So that The Prussian fellow responded to Sean Last’s critique. It wasn’t very good. It completely failed to properly or fairly deal with Sean’s arguments. In fact, Prussian simply doubled down on his snark and even resorted to outright distortions; he really put some ginger into it!
Since Mr. P has shown no interest in being anything more than a lay person with some skill at rhetoric, I believe I am the contributor better-suited to respond. A lay person myself, I think we’ll have a more fun time discussing our differences.
Let’s start with Prussian’s introduction, labeling TRS as “proudly white supremacist, anti-semitic, and fascist.”
While I’m sure his readership appreciates such clear signaling when it comes to just how evil the opponents are, Mr. P in fact commits the “poisoning the well” fallacy, meaning he simply and blatantly lies.
Even a casual perusal of our blog would reveal that we never proudly claim to be any of those things. In fact, we’ve made efforts to avoid direct discussion on the first two topics and have actually posted an article against the WN milieu. There have been flirtations with “para-fascist” ideas, and we have always been tongue-in-cheek about our “fash” authoritarianism. That said, you will not find the sort of argumentation one would normally associate with those labels above. The Prussian would know this, had he actually read more than two articles on our site.
Moving on, Prussian uses a bad quote from Ayn Rand and suggests his opponents have a problem with objectivity. Hilariously, Pruss quotes a commenter stating that white nationalists have science relegated to gravy for their politics, not for a second reflecting on the potential of hypocrisy regarding his own position.
Next, we find this awesome quote:
We should remember that the alternative to my SSSSM is the theory of racial determinism.
Don’t know, don’t care about your SSSSM; I’m guessing it argues that humans beings are something akin to Play-Do® and that that’s somehow a good thing.
I do care that you think this subject is a matter of two absolute choices. BTW, that is called the “False Dilemma Fallacy.”
You will not find many people in the “evil racist bigot Hitler” camp who actually adhere to the “racial determinist” stance. Many of the people you excoriate actually see these “human groupings” (lol) as being affected by a mixture of genetics and culture. Some will tend to believe culture has a larger impact, and some will say it’s genetics.
If there is a sizable extremist opinion on the subject of measurable human group differences, it’s the one The Prussian holds, the notion that thousands of years of evolution is magically trumped by “culture.” I’ll get back to that point later.
Moving on, Prussian brings up the argument that prejudice by whites has a negative effect on blacks. This is something new to the discussion, though it doesn’t really add much. Prejudice is something I don’t deny as existing; anyone who believes in free will kinda has to accept the baggage of prejudice. However, I am curious as to how such an obviously prejudiced fellow as Prussian plans to fix human prejudice. I bet his answer would be “culture.”
I’m going to skip his response to the “meat” of the argument, because it’s vapid and doesn’t really attempt to address Sean in a meaningful way. He touches on some studies whose results I guarantee he never studied for himself, because he doesn’t apply any of the data, expecting the title of the study and the results noted by other people to banish Sean and his obviously wrong aruments. Prussian also glosses over a few signal words like microcephalin and epigenetics; he never goes into detail about them, but he definitely wins points with his clique for stating them. Prussian also snarks about MENSA being just a club that faps, which I guess is true but it’s not really germane. He also takes that typical leftist line about how the only good colonization was against European barbarians, which tells me Prussy really loves granola and probably should have been beaten up more growing up.
Prussian also suggests that TRS promotes “nordicism.” I don’t remember ever arguing for such a thing on this site… But if you must know, I don’t want Skyrim overrun with those damned elves. So I guess Prus earns himself a point there as well.
Prussian cranks up the diarrhea dial towards the end, building up his case for cultural determinism against the fallacies he constructed at the beginning. Because I’m a nice guy, I’ll pick the kernels out of the crap and save my readers the effort from here on.
“Culture and civilization trump race.”
..Is really all his argument amounts to. Sean has already provided a case that perhaps there is not enough proof to support such an absolute position, but Prussian has shown no interest in such things.
So instead I will point out that the “horrific examples of collectivism” mentioned by Prus here:
…Were actually predicated on a very similar notion that culture and civilization trumps the human. That probably won’t sting Prussian as much as it will sting the libertarian-types who try and argue a similar point (bro, Thomas Sowell therefore The Prussian), but I still thought it was worth pointing out.
*“Outliers and dick.” *
TRS also dismisses my arguments as relying on “outliers” – that is, those situations where you have had genetically identical populations run on different systems. These aren’t the most common of circumstances, but it is revealing that in every single case where we can run that experiment, it turns out that different systems produce radically different results, and that racial determinism proceeds to explain precisely dick.
Huh, so differences in the experiment will produce different results. That is some truly compelling stuff, though I don’t see how this undermines any argument.
Next, and he mentions Russia as an example of the failure of the racial determinist’s argument regarding white nations and corruption. Which is hilarious, since Russia’s status as a corrupt backwater is more accurately blamed on it’s earlier experimentation with cultural determinism.
Finally, he wraps up his diatribe with the following:
I’m not denying differences between people separated in time and space, I’m saying that race doesn’t explain those differences.
WHAT. Race is that difference between people separated in time and space. Like, do you even evolution, bro?
Some liberal white guy wants to pretend his pop culture-level understanding of a very deep and complicated subject proves a bunch of people he doesn’t like a failure. While he tries to present his arguments as courteously flip and reasoned, his arguments are in reality brutish and totalitarian. This fellow simply cannot see any merit to an opinion contrary to his on this subject. His beliefs on the subject, if applied, would result in something very similar to collectivist experiments in the past. To be quite frank, even the most vitriolic racist, fascist, or supremacist doesn’t go so far as the egalitarian does in reducing the human to an object that can be molded to fit whatever utopian system tickles their fancy.