Tag: mailvox

Mailvox: a skeptic’s case

EG wonders how I would go about attempting to defend evolutionary theory:

Let’s assume that you were not skeptical of evolution by (probably) natural selection, and let assume that you wanted to try to give a defense of the ‘theory’. How would you proceed to salvage the theory and make it eminently attractive to the skeptics and the deniers?

The first thing I would do is walk through the logic of the theory in reference to itself alone. By this, I mean not proposing it as a more sensible alternative to something else or getting sidetracked in discussing other matters. For example, no amount of Keynesian critique will succeed in establishing relevance of the Austrian Business Cycle. This should allow one to identify the key problems that require empirical support.

The second thing I would do is marshal the empirical facts. This is a methodical, mathematical approach that appears to be foreign to most biologists, for example, my erstwhile biology tutor was outright confused when I asked him what the average rate of evolution was, even though, if evolution did indeed take place, logic dictates that rate must exist as a matter of historical fact and be accordingly calculable according to a variety of metrics. Of course, given the poor performance of econometrics versus Austrian logic and behavioral empiricism, perhaps we should not expect too much from any theoretical evolumetrics.

The third step is comparing the logic with the metrics, to show that both are well in accord with each other despite the unavoidable gaps in the latter, and how the combination serves to provide meaningful and testable predictions even though it is presently incomplete. While this wouldn’t serve as a proof, it would amount to a reasonable working assumption.

Needless to say, this bears almost no similarity to the “assum, imagine, and apply” method which is utilized by most advocates of evolutionary theory. Because they have no respect for logic and subscribe to Bacon’s dogmatic empiricism, they begin with the second step rather than the first and prevent themselves from being able to progress to the third step. Their tactical problem is that while scientific empiricism works very well within small time limits, it is like trying to use a microscope to look at a blue whale when considering matters that stretch outside an observable time scale. Thus they are forced to use logic without ever admitting it or having any familiarity with it, usually with the consequences one would expect.

And their strategic problem is that in most cases, evolutionary theory is intended as a weapon to serve their real object, which is the advancement of materialism, Dennett’s skyhook. The reasonable working assumption that my method could theoretically provide simply isn’t enough to serve their larger purposes, which tends to support their blind adherence to the purely empirical and deceitful insistence that the unprovable has, in fact, been proved.

Let me explain how this works

The Pharyngulan Reynold managed to post six (6) eleven (11) comments without actually answering any of the four questions I posed him:

It’s only been a few hours Vox..I do have to do other things than just post comments on your blog. You can’t start badgering me because I’ve not answered all of your questions after just a few bloody hours! I’ll get to them eventually.

I’m sure you have many other things to do. Just as I’m sure everyone will be interested in reading those answers when you find the time to answer them. But if one has time to post six comments, one surely has time to answer four questions. Just to make things perfectly clear, priority should be given to the four specific questions I have posed. I’m not badgering him, that’s simply how things work around here; see The Rules on the left sidebar for details if necessary. Now, it must be recognized that Reynold did make unsuccessful attempts to evade two of the questions by calling them into question, but since the points he made were respectively incorrect and irrelevant, all four questions still remain to be answered. They are as follows:

1. Would you seriously consider it meaningful, or even remotely relevant, if JD were to debate me on Paul Zachary’s behalf, so long as he felt he has a good understanding of Paul Zachary’s words?

2. If science produces technology, and not the other way around, why was technological advancement almost completely frozen in the Soviet Union for fifty years when they devoted a larger percentage of their GDP to science research than the United States did? (His attempt to argue that Soviet technology was essentially equal to US technology on the basis of the stolen atomic bomb and the space program is verifiably false. I am also willing to accept an answer which substitutes why the technological level of the Soviet Union “fell significantly behind that of the United States” in lieu of its technological advancement being “almost completely frozen”.)

3. Is science unnecessary for technological development or am I, in fact, a master of science? (This is in response to his contradictory assertions that science drives technological advancement and my supposed ignorance of science. As he questioned my technological credentials, which are well-known in the game industry, I referred him to Engadget, which described one of my various technology designs as “the most advanced they had ever seen.”)

