What’s Wrong with the World

Way to end my Christmas afternoon. Depressing. Thanks a lot. Couldn't you at least have waited 'til tomorrow...?

Nice to see some people still believe in peace on earth, good will towards men.

The Elephant

I see we are full of the Christmas cheer. Anyway, regardless of who is doing it, this gets solved with decoys or (preferably) they pick one or two folks with carry permits.

What's the reason for using the word "negroes," and lower-casing it?

"What's the reason for using the word "negroes," and lower-casing it?"

Perhaps Steve is thinking that we may have a hate crime. In California that could mean an additional 2 - 4 years added to the sentence.

What's the reason for not using any description of race at all, in upper or lower case, just because the thugs were black? ABC would gleefully have mentioned race if they were all white.

Perhaps there was a hate crime, al. That the MSM is woefully prejudiced against caucasians is both common knowledge, and common.

I agree with al, again.

Black crime is going out of control here in Peoria, as well as the rest of the nation. IMHO, the leaders of black communities refuse to show real leadership in trying to put a stop to this carnage. Oh, they will cry, whine, hold protest marches, hold 'take back the streets' rallies, but nothing is done to really stop the crime wave. When the larger community (read white) tries to deal with the problem, (especially if it starts to affect them) the word 'racism' is hurled at them.
To gain a basic understanding of why Black communities are in such bad shape, read Jesse Lee Peterson's "Scam". What he says about secular and religious Black leadership will enlighten you.

Steve, I'd be interested in reading your answer, if you feel like answering. That sentence doesn't sound like anything else you've written. Are you that guy who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters, or what?

Aaron, I think this exactly what Steve is getting at here in his post. Not even the race of the hooligans can be mentioned without 'raciss' being thrown around.

Read his post again, and quote the part where he says that a disproportionate amount of horrendous civilization-rending crime is committed by black youth because they're an inferior race.

Oh wait. You originally gave him a fair hearing, but couldn't help but throw in that poisoned well jab. Guilty, guilty, guilty--judge and jury. I'd be interested in Steve's answer or potential answer, too, though not because I have some axe to grind or knee jerk response to spew.

I see we are full of the Christmas cheer.

You're right for once, al. This is a post that could have waited a few days, or weeks.

The newsletter crack was supposed to be a joke. Sorry if it didn't come out that way.

Aaron and Jonah, here's my answer. The blacks youths commit the civilization-rendering crimes not because they are racialy (biologically inferior); they do these things because their culture is morally bankrupt. The leadership of the black communities are race-hustlers like Jackson, Sharpton, and Farrahkan, who, instead of encouraging the black community to build strong families, businesses, churches, and to seek to good will of non-blacks, they harp upon the past injustices done to blacks, they ignore their own lack of leadership in the black communities, they encourage a culture of victimization and government handouts, screaming that the man (us 'bigoted whites') is responsible for the sad shape they are in. The so-called civil rights movement was supposed to issue in a golden age for Black Americans, but it didn't. Why? Civil rights are useless without civic responsibility. Far too many blacks have no sense of responsibility. They won't get a real education, it's 'too white'. They won't get a real job and stick with it, welfare is easier. They will get girls pregnant, but they will not marry the mother and support her or the children. Welfare will take care of her and the kids. They and their leaders will moan, piss, and wail about crime in their neighbourhoods, but they won't stop solicting whores, they will keep buying street drugs, they will bawl big time everytime someone gets raped, shot or killed, but if the cops try to do anything about it, they will bitch 'the man' is messing with them. Until the Black communities and their leaders start realizing only they can stop the decay in their neighbourhoods by emphasizing civic responsibility, instead of harping upon civil rights and entitlements, the Afro-American commnities will continue to degenerate into hellholes.

I see no problem with the timing of this post. The important issue it deals with is an issue now, and the holiday season doesn't suspend or diminish that importance at all. It's an issue worth considering -- especially for those who are its victims right now, or who soon will be.

Yeah, Bill's right. I may agree with it, but still... Christmas day? Dude.

The Elephant

Aaron--ouch. My bad. Mea culpa.

I'm puzzled by the replies to my question. Did "Negroes" suddenly become an unremarkable, inoffensive word again? Did the conventional spelling suddenly change from Merriam-Webster's to Stormfront's? Are we in the Twilight Zone?

Actually, I must be way behind the times because I wasn't aware that "negroes" was considered quite THAT offensive. "Niggers" yes, but just "negroes?"

The Elephant

@William Luse: it seems that you worry about the timing of my post.

But have you wondered, at all, about the timing of the AP/ABC News story to which I'm reacting?

Nah, prob'ly not.

@Aaron - I had not previously taken you for the sort of ultra-pee-cee jackass who would worry more about my failure to capitalize the word "negroes" than about the proliferation of violent anti-white racism.

I stand corrected.

"St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom said the city has had about 10 Knockout King attacks over the past 15 months."

The story references four attacks, three of which were in Missouri and half were in St. Louis. The rate in St. Louis (a major urban area) appears to be one per 1.5 months.

We also learn from the story that,

"Hoang died of massive injuries. Elex Murphy, 18, was charged with first-degree murder and allegedly told police the attack was part of the Knockout King game. His attorney declined to comment."

"St. Louis authorities are going to the source to combat further attacks. A special police squad has been assigned to focus on Knockout King, and a city prosecutor is designated for the attacks. But Isom said equally important is an outreach effort to talk to students."

Mr. Murphy has ruined his life and, given the likelihood of his being made an example (entirely proper, IMO), he has an excellent chance of dying in prison.

As I pointed out above, the police will likely use decoys (pins on a map should be useful). As for my other possibilities, we have this discussion,

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18337527

As for Steve's question, this is a slow news period so stuff like this bubbles to the top. I assumed this was why ABC picked this up from the beginning.

Hope you are feeling better.

Well, yeah, I am kind of an ultra-PC jackass, and proud of it. I'm not out to tell anyone "Shame on you," but it was puzzling that you used that word.

"Negro" is considered offensive. It's not in the super top league of "nigger" (which seems to have achieved sui-generis status lately, offense-wise), but yeah, "Negro" is generally only used ironically. That's not new. The story was that LBJ complained about them switching it to "black" just when he'd finally learned how to pronounce "Negro."

Lots of white racists have their own orthography. They upper-case names of groups they like and lower-case names of groups they don't like, regardless of English usage. Thus, "Whites" and "blacks," "jews," "negroes," etc. It's silly, but they seem to enjoy it.

I was just wondering if you underwent some kind of a conversion or something.

Lots of white racists have their own orthography. They upper-case names of groups they like and lower-case names of groups they don't like, regardless of English usage. Thus, "Whites" and "blacks," "jews," "negroes," etc.

I was not aware of this being a white-racist sort of thing to do, rather than a jerk-superficial-quasi-thinker sort of thing to do. Actually, I don't think I have encountered it much at all, and more or less assumed it was accidental rather than intentional.

In English [as opposed to french and swahili ? :-) ] a capital is used for a proper noun, naming a specific individual or a specific group entity. United Negro College Fund is an obviously appropriate capitalized usage. Using a capital for a race when employing that race in the strictly scientific, anthropological sense where it has a sort of formal definition makes a kind of sense, but that usage is a stretch to the normative rule (and relies on older notions of race anyway). Using a capital to designate the general social class of a person with only a broad and vague reference to the specific anthropological classification and more toward the mere skin tone and ethnic background is probably a defective capitalization usage. "Race" in the purely social environment is not a category that justifies capitalization. We (quite properly) don't capitalize "black" in reference to the very same individuals in discussing the very same characteristics, nor do we capitalize "white" in social reference to the "race" of Newt Gingrich. The fact that we do use capitals for Caucasian (itself an idiotic terminological development) and Negro is more indicative of failed social theorizing in the last half of the 20th century than a proper development of English. It was quite acceptable (without any pejorative aspect) to use negro without capitalization within living memory, even the memory of not yet retired people.

The fact that many people of dark skin in the United States rejected "negro" as well as "Negro" as terms starting in the late 60's or 70's is irrelevant to the actual meaning and connotation of the term at that time. While most people avoid Negro and negro terms like the plague these days, the term retains in the minds of some people today exactly the meaning the term had in 1950, which was not pejorative, and for that reason the US Census for 2010 used the term in addition to other terms for race.

Exactly right, Tony. Thanks for the clarity.

But we got sidetracked.

What do we do about the problem to which Steve has brought our attention?

Professor Bauman,

What do we do? Not to be glib, but it seems to me the answer continues to be a simple one: keep locking 'em up.

"What do we do about the problem to which Steve has brought our attention?"

"St. Louis authorities are going to the source to combat further attacks. A special police squad has been assigned to focus on Knockout King, and a city prosecutor is designated for the attacks. But Isom said equally important is an outreach effort to talk to students."

I don't think we've established that there is a problem outside of the St. Louis area and it seems to be not much of one there. A few stiff sentences, well publicized with some outreach, and the kids will find other things to do.

"Here is my simple-minded thought: Suppose we had maintained imprisonment for violent crime at the rate that applied in 1974. In that case, we would have had 276,769 state and federal prisoners in 2010 instead of the 1,518,104 we actually had. Suppose tomorrow we freed 1.2 million inmates from state and federal prisons. Do we really think violent crime would continue to drop at a somewhat slower pace?"

Which, of course, is truly simple minded. Per DiIulio, the correct question should be:

"Suppose tomorrow we freed [say] 800,000 inmates from state and federal prisons?"

Violent crime is a young man's game and it has always seemed to me that the curve reflects the boomer bulge aided perhaps by Roe v. Wade. We should be mindful of the costs, financial and social, of over incarceration.

Al, wouldn't the boomer bulge of persons be roughly aged 50 to 65, and not only past the young person's game of violent crime, but past the typical prison sentence for violent crimes committed when they were young?

I am all for being mindful of the costs of over incarceration. Can we also be mindful of the costs of making laws that we can't enforce effectively, and of refusing to enforce sound and necessary laws effectively? (For example, I would be for some ways of decriminalization of drugs if we instituted (and used) draconian punishments for those who are responsible for providing drugs to people who are not yet responsible for themselves.) Can we also be mindful of the effects (the social and moral costs and economic costs) of failing to have a system that imposes just punishments? Can we ask those who request the state to lighten just sentences to bear the costs of leniency themselves personally so that the state manifests both justice and mercy?

@al "I don't think we've established that there is a problem outside of the St. Louis area and it seems to be not much of one there."

Good illustration of why I don't bother with al anymore.

People: do your own research. If all else fails, check out Lawrence Auster's blog - he does a pretty good job of keeping up with this stuff. If you've got a strong stomach for foul language, you might even want to visit "Unamusement Park."

Tony, if you go to the chart in the article Jeff S. referenced, it appears that violent crime started positively braking trend in the early to mid-1960s, established a new trend between then and the early 1990s, and again broke trend negatively in the early 1990s, forming yet another trend line. The climbing trend line is the period when the baby boomers began entering their mid teens through the demographic bulge of the boomers.

The problem with focusing on incarceration only is that we have other complicating factors such as Roe v. Wade and the phasing out of lead in gasoline both of which would have produced impacts in the 1990s on time frame and for which there are studies showing a statistically significant impact.

That's why I suggested that Murray's thought was simple minded as it factored in only increased incarceration while I believe it fairer to use Dilulio's estimate, in which case we are wasting a lot of money and ruining a lot of lives.

Aaron,

"I was just wondering if you underwent some kind of a conversion or something."

Steve,

"Unamusement Park."

Now we know, thank you for sharing.

The graph showing the rate of prisoners per offenses is interesting: after 2003 or so, the number of prisoners exceeds the number of offenses. Does that make you concerned with the claims?

The climbing trend line is the period when the baby boomers began entering their mid teens through the demographic bulge of the boomers.

Yes, but the climb continued on until the latest of the boomers were fully aged 40 or so. Which means that "youth" simply doesn't account for the trend line very well, unless you want to call 40-year-olds "youths". I would call that arrested development, which the police apparently tried to fix after 1994 by arresting the criminals.

The problem with focusing on incarceration only is that we have other complicating factors such as...

Such as the increasing distance people perceive between "justice" and "what the government achieves" both in the penal world and in other spheres of government activity. The increasing perception that reporting a crime is a waste of time. The increasing perception that living by the rules when nobody is looking is for rubes. I agree, we need to consider all the other factors as well.

Professor Bauman, What do we do?

Yes, Michael, help us out. I'm losing sleep nights thinking about it.

Steve, thanks for referring us to Unamusement Park. I feel so much better about myself now. I'm pretty sure that I'm smarter than about 90% of black people on the planet, based on my own high opinion of myself and the website host's assertion that "black people are dumber than white people." Period. Oops, not quite. On average, I should add to be perfectly fair to the chicken-shit anonymous host's love of nuance (his word), which love he embraces to avoid giving offense to all those dumb black people. In polite conversation, the black man you're talking to won't be offended so long as you're careful to note that it's his race in general that is stupid, not him in particular. This is all backed up, no doubt, by a lot of human biodiversity science (HBD for short; oh, you knew that), probably Darwinian in its foundation (Mr. D.'s pic is at the top of the page, first in order of our host's heroes), which any highly evolved (probably white) person knows is true. This guy is so scientifically minded that he even finds it helpful to link to Chimpout.com, the name telling you just about all you need to know about the place. Also, UP's host is an atheist, but that's okay because he is a self-described pro-Christian atheist who likes the civilization Christians built a whole lot better than that of the sub-Saharan stump-jumpers. He just thinks people who find natural and philosophical evidence for God are stupid, which, ironically, includes the vast majority of highly evolved white people in the country.

The science behind all this is so persuasive that I don't think Jeff Singer's advice to "keep locking them up" will work. We need either to get them out of the country or prevent them from breeding. Most of the people involved in those beatdowns won't end up in jail. Theyll just go back to the hood, find a girl destined to become a single mother and make more of themselves. More little criminals. Any suggestions? Am I missing something? Is this the kind of stuff you read along with Aquinas and The Last Superstition? Is this what you browse on the computer in between gawks at the Sistine Ceiling? Is this what you dogmatically believe, that all people are not created equal in dignity before God? That we are not (all God's chillun, that is) one family? And if so, what do you propose to do about it?

William, I ask what we are to do about the issue Steve raises because I'm trying to think of ways to avoid ours becoming a Bernie Goetz society. But given the lust for death-dealing that some folks on this site have when the issue of theological heresy is raised, and given your lunatic rant above, this might not be the right forum for discussions on reducing violence. It feels too much like pearl casting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078484/Knockout-King-The-sickening-game-claiming-lives-country.html

But given the lust for death-dealing that some folks on this site have when the issue of theological heresy is raised

Michael, I am pretty close to 100% confident that none of the folks here on this site have participated in causing the death of even one heretic. :-)

The problem Steve raises is that MSM continues to pretend that the sources of barbarism in this country are to be found without reference to the cultural proclivities of the black community. The solution is to stop paying attention to MSM and make them irrelevant. I haven't bought a major-city newspaper in close to 20 years, just doing my part for the country.

That's right, Tony. W4 readers don't actually burn heretics. I agree. They just advocate it publicly and then complain about the culture of death.

How does not buying a major-city newspaper stop the violence depicted in the video posted above?

The Catholic reactionary blogger Bonald, of the newly designated Orthosphere, recently had some worthwhile posts (with worthwhile comments) on how to begin thinking about organizing a society made up of blacks and whites, since what we have now clearly is not working.

http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/conservatives-and-jim-crow/

http://bonald.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/segregation-in-the-future/

Mr. Bauman, can you provide a citation which justifies your claim that W4 readers publicly advocate burning heretics? Also, Bill's comment was obviously sarcastic; was that obscure to you?

The contention that this problem of youth mob violence is confined to St. Louis is almost certainly the most simpleminded remark in this thread.

Speaking of all men created equal, I'm still waiting for Al to give us an account of how, on his own presuppositions concerning the nature and destiny of man, we can believe Lincoln right and someone like John Calhoun wrong on the question of equality. This is not just gotcha stuff; I'm genuinely curious. Upon what does a materialist ground a doctrine of human equality? Bereft of his spiritual nature, man really is a creature of profound and ineradicable inequalities.

Paul,

I suspect Professor Bauman is referring to George R. Meanwhile, Bill's comment was not obviously sarcastic to me -- or at least it seems like he really was set off by "Unamusement Park". I have to admit that I'm a fan of his work, but I also think that the kid can be a little rough around the edges and like any non-hostile atheist, should be a ripe target for evangelization (he reminds me of "One STDV" in that they are both young and smart bloggers who appreciate Christian culture but consider themselves atheists -- I reach out to both and do my best to present them with evidence for the Christian faith).

Also, great question for he who shall not be named.

Finally, congratulations on the new baby -- and what a great picture! After the total and complete collapse of the Bears this season, I'm rooting for the Broncos...what can I say, I have been swept up in Tebow mania.

That's right, Tony. W4 readers don't actually burn heretics. I agree. They just advocate it publicly and then complain about the culture of death.

Good Morning, Michael. If you want to use the "culture of death" phrase, then I think you should be willing to at least acknowledge that the source of the phrase explicitly allowed for the principle that some criminals are not only deserving of death in themselves, but that we mere humans are in some cases the right vehicles for the execution.

No, I don't want to argue that this includes heretics. I do want to argue that it is NOT in principle an irrational promotion of the culture of death to advocate that in some murder cases, the appropriate state response is the death penalty, which will have 2 salutary effects of reducing repeat offenses AND reducing the incarceration rate that Al is so concerned about.

How does not buying a major-city newspaper stop the violence depicted in the video posted above?

It reduces the impact of MSM, which is the source of the pretense that Steve was complaining about when he said

And it's not going to stop until, at the bare minimum, we can discuss the problem openly and honestly, without having to resort to winks and nods.

Thanks Jeff. Welcome to the Tebow bandwagon. Unfortunately that ugly loss in Buffalo has revived all the earlier doubts about the team. The fact is that the Broncos are still rebuilding. The defense is improved but still porous, particularly against the run. They also constantly commit dumb penalties. I like how Demaryius Thomas has been playing, but taken together Tebow's receiving targets are at best mediocre. McGehee has had a fine season at RB, but the guy is always banged up. To even be in a position to win the AFC West is an amazing accomplishment.

Bill's comment was not obviously sarcastic to me -- or at least it seems like he really was set off by "Unamusement Park."

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, if one may characterize a blog based on the remarks of occasional commenters, one could legitimately characterize W4 as a blog for atheist liberals of the Ed Abbey type. Only difference is that Al comments a lot more frequently than George R.

"And then one day, a dozen years ago, she was at a small dinner, the host of which was Henry Hazlitt, the libertarian economist, the other guest being Ludwig von Mises, the grand master of the Austrian school of anti-statist economics. Miss Rand was going on about something or other, at which point Mises told her to be quiet, that she was being very foolish. The lady who could account for all her emotions at that point burst out into tears, and complained: “You are treating me like a poor ignorant little Jewish girl!” Mr. Hazlitt, attempting to bring serenity to his table, leaned over and said, “There there, Ayn, that isn’t at all what Ludwig was suggesting.” But this attempt at conciliation was ruined when Mises jumped up and said: “That iss eggsactly what you ahrr!”

Unamusement Park is a truly disturbing site. We shouldn't be surprised that, if one is shaping ones views of his fellow Plains Apes by consulting it on a regular basis, the result will likely be some serious distortions.

Anyway, if one encounters things like this,

"I pointed out that although I am genetically part Jewish (and there’s not much I can do about that), I do not think of myself or identify as Jewish in any meaningful way (religious, cultural, etc.), but rather as white (“White”), which I acknowledged put me in conflict with the forum’s definition of that term. I also pointed out that my readers are not mainly Jewish."

in a discussion of a contretemps with Stormfront,

and this,

http://unamusementpark.com/essentials/

and links to the latest iteration of the Klan,

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/council-of-conservative-citizens

and one reads it regularly for anything other than amusement and horror... well, I don't get it.

Tony, did you read Dilulio's article referenced by Murray? I think it reasonable that there were multiple factors in the 1990s drop in violent crime.

"Yes, but the climb continued on until the latest of the boomers were fully aged 40 or so."

If the "baby boom" was 1946 to 1964 then the youngest boomers were hitting their thirties in the early to mid 1990s which fits my thesis exactly. Also babies who would have been born in the late 1960s through the 1970s and weren't for one reason or another (teen pregnancy rates declined) and those that were were exposed to far less lead.

Also the problem with the death penalty in this country is its application. When our Angelo Mozilo's are under the same sentencing risk as the current death penalty cohort, then we can talk.

Bill's comment was not obviously sarcastic to me

I'm disappointed to find you read so poorly, Jeff. But yes I was "set off" by Unamusement Park and I'm also a Broncos fan.

Michael Bauman again refuses to say anything substantive.

Tony: The problem Steve raises is that MSM continues to pretend that the sources of barbarism in this country are to be found without reference to the cultural proclivities of the black community.

That was the problem. Now we have a different problem, which is why Steve Burton recommends to us the ravings of a 25 year old racist as a an authoritative source of "research."

Again, Al, why a Plains Ape (if that's all we are) should give a rip about another ape enslaving a third, or defrauding a fourth in some real estate scam, is a puzzle I'm going to insist you at least make an attempt at unraveling before I take your moralism on other matters seriously.

Bill,

For the record, the only thing I regret about this post was its timing. Steve should have known better and we could have all waited to comment on this important story after taking a day or two to enjoy the celebration of the birth of our savior (and, ultimately, the only hope for all of us).

Anyway, it appears we do have another problem -- another smart Christian (you) gets the vapors whenever he comes across the idea that some human groups might not have the same genetic endowments as other human groups. No matter that this was commonly understood to be true by Christians throughout the ages -- now when you read detailed data and statistics outlining the evidence for this idea, even presented by a "25 year old racist" on the subject, you have an unfortunate tendency to plug your ears and change the subject. Well, you might not be interested in this subject, but I assure you the subject is very interested in you...

Steve et. al.,

Here is some more on my proposed solution, from an interesting reactionary blogger who I've come across via Foseti:

http://blog.jim.com/culture/blacks-chimp-out-for-christmas.html

[and if you aren't regularly reading Foseti, what's wrong with you?!]

All the reactionaries I read on the internet love this Froude guy (along, of course, with Carlyle). I think I may need to read "The Bow" in 2012...

another smart Christian (you) gets the vapors whenever he comes across the idea that some human groups might not have the same genetic endowments as other human groups.

No, he gets the vapors when he comes across casual lines like this from Jim's blog: When we see niggers chimping out en masse, they are doing stupid stuff – minor assaults.

I'd rather not stand in the same room with people who talk like that.

And of course neither he nor Unamusement could possibly be construed as a racist, right? Unamusement's unstated purpose is not to inspire disdain and even hatred for an entire race of human beings, but Christian uplift, betterment and the brotherhood of man, right? It must be so, since you link to it on your personal blog. Most encouraging.

but I assure you the subject is very interested in you

This, of course, is complete nonsense.

I'm not a Christian or a conservative and you all consider me a godless commie so I'm perhaps missing something, but how does one square,

"What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ...All the world is darkened by these terrible falsifications of the nature of Man and the duty he owes his Creator. For solace we look not to the morbid optimism of the world, but to a hope which was ably captured in a statement of the man from whose short book we shamelessly take our own title, who by his great “metaphysical intuition of being” penetrated to the heart of these falsifications. His words were these: “The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark,”

with the ignorant, racist nonsense being recommended above. Help me out guys.

Al, you have a point. I'm growing weary of it myself.

Well, this should be entertaining. Let us begin with William Luse.

When you claim I assert that "black people are dumber than white people," you are either being dishonest or failing at reading comprehension. I know that right now, the temptation must be to write another short essay about how "racist" I am, but whoa, hold on, partner!

You see — and this is the point of the post you're referring to, and I spell it out in the post itself, but again: reading comprehension — senior editor Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic is trying to discredit mainstream research on race differences in intelligence by insisting that the well documented "IQ gap" be expressed in a deliberately inflammatory way. My post is satirical, and takes Coates at face value, noting that "the statement is still true even if you express it in a way that is seemingly designed to hurt black people’s feelings. So although I prefer to state this particular fact about race and intelligence with more, shall we say, nuance, I reluctantly defer to Mr. Coates."

The fact remains, blacks are less intelligent than whites, on average. They really are. It's an uncontroversial scientific fact at this point. If you, as well, want to attempt to discredit real science by phrasing such facts in the most offensive possible way (e.g., "it's his race in general that is stupid" — HAHA I see what you did there, you sure showed those research psychologists!), then... go die in a fire, I guess.

Also, evolution happens. Yeah. I know. Biology and stuff. But seriously, the theory of evolution is correct.

Have you ever visited Chimpout? Did you happen to notice that all they do is (a) insult black people, which I know has got your panties in a bunch, but hold on, because the other thing they do is (b) link to news reports and videos and other evidence of black people behaving in ways that really merit insulting.

For the record, I don't think "people who find natural and philosophical evidence for God are stupid"; IQ is no guarantor of secularism/atheism, just like it is no defense against communism (think North Korea). I know this is futile, because you don't know the first thing about intelligence research, but... oh well. Also, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of supernatural beings, let alone a personal God — but I suppose I should avoid that subject.

Please stop embarrassing yourself by referring to white people as "highly evolved," as if that were what "scientific racists" (i.e., scientists, who understand the basic concepts of evolution and are willing to apply them to human subspecies as well as non-human) think. It would be more accurate to state that all living things are equally "evolved."

Okay, I guess it's al's turn. I encourage you, al, to find something factually incorrect on my site. But I won't hold my breath either.

The Council of Conservative Citizens, your "latest iteration of the Klan," is guilty of that most horrific crime: observing black dysfunction in the news and linking to it, so as to give the impression that blacks commit as much crime as they actually do.

The rest of your ranting consists of ad hominem attacks, so there's no need to address it.

Alright, that's all I got. Later skater.

Talk about reading comprehension. You just proved every charge made against you.

And no "later skater." I don't know who informed you that you were being talked about, but you come back and I'll delete your comments right here in Steve's thread.

It truly is an extraordinary perplexity why IQ research would earn such suspicion. I mean, who but a sunken cynic would think ill of the motives of commentators who refer to their countrymen as chimpanzees? Obviously these are men of high scientific detachment, clinically spreading knowledge in an important area of study that others are reluctant to approach; and equally obviously, their critics are mere obscurantists reacting to disfavored data.

Paul, the Jim blog to which Jeff S links makes the following statement,

"The difference between blacks and the more evolved types of human is exceptionally visible, and the fact that no one can speak of it exceptionally ludicrous."

and links to this paper,

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/1/170.full.pdf

Now this Jim fellow assigns a meaning to evolve that serious science rejects and he definitely misreads the paper but it seems to me that another matter arises for you all:

How does this have anything to do with the Christian view of man as a created being?

"...ill of the motives of commentators who refer to their countrymen as chimpanzees,,,"

Because Paul, we know from history who has done this and we know from history where this winds up if these folks get to run things.

As I pointed out above, you all have a problem because you believe in a loving creator God who has a plan.

While it's true that we come at this from different angles. we both assert a unity of all humanity that racists reject. Further, splitting humans into subspecies and referring to the behavior of one "subspecies" as chimp-like is not only racist, it's specist which I find problematic and offensive (though you likely don't).

I have no problem considering we humans a subspecies of ape, hence my frequent Plains Ape references but if that is the case, any differences between human populations become ephemeral and inconsequential. Setting ourselves out as a separate species is arguably due to arrogance and false pride, likely the same arrogance and false pride that lead some to prize their "white" skin and set themselves apart.

Both our approaches would seem to have no place for the racist and reactionary dreck referenced above.

Al, I am boycotting this thread for my own reasons, but I feel I have to make this comment: Jeff Singer is a commentator here--a long-standing and valued commentator, but not a contributor. I do not think that W4 and/or its Christian contributors can in any way, shape, or form be held responsible for the evolutionary views of some random blogger whose blog post was linked by a non-contributor commentator in the course of a thread discussion. Over and out.

Al, I must confess that I only occasionally follow links from commenters. There's just not enough time in the day.

I do hope, however, that you apprehended the sarcasm in my remarks about ill motives and the rest. If not, you're as dense as Unamused in his reading of Bill Luse.

As I pointed out above, [I] have a problem because I consider[] we humans a subspecies of ape.

There, fixed it for you.

What we call justice is not possible for ape. For good reason we do not speak of an ape oppressing another ape by fraud or force. We might as well sermonize on a bobcat tormenting his prey after capture. It is mere nonsense to observe a pack of apes enslaving a weaker one to compel service out of them, and haranguing them for their injustice. The racist garbage referred to upthread exhibits a peculiar and pernicious reductionism. Whole swaths of the human family are reduced to their animal nature. You spread the reductionism beyond race to species; animal nature is all there is. Thus you preclude such concepts as justice and equality. You can supply us no reason to believe in the "unity of all humanity"; it is a mere sentiment for you, irrational and unintelligible. You are thus completely disarmed by the materialists who share your presuppositions but reject the sentiment.

You can supply us no reason to believe in the "unity of all humanity"; it is a mere sentiment for you, irrational and unintelligible. You are thus completely disarmed by the materialists who share your presuppositions but reject the sentiment.

That sums it up nicely, Paul.

What we call justice is not possible for ape.

That isn't entirely true. Their system is rather limited, to put it mildly, but there is a social structure that responds with sympathy to undeserved punishments. There was also one case I heard on Radiolab about a bonobo raised by researchers that had a limited ability to communicate through a lexigram. Long story short, he became very upset about an argument he saw between his favorite researcher and another scientist and "told" her male assistant he must attack the other scientist or else. The male assistant didn't do anything and 24 hours later the bonobo escaped the cage, ran into his office, and bit off his finger.

You can supply us no reason to believe in the "unity of all humanity"; it is a mere sentiment for you, irrational and unintelligible.

It is more than a sentiment. Plato first made the analogy of society to the body, and just like a body you can make some parts stronger at the expense of different parts, but they all are integrated into one being.

You are thus completely disarmed by the materialists who share your presuppositions but reject the sentiment.

I'm always armed with my imagination :P. You've yet to address Singer's remark that "No matter that this (racial inequality) was commonly understood to be true by Christians throughout the ages...".

You've yet to address Singer's remark that "No matter that this (racial inequality) was commonly understood to be true by Christians throughout the ages...".

I agree with the face value of Singer's comment, as I'm sure Bill Luse does, and any thinking person should. It's a very tame remark and has little to do with the ideological tensions underlying this discussion. We might say the same about personal, familial, tribal, regional, national, sexual, class, and caste inequalities - these too were "commonly understood to be true by Christians throughout the ages" - but this tells us nothing about the specific inequalities in question, or how intractable they are, or how meaningful they are, or their ultimate causes, or what to do about them (if anything).

In short, the conflict isn't about whether racial inequalities exist - of course they exist - it's about the Christian understanding of the fundamental unity of the human race versus atheistic, neo-Darwinian racial determinism.

"And now through the new Adam, who is Christ, there is established a brotherly union between man and man, and people and people; just as in the order of nature they all have a common origin, so in the order which is above nature they all have one and the same origin in salvation and faith; all alike are called to be the adopted sons of God and the Father, who has paid the self-same ransom for us all; we are all members of the same body, all are allowed to partake of the same divine banquet, and offered to us all are the blessings of divine grace and of eternal life." - Pope Leo XIII, In Plurimis

There was also one case I heard on Radiolab about a bonobo raised by researchers that had a limited ability to communicate through a lexigram. Long story short, he became very upset about an argument he saw between his favorite researcher and another scientist and "told" her male assistant he must attack the other scientist or else.

So with sustained influence from a higher intelligence, even simple apes can begin to grasp the concepts of morality. Interesting, that.

Nevertheless, I would hope that any bonobo which attacks a human will be put down.

Plato was no materialist. Far from it.

It is possible, as I've pointed out to Al on more than one occasion, to derive a theory of social or political obligation from purely materialist premises. Machiavelli and Hobbes come to mind. Neither scheme included a concept of human equality that Lincoln would recognize.

Step2, I am not categorically opposed to the possibility that apes (or dolphins, or dogs for that matter) can exhibit some kind of behavior that can reasonably be called "intelligent" in some sense. Nevertheless, every time I hear of an example that is supposed to be illustrative of that, it leaves me wondering: didn't the people who told this story to begin with think that lots more details were necessary to even set the groundwork for showing the intelligence? Did those additional details just get cut out in the transmission of the story, or were they never part of it? See, I can easily imagine a darwinian biologist looking at the behavior mentioned and explaining it wholly in terms of standard, non-"intelligent" instincts and motivations, such as the usual rank-observant pack animal behaviors. Hell, many of them think that even human behavior can be explained without any sort of immaterial cognition of truth as such.

For Christians, the important question is whether such creatures have a soul capable of receiving the grace of supernatural faith, hope, and love, and thus can participate in the community of heaven. To date, there is manifestly no reason to think so.

In short, the conflict isn't about whether racial inequalities exist - of course they exist - it's about the Christian understanding of the fundamental unity of the human race versus atheistic, neo-Darwinian racial determinism.

My reading of Singer's remark, given the context, is that Christians didn't traditionally agree with that fundamental unity either. He can explain it further if he wants to.

So with sustained influence from a higher intelligence, even simple apes can begin to grasp the concepts of morality.

No, no, no. Bonobos have a female-dominant culture. He was transmitting his instinctive reaction to his human counterpart, in effect saying "You have to defend the matriarch." Failure to do so was a punishable offense.

Nevertheless, I would hope that any bonobo which attacks a human will be put down.

Nope, he is still alive. http://www.greatapetrust.org/about-the-trust/meet-our-apes/kanzi

Plato was no materialist. Far from it.

Plato also wasn't an egalitarian, the guardian class and all that proto-eugenics stuff. Metaphysical dualism provides no guarantee for legal equality.

Neither scheme included a concept of human equality that Lincoln would recognize.

The equality Lincoln originally recognized was only a right to the fruits of your own labor. There was none of this brotherhood/unity of humanity talk.

See, I can easily imagine a darwinian biologist looking at the behavior mentioned and explaining it wholly in terms of standard, non-"intelligent" instincts and motivations, such as the usual rank-observant pack animal behaviors. Hell, many of them think that even human behavior can be explained without any sort of immaterial cognition of truth as such.

See my response to Paul. The main difference between us and our primate cousins is that we have an exponentially better ability at creating abstractions and using those as motivation for our own behavior.

"You have to defend the matriarch." Failure to do so was a punishable offense.

If I understand you correctly, Step2, you are agreeing that this behavior doesn't indicate a desire for punishment for the sake of justice, but punishment for the sake of behavioral modification: those who are punished when they don't protect the matriarch learn to protect the matriarch. Right?

If I understand you correctly, Step2, you are agreeing that this behavior doesn't indicate a desire for punishment for the sake of justice, but punishment for the sake of behavioral modification: those who are punished when they don't protect the matriarch learn to protect the matriarch.

Actually, I'm saying at the functional level the building blocks of what we call justice are present. Justice is closely connected to behavioral modification as any discussion about deterrence shows. There is also an element of people "getting what they deserve" and a less abstract form of that element is present in ape societies. They can recognize undeserved punishments and they are willing and able to enforce certain social behaviors.

Greetings, all, from Napoli, and Buon Capodanno!

Unfortunately, the internet facilities at my current hotel are even more primitive than they were at the last one. If this comment gets through, I'll have more to say.

Testing...

@William Luse: well, ok, so you're enthusiastically on board with the conventional wisdom when it comes to racial differences - so much so that you're eager to caricature my views, and even to police my threads for comments you don't like!

Oh well, too bad. For the record, I generally enjoy your stuff.

A personal request: if unamused is generous enough with his time and his talent to comment again, please let it stand.

well, ok, so you're enthusiastically on board with the conventional wisdom when it comes to racial differences...

You have no idea what I think about these matters.

so much so that you're eager to caricature my views

No caricature is needed. You recommend a site which takes lip-smacking delight in portraying black people as a species of subhuman fit only for ridicule and servitude because they are genetically doomed to degenerate and criminal behavior.

if unamused is generous enough with his time and his talent to comment again, please let it stand.

Not a chance.

Steve, I know that policing comment threads is a real bother from Naples, but it's a task that, alas, must occasionally be done by someone. How one goes about doing it is a separate question from the fact that it must now and then be done.

Comments stand or fall on their own merits here. We've all wanted to send X, Y, or Z commenter packing at some point or another. Yet we've rarely banned anyone.

A similar fact to that mentioned above remains that eventually someone must draw the line.

WL: sorry, but I seriously think that you are disgracing yourself, here.

Please try to get calm. Go back. Read exactly what I wrote. Interpret it with the charity that one owes to a colleague.

And then try to find it within yourself to admit that you owe me an apology.

[Paul, perhaps Michael is also thinking about dehydration :).]

I already opened the discussion as to good president Lincoln and the treacherous, hang-worthy Calhoun. If Lincoln was motivated by a concept of natural law and Justice Scalia and Professor George are likewise motivated while both Calhoun and Professor Leiter are legal positivists then we need to account for the differences elsewhere. Further, you wind up with answers as wrong as Calhoun's

"Again, Al, why a Plains Ape (if that's all we are)..."

Hey, if you get to have a just-so story, so do I and mine has more actual evidence. Admittedly the sub-species thing was over the top but the latest information does seem to lump humans and chimps in the same genera which definitely excludes sub-species classification amongst current human populations.

Your "reductionist" claims are off base. The implications of the sites that Steve and Jeff S. referenced are the opposite of the implications of compressing our family tree.

"should give a rip about another ape enslaving a third, or defrauding a fourth in some real estate scam, is a puzzle I'm going to insist you at least make an attempt at unraveling..."

Paul, you are skipping the actual conditions and jumping to the "why" of things (and beyond). It is observable that we humans do care about such things. It is also observable that apes and monkeys exhibit behaviors that are arguably the building blocks of what we call morality. You seem to need a second or third order story; I'm not sure we really need one at this point. Actual conditions first.

Wow, Steve. For someone who wrote that sort of funny and insightful post about social status to school Auster, you seem clueless about your own situation.

As even your fan Singer points out, the timing of your post couldn’t have been worse. I’m sure it felt bad being excluded from the omnibus contributor thread, but they were being respectful of your religious agnosticism. You repaid them by putting up this contentious post that was full of red meat about racial violence and MSM censorship on Christmas day, destroying the festive spirit of goodwill. Then the blogger you recommended for further info shows up in this thread with a horrible attitude and a contemptuous sneer.

After Bill brings the hammer down on this guy, you leap to his defense as a talented writer. You have to be self-aware enough to know that your own status is in no position to challenge Bill. Lydia is your main potential ally in this feud, and she has boycotted this thread because she doesn’t want to be forced to take sides. She has also been busily writing about other subjects as a distraction. Yet you are trying to force her to choose against you by expecting an apology.

Last but not least, the issue of providing cover for racism is what brought Enchiridion Militis to an abrupt end, and while I understand a little about why this is of personal interest to you, I don't understand why you would want to keep testing that boundary.

I’m sure it felt bad being excluded from the omnibus contributor thread, but they were being respectful of your religious agnosticism.

Stepping out for a brief moment--Just for the record: Steve was invited to participate in the omnibus, along with all other contributors on the sidebar. A general invite was sent out. It was up to each person to decide whether or not to contribute by sending me the section by early on Christmas Eve, at which point I pasted the sections together and published.

Paul, you are skipping the actual conditions and jumping to the "why" of things (and beyond). It is observable that we humans do care about such things [i.e., enslaving, defrauding, etc].

It is also observable that you cannot provide a reasoned argument for why we should care about these things. Your best shot at this is to simply establish as a fait accompli that we do care, and then quickly move on from this to your own biases concerning it. It's all sentiment and inclination. You refuse to engage in moral reasoning.

I already opened the discussion as to good president Lincoln and the treacherous, hang-worthy Calhoun.

I believe this claim to be flat-out untrue. You have always demurred from entering a philosophical discussion comparing the doctrines of Lincoln as against Calhoun. If I am mistaken on this, kindly provide a link so that all may see my mistake.

Bill L.,

I just want to apologize for my intemperate remarks directed to you earlier on this thread. They were inappropriate and uncalled for, especially from a fellow Christian (I know one of the fruits of the spirit is self-control [Galatians 5:22-23] so I obviously have a lot to work to do to keep walking in the Spirit).

For the record, I just want to echo Jeff C.'s wise comments from December 31st, 5:42 PM. The problem for me is that we are surrounded by a liberal culture that I believe not only lies about basic racial truths, but enacts laws that are inimical to justice and the common good of all racial groups. Their lies and their laws make me angry and I am willing in my anger to make allies with secular folks who don't share our Christian world-view and who speak, at times, with a blackness in their hearts that I do not endorse (not to mention their blind allegiance to Darwinian ideas that are far from settled). I am further angered by liberals who show up at this site and act like the worst of the liberal frauds by crying racist at any sane discussion of this subject.

Anyway, I hope that clarifies my mindset and position on this matter, even if you don't agree with it.

Cold day in hell, Steve.

Well, Step2, for someone who spent his previous comments monkeying around, shall we say, that's a pretty astute summing up. From my point of view.

Apology accepted, Jeff. That we have "a liberal culture that...not only lies about basic racial truths, but enacts laws that are inimical to justice and the common good of all racial groups" is something we already know. We're on to something else now.

"lies about basic racial truths"

I have to point out that had Steve not referenced his sites and you yours charges of racism would never have been raised, at least by moi. I was even willing to allow that some black folks may have committed hate crimes. I am interested in what liberal lies about race and what laws could possibly drive you into the arms of the like you referenced?

I have to note that the first item on your SPLC link is on the current war on voting rights. Of course, had we never had the Voting Rights Act, we would not have the present push to restrict access to the ballot.

step2: concerning the question of the timing of my post, can we just get this straight?

IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE TIMING OF THE FIRST APPEARANCE, EVER, OF THIS STORY IN THE MSM.

I mean, you just can't win, here. The MSM goes out of its way to bury this story, by reporting it on Christmas Eve. So I point it out, the day it happens - and even supposed conservatives can't wait to jump all over - not the MSM - but me!

The MSM consistently plays supposed conservatives for fools, and supposed conservatives consistently fall all over themselves to *play* the fool, and dance to their tune.

Mr. Luse: it's interesting, albeit depressing, to learn that you found Step2's above summing up "astute."

IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE TIMING OF THE FIRST APPEARANCE, EVER, OF THIS STORY IN THE MSM.

I NEVER WOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD IF YOU HADN'T WRITTEN IT IN ALL CAPS STEVE. I'm glad you have a reason, not that it makes any difference to my point, which is that a person less obsessed with one issue and a little more in tune with what his colleagues are doing would have shown restraint.

The MSM goes out of its way to bury this story, by reporting it on Christmas Eve. So I point it out, the day it happens - and even supposed conservatives can't wait to jump all over - not the MSM - but me!

Really, a martyr complex? Very sad.

Divorced from the topic of this post I have a question. Is it accurate to say that we're all children of God? I thought that, in Christianity, we are only children of God once we receive the co-adoption offered by/through Christ. Just a theological question in response to a comment I read above.

In a limited sense, we ARE all children of God. He directly wills the creation of, and maintenance of, each person during their life.

In a much higher sense, those who have received from God the grace by which He dwells in their souls, by which He becomes the "life of" the soul, are Children of God, adopted brothers of Christ the Son, and adoptive heirs to the Kingdom.

Those who have not that indwelling of God, but who may still come to that state, either by our preaching, or example, or child-rearing, or other means (often completely unknown to us), are potentially Children of God in that higher, more reserved sense, and thus are worthy objects our good will as if they were in that state. Since we are not to judge anyone's soul, that basically means we must needs treat everyone as though they may be Children of God in the higher sense. That's my understanding of the matter.

"IT WAS DETERMINED BY THE TIMING OF THE FIRST APPEARANCE, EVER, OF THIS STORY IN THE MSM."

Except for all the stories in the St. Louis Post Dispatch which is a MSM venue as well as a number of local papers.

Also a little background.

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2011-06-09/news/knockout-king-elex-murphy-hoang-nguyen-dutchtown-murder/

"The MSM goes out of its way to bury this story, by reporting it on Christmas Eve."

Or the last remaining national wire service goes looking for filler on a traditionally slow news day, We need to keep in mind that this is a nation of over 300 million in a world of over 7 billion with many thousands of possible sources.

The most complete story was in a venue that I, not living in Missouri, had never heard of. I started with the Post-Dispatch on the google. If one starts with "Associated Press" and various sorts of violence it soon becomes clear that there is a wealth of violence related stories from which to choose. One can assume some sort of conspiracy of silence or, since it seems the "game" is of some duration, one can assume that it got lost among the other targets of opportunity until it was found.

Thanks for the response, Tony. I asked because I saw someone use the statement "we are all children of God" recently to defend the idea that all monotheisic "people of the book" i.e. Muslims are included in God's fold.
Bruce