Tämä blogi pyörii serverillä, jonka omistaja, australiankreikkalainen Prodos Marinakis, on ilmoittanut aikovansadisablata käyttäjätunnuksenilauantaina 21. heinäkuuta. En siis voi enää kirjoittaa tänne lauantaina tai sen jälkeen. Myös kommentointi disablataan kokonaan. Uusia kommentteja ei siis voi kirjoittaa perjantain jälkeen.

Kumulatiivisista postauksista kaikki paitsi uusimmat on kopioitu talteen, mutta arkistossa on jotain teknistä häikkää. Kaikki viestit ovat sinänsä tallessa (lukuunottamatta muutamaa uusinta), mutta webbiarkisto ei vielä toimi kunnolla. Asia korjataan lähiaikoina.

Toistaiseksi postaukset kyllä näkyvät täälläkin, mutta pidemmän päälle ei voi luottaa Prodoksen haluun ylläpitää tämän blogin arkistoa.

Keskustelua asiasta Prodoksen blogista:

Mikko Ellilä Says:

July 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm

I am also against “multiculturalism” – to the extent that it treats all customs and cultures as equally worthy or equally healthy for humanity and to the extent that it devalues such principles as individual rights, free trade, science and technology, pursuit of happiness, etc.

And this very point has indeed been the number one point in my blog.

But the racialist position is deep down dumb. It is moronic. It contributes nothing to the debate. Both racialists and racists seem to also be critical of multiculturalism. But the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

I have thoroughly rebutted the racialist and the racist positions in my post titled:
“Are Blacks genetically LOWER in intelligence and
HIGHER in psychopathy than Whites?” @

Just because you don’t believe black people have a lower average IQ than white people, it doesn’t mean it’s “deep down dumb” and “moronic” to notice that race correlates statistically very strongly with e.g. crime rates.

And regarding Mikko, I remind readers that he claimed the earlier English translation of his Finnish article was “awful” and “misleading”. That it was a “babelfish” translation.

It was a very poor translation indeed. I am certain that any native speaker would agree that the translation provided later by myself was much better.

When he finally provided an authorised translation, we saw that he utterly misrepresented the facts.

Such as?

And with a bit of crude context-shifting he also claimed in the comments section @
… that he was “merely” making “observations” and not advocating racialist based policies.

There was no context-shifting. Facts are facts. The mere mention of the fact that men commit more crimes than women is not the same thing as advocating hatred of men or government policies against men.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for his position or his deceptive practices or his “too clever by half” tricks or his general arrogance.

Whatever. Apparently you are going to delete my blog on Sat July 21st because you said today Sat July 14th that you will give me seven days’ notice.

I have already copied most of my posts, but my archive isn’t fully functional yet. I expect to be able to publish a full archive on another website some time before next Saturday, but I hope you won’t delete my blog before Saturday even if the archive is up on another server e.g. on Wednesday, because I want to tell my readers in my last post where to find the archive, and where I will be blogging in the future.

I already have two other blogs but I haven’t decided yet where I am going to post next, and I have not written a farewell note to my thinkertothinker readers yet. I hope you will not use your admin functions to prevent me from writing that post. I am probably going to post it on Tuesday or Wednesday.

päivitys 15.7.: lisää keskustelua Prodoksen blogista

Mikko Ellilä Says:
July 15th, 2007 at 10:17 pm


July 14th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Mikko’s position, despite his use of terms such as “modern Western society” … “individualism” … “private property” … etc. is way off the mark.

What exactly makes you say that?

I don’t think you have been able to prove that my posts are somehow anti-reason or anti-capitalism.

I provided an extensive analysis and rebuttal of ALL his racialist premises and arguments in my post “Are Blacks genetically LOWER in intelligence and HIGHER in psychopathy than Whites?”, yet he hasn’t addressed any of them.

Why not?

Because you don’t differentiate between disagreements on facts (whether blacks are genetically lower in intelligence than whites) and disagreements on moral values (e.g. whether it’s OK to lynch blacks). I don’t think we actually disagree on moral values, but any refutation of your factual statements would be wholly redundant as long as you don’t see the difference between between facts and moral values.

When he claimed that the earlier English translation of his article was “awful” and “misleading” I waited for him to provide his own authorized translation. When he finally did so and we could all see that it was almost identical to the earlier non-authorized translation, he said nothing. Why not? And why did he claim the earlier translation was “awful” and “misleading”?

Everybody can see the earlier translation was very poor, and that the later translation was much better. If you disagree, ask the opinion of e.g. your wife if you’re not a native English speaker.

When I stated that I interpreted his article to be ADVOCACY in several areas – based on a racialist position – he DENIED this, claiming that he was “merely making an observation”. Another example of deception on his part.

On what basis do you submit that this was an act of deception?

And there have been other instances of Mikko context-shifting and slipping and sliding about.

Such as?

His racialist views may be barbaric,

Why, pray tell, would it be barbaric to mention the fact that black people commit more crimes than white people?

The KKK was NEVER – as Mikko deceptively suggests – a vigilante group concerned with maintaining law and order. It has always been pointed at intimidating or attacking Blacks and Jews and those who might side with them.

I was talking about vigilante groups in general and not just the KKK in particular, as a native speaker of English would have been able to gather from my expression “vigilante groups in the KKK vein”, but your statement that the KKK has never been a vigilante group concerned with maintaining law and order isn’t true because apart from the crimes they have committed against innocent people (crimes that I strongly condemn, of course) they have also hunted down rapists and murderers etc. and killed them in the belief that courts of law would have been too lenient on these criminals.

The mere mention of this historical fact does not constitute any form of advocacy of vigilantism.

Prodoksen vastaus tähän sisälsi varsin runsaasti fleimailua (olkinukkeilua, virheellisiä analogioita, adhominem-vittuilua jne.) ja kirjoitus- tai koodausvirheitä (osia Prodoksen omasta tekstistä oli esitetty minun repliikkieni osina), joten en viitsi kopioida sitä tänne.

Aion itse todennäköisesti kirjoitella lähiaikoina mm. Suomalian Sanomat-blogiin tai muihin monikulttuurisuuteen kriittisesti suhtautuviin blogeihin.

MielestäniProdos ei edelleenkään näe eroa arvoarvostelmien ja tosiasia-arvostelmien välillä, joten väittelyn jatkaminen on turhaa. Lopetan täällä bloggaamisen joka tapauksessa ensi lauantaihin mennessä, joten en viitsi enää selittäähänelle asioita rautalangasta vääntämällä.

Report This Post

3 thoughts on “T

  1. A reader from Finland

    Actually, I _do_ consider Your overall writing style as a bit arrogant etc. (I honestly can’t believe You wouldn’t understand what I mean when saying this) BUT that doesn’t – in any way – change the fact that I have, on the whole, very much enjoyed reading Your blog. Perceptive, politically incorrect, pro-capitalist viewpoint is by no means over-represented on the Web, especially in the Finnish language. All I want to say is, Thank You, Mikko, for Your perceptiveness & bravery (writing with Your real name). I sincerely hope to read more from You on other blogs/fora.

    Best wishes from a periphery up North (from your viewpoint).

    Report This Comment

Comments are closed.