Posted by southern poverty on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:13 | #

Has anyone else noticed that since the following was made public and put online:

http://charlestonvoice.netfirms.com/DeesSleazeI.htm

Potok and Beirich have replaced Dees as the “official face” of the SPLC?

A coincidence I guess…....

Posted by Alexander on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:29 | #

SPLC is filled with mullato scum with indentity crisis and Jews.

If only we could get these blacks out of poverty, their IQ’s would go up to white levels? Hahah, no they’ll buy more chrome rims and teeth. How repugnant.

Blacks are a Jew proxy and they don’t even know it, the first step to throwing both of them off is throwing the desert religion off our backs. The religion of slaves.

Otherwise the Aryan destiny is to be cuckholded by blacks and browns,  and to be replaced intellectually by AI.

Posted by J Richards on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:53 | #

Alexander,

You are a troll and not welcome.  Stop commenting here!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:52 | #

I heartily second J. Richards.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:53 | #

He’s not just a troll, but somehow an especially creepy one.  The guy makes my skin crawl.  Please, Alexander, just go away.

Posted by Get lost troll on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 06:28 | #

“SPLC is filled with mullato scum”

By “mulatto scum” do you mean the Italian man-beast hybrids you were theorizing about yesterday? Please elaborate.

Wait I’m kidding. We don’t really care about your theories.

Posted by Horrific Grunting Brute on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:40 | #

It seems that the only social science academics willing to defend MacDonald have been Frank Salter and David Sloan Wilson; see here:

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/review-salter.html

The following are some relevant excerpts from Salter’s review:

“Most readers of this Bulletin will be aware of the controversy that embroiled ISHE member Kevin MacDonald at the recent annual meeting of our kindred organization, the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES). At a special session MacDonald was charged with anti-Semitism and his scientific standing questioned. Any review must now be counted as contributing to that controversy since it bears on MacDonald’s status as a scholar and evolutionary psychologist. With this in mind I decided to combine the book review with a description of the recent controversy concerning The Culture of Critique among human evolutionists. I shall be arguing that much of the criticism of MacDonald is founded on ignorance of his scholarship and a confounding of political and scientific issues….Apart from the political sensitivity of the subject, much of the problem facing MacDonald is that his knowledge is often too far ahead of his detractors to allow easy communication; there are not enough shared premises for constructive dialog. Unfortunately the knowledge gap is closing slowly because some of his most hostile critics, including colleagues who make serious ad hominem accusations, have not bothered to read MacDonald’s books. If this sounds incredible, please read on….On a personal note, it is overdue that John Tooby and Steven Pinker applied their professional skills seriously to critique MacDonald’s work in the appropriate scientific forums. This now seems obligatory as a matter of professional duty given the severity of their attack on a colleague who has refrained from ad hominems throughout this sorry event.  Still,  it is now too late to reverse the harm done to both MacDonald’s and probably HBES’s reputation by what can only be judged reckless, unscholarly, and plain uncivil slurs. For these they should apologize….In response to Shulevitz, David S. Wilson (Slate 25 Jan. 2000) supports MacDonald based on a reading of his first volume, noting that he is engaged in developing a general theory of groups taking Judaism as an example. In what must be the understatement of the new millennium, Wilson attributes unscientific motives to MacDonald’s HBES critics: ‘t is shameful how quickly those who are sensitive to being demonized are willing to demonize others. Even evolutionary psychologists, who have experienced their share of persecution in academic circles, seem more concerned to protect their own reputations than to defend the work of their colleague.’ …It is one thing to question a scientist’s political judgment, another to downgrade his status as a scientist and scholar. In the following synopsis of The Culture of Critique I sample each chapter’s main sources. Are they credible? Are MacDonald’s empirical claims well documented? As will become apparent, the sources for many of the claims for which MacDonald has been criticized are mainstream? This raises a certain matter of consistency. If MacDonald but not his sources is to be condemned, logic requires that critics pick on aspects of his analysis that are distinctive to him….Certainly, whether his theories are ultimately viable or not, MacDonald is a scholar of considerable analytical power and scope…Several major aspects are distinctive to MacDonald’s analysis. His is the first historical-sociological application of Boyd and Richerson’s (1985) theory of cultural group strategy, which he elaborates into evolutionary group strategy theory (1st volume). He offers an evolutionary interpretation of Social Identity Theory (2nd volume). I suspect both are destined to become influential. But for me what is most impressive, and this is the achievement of Culture of Critique, MacDonald has shown theoretical and methodological pathways linking the micro-level analysis of human behaviour with the macro-level dynamics of contemporary culture. He has done so on a narrow front, in a monumental case study of social relations affecting one people’s struggle to survive and prosper, but that is a big start.”