NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » HBD » My Response to (Ir)RationalWiki

My Response to (Ir)RationalWiki

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 125 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

1100 words

I was alerted to an article on the website (Ir)”RationalWiki” which in their own words “critique[s] and challenge[s] pseudoscience and the anti-science movement, explore[s] authoritarianism and fundamentalism, and analyze[s] how these subjects are handled in the media.” Unfortunately, it seems like the one who wrote this article (and is still adding to it) just selectively read certain articles and quote mined them.

The article on this website about me is an unfair mischaracterization of my views. Quotes will follow from the article with my comments.

In the opening paragraph they write:

NotPoliticallyCorrect is an Alt-right blog that promotes racialist pseudoscience and white nationalism; the owner posts as RaceRealist using the euphemism “racial realist” coined by the white supremacist J. P. Rushton who is extensively quoted on the blog.

  1. I’m not alt-right nor am I a white nationalist.
  2. I don’t promote ‘racialist pseudoscience’ nor do I promote ‘white nationalism’.
  3. Correct, Rushton did coin the term ‘race realist’, but he was not a ‘white supremacist’.

They continue, quoting an article of mine that I wrote almost two years ago titled Non-Western People are Abnormal to Our SocietyI still stand by everything that I wrote in that article.

They continue:

A racist crank obsessed with controversial topics such as race and IQ and eugenics, RaceRealist argues in a 2016 blog essay “Non-Western People are Abnormal to Our [Western] Societies”[1] and its comments[2] that “MENA” and “SSA’s” (i.e. people from the Middle-East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa) as well as other non-Westerners are somehow abnormal to the US and Europe:

They then quote me:

MENA and SSA people are abnormal to Western societies. It’s clear that, on average, full-on acclimation is not possible.

One only needs to look at what is occurring in Western European countries to see that, on average, this is true.

They continue:

In the same essay, RaceRealist goes on to post crude racism, such as “Negros” are biologically inferior:

Quoting me writing:

The same can be said for Negros[sic] in America as well. They are deviant, dysfunctional, they cause distress in our country and finally, they pose a danger to us, our families and societies as a whole. Just like those immigrants we have come into our countries who cannot assimilate because it’s not in their biology.

Except everything I wrote here was logically sound (last sentence notwithstanding). Look at the 4 d’s of abnormal psychology (which is the next quote they provide):

The “4 d’s of abnormality” and how they relate to our culture and the current culture/biology of those non-Western immigrants coming into our country is extremely telling. It’s clear that those people cannot assimilate into our societies because of differing biology and differing locations in which they evolved in. We chose our environments based on our biology. Environment increasingly depends on their genes, rather than being the cause of their exogenous behavior.

The 4 d’s of abnormality are deviance, dysfunction, distress and danger. Everything I wrote and then provided examples for in regards to the 4 d’s of abnormality are sound.

You can read my article Diversity in the Social Context for more evidence for this argument.

They then quote my article The Evolution of Jewish Nepotism writing:

RaceRealist is an anti-Semite who dislikes Ashkenazi Jews, accusing them of “derogating other ethnicities”; when discussing Ashkenazi Jews, he bizarrely maintains their higher average IQ is partly a product of “breeding with beautiful Roman women a few thousand years ago”,[3] for which there exists no evidence.

I admit it is conjecture. Evidence exists for Jewish men migrating to Rome to mate with Roman women (Atzmon et al, 2010). I never stated that I ‘dislike Ashkenazi Jews’. In regards to the derogation, it’s true. Close-knit ethnic groups derogate the out-group (Sampasivam et al, 2016). Further, oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism, which caused in-group favoritism and out-group derogation (Drew et al, 2010). In-groups derogate out-groups. Read the literature.

And the final thing the page shows is my tweet saying that “I finally made it on (Ir)”RationalWiki””:

to which they wrote:

Twitter contributor Race Realist Eighty frickin’ Eight wishes to make it absolutely clear to everyone that he does not in fact consider himself “altright” and certainly not a “white nationalist”.[4]

Just because I have the numbers “88” in my handle doesn’t make me “alt-right” nor does it make me a “white nationalist.” I thought about changing it, then I realized that it’s good to weed out the people who aren’t serious about discussion and just look for things to discredit people that are meaningless to the conversation at hand. It tells you a lot about someone when they bring up irrelevant things. I’m not a white nationalist, nor am I an alt-righter. Just because I write about politics rarely and use them as an example (like in my article The Rise of Ethnocentrism and the Alt-Right: The Rebirth of Selfish Genes which I also disavow now that I realize that ‘selfish genes’ are a metaphor; Noble, 2011Noble, 2013; Noble et al, 2014).

Take a look at the tags it tagged the article with: “Alt-righters, Pseudoscience, Racists, Internet kooks, Psuedoscience promoters, Alt-right, Internet Hate Sites.” Not an alrighter, I don’t push psuedoscience, I’m not a ‘racist’ (whatever that means). If you don’t like what I write, respond to any article you disagree with and explain why with logical, rational arguments. This piece is garbage and mischaracterizes my views using selective quotations (which, even then, failed to prove their point. No, numbers after a username are not evidence).

All in all, this article is garbage. It says that Rushton is ‘extensively quoted’, which is true for what I wrote in the beginning of this blog’s history, but not so for the past, say, 18 months. Rushton has been the target of my attacks on penis size, testosterone, and my personal favorite, r/K selection theory. But sure, go and dig in the archives for old articles to quote mine. This article written about me is dumb, doesn’t characterize my views correctly (calls me a ‘white nationalist’ and ‘alt-righter’). Selectively quote certain articles, assert that Rushton is ‘extensively quoted’ when I hardly discuss him anymore and when I do it’s about testosterone/to rebut him. (Ir)RationalWiki should think about reading a bit of my blog before characterizing me as something I’m not.

For the record, I don’t care about politics. I am not alt-right. I am not a white nationalist. I’m not an anti-semite. This will be updated to cover whatever else they decide to write about me. Hopefully it’s at least a bit closer to reality next time, because this article sucks.

Advertisements

36 Comments

  1. Phil78 says:

    While I like your defense, I suggest at somepoint (not immediately), if you stand by your points on abnormality of different groups in technical terms you should either bolster or update your previous views.

    The way they took your quotes on the matter clearly shows how much politics can be inserted in your past work.

    Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Indeed, I don’t think this Rationalwiki page is undeserved. This blog has
      serious “public relations” issues.

      If I discovered the blog today, stumbling upon three or four random articles (no one ever reads all articles) , with the names “notpoliticallycorrect”, “race realist88”, the pioneer fund portraits and all other references to HBD, I would classify it as altright pseudoscience and I would find many things to quote to illustrate its ideological flavor.

      I understand that it’s too late to make the blog more politically neutral, but there could be a disclaimer about the articles that you don’t endorse anymore.

      PS: I think this psychological abnormality post is utter garbage, adds no value to the blog (just like abnormal psychology adds nothing whatsoever to science in general). There are some other older posts that significantly hurt the credibility of the blog.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Phil78 says:

      Precisely.

      I personally agree that groups within borders that have different interests will result in consequences in regards to crime, economics, and to what some will call “vigor”, but in my experience of what can essentially be described as the “left” and “right” cross examining eachother’s data, to my knowledge there is a lack of verified data to be paired with verified solution without the lenses of political bias.

      Without being to exhaustive, while you have those on the left offended of even bringing up the possibility, you have those on right seeing things in black and white. Next thing you know, which is the most irritating thing, is when the matter is debated on morally or practically defining the borders of people’s welfare to maintain.

      With the current methods and perspectives on this blog I would suggest, in turn, a frame work of updated data on immigrant and minority crime/ financial pro and cons pf each group’s presence, causes, and solutions to whatever problems may exist.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Nah, the main issue is that there is no scientifically sound approach to these politically-charged topics. Discussing them can only lead to politically biased conclusions, therefore, they have nothing to do on a blog that intends to deal with science. There is no biology of immigration, biology of diversity, biology of nepotism and so on, all that doesn’t belong here. Let’s leave it to the alt-right.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “Nah, the main issue is that there is no scientifically sound approach to these politically-charged topics. Discussing them can only lead to politically biased conclusions, therefore, they have nothing to do on a blog that intends to deal with science. ”

      I would agree, but many are going to try regardless. I find it at least helpful to highlight what we do and don’t know regardless rather than forcing direct answers.

      “There is no biology of intelligence, biology of diversity, biology of nepotism and so on, all that doesn’t belong here. Let’s leave it to the alt-right.”

      The thing is though the Alt right aren’t the only ones investigating it, professionals do as well. However, not necessarily for the same reasons or with good methodology.

      For the sake of misconceptions, some ought to be there to “put out the fire”. We seen how they acted towards a few teeth,

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      “The thing is though the Alt right aren’t the only ones investigating it, professionals do as well.”

      These professionals are “social scientists”. I think RR could afford touching social sciences now and then if the blog was politically neutral (instead of notpoliticallycorrect) and if his narrative was more balanced/objective. But when you’re saying “Negros are dysfunctional, deviant, distressful and dangerous”, “Jews are nepotist, derogatory of other groups, and dated beautiful Roman women” you’re not doing science at all. None of it can be translated in purely biologic terms (nor makes any biological sense) so you’re just sounding like a basic racist. That’s how it comes off, these could be the words of Spencer or Anglin and there’s no way to defend it as an objective, unbiased description of a scientific reality.

      Then you and I know RR has revised some of his positions, but we also know that his mindset was definitely alt-right when those articles were written. So he must let the reader know which articles are representative of his current opinions and which articles aren’t. The simplest, clearest way would be to suppress them, that’s what I’d do.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “These professionals are “social scientists”. I think RR could afford touching social sciences now and then if the blog was politically neutral (instead of notpoliticallycorrect) and if his narrative was more balanced/objective. But when you’re saying “Negros are dysfunctional, deviant, distressful and dangerous”, “Jews are nepotist, derogatory of other groups, and dated beautiful Roman women” you’re not doing science at all. None of it can be translated in purely biologic terms (nor makes any biological sense) so you’re just sounding like a basic racist. That’s how it comes off, these could be the words of Spencer or Anglin and there’s no way to defend it as an objective, unbiased description of a scientific reality.”

      I think my quote was misinterpreted. I’ve only mentioned “professionals” because simply they also mention the topic you brought up and maybe referred to be RR (like with his oxytocin article). I even mention that their methods may be flawed as well given the state of psychology at this point.

      Regardless, I agree with what you said.

      “Then you and I know RR has revised some of his positions, but we also know that his mindset was definitely alt-right when those articles were written. So he must let the reader know which articles are representative of his current opinions and which articles aren’t. The simplest, clearest way would be to suppress them, that’s what I’d do.”

      Suppressing the opinion themselves and mindset, I agree. I only suggested in the beginning that additionally he should either use better logic than he once used in his opinions or revise them if he would revisit them for the sake of that being clear.

      I just felt just leaving the opinions without updating his position would hurt his credibility.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      Yeah. Discussing science implies adopting the language of science (“Negroes are this, Jews are that” isn’t science), the neutrality of science (science is not politically correct or incorrect) and sticking to facts as much as possible (which means not linking scientific findings to social issues to support political opinions).

      This is the only way one can avoid being ideologically labeled. You just put the plain facts in a neutral way and let people make all the social or political extrapolations they want to. It would be very hard to make a purely scientific article on the topics that two quoted posts deal with because they virtually have no scientific basis at all, like 100% of the attempts to explain ethnic dynamics through a biologic lens, but there are plenty of ways to discuss population differences in biology in a completely neutral and non-controversial way.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      PS: To all the “race realists” of this world, “Blacks are this, Jews are that” isn’t scientific, not even “on average”, only individuals exist as a material reality and no one is an average individual of any group. People are a lot more than data points on a graph. Also, “race realist” and other codewords are not fooling anyone, just say “racist” and people will at least appreciate your honesty and be spared the embarrassment of seeing someone believing to have a monopoly on realism.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      One day I’d like to see “race realists” talking only about whites (not in comparison to others) just to see how good they would be at stereotyping their own people. This should be easier than talking about other people whose life they don’t know and have no genuine interest in. But weirdly, we hardly see any explanation for the various forms of white dysfunction, which we all know exists.

      Like

    • Fjow says:

      Hey Afrosapien! About “whites dysfunction”, what do you think of the Caspi 2016 study that I posted just now? The subjects were from new zealands.

      Doesn’t it remind you of a certain group in USA?

      Also, when will you have twitter man?

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      “Hey Afrosapien! About “whites dysfunction”, what do you think of the Caspi 2016 study that I posted just now? The subjects were from new zealands.”

      Well, I think people facing some specific circumstances have a tendency to exhibit certain traits. “Underclasses” exist in every population. Some populations have larger underclasses than others, but there are many much more plausible explanatory factors than biology.

      “Doesn’t it remind you of a certain group in USA?”

      Yeah, of course. Well I can think of many groups in fact.

      “Also, when will you have twitter man?”

      I already have a throwaway account. @CanWeChill44

      Like

    • John Muhammad. says:

      “I don’t promote ‘racialist pseudoscience’ nor do I promote ‘white nationalism’.”

      ” The same can be said for Negros[sic] in America as well. They are deviant, dysfunctional, they cause distress in our country and finally, they pose a danger to us, our families and societies as a whole. Just like those immigrants we have come into our countries who cannot assimilate because it’s not in their biology.”

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Quote mining close to a two year old article means I ‘promote white naturalism and racial pseudoscience.’ Got it.

      See, if people like you were to really read my blog you’d see that I deride genetic determinism. Everything I said about the “4 d’s” is true at this moment in America.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      “See, if people like you were to really read my blog you’d see that I deride genetic determinism.”

      RR, no one will read all the articles.

      “Everything I said about the “4 d’s” is true at this moment in America.”

      No, one can argue that whites are dysfunctional (white trash), deviant (Hollywood, Hiptsers, Off the grid people), distressful (opioid epidemics) and dangerous (police brutality, KKK…) and therefore can’t be assimilate to the black population due to their biology. Same goes with calling Jews nepotist, there are plenty ways in which whites and most people on earth exhibit nepotist behaviors. Singling out Jews is the same old antisemitic music that we hear since the middle ages.

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Afro,

      Nah, the main issue is that there is no scientifically sound approach to these politically-charged topics. Discussing them can only lead to politically biased conclusions, therefore, they have nothing to do on a blog that intends to deal with science. There is no biology of immigration, biology of diversity, biology of nepotism and so on, all that doesn’t belong here. Let’s leave it to the alt-right.

      I agree with this assessment.

      The simplest, clearest way would be to suppress them, that’s what I’d do.

      I’d like to leave them up so people can see the evolution of my views. If you read the newest pieces from this year and compare them to the beginning of this blog the difference is like night and day. The bullshit statement from RationalWiki that “Rushton is extensively quoted here” is wrong as we all know.

      No, one can argue that whites are dysfunctional (white trash), deviant (Hollywood, Hiptsers, Off the grid people), distressful (opioid epidemics) and dangerous (police brutality, KKK…) and therefore can’t be assimilate to the black population due to their biology. Same goes with calling Jews nepotist, there are plenty ways in which whites and most people on earth exhibit nepotist behaviors. Singling out Jews is the same old antisemitic music that we hear since the middle ages.

      I agree. You can reverse it to fit anything. Though there is evidence (Kevin Macdonald’s work) that the Jews evolved a group strategy, group selection, and that’s why they’re nepotistic.

      All in all, I will edit the politically charged pieces to better reflect my current views.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. These things are always hit pieces, never about fairly presenting someone’s views.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Of course not. While I do agree if it were say early 2016 and they wrote this I wouldn’t really have a problem with it. The fact that this is written now, even after I’ve revised/am rethinking my views is bullshit and a clear attempt to discredit me. Well logical arguments and data matter the most (which RationalWiki should understand…).

      Like

  3. Fjow says:

    Rational wiki’s existence seems pointless, it’s basically a more politically correct Wikipedia which misinterpret a shitton of people.

    But in your case, I do understand that they misinterpreted you, thanks to quotes such as:

    “The same can be said for Negros[sic] in America as well. They are deviant, dysfunctional, they cause distress in our country and finally, they pose a danger to us, our families and societies as a whole. Just like those immigrants we have come into our countries who cannot assimilate because it’s not in their biology.”

    It is heavily and politically biased here.

    “deviant, not in their biology”

    This is basically genetic determinism here, if you still stand by everything you wrote in this article, be aware that even Kirkegaard disproved some point of it, with his meta analysis showing no effect from diversity when corrected for intelligence.

    So if we stop mass immigration and fix problems that affects “negros” brain, it might get better in the future, since there is no proof that they’re “genetically determined” to stay “dysfunctional” forever (That is my position).

    See this paper:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0005

    “a recent paper (Caspi, 2016): “A segment comprising 22% of
    the cohort accounted for 36% of the cohort’s injury insurance claims; 40% of excess obese kilograms; 54% of cigarettes smoked; 57% of hospital nights; 66% of welfare benefits, 77% of fatherless child-rearing; 78% of prescription fills; and 81% of criminal convictions. Childhood risks, including poor brain health at three years of age, predicted this segment with large effect sizes. Early-years interventions that are effective for this population segment could yield very
    large returns on investment.”

    This paper seems to goes against your old article, unless the cohort from New Zealand also happen to act this way thanks to their genes alone.

    “Environment increasingly depends on their genes, rather than being the cause of their exogenous behavior”

    Do you really still stand by that? Didn’t you claimed recently that genes cannot express without environment?

    You even stated that you don’t know why blacks commit crimes more often than other groups, this quote seems to contradict yourself.

    Like

    • Fjow says:

      I know that you’re now not as biased as before, but it is not truly suprising that people can misinterpret you, considering things which implie the contrary (88, bell curve before…etc), rationalwiki is still trash though because they only searched for what they wanted to see without going in depth.

      Like

  4. John Muhammad. says:

    Fair enough, but what about the other post I sent? I said that Blacks had successful communities under reconstruction and segregation to a lesser extent. Their IQ actually rose and probably would have surpass Whites per capita have we had land reparations.

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I don’t recall. Which post?

      Like

    • John Muhammad says:

      I thought I post it. In any case, I assume you read Tomas Sowell Black Rednecks and White Liberals?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I have not but I will read it in the future. What about it?

      Like

    • John Muhammad says:

      Well it’s states that Blacks ghetto culture has descendant from the White Southern poverty culture. From it’s speech and mannerism to the laziness trait. Considering how underdeveloped the South is and it’s hatred of higher learning, it makes sense.

      Like

    • Afrosapiens 🇫🇷🇪🇺 says:

      I have read some older books that corroborate that, maybe Sowell cited them. One is from the 1920s, Shadow of the Plantation which is a very complete ethnography of rural southern Blacks. It is also briefly evoked in The Promised Land. One interesting fact is that most aspects of the ghetto culture predate welfare and urbanization contrary to what conservatives state, these are rather rooted in the sharecropping system which maintained a culture of poverty and prevented some forms of social control that usually lower violence and marital instability. There are many good reads on the topic, the best ones are the older ones which are free from current ideological interpretations.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      To Afro,

      Honestly, from a environment standpoint, these types of explanations always made the most sense to me, ones that actually centers and discusses the sequence and mechanisms in society that ensures stability and applies it from one culture .

      The problem with this kind of approach in ethnic differences have often been simplified models and lack of depth, but examples like yours corrects for that as you’ve done for common explanations modern people hold on “ghetto” culture.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      It also helps that from my reading going back to the 19th century, people observed how Muslims “advanced” blacks in regards to Wealth and crime better than Missionaries.

      I saved notes that explain how it was due to Islamic conversion being fueled by cooperation in trade and mutual interests while with initial approached in Christianity in Africa and the New World the missionaries focused less on “sins” that would hinder an actual community and focused more on pagan customs related to dancing and singing.

      Like

  5. ron burgundy says:

    has rr seen the data from his cousin luigi at Washington U? an example of an extreme intervention which works for everyone. http://www.pnas.org/content/101/17/6659.full

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      Interesting study. I’m well aware of intermittent fasting’s benefits for cancer, life extension, etc.

      Both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the CR group were remarkably low, with values in the range found in 10-year-olds (16) (Table 2)

      Interesting. I wouldn’t say that CR is extreme, nor would I say intermittent fasting is extreme either, whether it’s a 16/8 fast/feed schedule or fasting for a week at a time (it’s very possible read Dr Jason Fung). Fasting could cure so many diseases/maladies that are said to be ‘genetic’ but I wouldn’t say it’s extreme not to eat for an extended period of time. You only say that due to the culture set up by Big Food that we need to eat three times a day etc.

      Like

  6. ron burgundy says:

    for the record it turns out dimaggio’s record is not what gould claimed it to be. not exactly. simulations showed.

    the longest streak in baseball history was 56 games or more 49% of the time.
    the difference between longest and second longest was 12 games or more 15% of the time.

    what was odd about dimaggio’s streak is the year it occured and that he was the streaker. even though this was the same year williams hit .404 iirc, the simulations showed such years had the longest streak only 5% of the time, and dimaggio was the 46th most likely to have the record.

    Like

  7. Willow says:

    Your RationalWiki article was created by a fake user named “AntifaGuy”. Its the same person who created all the other entries from Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst, Davide Piffer etc. This person isn’t even a real ANTIFA, but a neo-Nazi himself who goes by the name Mikemikev (just Google). He got blocked recently impersonating Kirkegaard on Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Emil_Kirkegaard

    A whole thread on his internet trolling which points out he’s both an ANTIFA and nazi-
    https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes.17243/page-711
    The thread title is “Mikemikev / Michael Coombs / Twinkle Toes – Pedo Teacher and Neo-Nazi, Advocate of Child Murder, Secret JewMuslim ANTIFA”

    Basically he’s just a nutcase and troll. He impersonates Antifas, Muslims etc., while he’s a self-admitted neo-Nazi.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 268,753 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: