Home » Race Realism » Hereditarian “Reasoning” on Race

Hereditarian “Reasoning” on Race

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

Join 290 other subscribers

Follow me on Twitter


1100 words

The existence of race is important for the hereditarian paradigm. Since it is so important, there must be some theories of race that hereditarians use to ground their theories of race and IQ, right? Well, looking at the main hereditarians’ writings, they just assume the existence of race, and, along with the assumption, the existence of three races—Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid, to use Rushton’s (1997) terminology.

But just assuming race exists without a definition of what race is is troubling for the hereditarian position. Why just assume that race exists?

Fish (2002: 6) in Race and Intelligence: Separating Science from Myth critiques the usual hereditarians on what race is and their assumptions that it exists. He cites Jensen (1998: 425) who writes:

A race is one of a number of statistically distinguishable groups in which individual membership is not mutually exclusive by any single criterion, and individuals in a given group differ only statistically from one another and from the group’s central tendency on each of the many imperfectly correlated genetic characteristics that distinguish between groups as such.

Fish (2002: 6) continues:

This is an example of the kind of ethnocentric operational definition described earlier. A fair translation is, “As an American, I know that blacks and whites are races, so even though I can’t find any way of making sense of the biological facts, I’ll assign people to my cultural categories, do my statistical tests, and explain the differences in biological terms.” In essence, the process involves a kind of reasoning by converse. Instead of arguing, “If races exist there are genetic differences between them,” the argument is “Genetic differences between groups exist, therefore the groups are races.”

Fish goes on to write that if we take a group of bowlers and a group of golfers then, by chance, there may be genetic differences between them but we wouldn’t call them “golfer races” or “bowler races.” If there were differences in IQ, income and other variables, he continues, we wouldn’t argue that the differences are due to biology, we would attempt argue that the differences are social. (Though I can see behavioral geneticists try to argue that the differences are due to differences in genes between the groups.)

So the reasoning that Jensen uses is clearly fallacious. Though, it is better than Levin’s (1997) and Rushton’s (1997) assumptions that race exists, it still fails since Jensen (1998) is attempting argue that genetic differences between groups make them races. Lynn (2006: 11) uses a similar argument to the one Jensen provides above. (Nevermind Lynn conflating social and biological races in chapter 2 of Race Differences in Intelligence.)

Arguments exist for the existence of race that doesn’t, obviously, assume their existence. The two best ones I’m aware of are by Hardimon (2017) and Spencer (2014, 2019).

Hardimon has four concepts: the racialist race concept (what I take to be the hereditarian position), the minimalist/populationist race concept (they are two separate concepts, but the populationist race concept is the “scientization” of the minimalist race concept) and the socialrace concept. Specifically, Hardimon (2017: 99) defines ‘race’ as:

… a subdivision of Homo sapiens—a group of populations that exhibits a distinctive pattern of genetically transmitted phenotypic characters that corresponds to the group’s geographic ancestry and belongs to a biological line of descent initiated by a geographically separated and reproductively isolated founding population.

Spencer (2014, 2019), on the other hand, grounds his racial ontology in the Census and the OMB—what Spencer calls “the OMB race theory”—or “Blumenbachian partitions.” Take Spencer’s most recent (2019) formulation of his concept:

In this chapter, I have defended a nuanced biological racial realism as an account of how ‘race’ is used in one US race talk. I will call the theory OMB race theory, and the theory makes the following three claims:

(3.7) The set of races in OMB race talk is one meaning of ‘race’ in US race talk.

(3.8) The set of races in OMB race talk is the set of human continental populations.

(3.9) The set of human continental populations is biologically real.

I argued for (3.7) in sections 3.2 and 3.3. Here, I argued that OMB race talk is not only an ordinary race talk in the current United States, but a race talk where the meaning of ‘race’ in the race talk is just the set of races used in the race talk. I argued for (3.8) (a.k.a. ‘the identity thesis’) in sections 3.3 and 3.4. Here, I argued that the thing being referred to in OMB race talk (a.k.a. the meaning of ‘race’ in OMB race talk) is a set of biological populations in humans (Africans, East Asians, Eurasians, Native Americans, and Oceanians), which I’ve dubbed the human continental populations. Finally, I argued for (3.9) in section 3.4. Here, I argued that the set of human continental populations is biologically real because it currently occupies the K = 5 level of human population structure according to contemporary population genetics.

Whether or not one accepts Hardimon’s and Spencer’s arguments for the existence of race is not the point here, however. The point here is that these two philosophers have grounded their belief in the existence of race in a sound philosophical grounding—we cannot, though, say the same things for the hereditarians.

It should also be noted that both Spencer and Hardimon discount hereditarian theory—indeed, Spencer (2014: 1036) writes:

Nothing in Blumenbachian race theory entails that socially important differences exist among US races. This means that the theory does not entail that there are aesthetic, intellectual, or moral differences among US races. Nor does it entail that US races differ in drug metabolizing enzymes or genetic disorders. This is not political correctness either. Rather, the genetic evidence that supports the theory comes from noncoding DNA sequences. Thus, if individuals wish to make claims about one race being superior to another in some respect, they will have to look elsewhere for that evidence.

So, as can be seen, hereditarian ‘reasoning’ on race is not grounded in anything—they just assume that races exist. This stands in stark contrast to theories of race put forth by philosophers of race. Nonhereditarian theories of race exist—and, as I’ve shown, hereditarians don’t define race, nor do they have an argument for the existence of races, they just assume their existence. But, for the hereditarian paradigm to be valid, they must be biologically real. Hardimon and Spencer argue that they are, but hereditarian theories do not have any bearing on their theories of race.

There is the hereditarian ‘reasoning’ on race: either assume its existence sans argument or argue that genetic differences between groups exist so the groups are races. Hereditarians need to posit something like Hardimon or Spencer.



  1. Romello says:

    Even if everyone were of the same race that wouldn’t prevent some groups from being innately smarter than others. Everyone could look white but people who are left handed on average could be smarter on average than those who aren’t.

    The fact is that African-Americans and Australian Aborigines are low functioning in terms of intelligence and that this level is almost certainly genetic.


  2. mikemikev says:

    “Fish goes on to write that if we take a group of bowlers and a group of golfers then, by chance, there may be genetic differences between them but we wouldn’t call them “golfer races” or “bowler races.” ”

    Right, because race isn’t defined by sports preference.

    “If there were differences in IQ, income and other variables, he continues, we wouldn’t argue that the differences are due to biology, we would attempt argue that the differences are social.”

    No, we’d try to partition heritability the same.

    “So the reasoning that Jensen uses is clearly fallacious.”

    What’s fallacious is saying something (wrong) about one construct then pretending to applies to another construct.


  3. mikemikev says:

    Jensen: “Race is defined by multiple genetic traits”.

    Fish: “But this other construct is defined by a single behavioral trait and it isn’t the same as race, gotcha.”

    Jensen: “STFU retard.”


  4. mikemikev says:

    “It should also be noted that both Spencer and Hardimon discount hereditarian theory”

    All he said was the existences of race doesn’t in itself demonstrate genetic behavior differences.


    • A position you don’t agree with? Or is this something else you’ve flip-flopped on?

      You and the other Metapedia sysops fallaciously equated hereditarianism with the existence of race back in 2012-2013.

      Here’s what was written about me by Upplysning:

      “He has inserted a lot material claiming that biological races exist but at the same that this have no political implications and that biological races are not involved in any really important [mental] characteristics. This is obviously actually race denialism. Even more strangely, he has made claims such that his own race denialism view is actually called “race realism” while dismissing IQ researchers such as Rushton and Lynn as “hereditarian” junk science.”

      LOL. So I was laughably called a “race denialist” despite I was arguing races DO exist. How absurd. This is because Upplysning equates hereditarianism with ‘race realism’ and you were doing the same, hence you also called me a ‘race denialist’ after I criticised pseudoscientists like Rushton, Lynn etc.


    • mikemikev says:

      I’m not sure what your butthurt whining about what someone said to you on the internet years ago has to do with the point.


  5. mikemikev says:

    “So you’ve flip flopped on this, because here is a quote from someone else.”

    What a fucking moron.


    • Why did you call me a ‘race denialist’ when I was an anti-hereditarian? As I explained above in 2012-2013 I was arguing races DO exist but you called me a race denialist because I argued group differences in IQ are predominantly environmental. At that point in time though, I never denied the existence of race. Suddenly now you seem to have (finally) realised hereditarianism and race realism are different things i.e. someone like notpoliticallycorrect is a ‘race realist’ and anti-hereditarian at the same time.

      As usual there’s no consistency in your posts. I also expect the owner of this blog won’t respond to you because you’re considered by everyone as a troll.


    • mikemikev says:

      Should I explain why I called you a race denialist in 2012? Or should I tell you to keep your dopey mentally ill face out of my discussions?


    • Why are you commenting on this blog? You followed me here yet the owner of this blog apparently wants nothing to do with you and ignores your posts.

      “Should I explain why I called you a race denialist in 2012?”

      I didn’t deny races exist in 2012 so you won’t have an explanation. As I noted above, you fallaciously equate the view group differences in IQ are predominantly environmental with ‘race denialism’ which is hilariously wrong since someone at the same time can argue races exist but argue against hereditarianism. This viewpoint isn’t as rare as you might think:


    • mikemikev says:

      Bollocks I do you lying asshole.


  6. Do you have some form of bizarre mental illness where you deny your internet history? There you go lying again.

    Here’s you in 2013 calling Kaplan a “Jewish race denier”:

    “Why do you reference Jewish race denier Kaplan? Are you trying to get banned?”
    Mikemikev 18:21, 17 November 2013 (CET)

    In reality, Kaplan co-wrote a paper with a PhD biologist (Massimo Pigliucci) defending the existence of human races as ecological races aka ecotypes.

    Read their abstract that makes this clear:

    “Consequently, while human natural races exist, they have little or nothing in common with ‘folk’ races.”

    Kaplan’s position is “natural races” exist, yet according to you he’s a race denier. LOL. You only claimed the latter because he argues against hereditarianism e.g.
    “I argue, that the hereditarian position is unsupported by current evidence.”

    This was more or less my same position from 2010-2013 i.e. I was arguing human races exist (as defined as ecotypes) but argued against hereditarianism (I don’t though support Kaplan’s arguments, but prefer my own.)

    You also labelled me a ‘race denialist’ on Metapedia when I made it clear at that time, I wasn’t, since I was defending Kaplan’s ecotype race concept.

    At the very end of 2013/early 2014 I came to be sceptical of ecotypes – having read Templeton’s paper that criticised Kaplan & Pigliucci’s race concept. So for the past 6 years I’ve identified as a race denialist. It is totally false however to claim I was a race denialist when I debated you on Metapedia throughout 2012 and 2013.


    • mikemikev says:

      Do you seriously expect me to waste my time addressing this? Go back to your mom’s basement and STFU. Play with your boglins or something.


    • Additionally anyone who reads your crude anti-Semitism in that debate will see why Metapedia was and still is a joke (you called for my ‘ban’ for merely citing a Jewish academic.) It was always hard to take you serious; when I first encountered you I thought you were a parody of a Nazi with the MO to discredit the wiki as looking as insane as possible. Thankfully, I only edited there for a year. Metapedia now looks dead with only one active editor.


    • “Do you seriously expect me to waste my time addressing this?”

      Considering this is basically all you do all day, yes. You’ve posted here on/off for past 7 or 8 hours, while you were posting on Unz Review today at 10 am and probably on a bunch of forums and on more twitter sockpuppets.

      It’s unclear what time you think you’re wasting when you sit talking about race all day on the internet. It’s all you do.


  7. mikemikev says:


  8. I use Twitter to find and listen to podcasts, share research, discuss things (with some of my ~750 followers), enter competitions etc. All those are normal things.

    In contrast you use twitter to harass people and post racism, hence your accounts keep getting suspended.

    It’s only in your warped mind, you think you’re normal, and I’m not Michael.


  9. mikemikev says:

    Tactical Nihilism
    A bad-faith debating tactic where the debater selectively rejects commonly understood concepts, systems of classification, or terminology used by their opponent, halting any substantive debate, but supports their own viewpoints using those same concepts.

    Instead of evaluating the logic of an opposing argument, the tactical nihilist will feign confusion, and attack a term used by their opponent. If the opponent, unaware of the tactic, takes the debater’s apparent confusion in good faith, the conversation is quickly derailed into long discussions where the debater will continually request more and more evidence simply to establish the term’s definition or validity, which the debater really understood in the first place. The debater will split every hair, attempt to deconstruct other words and concepts, and request more evidence. The original argument is forgotten and appears to be unaddressed by the opponent, and the debater is then able to feel victorious.
    Alice: White people, becoming a dwindling and hated minority in the United States, face challenges as a group and should be allowed to advocate for their interests as a race.
    Bob: Race? What even is that, really? And what is white? What about Italians and the Irish? I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
    Alice: Wait, you support black, Hispanic and Asian minority activism. You know what race is, and I’ve never heard you try to deny or deconstruct any of those other racial identities before. And you sure seem to know what white people are when you’re attacking them for white privilege, or when you think there are too many of them. Please stop with the tactical nihilism.


    • Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

      Why is it you attack anyone who disagrees with you as an Antifa, SJW, Zionist, ‘anti-white’ or Jew?


    • Notpoliticallycorrect is apparently right-wing; I don’t think he’s interested in the idea of ‘white privilege’.

      And most the people that debated you on Kiwi Farms were also right-wing.

      Yet according to you all these people are ‘Antifa’ or ‘SJWs’. This is because your bizarre online persona is ultra-right and anyone to the left, even right-wing conservatives you think are all leftists. It’s quite hilarious to watch.


    • mikemikev says:

      He’s a Marxist troll. You’re basically an anti-European Marxist terrorist.


    • lol.

      You do realise RR/notpoliticallycorrect describes his politics on this blog?

      “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.”

      So according to you right-wing anti-immigration capitalists are ‘Marxists’.

      You’re an internet clown.


    • RaceRealist says:

      “Anyone who disagrees with me has the opposite politics” is what he’s saying.



    • mikemikev says:

      I guess Marxist activists never give themselves a fake description.


    • RaceRealist says:

      Do tell, why do you believe I’m a “Marxist advocate”?


    • mikemikev says:

      In the broad sense of Marxism from class equality to race equality, tactical nihilism on categories being the main plank on which attacks on race realism is launched. Please ask me another stupid question you already know the answer to.


    • RaceRealist says:

      Where have I espoused equality? Go on, quote me.


    • @RR

      Yes that’s spot on.

      And in Mikemikev’s own crazy words:

      “Most of the people here have explicitly stated they’re justified in slandering me because of my Nazi views. It’s reasonable to call them antifa activists.”

      “He’s slandering me because I’m a Nazi, therefore he’s an antifa activist.”

      In his view anyone who isn’t ultra-right/neo-Nazi is an Antifa/ultra-leftist which ignores almost the entire political spectrum. Instead he sees politics as only ultra-right and ultra-left, and ignores everything in-between.

      So he’s been bizarrely calling me a ‘Marxist terrorist’ and Antifa for past 6 or 7 years, despite I obviously don’t hold those views.

      If he’s actually insane (most people who debate him conclude he has serious mental issues) he’s just a mega-troll.


    • RaceRealist says:

      I don’t care about his political views.


    • “Where have I espoused equality? Go on, quote me.”

      I’ve been asking Mikemikev the same thing for seven years.

      For some bizarre reason Mikemikev equates a scientific POV with politics. So if you deny or question the validity of hereditarianism and/or race (scientific consensus) this equates in his weird view to SJWism and supporting ‘equality’. Nowhere in my posts though have I ever written about equality.


    • Feigning knowledge when it doesn’t even apply. I guess that goes to show the behavioral traits of people who don’t even know what Marxism is and who just assume every counter-opinion must be the nihilistic post-modernist kind. But I guess we really do need antifa to lift up braindead people like you. You don’t even realize those are geopolitical labels.


    • So do us a favor and define race for us because apparently everyone knows or are you just pulling it all out straight from your ass and feigning you have something substantial to say even though it’s just ad hominem. It’s not like you aren’t also a basement dweller since you use internet lingo like lmao.


  10. mikemikev says:

    “Fellow nationalists, I’m just not sure race is real.”


  11. mikemikev says:

    Calling himself “RaceRealist88” on Unz was almost a parody.


    • RaceRealist says:

      You really are dense.


    • It’s unlikely he will answer any of the above –

      Where has RR ever denied the existence of race?
      Where has ODS or RR ever supported ‘equality’/SJWism?
      Where has ODS or RR every supported Marxism?
      How is race denial incompatible with ethnic or culture nationalism?*

      On the last point, note there’s Youtube videos made by cultural nationalists that deny the existence of race. One guy goes through debunking the pseudoscience of racialists, but at end of video points out not to confuse race denial with denying different cultures exist and that he’s against personally against multicultural societies. As for specifically ethnic nationalists against race, yes such a viewpoint exists and is a type of neo-tribalism. I met these people on a forum called Anglo-Saxon Foundation ages back.


    • bob says:

      Mikey do you think Oliver Smith is Jewish?


    • No. I think the confusion I was stems from living in a town with the highest proportion of Jews in UK.


    • mikemikev says:

      Culturally he seems quite Jewish. I think his family are or were British Israelites. Which seems even more idiotic than half German Khazars claiming to be Israelites.


    • Mikemikev back to socking and trolling, an academic recently blocked him on multiple websites for harassment:


  12. LOL. Mikemikev’s account he uses to comment on wordpress/blogs, is the same logged on his RationalWiki article so the above academic found his identity:

    He left a bunch of comments trolling the following academic (Sarah Olson) who wrote a blog post:

    She then just Googled to realise he’s an absolute nutjob after reading the RationalWiki article. This is precisely why I partially wrote that article to warn other people about him.


    • mikemikev says:

      And this is because the “ReadMoreScience” post where Saini claims racists don’t look at the data, I took one of Saini’s claims (that South Asians can be more similar to Europeans than other South Asians) and compared it to the data.

      Response from “ReadMoreScience”: delete comment let’s SHUT THIS GUY DOWN.

      How scientific.

      How is she going to “shut me down” anyway? What a lunatic. Almost as crazy as Oliver D. Smith. Lot’s of cool new material on Oliver here.



      “He has written a series of blog posts defending people such as Emil O. W. Kirkegaard, Michael Coombs and other alt-right activists.[10] He is also known to use his blog to attack people he is disgruntled with, including administrators on websites he is banned from. One of his favorite methods of attack is to ‘weaponize’ Google searches, so if someone searches for a name Lomax’s blog will show up with ad hominem and lies written about them.”

      Nevertheless, even Lomax has described Mikemikev on his website as a “racist troll”…


    • @Mikemikev

      Was this the “multiple lawsuits” you meant? From your link:

      “AP B also visibly coordinated complaints to the WikiMedia Foundation, with which Oliver cooperated, resulting in an office ban in early 2018, and I’m in U.S. Federal court over that. Not over the ban itself, but over publication — and the conspiracy to defame that was behind it.”

      In reality, this arsehole doxed my real name on a wiki where users have a privilege to be anonymous, so I sent an email to the WMF telling them to remove it. They did and evidence for this retraction exists; they then ended up banning his account for multiple offences:

      In response he filed a lawsuit against the WMF making up absurd claim there was some sort of “conspiracy to defame” him, while presenting zero evidence:

      In response they filed a motion to dismiss (since it’s a lolsuit):


  13. Notice my sources on your are reliable third-party academics, in contrast your sources on me are lies written by trolls who have a vendetta against me.

    Your source is a troll (Abd Lomax) who has (like you) been banned everywhere for harassment: “Abd has been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation from editing Wikimedia sites” “Wikiversity is not your personal podium: persistent long term disruption” “These vendetta’s that you are pursuing are a large part of the reason why you can no longer participate at Wikiversity. Abd: your wv user talk page is now locked. You no longer have an “agenda” to pursue at Wikiversity. Please stop wasting everyone’s time”


  14. mikemikev says:

    STFU you slaphead idiot


  15. mikemikev says:

    Don’t you have something more important you could be doing slaphead? Like flooding reddit with pointless sockpuppetry every night?


  16. mikemikev says:

    Everyone can see you’re a slaphead. Why try to deny it?


  17. mikemikev says:

    The slaphead cries out in pain as he strikes you.


    • dealwithit says:

      how dare you!

      oliver and his nigerian husband have adopted three cambodian babies.


      and even if oliver has convinced a (fat) white woman to give him babies they and he will be shoah-ed along with his baby mama and rr when thomas merton hits the fan in singapore a second time for the thousandth time.



  18. dealwithit says:

    if you’re not a 41 year old never married childless nazi…







    • Yes, Mike is another childless alt-righter. He’s someone who sits online complaining of “white genocide” and Jews are decreasing white birth rates, but has no children of his own, and almost certainly never will have any considering he’s now in his 40s. He’s also never been married.

      It’s never made sense to me why childless Nazis criticise people choosing not to have children because of climate change and overpopulation.


    • dealwithit says:

      i was NOT joking.

      you have autism.

      considering he’s now in his 40s.

      he’s a man not a woman. do you have rabies?

      it’s OBVIOUS at this point that rr has been informed by his doctor that the purple lesions on his butthole are in fact kaposi’s sarcoma.


  19. dealwithit says:






  20. Adolf Hitler says:

    Mikemikev isn’t a real Nazi. He’s an incel with a east Asian woman fetish.

    He was apparently banned on Stormfront:

    “You want to discuss whether people who glorify sleeping with Korean girls should be put on moderation? I think that’s pretty disgusting behavior. What do you think?”


    • dealwithit says:

      indeed. asians are gross, like fat white women.

      everything rr says is 100% discredited by the fact that he would never allow africans to invade his precious mezzogiorno. he doesn’t even want eastern europeans or swedes in his wannabe fatherland, his actual fatherland being albania and nigeria.

      he needs to stop lying.


  21. mikemikev says:



  22. mikemikev says:

    Most aspects of this pitiful man are not interesting. He is a normal white guy who in previous times would have been a farmer or a factory worker, but his soul has been crushed by modernity. He is the epitome of the ideal form of what Jews want us all to be, and that is why he is interesting to me. He is an impotent, fat, weak, spineless coward who believes what he’s supposed to believe, watches what he’s supposed to watch, says what he’s supposed to say, and thinks what he’s supposed to think.

    By looking at his face, I can tell you with a 99% certainty:

    He either really likes Marvel movies or makes a big thing of how he is unique because he doesn’t like Marvel movies.
    He is too dumb to like any actually good science fiction. He unironically watches Star Trek: Discovery – and Picard. He liked the JJ Abrams movies. He has only seen the odd episode of the actual Star Trek, but he likes to think he knows something about them. He is the target audience of Alex Kurtzman’s Star Trek.
    He has never been intimate with a woman and is too much of a coward to fly to Southeast Asia and have sex with hookers. He justifies his fear with white knight bullshit about “exploitation,” even while he has no problem basing his entire sexual psychology around pornography. He has a favorite porn star that he imagines is his girlfriend. He has weird sexual fetishes which may include being a furry.
    His entire identity is wrapped up in the shittiest conceivable bits of pop culture.
    He plays the worst imaginable video games. Games which are neither nerd games nor normie games.
    He came from a middle class background.
    He isn’t from New York City and is really excited about living there.
    He’s been in therapy since he was a child and is on psychotropic drugs for “depression and/or anxiety.”
    He went to college for a humanities degree, probably English literature or film, probably got a master’s degree, and his image of himself is as some kind of creative.
    He looks up to Kevin Smith as a fat loser who was also creative and so was able to marry a normal looking woman.
    If you asked him if he loved science, he would say “yes.”
    He was raised Irish Catholic.
    His father is a weak man, but not as weak as he is. His father has always said “I’ll support you in whatever you do,” because his father was affected by stupid boomer memes of evil parents controlling their kids’ lives. And yet, somewhere inside of him, he can’t help being ashamed that this roly-poly blob is his legacy.
    Although he himself is a heterosexual, he thinks homosexual issues are much more important than his own life.
    He collects toys.

    I can tell you with 100% certainty:

    He thinks he’s special.

    In the most gross sense, Patrick Hogan believes that there is something unique about him, some magic inside of him that makes him different than other people. Due to the fat in his brain exacerbating his crippling lack of self-awareness, he would never be capable of even wondering if this belief that he is special came from Harry Potter. (It did come from Harry Potter.)

    He believes in his heart that some day he will meet a woman who recognizes that specialness inside of him, and she will fulfill him.

    Of course, as any grown adult knows, no one is special. Everyone is just a combination of genetics and experiences. But if he were to let go of his belief that he is special, his entire psyche would collapse, because he would have to acknowledge that he is nothing more than a fat slob with a completely meaningless existence.


  23. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    HAHAHAHAHHAHA What RR supports closed borders?
    Please, he has a black boyfriend, just like your mother; in fact, just like you like to send documents to universities to say deleted to some hereditary who doesn’t like you, well you are in that case you are worse damn autistic fat, come to Madrid to split your face and demolish yourself than leftists in real life , only serve to be abused by Nazis.


  24. mikemikev says:

    Why do people with narcissism react so vehemently when threatened by a seemingly minor offense? The answer is complicated:

    Their grandiose views of themselves are threatened by perceived attacks. These grandiose views of themselves are necessary for their self-preservation. When threatened, they are not merely offended, but their entire sense of self is at stake. Their grandiosity was developed as an over-compensatory, albeit protective, means to defend the person from feeling any sense of vulnerability.
    People with narcissism do not operate within the realms of “normal” human interaction, but rather in a relational “barter system” that generates “narcissistic supply”—also known as narcissistic food—which includes admiration, attention, praise, accolades, being perceived as superior, being seen as special, or any other means of being viewed as “top dog.” When others feed them these types of “food,” people with narcissism may have a false sense of satisfaction, but they are generally never fully content because they are still lacking in true connection and intimacy with another.
    Whenever suppliers of narcissistic food fail to maintain their end of the barter system—which, by the way, is ultimately one-sided—people with narcissism experience a “wound” because their fragile and dysfunctional ego is left unfulfilled. Their feelings of dependence may get triggered as a result, and they may be incapable of facing any sense of need for another (perhaps because of early childhood attachment injuries).
    Since people with narcissism have distorted views of themselves, they tend to perceive any positive interactions as expected and any negative interactions as personal attacks. They are particularly sensitive to perceived negative attacks because they live in a pseudo-reality or delusional state about themselves in relation to others. They may genuinely believe they are superior to others, so when positive reactions come their way they may take them for granted.
    People with narcissism generally feel an inner emptiness and thus need positive input from others in order to maintain their delusional sense of reality. When anyone contradicts their fantasy views of themselves, they get close to those unbearable empty feelings and react strongly in order to stop their impending sense of inadequacy.
    People with narcissism tend to have a chronic inner rage. Most people experience anger, usually a response to a perceived threat of some kind. Anger helps us realize when we need to take action, and quickly. Usually when people are angry, they temporarily suspend their cognitive functioning and empathy to a large degree and tend to operate in immediate terms.
    Since they are continually full of rage (the flip side of their internal shame), people with narcissism may use any slight as an “excuse” to release some of the pressure of this inner rage/shame struggle. Since narcissistic wounds seem to be triggered by rather innocuous events, it is helpful to understand the true root of the problem is neither caused by the target nor solved by the reaction of the person with narcissism. The true root of the anger of a person with narcissism has to do with a deep-seated inner rage that is in place as a countermeasure to their deep-seated inner shame.


    • dealwithit says:

      they are still lacking in true connection and intimacy with another.

      such as may be found with thai lady boys?

      psychiatry and psychology are astrology. get thee to an insanery.


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

  • 863,404 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: