Home » Race Realism » The Idiocy of (Ir)RationalWiki

The Idiocy of (Ir)RationalWiki

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

Join 290 other subscribers

Follow me on Twitter


1150 words

(Ir)RationalWiki (IW) is a Wikipedia-style website, where anyone can edit or create an article on whatever they’d like. They are a left-leaning website, so they, of course, don’t like what they consider to be “right-wingers.” Many “HBDers” have IW articles on them, notable hbdchick, JayMan (though it seems like his article was deleted), Emil Kirkegaard, Anatoly Karlin, and even a new one on the philosopher of biology Nathan Cofnas (see his response here). When I discovered my own article on IW, I laughed, since it grouped me in with “Frogs and Swastikas, AltRight.” Well, I think that the “Pepe the frog” meme is idiotic and childish, and I’m not a Nazi (National Socialist).

In any case, I recently looked at the page and discovered that they finally edited it to reflect my new views. My views changed around April/May 2017 due to two books: DNA is not Destiny: The Remarkable, Completely Misunderstood Relationship Between You and Your Genes (Heine, 2017) and Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence (Richardson, 2017). I would say that before reading these two books that I was a “genetic determinist.” However, Richardson’s work lead me to the work of Denis Noble, Jablonka and Lamb, Susan Oyama, and David Moore and the philosophy of developmental systems theory (DST). My deterministic views (and outdated views on genes and the physiological system) were then cured.

In any case, here is what the new edit says about me now:

RaceRealist started out as a supporter of hereditarianism racist theories about IQ and a fanboy of Richard Lynn and Arthur Jensen, but later to his credit rejected these views. Instead however of giving up all his racialist beliefs, he still defends racialism,[1] albeit minus the IQ pseudoscience. The latter has led to him to be criticised as still being a racist but using a deceptive motte and bailey strategy of trying to present himself as a more moderate non-hereditarian “race realist” when he still retains the old racist IQ beliefs about inferior black people in private. Furthermore, despite claiming to have changed his views on the latter – all his old pro-hereditarianism posts on his blog are still up alongside background photos of white supremacists.[2][3]

The first sentence is true; I did start out as supporter of hereditarianism. When I discovered the work of people like Rushton, Lynn, Kanazawa, and Jensen I thought “Wow, this all makes so much sense and explains why our societies are stratified the way they are.” Though, as mentioned above, I did change my views.

Yes, I do “still defend racialism”, but a softer, non-hereditarian view of human races (Spencer, 2014, Hardimon 2017). These types of arguments about race are non-hereditarian, non-hierarchical. I do agree that “IQ science” is psuedoscience, but the claim that “I still retain [my] old racist IQ beliefs about inferior black people in private” are completely unfounded. How does whoever wrote this know what views I hold in private? Further, they claimed that I “rejected [those] views” in reference to hereditarianism (Jensenism) but then they say that “I still retain [my] old racist IQ beliefs about inferior black people in private”? How does that make any sense?

Further, I have explicitly stated that the terms “superior” and “inferior” are strictly anatomic terms and, outside of that context, make no sense. The head is superior to the feet; the feet is inferior to the head. It seems that the author of this did not read my article Blumenbachian Partitions and Minimalist Races where I explicitly state:

Biological racial realism (the fact that race exists as a biological reality) is true, however, just like with Hardimon’s minimalist races, they do not denote “superiority”, “inferiority” for one race over another. Most importantly, Blumenbachian populations do not denote those terms because the genetic evidence that is used to support the Blumenbachian partition use noncoding DNA. (It should also be noted that the terms “superior” and “inferior” are nonsensical, when used outside of their anatomic contexts. The head is the most superior part of the human body, the feet are the most inferior part of the human body. This is the only time these terms make sense, thus, using the terms outside of this context makes no sense.)

Yes I have changed my “views on the latter [hereditarianism]”, and no, I will not remove my “old pro-hereditarianism posts” on my blog. I leave them up to show the evolution of my views over time. My blog is almost four years old, and half of the time I was a staunch hereditarian/genetic determinist and the other half I discarded those views and embraced the philosophy of DST.

In any case, the race debate is a philosophical, not biological, one; genetic variation exists between human populations which no one denies. The question “What is race?” is strictly a philosophical question and so, after that question is answered, it follows that the argument about the existence of race is then philosophical. Holding views on racial realism (the claim that our racial categories pick out real kinds in nature; Smith, 2015; 43). Therefore, the views that I hold on race are not scientific, but philosophical.

Re my views on immigration: yes I did write that non-western people are abnormal to our societies (fun fact: I wrote that as a paper for an Abnormal Psychology course, and I got an A). I do still hold that immigration should be restricted/completely halted, though it should not be based on IQ testing, as I once argued in the past. I agree that these views that I once held are idiotic. Looking back at what I wrote and used to believe in the past, I believed a lot of bullshit and pseudoscience. I openly admit that my former prejudices drove my old beliefs. However, as noted earlier (and in the past), I rejected those kinds of genetic determinist “racist” views after discovering the philosophy of DST and reading Richardson and Heine.

A final note on my politics: I support closed borders, I support capitalism and I am a nationalist. I don’t care about what people do in private, just don’t bring it out on the streets. I would say that I am somewhat of a libertarian, and while I do hold some “AltRight” views, I would not self-identify as an alt-righter.

In sum, (Ir)RationalWiki is a joke of a website with how they attack individuals who do use their real names. I’m just some anon guy with a blog and Twitter account. They libel people with mined quotes and don’t reflect their views correctly. In any case, yes my views have changed, and no, it’s not some “cover” for my old views. I do not still hold those same beliefs “in private” (how would whoever wrote this know what views I hold in private? It’s idiotic). I’m not “AltRight”, nor have I ever been.



  1. King meLo says:

    “Well, I think that the “Pepe the frog” meme is idiotic and childish,”

    Shut up normiefag.


    • dealwithit says:

      wtf happened to dorian yates’s arms?


      my arms are bigger than his and the last time i lifted was like 3 years ago.

      answer: dorian always had not very impressive arms…unlike arnold.

      look at the measurements.

      arnold was yuge.

      the big improvement over arnold has been in the legs…

      even though arnie’s legs were the best in his time.


    • dealwithit says:

      at least melo knows that the alt-right has already won.

      they have no opponent who isn’t old and gay.

      alt-right: establishment :: volcano: pompei

      there’s no going back.

      all other ideologies are for old-farts, gassy old people.


  2. Your article clearly needs updating. I created a large number of articles there on racialists/hereditarians, but there has been a problem with Mikemikev creating articles on racialists/hereditarians as a parody and that’s when articles have dubious content. Most recently, Mikemikev created the James Watson article (that I voted to delete): while he was pretending to be an anti-racialist communist:

    Unfortunately, I often get blamed for Mikemikev’s stupid behaviour. The JayMan article was deleted because it was a parody (probably also written by Mike).


    • mikemikev says:

      What an evil lying cunt.


    • You’re a compulsive liar you blames your sockpuppets onto me.

      Are you really denying this is you?

      “Clearly User:Mikemikev sock per Special:Diff/2065488. Disabling TPA.)”


    • Mike you need serious mental help.

      You can find me debating you on the user-talk of that account:

      There’s no doubt this is you.

      Probably in 6 months you will even deny posting on this blog and claim the ‘mikemikev’ (you) commenting here is me. You’re insane.


    • mikemikev says:

      Are you trying to claim that you’re not an evil lying cunt? Because you are.


    • Great response… We both know the Glamour_Sickle account is yours to the extent you ambiguously deny it rather than answer with a simple yes or no.

      All of the antifa/communist/hope not hate troll accounts on RationalWiki are yours. ‘Glamour_Sickle’ was a very poor parody of a communist.


    • mikemikev says:

      Explain this then. Why are you the only source for all of your sockpuppets being me, when anyone else that looks at it concludes all of the sockpuppets you accuse me of are in fact you?

      Why do you bother? You think you’re playing some clever trick. But literally everyone including lawyers and judges knows it’s you. Is this the legacy you want to create for yourself? What a sad, sad little man.


    • You mean Abd Lomax, who claims I’ve NEVER impersonated anyone?

      “Oliver… not an impersonator, AFAIK”

      Lomax knows I’ve never impersonated anyone you imbecile. Instead he incorrectly misidentifies a bunch of your sockpuppets as mine. On this point he isn’t an impartial source, but a troll who has a vendetta against me.

      Everyone else knows all those sockpuppets are yours including RationalWiki admins who have blocked them as you:

      “Clearly User:Mikemikev sock per Special:Diff/2065488. Disabling TPA.)”

      At this point you know you’re lying through your teeth.


    • “anyone else that looks at it”

      Anyone impartial would compare your behaviour to mine on multiple websites.

      What they will find is you’re banned literally everywhere for socking and impersonations, while I’m not e.g. I own one good-standing Twitter, Youtube, Facebook etc. and forum accounts, while you’ve been banned on dozens.

      “@Mikemikev, @mikemikev9000, @mikemikev9001, @mikemikev9002, @mikemikev9003, @mikemikev9005, @mikemikev9006, @mikemikev9008, @mikemikev9009, @Abreen1488, @CPie1488, most recently @Antifungal16.[21] @Abreen1488 was an impersonation of an antifascist[22] and Coombs is known to have created other fake accounts to troll anti-racists.”

      The same deranged behaviour you display on social media fits what you do on RationalWiki including creating parody/fake/impersonator accounts. This isn’t what I do at all.


    • mikemikev says:

      Even your own lawyer isn’t trying to dispute it.


    • As usual you’re just posting misinformation.

      It’s very easy to identify my RationalWiki accounts.

      The one’s that are yours, that you blame on me are the stupid Antifa/communist accounts.

      I’m not a communist or antifa, and since you had no evidence I was one – all you could do is create fake sockpuppets of me and then link back to those as ‘proof’ when in fact they’re all you and antifa/communism fits your obsession, not mine.


    • mikemikev says:

      Anytime anyone says anything to you it’s just “I know you are but what am I”. You’re incapable of checking your deranged behavior. That’s why you’re going through multiple courts.


    • Re: Glamour Sickle:

      You created a parody of a communist pretending to be transgender:

      You wrote the James Watson article:

      You were then busted as a parody/fake since you slipped up and started writing racist comments as the parody communist so they blocked you aside from your talk-page:

      “ye so GL is blocked for doing a racism tho they can still respond here if they want”

      You then continued trolling on your talk until Arthur Kerensa banned you.

      You were clearly identified based on this comment:

      Why on earth would this account be me? I got it blocked and debated you as seen on the talk page.

      Of course there’s additional evidence Glamour Sickle is you:

      You created the original Watson article in 2015, but it was deleted.

      “23:50, 14 May 2015 AgingHippie (talk | contribs) deleted page James Watson (content was: “”’James Watson”’ is a racist pseudoscientist bigot who claimed there was no ”a priori” reason to assume Africans didn’t have exactly t…” (and the only contributor was “Communist Scientist”))”

      Communist Scientist is you:

      23:31, 14 September 2015 Krom (talk | contribs) blocked Communist Scientist (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 90 days (account creation disabled) (Unfunny vandalism: Mikemikev sock)

      You think you’re smart denying your socks but are a total dumbass and it’s easy to identify them from repetitive behaviour.


    • mikemikev says:

      I’m talking about you generally. Jesus describes your behavior perfectly.

      “And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? “


    • “That’s why you’re going through multiple courts.”

      I’m not “going through multiple courts”. More misinformation.

      Emil Kirkegaard (one individual) filed a lawsuit against me. Based on the preliminary judgement that is public (ruled as opinion) he’s almost certainly lost. My lawyer has written to his asking him to discontinue and he will very likely have to pay me back large sums of my legal fees.

      No one else has filed a lawsuit against me. Furthermore, you’re posting total falsehoods about my lawyer. That’s unwise unless you want to get yourself into various legal complications.


    • Based on your other response, I guess you finally admit these accounts are you:

      Well that’s a start I guess.

      And this is what I was saying all along: you create communist/antifa/SJW fake accounts as a parody or to troll.

      If you want to waste your life with this stupidity: fine. I just object to you trying to blame these on me when they’re not mine and I don’t do this sort of thing.


    • ps. You aren’t a reliable source at all on defamation law when you’ve spent 7 years posting libel and malicious falsehoods across the internet and did it again right on a few hours ago, on this blog…

      In the below linked post you libelled me as a “terrorist”:

      I’m obviously not a terrorist, nor could you fin court defend that as opinion as it has no actual basis. The reason I’ve never sued you for defamation is because I believe in freedom of speech (unlike Kirkegaard). I don’t believe in suing people for writing mean words over the internet.


    • I was trying to find where you got the misinformation my lawyer said I own your RationalWiki sockpuppets, unless you made that up out of whole cloth (like you have with many other false and misleading claims about me). It might though be this:

      A year ago out of good faith I submitted deletion requests for all the OpenPsych articles I made, including Kirkegaard’s. I partly did this thinking Kirkegaard would take down his various pages attacking and smearing me, so we just removed any mention of each other’s names on the internet which would calm things down; predictably he never did and since that date he’s created or instigated more – so it was a waste of time. All those RationalWiki articles are staying up and have since last year been heavily re-edited by different users anyway.

      I have no idea how from this you misunderstood this meant I owned your sockpuppets. As far as I’m aware, aside from heavily trolling the Davide Piffer article, especially its talk- you had no involvement with any of the OpenPsych pages I made:

      I’ve never claimed otherwise. Rather I claimed (with good reason and concrete evidence) you own a bunch of troll/parody socks, mostly with Antifa or communist in title. Those are listed on Abd Lomax’s blog — none have anything to do with OpenPsych. Those accounts all fit your MO, not mine.

      Regardless, notice the troll who shows up on the above deletion request page impersonating me/or at least trying to mislead people by using my surname, Smith, is none other than Abd Lomax:

      “Some random guy has accused you of being Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. It’s plausible… — Dysk (contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)”

      David Gerard then blocked this sock as Lomax after it was obvious it was his based on his writing style in the replies.


    • Notice Emil Kirkegaard up to the preliminary judgement was provoking me across the internet, but as soon as the preliminary judgement, suddenly stopped – he’s now having to face the reality he lost and will likely have to pay me back thousands in legal fees.


  3. “In any case, yes my views have changed, and no, it’s not some “cover” for my old views. I do not still hold those same beliefs “in private” (how would whoever wrote this know what views I hold in private? It’s idiotic).”

    I totally get you argue you’re sincere, but people are sceptical because other hereditarians have adopted your more moderate form of race realism, while in private holding their extreme racialist/hereditarianism views. Take for example John Fuerst –

    I debated Fuerst back in 2015 on OpenPsych and he claimed he was defending a “thin racialism” (more or less equivalent to the minimalist race concept you support) opposed to hereditarianism. The problem with this is Fuerst is a huge liar. He always was a hereditarian (which I saw in his old blog posts and his colleagues at OpenPsych also knew he was a hereditarian), and his most recent publications are from a hereditarianism POV. So that’s why some editors of your article don’t take your word at face value. Also there’s the fact that your more moderate form of race realism is just regarded by RationalWiki as pseudoscience. Its like you’re basically equivalent to an old earth creationist, while the hereditarians are young earth creationists. So while the “minimalist race” concept is more reasonable than herediatariansm, it’s still false.


  4. dealwithit says:

    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Blog Stats

  • 863,396 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at


%d bloggers like this: