Posted by gangsta1gnxp on Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:24 | #

Does it smell right? No. But these cases can be spiritually true even when they’re not true in the boring old literal sense.

Sikh teen lied about hair attack

Pilrig Park where the attack was said to have taken place
The boy had told police he was attacked in Pilrig Park
A 15-year-old Sikh boy who claimed he had his hair cut off by racist thugs has admitted he made the attack up.

The boy from Edinburgh reported the alleged racist attack in November and the case was widely publicised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6207509.stm

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:51 | #

Not just spiritually true, I think ...

Rapist attacks woman pushing pram

Police are looking for a rapist who attacked a woman as she pushed her baby in a pram.

The 19-year-old victim was walking in the Gorton area of Greater Manchester when she was stopped by the man.

Police said he asked her if she would go out with him and put his arm around her, before becoming aggressive. He then pushed her over and raped her.

Det Ch Insp Vanessa Jardine, of Greater Manchester Police, said the attack was “truly shocking”.

The woman has told police she recognised the man vaguely, and detectives believe he lives locally.

Det Ch Insp Jardine said: “This man is clearly a dangerous individual and we are appealing for anyone who may have seen this attack to come forward.

“It happened in daylight on a path that is popular with local people. We believe someone must have seen something - either the attack itself, the victim pushing her pram or the man himself.

“As a result of this incident we would urge women in the Gorton area to be particularly aware of their surroundings.”

The attack happened on Saturday, between about 1800 and 1900 BST, on a path that runs along the railway line and parallel with Mount Road.

The rapist is described as West African in his late 20s or early 30s, 6ft 2in tall, of slim build and with a shaven head. He had yellowing teeth and the bottom row were said to be decaying.

There are, of course, attention seekers among all racial types, and there was a well-publicised case last year involving a white female “victim” of non-existent African attackers.  Obviously, the Yoker case is not about attention-seeking, but whether the police are in possession of evidence on the one hand and wits on the other.  On the surface there appears to be no sign of either.

Posted by Eumenides on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:22 | #

There are, of course, attention seekers among all racial types, and there was a well-publicised case last year involving a white female “victim” of non-existent Afican attackers.

Ah, of course. Women who report rape are merely attention seekers, right? They must be pretty screwed-up then, to seek the kind of attention that labels them liars, no?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:48 | #

Where the attackers are non-existent, yes - as in the case of the Sikh boy who cut off his own hair.  He demonstrates that attention-seeking is not restricted to women, of course.  So I don’t see your point.

Posted by gangsta1gnxp on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 16:13 | #

Eumenides wrote:

Ah, of course. Women who report rape are merely attention seekers, right? They must be pretty screwed-up then, to seek the kind of attention that labels them liars, no?

So denying any claim of rape means denying all claims of rape. Women never make false claims and get away with it. And women are never mentally imbalanced or attention-seekers.

Posted by Eumenides on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:35 | #

The percentage of women who make false claims and seek attention baselessly is non-zero, but certainly far smaller than the percentage of certain minorities who have the same IQ as the average white, at least according to Majorityrights. And Majorityrights seems to be more than willing to generalize that to say that these certain minorities are stupid and uncultured. So what is the problem against generalizing to say women are not attention-seekers? Or are there simply different thresholds for different generalizations?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:25 | #

Mr Eumenides,

There was no generalisation concerning attention-seeking.  The claim is case-specific.  Neither do we generalise (ie in liberal lingo, “stereotype”) about low black intelligence.  We factualise in an era when gross liberals like you lie through denial.

So, denier, back your argument up.  Where is the evidence for equivalency of Negro/European IQ?

Posted by Eumenides on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:55 | #

If you read my post carefully, I did not imply that ‘Negro’ and European IQs are equal. I don’t know, and I couldn’t care less. I was merely drawing an analogy. Since you seem to need things to be very carefully explained to you, let’s try this:

1. You are skeptical of any claim of rape or harassment since there is a possibility that the victim is an attention-seeker.

2. The above implies that you attach a non-zero probability to a victim in any case (probably higher if it is a woman or a minority, but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt anyway), that she/he an attention-seeker.

3. You base this on the statistic that some victims were proven to be lying—if we are talking cases proven with hard evidence, this is less than 5% (a guess—if you find a more accurate number, let me know).

4. I claim that at least 5% (or whatever the above number is) of ‘Negoes’ have IQs on par with Whites. If 5% is your threshold for skepticism, it goes on to imply that when you hear of Black/European IQs being unequal, you should look upon that claim doubtfully (just as you do with reports of harassment).

5. However, it is clear that you are in no way skeptical of Black stupidity.

6. This demonstrates a contradiction. QED. The only way out of this contradiction is to assume you set selective thresholds—that is, a small % of harassment liars are enough to make you cynical of all harassment cases, but you require a large % of smart Blacks to make you cynical of Black stupidity.

Let’s get back to the argument after you take a class in logical reasoning.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:28 | #

1.  Case specific.  I am sceptical of the Yoker case.  Are you?  Would you care to name the other cases where my apparently endemic scepticism is manifest?

2.  Since there are no other cases, you implication does not follow.

3.  Likewise.

4.  Probably about 16% of African-Americans reach the European.  But since I made no generalisation in my post on the issue of rape-hoax, there is no connection to any opinions I may hold on black IQ for you to exploit.  Have you got that yet?

5. Actually, mean black IQ has been extensively demonstrated for over a century.  IQ measurement, along with measures of impulsivity, self-confidence, assertiveness, aggresivity, brain weight, cerebral cavity volume, serum testosterone rythmicity etc all indicate profound racial difference.  I take it you accept the case for difference.

6.  Read the post.

Look, you do not yet understand our critique of liberalism or our love of kind.  Therefore, you do not understand enough about us to draw any useful conclusion.  All you are doing is demonstrating the usual weaknesses of the liberal mind.  You are a conventional thinker operating within the dictates of the zietgeist.  I am assuming here that you are a European Caucasian, and therefore I can say that you are certainly asleep.  Understanding is not yet given to you.  I trust you will awaken in time and the vain nonsense you are spouting now will be embarrassingly obvious to you.

Bon chance.

Posted by calvin on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:32 | #

Sounds as bogus as the Pilrig Park incident to me. The race issue is really being played up in Scotland, Scotland is still far to white for the liberal elite. The media are reporting an increase in racist attacks against Asians in Edinburgh. The facts of the matter are that Edinburgh’s growing Asian youth population can increasingly be seen in groups looking for trouble in the town centre. These groups start fights with and assault White youths and when the police arrive immediately claim that they were racially provoked. In the present climate and subject to legal directives the police are duly obliged to record a racist crime against the Asian “victims”. One locally Asian councillor blatantly played the race card when his son was arrested for instigating one of these violent confrontations. White youths who have been the victims of assaults by Asians are actually told by the Police that there is no point in seeking a prosecution because the Asians will simply claim racial provocation. I personally know one person who was kicked into a coma by four Asians in an “apparently motiveless” attack and one person who was nearly blinded in one eye (belt buckle) by a gang of Asians, who was told by the Police not to bother pressing charges. These two incidents can be backed up by police reports and medical evidence. The illegal immigrant in Glasgow seems to have no evidence to support her bizarre allegation.

Asian businessmen have put up a £10,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of the alleged assailant. The same Asian business community raised precisely £0.000 for information leading to the arrest of the Asian men who tortured fifteen-year-old Kris Donald to death.

Posted by Eumenides on Sat, 14 Apr 2007 23:44 | #

All right:

Case specific.  I am sceptical of the Yoker case.  Are you?  Would you care to name the other cases where my apparently endemic scepticism is manifest?

