The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
RationalWiki Hagiography
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

kompromat-rational-wiki

Is here at last: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karlin

It is almost certainly courtesy of Internet lolcow Oliver D. Smith (Twitter), with whom I had this short exchange a few hours before its publication:

twitter-oliver-d-smith

Although I appreciate their help in actualizing my potential, there are a number of errors that I wish to clear up.

Anatoly Karlin is a Russian alt-right, white nationalist anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist blogger who promotes racialist pseudoscience. …

Despite having political views typical of neo-Nazis and white nationalists and even speaking alongside Richard Spencer on a podium — Karlin is a crypto-Nazi, who describes himself as a non-racist “liberal race realist“.[2]Do You Believe That?

I am no mere Neo-Nazi, crypto or otherwise. I identify as the reincarnation of Mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D, my extremism is so off the charts that even Ben “Race War Now” Garrison quails before me.

However, this doesn’t preclude me from having excellent relations with the Jews. I will even be voting for one of the very best Jews on March 18.

He writes for Russia InsiderWikipedia's W.svg and UNZ Review.

I do not write for Russia Insider, they just reprint me, with my permission.

Karlin says he became a “race realist” and proponent of “HBD” (human-biodiversity) in 2012 after reading Richard Lynn; he now promotes race and IQ pseudoscience on his blog.[6]

I did not so much “become” a race realist in 2012 as that I started to openly write about racial IQ differences, specifically on how it is implausible to attribute them all to the environment.

Although I respect Lynn’s work, he had very little influence on me, because I read him after I was already familiar with the work of Charles Murray, Philippe J. Rushton, etc.

In January 2018, Karlin wrote a blog post on UNZ Review defending paedophile apologist Emil Kirkegaard, who said “a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it“. Karlin maintains Kirkegaard was somehow misquoted or taken out of context by so-called SJWs, when this isn’t the case.[10]

You can judge for yourself here: Inaccuracies in Rationalwiki’s (Oliver D. Smith’s) page about me.

PS. RationalWiki needs help padding out my bio:

He’s published over a thousand blog posts on UNZ Review. Lots more of his crazy views can be added to article. SkepticDave (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to pitch in.

 
• Category: Humor • Tags: Neo-Nazis, SJWs, The AK, Trolling 
Show 321 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. As this famous quote says it:
    There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

    I just want to know that if one day you wanted to enter politics in Russia, would this be possible, or would your associations (as mentioned in RationalWiki) disqualify you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JW
    I don't think it would even come up. Russians (mostly) don't speak english. Writing in a small alternative magazine wouldn't have any effects.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The AK Rises.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Congratulations. This fulfills one of your predictions for 2018, yes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Anyone else notice that Mr Karlin looks completely different in every picture he publishes?

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I was just ready to mention that very fact myself! He really does...he must be the Russian version of the 'human chameleon*!

    *Set in the 1920s and 1930s, the film focuses on Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), a nondescript man who has the ability to transform his appearance to that of the people who surround him. He is first observed at a party by F. Scott Fitzgerald, who notes that Zelig related to the affluent guests in a refined Boston accent and shared their Republican sympathies, but while in the kitchen with the servants, he adopted a coarser tone and seemed to be more of a Democrat. He soon gains international fame as a "human chameleon".

    If you haven't seen 'Zelig' you're missing one of Allen's best and funniest films!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. And think…nobody even mentioned that you’re a political admirer of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. @David
    Anyone else notice that Mr Karlin looks completely different in every picture he publishes?

    I was just ready to mention that very fact myself! He really does…he must be the Russian version of the ‘human chameleon*!

    *Set in the 1920s and 1930s, the film focuses on Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), a nondescript man who has the ability to transform his appearance to that of the people who surround him. He is first observed at a party by F. Scott Fitzgerald, who notes that Zelig related to the affluent guests in a refined Boston accent and shared their Republican sympathies, but while in the kitchen with the servants, he adopted a coarser tone and seemed to be more of a Democrat. He soon gains international fame as a “human chameleon”.

    If you haven’t seen ‘Zelig’ you’re missing one of Allen’s best and funniest films!

    Read More
    • Agree: Kevin O'Keeffe
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    If you haven’t seen ‘Zelig’ you’re missing one of Allen’s best and funniest films!
     
    I very much agree, but you left out that it's obviously a brilliant parody of Jewish people's yearning to "fit in."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Emil Kirkegaard was never “smeared” by s0-called SJW’s since newspapers and other news sources, covering the entire political-spectrum exposed him as a child-rape/paedophilia apologist and neo-Nazi; the Socialist Worker is far-left wing, The Guardian is left wing , The Independent is centrist, The Telegraph is centre-right, while the Daily Mail, right-wing. As for far-right, there is a thread on Stormfront criticizing Kirkegaard’s obscene child rape comments. It’s not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    And no surprise, it turns out the sick freak Kirkegaard is a fan of animated baby porn and wants it made legal:

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Animated_baby_porn

    Read More
    • Troll: jimbojones
    • Replies: @DFH
    Was he apologising for paedophiles when he said they should be castrated?
    , @DFH
    Also, nowhere in the article linked on your site does he say that he is a fan, or in anyway likes, animated child pornography. Nor does he 'want it made legal' (it was already legal in Denmark when the article was written), he presents arguments against making it illegal. You're a liar.
    , @German_reader

    anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.
     
    I think Kirkegaard's "thought experiment" was rather misguided (and there was a lengthy discussion about that in the thread about SJWs attacking the London conference), but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he himself has any pedophile tendencies, let alone has ever acted on them. Nor he can be called a dedicated pedophilia apologist based on just one or two strange blog posts. That's just a smear, and shows how rotten mainstream media has become.
    , @Swedish Family

    It’s not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.
     
    Anyone with a brain can see that he is a through-the-roof high IQ, slightly aspie freethinker who went overboard with the outside-the-box thinking. It happens. Live and let live.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    You can actually write any of the MSM distributors as "right" while not breaking out in laughter. Well done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Leftists called me a Nazi in college about 30 year ago. And I was a garden variety center-right conservative then (granted, I was older than most students having come from military service in Asia).

    Calling political opponents or anyone with whom left disagrees (or just anyone with a clean haircut who calls people “sir” or “ma’am”) a Nazi is just tiresome, old, and unoriginal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Rationalwiki is garbage. Worse than wikipedia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "Rationalwiki is garbage"

    Yes, there doesn't seem to be a lot of rationality about it.

    Where did the "rational" name come from? Did it start as some kind of atheist group? I know some atheists like to think of themselves (and speak of themselves, and write of themselves) as enlightened.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Oliver D. Smith
    Emil Kirkegaard was never "smeared" by s0-called SJW's since newspapers and other news sources, covering the entire political-spectrum exposed him as a child-rape/paedophilia apologist and neo-Nazi; the Socialist Worker is far-left wing, The Guardian is left wing , The Independent is centrist, The Telegraph is centre-right, while the Daily Mail, right-wing. As for far-right, there is a thread on Stormfront criticizing Kirkegaard's obscene child rape comments. It's not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    And no surprise, it turns out the sick freak Kirkegaard is a fan of animated baby porn and wants it made legal:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Animated_baby_porn

    Was he apologising for paedophiles when he said they should be castrated?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Smith portrays you as way more based than you actually are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. how come you aren’t tall and blonde like most Russians?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    how come you aren’t tall and blonde like most Russians?


     

    In Russia, there are around 190 different nationalities or different origins that people can have - quite a few people have interesting backgrounds.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The Speaker really only wants the best for all transhumans.

    http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/speaker.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Oliver D. Smith
    Emil Kirkegaard was never "smeared" by s0-called SJW's since newspapers and other news sources, covering the entire political-spectrum exposed him as a child-rape/paedophilia apologist and neo-Nazi; the Socialist Worker is far-left wing, The Guardian is left wing , The Independent is centrist, The Telegraph is centre-right, while the Daily Mail, right-wing. As for far-right, there is a thread on Stormfront criticizing Kirkegaard's obscene child rape comments. It's not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    And no surprise, it turns out the sick freak Kirkegaard is a fan of animated baby porn and wants it made legal:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Animated_baby_porn

    Also, nowhere in the article linked on your site does he say that he is a fan, or in anyway likes, animated child pornography. Nor does he ‘want it made legal’ (it was already legal in Denmark when the article was written), he presents arguments against making it illegal. You’re a liar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    He penned an essay defending animated baby-porn and argues for it to be made legal in Norway and Sweden and any other country that has banned it. So he does support legalising it since the vast majority of countries have banned it (Denmark being the only notable exception).

    When questioned if he supports possession/legalising of *real* child porn, what did he say?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    "As for possession, I'm unsure. My blogpost is from 2012, 5 years ago, and I haven't thought much of the topic since."

    What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write. A non-paedophile of course is against child porn, but Kirkegaard is ambiguous/undecided and refuses to be against it.

    Furthermore, Kirkegaard uses the paedophilia-apologist definition of paedophilia as pre-pubescent:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1863285

    In his essay where he proposes a compromise for paedophiles is to rape children while they sleep, Kirkegaard wrote:

    "One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems."

    Children in puberty are as young as 11-12; in other words Kirkegaard literally supports adults having sex with children, who while not pre-pubescent are still under the age of consent.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Child_rape

    Why are you defending a blatant paedophile?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Pretty thin stuff, they’ve got nothing about your Russian nationalism, Ukraine etc. Very US-centric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Very US-centric.

    We might have known that you or RT would whine about this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Oliver D. Smith
    Emil Kirkegaard was never "smeared" by s0-called SJW's since newspapers and other news sources, covering the entire political-spectrum exposed him as a child-rape/paedophilia apologist and neo-Nazi; the Socialist Worker is far-left wing, The Guardian is left wing , The Independent is centrist, The Telegraph is centre-right, while the Daily Mail, right-wing. As for far-right, there is a thread on Stormfront criticizing Kirkegaard's obscene child rape comments. It's not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    And no surprise, it turns out the sick freak Kirkegaard is a fan of animated baby porn and wants it made legal:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Animated_baby_porn

    anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    I think Kirkegaard’s “thought experiment” was rather misguided (and there was a lengthy discussion about that in the thread about SJWs attacking the London conference), but there’s absolutely nothing to indicate that he himself has any pedophile tendencies, let alone has ever acted on them. Nor he can be called a dedicated pedophilia apologist based on just one or two strange blog posts. That’s just a smear, and shows how rotten mainstream media has become.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    So, guilt by association, with the association being not to an actual person but to a dishonest portrayal of that person. Nice work.
    , @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard showed up on RationalWiki in 2017 to defend child rape, since he claims there is no mental harm if adults rape children:

    "My remark was simply that if you have sex with someone [children] while they are asleep and somehow don't wake up from it and they never discover it later somehow, it is not likely for there to be any causal effects on mental health. How would there be?"
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    What sort of person types something like this? Kirkegaard is seriously sick in the mind and anyone defending him here should be ashamed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @German_reader

    anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.
     
    I think Kirkegaard's "thought experiment" was rather misguided (and there was a lengthy discussion about that in the thread about SJWs attacking the London conference), but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he himself has any pedophile tendencies, let alone has ever acted on them. Nor he can be called a dedicated pedophilia apologist based on just one or two strange blog posts. That's just a smear, and shows how rotten mainstream media has become.

    So, guilt by association, with the association being not to an actual person but to a dishonest portrayal of that person. Nice work.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Are you being sarcastic or not? German_reader seems to think not?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Reading Karlin’s blog for a couple weeks – I would say he is a talented blogger. He tries to stick to facts. He reports on various interesting things and doesn’t seem interested in propaganda.

    That doesn’t endorse his views which are obviously not all sensible. But Karlin seems like the most reasonable and open-minded writer on the Unz website. Also kind of rebellious views so he would be the first one sent to the gulag – he would hardly fit in well with the totalitarian ideology the article is claiming he endorses.

    Article is relying on a ‘guilt by association’ based on the fact that many other authors on the Unz website are nutjobs who write propaganda (although entertaining propaganda at least), and that he was reprinted by the Russia Insider website.

    (A plausible case could be made that Russia Insider is somekind of CIA project, perfectly timed to self-destruct the pro-Russia public relations).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    I respectfully don't give too much credence to the last point. More appropriate for Navalny.

