"GODLESS"

"Godless", over at "Gene Expression" is a good chap but he seems to have got bogged in a couple of ways. Being Godless myself, perhaps I can help: He is puzzled by the fact that a black with an IQ of 70 seems to function better socially than a similarly low IQ white. The obvious comment is that psychopaths seem to function well socially in some ways too but they soon drop out into antisocial behaviour. But even conceding the very doubtful premise that low IQ blacks function well socially (are high levels of crime and violence "good" functioning?), it need have nothing to do with faults in the IQ tests. For a white to be so low, he will generally have other deficits as well as the IQ deficit whereas low IQ is normal for blacks so will not usually go with other deficits.

In another post, Godless says that the continued approval for Communism among Leftists is the root cause of a lot of other crazy things that Leftists assert. He says that attacking their love of Communism will bring down their whole house of cards. He is totally mistaken. Their love of Communism is a symptom, not a cause. The crucial fact is that they don't CARE about Communism being brutal. They know the facts about Communism as well as anyone. How could they not know? They LIKE Communism, including its evils. Their love of Communism reflects their psychology, not any consistent philosophy. Leftists actually believe in nothing at all except themselves. They have only postures, not beliefs. They themselves repeatedly tell us that they think there is no such thing as right and wrong or truth and falsehood. So arguing with them is almost always pointless.

Take this comment on Leftist inconsistency by Dick McDonald, for instance: "I have never understood the elite's rant that Middle Easterners are not like us; democracy won't work. The same elites covet the proposition that blacks are just like whites". You just cannot argue with dishonesty as deep as that. As I pointed out years ago, for Leftists what counts as evidence is entirely a function of the conclusions desired. What Dick summarizes is just one Leftist posture in conflict with another and the only thing that makes sense of such posturing lies at the psychological level -- in a need to be contrary (at the minimum) -- not at the level of reasonable argument from the evidence.

********************************