Blacks are GENERALLY less intelligents than whites do and scientifical researches since 100 years proven it.

I agree that IQ tests have shown this. But they’ve also shown that the IQ scores of Blacks has gone up — yet, as far as I know, there has been no genetic change in Blacks.

What do you make of that observation?

And your definition of “racism” is also laughable.
Racist is someone which judge people only because of their race.

I make a distinction between “racism” and “racialism” which is useful in the context of this discussion. There’s a big difference between someone who judges character based on race versus someone who sees everything through the lense of race.

I’m not clear what you think is ridiculous or “laughable” in what I’ve written.

… GENERALLY speaking, more intelligent people have more successes than the non/less ones.

If you’re talking about IQ, that’s not correct.

You’re just an other lost liberal.

I think you should know more about a person before categorising, judging, or defining them.

It would be more helpful to this discussion if you could provide some kind of data or evidence to support your assertions and claims about Blacks.

Of course the differences in brain size between races was not mentionned while is very important and have a big affect. Blacks have less neurons than any other race. It is also a NATURAL FACT!

There are two issues here:

First, does brain size correlate with intelligence?

Second, is there a general difference between brain size for Blacks and Whites?
And what about other races?

If you believe you have information on this — based on scientific study — please provide it.

Report This Comment

You’re just an other lost liberal.

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

Note from Prodos to Dendy2009: Don’t post comments on my site.

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

This should be corrected other wise it looks like mistake and detracts from what your trying to get across.

Report This Comment

There is actually no as yet found source to attribute “useful idiots” to Lenin, despite allegations he used it to refer to Walter Duranty, George Bernard Shaw et al on visiting and extolling the ‘virtues’ of the new Russian workers paradise.

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

Report This Comment

A quick response …

I very much respect your views and have been a fan of yours since the 90s (we go back!). But I think you are wrong here to defend Christianity. Christianity does not need another apologist. And an Objectivist no less!

I’m very happy for a fellow Objectivist to disagree with me. I welcome and enjoy it.

As an Objectivst – a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy – the most rational philosophy for living on earth ever discovered and formulated – my moral obligation is to seek the truth and to be just.

In the last couple of years I’ve been steadily studying Christianity. This started years after studying Islam.

My method of studying Christianity is to refer to the canonical texts. The Old Testament, and the Gospels. And when doing so, to do my best to understand the earliest Greek versions. So I’ve got several interlinear English/Greek versions that I use.

I also go and study the most scholarly exegeses I can find of the sections that I’m focusing on at the time. For instance I’m saving up at present to buy a small book which deals with the Gospel of Matthew.

As part of my studies I also hassle my very knowledgeable Christian friends – Greek Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, and “happy clappies” – and thrash things out with them.

For instance, when I was studying Matthew 10:34 a couple of years ago, after I’d finished my studies and felt I had a strong grasp of the meaning of this section, I phoned an interstate Christian politician friend and asked him how he interpreted Matthew 10:34.

He told me. I told him he was totally wrong, and explained how and why. He was flabbergasted and ended up agreeing with me 100%. I laughed at him and told him the Atheist will return with another lesson soon.

So, would you call what I do, being “another apologist”?

… Breivik was a “cultural Christian” (his term) in that he believed that Christianity was necessary to provide a moral base for European society and that without it Europe had no way to defend itself as a society. This IS a Christian argument. ALL Christian Conservatives make this argument in one form or other.

But what does Breivik mean by “Christianity”?

Words have meanings. Don’t they? (I raise my eyebrows at you.)

If by “Christianity” Breivik means the same – or close to the same – thing that the Christian Conservatives mean, your argument might hold.

But he doesn’t.

In any case, I intend to maintain a long term dialogue with the Christians.

Furthermore, if it was claimed that Breivik was a Scientologist and it turned out that he wasn’t, I’d be happy to point that out. And if such an accusation was used to malign Scientologists (rather than debate and rebut them) then I would gladly defend Scientologists. Indeed, I have proudly done so on numerous occasions over the years.

Because that, my friend, is what Good Objectivists do.

What they don’t do is what Onkar Ghate recently did in THIS stupid article, which is merely the flip side of THIS sort of stupid Ayn-Rand-bashing article by (Catholic) Father Robert Sirico, who did not behave the way a Good Christian ought to. In fact he didn’t even behave the way a decent Gentleman should behave.

Now it is also true that Breivik was a racialist Conservative which currently is a minority position among Conservatives but his belief in the necessity of religion to provide the moral foundation of society is Christianity and Conservatism 101. In that sense he was the MODEL CHRISTIAN.

So let us project into a future where the philosophy of Objectivism is right up there with the religion of Christianity. Someone comes along, who expressly states that he doesn’t believe in Objectivism. Let’s say he doesn’t really accept that Existence is Identity, or that Capitalism really is the most moral and the most practical system for Man. But he says that society would do well to embrace both “believing” and “non-believing” forms of Objectivism. Would he be a MODEL OBJECTIVIST?

If you think this is far-fetched, I tell you it’s not. Several years ago I banned a Finnish blogger from my network who was a racialist and a proponent of Objectivism. I mean he called himself an Objectivist. He knew his Ayn Rand inside out. He even fooled Dr Peikoff, until I wrote to Dr Peikoff to clarify things.

Finally, let me say that my approach is not about taking “the right tack”. It’s not a strategy or a tactic.

It’s simply about doing my best to do what’s right.

Report This Comment

I don’t think this is the right tack to take with this. Why defend Christianity? I understand that you are sympathetic with today’s Conservative right and favor it over today’s Left. I do too. But I still wouldn’t argue that Brevik wasn’t really Christian. Here’s why.

It is true that Breivik was what a Conservative would call a “Darwinian Materialist”; ie he was really a secularist that did not believe in religious (ie Christian in this case) metaphysics. But Breivik was a “cultural Christian” (his term) in that he believed that Christianity was necessary to provide a moral base for European society and that without it Europe had no way to defend itself as a society. This IS a Christian argument. ALL Christian Conservatives make this argument in one form or other.

Now it is also true that Breivik was a racialist Conservative which currently is a minority position among Conservatives but his belief in the necessity of religion to provide the moral foundation of society is Christianity and Conservatism 101. In that sense he was the MODEL CHRISTIAN.

I very much respect your views and have been a fan of yours since the 90s (we go back!). But I think you are wrong here to defend Christianity. Christianity does not need another apologist. And an Objectivist no less!

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

I always thought that the Aussies were a tough bunch. After reading the comments, I have to wonder: “Have the crybabies taken over?”

Rest assured. The average Aussie is as tough as ever.

The complaint against Alan Jones was made by an organisation called “GetUp”, which is modelled on an American group: MoveOn.org

Indeed, there is evidence that George Soros has donated substantial funds to GetUp. And some of the key people involved in GetUp have worked with the Soros-funded MoveOn.org

So, right back in your lap my friend.

Report This Comment

How could anyone have a personal relationship with god or jesus, if he or it doesn’t exist?

A belief in the existence of God and Jesus is a pre-condition of being a Christian.

Breivik does not have such a belief.

From my studies of Christianity over the last couple of years I understand that Christianity differs from Islam (and other religions) in its belief that it is possible to have a “personal relationship” with God and Jesus. Indeed, one based on love and friendship.

This is not a recent or modern idea.

Rather, it seems to be at the heart of Christianity and one of its distinguishing features.

There are many passages in the Bible supporting and promoting this view. And it is further backed up by extensive Exegesis. It is not a controversial or fringe viewpoint.

Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Please clarify.

Report This Comment

Report This Comment

Thanks for your excellent, well reasoned points and sharing with us your personal observations about a “white separatist”.

Best Wishes,

PRODOS

Report This Comment

On a sort of related note, I just read today of self described Broadcaster Alan Jones being hauled in front of some government body over an alleged error regarding atmospheric co2. Apparently, this in violation of something called the Commercial Broadcasters Code of Conduct. Wow.

Just because the USA has a first amendment, of course, doesn’t mean that everyone else must. Australia must not be the freedom loving country I visited some twenty years ago.

I always thought that the Aussies were a tough bunch. After reading the comments, I have to wonder: “Have the crybabies taken over?” “Are their sensibilities so delicate they have to be protected by the government?” Sheesh.

Report This Comment

Report This Comment