This is the group of racists, anti-immigrationists and genetic superiorists whose activities were exposed by the prestigious Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), in the Winter 2003 SPLC investigative report entitled:
During the promotion of Bailey's book and during the trans investigation into his research misconduct against transsexual women - then later during his attacks on the identities of bisexual men - a number of key HBI members came to his defense and served as his spokesmen and advocates in the media. These included Ray Blanchard, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Dan Seligman, Steven Pinker and Chandler Burr.
It was Blanchard who took Paul McHugh's "theory" that transsexual women are either (i) gay men or (ii) transvestic fetishists, and gave it an aura of scientific "credibility". He did this by means of selective recruitment of research subjects and use of the discredited plethysmograph (a penile-arousal measuring device) to claim to be able to determine what those subjects were "thinking" and whether of not they were "lying" about their sexual activities.
Blanchard's theory was propped up by his invention of the word "autogynephilia" to replace transvestic fetishism, and he then claimed that the invention of that word was a scientific "discovery" of the principal "cause of transsexualism.
Blanchard then became notorious for openly defaming all postop trans women in the media, where he was quoted as saying that a trans woman is simply a "man without a penis". This has brought further investigations down on Blanchard's clinic at CAMH, with results pending.
Brimelow was profiled in a major article entitled "Keeping America White", in the Winter 2003 issue of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. In that article, Brimelow is described as having started the Center for American Unity in 1999, where he remains president today. The center's most important project is a Web page called VDARE, named after Virginia Dare, the first English child born in the New World in 1587. Based on evidence compiled by that Intelligence Report, the Southern Poverty Law Center has added VDARE to its list of officially declared hate sites on the internet. Brimelow is now a prominent and active contributor to VDARE.
Excerpt re CFAU:
|
However, when Bailey later attacked against the identities of bisexual men in July 2005, Burr was the first of the HBI members to come to Bailey's defense against critics. Right on cue, Burr sent an "attack-mode" Letter to the Editor of the New York Times calling Bailey's critics "hysterical and anti-science":
"To the Editor:
Some gay and bisexual advocates are condemning "Straight, Gay or Lying?" regarding a study suggesting that bisexuality may not exist among human males - something those of us familiar with the scientific literature have known since, basically, forever.
Compare this hysterical - and anti-science - reaction to the conservative Christians' anti-science reaction to studies showing that homosexuality is an inborn orientation like left-handedness. They're identical.
The right hates science because the data contradict (in the case of homosexuality) Leviticus; the left because the data contradict the liberal lie that we're environment-created, not hard-wired in any way.
These particular scientific facts are making these advocates scream like members of the extreme right, though it's they who always tells the right to let go of concepts that are contradicted by science.
Chandler Burr
New York"
In that letter to the NY Times on July 12, 2005, Burr finally revealed himself as an active member of the HBI-clique of defenders of Bailey's attacks on sexual minorities (i.e., attacks on trans and bi people who do not fit the bipolar male-female, gay-straight world of LeVay, Hamer and Bailey).
His motives? Burr is an old-guard gay man who will do whatever he can to prop up the now failing, simplistic, evolutionary psychology rationale behind that old-guard's bipolar gay-straight view of the world (a world that does not predict or recognize the existence of bisexual men).
By ridiculing Bailey's critics as "hysterical and anti-science", Burr tries to position Bailey as a "scientist under attack by identity politicians on the left and religious ideologues on the right"
Can Bailey hide behind this scientific smokescreen? Somehow we doubt it.
After all, the NGLTF Fact Sheet reveals fatal flaws in Bailey's bisexuality work. In light of that analysis, it is Burr's dissing of Bailey's critics that seems to be "hysterical and anti-science".
|
Excerpts from: A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation Chandler Burr, 1996
"The distribution curve dictated by Hamer and Pattatuci's data raised some eyebrows among scientists. The fact that sexual orientation is clearly "ether/or" for men is still a relatively new concept to many scientists, several of whom expressed initial doubts about the data.
Hamer points out, somewhat testily, that his distribution curve has been confirmed by several studies. ("I didn't tell these men to answer 0 or 6," he mutters, "it's just that almost all of them did. Am I supposed to pretend the trait is continuous?") One of these studies, he notes, was conducted at a military hospital where the military's strict ban on homosexuality biases strongly against a response of 6, or homosexual. "You'd expect to get a large number of 'bisexual' responses in the military," explains Hamer, "2s, 3s, and 4s, because bisexuality would be a convenient way of shading the answer and protecting yourself. But again almost all of the men answered 6 or 0." The latest such study was conducted in Australia by Michael Bailey and Nick Martin, and had a sample size of more than 2, 000 respondents.
Hamer takes out a paper the dubious genetics professor had published that criticized Hamer's finding. The professor had written "Although the probands reported a wide range of sexual behaviors, identities, and fantasies, [Hamer and Pattatuci] divided the men into homosexual and heterosexual." "The ' wide range', "Hamer responds sarcastically, "is here." He snaps open a copy of his study, pins it to his desk, and points briskly to the four raw-data charts on page 1 from which the distribution curve was derived. The numbers clearly indicate bimodal distribution in men..."
Asked if he had anticipated this striking bimodality for male sexual orientation, Hamer says, "Well, how many truly bisexual men have you ever met?..."
But of the few who said-even insisted-they were bisexual and made their case with the fact that they were also sleeping with women, it would become clear with most of them after just a couple of casual questions that they were really only attracted to men but were in the process of coming out and felt more at ease at that point calling themselves 'bisexual' than 'gay', which was a more radical term for them. They were still sleeping with increasingly fewer women for the same reasons."
But the third difference between the sexes was perhaps the most striking, and this was a difference of expression. ...She confirmed in the end that women do something men virtually never do: They move among straight, bisexual, and lesbian.
...If a homosexual is homosexual, just how homosexual is that homosexual? It turns out that the answer is different for men and women. For men, the answer is usually: completely. If a man is homosexual (or heterosexual), he expresses that version of the sexual orientation trait 100 percent. For women the answer is: sometimes not as homosexual as homosexual men. And straight women are not as straight as straight men either...
|
|
- - - In "The Evolution of Desire," Buss presumes that men and women are fundamentally different. This view was popular in early 1990s as "backlash" against 1970s feminists saying that men and women are the same. However, current thinking (e.g., "Sex, Time, and Power," by Leonard Shlain) takes the transpersonal view that each of us has a masculine and a feminine side, and a mature, balanced individual can use one or the other situations change. Buss believes that men want to have sex with many women, and that women want men to give them economic resources. Buss uses the inaccurate Kinsey research on sexual behavior instead of the accurate University of Chicago research. The latter found that the vast majority of Americans are in monogamous, committed relationships, and that these individuals are happier than individuals with more than one sexual partner. Buss's bias is apparant in the section that attempts -- and fails -- to explain why women engage in casual sex. Buss ignores the research identifying the reason women become promiscuous: stress. E.g., teenage girls in abusive families are more likely to have sex. The evolutionary perspective is obvious: women who used casual sex to survive famine, war, or other life-threatening situations survived and became our ancestral mothers.This research came out mostly after 1994, so Buss didn't include it in the original edition. That may have been OK then, but leaving it out of the 2003 edition is misguided. That women want men to give them economic resources is a central theme of "The Evolution of Desire." But Buss ignores the fact that in hunter-gatherer societies (which comprise more than 99% of human evolution) no one owned more than he or she could carry. Buss notes that women prefer men with social status, but then says that this is because high-status men give women more economic resources. Buss fails to mention the "gene's eye view" reason explaining why women prefer high-status men. In polygynous societies (almost all human societies are, including our own "serial monogamous" society), high-status men father more children. In many societies, only the sons of leaders can become leaders. E.g., the 2000 presidential election was between the son of a president, the son of a senator, the son and grandson of four-star Navy admirals, and the son of a wealthy banker. A woman who marries a leader and produces the son who becomes the next leader will have a disproportionate number of grandchildren. "The Evolution of Desire" discusses only the evolution of human behavior, and never mentions that human bodies and brains also evolved. Buss draws no connections between our bodies, brains, and behavior. E.g., his section on how women's sexual behaviors vary over their menstrual cycles never mentions that hormones (including estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone) contribute to these behavioral changes. Buss never mentions that humans have a unique, difficult-to-explain anatomical feature: a huge cerebral cortex. This brain area enables us to think in abstractions, use language, and, perhaps most important for sexual strategies, to lie to each other. Buss sometimes mentions lying as a sexual strategy, and even notes the "evolutionary arms race" of men and women deceiving each other, and catching each others' deception. But he never connects the dots that sexual lying (and catching sexual lies) may have driven our ancestors to evolve huge brains. Buss notes in passing that love is the number one quality women desire in a partner. But his view that love consists of solely of commitment, kindness, and sincerity is inadequate. Buss erroneously states that similarity attracts. He correctly notes that most studies finding similarity between couples looked at factors that facilitate meeting, e.g., living in the same neighborhood. But he supports his view by quoting studies finding 25-50% correlation in values, personality types, etc., between couples. But 25-50% is poor correlation, in other words, couples are more dissimilar than similar on these measures. If couples were more similar than dissimilar, the correlations would be 50-100%. The chapter about couples staying together as they age opens with a fine quotation from Marjorie Shostak about how love changes from the fiery passion of youth to the warm and dependable love of middle age. But this chapter is about jealousy, emotional manipulation, and "keeping competitors at bay." Buss doesn't acknowledge the existence of love, so he can't write about how love changes through the stages of life. My last criticism of "The Evolution of Desire" is that Buss never discusses differences between monogamous and polygamous societies. This becomes apparent in the section about the "feminist viewpoint" that men "tend to control resources worldwide" and "oppress women" and try to "control women's sexuality and reproduction." But most societies aren't patriarchal, as Buss believes, rather are instead kyriarchical: a few men control everybody else ("kyri" is the Greek word for overlord). Such societies are polygynous, and the median woman is better off than the median man. Such societies are mostly run by the Grand Pooh-bah's senior wives. And these hierarchical societies were created by women selecting to mate with certain men and not others. |
|
|
|
|
|
- - - tbd - - -
|
EDWARD M. MILLER Dr. Miller is the author of over 150 articles. His research focuses on investments, capital budgeting, and general social science research (including the application of psychology and genetics to economic behavior). His list of publications is very extensive, just in professional financial and economic periodicals includes the Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, Journal of Political Economy, Journal of Portfolio Management, Journal of Macroeconomics, Journal of Finance. He worked at a high level in government before becoming an academic. He often teaches in investments and capital budgeting.
|
See Miller's writings on eugenics on www.eugenics.net:
"Eugenics: Economics for the Long Run" , Edward M. Miller
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/miller1.html
See also the following entry about Miller on the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism (ISAR) website:
"Science Friction: HOW CENTURIES OF RADICALLY BIASED 'SCIENCE' LAID THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE CONTROVERSIAL THEORIES OF A TENURED UNO PROFESSOR", by Michael Depp.
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/bios/miller/homepage.htm
|
American Enterprise Institute Founded in 1943, the Washington, D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is one of the most influential conservative think tanks in America. While its roots are in pro-business values, AEI in recent years has sponsored scholars whose views are seen by many as bigoted or even racist. For example, Dinesh D'Souza, the author of The End of Racism, holds an Olin Foundation research fellowship at AEI. D'Souza has suggested that civil rights activists actually help perpetuate racial tensions and division in the United States, and has even called for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. After his book was published, black conservatives Robert Woodson and Glenn Loury denounced it — Woodson released a statement saying it "fans the flames of racial animosity" — and broke their own ties with AEI. Another AEI-sponsored scholar, Charles Murray, is more controversial. Murray, who has a Bradley Foundation research fellowship at AEI, is the co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that argues that blacks and Latinos are genetically inferior to whites and that most social welfare and affirmative action programs are doomed to failure as a result. The book, described as a reheated "stale stew of racial eugenics" by historian Godfrey Hodgson, cites the work of some 16 researchers financed by the racist Pioneer Fund*. |
Pinker and his work are lionized by his friend Steve Sailer on VDARE:
Steve Sailer, a principal contributor to VDARE, is one of Pinker's close buddies and admirers. Consider what Sailer says about Pinker in his November 24, 2002 VDARE essay "Pinker's Progress". Note that VDARE has been declared a "hate-site" by the Southern Poverty Law Center:
"Reading The Blank Slate is particularly enjoyable to me because Pinker
and I are so much on the same wavelength. We even have similar expansive
concepts of evidence, relying not just on refereed journals but also on Tom
Wolfe, Dave Barry, and the great Calvin and Hobbes comic strip...Further, Pinker
is an enthusiastic subscriber to my iSteve mailing list. And arguments that I've
made over the years pop up throughout The Blank Slate...For example, according
to Pinker, his section on IQ on pp. 149-150 embellishes upon various of my
articles. My VDARE series on how to help the left half of the bell curve was
apparently a particularly fruitful source... "
|
Steven Pinker A Devil's Chaplain (Weidenfeld & Nicholson) confirms that Richard Dawkins is not only a brilliant scientist and thinker but among the best prose stylists writing today. J Michael Bailey's The Man Who Would Be Queen (Joseph Henry) is an engaging book on the science of sexual orientation. Though highly sympathetic to gay and transsexual men, it has ignited a firestorm by claiming that transsexuals are not women trapped in men's bodies but have either homosexual or autoerotic motives. John Carey's The Intellectuals and the Masses (Faber) shows how many 20th-century literary intellectuals had a contempt for ordinary people comparable to Hitler's. Though a decade old, it is worth reading for the chastening continuity it shows with today's "social critics", down to their despising fast food and popular entertainment. |
|
|
Academic Racism: Key race scientist takes reins at Pioneer Fund Excerpts from that Report:
|
Excerpt re the Pioneer Fund: Pioneer Fund* With an original charter to pursue "race betterment" for those "deemed to be descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution," the Pioneer Fund was founded in 1937 in New York. Many involved in the early years of the fund, including its first president Harry H. Laughlin, maintained "contacts with many of the Nazi scientists whose work provided the conceptual template for Hitler's aspiration toward 'racial hygiene' in Germany," according to an Albany Law Review article by Paul Lombardo. In The Funding of Scientific Racism, scholar William Tucker reveals how Pioneer board members and grantees sought to block the civil rights movement in the 1960s. In recent decades, the Pioneer Fund has funded most American and British race scientists, including a large number cited in The Bell Curve. According to Barry Mehler, the leading academic critic of the fund, these race scientists have included Hans Eysenck, Robert A. Gordon, Linda Gottfredson, Seymour Itzkoff, Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, R. Travis Osborne, Roger Pearson, J. Philippe Rushton, William Shockley and Daniel R. Vining Jr. Last year, Rushton became the fourth president of the fund. He disavows the terms "inferior" and "superior" but, as psychologist Andrew S. Winston points out, Rushton has produced a chart in which blacks "are said to have, on average, smaller brains, lower intelligence, lower cultural achievements, higher aggressiveness, lower law-abidingness, lower marital stability and less sexual restraint than whites, and the differences are attributed partially to heredity." Pioneer grantees have also included white supremacist Jared Taylor. According to Hold Your Tongue, a book by education expert James Crawford, the Pioneer Fund also "aided the Institute for Western Values — the same group Cordelia May [Scaife, sister of Richard Mellon Scaife] paid to distribute [the racist book] The Camp of the Saints — in publishing the autobiography of Thomas Dixon," whose racist novels helped spark the Klan's rebirth in 1915. Pioneer also has given grants to the American Immigration Control Foundation*, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Roger Pearson's Institute for the Study of Man, Jared Taylor's New Century Foundation* and Project USA, an anti-immigration group run by a FAIR board member. |
See also Rushton's writings on eugenics on www.eugenics.net:
"The Mismeasures of Gould", By J. Philippe Rushton
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/jprnr.html
|