NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » HBD » Behavioral Geneticists are Silenced!: Public Perceptions on Genetics

Behavioral Geneticists are Silenced!: Public Perceptions on Genetics

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

Join 235 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

2000 words

HBDers like to talk about this perception that their ideas are not really discussed in the public discourse; that the truth is somehow withheld from the public due to a nefarious plot to shield people from the truth that they so heroically attempt to get out to the dumb masses. They like to claim that the field and its practitioners are ‘silenced’, that they are rejected outright for ‘wrongthink’ ideas they hold. But if we look at what kinds of studies get out to the public, a different picture emerges.

The title of Cofnas’ (2019) paper is Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry; the title of Carl’s (2018) paper is How Stifiling Debate Around Race, Genes and IQ Can Do Harm; and the title of Meisenberg’s (2019) paper is Should Cognitive Differences Research Be Forbidden? Meisenberg’s paper is the most direct response to my most recent article, an argument to ban IQ tests due to the class/racial bias they hold that then may be used to enact undesirable consequences on a group that scores low—but like all IQ-ists, they assume that IQ tests are tests of intelligence which is a dubious assumption. In any case, these three authors seem to think there is a silencing of their work.

For Darwin200 (his 200th birthday) back in 2009, the question “Should scientists study race and IQ” was asked in the journal Nature. Neuroscientist Steven Rose (2009: 788) stated “No”, writing:

The problem is not that knowledge of such group intelligence differences is too dangerous, but rather that there is no valid knowledge to be found in this area at all. It’s just ideology masquerading as science.

Ceci and Williams (2009: 789) answered “Yes” to the question, writing:

When scientists are silenced by colleagues, administrators, editors and funders who think that simply asking certain questions is inappropriate, the process begins to resemble religion rather than science. Under such a regime, we risk losing a generation of desperately needed research.

John Horgan wrote in Scientific American:

But another part of me wonders whether research on race and intelligence—given the persistence of racism in the U.S. and elsewhere–should simply be banned. I don’t say this lightly. For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science. But research on race and intelligence—no matter what its conclusions are—seems to me to have no redeeming value.

And when he says that “research on race and intelligence … should simply be banned“, he means:

Institutional review boards (IRBs), which must approve research involving human subjects carried out by universities and other organizations, should reject proposed research that will promote racial theories of intelligence, because the harm of such research–which fosters racism even if not motivated by racism–far outweighs any alleged benefits. Employing IRBs would be fitting, since they were formed in part as a response to the one of the most notorious examples of racist research in history, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which was carried out by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972.

At the end of the 2000s, journalist William Saletan was big in the ‘HBD-sphere’ due to his writings on sport and race and race and IQ. But in 2018 after the Harris/Murray fiasco on Harris’ podcast, Saletan wrote:

Many progressives, on the other hand, regard the whole topic of IQ and genetics and sinister. That too is a mistake. There’s a lot of hard science here. It can’t be wished away, and it can be put to good use. The challenge is to excavate that science from the muck of speculation about racial hierarchies.

What’s the path forward? It starts with letting go of race talk. No more podcasts hyping gratuitous racial comparisons as “forbidden knowledge.” No more essays speaking of grim ethnic truths for which, supposedly, we must prepare. Don’t imagine that if you posit an association between race and some trait, you can add enough caveats to erase the impression that people can be judged by their color. The association, not the caveats, is what people will remember.

If you’re interested in race and IQ, you might bristle at these admonitions. Perhaps you think you’re just telling the truth about test scores, IQ heritability, and the biological reality of race. It’s not your fault, you might argue, that you’re smeared and misunderstood. Harris says all of these things in his debate with Klein. And I cringe as I hear them, because I know these lines. I’ve played this role. Harris warns Klein that even if we “make certain facts taboo” and refuse “to ever look at population differences, we will be continually ambushed by these data.” He concludes: “Scientific data can’t be racist.”

Of course “scientific data can’t be racist”, but the data can be used by racists for racist motives and the tool to collect the data could be inherently biased against certain groups meaning they favor certain groups too.

Saletan claims that IQ tests can be ‘put to good use’, but it is “illogical” to think that the use of IQ tests was negative and then positive in other instances; it’s either one or the other, you cannot hold that IQ testing is good here and bad there.

Callier and Bonham (2015) write:

These types of assessments cannot be performed in a vacuum. There is a broader social context with which all investigators must engage to create meaningful and translatable research findings, including intelligence researchers. An important first step would be for the members of the genetics and behavioral genetics communities to formally and directly confront these challenges through their professional societies and the editorial boards of journals.

[…]

If traditional biases triumph over scientific rigor, the research will only exacerbate existing educational and social disparities.

Tabery (2015) states that:

it is important to remember that even if the community could keep race research at bay and out of the newspaper headlines, research on the genetics of intelligence would still not be expunged of all controversy.

IQ “science” is a subfield of behavioral genetics; so the overarching controversy is on ‘behavioral genetics’ (see Panofsky, 2014). You would expect there to hardly be any IQ research reported in mainstream outlets with how Cofnas (2019), Carl (2018) and Meisenberg (2019) talk about race and IQ. But that’s not what we find. What we find when we look at what is published regarding behavioral genetic studies compared to regular genetic studies is a stark contrast.

Society at large already harbors genetic determinist attitudes and beliefs, and what the mainstream newspapers put out then solidifies the false beliefs of the populace. Even then, a more educated populace in regard to genes and trait ontogeny will not necessarily make them supportive of new genetics research and discoveries; they are even critical of such studies (Etchegary et al, 2012). Schweitzer and Saks (2007) showed that the popular show CSI pushes false concepts of genetic testing on the public, showing that DNA testing is quick, reliable, and prosecutes many cases; about 40 percent of the ‘science’ used on CSI does not exist and this, too, promulgates false beliefs about genetics in society. Lewis et al (2000) asked schoolchildren “Why are genes important?”, to which 73 percent responded that they are important because they determine characters while 14 percent responded that they are important because they transfer information, but none spoke of gene products.

In the book Genes, Determinism and God, Denis Alexander (2017: 18) states that:

Much data suggest that the stories promulgated by the kind of ‘elite media’ stories cited previously do not act as ‘magic bullets’ to be instantly absorbed by the reader, but rather are resisted, critiqued or accepted depending on the reader’s economic interests, health and social status and access to competing discourses. A recurring theme is that people dis[lplay a ‘two-track model’ in which they can readily switch between more genetic deterministic explanations for disease or different behaviors and those which favour environmental factors or human choice (Condit et al., 2009).

The so-called two-track model is simple: one holds genetic determinist beliefs for a certain trait, like heart disease or diabetes, but then contradict themselves and state that diet and exercise can ameliorate any future complications (Condit, 2010). Though, holding “behavioral causal beliefs” (that one’s behavior is causal in regard to disease acquisition) is associated with behavioral change (Nguyen et al, 2015). This seems to be an example of what Bo Wingard means when he uses the term “selective blank slatism” or “ideologically motivated blank slatism.” That one’s ideology motivates them to believe that genes are causal regarding health, intelligence, and disease or reject the claim must be genetically mediated too. So how can we ever have objective science if people are biased by their genetics?

Condit (2011: 625) compiled a chart showing people’s attitudes to how ‘genetic’ a trait is or not:

condit

Clearly, the public understands genes as playing more of a role when it comes to bodily traits and environment plays more of a role when it comes to things that humans have agency over—for things relating to the mind (Condit and Shen, 2011). “… people seem to deploy elements of fatalism or determinism into their worldviews or life goals when they suit particular ends, either in ways that are thought to ‘explain’ why other groups are the way they are or in ways that lessen their own sense of personal responsibility (Condit, 2011)” (Alexander, 2017: 19).

So, behavioral geneticists must be silenced, right? Bubela and Caufield (2004: 1402) write:

Our data may also indicate a more subtle form of media hype, in terms of what research newspapers choose to cover. Behavioural genetics and neurogenetics were the subject of 16% of the newspaper articles. A search of PubMed on May 30, 2003, with the term “genetics” yielded 1 175 855 hits, and searches with the terms “behavioural genetics” and “neurogenetics” yielded a total of 3587 hits (less than 1% of the hits for “genetics”).

newsp

So Bubela and Caufield (2004) found that 11 percent of the articles they looked at had moderately to highly exaggerated claims, while 26 percent were slightly exaggerated. Behavioral genetic/neurogenetic stories comprised 16 percent of the articles they found, while one percent of all academic press articles were on genetics, which “might help explain why the reader gains the impression that much of genetics research is directed towards explaining human behavior; such copy makes newsworthy stories for obvious reasons” (Alexander, 2017: 17-18). Behavioral genetics research is indeed silenced!

silenced

(By @barrydeutsch)

Conclusion

The public perception of genetics seems to line-up with that of genetics researchers in some ways but not in others. The public at large is bombarded with numerous messages per day, especially in the TV programs they watch (inundated with ad after ad). Certain researchers claim that ‘free inquiry’ into race and IQ is being hushed. To Cofnas (2019) I would say, “In virtue of what is it ‘free inquiry’ that we should study how a group handles an inherently biased test?” To Carl (2018) I would say, “What about the harm done assuming that the hereditarian hypothesis is true, that IQ tests test intelligence, and the funneling of minority children into EMR classes?” And to Meisenberg (2019) I would say “The answer to the question “Should research into cognitive differences be forbidden?” should be “Yes, they should be forbidden and banned since no good can come from a test that was biased from its very beginnings.” There is no ‘good’ that can come from using inherently biased tests, which is why the hereditarian-environmentalist debate on IQ is useless.

It is due to newspapers and other media outlets that people hold the beliefs on genetics they do. Behavioral genetics studies are overrepresented in newspapers; IQ is a subfield of behavioral genetics. Is contemporary research ignored in the mainstream press? Not at all. Recent articles on the social stratification of Britain have been in the mainstream press—so what are Cofnas, Carl, and Meisenberg complaining about? It seems it just stems from a persecution complex; to be seen as the new ‘Galileo’ who, in the face of oppression told the truth that others did not want to hear so they attempted to silence him.

Well that’s not what is going on here, as behavioral genetic studies are constantly pushed in the mainstream press; the complaining from the aforementioned authors means nothing; look to the newspapers and the public’s perception of genes to see that the claims from the authors are false.


119 Comments

  1. “It seems it just stems from a persecution complex; to be seen as the new ‘Galileo’ who, in the face of oppression told the truth that others did not want to hear so they attempted to silence him.”

    Well said, it is a massive persecution complex.

    Cofnas in his paper made a bunch of false claims that there are scientists who argue against/prevent conducting research on IQ group differences. None exist. Of course he also fails to give a single example.

    When I raised this on Unz Review, all the HBDers could do is quote me non-scientist SJWs who no one cares about since they’re not scientists.

    Cofnas wrote:

    “However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ.”

    Complete nonsense and persecution complex.

    Like

  2. dealwithit says:

    “behavior genetics” has nothing to do with what “geneticists” do so the appellation “behavior geneticist” is inapt, not the mot jus.

    i would just call them “psychology professors and other morons”.

    Like

  3. I appreciate you posting the following:
    https://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/457786a

    IMO this paper doesn’t argue against studying group differences in IQ as long as the groups are local populations, indeed it actually defends the study of local populations (as opposed to broad group/races) in general:

    “There are some well recognized, meaningful genetic differences between groups, for instance between Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews in terms of their risk to Tay–Sachs disease, and the study of such differences may reveal important clues with
    respect, for instance, to disease propensity. But such groups are not normally considered socially distinct races for the purposes of studies of group differences in intelligence. Broad divisions between ‘white’ or ‘Caucasian’ and ‘black’ or ‘Asian’, the groups generally discussed in the context of the IQ debate, especially in the United States, hide genetically important subpopulation differences within these groups.”

    Indeed I’ve been arguing this same point now for many years. This scientist is not arguing against research in intelligence for local groups, only races at the continental level because those groupings are too heterogeneous to be of use in an analysis.

    Like

  4. “so what are Cofnas, Carl, and Meisenberg complaining about? ”

    They’re three cry-babies. Another thing these HBDers have in common is a huge victim-mentality. If you merely criticise them and debunk their nonsense they scream “harassment” and claim to be victims of bulling.

    “Help I’m being harassment someone wrote a factual page about me on RationalWiki!”

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nathan_Cofnas

    Like

  5. dealwithit says:

    ideally personality tests would be banned too under the legal theory that they are frauds just as much as scientology’s e-meters.

    that is, there is no way NOT to misuse these tests, because their mere existence presupposes many false, fraudulent, claims.

    Like

  6. dealwithit says:

    but IQ tests without the name like the AFQT, SAT, ACT, etc. will continue to be used, because they are useful.

    Like

  7. dealwithit says:

    A. the class/racial bias they hold that then may be used to enact undesirable consequences on a group that scores low

    there’s no evidence they are biased in the sense the test makers use the term. the SAT predicts college grades just as well for negroes as for whites. the AFQT predicts job performance just as well for negroes as for whites.

    B. IQ “science” is a subfield of behavioral genetics.

    this is false. it’s like saying ophthalmology is a subfield of genetics.

    Like

  8. dealwithit says:

    may be used to enact undesirable consequences on a group that scores low

    like what? affirmative action and not using tests in personnel decisions and admissions results in mismatch. it’s a yuge waste of everyone’s time.

    what must be done is to assure that those who don’t get the job or get into to the school don’t have shitty lives as a result.

    greater use of validated tests + social democracy = good

    no tests + affirmative action + laissez faire, neo-liberalism = evil

    Like

  9. Romello Delomand says:

    The lead writer for the New York Times on race/IQ is Amy Harmon. She did a hit piece on James Watson a while ago, after he just got into a car accident and is probably too old to defend himself.

    Harmon will say that there is no evidence for the claim that IQ differences between races have a genetic component. When people point out to her that the polls of experts say the majority think there is a genetic component, she ignores it.

    Ben Winegard said he knows easily a dozen researchers who take the hereditarian approach to race differences and won’t say o publicly because of employment and other concerns. So yes I think it is likely that many scientists are silenced.

    Like

  10. More persecution complex here:

    Bizarre false claims I “mass email their employers and colleagues with links to attack pages they actually get fired” (lol?) and other incredibly misleading claims I “set up blogs in their names” Who? When? I did this once as a page rebutting Kirkegaard’s countless lies about and notice after three years of obsessively following me across the internet, he’s still doing the same on social media.

    I’ve always said SJWs and HBDers (and more broadly the alt-right) are opposite sides of the same coin. If you exclude the ideological differences what you find is very similar, even identical online behaviours: victim mentality, persecution complex, etcetc.

    Like

    • Unless Kirkegaard made up the false claim out of whole cloth I mass emailed people’s employers and colleagues (likely considering he’s written so many outright lies about me), the only thing I can think of he may of wildy taken out of context the following:

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah_Carl#Background

      “In November 2018 Nuffield College were informed about Noah Carl using his university email on his OpenPsych papers; they told him to remove the email. Carl has since changed his email at OpenPsych to another email address.”

      Yes I sent an email to Nuffield, Oxford University. However Carl had left there in September, he was no longer employed by them when I sent the email. My only concern was the abuse of a Nuffield email on the OpenPsych journal papers. They agreed with me 100% and Carl changed it.

      I’ve never had anything to do with Carl’s sacking from Cambridge.

      Like

  11. Romello Delomand says:

    I only skimmed the paper, but I didn’t see Cofnas claiming that scientists argued for an outright ban on discussing race differences in intelligence. What he said was there were societal pressures such as getting people fired for taking the mainstream view that group differences have a genetic component.

    For example, last year Cold Harbor lab fired James Watson because of his mainstream view that the B/W gap in IQ has a genetic component. The two people who fired him were both PhDs, so I assume they were scientists.

    https://www.cshl.edu/statement-by-cold-spring-harbor-laboratory-addressing-remarks-by-dr-james-d-watson-in-american-masters-decoding-watson/

    Like

    • This is in the abstract:

      “However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ.”

      So who are the scientists that argue “we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ”?? Cofnas just made this up and provides no evidence.

      As for Watson, he retired or resigned during a suspension, and so wasn’t fired.

      http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/25/watson.resigns/index.html

      He had a long history of making outrageous comments; it wasn’t an isolated incident. It’s also misleading to say he was suspended because of “his mainstream view that the B/W gap in IQ has a genetic component.” rather he made some extremely controversial politicised comments that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.” Had he said he just believes genes partly explain group-differences in IQ (without the mention of social policies), there wouldn’t have been much a controversy, at least he wouldn’t have been suspended.

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      He does cite scientists who think we should “refrain” from discussing group differences in IQ. Thats not the same as advocating a ban

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      “[Watson] rather he made some extremely controversial politicised comments that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really.””

      Watson said 2 things:

      The African IQ is not as high ours (Europeans, I assume). There is no debate on this. I’m aware of the debate as to whether the IQ of Sub Sahara Africa should be in the low 70s or the mid to high 70s, but no one I know puts the IQ over 80.
      “all or social polices” are based on 1. Hard to know exactly what he means by this, but I imagine if you asked people who provide aid to Africa, build schools, etc. if they think it will help them substantially improve their IQ they might say yes.

      If it is true — which is overwhelmingly likely to be the case — that the low IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans has a moderate to substantial genetic component, why wouldn’t you be gloomy about its future?

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      I know of only two people that have ever called for such a thing. Steven Rose argued that the question was not scientific (https://www.nature.com/articles/457786a) and Lee Jussim called for a temporary moratorium on the study of race and IQ with respect to genetic causation until we can develop methodological techniques adequate for the question.

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      Because IQ has little to do with social policy or outcomes. He also made erroneous claims about African sexual behavior, about women, etc. The comments are even worse in private.

      Like

  12. Romello Delomand says:

    Does anyone dispute that the contention that the B/W IQ gap in the USA has a genetic component is mainstream science?

    Like

  13. @ RR, I compiled a list of reasons why I consider hereditarianism a pseudoscience, by this I mean the hereditarian hypothesis aka Jensenism.

    It’s widely accepted pseudosciences share some of the same features, or rather ‘warning signs’ (Lilienfeld, 2015).

    At least 8 of these are found in Jensenism and are listed below:

    Tendency to place the burden of proof on skeptics, not proponents, of claims: this is found in Jensen (1998, p. 418) and Rushton & Jensen (2005) who failing to provide any reliable evidence for their hereditarianism hypothesis, try to shift the burden of proof by making up a so-called default hypothesis ~0.80 BGH.
    Evasion of the scrutiny afforded by peer review: proponents of Jensen’s hereditarianism have set up their own pseudojournals, including OpenPsych, to avoid scrutiny of peer-review. OpenPsych rejects the formal peer-review process and so isn’t peer-reviewed despite deceptively claiming to be. Virtually everyone who has reviewed/published papers at OpenPsych shares the same view on race and intelligence. This flaw was realised by Meng Hu, a former reviewer, but who left, complaining about the strong bias of OpenPsych and the lack of impartiality. Jensenists are also associated with the academically dodgy Mankind Quarterly, often considered a pseudojournal (but it uses formal peer-review, contains an advisory board with at least one reputable anthropologist, i.e. Goran Štrkalj and publishes papers with different points of view on race, although not frequently). However, because of the controversial racist history of the journal’s editorial and the fact it is published by the Ulster Institute for Social Research, it’s not reliable. Jensen in the 1970s was associated with a similar dodgy journal known as Neue Anthropologie.
    An absence of self-correction: Jensenists very rarely correct errors they have made, for example Rushton (1988, 1995) is proven in a bunch of papers to have made many errors in terms of statistics and methodology and also misrepresented sources (Zuckerman & Brody, 1988; Weizmann et al. 1991; Cernovsky, 1993, 1995; Relethford, 1995) but he refused to correct them. Jensen (1973) somewhat inflated WGH estimates of IQ to infer high BGH, yet he never corrected this mistake and continued to use inflated estimates 25 years later in his book The g Factor (1998), i.e. “Plomin and DeFries (1980) reviewed a large body of modern data that jointly indicated that the broad heritability of IQ in contemporary Western populations is around 0.50, rather than the 0.75-0.80 that Jensen estimated” (Mackenzie, 1984).
    Intellectual stagnation: Jensenism has made absolutely no progress since 1969 when Arthur Jensen first proposed his hereditarianism hypothesis. Brace (1999) in a book review of Jensen’s The g Factor (1998) notes: “along with an unbroken stream of similar written contributions, present a massive picture of mental stasis”. This stagnation perhaps explains why Jensenists weakened their hypothesis to include moderate hereditarianism above zero, but under 0.50 BGH.

    5.Absence of connectivity that is, a failure to build on existing scientific knowledge: virtually all Jensenists are racialists i.e. they argue race as a broad aggregate or grouping of populations at the continental/subcontinental level is useful for scientific investigation e.g. “Caucasoid”, “Negroid” and “Mongoloid” (Jensen, 1973, p. 130; Lynn, 2006, pp. 9-10; Rushton, 1995). This ignores decades of research in population genetics and physical anthropology that has shown race (in the sense of large groups) has no utility because subpopulations within races – are heterogeneous. For criticism of Rushton’s classification see Groves (1998) who points out that “Any differences within races, he says, do not count, because this ‘obfuscates hierarchical order’, which is tantamount to admitting that the only way he can get his results is to lump the data until he has gotten the answer he wants”.

    A tendency to invoke ad hoc hypotheses, which can be thought of as escape hatches or loopholes, as a means of immunising claims from falsification: this is well documented for Richard Lynn who notoriously uses far-fetched ad hoc hypotheses involving exotic gene flow, within the past millennium, to explain the diversity in cross-national (mean) IQ and cognitive ability scores within Europe e.g. “the Arab occupation of Sicily and the southern mainland of Italy during the eighth to the eleventh centuries that introduced North African genes into the population and has been responsible for the lower IQs and poorer economic and cultural development” (Lynn, 2012).
    Reliance on anecdotal evidence to substantiate claims: as noted by Cernovsky (1993): “[Rushton] occasionally resorts to nonscientific sources of evidence, such as semipornographic literature”. These sources are also used by Lynn (2013) who adds more dubious and unverifiable anecdotal sources on race and penis size and relies too on a website that probably contains fabricated data.
    A facade of scientific respectability: OpenPsych pseudojournals and Ulster Institute for Social Research are phoney. Emil Kirkegaard lies about and exaggerates his background to seem more credible, i.e. he’s not a “scientist”, “geneticist”, “philosopher” or “psychologist”, but has falsely claimed to be these. Kirkegaard also excessively self-cites his own work, in a single paper 38 times…

    http://closerlookattheissues.blogspot.com/2019/02/emil-kirkegaards-self-citations.html

    Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      The worst hit for the hereditarian hypothesis is that they have no definition of race that does not assume its existence—see Fish’s article in his edited Race and Intelligence text.

      Jensen (1998: 425) 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.

      And Fish (2002: 6) responds:

      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.”

      This makes the hereditarian hypothesis untenable. Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Templer, Kanazawa, Levin and others have no definition or argument for race that does not assume its existence—I know your thoughts on Hardimon’s and Spencer’s arguments, but they at least have a sound philosophical basis for their belief in race, you can’t say the same for hereditarians.

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      All groups have exactly the same innate intellectual ability? You’d want to bet the next mortgage payment on that?

      Like

    • RaceRealist says:

      I never claimed that and I don’t know what you mean by “innate.”

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      I can’t defend everything that Jensen, Rushton, Lynn have said. I haven’t read everything they wrote, but the “pseudo science” claim rings false.

      Jensen said in ’69 that the black/white gap in the USA has a genetic component. What has come out since then that undermines this claim? I can’t think of anything. And in 2019, two b/w admixture studies show the higher the % of white ancestry, the higher the IQ. Even before these studies, the consensus of experts was that the b/w gap in the USA has a genetic component.

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      Romello, you have exactly 2 tricks. The first one is to point out an admixture study that has been extensively shown and explained to you that it is erroneous. The second (newer) is to appeal to a “poll of experts” that included only 2 experts, the beliefs of whom we do not know.

      Like

    • dealwithit says:

      wow!

      rr is attracting autists big time.

      yet another proof that rr just LARPs as an italian.

      the only thing sadder than a black nerd is an italian autist.

      Like

  14. I left a useful comment above about the pseudoscience of hereditarianism:

    https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2020/01/12/behavioral-geneticists-are-silenced-public-perceptions-on-genetics/comment-page-1/#comment-16614

    What do you think?

    We can add persecution complex as 8.

    Like

  15. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    Man, in / pol / they are trying to doxxearte and fuck you, the truth is that you deserve it, what happened men, now you hate your Nazi raisin?
    Damn asexual delayed, you’re going to die chubby virgin.
    If we are fascists, we love violence and we screw ourselves to idiots as RR, the West will be saved by brotherhoods of fascist warriors.
    It’s going to be amazing, to see environmentalists and liberal homosexuals cry like RR.
    By the way RR, why do you attack Jensen and Schockley for being racist and supposedly having biases, but don’t attack Gould or Nisbett in the same way, for being disgusting leftists and above all Jews?
    Miserable worm, long live Franco’s Spain, long live Antonio Vallejo-Nájera and death to the subhumans

    Like

  16. Blaz says:

    Hi RR, I have some questions, I wish you could answer them since you are supposedly a racial realist.
     read that 3 scientists – Watson, Venter, and Kim – sequenced their genomes and compared them. Watson and Venter are white and Kim is Asian, but Watson actually shared more alleles with Kim than he did with Venter. If whites are sometimes more genetically similar to non-whites than they are to members of their own race, how does that reconcile with race realism?
    I get that there are best-fit genetic clusters and that most people fall into geographic categories when we let computers do the work, but it seems like those triangle diagrams above should look a lot noisier. I mean, Watson, Venter, and Kim were just random scientists who decided to study themselves. They didn’t cherry-pick some weird Asian-like white person.
    Is it just a kind of lewontin fallacy since they didn’t look enough locis?
    Looking at the Autosomal phylogenic tree, you can see the clear group differentiation.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2752128/?report=classic
    I am making a video about racial realism and this is the only argument that I cannot answer, it would be helpful if you give an explanation of this, if you can of course.

    Like

  17. Blaz says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    Well Oliver, if you want to contribute, you can do it.
    I am hereditary, however I am open to changing my thoughts and that has happened since I started reading this particular blog, and perhaps embracing a “moderate hereditarism.”
    Now, I stand firm in my position of racial realist and I am making a video response to a “stupid racial denier” called “natural schizophrenia”, it is a philosopher youtuber that is mexican, also has a fairly large channel, so I need to answer the better way. I must also say that unlike you I do not refuse “fascism”, not even of my intellectual influences, to name a few: Joseph de Maistre, Joaquín Bochaca, Ernst Jünger, Alain de Benoist, Marinetti, Georges Sorel, Giovanni Gentile, Emil Cioran, Mircea Eliade, Ramiro Ledesma, etc, etc. That’s why I study anthropology, to become a good scientific racist lol
    I have also seen his debate with John Fuerst in the Emil forum and I must tell him that he loves to take things out of context and misrepresents some things, but in the end, I am not interested in his conflict with Kirkegaard and other hereditary ones.
    Without more, you can answer that question and raise some papers on the subject.

    Like

    • There is genetic overlap among neighbouring populations because of gene flow, so you will find individuals who self-identify as population x but in terms of their genetic similarity are closer to population y. I think this is rather uncontroversial and expected, although by no means common. For example, there will be a minority of English, especially in northern England who self-identify as English in terms of ancestry/ethnicity, but are genetically closer to Scottish. What was though unexpected in the case of Seong-Jin Kim, James Watson and Craig Venter is the two latter share fewer SNPs (461,000) with each other than they each share with Seong-Jin Kim (569,000 and 481,000, respectively) from a very distant population, Koreans. From what I’ve seen from race realists (e.g. Fuerst, 2015), they quote Tal (2012) that says these results were “an artifact of the high error rate and low coverage in Watson‟s SNP calling”. Of course, no evidence is provided for this claim to doubt the reliability of the genome sequencing. I don’t though think this matters if true or not (if genuine, it would be incredibly rare) and I only mentioned this briefly on OpenPsych when I debated Fuerst in 2015.

      My main argument against race is simply if populations are aggregated/grouped together at a continental or subcontinental level – the subpopulations in each group are too heterogeneous to be of use or analysis in a study. It makes no sense for example to cluster Swedes with Sicilians into a “European race”, as there is significant genetic distance between them because of the considerable geographical distance and lack of gene flow.

      Like

    • Let me put it this way, if ‘race’ becomes merely synonymous with local populations like most ethnic groups (Orcadians, Dutch, Swedes) I have no problem with ‘racialism’. I’ve pointed this out since day one. However, this form of racialism would be 10,000+ races worldwide, not <10. What I argue against is racialists who argue to reduce that number to a mere handful of extremely diverse groups.

      I tend though to argue against calling ethnic groups, ‘races’ because of the semantic confusion. Normally when one talks of race, they mean large groups of populations at the (sub)continental-level like “Mongoloid”.

      Like

    • Unfortunately many trolls have misrepresented my views on this for a long time. One troll named Mikemikev has run around the internet for past 6 years claiming because I deny race, I deny populations or even biological variation.

      Read the caution I put on RationalWiki:

      To deny the existence of subspecies (race) in Homo (Homo) sapiens is not to deny biological variation between populations; there is human population structure.

      Misrepresenting anti-racialism as the position that “all human populations are identical” or there are “no differences between populations” is a common tactic among racialists.

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Human_biological_variation

      And a lot of racialists are criticising that article without even reading it.

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      “It makes no sense for example to cluster Swedes with Sicilians into a “European race”, as there is significant genetic distance between them because of the considerable geographical distance and lack of gene flow.”

      I’m no geneticist, so this seems reasonable. But, OTOH, there is no way to meaningfully place Sicilians and Swedes in one different box from, say, Australian Aborigines?

      As Sailer has noted, these type of lumper/splitter debates are common in other areas such as linguistics. I don’t think it changes the fact that group differences have a partial genetic, partial environmental component. I don’t think anyone would think Sicilians are as smart average as Swedes.

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      The Wilson Effect is relevant. Children have roughly the same IQs until around 7 then the black IQ drops steadily. Even Flynn acknowledges this is a problem for egalitarians. Why is black culture Ok up till age 7 but bad after that?

      Like

  18. Romello Delomand says:

    James Watson was “fired” from his honorary job at Cold Harbor in 2019 (he had been fired from what appears to be a permanent position in 2007). The two people who signed Cold Harbor were both scientists, so here is a case of scientists calling for people to lose their jobs for holding race realist beliefs:

    Dr. Watson’s statements are reprehensible, unsupported by science, and in no way represent the views of CSHL, its trustees, faculty, staff, or students. The Laboratory condemns the misuse of science to justify prejudice.

    Watson’s views that the low IQ of Africans has a genetic component is a reasonable belief supported by plenty of scientific evidence.

    Like

    • Watson is wrong to have lumped all populations in Africa together; there’s extremely diverse (mean) IQ test scores for different ethnic groups across Africa. In fact you can find some ethnic groups with higher IQ scores than some ethnicities in Europe.

      “Broad divisions between ‘white’ or ‘Caucasian’ and ‘black’ or ‘Asian’, the
      groups generally discussed in the context of the IQ debate, especially in the United States, hide genetically important subpopulation differences within these groups. This is partly why James Watson’s ill-advised remark that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really” was recognized not merely as
      inflammatory, but as scientifically unacceptable in terms of its lumping together of all Africa.” (Rose, 2009)

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      ” there’s extremely diverse (mean) IQ test scores for different ethnic groups across Africa. In fact you can find some ethnic groups with higher IQ scores than some ethnicities in Europe.”

      Examples?

      Like

    • There’s a good article here:

      https://www.unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

      To provide an example, Sierra Leone has a mean IQ of 91 and Nigeria, 84.

      http://www.iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf

      Those estimates are higher than for some countries in south-east Europe.

      Like

    • Romello Delomand says:

      I skimmed one of the articles and the results were from small samples of children. To take into account the Wilson Effect you’d need to test them at around 18.

      There may be more diversity in Africa than we think, but I think it’s unlikely that you could take a group, raise them in an ideal environment, and get an IQ above 85 (maybe the Igbos would be an exception).

      If you look at the admixture studies (Kirkegard 2019 and Lasker 2019) you’d predict that the IQ of 100% Africans would be around 80

      Like

    • sillyolyou says:

      The Wilson Effect is irrelevant – black-white IQ gaps are typically invariant to age.
      Also, we’re well aware that you have no clue what the admixture studies show.

      Like

    • The best evidence for the cultural (opposed to hereditarianism) hypothesis is the fact there are populations that are genetically similar (with pairwise FST values well under 1%, so almost panmictic) but significant IQ differences exist between them. There’s never been a reasonable explanation by hereditarians for this; Lynn could only come up with a far-fetched ad hoc hypothesis involving mass gene flow with exotic populations, but his idea aren’t supported by population genetics.

      Like

  19. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    I am surprised that you are not up to date with things in HBD, even though you are a chubby obsessed with this for years.
    Chanda Chisala 2015’s work has already been answered by Fuerst on numerous occasions.
    https://humanvarieties.org/2015/10/11/killing-jensen-a-preliminary-comment-on-chanda-chisalas-environmentalist-argument/
    http://humanvarieties.org/2015/06/19/nature-of-race-published/#comment-12462
    On the case of Sierra Leone:
    It was colonized and was for a long time a slave port.
    This means a lot of gene exchange for raped slaves and other sexual encounters with European people during periods of legal and black slavery.
    I am not a historian, but the location of Sierra Leone probably meant that it was a general commercial port for a long time until the ships became good enough to sell longer distances and against the wind.
    That also increases the duration of gene exchange with Europeans.
    I need a reliable source to pass on the Sierra Leone IQ because I have not found the updated data that it mentions, only mentions of Lynn’s 2002 book.
    What happens dear Oliver is that you are an idiot, a loser who spends it on internet forums using different nicknames to harass people who do not like and discuss issues that he supposedly hates, it is rare that he passes it on Unz Review being a sick egalitarian who supports the complaint of dissidents on the internet.
    The United Kingdom is a piece of shit, where you can’t say “hate speech” even on the internet, I read a paper that confirmed that in recent years there have been thousands of cases of imprisonment for hate crimes, the most famous case is the of the boy who made fun of the mutant son of Prince Harry; to be fair, Cromwell’s rotten royalty, so it doesn’t matter if he mixes his blood with non-whites.
    How good the Sovietization of the West, the only good thing that will bring this will be the revolution, the fascists will go out to shoot leftists and other subhumans, I don’t see the problem, Splenger said it a long time ago: “At the last minute it has always been a platoon of soldiers who have saved civilization. ”
    Today more than ever that we confirm that Rome fell among other things because of the mixture of blood and excessive immigration, it is the duty of the fascists to preserve the racial purity of the Aryan man, if new studies focused on studying gene flows in the Mediterranean and genetic changes in ancient Europe, give Otto Seck and the Count of Gobineau all the reason.
    (“Essay on the inequality of human races”, 1853 and 1855, Book Three, Chapter VII. On the decline of Rome).
    What was, physically and morally, a Roman of the third, fourth or fifth centuries? A man of medium size, of weak constitution and appearance, generally brown, enclosing in the veins some blood of all imaginable races; believing himself the first man in the Universe, and, to prove it, insolent, creeping, ignorant, thief, depraved, willing to sell his sister, his daughter, his wife, his country and his sovereign, and endowed with an insurmountable fear of poverty, to suffering, to fatigue and to death. For the rest, not doubting that the Globe and its courtship of planets had been created only for him.

    Faced with that despicable being, what was the barbarian? A man of blond hair, white and pink complexion, broad back, large in stature, vigorous as Alcides, reckless as Theseus, skillful, agile, feeling no fear of anything, and death less than the rest. That Leviathan possessed on all things just or false ideas, but reasoned, intelligent and struggling to spread. Within his nationality, he had nurtured the spirit of food from a severe and refined religion, from a shrewd policy, from a glorious history. Skilled in meditating, he understood that Roman civilization was richer than his own, and sought the reason for it. It was not in any way that turbulent creature that we ordinarily imagine, but a teenager very attentive to his positive interests, who knew how to compose them to feel, see, compare, judge, prefer. When the vain and miserable Roman opposed his tricks to the vital cunning of the barbarian, who decided victory? The fist of the second. Falling like a mass of iron on the skull of the poor rookie grandson, that muscular fist showed him on which side the force was then. And how was the humiliated Roman then avenged? He cried, and asked future centuries to come to the oppressed civilization in his person. Poor bug! He resembled the contemporary of Virgil and Augustus as Shylock to King Solomon.
    See Antonio et al. 2019
    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6466/708
    Obviously this is not going to like mongrels like RR, who are characterized more by eating pasta and being conquered by Moors than anything else.

    Like

  20. Checheno says:

    @mikemikev

    Is there any place to communicate with you?
    I am making a video about racial realism and I think that a couple of your comments may come in handy, more than anything to see if you know of any formal response to Templeton 2013, I know Fuerst and Spencer’s answer but honestly I have not seen anything formal by a biologist or geneticist, now that I have finally found the answer to the 2009 Ahn study, I would like to have more sources at hand to finish my work.
    I want to clarify that the video will be presented on a relatively large channel with about 100k subscribers.
    If there is something that dissenters must do now is to study biology / anthropology / genetics if we want to change the current paradigm, we have left the leftists, trannies and other scum to flood the university faculties, that is why several of my comrades are studying biology / Population genetics in addition to trying to make a place in the academic world, to validate many of these things that we have been discussing since Jensen’s famous article in 1969.

    Like

  21. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    I really wanted to end this but I am forced to answer your stupidities, if I did not do it, I would not be a good 18-year-old boy who has known HBD since the age of 14 and who will become a great scientific racist by following the steps of the great Goddard.
    Well let’s go in parts:
    1. According to Oliver, hereditary hypothesis is ruled out because: “there are populations that are genetically similar (with FST values ​​in pairs well below 1%, so they are almost panmictic) but there are significant differences in IQ between them . ”
    This does not necessarily imply evidence in favor of environmentalism, it is clear that there are environmental factors that are extremely important such as nutrition or exposure to elements harmful to cognition such as lead, etc.
    A good example of this is that sub-Saharan blacks get very low results in the IQ tests, while African Americans are above that scale, this I think is evidence of the environmental factor since I don’t believe 20% of the European mix has relevance in this.
    But to make this clear, let’s look at studies where they analyzed the correlation between racial phenotypes such as skin color or nose width and IQ, among African Americans.
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1929-02316-001
    Scarr et al. 1977
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/562835
    Fuest et al. 2019
    https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/4
    These studies have consistently produced modest positive correlations between representatives of white ancestry and the IQ.
    I can continue but, for the moment let’s move on to another point.
    -Oliver mentions that very close populations genetically have narrow differences in IQ, can it be the difference between the North and South of Italy? (The difference in Fst is relatively larger than between a Lombard and Korean lol so it is a bad example)
    North Korea and South Korea?
    As this example does not support hereditarism if despite the difference in quality of life and nutrition for the bulk of the population, do they have a fairly similar IQ?
    Here the data:
    https://www.lavanguardia.com/vangdata/20160520/401924557016/paises-inteligencia-ci.html
    https://www.datosmundial.com/ci-por-paises.php
    The difference is 4 points, clearly spoiled by the environment.
    There is also the case of silent miscegenation in South Korea with women from Southeast Asia.
    In general, children of mixed descent do poorly in school: “The dropout rate among mixed-blood youth is estimated at 9.4% in primary schools and 17.5% at the secondary level, compared to less than 3% among ordinary Koreans. Young people “(Kang 2010).
    https://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=sgnKAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA37&ots=IcekxniSRj&sig=vQ-YWHSlouQuzFor5zP9OOkucsg#v=onepage&q&f=false
    This may also have environmental causes such as hearing few words in childhood or that their mothers do not know Korean perfectly, but for that matter, this is a perfect example of average regression, as we know it is obvious that women who They are requested by EMAIL by Korean farmers do not stand out much in their countries, so a negative selection would be expected.
    In addition, a study conducted over several months found that these children have no language problems that can be attributed to their mothers’ poor learning at home: “This study revealed that multicultural children did not exhibit any difficulty communicating with others in everyday Korean, but that they had different degrees of mastery of academic vocabulary “(Shin, 2018).
    From the study:
    Stress levels of adolescents with mothers born abroad could be affected by their multicultural origin. It is necessary to analyze the factors that influence the stress of multicultural adolescents by comparing them with adolescents of Korean parents. In addition, our society should pay more attention to the mental health of multicultural adolescents. Schools must also make several efforts to protect multicultural adolescents by adopting mental health management programs run by nurses and school counselors.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5749486/
    So maybe alcohol and drug problems with the mother?
    That does not seem to be the case, see Subin 2015
    From the study:
    Compared to teenagers whose parents were born in Korea, teenagers whose parents were born in Korea but whose mothers were no less likely to consume alcohol and cigarettes. Teenagers whose mothers were born in Korea but whose parents were not and adolescents whose fathers and mothers were born outside Korea were more likely to use cigarettes and drugs and have sex.
    These results of the analysis of variance are quite curious since we can see the use of substances and sexual relations of adolescents according to the birthplace of their parents.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4620303/table/T3/
    In the case of Chinese mothers or Japanese fathers, there are not many cases of drug addiction or alcoholism among the children, very different from those of a father or mother of Southeast Asian origin or another non-“Mongoloid” place.
    The idea that immigrants, including married migrant women, may experience greater stress due to low socioeconomic status and / or adaptation to a new culture. This hypothesis of social stress of immigration, which predicts an increased risk of misconduct among those born abroad, cannot explain all the imbalances seen in the study and honestly sweats my balls this hypothesis.
    But well let’s compare this with the case of Koreans and Koreans-Chinese:
    Park 2011
    From the study:
    The target sample was seventh and eighth grade students in China and Korea. For Korean-Chinese students, six Chosunjok (Korean-Chinese) schools in the Yanbian region of China were selected. For the Korean sample, 12 schools in Seoul, Gyonggi and Inchon were selected. Approval for the study was obtained by the Institutional Review Board of the School of Nursing of the Seoul National University. The principals or teachers responsible for the participating schools allowed a survey aimed at students in their schools. Data were collected in the classroom in both countries. Student participation was voluntary. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured.
    As shown in Table 2, current smoking was significantly more frequent among KCS than KS (5.1% vs. 2.5%). The smoking rate increased with the advance of grade and boys reported a higher smoking rate than girls in both countries. The highest prevalence of smoking was found among Korean-Chinese boys (9.9%), and the lowest was among Korean-Chinese girls (1.4%). Smokers among Korean-Chinese children were three times higher than Korean children (9.9% vs. 3.0%).

    The group difference in academic performance was relatively constant in the two samples. Students who reported poor academic performance had a higher risk of smoking. In the group of smokers, 39.3% of KS and 48.1% of KCS reported that their academic performance was “below average.” However, in those who never smoked, 24.1% of KS and 26.9% of KCS reported “below average.” The economic status was measured by family income. In general, smokers reported a lower family economic status compared to those who never smoked. However, among smokers, the difference between KS and KCS was negligible (p = .256). Alcohol consumption was a strong risk factor for smoking, especially in KCS. Compared to those who never smoked, a significantly higher percentage of smokers had consumed alcohol (70.3% of KS versus 89.6% of KCS) and there was a significant difference between KS and KCS according to smoking status (p = .000).
    https://www.asian-nursingresearch.com/article/S1976-1317(11)00009-0/fulltext#tbl2
    This resembles the results of Guillano-Ramos et al. 2005, only talking about other mixed populations and their negative variables in the USA.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928564/
    I understand the crisis of women in rural areas of South Korea, however that does not justify their demographic replacement and the future idiocracy that will develop if this continues. The government should invest in raising its birth rate, not in importing third world garbage.
    https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/2017/10/10/the-road-to-multiculturalism-in-south-korea
    Again the possible “Discrimination” does not explain all the variables of the matter.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=19586161
    Well Oliver now that I partially destroyed your argument, what examples do you have now, the case of India?
    Where their main castes have a greater genetic difference than the sub-terraces in Europe LOL?
    Oh wait Ethiopia, where the main 7 ethnic groups are also quite different from each other?
    I need damn examples.

    Like

  22. Blaz says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    I really wanted to end this but I am forced to answer your stupidities, if I did not do it, I would not be a good 18-year-old boy who has known HBD since the age of 14 and who will become a great scientific racist by following the steps of the great Goddard.
    Well let’s go in parts:
    1. According to Oliver, hereditary hypothesis is ruled out because: “there are populations that are genetically similar (with FST values ​​in pairs well below 1%, so they are almost panmictic) but there are significant differences in IQ between them . ”
    This does not necessarily imply evidence in favor of environmentalism, it is clear that there are environmental factors that are extremely important such as nutrition or exposure to elements harmful to cognition such as lead, etc.
    A good example of this is that sub-Saharan blacks get very low results in the IQ tests, while African Americans are above that scale, this I think is evidence of the environmental factor since I don’t believe 20% of the European mix has relevance in this.
    But to make this clear, let’s look at studies where they analyzed the correlation between racial phenotypes such as skin color or nose width and IQ, among African Americans.
    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1929-02316-001
    Scarr et al. 1977
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/562835
    Fuerst et al. 2019
    https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/1/1/4
    These studies have consistently produced modest positive correlations between representatives of white ancestry and the IQ.
    I can continue but, for the moment let’s move on to another point.
    -Oliver mentions that very close populations genetically have narrow differences in IQ, can it be the difference between the North and South of Italy? (The difference in Fst is relatively larger than between a Lombard and Korean lol so it is a bad example)
    North Korea and South Korea?
    As this example does not support hereditarism if despite the difference in quality of life and nutrition for the bulk of the population, do they have a fairly similar IQ?
    Here the data:
    https://www.lavanguardia.com/vangdata/20160520/401924557016/paises-inteligencia-ci.html
    https://www.datosmundial.com/ci-por-paises.php
    The difference is 4 points, clearly spoiled by the environment.
    There is also the case of silent miscegenation in South Korea with women from Southeast Asia.
    In general, children of mixed descent do poorly in school: “The dropout rate among mixed-blood youth is estimated at 9.4% in primary schools and 17.5% at the secondary level, compared to less than 3% among ordinary Koreans. Young people “(Kang 2010).
    https://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=sgnKAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA37&ots=IcekxniSRj&sig=vQ-YWHSlouQuzFor5zP9OOkucsg#v=onepage&q&f=false
    This may also have environmental causes such as hearing few words in childhood
    or that their mothers do not know Korean perfectly, but for that matter, this is a perfect example of average regression, as we know it is obvious that women who They are requested by EMAIL by Korean farmers do not stand out much in their countries, so a negative selection would be expected.
    In addition, a study conducted over several months found that these children have no language problems that can be attributed to their mothers’ poor learning at home: “This study revealed that multicultural children did not exhibit any difficulty communicating with others in everyday Korean, but that they had different degrees of mastery of academic vocabulary “(Shin, 2018).
    From the study:
    Stress levels of adolescents with mothers born abroad could be affected by their multicultural origin. It is necessary to analyze the factors that influence the stress of multicultural adolescents by comparing them with adolescents of Korean parents. In addition, our society should pay more attention to the mental health of multicultural adolescents. Schools must also make several efforts to protect multicultural adolescents by adopting mental health management programs run by nurses and school counselors.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5749486/
    So maybe alcohol and drug problems with the mother?
    That does not seem to be the case, see Subin 2015
    From the study:
    Compared to teenagers whose parents were born in Korea, teenagers whose parents were born in Korea but whose mothers were no less likely to consume alcohol and cigarettes. Teenagers whose mothers were born in Korea but whose parents were not and adolescents whose fathers and mothers were born outside Korea were more likely to use cigarettes and drugs and have sex.
    These results of the analysis of variance are quite curious since we can see the use of substances and sexual relations of adolescents according to the birthplace of their parents.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4620303/table/T3/
    In the case of Chinese mothers or Japanese fathers, there are not many cases of drug addiction or alcoholism among the children, very different from those of a father or mother of Southeast Asian origin or another non-“Mongoloid” place.
    The idea that immigrants, including married migrant women, may experience greater stress due to low socioeconomic status and / or adaptation to a new culture. This hypothesis of social stress of immigration, which predicts an increased risk of misconduct among those born abroad, cannot explain all the imbalances seen in the study and honestly sweats my balls this hypothesis.
    But well let’s compare this with the case of Koreans and Koreans-Chinese:
    Park 2011
    From the study:
    The target sample was seventh and eighth grade students in China and Korea. For Korean-Chinese students, six Chosunjok (Korean-Chinese) schools in the Yanbian region of China were selected. For the Korean sample, 12 schools in Seoul, Gyonggi and Inchon were selected. Approval for the study was obtained by the Institutional Review Board of the School of Nursing of the Seoul National University. The principals or teachers responsible for the participating schools allowed a survey aimed at students in their schools. Data were collected in the classroom in both countries. Student participation was voluntary. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured.
    As shown in Table 2, current smoking was significantly more frequent among KCS than KS (5.1% vs. 2.5%). The smoking rate increased with the advance of grade and boys reported a higher smoking rate than girls in both countries. The highest prevalence of smoking was found among Korean-Chinese boys (9.9%), and the lowest was among Korean-Chinese girls (1.4%). Smokers among Korean-Chinese children were three times higher than Korean children (9.9% vs. 3.0%).

    The group difference in academic performance was relatively constant in the two samples. Students who reported poor academic performance had a higher risk of smoking. In the group of smokers, 39.3% of KS and 48.1% of KCS reported that their academic performance was “below average.” However, in those who never smoked, 24.1% of KS and 26.9% of KCS reported “below average.” The economic status was measured by family income. In general, smokers reported a lower family economic status compared to those who never smoked. However, among smokers, the difference between KS and KCS was negligible (p = .256). Alcohol consumption was a strong risk factor for smoking, especially in KCS. Compared to those who never smoked, a significantly higher percentage of smokers had consumed alcohol (70.3% of KS versus 89.6% of KCS) and there was a significant difference between KS and KCS according to smoking status (p = .000).
    https://www.asian-nursingresearch.com/article/S1976-1317(11)00009-0/fulltext#tbl2
    This resembles the results of Guillano-Ramos et al. 2005, only talking about other mixed populations and their negative variables in the USA.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928564/
    I understand the crisis of women in rural areas of South Korea, however that does not justify their demographic replacement and the future idiocracy that will develop if this continues. The government should invest in raising its birth rate, not in importing third world garbage.
    https://www.georgetownjournalofinternationalaffairs.org/online-edition/2017/10/10/the-road-to-multiculturalism-in-south-korea
    Again the possible “Discrimination” does not explain all the variables of the matter.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=19586161
    Well Oliver now that I partially destroyed your argument, what examples do you have now, the case of India?
    Where their main castes have a greater genetic difference than the sub-terraces in Europe LOL?
    Oh wait Ethiopia, where the main 7 ethnic groups are also quite different from each other?
    I need damn examples.

    Like

    • Lynn inflated the IQ differences between south and north Italians e.g. see The mean Southern Italian children IQ is not particularly low: A reply to
      R. Lynn (2010) Cesare Cornoldi

      Mean IQ differences certainly exist in sub-regions across Italy (and Sicily), but there’s no way on average these differences are as high as 10 IQ points. Lynn has been caught out manipulating and cherry-picking sources before, so I don’t consider him a reliable source at all. There’s also the fact he clings to pseudoscientific (and totally erroneous) claims about penis/genital sizes.

      Like

  23. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oliver, you’re so stupid that you really make me mad
    We go in parts:
    1. A loser like you who spends it on Internet forums and in the review of Unz (although he acknowledges that he hates Steve Sailer and other writers of that medium), who also has pseudohistorical publications about Atlantis cannot tell anyone “clown” .
    2. Did the countrapoints conduct scientific research and publish their results in peer-reviewed journals?
    No, he made his crap video about race, without knowing the most basic about genetics and biology.
    For my part, my work will be done with the help of several anthropologists / biologists and obviously we are going to use peer reviewed articles, it is not worth saying that Pysch does not have a good peer review, when he approves articles in magazines with a LGBT bias, because you are gay.
    3. Fuerst is a psychologist and has published in peer-reviewed journals, damn clown, the only one without credentials here is you, fat woman, go get your Atlantis and leave the scientists alone.
    4. No matter how much you link to RationalWiki, nobody will take that shit seriously, that wiki is edited by subhumans like you and other leftists left.
    Oliver, are you still living with your parents?
    Too bad, but fascism was not for you, you are a fat man with an excess of estrogen that is struggling on the Internet, so you will die a virgin, boy.

    Like

    • I quit posting at Unz Review last year. I pointed out in my last post there in December I won’t return in 2020. https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=Oliver%20D.%20Smith

      If you want someone who sits on internet forums and Unz Review literally 18 hours a day that would be Mikemikev. I’m not even an active member on a single forum/message board, excluding hitmanforum with 2 posts: https://www.hitmanforum.com/u/cryptid1990/summary

      I published a peer-reviewed paper on Atlantis in 2016 and helped put together the special journal issue it was published in.
      https://www.shimajournal.org/issues.php#v10n2

      Obviously this doesn’t equate to a pseudohistorical publication, otherwise it wouldn’t have passed review.

      OpenPsych in contrast isn’t peer-reviewed.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPsych#Criticism

      It even says it rejects formal peer-review on its website.

      While OpenPsych’s successor journal Psych is peer-reviewed, it’s a low quality (its publisher MDPI has a history of publishing junk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversial_articles) and is a partisan journal. By partisan I mean it’s promoting a specific ideology and agenda since almost all the people who publish in it, suspiciously hold the same view (hereditarianism, racialism etc), so it lacks impartiality. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psych_(journal)

      I don’t care about idiots making videos on YouTube. I hardly use YT aside from listening occasionally to music.
      John Fuerst isn’t a psychologist. He has no qualifications in psychology or behavioural genetics (nor apparently any science field for that matter), yet chooses to publish on IQ and race – something he knows little to nothing about and isn’t competent to be doing research. In contrast, I only publish research on things I specialise and am qualified in, hence knowledgeable. My interest in race is explained by my history of covering pseudosciences, no different to creationism or astrology.
      I’m not sure why you think I’m far or overweight. I’m thin.

      Like

  24. Checheno says:

    Well Oliver, I’m going to destroy you:
    1. You stopped publishing about two weeks ago, after publishing for years on that website, above all reviewing your activity on that site, the amount of time spent there is incredible, for example there is a comment from December 31 At 10:30 pm, in a nutshell, while normal people were with family or with our girlfriends celebrating New Year, Oliver’s loser was arguing over the internet about race and intelligence, the issue that haunts him because he is a disgusting liberal.
    2. I saw that in that same article on Nathan Cofnas’ last paper, you say that Gregory Cochran is a fool, I really wonder if you were exposed to elements harmful to cognition because otherwise, I do not explain your delay.
    I explain, although it is true that Dr. Cochran has a doctorate in physics and not in genetics, that does not prevent him from working in genetics as he has been doing in recent years, I mean, you know that he has worked with John Hakws and Henry Harpending, two respectable and hierarchical anthropologists in the academic world. Now please don’t come to me so Harpending was racist because the SPLC ultra-left Jews say so, I’m not going to take it seriously.
    There is also the fact that for example Henry Harpending never had any qualification in population genetics, however he developed the approach of analyzing populations using R matrix methods, and together with Trefor Jonkin, he wrote the most cited chapter in the 1973 manual Methods and Anthropological genetics theory, besides that I work in genetics for two decades.

    http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/harpending-henry.pdf


    A similar case is that of Steve Hsu, who despite his qualifications as a doctorate in physics and experience as a professor of theoretical physics, currently works in a genomics laboratory in Bejing.
    https://hbr.org/podcast/2019/05/ai-and-the-genetic-revolution
    I ask, did the scientists of the past not work in different fields?
    Even after Darwin and the last “sorcerer” who was Newton himself, we have many philosophers who were polymaths, without the need of a thousand different qualifications, but hey, for that matter the late Dr. Rushton had two PhDs.
    The problem is that you are a damn hypocrite who acclaims the garbage book of Angela Saini, a mediocre journalist who has no qualifications in genetics or biology just like Amy Harmon who only has a BA in “American Studies” LOL
    I’m not interested in Mikemikev, stop obsessing with him, pig.
    3. Since you boast of your credentials, it seems to you if we compare Emil Kirkegaard’s work with yours, since you always attack him, calling him pseudoscientific.
    Emil Kirkegaard:
    More than 100 papers published, even if we ignore his papers published in the evil OpenPysch, he has published in different peer-reviewed journals, for example: Intelligence, Pysch, Mankind Quarterly, Journal of Intelligence, PsyArXiv, Journal of Individual Differences.
    It has scientific respectability, its articles already add almost 100,000 views and it has contact with a tremendous multitude of other scientists.
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emil_O_W_Kirkegaard
    Now we go with Oliver D. Smith:
    4 papers published, only one appointment and followed by historians of third category, their views do not reach even two thousand.
    He is known for being an idiot who lives obsessed with HBD and editing wikis on the internet and being an asexual who was Stormfront’s rejection for being a loser.
    Do you not attack Michael Woodey for his interests in cryptozoology and you do the same, Oliver?
    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oliver_Smith29
    Only the article Lasker et al. 2019 has more views than all the articles in the magazine published by Oliver AHHAHAHAAHAH
    5. Here we see how Oliver accuses Noah Carl of being a “maniac”:
     “The rest are unqualified maniacs like Carl who spend their time writing about race and IQ when they have no academic background or experience in this area.”
    Oliver is clearly projecting, since Carl is a future great scientist, who has a PhD and has dozens of articles published in formal and respectable scientific journals, in addition to the only one who spends his time obsessed with this issue and goes to the extreme of not celebrating New year with family or friends to discuss on the internet is Oliver Smith himself.
    Lance Welton perfectly described Oliver’s sudden change and his maniacal behavior on the Internet.
    “Oliver Dean Smith” lives with his father, Peter Smith, and Peter’s wife, Sandra, in the picturesque town of Radlett in Hertfordshire; specifically, in “Primrose Cottages”. This “historically important building” is in front of an old “pub” called The Red Lion ”
    Oliver does not work or have plans to make any specialization, is a maintained by his parents.
    And apparently he stopped being a Nazi because an Aryan girl ignored him, because he realized that the guy was crazy.
    6. According to Oliver in Pysch there is a partisan bias, and almost all his publications have to do with hereditarism, or all that they publish there are hereditary, let’s see the data.
    Of the last 10 articles published
    Only 2 were on hereditarism, and even one of them did not support Jensenism (50% -80%)
    Simply put, Oliver is a liar.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8611/2/1/5
    And stop linking to the crap of RationalWiki that only the mentally retarded or some deranged trannie would take seriously.
    7. I am not interested if you watch YouTube or not, stupid fat, I care about the fact that you criticize me for making a video about racial realism and not for publishing a peer-reviewed article, to see you idiot, my answer was simple, If you attack me with that logic, I would have to attack 95% of youtubers who talk about these issues, including their leftist idols.
    I am a student of anthropology, I also have the support of several biologists and anthropologists, I will publish peer-reviewed articles in the future, I hope to become the new Goddard or Vallejo Nagera.
    8. Another false accusation, John Fuerst published in his old blog that he was doing his master’s degree, has also published in renowned magazines such as Intelligence and has shattered in anti-white leftist idiots like Jonathan Kaplan or the other idiot of the paper on ecotypes.
    Oliver, I have destroyed you again, loser, I would like your fucking country, England to fuck, since most of the people there are like you, garbage that dishonors Mosley, Powell and other great Aryans; well, it comforts me to know that London is currently a brown nest, and soon all of England will be, probably when a Moor violates you, sorry you stopped being Nazi.
    Until never loser.
    Heil Hitler !
    1488

    Like

    • I had ~240 comments on Unz Review in 2 years, not a lot (compare to the guy I was debating named Res, who has made ~7,900 comments https://www.unz.com/comments/all/?commenterfilter=res) And there were large gaps in my activity, i.e. from December 2018 to June 2019, I didn’t make a single post. I’m not sure why you think I’m a liberal; I simply argue against pseudoscience – this is an apolitical position.

      Cochran in my opinion is an imbecile when it comes to population genetics since his ideas and views have been heavily criticised and arguably refuted; he’s obviously quite smart though in his own scientific field (physics) and mathematics. The fact someone specialises in one scientific field, doesn’t make them automatically an expert in another. I have no problem with John Hawks; he’s criticised HBD claims (so unclear why you would cite him), is a renowned palaeo-anthropologist and I’ve followed his blog for years; I’m unsure about Henry Harpending as I’ve not read much of his work, although it seems he had a history of making very stupid comments that have no scientific basis and associating with white nationalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Harpending#Views_on_race

      I’m not a fan of Angela Saini’s book in general; I said it only has one useful chapter that documents the history of Richard Lynn’s UISR, Pioneer Fund and the Mankind Quarterly. I don’t rely on her at all for population genetics.

      Emil Kirkegaard’s own alma mater points out he isn’t a scientist:

      Kirkegaard is known to inflate his h-index and other citation metrics by heavily citing his own papers. Very few scientists actually read his work.

      http://closerlookattheissues.blogspot.com/2019/02/emil-kirkegaards-self-citations.html
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_Kirkegaard#Self-citation

      Mankind Quarterly really isn’t taken seriously by scientists. It never has been e.g. in the 1960s, an reputable anthropologist summarised MQ as “Few of the contributions have any merit whatsoever, and many are no more than incompetent attempts to rationalize irrational opinions.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/2796948

      I’ll respond to your other dubious claims about me later.

      Like

  25. “He is known for being an idiot who lives obsessed with HBD and editing wikis on the internet and being an asexual who was Stormfront’s rejection for being a loser.”

    None of that is true. You took these dubious claims about me from Kirkegaard’s website who got them posted on VDARE. I’ve not so far bothered with writing a blog post rebutting all the claims, but probably will sometime in the future as trolls keep on uncritically copying them.

    “Do you not attack Michael Woodley for his interests in cryptozoology and you do the same, Oliver?”

    No. The criticisms of his cryptozoology publications came from another editor:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nissan

    My version of the article mentioned nothing of cryptozoology:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_A._Woodley_of_Menie&diff=1995324&oldid=1995290

    I only wrote the RationalWiki page to criticise his views on hereditarianism and his involvement with OpenPsych: https://openpsych.net/person/37

    That said, it was unwise of Woodley to have published his cryptozoology papers in the Journal of Scientific Exploration – a pseudojournal, primarily run by paranormal pseudoscientists. I would never choose to publish there.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration

    Woodley’s approach to cryptozoology is also different to mine, although I won’t bother going into this here. Regardless, I own his book Bernard Heuvelmans: An Introduction to the History and Future of Sea Serpent Classification, so I’m not hostile to his cryptozoology research (some of it is certainly interesting, although I found his book far too speculative in places and a few of his ideas and suggestions are almost certainly wrong; a recent criticism was published by France, 2019).

    “Here we see how Oliver accuses Noah Carl of being a “maniac”.”

    I never wrote that; I said “crank” instead of “maniac”.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank
    “The term “crank” pejoratively labels someone who holds extremely unorthodox views on a subject and is often very vocal about these opinions.”

    That’s all I meant by the term, hardly an insult or ad hominem.

    Like

  26. @RaceRealist

    Checheno slipped up by responding to me with another pseudonym, Blaz (see above). So Checheno and Baz are the same individual; I also think this same individual uses other names to comment on your blog.

    The same individual also today created a page to attack me on RationalWiki (quickly deleted for trolling):

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_D.._Smith&action=edit&redlink=1

    08:07, 20 January 2020 Bongolian (talk | contribs) deleted page Oliver D.. Smith (Hopelessly tiny stub: content was: “”’Oliver D. Smith”’ is a schizophrenic antifa who loses debates on the internet and still lives with his parents at 29.”, and the only contributor was “Checheno” ([[User talk:Chec…)

    Checheno’s account was renamed by a mod and blocked, but they also edited your page:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=NotPoliticallyCorrect&action=history

    And on racialism:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Racialism&diff=2152112&oldid=2150287

    The edit on the latter is a give-away:

    “This article parrots lies written by anti-white idiots.”

    That’s almost certainly Mikemikev.

    So either Mikemikev is now impersonating Checheno/Blaz to attack me (he has a history of doing this with other people) or Mikemikev is Checheno/Blaz. I did find it suspicious Mikemikev only showed up and continued when Checheno/Blaz became inactive.

    Like

    • mikemikev says:

      But any butthurt pathologically-lying schizophrenic weirdo could create a sockpuppet on RW called “Checheno” to evilly frame people and sow discord, or at least attempt to if they weren’t so transparently stupid.

      Like

    • No not really. There’s IP evidence. I’ll ask a mod. You’re also the habitual liar who lies about your countless sockpuppets.

      And where is Checheno who commented here? He suspiciously left and you show up…

      You’re likely the same person.

      Like

    • mikemikev says:

      I remember once that I blamed my sister for something I did, when I was about five. I feel bad about that now. But then I guess I don’t have a psychopathic personality disorder. You’re really rocking the trifecta of mental dysfunction aren’t you?

      Like

    • You’re projecting again, Michael.

      If you look up psychopathic traits, you will find you have most of them, while I don’t. For example there’s an extremely high correlation between psychopathy and violence:

      You’re the nutjob who has violently threatened me and sent me death threats for past 6 years. (I have plenty of screenshots)
      You’ve promoted violence online and incite racial hatred e.g. on the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer, you posted “sad that not advocating violence has to be the official position of this site”. http://archive.is/xw1Wj

      Another sign of psychopathy is lack of empathy –

      You’re completely heartless and cold.

      Here’s a collection of your deranged comments:

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Islamophobia
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs#Child_murder

      “What’s wrong with murdering innocent children if it’s for a good cause? And it is a little bit funny.”

      Although you try to rationalise the latter as a joke, who aside from a psychopath or sick freak would laugh at murdering innocent children?

      Like

    • “I remember once that I blamed my sister for something I did, when I was about five.”

      Do you mean Rachel Coombs, now Rachel Reynolds? The sister who apparently wants nothing to do with you having learnt of your deranged internet activities?

      https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikemikev-michael-coombs-twinkle-toes-velcro-pants.17243/page-641#post-2326346

      “There’s also nothing from Shaun or Rachel either. How much of a fuck up is he that the family wants nothing to do with him?”

      Like

  27. Mikemikev’s RationalWiki socks are so obvious to mods.

    Nonsurprisingly, the mods already agree with me and have identified Checheno as Mike:

    08:16 (Protection log) . . DuceMoosolini (talk | contribs) protected Talk:Oliver D.. Smith [Create=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite) ‎(Mikey-boy)

    The will be though his 5495 sockpuppet he tries to blame on me. Yawn.

    Like

  28. mikemikev says:

    All claims well sourced to random internet trolls.

    Like

  29. “They’re always blocking random people as “mikemikev”.”

    More lies again. You’re incapable of ever telling the truth. Sad.

    Here’s the block log going back 6 months:

    [search “mike” or “mikemikev”]

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&offset=&limit=3500&type=block&user=

    So they’re “not always blocking random people” as you, rather the accounts they blocked as you are either yours blatantly, or they have good reason to suspect you own the accounts. They don’t block random people as you.

    Yes mistakes can happen, but very rarely. Notice only once when you were incorrectly blocked- the error was undone and a mod admitted this was an error:

    14:47, 12 January 2020 GrammarCommie (talk | contribs) blocked Summa Atheologica (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of π×0 seconds (account creation disabled) (It’s not Mike. Check the Styx talkpage for a user who showed up at almost the exact same time as the BoN.)

    And as I told you some mods have a check-user; you were check-usered back in November revealing your IP range that matches Wikipedia:

    82.132.215.0/24 we know is your IP/IP-range: Telefonica O2

    Like

    • mikemikev says:

      Oliver here throws out various accusations pretending he’s in the know about what they’re doing (he’s banned on sight of course) expecting people to confirm or deny various things. It’s better to just ignore him and deprive him of the attention he craves.

      Like

  30. Search “mike” or “mikemikev” on the block log for past 6 months:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&offset=&limit=3500&type=block&user=

    32 accounts are tagged as you by different mods.

    But according to you they’re all wrong…

    No one believes a word you say. You’re a disgraceful liar.

    And you’re permanently banned yourself:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Mikemikev

    Like

    • “This user [Mikemikev] is banned indefinitely from editing RationalWiki.

      Long history of trolling with unknown numbers of accounts
      Promotes highly dubious racialist views
      See Michael Coombs for details.”

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Mikemikev

      In sharp contrast to you, I wasn’t banned for trolling, sockpuppetry and inserting dubious views/pseudoscience. No proper explanation was ever provided for my ban, nor was it official. What seems to have happened in Abd Lomax emailed mods a bunch of false claims and rumours about me or made these allegations on discord. RationalWiki mods never bothered to investigate properly and just banned me for “drama” (no real explanation provided). Of course I could try appealing the ban as there was no vote on it. Regardless, this illegitimate ban is now being used by Abd Lomax and you to defame me. This is amusing since Lomax filed a lawsuit against the WMF after Wikipedia banned him and he claims this is defamatory to his reputation, yet he has no problem with defaming me the same way via RationalWiki.

      Like

    • Why was I banned?? Compare me to you on the blocking policy…

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:D/Bollocking_policy

      User:Mikemikev – vaguely neo-Nazi troll, massive anti-Semite and commited white genocide advocate with an article
      User:Aeschylus – comes to the wiki to write mostly good articles on his racist enemies but is easily upset and reactive

      Aeschylus is me. It claims I wrote “mostly good articles” providing no reason for the ban – “upset and reactive” isn’t a valid reason, furthermore that is mere opinion and inaccurate. It’s completely unclear what they think I got upset about – immediately prior to ban everything was normal and I was just adding articles with no problems.

      Like

  31. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    I’m sorry for not responding before, but unlike you, I have a social life, girlfriend and work.
    1. Why do you put another to defend yourself?
    You may no longer comment on Unz, but you spend it arguing on the internet about race and intelligence, because you are a damn fat, sick and loser.
    2. Angela Saini is not a critical series, it is a dirty, ugly brown and ugly one that supports that the mentally retarded reproduce, on top of that the chapter dedicated to the Pioneer Found is false garbage, and I mean, what is the damn problem of What with Nazis?
    Gould was a communist, Kamin was a shit red, Boas was a Jew, Montagu was a Jew, Kaplan is a gay Jew, etc, etc.
    Stop pretending that you are apolitical, son of a bitch.
    3. My point is that Greg has worked with recognized scientists in that field, therefore he is someone who has experience in the area.
    4. Wow the university does not recognize him as a scientist, of course because the leftist bias has nothing to do with it?
    Because Watson was not fired for something similar right?
    Damn fool.
    5. MQ is a great magazine and the last defender of the interests of non-decadent Aryans.
    6. You quote me the crap out of RationalWiki and complain why I cited VDARE?
    HHAHAHAH you’re a damn hypocrite, chubby.
    7. I am sorry but I am not an English speaker, I am not used to some idioms

    Like

  32. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith
    Now Oliver thinks I’m Mikemikev LOL
    For your information, idiot, I am not even English, delayed ape, I am from Spain.

    Like

    • @Checheno

      I’m not apolitical. What I said is accepting the scientific consensus human races don’t exist (and arguing against pseudoscience) is apolitical. So what I meant is I’m not politically motivated when discussing science.

      I never was an SJW or leftist. A couple of trolls wrote a fake biography about me filled with bizarre misinformation and then spread it to VDARE.

      No one can actually quote anything SJW/leftist I’ve ever said. Funny that.

      Like

    • mikemikev says:

      You support the ludicrous big lie that “race doesn’t exist” which is used to justify the genocide of the European people and conduct terrorist activities against people that argue against it. I wouldn’t say you’re on “the left”, that’s meaningless. You’re a traitor and a terrorist providing aid to the enemies of the European people.

      Like

    • That’s an alt-right basement-dweller conspiracy theory.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory

      “White genocide is a myth,[25][26] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred,[27] driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety.[28][19] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race.[29][30][31][32] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[29] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[33] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.”

      Like

    • mikemikev says:

      Like I said, big lies from the enemies of the European people.

      Like

    • There’s no evidence for the conspiracy theory though, it’s refuted by simply looking at demographic statistics.

      Like

    • mikemikev says:

      Liar, terrorist, traitor.

      Like

    • Anyone who looks at the demographic statistics can laugh at your stupidity-

      Annually there’s more births than deaths in most native ethnicities across Europe, so for example this explains why the self-identified ‘White British’ population (e.g. native English, Scots, Welsh and Ulster Protestants) increased by over a million in a decade from 2001 to 2011 on the census:

      [2001 census] ‘White British’: 50,366,497
      [2011 census] ‘White British’: 51,736,290

      Over a million people are being added to the ‘White British’ population each decade and this is genocide? Whatever you say, Michael-loony-tunes.

      Like

    • I’ve debated various alt-righters on this same conspiracy theory over the years; the ones with more honesty and integrity than Mikemikev (who is anti-truth) admitted they were wrong or misinformed when I gave them simple demographic data showing more annual births than deaths, like above. I’ve never though seen Mikemikev admit he’s wrong. There’s no doubt he has some form of personality complex.

      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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 636,150 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: