do not have subspecific names as organisms usually do; we are all
Homo sapiens sapiens
. It is almost as though subspecies or races did not exist, or as if we could wish them away. Nonetheless, we admit that in lower animals, subspecific differences in both appearance and behavior do exist.
1.2 Consider the well-documented case of Biston betularia, the peppered moth. Originally, peppered moths in were adapted to trees covered with lichen, on which the moths were well camouflaged. During the English Industrial Revolution (ca. 1750-1850), due to air pollution from burning coal, the lichen on trees died and the trees became much darker. By the mid-nineteenth century, the peppered moths had adapted into two subspecies: B. betularia typica and B. betularia carbonaria, distinguished by their overall color and habitat.
1.3 The original peppered moths, typica, had mottled coloration and preferred to rest on lichen-covered trees, whereas the newer carbonaria, were virtually black and preferred coal-blackened trees. As trees became increasingly dark, birds and other predators could easily see the typica moths, and their population declined. The population of carbonaria simultaneously increased, as they were much better camouflaged.
1.4 Later, about 1950, when clean-air legislation was adopted, coal burning sharply decreased. Lichens again grew on the trees, the moths adapted to this change, and the typica subspecies increased again. Thus, both the color and behavior (choice of trees), distinguished the moth subspecies.
1.5 If subspecies of moths are different, what about differences among races of humans? A few scientists have attempted to study these differences. Jean-Philippe Rushton did this, and published Race, Evolution, and Behavior in 1995. Working from the University of Western Ontario, Rushton studied what he considered significant variations in the three major races: African, Caucasian, and Asian (Mongoloid).
1.6 Now I am not concerned with Rushton's methods or his conclusions, but with the reaction to his study. While a few scientists and others supported him, the majority of people condemned his study and loudly called him "racist"or "white supremacist". Students protested against him and howled at him in the classroom. He was even investigated by Canadian police for the crime of "hate speech".
1.7 Rushton did indeed associate himself with white supremacists like the Pioneer Fund and former Ku Klux Klan member, David Duke. He said some things with which I certainly disagree. Whatever I think, Rushton's study found that average IQ scores of African, Caucasian, and Mongoloid races were 85, 100, and 106 respectively. Their law-abidingness (tendency to keep the peace) values were Low, Medium, and High, respectively. If Rushton were a true white supremacist, why did he find Mongoloids more intelligent and less criminal than Caucasians?
1.8 Apart from this flaming controversy, let us consider differences within a human family. My brother, my cousins and I are not exactly alike. We have different talents and inclinations, even different sexual orientations. Therefore, if people closely related to each other behave so differently, why would it not be possible that people of different races might behave differently? Why could there not be significant differences between me and a native of Kenya or of Korea? Does simply asking such a question brand me as a racist? If so, should we blindly deny that any differences exist?
1.9 If we deny that races of any organism are different, we may as well deny evolution by natural selection itself, since it is based on differential survival of races. The subtitle of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species is the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Does Darwin's discovery, which is the basis of modern biology, make him a racist? If so, biologists are all a pack of racists, and those who defend evolution against creationism are raving racists.
2.0 If someone who believes the races are different is a racist, then those who deny the preservation of favoured races are denialists. Denying evolution by natural selection of races is the same as denying the moon landings, the Holocaust, or that the globe is indeed warming. But of course, no one denies these things.
2.1 Moreover, if suggesting that the races differ makes me a racist, what if I say that men have more physical strength (not "brute" strength) than women? This is a simple truth. Of course women can train themselves to be strong, but a man equally trained would still be stronger. This is why in sports, men compete against men, and women against women.
2.3 If uttering the truth that men are naturally stronger makes me sexist, would saying that women are physically more flexible, make me a sexist also? The plain truth is, women naturally have more flexibility, and men more strength.
2.4 In recognition of this, the US Army has two physical fitness standards, one for males and another for females. As of 2011, the push-up standard (minimum to maximum) for men aged 17-21 is 42 to 71; the comparable expectation for women in that age group is 19 to 42. The 2-mile run standard for 17-21 year old men is 15:54 to 13:00 minutes; for women it is 18:84 to 15:36. Note that the maximum expectations for men are the same as or similar to the minimum expectations for women*.
2.5 I myself remember that in parachute school, men were expected to practice full, hanging pull-ups. Women, on the other hand, lay supine on the ground and did inclined pull-ups from a bar overhead. This is literally "lowering the bar".
2.7 Evidently the Army believes that women do not have the strength or cardiovascular fitness of men. The Army (unfairly) expects less fitness from women, even when they are doing the same job as men. I am sure there are "G.I. Janes" who can compete with men, but the majority of women simply cannot. Does it bother anyone that I say this? If speaking the truth about physical fitness differences between men and women bothers anyone, why?
2.8 Why do feminists have no trouble saying that men are much more prone to violence? This is true, and no one decries feminists for saying so. Does speaking the truth about men make feminists also sexists?
2.9 Since men really are prone to violence, I am surprised and concerned that more women do not carry firearms. In 2010, when I received my Florida licence to carry, only 18% of the licenses were issued to women. Why would women not have more licenses? Perhaps they are less prone to defend themselves at all, or they expect someone else will defend them, or else they believe there is no crime.
3.0 The reticence of women to carry firearms is strange, especially because guns are great empowering tools for women. A woman with a gun can overcome any thug. Just point and click, and the bad guy goes away.
3.1 Incidentally, while men are responsible for the vast majority of violence in this world, they are also responsible for the majority of music, art, literature, philosophy, science, technology, and medicine. Men also defend women against natural and man-made catastrophes. In fact, without the males' testosterone drive, females' wombs would be empty. There would be no babies and the human race would soon go extinct. It seems that "demonic males" are useful for something, after all.
3.2 Finally, after racism and sexism, there is now the vilification of "Islamophobes": those who dare to criticize militant Islam. For instance, Robert Spencer of the weblog Jihad Watch, has been decried as an Islamophobe and racist (despite that Islam is not a race). Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has also been called a racist, despite that she is Jewish. It seems that Islamophobia has become the new antisemitism, and Jews are now targets of polemical protests.
3.3 Some Jews, indeed, have jumped on the cramped Islamophobia bandwagon. They see no problem with Islam as a whole, and decry anyone who criticizes Islam in any way. These people need to be reminded of the Islamist threat, "Khybar, Khybar, ya Yahud, jaish Muhammad sa'yud!". This translates, "(Remember) Khybar, O Jews; the army of Muhammad is returning!"
3.4 It refers to the year 629, when Muhammad and his followers attacked the oasis of Khybar, a Jewish city. The Jews eventually surrendered to Muhammad, and were allowed to live in the oasis as dhimmis (second-class citizens), with the agreement that they give one-half of their produce to the Muslim invaders. After several years, the Jews were forcibly expelled by the caliph Umar.
3.5 When modern Islamists shout "Khybar, Khybar..." they are at once reminding the Jews of their former loss, and promising another such attack (perhaps on Israel). It is difficult to understand why any Jew would give aid and comfort to their sworn enemies. It is even more difficult to understand why one Jew would call another "Islamophobe".
3.6 In fact, the term "Islamophobia" is false. A phobia is an irrational fear of someone or something, as claustrophobia, the fear of small spaces. Fear of militant Islam is nothing irrational, unless we are foolish to fear bombings, shootings, gang rape, and the whole repulsive repertoire of Islamist atrocities. No rational person has a problem with Muslims, as such; the concern is with Islamists, their jihad and their shari'a law.
3.7 Now, if I claimed that the medieval Church was violent and prone to horrible human rights abuses, would anyone complain? Consider the strappado, the Judas' chair, the oral (or anal, or vaginal) pear, the breaking wheel, and many other torture devices. I prefer not to describe their use; the interested, or the morbid, can research them.
3.8 The Holy Roman Inquisition displayed infernal inventiveness, as well as eagerness to "mortify the flesh" of those who offended the Church. The burning of heretics, homosexuals and others, most especially women accused of witchcraft, reached such a height, or rather depth, that between the 16th and 17th centuries 200,000 people went up in agonizing flames. The Spanish Inquisition called this practice relaxado en persona. This sounds pleasant, rather like a spa treatment.
3.9 I could go much further, describing the forced concubinage of women by priests, their use of young boys as catamites, as well as the merciless wars and massacres perpetrated by the Church (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant). Crimes committed under the aegis of the Church rivaled anything the Islamists have done. Now, having recounted this heinous Christian history, should I be called a "Christianophobe"? If I do ask questions about racial differences, should I be called a racist?
4.0 I must reiterate that the exact differences between races or genders or religions of humans, or what importance the differences might have, is not my point. My problem is that asking such questions causes an insensate reaction by the mainstream media, academics, and other uninformed sources. They rush with righteous indignation to vilify those who say anything they find "offensive". It seems that just discussing questions of race or religion is an offense against humanity.
4.1 If studying or teaching in ways that offend others makes me a racist, I freely and openly accept the charge. If speaking the truth about Islamism and its goal of world dominance makes me an Islamophobe, I accept the charge. Since other people have "come out of the closet", I will come out also. I am a racist! Beacuse I speak the truth, I am also an extremist, a sexist, and probably other "ists" as well. If free speech is a "hate crime", I plead guilty.
4.2 As a racist, I believe in freedom of speech, as well as religion and other self-expression, for everyone**. I do hold freedom of expression very dear, and will both practice and defend it.
4.3 By the way, I strongly support Congressman Allen West for President. Go West!
*However, the Army sit-up standards are the same for both sexes.
**Unless the speech physically threatens someone, as in "Slay those who insult Mohammed!"
2.0 If someone who believes the races are different is a racist, then those who deny the preservation of favoured races are denialists. Denying evolution by natural selection of races is the same as denying the moon landings, the Holocaust, or that the globe is indeed warming. But of course, no one denies these things.
2.1 Moreover, if suggesting that the races differ makes me a racist, what if I say that men have more physical strength (not "brute" strength) than women? This is a simple truth. Of course women can train themselves to be strong, but a man equally trained would still be stronger. This is why in sports, men compete against men, and women against women.
2.3 If uttering the truth that men are naturally stronger makes me sexist, would saying that women are physically more flexible, make me a sexist also? The plain truth is, women naturally have more flexibility, and men more strength.
2.4 In recognition of this, the US Army has two physical fitness standards, one for males and another for females. As of 2011, the push-up standard (minimum to maximum) for men aged 17-21 is 42 to 71; the comparable expectation for women in that age group is 19 to 42. The 2-mile run standard for 17-21 year old men is 15:54 to 13:00 minutes; for women it is 18:84 to 15:36. Note that the maximum expectations for men are the same as or similar to the minimum expectations for women*.
2.5 I myself remember that in parachute school, men were expected to practice full, hanging pull-ups. Women, on the other hand, lay supine on the ground and did inclined pull-ups from a bar overhead. This is literally "lowering the bar".
2.7 Evidently the Army believes that women do not have the strength or cardiovascular fitness of men. The Army (unfairly) expects less fitness from women, even when they are doing the same job as men. I am sure there are "G.I. Janes" who can compete with men, but the majority of women simply cannot. Does it bother anyone that I say this? If speaking the truth about physical fitness differences between men and women bothers anyone, why?
2.8 Why do feminists have no trouble saying that men are much more prone to violence? This is true, and no one decries feminists for saying so. Does speaking the truth about men make feminists also sexists?
2.9 Since men really are prone to violence, I am surprised and concerned that more women do not carry firearms. In 2010, when I received my Florida licence to carry, only 18% of the licenses were issued to women. Why would women not have more licenses? Perhaps they are less prone to defend themselves at all, or they expect someone else will defend them, or else they believe there is no crime.
3.0 The reticence of women to carry firearms is strange, especially because guns are great empowering tools for women. A woman with a gun can overcome any thug. Just point and click, and the bad guy goes away.
3.1 Incidentally, while men are responsible for the vast majority of violence in this world, they are also responsible for the majority of music, art, literature, philosophy, science, technology, and medicine. Men also defend women against natural and man-made catastrophes. In fact, without the males' testosterone drive, females' wombs would be empty. There would be no babies and the human race would soon go extinct. It seems that "demonic males" are useful for something, after all.
3.2 Finally, after racism and sexism, there is now the vilification of "Islamophobes": those who dare to criticize militant Islam. For instance, Robert Spencer of the weblog Jihad Watch, has been decried as an Islamophobe and racist (despite that Islam is not a race). Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has also been called a racist, despite that she is Jewish. It seems that Islamophobia has become the new antisemitism, and Jews are now targets of polemical protests.
3.3 Some Jews, indeed, have jumped on the cramped Islamophobia bandwagon. They see no problem with Islam as a whole, and decry anyone who criticizes Islam in any way. These people need to be reminded of the Islamist threat, "Khybar, Khybar, ya Yahud, jaish Muhammad sa'yud!". This translates, "(Remember) Khybar, O Jews; the army of Muhammad is returning!"
3.4 It refers to the year 629, when Muhammad and his followers attacked the oasis of Khybar, a Jewish city. The Jews eventually surrendered to Muhammad, and were allowed to live in the oasis as dhimmis (second-class citizens), with the agreement that they give one-half of their produce to the Muslim invaders. After several years, the Jews were forcibly expelled by the caliph Umar.
3.5 When modern Islamists shout "Khybar, Khybar..." they are at once reminding the Jews of their former loss, and promising another such attack (perhaps on Israel). It is difficult to understand why any Jew would give aid and comfort to their sworn enemies. It is even more difficult to understand why one Jew would call another "Islamophobe".
3.6 In fact, the term "Islamophobia" is false. A phobia is an irrational fear of someone or something, as claustrophobia, the fear of small spaces. Fear of militant Islam is nothing irrational, unless we are foolish to fear bombings, shootings, gang rape, and the whole repulsive repertoire of Islamist atrocities. No rational person has a problem with Muslims, as such; the concern is with Islamists, their jihad and their shari'a law.
3.7 Now, if I claimed that the medieval Church was violent and prone to horrible human rights abuses, would anyone complain? Consider the strappado, the Judas' chair, the oral (or anal, or vaginal) pear, the breaking wheel, and many other torture devices. I prefer not to describe their use; the interested, or the morbid, can research them.
3.8 The Holy Roman Inquisition displayed infernal inventiveness, as well as eagerness to "mortify the flesh" of those who offended the Church. The burning of heretics, homosexuals and others, most especially women accused of witchcraft, reached such a height, or rather depth, that between the 16th and 17th centuries 200,000 people went up in agonizing flames. The Spanish Inquisition called this practice relaxado en persona. This sounds pleasant, rather like a spa treatment.
3.9 I could go much further, describing the forced concubinage of women by priests, their use of young boys as catamites, as well as the merciless wars and massacres perpetrated by the Church (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant). Crimes committed under the aegis of the Church rivaled anything the Islamists have done. Now, having recounted this heinous Christian history, should I be called a "Christianophobe"? If I do ask questions about racial differences, should I be called a racist?
4.0 I must reiterate that the exact differences between races or genders or religions of humans, or what importance the differences might have, is not my point. My problem is that asking such questions causes an insensate reaction by the mainstream media, academics, and other uninformed sources. They rush with righteous indignation to vilify those who say anything they find "offensive". It seems that just discussing questions of race or religion is an offense against humanity.
4.1 If studying or teaching in ways that offend others makes me a racist, I freely and openly accept the charge. If speaking the truth about Islamism and its goal of world dominance makes me an Islamophobe, I accept the charge. Since other people have "come out of the closet", I will come out also. I am a racist! Beacuse I speak the truth, I am also an extremist, a sexist, and probably other "ists" as well. If free speech is a "hate crime", I plead guilty.
4.2 As a racist, I believe in freedom of speech, as well as religion and other self-expression, for everyone**. I do hold freedom of expression very dear, and will both practice and defend it.
4.3 By the way, I strongly support Congressman Allen West for President. Go West!
*However, the Army sit-up standards are the same for both sexes.
**Unless the speech physically threatens someone, as in "Slay those who insult Mohammed!"
No comments:
Post a Comment