the PRODOS blog

Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

My comprehensive assessment of Mikko Ellila article, Society Consists of People

I’ve now completed myanalysis of the issues raised my Mikko Ellilä in his article, Society Consists of People.

My post is titled:

Are Blacks genetically LOWER in intelligence and HIGHER in psychopathy than Whites?

I’ve spent about 100 hours researching and writing for this study and believe it tackles the major issues fairly, objectively, and comprehensively.

My article does not directly refer to Mikko’s post, however it does tackle its main arguments.

As well as reaching a conclusionon the views that Mikko has presented, I’ve alsoprovided my conclusion regarding whether or not Mikko’s post is compatible with the positions and policies of THINKER TO THINKER:

I further conclude that any direct or indirect advocacy of the above racialist positions (please note I do not refer to them as “racist”) is incompatible with Capitalist Ideals such as free markets, individual rights, liberty, equality before the law, creative thinking, volition/free will.

Please note: Myanalysis distinguishes between racism and racialism.I do not treat these two termsas either having the same meaning or having the same moral stature.

– – – – – – – – – –

Update Monday June 18

Clarification:

  1. By “advocacy” I mean promoting as public policy.
  2. The racialist positions I’m referring to are only those covered in my article “Are Blacks genetically LOWER in intelligence and HIGHER in psychopathy than Whites?”

– – – – – – – – – –

Some of the blogs and forums which have been following the Mikko Ellila issue …

Report This Post

15 Comments

  1. “As well as reaching a conclusion on the views that Mikko has presented, I

    Report This Comment

  2. Good afternoon Mikko.

    You asked:
    – – –
    So do you actually think my post advocates some

    Report This Comment

  3. So what exactly are you going to do about it?

    Are you going to delete my existing posts and/or tell me not to post in my blog in the future?

    I would like to get this thing clear before I will bother to refute your post.

    Obviously any refutation would be redundant if you’re going to delete my blog anyway.

    In any case, I want to be able to tell my readers where I have archived my cumulative posts.

    Report This Comment

  4. Mikko,

    – – –
    So what exactly are you going to do about it?
    – – –

    That depends in part on what YOU are going to do about it.

    – – –
    Are you going to delete my existing posts and/or tell me not to post in my blog in the future?
    – – –

    Should it come to that sort of thing, I will notify you first.

    Until such time, the dialogue continues.

    If you are going to stand by your article and its underlying racialist positions and arguments you will need to either:

    1. Find another place to blog, or
    2. Convince me that your position as expressed in your article is in fact NOT based on a racialist position AND is not explicit or implicit racialist advocacy, or
    3. Convince me that the racialist position is in fact a VALID one.

    If you have any further suggestions or recommendations please let me know.

    Best Wishes.

    Report This Comment

  5. To state that “If you observe the front of the cinema, I note there may be a combustion that is cause for concern” is different from shouting “fire”.

    But the chaos and likely results amount to the same, allowing for part of the audience not being able to decipher the comment!

    It is disingenuous to claim that raising an issue and using very specific evidence does not amount to a position. It is the cleft stick of all true journalists.

    They have limited space, they do make editorial decision on what counts as pertinent information.

    The real test is whether the outside observer comes away with information and a sense of debate or a very specific idea of where they think they have been led.

    As a commentator/blogger Mikko is not a journalist and opinion is the essence of the operation. But what he is doing is what I pointed to at the top.

    He has an opinion. It is manifest from the topic, the evidence chosen and the rhetoric.

    That he doesn’t pound the desk with his shoe a la Khrushchev doesn’t mean he isn’t making a statement.

    Report This Comment

  6. Whilst Mikko keeps insisting that he is ‘merely making an observation’ about various issues here, it appears to me that these ‘observations’ are not objective ones such as ‘the sky is blue’, but rather, ‘coloured’ by a considerable amount of his own opinions.

    Where there is a problem is that his ‘observations’ and opinions are not exactly backed up by reliable evidence or facts, but rather, by his own prejudices.

    This is a free country, and ideally, should be a free world, and I feel that Mikko should be entitled to his opinions and to his prejudices (and should be free to express these in any media which wishes to transmit them, without free of prosecution), but I don’t see that these opinions and prejudices are ones which are readily defensible, or which fit in with the stated individualist and pro-capitalist/freedom agenda of this particular medium (ie the thinker to thinker blog service).

    I particularly find his comments, as translated, about coercive apparatus of white society (including KKK vigliantes) as keeping black Americans under control, to be breath-takingly ignorant and intolerant, such as to make my jaw drop in astonishment. I suspect that someone, wishing to argue an opposite case in a similarly dogmatic style, might wish to cite the movie “Deliverance” as ‘evidence’ to support a similarly ignorant argument about the criminality and sodomistic tendencies of white hillbillies.

    Report This Comment

  7. Replying to Mikko:

    That’s it??!! That’s your “defence”??!!

    Your blog is incompatible with THINKER TO THINKER principles and policies and will be disabled from the system.

    Pack your bags and get out of town.

    Thanks to Tim Warner, Strider, and Finnj

    Report This Comment

  8. I disagree with this decision.

    I think Mikko is being disingenuous when he says his comments are just observations. They are clearly arguments for a restricted immigration policy. Personally, I disagree. I am pro-immigration.

    But I think it is inappropriately harsh and dogmatic to insist that somebody cannot be a capitalist if they are anti-immigration. To be a pure anarcho-capitalist you cannot be anti-immigration… but most capitalists have a few exceptions in their philosophy.

    I believe Prodos takes a step away from capitalism when he supports multi-billion dollar foreign aid projects (ie Iraq war) and other capitalists have questions about legalising heroin or abortion or euthenasia. Still others would like to retain some limited government involvement in health or welfare or infrastucture. Others are anti-muslim.

    Personally, I take the radical capitalists position on all of these issues. But I recognise that many of my philosophical allies disagree with me on one or more of the above points. I wouldn’t want to conclude that they are the enemies of capitalism. On the contrary, despite Prodos’s pro-government position on foreign adventurism I think he is an outstanding advocate for freedom & capitalism.

    The dichotomy between race-based government action and non-race-based government action is a false one with regards to the purity of capitalist ideas. Holding personal preferences for or against any race is also irrelevant to the purity of capitalist ideas.

    My interpretation of Prodos’s action is that he is adding his personal moral position on racial matters to his decision matrix. That is his right, but perhaps he should adjust the official criteria to make this explicit.

    In passing I also wonder what sort of reaction would have followed if Mikko was advocating a discriminatory immigration policy based on religion (specifically anti-muslim)?

    Report This Comment

  9. secunda-jaska

    July 16, 2007 at 3:12 pm

    Well the reason Mikko probably focus on racial issues is because it is REALLY one of the “cons” of immigration and multiculturalism.

    There is so much scientific data on blacks low IQ that the burden of proof is on the ” other side” to prove it wrong. IQ itself would not be single reason, but empirical findings; blacks are more aggressive, commit 10 times more crimes, do bad in school etc etc. It is just the statistics , which scientific data supports. Even if you are not racist, it is stupid thing to let predator(s) in your home.

    Mikko’s vulgar language is just to make it “street language” to be more in the level of common worker people. It sounds more rational that way to “normal finn”.

    Report This Comment

  10. secunda-jaska says: ‘”Mikko

    Report This Comment

  11. Realisti? The realist? Oh yes, I forgot about the media conspiracy against the anti-immagration fanatics. Everyone who disagrees on immigration must be anti-realist and an active participant in THE GREAT MULTICULTURALIST CONSPIRACY.

    So, to make your point, you have to link to an outdated poll from 2003. Every more recent poll or gallup that goes against the faith of your small anti-immagrationist group just got to be conspiratorial, doctored or biased. However, every doctored and dubious IQ statistic that Lynn, Vanhanen and other racialists present is an absolute truth. Talk about double standard 😀

    And regarding the True Finns, you got to be joking, right? They indeed got Veltto Virtanen through, with the party leader Timo Soini, who got most of the votes, but Virtanen is a public clown and Soini a populist, and I’m quite sure that even you in your unearthly optimism don’t consider 4.1% support to mean the majority of the Finns. Moreover, I think the main reason for their “success” in this election was their anti-EU/anti-income disparity/anti-globalization/redneck-hillbilly agenda, not their anti-immigrationism.

    And why don’t you mention the fact that also the pro-immigration/pro-multiculturalism Green League and pro-immigration/pro-multiculturalism right wing Kokoomus (National Coalition) & Swedish People’s Party got extra seats in the Parliament? Don’t you know that pro-immigration agenda is written in the new goverment’s program? You should know, because you call yourself a realist. Facts are real, you know.

    What are you trying to prove anyway? That most of the Finns actually voted against their true, anti-immigration opinion? That the Finnish goverment acts against the will of their voters? How come?

    Quote from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election%2C_2007

    “The elections were a major victory for the opposition National Coalition Party under Jyrki Katainen. It gained 10 seats and took over the position of the second-largest party in Finland …”

    “Winners also include the True Finns, who gained two seats. Party leader Timo Soini in particular took in a massive personal total of almost 20,000 votes, the third greatest in the country. The Green League gained one seat with its best ever showing in parliamentary elections, but party leader Tarja Cronberg lost her seat in the small district of Northern Karelia. The Swedish People’s Party gained one seat as well, although losing votes compared to the 2003 elections.”

    Yes, that sounds the real thing to me :)

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2015 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog