Fred Reed
- Thread starter Menelik
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
After Fred moved to Mexico, he started to make a lot less sense.
Alpha Male
Mentor
Here's a gem from Fred's article: "They point out that Jews are intellectually superior to other whites, which is hardly a traditional right-wing view; and that East Asians are smarter than whites, also not normally regarded as a white racist idea. Look at the IQ hierarchy they find: Jews at the top, followed by, East Asians, whites, South American mestizos, American blacks, African blacks. Now compare the intellectual achievements of the groups. Kinda sorta fits, don't it? But we can't talk about this because (a) we wouldn't like the results, and (b) because it takes an eighth-grade understanding of mathematics to grasp a standard deviation, which eliminates most of the population."
What are his sources for these averages? Does he lend credence to the upper S.D. of IQ, in which white populations produced the greatest range; thus, accounting for the rare genius that can make life altering discoveries?
Now he wants us to compare the intellectual achievements? Who's he kidding? Whites have produced the most amazing intellectual achievements in history. Perhaps Asians and Jews, both homogenous groups, are exceeding as of late because lo and behold, they are aloud to consider themselves a group.
I wouldn't put a pass on some skewed test scores from both Israel and East Asian nations for that matter. I think we've discussed this before, that certain tests scores from Israel were accumulated from gifted youngsters. Don't underestimate the the importance that the latter two cultures place on education. I tutor from time to time, and most of my students, if not all, are Jewish. Subjective, I know, but there is more hard work there than brillance, trust me. I had a Jewish mother call me the other week. She wanted her son to be tutored in mathmetics and English for two hours after school twice per week. Her son is in kindergarten!!!
In another article, he blatantly states black athletic and musical superiority: "Maybe we need to ask--not as a matter of political equivocation or political correctness, but rather as a matter of decency and urgent practicality--whether intelligence should be the prescriptive measure of worth. Blacks have much to contribute that is not mathematics. Musically they are phenomenal, having largely invented this country--jazz, Delta blues, R&B, rock, Dixieland. As entertainers they are wonderful, as athletes incomparable. In years of riding with the police, I've noticed that blacks are better at dealing with people. Maybe these qualities too have a place. We cannot all be computer geeks."
So there we have it,the American status quo:Both Jewish and Asian intellectual superiority, and black athletic superiority.So, how is he any different than the MSM?
Edited by: Alpha Male
What are his sources for these averages? Does he lend credence to the upper S.D. of IQ, in which white populations produced the greatest range; thus, accounting for the rare genius that can make life altering discoveries?
Now he wants us to compare the intellectual achievements? Who's he kidding? Whites have produced the most amazing intellectual achievements in history. Perhaps Asians and Jews, both homogenous groups, are exceeding as of late because lo and behold, they are aloud to consider themselves a group.
I wouldn't put a pass on some skewed test scores from both Israel and East Asian nations for that matter. I think we've discussed this before, that certain tests scores from Israel were accumulated from gifted youngsters. Don't underestimate the the importance that the latter two cultures place on education. I tutor from time to time, and most of my students, if not all, are Jewish. Subjective, I know, but there is more hard work there than brillance, trust me. I had a Jewish mother call me the other week. She wanted her son to be tutored in mathmetics and English for two hours after school twice per week. Her son is in kindergarten!!!
In another article, he blatantly states black athletic and musical superiority: "Maybe we need to ask--not as a matter of political equivocation or political correctness, but rather as a matter of decency and urgent practicality--whether intelligence should be the prescriptive measure of worth. Blacks have much to contribute that is not mathematics. Musically they are phenomenal, having largely invented this country--jazz, Delta blues, R&B, rock, Dixieland. As entertainers they are wonderful, as athletes incomparable. In years of riding with the police, I've noticed that blacks are better at dealing with people. Maybe these qualities too have a place. We cannot all be computer geeks."
So there we have it,the American status quo:Both Jewish and Asian intellectual superiority, and black athletic superiority.So, how is he any different than the MSM?
Edited by: Alpha Male
Fred is not much of a racialist (though he did write a very good piece not long ago about black crime), and he's not particularly interested in Zionism either.What he is, isa very astute observer of the ongoing changes in American society, in particular the trend from individual freedom and liberty toward surveillance statetotalitarianism. He had a rural Southern upbringing, served as a grunt in 'Nam, hitchhiked everywhere back when a lot of young people hitchhiked, has been a beat reporter and had a lot of other interesting experiences in his life, such as basically saying screw the U.S. and moving to Mexico to get away from a lot of what he doesn't like about this country. He's also an excellent writer.
Alpha Male
Mentor
He's well educated, no doubt about it. But some of his observations seem disingenuous, as if he needs to insult whites first to criticize another group.
What about his IQ comments, or his need to state that no one can compare to blacks in music or athletics?
Edited by: Alpha Male
What about his IQ comments, or his need to state that no one can compare to blacks in music or athletics?
Edited by: Alpha Male
I think he's pretty much a misanthrope who dislikes all people pretty much equally.
He obviously isn't up to speed on some things, but then again I was just listening to David Duke being interviewed by Alan Colmes and Duke made reference to blacks being better athletes than whites to "equal out" his belief that whites are smarter than blacks. I just try to enjoy what I agree with when it comes to non-establishment writers and figures like Reed (and Duke and everyone else) and ignore the rest, though admittedly it can be difficult, especially when it comes tocertain issues.
He obviously isn't up to speed on some things, but then again I was just listening to David Duke being interviewed by Alan Colmes and Duke made reference to blacks being better athletes than whites to "equal out" his belief that whites are smarter than blacks. I just try to enjoy what I agree with when it comes to non-establishment writers and figures like Reed (and Duke and everyone else) and ignore the rest, though admittedly it can be difficult, especially when it comes tocertain issues.
Colonel_Reb
Hall of Famer
Don Wassall said:
Wow, you got that right Don!
Alpha Male
Mentor
I guess we have to take the good with the bad at this point, because anything is better than the MSM viewpoint.
I've just been fed up lately with the MSM: The Cornell Study stating whites are gentically inferior; a boxing unification bout smeared with inappropriate "anti-Soviet" sentiment and Joe Louis glorification; and the wonderful variety in our "two party" political scene.
Edited by: Alpha Male
I've just been fed up lately with the MSM: The Cornell Study stating whites are gentically inferior; a boxing unification bout smeared with inappropriate "anti-Soviet" sentiment and Joe Louis glorification; and the wonderful variety in our "two party" political scene.
Edited by: Alpha Male
Trooper Thorn
Guru
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 141
The so called singing in black style i.e soul has roots in traditional Irish/Scottish folk music with similar form and vocal styling and has no documented history anywhere in Africa.
If you take away Irish/Scottish folk music which formed the basis of country muisc, dixieland and blue grass, take away Bix Beiderbecke (who many early blac jazz musicians were inspired by) and take away and take away the inovations of German band Krafwerk (who invented electronic music without which there would be no hip hop) then nobody can compare with blacks in music.
If you take away Irish/Scottish folk music which formed the basis of country muisc, dixieland and blue grass, take away Bix Beiderbecke (who many early blac jazz musicians were inspired by) and take away and take away the inovations of German band Krafwerk (who invented electronic music without which there would be no hip hop) then nobody can compare with blacks in music.
screamingeagle
Mentor
I remember ages ago, someone was showing how Bizet's Farendol was the basis for ragtime music. That piece was based on traditional French melodies.
BTW, Blacks hate Kraftwork. One place I worked at, the blacks hated the Autobaum song. Naturally we played it all the time. Thay also hated Tangerine Dream.
BTW, Blacks hate Kraftwork. One place I worked at, the blacks hated the Autobaum song. Naturally we played it all the time. Thay also hated Tangerine Dream.
darthvader
Guru
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 148
As far as intelligence and all that iq stuff is concerned, I thinkhuman observation is the best source instead of all these statistics. As far as Asians being superior intellectually, one just has to look at their respective countries to draw their own conclusion. People tend toforget thatmuch of China and India as well as other asian countriesare stillmired in filth andpoverty. The US economy is still maybeabout 5 times larger than China and even India for that matter.Keep in mind their population is exceeds theUS by god knows how much.The asians seem todo much betterin a white dominated societythan in their own country.Is it any wonder that a majority of Asianswant to study in universities that are whitedominated e.g. us and canada. I mean why studyand learn from people that supposedly are inferior intellectually.
Lance Alworth
Mentor
Alpha Male said:
I have to disagree with this. As far as musical achievements go, there was a time back in the 60's and 70's where black artists were very talented. However that is since gone by the wayside since (c)rap and that screeching R&B noise has become the new flavor amongst black "musicians" As was said earlier, most of the earlier black music had its roots in Irish and Scottish folk.
As far as blacks being better at dealing with people, this has to be a joke. Have you ever had to deal with rude black customer service people? Most of those idiots don't even know what in the hell they're doing and they only reason they get hired is due to affirmative action. Give me a white customer service rep who is competent and knows how to speak the English language properly over any of those Ebonics ranting retards. Sorry for the strong language, but I have had many a bad experience with black customer service reps so when I hear that they're better with dealing with people than whites, I have to chime in.Edited by: Lance Alworth
Here's Reed's latest, excellent observations about American "democracy":
Where the People Don't Rule
Common delusions notwithstanding, the United States, I submit, is not a democracy - by which is meant a system in which the will of the people prevails. Rather it is a curious mechanism artfully designed to circumvent the will of the people while appearing to be democratic. Several mechanisms accomplish this.
First, we have two identical parties which, when elected, do very much the same things. Thus the election determines not policy but only the division of spoils. Nothing really changes. The Democrats will never seriously reduce military spending, nor the Republicans, entitlements.
Second, the two parties determine on which questions we are allowed to vote. They simply refuse to engage the questions that matter most to many people. If you are against affirmative action, for whom do you vote? If you regard the schools as abominations? If you want to end the president's hobbyist wars?
Third, there is the effect of large jurisdictions. Suppose that you lived in a very small (and independent) school district and didn't like the curriculum. You could buttonhole the head of the school board, whom you would probably know, and say, "Look, Jack, I really think...." He would listen.
But suppose that you live in a suburban jurisdiction of 300,000. You as an individual mean nothing. To affect policy, you would have to form an organization, canvass for votes, solicit contributions, and place ads in newspapers. This is a fulltime job, prohibitively burdensome.
The larger the jurisdiction, the harder it is to exert influence. Much policy today is set at the state level. Now you need a statewide campaign to change the curriculum. Practically speaking, it isn't practical.
Fourth are impenetrable bureaucracies. A lot of policy is set by making regulations at some department or other, often federal. How do you call the Department of Education to protest a rule which is in fact a policy? The Department has thousands of telephones, few of them listed, all of which will brush you off. There is nothing the public can do to influence these goiterous, armored, unaccountable centers of power.
Yes, you can write your senator, and get a letter written by computer, "I thank you for your valuable insights, and assure you that I am doing all...."
Fifth is the invisible bureaucracy (which is also impenetrable). A few federal departments get at least a bit of attention from the press, chiefly State and Defense (sic). Most of the government gets no attention at all - HUD, for example. Nobody knows who the Secretary of HUD is, or what the department is doing. Similarly, the textbook publishers have some committee whose name I don't remember (See? It works) that decides what words can be used in texts, how women and Indians must be portrayed, what can be said about them, and so on. Such a group amounts to an unelected ministry of propaganda and, almost certainly, you have never heard of it.
Sixth, there is the illusion of journalism. The newspapers and networks encourage us to think of them as a vast web of hard-hitting, no-holds-barred, chips-where-they-may inquisitors of government: You can run, but you can't hide. In fact federal malefactors don't have to run or hide. The press isn't really looking.
Most of press coverage is only apparent. Television isn't journalism, but a service that translates into video stories found in the Washington Post and New York Times (really). Few newspapers have bureaus in Washington; the rest follow the lead of a small number of major outlets. These don't really cover things either.
When I was reporting on the military, there were (if memory serves) many hundreds of reporters accredited to the Pentagon, or at least writing about the armed services. It sounds impressive: All those gimlet eyes.
What invariably happened though was that some story would break - a toilet seat alleged to cost too much, or the failure of this or that. All the reporters would chase the toilet seat, fearful that their competitors might get some detail they didn't. Thus you had one story covered six hundred times. In any event the stories were often dishonest and almost always ignorant because reporters, apparently bound by some natural law, are obligate technical illiterates. This includes the reporters for the Post and the Times.
Seventh, and a bit more subtle, is the lack of centers of demographic power in competition with the official government. The Catholic Church, for example, once influentially represented a large part of the population. It has been brought to heel. We are left with government by lobby - the weapons industry, big pharma, AIPAC, the teachers unions - whose representatives pay Congress to do things against the public interest.
Eighth, we are ruled not by a government but by a class. Here the media are crucial. Unless you spend time outside of America, you may not realize to what extent the press is controlled. The press is largely free, yes, but it is also largely owned by a small number of corporations which, in turn, are run by people from the same pool from which are drawn high-level pols and their advisers. They are rich people who know each other and have the same interests. It is very nearly correct to say that these people are the government of the United States, and that the federal apparatus merely a useful theatrical manifestation.
Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that can't vote wisely. Just as trial lawyers don't want intelligent jurors, as they are harder to manipulate, so political parties don't want educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity contests modulated by the state of the economy. One party may win, yes, or the other. But a TV-besotted electorate doesn't meddle in matters important to its rulers. It has never heard of them.
To disguise all of this, elections provide the excitement and intellectual content of a football game, without the importance. They allow a sense of Participation. In bars across the land, in high-school gyms become forums, people become heated about what they imagine to be decisions of great import: This candidate or that? It keeps them from feeling left out while denying them power.
It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not even exist. A presidential candidate consists of two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach, ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will report this calculated transformation. Yet it works. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.
When people sense this and decline to vote, we cluck like disturbed hens and speak of apathy. Nope. Just common sense.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html
Where the People Don't Rule
Common delusions notwithstanding, the United States, I submit, is not a democracy - by which is meant a system in which the will of the people prevails. Rather it is a curious mechanism artfully designed to circumvent the will of the people while appearing to be democratic. Several mechanisms accomplish this.
First, we have two identical parties which, when elected, do very much the same things. Thus the election determines not policy but only the division of spoils. Nothing really changes. The Democrats will never seriously reduce military spending, nor the Republicans, entitlements.
Second, the two parties determine on which questions we are allowed to vote. They simply refuse to engage the questions that matter most to many people. If you are against affirmative action, for whom do you vote? If you regard the schools as abominations? If you want to end the president's hobbyist wars?
Third, there is the effect of large jurisdictions. Suppose that you lived in a very small (and independent) school district and didn't like the curriculum. You could buttonhole the head of the school board, whom you would probably know, and say, "Look, Jack, I really think...." He would listen.
But suppose that you live in a suburban jurisdiction of 300,000. You as an individual mean nothing. To affect policy, you would have to form an organization, canvass for votes, solicit contributions, and place ads in newspapers. This is a fulltime job, prohibitively burdensome.
The larger the jurisdiction, the harder it is to exert influence. Much policy today is set at the state level. Now you need a statewide campaign to change the curriculum. Practically speaking, it isn't practical.
Fourth are impenetrable bureaucracies. A lot of policy is set by making regulations at some department or other, often federal. How do you call the Department of Education to protest a rule which is in fact a policy? The Department has thousands of telephones, few of them listed, all of which will brush you off. There is nothing the public can do to influence these goiterous, armored, unaccountable centers of power.
Yes, you can write your senator, and get a letter written by computer, "I thank you for your valuable insights, and assure you that I am doing all...."
Fifth is the invisible bureaucracy (which is also impenetrable). A few federal departments get at least a bit of attention from the press, chiefly State and Defense (sic). Most of the government gets no attention at all - HUD, for example. Nobody knows who the Secretary of HUD is, or what the department is doing. Similarly, the textbook publishers have some committee whose name I don't remember (See? It works) that decides what words can be used in texts, how women and Indians must be portrayed, what can be said about them, and so on. Such a group amounts to an unelected ministry of propaganda and, almost certainly, you have never heard of it.
Sixth, there is the illusion of journalism. The newspapers and networks encourage us to think of them as a vast web of hard-hitting, no-holds-barred, chips-where-they-may inquisitors of government: You can run, but you can't hide. In fact federal malefactors don't have to run or hide. The press isn't really looking.
Most of press coverage is only apparent. Television isn't journalism, but a service that translates into video stories found in the Washington Post and New York Times (really). Few newspapers have bureaus in Washington; the rest follow the lead of a small number of major outlets. These don't really cover things either.
When I was reporting on the military, there were (if memory serves) many hundreds of reporters accredited to the Pentagon, or at least writing about the armed services. It sounds impressive: All those gimlet eyes.
What invariably happened though was that some story would break - a toilet seat alleged to cost too much, or the failure of this or that. All the reporters would chase the toilet seat, fearful that their competitors might get some detail they didn't. Thus you had one story covered six hundred times. In any event the stories were often dishonest and almost always ignorant because reporters, apparently bound by some natural law, are obligate technical illiterates. This includes the reporters for the Post and the Times.
Seventh, and a bit more subtle, is the lack of centers of demographic power in competition with the official government. The Catholic Church, for example, once influentially represented a large part of the population. It has been brought to heel. We are left with government by lobby - the weapons industry, big pharma, AIPAC, the teachers unions - whose representatives pay Congress to do things against the public interest.
Eighth, we are ruled not by a government but by a class. Here the media are crucial. Unless you spend time outside of America, you may not realize to what extent the press is controlled. The press is largely free, yes, but it is also largely owned by a small number of corporations which, in turn, are run by people from the same pool from which are drawn high-level pols and their advisers. They are rich people who know each other and have the same interests. It is very nearly correct to say that these people are the government of the United States, and that the federal apparatus merely a useful theatrical manifestation.
Finally, though it may not be deliberate, the schools produce a pitiably ignorant population that can't vote wisely. Just as trial lawyers don't want intelligent jurors, as they are harder to manipulate, so political parties don't want educated voters. The existence of a puzzled mass gawping at Oprah reduces elections to popularity contests modulated by the state of the economy. One party may win, yes, or the other. But a TV-besotted electorate doesn't meddle in matters important to its rulers. It has never heard of them.
To disguise all of this, elections provide the excitement and intellectual content of a football game, without the importance. They allow a sense of Participation. In bars across the land, in high-school gyms become forums, people become heated about what they imagine to be decisions of great import: This candidate or that? It keeps them from feeling left out while denying them power.
It is fraud. In a sense, the candidates do not even exist. A presidential candidate consists of two speechwriters, a makeup man, a gestures coach, ad agency, two pollsters and an interpreter of focus groups. Depending on his numbers, the handlers may suggest a more fixed stare to crank up his decisiveness quotient for male or Republican voters, or dial in a bit of compassion for a Democratic or female audience. The newspapers will report this calculated transformation. Yet it works. You can fool enough of the people enough of the time.
When people sense this and decline to vote, we cluck like disturbed hens and speak of apathy. Nope. Just common sense.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html
Tom Iron
Mentor
Yes Don,
I read this on his site. People would have to get up pretty early in the morning to put anything over on him.
Tom Iron...
I read this on his site. People would have to get up pretty early in the morning to put anything over on him.
Tom Iron...
sport historian
Master
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,986
Last year, Fred Reed had two columns on race and crime. The first on June 24, 2007, dealt with the Christian-Newsom murders in Knoxville, TN. The second was on December 8, 2007. Both are at his site, http://www.fredoneverything.net.
Lew Rockwell published neither of these columns at lewrockwell.com.
Lew Rockwell published neither of these columns at lewrockwell.com.
When Lew Rockwell was teamed with with Murray Rothbard, he was less squeamish about tackling race-related issues. Today, he gives too much leeway to deracinated libertwhites, who poo-poo borders, nations, and racial matters as "collectivism."