Republican: Yes, We're Racist

Clearly you have some fundamental problem with sampling. Of course we don't need to examine 'every element in the world' to reach a statistical conclusion. Your argument is some lame sophistry attempting to deny reality based on the problem of induction in science, where 'nothing can be proven'. Of course you apply this selectively, doubtless you wouldn't apply it if we said 'Jews have a higher IQ'. This is because you are pro-Semitic. I am factually neutral.

Let's play a little game. Since I am making a 'hasty generalisation' based on 'one example' how about I post a Jewish anthropologist who was an anti-White fraud, and you post a Jewish anthropologist who wasn't an anti-White fraud. Since you believe (with no presented evidence) that Jews are not overrepresented, that should be easy for you.

1) Franz Boas

"In 1910, Franz Boas published the first results from his classic study, Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants. This landmark work became controversial almost immediately, as it challenged many prevailing ideas about human biology and race." Study later found to be fraudulent. Human cranium not "highly plastic". Boas cherry picked two groups which randomly diverged the most to make his claim.

 

What is your basis for calling Franz Boas anti-White?

How many more alleged frauds have you got?

I've got one (not Jewish).



Sir Cyril Lodowic Burt (3 March 1883 – 10 October 1971) was an English educational psychologist who made contributions to educational psychology and statistics. Burt is known for his studies on the heritability of IQ. Shortly after he died, his studies of inheritance and intelligence came into disrepute after evidence emerged indicating he had falsified research data. He was accused of publishing a fraudulent series of separated twin studies. Scientists were convinced that Burt's data was false and that he invented crucial facts to support his theory that intelligence is inherited. Burt was found guilty of fraud, by the British Psychological Society.

 

Clearly you have a problem with Jews.

A statistical conclusion? The strength of a statistical inference is determined by the degree to which the sample is representative of the population, that is, how similar in the relevant respects the sample and population are. When a sample perfectly represents a population, statistical inferences are actually deductive enthymemes. Otherwise, they are inductive inferences, which is what you offer us, and inductive inferences are never provable. Moreover, since the strength of statistical inferences depend upon the similarity of the sample and population, they are really a species of argument from analogy, and the strength of the inference varies directly with the strength of the analogy. Thus, a statistical inference will commit the Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample when the similarity between the sample and population is too weak to support the conclusion, and that's exactly what you're doing here. An over-representation of Jews??? Really??

There are two main ways that a sample can fail to sufficiently represent the population:

1.The sample is simply too small to represent the population, in which case the argument will commit the subfallacy of Hasty Generalization ( which I've already pointed out you are guilty of as charged).

2.The sample is biased in some way as a result of not having been chosen randomly from the population.

Lets not. I don't play games. I have no interest in entertaining your anti-Semitic bigotry.

You talk about sophistry? You're the King of Sophistry. And you're entire argument is based on inductive inference. And you actually think that you're offering reality in some way, shape or form? Nothing is proven through inductive inference. Would you care to argue that? You're entire reasoning process is fatally flawed, upside down, and bass-ackwards, and you're so dependent on it that you're blinded by your own prejudice which is fed by this nonsense. In short, you can't get to where you're trying to go, from where you are coming from. But it does reveal the degree of hate you express in the amount of effort you put out.

 

Are you joking here? The Occidental Observer?
The Occidental Observer: White Identity Interests and Culture
Mission Statement
The Occidental Observer will present original content touching on the themes of white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West.

Oh great. A website devoted to White Bread. We can all count on objective writing from this bunch.

 

Not only is that website blatantly racist but the author, Kevin Macdonald, is a special sort of anti-Semite in that he argues Jewish intelligence is a product of an evolutionary strategy whereby Jews who practiced ethnocentrism, have eugenically and culturally evolved to out-compete gentiles. His work is pseudoscientific to the core.

 

Biologically there is only one race and it's the human race. Racism is about as logical as believing a blue Camero is better than a red Camero. The only "logic" behind racism is that insecure people seek to establish a belief that they're superior to another person based upon false stereotypes.

According to studies "immigrants" create more jobs than they fill and pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. It doesn't matter if they're Hispanic or White or if they're legal or illegal.

http://news.yahoo.com/open-immigration-could-double-global-economy-162100675.html

Yes, there are problems with social diversity in America.... caused by RACISM!!!

As Putnum points out in the linked article:

So yes there are problems with a socially diverse society caused by racism in the United States but it is also "both feasilbe and desirable" for us as Americans to address those problems. The argument that racism causes problems so we should all be racists is a rather stupid and illogical argument.

Racism for the sake of racism is neither justifiable or reasonable. It is a challenge to be sure but it is a challenge that we need to address and resolve. It is in our economic and social best interests to do so.

We should also note that the founders of America such as Madison, Washington and Jefferson all believed that "immigration" was a fundamental Inalienable Right of the Person. While the warned agianst allowing immigration for those that would come here with nefarious intent such as overthrowing our government or committing crimes of property or against the person they believed that our borders should be open and that we should welcome immigration, especially the poor, from other nations. Thomas Jefferson was most eloquent in addressing this in the following where he refers to the "right of expatriation" (i.e. the right of the person to immigrate from their native country to another country).

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/6152-your-daily-jefferson

In short even if every American citizen opposed allowing Mexican immigration into our country and our laws prohibited it a Mexican would have the Inalienable Right to immigrate to the United States.

It can be logically argued, based upon the very statements of the founders of our nation, that our laws that prohibit immigration for peaceful purposes such as employment are a direct violation of the 9th Amendment's protections of the unenumerated Rights of the Person.

That's correct. We know that immigration is economically beneficial to the United States as it creates more jobs for Americans and we know that immigrants, including undocumented (illegal) immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in government benefits and we know based upon the words of the founders of America that all people have an Inalienable Right to Immigrate from one country to another and that our immigration laws that prohibit immigration are violating this fundamental Right of the Person that the 9th Amendment was designed to protect.

So let's end this fundamental violation of an Inalienable Right of the Person by opening our borders for immigration for those that would come to the United States for peaceful purposes that benefit us, saving the prohibitions against immigration for those that would come here to do us harm, and address the problem of racism that creates the problems related social-diversity that denies equality for the oppressed minorities in America and dump the cheap racist rhetoric.

The argument that racism justifies racism is cheap racist rhetoric.

 

2) Leon Kamin



Accused British psychologist Cyril Burt of fraudulently arriving at a figure for IQ heritability. Figure later corroborated by multiple independent studies. Co-authored heredity denying 'Not in our Genes', described by Richard Dawkins as "silly, pretentious, obscurantist and mendacious book".

 

Humans are actually a subspecies (as are Neanderthal) which is divided into races. "Human race" is popular but sadly unscientific term. Basing your political stance on this phrase is laughable at best.

 

Contrary to the lies from National Review and other right wingers, Donald Sterling is a registered Republican:



http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...e-report/drudge-says-clippers-owner-democrat/


Drudge says Clippers owner is a Democrat
Pants on Fire!






When Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was outed for allegedly making racist comments, conservatives leapt to dig deeper and came up with a surprising find. Sterling is a Democrat.

Or so they claimed. Matt Drudge tweeted to more than 264,000 followers:"NYT informed the unwashed how Bundy is a Republican. Leaves out NBA Sterling is a Democrat."

A recording of Sterling telling his girlfriend not to bring African-American friends to basketball games came on the heels of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy suggesting blacks would do better as slaves. Hence, Drudge’s tweet comparing the two men.

PunditFact adds its research to the work of several other news organizations to correct the record on Sterling. (Hat tips below.) He is a registered Republican, according to the Los Angeles County voter registry.

As far as we can tell, the conservative website Daily Caller was the first to tie Sterling to the Democratic Party. It had an click-baiting item on Saturday that declared, "Race hate spewing Clippers owner is Democratic donor."

That article listed Sterling’s campaign contributions from more than 20 years ago. He spread a total of $4,000 among three Democrats, including former New Jersey Sen. Bill Bradley, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, and California Gov. Gray Davis. According to public records, he has given no money to any candidate since.

Shortly after midnight, the National Review Online posted that Sterling was a Democrat and then sometime later corrected itself. "An earlier version of this post identified Sterling as a Democrat," the editor wrote. "Although his political donations appear to have been exclusively to Democrats, his official party affiliation is not known."

At about noon on Sunday, Drudge made his claim.

In the wee hours, as Sunday became Monday, Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik rebutted those statements. Hiltzik tweeted, "What makes anyone think Donald Sterling is a Democrat? LA County records show him registered Republican since 1998."

Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo and the Washington Post quickly made the same point during the day on Monday.

Our ruling

Drudge said Sterling is a Democrat. County records show that he is a registered Republican and has been for many years. His donations to Democrats took place two decades ago and were modest even by the standards of that time.

We rate the claim Pants on Fire.

 

All of these characters here are relying on pseudo-science, in order to justify their racism and anti-Semitism. You would think that they may have gotten the message with yesterdays announcement by the NBA commissioner Adam Silver ( OMG...he's Jewish) that hate and bigotry will not be tolerated. We have a couple of people here that are appealing to sites like this Occidental Observer, and another guy that gets his talking points from "White Man March" and uses these to make their case. They have no grasp of logic at all. They use Argument from Authority (Argumentum ad Verecundiam), and in this case it's a biased authority. Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. Appealing to White Supremacist websites isn't going to help your case when you're arguing from a White Supremacist position. Those sites just feed your own prejudice. There can be no objective viewpoint coming from them. But...they have no interest in any of that. If these sites support their bigotry, that's what matters.

 

The moron drug addict Rush Limbaugh was shouting the same lies on his radio show the other day. He claimed that the only reason that they went after him was that he didn't give Obama enough campaign contributions. Right. It couldn't possibly have been for his racist remarks.

 

Small wonder why Limbaugh is such a hero to the forum's right wingers.

 

There must be something else that drives them nuts. I wonder what it could be?

 

Josh Marshall of TPM made a great point about how non-racist Republicans get screwed over by their "cozy" relation with the racist rightwingers....he alluded to an "Onion" parody "Why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my dick?" several years back.

The idea being the Republicans happily absorb the racists into their midsts....and until they are just so blatent or obvious about it, even make heroes out of them (aka Cliven Bundy).....

and then once the racist has been exposed, the Republicans say "What? No! We never knew that about that guy nor even suspected it. How did these dang racists get in our Party?"....again, like the "Oinion" parody.

 

Actually, if you ask them....except for THE most devoted ditto-head....the Right tries to DENY they are fans of Limbaugh or even listen to him. To buy themselves intellectual "cover" for a charge they are simply a ditto-head parrot of El Rushbo or the appearance that they get "marching orders" and follow them.

I actually had one tell me once "I never ...or rarely listen to Limbaugh". Apparently there is some NEW definition of "never" I'm not aware of.

 

"Racial" differences are a social construct and not a biological construct. As noted there is as much difference between two identical Cameros where one is painted blue and another is painted red as there are DNA differences between someone with dark colored skin and someone with light colored skin. A Camero is a Camero is a Camero just like a person is a person is a person regardless of color.

It is somewhat interesting to note from a biological standpoint that human attributes like blue eyes, blond hair, and light colored skin are all "regressive" genetic traits. It is also interesting to note that our "European" ancestors cross-breed with Neandethals and that about 1%-2% of "white" DNA today is from Neanderthals. This is not true for "Africans" that didn't interbreed with Neanderthal man.

 

Feel free finding the original study on the 'benefits' of unlawful immigrants.

Its claims appear to be in direct contradiction with Jason Richwine's study:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...ful-immigrants-and-amnesty to-the-us-taxpayer

 

So you're saying the only average difference between West Africans and Northern Europeans is pigmentation of their skin?

Differences in MAOA levels, testosterone, brain volume, fast twitch muscle fiber, gestation period, bone density, limb and spine length and skull structure don't exist?

Or are you using a poor analogy of coat differences for your own sake?

 

Have you figured out the difference between primary and secondary sources?

Or did the words confuse you?

 

How's that source on Blacks improving their score on backward digit span tests coming along?

Do you know how much Black and White scores improved after being rewarded for their performance?

 

So you have no counter-arguments? Just name calling and vague accusations of illogic and fallacy with no demonstration?

3) Steven Gould



Wrote the "The Mismeasure of Man" to combat "scientific racism". "The Mismeasure of Man was "science fiction" and "political propaganda",[..] Gould had misrepresented the views of Alfred Binet, Godfrey Thomson, and Lewis Terman." Accused Morton of academic fraud in reporting racial skull differences. Morton's findings later confirmed.

 

This is a lie.

This is a mindless truism.

Regressive traits spread in a population when they are strongly selected. For regressive and prominent read highly selected. If we ignore evolution because 'everybodies equal' all of the 'dominant' (a chemical phenomenon) genes which code for garbage will become prominent. Several severe genetic disorders are allelically 'dominant'.

4) Gene Weltfish



Author "The Races of Mankind" ""The Races of Mankind" was used, not only for orientation by the army, but in the de-Nazification program in Germany after the war." (Weltfish in Pathe, 1988, p. 375)

"The Races of Mankind" disputed such Nazi ideas that there are Jewish or Aryan races, that superior character is inborn, and that intelligence stems from race (Benedict and Weltfish, 1943). The pamphlet talks about the similarities of all humans and that all races come from different balances of melanin and carotene."

 

Dude...you've supplied a link to the Occidental Observer. It is what it is. What's next? White Man March?

 

Do you know what primary and secondary sources are?

No?

Perhaps you've heard of 'attacking the messenger'?

Try not to wear out your claim of how logical you are this early in the game.

 

All of your arguments have been countered, because they fail under logic. And they have been demonstrated conclusively why they fail. When the premises of a deductive syllogism are true, the conclusion MUST be infallibly true. You're arguing against logic, and you will always lose. You've offered a series of logical fallacies and they've been explained in detail to you why they are fallacies. You of course are in denial and we can see that. Logic doesn't correspond to your anti-Semitism, therefore...logic must be wrong, and prejudice must be correct. You not only speak of fraud, you point specifically to what you see as Jewish fraud, as if that has some higher importance to you. That's a demonstration of your own prejudice. What's next, a defense for the Nazi's? Holocaust denial?