Re: Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review of book by Harald

Dear listfolk,

The "experts" intervening in the California textbook process were of course a partisan (though majoritarian) faction. They held one opinion, the AIT, while their chosen enemies held a different opinion. There were the two parties, pro- and anti-AIT. Perhaps these two were of unequal strength, as implied here, but in that case it would be a game with a very uneven score -- not a no-game.

It is a very common fallacy in this debate that the pro-AIT party is above the debate. It is not.

Kind regards,

Koenraad Elst

---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

At 8:13:55 AM on Friday, October 11, 2013,
koenraad.elst@... wrote:

> But when Hindus proposed that "the Aryan Invasion Theory
> is wrong" and "nobody believes in it anymore", a
> revolutionary c.q. a plainly wrong statement, this alerted
> a number of Hindu-bashing groups including several
> academics with a say in the Aryan question.

> What followed was procedurally not very kosher, with the
> academics gate-crashing into the debate with a very
> partisan stance being accepted by the educational
> authorities as arbiters to a controversy which they
> themselves had started.

It’s sad that someone who can recognize the lunatic fringe
for what it is can also describe the expert consensus as ‘a
very partisan stance’.

Brian