    Like it or not, the pro-Russian perspective has some suspect views, as is true among other advocacies. Such perspectives are far from monolithic.

    My not being a sovok doesn't by default put me in bed with everyone sharing a pro-Russian/non-sovok slant.

    The recently contentious RI piece in question covered all angles, in terms of accentuating the matter of the Jews, while simultaneously cautioning against a collective negativity towards them. The article ended seeking a wider audience - something its author restated in his own words.

    At the same time, the matter of "Jewish influence" has been covered over the decades. With that in mind, the RI piece doesn't offer anything especially new, along with some errors to boot. Covering the very same general subject, Alfred Lilienthal's late 1970s book "The Zionist Connection", is an interesting read.

    , @Swedish Family

    (A plausible case could be made that Russia Insider is somekind of CIA project, perfectly timed to self-destruct the pro-Russia public relations).
     
    Yes, but it would very likely be baseless. Like it or not, they give voice to the reductionist worldview of most Western russophiles (Washington = all bad, so therefore Moscow = all good).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Greasy William
    how come you aren't tall and blonde like most Russians?

    how come you aren’t tall and blonde like most Russians?

    In Russia, there are around 190 different nationalities or different origins that people can have – quite a few people have interesting backgrounds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    For sure.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/12/countering-anti-russian-propaganda.html

    Overall, Russia's strength is its multiethnic dynamic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @neutral
    As this famous quote says it:
    There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.

    I just want to know that if one day you wanted to enter politics in Russia, would this be possible, or would your associations (as mentioned in RationalWiki) disqualify you?

    I don’t think it would even come up. Russians (mostly) don’t speak english. Writing in a small alternative magazine wouldn’t have any effects.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It’s enough for one guy to notice and translate, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Dmitry
    Reading Karlin's blog for a couple weeks - I would say he is a talented blogger. He tries to stick to facts. He reports on various interesting things and doesn't seem interested in propaganda.

    That doesn't endorse his views which are obviously not all sensible. But Karlin seems like the most reasonable and open-minded writer on the Unz website. Also kind of rebellious views so he would be the first one sent to the gulag - he would hardly fit in well with the totalitarian ideology the article is claiming he endorses.

    Article is relying on a 'guilt by association' based on the fact that many other authors on the Unz website are nutjobs who write propaganda (although entertaining propaganda at least), and that he was reprinted by the Russia Insider website.

    (A plausible case could be made that Russia Insider is somekind of CIA project, perfectly timed to self-destruct the pro-Russia public relations).

    I respectfully don’t give too much credence to the last point. More appropriate for Navalny.

    Like it or not, the pro-Russian perspective has some suspect views, as is true among other advocacies. Such perspectives are far from monolithic.

    My not being a sovok doesn’t by default put me in bed with everyone sharing a pro-Russian/non-sovok slant.

    The recently contentious RI piece in question covered all angles, in terms of accentuating the matter of the Jews, while simultaneously cautioning against a collective negativity towards them. The article ended seeking a wider audience – something its author restated in his own words.

    At the same time, the matter of “Jewish influence” has been covered over the decades. With that in mind, the RI piece doesn’t offer anything especially new, along with some errors to boot. Covering the very same general subject, Alfred Lilienthal’s late 1970s book “The Zionist Connection”, is an interesting read.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Dmitry

    how come you aren’t tall and blonde like most Russians?


     

    In Russia, there are around 190 different nationalities or different origins that people can have - quite a few people have interesting backgrounds.

    For sure.

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/12/countering-anti-russian-propaganda.html

    Overall, Russia’s strength is its multiethnic dynamic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Greasy William
    how come you aren't tall and blonde like most Russians?

    The Speaker really only wants the best for all transhumans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @AP
    So, guilt by association, with the association being not to an actual person but to a dishonest portrayal of that person. Nice work.

    Are you being sarcastic or not? German_reader seems to think not?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I think my summary was accurate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @German_reader
    Pretty thin stuff, they've got nothing about your Russian nationalism, Ukraine etc. Very US-centric.

    Very US-centric.

    We might have known that you or RT would whine about this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. FWIW, I don’t believe that AK is an anti-Semite.

    I do note that he hasn’t explained exactly how Russian Jews would fit into his Russian Nationalism project.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Karlin also seems hesitant to point out how relations with Ukraine might change/improve within his vision of a more nationalistic Russia. Searching for things that he may have said several years back is not wholly satisfying. He definitely needs to bring things up to date.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @iffen
    FWIW, I don't believe that AK is an anti-Semite.

    I do note that he hasn't explained exactly how Russian Jews would fit into his Russian Nationalism project.

    Karlin also seems hesitant to point out how relations with Ukraine might change/improve within his vision of a more nationalistic Russia. Searching for things that he may have said several years back is not wholly satisfying. He definitely needs to bring things up to date.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Karlin also seems hesitant to point out how relations with Ukraine might change/improve

    I don't see any hesitancy or imprecision there.

    He seems fairly straightforward in his opinion that there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian” separate from being a Russian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Mr. Hack
    Are you being sarcastic or not? German_reader seems to think not?

    I think my summary was accurate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @Mr. Hack
    Karlin also seems hesitant to point out how relations with Ukraine might change/improve within his vision of a more nationalistic Russia. Searching for things that he may have said several years back is not wholly satisfying. He definitely needs to bring things up to date.

    Karlin also seems hesitant to point out how relations with Ukraine might change/improve

    I don’t see any hesitancy or imprecision there.

    He seems fairly straightforward in his opinion that there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian” separate from being a Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    He seems fairly straightforward in his opinion that there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian” separate from being a Russian.
     
    I haven't exactly read an explicit statement made by him about this rather obtuse and historically revisionist point of view. If it' true, his opinion seems to be flying directly into the face of historic reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Mr. Hack
    I was just ready to mention that very fact myself! He really does...he must be the Russian version of the 'human chameleon*!

    *Set in the 1920s and 1930s, the film focuses on Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), a nondescript man who has the ability to transform his appearance to that of the people who surround him. He is first observed at a party by F. Scott Fitzgerald, who notes that Zelig related to the affluent guests in a refined Boston accent and shared their Republican sympathies, but while in the kitchen with the servants, he adopted a coarser tone and seemed to be more of a Democrat. He soon gains international fame as a "human chameleon".

    If you haven't seen 'Zelig' you're missing one of Allen's best and funniest films!

    If you haven’t seen ‘Zelig’ you’re missing one of Allen’s best and funniest films!

    I very much agree, but you left out that it’s obviously a brilliant parody of Jewish people’s yearning to “fit in.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I think that this was obvious, to anyone familiar with Jewish history and humor. You know, Karlin has admitted to having some Jewish roots in his lineage, maybe he's a gene recipient of this phenomena?
    You have to admit that he does look strangely different in most of his photographs? :-)

    BTW, has anybody noticed that Anatoly's pupils seem to have dissapeared from his eyeballs in his latest reincarnation in the related photo?....

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Oliver D. Smith
    Emil Kirkegaard was never "smeared" by s0-called SJW's since newspapers and other news sources, covering the entire political-spectrum exposed him as a child-rape/paedophilia apologist and neo-Nazi; the Socialist Worker is far-left wing, The Guardian is left wing , The Independent is centrist, The Telegraph is centre-right, while the Daily Mail, right-wing. As for far-right, there is a thread on Stormfront criticizing Kirkegaard's obscene child rape comments. It's not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    And no surprise, it turns out the sick freak Kirkegaard is a fan of animated baby porn and wants it made legal:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Animated_baby_porn

    It’s not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    Anyone with a brain can see that he is a through-the-roof high IQ, slightly aspie freethinker who went overboard with the outside-the-box thinking. It happens. Live and let live.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Dmitry
    Reading Karlin's blog for a couple weeks - I would say he is a talented blogger. He tries to stick to facts. He reports on various interesting things and doesn't seem interested in propaganda.

    That doesn't endorse his views which are obviously not all sensible. But Karlin seems like the most reasonable and open-minded writer on the Unz website. Also kind of rebellious views so he would be the first one sent to the gulag - he would hardly fit in well with the totalitarian ideology the article is claiming he endorses.

    Article is relying on a 'guilt by association' based on the fact that many other authors on the Unz website are nutjobs who write propaganda (although entertaining propaganda at least), and that he was reprinted by the Russia Insider website.

    (A plausible case could be made that Russia Insider is somekind of CIA project, perfectly timed to self-destruct the pro-Russia public relations).

    (A plausible case could be made that Russia Insider is somekind of CIA project, perfectly timed to self-destruct the pro-Russia public relations).

    Yes, but it would very likely be baseless. Like it or not, they give voice to the reductionist worldview of most Western russophiles (Washington = all bad, so therefore Moscow = all good).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Yes, but it would very likely be baseless. Like it or not, they give voice to the reductionist worldview of most Western russophiles (Washington = all bad, so therefore Moscow = all good).

     

    And how does this alt-right project using the country's name help the country? Just attracting all old misfits and bitter crackpots to project their fantasies, while giving a totally wrong impression to normal people, not to mention the local elites of foreign countries, and especially the more middle class, professional and educated young European and American people who a country should be trying get to visit (even just for their tourism spending power).

    Above all, this alt-right stuff gives a completely false impression to the West, of a country which is now quite moderate place, with a significant educated middle class - a country where the attitude of most people is not to notice what you do in your own home.

    A few years ago, the worst PR disaster was related to the sexual minorities. There was some kind of misimpression that sexual minorities were being persecuted - even as the reality is the average member of these groups would be far happier in Moscow, than in Alabama.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @iffen
    Karlin also seems hesitant to point out how relations with Ukraine might change/improve

    I don't see any hesitancy or imprecision there.

    He seems fairly straightforward in his opinion that there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian” separate from being a Russian.

    He seems fairly straightforward in his opinion that there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian” separate from being a Russian.

    I haven’t exactly read an explicit statement made by him about this rather obtuse and historically revisionist point of view. If it’ true, his opinion seems to be flying directly into the face of historic reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E
    It's all a continuum, and it's somewhat arbitrary where you want to draw the line between Russia and Poland (that's why the borders have changed so often). The further into the past you go, the more true that is, back when there was no mass media or mass schooling to spread the Moscow dialect. If you look at old folk dialects and songs in different parts of Russia (study some ethnographic folklore...), they are ALSO very different from "modern literary Russian". Same thing with Ukraine -- the countryside spoke an "older" dialect, the cities spoke a more "modern", uniform literary/business Russian. The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language by accentuating and everything that was unique about their local folk dialects, as well as replacing some other Russian words with Polish ones (even the words of the national anthem were taken from Poland). And still, many or most Ukrainians in their cities speak in Russian or in some surzhyk mixture.

    If Ukraine was really a stable nationality, how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had "made it"? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123305344/12515549

    We spoke about Russia, which is Hoff-
    mann's speciality. "Russia," he said, "can-
    not possibly remain split up into several
    States. It must sooner or later come toge-
    ther again as a political unity. The Uk-
    raine and its secessionists are a mere pass-
    ing phase. In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation"—here he
    showed his teeth—"and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
    DUTCH COURAGE FOR AUSTRIA.
    "I created the Ukraine, to put it bluntly,
    merely in order to have a part of Russia
    to make peace with. For at that special
    moment I had to make peace with somebody
    in order that Czernin, the Austrian Minis-
    ter, might return home with something in
    hand to show to his down-hearted people
    and check them in the dry rot that had set
    in among them. Austria was in a state of
    absolute desperation, especially about food.
    So, the Ukraine and the Treaty of Ukraine
    had willy-nilly to be manufactured in order
    to put some Dutch courage into the quaking
    Austrians.
    "It goes without saying," Hoffmann
    continued, "that the creation of a separate
    Southern Russia with political independ-
    ence is a rank absurdity—an absolutely
    artificial and temporary thing; and this
    for the simple reason that you cannot have
    a country with its industries in one place
    and its coal districts a thousand miles away
    in another. The centre of whatever in-
    dustries Russia possesses is Moscow, and
    these industries are dependent upon the
    coal of the River Don basin. It is a truly
    Russian piece of unpracticality not to
    bring the industries to the coal, instead of
    trying to take the coal to the industries, as
    we Germans shall no doubt do if we ever
    got the economic management of Russian
    affairs.
    "That is the main point for Europe to
    think of at present. Russia is down. Her
    leaders and her intellectual classes have
    been murdered and annihilated. Now is
    the chance for non-Russian Europe to step
    in and seize control of the whole of the Rus-
    sian resources. Germany would willingly
    do the work and share the profits with the
    Entente if it would help in the plan.
    "Now is the chance which may never
    occur again. Germany is full of young
    men, excellently trained in technical know-
    ledge and skill in engineering, chem-
    istry, and all the rest of the arts and
    crafts of a modern nation"—he did not
    mention poison gas—"and Russia would be
    a wonderful field for their activities, and
    a safety valve to prevent their explosion
    elsewhere in Europe. In the meantime
    Germany is threatened with the overwhelm-
    ing dangers of Bolshevism."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. guilt by association

    ?

    Funny, I don’t see anything nearly as reprehensible that you’ve written to compare directly with what one can find directly attributable to Kirkegaard:

    Perhaps a compromise is having sex with a sleeping child without them knowing it (so, using sleeping medicine). If they dont[sic] notice it is difficult to see how they cud[sic] be harmed, even if it is rape.[27]

    Your seeming greenlight here to Kirkegard seems rather out of character here? What gives?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. @DFH
    Also, nowhere in the article linked on your site does he say that he is a fan, or in anyway likes, animated child pornography. Nor does he 'want it made legal' (it was already legal in Denmark when the article was written), he presents arguments against making it illegal. You're a liar.

    He penned an essay defending animated baby-porn and argues for it to be made legal in Norway and Sweden and any other country that has banned it. So he does support legalising it since the vast majority of countries have banned it (Denmark being the only notable exception).

    When questioned if he supports possession/legalising of *real* child porn, what did he say?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    “As for possession, I’m unsure. My blogpost is from 2012, 5 years ago, and I haven’t thought much of the topic since.”

    What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write. A non-paedophile of course is against child porn, but Kirkegaard is ambiguous/undecided and refuses to be against it.

    Furthermore, Kirkegaard uses the paedophilia-apologist definition of paedophilia as pre-pubescent:

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1863285

    In his essay where he proposes a compromise for paedophiles is to rape children while they sleep, Kirkegaard wrote:

    “One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems.”

    Children in puberty are as young as 11-12; in other words Kirkegaard literally supports adults having sex with children, who while not pre-pubescent are still under the age of consent.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Child_rape

    Why are you defending a blatant paedophile?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    So you admit that he didn't say anything indicating he was 'a fan of animated baby porn' (your words) and you were lying? And you still haven't answered my question if he was apologising for paedophiles when he said they should be castrated
    , @utu
    I have never seen child porn so I am not sure what it is. Or maybe I did and did not even know it. I have been to museums where I saw paintings or photographs of naked children. I have seen many naked children on beaches in Europe. It used to be normal. I did not think there was anything wrong with it.

    So what is child porn and why are we supposed to be so upset about it that we send people to prison for it? For very stiff sentences here in the US of A. You seem to be very upset about child porn so I presume you know a lot about child pornography. Could you explain to ignoramuses like me why should we be upset like yourself?
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    "What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write."

    Sounds like you're writing from experience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Oliver D. Smith
    Emil Kirkegaard was never "smeared" by s0-called SJW's since newspapers and other news sources, covering the entire political-spectrum exposed him as a child-rape/paedophilia apologist and neo-Nazi; the Socialist Worker is far-left wing, The Guardian is left wing , The Independent is centrist, The Telegraph is centre-right, while the Daily Mail, right-wing. As for far-right, there is a thread on Stormfront criticizing Kirkegaard's obscene child rape comments. It's not a right or left issue, but right or wrong: anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.

    And no surprise, it turns out the sick freak Kirkegaard is a fan of animated baby porn and wants it made legal:
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Animated_baby_porn

    You can actually write any of the MSM distributors as “right” while not breaking out in laughter. Well done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Swedish Family

    If you haven’t seen ‘Zelig’ you’re missing one of Allen’s best and funniest films!
     
    I very much agree, but you left out that it's obviously a brilliant parody of Jewish people's yearning to "fit in."

    I think that this was obvious, to anyone familiar with Jewish history and humor. You know, Karlin has admitted to having some Jewish roots in his lineage, maybe he’s a gene recipient of this phenomena?
    You have to admit that he does look strangely different in most of his photographs? :-)

    BTW, has anybody noticed that Anatoly’s pupils seem to have dissapeared from his eyeballs in his latest reincarnation in the related photo?….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Oliver D. Smith
    He penned an essay defending animated baby-porn and argues for it to be made legal in Norway and Sweden and any other country that has banned it. So he does support legalising it since the vast majority of countries have banned it (Denmark being the only notable exception).

    When questioned if he supports possession/legalising of *real* child porn, what did he say?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    "As for possession, I'm unsure. My blogpost is from 2012, 5 years ago, and I haven't thought much of the topic since."

    What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write. A non-paedophile of course is against child porn, but Kirkegaard is ambiguous/undecided and refuses to be against it.

    Furthermore, Kirkegaard uses the paedophilia-apologist definition of paedophilia as pre-pubescent:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1863285

    In his essay where he proposes a compromise for paedophiles is to rape children while they sleep, Kirkegaard wrote:

    "One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems."

    Children in puberty are as young as 11-12; in other words Kirkegaard literally supports adults having sex with children, who while not pre-pubescent are still under the age of consent.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Child_rape

    Why are you defending a blatant paedophile?

    So you admit that he didn’t say anything indicating he was ‘a fan of animated baby porn’ (your words) and you were lying? And you still haven’t answered my question if he was apologising for paedophiles when he said they should be castrated

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in, which is virtually all countries - so it's the same thing to describe him as a "fan of animated baby porn". The point is: only paedophiles support possession of CP or cartoon baby porn. If Kirkegaard isn't a paedophile, why is he pro-CP? Why would a non-paedophile want to legalise obscene cartoons of babies being raped in diapers? Please do care to explain.... Like I said, it's obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile. This is why all mainstream newspapers described him as either a paedophile-apologist or paedophile. And these journalists independently read Kirkegaard's comments and came to the same conclusion as myself. The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard's cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

    He never posted paedophiles should be castrated, what he said was this:

    "the best solution to one who is exclusively aroused by very young children: castration, either medical or fysical. This will help reduce libido."

    He's added "very" there when this was not mentioned earlier, so is talking here of infants or pre-pubescent. In the same post he says there are no moral issues for adults to have sex with " rather young ones" in puberty, so he's distinguishing children in puberty to pre-pubescent's; he's fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia. Kirkegaard though restricts the term paedophilia to only pre-pubescent's. This is what paedophilia-apologists do to try to normalise having sex with children in puberty but below age of consent.

    This is all explained on the RW article.

    And if you're claiming I "smeared" Kirkegaard, are you saying every mainstream journalist/newspaper has as well?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @German_reader

    anyone with a moral conscience can see Kirkegaard is a vile human and paedophile.
     
    I think Kirkegaard's "thought experiment" was rather misguided (and there was a lengthy discussion about that in the thread about SJWs attacking the London conference), but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that he himself has any pedophile tendencies, let alone has ever acted on them. Nor he can be called a dedicated pedophilia apologist based on just one or two strange blog posts. That's just a smear, and shows how rotten mainstream media has become.

    Kirkegaard showed up on RationalWiki in 2017 to defend child rape, since he claims there is no mental harm if adults rape children:

    “My remark was simply that if you have sex with someone [children] while they are asleep and somehow don’t wake up from it and they never discover it later somehow, it is not likely for there to be any causal effects on mental health. How would there be?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    What sort of person types something like this? Kirkegaard is seriously sick in the mind and anyone defending him here should be ashamed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @E
    So... is he wrong? Isn't he making the same argument as the one about invisible pink unicorns? I'm sure you're familiar with it. If he IS wrong, within his premises, how?

    I'll answer for my part: the problem is that his premise is far too likely to be wrong, because there is a relatively high likelihood that the child WILL discover what happened at some point, which would cause horrible mental health effects. IF however we assume that his premise is correct and the child NEVER finds out what happened (which is unlikely, and a bad, immoral risk to take, but assuming that's the case), then there is no possible way for there to be any mental health effects. If you disagree with this, please explain how. And explain how it's any different than the invisible pink unicorns argument.

    , @German_reader
    I think Kirkegaard's views on this issue are rather misguided (his reasoning seems rather flawed), but they're a long way from the defense of pedophilia you're claiming them to be. And there's zero evidence that Kierkegaard himself has any sexual attraction to children, let alone acted on it. Unless you produce evidence to the contrary, you should stop calling him a pedophile (aren't you in the UK where there are strict libel laws? Seems like this could be legally relevant).
    Anyway, what's this got to do with Karlin? Btw, did you actually write that rationalwiki page about him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Mr. Hack

    He seems fairly straightforward in his opinion that there is no such thing as a “Ukrainian” separate from being a Russian.
     
    I haven't exactly read an explicit statement made by him about this rather obtuse and historically revisionist point of view. If it' true, his opinion seems to be flying directly into the face of historic reality.

    It’s all a continuum, and it’s somewhat arbitrary where you want to draw the line between Russia and Poland (that’s why the borders have changed so often). The further into the past you go, the more true that is, back when there was no mass media or mass schooling to spread the Moscow dialect. If you look at old folk dialects and songs in different parts of Russia (study some ethnographic folklore…), they are ALSO very different from “modern literary Russian”. Same thing with Ukraine — the countryside spoke an “older” dialect, the cities spoke a more “modern”, uniform literary/business Russian. The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language by accentuating and everything that was unique about their local folk dialects, as well as replacing some other Russian words with Polish ones (even the words of the national anthem were taken from Poland). And still, many or most Ukrainians in their cities speak in Russian or in some surzhyk mixture.

    If Ukraine was really a stable nationality, how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had “made it”? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123305344/12515549

    We spoke about Russia, which is Hoff-
    mann’s speciality. “Russia,” he said, “can-
    not possibly remain split up into several
    States. It must sooner or later come toge-
    ther again as a political unity. The Uk-
    raine and its secessionists are a mere pass-
    ing phase. In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation”—here he
    showed his teeth—”and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
    DUTCH COURAGE FOR AUSTRIA.
    “I created the Ukraine, to put it bluntly,
    merely in order to have a part of Russia
    to make peace with. For at that special
    moment I had to make peace with somebody
    in order that Czernin, the Austrian Minis-
    ter, might return home with something in
    hand to show to his down-hearted people
    and check them in the dry rot that had set
    in among them. Austria was in a state of
    absolute desperation, especially about food.
    So, the Ukraine and the Treaty of Ukraine
    had willy-nilly to be manufactured in order
    to put some Dutch courage into the quaking
    Austrians.
    “It goes without saying,” Hoffmann
    continued, “that the creation of a separate
    Southern Russia with political independ-
    ence is a rank absurdity—an absolutely
    artificial and temporary thing; and this
    for the simple reason that you cannot have
    a country with its industries in one place
    and its coal districts a thousand miles away
    in another. The centre of whatever in-
    dustries Russia possesses is Moscow, and
    these industries are dependent upon the
    coal of the River Don basin. It is a truly
    Russian piece of unpracticality not to
    bring the industries to the coal, instead of
    trying to take the coal to the industries, as
    we Germans shall no doubt do if we ever
    got the economic management of Russian
    affairs.
    “That is the main point for Europe to
    think of at present. Russia is down. Her
    leaders and her intellectual classes have
    been murdered and annihilated. Now is
    the chance for non-Russian Europe to step
    in and seize control of the whole of the Rus-
    sian resources. Germany would willingly
    do the work and share the profits with the
    Entente if it would help in the plan.
    “Now is the chance which may never
    occur again. Germany is full of young
    men, excellently trained in technical know-
    ledge and skill in engineering, chem-
    istry, and all the rest of the arts and
    crafts of a modern nation”—he did not
    mention poison gas—”and Russia would be
    a wonderful field for their activities, and
    a safety valve to prevent their explosion
    elsewhere in Europe. In the meantime
    Germany is threatened with the overwhelm-
    ing dangers of Bolshevism.”

