Home » Eugenics » Eugenics


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

Join 292 other subscribers

Follow me on Twitter


2750 words

Yesterday on Twitter, biologist of The Selfish Gene (Dawkins, 1976) fame Richard Dawkins set off a firestorm on Twitter with a tweet about eugenics (since it just so happened to be Galton’s birthday yesterday).

Deploring the idea means we should not do it—what ‘value’ would there be in breeding humans to jump higher or run faster? Such ideas and the push for them is the mask for eugenic policies—eugenics can and will slip in through the back door using current technologies.

Adapting an argument from Walter Glannon in Genes and Future People (Glannon, 2001: 109):

Where case (A) is CRISPR modifications; case (U) is eugenics; and (B), (C), … (N) are intermediaries.

(1) Case (A) is acceptable.
(2) But cases (B), (C), … (N) … are unacceptable.
(3) Cases (A) and (U) are assimilable, so they are differences in degree, which fall along a continuum of the same type.
(4) If case (A) is permitted, then it will lead to a precedent to allow case (U).
(5) Permitting case (A) will cause cases (B), (C), (N), and … .
(6) Thus, case (A) should be impermissible.

Glannon (2001: 109) rejects (3) stating that “treatment and enhancement are different in kind, not merely degree, and they can correspond to distinct aims that can be articulated.”

Glannon (2001:110) rejects (5) also, stating that “if case (a) is not relevantly similar to cases (b) through (n), then it is unlikely that (a) would cause (b) through (n) to occur. Hence premise (5) is false as well.” (See Govier, 1985 for these argument forms as well, mainly the feasibility argument.)

The problem with his rejection of (3) is that differences of degree can combine to become significant. So if case (A) is similar to (B)-(N), then, since differences of degree can combine to become significant, then allowing (A) will lead to (U) down the line.

… all treatments are enhancements (though not all enhancements are treatments), and … not all ehancements are, by definition alone, ethically unacceptable. (Baylis, 2019: 59)

But if the treatments (which are all enhancements) will, eventually, lead to the psychological slippery slope to accepting eugenics, then we should not do it. “Yea, the treatments were fine. Now they want to prevent this group from doing X and that group from doing Y—what’s the big deal? It’s similar to enhancement, is it not?”

If it is fine to fix a mutation in a gene in a somatic cell, then why not edit the germline so that that individual’s future kin won’t be subjected to that? It would be a waste of time—and money—to keep editing the same family’s somatic cells when they can just edit the germline and get it over with, right?

Now, some may cry “Slippery slope fallacy!” But just crying “Fallacy!” at me does not cut it—one must show that (U) does not follow from (A) and (B)-(N).

The argument provided above is a psychological slippery slope argument. Psychological slippery slope arguments—different from a logical slippery slope argument, where once a first step is taken, one is logically committed to taking subsequent steps unless there are logical reasons to avoid taking such steps—which is based on probability, that is, they are inductive. A psychological slippery slope argument is where once one practice is accepted, similar practices, too, will be accepted as they see no significant difference between them. So accepting one practice, psychologically prepares one to accept another, so we are looking at what may happen, not what the rules and logic of the assertion entail logically.

So if we allow X (gene therapy, negative eugenics) then we will ride down the slippery slope to Y (positive eugenics, genetic enhancement).

When Dawkins says that eugenics ‘works’, what does that mean? That it is possible to attempt to select for certain traits in non-human animals, then it is, therefore, possible for humans? I don’t know who (sanely) can deny this—in theory—but how would it work in practice? Whether it’s state-mandated eugenics (like, for instance, policing who has babies with who) or attempting gene editing in humans, we do not know what would occur in the future (we don’t know what environments would look like in the future so how would we select for traits that would be beneficial in an unknown environment?). Though, I can see eugenicists attempting to use some shoddy GWAS data, such as ‘Look at Hill et al (2019), these genes are associated with high-income, so if we edit/add them then others will have the ability for high-income too!’ (The high-income genes must be doing really well for the rich, as the world’s 2,153 billionaires own more wealth than 4.6 billion people—60 percent of the world’s population.)

Dawkins, though, seems to be forgetting a few things:

(1) When humans breed animals and attempt to select for certain traits, the environments are as uniform as possible.
(2) What would it mean to ‘work’? Is it independent of ideological/moral questions? If, and only if, there could be a definition of ‘favorable result’, or ‘success’ that is divorced from value could eugenics ‘work’ and be a ‘success’ or ‘favorable result.’
(3) Eugenics is a value-laden ideology. Science is—supposedly—value-free. So by that definition, eugenics is not science, it is a social movement.

Humans selectively bred dogs from wolves, and now we have the gamut from big and tall, to short and fat and short and small with many different phenotypes in between. But look at the pugs. We breed them for the flatter, ‘cuter’ face but what does that do for them? Pugs have what is calledBrachycephalic airway obstruction syndrome (BAOS) or Brachycephalic Obstructive Airway Syndrome (BOAS) occurs in all breeds with significant brachycephaly. Brachycephaly is abnormally short head shape (compared with the ancestral, natural, head shape of dogs) with, in some cases, greatly shortened upper jaws and noses.” This can lead to asphyxiation of the dog. What do ya know? Something unintended (possible asphyxiation) occurred due to what we selected for (shorter heads, flatter faces). Who’s to say what would happen if we attempted to select for ‘income genes’ (or whatever else) in humans?

