The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Richard Dawkins Deplatformed in Berkeley
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Unsurprisingly, anti-religion activist Richard Dawkins, the author of the famous 1976 book The Selfish Gene, has been deplatformed in Berkeley for mean tweets about Islam:

From: Brown Paper Tickets
Date: July 20, 2017 at 2:04:53 PM PDT
To: [NAME REDACTED]
Subject: Notification for Richard Dawkins: Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist

Dear Richard Dawkins event ticket buyers,

We regret to inform you that KPFA has canceled our event with Richard Dawkins. We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t
know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.

KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier. We also apologize to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation. Your ticket purchases will automatically be refunded by Brown Paper Tickets.

Sincerely,
KPFA Radio 94.1 FM

Jerry Coyne has more.

 
• Tags: Ctrl-Left 
Hide 237 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Only speech we approve of is SERIOUS free speech.

    • Replies: @Father O'Hara
    Coyne himself is a little bit off when he states that criticism of ideas is not criticism of people.
    But ideas are created and pushed by people. NeoCon ideas are rotten...but so are the neocons themselves.
  2. Of course, you don’t need me to point out that Dawkins’ regular and trademark anti-christianity remarks would count for nothing, indeed would be regarded as brownie points.

    • Agree: reiner Tor, lavoisier
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But perhaps there is rationality to all this.

    Critics of Islam regularly get beheaded etc.
    Who wants to bring that upon themselves?

  3. @Anonymous
    Of course, you don't need me to point out that Dawkins' regular and trademark anti-christianity remarks would count for nothing, indeed would be regarded as brownie points.

    But perhaps there is rationality to all this.

    Critics of Islam regularly get beheaded etc.
    Who wants to bring that upon themselves?

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    So we should surrender to the Muslims?
    , @Frau Katze
    It really is that simple. In any group of Muslims there are ones who act responsibly but they are a minority.

    The rest are the most easily offended group I've ever seen.

    And they don't stop at mere words. They follow their "prophet" and engage in sanctioned violence, including killing.

    Everyone panders to them because they don't want to be killed, to have go into hiding, to have their businesses wrecked.

    They've got it down pat in 1400 years of experience: violence works.

    Muslims who try to rein in the extremists in are putting their own lives at risk.

    Our leaders and "intellectuals" are on the first step of dhimmi status. They treat them with more respect than any other group.

    Is this not the first step in complete surrender?

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Seriously, how does anyone who professes any awareness of current events not know that Richard Dawkins has been making “offensive” comments about Islam for years? Personally, I find Dawkins rather misguided in his attitudes towards religion, but I respect the fact that he calls it as he sees it. (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That’s honest.) If anyone is unaware of this, they are literally idiots. We are dealing with utter buffoons here, people. Keep the faith. We are going to win.

    • Replies: @Altai
    Yeah but saying stuff on Twitter is like 1000x as bad as saying it on any other forum. It's like how we accept that we ought to be outraged at certain kinds of scandals even if nobody really does, it's public ritual.

    Who cares what Dawkins has to say in long form internet posts, books, interviews or public lectures. Saying controversial stuff on Twitter is something Donald Trump does! Also, any Tweet that can be categorised as wrong-think is also automatically a 'rant'. Even worse is a series of Tweets which becomes an 'unhinged rant'.

    , @Anon
    (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That’s honest.)

    It is better why? Because it's grown weak and decadent and cannot even defend true marriage from the homo mafia.
    At least in defending core faith and values, Islam has proven itself to be far better than wussy Christianity that, without alliance with military caste, has proven to be weak and wimpy.

    Also, Dawkins is so full of BS. He attacks Jewish religion and culture, but he attacks 'antisemitism'. But following his logic, Jews should give up their identity since it is tribal, irrational, and atavistic. Indeed, one could argue that a people insisting on their Jewishness is a form of arrogance, exclusionism, and supremacism based on special covenant with a fictional deity.

    Worse, doesn't Dawkins see that Diversity and Homomania are now worshiped as quasi-religions and have their own mindless sacraments and blind taboos?

    But then, Dawkins is so religious about his cocksure know-it-all rationality when he's just a sneering snobby jerk.
    , @SMK
    What and who is "we": the alternative/dissident right, I assume. And what do you mean by "win," concretely and specifically? And how are we "going to win," exactly?
  5. “We do not support abusive speech.”

    Which is worse, “abusive speech” or “hate speech?” I need to know which one to use first.

    • LOL: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @guest
    Hate speech leads to gas chambers. Abusive speech? That's like backhanding your wife. Bad, possibly deplorable, but not irredeemably evil.
    , @J1234

    “We do not support abusive speech.”
     
    They also said : "KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech."

    Doesn't the truth hurt? That's what the old aphorism says.

    Here's a slice of Dawkins in one of his hurtful and truthful moments:
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/
    , @map
    We do not support wrong-think.
  6. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Coyne is somewhat misrepresenting matters. While Dawkins is unapologetically against religion in general, and seems to spend much more of his time hurling insults at Christians, he, like Sam Harris and Bill Maher and no doubt many others with less name recognition, has made it clear beyond doubt that he regards Islam as much more dangerous. All of these guys deserve at least some respect for this. They are trying to tell the truth as they see it, to some degree, in a world that does not respect truth.

    • Replies: @RobertTaylor
    All of them - Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris - are for mass 3rd world immigration.

    And God knows they are all anti-White.

    No respect for them.
    , @TWS
    I thought it was just upper case Truth that the world did not respect.
  7. It’s interesting that they view Dawkins as an anti-Islamic bigot, hate monger, etc. but not an anti-Christian bigot. (Not that I think he is either, just that by the ridiculous standards leftists use in judging anti-Islam bigotry, no doubt one could comparably say that Dawkins is a “Christianophobe.” But recognizing that would require, you know, thinking about things.)

    • Replies: @guest
    Is it possible to be an anti-Christian bigot according to them? (Tolerating the intolerant?) If you criticize a black church, I suppose.
  8. All that erudition and fame, being the chief popularizer and gatekeeper of one of the trickiest and most important branches of Science for progressivism. All that goodthink tight-rope walking. And he couldn’t figure out atheism is for whites only?

  9. @CCZ

    "We do not support abusive speech."
     
    Which is worse, "abusive speech" or "hate speech?" I need to know which one to use first.

    Hate speech leads to gas chambers. Abusive speech? That’s like backhanding your wife. Bad, possibly deplorable, but not irredeemably evil.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "Hate speech leads to gas chambers." True...

    Here are some other things that "lead to gas chambers": The Big Bang, the origin of living cells, multicellular life, the evolution of vertebrates, the opposable thumb, large crania, writing, democratic politics, inorganic chemistry, metallurgy, and radio.

    What was your point again?
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Coyne’s email to the radio station is quite simply nutty: First, Dawkins has quite obviously been “abusive” towards Islam, just as he has been abusive towards Christianity. He has even been MORE abusive towards Islam, and “abusive” is the right word. I myself have some degree of antipathy towards Islam, but I perfectly well grant that some people can become better via Islam (even if many become worse). Dawkins geniunely despises religion and regards it as evil, but he makes clear which major religion he thinks is the worst. Second, in no sense whatsoever does a radio station violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows radio stations to invite or disinvite anyone who fits or fails to fit their agenda, just as the First Amendment allows cake makers to make cakes, or not, for those who fit their agenda, and so on…. The radio station is perfectly within its rights to disinvite Richard Dawkins, and others are perfectly within their rights (as Americans, if that is what they are) to chastise station KPFA as (in the dying words of Godfrey Elfwick) “virtue signaling cunts”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's not totally derisible to assert that a radio station that's a licensed occupant of a slice of public bandwidth has First Amendment duties. For a long time, there was a "Fairness doctrine" imposed upon radio stations by the feds under this theory, although that was loosened up a lot around 1990?
    , @Anon
    Wow what a beautiful paint job on soul killing cowardice.

    You should work for anybody troubled in the least by service to the Stasi.

    All those people who failed to stop or stand against Hitler, Stalin or Mao we nobly exercising their free will choices.

    "Always look on the bright side of life........" indeed.
    , @MBlanc46
    How nobly nonpartisan you are.
  11. @the Supreme Gentleman
    It's interesting that they view Dawkins as an anti-Islamic bigot, hate monger, etc. but not an anti-Christian bigot. (Not that I think he is either, just that by the ridiculous standards leftists use in judging anti-Islam bigotry, no doubt one could comparably say that Dawkins is a "Christianophobe." But recognizing that would require, you know, thinking about things.)

    Is it possible to be an anti-Christian bigot according to them? (Tolerating the intolerant?) If you criticize a black church, I suppose.

    • Replies: @Joe Walker
    In their eyes, attacking a black church would make you racist.
  12. Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins

    Campus “speech codes” & their witch-hunts against free speech cruelly discriminate against valuable neurodiversity: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/

    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/887983977121939457

    Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that ‘the tyranny of the majority’ tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

    The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).

    Leaving aside plain IQ, I suspect that love marriages select for a wider variety of personality types and other traits in offspring than do arranged marriages, with the historic English predilection for young lovers selecting their own mates (e.g., in the 1590s, Shakespeare didn’t have any doubt whom his paying customers would sympathize with when he put on Romeo and Juliet) perhaps leading to the famous English appreciation for individualism and eccentricity.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/

    Joking aside, British really do have unique sense of humour

    Transatlantic survey of identical twins shows our taste for biting satire and withering one-liners is in the genes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/joking-aside-british-really-do-have-unique-sense-of-humour-793491.html

    The results revealed that positive humour – saying funny things, telling jokes, a humorous outlook on life – was linked to genes and was shared by twins in the UK and US.

    However, negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain.

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/#comment-1835042

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    That's real interesting.

    The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica has an interestingly Anglocentric article about "humour" that asserts that humour starts off as a word for how the four medieval humors combine to make an individual personality. A humorous person was somebody with a unique personality that other people found amusing and appealing. The English come to believe that they appreciate eccentricity more than other countries and that gives them a better sense of humor, which eventually comes to mean what we think of as sense of humor.

    But maybe it has something to do with your theory of Romeo and Juliet love matches making for more extreme personality types in offspring?

    , @Steve Sailer
    That's real interesting.

    The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica has an interestingly Anglocentric article about "humour" that asserts that humour starts off as a word for how the four medieval humors combine to make an individual personality. A humorous person was somebody with a unique personality that other people found amusing and appealing. The English come to believe that they appreciate eccentricity more than other countries and that gives them a better sense of humor, which eventually comes to mean what we think of as sense of humor.

    But maybe it has something to do with your theory of Romeo and Juliet love matches making for more extreme personality types in offspring?

    , @Anonymous
    Come back Bernard Manning.

    All is forgiven.
    , @Dieter Kief
    There are three civilized ways to deal with tensions: Humor, critique and tolerance. The more differentiated (=diverse) a society becomes, the more it will develop such forms of conduct and societal interaction - and vice versa.
    , @Dieter Kief
    That British are used to a great variety of different kinds of characters might play a part when it comes to migration, too: They're used to all these differences - especially in the upper classes, and are used not to worry about 'em.

    You could base a theory of British life on this observation.

    In itself, this is no surprise, because the very nature of societies lies in the ability, to get along with others.
  13. Can’t say I care too much for Dawkins. I’m saving my outrage supplies for something more to my taste.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    First they came for the ornery atheists, and I did not speak out, for I was not an ornery atheist...
  14. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.

    Jesus. I can’t imagine being so willing to grovel.

    • Agree: AndrewR
  15. Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).

    I would not have seen Dawkins in person if the crowd had a significant Muslim component.

    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).
     
    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins' books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis' and G. K. Chesterton's books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave
  16. @FKA Max

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins

    Campus “speech codes” & their witch-hunts against free speech cruelly discriminate against valuable neurodiversity: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
     
    - https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/887983977121939457

    Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that ‘the tyranny of the majority’ tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

    The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).
     

    Leaving aside plain IQ, I suspect that love marriages select for a wider variety of personality types and other traits in offspring than do arranged marriages, with the historic English predilection for young lovers selecting their own mates (e.g., in the 1590s, Shakespeare didn’t have any doubt whom his paying customers would sympathize with when he put on Romeo and Juliet) perhaps leading to the famous English appreciation for individualism and eccentricity.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/

    Joking aside, British really do have unique sense of humour

    Transatlantic survey of identical twins shows our taste for biting satire and withering one-liners is in the genes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/joking-aside-british-really-do-have-unique-sense-of-humour-793491.html

    The results revealed that positive humour – saying funny things, telling jokes, a humorous outlook on life – was linked to genes and was shared by twins in the UK and US.

    However, negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/#comment-1835042

    That’s real interesting.

    The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica has an interestingly Anglocentric article about “humour” that asserts that humour starts off as a word for how the four medieval humors combine to make an individual personality. A humorous person was somebody with a unique personality that other people found amusing and appealing. The English come to believe that they appreciate eccentricity more than other countries and that gives them a better sense of humor, which eventually comes to mean what we think of as sense of humor.

    But maybe it has something to do with your theory of Romeo and Juliet love matches making for more extreme personality types in offspring?

    • Replies: @Anon
    You should read, if you haven't already, Msgr. Knox's (not entirely serious) essay on humour and satire (introductory to Satirical Essays, I think).

    He classes 'humor' as such as entirely English, iirc.
  17. @FKA Max

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins

    Campus “speech codes” & their witch-hunts against free speech cruelly discriminate against valuable neurodiversity: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
     
    - https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/887983977121939457

    Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that ‘the tyranny of the majority’ tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

    The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).
     

    Leaving aside plain IQ, I suspect that love marriages select for a wider variety of personality types and other traits in offspring than do arranged marriages, with the historic English predilection for young lovers selecting their own mates (e.g., in the 1590s, Shakespeare didn’t have any doubt whom his paying customers would sympathize with when he put on Romeo and Juliet) perhaps leading to the famous English appreciation for individualism and eccentricity.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/

    Joking aside, British really do have unique sense of humour

    Transatlantic survey of identical twins shows our taste for biting satire and withering one-liners is in the genes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/joking-aside-british-really-do-have-unique-sense-of-humour-793491.html

    The results revealed that positive humour – saying funny things, telling jokes, a humorous outlook on life – was linked to genes and was shared by twins in the UK and US.

    However, negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/#comment-1835042

    That’s real interesting.

    The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica has an interestingly Anglocentric article about “humour” that asserts that humour starts off as a word for how the four medieval humors combine to make an individual personality. A humorous person was somebody with a unique personality that other people found amusing and appealing. The English come to believe that they appreciate eccentricity more than other countries and that gives them a better sense of humor, which eventually comes to mean what we think of as sense of humor.

    But maybe it has something to do with your theory of Romeo and Juliet love matches making for more extreme personality types in offspring?

    • Replies: @SonOfStrom
    What may be even more interesting is that as an American, with what I like to think is a fairly broad sense of humor, I find English comedy, whether of the classic Monty Python vintage or the more current Simon Pegg/Ricky Gervais/Eddy Izard type, basically unwatchable.

    I do appreciate Benny Hill chasing women in bikinis at 10x speed though, so I suppose maybe there's a Universal Humor?
  18. @Anonymous
    Coyne's email to the radio station is quite simply nutty: First, Dawkins has quite obviously been "abusive" towards Islam, just as he has been abusive towards Christianity. He has even been MORE abusive towards Islam, and "abusive" is the right word. I myself have some degree of antipathy towards Islam, but I perfectly well grant that some people can become better via Islam (even if many become worse). Dawkins geniunely despises religion and regards it as evil, but he makes clear which major religion he thinks is the worst. Second, in no sense whatsoever does a radio station violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows radio stations to invite or disinvite anyone who fits or fails to fit their agenda, just as the First Amendment allows cake makers to make cakes, or not, for those who fit their agenda, and so on.... The radio station is perfectly within its rights to disinvite Richard Dawkins, and others are perfectly within their rights (as Americans, if that is what they are) to chastise station KPFA as (in the dying words of Godfrey Elfwick) "virtue signaling cunts".

    It’s not totally derisible to assert that a radio station that’s a licensed occupant of a slice of public bandwidth has First Amendment duties. For a long time, there was a “Fairness doctrine” imposed upon radio stations by the feds under this theory, although that was loosened up a lot around 1990?

    • Replies: @Olorin
    FCC chair and yeshiva boy Julius Genachowski--aka the former Mr. Martha Raddatz--killed it daid in 2011 after many years of it limping along post-Reagan.

    https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-309224A1.pdf

    Reagan cut its throat, but the Dems under Clinton and Obama could have resurrected it. They didn't. They claimed that HAVING a fairness doctrine chilled free speech.

    Our boy Julius got the FCC chair under Obama, IIRC, after donating $3.5 million to the DNC.

    Actually my timing may be off on how much he'd donated prior to 2009...I am recalling the $3.5m number from the Guccifer spreadsheet release re: DNC pay-to-play. Genachowski was second only to Matt Barzun on that list, and ahead of Jeffrey Katzenberg, which caught my eye.

    He started out in his career on Iran-Contra, became one of Chuck Schumer's staff, and works for The Carlyle Group today.

    https://www.carlyle.com/about-carlyle/team/julius-genachowski

    You see there he only name-drops David Souter and Barack Obama. And Auschwitz.

    KPFA is a Pacifica station and rife with mismanagement, in-fighting, and outright corruption for at least the past 40 years. See Matt Lasar's two books detailing how these "progressives" used their FCC license (and apparently continue to) as a partisan/ideological political tool.

    KPFA shutting up Dawkins is doing what KPFA does best: virtue signalling. But the fact that Dawkins would think of using KPFA for this outreach/book stumping leaves me disinterested in his "deplatforming." I've long respected him overall and enjoyed his writing...but a lefty surprised when the left eats him is more humor than news IMO.

    , @Bill Jones
    The "fairness doctrine" was operating in an appallingly narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion.
    Fair, it wasn't.
    , @Anonymous
    The "Fairness Doctrine" would have worked to the detriment of libs had conservatives not been too arrogant to communicate properly and libtys had not refused to use it on the grounds it was unlibertarian.
  19. Leftwing professors like Dawkins were silent for decades as libertarians, conservatives and other dissident voices were shut down.

    Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    Dawkins took a public stand in favor of Watson when he was being Watsoned.
    , @GregMan
    I agree. I love, LOVE seeing lefties getting the same treatment they have been meting out to the Right for decades. Enjoying it NOW, you bastards?
  20. @Anonymous
    Coyne is somewhat misrepresenting matters. While Dawkins is unapologetically against religion in general, and seems to spend much more of his time hurling insults at Christians, he, like Sam Harris and Bill Maher and no doubt many others with less name recognition, has made it clear beyond doubt that he regards Islam as much more dangerous. All of these guys deserve at least some respect for this. They are trying to tell the truth as they see it, to some degree, in a world that does not respect truth.

    All of them – Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris – are for mass 3rd world immigration.

    And God knows they are all anti-White.

    No respect for them.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    That makes them enemies of Western Civilization and of mankind in general.
    , @larry lurker
    Sam Harris just had Douglas Murray on his podcast for the second time. He was invited on to discuss his "wonderful" book, The Strange Death of Europe. They spend several minutes talking about Rotherham and related scandals, which many of Sam's listeners will be hearing about for the first time (someone made a clip of just that bit here).

    These are not the actions of a proponent of "mass third world immigration," whatever his views were in the past.
  21. @FKA Max

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins

    Campus “speech codes” & their witch-hunts against free speech cruelly discriminate against valuable neurodiversity: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
     
    - https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/887983977121939457

    Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that ‘the tyranny of the majority’ tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

    The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).
     

    Leaving aside plain IQ, I suspect that love marriages select for a wider variety of personality types and other traits in offspring than do arranged marriages, with the historic English predilection for young lovers selecting their own mates (e.g., in the 1590s, Shakespeare didn’t have any doubt whom his paying customers would sympathize with when he put on Romeo and Juliet) perhaps leading to the famous English appreciation for individualism and eccentricity.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/

    Joking aside, British really do have unique sense of humour

    Transatlantic survey of identical twins shows our taste for biting satire and withering one-liners is in the genes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/joking-aside-british-really-do-have-unique-sense-of-humour-793491.html

    The results revealed that positive humour – saying funny things, telling jokes, a humorous outlook on life – was linked to genes and was shared by twins in the UK and US.

    However, negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/#comment-1835042

    Come back Bernard Manning.

    All is forgiven.

  22. • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Now tell me how many of those "religious people" are 80 IQ muslims or hindus.
    , @Anonymous

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html
     
    And wanting to close off the borders to third-worlders and Mohammedans is correlated to low IQ. And opposition to progressive and expensive social policies is correlated to low IQ.

    In believe in the wisdom of the masses and civilizations. I also believe Western Christian civilization to be the greatest civilization that has ever existed, by orders of magnitude. In a debate on religion Nassim Taleb makes a similar case and points out how the experts get it wrong (in markets, etc.) most of the time while the masses generally get it right.
    , @Anonymous

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html
     

    Within 15 years China (a top highest IQ country) will be the the most Christian country. As the high-IQed elites of Europe continue full-speed ahead with decimation of their lands and the plummeting of IQ levels there.
    , @Crawfurdmuir

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ
     
    How much of this is the result of atheism and agnosticism being a current fashion amongst the intelligentsia?

    I suspect no such correlation would have been noted until fairly recently. Most of Europe's great universities were founded as religious institutions, their purpose originally being to prepare men to join the clergy. When the Americas were colonized by Europeans, they founded new universities with the same intent. Long after this had ceased to be their exclusive function, these institutions continued to be led by clerics. Oxford dons (fellows of its colleges) were required to be "clerks in holy orders" (i.e., holding at least the diaconate) until 1871. Every president of Yale until 1899 was a clergyman. Harvard's presidents were mostly clergymen (interspersed with an occasional lawyer) until 1869, when Charles Eliot, a chemist, took the office.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has "staying power" among them.
    , @Allen
    Please estimate the IQs of the following and report back:

    Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Stravinsky, Dvorak, Dante, John Milton, Charles Dickens, Dostoevsky, T.S. Eliot, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Francis Bacon, Georges Lemaître...

    We could add more if you like...

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:
     
    Statistics isn't your strong suit, is it?
    , @Anon
    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you're younger and more impressionable.

    But it's worth noting that people who walk blindly into trouble tend to be dumb. Since IQ is inherited, dumb people are more likely to have dumb parents whose stupid life decisions had a traumatic impact on their kids.
  23. CCZ says:

    “We do not support abusive speech.”

    How times have changed, so much for the worse. No “abusive speech” from the radio station that was founded on and sustained by free and even abusive speech:

    1955 Poets Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti bring the Beat Generation to the KPFA airwaves. The FCC questions the broadcast of some of their works as “vulgar, obscene and in bad taste.”

    1956 KPFA (Pacifica Foundation Radio) wins its first broadcast awards for a program on the First Amendment by Alexander Meiklejohn.

    “Meiklejohn asserted that it is clear for modern Americans that the words of the First Amendment mean what they say — that “under no circumstance shall the freedom of speech be abridged.”

    “Meiklejohn is one of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. To be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. Eric Barendt has called the defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy “probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies.” [Wiki]

    1957 Pacifica/KPFA wins its first George Foster Peabody Award for “distinguished service and meritorious public service” for programming that takes strong issue with McCarthyism.

    1958 Nuclear war and the arms race are debated on the air by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and Edward Teller, the “Father of the H-Bomb.”

    1960-1963 The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) investigate Pacifica programming for “subversion.”

    1960 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requests a tape of a Pacifica broadcast of poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti that it found “in bad taste” with “strong implications against religion, government, the president, law-enforcement and racial groups.”

    KPFA can’t even remember it’s own history as first class Free Speech advocates.

    • Agree: RonaldB
    • Replies: @Zyr
    Someone made some pertinent updates to KFPA's Wikipedia page.
  24. @FKA Max

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins

    Campus “speech codes” & their witch-hunts against free speech cruelly discriminate against valuable neurodiversity: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
     
    - https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/887983977121939457

    Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that ‘the tyranny of the majority’ tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

    The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).
     

    Leaving aside plain IQ, I suspect that love marriages select for a wider variety of personality types and other traits in offspring than do arranged marriages, with the historic English predilection for young lovers selecting their own mates (e.g., in the 1590s, Shakespeare didn’t have any doubt whom his paying customers would sympathize with when he put on Romeo and Juliet) perhaps leading to the famous English appreciation for individualism and eccentricity.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/

    Joking aside, British really do have unique sense of humour

    Transatlantic survey of identical twins shows our taste for biting satire and withering one-liners is in the genes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/joking-aside-british-really-do-have-unique-sense-of-humour-793491.html

    The results revealed that positive humour – saying funny things, telling jokes, a humorous outlook on life – was linked to genes and was shared by twins in the UK and US.

    However, negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/#comment-1835042

    There are three civilized ways to deal with tensions: Humor, critique and tolerance. The more differentiated (=diverse) a society becomes, the more it will develop such forms of conduct and societal interaction – and vice versa.

  25. @Reginald Maplethorp
    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).

    I would not have seen Dawkins in person if the crowd had a significant Muslim component.

    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).

    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins’ books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis’ and G. K. Chesterton’s books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave

    • Replies: @dearieme
    "He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament ..." and I agree. My knowledge of the Bible is pretty weak, but it turns out to be rather better than that of some Christians. I don't see the point of following a Religion of the Book if you don't read the bloody book.
    , @Mr. Anon

    He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.
     
    And he is quite evidently wrong. Which belief system provides a better upbringing for children? Traditional western christianity, or the nihlistic athieism that is spreading in the western world?
    , @AM

    He is a man of the West.
     
    Dawkins is a man of the West because he's polite, wants people to think like he does, and not totally off the rails crazy. Okay.

    What he did with his life is make money encouraging people like Olorin (and possibly you) to think that Christianity is stupid. Thus noone has anyone has any idea of the depth of Christianity's intellectual traditions, perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen.

    Dawkin's children are SJWs. He and countless people like him are why the West is nihilistic and unable to form even the simplest intellectual objection to being colonized by Islam, because they can't form the simplest of intellectual objections, period.

    They read a modern translation of an ancient set of books, intended for a class of men who understood it's context and history, and think "Yeah, I've nailed it. I know Christianity." Well, no, they don't know. They don't anything. We're just egos on steroids and Dawkins is just fuel for the fire.
    , @Rod1963

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

     

    No he's not. He's just another one of C.S. Lewis's "men without chests" and a threat to whats left of the culture that gave birth to men like Lewis, Chesterton and Tolkein.

    He despises people who believe in religion, he doesn't care at all about them. He sees atheists as superior humans - he calls them "Brites" or some such bullshit. While believers are viewed as dull witted losers.

    Yet he has the nerve to ask Christians to defend the West and he still wants open borders. This is not a man who cares about Western Civilization and it's people.

    As far I'm concerned Dawkins is what's wrong with modernity. It churns out lopsided men like him who are intellectually dishonest as can be. That hate the culture in which they came to agie in and do their best to tear it down like a pack of Visigoths.

    And the thing I don't get. Christianity is dying in Western Europe. It bothers no one except bigoted fanatics like Dawkins, Maher and Harris. To me these men are just so bitter and mean they really need something hate in order to function.

    His side won and he doesn't see it. Of course they won a graveyard for themselves and ideas in the process.





    Maybe the jerk ought to address all the mass murders done in the last century by avowed Marxist atheists. He won't, he won't address the fact since Europe abandoned it's culture to a large extent(which includes Christianity) is dying. Atheists don't tend to procreate if the white, college educated Left in the U.S. is any example.









    This guy rabidly hates Christianity.



    He's a vulture living off the carcass of the dying West.
    , @WowJustWow
    Dawkins is not an atheist, but a Christian atheist. The point of being a Christian atheist is to be better than Christian theists in a Christian-derived society. But he takes his principles too seriously to endorse the coalition of Christian atheists with the Religion of Peace, so he must be purged.
  26. Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius. Only an incredibly stupid society would not want to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say.

    The rules are constantly changing, but I assume he’ll avoid James Watson’s fate. Noting that there are differences in average group IQs is way more dangerous to a career than calling Islam evil (so long as you don’t end up like the tragic Theo Van Gogh).

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    With Dawkins there's the question of whether he's primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I'm a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.
    , @AnotherDad

    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius.
     
    Huh? What's his great contribution or whatever it is that demonstrates his "genius".

    I have no doubt he's done something I wouldn't have been able to do--make a name for himself (and a pile of money) writing "evolution is true" and "selection is real" books. And I'll grant he doesn't make a living peddling falsehoods and lying like say Gould--that's something and valuable. But i'm less clear what his actual contribution to science is supposed to be--if any. He certainly isn't Darwin or Galton or Fisher or Hamilton for whom "major genius" would seem appropriate.

    Note, I can browse around and figure this out. (When I have some cycles--right now I've got the van full of my daughter's stuff and about to start the drive down to the bay area this morning so she can start med school.) But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great. I simply haven't heard anything attributed to Dawkins that made me go "cool, that's new, insightful ... wouldn't have thought of that".
    , @guest
    Dawkins is nothing not so far as I can tell a "major genius." He's a genius science popularizer, in a manner of speaking . But if you're not using "genius" as a colloquial modifier like that, and especially if throw "major" into the mix, you're being misleading.

    Doubly misleading, because Dawkins writes about science, even if he's not technically in science. And that's a field where genius rises to the level of a Newton.
    , @Lot
    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    We nearly had our first one in the USA when a murderous Muslim went to the Texas event intent on killing Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, who lives under 24/7 guard in his homeland.

    We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.
    , @Anonymous
    He reminds me of the vegetarian activist who likes ice cream so she is on a no-kill-dairy kick.

    If dairy cows were not butchered when their milk producing days were over and if steers were not eaten, but allowed to live out their natural lives, ice cream would be more expensive than Beluga caviar.

    Getting milk from cows requires they be impregnated and deliver a calf regularly, and half the calves are male. Except for the tiny percentage kept as breeding bulls, they have no use but for meat, and they eat-a lot.
  27. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius. Only an incredibly stupid society would not want to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say.

    The rules are constantly changing, but I assume he'll avoid James Watson's fate. Noting that there are differences in average group IQs is way more dangerous to a career than calling Islam evil (so long as you don't end up like the tragic Theo Van Gogh).

    With Dawkins there’s the question of whether he’s primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I’m a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    But you've got to admit that the central thesis of 'The Selfish Gene' - even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks - is a real game changer.
    , @David
    When E O Wilson was asked what he thought about Dawkins' criticism of Social Conquest of Earth he said something like, "Dawkins doesn't do peer reviewed science so I simply thank him for his interest."
    , @AM

    But I’m a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.
     
    Unfortunately, a great science journalist is pumping books out on atheism and generally encouraging people to think he's a genius because he knows how to write in the "You, reader, are a genius" style so common to modern pop non-fiction.

    That's how great the slight of hand is here modernly. Okay, I'll give him great science journalist. That's not what he's really writing about. :(
    , @MBlanc46
    He holds a DPhil in ethology. He holds (or held) a chair at Oxford with a title something like Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. If he's not now a practicing science, he does have the training and the credentials.
    , @ben tillman

    With Dawkins there’s the question of whether he’s primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I’m a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.
     
    Certainly not on the order of Matt Ridley.
  28. The revolution eats its children – Dawkins was all the rage 20 years back (“that great scientist who sticks it to Christians”), just as Germaine Greer was all the rage 40 years back.

  29. @Steve Sailer
    It's not totally derisible to assert that a radio station that's a licensed occupant of a slice of public bandwidth has First Amendment duties. For a long time, there was a "Fairness doctrine" imposed upon radio stations by the feds under this theory, although that was loosened up a lot around 1990?

    FCC chair and yeshiva boy Julius Genachowski–aka the former Mr. Martha Raddatz–killed it daid in 2011 after many years of it limping along post-Reagan.

    https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-309224A1.pdf

    Reagan cut its throat, but the Dems under Clinton and Obama could have resurrected it. They didn’t. They claimed that HAVING a fairness doctrine chilled free speech.

    Our boy Julius got the FCC chair under Obama, IIRC, after donating $3.5 million to the DNC.

    Actually my timing may be off on how much he’d donated prior to 2009…I am recalling the $3.5m number from the Guccifer spreadsheet release re: DNC pay-to-play. Genachowski was second only to Matt Barzun on that list, and ahead of Jeffrey Katzenberg, which caught my eye.

    He started out in his career on Iran-Contra, became one of Chuck Schumer’s staff, and works for The Carlyle Group today.

    https://www.carlyle.com/about-carlyle/team/julius-genachowski

    You see there he only name-drops David Souter and Barack Obama. And Auschwitz.

    KPFA is a Pacifica station and rife with mismanagement, in-fighting, and outright corruption for at least the past 40 years. See Matt Lasar’s two books detailing how these “progressives” used their FCC license (and apparently continue to) as a partisan/ideological political tool.

    KPFA shutting up Dawkins is doing what KPFA does best: virtue signalling. But the fact that Dawkins would think of using KPFA for this outreach/book stumping leaves me disinterested in his “deplatforming.” I’ve long respected him overall and enjoyed his writing…but a lefty surprised when the left eats him is more humor than news IMO.

    • Replies: @The Man From K Street
    Genachowski was also Obama's classmate in the Harvard Law 1991 cohort, so it may also have been the old school tie as much as pay to play.
    , @AM

    I’ve long respected him overall and enjoyed his writing….
     
    Richard Dawkin's works are not all that intellectually rigorous. They're made for NYT bestselling non-fiction lists which have a much different style (I call it the PBS style - meant to flatter the reader into thinking they're intelligent and informed), simpler concepts, and usually an clear agenda than properly academic works.

    The New Atheist Denial of History is an academic work by an accomplished historian who rebuts the vast majority of the historical claims made by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.

    If you've never really picked up a book that refutes works like Dawkins, I'd encourage you to do it as a moment of intellectual honesty. It's expensive because it's from an academic publisher who clearly has no interest in it, but it's as good as it gets in terms of history.
  30. @Steve Sailer
    With Dawkins there's the question of whether he's primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I'm a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    But you’ve got to admit that the central thesis of ‘The Selfish Gene’ – even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks – is a real game changer.

    • Replies: @RobertTaylor
    Richard Dawkins was a science popularizer. And that is of great value. But yes, it was WD Hamilton who made the discoveries.

    Richard Dawkins doesn't DO science. He talks about it.

    Although it is interesting to me that he claims we don't have to follow Darwinian rules anymore, we can embrace his Leftist ideology without any problems. That doesn't strike me as scientific at all.

    , @lavoisier
    I would agree with that. The idea of the selfish gene was not invented by Dawkins, but he elaborated on that idea in such a way that certain predictions could be made and tested.

    Kin selection by Hamilton may well have been the impetus for the idea of the selfish gene, but Dawkins took the idea to a higher level and made important predictions about culture and society in general that derive from that idea.

    I suspect the idea of the selfish gene would also go a long way to explaining the paradox of cancer--one's own cells destroying the host.

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea--including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.

    , @AM

    But you’ve got to admit that the central thesis of ‘The Selfish Gene’ – even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks – is a real game changer.
     
    For what? To justify the headlong run into moral relativism and Humans Are The Bestest?

    Dakwins (and others) has made himself famous telling people what it is they want to hear. They don't want to hear that sacrifice in humans involves rising above their biology.
    , @guest
    If by "game changer" you mean full of obviously false and frankly silly metaphors, yes. No one actually believes in selfish genes or the absence of altruism. Or at least I hope they don't. That book also features memes, a concept that has made us measurably stupider as a culture, I believe.

    That being said, the purpose of the book was to explain neo-Darwinian evolution to normal people, and on that count it's brilliant. It changed the Public Relations game, I'll concede. But as regards actual science, it's worse than a dead end.

    , @ben tillman

    But you’ve got to admit that the central thesis of ‘The Selfish Gene’ – even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks – is a real game changer.
     
    Indeed. And The Exyended Phenotype was far more incisive. But after that Dawkins lost his science. You should read Jim Bowery (an occasional commenter on Steve's blog) in that regard.
  31. I have personally met people that like (liked) Dawkins because of his anti Christian views, but one can speak the next day to them and they will talk how terrible Islamophobia. There is no contradiction to these strange viewpoints if one sees it as fact that this whole anti Christian thing was about race and not religion. These “skeptics” would never dare to oppose Christians once its become an overwhelmingly non white movement. Since white Christians are very rapidly shrinking, people like Dawkins are no longer useful, in fact they are becoming increasingly a problem for their ideology.

    • Replies: @Detective Club
    As far as European Lefties & American Dems are concerned, Islam is the tip of the spear in the full-on charge against Whitey. Dawkins was only of use when he giving it good & hard to Christians. When he dares to say a bad word or two about The Religion of Pieces & Pop Music Suicide Vests & Back Packs, he is stating the bleeding obvious and must be excluded from any sort of "open" debate about the cultural and societal consequences of non-Western religions in First World countries. The Japanese media would have never tolerated a Japanese journalist putting The Knock on the age-old Eastern concept of religious Ancestor Worship.
    https://youtu.be/nM_A4Skusro
    The Left has simply dispensed with Dawkins' services. They no longer need him. Dawkins should not be shocked. The proverbial tables have suddenly turned against him and without warning.
    , @anonymous coward
    No. Most Muslims are white. (Even if inbred.) They don't care.

    It is, indeed, a religious issue. They are Gnostic cultists and they want to destroy the Christian faith. They view Islam as a useful temporary ally because Islam is the only religion with a successful track record of destroying Christian cultures.

    If or when they succeed in making Europe anti-Christian they will turn on the Muslims.
  32. @Anonymous
    But you've got to admit that the central thesis of 'The Selfish Gene' - even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks - is a real game changer.

    Richard Dawkins was a science popularizer. And that is of great value. But yes, it was WD Hamilton who made the discoveries.

    Richard Dawkins doesn’t DO science. He talks about it.

    Although it is interesting to me that he claims we don’t have to follow Darwinian rules anymore, we can embrace his Leftist ideology without any problems. That doesn’t strike me as scientific at all.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I'm not sure that's fair to Dawkins, who has never hidden his debt to Hamilton. But what about the "extended phenotype" concept? Is that Dawkins'?
  33. @PhysicistDave
    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).
     
    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins' books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis' and G. K. Chesterton's books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave

    “He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament …” and I agree. My knowledge of the Bible is pretty weak, but it turns out to be rather better than that of some Christians. I don’t see the point of following a Religion of the Book if you don’t read the bloody book.

    • Replies: @Alice
    The people of the Book are the Jews. The Christians are the people of the Person--Jesus, who is the Christ. The Catholics and Orthodox view the Church as the Body of Christ, which explains their focus is more on the magisterium and less on the writing per se. Other various and sundry Protestants look to Scripture because of what that heretic Luther said.
  34. @Steve Sailer
    With Dawkins there's the question of whether he's primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I'm a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    When E O Wilson was asked what he thought about Dawkins’ criticism of Social Conquest of Earth he said something like, “Dawkins doesn’t do peer reviewed science so I simply thank him for his interest.”

    • Replies: @whoever
    I stopped paying attention to Dawkins when he asserted that E.O. Wilson doesn't understand evolution. Disagreeing with Wilson is one thing, but to imply on multiple occasions that he is ignorant and stupid reveals merely the limits of Dawkins' own personality.
    Dawkins has gone after such serious evolutionary theorists as Brian Goodwin and Lynn Margulis with personal attacks, and generally trashed the reputation of anyone who doesn't unquestioningly accept a gene-centric, reductionist view of evolution.
    In some cases, he's just being a bully, as with his brutalizing of the mild-mannered eccentric Rupert Sheldrake, but in other cases, such as his attacks on cognitive ethology, a field in which his ex-wife, Marian Stamp Dawkins, is a leading expert, his malice seems personal.
  35. I wonder if Dawkins will “get the memo” and start attacking Christianity with more zeal while going easy on Islam? Also, he attacks Donald Trump as “xenophobic” which would be incongruent with his stated beliefs about human evolution. Human tribes evolved to favor those biologically similar to them and disfavor unlike tribes or “the other”. Dawkins obviously knows this.

    Maybe can can enlighten us on the racial equalitarian gene would that would make Trump beyond the pale of humanity for simply trying to protect America’s borders from alien interlopers.

  36. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.

    We apologize for being horrible doormat idiots who turn like goodthink weatherwanes in the PC wind. We won’t have anyone’s back or even a rational stance. Please #BLM don’t burn down our studio.

  37. @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Now tell me how many of those “religious people” are 80 IQ muslims or hindus.

  38. @Anonymous
    But you've got to admit that the central thesis of 'The Selfish Gene' - even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks - is a real game changer.

    I would agree with that. The idea of the selfish gene was not invented by Dawkins, but he elaborated on that idea in such a way that certain predictions could be made and tested.

    Kin selection by Hamilton may well have been the impetus for the idea of the selfish gene, but Dawkins took the idea to a higher level and made important predictions about culture and society in general that derive from that idea.

    I suspect the idea of the selfish gene would also go a long way to explaining the paradox of cancer–one’s own cells destroying the host.

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea–including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.

    • Replies: @anonguy

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea–including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.
     
    Here is a more interesting thought - the genetic development of the ability to have culture and how the increasing ability to form culture is a way of placing selective stresses on the group, thereby speeding up selection/evolution.

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.

    There is a reason why menopause only occurs in a very few species.

  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    And wanting to close off the borders to third-worlders and Mohammedans is correlated to low IQ. And opposition to progressive and expensive social policies is correlated to low IQ.

    In believe in the wisdom of the masses and civilizations. I also believe Western Christian civilization to be the greatest civilization that has ever existed, by orders of magnitude. In a debate on religion Nassim Taleb makes a similar case and points out how the experts get it wrong (in markets, etc.) most of the time while the masses generally get it right.

  40. @neutral
    I have personally met people that like (liked) Dawkins because of his anti Christian views, but one can speak the next day to them and they will talk how terrible Islamophobia. There is no contradiction to these strange viewpoints if one sees it as fact that this whole anti Christian thing was about race and not religion. These "skeptics" would never dare to oppose Christians once its become an overwhelmingly non white movement. Since white Christians are very rapidly shrinking, people like Dawkins are no longer useful, in fact they are becoming increasingly a problem for their ideology.

    As far as European Lefties & American Dems are concerned, Islam is the tip of the spear in the full-on charge against Whitey. Dawkins was only of use when he giving it good & hard to Christians. When he dares to say a bad word or two about The Religion of Pieces & Pop Music Suicide Vests & Back Packs, he is stating the bleeding obvious and must be excluded from any sort of “open” debate about the cultural and societal consequences of non-Western religions in First World countries. The Japanese media would have never tolerated a Japanese journalist putting The Knock on the age-old Eastern concept of religious Ancestor Worship.

    The Left has simply dispensed with Dawkins’ services. They no longer need him. Dawkins should not be shocked. The proverbial tables have suddenly turned against him and without warning.

  41. Use of the word “deplatforming” could be inappropriate here.

    A radio station can invite or disinvite whoever it wants for whatever reason, without it violating anyone’s rights.

    This is different from the university protests, where someone invited by a legitimate group inside a public university gets disinvited by someone else inside a public university. In other words, the College Democrats can invite Noam Chomsky, but the College Republicans can’t invite Ann Coulter. That violates the Republicans’ rights.

    • Replies: @ityrone
    Of course worth noting that there have been continuous efforts to deplatform (some of which succeeded) Noam Chomsky. There was a time not long ago that Chomsky had to have strong police protection to actually give a talk at a university. This only declined around 10 years ago.

    Obviously this was ignored without any outrage by the regular pundits, and it remains unknown to almost everyone. Only until recently that students started protesting Republican invitations we see this outrage.

    Even today, trying to have a pro-Palestine speaker invited, gets you a lot of backlash that of course doesn't get reported because it doesn't fit the conservative outrage narrative.

    Not that I am defending any of this, but I think this double standard is pretty telling at where American politics is.
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Within 15 years China (a top highest IQ country) will be the the most Christian country. As the high-IQed elites of Europe continue full-speed ahead with decimation of their lands and the plummeting of IQ levels there.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Right but how many Muslims will there be in China in 15 years? According to the 2010 census, there were 23 million Chinese Muslims.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China
  43. @neutral
    I have personally met people that like (liked) Dawkins because of his anti Christian views, but one can speak the next day to them and they will talk how terrible Islamophobia. There is no contradiction to these strange viewpoints if one sees it as fact that this whole anti Christian thing was about race and not religion. These "skeptics" would never dare to oppose Christians once its become an overwhelmingly non white movement. Since white Christians are very rapidly shrinking, people like Dawkins are no longer useful, in fact they are becoming increasingly a problem for their ideology.

    No. Most Muslims are white. (Even if inbred.) They don’t care.

    It is, indeed, a religious issue. They are Gnostic cultists and they want to destroy the Christian faith. They view Islam as a useful temporary ally because Islam is the only religion with a successful track record of destroying Christian cultures.

    If or when they succeed in making Europe anti-Christian they will turn on the Muslims.

  44. This radio station would not have had Christopher Hitchens either, whose views on Islam and other varieties of monotheism were well known to be hateful.

    Both Hitchens and Dawkins are far more knowledgeable about the history, literature, and theology of these religions than the followers and most of the priesthood of these religions.

    This is nothing to do with free speech, etc., it is just some poxy local radio station run by hipsters in Berkely, CA (of all places) trying to virtue signal and make doubly sure not to offend any advertisers.

  45. @CCZ

    “We do not support abusive speech.”
     
    How times have changed, so much for the worse. No “abusive speech” from the radio station that was founded on and sustained by free and even abusive speech:

    1955 Poets Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti bring the Beat Generation to the KPFA airwaves. The FCC questions the broadcast of some of their works as “vulgar, obscene and in bad taste.”

    1956 KPFA (Pacifica Foundation Radio) wins its first broadcast awards for a program on the First Amendment by Alexander Meiklejohn.

    “Meiklejohn asserted that it is clear for modern Americans that the words of the First Amendment mean what they say -- that "under no circumstance shall the freedom of speech be abridged."

    “Meiklejohn is one of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. To be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal. Eric Barendt has called the defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies." [Wiki]

    1957 Pacifica/KPFA wins its first George Foster Peabody Award for “distinguished service and meritorious public service” for programming that takes strong issue with McCarthyism.

    1958 Nuclear war and the arms race are debated on the air by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and Edward Teller, the “Father of the H-Bomb.”

    1960-1963 The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS) investigate Pacifica programming for “subversion.”

    1960 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requests a tape of a Pacifica broadcast of poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti that it found “in bad taste” with “strong implications against religion, government, the president, law-enforcement and racial groups.”

    KPFA can’t even remember it’s own history as first class Free Speech advocates.

    Someone made some pertinent updates to KFPA’s Wikipedia page.

  46. There is no contradiction in a Liberal promoting Dawkins for bashing Christianity and then denouncing Dawkins for saying less than pleasant thongs about Islam and its adherents.

    What do the following all have in common: atheism, agnosticism, Wiccanism, Judaism, Islam, gay rights, abortion-as-sacramental-right, Negrophilia, animism, The Holocaust Cult, and Quakerism, etc.

    They are all allied against Christendom, even its name, and against the peoples who are the direct descendants of the peoples of Christendom.

  47. George III was probably of the opinion that the language contained within the Declaration of Independence was of the abusive variety.

  48. @Olorin
    FCC chair and yeshiva boy Julius Genachowski--aka the former Mr. Martha Raddatz--killed it daid in 2011 after many years of it limping along post-Reagan.

    https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-309224A1.pdf

    Reagan cut its throat, but the Dems under Clinton and Obama could have resurrected it. They didn't. They claimed that HAVING a fairness doctrine chilled free speech.

    Our boy Julius got the FCC chair under Obama, IIRC, after donating $3.5 million to the DNC.

    Actually my timing may be off on how much he'd donated prior to 2009...I am recalling the $3.5m number from the Guccifer spreadsheet release re: DNC pay-to-play. Genachowski was second only to Matt Barzun on that list, and ahead of Jeffrey Katzenberg, which caught my eye.

    He started out in his career on Iran-Contra, became one of Chuck Schumer's staff, and works for The Carlyle Group today.

    https://www.carlyle.com/about-carlyle/team/julius-genachowski

    You see there he only name-drops David Souter and Barack Obama. And Auschwitz.

    KPFA is a Pacifica station and rife with mismanagement, in-fighting, and outright corruption for at least the past 40 years. See Matt Lasar's two books detailing how these "progressives" used their FCC license (and apparently continue to) as a partisan/ideological political tool.

    KPFA shutting up Dawkins is doing what KPFA does best: virtue signalling. But the fact that Dawkins would think of using KPFA for this outreach/book stumping leaves me disinterested in his "deplatforming." I've long respected him overall and enjoyed his writing...but a lefty surprised when the left eats him is more humor than news IMO.

    Genachowski was also Obama’s classmate in the Harvard Law 1991 cohort, so it may also have been the old school tie as much as pay to play.

  49. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Coyne's email to the radio station is quite simply nutty: First, Dawkins has quite obviously been "abusive" towards Islam, just as he has been abusive towards Christianity. He has even been MORE abusive towards Islam, and "abusive" is the right word. I myself have some degree of antipathy towards Islam, but I perfectly well grant that some people can become better via Islam (even if many become worse). Dawkins geniunely despises religion and regards it as evil, but he makes clear which major religion he thinks is the worst. Second, in no sense whatsoever does a radio station violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows radio stations to invite or disinvite anyone who fits or fails to fit their agenda, just as the First Amendment allows cake makers to make cakes, or not, for those who fit their agenda, and so on.... The radio station is perfectly within its rights to disinvite Richard Dawkins, and others are perfectly within their rights (as Americans, if that is what they are) to chastise station KPFA as (in the dying words of Godfrey Elfwick) "virtue signaling cunts".

    Wow what a beautiful paint job on soul killing cowardice.

    You should work for anybody troubled in the least by service to the Stasi.

    All those people who failed to stop or stand against Hitler, Stalin or Mao we nobly exercising their free will choices.

    “Always look on the bright side of life……..” indeed.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "we nobly " should have been "were nobly"
  50. “KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech.”

    Hurtful speech, serious free speech, abusive speech…are all forms of speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Leave it to the SJW’s to create gradations out of thin air.

    But, however absolutely ridiculous KPFA is for canceling an event that touts ideas, as those on the right who clamor for freedom of association and private business actions, the actions of KPFA meet that criteria.

  51. @FKA Max

    Richard Dawkins‏Verified account @RichardDawkins

    Campus “speech codes” & their witch-hunts against free speech cruelly discriminate against valuable neurodiversity: http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/neurodiversity-case-free-speech/
     
    - https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/887983977121939457

    Eccentricity is a precious resource, easily wasted. In his book On Liberty (1859): John Stuart Mill warned that ‘the tyranny of the majority’ tends to marginalize the insights of the eccentric:

    The amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained. That so few now dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time. (Chapter 3, paragraph 13).
     

    Leaving aside plain IQ, I suspect that love marriages select for a wider variety of personality types and other traits in offspring than do arranged marriages, with the historic English predilection for young lovers selecting their own mates (e.g., in the 1590s, Shakespeare didn’t have any doubt whom his paying customers would sympathize with when he put on Romeo and Juliet) perhaps leading to the famous English appreciation for individualism and eccentricity.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/

    Joking aside, British really do have unique sense of humour

    Transatlantic survey of identical twins shows our taste for biting satire and withering one-liners is in the genes

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/joking-aside-british-really-do-have-unique-sense-of-humour-793491.html

    The results revealed that positive humour – saying funny things, telling jokes, a humorous outlook on life – was linked to genes and was shared by twins in the UK and US.

    However, negative humour – teasing and ridicule, as well as more offensive, racist or sexist forms of humour, together with self-disparaging humour – appeared to be genetically linked only in Britain.
     
    - https://www.unz.com/isteve/conformity-and-cousin-marriage/#comment-1835042

    That British are used to a great variety of different kinds of characters might play a part when it comes to migration, too: They’re used to all these differences – especially in the upper classes, and are used not to worry about ’em.

    You could base a theory of British life on this observation.

    In itself, this is no surprise, because the very nature of societies lies in the ability, to get along with others.

  52. @5371
    Only speech we approve of is SERIOUS free speech.

    Coyne himself is a little bit off when he states that criticism of ideas is not criticism of people.
    But ideas are created and pushed by people. NeoCon ideas are rotten…but so are the neocons themselves.

  53. It should be pointed out that KPFA isn’t a garden-variety “public radio” station, it is the bay area’s arch-commie “public radio” station. They don’t even try to hide their extreme left-wing views.

    That said, I could care less what happens to Dawkins. He has dined out for a long time as the global-village athiest and anti-christian champion. He can reap what he has sown.

  54. @PhysicistDave
    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).
     
    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins' books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis' and G. K. Chesterton's books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave

    He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    And he is quite evidently wrong. Which belief system provides a better upbringing for children? Traditional western christianity, or the nihlistic athieism that is spreading in the western world?

  55. @RobertTaylor
    Leftwing professors like Dawkins were silent for decades as libertarians, conservatives and other dissident voices were shut down.

    Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

    Dawkins took a public stand in favor of Watson when he was being Watsoned.

    • Replies: @RobertTaylor
    I'm glad Dawkins said something in defense of Watson. But I find his passion for free speech for those he disagrees with rather weak and too late.

    Perfunctory.

    His passion comes alive when he's demonizing what he calls American "thickos".

  56. They wrote a press release informing the public of the cancelation of the event here: https://kpfa.org/event/richard-dawkins-2/

    I noticed that since I went there yesterday, it has been removed. (Comments were 95% negative).

    • Replies: @res
    Available at the Wayback Machine (but only two comments preserved): https://web.archive.org/web/20170721134256/https://kpfa.org/event/richard-dawkins-2/
    , @Melendwyr
    There's a new statement released today: statement

    There are currently eleven comments to the new statement, and they're quite negative.
  57. Dawkins does seem to have a rather undemocratic authoritarian bent Here is on a recent short diatribe of his on Brexit.

    Given that there was no 2/3rd vote when the UK handed over judicial control of the country to the European Court and ceded the supremacy of Parliament to to an unelected EU Commission with the signing of the Maastricht treaty back in 1992. That the 2016 Brexit vote was the second refurrendum after the 1975 vote that confirmed our entry into what was then the EEC – European Economic Community – a mere free trade block, something Dawkins MUST know; in the context of Dawkins’ authoritarianism, this de-platforming comes over as a tad ironic.

    Dawkins is a clever chap and a great writer on Biology, but on politics he is a textbook example of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes as an IYI – Intellectual Yet Idiot.

    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    Send him back to Africa.
  58. @Steve Sailer
    That's real interesting.

    The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica has an interestingly Anglocentric article about "humour" that asserts that humour starts off as a word for how the four medieval humors combine to make an individual personality. A humorous person was somebody with a unique personality that other people found amusing and appealing. The English come to believe that they appreciate eccentricity more than other countries and that gives them a better sense of humor, which eventually comes to mean what we think of as sense of humor.

    But maybe it has something to do with your theory of Romeo and Juliet love matches making for more extreme personality types in offspring?

    What may be even more interesting is that as an American, with what I like to think is a fairly broad sense of humor, I find English comedy, whether of the classic Monty Python vintage or the more current Simon Pegg/Ricky Gervais/Eddy Izard type, basically unwatchable.

    I do appreciate Benny Hill chasing women in bikinis at 10x speed though, so I suppose maybe there’s a Universal Humor?

    • Agree: whoever
  59. KPFA is the flagship Pacifica station, which explains so much. There was actually a fight at the Houston Pacifica station earlier this week between various factions competing for control of the studios; the po-po had to respond.

  60. Dawkins claims to be a man of the left, yet believes in hereditarianism. Has he explained this contradiction anywhere?

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    yet believes in hereditarianism

    Really? In his twitter pic twitter pic he is wearing a tshirt that says "we are all Africans".

    Some select quotes:


    "There is racism in Britain. It must stop."

     



    "We are all African apes. That's what my t-shirt means. Add political moral if you wish. Genetically we are a v uniform species. Shun racism"

     

    Man of the left status: secure.
  61. Dawkins is often goofy as hell. In the first part of the God Delusion he argues for the (rather obvious truth) that because religion has existed for all time, it must be genetic.

    Then in the second part he outlines a plan how we all can just shed religion and live happily like unbelievers. Just by willing it. Okay, Rich.

    There’s a much more important idea on the page of the first chapter of the Selfish Gene. He says: most science (like sociology, psychology, etc) is still being done as if Darwin never existed. We’re still waiting for the moment when heredity will be really discovered. It’s not referred to again in the rest of the book.

    That’s Dawkins: brushing against a dangerous idea in passing and quickly moving on.

  62. Perhaps this signifies a coup. The aging hippies that have run KPFA are gerontocratic and ripe for an ouster. The younger, more ethnic-racial oriented programmers are perhaps now poised to gain power; not unlike what is going on in the rest of the Left.

    This should not surprise anyone. KPFA has always been a very Stalinist group. They like to project and preach ‘radical’ democracy while keeping a very tight ideological grip on the programming content. About 20 years ago, there was a dust up where the Pacifica tried to gain more control over the stations. IIRC, the station managers where appointed by Pacifica but the locals had been left in charge for so long that they bucked when Pacifica pulled in the reigns. The managers were in effect Commissars who watched over everyone and and prevented a local coup or local elections. In effect, they had the illusion of democracy while none of the substance.

    Once upon a time they had a relatively ‘free form’ content where people where just given blocks of time to play what they felt like playing. Some guys would play Grateful Dead records back to back while others would rant on about one issue or another. That is now too dangerous.

  63. @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ

    How much of this is the result of atheism and agnosticism being a current fashion amongst the intelligentsia?

    I suspect no such correlation would have been noted until fairly recently. Most of Europe’s great universities were founded as religious institutions, their purpose originally being to prepare men to join the clergy. When the Americas were colonized by Europeans, they founded new universities with the same intent. Long after this had ceased to be their exclusive function, these institutions continued to be led by clerics. Oxford dons (fellows of its colleges) were required to be “clerks in holy orders” (i.e., holding at least the diaconate) until 1871. Every president of Yale until 1899 was a clergyman. Harvard’s presidents were mostly clergymen (interspersed with an occasional lawyer) until 1869, when Charles Eliot, a chemist, took the office.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has “staying power” among them.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @AM

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has “staying power” among them.
     
    I have to track down the pages, but there are compelling rebuttals to "atheists have high IQs". Most modern atheists fall into the midwit category, if I remember correctly.

    As for time will tell, the 20th century communism is a testament to what leanings towards atheism does for societies. I'm not looking forward to it's repeat here. :(

    , @yaqub the mad scientist
    Deep religious belief didn't seem to hold back James Clerk Maxwell, whose theories led to, well, about everything in 20th century physics.
    , @AP
    Agree. Moreover, intelligence among educated people seems to have reached its high point in the early 20th century - a time when the most intelligent were not as atheistic as the most intelligent are today (overall societal IQ has gone up since then because less intelligent people have achieved literacy - but this isn't issue with the cognitive elites).

    Today's non-religious high IQ scientists are probably not as intelligent as those religious ones from 100 years ago.

    , @Dieter Kief
    It might just show, how alienated quite a few intellectuals have become.

    Ahh -I forsee the counterarguments: But alienation, in't this a Marxist (=anti-religious) term?
    No, it's not actually. As far as I know, and I do know some of this stuff, alienation - the concept a n d the word, did show up for the first time in the early 14th century. Alienation is a term, that's been made up, literally (you could also say discovered, even though this expression 'd be a tad misleading, here, but for the sake of the argument: Say discovered, if you want to) - ehe - alienation, the term and the thought might well have been invented (=created) by a monk.

    This monk was one of the most literate persons, who ever wrote German. His name is Heinrich Seuse. He was a pupil of Meister Eckhart. No ?European universities without such scholars.

    PS

    It's one of the most common mistakes ever, to think, that people in earlier centuries were less intelligent, than we are now. Master historian and middle ages expert Arno Borst (some of his books are available in English, too - highly recommended reading) never got tired, to explain this thought especially to those (not yet) educated.

  64. KPFA, it’s worth noting, is a hard-left independent radio station. Naturally, it would view any Dawkins tweets against Judaism or Christianity as a plus.

    • Replies: @Taco

    KPFA, it’s worth noting, is a hard-left independent radio station. Naturally, it would view any Dawkins tweets against Judaism or Christianity as a plus.
     
    Can you give specific examples of "hard-left independent radio stations" speaking out against judaism?

    Not speaking out against Israel, mind you, but against judaism.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist

    Dawkins tweets against Judaism
     
    Oh Really,

    Ok, TPTB are more than willing to ignore Dawkins stands against Male circumcision as a legacy of bronze age desert religions. Big Deal!!!

    But if Dawkins gave even the slightest hint that he was fully aware the Cultural Marxist Media has more than willing give him, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens and the whole "fedora" crowd a platform as long they do not mention growing Jewish ethnocentrism and power relative to the rapid decline in Christian identity and influence in the West, he would be crucified.

    In that sense Dawkins is a knowing and fully willing useful idiot in the service of powerful Jewish interests. And Dawkins has profited very very nicely.

    As much I would love to see it, You are never going to see Dawkins quoting Kevin MacDonald.

  65. Dawkins attempt to virtue signal by claiming his only “abusive” tweet was attacking Trump as “xenophobic” leads me to think he’s one of Revulsky’s “High IQ Idiots.”

  66. This is funny because a huge proportion of Dawkins’ followers are Muslims.

    Atheism is based on the downright autistic idea that technical facts matter, socially. That the presence or absence of a supreme being or whatever theological details is going to affect how normal people behave.

    Religion has to do with dirty, nasty, gut-reality and terms like “allegiance” and “tribe”.

    As everywhere, only actions count. Nobody cares about your carefully constructed worldview that adroitly dodges inconsistencies and has a neat answer for every attack.

    If, as most modern atheists, you spend your time ridiculing Christianity but have nothing but the most profound reference and respect, in word and deed, for Islam, you are now a Muslim. At that point you have chosen your tribe, you’ve settled who “us” and “they” are. You might not put a burqa on your girlfriend or read the koran, but those are details. Your great-grandchildren will. The big hurdle has already been taken.

    Muslims themselves understand this instinctively. Dumb atheists do not.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    The newsstand owner tried to talk me into reading the Koran just this morning when he found out I was an atheist...
  67. @International Jew
    KPFA, it's worth noting, is a hard-left independent radio station. Naturally, it would view any Dawkins tweets against Judaism or Christianity as a plus.

    KPFA, it’s worth noting, is a hard-left independent radio station. Naturally, it would view any Dawkins tweets against Judaism or Christianity as a plus.

    Can you give specific examples of “hard-left independent radio stations” speaking out against judaism?

    Not speaking out against Israel, mind you, but against judaism.

  68. AM says:
    @Olorin
    FCC chair and yeshiva boy Julius Genachowski--aka the former Mr. Martha Raddatz--killed it daid in 2011 after many years of it limping along post-Reagan.

    https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-309224A1.pdf

    Reagan cut its throat, but the Dems under Clinton and Obama could have resurrected it. They didn't. They claimed that HAVING a fairness doctrine chilled free speech.

    Our boy Julius got the FCC chair under Obama, IIRC, after donating $3.5 million to the DNC.

    Actually my timing may be off on how much he'd donated prior to 2009...I am recalling the $3.5m number from the Guccifer spreadsheet release re: DNC pay-to-play. Genachowski was second only to Matt Barzun on that list, and ahead of Jeffrey Katzenberg, which caught my eye.

    He started out in his career on Iran-Contra, became one of Chuck Schumer's staff, and works for The Carlyle Group today.

    https://www.carlyle.com/about-carlyle/team/julius-genachowski

    You see there he only name-drops David Souter and Barack Obama. And Auschwitz.

    KPFA is a Pacifica station and rife with mismanagement, in-fighting, and outright corruption for at least the past 40 years. See Matt Lasar's two books detailing how these "progressives" used their FCC license (and apparently continue to) as a partisan/ideological political tool.

    KPFA shutting up Dawkins is doing what KPFA does best: virtue signalling. But the fact that Dawkins would think of using KPFA for this outreach/book stumping leaves me disinterested in his "deplatforming." I've long respected him overall and enjoyed his writing...but a lefty surprised when the left eats him is more humor than news IMO.

    I’ve long respected him overall and enjoyed his writing….

    Richard Dawkin’s works are not all that intellectually rigorous. They’re made for NYT bestselling non-fiction lists which have a much different style (I call it the PBS style – meant to flatter the reader into thinking they’re intelligent and informed), simpler concepts, and usually an clear agenda than properly academic works.

    The New Atheist Denial of History is an academic work by an accomplished historian who rebuts the vast majority of the historical claims made by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, etc.

    If you’ve never really picked up a book that refutes works like Dawkins, I’d encourage you to do it as a moment of intellectual honesty. It’s expensive because it’s from an academic publisher who clearly has no interest in it, but it’s as good as it gets in terms of history.

  69. these institutions continued to be led by clerics.

    They weren’t very religious. Halfway down the 19th century they were already solidly on the “it’s mostly a metaphor” train. You’d have to look pretty hard to find a 19th religious text that contained anything that would offend a modern “kumbaya-my-lord” clergyman. Real religion has been a prole affair for a much longer time than we think.

  70. AM says:
    @Anonymous
    But you've got to admit that the central thesis of 'The Selfish Gene' - even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks - is a real game changer.

    But you’ve got to admit that the central thesis of ‘The Selfish Gene’ – even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks – is a real game changer.

    For what? To justify the headlong run into moral relativism and Humans Are The Bestest?

    Dakwins (and others) has made himself famous telling people what it is they want to hear. They don’t want to hear that sacrifice in humans involves rising above their biology.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Dakwins (and others) has made himself famous telling people what it is they want to hear. They don’t want to hear that sacrifice in humans involves rising above their biology.
     
    Au contraire, mon ami, I think Dawkins has said numerous times that humans can and must rise above their biology.

    When asked if Darwinism informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "in one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life," implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the consciousness of self.

    [Wikipedia]
  71. @Anatoly Karlin
    They wrote a press release informing the public of the cancelation of the event here: https://kpfa.org/event/richard-dawkins-2/

    I noticed that since I went there yesterday, it has been removed. (Comments were 95% negative).

    Available at the Wayback Machine (but only two comments preserved): https://web.archive.org/web/20170721134256/https://kpfa.org/event/richard-dawkins-2/

  72. @Anonymous
    Seriously, how does anyone who professes any awareness of current events not know that Richard Dawkins has been making "offensive" comments about Islam for years? Personally, I find Dawkins rather misguided in his attitudes towards religion, but I respect the fact that he calls it as he sees it. (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That's honest.) If anyone is unaware of this, they are literally idiots. We are dealing with utter buffoons here, people. Keep the faith. We are going to win.

    Yeah but saying stuff on Twitter is like 1000x as bad as saying it on any other forum. It’s like how we accept that we ought to be outraged at certain kinds of scandals even if nobody really does, it’s public ritual.

    Who cares what Dawkins has to say in long form internet posts, books, interviews or public lectures. Saying controversial stuff on Twitter is something Donald Trump does! Also, any Tweet that can be categorised as wrong-think is also automatically a ‘rant’. Even worse is a series of Tweets which becomes an ‘unhinged rant’.

  73. ‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction’

    Come on guys, this is Unz.com.

    • Replies: @AM

    ‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction’
     
    For a science journalist who has never studied theology, pondered why the Bible has lasted so long as collection of works, or even why you can still meet Jews when the Hittites are long gone, I'm sure the God of the Old Testament is that. Reading the OT with some context is helpful in removing that impression.

    Reclaiming the West is about reclaiming the intellectualism of the Christian traditions. Any modern maroon who likes his computer and video games can be an atheist.
    , @Bill Jones
    Randolph Churchill, Winston's dad, had only a Bible to read in WWI's trenches. He famously, and probably apocryphally obseved "God is such a shit"
    , @Olorin
    I'm willing to bet that Dawkins knows more, technically speaking, about the current state of research on OT studies than 90% of people who think Jews were slaves in Egypt because Exodus said so.

    Russell Gmirkin has an apparently respected take on all that. Pentateuch authorship period, that is. Not Dawkins.
    , @Desiderius
    As if He aims to please!
  74. The Discover The Networks take on Radio Pacifica.

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6913

    For a really good critique of the absurdity of Dawkins anti-Christian stance, while until very recently, remaining many ways still ineffectual critic of Islam see here.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/06/27/science-and-the-suicide-cult-the-irrationalism-of-richard-dawkins/

    Dawkins’ dogmatic atheism for the “Brights” is one thing but he inability for recognizing a deep need for Christian culture and identity as a protection against both Jewish subversion and Islamic Jihad in the ongoing Samuel Huntington described “Clash of Civilization” struggle is astounding. In many was the brilliant Dawkins is just clueless.

    All I can say is Richard please see the error of your ways and get properly red-pilled.

    I would love nothing more than for Dawkins to wake up reborn based and declare himself a stormer.

  75. AM says:
    @PhysicistDave
    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).
     
    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins' books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis' and G. K. Chesterton's books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave

    He is a man of the West.

    Dawkins is a man of the West because he’s polite, wants people to think like he does, and not totally off the rails crazy. Okay.

    What he did with his life is make money encouraging people like Olorin (and possibly you) to think that Christianity is stupid. Thus noone has anyone has any idea of the depth of Christianity’s intellectual traditions, perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen.

    Dawkin’s children are SJWs. He and countless people like him are why the West is nihilistic and unable to form even the simplest intellectual objection to being colonized by Islam, because they can’t form the simplest of intellectual objections, period.

    They read a modern translation of an ancient set of books, intended for a class of men who understood it’s context and history, and think “Yeah, I’ve nailed it. I know Christianity.” Well, no, they don’t know. They don’t anything. We’re just egos on steroids and Dawkins is just fuel for the fire.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    You're shadowboxing again.

    I don't think "Christianity is stupid."

    I think that at least 85% of Christians distribute at levels of intelligence that render their ideas, and applications even of others' better ideas, stupid.

    That's not ego, that's arithmetic.

    Of the remaining 15%, they do stupid things like mass import Somalis into Minneapolis and give them college degrees and important jobs in the community...then get all surprised when one of them shoots an innocent woman in the face "because he heard a noise."

    Or are surprised when the press conference firing the AA-hire police chief is interrupted by very low IQ people screaming slogans.

    Or make $300K a year conducting white genocide...but claiming it's god's or Jesus's divine will.

    You are the one grounded in concepts like "ego." I'm simply observing behavioral traits and their frequencies. When only the top few percent of people can calculate the total price of carpet for a room when both the carpet price and room size are known quantities, a lot of stupid is going to be afoot.

    Go with your god, but till you can discuss Hamilton, Williams, and Hajnal from a mathematical perspective, what you have to say is professions of faith. Enjoy them; my ancestors shed blood for your right to do so in the republic they bequeathed to their descendants.

    PS--

    http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/Psych-2140/Gottfredson04-NALS.jpg

  76. AM says:
    @Steve Sailer
    With Dawkins there's the question of whether he's primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I'm a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    But I’m a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    Unfortunately, a great science journalist is pumping books out on atheism and generally encouraging people to think he’s a genius because he knows how to write in the “You, reader, are a genius” style so common to modern pop non-fiction.

    That’s how great the slight of hand is here modernly. Okay, I’ll give him great science journalist. That’s not what he’s really writing about. 🙁

  77. AM says:
    @anony-mouse
    'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA3OqrNnezc

    Come on guys, this is Unz.com.

    ‘The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction’

    For a science journalist who has never studied theology, pondered why the Bible has lasted so long as collection of works, or even why you can still meet Jews when the Hittites are long gone, I’m sure the God of the Old Testament is that. Reading the OT with some context is helpful in removing that impression.

    Reclaiming the West is about reclaiming the intellectualism of the Christian traditions. Any modern maroon who likes his computer and video games can be an atheist.

  78. @International Jew
    KPFA, it's worth noting, is a hard-left independent radio station. Naturally, it would view any Dawkins tweets against Judaism or Christianity as a plus.

    Dawkins tweets against Judaism

    Oh Really,

    Ok, TPTB are more than willing to ignore Dawkins stands against Male circumcision as a legacy of bronze age desert religions. Big Deal!!!

    But if Dawkins gave even the slightest hint that he was fully aware the Cultural Marxist Media has more than willing give him, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens and the whole “fedora” crowd a platform as long they do not mention growing Jewish ethnocentrism and power relative to the rapid decline in Christian identity and influence in the West, he would be crucified.

    In that sense Dawkins is a knowing and fully willing useful idiot in the service of powerful Jewish interests. And Dawkins has profited very very nicely.

    As much I would love to see it, You are never going to see Dawkins quoting Kevin MacDonald.

  79. AM says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ
     
    How much of this is the result of atheism and agnosticism being a current fashion amongst the intelligentsia?

    I suspect no such correlation would have been noted until fairly recently. Most of Europe's great universities were founded as religious institutions, their purpose originally being to prepare men to join the clergy. When the Americas were colonized by Europeans, they founded new universities with the same intent. Long after this had ceased to be their exclusive function, these institutions continued to be led by clerics. Oxford dons (fellows of its colleges) were required to be "clerks in holy orders" (i.e., holding at least the diaconate) until 1871. Every president of Yale until 1899 was a clergyman. Harvard's presidents were mostly clergymen (interspersed with an occasional lawyer) until 1869, when Charles Eliot, a chemist, took the office.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has "staying power" among them.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has “staying power” among them.

    I have to track down the pages, but there are compelling rebuttals to “atheists have high IQs”. Most modern atheists fall into the midwit category, if I remember correctly.

    As for time will tell, the 20th century communism is a testament to what leanings towards atheism does for societies. I’m not looking forward to it’s repeat here. 🙁

  80. @Crawfurdmuir

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ
     
    How much of this is the result of atheism and agnosticism being a current fashion amongst the intelligentsia?

    I suspect no such correlation would have been noted until fairly recently. Most of Europe's great universities were founded as religious institutions, their purpose originally being to prepare men to join the clergy. When the Americas were colonized by Europeans, they founded new universities with the same intent. Long after this had ceased to be their exclusive function, these institutions continued to be led by clerics. Oxford dons (fellows of its colleges) were required to be "clerks in holy orders" (i.e., holding at least the diaconate) until 1871. Every president of Yale until 1899 was a clergyman. Harvard's presidents were mostly clergymen (interspersed with an occasional lawyer) until 1869, when Charles Eliot, a chemist, took the office.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has "staying power" among them.

    Deep religious belief didn’t seem to hold back James Clerk Maxwell, whose theories led to, well, about everything in 20th century physics.

  81. @Anonymous
    Coyne is somewhat misrepresenting matters. While Dawkins is unapologetically against religion in general, and seems to spend much more of his time hurling insults at Christians, he, like Sam Harris and Bill Maher and no doubt many others with less name recognition, has made it clear beyond doubt that he regards Islam as much more dangerous. All of these guys deserve at least some respect for this. They are trying to tell the truth as they see it, to some degree, in a world that does not respect truth.

    I thought it was just upper case Truth that the world did not respect.

  82. Dahlia says:

    This, along with Steve’s summation about the Current Year’s wisdom about immigration being only about Democrats’ electoral hopes and billionaire bottom lines…well it’s not working for the Dem electoral hopes.

    They have been routed for a decade across the country. They increasingly pushed the pedal to the metal to the point that five cops were killed in Dallas and, in Europe, sex slavery of native girls is the new normal. Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they’re losing.

    So, what is their big mistake? I think it’s the very same one that I’ve seen many on the Right make, but don’t have the power to implement themselves: minorities vote Democratic, ergo, increase the number of minority voters! Just look at California!

    It’s wrong, but is the underlying assumption that pushes:
    PROCESS
    1. Universal registration
    2. Liberalizing ease of voting (no ID, lengthening voting periods)
    PERSUASION
    1. Fearmongering amongst minorities
    2. Vilifying whites

    It’s a…physics? maths? problem would you say? The “process” tactics probably would help them in the very short term, but “equilibrium” would establish itself very quickly. “Equilibrium” is the key concept missing in their assumption. They don’t realize it, but it’s the force the top-down technocrats have not factored in.

    About 10 years ago, I kept beating the drum on why the Right was wrong, (and why the Left now is).

    What the Dems are getting with their mistaken assumption: a changed electorate with different priorities plus short-term culture gains. What they’re losing in exchange are their electoral fortunes.
    California is where a battle was won contributing to the loss in war.

    • Replies: @RonaldB
    Your post is a series of bites that sound good separately, but taken together do not reflect reality.

    Trump or a Trump clone may win the next election or two, but unless he stops immigration altogether and makes things a lot more comfortable for white, wage-earning families, the demographic realities point to a permanent tipping to the left.

    Why do you think the immigration groups are pushing immigrants to small towns? Because the large cities already have more than enough left-wingers, election-wise. They want to tip the balance in the flyover states that elected Trump. The objective is for Hillary to win without any campaigning at all. The way to do that is expand dependence on government welfare, dumb down the population even further, and import lots of people with government dependence in their genes.

    In Europe, the anti-immigration parties lost, and I haven't seen any claim that they are trending to the right. European electoral fortunes do not lie in opposing immigration.
    , @Lot
    Two party systems strongly tend toward 50/50 elections. Mass immigration just rejiggers voting patterns. Virginia and Iowa switch who they vote for, but the result remains close.

    An exception is the Dem plan to bring in Muslims. This results in few new votes, but seeing women in burkas at Costco is a more effective ad for the GOP than 100 30-second TV ads.

    Maine's black population tripled since 2000, 0.5 to 1.5%. Also 3.5% of new births. This isn't African Americans moving north, but African Muslim immigrants. Few are eligible to vote much less do so, but as walking GOP ads the state has swung hard to the right.
    , @International Jew

    Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they’re losing.
     
    If they've criminalized speaking out, that means they're winning.
  83. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius. Only an incredibly stupid society would not want to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say.

    The rules are constantly changing, but I assume he'll avoid James Watson's fate. Noting that there are differences in average group IQs is way more dangerous to a career than calling Islam evil (so long as you don't end up like the tragic Theo Van Gogh).

    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius.

    Huh? What’s his great contribution or whatever it is that demonstrates his “genius”.

    I have no doubt he’s done something I wouldn’t have been able to do–make a name for himself (and a pile of money) writing “evolution is true” and “selection is real” books. And I’ll grant he doesn’t make a living peddling falsehoods and lying like say Gould–that’s something and valuable. But i’m less clear what his actual contribution to science is supposed to be–if any. He certainly isn’t Darwin or Galton or Fisher or Hamilton for whom “major genius” would seem appropriate.

    Note, I can browse around and figure this out. (When I have some cycles–right now I’ve got the van full of my daughter’s stuff and about to start the drive down to the bay area this morning so she can start med school.) But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great. I simply haven’t heard anything attributed to Dawkins that made me go “cool, that’s new, insightful … wouldn’t have thought of that”.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    If the bible were written today, how would it differ from the one that was written 3,000-2,000 years ago? A lot of the metaphysical stuff might have to be updated but the interpersonal and human nature parts are still as relevant as they were when they were written. The questions we still have are the ones we will never be able to answer by science but the ones we can answer were already known when the bible was written.
    , @Samuel Skinner
    Selfish gene. The concept that selection does not take place on the level of an organism, but instead on the level of individual genes which means that organisms can have behavior and traits that is bad for them, but good for the gene.
    , @guest
    Dawkins' one original contribution (if indeed it is original, but I've never seen it attributed to anyone else) was his attempt to Darwinize culture through the concept of memes. As I said in another post, I think that concept has made us stupider.

    Its only successful application has been to internet jokes. And in that case it's used by laymen. It's had no scientific success. Although I'm sure as I speak people are being paid by universities to stick the word in papers.

    , @dr kill
    You should have talked her out of med school.
  84. What did Richard Dawkins think of Enoch Powell? Find out that and then treat Dawkins the same way he would have wanted to treat Powell.

  85. Dawkins ran afoul of the SJW crowd a few years earlier with the ‘Elevatorgate’ and the Atheism+ nonsense. I don’t think he mended his reputation since then and now he’s teetering close to alt-right label.

  86. AP says:
    @Crawfurdmuir

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ
     
    How much of this is the result of atheism and agnosticism being a current fashion amongst the intelligentsia?

    I suspect no such correlation would have been noted until fairly recently. Most of Europe's great universities were founded as religious institutions, their purpose originally being to prepare men to join the clergy. When the Americas were colonized by Europeans, they founded new universities with the same intent. Long after this had ceased to be their exclusive function, these institutions continued to be led by clerics. Oxford dons (fellows of its colleges) were required to be "clerks in holy orders" (i.e., holding at least the diaconate) until 1871. Every president of Yale until 1899 was a clergyman. Harvard's presidents were mostly clergymen (interspersed with an occasional lawyer) until 1869, when Charles Eliot, a chemist, took the office.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has "staying power" among them.

    Agree. Moreover, intelligence among educated people seems to have reached its high point in the early 20th century – a time when the most intelligent were not as atheistic as the most intelligent are today (overall societal IQ has gone up since then because less intelligent people have achieved literacy – but this isn’t issue with the cognitive elites).

    Today’s non-religious high IQ scientists are probably not as intelligent as those religious ones from 100 years ago.

  87. Dawkins spent much of his career attacking and trying to undermine a major pillar of Western civilization. On balance, he is terrible.

  88. Old white lefty atheist gets devoured by a movement he has no doubt applauded his whole life.

    Yeah Dawkins, when they finally came for you, nobody is speaking up either.

    But no worries, it is all about the selfish genes and yours are getting their asses kicked.

    Sucks to be the loser, but as implied in your central work, human events are completely amoral, no right or wrong, just strands of DNA dunking it out.

    That idea permeates atheistic culture.

    As you sow, so shall you reap.

    • Agree: Clyde
  89. @AnotherDad

    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius.
     
    Huh? What's his great contribution or whatever it is that demonstrates his "genius".

    I have no doubt he's done something I wouldn't have been able to do--make a name for himself (and a pile of money) writing "evolution is true" and "selection is real" books. And I'll grant he doesn't make a living peddling falsehoods and lying like say Gould--that's something and valuable. But i'm less clear what his actual contribution to science is supposed to be--if any. He certainly isn't Darwin or Galton or Fisher or Hamilton for whom "major genius" would seem appropriate.

    Note, I can browse around and figure this out. (When I have some cycles--right now I've got the van full of my daughter's stuff and about to start the drive down to the bay area this morning so she can start med school.) But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great. I simply haven't heard anything attributed to Dawkins that made me go "cool, that's new, insightful ... wouldn't have thought of that".

    If the bible were written today, how would it differ from the one that was written 3,000-2,000 years ago? A lot of the metaphysical stuff might have to be updated but the interpersonal and human nature parts are still as relevant as they were when they were written. The questions we still have are the ones we will never be able to answer by science but the ones we can answer were already known when the bible was written.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/215855-if-the-holy-bible-was-printed-as-an-ace-double

    “If the Holy Bible was printed as an Ace Double it would be cut down to two 20,000-word halves with the Old Testament retitled as ‘Master of Chaos’ and the New Testament as ‘The Thing With Three Souls.”

    ― Terry Carr
     
  90. When Dawkins can explain speciation and rate of mutation better than “because, stupid!” I might accept he’s a ‘genius’.

  91. @AnotherDad

    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius.
     
    Huh? What's his great contribution or whatever it is that demonstrates his "genius".

    I have no doubt he's done something I wouldn't have been able to do--make a name for himself (and a pile of money) writing "evolution is true" and "selection is real" books. And I'll grant he doesn't make a living peddling falsehoods and lying like say Gould--that's something and valuable. But i'm less clear what his actual contribution to science is supposed to be--if any. He certainly isn't Darwin or Galton or Fisher or Hamilton for whom "major genius" would seem appropriate.

    Note, I can browse around and figure this out. (When I have some cycles--right now I've got the van full of my daughter's stuff and about to start the drive down to the bay area this morning so she can start med school.) But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great. I simply haven't heard anything attributed to Dawkins that made me go "cool, that's new, insightful ... wouldn't have thought of that".

    Selfish gene. The concept that selection does not take place on the level of an organism, but instead on the level of individual genes which means that organisms can have behavior and traits that is bad for them, but good for the gene.

  92. But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great.

    I would he agree that perhaps he has no earth-shattering scientific discovery in his own name, but what he did in The Selfish Gene was to explain ideas developed by other researchers in such a way as to make obscure probability calculations interesting and accessible to lay readers, meaning that millions of people, certainly including myself, have had their whole understanding of the meaning of life subtly altered.

    He also invented the word ‘meme’ which is a useful concept.

    He has also shown courage in publicly opposing religious fundamentalism, when most public intellectuals would rather sidestep the issue. Whether this is wise of him is a moot point.

    It is often the case that the people who popularize important new ideas get a lion’s share of the credit, for example Steve Jobs really didn’t invent the touch screen phone, but he saw the possibilities in commercializing technologies invented by others and was able to execute.

    Educating the general public about science seems to me like a worthwhile thing to devote one’s life to, which is what Dawkins has done.

    • Replies: @NOTA
    Yes. I read his books as a kid, and got a good basic grasp of evolution from them--far better than I got from my high school biology class! (The teacher was probably trying to avoid trouble with parents--I dont think he mentioned the word evolution anywhere in the class.)
    , @Autochthon

    He has also shown courage in publicly opposing religious fundamentalism, when most public intellectuals would rather sidestep the issue. Whether this is wise of him is a moot point.
     
    You cannot be serious. Scornfully insulting – nevermind civilly opposing – religion is not only accepted, but demanded of public persons on pain of ignominy and lost careers, and it has been for at least twenty years (arguably for much longer). Politicians in what used to be the U.S.A. represent a partial exception: they are permitted and in some contexts encouraged to continue a feigned religious mein, so long as it conforms to the requirement that it not interfere in new True Religion of multicultural, vibrantly diverse perversion, sodomy, miscegenation, etc.
  93. @Anonymous
    But perhaps there is rationality to all this.

    Critics of Islam regularly get beheaded etc.
    Who wants to bring that upon themselves?

    So we should surrender to the Muslims?

  94. @Crawfurdmuir

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ
     
    How much of this is the result of atheism and agnosticism being a current fashion amongst the intelligentsia?

    I suspect no such correlation would have been noted until fairly recently. Most of Europe's great universities were founded as religious institutions, their purpose originally being to prepare men to join the clergy. When the Americas were colonized by Europeans, they founded new universities with the same intent. Long after this had ceased to be their exclusive function, these institutions continued to be led by clerics. Oxford dons (fellows of its colleges) were required to be "clerks in holy orders" (i.e., holding at least the diaconate) until 1871. Every president of Yale until 1899 was a clergyman. Harvard's presidents were mostly clergymen (interspersed with an occasional lawyer) until 1869, when Charles Eliot, a chemist, took the office.

    Intellectuals have their fads, just as lesser mortals do. Time will tell whether atheism has "staying power" among them.

    It might just show, how alienated quite a few intellectuals have become.

    Ahh -I forsee the counterarguments: But alienation, in’t this a Marxist (=anti-religious) term?
    No, it’s not actually. As far as I know, and I do know some of this stuff, alienation – the concept a n d the word, did show up for the first time in the early 14th century. Alienation is a term, that’s been made up, literally (you could also say discovered, even though this expression ‘d be a tad misleading, here, but for the sake of the argument: Say discovered, if you want to) – ehe – alienation, the term and the thought might well have been invented (=created) by a monk.

    This monk was one of the most literate persons, who ever wrote German. His name is Heinrich Seuse. He was a pupil of Meister Eckhart. No ?European universities without such scholars.

    PS

    It’s one of the most common mistakes ever, to think, that people in earlier centuries were less intelligent, than we are now. Master historian and middle ages expert Arno Borst (some of his books are available in English, too – highly recommended reading) never got tired, to explain this thought especially to those (not yet) educated.

    • Replies: @anon
    it's been argued that the ancients were significantly SMARTER than us: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc63/c5e0bb322baa850f362b38be6c7835a483ce.pdf
  95. @guest
    Is it possible to be an anti-Christian bigot according to them? (Tolerating the intolerant?) If you criticize a black church, I suppose.

    In their eyes, attacking a black church would make you racist.

  96. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius. Only an incredibly stupid society would not want to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say.

    The rules are constantly changing, but I assume he'll avoid James Watson's fate. Noting that there are differences in average group IQs is way more dangerous to a career than calling Islam evil (so long as you don't end up like the tragic Theo Van Gogh).

    Dawkins is nothing not so far as I can tell a “major genius.” He’s a genius science popularizer, in a manner of speaking . But if you’re not using “genius” as a colloquial modifier like that, and especially if throw “major” into the mix, you’re being misleading.

    Doubly misleading, because Dawkins writes about science, even if he’s not technically in science. And that’s a field where genius rises to the level of a Newton.

  97. @Anonymous
    But you've got to admit that the central thesis of 'The Selfish Gene' - even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks - is a real game changer.

    If by “game changer” you mean full of obviously false and frankly silly metaphors, yes. No one actually believes in selfish genes or the absence of altruism. Or at least I hope they don’t. That book also features memes, a concept that has made us measurably stupider as a culture, I believe.

    That being said, the purpose of the book was to explain neo-Darwinian evolution to normal people, and on that count it’s brilliant. It changed the Public Relations game, I’ll concede. But as regards actual science, it’s worse than a dead end.

  98. @AnotherDad

    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius.
     
    Huh? What's his great contribution or whatever it is that demonstrates his "genius".

    I have no doubt he's done something I wouldn't have been able to do--make a name for himself (and a pile of money) writing "evolution is true" and "selection is real" books. And I'll grant he doesn't make a living peddling falsehoods and lying like say Gould--that's something and valuable. But i'm less clear what his actual contribution to science is supposed to be--if any. He certainly isn't Darwin or Galton or Fisher or Hamilton for whom "major genius" would seem appropriate.

    Note, I can browse around and figure this out. (When I have some cycles--right now I've got the van full of my daughter's stuff and about to start the drive down to the bay area this morning so she can start med school.) But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great. I simply haven't heard anything attributed to Dawkins that made me go "cool, that's new, insightful ... wouldn't have thought of that".

    Dawkins’ one original contribution (if indeed it is original, but I’ve never seen it attributed to anyone else) was his attempt to Darwinize culture through the concept of memes. As I said in another post, I think that concept has made us stupider.

    Its only successful application has been to internet jokes. And in that case it’s used by laymen. It’s had no scientific success. Although I’m sure as I speak people are being paid by universities to stick the word in papers.

    • Agree: Autochthon
  99. @Anonymous
    Coyne's email to the radio station is quite simply nutty: First, Dawkins has quite obviously been "abusive" towards Islam, just as he has been abusive towards Christianity. He has even been MORE abusive towards Islam, and "abusive" is the right word. I myself have some degree of antipathy towards Islam, but I perfectly well grant that some people can become better via Islam (even if many become worse). Dawkins geniunely despises religion and regards it as evil, but he makes clear which major religion he thinks is the worst. Second, in no sense whatsoever does a radio station violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows radio stations to invite or disinvite anyone who fits or fails to fit their agenda, just as the First Amendment allows cake makers to make cakes, or not, for those who fit their agenda, and so on.... The radio station is perfectly within its rights to disinvite Richard Dawkins, and others are perfectly within their rights (as Americans, if that is what they are) to chastise station KPFA as (in the dying words of Godfrey Elfwick) "virtue signaling cunts".

    How nobly nonpartisan you are.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Sorry, I have been overdosing Jordan B Peterson lately and his stuff on the gulags and Hitler is amazing.

    Short summary, no ideologies justify butchering people.

  100. @Steve Sailer
    It's not totally derisible to assert that a radio station that's a licensed occupant of a slice of public bandwidth has First Amendment duties. For a long time, there was a "Fairness doctrine" imposed upon radio stations by the feds under this theory, although that was loosened up a lot around 1990?

    The “fairness doctrine” was operating in an appallingly narrow Overton window of acceptable opinion.
    Fair, it wasn’t.

  101. Check out Google street view. KPFA has a small storefront studio with large glass windows in downtown Berkeley.

    Enough said.

  102. @Steve Sailer
    With Dawkins there's the question of whether he's primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I'm a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    He holds a DPhil in ethology. He holds (or held) a chair at Oxford with a title something like Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. If he’s not now a practicing science, he does have the training and the credentials.

  103. @anony-mouse
    'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA3OqrNnezc

    Come on guys, this is Unz.com.

    Randolph Churchill, Winston’s dad, had only a Bible to read in WWI’s trenches. He famously, and probably apocryphally obseved “God is such a shit”

    • Replies: @duncsbaby
    Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston's dad, died in 1886. Randolph Churchill, Winston's son, served as an officer in WWII but not in any trenches.
  104. But Dahlia the Left has won, decisively, and massively.

    California is a deep blue state that no Republican, and soon no White, will ever win. It is defacto part of Mexico now.

    Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Washington, and Oregon are following, with dirt-poor New Mexico taking up the irrelevant rear.

    Whites are a minority in our own country. Non-White babies make up the majority as they have for years and that plus the anti-White hatred by the Germanic Northern group — true believers in Puritan style post-Christianity and HATE HATE HATE of Beta White males by their women and cuckery placating by their men equals White minority in pretty much most nations save Eastern Europe.

    They’ve already won and are just fighting over the spoils. The trick for BadWhites is not to win, that is not possible and has not been possible since Reagan’s 1985 Amnesty. Rather, it is to SURVIVE. Survival by being as feared and as dangerous as possible while avoiding the clampdown by eschewing things that the GoodWhites will use an excuse: no Eric Rudolphs and let a hundred Alinsksy bloom.

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and “community centers” of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and “community centers” of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.
     
    This is the KKK you're describing. That's never coming back.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    But Dahlia the Left has won, decisively, and massively.
     
    Get a grip. Your doomsaying is contradicted by the facts on the ground. You were absolutely certain that Brexit and Trump were impossible.

    The tide has turned; but your pessimism means that you must suffer a needless and early death from despair.
  105. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Me thinks this would not be the case IF Hillary had won.

    But she lost, and the ‘left’ now needs Muslims as tool against Trump the ‘travel banner’.

    The ‘left’ never gave a damn about Muslims destroyed by Obama and Hillary. There were no protests against what happened to Libya.

    So, why this sudden need for sensitivity toward Muslims?

    Globalists now need Muslims as a ‘victim’ group.

    In the 50s and 60s, to counter the Right, the Liberals made the communist-sympathizers and fellow-travelers the innocent victims of McCarthyism.

    Now, the ‘left’ suddenly need all the allies they muster, and it needs Muslims as the posterchild of ‘America is a nation of immigrants’.

    So, all of a sudden, it is very very bad to have someone condemn Islam, especially as both Trump and European Right invoke Muslim Intolerance and Terror as reasons for opposing Open or Hopen Borders.

    It’s about politics, not principles.

    If Hillary were in the Oval Office, this wouldn’t be an issue.

    Muslims would be in the back of the bus. But since Trump called them out — like McCarthy called out commies and fellow-travelers — , Muslims now have to be portrayed as ‘victims’.

    Consider the Jewish-Muslim alliance in the present. Suddenly, globalist Jews need Muslims to attack Trump as ‘hitler’, and Muslims need Jewish elites to ensure more immigration as the dream of so many Muslims is to gain passage to white lands. Deep down inside, Muslims, at least as indivivduals, prefer to live under whites than under their own kind who are far more corrupt and tyrannical.

  106. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    Seriously, how does anyone who professes any awareness of current events not know that Richard Dawkins has been making "offensive" comments about Islam for years? Personally, I find Dawkins rather misguided in his attitudes towards religion, but I respect the fact that he calls it as he sees it. (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That's honest.) If anyone is unaware of this, they are literally idiots. We are dealing with utter buffoons here, people. Keep the faith. We are going to win.

    (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That’s honest.)

    It is better why? Because it’s grown weak and decadent and cannot even defend true marriage from the homo mafia.
    At least in defending core faith and values, Islam has proven itself to be far better than wussy Christianity that, without alliance with military caste, has proven to be weak and wimpy.

    Also, Dawkins is so full of BS. He attacks Jewish religion and culture, but he attacks ‘antisemitism’. But following his logic, Jews should give up their identity since it is tribal, irrational, and atavistic. Indeed, one could argue that a people insisting on their Jewishness is a form of arrogance, exclusionism, and supremacism based on special covenant with a fictional deity.

    Worse, doesn’t Dawkins see that Diversity and Homomania are now worshiped as quasi-religions and have their own mindless sacraments and blind taboos?

    But then, Dawkins is so religious about his cocksure know-it-all rationality when he’s just a sneering snobby jerk.

    • Agree: SMK, Mark Green
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Western Christianity was once a noble, ruthless and powerful religion, of great virtue in the Roman sense.

    Islam was never that good, but as compared to Christianity today it is far better at keeping the unruly in line.

    As crappy as we think most Muslim countries are, I suspect that any country in which Islam dominates would be worse off under any other religion or no religion at all. Islam does have certain prohibitions, certain standards and it enforces them.

    Pakistan for example would be absolutely lawless outside its biggest cities.
    , @Anonymous
    I respect religious Jews, orthodox or otherwise. Atheist Jews should quit being Jews or else acknowledge upfront that they are no different than white nationalists.
    , @Bill
    Great stuff.
  107. @CCZ

    "We do not support abusive speech."
     
    Which is worse, "abusive speech" or "hate speech?" I need to know which one to use first.

    “We do not support abusive speech.”

    They also said : “KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech.”

    Doesn’t the truth hurt? That’s what the old aphorism says.

    Here’s a slice of Dawkins in one of his hurtful and truthful moments:
    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/01/12/professional-atheist-dawkins-says-christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/

  108. @Dahlia
    This, along with Steve's summation about the Current Year's wisdom about immigration being only about Democrats' electoral hopes and billionaire bottom lines...well it's not working for the Dem electoral hopes.

    They have been routed for a decade across the country. They increasingly pushed the pedal to the metal to the point that five cops were killed in Dallas and, in Europe, sex slavery of native girls is the new normal. Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they're losing.

    So, what is their big mistake? I think it's the very same one that I've seen many on the Right make, but don't have the power to implement themselves: minorities vote Democratic, ergo, increase the number of minority voters! Just look at California!

    It's wrong, but is the underlying assumption that pushes:
    PROCESS
    1. Universal registration
    2. Liberalizing ease of voting (no ID, lengthening voting periods)
    PERSUASION
    1. Fearmongering amongst minorities
    2. Vilifying whites

    It's a...physics? maths? problem would you say? The "process" tactics probably would help them in the very short term, but "equilibrium" would establish itself very quickly. "Equilibrium" is the key concept missing in their assumption. They don't realize it, but it's the force the top-down technocrats have not factored in.

    About 10 years ago, I kept beating the drum on why the Right was wrong, (and why the Left now is).

    What the Dems are getting with their mistaken assumption: a changed electorate with different priorities plus short-term culture gains. What they're losing in exchange are their electoral fortunes.
    California is where a battle was won contributing to the loss in war.

    Your post is a series of bites that sound good separately, but taken together do not reflect reality.

    Trump or a Trump clone may win the next election or two, but unless he stops immigration altogether and makes things a lot more comfortable for white, wage-earning families, the demographic realities point to a permanent tipping to the left.

    Why do you think the immigration groups are pushing immigrants to small towns? Because the large cities already have more than enough left-wingers, election-wise. They want to tip the balance in the flyover states that elected Trump. The objective is for Hillary to win without any campaigning at all. The way to do that is expand dependence on government welfare, dumb down the population even further, and import lots of people with government dependence in their genes.

    In Europe, the anti-immigration parties lost, and I haven’t seen any claim that they are trending to the right. European electoral fortunes do not lie in opposing immigration.

  109. Lot says:
    @Dahlia
    This, along with Steve's summation about the Current Year's wisdom about immigration being only about Democrats' electoral hopes and billionaire bottom lines...well it's not working for the Dem electoral hopes.

    They have been routed for a decade across the country. They increasingly pushed the pedal to the metal to the point that five cops were killed in Dallas and, in Europe, sex slavery of native girls is the new normal. Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they're losing.

    So, what is their big mistake? I think it's the very same one that I've seen many on the Right make, but don't have the power to implement themselves: minorities vote Democratic, ergo, increase the number of minority voters! Just look at California!

    It's wrong, but is the underlying assumption that pushes:
    PROCESS
    1. Universal registration
    2. Liberalizing ease of voting (no ID, lengthening voting periods)
    PERSUASION
    1. Fearmongering amongst minorities
    2. Vilifying whites

    It's a...physics? maths? problem would you say? The "process" tactics probably would help them in the very short term, but "equilibrium" would establish itself very quickly. "Equilibrium" is the key concept missing in their assumption. They don't realize it, but it's the force the top-down technocrats have not factored in.

    About 10 years ago, I kept beating the drum on why the Right was wrong, (and why the Left now is).

    What the Dems are getting with their mistaken assumption: a changed electorate with different priorities plus short-term culture gains. What they're losing in exchange are their electoral fortunes.
    California is where a battle was won contributing to the loss in war.

    Two party systems strongly tend toward 50/50 elections. Mass immigration just rejiggers voting patterns. Virginia and Iowa switch who they vote for, but the result remains close.

    An exception is the Dem plan to bring in Muslims. This results in few new votes, but seeing women in burkas at Costco is a more effective ad for the GOP than 100 30-second TV ads.

    Maine’s black population tripled since 2000, 0.5 to 1.5%. Also 3.5% of new births. This isn’t African Americans moving north, but African Muslim immigrants. Few are eligible to vote much less do so, but as walking GOP ads the state has swung hard to the right.

  110. @RobertTaylor
    All of them - Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris - are for mass 3rd world immigration.

    And God knows they are all anti-White.

    No respect for them.

    That makes them enemies of Western Civilization and of mankind in general.

  111. Lot says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius. Only an incredibly stupid society would not want to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say.

    The rules are constantly changing, but I assume he'll avoid James Watson's fate. Noting that there are differences in average group IQs is way more dangerous to a career than calling Islam evil (so long as you don't end up like the tragic Theo Van Gogh).

    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    We nearly had our first one in the USA when a murderous Muslim went to the Texas event intent on killing Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, who lives under 24/7 guard in his homeland.

    We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    I think you mean to say "if we didn't have armed police and security there who had no problem shooting dead terrorists".
    , @Hibernian
    "We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims."
    , @Bill Jones
    The death of Pam Geller would not seem to be a loss.
    , @Judah Benjamin Hur

    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.
     
    No, discussing race and IQ just destroys your career even if you're one of the most important people of the century (James Watson). It's almost a guarantee. Insulting Islam might hurt your career and might even get you killed, but overall I'd take my chances with the latter than a certainty of ruin.

    For example, if Tim Cook said tomorrow that the reason why Apple doesn't have that many blacks in high-level positions is that, on average, they aren't as intelligent, he would have to resign the next day even though what he said was undeniably accurate. His life's work over because of one true comment. A comment that needs to be said in the context of high-tech workers and "civil rights" coercion, but it can't be. If he said Islam was evil (an opinion), he would get a lot of flak, but his career would probably survive if he handled it correctly. The likelihood of getting killed would be maybe 1 in 1000, somewhat worrisome, but not that serious.

    Unlike many here, I think one has to be mindful of historic racism and should be, all things being equal, more careful and compassionate about making racial comments.

  112. @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Please estimate the IQs of the following and report back:

    Bach, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Stravinsky, Dvorak, Dante, John Milton, Charles Dickens, Dostoevsky, T.S. Eliot, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Kierkegaard, Blaise Pascal, Gregor Mendel, Francis Bacon, Georges Lemaître…

    We could add more if you like…

  113. @PhysicistDave
    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).
     
    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins' books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis' and G. K. Chesterton's books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    No he’s not. He’s just another one of C.S. Lewis’s “men without chests” and a threat to whats left of the culture that gave birth to men like Lewis, Chesterton and Tolkein.

    He despises people who believe in religion, he doesn’t care at all about them. He sees atheists as superior humans – he calls them “Brites” or some such bullshit. While believers are viewed as dull witted losers.

    Yet he has the nerve to ask Christians to defend the West and he still wants open borders. This is not a man who cares about Western Civilization and it’s people.

    As far I’m concerned Dawkins is what’s wrong with modernity. It churns out lopsided men like him who are intellectually dishonest as can be. That hate the culture in which they came to agie in and do their best to tear it down like a pack of Visigoths.

    And the thing I don’t get. Christianity is dying in Western Europe. It bothers no one except bigoted fanatics like Dawkins, Maher and Harris. To me these men are just so bitter and mean they really need something hate in order to function.

    His side won and he doesn’t see it. Of course they won a graveyard for themselves and ideas in the process.

    Maybe the jerk ought to address all the mass murders done in the last century by avowed Marxist atheists. He won’t, he won’t address the fact since Europe abandoned it’s culture to a large extent(which includes Christianity) is dying. Atheists don’t tend to procreate if the white, college educated Left in the U.S. is any example.

    This guy rabidly hates Christianity.

    He’s a vulture living off the carcass of the dying West.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Rod, I totally agree, except for the dying West. We are not dead yet, and there is no reason to believe current circumstances are permanent.
  114. @Anonymous
    Seriously, how does anyone who professes any awareness of current events not know that Richard Dawkins has been making "offensive" comments about Islam for years? Personally, I find Dawkins rather misguided in his attitudes towards religion, but I respect the fact that he calls it as he sees it. (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That's honest.) If anyone is unaware of this, they are literally idiots. We are dealing with utter buffoons here, people. Keep the faith. We are going to win.

    What and who is “we”: the alternative/dissident right, I assume. And what do you mean by “win,” concretely and specifically? And how are we “going to win,” exactly?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Same Anonymous as above: you are pretty much grasping my meaning. I have many, many agreements with the alternative/dissident right, and many disagreements. That is to be expected, since the alternative right, in the broad sense, allows debate. But for anyone who grants any personal affinity with the dissident/alternative right, I think it is useful to recognize the increasingly obvious fact of the deep stupidity/obliviousness of those who oppose us. I used to be one of them, but they are idiots, and overtly embrace idiocy. Recognizing that your opponents are literally crippling themselves (intellectually, at least) can be a crucial step in fostering concrete victory.
  115. For all his public comments those of us who have a memory know about that time when Dawkins had Jesus in his heart:

    https://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/viz-comic-to-win-science-writing-award.html

    • Replies: @Cortes
    Here's another:

    http://viz.co.uk/father-dart-heaven/
  116. @Anon
    Wow what a beautiful paint job on soul killing cowardice.

    You should work for anybody troubled in the least by service to the Stasi.

    All those people who failed to stop or stand against Hitler, Stalin or Mao we nobly exercising their free will choices.

    "Always look on the bright side of life........" indeed.

    “we nobly ” should have been “were nobly”

  117. @Lot
    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    We nearly had our first one in the USA when a murderous Muslim went to the Texas event intent on killing Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, who lives under 24/7 guard in his homeland.

    We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.

    I think you mean to say “if we didn’t have armed police and security there who had no problem shooting dead terrorists”.

  118. @AnotherDad

    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius.
     
    Huh? What's his great contribution or whatever it is that demonstrates his "genius".

    I have no doubt he's done something I wouldn't have been able to do--make a name for himself (and a pile of money) writing "evolution is true" and "selection is real" books. And I'll grant he doesn't make a living peddling falsehoods and lying like say Gould--that's something and valuable. But i'm less clear what his actual contribution to science is supposed to be--if any. He certainly isn't Darwin or Galton or Fisher or Hamilton for whom "major genius" would seem appropriate.

    Note, I can browse around and figure this out. (When I have some cycles--right now I've got the van full of my daughter's stuff and about to start the drive down to the bay area this morning so she can start med school.) But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great. I simply haven't heard anything attributed to Dawkins that made me go "cool, that's new, insightful ... wouldn't have thought of that".

    You should have talked her out of med school.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    There's a lot of PC crap in med school these days but fortunately they can't stop teaching the science bit, so you have to hope* life will slowly corrode away the PC stuff and leave the gold behind.

    * although reading the British Medical Journal and Nursing Times, that may be a forlorn hope.
  119. @anony-mouse
    'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA3OqrNnezc

    Come on guys, this is Unz.com.

    I’m willing to bet that Dawkins knows more, technically speaking, about the current state of research on OT studies than 90% of people who think Jews were slaves in Egypt because Exodus said so.

    Russell Gmirkin has an apparently respected take on all that. Pentateuch authorship period, that is. Not Dawkins.

  120. @Dahlia
    This, along with Steve's summation about the Current Year's wisdom about immigration being only about Democrats' electoral hopes and billionaire bottom lines...well it's not working for the Dem electoral hopes.

    They have been routed for a decade across the country. They increasingly pushed the pedal to the metal to the point that five cops were killed in Dallas and, in Europe, sex slavery of native girls is the new normal. Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they're losing.

    So, what is their big mistake? I think it's the very same one that I've seen many on the Right make, but don't have the power to implement themselves: minorities vote Democratic, ergo, increase the number of minority voters! Just look at California!

    It's wrong, but is the underlying assumption that pushes:
    PROCESS
    1. Universal registration
    2. Liberalizing ease of voting (no ID, lengthening voting periods)
    PERSUASION
    1. Fearmongering amongst minorities
    2. Vilifying whites

    It's a...physics? maths? problem would you say? The "process" tactics probably would help them in the very short term, but "equilibrium" would establish itself very quickly. "Equilibrium" is the key concept missing in their assumption. They don't realize it, but it's the force the top-down technocrats have not factored in.

    About 10 years ago, I kept beating the drum on why the Right was wrong, (and why the Left now is).

    What the Dems are getting with their mistaken assumption: a changed electorate with different priorities plus short-term culture gains. What they're losing in exchange are their electoral fortunes.
    California is where a battle was won contributing to the loss in war.

    Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they’re losing.

    If they’ve criminalized speaking out, that means they’re winning.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Sort of. That's not how they got the power in the first place though. They're sawing off the branch that supports them.
  121. So it’s not only hate speech that’s bad, now even “hurtful” speech will get you banned

  122. You mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments apply to Islam too?

  123. @RobertTaylor
    All of them - Dawkins, Bill Maher, Sam Harris - are for mass 3rd world immigration.

    And God knows they are all anti-White.

    No respect for them.

    Sam Harris just had Douglas Murray on his podcast for the second time. He was invited on to discuss his “wonderful” book, The Strange Death of Europe. They spend several minutes talking about Rotherham and related scandals, which many of Sam’s listeners will be hearing about for the first time (someone made a clip of just that bit here).

    These are not the actions of a proponent of “mass third world immigration,” whatever his views were in the past.

    • Replies: @RobertTaylor
    Yet both of them condemned the British National Party.

    Which means they aren't serious. They intend to moan about what is happening to the UK and Europe, while attacking anyone who truly tries to address the problem as unacceptable.
  124. @anony-mouse
    'The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA3OqrNnezc

    Come on guys, this is Unz.com.

    As if He aims to please!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    He was even crummier in His prequel, the Epic of Gilgamesh.
  125. @Steve Sailer
    It's not totally derisible to assert that a radio station that's a licensed occupant of a slice of public bandwidth has First Amendment duties. For a long time, there was a "Fairness doctrine" imposed upon radio stations by the feds under this theory, although that was loosened up a lot around 1990?

    The “Fairness Doctrine” would have worked to the detriment of libs had conservatives not been too arrogant to communicate properly and libtys had not refused to use it on the grounds it was unlibertarian.

  126. @International Jew

    Criminalizing speaking out has been ratcheted up. Still, they’re losing.
     
    If they've criminalized speaking out, that means they're winning.

    Sort of. That’s not how they got the power in the first place though. They’re sawing off the branch that supports them.

  127. @Steve Sailer
    That's real interesting.

    The 1971 Encyclopedia Britannica has an interestingly Anglocentric article about "humour" that asserts that humour starts off as a word for how the four medieval humors combine to make an individual personality. A humorous person was somebody with a unique personality that other people found amusing and appealing. The English come to believe that they appreciate eccentricity more than other countries and that gives them a better sense of humor, which eventually comes to mean what we think of as sense of humor.

    But maybe it has something to do with your theory of Romeo and Juliet love matches making for more extreme personality types in offspring?

    You should read, if you haven’t already, Msgr. Knox’s (not entirely serious) essay on humour and satire (introductory to Satirical Essays, I think).

    He classes ‘humor’ as such as entirely English, iirc.

  128. @Hugh
    Can't say I care too much for Dawkins. I'm saving my outrage supplies for something more to my taste.

    First they came for the ornery atheists, and I did not speak out, for I was not an ornery atheist…

    • Replies: @Hugh
    Sorry, but I'm not changing my mind.

    Think of it as triage....or just natural selection.....his genes didn't pass the test.
  129. @Lot
    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    We nearly had our first one in the USA when a murderous Muslim went to the Texas event intent on killing Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, who lives under 24/7 guard in his homeland.

    We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.

    “We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.”

  130. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That’s honest.)

    It is better why? Because it's grown weak and decadent and cannot even defend true marriage from the homo mafia.
    At least in defending core faith and values, Islam has proven itself to be far better than wussy Christianity that, without alliance with military caste, has proven to be weak and wimpy.

    Also, Dawkins is so full of BS. He attacks Jewish religion and culture, but he attacks 'antisemitism'. But following his logic, Jews should give up their identity since it is tribal, irrational, and atavistic. Indeed, one could argue that a people insisting on their Jewishness is a form of arrogance, exclusionism, and supremacism based on special covenant with a fictional deity.

    Worse, doesn't Dawkins see that Diversity and Homomania are now worshiped as quasi-religions and have their own mindless sacraments and blind taboos?

    But then, Dawkins is so religious about his cocksure know-it-all rationality when he's just a sneering snobby jerk.

    Western Christianity was once a noble, ruthless and powerful religion, of great virtue in the Roman sense.

    Islam was never that good, but as compared to Christianity today it is far better at keeping the unruly in line.

    As crappy as we think most Muslim countries are, I suspect that any country in which Islam dominates would be worse off under any other religion or no religion at all. Islam does have certain prohibitions, certain standards and it enforces them.

    Pakistan for example would be absolutely lawless outside its biggest cities.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    Probably true. I'm sure that in Muslim countries bands of men don't go around abusing women on the street. Uncivilized people need tougher laws and penalties. You don't need any laws at all to get Swiss to put their litter in trash cans. But you'd need a draconian regime to get African Americans to abstain from littering.

    Yet another thing that separate countries are for.
    , @Expletive Deleted
    Islamic "rule" is pretty much what the whole country being run by Warren Jeffs and the FLDS would be like.
    It's a woman-hoarding and tax-dependent welfare scam for a few psychopathic old men, mostly blood-relatives.
  131. @Desiderius
    As if He aims to please!

    He was even crummier in His prequel, the Epic of Gilgamesh.

  132. @Anon
    (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That’s honest.)

    It is better why? Because it's grown weak and decadent and cannot even defend true marriage from the homo mafia.
    At least in defending core faith and values, Islam has proven itself to be far better than wussy Christianity that, without alliance with military caste, has proven to be weak and wimpy.

    Also, Dawkins is so full of BS. He attacks Jewish religion and culture, but he attacks 'antisemitism'. But following his logic, Jews should give up their identity since it is tribal, irrational, and atavistic. Indeed, one could argue that a people insisting on their Jewishness is a form of arrogance, exclusionism, and supremacism based on special covenant with a fictional deity.

    Worse, doesn't Dawkins see that Diversity and Homomania are now worshiped as quasi-religions and have their own mindless sacraments and blind taboos?

    But then, Dawkins is so religious about his cocksure know-it-all rationality when he's just a sneering snobby jerk.

    I respect religious Jews, orthodox or otherwise. Atheist Jews should quit being Jews or else acknowledge upfront that they are no different than white nationalists.

  133. @Lot
    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    We nearly had our first one in the USA when a murderous Muslim went to the Texas event intent on killing Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, who lives under 24/7 guard in his homeland.

    We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.

    The death of Pam Geller would not seem to be a loss.

  134. I meant to add, “Please cite.”

  135. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur
    Even if some people find him annoying, Richard Dawkins is a major genius. Only an incredibly stupid society would not want to hear what Richard Dawkins has to say.

    The rules are constantly changing, but I assume he'll avoid James Watson's fate. Noting that there are differences in average group IQs is way more dangerous to a career than calling Islam evil (so long as you don't end up like the tragic Theo Van Gogh).

    He reminds me of the vegetarian activist who likes ice cream so she is on a no-kill-dairy kick.

    If dairy cows were not butchered when their milk producing days were over and if steers were not eaten, but allowed to live out their natural lives, ice cream would be more expensive than Beluga caviar.

    Getting milk from cows requires they be impregnated and deliver a calf regularly, and half the calves are male. Except for the tiny percentage kept as breeding bulls, they have no use but for meat, and they eat-a lot.

  136. @Cortes
    For all his public comments those of us who have a memory know about that time when Dawkins had Jesus in his heart:

    https://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/viz-comic-to-win-science-writing-award.html
  137. @NOTA
    Dawkins took a public stand in favor of Watson when he was being Watsoned.

    I’m glad Dawkins said something in defense of Watson. But I find his passion for free speech for those he disagrees with rather weak and too late.

    Perfunctory.

    His passion comes alive when he’s demonizing what he calls American “thickos”.

    • Replies: @Lurker

    His passion comes alive when he’s demonizing what he calls American “thickos”.
     
    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can't point to the US on a world map etc. But what they absolutely don't want to hear is anything about just who those American "thickos" might be (per capita) in racial terms. When it comes to American “thickos”, all they can visualise is white people.
  138. The “soft Islamism” taking over the center-left, not just in the US but Europe as well, is a headscratcher. It’s a position that instantly creates cleavages in your own coalition (in this case, with atheists and freethinkers, but probably many more to come) with little benefit. Obviously it runs completely counter to liberal treatment of other religions. I ascribe it, at minimum, to the unthinking equivocation of Islam and race and liberal racial insanity (note how often anti-Islamic sentiment is called “racist”). I wouldn’t be surprised though if there’s something more there, like Gulf money, perhaps. Hillary got a lot of campaign contributions from men named “Mohammed,” if you look at the donor lists.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    this is my problem with Americans, including the ones in Congress for fracks sake - the ones that are humping the money that bought them; Islam does not get a hall pass: Islam is just like any, and, all, crazy-ass religious stuff (generous; btw) we seem to be forced fed. I really loathe Democrats and I want them gone....such liars and losers.
    , @Anon
    What "other religions"? The Left is against Christianity, pure and simple.
    , @sabril

    The “soft Islamism” taking over the center-left, not just in the US but Europe as well, is a headscratcher. It’s a position that instantly creates cleavages in your own coalition
     
    I think the problem lies in thinking of the Left as an entity with interests and goals at the entity level. It's analogous to thinking of an entire species as an entity.

    As Dawkins himself would point out, the way to understand animal behavior is to look at things on the level of the individual gene.

    Analogously, the way to understand the Left's behavior is to keep in mind that the Left is comprised of numerous individuals, each of whom is trying to maximize his own wealth, power, and status even if it is to the detriment of society as a whole or the Left as a whole.

    From this perspective, the Left's embrace of Islam makes complete sense. Because it is advantageous to do so at an individual level.
  139. @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    Statistics isn’t your strong suit, is it?

  140. @Thomas
    The "soft Islamism" taking over the center-left, not just in the US but Europe as well, is a headscratcher. It's a position that instantly creates cleavages in your own coalition (in this case, with atheists and freethinkers, but probably many more to come) with little benefit. Obviously it runs completely counter to liberal treatment of other religions. I ascribe it, at minimum, to the unthinking equivocation of Islam and race and liberal racial insanity (note how often anti-Islamic sentiment is called "racist"). I wouldn't be surprised though if there's something more there, like Gulf money, perhaps. Hillary got a lot of campaign contributions from men named "Mohammed," if you look at the donor lists.

    this is my problem with Americans, including the ones in Congress for fracks sake – the ones that are humping the money that bought them; Islam does not get a hall pass: Islam is just like any, and, all, crazy-ass religious stuff (generous; btw) we seem to be forced fed. I really loathe Democrats and I want them gone….such liars and losers.

  141. Richard “Intellectual” Dawkins, they moved the goalposts on you: “…la révolution dévore ses enfants.”

  142. @Thomas
    The "soft Islamism" taking over the center-left, not just in the US but Europe as well, is a headscratcher. It's a position that instantly creates cleavages in your own coalition (in this case, with atheists and freethinkers, but probably many more to come) with little benefit. Obviously it runs completely counter to liberal treatment of other religions. I ascribe it, at minimum, to the unthinking equivocation of Islam and race and liberal racial insanity (note how often anti-Islamic sentiment is called "racist"). I wouldn't be surprised though if there's something more there, like Gulf money, perhaps. Hillary got a lot of campaign contributions from men named "Mohammed," if you look at the donor lists.

    What “other religions”? The Left is against Christianity, pure and simple.

  143. @Anonymous
    Western Christianity was once a noble, ruthless and powerful religion, of great virtue in the Roman sense.

    Islam was never that good, but as compared to Christianity today it is far better at keeping the unruly in line.

    As crappy as we think most Muslim countries are, I suspect that any country in which Islam dominates would be worse off under any other religion or no religion at all. Islam does have certain prohibitions, certain standards and it enforces them.

    Pakistan for example would be absolutely lawless outside its biggest cities.

    Probably true. I’m sure that in Muslim countries bands of men don’t go around abusing women on the street. Uncivilized people need tougher laws and penalties. You don’t need any laws at all to get Swiss to put their litter in trash cans. But you’d need a draconian regime to get African Americans to abstain from littering.

    Yet another thing that separate countries are for.

  144. @RobertTaylor
    Richard Dawkins was a science popularizer. And that is of great value. But yes, it was WD Hamilton who made the discoveries.

    Richard Dawkins doesn't DO science. He talks about it.

    Although it is interesting to me that he claims we don't have to follow Darwinian rules anymore, we can embrace his Leftist ideology without any problems. That doesn't strike me as scientific at all.

    I’m not sure that’s fair to Dawkins, who has never hidden his debt to Hamilton. But what about the “extended phenotype” concept? Is that Dawkins’?

    • Replies: @RobertTaylor
    Yes, I am not able to judge how important the extended phenotype concept is. And he did write a book about it.

    And he also coined the term "memes".
    , @NOTA
    Dawkins has a pretty reasonable-looking publication list up through the 80s (it's not my field, so I won't read but I can count), where he transitioned to more public communications and big-picture stuff than science.

    I think he coined the term "meme" and "extended phenotype," both useful concepts (though meme means something rather different now).
  145. @larry lurker
    Sam Harris just had Douglas Murray on his podcast for the second time. He was invited on to discuss his "wonderful" book, The Strange Death of Europe. They spend several minutes talking about Rotherham and related scandals, which many of Sam's listeners will be hearing about for the first time (someone made a clip of just that bit here).

    These are not the actions of a proponent of "mass third world immigration," whatever his views were in the past.

    Yet both of them condemned the British National Party.

    Which means they aren’t serious. They intend to moan about what is happening to the UK and Europe, while attacking anyone who truly tries to address the problem as unacceptable.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think we are living in a time when it is more important to embrace anyone who is willing to chastise the orthodoxy of our enemies than it is to certify the orthodoxy of our allies.
  146. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not sure that's fair to Dawkins, who has never hidden his debt to Hamilton. But what about the "extended phenotype" concept? Is that Dawkins'?

    Yes, I am not able to judge how important the extended phenotype concept is. And he did write a book about it.

    And he also coined the term “memes”.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    I have yet to understand meme to be anything but a silly, made-up word that is no more than an extraneous synonym for idea.

    I'm happy to be disabused by any reader here, if it be possible.
    , @ben tillman
    The "extended phenotype" concept is as important as it gets.
  147. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Whiskey
    But Dahlia the Left has won, decisively, and massively.

    California is a deep blue state that no Republican, and soon no White, will ever win. It is defacto part of Mexico now.

    Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Washington, and Oregon are following, with dirt-poor New Mexico taking up the irrelevant rear.

    Whites are a minority in our own country. Non-White babies make up the majority as they have for years and that plus the anti-White hatred by the Germanic Northern group -- true believers in Puritan style post-Christianity and HATE HATE HATE of Beta White males by their women and cuckery placating by their men equals White minority in pretty much most nations save Eastern Europe.

    They've already won and are just fighting over the spoils. The trick for BadWhites is not to win, that is not possible and has not been possible since Reagan's 1985 Amnesty. Rather, it is to SURVIVE. Survival by being as feared and as dangerous as possible while avoiding the clampdown by eschewing things that the GoodWhites will use an excuse: no Eric Rudolphs and let a hundred Alinsksy bloom.

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and "community centers" of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and “community centers” of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.

    This is the KKK you’re describing. That’s never coming back.

    • Agree: Thea
    • Replies: @BB753
    That's any gang, black, brown or black in action. It never went away. Just shoot down any random Somali woman and wait till a gang of Somalis comes round to visit you.
    , @AM

    This is the KKK you’re describing. That’s never coming back.
     
    Why? What makes you so sure? If you ever got to the point where you felt there was no one to call to enforce laws or punish a crime, would you join an organized vigilante group? I don't quite understand why historical concepts could "never" come back, if the conditions replicated.
    , @Lot
    It will happen eventually and it won't be branded KKK.
  148. @dr kill
    You should have talked her out of med school.

    There’s a lot of PC crap in med school these days but fortunately they can’t stop teaching the science bit, so you have to hope* life will slowly corrode away the PC stuff and leave the gold behind.

    * although reading the British Medical Journal and Nursing Times, that may be a forlorn hope.

  149. @Bill Jones
    Randolph Churchill, Winston's dad, had only a Bible to read in WWI's trenches. He famously, and probably apocryphally obseved "God is such a shit"

    Lord Randolph Churchill, Winston’s dad, died in 1886. Randolph Churchill, Winston’s son, served as an officer in WWII but not in any trenches.

  150. @lavoisier
    I would agree with that. The idea of the selfish gene was not invented by Dawkins, but he elaborated on that idea in such a way that certain predictions could be made and tested.

    Kin selection by Hamilton may well have been the impetus for the idea of the selfish gene, but Dawkins took the idea to a higher level and made important predictions about culture and society in general that derive from that idea.

    I suspect the idea of the selfish gene would also go a long way to explaining the paradox of cancer--one's own cells destroying the host.

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea--including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea–including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.

    Here is a more interesting thought – the genetic development of the ability to have culture and how the increasing ability to form culture is a way of placing selective stresses on the group, thereby speeding up selection/evolution.

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.

    There is a reason why menopause only occurs in a very few species.

    • Replies: @AM

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.
     
    This is a throw away statement requiring a lot of evidence before it can be the assumption that it clearly is.
    , @lavoisier
    Interesting idea that may be testable.

    SNP frequency in modern man versus similar results in medieval man.

    I think you are probably right.

    And I think your theory may explain higher average IQ in Ashkenazi.
  151. @Anonymous

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and “community centers” of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.
     
    This is the KKK you're describing. That's never coming back.

    That’s any gang, black, brown or black in action. It never went away. Just shoot down any random Somali woman and wait till a gang of Somalis comes round to visit you.

  152. @Dieter Kief
    It might just show, how alienated quite a few intellectuals have become.

    Ahh -I forsee the counterarguments: But alienation, in't this a Marxist (=anti-religious) term?
    No, it's not actually. As far as I know, and I do know some of this stuff, alienation - the concept a n d the word, did show up for the first time in the early 14th century. Alienation is a term, that's been made up, literally (you could also say discovered, even though this expression 'd be a tad misleading, here, but for the sake of the argument: Say discovered, if you want to) - ehe - alienation, the term and the thought might well have been invented (=created) by a monk.

    This monk was one of the most literate persons, who ever wrote German. His name is Heinrich Seuse. He was a pupil of Meister Eckhart. No ?European universities without such scholars.

    PS

    It's one of the most common mistakes ever, to think, that people in earlier centuries were less intelligent, than we are now. Master historian and middle ages expert Arno Borst (some of his books are available in English, too - highly recommended reading) never got tired, to explain this thought especially to those (not yet) educated.

    it’s been argued that the ancients were significantly SMARTER than us: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc63/c5e0bb322baa850f362b38be6c7835a483ce.pdf

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    What's interesting is, that Crabtree doesn't make the usual error, thinking (assuming) that we are a lot smarter than those before us, because, you know, we know so much more than they do...

    His mistrust in the biological path we're all on seems a bit curious, though.

    If I leave all else aside and walk into the replica of the Chauvet-cave, I feel very close to those living in the ice age.

    And if I read - Aristotle, say, I have the feeling of a contemporary. Even more so in the case of Petronius or Augustine.

    Crabtree's interpretation of Diamonds writings is a bit off. Diamond looks at the spectrum of abilities of nowadays' hunter and gatherer and concludes, that in the long run, they might survive, and we might not. He does not really trust civilization.
    (He does not speak about intelligence of the hunter and gatherer at all in this context, if I remember right).

  153. Orwell wrote that the Left wants to be anti-facist without being anti-totalitarian.

    Now it wants to be anti-religion without being anti-Islam.

    • Replies: @AM

    Now it wants to be anti-religion without being anti-Islam.
     
    The left is anti-religion because it is anti-West. Those intent on tearing down the patriarchy, which is the actual safe space for white women and children, have zero use for Christianity.

    That's why, in the long run, militant atheists like Dawkins, feminists (female version of atheism), and Muslims are on the same side. Dawkins, however, being sincere in simply hating religion (although there's always a "special" animosity for Christianity) and keeps messing up whose side he's supposed to be.
  154. @NickG
    Dawkins does seem to have a rather undemocratic authoritarian bent Here is on a recent short diatribe of his on Brexit.

    Given that there was no 2/3rd vote when the UK handed over judicial control of the country to the European Court and ceded the supremacy of Parliament to to an unelected EU Commission with the signing of the Maastricht treaty back in 1992. That the 2016 Brexit vote was the second refurrendum after the 1975 vote that confirmed our entry into what was then the EEC - European Economic Community - a mere free trade block, something Dawkins MUST know; in the context of Dawkins' authoritarianism, this de-platforming comes over as a tad ironic.

    Dawkins is a clever chap and a great writer on Biology, but on politics he is a textbook example of what Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes as an IYI - Intellectual Yet Idiot.

    Send him back to Africa.

  155. @MBlanc46
    How nobly nonpartisan you are.

    Sorry, I have been overdosing Jordan B Peterson lately and his stuff on the gulags and Hitler is amazing.

    Short summary, no ideologies justify butchering people.

  156. @Anonymous
    Western Christianity was once a noble, ruthless and powerful religion, of great virtue in the Roman sense.

    Islam was never that good, but as compared to Christianity today it is far better at keeping the unruly in line.

    As crappy as we think most Muslim countries are, I suspect that any country in which Islam dominates would be worse off under any other religion or no religion at all. Islam does have certain prohibitions, certain standards and it enforces them.

    Pakistan for example would be absolutely lawless outside its biggest cities.

    Islamic “rule” is pretty much what the whole country being run by Warren Jeffs and the FLDS would be like.
    It’s a woman-hoarding and tax-dependent welfare scam for a few psychopathic old men, mostly blood-relatives.

  157. @RobertTaylor
    Yes, I am not able to judge how important the extended phenotype concept is. And he did write a book about it.

    And he also coined the term "memes".

    I have yet to understand meme to be anything but a silly, made-up word that is no more than an extraneous synonym for idea.

    I’m happy to be disabused by any reader here, if it be possible.

    • Replies: @res
    Your description is all too apt, but I think there is a meaning that goes beyond that.

    This seems like a decent start from the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

    Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts.
     
    I think "meme" is useful as a way of talking about the spread of ideas.
  158. @AM

    But you’ve got to admit that the central thesis of ‘The Selfish Gene’ – even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks – is a real game changer.
     
    For what? To justify the headlong run into moral relativism and Humans Are The Bestest?

    Dakwins (and others) has made himself famous telling people what it is they want to hear. They don't want to hear that sacrifice in humans involves rising above their biology.

    Dakwins (and others) has made himself famous telling people what it is they want to hear. They don’t want to hear that sacrifice in humans involves rising above their biology.

    Au contraire, mon ami, I think Dawkins has said numerous times that humans can and must rise above their biology.

    When asked if Darwinism informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, “in one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That’s never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don’t allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life,” implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the consciousness of self.

    [Wikipedia]

    • Replies: @AM

    Au contraire, mon ami, I think Dawkins has said numerous times that humans can and must rise above their biology.
     
    If religion is stupid, by what means and what motivation do I have to rise above my biology? Dawkin's awe at being alive is not helpful when a child dies, or I'm struggling with addiction, or I need to let go of a grudge.
  159. @AndrewR
    First they came for the ornery atheists, and I did not speak out, for I was not an ornery atheist...

    Sorry, but I’m not changing my mind.

    Think of it as triage….or just natural selection…..his genes didn’t pass the test.

  160. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE US

    1789: Freedom of speech must not be infringed

    1960s Freedom of speech must not be infringed, even if it is obscenely abusive

    1990s Freedom of speech must not be infringed, unless it hurts anyone*

    2017: Freedom of speech must not be infringed, unless it can even remotely be perceived as the slightest microaggression towards any minority, in which case you will be destroyed**; preferably, speech will be obscenely abusive towards white men.

    ————————–

    *-Well, it cannot be malicious towards minorities, but we’ll give you a pass if it’s towards white guys.

    **Unless you, the offending speaker, are a minority with greater Intersectional Pokemon points than the intended target, in which case you are off the hook with no more than a slap on the wrist at best.

  161. @Jonathan Mason

    But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great.
     
    I would he agree that perhaps he has no earth-shattering scientific discovery in his own name, but what he did in The Selfish Gene was to explain ideas developed by other researchers in such a way as to make obscure probability calculations interesting and accessible to lay readers, meaning that millions of people, certainly including myself, have had their whole understanding of the meaning of life subtly altered.

    He also invented the word 'meme' which is a useful concept.

    He has also shown courage in publicly opposing religious fundamentalism, when most public intellectuals would rather sidestep the issue. Whether this is wise of him is a moot point.

    It is often the case that the people who popularize important new ideas get a lion's share of the credit, for example Steve Jobs really didn't invent the touch screen phone, but he saw the possibilities in commercializing technologies invented by others and was able to execute.

    Educating the general public about science seems to me like a worthwhile thing to devote one's life to, which is what Dawkins has done.

    Yes. I read his books as a kid, and got a good basic grasp of evolution from them–far better than I got from my high school biology class! (The teacher was probably trying to avoid trouble with parents–I dont think he mentioned the word evolution anywhere in the class.)

  162. @Steve Sailer
    I'm not sure that's fair to Dawkins, who has never hidden his debt to Hamilton. But what about the "extended phenotype" concept? Is that Dawkins'?

    Dawkins has a pretty reasonable-looking publication list up through the 80s (it’s not my field, so I won’t read but I can count), where he transitioned to more public communications and big-picture stuff than science.

    I think he coined the term “meme” and “extended phenotype,” both useful concepts (though meme means something rather different now).

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    And he married Lalla Ward, one of Dr Who's sidekicks in the days when a Dr Who companion was female and easy on the eye. Not watched it for decades so don't know if the rule still applies.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/gallery/ward/index.html

    , @guest
    "though meme means something rather different now"

    To most people meme means "internet joke," which is infinitely more useful than Dawkins' concept. He absurdly and pathetically tried to gobble up all of human culture (i.e. whatever we do that's not instinct, and maybe also not habit; I'm not sure) under Darwinism. You can't just come up with a word that sounds like "gene," arbitrarily cut up culture into units, then pretend you can measure their "mutations," and be doing science.

    It was perhaps the silliest "scientific" discovery ever not to be immediately recognized as crackpottery.
  163. In a discussion of no-platofrming, it’s a strategic mistake to start trying to decide whether this guy has said the rigth things or is on the right side–that is exactly the argument the SJW types want to have. The issue that matters is that the suppression of speech and ideas for offending someone is a really bad idea.

  164. I’m particularly impressed with this distinction:

    “While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech.”

    I think we can all guess what falls under “serious” free speech (anything anti-Trump, climate alarmism, feminist criticism of everything) and “abusive” speech (saying anything feminist leftists don’t like).

    The use of the word “abusive” is clever because it combines two different, but related, clichéd uses of the word: criticizing the ruling leftist regime is 1) abusing the privilege of free speech (a cliché) and 2) is also abusive, like a drunk husband beating his wife (a feminist cliché, the hidden sting).

    You abusive speakers know who you are.

  165. @NOTA
    Dawkins has a pretty reasonable-looking publication list up through the 80s (it's not my field, so I won't read but I can count), where he transitioned to more public communications and big-picture stuff than science.

    I think he coined the term "meme" and "extended phenotype," both useful concepts (though meme means something rather different now).

    And he married Lalla Ward, one of Dr Who’s sidekicks in the days when a Dr Who companion was female and easy on the eye. Not watched it for decades so don’t know if the rule still applies.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/gallery/ward/index.html

  166. @Thomas
    The "soft Islamism" taking over the center-left, not just in the US but Europe as well, is a headscratcher. It's a position that instantly creates cleavages in your own coalition (in this case, with atheists and freethinkers, but probably many more to come) with little benefit. Obviously it runs completely counter to liberal treatment of other religions. I ascribe it, at minimum, to the unthinking equivocation of Islam and race and liberal racial insanity (note how often anti-Islamic sentiment is called "racist"). I wouldn't be surprised though if there's something more there, like Gulf money, perhaps. Hillary got a lot of campaign contributions from men named "Mohammed," if you look at the donor lists.

    The “soft Islamism” taking over the center-left, not just in the US but Europe as well, is a headscratcher. It’s a position that instantly creates cleavages in your own coalition

    I think the problem lies in thinking of the Left as an entity with interests and goals at the entity level. It’s analogous to thinking of an entire species as an entity.

    As Dawkins himself would point out, the way to understand animal behavior is to look at things on the level of the individual gene.

    Analogously, the way to understand the Left’s behavior is to keep in mind that the Left is comprised of numerous individuals, each of whom is trying to maximize his own wealth, power, and status even if it is to the detriment of society as a whole or the Left as a whole.

    From this perspective, the Left’s embrace of Islam makes complete sense. Because it is advantageous to do so at an individual level.

  167. I wonder is Islam and Muslims can be deplatformed for saying insensitive things about Christianity and Western Civilization. Ref: The Quran and our long and deadly experience with the religion and its aspirants.

    I mean fair is fair, right?

  168. @RobertTaylor
    I'm glad Dawkins said something in defense of Watson. But I find his passion for free speech for those he disagrees with rather weak and too late.

    Perfunctory.

    His passion comes alive when he's demonizing what he calls American "thickos".

    His passion comes alive when he’s demonizing what he calls American “thickos”.

    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can’t point to the US on a world map etc. But what they absolutely don’t want to hear is anything about just who those American “thickos” might be (per capita) in racial terms. When it comes to American “thickos”, all they can visualise is white people.

    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Same thing among Hungarians. Unfortunately, among both bad- and goodwhite Hungarians.
    , @Captain Tripps

    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can’t point to the US on a world map etc.
     
    Agree. They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn't tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help). Every culture/ethny has their own very large set of ignorant/uninformed, but the elite point outside the culture to deflect criticism of their own bad stewardship. This phenomenon is not unique to the British; I encountered it among every country I visited while in Europe; they all love to point to the "Ugly Ignorant American" stereotype while ignoring the violent/ignorant underclass of their own nations.
  169. AM says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Orwell wrote that the Left wants to be anti-facist without being anti-totalitarian.

    Now it wants to be anti-religion without being anti-Islam.

    Now it wants to be anti-religion without being anti-Islam.

    The left is anti-religion because it is anti-West. Those intent on tearing down the patriarchy, which is the actual safe space for white women and children, have zero use for Christianity.

    That’s why, in the long run, militant atheists like Dawkins, feminists (female version of atheism), and Muslims are on the same side. Dawkins, however, being sincere in simply hating religion (although there’s always a “special” animosity for Christianity) and keeps messing up whose side he’s supposed to be.

  170. AM says:
    @Anonymous

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and “community centers” of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.
     
    This is the KKK you're describing. That's never coming back.

    This is the KKK you’re describing. That’s never coming back.

    Why? What makes you so sure? If you ever got to the point where you felt there was no one to call to enforce laws or punish a crime, would you join an organized vigilante group? I don’t quite understand why historical concepts could “never” come back, if the conditions replicated.

  171. @Lurker

    His passion comes alive when he’s demonizing what he calls American “thickos”.
     
    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can't point to the US on a world map etc. But what they absolutely don't want to hear is anything about just who those American "thickos" might be (per capita) in racial terms. When it comes to American “thickos”, all they can visualise is white people.

    Same thing among Hungarians. Unfortunately, among both bad- and goodwhite Hungarians.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    I suspect the same applies among US goodwhites as well.
  172. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @jim jones
    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html

    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you’re younger and more impressionable.

    But it’s worth noting that people who walk blindly into trouble tend to be dumb. Since IQ is inherited, dumb people are more likely to have dumb parents whose stupid life decisions had a traumatic impact on their kids.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you’re younger and more impressionable.
     
    The single biggest driver of religious sentiment must be bereavement. The desire to believe that death is not final is very powerful.
    , @AM

    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you’re younger and more impressionable..
     
    You don't want to have a discussion about atheism, rates of depression, suicide and drug use, poor health, and overall lousy life.

    Anyone looking at the correlated statistics of religious belief would take a serious look at what it takes to honestly believe over a sustained period of time, given the overall average health and mental benefits. Heck, anyone interested in bumping up fertility rates would look there too.

    But you're right, religious belief is like for total losers. The atheists are smarter more because they've told us so. :)

  173. @David
    When E O Wilson was asked what he thought about Dawkins' criticism of Social Conquest of Earth he said something like, "Dawkins doesn't do peer reviewed science so I simply thank him for his interest."

    I stopped paying attention to Dawkins when he asserted that E.O. Wilson doesn’t understand evolution. Disagreeing with Wilson is one thing, but to imply on multiple occasions that he is ignorant and stupid reveals merely the limits of Dawkins’ own personality.
    Dawkins has gone after such serious evolutionary theorists as Brian Goodwin and Lynn Margulis with personal attacks, and generally trashed the reputation of anyone who doesn’t unquestioningly accept a gene-centric, reductionist view of evolution.
    In some cases, he’s just being a bully, as with his brutalizing of the mild-mannered eccentric Rupert Sheldrake, but in other cases, such as his attacks on cognitive ethology, a field in which his ex-wife, Marian Stamp Dawkins, is a leading expert, his malice seems personal.

  174. @PhysicistDave
    Reginald Maplethorp wrote:

    Even as a scientist and atheist, I find Dawkins pretty annoying.

    When I saw him speak in 2006, a large fraction of the crowd was made up of devout Christians. They were mostly young, friendly, and interested in seeing what he had to say (and respectful considering his stance on religion).
     
    Yes, but Dawkins actually cares about Christians as people and he actually takes Christianity seriously. He thinks it actually matters whether or not traditional Christian doctrines are true. He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament, partly because he thinks such knowledge leads to disbelief, but also because of the enormous impact of Christianity on Western history and culture. He thinks that seriously following Christian doctrines is harmful to Christians, especially to children, and he cares about that.

    On all of those questions, Dawkins may come to opposite conclusions to traditional Christians, but he generally agrees with them as to what the important questions are.

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

    He is a man of the West.

    Which is why I much prefer to live in a country in which Dawkins' books are well-known and widely read, just as I much prefer to live in a country where C. S. Lewis' and G. K. Chesterton's books are well-known and widely read. At least, the traditional West argues about things that matter.

    I.e., better England or America (at least for now) than Saudi Arabia or Chad.

    Dave

    Dawkins is not an atheist, but a Christian atheist. The point of being a Christian atheist is to be better than Christian theists in a Christian-derived society. But he takes his principles too seriously to endorse the coalition of Christian atheists with the Religion of Peace, so he must be purged.

  175. @Anonymous

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and “community centers” of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.
     
    This is the KKK you're describing. That's never coming back.

    It will happen eventually and it won’t be branded KKK.

  176. @dearieme
    "He has publicly stated that both Brits and Americans should learn more about the New Testament ..." and I agree. My knowledge of the Bible is pretty weak, but it turns out to be rather better than that of some Christians. I don't see the point of following a Religion of the Book if you don't read the bloody book.

    The people of the Book are the Jews. The Christians are the people of the Person–Jesus, who is the Christ. The Catholics and Orthodox view the Church as the Body of Christ, which explains their focus is more on the magisterium and less on the writing per se. Other various and sundry Protestants look to Scripture because of what that heretic Luther said.

  177. @Lot
    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    We nearly had our first one in the USA when a murderous Muslim went to the Texas event intent on killing Pam Geller and Geert Wilders, who lives under 24/7 guard in his homeland.

    We would probably have many more if our national security state did not spend 50 billion or more monitoring our local Muslims.

    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.

    No, discussing race and IQ just destroys your career even if you’re one of the most important people of the century (James Watson). It’s almost a guarantee. Insulting Islam might hurt your career and might even get you killed, but overall I’d take my chances with the latter than a certainty of ruin.

    For example, if Tim Cook said tomorrow that the reason why Apple doesn’t have that many blacks in high-level positions is that, on average, they aren’t as intelligent, he would have to resign the next day even though what he said was undeniably accurate. His life’s work over because of one true comment. A comment that needs to be said in the context of high-tech workers and “civil rights” coercion, but it can’t be. If he said Islam was evil (an opinion), he would get a lot of flak, but his career would probably survive if he handled it correctly. The likelihood of getting killed would be maybe 1 in 1000, somewhat worrisome, but not that serious.

    Unlike many here, I think one has to be mindful of historic racism and should be, all things being equal, more careful and compassionate about making racial comments.

    • Replies: @AM

    Unlike many here, I think one has to be mindful of historic racism and should be, all things being equal, more careful and compassionate about making racial comments.
     
    You, personally, benefit from the average white person being uber sensitivity about racial comments, correct? Maybe there's a conflict of interest there.

    Meanwhile, I get the short end of the stick. Spent well over a decade of my life walking on eggshells around people, to make sure I was a "nice" person. I threw in the towel when I realized doing so meant, I didn't have a cultural or heritage I was preserving. I won't wander into racial slurs, but I'm done with "cultural sensitivity" unless forced.

    Merry Christmas in July by the way. ;)
  178. @NOTA
    Dawkins has a pretty reasonable-looking publication list up through the 80s (it's not my field, so I won't read but I can count), where he transitioned to more public communications and big-picture stuff than science.

    I think he coined the term "meme" and "extended phenotype," both useful concepts (though meme means something rather different now).

    “though meme means something rather different now”

    To most people meme means “internet joke,” which is infinitely more useful than Dawkins’ concept. He absurdly and pathetically tried to gobble up all of human culture (i.e. whatever we do that’s not instinct, and maybe also not habit; I’m not sure) under Darwinism. You can’t just come up with a word that sounds like “gene,” arbitrarily cut up culture into units, then pretend you can measure their “mutations,” and be doing science.

    It was perhaps the silliest “scientific” discovery ever not to be immediately recognized as crackpottery.

    • Replies: @Judah Benjamin Hur
    A lot of brilliant ideas, examples include some by Dawkins, Freud, and ancient religious writers, are really useful and/or insightful so long as one doesn't take them too literally (even if the authors do). The problem is that fans and followers usually take the extreme route.
  179. @guest
    "though meme means something rather different now"

    To most people meme means "internet joke," which is infinitely more useful than Dawkins' concept. He absurdly and pathetically tried to gobble up all of human culture (i.e. whatever we do that's not instinct, and maybe also not habit; I'm not sure) under Darwinism. You can't just come up with a word that sounds like "gene," arbitrarily cut up culture into units, then pretend you can measure their "mutations," and be doing science.

    It was perhaps the silliest "scientific" discovery ever not to be immediately recognized as crackpottery.

    A lot of brilliant ideas, examples include some by Dawkins, Freud, and ancient religious writers, are really useful and/or insightful so long as one doesn’t take them too literally (even if the authors do). The problem is that fans and followers usually take the extreme route.

    • Replies: @guest
    I agree with that, and Dawkins is a great popularizer of gene-centric neo-Darwinism. If you lightly poke the theories he at least pretends to propound in his more popular books, they immediately fall apart. Because they're frankly ridiculous. But they are tasty if you swish then around in your mouth without swallowing them. And he is the most important man on earth for putting across the Genes Uber Alles view of evolution.

    Freud is more ridiculous, and I wouldn't be surprised if all his brilliant ideas were cribbed. I've long gone along with Wittgenstein in considering him a mythologist* or storyteller instead of the Copernicus of the Mind, as popular culture has him.

    Dawkins is not so bad as Freud. He didn't kick off a quack medical field; he hasn't tricked people into thinking he's a scientist; he didn't ruin criminology, child-rearing, vast swathes of literature, and relations between the sexes. He's just a masterful pop-science writer you can't take too seriously.

    *That reminds me of a Nabokov quote I post only for the lulz: "Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts."

  180. @Anon
    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you're younger and more impressionable.

    But it's worth noting that people who walk blindly into trouble tend to be dumb. Since IQ is inherited, dumb people are more likely to have dumb parents whose stupid life decisions had a traumatic impact on their kids.

    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you’re younger and more impressionable.

    The single biggest driver of religious sentiment must be bereavement. The desire to believe that death is not final is very powerful.

  181. @Jonathan Mason

    But if you have a one paragraph on why Dawkins is a major genius that would be great.
     
    I would he agree that perhaps he has no earth-shattering scientific discovery in his own name, but what he did in The Selfish Gene was to explain ideas developed by other researchers in such a way as to make obscure probability calculations interesting and accessible to lay readers, meaning that millions of people, certainly including myself, have had their whole understanding of the meaning of life subtly altered.

    He also invented the word 'meme' which is a useful concept.

    He has also shown courage in publicly opposing religious fundamentalism, when most public intellectuals would rather sidestep the issue. Whether this is wise of him is a moot point.

    It is often the case that the people who popularize important new ideas get a lion's share of the credit, for example Steve Jobs really didn't invent the touch screen phone, but he saw the possibilities in commercializing technologies invented by others and was able to execute.

    Educating the general public about science seems to me like a worthwhile thing to devote one's life to, which is what Dawkins has done.

    He has also shown courage in publicly opposing religious fundamentalism, when most public intellectuals would rather sidestep the issue. Whether this is wise of him is a moot point.

    You cannot be serious. Scornfully insulting – nevermind civilly opposing – religion is not only accepted, but demanded of public persons on pain of ignominy and lost careers, and it has been for at least twenty years (arguably for much longer). Politicians in what used to be the U.S.A. represent a partial exception: they are permitted and in some contexts encouraged to continue a feigned religious mein, so long as it conforms to the requirement that it not interfere in new True Religion of multicultural, vibrantly diverse perversion, sodomy, miscegenation, etc.

  182. @Whiskey
    But Dahlia the Left has won, decisively, and massively.

    California is a deep blue state that no Republican, and soon no White, will ever win. It is defacto part of Mexico now.

    Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Washington, and Oregon are following, with dirt-poor New Mexico taking up the irrelevant rear.

    Whites are a minority in our own country. Non-White babies make up the majority as they have for years and that plus the anti-White hatred by the Germanic Northern group -- true believers in Puritan style post-Christianity and HATE HATE HATE of Beta White males by their women and cuckery placating by their men equals White minority in pretty much most nations save Eastern Europe.

    They've already won and are just fighting over the spoils. The trick for BadWhites is not to win, that is not possible and has not been possible since Reagan's 1985 Amnesty. Rather, it is to SURVIVE. Survival by being as feared and as dangerous as possible while avoiding the clampdown by eschewing things that the GoodWhites will use an excuse: no Eric Rudolphs and let a hundred Alinsksy bloom.

    This means things like a biker gang descending upon the homes, workplaces (if any work) and "community centers" of the Noor clan and particularly the killer of the Nice White Australian lady to demonstrate power and intimidation. The way Orangemen make it a special effort to demonstrate control in Northern Ireland by parading through Catholic neighborhoods.

    But Dahlia the Left has won, decisively, and massively.

    Get a grip. Your doomsaying is contradicted by the facts on the ground. You were absolutely certain that Brexit and Trump were impossible.

    The tide has turned; but your pessimism means that you must suffer a needless and early death from despair.

  183. @Rod1963

    In that respect, Dawkins is in fact much closer to traditional Christians than to whatever-narrative-works-for-you post-modernists.

     

    No he's not. He's just another one of C.S. Lewis's "men without chests" and a threat to whats left of the culture that gave birth to men like Lewis, Chesterton and Tolkein.

    He despises people who believe in religion, he doesn't care at all about them. He sees atheists as superior humans - he calls them "Brites" or some such bullshit. While believers are viewed as dull witted losers.

    Yet he has the nerve to ask Christians to defend the West and he still wants open borders. This is not a man who cares about Western Civilization and it's people.

    As far I'm concerned Dawkins is what's wrong with modernity. It churns out lopsided men like him who are intellectually dishonest as can be. That hate the culture in which they came to agie in and do their best to tear it down like a pack of Visigoths.

    And the thing I don't get. Christianity is dying in Western Europe. It bothers no one except bigoted fanatics like Dawkins, Maher and Harris. To me these men are just so bitter and mean they really need something hate in order to function.

    His side won and he doesn't see it. Of course they won a graveyard for themselves and ideas in the process.





    Maybe the jerk ought to address all the mass murders done in the last century by avowed Marxist atheists. He won't, he won't address the fact since Europe abandoned it's culture to a large extent(which includes Christianity) is dying. Atheists don't tend to procreate if the white, college educated Left in the U.S. is any example.









    This guy rabidly hates Christianity.



    He's a vulture living off the carcass of the dying West.

    Rod, I totally agree, except for the dying West. We are not dead yet, and there is no reason to believe current circumstances are permanent.

    • Replies: @AM

    Rod, I totally agree, except for the dying West. We are not dead yet, and there is no reason to believe current circumstances are permanent.
     
    To be totally downer, I think the current circumstances are going to get worse for while.

    But then, I think, they will get better. It just has to get bad enough to shake people out of their comfortable indifference.
  184. Let me go out on a limb and speculate that KPFA is run by a bunch of cowards who are afraid that the poor offended Muslims might come and kill them for their insolence in opposing their child-abusing alleged prophet.
    Eventually, the free-thinkers of the New Atheism will have to admit that the Alt Right is correct about immigration.

  185. AM says:
    @Judah Benjamin Hur

    There are many more intellectuals who have been murdered for insulting Islam than Van Gogh. I am not aware of any who have been for talking about race and IQ.
     
    No, discussing race and IQ just destroys your career even if you're one of the most important people of the century (James Watson). It's almost a guarantee. Insulting Islam might hurt your career and might even get you killed, but overall I'd take my chances with the latter than a certainty of ruin.

    For example, if Tim Cook said tomorrow that the reason why Apple doesn't have that many blacks in high-level positions is that, on average, they aren't as intelligent, he would have to resign the next day even though what he said was undeniably accurate. His life's work over because of one true comment. A comment that needs to be said in the context of high-tech workers and "civil rights" coercion, but it can't be. If he said Islam was evil (an opinion), he would get a lot of flak, but his career would probably survive if he handled it correctly. The likelihood of getting killed would be maybe 1 in 1000, somewhat worrisome, but not that serious.

    Unlike many here, I think one has to be mindful of historic racism and should be, all things being equal, more careful and compassionate about making racial comments.

    Unlike many here, I think one has to be mindful of historic racism and should be, all things being equal, more careful and compassionate about making racial comments.

    You, personally, benefit from the average white person being uber sensitivity about racial comments, correct? Maybe there’s a conflict of interest there.

    Meanwhile, I get the short end of the stick. Spent well over a decade of my life walking on eggshells around people, to make sure I was a “nice” person. I threw in the towel when I realized doing so meant, I didn’t have a cultural or heritage I was preserving. I won’t wander into racial slurs, but I’m done with “cultural sensitivity” unless forced.

    Merry Christmas in July by the way. 😉

  186. AM says:
    @Anon
    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you're younger and more impressionable.

    But it's worth noting that people who walk blindly into trouble tend to be dumb. Since IQ is inherited, dumb people are more likely to have dumb parents whose stupid life decisions had a traumatic impact on their kids.

    Religious belief is also correlated with having a lousy life, or having a major traumatic life event, especially when you’re younger and more impressionable..

    You don’t want to have a discussion about atheism, rates of depression, suicide and drug use, poor health, and overall lousy life.

    Anyone looking at the correlated statistics of religious belief would take a serious look at what it takes to honestly believe over a sustained period of time, given the overall average health and mental benefits. Heck, anyone interested in bumping up fertility rates would look there too.

    But you’re right, religious belief is like for total losers. The atheists are smarter more because they’ve told us so. 🙂

  187. AM says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Rod, I totally agree, except for the dying West. We are not dead yet, and there is no reason to believe current circumstances are permanent.

    Rod, I totally agree, except for the dying West. We are not dead yet, and there is no reason to believe current circumstances are permanent.

    To be totally downer, I think the current circumstances are going to get worse for while.

    But then, I think, they will get better. It just has to get bad enough to shake people out of their comfortable indifference.

  188. @RobertTaylor
    Yes, I am not able to judge how important the extended phenotype concept is. And he did write a book about it.

    And he also coined the term "memes".

    The “extended phenotype” concept is as important as it gets.

    • Replies: @RobertTaylor
    If Dawkins originated the extended phenotype idea, that is, if it was more than repackaging what others had already done using new terminology, then he certainly deserves credit for whatever it has added to biology.

    As to the value of this political thought, even if he is a first right scientist on his own merit, it seems a bit like the case of Einstein: brilliant in physics, not so much in world affairs.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    Yes it is but what Dawkins misses about religion is that Christendom, flaws and all, is an expression of the white European extended phenotype, just as Talmudic Judaism is for much of the Jewish race, Political Islam is for the Arab/Pakistani, Confucianism/Buddhism is for East Asian.....
  189. @Steve Sailer
    With Dawkins there's the question of whether he's primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I'm a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    With Dawkins there’s the question of whether he’s primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I’m a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.

    Certainly not on the order of Matt Ridley.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Dawkins and Ridley have a lot in common, but Dawkins was about 15 or more years ahead of Ridley.
  190. @Anonymous
    But you've got to admit that the central thesis of 'The Selfish Gene' - even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks - is a real game changer.

    But you’ve got to admit that the central thesis of ‘The Selfish Gene’ – even if, perhaps, WD Hamilton and others laid the frameworks – is a real game changer.

    Indeed. And The Exyended Phenotype was far more incisive. But after that Dawkins lost his science. You should read Jim Bowery (an occasional commenter on Steve’s blog) in that regard.

  191. @Judah Benjamin Hur
    A lot of brilliant ideas, examples include some by Dawkins, Freud, and ancient religious writers, are really useful and/or insightful so long as one doesn't take them too literally (even if the authors do). The problem is that fans and followers usually take the extreme route.

    I agree with that, and Dawkins is a great popularizer of gene-centric neo-Darwinism. If you lightly poke the theories he at least pretends to propound in his more popular books, they immediately fall apart. Because they’re frankly ridiculous. But they are tasty if you swish then around in your mouth without swallowing them. And he is the most important man on earth for putting across the Genes Uber Alles view of evolution.

    Freud is more ridiculous, and I wouldn’t be surprised if all his brilliant ideas were cribbed. I’ve long gone along with Wittgenstein in considering him a mythologist* or storyteller instead of the Copernicus of the Mind, as popular culture has him.

    Dawkins is not so bad as Freud. He didn’t kick off a quack medical field; he hasn’t tricked people into thinking he’s a scientist; he didn’t ruin criminology, child-rearing, vast swathes of literature, and relations between the sexes. He’s just a masterful pop-science writer you can’t take too seriously.

    *That reminds me of a Nabokov quote I post only for the lulz: “Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts.”

  192. @ben tillman

    With Dawkins there’s the question of whether he’s primarily a scientist or a science journalist. But I’m a part time science journalist and I can safely say that Dawkins is at least a great science journalist.
     
    Certainly not on the order of Matt Ridley.

    Dawkins and Ridley have a lot in common, but Dawkins was about 15 or more years ahead of Ridley.

  193. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @SMK
    What and who is "we": the alternative/dissident right, I assume. And what do you mean by "win," concretely and specifically? And how are we "going to win," exactly?

    Same Anonymous as above: you are pretty much grasping my meaning. I have many, many agreements with the alternative/dissident right, and many disagreements. That is to be expected, since the alternative right, in the broad sense, allows debate. But for anyone who grants any personal affinity with the dissident/alternative right, I think it is useful to recognize the increasingly obvious fact of the deep stupidity/obliviousness of those who oppose us. I used to be one of them, but they are idiots, and overtly embrace idiocy. Recognizing that your opponents are literally crippling themselves (intellectually, at least) can be a crucial step in fostering concrete victory.

  194. @RobertTaylor
    Yet both of them condemned the British National Party.

    Which means they aren't serious. They intend to moan about what is happening to the UK and Europe, while attacking anyone who truly tries to address the problem as unacceptable.

    I think we are living in a time when it is more important to embrace anyone who is willing to chastise the orthodoxy of our enemies than it is to certify the orthodoxy of our allies.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This is an excellent observation, even if I sometimes forget it myself.
  195. @ben tillman
    The "extended phenotype" concept is as important as it gets.

    If Dawkins originated the extended phenotype idea, that is, if it was more than repackaging what others had already done using new terminology, then he certainly deserves credit for whatever it has added to biology.

    As to the value of this political thought, even if he is a first right scientist on his own merit, it seems a bit like the case of Einstein: brilliant in physics, not so much in world affairs.

  196. @Anonymous
    Dawkins claims to be a man of the left, yet believes in hereditarianism. Has he explained this contradiction anywhere?

    yet believes in hereditarianism

    Really? In his twitter pic twitter pic he is wearing a tshirt that says “we are all Africans”.

    Some select quotes:

    “There is racism in Britain. It must stop.”

    “We are all African apes. That’s what my t-shirt means. Add political moral if you wish. Genetically we are a v uniform species. Shun racism”

    Man of the left status: secure.

  197. @guest
    Hate speech leads to gas chambers. Abusive speech? That's like backhanding your wife. Bad, possibly deplorable, but not irredeemably evil.

    “Hate speech leads to gas chambers.” True…

    Here are some other things that “lead to gas chambers”: The Big Bang, the origin of living cells, multicellular life, the evolution of vertebrates, the opposable thumb, large crania, writing, democratic politics, inorganic chemistry, metallurgy, and radio.

    What was your point again?

    • Replies: @guest
    "What was your point again?"

    Satire.
    , @Dieter Kief
    I agree. May I humbly add: The cinema, operas, symphonies, photography, literature, ways (in general), the weather, sports, child's play, mountains, nature, the universe, civilization, economy, religion, song and dance, hammers, cake slicers, earth, wind and fire. Fire and rain. Drizzling rain. Spray. Good thoughts. Bad thoughts, too. Reproduction. Kids. Life (in general). Death.
  198. @Lurker

    His passion comes alive when he’s demonizing what he calls American “thickos”.
     
    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can't point to the US on a world map etc. But what they absolutely don't want to hear is anything about just who those American "thickos" might be (per capita) in racial terms. When it comes to American “thickos”, all they can visualise is white people.

    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can’t point to the US on a world map etc.

    Agree. They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn’t tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help). Every culture/ethny has their own very large set of ignorant/uninformed, but the elite point outside the culture to deflect criticism of their own bad stewardship. This phenomenon is not unique to the British; I encountered it among every country I visited while in Europe; they all love to point to the “Ugly Ignorant American” stereotype while ignoring the violent/ignorant underclass of their own nations.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn’t tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help).

    I rode on a train in Italy in 1980 with a couple of English hooligans on their way to a much anticipated soccer riot in Turin. They had never heard of Houston. But when I mentioned Dallas they immediately shouted "Who shot JR?"

    , @Lurker

    Agree. They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn’t tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help).
     
    Although a lot of them revel in that too, the only thing that lets them unleash their inner snob is sneering at other (bad)whites foreign or domestic. They literally cannot acknowledge anything wrong with non-whites at all.
  199. O.T.: where’s humanity heading without eugenics? (there’s an interesting observation about the high rate of retardation and autism among Minnesota Somalis) :

    https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/evolution-is-slow-until-its-fast-genetic-load-and-the-future-of-humanity/

  200. @Anon
    (As much as he despises Christianity, he forthrightly grants that it is FAR better than Islam. That’s honest.)

    It is better why? Because it's grown weak and decadent and cannot even defend true marriage from the homo mafia.
    At least in defending core faith and values, Islam has proven itself to be far better than wussy Christianity that, without alliance with military caste, has proven to be weak and wimpy.

    Also, Dawkins is so full of BS. He attacks Jewish religion and culture, but he attacks 'antisemitism'. But following his logic, Jews should give up their identity since it is tribal, irrational, and atavistic. Indeed, one could argue that a people insisting on their Jewishness is a form of arrogance, exclusionism, and supremacism based on special covenant with a fictional deity.

    Worse, doesn't Dawkins see that Diversity and Homomania are now worshiped as quasi-religions and have their own mindless sacraments and blind taboos?

    But then, Dawkins is so religious about his cocksure know-it-all rationality when he's just a sneering snobby jerk.

    Great stuff.

  201. @reiner Tor
    Same thing among Hungarians. Unfortunately, among both bad- and goodwhite Hungarians.

    I suspect the same applies among US goodwhites as well.

  202. @anonguy

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea–including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.
     
    Here is a more interesting thought - the genetic development of the ability to have culture and how the increasing ability to form culture is a way of placing selective stresses on the group, thereby speeding up selection/evolution.

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.

    There is a reason why menopause only occurs in a very few species.

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.

    This is a throw away statement requiring a lot of evidence before it can be the assumption that it clearly is.

    • Replies: @res


    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.
     
    This is a throw away statement requiring a lot of evidence before it can be the assumption that it clearly is.
     
    Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full
  203. res says:
    @AM

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.
     
    This is a throw away statement requiring a lot of evidence before it can be the assumption that it clearly is.

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.

    This is a throw away statement requiring a lot of evidence before it can be the assumption that it clearly is.

    Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full

    • Replies: @anonguy
    Thank you!
  204. res says:
    @Autochthon
    I have yet to understand meme to be anything but a silly, made-up word that is no more than an extraneous synonym for idea.

    I'm happy to be disabused by any reader here, if it be possible.

    Your description is all too apt, but I think there is a meaning that goes beyond that.

    This seems like a decent start from the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

    Proponents theorize that memes are a viral phenomenon that may evolve by natural selection in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance, each of which influences a meme’s reproductive success. Memes spread through the behavior that they generate in their hosts.

    I think “meme” is useful as a way of talking about the spread of ideas.

  205. @RobertTaylor
    Leftwing professors like Dawkins were silent for decades as libertarians, conservatives and other dissident voices were shut down.

    Now, the chickens are coming home to roost.

    I agree. I love, LOVE seeing lefties getting the same treatment they have been meting out to the Right for decades. Enjoying it NOW, you bastards?

  206. @AM

    He is a man of the West.
     
    Dawkins is a man of the West because he's polite, wants people to think like he does, and not totally off the rails crazy. Okay.

    What he did with his life is make money encouraging people like Olorin (and possibly you) to think that Christianity is stupid. Thus noone has anyone has any idea of the depth of Christianity's intellectual traditions, perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen.

    Dawkin's children are SJWs. He and countless people like him are why the West is nihilistic and unable to form even the simplest intellectual objection to being colonized by Islam, because they can't form the simplest of intellectual objections, period.

    They read a modern translation of an ancient set of books, intended for a class of men who understood it's context and history, and think "Yeah, I've nailed it. I know Christianity." Well, no, they don't know. They don't anything. We're just egos on steroids and Dawkins is just fuel for the fire.

    You’re shadowboxing again.

    I don’t think “Christianity is stupid.”

    I think that at least 85% of Christians distribute at levels of intelligence that render their ideas, and applications even of others’ better ideas, stupid.

    That’s not ego, that’s arithmetic.

    Of the remaining 15%, they do stupid things like mass import Somalis into Minneapolis and give them college degrees and important jobs in the community…then get all surprised when one of them shoots an innocent woman in the face “because he heard a noise.”

    Or are surprised when the press conference firing the AA-hire police chief is interrupted by very low IQ people screaming slogans.

    Or make $300K a year conducting white genocide…but claiming it’s god’s or Jesus’s divine will.

    You are the one grounded in concepts like “ego.” I’m simply observing behavioral traits and their frequencies. When only the top few percent of people can calculate the total price of carpet for a room when both the carpet price and room size are known quantities, a lot of stupid is going to be afoot.

    Go with your god, but till you can discuss Hamilton, Williams, and Hajnal from a mathematical perspective, what you have to say is professions of faith. Enjoy them; my ancestors shed blood for your right to do so in the republic they bequeathed to their descendants.

    PS–

    • Replies: @AM

    I think that at least 85% of Christians distribute at levels of intelligence that render their ideas, and applications even of others’ better ideas, stupid.
     
    Atheists are the same, usually of midwit quality, except they can't keep their egos in check, usually.

    Go with your god, but till you can discuss Hamilton, Williams, and Hajnal from a mathematical perspective, what you have to say is professions of faith. Enjoy them; my ancestors shed blood for your right to do so in the republic they bequeathed to their descendants.
     
    Christianity brought you higher math. It brought everything you see today in the West. It wasn't pagans and it's wasn't the "magic" of white DNA, which you can see is not quite so magical when people start to admire the person in the mirror and/or chase their libidos. Your Christian ancestors did not shed their blood so their great-great grandson can sit around assuming they were maroons. What an insult.

    And yeah, we can talk math if really want. I have a Geology degree with honors, almost double majored in Math because I thought Calculus 3 was easy and fun, ditto with college level Number Theory. Stopped because the Stats class was too much work. I taught myself enough accounting to get an Enrolled Agent status with the IRS to do complex individual taxes.


    If you want me to be impressed because "math", I'm not. I can tell when people are pulling stats out of the hind ends and when it's at least got some basis in reality.


    I’m simply observing behavioral traits and their frequencies. When only the top few percent of people can calculate the total price of carpet for a room when both the carpet price and room size are known quantities, a lot of stupid is going to be afoot.
     
    Except you can't see the same "special needs" qualities in yourself. The people who are most likely to go stoopid on you are the ones with some brains who never bother to improve them other than to look around for the express purpose of confirming how smart they really are.

    Christianity sits on towering heights of intellectualism. That you can't be bothered to even pick up the simplest of apologetics that refutes atheism is pretty telling. It's more fun to LARP and pretend that Dawkins is really highbrow stuff (don't forget the George Carlin quotes.)

    So go ahead, pull up more stats showing how dumb everyone is. I've found one more body to add to the pile, except he had the potential to get out of the starting gates. But he's rather more content to look in the mirror at this point.

  207. @anon
    it's been argued that the ancients were significantly SMARTER than us: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc63/c5e0bb322baa850f362b38be6c7835a483ce.pdf

    What’s interesting is, that Crabtree doesn’t make the usual error, thinking (assuming) that we are a lot smarter than those before us, because, you know, we know so much more than they do…

    His mistrust in the biological path we’re all on seems a bit curious, though.

    If I leave all else aside and walk into the replica of the Chauvet-cave, I feel very close to those living in the ice age.

    And if I read – Aristotle, say, I have the feeling of a contemporary. Even more so in the case of Petronius or Augustine.

    Crabtree’s interpretation of Diamonds writings is a bit off. Diamond looks at the spectrum of abilities of nowadays’ hunter and gatherer and concludes, that in the long run, they might survive, and we might not. He does not really trust civilization.
    (He does not speak about intelligence of the hunter and gatherer at all in this context, if I remember right).

  208. Here’s the thing about Dawkins.

    I argued in a public health paper that I wrote many years ago that the black single mother on public assistance with eight children by different fathers by the age of 25 was arguably much more successful than the married mother of two who delayed pregnancy until she had a master’s degree in public health and was married and financially solid in her 30s IF you defined success in evolutionary and Dawkinsian terms, because it was very likely that more of her genes would be extant in future generations.

    Naturally my instructors were shocked at such a notion, so it may be that the ideas propagated by Dawkins are not quite as widely understood as many readers of unz.com might think.

    If people want to promote the primacy of their own race for the future, then the first thing they need to do is to sacrifice their own ambitions and financial security and go out reproduce like hell.

    However, I believe that Dawkins would argue that humans have the ability to choose for themselves criteria other than reproductive success which may also include moral considerations.

    • Replies: @guest
    "I believe that Dawkins would argue that humans have the ability to choose for themselves criteria other than reproductive success"

    Out of one side of his mouth. The other side would tell you that human organisms--which are merely machines made by genes for the purpose of creating more genes--put up a smokescreen when they appear to choose some other than reproductive success. They're *really* just promoting genes' selfishness, somehow.

    Of course, that's a dumbed down version of the real scientific explanation. Which is only for special eggheads to understand. The most you're allowed to know is you're right superficially, but it's an illusion. The whole bio-sphere is a shadowy with Original Sin...err, I mean gene selfishness, underneath.
  209. AM says:
    @Olorin
    You're shadowboxing again.

    I don't think "Christianity is stupid."

    I think that at least 85% of Christians distribute at levels of intelligence that render their ideas, and applications even of others' better ideas, stupid.

    That's not ego, that's arithmetic.

    Of the remaining 15%, they do stupid things like mass import Somalis into Minneapolis and give them college degrees and important jobs in the community...then get all surprised when one of them shoots an innocent woman in the face "because he heard a noise."

    Or are surprised when the press conference firing the AA-hire police chief is interrupted by very low IQ people screaming slogans.

    Or make $300K a year conducting white genocide...but claiming it's god's or Jesus's divine will.

    You are the one grounded in concepts like "ego." I'm simply observing behavioral traits and their frequencies. When only the top few percent of people can calculate the total price of carpet for a room when both the carpet price and room size are known quantities, a lot of stupid is going to be afoot.

    Go with your god, but till you can discuss Hamilton, Williams, and Hajnal from a mathematical perspective, what you have to say is professions of faith. Enjoy them; my ancestors shed blood for your right to do so in the republic they bequeathed to their descendants.

    PS--

    http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/~edelman/Psych-2140/Gottfredson04-NALS.jpg

    I think that at least 85% of Christians distribute at levels of intelligence that render their ideas, and applications even of others’ better ideas, stupid.

    Atheists are the same, usually of midwit quality, except they can’t keep their egos in check, usually.

    Go with your god, but till you can discuss Hamilton, Williams, and Hajnal from a mathematical perspective, what you have to say is professions of faith. Enjoy them; my ancestors shed blood for your right to do so in the republic they bequeathed to their descendants.

    Christianity brought you higher math. It brought everything you see today in the West. It wasn’t pagans and it’s wasn’t the “magic” of white DNA, which you can see is not quite so magical when people start to admire the person in the mirror and/or chase their libidos. Your Christian ancestors did not shed their blood so their great-great grandson can sit around assuming they were maroons. What an insult.

    And yeah, we can talk math if really want. I have a Geology degree with honors, almost double majored in Math because I thought Calculus 3 was easy and fun, ditto with college level Number Theory. Stopped because the Stats class was too much work. I taught myself enough accounting to get an Enrolled Agent status with the IRS to do complex individual taxes.

    If you want me to be impressed because “math”, I’m not. I can tell when people are pulling stats out of the hind ends and when it’s at least got some basis in reality.

    I’m simply observing behavioral traits and their frequencies. When only the top few percent of people can calculate the total price of carpet for a room when both the carpet price and room size are known quantities, a lot of stupid is going to be afoot.

    Except you can’t see the same “special needs” qualities in yourself. The people who are most likely to go stoopid on you are the ones with some brains who never bother to improve them other than to look around for the express purpose of confirming how smart they really are.

    Christianity sits on towering heights of intellectualism. That you can’t be bothered to even pick up the simplest of apologetics that refutes atheism is pretty telling. It’s more fun to LARP and pretend that Dawkins is really highbrow stuff (don’t forget the George Carlin quotes.)

    So go ahead, pull up more stats showing how dumb everyone is. I’ve found one more body to add to the pile, except he had the potential to get out of the starting gates. But he’s rather more content to look in the mirror at this point.

  210. @Anonymous
    But perhaps there is rationality to all this.

    Critics of Islam regularly get beheaded etc.
    Who wants to bring that upon themselves?

    It really is that simple. In any group of Muslims there are ones who act responsibly but they are a minority.

    The rest are the most easily offended group I’ve ever seen.

    And they don’t stop at mere words. They follow their “prophet” and engage in sanctioned violence, including killing.

    Everyone panders to them because they don’t want to be killed, to have go into hiding, to have their businesses wrecked.

    They’ve got it down pat in 1400 years of experience: violence works.

    Muslims who try to rein in the extremists in are putting their own lives at risk.

    Our leaders and “intellectuals” are on the first step of dhimmi status. They treat them with more respect than any other group.

    Is this not the first step in complete surrender?

  211. @kihowi
    This is funny because a huge proportion of Dawkins' followers are Muslims.

    Atheism is based on the downright autistic idea that technical facts matter, socially. That the presence or absence of a supreme being or whatever theological details is going to affect how normal people behave.

    Religion has to do with dirty, nasty, gut-reality and terms like "allegiance" and "tribe".

    As everywhere, only actions count. Nobody cares about your carefully constructed worldview that adroitly dodges inconsistencies and has a neat answer for every attack.

    If, as most modern atheists, you spend your time ridiculing Christianity but have nothing but the most profound reference and respect, in word and deed, for Islam, you are now a Muslim. At that point you have chosen your tribe, you've settled who "us" and "they" are. You might not put a burqa on your girlfriend or read the koran, but those are details. Your great-grandchildren will. The big hurdle has already been taken.

    Muslims themselves understand this instinctively. Dumb atheists do not.

    The newsstand owner tried to talk me into reading the Koran just this morning when he found out I was an atheist…

  212. @Anatoly Karlin
    They wrote a press release informing the public of the cancelation of the event here: https://kpfa.org/event/richard-dawkins-2/

    I noticed that since I went there yesterday, it has been removed. (Comments were 95% negative).

    There’s a new statement released today: statement

    There are currently eleven comments to the new statement, and they’re quite negative.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I just read through them all... as of right now there seems to be literally one commentator supporting the station. But even he's not really supporting them so much as trying to excuse their behavior because he thinks they are otherwise valuable as a non-corporatist voice.
    , @Anonymous
    The great thing about this new statement is that it actually gives links to several rather brutal Dawkins tweets. I'll link them directly in case the station "wises up":

    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/307366714105032704
    Dawkins here says "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". What is the official goodthinker view on this? Is Trump the greatest force for evil? Is everyone equally a force for evil? Are we just not supposed to use the word "evil"? Are we supposed be unaware that the concept "evil" exists? Or is it just that all cishet white men are equally the greatest force for evil?

    https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/492729120418430976
    'Suggest always put Islamic "scholar" in quotes, to avoid insulting true scholars. True scholars have read more than one book.' Brutal. Dawkins hurls a lot of juvenile insults at Christians, but he seems perfectly aware that even the most ludicrous "young earth creationists" read books.

    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/645555802636464129
    Dawkins blasts "clock boy".
  213. @ben tillman
    The "extended phenotype" concept is as important as it gets.

    Yes it is but what Dawkins misses about religion is that Christendom, flaws and all, is an expression of the white European extended phenotype, just as Talmudic Judaism is for much of the Jewish race, Political Islam is for the Arab/Pakistani, Confucianism/Buddhism is for East Asian…..

  214. To think that he is married to one of the Lady Romanas. Can’t the time lords help?

    • Replies: @Lurker
    I think they split up. After she regenerated in the form of an Islamic scholar.
    , @MEH 0910

    Britain's highest profile atheist Richard Dawkins announces end of his 24-year marriage to Dr Who actress Lalla Ward

    By Joseph Curtis For Mailonline
    Published: 06:33 EDT, 17 July 2016 | Updated: 18:15 EDT, 17 July 2016

    The UK's highest profile atheist Richard Dawkins and his actress wife Lalla Ward have confirmed they have separated after 24 years of marriage.

    Professor Dawkins, who suffered a minor stroke earlier this year, and the 65-year-old former Dr Who star said their split was 'amicable'.

    The pair, who were unable to have children, are understood to be still living at their £3million home in Oxford, where Miss Ward has illustrated some of her husband’s work - and 'remain friends'.

     

  215. @Captain Tripps

    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can’t point to the US on a world map etc.
     
    Agree. They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn't tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help). Every culture/ethny has their own very large set of ignorant/uninformed, but the elite point outside the culture to deflect criticism of their own bad stewardship. This phenomenon is not unique to the British; I encountered it among every country I visited while in Europe; they all love to point to the "Ugly Ignorant American" stereotype while ignoring the violent/ignorant underclass of their own nations.

    They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn’t tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help).

    I rode on a train in Italy in 1980 with a couple of English hooligans on their way to a much anticipated soccer riot in Turin. They had never heard of Houston. But when I mentioned Dallas they immediately shouted “Who shot JR?”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    Since this must have been late in 1980, in the fall soccer season, at the time the whole world was asking who shot JR. Those guys would have probably been much too young to remember the shooting of JFK 17 years earlier, or the first episode of Dr. Who, which was on the same day.
  216. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "Hate speech leads to gas chambers." True...

    Here are some other things that "lead to gas chambers": The Big Bang, the origin of living cells, multicellular life, the evolution of vertebrates, the opposable thumb, large crania, writing, democratic politics, inorganic chemistry, metallurgy, and radio.

    What was your point again?

    “What was your point again?”

    Satire.

  217. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    "Hate speech leads to gas chambers." True...

    Here are some other things that "lead to gas chambers": The Big Bang, the origin of living cells, multicellular life, the evolution of vertebrates, the opposable thumb, large crania, writing, democratic politics, inorganic chemistry, metallurgy, and radio.

    What was your point again?

    I agree. May I humbly add: The cinema, operas, symphonies, photography, literature, ways (in general), the weather, sports, child’s play, mountains, nature, the universe, civilization, economy, religion, song and dance, hammers, cake slicers, earth, wind and fire. Fire and rain. Drizzling rain. Spray. Good thoughts. Bad thoughts, too. Reproduction. Kids. Life (in general). Death.

  218. @Jonathan Mason
    Here's the thing about Dawkins.

    I argued in a public health paper that I wrote many years ago that the black single mother on public assistance with eight children by different fathers by the age of 25 was arguably much more successful than the married mother of two who delayed pregnancy until she had a master's degree in public health and was married and financially solid in her 30s IF you defined success in evolutionary and Dawkinsian terms, because it was very likely that more of her genes would be extant in future generations.

    Naturally my instructors were shocked at such a notion, so it may be that the ideas propagated by Dawkins are not quite as widely understood as many readers of unz.com might think.

    If people want to promote the primacy of their own race for the future, then the first thing they need to do is to sacrifice their own ambitions and financial security and go out reproduce like hell.

    However, I believe that Dawkins would argue that humans have the ability to choose for themselves criteria other than reproductive success which may also include moral considerations.

    “I believe that Dawkins would argue that humans have the ability to choose for themselves criteria other than reproductive success”

    Out of one side of his mouth. The other side would tell you that human organisms–which are merely machines made by genes for the purpose of creating more genes–put up a smokescreen when they appear to choose some other than reproductive success. They’re *really* just promoting genes’ selfishness, somehow.

    Of course, that’s a dumbed down version of the real scientific explanation. Which is only for special eggheads to understand. The most you’re allowed to know is you’re right superficially, but it’s an illusion. The whole bio-sphere is a shadowy with Original Sin…err, I mean gene selfishness, underneath.

  219. @Melendwyr
    There's a new statement released today: statement

    There are currently eleven comments to the new statement, and they're quite negative.

    I just read through them all… as of right now there seems to be literally one commentator supporting the station. But even he’s not really supporting them so much as trying to excuse their behavior because he thinks they are otherwise valuable as a non-corporatist voice.

  220. @Anonymous
    I think we are living in a time when it is more important to embrace anyone who is willing to chastise the orthodoxy of our enemies than it is to certify the orthodoxy of our allies.

    This is an excellent observation, even if I sometimes forget it myself.

  221. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Melendwyr
    There's a new statement released today: statement

    There are currently eleven comments to the new statement, and they're quite negative.

    The great thing about this new statement is that it actually gives links to several rather brutal Dawkins tweets. I’ll link them directly in case the station “wises up”:


    Dawkins here says “Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today”. What is the official goodthinker view on this? Is Trump the greatest force for evil? Is everyone equally a force for evil? Are we just not supposed to use the word “evil”? Are we supposed be unaware that the concept “evil” exists? Or is it just that all cishet white men are equally the greatest force for evil?


    ‘Suggest always put Islamic “scholar” in quotes, to avoid insulting true scholars. True scholars have read more than one book.’ Brutal. Dawkins hurls a lot of juvenile insults at Christians, but he seems perfectly aware that even the most ludicrous “young earth creationists” read books.


    Dawkins blasts “clock boy”.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    ‘Suggest always put Islamic “scholar” in quotes, to avoid insulting true scholars. True scholars have read more than one book.’

    Ouch

  222. @Anonymous
    The great thing about this new statement is that it actually gives links to several rather brutal Dawkins tweets. I'll link them directly in case the station "wises up":

    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/307366714105032704
    Dawkins here says "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today". What is the official goodthinker view on this? Is Trump the greatest force for evil? Is everyone equally a force for evil? Are we just not supposed to use the word "evil"? Are we supposed be unaware that the concept "evil" exists? Or is it just that all cishet white men are equally the greatest force for evil?

    https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/492729120418430976
    'Suggest always put Islamic "scholar" in quotes, to avoid insulting true scholars. True scholars have read more than one book.' Brutal. Dawkins hurls a lot of juvenile insults at Christians, but he seems perfectly aware that even the most ludicrous "young earth creationists" read books.

    https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/645555802636464129
    Dawkins blasts "clock boy".

    ‘Suggest always put Islamic “scholar” in quotes, to avoid insulting true scholars. True scholars have read more than one book.’

    Ouch

    • Replies: @res
    Indeed. How about as a new metric: have you burned/censored/etc. more books than you have read?
  223. @Steve Sailer
    They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn’t tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help).

    I rode on a train in Italy in 1980 with a couple of English hooligans on their way to a much anticipated soccer riot in Turin. They had never heard of Houston. But when I mentioned Dallas they immediately shouted "Who shot JR?"

    Since this must have been late in 1980, in the fall soccer season, at the time the whole world was asking who shot JR. Those guys would have probably been much too young to remember the shooting of JFK 17 years earlier, or the first episode of Dr. Who, which was on the same day.

  224. @Anonymous

    Religious belief is correlated with low IQ:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-8758046.html
     

    Within 15 years China (a top highest IQ country) will be the the most Christian country. As the high-IQed elites of Europe continue full-speed ahead with decimation of their lands and the plummeting of IQ levels there.

    Right but how many Muslims will there be in China in 15 years? According to the 2010 census, there were 23 million Chinese Muslims.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China

  225. AM says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Dakwins (and others) has made himself famous telling people what it is they want to hear. They don’t want to hear that sacrifice in humans involves rising above their biology.
     
    Au contraire, mon ami, I think Dawkins has said numerous times that humans can and must rise above their biology.

    When asked if Darwinism informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "in one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life," implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the consciousness of self.

    [Wikipedia]

    Au contraire, mon ami, I think Dawkins has said numerous times that humans can and must rise above their biology.

    If religion is stupid, by what means and what motivation do I have to rise above my biology? Dawkin’s awe at being alive is not helpful when a child dies, or I’m struggling with addiction, or I need to let go of a grudge.

  226. @Steve Sailer
    ‘Suggest always put Islamic “scholar” in quotes, to avoid insulting true scholars. True scholars have read more than one book.’

    Ouch

    Indeed. How about as a new metric: have you burned/censored/etc. more books than you have read?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A few years ago I took a temp job doing data conversion (they were still on VAX/VMS in 2012) for a company I had never heard of with offices in an old, but well kept 1920s era office building. It turned out that they were owners of two or three small chains of "Christian" (read: fundamentalist evangelical, and mostly of the premillennial dispensationalist bent-i.e., God-damned rapture bunnies) bookstores.

    I was interested to come across some unusual chargeoffs and associated expenses, such as payments to industrial shredding services, so I asked. Turns out that every once in a while, they will have some author or Christian contemporary music artist that will either head off the reservation theologically or get caught in a scandal (usually sex). In some cases, if the failing isn't too big, they will just stop carrying that author, and maybe discount the books to move them, but offtimes the affront is too severe and they will throw the offending merchandise in bins and have it shredded. Apparently Christian publishers will make good on it in some cases, and in some cases they just take the chargeoff.

    I can't recall the specific artists and authors at the time (except Ted Haggard, who was old news even then) but I understand Hank Hannegraaf ("The Bible Answer Man") is a current example. His offense was to join the Orthodox church.

    So, the 'Christian media' are bookburners (or more accurately shredders) of the first order. Somehow I don't think Islam has this problem in this context.
  227. @res


    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.
     
    This is a throw away statement requiring a lot of evidence before it can be the assumption that it clearly is.
     
    Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution
    http://www.pnas.org/content/104/52/20753.full

    Thank you!

  228. @Captain Tripps

    This is very common among British goodwhites. They love stories about US illiteracy rates, the number of Americans who can’t point to the US on a world map etc.
     
    Agree. They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn't tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help). Every culture/ethny has their own very large set of ignorant/uninformed, but the elite point outside the culture to deflect criticism of their own bad stewardship. This phenomenon is not unique to the British; I encountered it among every country I visited while in Europe; they all love to point to the "Ugly Ignorant American" stereotype while ignoring the violent/ignorant underclass of their own nations.

    Agree. They ignore/overlook all the working/lower class British yobs who couldn’t tell Mississippi from Minnesota on a map (without help).

    Although a lot of them revel in that too, the only thing that lets them unleash their inner snob is sneering at other (bad)whites foreign or domestic. They literally cannot acknowledge anything wrong with non-whites at all.

  229. @flyingtiger
    To think that he is married to one of the Lady Romanas. Can't the time lords help?

    I think they split up. After she regenerated in the form of an Islamic scholar.

  230. @Prof. Woland
    If the bible were written today, how would it differ from the one that was written 3,000-2,000 years ago? A lot of the metaphysical stuff might have to be updated but the interpersonal and human nature parts are still as relevant as they were when they were written. The questions we still have are the ones we will never be able to answer by science but the ones we can answer were already known when the bible was written.

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/215855-if-the-holy-bible-was-printed-as-an-ace-double

    “If the Holy Bible was printed as an Ace Double it would be cut down to two 20,000-word halves with the Old Testament retitled as ‘Master of Chaos’ and the New Testament as ‘The Thing With Three Souls.”

    ― Terry Carr

  231. @flyingtiger
    To think that he is married to one of the Lady Romanas. Can't the time lords help?

    Britain’s highest profile atheist Richard Dawkins announces end of his 24-year marriage to Dr Who actress Lalla Ward

    By Joseph Curtis For Mailonline
    Published: 06:33 EDT, 17 July 2016 | Updated: 18:15 EDT, 17 July 2016

    The UK’s highest profile atheist Richard Dawkins and his actress wife Lalla Ward have confirmed they have separated after 24 years of marriage.

    Professor Dawkins, who suffered a minor stroke earlier this year, and the 65-year-old former Dr Who star said their split was ‘amicable’.

    The pair, who were unable to have children, are understood to be still living at their £3million home in Oxford, where Miss Ward has illustrated some of her husband’s work – and ‘remain friends’.

  232. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    Indeed. How about as a new metric: have you burned/censored/etc. more books than you have read?

    A few years ago I took a temp job doing data conversion (they were still on VAX/VMS in 2012) for a company I had never heard of with offices in an old, but well kept 1920s era office building. It turned out that they were owners of two or three small chains of “Christian” (read: fundamentalist evangelical, and mostly of the premillennial dispensationalist bent-i.e., God-damned rapture bunnies) bookstores.

    I was interested to come across some unusual chargeoffs and associated expenses, such as payments to industrial shredding services, so I asked. Turns out that every once in a while, they will have some author or Christian contemporary music artist that will either head off the reservation theologically or get caught in a scandal (usually sex). In some cases, if the failing isn’t too big, they will just stop carrying that author, and maybe discount the books to move them, but offtimes the affront is too severe and they will throw the offending merchandise in bins and have it shredded. Apparently Christian publishers will make good on it in some cases, and in some cases they just take the chargeoff.

    I can’t recall the specific artists and authors at the time (except Ted Haggard, who was old news even then) but I understand Hank Hannegraaf (“The Bible Answer Man”) is a current example. His offense was to join the Orthodox church.

    So, the ‘Christian media’ are bookburners (or more accurately shredders) of the first order. Somehow I don’t think Islam has this problem in this context.

  233. @CCZ

    "We do not support abusive speech."
     
    Which is worse, "abusive speech" or "hate speech?" I need to know which one to use first.

    We do not support wrong-think.

  234. @anonguy

    There is a lot of predictive gold in that idea–including, I suspect, the genetic development of intelligence.
     
    Here is a more interesting thought - the genetic development of the ability to have culture and how the increasing ability to form culture is a way of placing selective stresses on the group, thereby speeding up selection/evolution.

    This is definitely a factor in why evolution in the human species has speeded up in the past 10k years or so.

    There is a reason why menopause only occurs in a very few species.

    Interesting idea that may be testable.

    SNP frequency in modern man versus similar results in medieval man.

    I think you are probably right.

    And I think your theory may explain higher average IQ in Ashkenazi.

  235. @Faraday's Bobcat
    Use of the word "deplatforming" could be inappropriate here.

    A radio station can invite or disinvite whoever it wants for whatever reason, without it violating anyone's rights.

    This is different from the university protests, where someone invited by a legitimate group inside a public university gets disinvited by someone else inside a public university. In other words, the College Democrats can invite Noam Chomsky, but the College Republicans can't invite Ann Coulter. That violates the Republicans' rights.

    Of course worth noting that there have been continuous efforts to deplatform (some of which succeeded) Noam Chomsky. There was a time not long ago that Chomsky had to have strong police protection to actually give a talk at a university. This only declined around 10 years ago.

    Obviously this was ignored without any outrage by the regular pundits, and it remains unknown to almost everyone. Only until recently that students started protesting Republican invitations we see this outrage.

    Even today, trying to have a pro-Palestine speaker invited, gets you a lot of backlash that of course doesn’t get reported because it doesn’t fit the conservative outrage narrative.

    Not that I am defending any of this, but I think this double standard is pretty telling at where American politics is.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Chomsky was recently had an NYT oped, but my guesstimate is that was the first time in several years.
  236. @ityrone
    Of course worth noting that there have been continuous efforts to deplatform (some of which succeeded) Noam Chomsky. There was a time not long ago that Chomsky had to have strong police protection to actually give a talk at a university. This only declined around 10 years ago.

    Obviously this was ignored without any outrage by the regular pundits, and it remains unknown to almost everyone. Only until recently that students started protesting Republican invitations we see this outrage.

    Even today, trying to have a pro-Palestine speaker invited, gets you a lot of backlash that of course doesn't get reported because it doesn't fit the conservative outrage narrative.

    Not that I am defending any of this, but I think this double standard is pretty telling at where American politics is.

    Chomsky was recently had an NYT oped, but my guesstimate is that was the first time in several years.

  237. Those guys would have probably been much too young to remember the shooting of JFK 17 years earlier, or the first episode of Dr. Who, which was on the same day.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS