++ The Not-So-Great Communist Satanist Returns to a.h.c ++ RUN AWAY!!!
Franklin Hummel
news:f0ne6c$dqd$1...@pcls6.std.com...
> "Stephen Weir" <sw...@sweir.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:462ec42d$0$8746$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>> Comm wrote:
>>> But the argument went back and forth - and I heh, well, such a person might want to
>>> kill ME if he ever read my novel, Other Nations.
>>
>> Are you claiming to be Tani Jantsang?
>
> HA! That's a good one! Though she seems to be headed that way rapidly.
> Let us just hope now you have not called up what a.h.c cannot put down.
Ye gods, I missed the "*MY* novel".
Great catch, Mr. Weir. All I read was she mentioned OTHER NATIONS, my first thought
being: Someone actually *bought* a copy and *read* it?
Fucking shit, it *IS* Tani Jantsang again! That also explains why "Comm" endlessly
posted all that information about Bob Price's background and education. She is always
using him to try to prop up her "beliefs".
I wonder if Bob knows what a fucking racist she is. I think I might forward him some
copies of some of her more bigoted rantings to let him know, in case he doesn't.
Somehow, I don't think Bob will take to kindly to those prejudices of hers.
Great Cthulhu, I knew there was something just totally fucked-up about Comm even before I
killfiled her -- now I know.
The Communist Satanist herself is back in a.h.c. Good grief. Time for most everyone
here (her fellow inmate, Al Smith, not included) to add her to their killfiles.
I am even happier now I *plonk* her, even before I knew it was Tani who was back in a.h.c
with her 157th sock puppet.
(Hey, anyone else considering the possibility that "Al Smith" is yet another sock puppet
of Tani? It sure would explain why they are getting along so well, and Tani is
well-known for talking with herself using her puppets. It would explain a LOT about him
as well.)
We should let the folks in alt.satanism know she's in alt.horror.cthulhu again. They are
always great at showing how insane and petty and fucked-up Tani is.
Here is one of Tani's recent alt.satanism posts. Sound's very familiar to Comm, doesn't
it?
===============
"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:51:14 GMT, "Tani Jantsang ©"
<tjs...@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
>"the 2nd coming of christ" <jesuc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>news:4628d9cd....@news.sysmatrix.net...
>> On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 03:23:17 GMT, "Tani Jantsang ©"
>> <tjs...@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hmm, I
>>>thought you were a satanist.
>>
>> yeah, i'm even in the Satanic Reds, just like you.
>
>HAA! well, that goes to show that I'm certainly not too familiar with every
>member.
Yeah, me neither.
>We have a LOT these days - and most of them are offline.
Weird. I didn't know. I thought it was just the yahoo group and
that was it.
> Well
>then - HI THERE Comrade! In the SR, we definitely agree to disagree
>because of the politics - and the fact that people from all over the world
>are in it.
I'm from Mexico originally, but am a permanent resident in the
U.S. and served in the military (USMC) and everything. Luckily it
was before Iraq, though.
> If you are not in the egroup (most are not, btw) then I can tell
>you that some slightly unkind words passed between one Comrade in Denmark
>and one in Indonesia - a Moslem SR. But that smoothed out. Anyway...
glad the situation improved, for what it's worth.
>>
>>> oh well. Idealism is identical to religion -
>>>the only difference is that there are no deities in idealism. Idealism is
>>>not realism. Social realism!
You're right. It's not based on reality, that's why it's
"ideological". It's what you are shooting for, so to speak. If you
got there it would cease to be ideological.
>>>
>>>If you even have to ask that kind of question, I suggest that you stop
>>>trying to make friends - because you don't know what a friend is. What
>>>you
>>>might only know is how to look for clones of yourself. Those are not
>>>friends. Those are just yes-men. People change. Real events in real
>>>life
>>>make them change. When they fail to change when change is absolutely
>>>justified by any reasonable measure, they get neurotic. When they begin
>>>to
>>>deny the reality around them - then they are psychotic.
>>>
>>>> Are blacks
>>>> your friends? Let's assume they're not, that Imus and Richards
>>>> were your true friends. So why should you be sticking up for total
>>>> strangers just because someone was biggoted or racist towards
>>>> them... Shouldn't you stick up for your racist friends instead?
>>>
>>>That paragraph makes no sense. The issue with Imus is freedom of speech.
>>>I
>>>want to now see every single black movie and record producer subjected to
>>>the same crucifixion - and their movies and songs banned. If not, then
>>>I'd
>>>like to hear talk show hosts on AM radio play snippets of black rap songs
>>>where language like that is used. And not bleep it out. He shouldn't
>>>have
>>>referred to successful basketball players are whores. That was wrong.
>>>Really wrong. But they ARE nappy headed and they damned well know it
>>>whenever they look in a mirror. If someone called me a curly red head it
>>>would be true.
>>
>> i think they were upset that it was a white calling them ho's.
>> like only their cute black boyfriends can call them that, not some
>> old white freak, get my drift?
>
>I disagree. I think it's highly insulting for ANYONE to call them whores -
>that is what ho means. They are NOT whores. It's demeaning - hell, it's
>slander. What's more, you do realize that "the day" was robbed from those
>girls? Their glory was robbed by the entire thing, not by Imus because I'm
>sure they didn't even listen to him and wouldn't have known anything about
>it if someone didn't make a BIG hubbub about it. But a BIG hubbub was
>made - and that robbed their day. They had a beautiful victory.
I still think what Imus did was more a 'mocking' of the hip-hop
culture in general by showing how stupid the language of gangsta
rappers is. What's hip about calling women a bunch of ho's.
Nothing. Imus was impersonating a rapper as it were and mimicking
him in a mocking fashion, and that's why the black chicks were
enraged. But I tend to see things in totally weird ways
differently than anyone else so I can understand if you think I'm
psycho or whatever. It wouldn't be the first time. The way I see
it, it was sort of blasphemous (eg: desecrating the lingo) of
Imus, as it were, to use the black's street language without being
real about it-without being a street person himself or even
respectful of the street. Imus is all about country and respecting
country and western, not about respecting hip-hop or the streets.
I don't think I'm wording it right, any way. all I'm saying is
people might find it difficult to publicly admit to be more upset
over a mocking of hip-hop lingo than the fact someone called a
bunch of young women ho's. The masses would probably not be smart
enough to see into the deeper layers and would just focus on the
insult as an end in itself rather than a tool in making a larger
comment about the culture as a whole, so that's where the
mainstream media might focus, also.
>You can
>say that my curly red hair, especially when it's BIG, is like BOZO. That's
>OK. Heh, lol, IT IS TRUE. When I had long hair, the length of it made it
>pretty straight, save at the ends where it curled like I liked it. Red hair
>is usually pretty THICK hair. When it's short, it's curly. So I have had
>in my life people calling it Bozo if they were trying really hard to be
>mean. It never bothered me - I even thought it was funny because it was
>obviously true - and that oddly enough tended to make people that wanted to
>be mean, start to like me, want to make friends with me. I mean as a kid.
>I liked Bozo! So saying "HEY, Bozo" was good in my opinion. Flame top.
>Hey red. After the old original movie "Bride of Frankenstein" came out, I
>used to grab my thick curls and pull them up and say SEE, I'm Bride of
>Frankenstein and everyone thought it was FUNNY - me too. I can still do
>that, btw :) My hair is short again. I even thought calling kids with
>glasses "hey, 4 eyes" was hilariously funny.
Weird.
> It's not slander. It's FUNNY.
I suppose.
>What people on here (in that other org, you know, them and their freaking
>spaniels) tend to do is SLANDER - and there is nothing funny about it. They
>are mealy mouthed, extremely petty shits - and they'll never change, either.
>They can't change - I can see that they can not change. And for some
>reason, Satanism tends to call out to way too many of that type of person.
>SR doesn't call out to that type of person at all. But back to that other:
>You know, as I told ONE kid that got hurt by being called "4 eyes," he can
>either laugh because it IS really funny, or he can choose to be hurt. That
>kid never thought of it that way. LOL. But whore is another thing.
>Calling them whore was WRONG - and anyone calling them that is fucked up.
>They are sports champs. Not whores.
Even if they 'were' whores, I don't see that it's anybody's
business. Like you said, they should lighten up and laugh about
it.
>
> >but he was
>> trying to be too intimate, using the common language of young
>> blacks and all that...like almost trying to be one of them and
>> they couldn't handle the intrusion.
>
>Nah, that's rubbish. Blacks no longer want to be seen as PEOPLE, the whole
>civil rights thing. They want people to see them as BLACK - and that shit
>is addressed by Allen Bloom. Gone are the days where they WANT equal
>treatment and to be judged as people. Those days are gone. That is
>primarily what sets so many people that are non-black against them now -
>that plus their behavior. Black women shouldn't put up with the shit - and
>Bill Cosby and Juan Wilson have had ENOUGH of it, Wilson wrote a book about
>it. Whores and bitches. Is that what black women are? NO, they aren't.
that's the whole point Imus was making. If Imus had meant it as an
insult he would have called them 'whores' the regular way. He
called them ho's to make fun of hip-hop in general, like mocking
it. Like Borat might do.
>Most of them aren't. There was even a show where the young white kid had
>all black friends, and he ended up saying "I'm down with dat" just like his
>friends said it. Once day, he said "yo ma nigga" and oh oh, trouble.
Heh heh. I wanted to say that to a black friend one time but
thought about it for a little while and decided, nah I better not.
it could be taken the wrong way. but I'll be damned if they don't
say that to each other every other sentence, it's freaking
ridiculous. Just like calling women ho's, it's so common place as
to be insignificant insofar as shock value is concerned. It's only
shocking when whites try to act 'too' black. Somewhat black is
o.k. just up to a point, though... Basically you gotta draw the
line at where they start calling each other nigga and ho, that's
just for them to do, not for other races also. Don't ask me why
but cultures have stuff that they want to themselves and it is
sacred to them, no matter how stupid it may seem to us. We have to
just leave it alone and don't try to ridicule it or understand it.
>Advice from another person in the show: stop hanging around with black
>people. That's the only solution. You can't live life watching over
>yourself like Big Brother, like the Christian fundies want to watch every P
>and Q lest they SIN or something. That's the definition of HELL, not of
>life. If I get angry and say AH BA FANGOOL, no one Italian gets mad at me.
>It's a comfortable feeling, it's enjoyable when you can hang with people and
>speek 100% freely.
Yeah. I'm sure it must happen somewhere where blacks do let whites
say that because the whites there are so much like blacks
culturally or what not, but it's probably rare. Like eminem might
get away saying it to snoop, for example. There are exceptions to
every rule, obviously.
>
>
>it was a violation of their
>> racism. I see racism on all sides, not just the Imus side.
>
>Blacks today are the most racist and race conscious people on the planet -
>and EVERYONE ELSE is freaking sick of it. I'm having a great conversation
>with this guy outside the video store, me and other people there. He's a
>Mason. We are chatting with him for HOURS and it's people chatting, people
>to people. THEN he brings up slavery out of the blue, he says "you know,
>Africans had slaves and sold them first." I turned around and walked away -
>and so did the other people that were chatting with him. It was like: OH,
>all of a sudden we NOTICED "OH, you are black!, sorry, but I didn't notice."
>Imus is a shock jock, he says stuff like that about everyone.
>>
>>>What do these girls feel when they hear black rap songs
>>>saying a hell of a lot worse about women in general?
>>
>> like i said, if you're black it's considered simply cultural and
>> it is understood, just like calling each other nigga.
>
>OH no, Cosby and Wilson don't tolerate it, they have had enough of it. If
>you ask me - and this is pretty deep here - it's cultural ONLY in that it's
>an extension of SLAVE culture, 2nd. SLAVE culture. The style of dress is
>PRISON culture, and more - it's the style of dress people in prison wear if
>they are being punked by stronger prisoners! Even Dion Sanders spoke out
>against it. So that's what that is, a combination of slave and prison
>culture.
>
> but god
>> forbid the day a white calls a black a nigga, like Kramer.
>
>Not just a white. Anyone non-black. 2nd, it's no longer white and non
>white. Today it's black and non black - that is the reality of it. I'm
>associating with people offline. Ok, I think I vaguely know that friend S
>from the beach is Italian and - something else, I forgot what else. I
>think, she cooks Italian food a lot. She uses Italian expressions for the
>food, like "shkarol" instead of escarole. This is not important. L feeds
>the damned birds when it's illegal to do that, but I forgot what her
>ethnicity is. She's a snow bird :) Who cares? It's a total non-issue. I
>find out that J, the motorcycle beach guy is JAPANESE. HUH! Wow, talking
>to him close up and personal for so long and if I ever thought about his
>ethnicity I'd have guessed him to be Irish or Polish. JAPANESE? I thought
>he was joking. See, he said something in Japanese and I asked "how did you
>learn to speak it" - he was surprised. He thought we all "KNEW" he was
>Japanese. Uh - no. No one knew. His hair is light from the sun, btw.
>Meanwhile, all that time he thought I was Hispanic. And so what! We all
>spoke English to each other. Prior to that coming up due to him being able
>to speak it, no one cared, no one even asked. It was a non issue. It's
>still a non issue.
I hear ya.
>>
>>> Point is, I don't
>>>care. I don't care at all. I don't think the banning of free speech, or
>>>punishing people for speaking freely is a good thing to happen in the USA.
Censorship is nothing new.
>>
>> you just gotta let blacks have their own cultural things that are
>> just theirs and not try to be a part of it or ridicule it or
>> whatever. just don't bring it up. you are white, you like country
>> music. there is no need to talk like a rapper. maybe if he had
>> rappers on his show or whatever, then i might see a chance...
>
>I'm not white, strictly speaking, and well, NOW I do like some country
>music - the really old style Western Bluegrass banjo/guitar stuff.
I was talking about Imus. Sorry for the confusion.
octinomos
============
They're Out There!
-- Franklin Hummel in Boston, Massachusetts
--
* Show Your Miskatonic University Gay Pride! *
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy T-Shirts, Sweatshirts, Buttons & Postcards at:
http://www.cafepress.com/gay_miskatonic
Stephen Weir
> (Hey, anyone else considering the possibility that "Al Smith" is yet another sock puppet
> of Tani? It sure would explain why they are getting along so well, and Tani is
> well-known for talking with herself using her puppets. It would explain a LOT about him
> as well.)
I wouldn't go as far as to say Al is a sock puppet, but it is clear they
know each other. Perhaps he is a close friend or relative
*cough*philip*cough*marsh*cough*.
--
Stephen Weir
List of Games for Sale - http://www.glipe.free-online.co.uk/index.htm
Midgard UK PBM - http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/midgard_uk_pbm/
Current eBay Auctions - http://makeashorterlink.com/?F1F521555
ICQ # 11472386
John Goodrich
the author of OTHER NATIONS. She's mentioned/pimped it in virtually
every thread she's posted in that has gone over ten posts.
John Goodrich
Al Smith
>> (Hey, anyone else considering the possibility that "Al Smith" is yet another sock puppet of Tani? It sure would explain why they are getting along so well, and Tani is well-known for talking with herself using her puppets. It would explain a LOT about him as well.)
>
> I wouldn't go as far as to say Al is a sock puppet, but it is clear they know each other. Perhaps he is a close friend or relative *cough*philip*cough*marsh*cough*.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
You people are really something. How do I know you're not one of
Hummel's sock puppets? Oh, that's right, you can't be ... you
don't sound quite as insane as Hummel.
Comm is someone with a unique viewpoint. I happen to agree with
much of what she writes, although I don't usually express myself
so harshly, since I have no wish to hurt anyone's feelings, unless
they go out of their way to attack and insult me.
Much of what Comm is saying happens to be true. There are IQ
differences between racial groups. Blacks are not as intelligent,
on average, as whites. Black rap and hip-hop "gangsta" culture is
a blight that is destroying many cities, and blacks are
responsible for a disproportionately large percentage of the
violent crime in America. Those things are simply true. Granted,
they are not politically correct, but they are true.
This subject was not raised by Comm or by me, but came up in a
thread devoted to Lovecraft's supposed racism, in which Lovecraft
was accused of racial hatred. I made the point that Lovecraft was
not a hater. He was a mild and decent human being. He held some
viewpoints about immigrants to New England that today would be
classed as racist, although in his day they were the norm.
Franklin Hummel
news:1177588560....@t39g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> Oh God Frank, you really haven't been paying attention.
I had killfiled Comm AKA Tani AKA Too-Many-Sock-Puppet-Names-To-Remember AKA Phyllis)
earlier this week. Long before that, I had given up reading her posts, only the replies
to them, John.
I had more than enough of Tani Jantsang's type of digusting, vile, and cruel bigotry and
prejudices to last myself a lifetime. There is nothing new in any such rants, just HATE,
HATE, HATE.
Yeah, so I missed her postings about her book, until someone in one of their replies
asked directly if she was Tani Jantsang. *ick*
She, as "Comm", seems to have disappeared from a.h.c in the last few days. I wonder if
she is just biding her time for a return as yet another puppet.
SHIT. It just occured to me that "Comm" was a short version of one of her previous sock
puppets, "The People's Commissar". I was thinking of "Comm" as in "communication".
> Yes Comm is
> the author of OTHER NATIONS. She's mentioned/pimped it in virtually
> every thread she's posted in that has gone over ten posts.
Has anyone here ever read the book version of it? Someone who is rational, that is? I'm
not going to read any sudden praises and blessings from more sock puppets.
Years ago I bought a few of the original fanzine "chapters" of it from a dealer at a
convention, thinking it was something I might be interested in. After a few attempts, I
gave up trying to read any of them.
Still have them. Tried to sell them on eBay once or twice, but no one wanted them. I
can understand why. Maybe if I offered them at $.01 each....
Aaron Vanek
> I have no wish to hurt anyone's feelings, unless
> they go out of their way to attack and insult me.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Your hypocrisy made my day. Thanks.
Aaron
Al Smith
Aw, come on, just because I didn't praise your short films to the
skies, you're resentful? They were OK films. Not great, but OK for
amateur productions. What else can I say about them? If they had
been really great, I would have said that they were really great.
I welcome the opportunity to praise creative people for their work
when it is excellent. Take Ramsey Campbell. I happen to think he's
a very fine writer, so I told him so. Stephen King, on the other
hand, seems lacking in creativity to me, so I said so. I call them
as I see them.
John Goodrich
>
> Has anyone here ever read the book version of it? Someone who is rational, that is? I'm
> not going to read any sudden praises and blessings from more sock puppets.
>
read it and review it:
http://www.qusoor.com/Essays/Nations.htm
John Goodrich
Stephen Weir
> How do I know you're not one of Hummel's sock puppets?
Even a cursory inspection would prove that to be untrue.
> Much of what Comm is saying happens to be true. There are IQ differences between racial groups.
Which I have already disagreed with. People put way too much stock in IQ tests.
> This subject was not raised by Comm or by me, but came up in a thread devoted to Lovecraft's
> supposed racism, in which Lovecraft was accused of racial hatred.
The original subject was about Lovecraft's alleged racism, but Tani took it
that one step further when she started ranting. What exactly did her
experiences have to do with Lovecraft? All it took was the mere mention of
Imus to set her off.
> I made the point that Lovecraft was not a hater. He was a mild and decent human being. He held
> some viewpoints about immigrants to New England that today would be classed as racist, although
> in his day they were the norm.
Which I actually agree with. I think if he had truly been a racist, it
would have been pretty evident in how he lived his life and how he
interacted with those around him.
Stephen Weir
> Has anyone here ever read the book version of it? Someone who is rational, that is? I'm
> not going to read any sudden praises and blessings from more sock puppets.
I think Matt did, but that he didn't much like it. There was part of a
thread from a while back where Tani/Comm tried to convince Matt that it
really was a readable book, but I don't think at that point he was aware she
was the author.
Al Smith
>> some viewpoints about immigrants to New England that today would be classed as racist, although
>> in his day they were the norm.
>
> Which I actually agree with. I think if he had truly been a racist, it would have been pretty evident in how he lived his life and how he interacted with those around him.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
Most people in a Lovecraft-related group probably have keen
affection for Lovecraft. I know I do. The more I study his work,
the more I like him and respect his memory.
Subjects of race differences are too taboo for many people to
rational talk about. Those of us who are not so afflicted
recognize this handicap in our fellow human beings, and usually
make allowances for it. You don't tell a four-year old that there
is no Santa Claus, and you don't tell the average adult American
that blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
Stephen Weir
> .....and you don't tell the average adult American that blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
Especially when there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
Al Smith
>> .....and you don't tell the average adult American that blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
>
> Especially when there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
The evidence is overwhelming. Sometimes the world doesn't behave
as you might wish it to behave. It would be nice and fuzzy if all
races were identical in their potential and abilities. They aren't.
If you can't recognize that the evidence is overwhelming, there's
not much I can say, is there? Some people still think the world is
flat, or was created in six days. Good luck arguing with them.
Emotion is much more persuasive than reason.
icarp...@aol.com
Thanks for posting the link, John. I had the misfortune to pay full
price for ON a few years ago, and even slogged all the way through.
In the end I sent my copy to James Ambuehl because it wasn't worth
keeping on my shelves.
Matt
Stephen Weir
>>> .....and you don't tell the average adult American that blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
>>>
>> Especially when there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
>>
Perhaps you'd care to share some with me then, without mentioning IQ scores.
> It would be nice and fuzzy if all races were identical in their potential and abilities.
It is patently obvious that there are stupid people in every race, but you
cannot label entire races in that way. It is arrogant, patronising and
disingenuous.
> If you can't recognize that the evidence is overwhelming, there's not much I can say, is there? Some
> people still think the world is flat, or was created in six days. Good luck arguing with them. Emotion
> is much more persuasive than reason.
This is exactly why people won't discuss anything with you. Instead of
presenting your evidence and allowing them to draw their own conclusions,
you insinuate that you have all the answers, that everyone should just take
your word for it and that all other viewpoints to your own are wrong. In
that respect you're either a troll or a prick, neither of which is
particularly flattering.
Al Smith
>>>> .....and you don't tell the average adult American that blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
>>>>
>>> Especially when there is absolutely no evidence to support it.
>>>
>> The evidence is overwhelming.
>
> Perhaps you'd care to share some with me then, without mentioning IQ scores.
>
>> It would be nice and fuzzy if all races were identical in their potential and abilities.
>
> It is patently obvious that there are stupid people in every race, but you cannot label entire races in that way. It is arrogant, patronising and disingenuous.
>
>> If you can't recognize that the evidence is overwhelming, there's not much I can say, is there? Some
>> people still think the world is flat, or was created in six days. Good luck arguing with them. Emotion
>> is much more persuasive than reason.
>
> This is exactly why people won't discuss anything with you. Instead of presenting your evidence and allowing them to draw their own conclusions, you insinuate that you have all the answers, that everyone should just take your word for it and that all other viewpoints to your own are wrong. In that respect you're either a troll or a prick, neither of which is particularly flattering.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
What's to argue? Look up the evidence. Google it. Look at it with
an open mind. I'm not going to spend hours doing research for
people who will go on believing what they want to believe in any
case, regardless of evidence presented. It would be a waste of my
time and energy.
However, I will tell you and others reading this thread that there
is no doubt about it -- multiple studies have shown that blacks
are significantly less intelligent than whites, on average. Not a
few IQ points, but significantly less intelligent.
The studies also show Asians more intelligent than whites. And
Jews are the most intelligent group of all -- at least, those Jews
of European descent. I'm white, and I don't feel threatened that
Jews and Asians are more intelligent than whites. Why should you
feel threatened that blacks are less intelligent than Jews, Asians
and whites? It's not a social agenda, it's just a reality.
Aaron Vanek
> Aw, come on, just because I didn't praise your short films to the
> skies, you're resentful? They were OK films. Not great, but OK for
> amateur productions. What else can I say about them? If they had
> been really great, I would have said that they were really great.
> I welcome the opportunity to praise creative people for their work
> when it is excellent. Take Ramsey Campbell. I happen to think he's
> a very fine writer, so I told him so. Stephen King, on the other
> hand, seems lacking in creativity to me, so I said so. I call them
> as I see them.
Awww, no, lil' Al, I don't care what you think about my movies,
because your opinion doesn't matter. I mean, you never pay money for
movies, nor work in the industry, nor think anyone in Hollywood has
any brains, so really, what good are you? Besides, your comments about
my movies were funny (I've had far worse by real reviewers who knew
what they were talking about).
No, I was referring to you posting things like "black people are
dumber than white people", or insulting anyone who disagrees with you
using a "superior-than-thou" tone, i.e., "I'm not going to spend hours
doing research for people who will go on believing what they want to
believe in any case, regardless of evidence presented." (your quote)
And now you come out and say you "don't wish to hurt anyone's
feelings?"
That's rich, that is. I think all you want to do is hurt people's
feelings. I don't know what errors have befouled your life to generate
such hatred in you, but it leaks out of just about everything you
post. If you don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but still want to
express an honest opinion, learn some manners, young man. It is
possible to tell someone something negative without insulting, did you
know that? It's more fun and probably makes you feel better to berate
someone else (for whatever reason, I don't know), and that's fine if
you like to do that, but don't lie to yourself or anyone else and say
you're not out to hurt anyone, because you are.
I'm just calling it like I see it. Hope you don't mind a little piss &
vinegar thrown back.
Maybe you could stop trying to cover the malice with your hymen of
honesty.
best wishes,
Aaron
John Goodrich
>
> The studies also show Asians more intelligent than whites. And
> Jews are the most intelligent group of all -- at least, those Jews
> of European descent. I'm white, and I don't feel threatened that
> Jews and Asians are more intelligent than whites. Why should you
> feel threatened that blacks are less intelligent than Jews, Asians
> and whites? It's not a social agenda, it's just a reality.
Funny how the 'new' racism is almost directly in line with the 'old'
racism. Do any of the studies you site refer to brain size, an
absense of phlogistin in their braincases, N-Rays, or phrenology?
John Goodrich
Franklin Hummel
not also Tani Jantsang.
Here is why:
The following was posted in a.h.c under the subject "Comm, A Question for You" on April
25, 2007, after "Comm"'s true identity as Tani came out here:
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message news:dKJXh.4398$_G.504@edtnps89...
> Hi Tani. Personally, I feel it's a privilege to be able to discuss
> aspects of the so-called Left-hand Path with someone who knows a
> little about it, in connection with Lovecraft and the Mythos.
> Just call me "Al Smith"
==========================
Then there was *THIS* post, in "Color Me Disgusted at the Direction This Group Is Taking"
on April 26, 2007:
Stephen Weir replied:
Al Smith wrote:
Then Stephen Weir wrote:
Al Smith wrote:
>>> I've just Googled Comm's sites and I believe you must be correct --
>>> Comm is probably Tani Jantsang. A writer I was not previously
>>> aware of, but whose name I will now remember and read where
>>> I can, since her work seems quite interesting.
>>
>> You know Al, the problem with one lie is that it makes people
>> unwilling to believe anything else you say.
>
> Philosophically speaking, I agree that is sometimes the case, but it
> has nothing to do with anything in this thread.
So it's just coincidence that you and Tani have both posted messages to over
25 of the same newsgroups, sometimes even participating in the same threads?
There were many more instances, but I got bored after about twenty minutes.
Stephen Weir
====================
So, first we have in one thread Al Smith claim that it was "Personally, I feel it's a
privilege to be able to discuss aspects of the so-called Left-hand Path with someone..."
that he address to Tani.
Then we have Stephen Weir's statement that BOTH Tani Jantsang and Al Smith have posted to
over 25 of the same newsgroup and have often discussed things in the same thread!
Yet he claims that he has never had a chance to discuss Satanism and Lovecraft with her
before and he did not know he never knew this about her before, that she was a "writer",
and had never had the chance to discuss the "Left-Handed Path" with her before.
As I stated before, those reading this group already know "Al Smith" is a liar -- and
this is further proof. And now I am further convinced by opinion that "Al Smith" is
indeed just another sock puppet of Tani Jantsang is actually a *fact*.
For me, "Comm" AKA "Tani" AKA Phyllis and "Al Smith" are in my killfiles, so I am just
posting this for the benefit of the rational readers and posters of alt.horror.cthulhu.
Decided for yourselves. But you are now warned.
Al Smith
> because your opinion doesn't matter. I mean, you never pay money for
> movies, nor work in the industry, nor think anyone in Hollywood has
> any brains, so really, what good are you? Besides, your comments about
> my movies were funny (I've had far worse by real reviewers who knew
> what they were talking about).
>
> No, I was referring to you posting things like "black people are
> dumber than white people", or insulting anyone who disagrees with you
> using a "superior-than-thou" tone, i.e., "I'm not going to spend hours
> doing research for people who will go on believing what they want to
> believe in any case, regardless of evidence presented." (your quote)
>
> And now you come out and say you "don't wish to hurt anyone's
> feelings?"
>
> That's rich, that is. I think all you want to do is hurt people's
> feelings.
Has it ever occurred to you that your resentment at having your
cherished preconceptions held up to criticism is merely a way to
avoid subjecting them to critical examination yourself? Anger and
resentment cloud the mind. They obviate the need to think. Maybe
you are a little afraid, deep in your heart, that I am correct,
and you'd rather berate me than look at the issue. Just a thought
for you, in case you are open enough to consider it.
I don't have any particularly strong feelings on the issue of
racial intelligence. It interests me mainly because many
individuals -- perhaps even the majority -- are afraid to even
examine it. The data is out there. It's done. Anyone can access
it, thanks to the wonders of the Internet. It's shows that blacks
are not as intelligent as whites. That's the reality. You don't
like the message, so you choose to hate the messenger.
I didn't create the message. I merely affirmed that Comm was
correct when she mentioned it. All the PC step-dancing in the
world won't change the facts. That's what's nice about truth. It
doesn't care about desire or need or other human frailties, and it
can't be intimidated. It's above taint.
Al Smith
Well, here's a thought for you, John. Maybe not everything that
was said in the past about racial differences was incorrect. I
mean, think about it -- what are the chances that your grandfather
and mine, who were probably both intelligent men, got everything
wrong? Everything? That seems unlikely, doesn't it?
John Goodrich
>
> Well, here's a thought for you, John. Maybe not everything that
> was said in the past about racial differences was incorrect. I
> mean, think about it -- what are the chances that your grandfather
> and mine, who were probably both intelligent men, got everything
> wrong? Everything? That seems unlikely, doesn't it?
Many mens' great-grandfathers' owned other people as property and saw
nothing wrong with it. I do. Many mens' grandfathers believed the
incorrect assumptions about eugenics in the thirties, and saw nothing
wrong with sterlizing the 'undesirable'. I do. Many mens'
grandfathers opposed the teaching of evolution in schools. I think it
ought to be taught. I'd be willing to be my great-great-grandfather
didn't believe in germs. I do. My grandfather was a smart, a good
businessman, well-respected about his community, and a loving father
to his children. But he wasn't right about everything. Your
comparison is really kind of dumb. And while it does not add much to
the conversation since you have nor ptoduced or linked to a single one
of these apparently very common studies, you reveal a great deal about
yourself.
So I say to you--I prefer to hang onto my cherished concept that all
human beings are born worthwhile, and that it is only the decisions
they make in their lives that make them uninteresting or unworthy of
conversation. And so I will not be discussing this, or anything with
you again.
John Goodrich
Al Smith
> human beings are born worthwhile, and that it is only the decisions
> they make in their lives that make them uninteresting or unworthy of
> conversation. And so I will not be discussing this, or anything with
> you again.
>
> John Goodrich
We're all born equal in worth in the eyes of God. Of course, for
those who don't believe in God, this doesn't mean much, does it?
We are not born equal in our innate abilities or capacities. That
should be obvious to everyone from common experience. By all
means, give everyone a fair chance and a level playing field ...
but don't pretend that we are all equal. We are not.
Stephen Weir
> What's to argue? Look up the evidence. Google it. Look at it with an open mind. I'm not going to spend hours doing
> research for people who will go on believing what they want to believe in any case, regardless of evidence presented.
> It would be a waste of my time and energy.
Argue? I thought we were going to have a rational discussion about this? I
thought you were going to back up your rather ludicrous statement with some
actual evidence? It seems that you have already made up your mind that you
are right.....yet again.....and that any further discussion is pointless.
Think again. Until you actually substantiate your claims with some actual
evidence, your opinions will continue to be held with the contempt they deserve.
> However, I will tell you and others reading this thread that there is no doubt about it -- multiple studies have shown
> that blacks are significantly less intelligent than whites, on average. Not a few IQ points, but significantly less intelligent.
IQ tests = shit.
> The studies also show Asians more intelligent than whites. And Jews are the most intelligent group of all -- at least,
> those Jews of European descent. I'm white, and I don't feel threatened that Jews and Asians are more intelligent than
> whites. Why should you feel threatened that blacks are less intelligent than Jews, Asians and whites? It's not a social
> agenda, it's just a reality.
I don't feel threatened by the intelligent of anyone. I am well aware that
some people are more intelligent than me, and I am also aware that some
people are less intelligent than me. However, they are people, not races.
Stephen Weir
> I may have been very *wrong* in previously agreeing with John Goodrich that "Al Smith" is
> not also Tani Jantsang.
Personally I doubt it. I do think that they know each other, but the
writing styles are too different.
Al Smith
>> I may have been very *wrong* in previously agreeing with John Goodrich that "Al Smith" is not also Tani Jantsang.
>
> Personally I doubt it. I do think that they know each other, but the writing styles are too different.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
I think it's my duty to clarify this important issue, which is
engaging so much emotion and attention in this group. Let me state
categorically, here and now, that were I an Asian woman, I would
know it, and were I not an Asian woman I would know that also; by
the same token were I an English man, I would be aware of the
difference, and therefore I am not nor have I ever been unsure of
the issue, the outcome of which is not in doubt, nor difficult to
demonstrate. There, I hope that's laid that bugbear to rest once
and for all.
Comm
"Stephen Weir" <sw...@sweir.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4632c5a4$0$8738$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> Argue? I thought we were going to have a rational discussion about this?
> I thought you were going to back up your rather ludicrous statement with
> some actual evidence?
You asked for it - do not say it was not provided, tho this would be the 3rd
time I provided it.
Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Atlanta,
Georgia: Washington Summit Books (PO Box 3514, Augusta, GA 30914) ISBN
1-59368-020-1 pp. 318., US$37.95 HB), $20.95 (PB) (plus $6 for overseas
orders).
Lynn's book represents the culmination of more than a quarter of a
century's work on race differences in intelligence. It was in 1977 that he
first ventured into this field - some would say minefield - with the
publication of two papers on the IQ in Japan and Singapore. Both showed that
the East Asians obtained higher means than white Europeans in the United
States and Britain. These initial studies were criticised, but the present
book lists 60 studies of the IQs of indigenous East Asians all of which
confirm the original claim.
