Response to an ad hominem slur prompted by my note on Yanukovych’s capitulation

Most of you on Facebook received my last post as it was intended: merely my opinion. You may not agree with everything I say, but that is of course your right. You have your own observations in your own fundamental beliefs.

One fellow I know from Kiev, however, chose to attack me personally:

“Graham, you are at heart a racist and a homophobe and you can’t seem to write anything without those true colors revealing themselves. You are a bigot masquerading as a scholar. I have been wanting to type those words, and your “analysis” today was my necessary impetus for doing so. I’m glad that you are happy where you are, but I am also glad that you are no longer in the U.S. or the West.”

I single out this particular FB friend, whom I expect to unfriend me shortly, because this typifies the response that a blogger such as myself gets from a liberal. It was a long article, with a lot of substantive points that might be debated. He might have chosen particular points to rebut, saying that he did not believe they were true. No, he didn’t. And I will generalize that no – they don’t. People are quite content smear me with whatever labels they wish without going to the arguments.

Is this laziness on the part of left? I think it is evidence that they succeed all too well in shutting people up by labeling them, libeling them, and excluding them from the circles of supposedly polite company. What is what he is doing is exercising a generally successful strategy. If I were in the United States and I had something to lose like a job, calling me these things would pose a real threat. When I was a grad student at the University of Maryland 10 years ago I was threatened with a charge of sexual harassment on the basis of an email observation that another women dressed in a way calculated to maximize her jiggle.  We had had shared such banter before – but this time she was under deadline pressure to finish editing my manuscript, and appears to have chosen this device to push me off.  The advantage I had was that being retired I didn’t need an academic career in the first place. I could afford to be braver than most.

Let me go to the charge of being a homophobe. A homophobe would be somebody who fears homosexuals. Fear would certainly not be an applicable word. I have known homosexuals all my life. Indeed, in my early years my parents ran a sort of a rooming house, housing being short in the Berkeley area during the war, and some of the roomers were gay. Mother knew it, it didn’t bother her, some became friends of the family and they sometimes babysat me. When I was old enough to understand such things, my mother explained it to me.

In business life likewise I came across quite a few homosexuals. I didn’t judge them by what they do with their private parts, I judged them by how well they did business. I was the president of the Washington Independent Computer Consultants Association about 1983. Maurice, the fellow that I sponsored to succeed me, was a black gay. He was a capable consultant. Sadly, he died of AIDS few years later.  It was a marvelous funeral attended by all.  Later, when I had my own company, I employed a handful of gay men.  Given that I was long married and my orientation was clear, we could talk about relationships without any question of ulterior motives.

Gays frequently hit upon me when I was hitchhiking as a student and later in Vietnam. The male nurses seemed almost all gay, and if you went to the soldier’s clubs where they hung out, they would try to get something going. I didn’t fear them, I didn’t resent them.   I used Nancy Reagan’s famous words and just said no. I wasn’t interested. People like to pretend that it was a dark age in which gays were universally shunned and despised.  In my experience that was not the case.  Whatever, I do not fear homosexuals.

The fear that I do have is for the future of our society. In order for the society into which I was born to perpetuate itself, it needs to have children. It needs parents who will nurture those children and raise them to be more or less like themselves. This is how societies have always perpetuated themselves, and when they have stopped doing so they died.

My concern is that the gay agenda, as well as the swinger agenda, both of which put all the emphasis on sexual fulfillment and none on the use of sex to perpetuate society, is detrimental to the long-term interests of the society. For that reason I oppose the gay agenda, as well as the swinger agenda. I am critical in my reviews of Roosh V’s books on seducing women throughout the world.   Conversely, I give five stars to “The Intelligence Paradox” which has favorable comments on average gay intelligence.  I do try to be consistent and objective.

What I advocate in the article that I wrote recently is that Ukraine avoid gender confusion, avoid glorifying homosexuality. I’m not a great fan of Vladimir Putin in general, but in this one in this case I am absolutely with him. I agree with him that society should tolerate homosexuals. I also agree with him that there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost by glorifying and promoting the homosexual lifestyle. If there is any choice in the matter people should not be led to choose a lifestyle that is not in the interests of society. The gays who have come on to me certainly acted as if I could choose to be gay, and I believe the evidence of my eyes much more than the gay lobby’s self-serving propaganda.  Moreover, if there is no choice in the matter, why in hell do they need to propagandize us so relentlessly? This is the case in which everybody should just shut up.

Now, Jerry, if you want an argument, please pick one of the above points and compose a scholarly statement as to why you think I am wrong.  Don’t just smear me as a homophobe, cast me a superior smirk and walk away from the issue.  Show some intellectual rigor.

People likewise call me a racist. Let me spell it out. The different races differ in terms of average ability. Nonetheless, there are geniuses and idiots of all races, my own included.

You can look on Wikipedia and learn that the average intelligence of the races has been known for almost a century. People will quibble over a couple of points of IQ here or there, but the ranking of the races has remained unchanged at least since I was a child. In grammar school we knew that the Oriental kids tested as being smarter than us white kids. It was a fact that accepted without comment and without concern.

So here are the average IQs that I work with. Please recognize that people put these averages a point or to a new direction. Ashkenazi Jews: 115. North Asians living in the United States: 105. White Americans such as myself: 100. And below that, the averages are in the low 90s for some and 85 for the lowest group. I’m being coy – you know very well which ones I’m talking about.

I repeat that this does not mean that there are not geniuses from every group. I have great admiration for Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas, both of whom I think are first-rate intellects. But the average of their race is below mine. This is a fact that can be easily observed, has been endlessly measured, and about which there is no scientific debate.  Conversely, the average intelligence of Jews is above that of us whites, but my intelligence is above that of most Jews. It gives me a perverse pleasure when some smug Jew takes me for a “goyische kopf” and stubs his toe against this fact.

It delights me to encounter in the biographies of Clarence Thomas, Paul Robeson and W. E. B. DuBois, accounts of the astonishment their white classmates experienced in discovering that these men were not just quick, but quite obviously quite a bit smarter.  Also better at athletics, singing and acting.  I would have loved to be there to witness it.   Such talent is not the kind of thing you can bet on encountering frequently, but you will be sadly mistaken if you rule it out.  That is precisely what statistics will tell you.

Calling me a racist for observing these facts is futile. Calling me a racist has no bearing on the facts. I will treat each individual as an individual, on the basis of whatever talent that they demonstrate. I certainly try not to be prejudiced except in the case where I have no other criterion upon which to judge than a person’s color. If you asked if I would cross the street to avoid confronting a group of three oncoming young black men in hoodies, the answer is yes. If that makes me a racist, then it’s common sense to be racist.

Jerry, if you can cite any science which contradicts what I have written above, I look forward to hearing about it.  If you insist on calling me a racist simply because I accept the broad consensus of four generations of psychometricians, which concurs very well with my own lifetime of experience, I am afraid I can only conclude that you are hopeless.  No facts can penetrate your liberal armor, and we really have nothing to talk about.

Looping back to Ukraine, the great thing about the society is that we don’t have to worry about these issues. Here it is all just Ukrainians. Most of the Jews left for Argentina and the United States and Canada a hundred years ago. There are a few tens of thousands left. There are a handful of blacks, and a handful of Muslims. There are not enough Chinese even to support a good restaurant.  These minorities all seem to get along just fine. What I advocate is that Ukraine recognize how good things are and simply preserve the status quo.  Every nation has a sovereign right to limit immigration.  That is what I advocate.


3 thoughts on “Response to an ad hominem slur prompted by my note on Yanukovych’s capitulation

  1. Couldn’t state it better myself. When noise and name-calling obscure facts, we’re all in trouble.

    My wife suffers from some dementia or Alzheimer’s, so when she is up and about, I have to pay “proper attention ” to my little wife who defines and quantizes “proper attention.” That means watching NCIS and other crime programs. Lately I see commercials within and between those programs praising LGBT folks not for what each has achieved or has contributed to society but merely because those individuals suffer from being “L”, “G”, “B”, or “T” That’s just plain stupid, it’s like praising a dog for having a tick or some other abnormality.

    I too have some gay friends. I might have mentioned that I loaned my muskrat overcoat to a gay guy, Teddy Nason, who was dying of AIDS. I paid at least $500 for that coat back in 1984, so I have some street cred as not being a homophobe or against gay folks. I may not understand what I think is their pathology but I make no decisions about a person based on his, her, or its sexual persuasion, sex acts, identification, etc. Such an exercise would be unproductive and tantamount to teaching a pig to whistle.

    Keep up the good work and keep striving for facts. I have to remind my good liberal buddy, Pat Hickey, and his fellow traveler about facts or lacks thereof, mostly by quoting a couple of lines from a Tom Lehrer tune::
    “Without that data,
    Yo’ chatta’ don’t matta’!”

    • Thanks! Jerry privately wrote me a long reply, which I don’t have the stomach to read today. The moral dilemma: should I waste time on this, or unfriend him and forget it? The latter would be wiser by almost any measure, yet I doubt that I will.

  2. I despise liberals. They are the most intolerant people on earth.

    I am reminded of the words of Andrew Dice Clay: “The gays want their rights, I’ll give them their rights. 10% off of vaseline now get back in the closet!”

    Ukraine is all over the news here. And you are at ground zero. Cool.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s