What is your definition of a propagandist? Does it mean someone strongly committed to the diffusion of a given ideology or political world view (often called “ideologues” too)? Because I do not see how Murray is different, in this regard, from A. Sarkeesian or C. West (except, of course, on where they stand in the political spectrum, but I assume that if “propagandist” is to be a meaningful concept it must be independent of this position).
I’m comfortable with the dictionary definition. I would not say Murray or propagandists, in general, are ideologues. A propagandist, for instance, may not even believe in the ideas he is advancing, as long as he believes said ideas advance some cause or end, which may just be personal gain (behavior commonly observed in Congress, for instance). In this sense, propagandists are more likely to be hypocrites or salesmen, whereas this is generally not the case for ideologues. No matter what sensible or lunatic beliefs ideologues have, they tend to represent them truthfully and openly (barring, of course, people committed to deception as a matter of ideology).
I should also point out that ideologue has a negative connotation that does not apply to Cornel West or Anita Sarkeesian. As far as I can tell, they base their arguments on logic and empiricism, insofar as that is possible, such that they are not advocating ideas that are at odds with reality. Ideologues are less concerned with reality.
I’ll ignore the “funding” issue (if made a universal principle it would allow to tag anyone as anything) but can you indicate what statement makes you think he’s likely a white-supremacist?
I won’t ignore the funding issue. I am a “follow the money” type of guy, because people like to get paid, and people don’t generally get paid to do things at odds with the agendas of the people cutting the checks. If we consider this in the context of most studies being wrong, confirmation bias, and statistical deception, then it is irrational to ignore funding sources, and even hypocritical if, for instance, you tend toward skepticism in other areas.
I think simply advancing the cause of groups like the Pioneer Fund is, itself, an act of white supremacy. We’re talking about a group that subscribes to pseudo-scientific Nazi eugenics. It really doesn’t get much worse than that when it comes to white supremacy, does it? Well, it does if you ignore contrary studies that weren’t funded by Nazis, so that you exclusively draw on Nazi-sourced “data” to arrive at your conclusions. Incidentally, this is precisely the tale of the Bell Curve.
This is all beside the point, which was that he isn’t technically part of the alt-right, with which I have agreed. He may be a white nationalist (like many in the alt-right), and he may advance the cause of white supremacy (like many in the alt-right), but he’s ultimately a neocon Koch shill, not some sort of Dark Enlightenment, Camp of the Saints troglodyte.
It’s also beside, beside the point, which is that students should be able to protest neocons, alt-righters, or anyone else.
This is likely nonsense, unless you claim that anyone who believes that there is some strong empirical connection between US-type racial identities and different kinds of skills (including cognitive ones) is a white-supremacist, in which case it is not likely but almost surely nonsense (and it would be a more accurate form of nonsense to call him Asian-supremacist in that case).
If you are in group A and presently engaged in the business of oppressing group B, the relative standing of group C is inapposite to the discussion. Regarding the idea that cognitive skills can even be accurately assessed in an unbiased, objective fashion, or that any observed differences can be attributed to genetics with any certitude, or even that there is any real validity to US-type racial identities in the first place, is not something I’ve ever seen any scientific evidence for.
This is doubly true in the Ancestry.com genetic testing era, when so many people in America can see how much of a blend of so many different genetic sources they are, and how notions of race are clearly arbitrary and derived more from history and social perception than meaningful genetic differences.
The actual truth value of my statement is indeed irrelevant, but the growing perception of it is not, because it offers a more sensible interpretation of Progressive Reformation’s statement
“ Second, I don’t have a beef with the regular protesters, but the violent ones and the ones who by looking the other way allow the violent ones to operate. Several talks over the last year have been canceled due to violence or threats of, and probably many more were not booked in the first place because the organizers didn’t want to take chances.”
I see here a concern with something like my observation, not a suggestion that students do not have a right to protest (although I see no blame or anything warranting a “beef” with those who in her/his words “allow” the violent ones to operate), as you construe.
The statement seeks to discredit and undermine all of the protestors, because they all either are violent (one person) or “allowed” this violent one to operate (everyone else). That latter group is not to blame for anything, and undeserving of “beef.” In the context of the rest of his postings, this “beef” includes suggesting they are wrong to protest, are actively inhibiting free speech through their complicity in violence, and aren’t simply exercising their First Amendment rights. All of those things are false. Those students had every right to protest, and the next group that protests the next odious speaker will, as well.