Even prenatal screening can be used to get eugenics in through the back door (Thomas and Rothman, 2016; also see Duster, 2003). I have argued—for and against—the use of PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) back in 2018. I have also covered eugenic laws in America and throughout the world during the 20th century. Allowing (A) will lead us right back to (U)—where were in the 20th century. Selecting against or for certain traits/genes may lead to unintended consequences (like the breathing problems that pugs have). So, why should we do things to humans if we don’t know the consequences of what we are selecting for or against?

Wilson (2017: 46) describes how value-laden eugenics is, stating that it is not “merely theoretical”, nor “primarily mathematical”:

Identifying eugenics as applied science may be thought to imply very little, saying only that eugenics does not fall under the contrasting mythical category of “pure science.” But the labeling of eugenics as applied science should be taken not so much to register a location on the putative divide between pure and applied science as to distinguish eugenics from a certain idealization of scientific inquiry. It signals three things that eugenics is not, and never was: it is not merely theoretical, not primarily mathematical or statistical, and not value-free.

First, eugenics is not merely theoretical, in the sense of being concerend primarily with abstract or idealized conditions (cf. theoretical physics or theoretical biology). It is focused on, and very motivated by, perceived problems in real-world human populations and their solution.

Second, eugenics is not primarily mathematical or statistical in nature, however much it may at times draw from or rely on mathematical techniques or results. Galton himself was an accomplished mathematician, inventing several statistical techniques, such as the quantified idea of a standard deviation and the use of regression lines in statistics, which remain with us today. Galton’s most prominent successors in the United Kingdom—Karl Person and Ronald Fisher—were also statistically sophisticated innovators who led a biometric wing to the eugenics movement. While the quantitative measures of both individuals and populations has played an important role in the short history of eugenics, much eugenic work bears no closer relationship to the underlying statistics than does the bulk of contemporary, biological, cognitive, and social sciences.

Third, eugenics is not value-free science, and doesn’t purport to be: it is deeply and often explicitly value-laden. I want to take a little more time to explain this dimension to the applied nature of eugenics, for doing so will take us to some core aspects of eugenics as a mixture of applied science and social movement.


First, the evaluative judgments that The Eugenic Mind rests on go well beyond those for traits, behaviors, and characteristics whose desirability or undesirability can be properly taken for granted. Second, eugenic thinking presumes that there are more desirable and more undesirable—better or worse—kinds or sorts of people. For this reason, the primary way in which eugenics has sought to improve the quality of human lives over generational time has been for advocating for ideas and policies that promote there being a greater proportion of better kinds or sorts of people in future generations.

To illustrate the first of these points, many eugenic policies were either explicitly stated in terms of, or implicitly relied on, a positive valuation of high intelligence and a negative valuation of low intelligence, especially as measured by standard IQ tests, such as the Stanford-Binet. While this positive valuation od intelligence is still widely shared in our society when expressed abstractly, as a part of science that aims to inform and shape what sorts of people there should be in future generations, it is a value judgment that is significantly more questionable than that concerning avoiding pain and suffering. Eugenic thinking and practice also rested on assessments of a broader range of personality and dispositional tendencies—for example, clannishness, cheerfulness, laziness, honesty, criminality—not only whos transmissibility across generations was considered controversial but whos very existence as intrinsic traits and tendencies has never had substantial scientific support.

Likewise, turning to the second point, the eugenic thinking that informed immigration policy in the United States following the First World War held that people of different races or ethnicities were differentially desirable as immigrants coming into the country. This differential valuation was applied to groups such as Poles, Greeks, Italians, Jews, and Slavs. Thus, eugenic immigration policies aimed to promote the influx of immigrants who were viewed as more desirable in nature, and to restrict the immigration of those deemed to be of inferior stock. We now question whether such groups of people are properly thought of as more or less desirable sorts of people to produce future generations of American nationals. But we also rightly wonder whether these are sorts of people, in the relevant sense, at all.

The eugenicists of the 20th century advocated laws, policy, ideas, and practices to ensure that the ‘right people’ would have more children (positive eugenics) while, at the same time, aiming to lower the birth rates of the ‘wrong people’ (negative eugenics) or both.

Connecticut, for instance in 1896, enacted a law stating that no man or woman who is epileptic or feebleminded could marry or live together if the woman is under 45 years old. Indiana, in 1907, passed sterilization laws for criminals, rapists, and those with incurable diseases. And by 1914, at least half of the states in America barred marriages if one of the participants had a mental defect. The SCOTUS case Buck v. Bell made the sterilization of the ‘feebleminded’ constitutional in 1927 with more than 30 states participating, to different degrees, by the 1930s. Then by the 30s, more than 12000 sterilizations were carried out, with at least 7500 occurring in California; then by the 60s, more than 63000 sterilizations were carried out in America. (See Alexander, 2017 for references.)