So you are not generalizing—is that what you are saying? You are sceptical of this particular case based *only on the information given in the news report* and nothing else? Can you prove that this is the case—that preconceptions about victim reports and lies are *not* coloring your view?

I will accept your logic if it proves to be sound, and if it is strong enough that it does not need to resort to calling upon my mind’s weakness, my race, my state of awakeness, and my vanity (!) to prove its point.

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:06 | #

calvin:

Asian businessmen have put up a £10,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of the alleged assailant. The same Asian business community raised precisely £0.000 for information leading to the arrest of the Asian men who tortured fifteen-year-old Kris Donald to death.

To quote Guessedworker (I’m assuming you two think alike, from the flavor of this site), it is about “love of kind”. You condemn Asians of being guilty of love-of-kind, and pride yourself on the same. If you at Majorityrights want to prove your *superiority* over Asians, why are you behaving as they do?

Posted by calvin on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:47 | #

Eumenides

You seem to have come onto this sight looking for a verbal punch-up. The fact is that I really do know of two people who have been very seriously assaulted by Asians in unprovoked attacks. I believe that both of these people stood a fairly good chance of being killed. I am personally aware of an increase in Asian gang activity in the city in which my family live. I used to read the BNP website and think that the BNP were using selective evidence to portray Asians, etc., in a bad light. I now believe that most of the BNP accounts are accurate.

It is not that the evidence presented by the BNP is selective, but rather that the incidents reported by the BNP only affect a select group of people, more specifically, these pernicious aspects of multiculturalism disproportionately affect working-class White people who tend to have less influence over the media and less wealth to enjoy the benefits of multiculturalism. I belong to this class so multiculturalism to me means the grooming of underage girls in Bradford, the beating of Walter Chambberlain into a coma, the murder of Kriss Donald and the brutal assaults on my two friends. If multiculturalism to you, means Indian food and bangra music, I don’t have a problem with that and I support your right to support a policy that seems to be harmless to you. It would be nice if you could accept that my situation in life and my life experiences are not the same as yours and that I may have different opinions based on these experiences

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 00:56 | #

Eumenides,

In dealing with us it is important to place yourself at a distance from your own suppositions, if you can.  I do assure you that you are not in a position to assess our moral and intellectual strengths.  You cannot see us, but we can see you quite plainly.  The liberalism which, I might say, owns your mind simply has no points of reference to European ethnocentricity, to the desire to be and to survive.  In consequence, its advocates make precisely the sort of generalisations about us that you accuse us of making about other races - indeed, projection (most often of self-hatred) is a depressingly common pathology of the liberal mind.

Down the years I have had so many “disagreements” with conventional thinkers like you I no longer bother very much to fight my way around the exordia of truth-getting - for one rarely gets beyond the beginning.  The real progress, if an individual is to make progress at all, is made over time and far away.  Someone once said, and I can believe it, that it takes five years to change a man’s mind.

Perhaps something will stick from this encounter, and you will begin that journey.  For once awakened, nobody walks the other way, towards sleep and collective suicide.

Good luck.

Posted by calvin on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:09 | #

“Get a life, loser, kill yourself.”

Get a life by killing yourself? The funniest example of posting whilst stupid that I’ve seen for a while.

Posted by Yuezhus on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 01:44 | #

You’re being hypocritical, Eumenides.

General intelligence is a scalar quantity; it would be foolish to say that people can either be equally intelligent or equally stupid. Obviously, there are degrees of intelligence which, realistically speaking, range from vegetative to supergenius. If one were to collect data from multiple people then you could plot the data on a percentage vs IQ graph, the line of which would tend towards a Gaussian curve in shape as your sample size gets bigger and stays homogeneous enough.

When you talk of percentages of people who lie about their rape victim status, then you have only two data values: liar or non liar. This could be represented by a simplistic bar chart. If a certain group has at least one reported case of rape, then it’s OK to be skeptical of future cases, although the amount of skepticism applied should be based on the percentage of rape liars.

Now, what you are saying is that if 5% of people from group A have a value, a scalar value, that ranges from equal to or greater than the average value of group B, then there’s a chance that both groups share the same average value. What the fack…?! If both groups had equal average values, that means that the amount of group A that is equal to or greater than group B would be 50%! You’re saying that if 5% of A are equal or greater than B, a possibility exists that 50% of them are. At the same time. Quoth the title…

I think you should reflect on how much material you absorbed during your logical reasoning class. If the data presented states that 5% of a group are at least as intelligent as another group, the only way to logically be open to the suggestion of the two groups sharing an average intelligence is by questioning the validity of the data. However, if right away you believe the 5% value, you must believe that the two groups cannot share an average.

Tis a shame you picked that particular pseudonym… >.<

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:16 | #

Eumenides “If you read my post carefully, I did not imply that ‘Negro’ and European IQs are equal. I don’t know, and I couldn’t care less.”

Well I think that rather rules you out from any further comment, should you care to make one, regarding crime, educational outcomes & immigration.

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:29 | #

Guessedworker: since you seem less concerned with reason and most concerned with sleep and waking up and walking around and mystical revelations of supremacy, I will let you go indulge in that in peace.

Yuezhus: you exemplify what I like to call the confused undergraduate mentality. (Except that the undergraduates I know get confused on math courses rather than race-bashing.) This should be fun—

0. Do you even know what scalar means?

1. Your argument is that I am drawing an analogy between a binary and a continuous variable. However, and this is important, the judgment is not on the entire data, but one point in it. You may or may not know this, but binary values can be averaged too, to give a percentage likelihood of a certain event. Thus, given a rape/assault case, the probability that the victim is lying is n% (where n = the percentage of lying victims).

Now take the case of the intelligence of a person from Group A vs. the average intelligence of Group B. Given a random data point P from Group A, it is clear that Prob(Intelligence(P)>=Avg.Intelligence(B))=n%, where n is the percentage of people in Group A whose intelligence>=the average of Group B. That is, if I pick a random person from Group A, the probability that he/she is more intelligent than the average of Group B is n%.

Now, if we assume the n in both scenarios is roughly equal (and Guessedworker went as far as to acknowledge the value in the latter case may be higher), the probability that a random assault victim is lying is the same as that of a random Group A person being of above-B-average intelligence. In other words, the assault victim has 100-n% probability of not lying, and the Group A person has 100-n% probability of being more intelligent than the average Group B guy.

A completely unbiased judge would therefore feel the same skepticism towards believing that the victim is telling the truth as towards believing that a Group A person is intelligent. I haven’t read Majorityrights cover to cover—that would be mind-numbing—but I can bet there is no story or discussion where the possibility that some black person was of above-White-average intelligence was considered. Or conversely, if you believe that ‘all black people are stupid, omg!’, you should also be willing to believe that no assault victims lie.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go work while Yuezhus looks up his high school physics book for the definition of scalar (hint: it is not synonymous with continuous), and the rest of you gather to parrot one another’s screeches.

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:37 | #

Lurker—no, I don’t care to comment on crimes and immigration and race. I will leave it up to you to spend your fine Saturday/Sunday spewing hate, misogyny, venom, and whatever else is on your tiny brain.

I have no sympathies for any one ethnic or racial group. I commented on this post only because it gets on my nerves to see basic, human reason being thwarted by racial or political agendas. However, since this blog has been set up exactly for that end, I realize I am wasting my time here.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:49 | #

Eumenides - the only hate here seems to be coming from you.

As for supremacy, which I take to mean white supremacy, Ive not noticed many here advocating that. Surely people of European descent might be allowed to retain some control of their own territory?

You will then tell us that there is no such thing (our own territory) I suppose. We should be happy to be replaced, I take it.

Posted by Lurker on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:59 | #

Eumenides - “I have no sympathies for any one ethnic or racial group. I commented on this post only because it gets on my nerves to see basic, human reason being thwarted by racial or political agendas.”

And for an example of your *ahem* reasoning I get to read this:

“I will leave it up to you to spend your fine Saturday/Sunday spewing hate, misogyny, venom, and whatever else is on your tiny brain.”

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:03 | #

Lurker—your lack of logic amazes me. My comments were about how the blog stands in contempt and derision of non-European people. I hold no hate against any of you, only against your irrationality and spite towards your fellow human beings. I am fine with Europeans having their own territories, or hundreds of them—but I fail to see the connection between that and the hate (demonstrated in many other posts here) towards other groups. Self-interest does not necessitate scorn, ill-treatment, or hatred towards others, and until every ethnic group realizes that, nothing in the world is going to change.

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 04:10 | #

Re: the venom, it is nothing personal against you, Lurker, as long as you can point me to posts you have authored that only defend White nationalism *without* deriding another group. If not, I am afraid you have to take the responsibility for all the venomous posts on Majorityrights.

Posted by JB on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:50 | #

could the trolls, the angry liberals or the frustrated libertardians be forced to keep a single pseudonym ? it can be confusing sometimes.

* * *

Eumenides:

If I could only do to you what I wish I could have done to hitler in 1930.  Get a life, loser, kill yourself.

and what would you wish you could have done to Trotsky, Stalin and all the others in that regime ? Not that the actions of one necessarily justifies or equalizes those of the other but it seems like everyone, and even an intelligent and obviously educated above-the-crowd liberal like you, thinks the Third Reich was so bad and so obviously so bad that it beats all the competition. Why don’t you intellectually treat Bad Guys as if they were all the same ? How about adding some unbiasness, nonjudgementalism, objectivism and relativism to your thinking ? If you think these things are good for groups surely you must believe it’s also good for individuals

Eumenides:

...but I can bet there is no story or discussion where the possibility that some black person was of above-White-average intelligence was considered. Or conversely, if you believe that ‘all black people are stupid, omg!’, you should also be willing to believe that no assault victims lie.

there’s no need for 100 % of africans to be stupider than 100 % of whites to be able to establish a group generalization, i.e. whites have a higher IQ than africans based on I don’t know how many IQ studies (with yellows being a small notch above whites.)

a simpler example:

men are taller than women. men are stronger than women.
on average. and it has been for a long time.

get it ?

Eumenides:

Lurker—no, I don’t care to comment on crimes and immigration and race. I will leave it up to you to spend your fine Saturday/Sunday spewing hate, misogyny, venom, and whatever else is on your tiny brain.

I understand, we can’t all be interested to think about reality and politics or even be interested in our future enough to be involved in it.

Posted by JB on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:55 | #

I wish I had some kind of hate-o-meter. I bet Eumenides would score higher than most of us. His hatred towards those who defend his own kind must beat our hatred of those who are trying to destroy us.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 09:35 | #

JB: His hatred towards those who defend his own kind must beat our hatred of those who are trying to destroy us.

This is true.  Liberalism is a religious faith that offers its adherents self-healing through the projection of their own pathologies upon those nearest to them (ie their own people).  Their faux-moral supremacy is utterly tangible to us, but not to them because the psychological burden has been shifted elsewhere.  Same with self-hatred ... same with racism ... same, in Eumenides case, with serial illogicality.

The key is to listen to the accusations that come forth.  The more mechanical and gratuitous they are, and the more accompanied by heated language, the more likely that said liberal is seeking a psychological payoff by making them.

Liberalism is a fantasy of self-healing and self-importance, the latter most literally figured in the hopelessly lightweight and unserious notion of self-authorship.

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:04 | #

could the trolls, the angry liberals or the frustrated libertardians be forced to keep a single pseudonym ? it can be confusing sometimes.

