Ruben: “as a person of mexican decent i can honestly tell you that the gop is now more and more to us what the kkk is to blacks or what the nazi party is to people of jewish decent….i truly believe that if the gop wins the presidential election people of mexican decent are going to be faced with ethnic cleansing,civil rights abuses and possibly even genocide all condoned by the right wing elements in this country and carried out by the extremist wn groups…”

Reynardine: ” I bet that’s how “rational” Germans were talking to Jews in 1932. This is not Eisenhower’s Republican party. Pay attention to how the current crop are instigating hatred.”

No strawman Ruslan, I mean really, you are a pretty bright guy.

That’s a fine strawman there. Right-wing or not, plenty of sociological, economic, historical, and other data exists to support the idea that minorities have grave disadvantages in US society.

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent’s position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the “straw man”—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the “straw man” he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent’s position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

I directly questioned the two assertions made by Ruben and Reynardine, one, there is a vast right wing conspiracy plotting harm to selected ethnic minorities that is both overt (open right wing extemists) and their intellectual covert supporters, white members of the powerful elite intelligentsia who provide the ideas/themes to support and fuel open extremists. Two, the United States and current anti-immigrant isolationist wings of the Republican Party parallels the same economic, cultural, and political conditions that led to the rise of National Socialism in Germany and the genocide of the Jews and other ethnic groups in Europe.

Where is the strawman in my counter-position?

Dobzhansky and Montagu were in fact not field anthropologists, but geneticists, who applied their sciences to human inheritance. I note, however, that the instant your appeal to anthropology was challenged, you must needs say that anthropology isn’t good enough. I will look up your “expert”, of whom I have never heard (and I suspect there is a reason) at my leisure. It’s curious that you never tumbled to my inserting two geneticists into the sequence, but I never expected you to, since I believe you never read a one of them.

I would point out that, though anthroplogists necessarily study multiple cultures, living and dead, “multiculturalism” is a coinage that has nothing to do with anthropology – not even cultural anthropology, let alone physical anthropology. Your dismissing all these people as “multiculturalists”, including Dr. Broom, who began his work in the 19th century, is a clear indication you never read anyone you don’t know in advance will support your views. Now, that is surely irrational, and I have seen you be vitriolic as well. Try putting a little less DARVO on the stuff you cook up.

You asked me to name my experts (in quotations); allow me to name just one – Derek Freeman.

On reflection, it stuck me as odd but enlightening that you choose to appeal to a branch of the humanities (anthropology) that is populated by the most devout true believers in the multicultural orthodoxy. Can we not also look to history, sociology, philosophy, or are these sciences not ideologically pure enough?

Also, I attempted to respond to one of your insults hurled at me, Ah, and lest we forget, Woland, your last resort is that whoever disagrees with you is really a Jew.

With a simple rhetorical question “Is the term “Jew” intrinsically pejorative?” I also dared to invite you to take a brief trip over to the dark side by reading a certain controversial new book by a former Israeli jazz saxophonist now residing UK. The moderators of this site did not approve – we shall see if they allow this comment to be posted.

Lastly, are you the same person that is commenting on the Arizona petty criminal turned mentally unbalanced sovereign citizen. In those comments, you are poised and articulate, but here you are vitriolic and irrational. Are you the same person?

On one, I can only repeat the observations of a fellow professor (psychology and sociology) who studies conspiracy theories, but have devoted a significant portion of my academic and government work to study of ethnic conflict to include genocide in the modern world, 19th and 20th century.

Where do you stand on these two issues before I begin?

Strawman. Seeking knowledge is not inherently biased, PEOPLE have biases. That is why we have things like peer review. That is why science and even fields like history give us new information every year. Someone finds new evidence, and old theories are refuted. Instead of talking about these things, maybe you should show your data and we’ll see how well it did in peer review.

Ruslan, I don’t think vaporizers like this can even be responded to- do you?

You ask for my reliance on and appeal to anthropology – would you accept that I do not believe in the wisdom of Boaz, or Mead, or Montagu, but would instead point to earlier evolutionary theorists and modern day sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists for understanding who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going as homo sapien sapiens? And I do not consider you or anyone else to be untermenschen.

Ruslan,

I hope that you have the courage to respond.

I would like to hear your thoughts on Deep Ecology’s , “if research and ideas, the seeking of cause/effect is inherently biased, then knowledge and understanding itself is unrealiable and cannot be trusted as a means of understanding our world.?

How should we (humanity) strive to find knowledge and wisdom? – Faith? Identity? Reason? Strife?

You’re quick to label anyone who questions your conclusions with stereotypical tags, saves thinking about what you believe and why.

Is there now in existence a vast right wing conspiracy embracing this vision with the goal of acquiring political power, abrogating representative government, and relying both on elements that operate openly as extremists and those that operate secretly within the intelligentsia, government, and business to make this a reality in the near future.

Which ethnic groups do you believe are targeted for elimination and why?

If you start to feel pretty silly answering these types of questions you might start to get it.

Ha ha…..No.

“Specifically to the area of human knowledge that you study, ethnic-conflict and the evolution of the nation-state and its role in international conflict, their collective wisdom can be easily summed up as “It’s all Whitey’s fault!””"

Please, show us who actually says this.

Reynardine and Reuben, this has been an a really strange and troubling exchange. Mostly for how quickly the discussion moves to perceived racial victimhood versus staying on topic as to whether or not the United States could, under certain circumstances, replicate the same social, economic and political conditions of National Socialist Germany 1933-1945, including ushering in state sanctioned, industrial genocide. My contention is that it would be impossible, for many reasons. Yours seems to be that if I disagree, I must be a closet white nationalist (thank God for tenure or I’d be out of a job!) and that all my writings and research (peer reviewed), is in fact, vouchsafed by fellow secret white nationalists in order to deceive and lull the non-white underclass into complacency, in order to make same said National Socialist America a possibility in the near future. Pretty close?

My ideological filter so to speak is that I am passionate about Deep Ecology, am a pan-nationalist (worked with many indio populations in Central America to assist them with saving their cultures from assimilation and the ecosystems they rely on to survive from corporate-capitalist exploitation). If you’d like to stop assuming what I believe but hear it straight up, just ask.

I appreciate your apology. That’s the nicest anybody from your camp has ever been to me. And I’m also well aware of your intent in using ‘circle jerk.’ It was simply very crude, even for a double entendre.

I would hope that Deep Ecology denounces and disavows me and any perceived “WN” taint, and would in fact encourage him or her to do so in order to maintain his/her credibility here among you.

Aron,

My apologies for my earlier disrespect towards you and your parents – that was unacceptable. By way of pitiful excuse, I believe that was an unfortunate case on my part of BUI – “blogging under the influence”. Again, my sincere apologies.

Lastly, the term “circle jerk” can also mean “preaching to the choir”; however, the double entendre was intended for shock value.

But I think that any honest assessment is that commentators who express dissenting opinions to multicultural dogma of this site are routinely meet with ad-hominem attacks, slander (often of the crudest kind), and pompous, facile witticisms.

Just for your information, I am about as far from post-modern as one could possibly get. I subscribe to William James’s Pragmatism, thank you very much.

There is absolutely one genuine truth out there, though there are an infinite number of interpretations. You also can’t expect me to have very much respect for you as you went and insulted my life situation and brought up my beloved parents. That’s not exactly how you go about winning arguments, here.

Also, I love how you refer to general consensus on issues to be a ‘circle jerk.’ Do you refer to conferences as ‘orgies?’ Really quite immature.