4. Now that I have answered all his questions and proved that “marital rape” can be reasonably defended under the principle of Common Law, is he willing to admit that by his own metric, the adjectives “inane” and “unworthy” no longer apply to me as a potential debate opponent for Paul Zachary Myers?

Now, for all that Pharyngulans tend to believe that Vox Popoli is the polar opposite of the echo chamber that is Pharyngula, that really is not the case. Here, one is expected to respond directly to the questions posed; any rationalizations or justifications are to be offered AFTER providing an answer to the question, not in lieu of it. As I have answered all of his questions, as well as those of his fellow Pharyngulan Mhich, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they will show me the same courtesy.

UPDATE – Reynold writes this and then proceeds to spend the rest of the comment, and four subsequent comments, still failing to answer ANY of the four questions. He points his toes nicely as he dances, though. Dance, little Pharyngulan, dance!

So, less than one full day and you go and make a post about how I have not answered any of your questions? Not only is that impatient as hell, but that’s dishonest. I have answered several of your questions. You just find some excuse to disregard them (see your post above) and then claim that I’ve never answered them. I was warned that you were a dishonest pr1ck, looks like they were right.

That makes eleven (11) comments and still not a single answer. First, one cannot be considered to have answered a yes/no question without providing a yes or no. Nor can one be considered to have answered an either/or question without selecting one of the two options. Neither can one legitimately answer a question by arguing about the basis for the question. I haven’t needed any excuse to disregard his answers because he hasn’t actually answered any of the four questions. Unlike his fellow Pharyngulan, Mhich, who appears to grasp the basic concept of first answering the question and only then proceeding to justify his answer, Reynold has produced nothing but incorrect, unsubstantiated, and invalid excuses for why he shouldn’t have to answer the questions. Is he being evasive because he fears being pinned down or is he simply that stupid? At this point, it’s a tough call. In any event, he will not be commenting here anymore unless and until he provides unequivocal, straightforward answers to the four questions, as per the publicly posted Rules of the Blog.

UPDATE II – Where is Renee anyway? This sort of rape talk would normally have her all hot and bothered.

Mailvox: concerning the questions

MD has a few follow-up questions:

Enjoyed reading your answers to NYT ‘questioning’ If nothing else, I think you exhibit the (admirable) virtue of honesty. As you can probably imagine, a couple of points I need to raise:

1a) firstly, and most importantly, there is absolutely no way that evolution is ‘a minor aspect of biological science’! I wonder which professor of biological sciences you are quoting? Evolution is the central and unifying concept of modern biology & medicine. When you say you are skeptical of evolution, I’m not sure you are clear about on what level you disagree. I too (as a holder of 2 1st class BSc. s. & an MSc. in the biological sciences, you could say I am skeptical about some aspects of some hypotheses of evolutionary theory. However, Do you :

1b) believe that the Judeo-Christian literal creationist hypotheses are equally likely to be objectively true as the theories of modern evolutionary science?

1c) On what level do you NOT believe in evolution? I’ve never met anyone that says that the gene pool of one generation is IDENTICAL to the next. The basic premiss of evolutionary theory is that there is a difference (ie a CHANGE in the gene pool).

1d) From what basis do you say that mainstream scientific theory shouldn’t be taught in public schools?!

2) I agree that America could be described as a ‘Christian Nation’ as the majority of it’s citizen’s consistently describe themselves as such in all respectable polls that I have seen. [of course we shouldn’t forget that the reason that America is a Christian nation is because the Christians got rid of all the pagans! ]

However, I feel it is a bit disingenuous of an educated American to say that it was founded by Christians; the founding fathers were clearly a mixture of Christians and deists and agnostics. In the official words of John Adams : ‘As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . . ‘

3) on the issue of teachers leading students in prayers, I myself have no problem with this. I did have an issue with my daughter being forced to pray at school – which has now been resolved. She has decided not to, but sits amongst her peers as a time of reflection during prayer. (actually, she switches between praying and not praying – which is, from my perspective, is how it should be.) For me, the most important thing is for my children to be free to form their own beliefs.

Lastly, I think it’s important for Christians to realise that the reason that I don’t describe myself as a Christian is because the overwhelming majority of THEM have excluded ME (not the other way around), because I happen to believe that Jesus didn’t have magical powers like Harry potter, despite thinking that he was highly likely to have been an admirable and remarkable man in his times.

1a. Evolution is not the central and unifying concept of modern biology and medicine. It is almost completely irrelevant to both. No doctor, and few biologists, need know anything about evolution at all in order to perform their various medical and scientific duties. Even if you subscribe fully to whatever the Cult of Darwin’s latest dogma happens to be, this is akin to saying that the Greek Classics are the central and unifying concept of economics and plumbing. The fact that there may be some intellectual relationship, even a direct causal one, doesn’t necessarily make it the least bit relevant today. Men – religious men, ironically enough – managed to figure out both artificial selection and genetics without any help from evolutionary theory; even if true, it’s almost completely useless. True or not, evolution’s only significance is philosophical, which is why its advocates invariably sound more like cultists than scientists.

1b. There are too many hypotheses on both sides for me to possibly say. I can only say that I believe some form of Creator is far more likely to be objectively true than either abiogenesis or any form of Darwinian evolution. It may be my technological bias, but I see genes as being more akin to the primitives of a programming language than to pieces of a jigsaw puzzle gradually assembled over time by the processes of natural selection, biased mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, or any other epicyclical mechanism the Darwinian cultists can conceive. This implies both the creator of the language as well as a programmer or two.

1c. The level on which I am skeptical of evolution – I do not entirely rule out the possibility – is that any of the various evolutionary mechanisms proposed are sufficient to modify the gene pool to such an extent as to create new and entirely different species regardless of the amount of time involved.

1d. There is zero utility in attempting to teach science to schoolchildren who can’t read, can’t do math, and will never be scientists. They can’t understand it, aren’t interested in it, and have no use for it. It makes no difference if you’re trying to teach them mainstream scientific theory, iambic tetrameter, or running the 100m dash in five seconds. It isn’t ever going to happen. My return question: how can you justify teaching public schoolchildren mainstream scientific theory and not teaching them basic personal economics like how to balance a checkbook or calculate compound interest or basic physical fitness?

2. The “mixture of Christians and deists and agnostics” among the Founding Fathers was on the order of 99% to 1%. It would not merely be disingenuous, it is flat out wrong to state that America was NOT founded by Christians. There were more Founding Fathers with theological degrees than deists and atheists combined; there were more Founding Fathers who personally translated the Bible than there were deists and atheists combined. This is why even intelligent, educated atheists often find themselves inadvertently looking very historically illiterate, as they tend to be maleducated in certain areas. Unfortunately, the reason many are maleducated on this particular issue is due to an all too typical atheist dishonesty with regards to standard word definitions; in this case, whoever constructed the atheist talking point attempted to revise the term “Founding Fathers” to mean a very small number of men, as few as seven “key” Founding Fathers. This is blatantly incorrect, as there have always been two groups of Founding Fathers, the Signers and the Framers. In both cases, nearly all of the men involved were Christians.

In fact, the maleducated atheist opinion doesn’t even rise to the level of Wikipedia: “Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics.” And more detailed information is readily available.

3. Admiration, even belief, is not worship. Even belief in Jesus Christ’s “magical powers” would not be sufficient to make a Christian. Even the demons believe, but they do not worship. No man can exclude a man from the body of Christ except that man himself.

Mailvox: the Muslim myth

The aptly named Sub Specie has fallen for a common legend believed by many of the half-educated and historically illiterate:

“If it weren’t for the goddamn Muslims, we wouldn’t have great ancient literature!!! They preserved it for us, you know. Oh, fcuk, no, you didn’t know…did you? Not only did they preserve all that s#it, but they contributed so much to math, medicine and science (ironically while Europe was a chaotic s#ithole full of rotting bodies).”

It’s always interesting to receive what apparently is intended as a history lesson from someone who quite clearly knows nothing of the Eastern Roman Empire. The idea of “the Arab transmission of the classics” is false, as should be readily apparent to those who are aware that most of the ancient works lost to the West were “discovered” in conquered Spain, not the Middle East. Moreover, it is obvious that the Muslims did not contribute much of their own in the interim period when they possessed the Greek classics and the post-imperial Latins did not.

“The Arab transmission of the classics is a common and persistent myth that Arabic commentators such as Avicenna and Averroes ‘saved’ the work of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers from destruction. According to the myth, these works would otherwise have perished in the long European dark age between fifth and the tenth centuries, had the Islamic philosophers not preserved them by translating them into Arabic, to be passed on to the Latin philosophers in the West after the reconquest of Spain from the Muslims during the twelve and thirteenth centuries. This is incorrect. It was actually the Byzantines in the East who saved the ancient learning of the Greeks in the original language, and the first Latin texts to be used were translation from the Greek, in the 12th century, rather than, in most cases, the Arabic, which were only used in default of these. “

Mailvox: book assistance

AA is searching for a book:

In the 1970s, I read a dystopian novel that I’d like to find again. It was one of the First wave of “Eco-Disaster” novels, I think. The only things I remember are everybody wearing filters on their mouths, so they could avoid breathing in (and possibly killing) gnats and bugs, and a version of the Model T Ford being the only “allowed” form of transport.

The Characters used the Model T to get to and from some “Quasi-Religious” meetings that took place in the forest. Thin info, I know. I remember it as being a depressing, and sad book. That said, I’d really like to find it and read it again.

Do you have any Idea what it might be. Maybe someone in the Dread Ilk might have a Clue?

No clue. I’m sure I never read anything like that. Anyone among the Dread Ilk recognize his description?

Mailvox: a report from Iowa

Farmer Tom attended the straw poll and managed to upset a presidential candidate in the process:

On the candidates. Had a short, rather contentious visit, with Rick Santourum in the parking lot on the way into the event. True story. He asked for my vote, I told him only when he got down on his knees and apologized for supporting Arlyn Spinchter. He refused, and tried to defend his actions by claiming that Spinchter allowed Bush to put two “conservative” justices on the SCOTUS. I countered with, “Do you really believe that Toomey would have lost?” To which he suggested only Spinchter could have gotten Roberts and Alito confirmed. I told him that I didn’t consider Bush a conservative, and I do not think helping a flaming liberal, baby killer lover, to be reelected to to the US Senate was a benefit to the cause of “life” which he claims to support. I walked away irritated, and he was visibly aggravated. He asked, I gave him my opinion. And I’m quite sure he did not appreciate it.

Saw a bunch of my Ron Paul supporting friends. I was there in 2007 when all of us supporting Ron Paul fit in a tent that would hold a couple of hundred people. He got 1305 votes that year, out of 14,302 votes cast. This year there were Paulistia’s everywhere. After being there about an hour, it was clear that either Paul or Bachmunn would win the vote. Both of them overwhelmed the rest of the candidates there with their supporters. Visually, it was a toss up who had the most supporters.

It would appear the Dread Ilk are prone to causing disturbances in the Force no matter where they go. And that is a downright laudable response to a mainstream politician. Be polite, but forthright. In a republic, politician’s posteriors are for kicking, not kissing.

It also sounds as if Ron Paul’s supporters should relax a little and be pleased with his second-place finish. Bachmann clearly made a strong showing and any potential shenanigans must have been minimal. Politics have always been dirty and you have to win big to prevent the establishment from cheating. I also tend to doubt that the Republican establishment was inclined to cheat in favor of Bachmann; they don’t like her much better than they like Paul, albeit for different reasons.

Mailvox: in search of raciss

Holla has a few questions:

1. Is there a superior race? What groups represent it?

2. Is that race superior because of some sort of divine intervention or plan?

3. Does miscegenation “better” “lower” races?

4. Does Christianity allow for or encourage racialism?

5. Does God prefer whites to non-whites?

6. Why would God create races of people who were inferior to others? If you believe in some sort of evolution, is it a process guided by the/a devil, or did God purposefully create inferior races?

7. If groups of people are genetically pre-programmed to inferiority / violence, do you support genocide? I’ll use the legal definition of genocide here, but limit it to extermination, segregation, and limiting births in a specific population. Why or why not?

1. Superiority entirely depends upon the metric chosen. This question cannot be answered until you provide your favored metric. However, there are without question racial differences ergo the various races – and, for that matter, human sub-species – will presumably be superior to the others at some things and worse at other things.

2. Again, provide the metric by which “superiority” can be determined. “The quality or condition of being superior” requires a means of comparison by which that superiority can be ascertained.

3. I should think so. A half-African, half-Asian child will likely be more athletic than the average Asian and more intelligent than the average African. On the other hand, it will probably be less intelligent than the average Asian and less athletic than the average African. Hence Arthur C. Clarke’s dream of one mocha-colored, post-racial, bisexual humanity.

4. This is like asking if Christianity “permits” gravity. Christianity certainly acknowledges that the different races exist and expects Christians to surmount racial differences within the Church. But it doesn’t require or expect them to pretend such differences don’t exist outside them.

5. I see no reason to believe so. He does appear to be partial to Jews.

6. Perhaps for the same reason a game designer creates non-player characters that are not all as powerful as the protagonist. If there is to be variety, one individual must be superior to another in various ways, and therefore some groups will be superior in various ways.

7. No, I think containment is sufficient. The ancient German example and the modern Ottoman example indicate this to be the case. Violent people are usually content to fight amongst themselves if deprived of the ability to seek easier prey. Of course, the Mongol invasions would tend to argue that this strategy won’t always work. The violent breakups of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union demonstrate that even forced “unity” maintained for decades will collapse as soon as the force imposing it weakens.

Now, in light of this Federal lawsuit, I have three questions in return for Holla:

For at least two years, dozens of students at a Minnesota high school caricatured African-Americans in a homecoming week dress-up day by wearing low-slung pants, oversized sports jerseys and flashing gang signs, according to a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit filed last week claims officials at Red Wing High School knew of the activity and had a duty to stop it because it created a racially hostile environment. It follows a state investigation that found school officials did not fulfill their obligation “to provide an educational atmosphere free of illegal racial discrimination.”

“Acting ghetto, young white men seem to think that is the funniest thing in the world,” she said. “They don’t understand that kind of joke is the worst kind of stereotype.”

1. Did the school create a racially hostile environment by permitting whites to dress like blacks?

2. Should whites be permitted to sue for damages in Federal court when blacks caricature their culture by wearing suits and ties?

3. Is “acting white” also the worst kind of stereotype?

Mailvox: A poem by Little Dick

Every now and then, people ask me why I bother engaging with evangelical atheists. I trust this email, quoted verbatim and in its entirety, should suffice to answer that question. It would appear that Little Dick Harris is attempting to convert the world to atheism with poetry. His magnum opus is entitled “Woo”.

Woo

The Christian’s Jehovah, the Almighty God,
is a capricious and cantankerous sod;
he’s a jealous, vain, and incompetent fraud,
with the morals of a sadistic tribal war lord.

For homophobia, misogyny, and genocide too,
that old Bible Bogey is the god for you.
He’s his own father, and his son, and a ghost too,
but there’s even more ridiculous woo.

Christians claim their god, in his Empyrean lair,
is omniscient, omnipotent, beneficent and fair;
but, with the problem of theodicy,
that dogma is Christian idiocy.

The Jew’s Yahweh, a wrathful old jerk,
set Jews strict rules on when to work,
how to dress, and what to sup or sip,
and giving baby boys the snip.

Myths of Bronze Age, goat-herding nomads,
metaphorically have them, by the gonads.
The Moslem’s Allah, a fierce great djinn,
demands under ‘Islam’, literally, ‘Submission’.

Apostasy is treated just like a crime;
they’ll threaten to kill you, to keep you in line,
and if you dare draw Mohammad in a comic cartoon,
there’ll be riots and killings from here to Khartoum.

Hindu, Sikh, Jain, and Buddhist,
Zoroastrian, Baha’i, Mormon, and Scientologist,
Confucianist, Shintoist, and Taoist too,
Spiritualist, Wiccan, and the New Ager into woo.

Yea, verily, those of each and every religion,
are mired in the miasma of superstition.
So, why should yours be the one true faith,
in the magic of a phantasmagorical wraith?

Belief, without evidence, is just plain crazy,
ignorant, stupid, or thoughtlessly lazy.
Life derives no purpose, at a theistic god’s direction;
evolution really happens, due to Natural Selection.

I have sent you this poem in the hope that you will read it and realize that some people find your religious beliefs to be unwarranted and absurd. When I was a small boy, still in short pants, I understood that there was no supporting evidence for religious beliefs, and therefore, such beliefs had no basis in fact. Later, I realized that religion was a tool for controlling people. Religion should be a private matter, because when it gains political power, as with any ideology, it becomes a tool for oppression. Please consider the benefits of rational thought over superstition and wishful thinking.

Oh, I read it twice, as a matter of fact. The first time in disbelief, the second time in awe. My first coherent thought was that the poem doesn’t scan well, commits six rhyming infelicities, reveals the usual ignorance of actual Christian theology, repeats numerous talking points that have been repeatedly shown to be false, and consists of crude doggerel that is never going to be mistaken for Dante or Yeats. My second thought was that we have a real candidate for the 2012 Richard Dawkins Award on our hands! Science can inspire art after all!

My third thought, of course, was that the poet is not one who would recognize a “rational thought” if he spent the next ten years having Aristotle, Aquinas, and Descartes read to him before bedtime. And then, only then, I began to laugh….

One of the many amusing things about this email is the way that Little Dick openly admits his lack of faith is quite literally childish. “When I was a small boy, still in short pants, I understood that there was no supporting evidence for religious beliefs, and therefore, such beliefs had no basis in fact.” I don’t know about you, but I tend to find this assertion to be just a little less than credible. What are the chances that, “as a small boy still in short pants”, Little Dick Harris had been able to peruse all of the available evidence that tended to support religious beliefs, whether one uses the term “evidence” properly or not?

Of course, his poem is a colorful piece of evidence demonstrating, that like every other evangelical atheist, Little Dick is still an emotional and intellectual child throwing a non-stop temper tantrum because the adults simply will not pretend to believe in his imaginary world.

UPDATE – But wait, there’s more! A follow-up email has arrived:

Vox, you ask, “What are the chances that, “as a small boy still in short pants”, Little Dick Harris had been able to peruse all of the available evidence that tended to support religious beliefs, whether one uses the term “evidence” properly or not?”

Zero, of course. What a stupid question. It isn’t necessary to read all of it, or, as I’ve subsequently discovered, any of it. Other than, that is, to find out that it’s empty, eristic hermeneutics, & sciolistic casuistry.

Little Dick noticed that the sort of miracles documented by Bede, clearly, were no longer taking place. Occasional claims for somewhat more mundane miracles, usually involving apparitions or healing, were obviously without good supporting evidence. As Hume demanded, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, & it was always lacking. By the age of twelve, it was plain to me that everything that I was aware of that happened in the world, & the universe, was potentially explicable in terms of natural processes.

Half a century later, I’ve never once doubted that, except for the realization that we may never be able to explain everything. Supernatural explanations add nothing of real value to our understanding. All that they can do is satisfy the wishful thinking of credulous individuals.

There you have it, from the mouth of the Poet Laureate of Rational Atheism. You don’t need to examine ANY evidence at all in order to reach a rational conclusion that satisfies the self-styled materialist. And thus the Worm Ourobos devours his own tail and we finally reach the glorious conclusion of rational materialist epistemology.

Mailvox: it’s raciss!

Huey Freeman staunchly defends the peaceful, law-abiding non-Asian minoritiesmajority in Milwaukee:

I wonder why he doesn’t post on the fact the crime rate is on the decline since 2006?

Vox is cherry picking by pointing out how whites are not the minority anymore than bringing up one single incident where a bunch of blacks jump some whites, while completely ignoring the fact that the crime rate went down. I don’t know what story vd is attempting to paint, but it seems to me hes is trying say that when whites are no longer in the majority, things like the above will become more and more common, while completely ignoring the fact that the official crime rate has gone down in the past couple years which undermines what he’s trying to say (again, assuming that is what he was attempting to convey). I’m sure if he expended his energy into proper research instead of wasting it using sophist rhetoric in poor attempts to hide his racism he would’ve done a simple google search for the official crime rate.

The reason I didn’t bother to respond to Huey’s inept defense of riotous, but law-abiding African youths is that, as anyone who bothered to read his link would have immediately recognized, the statistics do not disprove my contention that Vibrant America will increasingly bear more similarity to the nations that are providing the vibrancy than they do to historical Western America. But since he kept returning to the point, I will point out the errors of his statement.

Presumably due to his low IQ, Huey claimed that the Milwaukee crime rate had fallen from 2006. But this is only true if one looks at 2006 and 2009; the crime rate actually rose from 2006 to an all-time high in 2007, then abruptly fell 20% in two years. (Upon further research, 23% in three years.) Moreover, there is no discernible trend; the crime rate fell 25% from 1999 to 2004, then rose 44% from 2004 to 2007, then fell 23% again. Note, however, that while overall crime is generally down, assault – which is exactly the sort of crime involving “where a bunch of blacks jump some whites” – has risen 21% since 1999; it was up 67% as recently as 2007.

During that time, the African population has gone from 36.9% to 40% of the population. The European population has gone from 45.4% to 37%. And the Hispanic population has risen from 12% to 17%. Huey’s second error is that he failed to notice that the demographic figures from the article are from the 2010 census and are therefore newer and more accurate than the pre-census statistics he cites from 2009. In other words, he is wrong and whites are no longer the majority in Milwaukee.

However, it should be kept in mind that it is not necessarily pure demographics that matter with regards to crime, but also the demographics of the power structure. For example, South Africa had a fairly similar population mix during the white-ruled Apartheid years that it does now, but its violent crime rate has risen dramatically since the end of Apartheid in 1994.

It is true that total crime in Milwaukee has continued to drop, at least according to the official statistics. “Total violent crime was down 7.1 percent in 2010 from 2009, and decreased 23.1 percent since 2007.” The problem is that, as was reported in the article I linked, it appears that this decline may be attributable to the police refusing to take statements or report crimes. If a mass assault by dozens of African “youths” and multiple thefts show up in the headlines, but not in the police reports, then it is readily apparent that the crime rates not only have no discernible pattern related to racial demographics, but are entirely unreliable. The incredible decline in assault in only two years tends to support the anecdotal evidence suggesting the apparent improvement in crime rates is primarily the result of intentional police under-reporting.

The fact is that it doesn’t matter if you want to describe a hypothesis as vibrant, Correct, or raciss, it will nevertheless be supported or falsified by subsequent events. In this case, we can simply wait and see what happens as Milwaukee becomes increasingly vibrant. If Huey is correct, it will not become less law-abiding and more violent. If I am correct, it will, and Huey will forced to be concede that the “raciss” perspective is, in fact, the correct one. I am not the least bit bothered by insinuations or even direct accusations of racism because I recognize that the objective facts are simply what they are. My like or dislike for any individual, of any genetic type, does not determine Asian IQ ranges, African homicide rates or Arab predilections for rape. They are what they observably are.

The tragedy of the multicultural debacle is that while it is incorrect to prejudge any individual by his genetic makeup, it is absolutely correct to make macrosocietal judgments about groups of people on that basis. This is why one can empathize with the individual man who wishes to move to the suburbs to help his family escape the ghetto while simultaneously recognizing that the man’s rational action will likely bring about the eventual destruction of the very haven he seeks.

Sam Harris once told me that it is tribalism, not faith, that is the cause of conflict. But our tribalism is bred into our very DNA, and cannot be eradicated through any amount of Correct thinking and reality denial. There are only three possible solutions to the problem, each rife with its own terrible costs. The problem is that most people incline towards one solution or another without any understanding of what those costs entail.

The Amalgamation solution, favored by Arthur C. Clarke and other SF fans, will necessarily involve the eventual subsumption and elimination of every historical nationality and tradition and reduce humanity to its lowest common denominator. It is the world of Idiocracy. It is, I would argue, the least likely outcome and the worst for humanity as a whole, as it is the only one that would appear to risk humanity’s survival as a species. Another way to look at it, you see, is a low-IQ world with inherited nukes.

The Separation solution will necessarily involve a tremendous amount of disruption and bloodshed, as the elite of the less-favored groups will actively resist being sentenced to live among their own. But, as China, Japan and other relatively homogeneous countries have shown, this is ultimately the most stable, least violent solution.

And finally, the Elimination solution, which is the one that totalitarian governments usually resort to in the end. This is Stalin and Mao on a scale that is an order of magnitude higher. It may sound unthinkable, but history shows that it is the most probable one. There is no reason to think that the fascists of the EU will be any more merciful to the Africans and Arabs in their midst than the Turks were to the Armenians, the Poles were to the Germans, or the Zimbabweans were to the European Rhodesians.

The Correct view of different but mixed and vibrant is simply not a long-term option. Even the Czechs and Slovaks couldn’t make it work. So, in this case, that which is simply will not be tomorrow.

Mailvox: the tide turns

Slowly, admittedly, one woman at a time. But it turns:

We hosted a wedding at our home this past weekend that brought in family we haven’t seen for a while, to be sure one couple we haven’t talked with since my new understanding of the nature of women and the destructiveness of feminism. I’m committed to do my part to address it whenever I see it so I thought I’d share with you one of the discussions we had. I’m embarrassed to admit that a year ago, I would have agreed with this woman. I am so thankful that I have come to understand men, more importantly, my husband. I cringe now when listening to feminist women and their rants.

We talked with this couple that I’m related to until the early morning hours two nights in a row. The more comfortable they got with us, the more truth came out about their seemingly perfect relationship. The situation is typical; she has a “career,” divides everything equally, their marriage is 50/50, he brings her coffee in the morning and takes the kids to daycare, she is overwhelmed with her career, household tasks, children etc… oh, and she is on anti-anxiety medication and repeatedly denies sex with him due to her “not being in the mood.”

She told us about one night, while relaxing in the hot tub, he confessed to her, “I have never cheated on you.” The response that followed is far from what he expected. She became enraged…. The intimate and honest moment completely backfired on the guy. She went on to explain to us that she is not impressed with his ability to remain faithful, after all, it is what is expected. She piously expressed what is required to remain married to her. The first of which is faithfulness. As he started slumping in his seat, I decided to deliver a beat down, it went something like this: “You should feel honored and respectful of him for the commitment he’s made to you.

While he’s been working with hot young women, traveling with hot young women, propositioned by hot young women, and selling clothes to more hot young women, he has remained faithful to you. He’s watched as other men, friends of his, have not done the same. (Across the table he is nodding in agreement.) He has overcome demons and lustful thoughts and has kept his fidelity. You should have told him how blessed you are to have a man of strength, but you don’t understand the nature of men. You don’t understand just what he was telling you.

So in your overreacting, irrational nature, you verbally destroyed him. His confession was met with disapproval and rejection. Had you taken a moment to think rationally about the situation, you would have seen this as an intimate moment of truth and honesty. You do not belong on a pedestal, you are just as fallible. And with all of your glaring weaknesses, he is faithful to your marriage.”

My husband was able to discuss a bit about Game with him and will do so more when we see them again in a few weeks. The focus I will maintain with her is overcoming this dominating princess mentality that she has had.

It’s quite impressive that a woman, particularly one recently converted out of feminism, should be bold enough to take another woman publicly to task in this regard. And while I don’t disagree with anything she has written, she does appear to have missed what most men will assume to be the logical explanation for the burst of inappropriate anger: the woman has already been unfaithful herself and his confession of faithfulness was heaping coals on her head. This isn’t necessarily the case, but it was my read on the situation.

After all, the cynical voice of male experience muses, the marital expectations can’t possibly be the real reason for the rage or the woman would not have said they were.