Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

September 16th, 2006

Tags

Comments

30 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Denmark First, Germany Next

What’s the Muslim protest flavor of the week? This time its Germany and in a race to the bottom, the reason is even stupider than the controversy over Denmark. During his visit home to Germany, the Pope gave a speech that to the uneducated masses of Muslims was controversial. In his opening comments, he noted

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur’an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point—itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself—which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

Thus, what comes next is meant as a mere anecdote and moreover a starting point for a discussion of faith and reason. That Islam is discussed is coincidental at best.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….

Despite the obvious, that is that the Pope was quoting an obscure dialogue, in the delivered version, he does note “I quote” to emphasize the words were not his. He merely uses it as a jumping off point and never again mentions Islam in any way, shape or form.

So why are Muslims upset? The Pope very clearly came out against religious violence of all forms and in favor of dialogue. In addition, the Pope went on to criticicized the West for eschewing God and excluding other cultures. So why aren’t Christians bombing churches and protesting?

Are Muslims idiots? Are they all fanatics? No, but their reaction isn’t surprising from societies with low literacy rates, little to no education and oppression of women. However, since we can assume most people aren’t getting their information from the newspaper due to their illiteracy, we can assume that television and local rabble rousers are more likely the main source for the masses. In addition, given the poverty and underdevelopment, we can also safely assume most people aren’t getting their information and following the story via the internet.

This entire story sounds strangely familiar. As I wrote back during the Mohammed cartoon controversy, defunct Muslim governments used the Danish cartoons as a convenient lightning rod to redirect domestic anger and international attention away from themselves. In Syria it was particularly blatant and Stratfor postulated that Iran was fanning the flames to divert attention from its nuclear program. It seems old tricks are the best tricks.

Right on schedule, the usual Hitler comparisons have already been made and Palestinians are setting off bombs. Expect the situation to get worse.

Comments to this entry

Lexington Green
September 16, 2006
3:20 pm
The point of this knee-jerk expression of "Muslim rage" for the international media is what it always is -- to silence by physical threats of violence anyone who even remotely criticizes Islam. There is nothing complicated about it. Islam is not monolithic. Nonetheless, various communities of Muslims have learned that they can get global media attention by these antics, and they are ready and willing to produce a "media riot" anytime anyone says anything that they don't like. The New York Times, on cue, has called for the Pope to apologize for "provoking" them. As usual, the liberal shows contempt for the supposed "victim", who is presumed to be incapable of rational discussion.

It is Political Correctness gone global, with stricter enforcement measures.
Chief Wiggum
September 16, 2006
5:46 pm
Some unintentional humor from ABC Online (Australia):

"Muslims demand apology for Pope's speech":http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1742400.htm

_Middle Eastern leaders and analysts have warned of a potentially violent backlash in the region to the Pope's remarks implicitly linking Islam to violence._
J. Kende
September 16, 2006
6:53 pm
The Muslim world needs to be reminded of how scary and dangerous Western rage can be.
Darin
September 16, 2006
7:47 pm
A rather interesting quote from "Aljazeera.Net":http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/92D262CF-6F8D-4702-98D2-15D3D35AFF61.htm

Analysts said the Catholic leader's speech was a sign that he intends to carry on with his strong defence of the values of the Christian West rather than compromise for the sake of building bonds with Islam.

Why should Christians/The West have to sacrifice it's values/our values to build bonds with Islam, shouldn't it be a two-way act to determine what is best for all? This is exactly what the pope was trying to say, that violence is against all religions, and any religion that calls for violence has issues, the same being true for christianity and islam.

Aljazeera's correspondent in the Palestinian territories reported that two churches in the West Bank city of Nablus were hit by firebombs early on Saturday.

The bombs targeted a Roman Catholic church that was under construction, and an Anglican church, causing minor damage to the outside walls and windows of the two churches.

It sounds like such talks are falling on deaf ears anyways...
davesgonechina
September 17, 2006
10:25 am
@J. Kende:

The Muslim world needs to be reminded of how scary and dangerous Western rage can be.


Right, because Western responses in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon clearly didn't remind them at all of the capability of the West to be violent or angry. I'm not debating whether or not those were bad moves, but to suggest the Muslim world has forgotten the power of the West is absurd.

As for illiteracy, the Arab world isn't overwhelmed with it. According to the latest UNESCO figures, illiteracy rates for men in the Palestinian territories are under 5%. The highest rates are in Mauritania and Morocco - Morocco has recalled their Vatican ambassador, but its the West Bank where they're attacking churches. Turkey has protests, and their literacy rates are above 80%. In Jammu and Kashmir, one protests was reportedly made up entirely of lawyers.

And besides, media stoking people's righteous indignation? Is this really a Muslim/Arab problem? It seems that globally media sales are driven by emotional appeals rather than rational discussion or educating people on the particulars. Or how about how no one has bothered to parse Iranian internal politics or context, but rather leap on the few incendiary words of Ahmadinejad (which he clearly quoted from Ayatollah Khomeini). That too has led to Hitler comparisons.

Finally, all the press I've seen indicates there are protests in the hundreds in various parts of the world, not thousands. This is a tiny minority that feels the Pope's words warrant violence or taking to the streets. The rest just feel insulted - they are not shooting at Greek Orthodox mosques. To ask if Muslims are idiots is to obscure the fact that the vast majority are not acting idiotically or violently.

Abu Aardvark has already pointed out:

I've argued repeatedly that the key to al-Qaeda's strategy is its attempt to promote a clash of civilizations between Muslims and the West. Al-Qaeda wants Muslims to embrace Islam as the core of their identities, and to believe that Islam is locked in mortal combat with an aggressive, hostile West. Everything which strengthens the central al-Qaeda narrative of a Crusader war against Islam serves that strategy.


So once again by putting ones foot in ones mouth, ammunition is handed to the enemy.

Yes, the Pope was using the speech to discuss the philosophical question of whether God is bound by human logic and to point out that there are questions beyond logic that can only be addressed by religion - all religions. Yes, he was quoting the Emperor. No, he was not trying to disparage all Islam. But to use a quote that plays right into the propaganda of the extremists that must be fought is just poor strategy - and it fails to be the invitation he ends his speech with:

It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.


It is not political correctness to avoid using what even the Pope himself referred to as "brusqueness". Using quotes that refer to Muhammed as "inhumane" or to ask if all Muslims are idiots is to fall right into Al Qaeda's hands by characterizing it as a clash of civilizations, and to alienate the millions of Muslims who find a great deal to like about the West even if other things frustrate or anger them. Discussions like this one simply had fuel to the fire and don't let anyone escape the trap of perceiving this as a black-and-white conflict between gross stereotypes.
Chirol
September 17, 2006
11:32 am
Davesgonechina: You're right that I was overly harsh and nothing showed me more than my time in the Middle East that most Muslims are not only peaceful, but very open and friendly. However, as has been said, one should never mistake an open heart for an open mind.
Manny
September 17, 2006
12:09 pm
First of all, thanks for visiting my blog and posting a comment on it. It means a lot that you took the time to write there.

About your comment in there, though you did indeed write "Are Muslims idiots? Are they all fanatics?", right next to it is an image of muslims protesting, with the text "Illiterate, Idiotic and Dangerous" on top of it. That seems to me like calling Muslims idiots, but I honestly don't want to get into matters of semantics.

I just want to add this: The main point of my post (even more so after a discussion I had about this topic yesterday) is that it was unnecessary and disrespectful for the Pope to bring up such an obscure reference to illustrate his views on faith and violence.

The fact is that, not only am I not a Muslim: I admit I don't know as much about the Muslim faith as I probably should, in order to be more informed about it. But justifying the Pope's comments I can't do either.

Have Muslims overreacted in the past? Sure thing. The whole Danish cartoon scandal is an example of this, but so was the outrage in some circles when Mel Gibson came out with The Passion of the Christ, or prior to The DaVinci Code too. What is the difference I see between the "statements" (if any) made by the movies and the cartoon and the comments by the Pope? The person who made them: the Pope is not a moviemaker or a cartoon writer.

Anyway, this is a good debate to have. I thank you again for coming by my blog, and certainly would like to hear more from you.
Phil Barr
September 17, 2006
1:14 pm
"Are Muslims idiots? Are they all fanatics? " I would refer you to
"Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by Profs Lynn
and Vartanen readily findable on the Net. That article which was first published in the prestigious "Mankind Quarterly", establishes strong correlation between GDP per capita and average IQ. It contains a table of IQ Averages for 185 countries. Moslem countries have IQs ranging from low seventies to mid - eighties. US average is 98, Britain 100, Germany 102, Japan - 105. African-Americans average 85 - so Muslem's average is lower. Enpugh said
davesgonechina
September 17, 2006
5:42 pm
@Chirol:

However, as has been said, one should never mistake an open heart for an open mind.


But that begs the question of how many in the Muslim world have an open mind. Instead of making pronouncements from Regensburg or Washington D.C., how about treating the Arab media market like those in other parts of the world? Where's the call for confronting the rabblerousers face to face on Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya (again I refer you to Marc Lynch of Abu Aardvark and his book, Voices of the New Arab Public)? Where's the emphasis on the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not shooting or protesting? If they are not open minded, then attempts to engage in aggressive public diplomacy on the ground will prove it true. But such attempts have not been made, and this controversy, like those before it, have been greeted by head shaking observations from afar. If we were talking about a controversy within the US media market, there would be a flood of voices defending the Pope and addressing the issue from all sides on cable television. If, as you say, television is playing a major part in stoking the fires, then shouldn't the first priority be Vatican representatives and others demanding to be part of the discussion? If we simply write Muslims off as close-minded, without even bothering to attempt dialogue, we again vindicate the arguments of the extremists - that the West has no interest in anything other than the destruction of Islam.

@Phil Barr: Ignoring that IQ is hardly a rigorous scientific standard, and that Mankind Quarterly has been lambasted for the same reasons as its kin "The Bell Curve", let's just assume that its true. How on Earth is telling Muslims (who are not an ethnic group, so it makes even less sense) they're stupid going to help matters?
Phil Barr
September 17, 2006
7:34 pm
"Ignoring that IQ is hardly a rigorous scientific standard, and that Mankind Quarterly has been lambasted for the same reasons as its kin "The Bell Curve"Â?, let's just assume that its true. How on Earth is telling Muslims (who are not an ethnic group, so it makes even less sense) they're stupid going to help matters?"
First of all IQ is the only universally accepted scientific standard for measuring the intelligence. It has evolved in terms of accuracy greatly since its introduction in 1905. "Telling the Moslems that they are stupid" as you put it would
accomplish the cessation of their accusations of colonialism, racism and what not that they routinely hurl at the West - in other words after initial outbursts of outrage once it sinks in in a few years
they will have to start adjusting their aspitations and the expected role in the world accordingly. That kind of clarity on relative intelligence will in the end promote stability in the world. You mention that not all moslems are arab - true, but they are all third world inhabiting the same low IQ range. It almost would seem that Islam could not take root in the more intelligent populations. Propensity for violence is also different between races and ethnicities. I'd refer you to an excellent site where you'll find lots of eye-popping information on human biodiversity strictly scientifically based but presented in easy to read layman's terms www.lagriffedulion.com
lirelou
September 17, 2006
11:45 pm
Reference the remark on literacy. The problem isn't that so many in the world cannot read or write. Rather it is that so many who do have never learned to reason.
Marcus
September 18, 2006
12:38 am
Not that I view the muslim community in a very favourable light (especially not in regard of the Danish cartoon violence), but I think it's important to keep your facts straight and to avoid unnecessary name-calling...

You make it sound like the muslims were upset by the fact that Pope Benedict XVI stated he was against violence, when in fact it was this passage that has caused the demonstrations:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm)

Yet in this entry you pretend (I say "pretend" because I can't imagine you not having knowledge of that part of the speech as well) that the pope, except for the quote you provided, "never again mentions Islam in any way, shape or form".

Still, muslim reactions were as always a large overreaction but are you really contributing anything to the discussion if all you do is write off millions of enraged muslims as being "idiotic" and illiterate?
SNA
September 18, 2006
3:26 am
"How dare you call us violent! Apologize or we will bomb your churches!"
snow
September 18, 2006
4:29 am
It seems that when dealing with the Muslim world, we in the West have to be ultra-circumspect and ultra-sensitive to each and every word spoken, whereas leaders in the Muslim world can say anything they want, as long as it's the politically correct thing to say (in that part of the world), such as 'death to the US and Israel' and 'death to infidels'. Why is it we have to be so incredibly sensitive and they don't have to be that way in the least (similar to when a Chinese general made statements about attacking the US with nukes-imagine if a US general made such comments, he'd be crucified)?

All this sensitivity has the potential to push us ever closer to appeasement mode. I do agree that sensitivity is necessary (as I do believe in diplomacy), but appeasement never is.

I agree with davesgonechina that the Vatican should go on a public relations offensive. Instead of slinking back to our corner cowed by extremists, we should go on the offensive in terms of getting our ideas out there (perhaps saying sorry, if it truly is warranted). Mind you, I'm not so sure how well such PR offensives would work (after all, didn't Bush pour money into a PR machine to supposedly improve the US image in the Middle East?), as the leaders and the media in these countries have a stranglehold on information.

We should try to remain sensitive without going overboard and at the same time, conduct aggressive PR, intelligence, diplomatic (and military, such as Iraq) campaigns to build our position in that part of the world. I would prefer an aggressive defense (and offense) than wimpering acquiesence when the meaning of our words are misconstrued and manipulated (I'm not saying that anyone here is advocating wimpering acquiesance).
davesgonechina
September 18, 2006
5:59 am
@Phil Barr:

"Telling the Moslems that they are stupid"Â? as you put it would accomplish the cessation of their accusations of colonialism, racism and what not that they routinely hurl at the West "“ in other words after initial outbursts of outrage once it sinks in in a few years they will have to start adjusting their aspitations and the expected role in the world accordingly.


Wow. Really? That's all? We just calmly explain to them that they're not as smart as us, and after they've thought about it long enough they'll go "Y'know... you're right. We're dumb and we should let you smart Westerners make the decisions." How about this then:

You're an idiot, Phil. Now shut up and let the smart people make decisions.

There. Now you'll quietly accept that and stop bothering everybody, right? No? I think there's a flaw in your plan...

It almost would seem that Islam could not take root in the more intelligent populations.


That's funny, because one could substitute the word "Islam" with "religion" in general. Religiosity is negatively correlated with IQ based on the Lynn and Vanhanen (not Vartanen) results and the Pew Survey. So by your logic, tdaxp can just quit academia now, because he's clearly an idiot due to his Catholicism.

Of course he's American, which is the outlier group proving the exception to the rule that the two are mutually exclusive, which would suggest that there is not an iron-clad correlation between religion and IQ. One could argue that Christianity is different, until you see that South Africa has a high Christian religiosity and a crappy IQ. Of course, saying race or religion is THE underlying factor begs the question, since the correlation is the same or even stronger when IQ is paired with economic opportunity, education, malnutrition, etc. Lynn and Vanhanen argue this themselves concluding their book by saying:

The rich countries' economic aid programs for the poor countries should be continued and some of these should be directed at attempting to increase the intelligence levels of the populations of the poorer countries by improvements in nutrition and the like.


Not that the solution is for the global underclass to stop complaining about unfairness and accept their inferiority, but rather than the well-off attempt to close the gap by addressing underdevelopment - not writing people off as racially inferior.
Phil Barr
September 18, 2006
12:31 pm
davesgonechina. I never suggested crudely insulting moslems and other third world folks. The message of their scientifically established mental inferiority can be gently conveyed in conjunction with the aid programs targeting the disadvantaged countries and populations and a variety of other means. There are sophisticated public relations/propaganda techniques which could assure that this message sinks in and is internalized by the third world folks. Improving their nutritional intake would help but only to a very limited degree - look at African-Americans; they certainly are well fed and given a broad spectrum of educational opportunities. Nonetheless their IQ average is only 85.
Their genetic stock is on average 20% white - be it not the case their average IQ would have been in the seventies as in the Caribbean where the negroid populations certainly are just as well fed as in US, but there was little white genetic contribution. The same patterns holds for animals, take for instance dogs - it's well known that there are huge differences between breeds in terms of intelligence. The smartest breed Border Collie requires only a few repetitions to learn a new command, the dumbest breeds require hundreds of repetitions. Dogs breeds ranking/rating by intelligence is readily findable on the Net. I'm hoping that you won't try to argue that more intelligent breeds are simply better fed, even though you clearly are convinced that if Equatorial Guinea (IQ average 59) was given some food aid it would soon be able to compete with Japan (average IQ 105) in the high technology sphere
Phil Barr
September 18, 2006
12:50 pm
snow: I don't think the issue is how to conduct discussions with them
I think they are being deliberately provoked into self-defeating displays of violent intolerance and hostility. Thus the public in the West is being prepared for a long war in the Middle East to take over the oil reserves on one hand and on the other hand doing away with democracies at home blaming such a "necessary" step on the moslem extremists and terrorists whom these governments deliberately provoke and deliberately continue allowing to immigrate in large numbers. Liberal democracies exhausted themselves and will be phased out throughout the west. The Moslems with their terrorism and extremism are a tool and excuse to accomplish this
snow
September 18, 2006
3:14 pm
"Liberal democracies exhausted themselves and will be phased out throughout the west. The Moslems with their terrorism and extremism are a tool and excuse to accomplish this"

Phil, are you implying its a conspiracy by powers in the west to destroy democracy? Maybe I'm missing something here, but if that's what you're implying, it's little short of a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Most conspiracy theories are bunk (I've checked out several major ones and the evidence shows they are garbage eg. JFK assasination, the supposed innocence of Leonard Peltier, WTC conspiracy theories, etc.).
davesgonechina
September 18, 2006
3:22 pm
@Phil Barr:

I never suggested crudely insulting moslems and other third world folks. The message of their scientifically established mental inferiority...


Wow. Cognitive dissonance... too... great. Must... drink... heavily.

You're using African Americans as proof that ethnic differences in IQ are not based any other factor than genes? Because clearly they have absolutely no societal barriers or inequalities to overcome - air tight logic you have there. No Sir, you didn't going fishing for statistical evidence to prove your prior convictions. NOT. AT. ALL.

And I wasn't simply talking about nutrition. Equatorial Guinea has a few other problems as well. It's a pity we can't uproot all Japan and EG and have them swap places to see if genes are the real cause, but in the meantime how about dealing with all the other variables before we start nailing it down to how much "white stock" they have, Grand Wizard?

And comparing human beings to dog breeds just takes the cake. The word "breed" is there for a reason. Much as you might be an advocate for it, human races have not been bred over history. Human reproduction has not been the result of controlled eugenics, and the sharp lines found between dog breeds do not exist between human morphological groups. Not to mention any vet will tell you that its training and socialization that matter most for a pup of any breed, not their genetic material. Oh, and of course, since we're describing averages, there must be millions of Arabs or African-Americans smarter than, say, you. Damn near all from where I sit. But I'm carrying on, and you're late for your 37th Annual Wickliffe Draper - Reichminister Frick Look-a-Like Three-Legged Race, so I'll leave it at that and say goodbye.

Chirol, interesting guests you have lately.
davesgonechina
September 18, 2006
3:39 pm
@Snow:

I agree with davesgonechina that the Vatican should go on a public relations offensive.


Wow, Snow, thanks. I've had the feeling we rarely agree on anything, and I'm happy to have suggested something you feel positive about. Let me return the favor by agreeing with you that Phil Barr sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist crank.

As for "sensitivity" in dealing with Muslim world, let me explain what I considered appropriate sensitivity. I like to call it respect. Not respect like "I have my beliefs, and you have yours, and lets leave it at that". I'm not talking about the sort of respect you have between suburban neighbors, which basically means you gossip about them behind their back. No, I'm talking about real respect, where you tell someone to their face you think they're completely wrong, and then have the respect to argue with them into the wee hours of the night and on through the following weekend.

Instead, the "sensitivity" shown the Muslim world has been one of "Oh, sorry, never mind" and then turning around and waving your finger around your head to indicate silently to your friend "That guy is cuckoo!". That's not respect, or sensitivity, but PC BS. There's already a place for us to yell at each other: it's called Al Jazeera. And they have a great deal of commentators with a variety of views who get in huge arguments. For the umpteenth time, I point everyone to Abu Aardvark and his book "Voices of the New Arab Public".

Or how about inviting more people from all over the spectrum in the Middle East on CNN or Fox so they can wither before the fair but unrelenting logical rhetoric of... uh, well, we'll have to find someone who uses unrelenting logic. Honestly, I think we need to find a fresh body for William F Buckley Jr. so he can get back in the fray. The classy understatement of Charlie Rose without the constant sucking up. I'd be cool with Ted Koppel too, but to each his own.
snow
September 18, 2006
4:25 pm
Again, davesgonechina, I agree with all those suggestions of talking heads joining tv programs, but I'm not sure how much such things would really accomplish. As far as respect is concerned, there are just certain things I don't have respect for, such as Islamic (or any religious) extremists or most extremists of any kind, such as communists. Sorry, just little or no respect there, so it seems a stretch to fake what just isn't there. I do agree that one can respect Islam as a world religion and the fact that the vast majority are not extremists (though far too many do seem to support extremists to some degree).
Phil Barr
September 18, 2006
6:48 pm
snow, we are not dealing with a conspiracy here but rather an intellectual and political movement which advances its goals by Macciavellian means . You see anywhere you look in most western countries signs of decay and decadence are self evident. No democracy in history has lasted more than 300 years and today the ruling elites are coming to a conclusion that in order to stop the slide into degeneracy a radical change od course and societal organization is needed. Just one example of a thinker attacking democracy as a fatally flawed and longer term unviable concept is Hans Hoppe; "Democracy a God that failed" - which is readily findable on the Net. The modern intellectual movement proposing a solution is Neoconservatism.
Some examples of prominent Neoconservatives are Sarkozy in France, Merkel in Germany, Blair in England and the folks who surround Cheney and Rumsfeld in US. Here's what their ideas are
http://evatt.labor.net.au/publications/papers/112.html
Marcus
September 18, 2006
10:04 pm
Phil Barr, you're obviously a racist. Give us any acutal evidence (and references) that intelligence corresponds to race and not social divisions.
Phil Barr
September 19, 2006
12:56 am
Merely mentioning a well established scientific fact should not subject me to accusations of racism which I understand as unfair and hostile treatment of one race by another. I strongly recommend this article - it should prove enlightening. At the end of it there is a table of IQ Averages for various countries.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/sft.htm

If you were to visit the home page, you'll find a selection of stunning articles on all aspects of human biodiversity such as athletic ability, sex drive, agressivness, criminality and intelligence
www.lagriffedulion.com
Phil Barr
September 19, 2006
1:11 am
One more thing.
"that intelligence corresponds to race and not social divisions."
You got it reversed, social divisions correspond to differences in intelligence unless we are dealing with hereditary aristocracy. It stands to reason that more intelligent people will move up in just about any society. Yes I know there are exceptions, but by and large this is self evidently true.
EXAMPLE Take for instance davegonechina
who claimed above that if Japanese(average IQ 105) were switched countries with Equatorial Guineans (average IQ 59) than the folks newly arrived from said Guinea to
Japan (where there's no mineral resources, very little land for cultivation and harsh winter) would prosper and quickly develop a high tech economy, whereas the newly transplanted Japanese in tropical and fertile Guinea would starve and would become desperately poor. Clearly a man with with such reasoning skills will always be poor and no doubt is.
snow
September 19, 2006
7:46 am
Phil, I have heard far too often of how the 'neoconservatives' are out to destroy America and the world, as if they are the new bogeyman to instill fear into every living leftist. The people cited are not neoconservatives (Blair?!?). Cheney and Rumsfeld are plain old conservatives and the world over is filled with conservatives, so to make it into some kind of conspiracy by a cabal of neocons is little short of conspiracy theory ridiculousness. I consider myself to be a traditional-style conservative, not a neocon, and yet I agree with many of the things that such so-called neocons believe (I also don't believe that neocons are anti-democratic. Some in the libertarian movement have a low opinion of it, but they are not neocons!). This whole neocon fear frenzy is a joke. Conspiracy theories, whether coming from the left or the right are ridiculous. The vast majority of the time, they are false and often blatantly so.
davesgonechina
September 19, 2006
4:49 pm
@Phil Barr:

"EXAMPLE Take for instance davegonechina
who claimed above that if Japanese(average IQ 105) were switched countries with Equatorial Guineans (average IQ 59) than the folks newly arrived from said Guinea to
Japan (where there's no mineral resources, very little land for cultivation and harsh winter) would prosper and quickly develop a high tech economy, whereas the newly transplanted Japanese in tropical and fertile Guinea would starve and would become desperately poor. Clearly a man with with such reasoning skills will always be poor and no doubt is."

I never said they would develop a high tech economy/starve. I said it's a pity that we can't actually nail it down to one simple variable, genes, in a controlled experiment.

Clearly a man with such reading skills will always be an idiot.
Phil Barr
September 19, 2006
6:01 pm
Dear davesgonrchina, here's what you actually said
"It's a pity we can't uproot all Japan and EG(Equatorial Guinea pb) and have them swap places to see if genes are the real cause" Clearly
you (with your amusing argument that it's all in the environment not the genes) expected the E. Guineans to rise to the Japanese levels of accomplishment and the Japanese to fall to those of E. Guineans - I merely spelled out that idea of yours fully. I strongly
urge you to look at yourself - you were not undernourished, but probably are no brighter than you parents; don't you think it has something to do with your genetic endowment such as it is? Age specific IQ levels are fixed by the age of 5 - if you had IQ of 80 on IQ test for 5 year olds, then you have it now at 80 on adult scale. Subsequent education does not change the IQ. See, you weren't malnourished and still are just what you are - it really is the genes.
Come to think of it, there are plenty of well fed slow witted people in the West besides you, I'm sure they were not fathered by the Nobel Prize in Science Winners or they would not be slow witted
Sonagi
September 20, 2006
1:41 am
See, you weren't malnourished and still are just what you are "“ it really is the genes.

WHAT!?!?! Phil, you apparently know nothing about the importance of prenatal and early childhood development. A mother's diet, especially intake of the essential fatty acids critical to brain development, affects the physical and mental development of the baby. Likewise, human breast milk is much higher in omega fatty acids than cow's milk and is far superior for infant development. The traditional Japanese diet is one of the healthiest in the world. The Okinawan diet in particular is held up as a model for longevity.
Phil Barr
September 20, 2006
2:42 am
I know full well the importance of good prenatal and post-natal nutrition that's why I noted that since our confused friend davegonechina most likely did not suffer from malnutrition at any point in his life, his self evident lack of mental acuity is solely attributable to his genetic, shall we say, baggage. Nonetheless enough about him, he's a known and rather very small quantity...