    Read More
    • LOL: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Daniil Adamov
    The first paragraph I'd more or less agree with, but: "how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had “made it”?" I could boast of having caused Americans to elect Trump with my psychic powers, but that wouldn't mean it happened. German generals in the 20th century have a terrible track record of claiming to be much smarter and more important than they really were, except, of course, around the Holocaust. More broadly, of course there was some proto-Ukrainean feeling in some parts of what is now Ukraine for far longer than that, and Ukrainean nationalism as such definitely predated WWI, though not all people who would now pass as Ukraineans would have found it relatable.
    , @Mr. Hack
    All of the photos within this collection were taken in Kyiv during 1919. 100,000's of Ukrainians turned up to support the Act of Unification between Western and Central Ukraine. In contrast to this one German General that you cite, I'd urge you to take a long hard look at these photos if you're really intereted in Ukrainian history (my favorite for gauging the vastness of the crowds is the tenth photo).
    Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words!


    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#10
    , @Jaakko Raipala

    In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation”—here he
    showed his teeth—”and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
     
    Actually this quote seems to not support your view on Ukraine. He is quite clearly implying that a popular Ukrainian identity existed and he is boasting that he has duped the locals into thinking that Germany is actually in favor of the popular sentiment. The long term plan of canceling Ukrainian independence that he explains has economic, not ethnic, motivations.
    , @AP

    Same thing with Ukraine — the countryside spoke an “older” dialect, the cities spoke a more “modern”, uniform literary/business Russian.
     
    When? In 1897 Kiev guberniya was something like 6% Russian speaking. The Russian-speakers were mostly ethnic Russian colonists from Russia.

    The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language
     
    Little Russian (identical to Ukrainian) was in writing in the 18th century. It was standardized as Little Russian in the 1850s-1860s, and this standardized Little Russian was renamed as Ukrainian a decade or so later. No Ukrainian government came to power until decades after that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard showed up on RationalWiki in 2017 to defend child rape, since he claims there is no mental harm if adults rape children:

    "My remark was simply that if you have sex with someone [children] while they are asleep and somehow don't wake up from it and they never discover it later somehow, it is not likely for there to be any causal effects on mental health. How would there be?"
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    What sort of person types something like this? Kirkegaard is seriously sick in the mind and anyone defending him here should be ashamed.

    So… is he wrong? Isn’t he making the same argument as the one about invisible pink unicorns? I’m sure you’re familiar with it. If he IS wrong, within his premises, how?

    I’ll answer for my part: the problem is that his premise is far too likely to be wrong, because there is a relatively high likelihood that the child WILL discover what happened at some point, which would cause horrible mental health effects. IF however we assume that his premise is correct and the child NEVER finds out what happened (which is unlikely, and a bad, immoral risk to take, but assuming that’s the case), then there is no possible way for there to be any mental health effects. If you disagree with this, please explain how. And explain how it’s any different than the invisible pink unicorns argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard showed up on RationalWiki in 2017 to defend child rape, since he claims there is no mental harm if adults rape children:

    "My remark was simply that if you have sex with someone [children] while they are asleep and somehow don't wake up from it and they never discover it later somehow, it is not likely for there to be any causal effects on mental health. How would there be?"
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    What sort of person types something like this? Kirkegaard is seriously sick in the mind and anyone defending him here should be ashamed.

    I think Kirkegaard’s views on this issue are rather misguided (his reasoning seems rather flawed), but they’re a long way from the defense of pedophilia you’re claiming them to be. And there’s zero evidence that Kierkegaard himself has any sexual attraction to children, let alone acted on it. Unless you produce evidence to the contrary, you should stop calling him a pedophile (aren’t you in the UK where there are strict libel laws? Seems like this could be legally relevant).
    Anyway, what’s this got to do with Karlin? Btw, did you actually write that rationalwiki page about him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    It's a schizo NEET, I wouldn't be optimistic about reasoning with him
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @German_reader
    I think Kirkegaard's views on this issue are rather misguided (his reasoning seems rather flawed), but they're a long way from the defense of pedophilia you're claiming them to be. And there's zero evidence that Kierkegaard himself has any sexual attraction to children, let alone acted on it. Unless you produce evidence to the contrary, you should stop calling him a pedophile (aren't you in the UK where there are strict libel laws? Seems like this could be legally relevant).
    Anyway, what's this got to do with Karlin? Btw, did you actually write that rationalwiki page about him?

    It’s a schizo NEET, I wouldn’t be optimistic about reasoning with him

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @E
    It's all a continuum, and it's somewhat arbitrary where you want to draw the line between Russia and Poland (that's why the borders have changed so often). The further into the past you go, the more true that is, back when there was no mass media or mass schooling to spread the Moscow dialect. If you look at old folk dialects and songs in different parts of Russia (study some ethnographic folklore...), they are ALSO very different from "modern literary Russian". Same thing with Ukraine -- the countryside spoke an "older" dialect, the cities spoke a more "modern", uniform literary/business Russian. The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language by accentuating and everything that was unique about their local folk dialects, as well as replacing some other Russian words with Polish ones (even the words of the national anthem were taken from Poland). And still, many or most Ukrainians in their cities speak in Russian or in some surzhyk mixture.

