The egalitarian war on reality

[cryosteel]

Suppress valid information for social justice because we are unable to create a better arrangement for everyone involved.

In 1984, Lewontin, Rose and Kamin wrote Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. I decided to read the book to see how the arguments faired after 23 years of additional research, argument and debate. As it turned out, even for 1984, the arguments against at that time primarily sociobiology were very weak by the authors own admission. That is they don’t argue against genetic influences and racial differences so much as against science itself.

They start out: “Each of us has been engaged for much of this time in research, writing, speaking, teaching, and public political activity in opposition to the oppressive forms in which determinist ideology manifests itself. We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just—a socialist—society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief—in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science—is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.”

Not in our Genes?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Suppress valid information for social justice because we are unable to create a better arrangement for everyone involved.



Not in our Genes?

They and their fellow culture distorters wanted to skew science to the advantage of the underdog. This has mostly been achieved. The icing on the cake is the assertion that race doesn't exist, which ignores the fact that while, for example, the "black" race is a vague category, there are still various ethnicities which can be identified genetically as well as by more straightforward means (physical appearance).

 

[derbeder]

The article only focuses on the authors' political aims in writing Not in Our Genes and does not present even an outline of its contents. Insofar as the book has a political aim, it could be achieved independently of its content. So suppose its central claims are all false. If there is a question about whether members of a certain race are in general more intelligent than members of other races, this could be answered using psychological research into intelligence (this research is rather poor in quality compared to other psychological research). Even supposing that it was shown reasonable to accept the intellectual superiority of one race over others, this goes nowhere towards answering the relevant moral and political questions such as: supposing that people in a society have different levels of intelligence, should they have different rights based on their level of intelligence? Only if one answered this positively would research into racial differences in intelligence have any moral and political significance. One might like to live alongside intelligent and interesting people, but that does not make it acceptable to issue political rights (to vote etc.) based on intellectual merit. Are there any conditions under which we should issue rights in this way? We can discuss questions like this in abstract independently of any psychological research into racial differences in intelligence. That's where the deeper moral and political issues lie.

 

[Scourge of God]

Derbeder, the issue raised here isn't the moral questions, but the degree to which those on the liberal/left end of the political spectrum are willing to distort, fabricate or outright deny the basic structure of reality in order to bolster their moral and political arguments. The real question that emerges is this:

How can we even have a discussion of political ethics/morality with people for whom truth and fact are of no consequence? You might as well argue with a four year old about the existence of Santa Clause.

 

[Norsemaiden]

In 1984, Lewontin, Rose and Kamin wrote Not In Our Genes: Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. I decided to read the book to see how the arguments faired after 23 years of additional research, argument and debate. As it turned out, even for 1984, the arguments against at that time primarily sociobiology were very weak by the authors own admission. That is they don’t argue against genetic influences and racial differences so much as against science itself.

They start out: “Each of us has been engaged for much of this time in research, writing, speaking, teaching, and public political activity in opposition to the oppressive forms in which determinist ideology manifests itself. We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more socially just—a socialist—society. And we recognize that a critical science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just as we also believe that the social function of much of today’s science is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief—in the possibility of a critical and liberatory science—is why we have each in our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the United States and Britain, as the radical science movement.”

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/not_in_our_genes/#comments


It is ironic that they published their book in the year 1984 since their proposal is so Orwellian.

They claim that twisting science in the way they advocate will help bring about a more just "socialist" world.
Well that's nonsense for sure!

Firstly, the Lewontin, Rose and Kamin (all three Jewish) view is one that is favoured by every nation that is friendly with Israel, regardless of how "socialist" it is. President Bush would be right on board with their wish to control science in this way.

President Bush and other friends of Israel condemn certain socialist states that are not under their control: eg Cuba and Venezuela. These are countries that have greatly benefitted their people through socialist policies and I applaud the achievements of Castro and Chavez. It is likely however that they also fall for this idea that in order to be socialist you must blind yourself and everyone else to genetic differences. This is a trick which actually does NOT serve socialism - it has been designed to serve international capitalism. And the advocacy of this view on science by the likes of Bush demonstrates this fact.

Lewontin, Rose and Kamin are part of the grand globalisation plan to destroy the ethnicity of nations, mixing them up and assisting the process of dysgenic breeding to lower IQ and destroy the family unit.

Capitalism depends upon the availability of cheap labour and uneducated, disenfranchised masses.
But there is another, more sinister plan, which can be glimpsed from this quote from an article about the concentration camp known as "Gaza"

With Gaza secured in chaos and the West Bank walled in, the Israeli plan, wrote the Palestinian academic Karma Nabulsi, is "a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism and co-opted collaborationists. Look to the Iraq of today..."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17760.htm

With nearly a quarter of all English school children now from ethic minorities, the arms dealers don't have long to wait before our nation becomes a long-term source of income, descending into just such perpetual warfare and instability.

While pretending to be misleading science for the purpose of introducing a socialist utopia, this is the real game plan of Lewontin,Rose and Kamin.
And because the likes of Cuba, Venuzuela, and North Korea are not ruled by their cabal, no matter how socialist they are, they will always be the enemies of "the global community".

There is no reason why a scientific orthodoxy that accepts there are genetic and racial differences between people should result in a miserable society. As we can see, the ultimate nightmare of misery is being ushered in by the opposers of Reality. They actually know that these differences exist and have entirely selfish reasons to make this knowledge heretical for other people to say.

 

[derbeder]

I am really no buying into the "Jewish distortion of facts" idea here. Especially when it is put that way. The only way that I can be convinced of something like this is through a detailed review of the book which points out where they use unreliable methods, false reports and so on in favor of their view. The short article in the link does none of that.

 

[Scourge of God]

There's a link there to Richard Dawkins' review which deals directly with the many distortions of the work...

 

[derbeder]

Oh, there it is among the comments following the article. Thanks.

Well, that's a pretty scathing review. I only know Lewontin among the authors and his work in evolutionary biology is of some importance. If Dawkins' account of the book is right, this book is no good and is indeed an instance of political aims seeping too much into science. Sociobiology was not intended to legitimate of a world order, and some of the authors' criticism of sociobiology reported in Dawkins' review (attributing a silly form of reductionism to sociobiologists, and the use of the poor work of two anthropologists against sociobiology) are definitely unacceptable.
Yet it seems Dawkins is giving short-shrift to the author's claims in the book. Take, for instance, their opposition to "interactionism". I don't exactly understand what they are talking about from the short section there, but one idea involved is that the behavior of wholes (groups) can always in principle be explained in terms of the behavior of their parts (individuals). Well, if this implies that the only mechanism of selection studied in evolutionary biology can be natural selection at the level of genes, as Dawkins seems to think, then this claim indeed can be disputed. There is some work in biology that postulates some selection mechanisms other than natural selection at the level of genes, like group selection and species selection, that do not operate at the level of genes but on groups of organisms. Dawkins and the father of sociobiology, E O Wilson, have both argued against the need for such a mechanism of selection in evolutionary biology. But the issues aren't quite settled yet. The philosopher of biology, Elliot Sober has criticized Dawkins' views on these matters earlier in The Nature of Selection and more recently he has tried to ward off rebuttals of the idea of group selection in a book on the evolution of altruistic behavior, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (with David S. Wilson). I haven't read Unto Others, yet but I heard from the people who have read it in a reading group at the university that it is pretty good. In Sober's case no explicit political (socialist, "Jewish") ambitions are present as far as I know.

In a project I worked on many years ago I actually tried to implement group selection in a computer simulation using an alternative method for genetic algorithms. In the experiments the individuals were simply a 16 digit binary codes for strategies in an iterated prisoners dilemma. The individuals in a generation all played against each other and their reproduction was determined by how well they do in the game (and the genetic algorithm itself . My aim was to see if the pattern of evolution observed in many runs of the simulation would be like that predicted by standard Darwinian accounts of evolution or as predicted by the theory of punctuated equillibrium. The results were mixed, however, and handling all the data became cumbersome and I had to discontinue the project. This reminds me how much I was thinking about these issues 5-6 years ago.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Oh, there it is among the comments following the article. Thanks.

Well, that's a pretty scathing review. I only know Lewontin among the authors and his work in evolutionary biology is of some importance. If Dawkins' account of the book is right, this book is no good and is indeed an instance of political aims seeping too much into science. Sociobiology was not intended to legitimate of a world order, and some of the authors' criticism of sociobiology reported in Dawkins' review (attributing a silly form of reductionism to sociobiologists, and the use of the poor work of two anthropologists against sociobiology) are definitely unacceptable.
Yet it seems Dawkins is giving short-shrift to the author's claims in the book. Take, for instance, their opposition to "interactionism". I don't exactly understand what they are talking about from the short section there, but one idea involved is that the behavior of wholes (groups) can always in principle be explained in terms of the behavior of their parts (individuals). Well, if this implies that the only mechanism of selection studied in evolutionary biology can be natural selection at the level of genes, as Dawkins seems to think, then this claim indeed can be disputed. There is some work in biology that postulates some selection mechanisms other than natural selection at the level of genes, like group selection and species selection, that do not operate at the level of genes but on groups of organisms. Dawkins and the father of sociobiology, E O Wilson, have both argued against the need for such a mechanism of selection in evolutionary biology. But the issues aren't quite settled yet. The philosopher of biology, Elliot Sober has criticized Dawkins' views on these matters earlier in The Nature of Selection and more recently he has tried to ward off rebuttals of the idea of group selection in a book on the evolution of altruistic behavior, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior (with David S. Wilson). I haven't read Unto Others, yet but I heard from the people who have read it in a reading group at the university that it is pretty good. In Sober's case no explicit political (socialist, "Jewish") ambitions are present as far as I know.

In a project I worked on many years ago I actually tried to implement group selection in a computer simulation using an alternative method for genetic algorithms. In the experiments the individuals were simply a 16 digit binary codes for strategies in an iterated prisoners dilemma. The individuals in a generation all played against each other and their reproduction was determined by how well they do in the game (and the genetic algorithm itself . My aim was to see if the pattern of evolution observed in many runs of the simulation would be like that predicted by standard Darwinian accounts of evolution or as predicted by the theory of punctuated equillibrium. The results were mixed, however, and handling all the data became cumbersome and I had to discontinue the project. This reminds me how much I was thinking about these issues 5-6 years ago.

Regarding the controversy over group selection:

The major weakness of group selection as an explanation of altruism, according to the consensus that emerged in the 1960s, was a problem that Dawkins (1976) called ‘subversion from within’; see also Maynard Smith (1964). Even if altruism is advantageous at the group level, within any group altruists are liable to be exploited by selfish ‘free-riders’ who refrain from behaving altruistically. These free-riders will have an obvious fitness advantage: they benefit from the altruism of others, but do not incur any of the costs. So even if a group is composed exclusively of altruists, all behaving nicely towards each other, it only takes a single selfish mutant to bring an end to this happy idyll. By virtue of its relative fitness advantage within the group, the selfish mutant will out-reproduce the altruists, hence selfishness will eventually swamp altruism. Since the generation time of individual organisms is likely to be much shorter than that of groups, the probability that a selfish mutant will arise and spread is very high, according to this line of argument. ‘Subversion from within’ is generally regarded as the major stumbling block for group-selectionist theories of the evolution of altruism.

If group selection is not the correct explanation for how the altruistic behaviours found in nature evolved, then what is? In the 1960s and 1970s two alternative theories emerged: kin selection or ‘inclusive fitness’ theory, due to Hamilton (1964), and the theory of reciprocal altruism, due primarily to Trivers (1971) and Maynard Smith (1974). These theories, which are discussed in detail below, apparently showed how altruistic behaviour could evolve without the need for group selection; they quickly gained prominence among biologists interested in the evolution of social behaviour. However, the precise relation between these theories and the older idea of group selection is a source of ongoing controversy. Some authors argue that kin selection and evolutionary game theory are in fact special cases of group selection, rather than alternatives to it, and that the widespread dismissal of group selection in the 1960s was therefore mistaken (Sober and Wilson (1998); see Maynard Smith (1998) for an alternative view.) Whatever the correct resolution of this issue, the fact remains that kin selection and reciprocal altruism were widely seen as alternatives to group selection, rightly or not, and their success contributed to the fall from grace of the latter.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

I agree with the view that " kin selection and evolutionary game theory are in fact special cases of group selection, rather than alternatives to it, and that the widespread dismissal of group selection in the 1960s was therefore mistaken". It seems obvious. We favour our own kind because, by favouring those most likely to carry copies of our genes, we are more likely to ensure these genes continue to exist. So there you have group selection and kin selection rolled into one - how can one possibly be an alternative to the other?

 

[infoterror]

I am really no buying into the "Jewish distortion of facts" idea here.

I don't think it makes sense to separate Judaism, Christianity, and modern liberalism: they have the same basic beliefs in a political context.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't think it makes sense to separate Judaism, Christianity, and modern liberalism: they have the same basic beliefs in a political context.

Agreed, they certainly all have the same root after all.

 

[infoterror]

Of course, that Lewontin, Rose and Kamin are all Jewish doesn't help my point, but they're also liberals... goddamnit, someone throw me a bone here

 

[cryosteel]

The only way that I can be convinced of something like this is through a detailed review of the book which points out where they use unreliable methods, false reports and so on in favor of their view.

Too narrow. Try the more general culture of rationalization. The egalitarian culture clings to its belief and denies relevant data that may threaten the foundation of its dominant belief system. Hence, the thread title.

 

[Patrick R.]

Agreed, they certainly all have the same root after all.

No don’t agree with that, Judaism isn’t liberal, on the contrary, it is the number 1 racial supremacist religion on earth. Christianity isn’t like Judaism, Christianity is universal, whereas Judaism is strictly for the Jews and Gentiles are animals. Not all Jews that follow Judaism think that way, some disagree. Liberalism isn’t like Christianity, the most extreme followers of that political ideology, the Marxist, are utterly against religion.

 

[Patrick R.]

Richard Lewontin tries to be down play human genetic variation, because that supports the concept of race. One of his utterly incorrect claims was that only 15 % of human racial variation is unique to each race, whereas the other 85 % is shared by all races. In other words, there is hardly a genetic difference between ‘races’, so there is no need for any kind of devotion to your race. However, Vincent Sarich, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at University of California Berkeley, and Frank Miele, senior editor of Skeptic magazine detail that it 32.5 %, not 15 %.

(Race: The Reality of Human Differences, p. 169)

The differences of human races isn’t even a debatable issue, those who suppress it usually have a political agenda. Some may fear the reaction of political correct dogmatist, I sympathize with them.

 

[Silver Incubus]

No don’t agree with that, Judaism isn’t liberal, on the contrary, it is the number 1 racial supremacist religion on earth. Christianity isn’t like Judaism, Christianity is universal, whereas Judaism is strictly for the Jews and Gentiles are animals. Not all Jews that follow Judaism think that way, some disagree. Liberalism isn’t like Christianity, the most extreme followers of that political ideology, the Marxist, are utterly against religion.

I think this was covered in the Jewish Double Standard thread. Liberal for us not for the Jews.

 

[Έρεβος]

No don’t agree with that, Judaism isn’t liberal, on the contrary, it is the number 1 racial supremacist religion on earth. Christianity isn’t like Judaism, Christianity is universal, whereas Judaism is strictly for the Jews and Gentiles are animals. Not all Jews that follow Judaism think that way, some disagree. Liberalism isn’t like Christianity, the most extreme followers of that political ideology, the Marxist, are utterly against religion.

You are only looking on the surface. Christianity is almost exactly like modern liberalism in that it pretends to be objective, preaching "right" and "wrong" with absolutely no credibility. All that goes against the bible (for Christianity) or the brainwashed status quo (for liberalism) is labeled as "evil" and tabooized, no matter if it makes sense or not.

Christianity is the same as Judaism, with the only difference being that real Judaism is a nationalistic faith, while Christianity, as you said, is universalistic. This difference is trivial, as it only changes the scale on which the religion operates. Christianity is a non-isolated version of Judaism.

 

[infoterror]

No don’t agree with that, Judaism isn’t liberal, on the contrary, it is the number 1 racial supremacist religion on earth. Christianity isn’t like Judaism, Christianity is universal, whereas Judaism is strictly for the Jews and Gentiles are animals. Not all Jews that follow Judaism think that way, some disagree. Liberalism isn’t like Christianity, the most extreme followers of that political ideology, the Marxist, are utterly against religion.

Both of these religions seem to have one standard for themselves, and another for others. Could it be the "chosen people of God" or "those who have chosen Goood" mythology? Either way, I fail to see how these religions are reverent or contemplative, with a few notable exceptions.

 

[Patrick R.]

You are only looking on the surface. Christianity is almost exactly like modern liberalism in that it pretends to be objective, preaching "right" and "wrong" with absolutely no credibility. All that goes against the bible (for Christianity) or the brainwashed status quo (for liberalism) is labeled as "evil" and tabooized, no matter if it makes sense or not.

Christianity is the same as Judaism, with the only difference being that real Judaism is a nationalistic faith, while Christianity, as you said, is universalistic. This difference is trivial, as it only changes the scale on which the religion operates. Christianity is a non-isolated version of Judaism.

There is a few basic similarities, such as universalism, and what is “right” and “wrong” but that hardly makes Christianity liberal despite incorporating liberal ideas. The former makes an attempt to have a moral foundation whereas the latter makes an attempt to destroy morality. It all depends on which Christian philosophy we are talking about, and that goes for liberalism as well. At one point traditional Christianity preached no race mixing, drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, etc. Today’s liberal’s have made an attempt to destroy all of that with their pro choice and massive multicultural propaganda. If liberalism’s philosophical foundation is ‘tolerance’ then Christianity isn’t it…Christianity is utterly intolerant which history has proved. The Romans were far more liberal and excepted many religions as long they didn’t antagonize against the state (like Christianity). You are spot on when you point out both pretend to be objective, but in reality they brutally suppress anything that they don’t agree with. In that respect they are identical.

The fact that Judaism is a nationalistic faith, and Christianity is universal is a big enough difference all by itself. Both are Jewish in origin, but their philosophies are different, some Jews believed that they were the chosen ones, then a religious sect of Jews claimed that god was for everyone, (in that respect liberal), those Jews made the foundation of Christianity.

 

[Norsemaiden]

There is a few basic similarities, such as universalism, and what is “right” and “wrong” but that hardly makes Christianity liberal despite incorporating liberal ideas. The former makes an attempt to have a moral foundation whereas the latter makes an attempt to destroy morality. It all depends on which Christian philosophy we are talking about, and that goes for liberalism as well. At one point traditional Christianity preached no race mixing, drugs, alcohol, homosexuality, etc. Today’s liberal’s have made an attempt to destroy all of that with their pro choice and massive multicultural propaganda. If liberalism’s philosophical foundation is ‘tolerance’ then Christianity isn’t it…Christianity is utterly intolerant which history has proved. The Romans were far more liberal and excepted many religions as long they didn’t antagonize against the state (like Christianity). You are spot on when you point out both pretend to be objective, but in reality they brutally suppress anything that they don’t agree with. In that respect they are identical.

The fact that Judaism is a nationalistic faith, and Christianity is universal is a big enough difference all by itself. Both are Jewish in origin, but their philosophies are different, some Jews believed that they were the chosen ones, then a religious sect of Jews claimed that god was for everyone, (in that respect liberal), those Jews made the foundation of Christianity.

Liberalism and Christianity are rooted in Judaism but they have changed since. However, as regards how the three deal with the issue of genetic determination, they all say that people are equal and genes don't matter or can be over-ridden. Jews don't really believe this of course, but that is the way they want others to think. So they promote universalist utopianism both of the superficially liberal kind and the tyrannical kind.
The Jews (Essenes) who originally praciticed what became Christianity were detested by the other Jews, but Saul of Tarsus thought Christianity could be used to destroy Rome, and when he realised this on the road to Damascus, the scales fell from his eyes. But that's going off topic.