The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Washington Post: Aristotle Is to Blame for "The Bell Curve"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Washington Post:

Aristotle, father of scientific racism

How the famous philosopher paved the way for books like “The Bell Curve.”

By Matthew A. Sears April 6 at 6:00 AM

Matthew A. Sears is an associate professor of classics and ancient history at the University of New Brunswick.

Race science is back.

To be fair, it never really left. But in the past few years, an obsession over the intersection of race and science — and in particular, the use of science to shore up theories of racial hierarchies — has seen a resurgence. At the heart of this revival: Charles Murray, co-author of the notorious 1994 book on innate intelligence and public policy, “The Bell Curve.”

… To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.

Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher — was just as influential in what we would today consider the field of natural science. Indeed, Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later. …

As I wrote in Taki’s Magazine last year:

The Atlantic offers a lucid history by Chris Dixon, a general partner at Sand Hill Road venture capitalists Andreessen Horowitz, of how Western philosophy laid the groundwork for computing. Dixon’s article has the clickbaity title “How Aristotle Created the Computer,” but its subtitle gets his point across: “The philosophers he influenced set the stage for the technological revolution that remade our world.”

Aristotle may seem like the antithesis of getting rich in Silicon Valley because the point of philosophy is to argue over questions that the best minds of all time have so far failed to fully answer. Once somebody figures out how to stop arguing and start making money off a branch of philosophy, it stops being a branch of philosophy. For example, James Watt was a “natural philosopher” until he perfected his steam engine, after which he went down in history as the chief inventor of the Industrial Revolution.

But the arguing seems to have to come first.

And logic provides a system for keeping score.

When I asked Murray in 2003 about his book Human Accomplishment, “Who was the most accomplished person who ever lived?” he responded:

Now we’re talking personal opinion, because the methods I used don’t work across domains, but I have an emphatic opinion.

Aristotle.

He more or less invented logic, which was of pivotal importance in human history (and no other civilization ever came up with it independently).

Aristotle’s most celebrated logical schema is the syllogism:

All men are mortal.

Socrates is a man.

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

But what if, because your grandfather died, you find the word “mortal” to be triggering?

And isn’t “All men are mortal” sexist? Perhaps you are concerned that some will find “Socrates is a man” to be cisnormative? Which pronouns did Socrates volunteer? What if you, personally, hate Socrates because of his microaggressions against Xanthippe?

Well…okay…but the great Greek realization was that your personal feelings about this particular syllogism don’t really matter. The general principle still applies. As Dixon says:

You can replace “Socrates” with any other object, and “mortal” with any other predicate, and the argument remains valid. The validity of the argument is determined solely by the logical structure. …

Despite its triumphant revival in the West in the prior millennium, the Ancient Greeks’ view of logical debate as a no-hard-feelings contact sport seems to be fading as our culture becomes more female-dominated. Intellectual disagreement is now taken very personally. …

 
Hide 119 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. …and then they came for the greek classics. perhaps it’s time to tear down what’s left of the ruins in Athens? how close are we to the taliban exploding buddhist rock sculptures in afghanistan? very close. although that weird classics lady zuckerberg relative is like, “that’s what i’ve been SAYING!!!!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Pop quiz…

    Guess the territory associated with the following news article:

    Woman “Hanane Mouhib” Arrested After Decapitating 7-Year-Old Boy

    A. Morocco

    B. Sweden

    C. Arrakis

    D. New York State

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Lol @ Arrakis.

    This is actually a trick question though, because the answer is B. and D.
    , @Michigan Patriot
    D. N.Y.state
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Pogroms happening right now!

    Cossacks are dragging Jews through the streets!

    Video

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    That's some serious street cleaning, but it's all good fun.
    , @Big Bill
    Somebody please send a copy of this video to Antifa.

    It is living proof that one can be nicely dressed (even in black!) for a street riot/demo.

    These guys are quite the boulevardiers in their suits, pressed white shirts, polished black dress shoes and brushed fedoras.

    I have heard they do not bathe regularly, but they certainly look good for the cameras.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Hmm…the Bell Curve seems to be backed up by Aristotle and the entire historical cannon of scientific observation. Maybe there’s something to that book…

    Nope. The entire underpinnings of western scientific thought must be wrong because it disagrees with Diversity!

    /liberal logic

    Read More
    • LOL: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Matthew A. Sears is an associate professor at the University of New Brunswick

    Man, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately.

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Marcus D.
    It's interesting that he works at the University of New Brunswick. Ricardo Duchesne also works there.
    , @Ragno

    Man, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately.
     
    Apparently it's not quite as easy to find someone willing to discredit "western civilization" (no caps) by linking it to that conversational mute button and all-purpose tone-darkener, the.....cough...."alt-right". (Someone without two or three eyebrow-rings, I mean.)

    Since there are no membership cards, emblazoned baseball caps or peel-n-stick decals to identify this claustrophobic uberthreat that menaces us all, round the clock and 12 months a year, I wonder how goodwhites can possibly identify these "alt-right" miscreants. At first I thought it was all whites who voted for Trump; but then it seemed as if it were all whites protectively devoted to the Bill of Rights; or to their countries; or to the principle of "countries"; .....and now it's all whites with a vocal, and thus sinister, affection for "western civilization". For the moment.

    Eventually- possibly two weeks from next Thursday - it'll just get simplified to all whites, period. That's when things should get really interesting, as we follow our CultMarx pied pipers into what let's hope won't be known as the "post-civilization" epoch...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Honestly, how do these people imagine Darwinian evolution works as applied to humans? So different human sub-populations live under vastly different environments and selective pressures for tens of thousands of years but, then, what, exactly? The Racial Equality Fairy comes down and makes all people equal in every way 4,000 years or so ago?

    If you are going to argue against race-realism, you may as well just go and join the Answers in Genesis folks. At least they have a coherent world view.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe, Averaged
    They believe that “off to the gulag with you.” The real mystery is why iSteve has been able to peddle his witchcraft to the youth for so long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Well…okay…but the great Greek realization was that your personal feelings about this particular syllogism don’t really matter.

    Jeez…talk about triggering! That assertion upsets me which means you’re racist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Didn’t Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bliss

    Didn’t Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?
     
    Thanks for the laugh. It’s amusing to see the descendants of Northern Europeans who the ancient Greeks described as mentally deficient barbarians, getting off on Aristotle’s views on who should be master, and who slave.

    It is also amusing to see them getting off on Murray’s book based on which jews and east asians should rightfully be their masters....
    , @Polynikes
    Aristotle was the father of observation and the scientific method. In his time, there was certainly some accuracy to his observation, I would bet.

    Of course, a lot has changed in 2000+ years. You would have to hold a pretty dim view of Aristotle to think he wouldn't be able to observe the shifted landscape today.
    , @syonredux
    Here's the fascinating passage from Aristotle's Politics where he speculates on what mechanization will mean:

    Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workers must have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work, so it is in the management of a household. Now instruments are of various sorts; some are living, others lifeless; in the rudder, the pilot of a ship has a lifeless, in the look-out man, a living instrument; for in the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession is an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet,.
     

    "of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods; "
     

    if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.
     
    Politics,Book I, Part IV
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. This would be a great post if you had some brooding Philip Glass’ music in the background.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    https://youtu.be/PirH8PADDgQ?t=26s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Steve, elderly people like me; people exposed to Party indoctrination in the 1970′, might naturally (but very wrongly!) describe your notions about males and debate as “sexist”. This observation provides a type of measure for forty years worth of Progress.

    Suppose truth (or Socrates) were a transsexual, then what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @newrouter
    This would be a great post if you had some brooding Philip Glass' music in the background.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    If you need a quality amplifier, or some speakers, I'm game.

    Just let me know. I have dozens of each!
    , @anonymous
    This is the only Glass score that I actually liked. Interesting movie too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Selvar
    Honestly, how do these people imagine Darwinian evolution works as applied to humans? So different human sub-populations live under vastly different environments and selective pressures for tens of thousands of years but, then, what, exactly? The Racial Equality Fairy comes down and makes all people equal in every way 4,000 years or so ago?

    If you are going to argue against race-realism, you may as well just go and join the Answers in Genesis folks. At least they have a coherent world view.

    They believe that “off to the gulag with you.” The real mystery is why iSteve has been able to peddle his witchcraft to the youth for so long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Mishra

    Matthew A. Sears is an associate professor at the University of New Brunswick
     
    Man, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately.

    It’s interesting that he works at the University of New Brunswick. Ricardo Duchesne also works there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    When you dare to challenge academic orthodoxies, it's a miracle if you hold any professorship anywhere. Otherwise you should be doing better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. As I said in a previous comment, instead of trying to scientifically refute the latest findings linking DNA and race, these authors extoll on how awful Aristotle, Galton and other long dead men were. At least Lewontin and Gould in the 1970s try to use some (dubious) science to sustain their views. In a way, the blank slaters are now admitting defeat.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Wasn’t it Xanthippe who was notorious for her constant microaggressions — what used to be known as bitching and nagging — against Socrates, and not the other way around?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Microaggressions? She emptied a chamber pot on his head.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Xanthippe is the name of Jane Krakowski's stepdaughter on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, which was co-created by Greek Tina Fey.
    , @kaganovitch
    Tovarisch, you appear not to have absorbed the first revolutionary principle ; Kto kovo? I fear for your prospects come the Revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous[871] • Disclaimer says:

    You say modus tollens, I say modus ponens

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Hey, that's my line!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    This is truly awesome.

    This means that I, as the only true race-ist, is the ultimate heir to Aristotle.

    What other great thinker was the father of race-ism?

    I follow in his footsteps too.

    Shiite.

    You see, while most people deny that they are ‘racist’, I embrace it and am now on par with Aristotle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Hold on, there. I'm so racist that I make even some people around here clutch their pearls.

    Most people in these parts accept the notion that there are races and that races differ on average due to genetics in various capabilities. However, many find the idea of judging an individual by their race quite distasteful and wrong.

    I disagree (and thus am the true racist). Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people's) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race.

    Therefore, any immigrant should be judged on their race. (I'm actually for seperate nation-states so I don't actually believe in any immigration outside of someone from your own race but for argument purposes, I'll go with this.) The same holds true for the nice black couple that wants to move into your neighborhood. Each of those examples likely entails children and, possibly, relatives, which means that you will be dealing with multiple generations, which leads you back to averages.

    Now, if I'm dealing with an individual for short-term purposes, saying hiring a legal citizen for a job, I can judge them as an individual.

    But anything going beyond one generation requires you to judge an individual on their race. (Yeah, I get that there are instances where an individual might be regressing to a different mean, such as high caste Indians, but you get the point.)

    That's a level of racism that I don't see discussed much around here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Steve Sailer
    https://youtu.be/PirH8PADDgQ?t=26s

    If you need a quality amplifier, or some speakers, I’m game.

    Just let me know. I have dozens of each!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Marcus D.
    It's interesting that he works at the University of New Brunswick. Ricardo Duchesne also works there.

    When you dare to challenge academic orthodoxies, it’s a miracle if you hold any professorship anywhere. Otherwise you should be doing better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Written by a professor, natch. At least Canucks are paying his salary

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous[888] • Disclaimer says:

    Do I detect a widening of the Overton Window”? It used to be verboten to mention in any somewhat mainstream publication “scientific racism,” but in the past couple of months it’s O.K. to mention it, repeatedly and prominently, as long as you’re trashing it and using scare quotes around the word “/s/^scien*/”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke Norfolk
    Yes, and the beautiful thing is that they still think their credentials and authority are trump cards; that the average person will still defer to their knowledge unconditionally.

    But that's decreasingly true (though still maddeningly existent). And so they feel confident in doing this, thinking that they will sway the masses with their professorial opinions.

    But really they're doing the opposite. As normies will read this stuff and think, "But these people are full of crap, and so maybe the old wisdom on race, etc. isn't wrong after all."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. But these ideas are even older than Klein realizes. To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.

    Let me phrase this as simply as possible: Western Civilization= racism.

    Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher

    Kinda says it all, doesn’t it?

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later.

    Does this mean that the Middle Ages is PC?

    In the first book of his “Politics,” written in the 300s B.C., Aristotle uses these taxonomies to justify the exclusion of certain people from civic life. While condemning the predominant method of acquiring slaves in his day — capturing prisoners in war — Aristotle argues that some people are by nature (rather than circumstances) fit to be slaves: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” Not only were some people slaves by nature, but it was clear that, for them, “slavery is both expedient and right,” he wrote.

    Prior to this, people just enslaved other people, but without any kind of philosophical justification…..which made it kinda/sorta OK…..

    That Aristotle espoused these views matters, because his imprimatur imbues them with authority and an air of dispassionate reason. Many readers of the “Politics” have concluded that Aristotle lays out first principles, the indisputable facts prescribed by nature, before reasoning from them to arrive at his political theories. If nature, including hierarchies and natural slavery, is simply a fact, then society can function properly only if it is ordered with this fact in mind.

    Pre-Aristotle, hierarchy did not exist…..

    Anyone familiar with the arguments in “The Bell Curve” can probably already sense the ways Aristotle’s naturalistic fatalism connects to today’s “racial science.” Given the results of IQ tests, on which aggregate black Americans fare more poorly than white Americans

    Uh, as for East Asians, they’re honorary Whites, OK? I mean, I remember reading something about Hitler liking the Japanese….

    Murray also says that there should be “a place for everyone,” that a return to traditional values and traditional neighborhoods would allow space for even “low-IQ individuals” to find the types of jobs and stable marriages in which they can lead fulfilling lives, while contributing to society as a whole. This is a dressed-up rehashing of the very same ideas Aristotle seems to have championed: that nature is immutable and that society works best when everyone is assigned their proper place according to their natural abilities.

    How dare you say that not everyone can be a physicist! Life without a phd is a life without dignity!

    But the theories of Murray and Aristotle have one massive flaw. Their ideas about natural hierarchies, particularly those delineated by race, have been regularly refuted.

    I know this to be true because I’m a professor of Classics….

    Nor are the critiques limited to Murray and his contemporaries. As many scholars have pointed out, Aristotle’s position is self-contradictory. While he argued that natural slavishness is due to an inborn deficiency in the capacity to reason, in Aristotle’s formulation, having the capacity to reason simply is the defining characteristic of being human in the first place. How, then, can there be natural slaves?

    Let’s see, genus Homo is, by nature, bipedal…..but Usain Bolt can run faster than I can….Guess that that means that bipedalism has nothing to do with defining genus Homo….

    The answer might lie in the idea that Aristotle was not as staunch a proponent of race science as is generally thought. Political theorist Jill Frank suggests that he was well aware of this apparent contradiction, and throughout his body of work aimed to frame politics not as a function of nature, but rather nature as a question for politics. That is, rather than setting the immutable standards for politics, a person’s innate capacity — his or her fitness for political engagement — itself can be changed and shaped by the very act of political participation.

    Judo-flip! See, Aristotle isn’t a mean old racist….He actually believed in HEAD START!

    Because it is impossible to distinguish natural slaves from natural rulers based on external factors such as physical appearance (as indeed it is impossible to assess people’s IQs based on their membership in a given group),

    Yeah, I mean, who can tell that someone has Downs just by looking at them…..

    Aristotle leaves room for the possibility that habitual engagement with activities appropriate for a free person can make one, in fact, take on the nature of a free person.

    See, if we make dumb people start acting like physicists, they will acquire the nature of physicists….

    Klein identifies the core problem with the position of Murray and his supporters, who hide behind the supposed cold, hard fact of differences in IQ, in their denial of the historical, cultural and social conditions that underlie these realities: “You cannot discuss this topic without discussing its toxic past and the way that shapes our present.”

    Repeat after me: Everything is the result of culture. Biology plays no role in shaping human affairs….

    Instead of discouraging low-IQ individuals from having children

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?

    or paternalistically assigning them to their “proper place,”

    End the MCAT! Medical School should be open to everyone!

    as Murray advocates, let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.

    And then Blacks and East Asians will have identical mean IQs!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/06/aristotle-father-of-scientific-racism/?utm_term=.21657eae7e3a

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?
     
    You might be amazed at how many people think it's perfectly okay to have the lowest-IQ people reproducing the fastest. Where's the harm, indeed? These people f*ing love science, but they don't know what science is. I was amazed one day to learn that I was the only person in my entire office who didn't think retarded people should procreate. Everyone was shocked that I would discriminate against my fellow human beings like that. Not a thought for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?
    , @Verymuchalive
    Excellent demolition of this buffoon's "arguments".
    I do hope he isn't causing Mr Duchesne any grief up in New Brunswick.
    , @ThreeCranes
    Flame on, Syon! Well done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Let’s not forget Abraham. His Covenant also created Culture of Identity. And Moses and his tribal solidarity.

    Damn, as the only true race-ist, this makes me the new Aristotle, Abraham, and Moses.

    I always knew race-ism had a great pedigree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Only slightly OT, the NYT on the newest Hitler, Viktor Orban.

    He’s the worst of all possible things: a populist who loves his country.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/world/europe/viktor-orban-hungary-politics.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @syonredux

    But these ideas are even older than Klein realizes. To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.
     
    Let me phrase this as simply as possible: Western Civilization= racism.

    Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher
     
    Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later.
     
    Does this mean that the Middle Ages is PC?

    In the first book of his “Politics,” written in the 300s B.C., Aristotle uses these taxonomies to justify the exclusion of certain people from civic life. While condemning the predominant method of acquiring slaves in his day — capturing prisoners in war — Aristotle argues that some people are by nature (rather than circumstances) fit to be slaves: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” Not only were some people slaves by nature, but it was clear that, for them, “slavery is both expedient and right,” he wrote.
     
    Prior to this, people just enslaved other people, but without any kind of philosophical justification.....which made it kinda/sorta OK.....

    That Aristotle espoused these views matters, because his imprimatur imbues them with authority and an air of dispassionate reason. Many readers of the “Politics” have concluded that Aristotle lays out first principles, the indisputable facts prescribed by nature, before reasoning from them to arrive at his political theories. If nature, including hierarchies and natural slavery, is simply a fact, then society can function properly only if it is ordered with this fact in mind.

     

    Pre-Aristotle, hierarchy did not exist.....

    Anyone familiar with the arguments in “The Bell Curve” can probably already sense the ways Aristotle’s naturalistic fatalism connects to today’s “racial science.” Given the results of IQ tests, on which aggregate black Americans fare more poorly than white Americans

     

    Uh, as for East Asians, they're honorary Whites, OK? I mean, I remember reading something about Hitler liking the Japanese....

    Murray also says that there should be “a place for everyone,” that a return to traditional values and traditional neighborhoods would allow space for even “low-IQ individuals” to find the types of jobs and stable marriages in which they can lead fulfilling lives, while contributing to society as a whole. This is a dressed-up rehashing of the very same ideas Aristotle seems to have championed: that nature is immutable and that society works best when everyone is assigned their proper place according to their natural abilities.

     

    How dare you say that not everyone can be a physicist! Life without a phd is a life without dignity!

    But the theories of Murray and Aristotle have one massive flaw. Their ideas about natural hierarchies, particularly those delineated by race, have been regularly refuted.
     
    I know this to be true because I'm a professor of Classics....

    Nor are the critiques limited to Murray and his contemporaries. As many scholars have pointed out, Aristotle’s position is self-contradictory. While he argued that natural slavishness is due to an inborn deficiency in the capacity to reason, in Aristotle’s formulation, having the capacity to reason simply is the defining characteristic of being human in the first place. How, then, can there be natural slaves?
     
    Let's see, genus Homo is, by nature, bipedal.....but Usain Bolt can run faster than I can....Guess that that means that bipedalism has nothing to do with defining genus Homo....

    The answer might lie in the idea that Aristotle was not as staunch a proponent of race science as is generally thought. Political theorist Jill Frank suggests that he was well aware of this apparent contradiction, and throughout his body of work aimed to frame politics not as a function of nature, but rather nature as a question for politics. That is, rather than setting the immutable standards for politics, a person’s innate capacity — his or her fitness for political engagement — itself can be changed and shaped by the very act of political participation.
     
    Judo-flip! See, Aristotle isn't a mean old racist....He actually believed in HEAD START!

    Because it is impossible to distinguish natural slaves from natural rulers based on external factors such as physical appearance (as indeed it is impossible to assess people’s IQs based on their membership in a given group),
     
    Yeah, I mean, who can tell that someone has Downs just by looking at them.....

    Aristotle leaves room for the possibility that habitual engagement with activities appropriate for a free person can make one, in fact, take on the nature of a free person.

     

    See, if we make dumb people start acting like physicists, they will acquire the nature of physicists....

    Klein identifies the core problem with the position of Murray and his supporters, who hide behind the supposed cold, hard fact of differences in IQ, in their denial of the historical, cultural and social conditions that underlie these realities: “You cannot discuss this topic without discussing its toxic past and the way that shapes our present.”
     
    Repeat after me: Everything is the result of culture. Biology plays no role in shaping human affairs....

    Instead of discouraging low-IQ individuals from having children
     
    Why shouldn't people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where's the harm?

    or paternalistically assigning them to their “proper place,”
     
    End the MCAT! Medical School should be open to everyone!

    as Murray advocates, let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.
     
    And then Blacks and East Asians will have identical mean IQs!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/06/aristotle-father-of-scientific-racism/?utm_term=.21657eae7e3a

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?

    You might be amazed at how many people think it’s perfectly okay to have the lowest-IQ people reproducing the fastest. Where’s the harm, indeed? These people f*ing love science, but they don’t know what science is. I was amazed one day to learn that I was the only person in my entire office who didn’t think retarded people should procreate. Everyone was shocked that I would discriminate against my fellow human beings like that. Not a thought for the children. Won’t somebody please think of the children?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Note that this sentimentality towards stupid people isn't confined to liberals. I've seen people on hard-right websites, who talk freely and frankly about the problems caused by various minorities, become paranoid and defensive when the discussion turns (as it inevitably must) to retards.
    , @Anonymous
    The "many people" you describe probably number in the tens of millions. It takes one's breath away. And the phrase "they don't know science" is if anything an understatement. I love it when one hears people flap about teaching Evolution vs. Creationism but turn up a deaf ear when told that something called "natural selection" is the driving force of that selfsame "evolution" and that it has implications vis-a-vis the human condition.

    Hence the admonition "don't discriminate", notwithstanding that nature has been "discriminating" for over a billion years.
    , @Macumazahn
    The real problem with your perfectly-reasonable position is the inconvenient truth that the mean IQ of America's Negro population is about 85. Now you're talking genocide. Alas, that's beyond the pale.
    , @wrd9
    There's a video on Youtube of Jordan Peterson discussing with Richard Haier the issue of low IQ people. Evidently those who have an IQ of 90 or less do not have the cognitive ability to read instructions and follow them. There are over 50 million of them in the US now. You might want to ask your coworkers what might happen to a society if under 90 IQ people are the majority due to overbreeding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj62Uy25uBs
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    “Darwinian evolution’s teleology”

    http://artefactphil.arte-fact.org/2014/01/darwinian-evolutions-teleology.html

    Modern Darwinian evolutionary theory is proud that it has cast off the quaint Aristotelean notion of teleological cause, causa finalis. Instead, it sticks to the strict scientificity of efficient cause. Or so it claims. Evolution is said to proceed via natural selection that selects the successful living species that are generated by chance mutations of genes. The criterion of success is simply that a species survives, for there is a so-called ‘struggle of survival’ among the species.

    Teleological explanation, by contrast, is said to ‘explain’ the successful features of living beings that allow them to survive in terms of their purposeful design by some maker or other. For instance, the beaks of certain species of finches would be designed to be adapted specifically to a certain environment, thus enabling the finches to successfully survive to the point of reproduction. (If you don’t believe this is how teleology in evolution is thought about, listen to the reputable philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, in his recent lecture on the Gaia Hypothesis.) Evolutionary theory pooh poohs the ‘ridiculous’ idea of teleological design….

    So scientific evolutionary theory, albeit implicitly, smuggles in from the outset the _telos_ of all life: the urge to survive. Life is that mode of being with the urge to perpetuate its own self-movement. All living beings strive essentially to bring themselves into presence and maintain this self-moving presence for as long as possible. One aspect of life’s self-movement is reproduction itself, through which the species itself is propagated.

    Evolutionary theory is at a loss to account for the essence, the nature of life itself as self-movement. Its apparatus of efficient causality must capitulate before this self-presencing of life itself. This does not prevent it, however, from blindly and vainly seeking the efficient causes of life itself through, say. molecular biology, thus maintaining the efficient causal hierarchy for the ultimate scientific explanation of the cosmos from physics through chemistry to biology (and then on to explaining human consciousness itself as some complicated kind of neuronal processing).

    Modern science is in its essence wedded to efficient causality, i.e. to effectiveness, and it will defend to the bitter end this betrothal to the will to effective power — that is, until there is an historical occasion for an alternative way of thinking to make inroads against its dogma. Modern science’s arrogant over-self-confidence is the present-day form of superstition that reigns in the universities right through the media to everyday prejudices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    Exactly. The point I was going to make. Glad I read your comment first.

    Most moderns probably don't realize that Aristotle is the weirdest thinker ever. His thinking is totally alien to the modern mind. He stated that everything must be understood as being comprised of four "causes": the Material which is the primal stuff of which something is composed, the Formal which is the design or formal shape of that material stuff, the Efficient, who is the doer or author of the work under consideration and finally, the Final which is the intended use or function for or to which something is to be put.

    Now think about that for a moment. He's saying that you can't comprehend the essential nature of something unless you have in mind the final purpose for which that thing is intended. So different from our modern notion that the cause of everything is to be sought only in its antecedents. Surely, what Aristotle asserts is true of every man-made object--at least we hope so! We curse those things which fail to meet this criteria as being ineffectual and hopelessly lost causes. If a coat of paint doesn't protect the underlying substrate, then we must strip it off and start anew, which wastes time and labor and causes us to tear our hair out.

    But is this a useful way of approaching natural organisms? I believe yes. Is it compatible with Darwinism? Yes, because both focus on the niche, the hollow towards which the organism evolves as a space waiting to be filled. Critics of teleology hammer away at a straw man, some personified transcendent Force that shapes matter like so much clay. Ridiculous misstatement of the argument.

    Adaption is both a pushing out and a pushing in. The organism carves out a niche and the environment simultaneously yields space within which the organism can exist. In this way, an environmental niche is like a soap bubble. The pressure caused by the collision of gas molecules within the bubble is balanced by the pressure caused by the collision of gas molecules against the skin from without. Their equipoise constitutes the "thingness" of the soap bubble.

    There is an available, exploitable niche towards which the organism evolves and for which it is selected. Thus the teleological Final cause of Aristotle and the Efficient Cause of Darwin are balanced and complimentary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. lol

    ” We have three people wounded who were sent to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital where a man is in critical condition. ”

    https://www.npr.org/2018/04/04/599369015/what-we-know-about-the-youtube-shooter

    more Philip Glass!!11!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    Now on YouTube, the Governorator doing some Gun Porn:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NhqW4zZ5QA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. We need to encourage these progs to associate more illustrious names with race-ism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    This stuff is priceless, better than The Onion.

    But the theories of Murray and Aristotle have one massive flaw. Their ideas about natural hierarchies, particularly those delineated by race, have been regularly refuted. Libraries are filled with works by experts challenging the scientific validity of “race science.

    There, take that, Murray and Aristotle! Learn the definition of “massive flaw”!

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Lately, I've been thinking that someone should create a comedy radio station that was just 24/7 people reading funny Leftist ideas without commentary, but slightly ironic voices.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Pop quiz...

    Guess the territory associated with the following news article:

    Woman “Hanane Mouhib” Arrested After Decapitating 7-Year-Old Boy

    A. Morocco

    B. Sweden

    C. Arrakis

    D. New York State

    Lol @ Arrakis.

    This is actually a trick question though, because the answer is B. and D.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    What is not clear is if the knife was from IKEA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

    Yet Darwin proceeded to go off and theorize as if Aristotle had never existed. Only an utter philosophical naif would assert any point of commonality between these two men, especially insofar as Aristotle had considered and rejected “Darwinism” 2100 years avant la lettre.

    One might think that if a modern-day race-egalitarian was desperate enough for any straw to grasp in his struggle against racial hierarchies, he would use this occasion to take the part of Aristotle against Darwin; for Aristotle would be the first to agree that, notwithstanding the observed differences among the members of mankind, all did belong to the same species of rational animals and did participate in the same basic human essence. While any reading of Aristotle which stopped at this point and forewent further elaboration would be childishly and touchingly shallow, it would not be incorrect. It would at least have the virtue of preserving the one point—viz. the recognition of a common humanity—that an honest liberal would consider sufficient to ensure juridical equality.

    The fact that this path was not taken is itself rather telling. Darwin, in his capacity as the ur-Lord of a “naturalistic” explanation of human motivations which conveniently justifies an attitude of moral and especially sexual libertinism, is too much of a sacred cow among those of the Left to ever be directly called into question by them. For the liberals, to embrace Aristotle would lead to the kind of sobriety in the light of which their fever-dreams of moral relativism and social constructivism could not be sustained. On the other hand, the “Darwinian defense” on the lips of race-realist “conservatives,” with its derived sub-genres of genetics and intelligence quotients, is a similar sort of intellectual dodge. It is only by clinging to the hobgoblin of “objective science” that the race-realist avoids crossing the threshold into characterology, which would necessitate him venturing on the high seas of psychology and metaphysics where he feels unsure of himself. But the metaphysical definition of race is the only one that can, in the last analysis, be maintained; thus the realist followers of Darwin deprive themselves of their sole unassailable redoubt.

    There is an element of cowardice, bad faith, and intellectual sloth that abounds on all sides of this debate, which can only be shaken off by grasping the nettle of true philosophy. With regard to this central question, the race-realists and the race-egalitarians differ from each other only in the manner in which they avoid it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Polynikes
    It is only by clinging to the hobgoblin of “objective science” that the race-realist avoids crossing the threshold into characterology, which would necessitate him venturing on the high seas of psychology and metaphysics where he feels unsure of himself.

    You sort of went off the rails here. Race can generally be classified, fairly accurately, through observation. It will more specifically be classified the more we find out about the human genome. The two will be connected with the former being corrected for more specificity as we venture into the future.
    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    1. Do you think Darwinians today would deny all humans belong to the same species, despite denying the existence of a "human essence"?

    2. What do you think believing in a "human essence" would change in the debate about the differences among groups of humans?

    3. Do you think there saying "men are rational" necessarily implies "all men and all subgroups of men are capable of the same amount of rational thought under optimal environmental conditions?"
    , @MBlanc46
    I fail to see how Aristotle is any less naturalistic than Darwin. Teleological rather than mechanistic, yes, but at least as naturalistic. A good case can be made that A is more naturalistic than D. Those essences that one intuits are fixed natures, whereas Darwinian species are fluctuating states due to random changes. Nor do I feel any need to accept some metaphysical notion of race. I find Steve Sailer’s “extended family” account to be adequate. I don’t see how it avoids any essential question (unlike social constructionism).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @syonredux

    But these ideas are even older than Klein realizes. To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.
     
    Let me phrase this as simply as possible: Western Civilization= racism.

    Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher
     
    Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later.
     
    Does this mean that the Middle Ages is PC?

    In the first book of his “Politics,” written in the 300s B.C., Aristotle uses these taxonomies to justify the exclusion of certain people from civic life. While condemning the predominant method of acquiring slaves in his day — capturing prisoners in war — Aristotle argues that some people are by nature (rather than circumstances) fit to be slaves: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” Not only were some people slaves by nature, but it was clear that, for them, “slavery is both expedient and right,” he wrote.
     
    Prior to this, people just enslaved other people, but without any kind of philosophical justification.....which made it kinda/sorta OK.....

    That Aristotle espoused these views matters, because his imprimatur imbues them with authority and an air of dispassionate reason. Many readers of the “Politics” have concluded that Aristotle lays out first principles, the indisputable facts prescribed by nature, before reasoning from them to arrive at his political theories. If nature, including hierarchies and natural slavery, is simply a fact, then society can function properly only if it is ordered with this fact in mind.

     

    Pre-Aristotle, hierarchy did not exist.....

    Anyone familiar with the arguments in “The Bell Curve” can probably already sense the ways Aristotle’s naturalistic fatalism connects to today’s “racial science.” Given the results of IQ tests, on which aggregate black Americans fare more poorly than white Americans

     

    Uh, as for East Asians, they're honorary Whites, OK? I mean, I remember reading something about Hitler liking the Japanese....

    Murray also says that there should be “a place for everyone,” that a return to traditional values and traditional neighborhoods would allow space for even “low-IQ individuals” to find the types of jobs and stable marriages in which they can lead fulfilling lives, while contributing to society as a whole. This is a dressed-up rehashing of the very same ideas Aristotle seems to have championed: that nature is immutable and that society works best when everyone is assigned their proper place according to their natural abilities.

     

    How dare you say that not everyone can be a physicist! Life without a phd is a life without dignity!

    But the theories of Murray and Aristotle have one massive flaw. Their ideas about natural hierarchies, particularly those delineated by race, have been regularly refuted.
     
    I know this to be true because I'm a professor of Classics....

    Nor are the critiques limited to Murray and his contemporaries. As many scholars have pointed out, Aristotle’s position is self-contradictory. While he argued that natural slavishness is due to an inborn deficiency in the capacity to reason, in Aristotle’s formulation, having the capacity to reason simply is the defining characteristic of being human in the first place. How, then, can there be natural slaves?
     
    Let's see, genus Homo is, by nature, bipedal.....but Usain Bolt can run faster than I can....Guess that that means that bipedalism has nothing to do with defining genus Homo....

    The answer might lie in the idea that Aristotle was not as staunch a proponent of race science as is generally thought. Political theorist Jill Frank suggests that he was well aware of this apparent contradiction, and throughout his body of work aimed to frame politics not as a function of nature, but rather nature as a question for politics. That is, rather than setting the immutable standards for politics, a person’s innate capacity — his or her fitness for political engagement — itself can be changed and shaped by the very act of political participation.
     
    Judo-flip! See, Aristotle isn't a mean old racist....He actually believed in HEAD START!

    Because it is impossible to distinguish natural slaves from natural rulers based on external factors such as physical appearance (as indeed it is impossible to assess people’s IQs based on their membership in a given group),
     
    Yeah, I mean, who can tell that someone has Downs just by looking at them.....

    Aristotle leaves room for the possibility that habitual engagement with activities appropriate for a free person can make one, in fact, take on the nature of a free person.

     

    See, if we make dumb people start acting like physicists, they will acquire the nature of physicists....

    Klein identifies the core problem with the position of Murray and his supporters, who hide behind the supposed cold, hard fact of differences in IQ, in their denial of the historical, cultural and social conditions that underlie these realities: “You cannot discuss this topic without discussing its toxic past and the way that shapes our present.”
     
    Repeat after me: Everything is the result of culture. Biology plays no role in shaping human affairs....

    Instead of discouraging low-IQ individuals from having children
     
    Why shouldn't people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where's the harm?

    or paternalistically assigning them to their “proper place,”
     
    End the MCAT! Medical School should be open to everyone!

    as Murray advocates, let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.
     
    And then Blacks and East Asians will have identical mean IQs!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/06/aristotle-father-of-scientific-racism/?utm_term=.21657eae7e3a

    Excellent demolition of this buffoon’s “arguments”.
    I do hope he isn’t causing Mr Duchesne any grief up in New Brunswick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    He's probably upset that Mr Duchesne has a number one best seller - Canada in Decay, I have a copy of the book myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anonymous[400] • Disclaimer says:

    Aristotle doesn’t get any points for being gay?

    “New Nixon audio: “Aristotle was a homo… Roman emperors, fags””

    http://americablog.com/2013/08/audio-nixon-gay-all-in-the-family-aristotle.html

    Nixon: The point that I make is that goddamit, I do not think that you glorify, on public television, homosexuality! You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them. Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates.

    Ehrlichman: But he never had the influence that television has.

    Nixon: The last six Roman emperors were fags. You see, homosexuality, immorality in general, these are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the communists and the left-wingers are pushing it. They’re trying to destroy us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Oh, dear.

    Nixon's comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the "Five Good Emperors,"made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn't endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.
    , @syonredux
    There was an internet challenge a while back that involved people pledging to read only books written by subaltern authors for a year (Blacks, Latinx,LGBTQs). My response: Goody. I'll just read only LGBTQ authors for a year: Plato, Christopher Marlowe, Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, Willa Cather, Francis Bacon, etc. Sadly, the SJW crowd glommed on to the fact that the LGBTQ clause would allow people to read lots of Whites authors, which resulted in the scrapping of the category in later iterations of the list.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Aristotle, father of scientific racism

    How the famous philosopher paved the way for books like “The Bell Curve.”

    By Matthew A. Sears April 6 at 6:00 AM

    Matthew A. Sears is an associate professor of classics and ancient history at the University of New Brunswick.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Perspective
    He's a "professor" of classics and ancient history in name only. It's Orwellian speak for anti-Western propagandist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Pogroms happening right now!

    Cossacks are dragging Jews through the streets!

    Video

    That’s some serious street cleaning, but it’s all good fun.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @newrouter
    lol

    " We have three people wounded who were sent to Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital where a man is in critical condition. "

    https://www.npr.org/2018/04/04/599369015/what-we-know-about-the-youtube-shooter

    more Philip Glass!!11!!

    Now on YouTube, the Governorator doing some Gun Porn:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Anonymous
    Aristotle doesn't get any points for being gay?

    "New Nixon audio: “Aristotle was a homo… Roman emperors, fags”"

    http://americablog.com/2013/08/audio-nixon-gay-all-in-the-family-aristotle.html

    Nixon: The point that I make is that goddamit, I do not think that you glorify, on public television, homosexuality! You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them. Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates.

    Ehrlichman: But he never had the influence that television has.

    Nixon: The last six Roman emperors were fags. You see, homosexuality, immorality in general, these are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the communists and the left-wingers are pushing it. They’re trying to destroy us.
     

    Oh, dear.

    Nixon’s comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the “Five Good Emperors,”made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn’t endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TheJester

    "The evidence would, therefore, tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse."
     
    Only if you believe that "after this, therefore, because of this" is a scientific principle verifiable in the real world. On the contrary, it is demonstrably false. It is often called the post hoc fallacy ... a fundamental mistake in logic.
    , @Neuday

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.
     
    During times of decay, degeneracy falls out of fashion. Thankfully, the welfare state and a bit 'o the 'ol Anarcho-Tyranny will ensure that this never, ever happens again.
    , @syonredux

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.
     
    More like pederasty. The idealized form in Greece involved a mature man loving a beardless youth. Once a beard was grown, the bloom was off the rose (so to speak). Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, "intercrural sex" (between the thighs) was the preferred method.Cf the fragment from a lost play by Aeschylus where Achilles, when characterizing his relationship with Hephaestion, speaks of the "chaste consecration of our thighs."
    , @Ron Unz
    Right. Of course the European peninsula exists. I merely object to referring to it as a continent, which it isn't. I would be fine with calling it a sub-continent, which is how India is often referred to.
    , @Logan
    I should note that instead of saying 100s and 200s AD, I should have said first and second centuries.

    Sorry 'bout that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Logan
    Oh, dear.

    Nixon's comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the "Five Good Emperors,"made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn't endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    “The evidence would, therefore, tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.”

    Only if you believe that “after this, therefore, because of this” is a scientific principle verifiable in the real world. On the contrary, it is demonstrably false. It is often called the post hoc fallacy … a fundamental mistake in logic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    This is a very common fallacy around these parts.
    , @Logan
    Quite right. Which is exactly what the "homosexuality caused the decline and fall of the Greeks and Romans" guys are doing. I merely flipped the idea, with somewhat more historical accuracy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @anony-mouse
    Didn't Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?

    Didn’t Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?

    Thanks for the laugh. It’s amusing to see the descendants of Northern Europeans who the ancient Greeks described as mentally deficient barbarians, getting off on Aristotle’s views on who should be master, and who slave.

    It is also amusing to see them getting off on Murray’s book based on which jews and east asians should rightfully be their masters….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Most Alt-righter or iStevers don't believe in slave and master. We simply believe that: 1) there are races; 2) races differ in their capabilities due to evolution; and 3) that races are happiest when they are allowed to live in their own lands and govern themselves.

    No master, no slave. No supremists. Just nation-states interacting. Some states may be more productive than others, but that doesn't make their superior. Each nation creates a society their fits their personalty and talents. It's the same with individuals.

    , @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    It's quite a leap from "differences exist and favor group X" and "group X has the right to rule everyone else".

    I think many of these North Europeans you mock understand this nowadays, as they are neither happy to import East Asians nor willing to go to Africa and rule the natives they dislike.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    Actually, Murray is much more subtler in his works, including "Human Accomplishment". He is not an IQ fundamentalist, and has acknowledged that Jews & east Asians, although having slightly higher average IQ than Europeans, have in crucial periods of history lagged behind Europeans, because their (religious) cultures, Judaism & Confucianism, are conservative & not individualistic, unlike European major developments (Greek miracle 700-200 BC, post-Renaissance era in European history).

    Human accomplishment is not reducible to IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. “Despite its triumphant revival in the West in the prior millennium, the Ancient Greeks’ view of logical debate as a no-hard-feelings contact sport seems to be fading as our culture becomes more female-dominated. Intellectual disagreement is now taken very personally….”

    “Female-dominated” thinking [sic] is also destroying what used to be the consistent, intelligible and predictable functioning of our legal system. The governments in the western world have shifted away from a long-held high priority to protect freedom of expression to the suppression of “hatred” selectively and arbitrarily interpreted and enforced by high placed ideologues who get to determine whose hatred gets punished and whose is justified (sounds like arguing with my sister). This turns the business of legislating, of making readily understandable rules that everyone is expected to follow, into a contorted hermeneutics of hatred where the subjectivity of moralizing displaces the objectivity of law and the intended universality of its application. The ideologues (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Elizabeth Warren) who operate the abstruse moral machinery that is designed to suppress hatred have theorized individuals into distinct groups, the oppressed and the oppressors, the later who exploit and, of course, hate the former. The social world the ideologues envision is a deeply morally fractured one populated by helpless, blameless victims who need protection from the malevolent, menacing bigots who fail to recognize the humanity of those they oppress. The moral and legal order of such a world then must be structured to protect the oppressed and punish the oppressors, and so the moral and legal standards and expectations necessarily differ depending on whether you are an oppressor or one of the oppressed. The mad scramble then commences. You join, if you can, the community of the oppressed, articulate your grievances, agitate for revenge, and demand the assistance and protection of the state. Failing that, retreat, submit, be quiet and hope the political police will leave you in peace.

    Just think about what Hillary would have done if elected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @anony-mouse
    Didn't Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?

    Aristotle was the father of observation and the scientific method. In his time, there was certainly some accuracy to his observation, I would bet.

    Of course, a lot has changed in 2000+ years. You would have to hold a pretty dim view of Aristotle to think he wouldn’t be able to observe the shifted landscape today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Wait until Matthew A. Sears discovers Heidegger’s complete rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and logic as “nihilistic.” That mgiht cause him his next headache.

    (Such headaches I call the Postmodernist’s Headache) – : – You could laugh your ass off about such stuff, if you would be ignorant to the fact, that facts do not exist and never have existed outside of the social world (I think of Tom Wolfe now…). The “good old days of unrivaled reason and rationality” never have existed.

    What I’d concede though: There were times, when it was easier for the ingroup of the scientific elite to argue properly (I at times even think, I could personally remember, how that felt…what in the end might only mean, that I grew older in the meantime, and start to bring up my own version of the golden days of old (Bob Dylan, “Self Portrait” The Days of ’49) – while, as I’ve already said: Those good old days never really existed – exept maybe in the memories of some older persons that is . . . (to be ctd. eternally (= classical Greek thinking, btw. – – – we were great, but the young are decadent).

    cf. Martin Heidegger, Nietzsche 1o48 p., Pfullingen, 1962

    Tom Wolfe is great, though (funnier than Heidegger, and there’s more reality in Wolfe’s books, too).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Intelligent Dasein

    Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”
     
    Yet Darwin proceeded to go off and theorize as if Aristotle had never existed. Only an utter philosophical naif would assert any point of commonality between these two men, especially insofar as Aristotle had considered and rejected "Darwinism" 2100 years avant la lettre.

    One might think that if a modern-day race-egalitarian was desperate enough for any straw to grasp in his struggle against racial hierarchies, he would use this occasion to take the part of Aristotle against Darwin; for Aristotle would be the first to agree that, notwithstanding the observed differences among the members of mankind, all did belong to the same species of rational animals and did participate in the same basic human essence. While any reading of Aristotle which stopped at this point and forewent further elaboration would be childishly and touchingly shallow, it would not be incorrect. It would at least have the virtue of preserving the one point---viz. the recognition of a common humanity---that an honest liberal would consider sufficient to ensure juridical equality.

    The fact that this path was not taken is itself rather telling. Darwin, in his capacity as the ur-Lord of a "naturalistic" explanation of human motivations which conveniently justifies an attitude of moral and especially sexual libertinism, is too much of a sacred cow among those of the Left to ever be directly called into question by them. For the liberals, to embrace Aristotle would lead to the kind of sobriety in the light of which their fever-dreams of moral relativism and social constructivism could not be sustained. On the other hand, the "Darwinian defense" on the lips of race-realist "conservatives," with its derived sub-genres of genetics and intelligence quotients, is a similar sort of intellectual dodge. It is only by clinging to the hobgoblin of "objective science" that the race-realist avoids crossing the threshold into characterology, which would necessitate him venturing on the high seas of psychology and metaphysics where he feels unsure of himself. But the metaphysical definition of race is the only one that can, in the last analysis, be maintained; thus the realist followers of Darwin deprive themselves of their sole unassailable redoubt.

    There is an element of cowardice, bad faith, and intellectual sloth that abounds on all sides of this debate, which can only be shaken off by grasping the nettle of true philosophy. With regard to this central question, the race-realists and the race-egalitarians differ from each other only in the manner in which they avoid it.

    It is only by clinging to the hobgoblin of “objective science” that the race-realist avoids crossing the threshold into characterology, which would necessitate him venturing on the high seas of psychology and metaphysics where he feels unsure of himself.

    You sort of went off the rails here. Race can generally be classified, fairly accurately, through observation. It will more specifically be classified the more we find out about the human genome. The two will be connected with the former being corrected for more specificity as we venture into the future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Altai

    Aristotle, father of scientific racism

    How the famous philosopher paved the way for books like “The Bell Curve.”

    By Matthew A. Sears April 6 at 6:00 AM

    Matthew A. Sears is an associate professor of classics and ancient history at the University of New Brunswick.
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5mLjKI968g

    He’s a “professor” of classics and ancient history in name only. It’s Orwellian speak for anti-Western propagandist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Herzog
    Wasn't it Xanthippe who was notorious for her constant microaggressions -- what used to be known as bitching and nagging -- against Socrates, and not the other way around?

    Microaggressions? She emptied a chamber pot on his head.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later. …

    This is perfectly accurate. Book I of Aristotle’s Politics is about defining the natural social hierarchy from highest to lowest: Free men, women, children, slaves, animals. Each category should by nature rule over the ones beneath it. The socio-political order is perverted and corrupted if this natural hierarchy is not followed.

    Despite its triumphant revival in the West in the prior millennium, the Ancient Greeks’ view of logical debate as a no-hard-feelings contact sport seems to be fading as our culture becomes more female-dominated. Intellectual disagreement is now taken very personally. …

    I’d dispute the statement that the Greek “view of logical debate” was “no-hard feelings.” After all, Socrates was executed for his ideas and Aristotle was exiled. In light of that, the Western university was supposed to be a place of “no hard feelings logical debate.”

    It’s not that way any more, however. It’s entirely true that the feminization of the modern academy has led to speech codes and political correctness. Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproven. Feminized academics are the ones practicing identity politics, not abstract ideas or Platonic Forms. The feminization of the modern university constitutes its death knell.

    Of course, Aristotle would have understood that perfectly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Macumazahn
    "Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproved."
    Indeed, I've never yet known a woman to debate - all they do is argue.
    , @Rosie

    It’s not that way any more, however. It’s entirely true that the feminization of the modern academy has led to speech codes and political correctness.
     
    Disagree. Women just value civility more than men. This is more a help than a hindrance to free exchange of ideas. Men apparently are much more likely to approve of shouting down controversial speakers so they can't be heard. Tell me more about how women suppress academic debate.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.90eb9a740997

    Speech codes and political correctness are designed to prevent noticing, which is perceived as very threatening by people who would rather not be noticed for whatever reason.


    Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproven.
     
    I'm always amused at how Dissident Right caricatures of "females" contradict each other. Not long ago, there was some discussion of why White "females" vote for Republicans. Many were of the opinion that we vote like our husbands because we are weak-minded and easily influenced by them. Go figure.

    Feminized academics are the ones practicing identity politics, not abstract ideas or Platonic Forms.
     
    Well, in that case, White people need more feminized academics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous[617] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mishra

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?
     
    You might be amazed at how many people think it's perfectly okay to have the lowest-IQ people reproducing the fastest. Where's the harm, indeed? These people f*ing love science, but they don't know what science is. I was amazed one day to learn that I was the only person in my entire office who didn't think retarded people should procreate. Everyone was shocked that I would discriminate against my fellow human beings like that. Not a thought for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

    Note that this sentimentality towards stupid people isn’t confined to liberals. I’ve seen people on hard-right websites, who talk freely and frankly about the problems caused by various minorities, become paranoid and defensive when the discussion turns (as it inevitably must) to retards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    This is a function of the right being anti-abortion. If you don't bend over backwards to tell the world how valuable retards are, then it is a slippery slope to aborting them. Also, George Will is the father of one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Verymuchalive
    Excellent demolition of this buffoon's "arguments".
    I do hope he isn't causing Mr Duchesne any grief up in New Brunswick.

    He’s probably upset that Mr Duchesne has a number one best seller – Canada in Decay, I have a copy of the book myself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Aristotle also did not believe that “diversity is a strength.”

    “Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution…”
    Aristotle, Politics

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Mill in On Liberty seems to describe the opposite, at least where a special and nowadays rare constituent can be found:

    What the French are in military affairs, the Americans are in every kind of civil business; let them be left without a government, every body of Americans is able to improvise one, and to carry on that or any other public business with a sufficient amount of intelligence, order, and decision. This is what every free people ought to be: and a people capable of this is certain to be free; it will never let itself be enslaved by any man or body of men because these are able to seize and pull the reins of the central administration.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Bliss

    Didn’t Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?
     
    Thanks for the laugh. It’s amusing to see the descendants of Northern Europeans who the ancient Greeks described as mentally deficient barbarians, getting off on Aristotle’s views on who should be master, and who slave.

    It is also amusing to see them getting off on Murray’s book based on which jews and east asians should rightfully be their masters....

    Most Alt-righter or iStevers don’t believe in slave and master. We simply believe that: 1) there are races; 2) races differ in their capabilities due to evolution; and 3) that races are happiest when they are allowed to live in their own lands and govern themselves.

    No master, no slave. No supremists. Just nation-states interacting. Some states may be more productive than others, but that doesn’t make their superior. Each nation creates a society their fits their personalty and talents. It’s the same with individuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    Most Alt-righter or iStevers don’t believe in slave and master. We simply believe that: 1) there are races; 2) races differ in their capabilities due to evolution; and 3) that races are happiest when they are allowed to live in their own lands and govern themselves.

    No master, no slave.
     
    Aristotle discussed slavery extensively, and it's very important to understand his very nuanced view of it.

    For Aristotle (and Plato as well) a slave was someone not capable of using reason. Slaves were governed by "passions" or emotions or superstitions, not logic or dialectical arguments. (Actually, we still use this meaning today when we say someone is a "slave" to his heroin habit, etc.)

    Aristotle has a couple of analogies to describe the "natural slave:" he is sort of like a beast of burden, like an ox; another analogy is that the brain properly controls the body's inferior functions (again, we use this meaning today when we say that somebody a "slave to his passions" when he "is led around by his dick").

    In the premodern world, in the absence of industrial machinery, someone was going to have to do the manual, physical work. and someone was going to have to be the "brains of the operation." Would it be right and proper for the more rational man to direct the labor of others, or for the ignorant, the emotional, and the superstitious to be in charge? Should a 130 IQ surgeon direct the operating room, or the 70 IQ cleaning lady? The answer is obvious.

    However, Aristotle recognizes the very difficult problem of "slavery by convention," in which enemy troops captured in war are enslaved. These troops may well not be "slaves by nature" and may well be superior in intelligence to their masters. He does not have a real solution to this problem, other than to recognize it and point out that it is a perversion of the natural order.

    As far as applying Aristotle to today's racial environment, the problem we see is when affirmative action and government preferences pervert the natural order and place people of lower ability in positions of power and authority that they are naturally unsuited for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. The article ends with: “let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.”

    If DNA is leading to those low scores, then how is he going to rectify it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Anon
    This is truly awesome.

    This means that I, as the only true race-ist, is the ultimate heir to Aristotle.

    What other great thinker was the father of race-ism?

    I follow in his footsteps too.

    Shiite.

    You see, while most people deny that they are 'racist', I embrace it and am now on par with Aristotle.

    Hold on, there. I’m so racist that I make even some people around here clutch their pearls.

    Most people in these parts accept the notion that there are races and that races differ on average due to genetics in various capabilities. However, many find the idea of judging an individual by their race quite distasteful and wrong.

    I disagree (and thus am the true racist). Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people’s) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race.

    Therefore, any immigrant should be judged on their race. (I’m actually for seperate nation-states so I don’t actually believe in any immigration outside of someone from your own race but for argument purposes, I’ll go with this.) The same holds true for the nice black couple that wants to move into your neighborhood. Each of those examples likely entails children and, possibly, relatives, which means that you will be dealing with multiple generations, which leads you back to averages.

    Now, if I’m dealing with an individual for short-term purposes, saying hiring a legal citizen for a job, I can judge them as an individual.

    But anything going beyond one generation requires you to judge an individual on their race. (Yeah, I get that there are instances where an individual might be regressing to a different mean, such as high caste Indians, but you get the point.)

    That’s a level of racism that I don’t see discussed much around here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You can be Plato.

    But I'm Aristotle.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people’s) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race."

    But people (mostly) don't mate randomly within their race, or you wouldn't have families like the Fiennes', who have been producing accomplished people for nearly a thousand years, or the Darwin-Wedgewoods.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiennes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%E2%80%93Wedgwood_family

    I bet Thomas Sowell's kids don't have 85 IQs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Bliss

    Didn’t Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?
     
    Thanks for the laugh. It’s amusing to see the descendants of Northern Europeans who the ancient Greeks described as mentally deficient barbarians, getting off on Aristotle’s views on who should be master, and who slave.

    It is also amusing to see them getting off on Murray’s book based on which jews and east asians should rightfully be their masters....

    It’s quite a leap from “differences exist and favor group X” and “group X has the right to rule everyone else”.

    I think many of these North Europeans you mock understand this nowadays, as they are neither happy to import East Asians nor willing to go to Africa and rule the natives they dislike.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. In fairness, I think that there is a real way in which one can draw a line from Aristotle to Murray: both believe that we need, first and foremost, to understand man as a biological creature before we can understand man as a political animal — though, in both cases, I think, key to what it is to be a man biologically is to be a political animal.

    Plato, in contrast, was notoriously non-empirical, almost anti-empirical. He believed that we could deduce what men were from abstract theory. One might say Plato was the source and fount of the notion that ideology should be the ruling principle.

    I’m with the empiricists. Among other things, they’re apt to do far less damage overall.

    God save us from the deducers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @Intelligent Dasein

    Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”
     
    Yet Darwin proceeded to go off and theorize as if Aristotle had never existed. Only an utter philosophical naif would assert any point of commonality between these two men, especially insofar as Aristotle had considered and rejected "Darwinism" 2100 years avant la lettre.

    One might think that if a modern-day race-egalitarian was desperate enough for any straw to grasp in his struggle against racial hierarchies, he would use this occasion to take the part of Aristotle against Darwin; for Aristotle would be the first to agree that, notwithstanding the observed differences among the members of mankind, all did belong to the same species of rational animals and did participate in the same basic human essence. While any reading of Aristotle which stopped at this point and forewent further elaboration would be childishly and touchingly shallow, it would not be incorrect. It would at least have the virtue of preserving the one point---viz. the recognition of a common humanity---that an honest liberal would consider sufficient to ensure juridical equality.

    The fact that this path was not taken is itself rather telling. Darwin, in his capacity as the ur-Lord of a "naturalistic" explanation of human motivations which conveniently justifies an attitude of moral and especially sexual libertinism, is too much of a sacred cow among those of the Left to ever be directly called into question by them. For the liberals, to embrace Aristotle would lead to the kind of sobriety in the light of which their fever-dreams of moral relativism and social constructivism could not be sustained. On the other hand, the "Darwinian defense" on the lips of race-realist "conservatives," with its derived sub-genres of genetics and intelligence quotients, is a similar sort of intellectual dodge. It is only by clinging to the hobgoblin of "objective science" that the race-realist avoids crossing the threshold into characterology, which would necessitate him venturing on the high seas of psychology and metaphysics where he feels unsure of himself. But the metaphysical definition of race is the only one that can, in the last analysis, be maintained; thus the realist followers of Darwin deprive themselves of their sole unassailable redoubt.

    There is an element of cowardice, bad faith, and intellectual sloth that abounds on all sides of this debate, which can only be shaken off by grasping the nettle of true philosophy. With regard to this central question, the race-realists and the race-egalitarians differ from each other only in the manner in which they avoid it.

    1. Do you think Darwinians today would deny all humans belong to the same species, despite denying the existence of a “human essence”?

    2. What do you think believing in a “human essence” would change in the debate about the differences among groups of humans?

    3. Do you think there saying “men are rational” necessarily implies “all men and all subgroups of men are capable of the same amount of rational thought under optimal environmental conditions?”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Anonymous
    You say modus tollens, I say modus ponens...

    Hey, that’s my line!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. “But what if, because your grandfather died, you find the word ‘mortal’ to be triggering? And isn’t ‘All men are mortal’ sexist?”

    Erm, these are exactly the sort of superficialities that logic teaches you to see thru.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Pogroms happening right now!

    Cossacks are dragging Jews through the streets!

    Video

    Somebody please send a copy of this video to Antifa.

    It is living proof that one can be nicely dressed (even in black!) for a street riot/demo.

    These guys are quite the boulevardiers in their suits, pressed white shirts, polished black dress shoes and brushed fedoras.

    I have heard they do not bathe regularly, but they certainly look good for the cameras.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. It is called Essentialism, this fallacy that racism is supposed to be derived from.

    In early Western thought Plato’s idealism held that all things have such an “essence,” an “Idea” or “Form”. Likewise, in Categories Aristotle proposed that all objects have a substance that, as George Lakoff put it “… make the thing what it is, and without which it would be not that kind of thing”.[2] The contrary view, non-essentialism, denies the need to posit such an “essence’”.

    Essentialism has been controversial from its beginning. Plato’s Socrates already questions the notion by suggesting, in the Parmenides, that if we accept the idea every beautiful thing or just action partakes of an essence in order to be beautiful or just, then we must also accept the “existence of separate essences for hair, mud, and dirt”.[3] In biology and other natural sciences, essentialism provided the rationale for taxonomy at least until the time of Charles Darwin;[4] the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.[5]

    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/22/daniel-dennett-aristotle-flaming-idiot

    Daniel Dennett; explains Darwin and Turing’s strange inversion (of reasoning)

    Dennett illustrates the human species with a black man embracing a white girl. This point is not Essentialism, but it is essential to make it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:

    Does this fall under the category of an “et ad mortuum hominem” argument?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. Anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mishra

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?
     
    You might be amazed at how many people think it's perfectly okay to have the lowest-IQ people reproducing the fastest. Where's the harm, indeed? These people f*ing love science, but they don't know what science is. I was amazed one day to learn that I was the only person in my entire office who didn't think retarded people should procreate. Everyone was shocked that I would discriminate against my fellow human beings like that. Not a thought for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

    The “many people” you describe probably number in the tens of millions. It takes one’s breath away. And the phrase “they don’t know science” is if anything an understatement. I love it when one hears people flap about teaching Evolution vs. Creationism but turn up a deaf ear when told that something called “natural selection” is the driving force of that selfsame “evolution” and that it has implications vis-a-vis the human condition.

    Hence the admonition “don’t discriminate”, notwithstanding that nature has been “discriminating” for over a billion years.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mishra
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Bliss

    Didn’t Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?
     
    Thanks for the laugh. It’s amusing to see the descendants of Northern Europeans who the ancient Greeks described as mentally deficient barbarians, getting off on Aristotle’s views on who should be master, and who slave.

    It is also amusing to see them getting off on Murray’s book based on which jews and east asians should rightfully be their masters....

    Actually, Murray is much more subtler in his works, including “Human Accomplishment”. He is not an IQ fundamentalist, and has acknowledged that Jews & east Asians, although having slightly higher average IQ than Europeans, have in crucial periods of history lagged behind Europeans, because their (religious) cultures, Judaism & Confucianism, are conservative & not individualistic, unlike European major developments (Greek miracle 700-200 BC, post-Renaissance era in European history).

    Human accomplishment is not reducible to IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @TheJester

    "The evidence would, therefore, tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse."
     
    Only if you believe that "after this, therefore, because of this" is a scientific principle verifiable in the real world. On the contrary, it is demonstrably false. It is often called the post hoc fallacy ... a fundamental mistake in logic.

    This is a very common fallacy around these parts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Logan
    Oh, dear.

    Nixon's comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the "Five Good Emperors,"made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn't endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    During times of decay, degeneracy falls out of fashion. Thankfully, the welfare state and a bit ‘o the ‘ol Anarcho-Tyranny will ensure that this never, ever happens again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Logan
    Oh, dear.

    Nixon's comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the "Five Good Emperors,"made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn't endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    More like pederasty. The idealized form in Greece involved a mature man loving a beardless youth. Once a beard was grown, the bloom was off the rose (so to speak). Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.Cf the fragment from a lost play by Aeschylus where Achilles, when characterizing his relationship with Hephaestion, speaks of the “chaste consecration of our thighs.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.
     
    True in theory, though I doubt the boys really had much say in the matter. Presumably, they would have kept mum about any violations of this norm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @syonredux

    But these ideas are even older than Klein realizes. To understand the underlying assumptions of Murray and others, it’s helpful to look back to the granddaddy of all racial theorists: Aristotle. In understanding the role Aristotle played in laying the groundwork for “race science,” we can better understand how ingrained it is in Western science and philosophy, and why the alt-right’s embrace of “western civilization” has a particularly chilling edge.
     
    Let me phrase this as simply as possible: Western Civilization= racism.

    Most famous as a philosopher, Aristotle — who, it’s worth noting, is Murray’s favorite philosopher
     
    Kinda says it all, doesn't it?

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later.
     
    Does this mean that the Middle Ages is PC?

    In the first book of his “Politics,” written in the 300s B.C., Aristotle uses these taxonomies to justify the exclusion of certain people from civic life. While condemning the predominant method of acquiring slaves in his day — capturing prisoners in war — Aristotle argues that some people are by nature (rather than circumstances) fit to be slaves: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” Not only were some people slaves by nature, but it was clear that, for them, “slavery is both expedient and right,” he wrote.
     
    Prior to this, people just enslaved other people, but without any kind of philosophical justification.....which made it kinda/sorta OK.....

    That Aristotle espoused these views matters, because his imprimatur imbues them with authority and an air of dispassionate reason. Many readers of the “Politics” have concluded that Aristotle lays out first principles, the indisputable facts prescribed by nature, before reasoning from them to arrive at his political theories. If nature, including hierarchies and natural slavery, is simply a fact, then society can function properly only if it is ordered with this fact in mind.

     

    Pre-Aristotle, hierarchy did not exist.....

    Anyone familiar with the arguments in “The Bell Curve” can probably already sense the ways Aristotle’s naturalistic fatalism connects to today’s “racial science.” Given the results of IQ tests, on which aggregate black Americans fare more poorly than white Americans

     

    Uh, as for East Asians, they're honorary Whites, OK? I mean, I remember reading something about Hitler liking the Japanese....

    Murray also says that there should be “a place for everyone,” that a return to traditional values and traditional neighborhoods would allow space for even “low-IQ individuals” to find the types of jobs and stable marriages in which they can lead fulfilling lives, while contributing to society as a whole. This is a dressed-up rehashing of the very same ideas Aristotle seems to have championed: that nature is immutable and that society works best when everyone is assigned their proper place according to their natural abilities.

     

    How dare you say that not everyone can be a physicist! Life without a phd is a life without dignity!

    But the theories of Murray and Aristotle have one massive flaw. Their ideas about natural hierarchies, particularly those delineated by race, have been regularly refuted.
     
    I know this to be true because I'm a professor of Classics....

    Nor are the critiques limited to Murray and his contemporaries. As many scholars have pointed out, Aristotle’s position is self-contradictory. While he argued that natural slavishness is due to an inborn deficiency in the capacity to reason, in Aristotle’s formulation, having the capacity to reason simply is the defining characteristic of being human in the first place. How, then, can there be natural slaves?
     
    Let's see, genus Homo is, by nature, bipedal.....but Usain Bolt can run faster than I can....Guess that that means that bipedalism has nothing to do with defining genus Homo....

    The answer might lie in the idea that Aristotle was not as staunch a proponent of race science as is generally thought. Political theorist Jill Frank suggests that he was well aware of this apparent contradiction, and throughout his body of work aimed to frame politics not as a function of nature, but rather nature as a question for politics. That is, rather than setting the immutable standards for politics, a person’s innate capacity — his or her fitness for political engagement — itself can be changed and shaped by the very act of political participation.
     
    Judo-flip! See, Aristotle isn't a mean old racist....He actually believed in HEAD START!

    Because it is impossible to distinguish natural slaves from natural rulers based on external factors such as physical appearance (as indeed it is impossible to assess people’s IQs based on their membership in a given group),
     
    Yeah, I mean, who can tell that someone has Downs just by looking at them.....

    Aristotle leaves room for the possibility that habitual engagement with activities appropriate for a free person can make one, in fact, take on the nature of a free person.

     

    See, if we make dumb people start acting like physicists, they will acquire the nature of physicists....

    Klein identifies the core problem with the position of Murray and his supporters, who hide behind the supposed cold, hard fact of differences in IQ, in their denial of the historical, cultural and social conditions that underlie these realities: “You cannot discuss this topic without discussing its toxic past and the way that shapes our present.”
     
    Repeat after me: Everything is the result of culture. Biology plays no role in shaping human affairs....

    Instead of discouraging low-IQ individuals from having children
     
    Why shouldn't people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where's the harm?

    or paternalistically assigning them to their “proper place,”
     
    End the MCAT! Medical School should be open to everyone!

    as Murray advocates, let’s work on identifying and rectifying the contexts that lead to low scores on IQ tests in the first place.
     
    And then Blacks and East Asians will have identical mean IQs!

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/04/06/aristotle-father-of-scientific-racism/?utm_term=.21657eae7e3a

    Flame on, Syon! Well done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Anonymous
    Aristotle doesn't get any points for being gay?

    "New Nixon audio: “Aristotle was a homo… Roman emperors, fags”"

    http://americablog.com/2013/08/audio-nixon-gay-all-in-the-family-aristotle.html

    Nixon: The point that I make is that goddamit, I do not think that you glorify, on public television, homosexuality! You ever see what happened, you know what happened to the Greeks? Homosexuality destroyed them. Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates.

    Ehrlichman: But he never had the influence that television has.

    Nixon: The last six Roman emperors were fags. You see, homosexuality, immorality in general, these are the enemies of strong societies. That’s why the communists and the left-wingers are pushing it. They’re trying to destroy us.
     

    There was an internet challenge a while back that involved people pledging to read only books written by subaltern authors for a year (Blacks, Latinx,LGBTQs). My response: Goody. I’ll just read only LGBTQ authors for a year: Plato, Christopher Marlowe, Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, Willa Cather, Francis Bacon, etc. Sadly, the SJW crowd glommed on to the fact that the LGBTQ clause would allow people to read lots of Whites authors, which resulted in the scrapping of the category in later iterations of the list…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Anonymous
    "Darwinian evolution's teleology"

    http://artefactphil.arte-fact.org/2014/01/darwinian-evolutions-teleology.html

    Modern Darwinian evolutionary theory is proud that it has cast off the quaint Aristotelean notion of teleological cause, causa finalis. Instead, it sticks to the strict scientificity of efficient cause. Or so it claims. Evolution is said to proceed via natural selection that selects the successful living species that are generated by chance mutations of genes. The criterion of success is simply that a species survives, for there is a so-called 'struggle of survival' among the species.

    Teleological explanation, by contrast, is said to 'explain' the successful features of living beings that allow them to survive in terms of their purposeful design by some maker or other. For instance, the beaks of certain species of finches would be designed to be adapted specifically to a certain environment, thus enabling the finches to successfully survive to the point of reproduction. (If you don't believe this is how teleology in evolution is thought about, listen to the reputable philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, in his recent lecture on the Gaia Hypothesis.) Evolutionary theory pooh poohs the 'ridiculous' idea of teleological design....

    So scientific evolutionary theory, albeit implicitly, smuggles in from the outset the _telos_ of all life: the urge to survive. Life is that mode of being with the urge to perpetuate its own self-movement. All living beings strive essentially to bring themselves into presence and maintain this self-moving presence for as long as possible. One aspect of life's self-movement is reproduction itself, through which the species itself is propagated.

    Evolutionary theory is at a loss to account for the essence, the nature of life itself as self-movement. Its apparatus of efficient causality must capitulate before this self-presencing of life itself. This does not prevent it, however, from blindly and vainly seeking the efficient causes of life itself through, say. molecular biology, thus maintaining the efficient causal hierarchy for the ultimate scientific explanation of the cosmos from physics through chemistry to biology (and then on to explaining human consciousness itself as some complicated kind of neuronal processing).

    Modern science is in its essence wedded to efficient causality, i.e. to effectiveness, and it will defend to the bitter end this betrothal to the will to effective power -- that is, until there is an historical occasion for an alternative way of thinking to make inroads against its dogma. Modern science's arrogant over-self-confidence is the present-day form of superstition that reigns in the universities right through the media to everyday prejudices.
     

    Exactly. The point I was going to make. Glad I read your comment first.

    Most moderns probably don’t realize that Aristotle is the weirdest thinker ever. His thinking is totally alien to the modern mind. He stated that everything must be understood as being comprised of four “causes”: the Material which is the primal stuff of which something is composed, the Formal which is the design or formal shape of that material stuff, the Efficient, who is the doer or author of the work under consideration and finally, the Final which is the intended use or function for or to which something is to be put.

    Now think about that for a moment. He’s saying that you can’t comprehend the essential nature of something unless you have in mind the final purpose for which that thing is intended. So different from our modern notion that the cause of everything is to be sought only in its antecedents. Surely, what Aristotle asserts is true of every man-made object–at least we hope so! We curse those things which fail to meet this criteria as being ineffectual and hopelessly lost causes. If a coat of paint doesn’t protect the underlying substrate, then we must strip it off and start anew, which wastes time and labor and causes us to tear our hair out.

    But is this a useful way of approaching natural organisms? I believe yes. Is it compatible with Darwinism? Yes, because both focus on the niche, the hollow towards which the organism evolves as a space waiting to be filled. Critics of teleology hammer away at a straw man, some personified transcendent Force that shapes matter like so much clay. Ridiculous misstatement of the argument.

    Adaption is both a pushing out and a pushing in. The organism carves out a niche and the environment simultaneously yields space within which the organism can exist. In this way, an environmental niche is like a soap bubble. The pressure caused by the collision of gas molecules within the bubble is balanced by the pressure caused by the collision of gas molecules against the skin from without. Their equipoise constitutes the “thingness” of the soap bubble.

    There is an available, exploitable niche towards which the organism evolves and for which it is selected. Thus the teleological Final cause of Aristotle and the Efficient Cause of Darwin are balanced and complimentary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    I agree with the focus on the niche part but the "towards which the organism evolves" part contradicts what I thought I knew. I can't quote a passage, but I thought Aristotle believed that things were essentially in stasis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Hold on, there. I'm so racist that I make even some people around here clutch their pearls.

    Most people in these parts accept the notion that there are races and that races differ on average due to genetics in various capabilities. However, many find the idea of judging an individual by their race quite distasteful and wrong.

    I disagree (and thus am the true racist). Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people's) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race.

    Therefore, any immigrant should be judged on their race. (I'm actually for seperate nation-states so I don't actually believe in any immigration outside of someone from your own race but for argument purposes, I'll go with this.) The same holds true for the nice black couple that wants to move into your neighborhood. Each of those examples likely entails children and, possibly, relatives, which means that you will be dealing with multiple generations, which leads you back to averages.

    Now, if I'm dealing with an individual for short-term purposes, saying hiring a legal citizen for a job, I can judge them as an individual.

    But anything going beyond one generation requires you to judge an individual on their race. (Yeah, I get that there are instances where an individual might be regressing to a different mean, such as high caste Indians, but you get the point.)

    That's a level of racism that I don't see discussed much around here.

    You can be Plato.

    But I’m Aristotle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @syonredux

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.
     
    More like pederasty. The idealized form in Greece involved a mature man loving a beardless youth. Once a beard was grown, the bloom was off the rose (so to speak). Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, "intercrural sex" (between the thighs) was the preferred method.Cf the fragment from a lost play by Aeschylus where Achilles, when characterizing his relationship with Hephaestion, speaks of the "chaste consecration of our thighs."

    Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.

    True in theory, though I doubt the boys really had much say in the matter. Presumably, they would have kept mum about any violations of this norm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think you're quite wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
    , @syonredux

    Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.

    True in theory, though I doubt the boys really had much say in the matter. Presumably, they would have kept mum about any violations of this norm.
     
    Absolutely. It would have made them the subject of ridicule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Rosie

    Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.
     
    True in theory, though I doubt the boys really had much say in the matter. Presumably, they would have kept mum about any violations of this norm.

    I’m not an expert on this subject, but I think you’re quite wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    If you're going to refer to that kind of material, you might want to note a subtitle to spare the reader.

    "There are no known visual depictions of A*** sex between pederastic couples, though this does not prove the behavior did not occur. "

    Under sexual practices after footnote 77.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Deliberate ignorance or lying. From Wikipedia:

    Phoenicia (UK: /fɪˈnɪʃə/ or US: /fəˈniːʃə/;[2] from the Ancient Greek: Φοινίκη, Phoiníkē meaning “purple country”) was a thalassocratic ancient Semitic civilization that originated in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the west of the Fertile Crescent. Scholars generally agree that it included the coastal areas of today’s Lebanon, northern Israel and southern Syria reaching as far north as Arwad, but there is some dispute as to how far south it went, the furthest suggested area being Ashkelon.[3] Its colonies later reached the Western Mediterranean (most notably Carthage) and even the Atlantic Ocean. The civilization spread across the Mediterranean between 1500 BC and 300 BC.

    Among others, Israel was a “Phoenician” nation, Another obscuring term used is “sea peoples.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. anonymous[174] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    https://youtu.be/PirH8PADDgQ?t=26s

    This is the only Glass score that I actually liked. Interesting movie too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Rosie

    Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.
     
    True in theory, though I doubt the boys really had much say in the matter. Presumably, they would have kept mum about any violations of this norm.

    Plus, actual penetration was seen as demeaning, which meant that non-penetrative, “intercrural sex” (between the thighs) was the preferred method.

    True in theory, though I doubt the boys really had much say in the matter. Presumably, they would have kept mum about any violations of this norm.

    Absolutely. It would have made them the subject of ridicule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @anony-mouse
    Didn't Aristotle think that Barbarians (that would be you Steve) should be slaves to the Greeks?

    Here’s the fascinating passage from Aristotle’s Politics where he speculates on what mechanization will mean:

    Property is a part of the household, and the art of acquiring property is a part of the art of managing the household; for no man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he be provided with necessaries. And as in the arts which have a definite sphere the workers must have their own proper instruments for the accomplishment of their work, so it is in the management of a household. Now instruments are of various sorts; some are living, others lifeless; in the rudder, the pilot of a ship has a lifeless, in the look-out man, a living instrument; for in the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession is an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet,.

    “of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods; “

    if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.

    Politics,Book I, Part IV

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Western Civilization beez waciss, says the “expert”. The science is settled.

    The Crackpot Theory of Egalitarianism is a deluded Jim Jones Suicide Cult.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Hold on, there. I'm so racist that I make even some people around here clutch their pearls.

    Most people in these parts accept the notion that there are races and that races differ on average due to genetics in various capabilities. However, many find the idea of judging an individual by their race quite distasteful and wrong.

    I disagree (and thus am the true racist). Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people's) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race.

    Therefore, any immigrant should be judged on their race. (I'm actually for seperate nation-states so I don't actually believe in any immigration outside of someone from your own race but for argument purposes, I'll go with this.) The same holds true for the nice black couple that wants to move into your neighborhood. Each of those examples likely entails children and, possibly, relatives, which means that you will be dealing with multiple generations, which leads you back to averages.

    Now, if I'm dealing with an individual for short-term purposes, saying hiring a legal citizen for a job, I can judge them as an individual.

    But anything going beyond one generation requires you to judge an individual on their race. (Yeah, I get that there are instances where an individual might be regressing to a different mean, such as high caste Indians, but you get the point.)

    That's a level of racism that I don't see discussed much around here.

    “Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people’s) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race.”

    But people (mostly) don’t mate randomly within their race, or you wouldn’t have families like the Fiennes’, who have been producing accomplished people for nearly a thousand years, or the Darwin-Wedgewoods.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiennes

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%E2%80%93Wedgwood_family

    I bet Thomas Sowell’s kids don’t have 85 IQs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep, I get assortative mating, which is why I mentioned that there are "there instances where an individual (well, really, his or her children) may be regressing to different mean."

    But the exception proves the rule. On a large scale, where we can't sit down for decades with people and their wives to learn about their families, we must resort to heuristics to make decisions, and thus we circle back to my argument.

    You are proving my point. It's a brutal way to think, but it works - and, more importantly, works better than your way. You want to rise above the nastiness and be a "good person." On a large scale, it doesn't work that way. Thomas Sowell is an outlier and his progeny will only fight the tide for so long.

    Please tell me how we decipher the "good" blacks or whatever race from the average. What's more, how do we ensure that Thomas Sowell's grandchildren or great-grandchildren somehow avoid regression to the mean?

    And let's says that future Sowells do manage to avoid that fate, what about other blacks. How does the incredibly unusual example of the Sowells or the Fiennes invalidate my larger point? Are you so good at picking the one in a hundred black or Muslim family that will avoid regression toward the mean? What happens when you die, how do we systematise your genius?

    I bring up statistics based on large-scale data, and you bring up acecdotes. Thank you for proving my point. You argue like a girl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Is ANIMAL FARM a HBD story?

    Pigs are smarter than other animals. But they are all oppressed by man.

    So, pigs have no choice but to invoke justice and equality and lead the rebellion.

    But once the man is gone, pigs realize they are smarter than other animals. Even if they want to be equal with other creatures, it’s pointless because pigs are smarter than cows and horses and sheep.

    So, in the end, HBD wins out. Pigs become the new rulers. Not only because of their perfidy and betrayal but of genetic inevitability that favors the intelligent and cunning.

    In a way, the pigs turn bad. But in a way, it’s just nature reasserting itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Dave Pinsen
    Lol @ Arrakis.

    This is actually a trick question though, because the answer is B. and D.

    What is not clear is if the knife was from IKEA.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @tanabear
    Aristotle also did not believe that “diversity is a strength.”

    “Another cause of revolution is difference of races which do not at once acquire a common spirit; for a state is not the growth of a day, any more than it grows out of a multitude brought together by accident. Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution...”
    Aristotle, Politics

    Mill in On Liberty seems to describe the opposite, at least where a special and nowadays rare constituent can be found:

    What the French are in military affairs, the Americans are in every kind of civil business; let them be left without a government, every body of Americans is able to improvise one, and to carry on that or any other public business with a sufficient amount of intelligence, order, and decision. This is what every free people ought to be: and a people capable of this is certain to be free; it will never let itself be enslaved by any man or body of men because these are able to seize and pull the reins of the central administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @ThreeCranes
    Exactly. The point I was going to make. Glad I read your comment first.

    Most moderns probably don't realize that Aristotle is the weirdest thinker ever. His thinking is totally alien to the modern mind. He stated that everything must be understood as being comprised of four "causes": the Material which is the primal stuff of which something is composed, the Formal which is the design or formal shape of that material stuff, the Efficient, who is the doer or author of the work under consideration and finally, the Final which is the intended use or function for or to which something is to be put.

    Now think about that for a moment. He's saying that you can't comprehend the essential nature of something unless you have in mind the final purpose for which that thing is intended. So different from our modern notion that the cause of everything is to be sought only in its antecedents. Surely, what Aristotle asserts is true of every man-made object--at least we hope so! We curse those things which fail to meet this criteria as being ineffectual and hopelessly lost causes. If a coat of paint doesn't protect the underlying substrate, then we must strip it off and start anew, which wastes time and labor and causes us to tear our hair out.

    But is this a useful way of approaching natural organisms? I believe yes. Is it compatible with Darwinism? Yes, because both focus on the niche, the hollow towards which the organism evolves as a space waiting to be filled. Critics of teleology hammer away at a straw man, some personified transcendent Force that shapes matter like so much clay. Ridiculous misstatement of the argument.

    Adaption is both a pushing out and a pushing in. The organism carves out a niche and the environment simultaneously yields space within which the organism can exist. In this way, an environmental niche is like a soap bubble. The pressure caused by the collision of gas molecules within the bubble is balanced by the pressure caused by the collision of gas molecules against the skin from without. Their equipoise constitutes the "thingness" of the soap bubble.

    There is an available, exploitable niche towards which the organism evolves and for which it is selected. Thus the teleological Final cause of Aristotle and the Efficient Cause of Darwin are balanced and complimentary.

    I agree with the focus on the niche part but the “towards which the organism evolves” part contradicts what I thought I knew. I can’t quote a passage, but I thought Aristotle believed that things were essentially in stasis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
    That's Plato you're thinking of, the philosopher of Being. Aristotle was the philosopher of Becoming.

    The end towards which an acorn strives is the oak tree.

    Maximizing potential was what Aristotle (and Liberals) is/are all about. So Aristotle is the Spiritual Godfather of all Liberals because Liberals concern themselves with cultivating the little seedling by showering it with the beneficial rain of education and the sun of love and affection without which the plant will remain stunted and dwarfed.

    But Aristotle wasn't as deluded as Liberals, who believe that everyone can be anything if they just get the right environmental stimulus. Aristotle, as mentioned above, acknowledged innate, aristocratic differences between peoples.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Most Alt-righter or iStevers don't believe in slave and master. We simply believe that: 1) there are races; 2) races differ in their capabilities due to evolution; and 3) that races are happiest when they are allowed to live in their own lands and govern themselves.

    No master, no slave. No supremists. Just nation-states interacting. Some states may be more productive than others, but that doesn't make their superior. Each nation creates a society their fits their personalty and talents. It's the same with individuals.

    Most Alt-righter or iStevers don’t believe in slave and master. We simply believe that: 1) there are races; 2) races differ in their capabilities due to evolution; and 3) that races are happiest when they are allowed to live in their own lands and govern themselves.

    No master, no slave.

    Aristotle discussed slavery extensively, and it’s very important to understand his very nuanced view of it.

    For Aristotle (and Plato as well) a slave was someone not capable of using reason. Slaves were governed by “passions” or emotions or superstitions, not logic or dialectical arguments. (Actually, we still use this meaning today when we say someone is a “slave” to his heroin habit, etc.)

    Aristotle has a couple of analogies to describe the “natural slave:” he is sort of like a beast of burden, like an ox; another analogy is that the brain properly controls the body’s inferior functions (again, we use this meaning today when we say that somebody a “slave to his passions” when he “is led around by his dick”).

    In the premodern world, in the absence of industrial machinery, someone was going to have to do the manual, physical work. and someone was going to have to be the “brains of the operation.” Would it be right and proper for the more rational man to direct the labor of others, or for the ignorant, the emotional, and the superstitious to be in charge? Should a 130 IQ surgeon direct the operating room, or the 70 IQ cleaning lady? The answer is obvious.

    However, Aristotle recognizes the very difficult problem of “slavery by convention,” in which enemy troops captured in war are enslaved. These troops may well not be “slaves by nature” and may well be superior in intelligence to their masters. He does not have a real solution to this problem, other than to recognize it and point out that it is a perversion of the natural order.

    As far as applying Aristotle to today’s racial environment, the problem we see is when affirmative action and government preferences pervert the natural order and place people of lower ability in positions of power and authority that they are naturally unsuited for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Thank you. That's very interesting and quite informative.

    However, I was simply commenting the general view of Alt-righters, not Aristotle. I really need to read more in this area.

    I still regret that I didn't answer a mid-term question in my one and only philosophy class the way that I wanted. The profession was up on a stage sitting on a chair. He stood up and said, "Argue whether this chair is real or not." Being a straight-forward kid from rural America, I wanted to simply write, "I'll come up on stage, pick up that chair and prepare to swing it at your head. I say that it's real. If you tell me that I'm wrong, I'll accept getting an "F," but I get to finish the swing."

    Sadly, I didn't have the balls to do that. I wrote some BS for an hour or so. Don't remember the grade, but it's one of my great regrets in life.

    I get the point of philosophy (and think that it's a wonderful tool that I don't understand nor utilize enough), but I also understand its limitations. Gordian know and all that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @David
    I agree with the focus on the niche part but the "towards which the organism evolves" part contradicts what I thought I knew. I can't quote a passage, but I thought Aristotle believed that things were essentially in stasis.

    That’s Plato you’re thinking of, the philosopher of Being. Aristotle was the philosopher of Becoming.

    The end towards which an acorn strives is the oak tree.

    Maximizing potential was what Aristotle (and Liberals) is/are all about. So Aristotle is the Spiritual Godfather of all Liberals because Liberals concern themselves with cultivating the little seedling by showering it with the beneficial rain of education and the sun of love and affection without which the plant will remain stunted and dwarfed.

    But Aristotle wasn’t as deluded as Liberals, who believe that everyone can be anything if they just get the right environmental stimulus. Aristotle, as mentioned above, acknowledged innate, aristocratic differences between peoples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Mishra

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?
     
    You might be amazed at how many people think it's perfectly okay to have the lowest-IQ people reproducing the fastest. Where's the harm, indeed? These people f*ing love science, but they don't know what science is. I was amazed one day to learn that I was the only person in my entire office who didn't think retarded people should procreate. Everyone was shocked that I would discriminate against my fellow human beings like that. Not a thought for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

    The real problem with your perfectly-reasonable position is the inconvenient truth that the mean IQ of America’s Negro population is about 85. Now you’re talking genocide. Alas, that’s beyond the pale.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Herzog
    Wasn't it Xanthippe who was notorious for her constant microaggressions -- what used to be known as bitching and nagging -- against Socrates, and not the other way around?

    Xanthippe is the name of Jane Krakowski’s stepdaughter on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, which was co-created by Greek Tina Fey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Anonymous
    This stuff is priceless, better than The Onion.

    But the theories of Murray and Aristotle have one massive flaw. Their ideas about natural hierarchies, particularly those delineated by race, have been regularly refuted. Libraries are filled with works by experts challenging the scientific validity of “race science.
     
    There, take that, Murray and Aristotle! Learn the definition of "massive flaw"!

    Lately, I’ve been thinking that someone should create a comedy radio station that was just 24/7 people reading funny Leftist ideas without commentary, but slightly ironic voices.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    This is a Great Week.

    We got Aristotle. It reminds me of the scene in LOST IN AMERICA where the advertising exec says “We got Ford”.

    Aristotle. He’s one of us!

    Progs should keep this up. They should mention a whole bunch of canonical thinkers and call them ‘racist’.

    The race-ist pantheon will be awesome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @Dr. X

    Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later. …
     

    This is perfectly accurate. Book I of Aristotle's Politics is about defining the natural social hierarchy from highest to lowest: Free men, women, children, slaves, animals. Each category should by nature rule over the ones beneath it. The socio-political order is perverted and corrupted if this natural hierarchy is not followed.

    Despite its triumphant revival in the West in the prior millennium, the Ancient Greeks’ view of logical debate as a no-hard-feelings contact sport seems to be fading as our culture becomes more female-dominated. Intellectual disagreement is now taken very personally. …

     

    I'd dispute the statement that the Greek "view of logical debate" was "no-hard feelings." After all, Socrates was executed for his ideas and Aristotle was exiled. In light of that, the Western university was supposed to be a place of "no hard feelings logical debate."

    It's not that way any more, however. It's entirely true that the feminization of the modern academy has led to speech codes and political correctness. Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproven. Feminized academics are the ones practicing identity politics, not abstract ideas or Platonic Forms. The feminization of the modern university constitutes its death knell.

    Of course, Aristotle would have understood that perfectly.

    “Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproved.”
    Indeed, I’ve never yet known a woman to debate – all they do is argue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    “Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproved.”
    Indeed, I’ve never yet known a woman to debate – all they do is argue.
     
    Enlighten us. What is the difference as you understand it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Never heard anyone denounce someone born about 2400 years ago. There’s something innately funny about it beyond even the message.

    Closest would be Alexander the Great. I did once read a piece denouncing him for what he did to Tyre, but it was kind of literary, and played upon his title. Plus that was years ago, and he was born later and was involved in war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Anonymous[527] • Disclaimer says:

    I guess once they started declaring math and science to be racist, it was only a matter of time before they got around to the old school giants like Aristotle.

    SJW logic 101

    Premise 1. The West has made enormous advancements in practically every aspect of life to the benefit of nearly every human alive today, including medicine, longevity, child mortality, personal safety, leisure, travel, math, science, art, architecture, personal wealth, etc. (just to name a few).

    Premise 2.Aristotle and white men like him provided key intellectual underpinnings underlying the achievements of the West.

    Therefore, Aristotle is a horrible racist cisgender bigot nazi scum who would deserve to die a screaming tormented death were he still alive today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Richard Weaver’s thesis- that Western Civilization’s fundamental troubles can all be traced back to Nominalism’s assault against Realism in the early 14th century- seems less and less outlandish every day (though if memory serves, Weaver himself was a Platonic rather than an Aristotelian Realist). Nominalism ultimately acts as a corrosive acid to every form of exclusive distinction- be it race, sex, species, citizenship, or any other objective category that clearly distinguishes members from non-members. World War T is just the current frontline of the forces of anti-Realism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    I think that you attribute far more influnce to philosophical debates than they have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @YetAnotherAnon
    "Due to regression to the mean, I believe that if your (or your family/people’s) interaction with an individual will last beyond one generation, you absolutely should judge an individual on their race."

    But people (mostly) don't mate randomly within their race, or you wouldn't have families like the Fiennes', who have been producing accomplished people for nearly a thousand years, or the Darwin-Wedgewoods.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiennes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%E2%80%93Wedgwood_family

    I bet Thomas Sowell's kids don't have 85 IQs.

    Yep, I get assortative mating, which is why I mentioned that there are “there instances where an individual (well, really, his or her children) may be regressing to different mean.”

    But the exception proves the rule. On a large scale, where we can’t sit down for decades with people and their wives to learn about their families, we must resort to heuristics to make decisions, and thus we circle back to my argument.

    You are proving my point. It’s a brutal way to think, but it works – and, more importantly, works better than your way. You want to rise above the nastiness and be a “good person.” On a large scale, it doesn’t work that way. Thomas Sowell is an outlier and his progeny will only fight the tide for so long.

    Please tell me how we decipher the “good” blacks or whatever race from the average. What’s more, how do we ensure that Thomas Sowell’s grandchildren or great-grandchildren somehow avoid regression to the mean?

    And let’s says that future Sowells do manage to avoid that fate, what about other blacks. How does the incredibly unusual example of the Sowells or the Fiennes invalidate my larger point? Are you so good at picking the one in a hundred black or Muslim family that will avoid regression toward the mean? What happens when you die, how do we systematise your genius?

    I bring up statistics based on large-scale data, and you bring up acecdotes. Thank you for proving my point. You argue like a girl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    You argue like a girl.
     
    https://media1.tenor.com/images/c0fd1304d2c2e5f33852c877486d24a5/tenor.gif?itemid=3581001
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Dr. X

    Most Alt-righter or iStevers don’t believe in slave and master. We simply believe that: 1) there are races; 2) races differ in their capabilities due to evolution; and 3) that races are happiest when they are allowed to live in their own lands and govern themselves.

    No master, no slave.
     
    Aristotle discussed slavery extensively, and it's very important to understand his very nuanced view of it.

    For Aristotle (and Plato as well) a slave was someone not capable of using reason. Slaves were governed by "passions" or emotions or superstitions, not logic or dialectical arguments. (Actually, we still use this meaning today when we say someone is a "slave" to his heroin habit, etc.)

    Aristotle has a couple of analogies to describe the "natural slave:" he is sort of like a beast of burden, like an ox; another analogy is that the brain properly controls the body's inferior functions (again, we use this meaning today when we say that somebody a "slave to his passions" when he "is led around by his dick").

    In the premodern world, in the absence of industrial machinery, someone was going to have to do the manual, physical work. and someone was going to have to be the "brains of the operation." Would it be right and proper for the more rational man to direct the labor of others, or for the ignorant, the emotional, and the superstitious to be in charge? Should a 130 IQ surgeon direct the operating room, or the 70 IQ cleaning lady? The answer is obvious.

    However, Aristotle recognizes the very difficult problem of "slavery by convention," in which enemy troops captured in war are enslaved. These troops may well not be "slaves by nature" and may well be superior in intelligence to their masters. He does not have a real solution to this problem, other than to recognize it and point out that it is a perversion of the natural order.

    As far as applying Aristotle to today's racial environment, the problem we see is when affirmative action and government preferences pervert the natural order and place people of lower ability in positions of power and authority that they are naturally unsuited for.

    Thank you. That’s very interesting and quite informative.

    However, I was simply commenting the general view of Alt-righters, not Aristotle. I really need to read more in this area.

    I still regret that I didn’t answer a mid-term question in my one and only philosophy class the way that I wanted. The profession was up on a stage sitting on a chair. He stood up and said, “Argue whether this chair is real or not.” Being a straight-forward kid from rural America, I wanted to simply write, “I’ll come up on stage, pick up that chair and prepare to swing it at your head. I say that it’s real. If you tell me that I’m wrong, I’ll accept getting an “F,” but I get to finish the swing.”

    Sadly, I didn’t have the balls to do that. I wrote some BS for an hour or so. Don’t remember the grade, but it’s one of my great regrets in life.

    I get the point of philosophy (and think that it’s a wonderful tool that I don’t understand nor utilize enough), but I also understand its limitations. Gordian know and all that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    I still regret that I didn’t answer a mid-term question in my one and only philosophy class the way that I wanted. The profession was up on a stage sitting on a chair. He stood up and said, “Argue whether this chair is real or not.” Being a straight-forward kid from rural America, I wanted to simply write, “I’ll come up on stage, pick up that chair and prepare to swing it at your head. I say that it’s real. If you tell me that I’m wrong, I’ll accept getting an “F,” but I get to finish the swing.”
     
    The professor was probably trying to make the point (as Plato did with his allegory of the cave) that truth is an abstract concept, not always visible to the senses. For instance, the truth is that what you perceive as a "chair" is actually composed of atoms, which are in turn composed of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. We all accept the truth of the abstract idea of Newtonian physics, but we have never actually seen an atom. Newtonian physics may be proven in lab experiments by not by bashing someone's head in with a chair.

    Taking it one step further, following Einstein's theory of relativity, the mass of that chair is simply energy at the speed of light squared -- so the chair may be actually unreal and you may simply perceive it as such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Macumazahn
    "Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproved."
    Indeed, I've never yet known a woman to debate - all they do is argue.

    “Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproved.”
    Indeed, I’ve never yet known a woman to debate – all they do is argue.

    Enlighten us. What is the difference as you understand it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anonymous
    Note that this sentimentality towards stupid people isn't confined to liberals. I've seen people on hard-right websites, who talk freely and frankly about the problems caused by various minorities, become paranoid and defensive when the discussion turns (as it inevitably must) to retards.

    This is a function of the right being anti-abortion. If you don’t bend over backwards to tell the world how valuable retards are, then it is a slippery slope to aborting them. Also, George Will is the father of one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Dr. X

    Aristotle’s philosophical and political ideas cannot be separated from his methods of empirical observation. He spent years of his life observing and classifying animals. Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

    Aristotle arrived at his biological taxonomy by observing and recording as many animals as he could, and he did likewise with types of government to arrive at his political taxonomies. Human beings, too, were subjected to Aristotle’s empirical analysis, as rigorous as any at least until the Scientific Revolution two millennia later. …
     

    This is perfectly accurate. Book I of Aristotle's Politics is about defining the natural social hierarchy from highest to lowest: Free men, women, children, slaves, animals. Each category should by nature rule over the ones beneath it. The socio-political order is perverted and corrupted if this natural hierarchy is not followed.

    Despite its triumphant revival in the West in the prior millennium, the Ancient Greeks’ view of logical debate as a no-hard-feelings contact sport seems to be fading as our culture becomes more female-dominated. Intellectual disagreement is now taken very personally. …

     

    I'd dispute the statement that the Greek "view of logical debate" was "no-hard feelings." After all, Socrates was executed for his ideas and Aristotle was exiled. In light of that, the Western university was supposed to be a place of "no hard feelings logical debate."

    It's not that way any more, however. It's entirely true that the feminization of the modern academy has led to speech codes and political correctness. Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproven. Feminized academics are the ones practicing identity politics, not abstract ideas or Platonic Forms. The feminization of the modern university constitutes its death knell.

    Of course, Aristotle would have understood that perfectly.

    It’s not that way any more, however. It’s entirely true that the feminization of the modern academy has led to speech codes and political correctness.

    Disagree. Women just value civility more than men. This is more a help than a hindrance to free exchange of ideas. Men apparently are much more likely to approve of shouting down controversial speakers so they can’t be heard. Tell me more about how women suppress academic debate.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.90eb9a740997

    Speech codes and political correctness are designed to prevent noticing, which is perceived as very threatening by people who would rather not be noticed for whatever reason.

    Females do not argue things on principle and take it very personally if they are contradicted, challenged, or their ideas disproven.

    I’m always amused at how Dissident Right caricatures of “females” contradict each other. Not long ago, there was some discussion of why White “females” vote for Republicans. Many were of the opinion that we vote like our husbands because we are weak-minded and easily influenced by them. Go figure.

    Feminized academics are the ones practicing identity politics, not abstract ideas or Platonic Forms.

    Well, in that case, White people need more feminized academics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Yep, I get assortative mating, which is why I mentioned that there are "there instances where an individual (well, really, his or her children) may be regressing to different mean."

    But the exception proves the rule. On a large scale, where we can't sit down for decades with people and their wives to learn about their families, we must resort to heuristics to make decisions, and thus we circle back to my argument.

    You are proving my point. It's a brutal way to think, but it works - and, more importantly, works better than your way. You want to rise above the nastiness and be a "good person." On a large scale, it doesn't work that way. Thomas Sowell is an outlier and his progeny will only fight the tide for so long.

    Please tell me how we decipher the "good" blacks or whatever race from the average. What's more, how do we ensure that Thomas Sowell's grandchildren or great-grandchildren somehow avoid regression to the mean?

    And let's says that future Sowells do manage to avoid that fate, what about other blacks. How does the incredibly unusual example of the Sowells or the Fiennes invalidate my larger point? Are you so good at picking the one in a hundred black or Muslim family that will avoid regression toward the mean? What happens when you die, how do we systematise your genius?

    I bring up statistics based on large-scale data, and you bring up acecdotes. Thank you for proving my point. You argue like a girl.

    You argue like a girl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    A prime example of why a person should adopt a gender-neutral, race/ethnicity-neutral name for commenting on message boards. Let whatever you have to say stand or fall on its own merits rather than be dismissed -- or celebrated -- because of who says it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Mishra

    Why shouldn’t people with 85 IQs have as many kids as they want? Where’s the harm?
     
    You might be amazed at how many people think it's perfectly okay to have the lowest-IQ people reproducing the fastest. Where's the harm, indeed? These people f*ing love science, but they don't know what science is. I was amazed one day to learn that I was the only person in my entire office who didn't think retarded people should procreate. Everyone was shocked that I would discriminate against my fellow human beings like that. Not a thought for the children. Won't somebody please think of the children?

    There’s a video on Youtube of Jordan Peterson discussing with Richard Haier the issue of low IQ people. Evidently those who have an IQ of 90 or less do not have the cognitive ability to read instructions and follow them. There are over 50 million of them in the US now. You might want to ask your coworkers what might happen to a society if under 90 IQ people are the majority due to overbreeding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra

    You might want to ask your coworkers what might happen to a society if under 90 IQ people are the majority due to overbreeding.

     

    Can't watch videos now and I also can't ask my co-workers anything as I had to leave that office. They all thought I was a Nazi or something. Anyway I know they'll be happy no matter how stupid people get so long as there is 'proportional representation' everywhere. Except for things like Asians and Jews in the NBA and the NFL. Aww crap, there I go with the Nazi thing again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Pop quiz...

    Guess the territory associated with the following news article:

    Woman “Hanane Mouhib” Arrested After Decapitating 7-Year-Old Boy

    A. Morocco

    B. Sweden

    C. Arrakis

    D. New York State

    D. N.Y.state

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Thank you. That's very interesting and quite informative.

    However, I was simply commenting the general view of Alt-righters, not Aristotle. I really need to read more in this area.

    I still regret that I didn't answer a mid-term question in my one and only philosophy class the way that I wanted. The profession was up on a stage sitting on a chair. He stood up and said, "Argue whether this chair is real or not." Being a straight-forward kid from rural America, I wanted to simply write, "I'll come up on stage, pick up that chair and prepare to swing it at your head. I say that it's real. If you tell me that I'm wrong, I'll accept getting an "F," but I get to finish the swing."

    Sadly, I didn't have the balls to do that. I wrote some BS for an hour or so. Don't remember the grade, but it's one of my great regrets in life.

    I get the point of philosophy (and think that it's a wonderful tool that I don't understand nor utilize enough), but I also understand its limitations. Gordian know and all that.

    I still regret that I didn’t answer a mid-term question in my one and only philosophy class the way that I wanted. The profession was up on a stage sitting on a chair. He stood up and said, “Argue whether this chair is real or not.” Being a straight-forward kid from rural America, I wanted to simply write, “I’ll come up on stage, pick up that chair and prepare to swing it at your head. I say that it’s real. If you tell me that I’m wrong, I’ll accept getting an “F,” but I get to finish the swing.”

    The professor was probably trying to make the point (as Plato did with his allegory of the cave) that truth is an abstract concept, not always visible to the senses. For instance, the truth is that what you perceive as a “chair” is actually composed of atoms, which are in turn composed of subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. We all accept the truth of the abstract idea of Newtonian physics, but we have never actually seen an atom. Newtonian physics may be proven in lab experiments by not by bashing someone’s head in with a chair.

    Taking it one step further, following Einstein’s theory of relativity, the mass of that chair is simply energy at the speed of light squared — so the chair may be actually unreal and you may simply perceive it as such.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Herzog
    Wasn't it Xanthippe who was notorious for her constant microaggressions -- what used to be known as bitching and nagging -- against Socrates, and not the other way around?

    Tovarisch, you appear not to have absorbed the first revolutionary principle ; Kto kovo? I fear for your prospects come the Revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @AndrewR
    I'm not an expert on this subject, but I think you're quite wrong.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

    If you’re going to refer to that kind of material, you might want to note a subtitle to spare the reader.

    “There are no known visual depictions of A*** sex between pederastic couples, though this does not prove the behavior did not occur. ”

    Under sexual practices after footnote 77.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Pardon me, miss. I thought I was speaking with an adult.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anonymous[146] • Disclaimer says: • Website
    @Rosie

    You argue like a girl.
     
    https://media1.tenor.com/images/c0fd1304d2c2e5f33852c877486d24a5/tenor.gif?itemid=3581001

    A prime example of why a person should adopt a gender-neutral, race/ethnicity-neutral name for commenting on message boards. Let whatever you have to say stand or fall on its own merits rather than be dismissed — or celebrated — because of who says it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    But as Plato shows, who is talking matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Read More
    • Disagree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The Disagree was 100% a drunken error. I apologize.
    , @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/matthewasears/status/982650097505841152
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Rosie
    If you're going to refer to that kind of material, you might want to note a subtitle to spare the reader.

    "There are no known visual depictions of A*** sex between pederastic couples, though this does not prove the behavior did not occur. "

    Under sexual practices after footnote 77.

    Pardon me, miss. I thought I was speaking with an adult.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/matthewasears/status/982756755426959360

    The Disagree was 100% a drunken error. I apologize.

    Read More
    • Agree: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://media1.tenor.com/images/7221b1723ce12a540d0729bdba330bb0/tenor.gif
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/matthewasears/status/982756755426959360

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @AndrewR
    The Disagree was 100% a drunken error. I apologize.

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Ultimately it HAS TO COME DOWN TO LOGIC. Until logic is dispelled as something we are allowed to use, EVERY argument of the progressives, left, LGBTQUXIGIERYLS…., SJW, falls apart when subjected to it. Blind faith in lies is the driving force behind nearly EVERY current push against freedom, liberty, the unalienable/god/nature-given rights of man/woman/etc. LOGIC is the antidote to the poison being forced down everyone’s throats. Clearly it must be destroyed. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    They are attacking logic. It is seen as white, Western, and patriarchal. It is binary, and we all know that binaries are tools of those with power (i.e., white males).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @wrd9
    There's a video on Youtube of Jordan Peterson discussing with Richard Haier the issue of low IQ people. Evidently those who have an IQ of 90 or less do not have the cognitive ability to read instructions and follow them. There are over 50 million of them in the US now. You might want to ask your coworkers what might happen to a society if under 90 IQ people are the majority due to overbreeding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj62Uy25uBs

    You might want to ask your coworkers what might happen to a society if under 90 IQ people are the majority due to overbreeding.

    Can’t watch videos now and I also can’t ask my co-workers anything as I had to leave that office. They all thought I was a Nazi or something. Anyway I know they’ll be happy no matter how stupid people get so long as there is ‘proportional representation’ everywhere. Except for things like Asians and Jews in the NBA and the NFL. Aww crap, there I go with the Nazi thing again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Mishra

    Matthew A. Sears is an associate professor at the University of New Brunswick
     
    Man, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately.

    Man, they are really scraping the bottom of the barrel lately.

    Apparently it’s not quite as easy to find someone willing to discredit “western civilization” (no caps) by linking it to that conversational mute button and all-purpose tone-darkener, the…..cough….”alt-right”. (Someone without two or three eyebrow-rings, I mean.)

    Since there are no membership cards, emblazoned baseball caps or peel-n-stick decals to identify this claustrophobic uberthreat that menaces us all, round the clock and 12 months a year, I wonder how goodwhites can possibly identify these “alt-right” miscreants. At first I thought it was all whites who voted for Trump; but then it seemed as if it were all whites protectively devoted to the Bill of Rights; or to their countries; or to the principle of “countries”; …..and now it’s all whites with a vocal, and thus sinister, affection for “western civilization”. For the moment.

    Eventually- possibly two weeks from next Thursday – it’ll just get simplified to all whites, period. That’s when things should get really interesting, as we follow our CultMarx pied pipers into what let’s hope won’t be known as the “post-civilization” epoch…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Anonymous
    Do I detect a widening of the Overton Window"? It used to be verboten to mention in any somewhat mainstream publication "scientific racism," but in the past couple of months it's O.K. to mention it, repeatedly and prominently, as long as you're trashing it and using scare quotes around the word "/s/^scien*/".

    Yes, and the beautiful thing is that they still think their credentials and authority are trump cards; that the average person will still defer to their knowledge unconditionally.

    But that’s decreasingly true (though still maddeningly existent). And so they feel confident in doing this, thinking that they will sway the masses with their professorial opinions.

    But really they’re doing the opposite. As normies will read this stuff and think, “But these people are full of crap, and so maybe the old wisdom on race, etc. isn’t wrong after all.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @TheJester

    "The evidence would, therefore, tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse."
     
    Only if you believe that "after this, therefore, because of this" is a scientific principle verifiable in the real world. On the contrary, it is demonstrably false. It is often called the post hoc fallacy ... a fundamental mistake in logic.

    Quite right. Which is exactly what the “homosexuality caused the decline and fall of the Greeks and Romans” guys are doing. I merely flipped the idea, with somewhat more historical accuracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Logan
    Oh, dear.

    Nixon's comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the "Five Good Emperors,"made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn't endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    Right. Of course the European peninsula exists. I merely object to referring to it as a continent, which it isn’t. I would be fine with calling it a sub-continent, which is how India is often referred to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Logan
    Oh, dear.

    Nixon's comments, while somewhat accurate historically, just do not support his conclusion.

    The greatest prominence of homosexuality (really usually what we would call bisexuality) was during the Golden Ages of both Greek and Roman history. with its popularity dropping off as they declined.

    The Hellenistic period was much more interested in women than the Classical period of Greece.

    The 100s and 200s of the Roman Empire were the height of Roman faggotry. Hadrian, one of the "Five Good Emperors,"made his tragically drowned boyfriend into a god worshipped all over the empire.

    In the later empire, homosexuality not only wasn't endorsed, it was a capital crime punished by burning alive.

    The evidence would therefore tend to support the idea that public acceptance of homosexuality makes for advances in civilization, while its rejection causes collapse.

    I should note that instead of saying 100s and 200s AD, I should have said first and second centuries.

    Sorry ’bout that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Intelligent Dasein

    Charles Darwin himself said that “my two gods [Linnaeus and Cuvier] are mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”
     
    Yet Darwin proceeded to go off and theorize as if Aristotle had never existed. Only an utter philosophical naif would assert any point of commonality between these two men, especially insofar as Aristotle had considered and rejected "Darwinism" 2100 years avant la lettre.

    One might think that if a modern-day race-egalitarian was desperate enough for any straw to grasp in his struggle against racial hierarchies, he would use this occasion to take the part of Aristotle against Darwin; for Aristotle would be the first to agree that, notwithstanding the observed differences among the members of mankind, all did belong to the same species of rational animals and did participate in the same basic human essence. While any reading of Aristotle which stopped at this point and forewent further elaboration would be childishly and touchingly shallow, it would not be incorrect. It would at least have the virtue of preserving the one point---viz. the recognition of a common humanity---that an honest liberal would consider sufficient to ensure juridical equality.

    The fact that this path was not taken is itself rather telling. Darwin, in his capacity as the ur-Lord of a "naturalistic" explanation of human motivations which conveniently justifies an attitude of moral and especially sexual libertinism, is too much of a sacred cow among those of the Left to ever be directly called into question by them. For the liberals, to embrace Aristotle would lead to the kind of sobriety in the light of which their fever-dreams of moral relativism and social constructivism could not be sustained. On the other hand, the "Darwinian defense" on the lips of race-realist "conservatives," with its derived sub-genres of genetics and intelligence quotients, is a similar sort of intellectual dodge. It is only by clinging to the hobgoblin of "objective science" that the race-realist avoids crossing the threshold into characterology, which would necessitate him venturing on the high seas of psychology and metaphysics where he feels unsure of himself. But the metaphysical definition of race is the only one that can, in the last analysis, be maintained; thus the realist followers of Darwin deprive themselves of their sole unassailable redoubt.

    There is an element of cowardice, bad faith, and intellectual sloth that abounds on all sides of this debate, which can only be shaken off by grasping the nettle of true philosophy. With regard to this central question, the race-realists and the race-egalitarians differ from each other only in the manner in which they avoid it.

    I fail to see how Aristotle is any less naturalistic than Darwin. Teleological rather than mechanistic, yes, but at least as naturalistic. A good case can be made that A is more naturalistic than D. Those essences that one intuits are fixed natures, whereas Darwinian species are fluctuating states due to random changes. Nor do I feel any need to accept some metaphysical notion of race. I find Steve Sailer’s “extended family” account to be adequate. I don’t see how it avoids any essential question (unlike social constructionism).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @MrLiberty
    Ultimately it HAS TO COME DOWN TO LOGIC. Until logic is dispelled as something we are allowed to use, EVERY argument of the progressives, left, LGBTQUXIGIERYLS...., SJW, falls apart when subjected to it. Blind faith in lies is the driving force behind nearly EVERY current push against freedom, liberty, the unalienable/god/nature-given rights of man/woman/etc. LOGIC is the antidote to the poison being forced down everyone's throats. Clearly it must be destroyed. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    They are attacking logic. It is seen as white, Western, and patriarchal. It is binary, and we all know that binaries are tools of those with power (i.e., white males).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Anonymous
    A prime example of why a person should adopt a gender-neutral, race/ethnicity-neutral name for commenting on message boards. Let whatever you have to say stand or fall on its own merits rather than be dismissed -- or celebrated -- because of who says it.

    But as Plato shows, who is talking matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Rapparee
    Richard Weaver's thesis- that Western Civilization's fundamental troubles can all be traced back to Nominalism's assault against Realism in the early 14th century- seems less and less outlandish every day (though if memory serves, Weaver himself was a Platonic rather than an Aristotelian Realist). Nominalism ultimately acts as a corrosive acid to every form of exclusive distinction- be it race, sex, species, citizenship, or any other objective category that clearly distinguishes members from non-members. World War T is just the current frontline of the forces of anti-Realism.

    I think that you attribute far more influnce to philosophical debates than they have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored