

Yeah, you ain't the first one who said that about me. However, should that be the case, then, answer this, bystander: what exactly are the biological attributes or "loci" of a Caucasian? And if you are able to name them, why did you choose these particular ones?

"Thus, even if we accept Fischer’s position that a GSWS exists, what makes it wrong?"

Now, here is a more sophisticated argument. Which by the way, is exactly the position David Mills takes. Namely that without the existence of white supremacy "blacks" would be nowhere.

Well, that indeed is a question of one's moral compass. While the System of Racism/White Supremacy has indeed enabled the development of many scientific advances and the commensurate practical applications, the primary product of the SR/WS is throw-away people.

The majority of the people on the planet are actively mistreated: killed, denied help, are actively being socially, educationally, and psychologically retarded, and otherwise treated in an inhuman manner, and made "inferior" all in order to maintain this system.

Thus if your moral compass says that this is an appropriate treatment of humans (such as the Nazis said about the "proper" relationship between the "Aryans" and the "Slavs") then fine. But at least admit it.

Thordaddy said...

Michael Fisher,

So which is it?

Is scientific validation the objective end-all be-all? Or, can you merely use it when it suits your needs and conveniently use it as a "throw-away" notion when validating your "white racism" theory?

Why are you allowed to sustain such a contradiction especially given the debate concerning race and intelligence?