Eugenic policies can be used for either wing of politics—right, left, or center. Quoting Alexander (2017: 69):

Sterilisation was seen as progressive and an obvious responsibility for a state-organised society with a social conscience. A Swedish doctor writing in 1934 stated that ‘[t]he idea of reducing the number of carriers of bad genes is entirely reasonable. It will naturally be considered within the preventative health measures in socialist community life’ (Burleigh, 2000, p. 366). Sterilisation laws in Sweden stayed in place until the 1970s. Based on a solid biological basis in the power of nature over nurture, eugenics represented the rational response of progressive science-based state control in the light of the social problems contributed by the unfit and the feeble-minded. The Nobel prize-winning Marxist geneticist Herman Muller (1890-1967) declared to the Third International Congress of Eugenics in 1932 ‘[t]hat imbeciles should be sterilized is unquestionable’. In 1935, Muller envisaged that, through selective breeding, within a century most people could have ‘the innate qualities of such men as Lenin, Newton, Leonardo, Pasteur, Beethoven, Omar Khayyam, Pushkin, Sun Yat Sen, Marx, or even to possess their varied faculties combined’ (Muller, 1936, p. 113).

Lastly, here is a story of a girl who survived eugenics:

In this landmark legal case decided in 1996 by Madame Justice Joanne Veit, eugenics survivor Leilani Muir successfully sued the province of Alberta for wrongful confinement and sterilization relating to her admission to and treatment at the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives in Red Deer, Alberta, from 1955 until 1965. As a child of ten, Leilani had found herself swept up by the eugenics movement. After being institutionalized, Leilani was sterilized putatively in accord with the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta, a law that was in place in the province until 1972. That provincial law, one of only two enacted in Canada’s history, authorized the eugenic sterilization of individuals whose recommendation for sterilization by the medical superintendents of provincial institutions or other state authority figures had been approved by a four-person committee known informally as the “Eugenics Board.” The legal wrongfulness of both Leilani’s institutionalization/confinement and her sterilization that was established in Muir v. Alberta drew attention to many problematic features of how eugenics was practiced in the province, including how the Eugenics Board did its work.


Leilani was distinctive, and admirably so as I got to know her better, but not different in the way one might expect, given her history. She was, to put it in terms of a concept that structures our perceptions of human variation, as normal as can be. Yet Leilani had been institutionalized at a school for mental defectives for an extended period of time as a child, teenager, and as a young adult; she had also been classified as a “moron”—a term whose colloquial familiarity now might make it surprising to some to learn that it was invented barely 100 years ago by the eugenicist and psychologist Henry Goddard to pick out “higher grade” mental defectives. Classified as a higher-grade mental defectives, Leilani was sterilized putatively in accord with the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta. And all of that had further, unexpected, and devastating consequences for Leilani’s post-institutional life.

How did this happen? Leilani was certainly different from the educated, upwardly mobile, middle-class people who populated my snug university surroundings. But she wasn’t that different from the less-educated, often class-stagnant, working-class people with whom I grew up. And, it turned out, she was not different from the many hundreds, if not thousands, of others who were subjected to the very same laws in Alberta. How does this kind of thing happen? (Wilson, 2017: 20, 22)

I don’t know why Dawkins said that it’s one thing to oppose eugenics on “ideological, political, moral grounds”; whether or not it ‘works’ and is a ‘success’ (see caveats above) is irrelevant. As the moral/political arguments against eugenics (and any supposed precursors) outweigh any arguments for ‘utility’. Starting with negative eugenics/gene therapy can and will lead to modification/eugenics. State-mandated? Maybe not. But the attempt to take away choice from an unborn human (on, say, what he wants to do in life, if a parent is trying to ‘select for’ a certain trait or quality that supposedly will lead him down the path to doing X)? Definitely.

Eugenics is morally wrong. Anything that may lead to the slippery slope of eugenics is, then, by proxy, morally wrong. The psychological slippery slope argument provided proves this. The claim that eugenics can ‘work’ implies that our genes are US—that our genes make us who we are (e.g., Plomin, 2018). This is the cost of our gene-worshipping society. Instead of worshipping God, we now worship the gene—the gene god—thinking that our ‘destiny’ is in our genes and that if we choose certain genes—or certain people with the certain genes—then we can guide our society and evolution into something ‘good’ (whatever that means).

Just as traditional thought placed biological forms in the mind of God, so modern thought finds ways of endowing genes with ultimate formative power. (Oyama, 1985)



  1. david says:

    HEs simply referring to natural selection. In that regard, slavery around the world was eugenics, just as abortion is in the inner cities, and women claiming to only date men over 6 feet tall.


  2. mikemikev says:

    Eugenics in action


  3. dealwithit says:


    Humans selectively bred dogs from wolves

    the current theory is that the first dogs were NOT the result of selective breeding by humans. the first dogs domesticated themselves. dogs have 4x the genetic variation humans have.

    you’re not entitled to your own facts rr.

    truthiness is sad.


    the question of eugenics is just the question of polygenic traits. it’s IMMORAL NOT to prevent known disease causing genotypes from being born.

    but polygenic traits and genetic architecture and GWAS and all that independent of environment is BULLSHIT.


    • dealwithit says:

      how does a dog domesticate himself?

      the theory is that wolves differed in their fear of humans. those less fearful lived as parasites at first, as a lot of dogs still do in many countries.

      the selection for lack of fear and lack of agression toward humans turned wolves into dogs. but this was natural selection, not intentional breeding by humans.

      this is the theory because selective breeding of foxes in the USSR produced all of the same changes in foxes as are seen in dogs. things like floppy ears for example.


    • King meLo says:

      Save your breath.

      His only response is going to be “jUsT sO sTorIEs”


    • dealwithit says:

      no. it’s way more than that.

      dogs aren’t just the first domesticated animal.

      they’re the first domesticated animal by 20,000 years.

      so “man’s best friend” isn’t just a saying.

      dog’s hitched themselves to humans almost from the beginning.


    • dealwithit says:


      wolves were turned into dogs in multiple locations independently.

      it’s NATURAL selection.

      humans + wolves = dogs.

      hence the yuge genetic variation in dogs.


  4. King meLo says:

    Slippery slope arguments are always inductive. So your distinction there is nonsensical at best.

    The issue with slippery slope arguments is that there is no agreed upon level of tolerable risks when trying to avoid outcome p.


    • RaceRealist says:

      No—in a logical slippery slope, one is logically committed to taking subsequent steps once the first step is taken unless there is a logical reason not to. Psychological slippery slopes prime people with similar things.

      Where’s the error in the argument provided?


    • King meLo says:

      No one is logically committed to moral behavior. Again, you haven’t made any real distinction here. SSA are probabilistic by definition.

      Why don’t you produce me examples of a logical and psychological SSA?

      I just provided an error.


    • RaceRealist says:

      There is a distinction between logical and psychological slippery slopes and incorrectly provided both definitions. See Altered Inheritance by Baylis (2019).

      If A is accepted, then there is no reason to not accept B. This if we accept A, we must accept B. That’s one form of the logical SSA. The psychological version was provided in the article.

      Which premise is false?


    • King meLo says:

      I don’t have access to library genesis at the moment so unfortunately I could only search SSA in the book on google books. The author doesn’t really provide any real distinction other than what you’ve already regurgitated on this post.

      I don’t think you or the author realize that predictions in the psychological form are based on what is logically entailed from A. So no matter what your point is by making this distinction it definitely doesn’t make the arguments less fallacious.

      A premise doesn’t have to be false for the argument to still be wrong. So I don’t exactly know why you always ask that question. Oh wait yeah I do.


    • RaceRealist says:

      So there is no distinction between conceptual (logical) and psychological slippery slopes? Novel. The point of the distinction is that you get to the bottom of the slope based on different perspectives.

      Why do I ask the question? If you can’t identify which premise is false then the premises are true and the argument is therefore cogent.


    • King meLo says:

      Novel? Are you trying to say “that’s new”?

      Ok but it’s still fallacious

      I guess the same reason you decided to say “ novel” instead of “that’s new”.

      Lmao no. Arguments don’t need false premises to be fallacious. That’s just basic knowledge.


    • RaceRealist says:

      How is the argument fallacious?

      If A, then B. A. Therefore B. If we allow genetic modifications, then we will go down the slope to positive eugenics/modifications. So we should disallow A.

      Same conclusion, different argument form. Where’s the error?


    • RaceRealist says:

      Do you see any dangers lurking in the background regarding gene modification/therapy?


    • RaceRealist says:

      A psychological slippery slope does not depend upon what is logically necessary. Irrespective of whether or not the move from A to B is logically required, the psychological slippery slope evaluates whether or not B will happen after A, whether or not it is required logically.

      People may think that negative eugenics or gene therapy is fine. Then since that is fine, then eventually it will lead to gene modification of somatic cells. Then since the modification of somatic cells would be accepted, evenrslly germline cell modification will be accepted. Again, all treatments are enhancements but not all enhancements are treatments. Thus, since all enhancements are treatments and, psychologically there is no difference in degree between negative eugenics, gene modification, modifying somatic cells, germline cell modification, and finally sterilization of the “unfit” (a value-laden term, and eugenics is value-laden). So accepting negative eugenics or gene therapy will, eventually, lead to eugenic thinking and policies.

      Where’s the error in the chain?


    • King meLo says:

      Whether or not it is required logically the structure of the argument is still fallacious. Even then most Psychological SSA are still formulated based on what would follow logically. If they didn’t then they’d be even more fallacious than they already are.

      The issue is that 1. It assumes humans are rational and 2. That humans lack any variation in their agency.

      So while I could agree B will happen if we accept A it doesn’t provide justification for its proposed regulation. Simply put, you don’t know what could happen because you can’t possibly take into account all the factors that could occur to influence what the outcome of accepting A is. Hence why logical SSA are still inherently probabilistic.

      Subsequently even if I believe there are negative consequences that lurk from accepting A. It’s hard for me to actually have a moral opinion on the subject.


    • RaceRealist says:

      What, in your view, would be a non-fallacious SSA, either logical or empirical? Logical SSA are distinct from empirical SSA, as I’ve already written.

      The issue is that if the premises follow and my reasoning chain holds then one must accept the conclusion.


    • King meLo says:

      It all really depends where you draw that arbitrary line on what is too risky

      I’ve already explained to you that just because your premises are true doesn’t mean the conclusion is.


    • RaceRealist says:

      How does my conclusion not follow?


    • King meLo says:

      It’s not necessarily entailed from the premises

      I’ve explained how multiple times in this argument.


    • RaceRealist says:

      It’s that A and B are similar in degree and kind, so there is no difference between them to people after they’ve been primed psychologically.

      “People may think that negative eugenics or gene therapy is fine. Then since that is fine, then eventually it will lead to gene modification of somatic cells. Then since the modification of somatic cells would be accepted, evenrslly germline cell modification will be accepted. Again, all treatments are enhancements but not all enhancements are treatments. Thus, since all enhancements are treatments and, psychologically there is no difference in degree between negative eugenics, gene modification, modifying somatic cells, germline cell modification, and finally sterilization of the “unfit” (a value-laden term, and eugenics is value-laden). So accepting negative eugenics or gene therapy will, eventually, lead to eugenic thinking and policies.

      Where’s the error in the chain?”

      If the aforementioned techniques are similar in degree and kind and it we start A and go through A1, A2, A3 … B, (see my example) then we should not permit A.

      The argument is cogent.


    • King meLo says:

      It’s not cogent because as I’ve iterated previously:

      Humans are not rational
      Humans have variation in their agency.
      We are not logically committed to any moral or immoral behavior.

      Because of these 3 points even if A is similar in degree and kind to B it doesn’t not necessarily entail that B will follow A.

      So the logical SSA fails.

      The psychological SSA is weaker but is also a more coherent argument because it is more inductive. However, that’s also where it fails as well because there is no real line that defines when a slope becomes too slippery.


    • RaceRealist says:

      The argument is sound; the only problems are with (3) and (5) (from Glannon) which I have addressed. So the premises are all true and the conclusion therefore follows.


    • King meLo says:

      Where did you address 5?


    • RaceRealist says:

      If A and B are similar in degree and kind, in that there is no distinction between A and B (save for the name of the concept which in all actuality leads to the same ends) then A will lead to B with the intermediaries in between. (As I’ve explained already).

      If A then B, A, therefore B is a modus ponens. (A is “modification is enacted”, B is “positive eugenics will be enacted too”.)

      X is not bad by itself. But if X is permitted then it is likely that Y would occur. If doing X is not bad by itself, but it would lead to Y which is bad, then we must not do X. Y is morally wrong. Thus we should disallow X.

      That’s a stronger form, still with the same conclusion.

      (5) was addressed in virtue of the examples I gave being relevantly similar to each other.


    • King meLo says:

      Yeah I don’t think you’re getting what I’m saying. It is human nature to create arbitrary boundaries. Even if most humans would be ok with A they may not be okay with B despite there not being any real difference. Again they are not logically committed to any outcome.


    • RaceRealist says:

      But if A is allowed and B follows, even if they won’t be OK with B, B still arose because A was ultimately allowed.


    • dealwithit says:

      both of you have full blown AIDS.


    • King meLo says:

      Well I got it from your mother

      But I guess that’s what I deserve for having sex with monkeys


    • dealwithit says:

      rr wants to argue about his arguments and about the arguments about his arguments.
      the definition of gay.

      arnold is ashamed.


  5. I completely agree eugenics is immoral, but there’s also a utility argument against it – the main problems facing the world today such as climate change and overpopulation (as recently recognised by more than 11,000 scientist signatories: won’t be solved by eugenics, in fact, eugenics will just add to these problems. Virtually all the eugenicists I’ve seen online are right-wing to far-right hyper-natalists who are telling white people to breed more.


    • I’ve seen it – it’s a fake biography of me filled with lies and smears by Emil Kirkegaard (largely copied from his website), at least instigated by him.

      You do realise I have social media? People only have to spend 5 seconds clicking on my Twitter or Facebook accounts to see i’m not an SJW/leftist.

      “Schizophrenia is strongly consistent with his Leftist bias.”
      “It seems, however that he became an SJW at the beginning of 2012.”
      “[Oliver is] a Nerdish leftist.”

      How does any of that make sense when on most political compasses I plot right-wing, secondly I’ve long criticised SJWs and left-wing politics in general. Where did the nonsense about SJW and leftist come from?

      I can’t though stop insane people making up bizarre lies about me. The rest of that article is fabricating other positions or views I’ve never held. I was an ex-Holocaust denier? Since when? No evidence even provided.


    • “Where did the nonsense about SJW and leftist come from?”

      Well actually I can answer that… you’ve spent several years creating fake profiles of me as an Antifa. The dumbass who wrote that VDARE hit-piece of me probably just clicked on those accounts, not realising they’re yours and not mine.


    • “I’ve long criticised SJWs and left-wing politics in general.”

      This is one of the reasons I temporarily quit editing RationalWiki in 2015, heck I even wrote this on my user-talk, when I was editing as Krom:

      I don’t really fit in here or agree with RW’s left-wing political stance on most issues[[User:Krom|Krom]] ([[User talk:Krom|talk]]) 19:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

      Am I still an SJW leftist? LOL.


    • As I always said, (fake) article biographies that don’t match someone’s authentic social media profiles are worthless. Unlike what Kirkegaard/VDARE did to me, the articles I wrote about people on RationalWiki matches their social media.

      Someone can view your RW article to see it matches your social media:

      The RationalWiki article points out you’re a neo-nazi/white nationalist and anti-Semitic nutjob and that’s exactly what is found on your social media…

      In contrast if you compare the articles on me written by Kirkegaard/VDARE – they don’t match my social media profiles, because they’re lying and misrepresenting me e.g. I’m not an SJW or leftist and someone can easily tell this by looking at my Twitter and Facebook.

      Note that it’s pretty easy to identify an SJW or far leftist on Twitter – they are obsessed with identity politics and usually have “he/she/they/them” in their profile description. Of course of this nonsense is found on mine.


    • King meLo says:

      Mike doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand that someone can be right-wing and also not an HBDer.

      But what you got against leftism homie?


    • *Of course none of this nonsense is found on mine.


    • dealwithit says:


      when did you first know i was a genius?


  6. mikemikev says:

    STFU slaphead


  7. mikemikev says:

    They should apply eugenics to the slaphead problem.


  8. mikemikev says:

    Slapheads coping hard ITT


    • dealwithit says:

      is it “eurgenics” rr ‘tard?

      90+% of those at risk from huntington’s disease choose not to be tested.

      (and though rare huntington’s is just the most common of a slew of late onset autosomal dominant neurodegenerative diseases.)

      i say:

      it is not necessarily immoral for such people to have children so long as they…

      DON’T have children with the disease causing allele.

      AND assure this via embryo selection = eugenics.

      Each daughter died of Huntington’s disease at the age of 41, in the 1970s, evidently passed on from their father, although Guthrie himself was not diagnosed with the condition until much later.


  9. RE:

    “Mike doesn’t have the mental capacity to understand that someone can be right-wing and also not an HBDer.”

    Yes I agree.

    “But what you got against leftism homie?”

    Right-wingers usually aren’t afraid to tackle taboo/politically correct issues or things mainstream politicians refuse to address, so this is why I have more in common with right-wingers than left-wingers. Immigration is a good example.

    The single exception I’ve found is overpopulation – right wingers and left-wingers both refuse to address this issue; religious-right/conservatives and alt-righters/white nationalists for their own ideological biases won’t ever address it, or if the latter do like Steve Sailer all they talk about is reducing fertility rates in Africa, never across the western world, so they’re only half-addressing the issue:

    Sailer and his ilk of course don’t have any real environmental concerns, they just want to reduce the black population, while increasing the white population.

    My other main criticism of right-wingers is the scientific illiteracy i.e. creationism and climate-change denial are only common among right-wing, not left.


    • dealwithit says:


      should the (late onset) hd+ allele be eliminated after there’s effective treatment?

      maybe not.

      because it may ACTUALLY make better people before disease…

      that is, it appears the (late onset) hd+ allele is the one allele with the biggest IQ boosting effect of any allele.

      so big, it’s probably REAL.


    • I’m against labels, but I’ve self-described myself for several years as a “green conservative”. I basically see myself as a pro-science/pro-environmentalist right-winger, so rather unorthodox. To an SJW, I’d though be ‘far-right’.

      Around 2010 I began criticising race & IQ pseudoscience and in 2013 I came out against ‘race realism’. Misinformation across the internet I’m an SJW or leftist could stem from my criticism of HBD. I believe RR is also being incorrectly described as an SJW for his recent posts criticising race & IQ.


    • dealwithit says:

      that’s nice.

      you should watch the documentray:

      the only polygenic trait i know of which should be selected against is the guido polygenic trait.


    • Just A Drifter says:

      Western rates are already low.

      The blacks are a diversion although they need to lower their rates too. The real problem are Asians esp. the Chinese and Indians. There are 1 billion+ Africans but 4 billion+ Asians. India has no clean water and the food is crap and China has no food security. They borrow from white people.

      The black pop wouldn’t increase over the next decade because as western countries become less white and more Asian they would stop giving gibs to blacks.

      Overpopulation can be solved by eugenics, by not overfarming, by not using pestcides (no bugs, no plants/life) and by using natural fertilizer that doesn’t pollute the ocean and decimate the fish population.

      Leftists are just as racist as right-wingers. Affirmative action is the bigotry of low expectations and it leads to people dropping out of schools and wasting their money. California imported hispanic gangs that killed blacks and now the black population is tiny. High taxes push blacks out of cities and into ghettos were they get oppressed by the Hasidic Jews. Those are only a few examples.


  10. mikemikev says:

    I’ve described Oliver D. Smith for several years as a “slaphead”


  11. mikemikev says:

    It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work on slapheads. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work on slapheads? Facts ignore ideology.


    • Mike, do you still tell your mother I own your neo-Nazi/white supremacist accounts?

      “Mikemikev’s family have been informed about his deranged white supremacist online history, but Michael Coombs is known to lie about his online activities, variously denying he posts as Mikemikev, he was “impersonated” or his accounts were hacked. A pathological liar, Mikemikev has been described as living a “double life” since he tries to keep his online neo-Nazi identity a secret from his family and past employers, lying about his online activities; when confronted in real life, he is known to blame his online accounts he has posted racist content and death threats onto random innocent people.”


    • dealwithit says:





    • King meLo says:

      What? I don’t oppose eugenics you fucking retard.

      RR and I have the “best genes” on both blogs, that’s why we’re the strongest, smartest, and sexiest.

      Deal with it.


  12. mikemikev says:

    A world without Oliver D. Smith would be a better place.


  13. mikemikev says:

    What if someone confronted Oliver D. Smith IRL in his mom’s basement about being a slaphead?


  14. mikemikev says:

    This slaphead situation is escalating out of control. I’ve informed the slaphead enforcement team.

    Abd has a fine head of hair and should be able to get this under control.


  15. mikemikev says:

    Someone told me that Oliver still has memories of suckling his mother’s breasts, which is why he never felt the need to leave home. I don’t know if this is true, but I think it is something we should bear in mind.


  16. mikemikev says:

    Oliver D. Smith’s father came home, he knew he had been a bad boy. The sweat dripped from his shining slaphead. His father entered the room, naked, carrying a thick leather belt. “why didn’t you get a job Oliver?”. Before he could answer, the belt slapped hard against his shining slaphead. Whack, whack, would it ever end? Oliver’s slaphead was bright red and bleeding in places, as Oliver lay in the fetal position sobbing. “See you tomorrow” his father laughed as he left the room, locking the door.


  17. mikemikev says:

    It was morning. Oliver lifted himself from the floor, where he had lain face down in a pool of his own snot and vomit throughout the night. He gingerly touched his slaphead, still bright red and bleeding in places from the lashing his father had given him the evening before. The “strange hair loss patterns” were already beginning to appear, but he wouldn’t be able to shave it for several weeks. He would have to pretend to be “hitman” alone in his room, but that was nothing new. Oliver thought about his dad’s words the night before, and thought about looking for a job. But then he remembered he had something much more important to do. Sitting down at his Windows 98 laptop he googled “mikemikev” and prepared to go through thousands of pages of links looking for some words he could take out of a sentence that gave a bad impression when assembled with some other words from somewhere else. Opening a Rationalwiki edit window and logging in to a few Reddit sockpuppets named after his e-enemies he was ready to continue his life’s work. Mikemiekv was going to pay for disagreeing with him on Metapedia 7 years ago.


  18. mikemikev says:


  19. mikemikev says:

    What if the Alien doesn’t grow a big ass? Will you still be able to use it?


  20. mikemikev says:

    You do realise that you will be killed for what you did Oliver. What you did will need to be paid for.


    • mikemikev says:

      I don’t mean that I am planning to do anything like that. But if you keep going across the internet trying to defame people you disagree with as child abusers, one day you’re going to do it to the wrong person. You’re a completely sick individual.


    • “But if you keep going across the internet trying to defame people you disagree with as child abusers,”

      Which I’ve never done. If you’re referring to Emil Kirkegaard, who filed a lawsuit against me – he lost the preliminary judgement and has been ordered to pay me back £13,500 in legal fees. My defenceis honest opinion and a judge in the preliminary judgement ruled what I had posted were opinions, not statements of fact. Dozens if not hundreds of people formed the same or similar opinions as me about Kirkegaard on social media:

      As for your own internet posts, anyone can judge for themselves based on the disturbing comments you’ve written:

      You claimed the latter was a “joke”, but you will have a very hard time finding someone who thinks posting murdering innocent children is funny. You are evil.


    • Waller Joel says:

      Mikemikev aka Michael Coombs is threatening people with violence and making death threats. Someone report this clown. He should be banned from commenting here.


    • dealwithit says:

      i have a list of people who will be executed publicly via horse penis when hitler comes back.


    • mikemikev says:

      “i have a list of people who will be executed publicly via horse penis when hitler comes back.”

      Yes exactly. When we take power I will have Oliver slowly executed over several years.


    • mikemikev says:

      All he does is lie and lie. You show clearly him misrepresenting something to frame someone as a child abuser, he just lies about it. Although illegal under British law, under natural justice it would be acceptable to smash his dopey face to a pulp with a metal baton.


    • Mike, no one takes a word you say about me serious.

      You’re the proven liar, not me.

      You’ve spent 7 years writing nothing but lies and smears about me and have even admitted to doing this on multiple occasions.


    • You keep lying and falsely saying I “called someone a child abuser”. Who? I’ve never used those to describe someone online and you can’t even quote me as you know your lying. Furthermore, you’ve repeatedly libelled me on this blog as a “terrorist”, so like I said no one takes your victim-mentality serious when you always run around posting defamation about people you dislike.


    • *words.

      I’ve never described someone to my knowledge as a “child abuser”.

      You’re literally insane and just make countless lies up.


  21. Emblyn Kerensa says:

    The admin of this blog needs to stop comment access on this thread of those two users. The Michael Coombs / Smith online slap-fight has being going on since 2014. Both these individuals never leave each other alone, they refuse to move on. They been doing this petty online fights for six years. The only way to shut them down is to ban or remove their comment access. They have done this on hundreds of blogs and forums and they always end up banned. Then they just find a new one and they start their crap all over again. Sad.


    • ” The Michael Coombs / Smith online slap-fight has being going on since 2014.”

      It’s actually been since 2013.

      Coombs followed me onto this blog; on the other hand all these posts are off-topic and so there’s no need to further respond. I’m also suspicious of all these new names commenting.


    • dealwithit says:

      “those two users”

      are an autist = oliver


      a comedian = mikemedvedev

      so now everyone (every not one) who reads this will know that…

      Emblyn Kerensa = OLIVER



  22. Sarah Jones says:

    Abd Lomax is an alt-right racist, banned from Wikipedia for sending an admin Joshua P. Schroeder pictures of his hairy ass. Icky stuff.

    Lomax also posts as “Waller Joel” and has a history of impersonating people.

    Lomax as MU and Waller Joel has been trolling numerous websites and newgroups, Usenet in particular, for over a decade. Do a Google search on names like “Ari Silverstein”, “Frank Camper”, or “wilburn” (preferably in combination with “Usenet”, e. g. [“Ari Silverstein” Usenet], [“Frank Camper” Usenet], [wilburn Usenet]) to see the full dimension of his trolling. As for Frank Camper: There is a real person with that name who is a former American soldier and mercenary ( MU!!, under his various names, often claims to be this person (or uses sockpuppets to create rumors about himself to that effect). However, he does the same with remote viewing researcher Courtney Brown (, so it’s most probably just bullshitting and attention seeking in both cases.


  23. Ben Steigmann says:

    RationalWiki really sucks. Abd Lomax created an article about me on there claiming I was a holocaust denier. I had it deleted though, thankfully Smith deleted it for me.

    Here is the article Abd Lomax created about me

    I am a former holocaust denier but I no longer hold that position. People do change their views over time. RationalWiki should accept that.

    I used to be friends with Lomax but he turned against me after I gave up my holocaust denialism. Lomax really hates Jewish people so he couldn’t accept my change of views. I have some distant Jewish ancestry myself.


  24. Graaf Statler says:

    Neither Lomax or Mikemikev are a reliable source for anything.

    Mikemikev used to impersonate a doctor called “Andrew B. Chung”, he is up to his teeth in that “Waller Joel” “MU” trolling drama like Lomax is. Both Lomax and Mikemikev like to impersonate people. I have lost count of their sock-puppets.


  25. Abd Lomax says:

    I have debunked those cheesecloths. Eugenics is a load of nonsense, I am not sure why Emil Kirkegaard supports it.


  26. Arthur Kerensa says:

    Mikemikev can you explain in simple language why you support eugenics?

    If you turn up on RationalWiki again I will have you BANNED.


  27. WikipediaSucks admin says:

    Mikemikev is a young earth creationist.


  28. RR should check all these troll screen-name IPs — they will be a TOR that Michael uses.

    “Mikemikev • 5 months ago
    I’ve been hammering rationalwiki regularly for years. My IP is banned and I can’t be bothered loading torbrowser at the moment.”


  29. mikemikev says:

    How should the traitor and slanderer Oliver D. Smith be publicly executed after the revolution?

    A) Face smashed in with metal batons
    B) Anally penetrated with wooden spike or red hot iron rods
    C) Sent to live as a rape object for homosexual criminal Negroids
    D) Just fucking shot


  30. dealwithit says:

    it’s sad.

    autism is sad.

    oliver, rr, peepee (and her sockpuppets) all have autism.

    only two actual people comment on peepee’s blog.

    me and pill (maybe).

    and peepee banned me.

    pill is right that the clinical/professional category “autism” needs to be expanded to describe all of the european goyimk who are willing tools of the jews and therefore must also be shoah-ed…

    next time!




    • dealwithit says:

      for autistic people:

      “homocide” is a contraction of “homo-cide”.

      this does not refer to the killing of sicilians and other homos.


  31. dealwithit says:

    the dwan of dogs:

    three wolves and one guido talking amongst themselves in pre-historic new jersey…

    wolf oliver (salivating): what if they kill us?

    wolf mikemedvedev: what if we kill them?

    wolf rr: what if i gave them free personal training sessions?

    wolf mugabe: i’m going to steal their food and mexico is gonna pay for it!


  32. Checheno says:

    @Oliver D. Smith

    Oliver, quoting Mansa is not going to make you credible, everyone knows you’re a damn sick man.


  33. Checheno says:

    What is the problem that is racist?
    When the fascists arrived, we will clean the world of shit like you, whore, retarded, Mongrel, degenerate.


  34. Checheno says:

    Reminder to everyone who reads this blog crap, that RR is a damn homosexual antifascist, supports Kevin Bird’s idiot in his crusade to fire Colin Wright.
    RR, please stop larpeating as a libertarian, damn piece of shit, you’re a retarded leftist who follows communists, fags, trannies and other crap, and not only that, but you support the hereditary doxxing.
    You really deserve a fascist to kill you, piece of shit.


  35. Checheno says:

    Reminder to everyone who reads this blog crap, that RR is a damn homosexual antifascist, supports Kevin Bird’s idiot in his crusade to fire Colin Wright.
    RR, please stop larpeating as a libertarian, damn piece of shit, you’re a retarded leftist who follows communists, fags, trannies and other crap, and not only that, but you support the hereditary doxxing.
    You really deserve a fascist to kill you, piece of shit.


  36. Checheno says:

    Reminder to everyone who reads this blog crap, that RR is a damn faggot antifascist, supports Kevin Bird’s idiot in his crusade to fire Colin Wright.
    RR, please stop larpeating as a libertarian, damn piece of shit, you’re a retarded leftist who follows communists, fags, trannies and other crap, and not only that, but you support the hereditary doxxing.
    You really deserve a fascist to kill you, piece of shit.


  37. mikemikev says:

    It’s funny because Oliver only references himself, but everybody hates Oliver.


  38. For the record (and back on topic), I don’t support eugenics and have long criticised it.

    I don’t know what Mikemikev’s views are on this, but someone asked him here:

    “Alright, Mike. I don’t expect you to answer this question either or to even acknowledge it being asked, but: what are your thoughts on the eugenics policies the Third Reich enacted”

    He got no response of course.


  39. dealwithit says:

    at least rr has confrmed that shoah 2.0 is nigh.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Blog Stats

  • 874,542 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on

suggestions, praises, criticisms

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


%d bloggers like this: