Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Racialism As Pseudo-'Science' Link: http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/racialism_as_pseudo_science#26663 Post contents: I don't consider myself either a racialist or a white nationalist, and I think any characterization of the original post or Marcus Epstein's posting as such is not a fair characterization. I am no more a "white nationalist" than most Americans were in the 1920s and 1930s when it was obvious that cultural and moral leadership should be provided by the most educated and historically grounded cohorts in the community: the WASP. I do, however, think there are relevant differences of the races, that the sources of these differences are some combination of genetics, history, culture, loyalty, modern political correctness, state action, state inaction, and the interaction of these factors. My very modest point in the original post was that whites are less racially conscious than blacks in America's political life, but that this modest amount of concern for one's group as expressed by certain West Virginia voters, including their unease with rule by a long-time advocate/member of a minority group, a group that has had an explosion of various social pathologies since the 1950s, is not a bad thing, nor worthy of the "pile on" of criticism brought on by pseudoconservatives like Andrew Sullivan and media liberals. More important, the behavior of white voters stands in sharp contrast to the rarely-criticized extreme degrees of black solidarity and political consciousness--tribal behavior that is out of step with the historic, ideological, economic, and regional differences that created great diversity among white voters, with many members of the same families famously voting differently from one another. I connected this different treatment of white and black voting behavior (and in particular the much greater expression of black tribalism) as a signal indicator of the dominant multiculturalist-diversit ideology and Democratic Party politics. Others above have made mince-meat of Raimando's innumerate attempt to refute median differences by the single example of Obama. I can't add much to it, other than to say that Raimando's observations on this point would have been quite at home in a high school Social Studies course circa 1979. I also believe his mere repetition of Rothbard's criticism of statistics is anti-intellectual. What would Raimando say to retrospective statistical analysis like John Lott's use of regression analysis to analyze concealed carry legislation or the use of statistics in a field like epidemiology? I believe others above effectively expose the real inherent problems with Austrian "praxeology" which, by its own method, is immune to facts and cannot be refuted by the same. This method has stumbled upon truisms of economic policy (though I'm not sure this is because of the method or in spite of it), but this unease with facts allows the spinning of elaborate and unproveable hypotheses about the Mansions of the Future where everything will right with the world through anarcho-capitalism. Sent at: 2008 09 07