Thomas Sowell Agrees with Doug Bandler about the coming Race War

Doug Bandler's picture
Submitted by Doug Bandler on Wed, 2013-10-23 21:00

Well he didn't mention me explicitly, but he does reference a race realist blogger by the name of "Paul Kersey" who runs the blog "Stuff Black People Don't LIke" or SBPDL:

http://stuffblackpeopledontlik...

Sowell in his latest column mentions the book "White Girls Bleed Alot" which highlights the multi-city wave of attacks against whites by blacks. Here is Sowell's article:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/bla...

I'm guessing that Sowell is now officially a racist for acknowledging the black crime rate and the Leftist race war against whites. Or is that title just reserved for me?

More dangerous than these highly publicized episodes over the years are innumerable organized and unprovoked physical attacks on whites by young black gangs in shopping malls, on beaches and in other public places all across the country today.

While some of these attacks make it into the media as isolated incidents, the nationwide pattern of organized black on white attacks by thugs remains invisible in the mainstream media, with the notable exception of Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.

And Sowell even gets this:

Even when these attacks are accompanied by shouts of anti-white rhetoric and exultant laughter at the carnage, the racial makeup of the attackers and their victims is usually ignored by the media, and public officials often deny that race has anything to do with what happened.

That's right the media doesn't even want to mention the race of this never ending stream of black criminals. I would bet dollars to donuts that 99% of Objectivists would agree with the Leftist media policy (I'm sure as shit that Diana Hsieh would). After all what relevance is race? That's barnyard racism just like Rand said and Michael Moeller reminded us all.

The reality of savage black violence and of the reality of race and heredity can not be suppressed forever. Even Sowell and O'Reily are starting to see the picture. Will Objectivists? I won't hold my breath.

Sowell ends with this paragraph:

It would be easy to simply dismiss Kersey as a racist. But denouncing him or ignoring him is not refuting him. Refuting requires thought, which has largely been replaced by fashionable buzz words and catch phrases, when it comes to discussions of race.

Thought is long overdue. So is honesty.

Remarkable, a black Conservative is infinitely more honest about race realism than white Objectivists. "Refuting requires thought". Oh I thought it required knee-jerk accusations of racism. Silly me. And silly Sowell.


For one thing, personally, I

Tom Burroughes's picture

For one thing, personally, I find it very striking that in my life I was accused of racism, for the first time, at the mere age of 14, while living in a purely-white, middle-class, suburban milieu. This charge, by the way, came not from my enemies -- but from my friends. My shock, bitterness, and hatred is undiminished. To be accused of such a primitive moral failing was stunning and incomprehensible to me. It still is.

A strange experience indeed. I come from rural England: predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon, etc. I had no similar experience. I do remember being quite badly bullied at school though, which I guess might have had other effects on how I think about the world.

To a certain extent this stuff is impressionistic, subjective, and a matter of opinion. But I think she did a semi-good job of denouncing female sexism in the '60s and '70s. It's just AR seems to have been mighty quiet about the much more rich, ripe, important, empassioned subject of black racism, which I saw -- and still see -- as uniquely ugly, obscene, and vivid.

Impressionistic it probably is; I just don't think we can prove a negative here. A shame we cannot back in time and say, "Miss Rand, what do you make of those non-white youths causing mayhem on the streets? Is there a specific point worth making here?" We just don't know, Kyrel, which is why, in the absence of an opinion, I take her denunciation of racism as a sort of default setting.

In my view, she should have done what the neo-atheists did, starting in 2004 with Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

She was pretty rough on religion; expressions such as "witch doctor"; she denounced St Augustine, one of the Popes, etc. She called out examples of what she saw as mysticism. I guess she also put any form of irrationalism, as she saw it, under such a banner. And long before Hitchens was denouncing the church, Rand had made her points about abortion and the church's attitudes towards capitalism. Hitchens was great but he lacked the killer point about the kind of morality needed to replace religion. George Smith, in his book Atheism, the Case Against God, is very good on this. (She did not have anything to say about Islam, if I recall. I cannot believe she would have been silent on that issue had she lived to see 9/11. Actually, part of me is glad she did not see her beloved NYC smashed up.)

Yes, minimal. Minimal. I wasn't around in the '40s and '50s, but I remember when Ronald Reagan spoke of a time (perhaps the '30s) "when America didn't know it had a race problem." It was a beautiful comment of deliberate, provocative honesty, stated with calm confidence. Naturally, the intelligentsia and media howled. It was pure intimidation by them. But they didn't address or refute his fundamental point, and Reagan didn't apologize.

That rather depends on what parts of the US we are talking about. Like I said, in the US old south, with the Jim Crow laws only being dismantled in the mid-60s, the race issue was hardly "minimal" if you happened to be refused entry into a bar not because the owner was a bigot but because it was against the law. America's great strength, of course, it is power of renewal. Old-style anti-black racism is now more or less extinct. Only a small, lunatic fringe engages in it. That's clearly a great improvement. If Reagan had referred to his stamping ground in California, or certain parts of the country, he was obviously right. But racism existed big time in the 30s; it was part of the law of several states of the land. Or maybe this never happened; it was all part of some grand conspiracy of historians/journalists. (Sarcasm alert.) The fact that some historians/journalists have made US history to be worse than it was is not the same as saying that bad things did not happen. They did.

"As far as I can tell, the history of America you cite above is about 95% fraud."

What, the Jim Crow system existed only in a dream I once had?

So too the nature of black racism, and black nature/nurture, in the 1945-1965 period in America, England, and the West; and in Rand's era; and up to today. So, no, I don't agree with what Rand, Branden, Kelley, Peikoff, and everyone else says about blacks, historically and currently. Altho' rewriting history, universal brainwashing, and concomitant ignorance is important, here's a large part of my theory: You're all lying.

I actually don't actually know what any of those persons had to say about blacks, so I don't know what on earth you are on about. But I can guess they would have been bemused by your claim that we are all lying about this. Get over yourself.

Looney

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Michael Moeller -- You write: "Kyrel is so many levels deep in looney that no sunlight could possibly penetrate." Does this apply to all subjects, or just black racism and nature/nurture? I need to keep track! Eye

A Few More Points

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Tom -- Once again I appreciate the pervasive reasonableness of your reply. But once again I have a hard time relating to some, or even any, of your sentiments. I seem to see the issue of black racism, and black nature and nurture, differently from practically everyone else whatsoever.

For one thing, personally, I find it very striking that in my life I was accused of racism, for the first time, at the mere age of 14, while living in a purely-white, middle-class, suburban milieu. This charge, by the way, came not from my enemies -- but from my friends. My shock, bitterness, and hatred is undiminished. To be accused of such a primitive moral failing was stunning and incomprehensible to me. It still is.

It's as if everyone were to accuse me of slaughtering charming, harmless unicorns on a regular basis while laughing maniacally. My reply is simple: I don't know any unicorns, don't even think they exist, don't have the slightest desire to slaughter them, couldn't even create such a desire if I wished, deeply wish them to prosper and be happy, aren't aware of the slightest evidence that I've ever harmed them, and haven't Clue One as to what people are talking about here -- not even to the point of having a hazy notion of the general area of the subject matter under discussion.

Still, let me try to address a few of your points:

"Rand...seemed to have a fairly general sense of discontent with the way that culture was going and I don’t think she regarded the racial aspects of it as significant to isolate it as a factor, compared to what she saw as a more general irrationalism and level of thuggery among young people in particular. You cannot prove she evaded it; one cannot prove a negative."

To a certain extent this stuff is impressionistic, subjective, and a matter of opinion. But I think she did a semi-good job of denouncing female sexism in the '60s and '70s. It's just AR seems to have been mighty quiet about the much more rich, ripe, important, empassioned subject of black racism, which I saw -- and still see -- as uniquely ugly, obscene, and vivid.

"On the religion front, Rand wrote a lot about mysticism and its evils and irrationality, as she saw it. Go and peruse her essays. Go and read about how she fell out with people over religion, or her denunciation of the-then Pope and his views on abortion, etc.

What more did you want her to do? Walk around churches insulting the visitors? Demand they be burned down?"

In my view, she should have done what the neo-atheists did, starting in 2004 with Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

"White racism was “minimal”? What, in 1945, when the South still operated under legal apartheid? When black people had to sit in their own parts of restaurants, libraries, buses, trains, bars and bathrooms? Yes, compared to some countries in that same era, America was a fairly tolerant place, and improving fast in the 50s. But the fact remains that blacks were rising from a situation where the country that had captured their ancestors and enslaved them were bound to feel, well, a bit sore. Memories matter – it is extraordinary to suppose this would not have had an impact. (Look at South Africa now). And it was not until Man was virtually on his way to the fucking Moon that blacks were treated legally in a way that had some relationship to the promise of the Declaration's preamble. "

Yes, minimal. Minimal. I wasn't around in the '40s and '50s, but I remember when Ronald Reagan spoke of a time (perhaps the '30s) "when America didn't know it had a race problem." It was a beautiful comment of deliberate, provocative honesty, stated with calm confidence. Naturally, the intelligentsia and media howled. It was pure intimidation by them. But they didn't address or refute his fundamental point, and Reagan didn't apologize.

As far as I can tell, the history of America you cite above is about 95% fraud. (So too the history of the whole emphatically-non-bigoted, noble Anglo-Saxon world.) You have to pay attention and have integrity to know this, but the evidence of it is everywhere. It's like the existence of god in the Dark Ages. Everyone claimed it was real, but if you had honesty, courage, general virtue, historical knowledge, or something, you pretty much knew the truth about religion even then.

So too the nature of black racism, and black nature/nurture, in the 1945-1965 period in America, England, and the West; and in Rand's era; and up to today. So, no, I don't agree with what Rand, Branden, Kelley, Peikoff, and everyone else says about blacks, historically and currently. Altho' rewriting history, universal brainwashing, and concomitant ignorance is important, here's a large part of my theory: You're all lying.

To believe in a moral

Tom Burroughes's picture

To believe in a moral predisposition is to believe that some people are hardwired to be evil or good; but as Michael says, morality implies volitional capacity. There is no evidence that a person who has a few points of IQ less than another is somehow less able to make moral choices, bear responsibility, learn and develop a good moral character, etc. I sometimes think that racists seem to believe that whole portions of people are sub-human in this sense, like children. It is pernicious rubbish.

Talking about testosterone or whatever is only going to give us information about potential tendencies, nothing else. If these discussions have convinced me of anything, it is that a lot of quasi-Darwinian explanations of behaviour are often little more than a rationalisation for certain forms of bigotry.

I have seen Ayn Rand accused of various things; being politically correct is certainly a new one. I remember Doug Bandler (or whatever his actual name is) at one stage said it was a pity that she was a woman. Words fail me at this lunacy.

The Clever Michael Moeller

Neil Parille's picture

Secondly, it was a trick question! There is no such thing as a moral predisposition. Morality presupposes choice, hence moral predisposition is a contradiction in terms, knucklehead.

-Neil

Pop Goes the Weasel, INDEED

Michael Moeller's picture

Neil,

This is why you should stick to shoveling slime on graves, as you aren't much good at deeper intellectual matters. You're not much good at that either, but you seem more comfortable in the slime realm.

So, let's recap: you had NO BASIS to claim that *I* denied men are more aggressive than women, on average. You put words in my mouth, and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

Secondly, it was a trick question! There is no such thing as a moral predisposition. Morality presupposes choice, hence moral predisposition is a contradiction in terms, knucklehead.

Sure, men are stronger and have more testosterone, so it makes sense that **on average** men will commit more crimes, but no individual male has a moral predispostion to commit crime. It says nothing about the individual. No more than men -- on average -- being more likely to become a firefighter or longshoreman, or an MMA wrestler. SO WHAT!

Furthermore, just look at reality! The vast, OVERWHELMING majority of men do not commit crimes. You should've at least asked yourself why ~10% of men commit crimes if they have your alleged "moral predisposition". In other words, the vast majority of men OVERCOME their alleged "moral predisposition" to aggression, so it doesn't sound like much of a "moral predisposition".

Nice try. You can go back to rolling in the mud, now.

Pop Goes The Weasel

Neil Parille's picture

Michael,

That was the first time that you ever said (at least on this thread) that males are more predisposed to aggression than females. You evaded with the men are bigger and stronger on average than females, which of course doesn't explain why females are less aggressive toward each other.

Here it goes: so by "morally predisposed", I am asking you if men are predisposed to choosing being a criminal vs. a productive pursuit like longshoremen, firefighters, etc?

Not in general, but but more so than females.

-Neil Parille

Tom

Michael Moeller's picture

I am not sure why you bother debunking non-arguments. I think it is rather clear that black racism is being used as an excuse for White Supremacism.

I find myself pondering the levels of self-hatred that must be involved in such positions. The flip side of genetics-is-destiny is that you do not deserve praise for your achievements. After all, your achievements are because you are white, not because of your character and effort. The doctrine is pernicious all the way around.

And Kyrel is so many levels deep in looney that no sunlight could possibly penetrate.

Kyrel

Tom Burroughes's picture

“I lived thru this period. Black racism was stunning. Nothing could have been more culturally ugly, obscene, and obvious. To not notice it would be like not noticing how evil Islam and Muslims are today.”

Rand, for example, in writing about Woodstock, and her disapproval about what she saw as the “music of the jungle” and all that, seemed to have a fairly general sense of discontent with the way that culture was going and I don’t think she regarded the racial aspects of it as significant to isolate it as a factor, compared to what she saw as a more general irrationalism and level of thuggery among young people in particular. You cannot prove she evaded it; one cannot prove a negative.

A truly terrible excuse, if she believed it, and one inconsistent with her strategy of outstanding honesty, courage, and integrity on all other issues except religion (which she also inexcusably soft-pedaled). Moreover, she did mostly the opposite on the intimately-related issue of female sexism.

On the religion front, Rand wrote a lot about mysticism and its evils and irrationality, as she saw it. Go and peruse her essays. Go and read about how she fell out with people over religion, or her denunciation of the-then Pope and his views on abortion, etc.

What more did you want her to do? Walk around churches insulting the visitors? Demand they be burned down?

As for the rest of your point, as I have said before, she had denounced racism. She pointed out that it was Man’s most primitive form of collectivism. That is about as harsh a charge as she was likely to make. She did not feel the need to endlessly repeat this point every time there was a new form of racism around, such as the anti-white prejudice you talk about. She assumed that her readers were smart enough to know that she’d regard ANY form of racism as bad, period. She did not need to write about it 24/7 during the period you mention. Anyone who knew her and read her stuff could have figured it out where she stood. She did not need to spell this all out with big crayons.

It is undeniable – as I have said before on this thread. – that there is a serious problem of race hucksterism, hysteria and aggressiveness being promoted by certain individuals, such as the odious Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (both men are not exactly on the best of terms with Jews, either). As Lindsay says, Objectivists of various stripes have pointed this out several times down the years. I find your scolding of them to be a bit rich, actually, since your accusation of evasion is exactly the kind of thing that Rand used to engage in.

I also find the way you handle Rand/Objectivists’ alleged “evasion” on this issue to be unjust. Rand wrote about a lot of issues, but she did not touch on areas of life that a lot of Americans are interested in and get worked up about, such as sports. We cannot write about everything under the sun. People have their specialisms, after all. Does that mean she “hated” sports, or “evaded” this as a subject? No. I don’t know if she was asked in one of her lectures or gatherings about the black-white racial issues of the time, and whether she deliberately refused to discuss it. It seems a bit of a stretch to imagine, given what we know of her firebrand character, that she’d be a pussycat on that sort of issue. It just does not fit.

No, the overwhelming narrative of the time was one of rewriting history and blackening white people with great lies and injustice. White racism in America was minimal after Hitler and 1945, and fading fast. You'd never know it but the fact is white Americans are far and away the least racist and bigoted people in the history of man. But virtually all the history books of America and the West tell a vastly different story.

White racism was “minimal”? What, in 1945, when the South still operated under legal apartheid? When black people had to sit in their own parts of restaurants, libraries, buses, trains, bars and bathrooms? Yes, compared to some countries in that same era, America was a fairly tolerant place, and improving fast in the 50s. But the fact remains that blacks were rising from a situation where the country that had captured their ancestors and enslaved them were bound to feel, well, a bit sore. Memories matter – it is extraordinary to suppose this would not have had an impact. (Look at South Africa now). And it was not until Man was virtually on his way to the fucking Moon that blacks were treated legally in a way that had some relationship to the promise of the Declaration's preamble.

Black racism is the elephant in the room. This anti-white bigotry today is on a par with the anti-Jewish bigotry of the Nazis from 1935-1945. How can everyone be so silent? How can Objectivists be so evading? To my mind, only the deepest and most profound kind of depravity can explain it.

Black racism does seem to be a serious problem (I haven’t denied it, be it noted); the recent Zimmerman case, and some of the ways in which the pro-Obama media tries to deflect criticism by shouting “racist”, does not help. Affirmative Action is grossly unjust, and should cease. Etc. But the situation, while nasty, cannot be compared to the systematic oppression, robbery and ostracism of a minority in Germany by a regime such as that of Adolf Hitler.

There's 7 billion people on this earth. When it comes to truth and justice about black racism, I'm morally superior to every last one of them.

What, you have been conducting interviews and calls with all 7 billion humans about their views on such issues to reach this conclusion?

The Vanuted US Military

Doug Bandler's picture

When they're not discriminating against blacks and women they are busy getting liposuction:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Did the Roman Empire ever become this laughable?

Black racism is the elephant

Doug Bandler's picture

Black racism is the elephant in the room. This anti-white bigotry today is on a par with the anti-Jewish bigotry of the Nazis from 1935-1945.

If you research the stats on the lynchings of blacks during the KKK era and then compare them to the black on white murder stats you will find that blacks today are more violent towards whites than whites were to blacks during the time before the 60s. Anti-white hatred DEFINES the Left.

To my mind, only the deepest and most profound kind of depravity can explain it.

YES. Objectivists should be ashamed of themselves for not denouncing the animus towards whites that is all pervasive today. The ARI, Hsieh, Armstrong, Peikoff, every last one of them should hang their heads in shame for ignoring what I call "hatred of the white for being the white" (hat tip Neil). Here is a study showing that many white people are waking up to the fact that they are being targeted by the Left.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Here is a news story that just captures perfectly black violence:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...

Four black thugs stole a hammer from Home Depot then they stole a cell phone then when the guy wanted his phone back they cracked his skull with the hammer.

Look at their faces:

I have a hard time believing that culture is not directly linked to biology. I also am very sympathetic with the whites of the pre-1960s that believed in segregation. I increasingly question if multi-racial societies are realistic. And the Left is hell bent on making whites the minority. Many of them want white people to eventually be bred out of existence. I know one thing. The Asians don't feel this way. They will in all probability start breeding for people with higher IQs. Imagine if they should raise their average IQ to 120 while the West keeps importing low IQ blacks and Hispanics.

Forgive us O Lord for our sins.

Not true, Kyrel

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Many Oists, myself included, speak out often against black racism—you're clearly missing a lot of the material right here. Ferocious opposition to black racism is not the same as support for Bandlerian determinism, however.

Anyway, to make your day, some more black racism, especially sickening in light of where it's institutionalised:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion...

Slow Reply

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Tom -- You wrote:

"[I]t can be assumed that if there is a serious problem of black-on-other racism (and there might well be) one can reasonably infer that [Ayn Rand] would have denounced it. I don't really know how closely she would have followed police and media reports of crime in the US in the period you mention."

I lived thru this period. Black racism was stunning. Nothing could have been more culturally ugly, obscene, and obvious. To not notice it would be like not noticing how evil Islam and Muslims are today.

"It is perhaps possible she decided that a lot of what passes for "race realism" is nothing more than bigotry in a suit, and wanted to keep her ideas as far away from such associations as possible. After all, there are plenty of idiots out there who bash Rand for being a racist or whatever; why would she want to give free propaganda to such folk?"

A truly terrible excuse, if she believed it, and one inconsistent with her strategy of outstanding honesty, courage, and integrity on all other issues except religion (which she also inexcusably soft-pedaled). Moreover, she did mostly the opposite on the intimately-related issue of female sexism.

"In the period immediately after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the issue of black-on-white racism was not one that received significant coverage;"

Virtually everyone in the intelligentsia and culture lied thru their teeth about it, yes. But the phenomenon was everywhere and massive.

"of course it may have been suppressed in the media, but the overwhelming narrative of the time was in how the US was coming out from a long, shameful period of state-enforced discrimination against blacks from Reconstruction through to the 1950s and the end of Jim Crow."

No, the overwhelming narrative of the time was one of rewriting history and blackening white people with great lies and injustice. White racism in America was minimal after Hitler and 1945, and fading fast. You'd never know it but the fact is white Americans are far and away the least racist and bigoted people in the history of man. But virtually all the history books of America and the West tell a vastly different story.

"I have no doubt that Randians are against this sort of thing [i.e. black racism]; in fact I know they do."

Yes, but their silence is deafening.

"Kyrel, I don't understand why you attack the ARI because it pointed out this sort of stuff over a decade ago. I don't always agree with ARI but it cannot be accused of evading this issue."

I totally accuse them -- and every other Objectivist.

Tom, I appreciate your patience, thoughtfulness, and seeming reasonableness on this issue. The difficulty is I just don't agree with a single god-damned thing you or anyone else says. We might as well be living on separate planets.

Black racism is the elephant in the room. This anti-white bigotry today is on a par with the anti-Jewish bigotry of the Nazis from 1935-1945. How can everyone be so silent? How can Objectivists be so evading? To my mind, only the deepest and most profound kind of depravity can explain it.

Am I all alone on this issue? You bet. There's 7 billion people on this earth. When it comes to truth and justice about black racism, I'm morally superior to every last one of them. Who are you people?

Doug, a lot of assertions

Tom Burroughes's picture

Doug, a lot of assertions here but no hard evidence. And there are contradictory points. For a start, let's assume that group A has more testosterone than group B. Does that mean that Group A will be more destructive and aggressive and unpleasant than B? No.

Here is an item that seems to cast doubt on the assertion that black youths have higher testosterone to the level that bears out your claim:

http://racehist.blogspot.co.uk...

Here is a detailed study that goes into issues of testosterone of different groups in some detail:

http://ethnicmuse.wordpress.co...

(Also, Japanese Samurai seem to be a pretty aggressive bunch, and the Vikings, and so on.)

Also, as well as being accused of being more violent, at least potentially, black men have often been subject to the stereotype of being lazy and passive. Which is the opposite of aggression, surely.

The more I read about race "realists", the more skeptical I am about how realistic they really think they are particularly on behaviours that are more likely to have a cultural explanation. I am not going to rule such differences out of court; and for that matter, I don't think that it is wrong to ask questions about this, but I worry greatly that we are missing the broader point which is that the character of a man or woman is what counts, and that this is not rooted in genetics.

There may well be valuable data that can be learned from studying different races, such as variable cancer risks, health conditions, and so on. But in terms of our basic humanity, the variations between races don't strike me as significant enough to justify the discriminatory policies of states in the past. For instance, Doug, would you support bans on inter-racial marriage if you are concerned about the impact?

Race is a fact of reality, but the causal power of race on behaviour is a much more complex issue and not one that, in my veiw, undercuts the idea of all humans as possessing volition to any serious degree.

Neil Evading AGAIN!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Neil wrote:

"You do deny that males are more biologically prone to agression than females. I haven't misrepresented your views."

Where did I say anything that REMOTELY justifies that? Quote me, or admit you have misrepresented me, you little weasel!

In fact, I have already acknowledged the biological differences between men and women, such as being stronger and bigger -- on average. Same with aggression, so stop putting words in my mouth.

My point was that it is a matter of choice what to do with one's biological capacities. One could use the aggression for playing football, or one could use it for physically assaulting another person. One could use greater strength to be a longshoremen, or one could use it to rape a woman. Because one possesses certain biological capacities does NOT -- let me repeat this for you -- does NOT determine what a person will do with those capacities.

Now, are you going to evade the question put to you for the 5th time?

Here it goes: so by "morally predisposed", I am asking you if men are predisposed to choosing being a criminal vs. a productive pursuit like longshoremen, firefighters, etc?

yep

Neil Parille's picture

Michael. What research have you done on franks drinking? Are the blumenthals and the kalbermans lying ?

You do deny that males are more biologically prone to agression than females. I haven't misrepresented your views.

Tom

Doug Bandler's picture

If you do the research you will find a number of things. You will find that there is a difference in brain mass which correlates very strongly with race. Not surprisingly you will find that Asians have the largest brain mass with whites a little less and blacks significantly less. (This obviously dovetails with IQ scores.) This has been confirmed by *non-racist* scientists. Of course Leftists resist this tooth and nail.

The reason for this which I find plausible is as follows. Blacks have higher testosterone levels from the ages of 13-33. This is also scientifically verified. Whites have lower testosterone levels during that age and of course Asians have even lower levels (actually they do but it involves a complicated cocktail of hormones). And wouldn't you know it, blacks commit 8 times the violence than whites who commit 2 times the violence of Asians. When I was in Japan I noticed just how rowdy whites can be compared to Asians. Asians are very passive. So much so that you have the phenomenon of a sizable portion of Japanese youth that don't leave their rooms because they are too shy to approach women. Arranged marriages served a very useful function for highly K-selected Asians. Higher testosterone whites can overcome approach anxiety and approach women more easily. But many Asians have trouble with this. SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF CULTURE AND YOU USUALLY FIND BIOLOGY. Unpleasant but inescapable.

The speculation is that higher testosterone levels are necessary for IQ BUT too high and you have a lessening effect. Evolutionary theories go something like this: blacks evolved near the equator. The bountiful environment didn't require high brain power to survive. Women therefor selected for higher testosterone males who were more "ornamental". The societies created reflected this. They were communal and polygamous. And black males were notoriously lazy. Black females have a slightly higher average IQ than the males and have employment rates far better than the males. High black testosterone levels are a problem for black males. It makes them more violent, more promiscuous, less intelligent, less productive. Leave blacks to their own devices and the societies create are COMMUNAL AND TRIBAL. Blacks do not have the brain power at the population level nor the temperament to create advanced civilizations. I know, that is a depressing assertion but one clearly obvious by a study of history. When the blacks finally conquered Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, they ruled over a mixed race society. That ancient civilization would come to and end. There would be no 27th Dynasty. Sadly the God of Biomechanics can not be denied. Not even Rand can stop it.

Whites on the other hand evolved to deal with the harshness of the glacial northern Europe. The societies they developed were characterized by more individualism, more egalitarianism, and women selecting for greater monogamy. Higher brain power resulted out of necessity because the survival pressure demanded it. There is alot of scholarship on this from non-racist sources.

So when we get to the "free will vs determinism" debate I find myself saying "yes we have free will but so what?" What we clearly have are emotional dispositions and bio-cultural influences that are hereditary in nature. How malleable they are is a big question. The race realists say they are not malleable. Leftists, libertarians and Objectivists say they are infinitely malleable (implicitly if not explicitly). I say I don't know but I would bet on biology over culture every time.

The point, however, of this discussion has been the assertion by Doug that certain races of humans are, inter alia, more aggressive than others'. (In this case, his argument is that there is a problem with black males.)

So the answer to this is YES black males are more aggressive than whites and Asians. Why? Because of biology. Free will is irrelevant here. Now can this be overcome by some libertarian social arrangement? Maybe. But in today's context it is clear that black crime is a major problem with society and it is UNDERMINING the livability and enjoyability of Western nations. If you are not rich to avoid black areas your quality of life is seriously diminished. Leftism plus black biology equals a nightmare for whites.

I say that not with joy but with sadness. I wish it were not so but it is. And I am not certain that libertarianism (even Rand's version) can change this. Although I hope I am wrong.

Yep...

Michael Moeller's picture

Just like I thought. Never answers the tough questions put to him while demanding that everybody answer his questions.

Just like the debates on Frank's drinking. Neil has tunnel vision, and when somebody tries to drag him kicking-and-screaming out of the tunnel, he simply closes his eyes. Then he plugs his ears while yelling: "I can't hear you!".

And misrepresents me to boot. Good work Neil! I see you are at your usual sub-standard level, just as you were when trying to throw mud at Rand.

Michael

Neil Parille's picture

You are being a dochebag. You know what tom and I mean.

Really, Neil?

Michael Moeller's picture

Where did I say that? You are being a little weasel.

Now answer the question put to you: so by "morally predisposed", I am asking you if men are predisposed to choosing being a criminal vs. a productive pursuit like longshoremen, firefighters, etc?

Tom

Neil Parille's picture

Michael denies it.

I am not sure anyone is

Tom Burroughes's picture

I am not sure anyone is denying that men are biologically evolved to be more aggressive in certain ways than women; we evolved as hunter-gatherers, etc. The point, however, of this discussion has been the assertion by Doug that certain races of humans are, inter alia, more aggressive than others'. (In this case, his argument is that there is a problem with black males.)

Do you agree with Doug on this, Neil?

Michael

Neil Parille's picture

But men are not only more aggressive toward women. They are more aggressive toward men as well.

Females tend not to be aggressive. This has nothing to do with biology?

Neil

Michael Moeller's picture

I already said it makes sense that more males commit crimes because of being physically stronger and bigger, on average. It also makes sense that more men will be longshoremen, do you agree?

So by "morally predisposed", I am asking you if men are predisposed to choosing being a criminal vs. a productive pursuit like longshoremen, firefighters, etc?

Michael

Neil Parille's picture

What do you mean by "morally" predisposed to commit crime?

Do you believe that the fact that males are more aggressive and criminal than females has a biological basis?

Neil

Michael Moeller's picture

On average, men are biologically predisposed to becoming longshoremen and firefighters, so what? You're treating men as pieces of meat, or at least you're trying to.

So I will ask again the question you dodged: are men morally predisposed to committing crimes?

"Tendencies and averages".

Tom Burroughes's picture

"Tendencies and averages". Well, let me just say that as far as I know - and I have done a few checks on research over the internet - I don't see any evidence, of a rigorous nature, that says that people from certain races are more violent than others' in a way that appears to hold over serious periods of time, and by a significant degree. For instance, when someone makes the claim that this is so, there are plenty of examples of how different races have demonstrated varying rates of violence down recorded history. (Those blond Vikings were famously violent).

It is also worth pointing out that the very example of Tom Sowell, a brilliant economist and writer, is an example of how, despite prejudice and humble circumstances, it is culture and upbringing that counts. Sowell had parents who instilled strong moral values in him; just as, for instance, the large Christian populations of parts of Sub-Saharan Africa are known for their gentleness and diligence, rather than violence (I should add the caveat that South Africa's problems are more of a hangover from historic injustices, extremes of poverty and so on).

Male aggression, at least expressed physically, is not a controversial claim and is widely agreed upon, which is why serious harm is done to young boys by so-called progressive educators and parents who try to ban them from playing roughouse games, and the like. But this has been a discussion about Doug Bandler's views about race and crime, and to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't provided the knock-down evidence that there is any direct, causal link between race and violence. The issue is more of culture and incentives to good/bad behaviour.

Michael

Neil Parille's picture

I believe that males are more biologically predisposed to aggressive and criminal behavior than females.

Neil...

Michael Moeller's picture

You've deceptively framed the question.

Here is what YOU need to answer: are males morally pre-disposed to commit crimes?

Linz

Neil Parille's picture

It's when you commit the non-sequitur of asserting that black people must inexorably be violent because they are black that we part company. Far from enjoining us to judge a person by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin, you are claiming that the content of a person's character is determined by the colour of his skin—which really negates the concept of "character" altogether, since character pertains to values and virtues one chooses to pursue and practise and you are denying the very possibility of choice, as Moeller and Burroughes have pointed out on other threads.

Doug can speak for himself, but I don't think he is arguing that because a person is a member of a certain group he "must" be violent. It's a question of tendencies and averages.

Do you agree with Michael Moeller that males are not biologically more predisposed to crime and agression than females?

Okay Kyrel, let's try again

Tom Burroughes's picture

Okay Kyrel, let's try again shall we?

You wrote:

The reality of black racism in America is massive, if not overwhelming. The reality of seeming black inferiority in nature and nurture is also massive, if not overwhelming. And yet virtually everybody good and great ignores or denies it. Ayn Rand saw it vividly from at least 1965 to 1982, and she didn't breathe a word about it. Neither did her zombie followers. Her and their dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of integrity was remarkable.

Given Rand's statement about the iniquity and stupidity of racism (calling it the oldest form of collectivism and the most primitive) it can be assumed that if there is a serious problem of black-on-other racism (and there might well be) one can reasonably infer that she would have denounced it. I don't really know how closely she would have followed police and media reports of crime in the US in the period you mention.

It is perhaps possible she decided that a lot of what passes for "race realism" is nothing more than bigotry in a suit, and wanted to keep her ideas as far away from such associations as possible. After all, there are plenty of idiots out there who bash Rand for being a racist or whatever; why would she want to give free propoganda to such folk?

In this book here she touched on issues such as the Black Panthers, as well as racism generally:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/...

In the period immediately after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the issue of black-on-white racism was not one that received significant coverage; of course it may have been suppressed in the media, but the overwhelming narrative of the time was in how the US was coming out from a long, shameful period of state-enforced discrimination against blacks from Reconstruction through to the 1950s and the end of Jim Crow.

The problem we have now is that some people in the US (this appears to be more a problem in the US than here in Britain) have, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, sought to make a fat living out of pandering to black feelings of victimhood and kept that feeling alive, often through aggressive means, as a way to perpetuate their own power and prominence. Coupled with the disastrous results of welfarism and deterioration in parts of the culture, you have a serious issue. And I have no doubt that Randians are against this sort of thing; in fact I know they do.

I should add that the likes of Sharpton and Jackson are shake-down merchants who have done enormous harm to race relations in the US and who need to be denounced in the strongest possible terms. Which is why, Kyrel, I don't understand why you attack the ARI because it pointed out this sort of stuff over a decade ago. I don't always agree with ARI but it cannot be accused of evading this issue.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/Ne...

Clueless

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Tom -- I didn't understand a thing about your comments. I didn't make a single claim that your post implies.

Kyrel, I am not going to

Tom Burroughes's picture

Kyrel,

I am not going to reply to all the points here since I have already raised what I think are serious objections to sweeping assertions about non-whites on other parts of this website.

Rand did, after all, state that racism is the oldest form of collectivism; hence she'd hardly be interested, I should have thought, in the idea that says race has any causal factor in behaviour that over-rides the key causal factor of human volition as the reason for treating all people, regardless of race, as equal before the law. I don't know if she actually evaded discussing it (how does one prove a negative?),

She'd be pretty scornful of the idea that some races have this capacity to choose to think, and some are barely more than zombies or thugs. Some have tried to accuse her of racism but apart from some off-colour remarks about native American indians and some disparaging comments about "jungle music", I cannot think of a single example. And that's very much to her credit.

The Rare Virtue of Non-Evasion

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

The reality of black racism in America is massive, if not overwhelming. The reality of seeming black inferiority in nature and nurture is also massive, if not overwhelming. And yet virtually everybody good and great ignores or denies it. Ayn Rand saw it vividly from at least 1965 to 1982, and she didn't breathe a word about it. Neither did her zombie followers. Her and their dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of integrity was remarkable.

Now, here we are 31 years later, and things have hardly changed. If you're a person of decent humanity or morality this series of shocking lies, hypocrisy, and depravity in American culture can drive you crazy. It's even worse if you're an intellectual or free-thinker of high spirits and restless energy who wants to live a dynamic and heroic life.

Thus people who finally, almost suicidally, decide to tell a bit of the truth about blacks in America -- into the teeth of stunning hatred and moral condemnation, from obvious lowlifes and bigots, with obviously low and bigoted motivations -- almost always come across as rather lunatic. Maybe they even are -- at least on this issue.

Bu to look at these issues with careful systematic rationality, thoughtful perceptive wisdom, and objective scholarly detachment requires a noble soul and saintly hero of gigantic proportions.

Rand certainly failed at this. And so have all the current leaders and "thinkers" at The Atlas Society and The Ayn Rand Institute. I predict TAS will be the first to start to tell the truth about blacks vs. whites regarding biology, environment, intelligence, immorality, creativity, art, music, dance, sexuality, drugs, enjoyment, crime, tyranny, bigotry, racism, etc. But it may be another 20 or 40 years!

Meanwhile, the only ones today who are noble and heroic enough to address the many important issues here -- and then try to tell the truth about them -- are almost inevitably going to be filled with suppressed towering rage against society, and thus express their views in ways which seem considerably "crazy" and "racist".

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I think you're confused.

As best I can tell, most Objectivists (as opposed to OrgOists and Obleftivists) don't pretend there isn't a Leftist War on Whites and a lot of black-on-white (and black-on-black) violence; at least, this Authenticist doesn't. It's when you commit the non-sequitur of asserting that black people must inexorably be violent because they are black that we part company. Far from enjoining us to judge a person by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin, you are claiming that the content of a person's character is determined by the colour of his skin—which really negates the concept of "character" altogether, since character pertains to values and virtues one chooses to pursue and practise and you are denying the very possibility of choice, as Moeller and Burroughes have pointed out on other threads. Where you say, "The reality of savage black violence and of the reality of race and heredity can not be suppressed forever," I would simply substitute the word "culture" for "heredity," as I'm sure Tom Sowell would also, and agree that it neither can nor should be suppressed for ever or at all. I'm amazed and impressed that O'Reilly is displaying such courage on the matter (not only that, yesterday I heard him calling Alan Colmes a "communist," which is exactly what he is!). White America has been corrupted by the worst elements of black culture, to be sure, but there is nothing biologically ineluctable about any of it.

Doug, the KASSlessness of OrgOism and grotesqueness of Obleftivism are no reason to embrace White Supremacism.

I guess...

Michael Moeller's picture

Doug fails to appreciate the irony of citing a black man as confirmation that blacks are genetically inferior, morally speaking.

And I would like to see Doug provide a citation from Sowell where he says any such thing.

Although I haven't read this book, in his previous books he argues no such thing. He's provided plenty of data and argued that blacks were well on their way economically until the welfare state, i.e. it was cultural as opposed to genetic.

Can you provide the citations otherwise, Doug?

And Doug, you've been refuted plenty of times. You just refuse to see it because, as Pepe correctly observed, you have gone mad. Mad as a snake.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.