I’d advise you not to make baseless accusations—it only makes you look stupid and petty. You can check my IP address and e-mail in connection to my pseudonym if you like—but since you probably will find a way to argue against evidence Can I borrow a copy, out of intellectual curiosity?anyway, that may not even help. Similarly, please address your Pro-Third Reich remark to the anonymous troll and not to me… that is not my issue of interest, I never brought it up, and further, “guesdworker” might feel hurt that you misattributed his/her/its comment.

there’s no need for 100 % of africans to be stupider than 100 % of whites to be able to establish a group generalization

Listen, blockhead. If you want to argue, please argue against what I said, not what you *imagine* I said. My point was that if you generalize that Africans are stupider than Europeans on an average, you are contradicting yourself by not generalizing that assault victims *don’t lie*. Whether you generalize the first point or not is up to you, but if you want to be taken seriously in a debate, you cannot selectively avoid generalizing the second. And the inverse holds. Get it?

I understand, we can’t all be interested to think about reality and politics or even be interested in our future enough to be involved in it.

And reality and politics are synonymous with hate and derision? Which dictionary are you reading? The Ku-Klux-Lex?

His hatred towards those…

If you (and the rest of the merry gang here I’ve had the pleasure of meeting) value your heritage that much, do Western culture a favor and find out what my pseudonym means. Demonstrating at least a surface knowledge of the Western Canon, plus some amount of inductive inference, may earn you brownie points among Neo-Nazis, I would imagine.

If you really want your opponents to take you seriously, try to make logical sense in general, ok? If I ethically believed in your stance, I could spin arguments that are much sounder, way more convincing, and that at least evince an iota of thought.  Whatever the viewpoint, no one likes having to argue with a bunch of frustrated simpletons who seem to have dropped math (and frequently, punctuation skills) in high school. Your collective slow-witted silliness certainly gave me a good laugh, but I am going to have to take off now. Oh, and if you’re going to accuse any future trolls of being me, at least have the courtesy of letting me know (you have my e-mail)—I can watch the fun.

Posted by Eumenides on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 10:08 | #

Typo fix:

could the trolls, the angry liberals or the frustrated libertardians be forced to keep a single pseudonym ? it can be confusing sometimes.

I’d advise you not to make baseless accusations—it only makes you look stupid and petty. You can check my IP address and e-mail in connection to my pseudonym if you like—but since you probably will find a way to argue against evidence anyway, that may not even help. Similarly, please address your Pro-Third Reich remark to the anonymous troll and not to me… that is not my issue of interest, I never brought it up, and further, “guesdworker” might feel hurt that you misattributed his/her/its comment.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:09 | #

Eumenides,

I have no opponents among my own people.  Liberals are not my opponents.  They are my brothers, weakened through living in a delusional and inverted world.  By stumbling upon MR you, at least, have a slender opportunity to escape the role of the liberal Fury and learn that “kind” has a prior and more profound meaning.

If you have time, please download/listen to Fraser II on our radio page.  That’s a pretty good introduction to serious free-thinking of the quality necessary for someone like yourself - of good intellect and formal education - to begin to appreciate our alternative universe.  Believe me, as things stand now you only have a received opinion - just gross distortions and generalisations - to apply to us.

While you are listening to Drew Fraser and Jim Bowery in that interview be aware that both men have paid a heavy price at the hands of the Furies for their sightedness.  These are men of courage.  They are genuine altruists.  They are not remotely the men you now consider them to be.

As ever, good luck ... but do learn.

Posted by Yuezhus on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:28 | #

Eumenides, I don’t yet study undergraduate maths, but how is intelligence not a scalar quantity? Would you deny height, temperature and mass to be scalar quantities? You are right that ‘continuous variable’ would’ve been the correct term to use at this juncture, since it is more specific to the comparison of graphs, so I’ll try proofreading in future to make sure I don’t confuse roughly interchangeable words.

Although, to avoid gross hypocrisy, I’m sure you will have to do a spot of proofreading. I’m sure it won’t be too strenuous a task if you go at it honestly, because the blatant strawmans, ad hominems, misreadings, refusal to understand the opponents points and revise their past discourses stand out like a sore thumb. Sore because it is on fire. From burning magnesium.

Consider what you wrote here:

You may or may not know this, but binary values can be averaged too, to give a percentage likelihood of a certain event. Thus, given a rape/assault case, the probability that the victim is lying is n% (where n = the percentage of lying victims)

Wow, I sure wasn’t aware of that! Oh wait:

If a certain group has at least one reported case of rape, then it’s OK to be skeptical of future cases, although the amount of skepticism applied should be based on the percentage of rape liars.

Perhaps I was.

You know, when you wrote this:

...If 5% is your threshold for skepticism, it goes on to imply that when you hear of Black/European IQs being unequal...

I immediately thought you meant average IQs of the two groups. This is what I based my critique on.

Now, I don’t think any of the MR commentariat is stupid enough to think that not a single black person has an IQ equal to any white person. Even a cursory reading of past posts on MR would let you know most people understand how two curves on a graph can overlap.

But yes, if we somehow DID believe that two groups of people can have a trait, one which is a continuous variable, which doesn’t overlap, we would indeed be stupid and misguided. You would indeed be more enlightened in that regard. However, this an opinion that has been falsified, misrepresented and invented by you.

One particular gem of yours is your insistence on fluency in mathematical language being a marker of greater rationality and correctness than simple reading comprehension. In fact, I think that at least one commenter here has an extensive education in maths. Even if you do also, you seem to be intentionally and slyly forgetting even the most basic precepts in order to defame your opponent.

Posted by ben tillman on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 17:14 | #

The percentage of women who make false claims and seek attention baselessly is non-zero….

My point was that if you generalize that Africans are stupider than Europeans on an average, you are contradicting yourself by not generalizing that assault victims *don’t lie*....

You’re not paying attention.  We’re not generalizing about putative assault victims.  Or putative sexual assault victims.  We’re generalizing about publicized accusations of racially motivated “assaults” by natives against non-white immigrants.  In this context, the false accusation is extremely high.

And immaterial.

Even if the 33-year-old woman’s account is true, her presence here makes her an aggressor, not a victim.

Posted by Apartheid Supporter on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:25 | #

1. “The percentage of women who make false claims and seek attention baselessly is non-zero, but certainly far smaller than the percentage of certain minorities who have the same IQ as the average white, at least according to Majorityrights. And Majorityrights seems to be more than willing to generalize that to say that these certain minorities are stupid and uncultured. So what is the problem against generalizing to say women are not attention-seekers? Or are there simply different thresholds for different generalizations?”
2. “My point was that if you generalize that Africans are stupider than Europeans on an average, you are contradicting yourself by not generalizing that assault victims *don’t lie*. Whether you generalize the first point or not is up to you, but if you want to be taken seriously in a debate, you cannot selectively avoid generalizing the second. And the inverse holds. Get it?” - Eumenides.

Generalizing that Africans are stupider is not ALONE based on studies or reports showing their lower average IQ - but on repeated “general” real world experience of their incapacity - manifested in their destruction of Africa, their behaviour eg. after Katrina, their inability to meet academic standards so that American universities have affirmitive action programmes to get enough of them to have the coveted “happy rainbow multicultural PC profile”, etc, etc.  In the real world “The percentage of women who make false claims and seek attention baselessly is non-zero” - ie is such behaviour is not “general”.  That is the difference Eumenides.  That is why one can generalize about African IQ but not about assault victims - get it?

Posted by gangsta1gnxp on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:52 | #

I suspect Eumenides is a troll. Either way, s/he’s being given far more attention than s/he deserves.

Posted by Bud White on Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:16 | #

“Eumenides should also read The Bell Curve by Herrnstein & Murray, which contains lots of references to mathematical demonstrations relating to these issues. “—Fred Scrooby

Getting a liberal to objectivly read the The Bell Curve and willingly accept it’s thesis is as likely as convincing a radical Islamic to renounce his religion and become a devotee of Voltaire.

Posted by JB on Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:28 | #

Eumenides:

Similarly, please address your Pro-Third Reich remark to the anonymous troll and not to me.

OK but I didn’t made a pro-Third Reich remark I said the ease with which some can refer to Hitler implying all sorts of things that usually are not explicitely stated is very telling about the zeitgeist we live in. The USSR and the communist regimes killed a lot more people than the Nazis did and moreover in the case of the USSR did it before the latter came to power and yet nobody can dethrone the ultimate Bad Guys of the liberal mythology.

(For the record I think there should not have been a 2nd World War but that the responsability for it lies not solely in Hitler’s hands but that a large part of it was in Churchill’s. His hatred of germans and/or the nazis made him refuse the peace offers sent to Great Britain by Germany. And I think the outcome of that war was probably the worst possible one with the USSR surviving and expanding for almost 40 years and the Third Reich being completely destroyed.)

Eumenides:

Whether you generalize the first point or not is up to you, but if you want to be taken seriously in a debate, you cannot selectively avoid generalizing the second.

yes but generalizations aren’t all equal, we know more about the first than the second. Besides GuessedWorker’s point was about the media coverage : we have here a story about have an arab woman who’s saying she has been attacked by whites but as we know the chances of stories of assaults or even murders of whites getting on the front pages are slim

the gruesome murder of Charlene Downes:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/charlene_downes_a_murder_too_far_for_the_msm/

BBC’s heavy coverage of a rare white on pakistani murder:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_rape_murder_trial_hits_the_bbc_headlines/

so whether that algerian woman was assaulted or not it fits the usual media coverage pattern which in turn probably makes some immigrants confident that their accusations would be not only believed but focused on making them look like poor victims of that english racism lurking in dark alleys.

Eumenides:

And reality and politics are synonymous with hate and derision?

We’re not the carebears, there’s nothing wrong with hating the forces that want to destroy us and there’s little ‘hate’ on MR it’s mainly the exposure of problems facing the european race and civilization. If defending ourselves is ‘hate’ to you what can I say ? You’re just another sad fool who’s firmly plugged into the matrix

Posted by JB on Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:40 | #

here’s a fresh example of an arab lying about being assaulted by whites:

1 minute video on this page

http://fdesouche.com/index.php?2007/04/17/1948-thizy-manipulations

he says a van owned by a Front National candidate tried to knock him (cause FN candidates have nothing better to do than to try to run over arabs with their cars you see) and when he punched the window a couple of FN members got out of it and beat him and another person with metal rods breaking his jaw.

But that guy was filmed a few minutes after the alleged incident by a TV crew and he didn’t look like he got the sht beated out of him and clearly judging by the way he talked he didn’t had a broken jaw then. The video sarcastically asks: “is it possible for a jaw to break belatedly ?”

As usual the PC and lazy reporteuse does a report on the alleged assault but doesn’t ask him any tough questions and doesn’t bother checking for clips of the incident before telling her audience that the poor government certified frenchmen of immigrant origin was assaulted by those racists whites who beat people that look foreign to them

Posted by Helena on Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:37 | #

The “Algerian- sex- attack -on -baby- case” other than being a gift to that well known racist Trevor Phillips of the CRE has predictably vanished into the ether.

All the CCTV footage or DNA evidence has come to naught.
Even the expected twilight vigils and Rock-in-aid-of-sex-attack-asylum-seeker concerts, have been awfully quiet.

Its a pity we’ll never hear the truth or see it in print, but on the bright side generous Asian “businessmen” I think the 10G’s are safe!