Hitherto studies of race differences in intelligence have been largely
conducted and discussed in local contexts. In the United Sates they have
been largely concerned with the IQs of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians and
Native American Indians. In Australia they have been concerned with the low
IQ of the Aborigines, and in New Zealand with the low IQ of the Maoris.
These differences have typically been explained by racism and discrimination
of Europeans against minorities the legacy of slavery, although a number of
writers have posited a significant genetic factor (Jensen, 1998; Rushton and
Jensen, 2005). Lynn's book differs in taking a global perspective and
consists of a review more than 500 studies published world wide from the
beginning of the twentieth century up to the present. He devotes a chapter
to each of ten races, differentiated by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza
(1994) into "genetic clusters", which he regards as a transparent euphemism
for races.
His conclusions are that the East Asians (Chinese, Japanese and
Koreans) have the highest mean IQ at 105. These are followed by the
Europeans (IQ 100). Some way below these are the Inuit (Eskimos) (IQ 91),
South East Asians (IQ 87), Native American Indians (IQ 87), Pacific
Islanders (IQ 85), South Asians and North Africans (IQ 84). Well below
these come the sub-Saharan Africans (IQ 67) followed by the Australian
Aborigines (IQ 62). The least intelligent races are the Bushmen of the
Kalahari desert together with the Pygmies of the Congo rain forests (IQ 54).
After the ten chapters setting out the evidence for each of the ten
races there follows a chapter on the reliability and validity of the
measures. These show that the studies have high reliability in the sense
that different studies of racial IQs give closely similar results. For
instance, East Asians invariably obtain high IQs, not only in their own
native homelands but in Singapore, Malaysia, Hawaii and North America. To
establish the validity of the racial IQs he shows that they have high
correlations with performance in the international studies of achievement in
mathematics and science. Racial IQs also have high correlations with
national economic development, providing a major contribution to the problem
of why the peoples of some nations are rich and others poor. He argues
further that the IQ differences between the races explain the differences in
achievement in making the Neolithic transition from hunter-gathering to
settled agriculture, the building of early civilizations, and the
development of mature civilizations during the last two thousand years.
Lynn tackles the problem of the environmental and genetic determinants
of race differences in intelligence and concludes that these contribute
about equally to the phenotypic differences. He argues that the consistency
of racial IQs in many different locations can only be explained by powerful
genetic factors. He works out the genetic contribution in most detail for
the sub-Saharan Africans. His argument is that sub-Saharan Africans in the
United States experience the same environment as whites, as regards
determinants of intelligence. He argues that they have as good nutrition as
whites, as shown by their having the same average height in studies going
back to World War 1, and they have approximately the same education as
whites. He presents evidence that blacks in the southern states have very
little white ancestry and have an IQ of about 80, and that proposes that
this can be adopted as the genotypic IQ of blacks, i.e. the IQ that blacks
attain when they are reared in the same environment as whites. The IQ of
blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is a good deal lower at 67. Hence, the adverse
environment in sub-Saharan Africa, which he regards as consisting
principally of poor nutrition and health, contributes about 13 IQ points to
the low IQ in sub-Saharan Africa. Lynn's estimate is not too different from
that advanced in 1969 by Jensen to the effect that about two thirds of the
low IQ of blacks in the United States is attributable to genetic factors,
and the more recent estimate of Rushton and Jensen (2005) that the figure is
around 80 percent. Lynn has (unsurprisingly for those familiar with his
work) put a bit more weight on the genetic factor.
The last three chapters are concerned with the book's subtitle (An
Evolutionary Analysis) and discusses howrace differences in intelligence
have evolved. He begins by putting the problem in context by summarizing
Jerison's (1973) classic study showing that during the course of evolution
species have evolved greater intelligence in order to survive in more
cognitively demanding environments. For instance, in one of the most
dramatic of these developments, early mammals evolved larger brains and
greater intelligence to survive in the nocturnal environment, for which they
needed to evolve larger auditory and olfactory analysing centres in the
brain.
The same principle, Lynn argues, explains the evolution of race
differences in intelligence in humans. He elaborates the argument he has
advanced over the last fifteen years that the race differences in
intelligence have evolved as adaptations to colder environments as early
humans migrated out of Africa. In North Africa and South Asia, and even more
in Europe and Northeast Asia, these early humans encountered the problems of
having to survive during cold winters when there were no plant foods and
they had to hunt big game to survive. They also had to solve the problems of
keeping warm. These required greater intelligence than was needed in
tropical and semi-tropical equatorial Africa where plant foods are plentiful
throughout the year. He shows that race differences in brain size and
intelligence are both closely associated with low winter temperatures in the
regions they inhabit. For instance, he gives a figure of 1282 cc for the
average brain size of sub-Saharan Africans, as compared with 1367 cc for
Europeans and 1416 cc for Orientals. His analysis relating race differences
in intelligence to exposure to low winter temperatures has recently been
independently corroborated by Templer and Arikawa (2005).
From time to time Lynn notes anomalies in his theory that require
explanations. One of these is that the Europeans have made most of the great
intellectual advances and discoveries, while the East Asians, despite having
a higher IQ have made relatively few (as extensively documented by Murray,
2003). Lynn proposes the explanation for this may be that the East Asians
are more conformist that Europeans and this inhibits creative achievement.
He also notes one or two anomalies in his cold winter theory of race
differences in intelligence. The most striking of these is that the Inuit
have been exposed to the coldest winter temperatures and have evolved large
brains, the same average size as that of the East Asians. Yet their IQ is
only 91, and this is the IQ obtained by those who attend the same schools as
Europeans. To explain this anomaly he proposed that two genetic processes
must be assumed to explain the evolution of race differences in
intelligence. The first of these is that differences in the frequencies of
the alleles for high and low intelligence have evolved between races such
that the alleles for high intelligence are more common in the races with the
higher IQs and less common in the races with the lower IQs. The early humans
that migrated out of Africa and spread throughout the world would have
carried all the alleles for high and low intelligence with them, but those
who colonized Asia and Europe were exposed to the cognitively demanding
problems of survival during cold winters. Many of those carrying the alleles
for low intelligence would have been unable to survive during the cold
winters and the less intelligent individuals and tribes would have died out,
leaving as survivors the more intelligent. This process would have reduced
and possibly eliminated the alleles for low intelligence, leaving a higher
proportion of the alleles for high intelligence. The more severe the winter
temperatures, the greater the selection pressure for the elimination of low
IQ individuals carrying low IQ alleles. This process explains the broad
association between coldest winter temperatures and IQs and brain size.
He now suggests that there must have been a second genetical process
that several new alleles for high intelligence must have appeared as
mutations in some races but did not appear in others, and once these had
appeared they were never transmitted to other races. These new mutant
alleles for high intelligence would have been most likely to appear in large
populations because a mutation is a chance genetic event and hence would
have been more likely to occur in races with large populations than in those
with small. The Inuit comprised only very small populations numbering today
around 55,000, so they would be unlikely have had mutations for higher
intelligence that have to be assumed in the East Asians and Europeans. Once
a new mutant allele for higher intelligence had appeared in the East Asians
and Europeans it would have conferred a selection advantage and would have
spread throughout the group of around 50 to 80 individuals in which people
lived during the hunter-gatherer stage of human evolution. It would then
have spread fairly rapidly to adjacent groups because hunter-peoples
typically have alliances with neighboring groups with which they exchange
mating partners, and it is reasonable to assume that this custom was present
for many thousands of years during the evolution of the races. These
alliances of groups are known as demes, and a new mutant allele for higher
intelligence and which conferred a selection advantage would have spread
fairly rapidly through a deme. From time to time matings would take place
between demes and by this means new mutant alleles for higher intelligence
would spread from one deme to another and eventually throughout an entire
race.
However, this would take some considerable time, and Lynn proposes
that in 25,000 years, consisting of approximately 1,000 generations, an
advantageous allele would be transmitted about 800 miles. Hence, an
advantageous allele occurring as a mutant in the region of, say, Beijing,
25,000 years ago would not yet have spread outside China and would take
another 50,000 years or so to reach the Inuit peoples of far North East Asia
and even longer to cross the Bering Straits into Alaska. In addition, there
are geographical barriers of high mountains between the East Asians and the
Inuit that would have imposed a further impediment for the new alleles for
higher intelligence being transmitted from East Asia northwards. He extends
this explanation to the low IQs of the Australian Aborigines and Bushmen.
These have only been small populations, so the chance of mutations of high
IQ alleles in them would have been low.
To the arguments presented by Jensen (1998) for a substantial genetic
determination of the difference in intelligence between blacks and whites in
the United States, Lynn adds a more general one. He advances the general
principle of evolutionary biology that wherever subspecies, strains or races
have evolved in different environments they invariably develop differences
in all characteristics for which there is genetic variation as a result of
mutations occurring in some subspecies and of adaptations to different
environments, and asserts that intelligence cannot be an exception. He
concludes witheringly that "The position of environmentalists that over the
course of some 100,000 years peoples separated by geographical barriers in
different parts of the world evolved into ten different races with
pronounced genetic differences in morphology, blood groups and the incidence
of genetic diseases, and yet have identical genotypes for intelligence, is
so improbable that those who advance it must either be totally ignorant of
the basic principles of evolutionary biology or else have a political agenda
to deny the importance of race. Or both ". So much for the assertion of the
American Psychological Association's task force under the chairmanship of
Ulrich Neisser set up to produce a consensus statement on what is known
about intelligence that concluded that there is no persuasive evidence for
genetic race differences (Neisser et al., 1998). With the publication of
Lynn's book it will never again be possible to make this assertion and
retain any credibility.
Over the years Lynn has made a number of important contributions to
the field of intelligence. He has written the standard works on the dysgenic
processes that have been taking place almost worldwide for the last century
and on how these could be addressed (Lynn, 1996, 2001). He has shown that
the problem of why some nations are rich and others poor is largely
explained by the intelligence of the populations (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002).
He has overturned the century long consensus that there is no sex difference
in intelligence by showing that men have a higher average IQ than women by
approximately 5 IQ points (Lynn and Irwing, 2004). But I would guess that
the present book documenting global race differences in intelligence and
analysing how these have evolved will come to be seen as his crowning
achievement.
Stephen Weir
> You asked for it - do not say it was not provided, tho this would be the 3rd time I provided it.
You obviously missed the part of my previous post which asked for non-IQ
related evidence.
Comm
> Comm wrote:
>> You asked for it - do not say it was not provided, tho this would be the
>> 3rd time I provided it.
>
> You obviously missed the part of my previous post which asked for non-IQ
> related evidence.
His data is mainly genetic, about genes and alleles that they know about,
know what these actually do.
koriho...@hotmail.com
> "Stephen Weir" <s...@sweir.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4632c5a4$0$8738$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>
>
> > Argue? I thought we were going to have a rational discussion about this?
> > I thought you were going to back up your rather ludicrous statement with
> > some actual evidence?
>
> You asked for it - do not say it was not provided, tho this would be the 3rd
> time I provided it.
>
> Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Atlanta,
> 1-59368-020-1 pp. 318., US$37.95 HB), $20.95 (PB) (plus $6 for overseas
> orders).
Interesting publisher, Washington Summit Books. A publisher of only
one book at present, the one you mentioned above.
Found an interesting bit about the book and the author here
http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/newsletters/newsletter.v05.n04.htm
(page down to the subtitle "Eye on the Right")
Here's an interesting excerpt:
"This dreary survey of some of the fox-holes of Anglo Christian
bigotry could go on much longer, but for now, there's just one other
outfit that needs to be identified. AuthorHouse, which has reprinted
MacDonald's work, published Robert Griffin's One Sheaf, One Vine:
Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race (2003), and lent
its name to much other suspect work, is not a serious publisher. It
allows authors to self-publish whatever they want, printing their
books and helping distribute them to retail outlets, including Amazon.
In the absence of quality control, any old crackpot can get published
there, and so all sorts of weird crap has ended up on their list.
Vanity publishing may be harmless when it comes to novels or memoirs,
but beware the social sciences section, since these are the books that
pretend to have truth value. An array of forces - from blogs to anti-
elitism - is at work today eroding the concept of professional
gatekeepers. That may have some salutary benefits, but we should also
be clearly aware of its potential costs, one of which is the greater
ease with which bigots can present their work as legitimate."
Hmmmm....isn't AuthorHouse Commie Mommie's publisher for OTHER
NATIONS? Any old crackpot indeed!
Luv,
Kori
> alleles for high intelligence would have ...
>
> read more »
koriho...@hotmail.com
>
> news:4632c5a4$0$8738$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
>
>
> > Argue? I thought we were going to have a rational discussion about this?
> > I thought you were going to back up your rather ludicrous statement with
> > some actual evidence?
>
> You asked for it - do not say it was not provided, tho this would be the 3rd
> time I provided it.
>
> Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Atlanta,
> 1-59368-020-1 pp. 318., US$37.95 HB), $20.95 (PB) (plus $6 for overseas
> orders).
Luv,
Kori
>
> alleles for high intelligence would have ...
>
> read more »
Al Smith
Thanks for posting this, Tani. When some idiot demands proof that
there are differences in average intelligence between races, I
never have the essays and charts assembled to cut and past. Not
that it would make any difference -- anyone who refused to
acknowledge the facts presented in this review you've posted isn't
going to be able to consider documentation of an argument in any
case. Their minds must be hermetically sealed to deny this
overwhelming evidence.
Here's an interesting little detail from what you posted. I'll
quote a section from above:
[quote]
From time to time Lynn notes anomalies in his theory that
require
explanations. One of these is that the Europeans have made most of
the great
intellectual advances and discoveries, while the East Asians,
despite having
a higher IQ have made relatively few (as extensively documented by
Murray,
2003). Lynn proposes the explanation for this may be that the East
Asians
are more conformist that Europeans and this inhibits creative
achievement.
[end quote]
A factor that Lynn may not have considered, to judge by this essay
(I haven't read his book) is the Jews.
Jews have inhabited Europe for over a thousand years. They are the
highest scoring ethnic or racial group for intelligence, so far as
I'm aware -- well above East Asians. They are creative. My thought
is that the creativity of Europeans, which is certainly much
greater than that of Asians, or any other racial group, has been
supplements by the creativity of Jews, which may have acted as a
driving force in the Renaissance and the subsequent Industrial
Revolution and age of science in which we now live.
We'll leave aside the whole question of the ethnic origins of
European Jews. It may be that they are descended from European
stock rather than Middle Eastern stock. What can't be denied is
their achievements. In every nation in which they have lived, they
have achieved wealth and power, along with excellence in the arts
and sciences.
So, I think Jews may have been a wild card in European creativity
-- a kind of catalyst that other parts of the world lacked.
There's another way that Jews figure in the whole question of
racial intelligence. In whatever nation they have entered, they
have always been disadvantaged. There have been laws specifically
written to hold them in check. They have been reviled and hated.
Yet, none the less, they have achieved greatness and wealth. Why?
I think it is obvious that the primary factor is their superior
intelligence, which is genetic.
One can make a comparison between Jews in Europe and blacks in
America. Both were outsiders. Both started with nothing, or next
to nothing. Both suffered serious social stumbling blocks, and
were reviled and hated by the larger population. Yet, on the one
hand, Jews rose above these difficulties and consistently achieved
excellence in all areas of life, whereas blacks continued to
remain in a disadvantaged condition.
Social pressures had nothing to do with this difference. It was
the superior intelligence of Jews that allowed them to excel and
surmount the difficulties confronting them, but the inferior
intelligence of blacks meant that they were incapable of
overcoming their difficulties.
I wonder what Lynn would say about my argument, as I've presented
it to you?
Al Smith
>> You asked for it - do not say it was not provided, tho this would be the 3rd time I provided it.
>
> You obviously missed the part of my previous post which asked for non-IQ related evidence.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
You don't want evidence, you don't want to think, you just want to
cling to your ignorance.
John Goodrich
> I may have been very *wrong* in previously agreeing with John Goodrich that "Al Smith" is
> not also Tani Jantsang.
>
been able to say anything in less than two paragraphs? Still, it
doesn't matter. Neither one is worth listening to. They could both
the two heads of mutant, time-travelling Teddy Rosevelt, and I still
wouldn't care.
John Goodrich
Stephen Weir
> You don't want evidence, you don't want to think, you just want to cling to your ignorance.
Fascinating.
Comm
> A factor that Lynn may not have considered, to judge by this essay (I
> haven't read his book) is the Jews.
>
> Jews have inhabited Europe for over a thousand years. They are the highest
> scoring ethnic or racial group for intelligence, so far as I'm aware --
> well above East Asians.
They score higher than E. Asians on verbal. E. Asians (me too, for that
matter, tho I'm Central Asian/Slavic) score higher on visual spacial stuff.
They are creative. My thought
> is that the creativity of Europeans, which is certainly much greater than
> that of Asians, or any other racial group, has been supplements by the
> creativity of Jews, which may have acted as a driving force in the
> Renaissance and the subsequent Industrial Revolution and age of science in
> which we now live.
Not sure about that. The people I know about that actually cooperated
together to make the industrial age were European Christians or Deists of
some kind; not Jews. China, at least, had a lot of these inventions as some
times is documented on history channel. They were against mass production
of such things - and with very very good reasons. Now, they have abandoned
those wise reasons. They were even against cars until recently! Their
thinking is VERY far sighted on such things - what I'd call very wise.
>
> We'll leave aside the whole question of the ethnic origins of European
> Jews. It may be that they are descended from European stock rather than
> Middle Eastern stock.
Turns out that they are not - they have done their own genetic tests. All
Jews, except the Ethiopian ones, are really a related group - and they are
related to Palestinians and Syrians. Genetics proves this.
What can't be denied is
> their achievements. In every nation in which they have lived, they have
> achieved wealth and power, along with excellence in the arts and sciences.
Not in the middle east. They have achieved this when they have lived
amongst people who have an individualist strategy, based on altrueism to
some degree. Like the European nations. Jews are collectivist. They
didn't rise to the top when they lived in the middle east at all because the
culture surrounding them is AS collective as their own culture.
>
> So, I think Jews may have been a wild card in European creativity -- a
> kind of catalyst that other parts of the world lacked.
>
> There's another way that Jews figure in the whole question of racial
> intelligence. In whatever nation they have entered, they have always been
> disadvantaged. There have been laws specifically written to hold them in
> check. They have been reviled and hated.
Resource competition!
> Yet, none the less, they have achieved greatness and wealth. Why? I think
> it is obvious that the primary factor is their superior intelligence,
> which is genetic.
That plus their actions, their strategies - and collectiveism.
Individualism doesn't stand a chance when it's up against a collective.
>
> One can make a comparison between Jews in Europe and blacks in America.
> Both were outsiders. Both started with nothing, or next to nothing. Both
> suffered serious social stumbling blocks, and were reviled and hated by
> the larger population. Yet, on the one hand, Jews rose above these
> difficulties and consistently achieved excellence in all areas of life,
> whereas blacks continued to remain in a disadvantaged condition.
Many conservative blacks blame the Democratic liberal faction for all of
that. Blacks really had quite a lot going for them during Jim Crow days -
and Chuck D (Fight the Power) details a lot of this. Good book. Attitude
also plays a very important role. Even with Jim Crow - blacks had a self
determination, they had economic base too (like every other ethnic group
that de-facto segregated themselves when them came here at first, until they
gained a real foothold). After that was gone, money drained out of the
black community and into the "white" community. Not good. Blacks have a
lot of street savvy about this situation...
>
> Social pressures had nothing to do with this difference. It was the
> superior intelligence of Jews that allowed them to excel and surmount the
> difficulties confronting them, but the inferior intelligence of blacks
> meant that they were incapable of overcoming their difficulties.
That plus behavior. Italians are not as smart as Jews - and they made good
here by means that they used (including the mob - capitalism).
>
> I wonder what Lynn would say about my argument, as I've presented it to
> you?
Ask him - you can email him. Kevin MacDonald wrote 3 books on strategies of
Jews - the first two are a joy to read, amazing people, superb people with
great strategies. His third book, however, details a lot of the anti
white-Christians stuff they did more recently - and there is no doubt they
did do that - hell, Jeff of the ADL used to tell me some of this stuff
decades ago, so did Morris Notkin. Lots of Jews I knew hated it because it
seriously messed THEM up - but they told me straight up that there was no
changing the minds of the elites in their groups, their main BIG
organizations. They told me pretty much exactly what Dr. Steinlight is
saying - he's trying to make the big Jewish organizations change their
strategy before they get their heads busted by the NEW seriously anti Jews
on the horizon - people invading and using the SAME tactics - people who
have 100 times more money, too. Moslems.
At any rate, MacDonald admits that he got really pissed off after the 3rd
book - and he knows, absolutely knows, that all of that happened because of
the STUPID Christians and Catholics in Europe blaming the Jews for killing
Christ - that kind of anti Jewish bullshit. He sees WHY they did it, why
they'd feel fear - fear so deep that it might even cloud foresight and
reason.
Even Dr. Steinlight is bemoaning the fact that the ADL, eg, is still keeping
an eye on the Evangelicals, watching them carefully, always sniffing for
anti Semitism - meanwhile heh, there are some 7 million Islamics here?
People are converting to it, too.... No need to sniff out anti Jewish among
them. It's freaking blatant. To call these Middle Eastern people anti
Semite is very confusing - they ARE Semites. They are anti Jewish. I hope
to hell these groups listen to Dr. Steinlight - before it's too late.
This is off topic, however. Of course, people don't have to read it. One
need not complain about things one need not subject themselves too.....
Al Smith
>> You don't want evidence, you don't want to think, you just want to cling to your ignorance.
>
> Fascinating.
>
> --
> Stephen Weir
Glad I could help.
Aaron Vanek
> Has it ever occurred to you that your resentment at having your
> cherished preconceptions held up to criticism is merely a way to
> avoid subjecting them to critical examination yourself? Anger and
> resentment cloud the mind. They obviate the need to think. Maybe
> you are a little afraid, deep in your heart, that I am correct,
> and you'd rather berate me than look at the issue. Just a thought
> for you, in case you are open enough to consider it.
No, you are wrong, because I constantly challenge my concepts and
ideas. If they can't hold up to my own scrutiny, they aren't worth
holding. But you wouldn't know that unless you knew me, so I forgive
your attempted insult. If you notice, I often use language like "I
think" or "I believe" or my favorite question, "Am I wrong?" I don't
like to make declarations from on high without qualifications.
I don't believe I implicitly disagreed with Tani re: racism/IQ; I
posted a link to Stephen Pinker's "Dangerous Idea", which suggests
that there MAY BE a link to intelligence and race. However, according
to Pinker, the data for racial differences is less than the data that
suggests there are GENDER differences. Are women dumber than men, or
the other way around?
What is intelligence? Being able to solve an equation, or being able
to tell that the person you are talking to is dangerous or
trustworthy?
So...re: racism/IQ, my position is "There may be something to it, but
the evidence so far isn't concrete enough for me to change my mind
from believing the following: there may be a racial INFLUENCE on
intelligence, but I think education & childhood health/environment has
a greater impact upon intelligence." (I also believe that intelligence
can wax and wane according to age, drugs, "mental exercise", diet,
sleep, stress, etc.)
Taking your idea further: if there is a correlation SOLELY between
intelligence and race (I don't believe there is, but I have a good
imagination, and so I can make the leap), then that means we MUST have
affirmative action, we MUST skew our scholarships and grants towards
those who are "born dumber" than the rest. Right?
Either we have an even playing field (as best as possible), or, we
need to build up the weaker links of the area.
To do less would be ignorant and uncvilized.
So, to Tani and Al: based on your belief that "blacks are dumber than
whites", that do you thus support affirmative action and color-based
awards for schooling?
Or do you think that "they brought it on themselves...they decided to
be stupid, and they also decided to make stupid babies"?
And this post is off-topic and feeding the trolls. Sorry, everyone
else.
Aaron
Al Smith
> posted a link to Stephen Pinker's "Dangerous Idea", which suggests
> that there MAY BE a link to intelligence and race. However, according
> to Pinker, the data for racial differences is less than the data that
> suggests there are GENDER differences. Are women dumber than men, or
> the other way around?
The data I've seen suggested that men are slightly more
intelligent than women. Not necessarily better educated, though.
Those are two different things. It's most evident in math skills.
Aaron Vanek
Hey, good job in ignoring the rest of my post, including the question
I asked you.
Aaron
Schrodingers Hat
<goo...@somecompanyfilms.com> wrote:
That is an interesting point that hadnt occurred to me and which I
never heard before. Mind if I add it to my own repertoire of
arguments?
Aaron Vanek
<leavemeal...@notreallyanaddress.net.badboy> wrote:
> That is an interesting point that hadnt occurred to me and which I
> never heard before. Mind if I add it to my own repertoire of
> arguments?
(Google groups isn't letting me post this, so if it shows up a million
times, it's not my fault!)
Sure. I don't know which point you are referring to, but go ahead and
use it, either for or against.
Ideas are free, and should be spread like viruses. Oops, I mean virii.
Aaron
Schrodingers Hat
<goo...@somecompanyfilms.com> wrote:
>On Apr 30, 10:03 pm, Schrodingers Hat
><leavemeal...@notreallyanaddress.net.badboy> wrote:
>> That is an interesting point that hadnt occurred to me and which I
>> never heard before. Mind if I add it to my own repertoire of
>> arguments?
>
>(Google groups isn't letting me post this, so if it shows up a million
>times, it's not my fault!)
>
>Sure. I don't know which point you are referring to, but go ahead and
>use it, either for or against.
I meant the point that was avoided: That logically, if blacks are
less intelligent than whites, then affirmative action is justified and
required in any humane and civilised society. Its a neat idea. I'll
tuck it in my head for future use. 'Course, I can already hear the
replies some would give: that life is the survival of the fittest and
that *No One* should be given preferential treatment, not blacks, not
women, not the blind, not the disabled, no one, except the group the
arguer belongs to.
>Ideas are free, and should be spread like viruses. Oops, I mean virii.
Aargggghhh! Quick! Change it to... *...spread like a virus and some
more.*
Geoff
blackw...@gmail.com
SHIT. It just occured to me that "Comm" was a short version of one of
her previous sock
> puppets, "The People's Commissar". I was thinking of "Comm" as in "communication".
Der Kommissar's in "town"?
blackw...@gmail.com
> Aw, come on, just because I didn't praise your short films to the
> skies, you're resentful? They were OK films. Not great, but OK for
> amateur productions. What else can I say about them? If they had
> been really great, I would have said that they were really great.
Al, you probably liked LEGALLY BLOND2. Your tastes tend to run pretty
Hollywood.
blackw...@gmail.com
> Subjects of race differences are too taboo for many people to
> rational talk about. Those of us who are not so afflicted
> recognize this handicap in our fellow human beings, and usually
> make allowances for it. You don't tell a four-year old that there
> is no Santa Claus, and you don't tell the average adult American
> that blacks are not as intelligent as whites.
And you don't try to claim statistics and studies prove that apples
are oranges, Al. Get over yourself, fan-boy. Save your hatred for your
next Klan meeting.
blackw...@gmail.com
evidence. Google it.
I can Google evidence that Michael Jackson and LaToya Jackson are the
same person. Doesn't make it a fact. Try using critical-thinking.
blackw...@gmail.com
> Maybe you could stop trying to cover the malice with your hymen of
> honesty.
Al doesn't know the meaning of the "H"-words.
blackw...@gmail.com
> We're all born equal in worth in the eyes of God.
Ah. The Xtian tyranny rears it's ugly head.
blackw...@gmail.com
>
> Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. Atlanta,
> Georgia: Washington Summit Books (PO Box 3514, Augusta, GA 30914) ISBN
> 1-59368-020-1 pp. 318., US$37.95 HB), $20.95 (PB) (plus $6 for overseas
> orders).
>
And if I'm not mistaken, isn't the author a Nazi?
Al Smith
Haven't seen that one, or the first one, either. I enjoy science
fiction, horror and suspense-action pictures. I find myself less
interested of late in comedies, anything with teenagers or
highschool in it, and chick-flicks.
A few of the films I've enjoyed recently are 300 (bitchin'), Next
(a good film, you should go), White Noise 2 (not bad at all),
Blood Diamond (slightly anti-climactic ending), Cimarron (1930,
the lead male was the worst actor I've ever seen on screen), Curse
of the Golden Flower (good clean family fun), Hannibal Rising (not
as good as the novel), the Wig (those quirky Japanese), Nightwatch
(the 1994 version -- the 1997 remake is not as good).
Al Smith
See what I mean? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't
teach it to fish. The effort is futile and irritates the horse.
Aaron Vanek
<leavemeal...@notreallyanaddress.net.badboy> wrote:
> I meant the point that was avoided: That logically, if blacks are
> less intelligent than whites, then affirmative action is justified and
> required in any humane and civilised society. Its a neat idea. I'll
> tuck it in my head for future use. 'Course, I can already hear the
> replies some would give: that life is the survival of the fittest and
> that *No One* should be given preferential treatment, not blacks, not
> women, not the blind, not the disabled, no one, except the group the
> arguer belongs to.
The problem with people using "Survival of the Fittest" is that
they're applying it to culture, not as a species (which is what it was
designed for). Also, they misuse the word "fittest". Fittest doesn't
necessarily mean "strongest", it means "has the qualities that enable
it to survive in a given environment". And isn't humans ability to
care for, heal, and treat EVEN OUR DISABLED an amazing quality that
allows us to keep our species the dominant life form on the planet (at
least until The Stars Are Right)?
It's not about beating up the lesser of us, it's about working
together so we can feeds/clothe/shelter all of us.
Aaron
r&cbjc
>
> "Survival of the Fittest"...it means "has the qualities that enable
> it to survive in a given environment".
And the passing on of genetic material to succeeding generations.
huw....@gmail.com
THE WIG is actually Korean. It's one of many derivative films to
follow in the footsteps of superior Asian fare such as RING, DARK
WATER, A TALE OF TWO SISTERS and KAIRO.
Anyone here seen the excellent Korean film GWOEMUL (THE HOST)? It's
not remotely Lovecraftian, but I think a lot of folk here would like
it. It's a blend of monster movie and family drama/comedy. Great stuff
- see it before the inevitably dumbed-down remake.
Al Smith
I thought "The Wig" was OK. A bit derivative for sure but it still
has some chilling moments.
Comm
"Aaron Vanek" <goo...@somecompanyfilms.com> wrote in message
news:1177967906.5...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Sorry for long delay - offline. I'll answer that. I'm dead against any
form of affirmative action. I'm for a color/gender BLIND meritocracy - and
there are definitely ways to keep all data that would possibly identify
ethnicity or gender off a test. Education has already been dumbed down - I
saw it happen. First, they trashed the absolute grading system in favor of
the fake-grade done on a curve. That means that if the entire class only
manages to produce an absolute C score - that gets counted as an A on the
curved grades. I would not want to go to a MD that got C grades - and I do
have a right to know exactly how my MD did in school. Next, the material
taught to kids was dumbed down further - all in the name of a utopian pipe
dream.
Gender/ethnic BLIND meritocracy is the only way to go. We need the BEST
engineers, doctors, chemists, etc - people with REAL "A" grades, not fake
ones.
Keep in mind, not everyone has to be a MD or chemist or whatever. There are
plenty of jobs out there for people less smart. Plenty of them. In fact,
there are jobs out there for them where they can make a hell of a lot more
money, in some cases.
>
> Aaron
>
Comm
<blackw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178118761.5...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
reasons - but so what. I personally know Jews that LOVE his book, heh.
They agree with it, too.
Comm
He slandered you. I can remember, not so long ago, when what HE was saying
would have hordes of mindless drooling morons calling him a "pinko commie."
I notice also too, that he ASSUMED you meant the Christian God when you said
in the eyes of God we are all equal. Hell, in the eyes of Thatness/Deity
everything (living or not) is equal. HA.
Equal rights is something very different from "everyone getting equal
results." A civilized society doesn't dumb down the smartest of its people
to accomodate people who should just NOT BE studying stuff too hard for
them. A civilized society FINDS JOBS for everyone, including disabled
people who can work (some can not - for them there is Medicare or whatever
they get). What I don't like about American society, and my people noticed
this BIG time - is that some worker at, eg, McDonalds gets treated as if her
work is shit, the garbage man gets treated as if his work is shit. OH, but
the MD is the New High Priest. That's bullshit. Garbage men do MORE than
doctors for the public health. McDonald's workers serve people food, they
provide a service. Work is equal. Not all people can DO the same work
because they just aren't smart enough for some of the work out there. But
all WORK should be equal. It just seems very strange to me, even right
now - and I'm pretty Americanized... - that work is not equal. I don't
quite understand that whole concept.
I don't like the way free speech has been attacked, even by the Supreme
Court when they went after the publisher of some book about hit men - as if
the printed word caused a man to go and do a hit - obviously lously
instructions "how to" since he and the contractor got caught - but I guess
the defense attorney missed that big one.
Look - if Imus or Joe Smith goes and calls someone a whore - they can either
expect to be 1. ignored, 2. called a name back, 3. beaten up for it - which
could lead to a court case, assault and battery. Whatever. BUT - if blacks
go around - and while I was on here the other night, SHOwtime was on in the
background, the movie "BELLY" was on, I looked, and I heard 1 hour and 30
minutes worth of nigga nigga nigga every - EVERY - freaking sentence. IF
blacks go around talking that way in movies and music that everyone can
hear - they better NOT be surprised or bothered by people other than
themselves USING those words. I'm not Spanish, but I can say Adios. I can
say "hey, hefe!" I'm not Italian, but I picked up "AH fangool" - said if I
stubbed a toe, or dropped a dish, or something like that. People pick up
language. Imus was hired TO BE insulting - and he's sueing, now.
We once had a tracking system that worked just fine. It always worked fine
until the schools were vastly and forcibly integrated. Then it was
discovered by someone watching for it (!) that too many blacks were in the
slow track, and too many whites in the fast track. So they dumbed it all
down and got rid of the tracking system. That was the first screw up. When
I run into a black guy selling magazines to pay for his college courses,
that wants to be a cardiologist - and he CAN NOT EVEN READ what he's
selling - then this civilization is GONE - it has FAILED. Why does this
person even THINK he can be a cardiologist? Because he's been lied to and
passed from one grade to the next with fake grades. It's a JOKE - and
everyone knows it. When a whole class full of students has these delusions
about how great they are doing - when they are in fact FAILING, when they
are functionally illiterate - and totally innumerate - then it's a JOKE. A
civilization doesn't foster delusions. Utopian regimes that fail foster
delusions.
Clarence Thomas had the last word on affirmative action. He was 100%
right - and HE OUGHT TO KNOW. He had to live that bullshit and he explained
it. But moron O'Connor was the swing vote. Go read what HE had to say
about it.
blackw...@gmail.com
> would have hordes of mindless drooling morons calling him a "pinko commie."
You just like saying "pinko commie", don't you?