the neoliberal vision of the future

[Johnny Canuck3]

(Among African-Americans the number is about 40%)

Not true. Why are you spreading such a gross misstatement of the truth?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Anti-semitism was greatly refueled by Marxist conceptions that capitalists are exploiters and moochers. Had a general concept of IQ been well-known and well-understood it would have been known that a) industrialists and businessmen are typically smarter than average and that business is a mentally challenging task and that businessmen therefore provide great VALUE, they are NOT moochers, b) it would have been known that Jews are in fact very intelligent and that is why they are so over-represented as industrialists and among the very rich. Not only would a proper understanding of IQ prevent the antagonism towards capitalism, but it would also prevent anti-semitism and would ultimately have made the holocaust impossible.

The stereotype was the 'cunning jew'. To be cunning, you have to have some intelligence. In other words, antisemitism wasn't based on a belief that jews were stupid. It was other things.

Have you actually listened to yourself and the ridiculous bullshit that you spout? Maybe you're just trolling as opposed to the other option: that you are potentially a moron.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We make unreasonable demands of access to other countries' markets for our goods while at the same time having toll barriers to protect our own industries. .

They have this new thing now. It's called 'globalization'.

 

[onarchy]

They have this new thing now. It's called 'globalization'.

Ah, but "strangely" enough this globalization does not apply to key products. The United States and particularly the EU and Norway have HUGE toll barriers and massive subsidies to their farming. By extraordinary coincidence farming products is precisely the area in which developing country has a major competitive edge.

 

[onarchy]

The stereotype was the 'cunning jew'. To be cunning, you have to have some intelligence. In other words, antisemitism wasn't based on a belief that jews were stupid. It was other things.

Ah, but the role of IQ in wealth creation and business was in general NOT appreciated. I.e. it was not appreciated that business is hard mental work and that therefore it favors the intelligent. The Marxist conception that capitalists do not produce value for others made people view Jews as parasites rather than as major producers that contributed massively to other people's lives.

 

[onarchy]

Not true. Why are you spreading such a gross misstatement of the truth?

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm

"By 1940, the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks. Notice that for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were nevertheless literate. Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can’t read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled. Before you think of anything else in regard to these numbers, think of this: we spend three to four times as much real money on schooling as we did sixty years ago, but sixty years ago virtually everyone, black or white, could read."

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Are you Norwegian? That might explain the problem here. If English is your second language, perhaps you're having difficulty communicating complex and nuanced ideas in a language that is foreign to you.

That's only a small part of the problem. Even in Norwegian it's still naturgjødsel.

 

[rekil]

That honestthinking site appears to be chockablock with racist, loon, and randroid stuff.

Have you heard of an old Italian mag called La Difesa Della Razza onar? Right up your street so it was.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3b.htm

"By 1940, the literacy figure for all states stood at 96 percent for whites, 80 percent for blacks. Notice that for all the disadvantages blacks labored under, four of five were nevertheless literate. Six decades later, at the end of the twentieth century, the National Adult Literacy Survey and the National Assessment of Educational Progress say 40 percent of blacks and 17 percent of whites can’t read at all. Put another way, black illiteracy doubled, white illiteracy quadrupled. Before you think of anything else in regard to these numbers, think of this: we spend three to four times as much real money on schooling as we did sixty years ago, but sixty years ago virtually everyone, black or white, could read."

However, by 1969, illiteracy as it had been traditionally defined, had been largely eradicated among African Americans—the number of among young adults was less than one percent, though African Americans still lag in more stringent definitions of document literacy. Inability to read, write or speak English in America today is largely an issue for immigrants, mostly from Asia and Latin America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ited_States_by_race_and_other_classifications

For the later part of this century the illiteracy rates have been relatively low, registering only about 4 percent as early as 1930. However, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, illiteracy was very common. In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate. By 1900 the situation had improved somewhat, but still 44 percent of blacks remained illiterate. The statistical data show significant improvements for black and other races in the early portion of the 20th century as the former slaves who had no educational opportunities in their youth were replaced by younger individuals who grew up in the post Civil War period and often had some chance to obtain a basic education. The gap in illiteracy between white and black adults continued to narrow through the 20th century, and in 1979 the rates were about the same.

http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

 

[invisibleplanet]

It is a popularization of what is generally known about intelligence in the research community. There have been made several surveys among IQ researchers on their position, and the majority of them think that a) intelligence is a real biological concept with a significant heritable component and b) some of the differences in the measured IQ between races is of biological origin. Here is a statement that was released to the media by 52 mainstream IQ researchers during the Bell Curve controversy:

http://www.DOThonestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2008.02.11.Mainstream_scientists_on_race.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Jørgen_Anfindsen

Race debate

Anfindsen has been engaged in the debate about immigration, race and intelligence.[1][2] In February 2005 Anfindsen started HonestThinking together with his brother Jens Tomas Anfindsen.[7] Through the website and newspaper debates, Anfindsen puts the spotlight on the Norwegian immigration and integration policies. One of the site's main issues is the forecast that ethnic Norwegians may become a minority in Norway towards the end of the 21st century,[8] or even by 2050.[9]

He use a model which divides humans into three main races: one originating from East Asia, one from Europe and the Middle East, and one from Africa. He regards East Asians to have the highest IQ, and Africans the lowest. He claims that for instance foreign aid may have been less successful because one has not taken different IQ levels into account.[10]

He has also argued that the intelligence of immigrants in Norway could be critical for the future of the nation. He expressed worry over the low European birth rates, but held immigration to not be a sustainable solution. This was as it would lead to a multiethnic and racially mixed society. He argued that many scientists have pointed out that few things control a persons loyalty and preferences more than race, and that there likely are a limit to how many different languages and "loyalties" a society can contain until it breaks apart.[2][11]

He has claimed that there are ideological motives behind the denial of the existence of different races, and that the longer one hides "the truth", the more it will eventually pave the way for racism and worse.[12]

Anfindsen has sometimes been critizised in the media by certain scientists and social commentators.[10][13][14]
In May 2010, he released his book Selvmordsparadigmet – hvordan politisk korrekthet ødelegger samfunnet (lit. the "Suicide Paradigm – how political correctness destroys society") at Litteraturhuset in Oslo. According to Litteraturhuset, "seldom or never has such a radical criticism of society been published in Norway". Besides Anfindsen, appendixes in the book have been written by Henry Harpending, Frank Salter, Roger Scruton and Fjordman.[15]

 

[Luther Blissett]

Anfindsen's work is used by the Norwegian network of the Heritage Foundation's International Civil Liberties Alliance (was Center for Vigilant Freedom) in their Counterjihad Europa Project. Network Members of the International Civil Liberties Alliance include the EDL praising Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller, and Fjordman, the Norwegian equivalent of Baron Bodissey, SIOA/SIOE, Alan Lake, and the EDL.

... warns that "the West did not win the Cold War. We haven't defeated Socialism" and "in Europe today, Marxists and Leftists of all kinds virtually control Western media and academia". 'Fjordman''.

Does that sound familiar?

 

[onarchy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educat...ited_States_by_race_and_other_classifications




http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp

You just googled that without having any knowledge about the topic, didn't you? If you define literacy as knowing the alphabet and being able to read your name then yeah, most Americans are literate. But if you use the much more useful term functional literacy, which involves the ability to actually understand text (we're talking about things like reading a prescription understanding voting instructions etc.) then you will find that the functional illiteracy rate is quite high in the US. (Norwegian figures are around 20% for current students)

Remember the huge controversy surrounding the ballot counting in Florida in the Bush vs Gore presidential election? It was shown that there was systematically more ballots discarded in counties with a large black community than in white dominated counties. This lead to allegations of fraud etc. How about the very simple explanation that voting is a mentally challenging task, which involves reading instructions? If you're a functional illiterate the chance of casting a vote correctly drops significantly. Considering then that 40% of blacks in America are functional illiterates this fact alone could explain the ballot discarding pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy

According to the statistics some 70% of the inmates in American prisons are functional illiterates. I don't have the academic references at hand but here is a blog that summarizes the data:

http://slowdecline.wordpress.com/20...al-illiterates-who-contribute-to-its-decline/

Functional illiteracy is the only social parameter that better predicts criminality than low IQ. Low IQ in turn is the best predictor of functional illiteracy. Thus, all the people who rail against IQ as a "myth" and want to treat all individuals as if they have the same innate potential have contributed to the current illiteracy epidemic, and hence the crime rate. All the railing was done in the name of anti-racism, but the result has been to create MORE racial tensions in the US, not less, because people are not blind. They do see that the vast majority of prison inmates are black, and a lot of people draw quite racist conclusions from that. Thanks a lot, socialism.

 

[ymu]

You're missing the point. She isn't and hasn't to my knowledge ever been a great scientist. A good one, once? Quite possibly. But she is nowhere near being a world-leading scientist. Simply go to Google Scholar and type in her name, look at her citation count. I just did this, her top ref has less than 150 cites. In contrast, another well-known and acknowledged world leader, A. Damasio has 8000 citations on his top ref.

That means nothing at all. There are virtually no fields where it is actually possible to produce 8,000 publications in a lifetime. That's one a day throughout a career, ffs! It's a sign of someone who puts his own name on other people's work quite a lot. 100 first author papers is the maximum you could possibly produce off the back of your own research, unless they're all useless think pieces.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Again ...

The central fallacy in using the substantial heritability of within–group IQ (among whites, for example) as an explanation of average differences between groups (whites versus blacks, for example) is now well known and acknowledged by all, including Herrnstein and Murray, but deserves a restatement by example. Take a trait that is far more heritable than anyone has ever claimed IQ to be but is politically uncontroversial—body height. Suppose that I measured the heights of adult males in a poor Indian village beset with nutritional deprivation, and suppose the average height of adult males is five feet six inches. Heritability within the village is high, which is to say that tall fathers (they may average five feet eight inches) tend to have tall sons, while short fathers (five feet four inches on average) tend to have short sons. But this high heritability within the village does not mean that better nutrition might not raise average height to five feet ten inches in a few generations. Similarly, the well–documented fifteen–point average difference in IQ between blacks and whites in America, with substantial heritability of IQ in family lines within each group, permits no automatic conclusion that truly equal opportunity might not raise the black average enough to equal or surpass the white mean.

Disturbing as I find the anachronism of The Bell Curve, I am even more distressed by its pervasive disingenuousness. The authors omit facts, misuse statistical methods, and seem unwilling to admit the consequence of their own words

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/topics/curveball.html

 

[Luther Blissett]

Anfindsen's work is used by the Norwegian network of the Heritage Foundation's International Civil Liberties Alliance (was Center for Vigilant Freedom) in their Counterjihad Europa Project. Network Members of the International Civil Liberties Alliance include the EDL praising Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller, and Fjordman, the Norwegian equivalent of Baron Bodissey, SIOA/SIOE, Alan Lake, and the EDL.

Cross-post from the EDL Watch thread

I don't know if this has been brought up here before, but I thought it worth mentioning that a Norwegian Defence League (called just that, in English )has recently gotten a lot of press back home for a totally botched demo they tried to set up in Oslo the other day. Apparently the cow leading this group of fetuses has been ousted by an EDL-backed group of neo-nazis.

Said demo gathered 10 - ten - people, the counter-demo gathered 1000.
http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...2011/04/14/nyheter/ndl/edl/politikk/16194792/
http://translate.google.co.uk/trans...r/innenriks/ndl/blitz/demonstrasjon/16128147/

Both in Norwegian, google translate it if you're curious.

More here: Nazi sympathizers, nationalists and more moderate Islam opponents competing to take the lead in the fledgling Norwegian Defence League movement

 

[stethoscope]

Functional illiteracy is the only social parameter that better predicts criminality than low IQ. Low IQ in turn is the best predictor of functional illiteracy. Thus, all the people who rail against IQ as a "myth" and want to treat all individuals as if they have the same innate potential have contributed to the current illiteracy epidemic, and hence the crime rate. All the railing was done in the name of anti-racism, but the result has been to create MORE racial tensions in the US, not less, because people are not blind. They do see that the vast majority of prison inmates are black, and a lot of people draw quite racist conclusions from that. Thanks a lot, socialism.

Wtf?!

 

[onarchy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Jørgen_Anfindsen

Anfindsen is a social democrat, and coupled with the knowledge about racial differences in IQ this makes him want to stop immigration to Norway to preserve the welfare state. He sees low-IQ individuals from the poor countries as a threat to Norway's future and our welfare state system. He's right of course, but fails to understand that the *welfare state* itself is a threat to Norway's future, and that immigration simply precipitates and speeds up an inevitable process. We liberals have a completely different take. With laissez-faire there is no danger from immigration, because a) laissez-faire first of all attracts the ABLE, and b) there are no welfare programs to leech on under laissez-faire and hence immigration will only be from productive individuals.

Now, the debate about race, IQ etc. is GOING to come, there is no way of stopping it because the scientific evidence is mounting so fast that within a few years not even the sturdiest skeptic can turn a blind eye. (This will happen when we have a 100% chronometric/physiological measurement of IQ.) So the question is really: who do you want to take the lead in that debate, people like Anfindsen or the liberals who are anti-racist and pro-immigration?

 

[Luther Blissett]

We liberals have a completely different take. With laissez-faire there is no danger from immigration, because a) laissez-faire first of all attracts the ABLE, and b) there are no welfare programs to leech on under laissez-faire and hence immigration will only be from productive individuals.

You're not a liberal. At the very least you could be classed as extreme right. You rely on far-right neoconservative, far-right Randist doctrine and wingnut extreme right theories (see Bernie Gunther discussion below, this page) to support your position. You're on the extreme-right, politically.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Now, the debate about race, IQ etc. is GOING to come, there is no way of stopping it because the scientific evidence is mounting so fast that within a few years not even the sturdiest skeptic can turn a blind eye. (This will happen when we have a 100% chronometric/physiological measurement of IQ.) So the question is really: who do you want to take the lead in that debate, people like Anfindsen or the liberals who are anti-racist and pro-immigration?

The question is really: How far will racists go in their use of science to ''prove'' racial superiority and ''justify'' their racist beliefs?

We call this ''scientific racism'' and it is built on fallacies:

Two of the most recent attempts to revive eugenic ideas about racial superiority are The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray and the various writings of psychologist J. Philippe Rushton particularly his Race, . You can get both positive and negative views of The Bell Curve at Two Views of the Bell Curve and at Upstream (and you can enter The Bell Curve at any search engine and get many more critiques). One of the more distressing facts about works such as The Bell Curve is the attention and legitimacy they are given by the media. Yet rarely do media commentators fully understand the fallacies that lie behind the basic building blocks of scientific racism (e.g. "intelligence," IQ, "race," etc), and manage to simply reinforce social biases that privilege some people and penalize others.

 

[Blagsta]

Onarchy, can you provide the evidence and references I asked for.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Onarchy, can you provide the evidence and references I asked for.

His track record for doing this is not good. Where he does provide links at all they seem to be from Muslamic Raygun fanciers.

 

[Luther Blissett]

Onarchy, can you provide the evidence and references I asked for.

Can he fuck. His links so far consist of wikipedia, the Heritage Foundation and a lone homeschool fanboy. His concealed sources likely include an assortment of far-right Counterjihad bloggers.

 

[onarchy]

You're not a liberal. At the very least you could be classed as a neoconservative. You're on the far-right, politically.

Can you tell me in what sense I am on the far right? What policies do I adhere to that are far-right?

 

[Luther Blissett]

Onar Åm, that is your name, isn't it? You are more right-wing than Hitler. No wonder you think he's 'left-wing'!
It's not funny, is it? Have you not realised that you are politically on the extreme-right?

 

[Blagsta]

It is a popularization of what is generally known about intelligence in the research community. There have been made several surveys among IQ researchers on their position, and the majority of them think that a) intelligence is a real biological concept with a significant heritable component and b) some of the differences in the measured IQ between races is of biological origin. Here is a statement that was released to the media by 52 mainstream IQ researchers during the Bell Curve controversy:

http://www.honestthinking.org/en/pub/HT.2008.02.11.Mainstream_scientists_on_race.htm
<snip>

Has anyone looked at this site? It's basically a "scientific racism" site.

 

[Blagsta]

Can you tell me in what sense I am on the far right? What policies do I adhere to that are far-right?

Your denial of aspects of the holocaust, your citation of The Bell Curve, your "scientific racism".

 

[butchersapron]

I love these sites with names like 'honest thinking' or 'straight talking'

 

[Blagsta]

Yeah, that's what set my alarm bells ringing.

 

[Luther Blissett]

I revise my judgement on Onar Åm's political position on the left-right axis from far-right to extreme-right (or hard-right).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I revise my judgement on Onar Åm's political position on the left-right axis from far-right to extreme-right (or hard-right).

Yeah, he's most closely aligned with the US wingnut right as far as I can see. That's certainly where he's getting most of his source material from. Jonah Goldberg, Heritage Foundation, assorted race science outlets funded by the Pioneer Foundation.

He's got most of the wingnut checklist - Economics: Rand/Hayek/Mises; Science: Climate Contrarian, Scientific Racism (plus a couple of freaky ones of his own like the ether stuff); Politics: mostly John Birch Society/WACL from what he's come out with so far.

What I'm not sure about is classifying him as a neo-con, the Irving-style Holocaust Denial Lite doesn't quite fit with that and unlike most of the US wingnut right, he isn't as far as I can tell some sort of religious nut trying to re-introduce Old Testament law ... although one of his fans (the one with rape pictures on his site) might have had those kinds of tendencies from some of the stuff he was coming out with.