The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Alt-Wrong Paradigms: Contra HBD Thread Continued
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

For another ten days. If you missed the first ten days of discussion, you’re only a short 461 comments away from being up to speed!

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Hbd 
Hide 12 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Thomm says:

    Here is a tune sung to the chorus beat of ‘ABCs’ by the Jackson 5 :

    HBD……Easy as one-two-three!

    Or as simple as Do-Re-Mi..

    HBD!

    That’s how easy hate can be..

    That’s how easy hate can be!

  2. Nodwink says:

    I’m not very interested in HBD, so I gave it a skim… until I reached this part:

    Let it be known, I am writing from what I intend to be, and what I believe to be, a Traditional Catholic perspective.

    Not today, Satan.

  3. Thanks for this, AE and ID. I would love to be participating in this but I still haven’t gotten through the original article. Overtaken by events, as they say. And the way things are going … events may continue to intervene.

  4. My questions:

    1. To what extent are both sides of this debate able to calmly discuss this topic, even in the face of disagreement?

    2. Of those who experience disagreement as threatening, do they tend to find well-stated disagreement worse than that which is poorly stated?

    3. What proportion of that feeling of threat is an accurate reflection of potential threat in the external world and what proportion of that feeling of threat is because their tenuous internal peace is being challenged?

    4. Are people, who find this all unthreatening, being honest with themselves, or are they closing down in order to sell a false image of strength?

    5. Is there a generalised difference between demographic groups as regards the above, and to what extent are culture, HBD and society determining this?

  5. Although the article begins by discussing HBD, there is much more involved than that. At its heart it is an anti-Darwinist and anti-Modernist article and it will be easier to understand if read in that spirit.

    Of the 461 comments at the time of this writing, all but maybe two dozen or so are extremely negative and even scornful. Many of the regular commenters whose arguments over the years I was directly addressing have not commented at all.

    Most of the complaints concern the length and/or the style. It is long because it must deal with 170 years’ worth of entrenched errors in Western thought, and it is technical because it must leave no easily exploited gaps in the argument. This was intended so as to make it worth the interested reader’s valuable time to study. For anybody who actually tries to understand the thing, it will pay a rich dividend.

    This was intended to be the definitive anti-Darwinist article going forward. As I said at the conclusion, it is safe to declare now without fear of hubris that the Darwinian paradigm is overthrown. That will certainly be of interest to somebody even if not to the more easily agitated commenters here.

  6. @Intelligent Dasein

    Dude… You blinded us… “Without science”!

  7. @Intelligent Dasein

    You wrote a lot!

    Also, the opening is pompous and irrelevant; which hides that the rest is actually very nicely written (-;

    Anyway, here’s a concise response, consisting of me answering what are my efforts at distilling your work into 7 points.

    I left out everything from what I adjudged to be the addendum. It didn’t make sense without these 7 points being established first.

    1. Race has real world correlative generalised effects; that anyone can notice.

    Yes.

    2. Perceiving how form truly fits function in nature (and people) is a profound spiritual experience.

    To me, perceiving the way in which function pushes and affects form leads to the same experience. I don’t see any reason to be more absolute.

    3. Race is one way in which form fits with function in people.

    Yes, but only loosely. See above.

    4. The purpose of function is to make form fit it.

    Why?

    5. Darwinism is ambivalent.

    Yes.

    6. Darwinism doesn’t allow me to believe that form is an absolute result of function and so I disbelieve it.

    Ok, but that rests on “2” being demonstrated. I don’t think it has been.

    7. Darwinism also can’t be true because it doesn’t explain how matter became alive.

    Nor does the theory of gravity explain how alcohol gets me drunk. And?

    My feeling is that your essay is mistaken because it seems like an attempt to induce spirituality in people by appealing to their ambivalence.

    This is inverse of how communication really functions.

    True persuasion/enlightenment happens from the ground up.

    You can’t argue someone into feeling.

    [MORE]

    Even though you can argue someone into setting aside their feelings, which is an approximation of how CBT, and just not being a complete child, works!

    That is until it all comes back together as one.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  8. @Not Only Wrathful

    My feeling is that your essay is mistaken because it seems like an attempt to induce spirituality in people by appealing to their ambivalence.

    His essay starts with a glaring category error, and I didn’t bother to read any further (note that I didn’t comment even once on that thread).  You start with false premises, your conclusions are worthless.

    HBD isn’t a political position.  HBD is an observation, a fact of existence.  You can accept or reject evolution (Darwinian or otherwise), the fact remains that the differences between races start at the level of biology and go from there.  Whether you believe that these differences evolved or were divinely created, they exist and will not go away.  This is why all the efforts to generate “racial equality” have failed.  ALL OF THEM.  Such policies do not work because they CANNOT work.

    There is no political solution in one country.  It is time to give up on “race relations” and go to race separation.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  9. iffen says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    there is much more involved than that.

    Of course there is.

  10. @Mr. Rational

    I never made any such claim. What I said was that belief in HBD is held by its proponents in an irrational manner because of its sociological implications.

    You are un-self-awaredly demonstrating the truth of that in your very comment.

    • Replies: @Thomm
    , @Mr. Rational
  11. Thomm says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    What I said was that belief in HBD is held by its proponents in an irrational manner because of its sociological implications.

    You are un-self-awaredly demonstrating the truth of that in your very comment.

    You are right, of course.

    Btw, I want to thank you for exposing Ron Unz as the ‘Imelda Marcos of Sockpuppets’.

    This led us to discover that his ‘Important Software Work’ is really ‘Important Sockpuppet Work’, and has been all along.

  12. @Intelligent Dasein

    What I said was that belief in HBD is held by its proponents in an irrational manner because of its sociological implications.

    What is the slightest bit irrational about noting that there are species-level genetic distances between S.S. Africans and most other races (this is a fact, not opinion), and that this goes a long way to explain why the sociological policies of equalitarians have failed utterly to produce the results they are allegedly intended to?

    At various times I believe you’ve called HBD an ideology and a policy.  It is neither, and holding to such a fundamental error even after being corrected shows that you’ve got a dogmatic fixation or are just plain not bright enough to understand.

    You are un-self-awaredly demonstrating the truth of that in your very comment.

    You are projecting.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS