« Mundanity | Gene Expression Front Page | Human Races »
April 11, 2003

Shallow thoughts by razib

Can any of my green readers point me to a good site for streaming recitations of surahs? I remember some of them pretty well, but have forgotten a lot. I want to get back up to speed on that stuff before I talk about Islam too much-a point of pride, I want to be able to assert I can pray with some fluency before I go around making a business of blaspheming the whole business (now only if religious wacks would read a bit more secular philosophy and reflect on their often debauched youths).

Also, Richard Poe tells me that Mac Diva is trolling over at David Yeagley's site. First me, then Richard, now David. She definately does not like non-whites that do not toe-the-party-line. What, is individualism and thinking-for-oneself one of those "white" habits of the Eurocentric patriarchy we shouldn't emulate as people of color? Let me be frank, I suspect that if it were up to the Mac Divas of the world our particular anthropoid lineage would still be jumping through trees and eating fruit because venturing out to the savanna is "too white" (or whatever equivalent they want to pick on). The racial-identity folks are retro-progressives, profoundly conservative, without even knowing it.

Does anyone wonder if ugly people, especially ugly women, have more children? Just looking around and seeing who has litters (following an r strategy, lots of kids, little investment)-though the total number of teeth all these kids have left in their mouths is about the same as in families with fewer children (you know, two kids, full set of teeth, four kids, half sets of teeth)....

Also, Mac Diva, puts a bunch of Left bloggers of who don't believe that reason is a Eurocentric concept, under the microscope. Totally irrational. Torqumada indeed. I do invite anyone uncomfortable with blogrolling us to drop us-most of my readers are "regulars," not people coming through links anyhow. I just remind you though-when the bounds of discourse are limited along one axis, don't be surprised when others are restricted as well-you cede such power, people do not take it. As an example, Mac Diva starts off by talking about homosexuality before shifting the topic to race. Who knows, perhaps talking about the genetics of homosexuality will be an example of "Eurocentric linear thinking" or something pretty soon....

Finally-there are plenty of "facts" Mac Diva throws out there that are disputable. But a few quick ones: I'm only getting funding from myself-if The Pioneer Fund wants to throw some cash my way, fine, but it hasn't happened, nor do I expect it too. This is a blog-and I don't even talk about race most of the time (hell, I'm as likely to get funding from The Council On Secular Humanism for my comments on religion). Also, she decides that Charles Murtaugh has been an "active participant in Gene Expression and presenting its views on his own blog," his views stand for themselves, but Charlie only has commented on non-race related threads from what I can remember, and he tends to post about 1/month max. Perhaps he is "monitoring" this blog like Mac Diva?

Posted by razib at 09:03 AM




"I suspect that if it were up to the Mac Divas of the world our particular anthropoid lineage would still be jumping through trees and eating fruit": funny, most people who I hear talking that way are mouth-breathers. I wouldn't of thunk it of you.

"Just looking around and seeing who has litters (following an r strategy, lots of kids, little investment)-though the total number of teeth all these kids have left in their mouths is about the same as in families with fewer children (you know, two kids, full set of teeth, four kids, half sets of teeth)...."

Vain, upper middle class people with money to burn have beautiful fake teeth. For the rest of us, a large number of variables govern how good our teeth look, including various dental variables plus how much money we have, plus whether we have insurance, plus whether we give a shit. In this post, as often, you give the impression of spending too much time studying Maxim.

You are definitely a hard guy to be friends with, Razib. Is there an evolutionary-psychology label for the strategy you use?

Posted by: zizka at April 11, 2003 10:47 AM


most ppl say i am easy to be friends with-i generally don't let political views effect personal relationships. i had a self-avowed communist roommate for 6 months, and we're still pretty close.

on the teeth issue-i was thinking more of cavity rates, but it wasn't meant seriously. i do think though that it seems a lot of pretty skinny women have fewer children. true, a lot of this is cosmetic-but i think a lot of these young trophy wives marry rich ugly guys when young, so some of their appeal is genetic.

Posted by: razib at April 11, 2003 11:00 AM


Mac Diva: I just visited her blog; her psychological makeup indicates that she would have made the perfect Bolshevik commissar (I bet you anything that she would take that as a compliment). I also think that people like her are a danger to a free society, I wouldn't want to see her ilk in power anywhere. She reminds me of that Dutch vegan "animal-rights" activist who murdered the anti-Islamist politician Pim Fortuyn. She's self-righteous, intolerant, moralistic, rigid, narrow-minded, doctrinaire, etc. And a specialist in ad hominem attacks. CREEPY...

Posted by: nietzsche at April 11, 2003 11:05 AM


One more thing: if Mac Diva could "whack" Rushton she would do it in a second. Visit her blog...

Posted by: nietzsche at April 11, 2003 11:35 AM


My brother says that ugly chicks are sluttier than pretty ones as an evolutionary strategy.

I don't condone this, but on this forum I find that speaking with the voice of a 17 y/o boy is very helpful for fitting in.

Posted by: duende at April 11, 2003 11:46 AM


If Macdiva showed more of an interest in empirical questions instead of doctrinare politics I would find her "crusade" much more genuine. As is, it is childish and reactionary.

Also she lies far too often to be taken seriously. Over the last couple of months I've seen her time and time again say things about Murtaugh that can only be interpreted as deliberate falsehoods in the service of a game-plan.

Furthermore she expresses opinions that to my eyes appear to be a more genuine racism than any belief in questions of nature/nurture- a paternalistic condescension to non-whites:

(Sailer's use of people of color to promote his views is an innovation. In previous incarnations, he didn't seem to associate with non-whites. Though association that is actually exploitation could explain his change of . . . something.)

Apparently, minorities are not autonomous beings to MacD, be they educated or not. Even Razib and Godless (a fucking Phd!) are simply exploited tools of a white male and his agenda. They can't help it, the lovable little animals.

Going to her essay, there's much too much to quibble about -Sailer isn't associated with Amer Renaissance, which he said he finds harmful for Americas racial well-being, the Rushton mall thing is an absolute rumor repeatedly presented as fact, and once again Pioneer fund and many academics who contribute to behavioral genetics and/or study race are not obscure, or are "outside the mainstream of science" (including Rushton who still often publishes in refereed journals).

The best single person criticism that ever hapened to gnxp is not Mac Diva, but Dienekes, who's actual interest in the subject matter, erudition, and familiarity with the literature provides the perfect counter-balance to razib and godless. Unfortunately, to Mac Diva, Dienekes would no doubt be considered an extremist too.

You are definitely a hard guy to be friends with, Razib.

Why the sudden hostility, zizka? Is Razib akin to mouth-breathers b/c he is expressing anger at Mac Diva's form of politics or b/c his analogy wasn't witty enough?

Posted by: Jason M. at April 11, 2003 01:47 PM


Razib,
Mac Diva is obviously infatuated with you. I do not mean to presume that you and I are ideollogically aligned, but perhaps this is an example of leftists lacking creative imagination. Her entire blog is soon going to be devoted to your blog, so she may as well shut her blog down and just post comments here.

Posted by: Sporon at April 11, 2003 01:47 PM


example of leftists lacking creative imagination.

There's no need to consider the unsavory actions of one member of any political affiliation as a demonstration of the failings of the whole.

Her entire blog is soon going to be devoted to your blog

It basically already is.

It's too bad people think the genetic thing is so important to political ideology (It's not. There is no indication of a "ceiling of outcome".) The real battle is if the b-w difference is cultural or b/c of white racism. More and more important sociologists, such as Christopher Jencks, are saying this is more due to the former. How culture is transmitted, and what part genetics may play is trivial detail compared with that greater battle. So I think critics should stop being so fanatical over the foot-note.

Posted by: Jason M. at April 11, 2003 02:01 PM


i'm a little annoyed less because of the attacks on gnxp (that's normal)-but the blatant attempt to use as as a cudgel against others when there are disagreemants. that is creepy....

Posted by: razib at April 11, 2003 03:04 PM


one more thing-initial reactions are probably almost always characterized by shock & revulsion at some of the stuff on this blog. the reason of course being that today most of the ppl that broach race in a non-trivial and heredeterianly serious fashion are racist. as long as non-racists refuse to touch the topics we approach, it will keep that air of disrepute.

some of the people that post & link to this site eventually move past that revulsion, but ppl less aquainted with the site might not realize this. anyhow...enough of this.

Posted by: razib at April 11, 2003 03:12 PM


Sudden hostility? What I meant was that Razib is making it hard for me. I've been working on the assumption that he and most people here believe in heritability of IQ, etc. and are racial realists, but are not actually old-style KKK. But "[O]ur particular anthropoid lineage would still be jumping through trees and eating fruit" is standard average KKK-type language.

The reasons why Mac Diva doesn't like you guys are pretty understandable. You've found one of the sorest points in American politics and jumped in with both feet. Your hurt feelings don't make a whole lot of sense to me. Since there's a lot of stuff here I like, rightly or wrongly I tried to ignore the other stuff at first.

Mac Diva is giving you guys your day in the sun, but mostly she talks about old-fashioned KKK types and neo-nazis. I still think that she was mistaken in lumping the bunch of you with those guys, but increasingly it's just because none of you are either physically threatening or politically influential the way most of them are.

Based on what I've read here so far, I'm baffled as to why you guys feel more hostile to annoying hippies and weeny liberals than to the ultra-right (which includes a significant chunk of the Bush core constituency). To me it seems that, at some level, most of you should know better.

Posted by: zizka at April 11, 2003 05:33 PM


Maybe Zizka wants to be a toothless rights activist. I hope this doesn't mean that I can't make fun of toothless retards.

Posted by: Jon Wilkins at April 11, 2003 06:11 PM


"[O]ur particular anthropoid lineage would still be jumping through trees and eating fruit" is standard average KKK-type language.

huh? this statement was about hominid evolution ("our" = human-being's). He was simply saying Mac Diva wasn't thinking progressively. Why does that offend you? I am not understanding why you are comparing an evolutionary analogy with neo-nazism.

The reasons why Mac Diva doesn't like you guys are pretty understandable. You've found one of the sorest points in American politics and jumped in with both feet.

The problem isn't that mac diva "doesn't like us", zizka, it's that she calls "gnxp folk" (and frequently invokes the names of Diana, murtaugh, randall parker, etc. in comment boxes across the blogosphere) "White supremacists", when this charge is blatantly unreasonable. Unless anyone would like to try and defend the sentiment that Murtaugh is a "white supremacist"* as an even remotely logical statement or even one made in good faith, we have to accept the problem with macdiva isn't her dislike of this blog, but her dishonest campaign against it. This isn't about "hurt feelings"- its about total disgust that she's black-mailing people on razibs blogroll with threats of including them in her public disinformation campaign.

I'm baffled as to why you guys feel more hostile to annoying hippies and weeny liberals than to the ultra-right...at some level, most of you should know better.

duende,razib,godless,me,david, jason soon, etc. all have very different opinions on this, so its unfair to lump. furthermore of course people on the right feel more threatened by people on the left, zizka. sheesh- its like you are saying that deep down every one must believe what you do,- which, to me, seems like what is really disingenuous. its a legitimate dispute btw, and one that's made in good faith (i'm on your side, btw :)), i was thinking of maybe making this a topic to be discussed in the discussion board.

*Mac Diva even went so far as to compare Murtaughs relationship to his Asian wife as to that of a slave-holder raping his slaves!

Posted by: Jason M. at April 11, 2003 06:30 PM


uh, the anthropoid thing was about human evolution. i guess it got misinterpreted, but perhaps that would weigh in on my side-since i didn't even understand/remember that KKK people make cracks that are tangentially related to that-that simply is "not my crowd."

and of course, i meant the whole human race. perhaps that is another clue as to my world-view, i didn't see it automatically as a racially motivated slam.

if you want to get offended, you'll find something.

as for the specific point about getting angry at hippies-liberals think that conservatives control the country & vice versa. this particular blog is pretty diverse politically though my voice dominates. i'm never really going to live in "red america," so from my personal perspectives i see what is wrong with "blue america." both perspectives are narrow-minded in socializing with their own crowd.

ultimately, if you want my honest solution, it is partition with relatively open immigration laws within the united states. a nation of 2.5 million in 1776 simply had different needs than one of 280 million....

Posted by: razib at April 11, 2003 07:06 PM


The toothlessness issue is indeed real to me. I've got a front tooth that I've replaced with crowns twice at about $1000 out-of-pocket. Because of my bite it keeps breaking off. The second time I didn't try again. One of the nice things about most of the non-United States is that you can function socially with bad teeth. I'm anti-social so I don't care a whole lot, but....

I've tried twice to convince Mac Diva that this is NOT a hate site and not a front for any group. I failed both times and I doubt that she'll ever forgive me. It's easy to see how some people might have been offended by some of the bull sessions, race by race, about who's cute, who's sexy, and who's ugly. In my own mind I'm not sure whether what I see here is the whole thing or whether there's something a bit nastier underneath.

I do not follow "Mac Diva on Gnxp" but from what you've said it looks like she's gone overboard. And like I've said, I've tried to change her mind. The best I can say though is something like, people say annoying or obnoxious stuff there but I don't think that there are are many serious white supremacists there unless a bunch of people there are speaking in code. Not a real killer argument.

On the left-right thing: people here don't seem terribly right wing according to my understanding. The hard core red America people are anti-intellectual, nativist, anti-evolution, and usually infested with bizarre Christian beliefs. Their racism is also different than ALMOST anything I've seen on this site (not sure about everyone, of course). People here don't seem like Cheney-Bush big-money corporate conservatives either, or militarists. But seemingly when most of you here get irate, it will be about one of the conservative wedge issues.

Posted by: zizka at April 11, 2003 07:54 PM


I think that we're giving Comrade Mac Diva more attention than she deserves. It must flatter her ego enormously that we even bother to discuss her inanities. Do we really care what every Marxist with a computer thinks?

Posted by: nietzsche at April 11, 2003 10:43 PM


Nietzche:
"...She reminds me of that Dutch vegan "animal-rights" activist who murdered the anti-Islamist politician Pim Fortuyn. She's self-righteous, intolerant, moralistic, rigid, narrow-minded, doctrinaire, etc. And a specialist in ad hominem attacks. CREEPY..."

I have a feeling she's probably as creepy looking as she is uptight b/c her abrasiveness reminds me of Julianne Malveoux.

duende:
"My brother says that ugly chicks are sluttier than pretty ones as an evolutionary strategy."

Your brother is correct. This strategy is also employed in the entertainment industry to make women with great bodies but faces that are average (Christina Aguilera) to outright hideous (lil Kim) appear sexy. The general rule is that if a woman needs to dress and act that trashy, she's probably compensating for not having great looks. Guys, especially at a young age, might not be able to differentiate between the ugly slut and a good looking chick if the ugly slut has a good body and constantly shows off as much of it as she can.

Contrast their constant self parading in lewd outfits to, say, the unassuming elegance of Faith Hill. Faith doesn't need to 'prove' to the world that she's good-looking. You've got to be blind or be massively unattracted to Caucasoid features to assume otherwise.

Jason M:
"*Mac Diva even went so far as to compare Murtaughs relationship to his Asian wife as to that of a slave-holder raping his slaves!"

I really feel for her kids if she has any. Can you imagine this chick being affectionate with anyone. Mac Diva really needs professional help in the worst way.

Sporon:
"Mac Diva is obviously infatuated with you. I do not mean to presume that you and I are ideollogically aligned, but perhaps this is an example of leftists lacking creative imagination. Her entire blog is soon going to be devoted to your blog, so she may as well shut her blog down and just post comments here."

Razib's a brilliant writer and, like most South Asians, loves the podium and an audience. Don't worry about him needing to get used to any more attention. BTW, others like Richard Bennett and Overcounter thought they'd have the intellectual capital to go up against this site- we all know what happened there. Atrios can still spout his junk science in a room full of liberals, but he would never last long here... Based on what I've read of MacDiva's postings, she makes Overcounter seem intellectual. She's smartly avoided coming here for any serious discussion.

Posted by: -R at April 12, 2003 01:17 AM


Atrios can still spout his junk science in a room full of liberals, but he would never last long here

If I had time I would go find where Atrios did show up here to fight it out in the blogs early days. As I recall he got pounded quite beautifully. His comment afterwards was hilarious too- [paraphrase] "arguing with the gnxp guys is like playing chess with a kid who's got 1000 extra chess pieces and who doesn't know the rules" (read: they know more than I do, and aren't constrained by PC prohibitions)

Posted by: Jason M. at April 12, 2003 02:20 AM


"The hard core red America people are anti-intellectual, nativist, anti-evolution, and usually infested with bizarre Christian beliefs." -- Zizka

That view, Zizka, friend, is provincial. By and large, the people inhabiting the "red" part of the map (including those who inhabit the "blue" part geographically or come from it originally or circulate in it socially, but who have, thank God Almighty!, gotten hold of enough wisdom, enough honesty, enough intellect, and enough integrity to dwell in the "red" part spiritually) are more in touch with life's truths than those inhabiting the "blue" part.

Here is your "blue" part:

"As Castro's latest crackdown on dissidents reaches fever pitch, HBO has announced the May broadcast of 'Comandante' -- a documentary about Castro co-directed by Oliver Stone and the Cuban dictator himself. Given the country's patriotic mood, it hardly seems likely that HBO expects 'Comandante' to make money. This one is definitely for love. At least, Hollywood insiders will enjoy it. Breitbart notes in an OpinionJournal.com op-ed, that 'media moguls, celebrity journalists, filmmakers and Hollywood glitterati... continue to break bread with the Cuban dictator and idolize him...' Given the number of Tinseltown celebrities who come knocking at Castro's door, seeking the obligatory private dinner, it is surprising that the Marxist strongman finds time for imprisoning and torturing critics. Yoko Ono recently organized a $6,500-per-head junket for New York media bigwigs to meet Castro -- only the latest in an endless series of similar VIP pilgrimmages. Director Stephen Spielberg described his November meeting with the Cuban tyrant as 'the eight most important hours of my life.' Of his own Castro visit, Kevin Costner remarked, 'It was the experience of a lifetime.' Jack Nicholson said, 'He is a genius.' "

( http://www.richardpoe.com/blog_single.php?rowID=156 )

Spielberg called it "the eight most important hours in his life"?

What kind ..... now, I ask you, Zizka .... what kind of moral reprobate .... what kind of intellectual failure ..... would it take to say such a thing as that? What in the world could be wrong with the man -- if one could call him a man, and that's a big IF -- who would say such a thing as Spielberg said there?

You won't find your mouth-breathers --- your knuckle-draggers, Zizka --- at such "spiritually red-zone-dwelling" sites as RichardPoe.com, badeagle.com, Counterrevolution.net/vfr, JewishWorldReview.com, FrontPageMag.com, cellasreview.blogspot.com, LewRockwell.com, or how many dozens of others?

Your mouth-breathers --- your knuckle-draggers --- are on the left. Your "blue zone," Zizka, is filled to bursting with 'em.

I dare say Mac Diva, being one herself, feels right at home with them all.

Posted by: Unadorned at April 12, 2003 10:31 AM


I'm talking about the American electorate, not the blog scene or anyone's group of friends. I am not making things up. I have plenty of opportunities, which I decline if possible, to meet the right-wing socially. I personally believe that evolution is fact and the book of Revelations is fiction. These people disagree strongly. If you think that they are "in touch with life's truths", that's your problem.

Jack Nicholson is a rich, visible guy, but he's not powerful. By dredging the world of Hollywood, the art world, the university and the subcultures you can find as many dramatic examples of that kind of thing as you want. They do not control the Democratic party -- are the Democrats pro-Castro? Have they ever been? Red/Blue is talking about two political parties. (And most of the wacks you talk about are Greens or further left yet).

What I was talking about is the Republican core constituency. You switched the topic to some dramatic liberals. And that's quite characteristic of what I'm talking about -- dealing with anecdotes and annoying individuals rather than powerful political groups and the big political decisions that are being made.

Posted by: zizka at April 12, 2003 11:03 AM


on the teeth: it wasn't meant as a literal crack-in any case zizka, you make statements about trailer trash that some might take as offensive, but you are obviously trying to make a political point. and so was i-or more properly, a humorous one-but i was illustrating a problem, people with litters (those who have say 6 children at very close ages) often can not devote the amt of attention to each child as someone who spaces 3 or 4 children apart (or 1 or 2). this is not a political issue-as there are plenty on the "Left" and the "Right" who practice this-"hippies" who have litters, and "rednecks" who have litters. personally, i think a K selected strategy is best for both parents and adults....

as far as politics, this site has no party line. jason & jason for instance are both to my Left, as is believe it or not, godless. i don't even know the political orientation of a fair number of ppl i've given accounts too. i gave you an account too zizka. my main criteria is that the person has to be rational working from their initial premises which might differ. some elements of the Right and Left do not meet this criteria. many of both ends do. the facts are things that we should come together on, their implications will differ based on our personal norms & values.

i appreciate that you have attempted to disabuse Mac Diva that we are not a "hate" site. the prime goal of this site is to air opinions that both the Left and the Right do not want to address. on the race issue, we've been sniped and attacked from both sides. Atrios picked a fight with us after seeing us highlighted on WarBlogger Watch, it was not the other way around. Additionally-Jim Bennett did the Mac Diva thing, trying to smear-someone-else-by-assocation-and he is a cultural conservative. Some, like NO WATERMELONS, have commented on the fact that 'we can't take religion seriously,' obviously finding it irritating. some of my more white racialist readers obviously get a little irritated that i don't reflect their viewpoint more closely-but i hope they understand why i might disagree with their paradigm :)

as far as our disagreemants with the Left or the Right-please note that more of the snipes at this site tend to come from the Left. so obviously we are going to react in a fashion that is appropriate.

finally-as far as the sensativity of the topic we touch, well, facts are facts. if different racial groups, however you define them, have average differences that go beyond skin deep, this has implications for the political debates that go on in the United States at this time between the Right & the Left. facts are facts. the horrors of World War II have made certain topics taboo-EXCEPT FOR THE RACIALIST fringe. the Left itself has not always ignored issues dealing with biology, eugenics was in the early 20th century seen as a positive thing that could help improve the health and well-being of the common man.

let me give one specific example of how the race issue, and genetics, has caused problems. in the early 1990s there was a conference that was going to be held that dealt with the genetics of criminality. this conference was cancelled-partially, or mostly-because, African American activists thought it was going to come to racist conclusions. of course, i know how PC most scientists are, so they would have avoided that at all costs. but this is only a rear-guard action, it might be that propensity for violent acts (or at least mental disorders) occur at different rates in different populations, it is ONLY A MATTER OF TIME. we might find there are no differences. who knows? we will in a few years.... remember the study about abused children who become abusers and its genetic correlarly? this was done in white men from new zealand, but it would be possible to repeat the study in america, and reaggregate by race. if there were any possible racial differences-it would be explosive, and i suspect that scientists would run away from the research to save their careers, but the data could be ignored only so long. and i will guarantee you this, it will be leaked, and will be plastered on sites like STORM FRONT or VANGUARD NEWS NETWORK with grotesque distorations and grandiose claims. even the catholic church eventually caved on both the copernican and liberal revolutions-so the modern day Left (and some extent Right) need to progress and shed the ghosts of the past.

anyhoo, enough for race at this moment. this is becoming less and less a race centered blog-i feel we've address the 'big questions.'

best
razib

Posted by: razib at April 12, 2003 11:05 AM


It would seem that zizka constantly finds something "offensive" or "objectionable" on this site (it doesn't take much), but then razib quickly rushes in to calm zizka's momentarily frazzled sensibilities....until next time. I'm new to this site, but I have already spotted this highly amusing routine.

Zizka: "I have plenty of opportunities, which I decline if possible, to meet the right-wing socially."

Yes, the hideous intellectual lepers...it's better to keep clear of them, lest one become ideologically contaminated. Aaaaah, the "tolerant" Left....

Posted by: nietzsche at April 12, 2003 12:34 PM


well niet., facts precede politics. i don't care about someone's politics as long as we can examine facts. zizka probably places more emphasis on an equitable social order than i do-that is a value judgement (or it depends on your interpretation of utilitarianism). but the science of human nature is overly politicized. if making the understanding of possible racial differences means being polite and clarifying points that might be misunderstood-so be it.

additionally-you seem to imply to me that i seek zizka's approval-but please understand, this blog already goes where most conservatives who are beyond "respectable" will refuse to go. even paleocons like buchanan only hint at possible racial differences-they rarely elucidate their ideas very forcefully. politically i am a moderate libertarian-if it were not for my acceptance of possible race differences, i probably would not be considered that "far right-wing." i mean, it is kind of laughable that "warblogger watch" is listing gene expression as "watched" when we have a broad spectrum of opinion on the war-i am personally bored and neutralized by the whole farce. in 100 years we will be all dead barring transhumanism....

Posted by: razib at April 12, 2003 01:23 PM


I didn't take the toothless dig personally. But this is an area where the cultural differences are enormous. I once studies with a PhD from Taiwan whose teeth were horrible. Sharp guy. My Dad, an MD trained in the 40's, died with one real tooth in his head.

The reason I am here is because I agree with Razib and others here about certain things (the Enlightenment, secularity, the excesses of multiculturalism and relativism), and second because Eurasian and world history are primary interests of mine. On the other hand, I am a left-liberal and a racial nominalist. I disagree at various levels with many things I see here and say so. I try to keep it civil and mostly succeed, but there is a certain level of paleo-conservativism that I can only ignore. If it dominated the site I wouldn't be here, but I think that it does show up now and then.

As far as my shunning conservatives -- my point was that I see them on an everyday basis, whether I want to or not. I'm not sitting at UC Berkeley drinking latte and reading stuff in the New Yorker. (I do drink latte, though.)

Maybe it's ethnic. Southerners talk about their cultural tradition, etc. etc., but a century and a half ago they lost a war to my ancestors. Yeah, they do have a unique way of life down there, but if you examine it closely there are many aspects of it which I would not want to see spread more widely.

Posted by: zizka at April 12, 2003 01:47 PM


razib: even paleocons like buchanan only hint at possible racial differences-they rarely elucidate their ideas very forcefully.

I actually thought that Buchanan made sense on a number of issues, but that was before he embarked on his obsessive polemic concerning the alleged evils of free-trade, etc. (and I never cared for his strident Catholicism and moral conservatism either.) I don't know if you have read his latest book: The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, but he does more than just hint at possible racial differences. His attack on the Frankfurt School is alone worth the price of the book. He's worried about immigration precisely because it's altering the racial makeup of traditionally White societies. He sees culture as being inextricably linked to societies' racial composition. Let's face it, America was built by Protestant Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Celts (as in "Albion's Seed"), it's their country. All of America's institutions harken back to England (the same could be said of my own country, Canada). It's only natural that he feels nostalgic at what is passing away in front of his very eyes, thanks, in large measure, to unbridled immigration since the mid-sixties.

As far as zizka goes, I don't know why he's giving you a hard time, that's all. You make an innocuous joke about the lower social classes and bad teeth and he comes down on you like a ton of bricks ("it's very hard being friends with you"). Whenever he posts something, it's to tell us how offended he is or how he dislikes Rightists, and so on. But maybe I haven't been here long enough to see him actually contribute something more meaningful (for example, it's too bad that I missed his discussion of Lithuania's pagan religion).

Posted by: nietzsche at April 12, 2003 02:18 PM


Zizka, I assume your use of "mouth-breathers" ("slack-jawed idiots" being the more traditional term, both expressions being, at bottom, socio-economic "class insults") was an unintended slip instead of a deliberate class insult like James Carville's remark about "dragging a twenty-dollar bill through a trailer park"? Apart from any possible gene-based linkage between a slack jaw and intelligence level, there are individuals among us, especially among the older age groups, who've become life-long mouth-breathers because unfortunately not diagnosed in childhood (perhaps for some socio-economic reason?) as needing to have their congenitally narrow or otherwise partly-blocked upper airways surgically enlarged or their hypertrophied tonsils and adenoids taken out.

Did you recoil indignantly when James Carville made that remark, or when the entire left-wing press corps subjected Paula Jones malevolently, calculatedly to non-stop socio-economic class-insults far worse than anything innocently and benignly uttered here about teeth? Did you?

I would assume you must have.

Posted by: Unadorned at April 12, 2003 04:42 PM


-R:I have a feeling she's probably as creepy looking as she is uptight b/c her abrasiveness reminds me of Julianne Malveoux.

As a matter of fact, I would be willing to wager EVERYTHING I own that Comrade Mac Diva is frightfuly ugly. I've met chicks (oops! I mean women)like her, and invariably they're physically repulsive. Nature has not been good to them and they're taking out their frustrations in any way they can. In many ways they're pitiful personages.

Posted by: nietzsche at April 12, 2003 07:45 PM


-R, why all the digs against christina a.? i thoughtz you liked the latina ladies...though faith is fine....

Posted by: razib at April 12, 2003 09:44 PM


As a matter of fact, I would be willing to wager EVERYTHING I own that Comrade Mac Diva is frightfuly ugly.

Aside from the fact that this would be a terribly ill-considered wager, why even bring this up? Looks shouldn't be dragged into politics or ethical disputes. Morality and rationality is not one's appearence.

(This is different btw than a well-intentioned question about correlations between attractiveness and political persuasions)

Posted by: Jason M. at April 13, 2003 01:22 AM


razib:
"-R, why all the digs against christina a.? i thoughtz you liked the latina ladies...though faith is fine...."

Hehe. I was wondering if someone was going to bring this up since this is about the umpteenth time I've brought up how unattracted I am to Christina Aguilera. I dunno. For some reason, she hit a nerve or something. I guess cause I think I've been seeing a lot of this crap in hip hop where whether you're Missy Elliot, Lil Kim, the ex members of Destiny's Child... people assume you're supposed to be attractive b/c you keep demanding that you are presumed to be in your songs and flash some skin.
Maybe it's not the women per se, but the fact that these young guys are falling for it, whereas in the past I don't feel they would have. Or, maybe it's b/c I remember growing up in the 80s when Bobby Brown (female) was 'setting the pace' in videos with Great White's 'Once Bitten Twice Shy', and now I have to listen to Lil Kim tell me how she can make a 7up disappear in her mouth. Even if she could I generally don't get off seeing ugly chicks try that and it pisses me off thinking guys nowadays do.
I think I'm really pissed that the standards are lower than they were for what constitutes real beauty. Granted, I've harped before on how there are no absolute standards of beauty, but I can't even see how guys who like 'Black' features more than me really fall for it either. I just can't believe so many guys are really falling for this nonsense. Christina Aguilera is just the 'White' version of this phenomena. I've seen her as a brunette, and her looks don't hide as well without the blonde hair. I'll admit though that she can sing and OK, fine Lil Kim and Missy Elliot can rap.
But, hell, this is a country of 250+ million. Can't we get chicks who can sing/ rap and who are much better looking ALL THE TIME? Like Mariah, Whitney (when younger without the cocaine and with the weave), Faith, Shania- this combo of looks/ talent should be the bare minimum required to even get an audition in the record industry in a country this big. There's almost never a good excuse to allow the 'second tier' chicks in- a lot of people can rap/ sing like Lil Kim, Missy or Christina who are about as attractive or worse in a country this big. I'd, however, allow exceptions like Celine into the club b/c her voice is literally even better than most professional Opera singers although her looks aren't (go see what she looked like when younger for those of you who really believe she's all that). I'd let Pink in as well b/c unlike Christina she doesn't try to proclaim as much that she's so hot- in fact one of her most recent songs basically talked about how she wasn't as cute as Britney.
BTW, yeah I like Latinas- but I mean more like Sofia Vergara, Patty Manterola, Penolope Cruz... Now these chicks are the type of hot Latinas that I am referring to. Christina's a poseur in terms of looks.
I know some women are going to get mad I'm dissin' all these lesser attractive women so tactlessly. Hey, chicks in the entertainment industry who make aliving selling themselves are fair game for scorn about their looks- which I would generally not want to throw at some unattractive 'regular' girl I'd met on the street.

Posted by: -R at April 13, 2003 01:47 AM


Jason M:
"Aside from the fact that this would be a terribly ill-considered wager, why even bring this up? Looks shouldn't be dragged into politics or ethical disputes. Morality and rationality is not one's appearence.

(This is different btw than a well-intentioned question about correlations between attractiveness and political persuasions)"

Jason, you're right. However, MacDiva generally has no reluctance about trying to drag people into the mud (the insult comparing Murtaugh to a slave owner, for example). I can't believe someone made it to adulthood presumably as a white collar professional with this kind of attitude- OK, lots of people are going to say they see this all the time in real life... But even Richard Bennett in his worst moments wasn't that tactless with his ad hominem attacks. If you're going to sling mud at people at such a low level then don't be surprised if you get mud slung back at you. Yes, it's childish and doesn't promote good debate, but what can I say- aren't we all supposed to be kids at heart?

Posted by: -R at April 13, 2003 02:01 AM


"BTW, yeah I like Latinas- but I mean more like Sofia Vergara, Patty Manterola, Penolope Cruz... Now these chicks are the type of hot Latinas that I am referring to. Christina's a poseur in terms of looks."

Well, I guess we all have our preferences...I'll just say that I can't believe Tom Cruise gave up Nicole Kidman (a gorgeous Anglo-Celt) for Penelope Cruz (a run-of-the-mill Latina). What was he thinking?

"Aside from the fact that this would be a terribly ill-considered wager, why even bring this up? Looks shouldn't be dragged into politics or ethical disputes. Morality and rationality is not one's appearence."

There's undoubtedly a correlation between a woman's politics and her physical looks . For example, maniacal Marxist-feminists are invariably physically ugly (as in Andrea Dworkin). This is not even an original observation. A lot of people have commented on this curious point. They're usually very fat (with huge, and I mean huge asses) and have little (if any) personal hygiene (it would be too bourgeois to wash on a regular bases, of course). Hey, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it.

As far as Christina Aguilera goes, she's alright I suppose. I liked the earlier more wholesome version, though. I don't know why she's going out of her way now to look like a cheap skank and whore in all of her recent videos and public appearances. BORING! It's soooo played out. Body an 8/10; face a 5/10. I'm feeling generous this morning.

Posted by: nietzsche at April 13, 2003 06:39 AM


Nietzsche:
"Well, I guess we all have our preferences...I'll just say that I can't believe Tom Cruise gave up Nicole Kidman (a gorgeous Anglo-Celt) for Penelope Cruz (a run-of-the-mill Latina). What was he thinking?"

Penelope was IMO the 'weakest' chick on that list. Sofia and Patty though are through and through near perfect if you like dark featured women.

"There's undoubtedly a correlation between a woman's politics and her physical looks . For example, maniacal Marxist-feminists are invariably physically ugly (as in Andrea Dworkin). This is not even an original observation. A lot of people have commented on this curious point. They're usually very fat (with huge, and I mean huge asses) and have little (if any) personal hygiene (it would be too bourgeois to wash on a regular bases, of course). Hey, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it."

I was about to write similarly except I remembered two really hot Libbies were Sontag and Steinem (in their primes, of course).

"As far as Christina Aguilera goes, she's alright I suppose. I liked the earlier more wholesome version, though. I don't know why she's going out of her way now to look like a cheap skank and whore in all of her recent videos and public appearances. BORING! It's soooo played out. Body an 8/10; face a 5/10. I'm feeling generous this morning."

OK, now when the (bleep) was Christina ever 'wholesome'? I can't remember her not being a skank.

Posted by: -R at April 13, 2003 07:26 AM


-R "OK, now when the (bleep) was Christina ever 'wholesome'? I can't remember her not being a skank."

It seems to me that she was "more" wholesome during her "Genie in a Bottle" days, compared with her current "Dirrrty" period. I also think that there is something unusual about her skinny legs, they're not straight. Actually, it's difficult to describe what a mean, you have to pay attention to her videos. In any case, I'm not a fan and never was. My ideal is the young Michelle Pfeiffer, what a woman!!! Wow!!! Whenever I see "Scarface", I cannot believe that such a perfect beauty ever existed.

Steinem (Paglia called her a "man-eater" during her younger days. Apparently, she used to always parade around New York in a plastic see-through dress in which she would go to New York sex parties in the 70's) and Sontag were very average looking even in their physical prime. In any case, these are old-time feminists from a different era. I was talking about the here and now.

Posted by: nietzsche at April 13, 2003 08:54 AM


I don't remember using the phrases "slack-jawed idiot" or "mouth-breather". I checked and I could't find it right off. But maybe I was trying to conform myself to the IQ-elitist idiom of the site, right after the attack on toothless people like me and my dad.

Catching supposedly-egalitarian Dems in classism, racism, and homophobia is a fun parlor game for Republicans. It's pretty much shuck and jive, the old "You're just as bad!" game. Yeah, Dems say snarky things about white southern Republicans (Carville, like Bartcop and Clinton, being a white Southern Dem, BTW.)

What he said about Paula Jones seems to have been more or less true not only about her but about a number of Arkansans who brought forth information, often false, about Clinton. Jones has lived off her story for years.

Posted by: zizka at April 13, 2003 10:32 AM


"I don't remember using ... 'mouth-breather.' ... But maybe I was trying to conform myself to the IQ-elitist idiom of the site, right after the attack on toothless people like me and my dad." -- Zizka

Fair enough about the IQ-Úlitist flavor of this site. IQ is very important to some very important things in this world but reasonable men can differ on this and one can see how leftists coming to the site might be sincerely put off by frank discussions of it. Not to get too nit-picky, but it's wrong to call what goes on here in that regard any sort of Úlitism. P.C. obsessively, idiotically, and sometimes brutally tries to hide lots of "800lb gorillas in the living room" because admitting they are there doesn't fit leftist theory. Some perfectly reasonable folk decide to no longer pretend to be blind to these gorillas, and their reason for deciding this is that admitting that these gorillas exist is essential to understanding the world around them. That's all that's going on here. Don't come to the site with the mentality of a P.C. enforcer -- because the people here have already decided that disobedience to P.C., wherever truth demands it, will be the site's theme. That said, I agree there IS a relative overemphasis on IQ here in some ways, and that is understandable as purely a college-student phenomenon. I and my friends had exactly the same tendency when we were in college and I recognized it here instantly as soon as I walked in the door the better part of a year ago. The wisdom that puts IQ in its proper place (still a very important place) comes with further age and the heaped-up experiences of life lived. None of that is any excuse for the other side -- may I call it *your* side, Zizka? -- to stifle facts in the most pathetic, immoral, and intellectually brutal sort of way which should instead be reconciled with all else that we know and dealt with maturely.

I had no problem whatsoever with your use of "mouth breathers" (in the first sentence of the thread's first comment) to describe non-leftists (people whom you call "right-wingers" and I call "normal, and normally-oriented, people"). It was only in response to your selectively-invoked righteous indignation over the harmless bit about the teeth of certain social classes that I sought to remind you that one of your own expressions could be so attacked.

(I never said you wrote "slack-jawed idiot," but that what you wrote was a current equivalent of that older expression.)

"Yeah, Dems say snarky things about white southern Republicans ... " -- Zizka

Much of what they say about them, that we're both talking about here (the Paula Jones affair), amounts to "lower-social-classism." Be my guest -- I have no particular objection. Just don't wax sooooooooooooooooo self-righteously indignant at every imagined perception on your part, real or purely imaginary, of the like coming from non-leftists. Incidentally, are trailer parks confined to the area south of the Mason-Dixon line? They're all over the place here in New England, and I dare say the vast majority who live in them vote Dem. Carville gave his own constituents a shocking slap in the face with that crack.

"What he said about Paula Jones seems to have been more or less true ... . Jones has lived off her story for years." -- Zizka

Jones was continually smeared by your side using lower-class caricatures of the vilest sort (behavior which unmasked your side in regard to lots of things -- as if any unmasking was needed ... ).


Posted by: Unadorned at April 13, 2003 04:35 PM


I wasn't really too indignant about the tooth comments and didn't express myself that way, I don't think. Obsession with pretty teeth, though, is a provincially-American middle-class thing which is good for nothing except for buying yachts for dentists. Jane Galt tipped her hand when she started crowing about Europeans' ugly teeth.

I have more than one friend who it's hard to be friends with. That is very far from the worst thing I can say about someone, believe me.

As far as Paula Jones goes, several members of her own family doubted her story. And she did live off her story for years, and probably still is. The Clinton inquisition disgraced the inquisitors both because of its triviality and because of its dishonesty. Carville is a reasonably trashy guy himself and maybe he felt that he owned the word.

Elitism is, like imperialism, a philosophy that dare not speak its name, I guess. Some conservatives are elitist and proud. I intended the word as descriptive.

If you spend enough time cherry-picking nasty things some Democrat said, you'll find your share. But if your next step is to declare that the Republicans are home free, your whole operation is suspect.

Posted by: zizka at April 13, 2003 07:40 PM


"yeah I like Latinas- but I mean more like Sofia Vergara, Patty Manterola, Penolope Cruz..."

Penelope Cruz is Spanish, and she is not similar to the other chicks, She looks better.

And Sofie Vergara has Amerindian features.

Please, don't continue using the bureaucratic term "Latin@", which doesn't have any ethnic or racial or Phenotipic meaning

Posted by: A guy from Curitiba at April 15, 2003 04:14 AM


" ... don't continue using the bureaucratic term 'Latin@,' which doesn't have any ethnic or racial or phenotypic meaning" -- A guy from Curitiba

Curitiba makes an excellent point.

Another extremely poorly chosen term hatched by ignorant DC bureaucrats is "South Asians" for Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. I refuse to use it, and I avoid "East Asians" to refer to what used to be called "Orientals" (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans), a term which didn't need to be replaced, as far as I can see.

I don't see why educated people who know better allow moronic DC bureaucratic know-nothings to control the language they use daily. The classifications and terminological monstrosities dreamt up in DC should be ignored wherever they are hopelessly idiotic, wrong, inesthetic, leftist-inspired, or meant to replace perfectly good traditional terms which there is no reason on earth to tamper with, merely in an effort to "justify" some imbecile's paycheck who probably could not serve competently as a junior high school teacher.

Posted by: Unadorned at April 15, 2003 06:25 AM


Penelope Cruz is Spanish and therefore Latin; in the same way that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Austrian and therefore Germanic or Daniel-Day Lewis is Irish and therefore Celtic, etc.

Posted by: nietzsche at April 15, 2003 08:26 AM


"Penelope Cruz is Spanish and therefore Latin"

In the strict linguistic sense of the term, she is latin but in the current sense, she is not.

At the moment the term is used to denominate to the brown poor inmigrants from the South of Rio Grande, and the Spaniards don't have anything to do with those people (except the language).

Posted by: A guy from Curitiba at April 15, 2003 11:20 AM


Yeah Unadorned, I don't understand because the government and the American politicians have that point of view so Manichaean of the human diversity, and why they make those ethnic categories

"South Asian" or "latin" have a real biological meaning??

Any person that knows a little about South Asia and Middle and South America knows that that places are very racially diverse.

None of those terms is useful, they are so ridiculous like the term "people of color"

Posted by: A guy from Curitiba at April 15, 2003 11:30 AM


"latin" might be ridiculous in the latin american context because of the racial diversity present in that geographical area; however, this does not mean that the term itself has no biological basis.

Posted by: nietzsche at April 15, 2003 11:40 AM