    If Ukraine was really a stable nationality, how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had "made it"? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123305344/12515549

    We spoke about Russia, which is Hoff-
    mann's speciality. "Russia," he said, "can-
    not possibly remain split up into several
    States. It must sooner or later come toge-
    ther again as a political unity. The Uk-
    raine and its secessionists are a mere pass-
    ing phase. In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation"—here he
    showed his teeth—"and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
    DUTCH COURAGE FOR AUSTRIA.
    "I created the Ukraine, to put it bluntly,
    merely in order to have a part of Russia
    to make peace with. For at that special
    moment I had to make peace with somebody
    in order that Czernin, the Austrian Minis-
    ter, might return home with something in
    hand to show to his down-hearted people
    and check them in the dry rot that had set
    in among them. Austria was in a state of
    absolute desperation, especially about food.
    So, the Ukraine and the Treaty of Ukraine
    had willy-nilly to be manufactured in order
    to put some Dutch courage into the quaking
    Austrians.
    "It goes without saying," Hoffmann
    continued, "that the creation of a separate
    Southern Russia with political independ-
    ence is a rank absurdity—an absolutely
    artificial and temporary thing; and this
    for the simple reason that you cannot have
    a country with its industries in one place
    and its coal districts a thousand miles away
    in another. The centre of whatever in-
    dustries Russia possesses is Moscow, and
    these industries are dependent upon the
    coal of the River Don basin. It is a truly
    Russian piece of unpracticality not to
    bring the industries to the coal, instead of
    trying to take the coal to the industries, as
    we Germans shall no doubt do if we ever
    got the economic management of Russian
    affairs.
    "That is the main point for Europe to
    think of at present. Russia is down. Her
    leaders and her intellectual classes have
    been murdered and annihilated. Now is
    the chance for non-Russian Europe to step
    in and seize control of the whole of the Rus-
    sian resources. Germany would willingly
    do the work and share the profits with the
    Entente if it would help in the plan.
    "Now is the chance which may never
    occur again. Germany is full of young
    men, excellently trained in technical know-
    ledge and skill in engineering, chem-
    istry, and all the rest of the arts and
    crafts of a modern nation"—he did not
    mention poison gas—"and Russia would be
    a wonderful field for their activities, and
    a safety valve to prevent their explosion
    elsewhere in Europe. In the meantime
    Germany is threatened with the overwhelm-
    ing dangers of Bolshevism."

    The first paragraph I’d more or less agree with, but: “how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had “made it”?” I could boast of having caused Americans to elect Trump with my psychic powers, but that wouldn’t mean it happened. German generals in the 20th century have a terrible track record of claiming to be much smarter and more important than they really were, except, of course, around the Holocaust. More broadly, of course there was some proto-Ukrainean feeling in some parts of what is now Ukraine for far longer than that, and Ukrainean nationalism as such definitely predated WWI, though not all people who would now pass as Ukraineans would have found it relatable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Oliver D. Smith
    He penned an essay defending animated baby-porn and argues for it to be made legal in Norway and Sweden and any other country that has banned it. So he does support legalising it since the vast majority of countries have banned it (Denmark being the only notable exception).

    When questioned if he supports possession/legalising of *real* child porn, what did he say?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    "As for possession, I'm unsure. My blogpost is from 2012, 5 years ago, and I haven't thought much of the topic since."

    What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write. A non-paedophile of course is against child porn, but Kirkegaard is ambiguous/undecided and refuses to be against it.

    Furthermore, Kirkegaard uses the paedophilia-apologist definition of paedophilia as pre-pubescent:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1863285

    In his essay where he proposes a compromise for paedophiles is to rape children while they sleep, Kirkegaard wrote:

    "One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems."

    Children in puberty are as young as 11-12; in other words Kirkegaard literally supports adults having sex with children, who while not pre-pubescent are still under the age of consent.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Child_rape

    Why are you defending a blatant paedophile?

    I have never seen child porn so I am not sure what it is. Or maybe I did and did not even know it. I have been to museums where I saw paintings or photographs of naked children. I have seen many naked children on beaches in Europe. It used to be normal. I did not think there was anything wrong with it.

    So what is child porn and why are we supposed to be so upset about it that we send people to prison for it? For very stiff sentences here in the US of A. You seem to be very upset about child porn so I presume you know a lot about child pornography. Could you explain to ignoramuses like me why should we be upset like yourself?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    It's also interesting that he uses Kirkegaard's defense of animated child porn as a sign of his pedophilia, while animated child porn itself is legal in many countries, and was actually made legal in the US by the Supreme Court in 2002 - in other words, either he is willing to say the Supreme Court consists of pedophiles, or he has to drop the charges against Kirkegaard.

    The reasoning SCOTUS (and I think Kirkegaard, too) used is that no one was harmed while making animated child porn, however vile, and so no crime could have been committed. The only thing illegal would be to depict a real person in child porn, like a real child's face animated to make it look like the real child is engaged in it, because such a video would harm the child who was depicted that way. But video of a generic child (not resembling any particular person) was permitted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @E
    It's all a continuum, and it's somewhat arbitrary where you want to draw the line between Russia and Poland (that's why the borders have changed so often). The further into the past you go, the more true that is, back when there was no mass media or mass schooling to spread the Moscow dialect. If you look at old folk dialects and songs in different parts of Russia (study some ethnographic folklore...), they are ALSO very different from "modern literary Russian". Same thing with Ukraine -- the countryside spoke an "older" dialect, the cities spoke a more "modern", uniform literary/business Russian. The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language by accentuating and everything that was unique about their local folk dialects, as well as replacing some other Russian words with Polish ones (even the words of the national anthem were taken from Poland). And still, many or most Ukrainians in their cities speak in Russian or in some surzhyk mixture.

    If Ukraine was really a stable nationality, how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had "made it"? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123305344/12515549

    We spoke about Russia, which is Hoff-
    mann's speciality. "Russia," he said, "can-
    not possibly remain split up into several
    States. It must sooner or later come toge-
    ther again as a political unity. The Uk-
    raine and its secessionists are a mere pass-
    ing phase. In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation"—here he
    showed his teeth—"and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
    DUTCH COURAGE FOR AUSTRIA.
    "I created the Ukraine, to put it bluntly,
    merely in order to have a part of Russia
    to make peace with. For at that special
    moment I had to make peace with somebody
    in order that Czernin, the Austrian Minis-
    ter, might return home with something in
    hand to show to his down-hearted people
    and check them in the dry rot that had set
    in among them. Austria was in a state of
    absolute desperation, especially about food.
    So, the Ukraine and the Treaty of Ukraine
    had willy-nilly to be manufactured in order
    to put some Dutch courage into the quaking
    Austrians.
    "It goes without saying," Hoffmann
    continued, "that the creation of a separate
    Southern Russia with political independ-
    ence is a rank absurdity—an absolutely
    artificial and temporary thing; and this
    for the simple reason that you cannot have
    a country with its industries in one place
    and its coal districts a thousand miles away
    in another. The centre of whatever in-
    dustries Russia possesses is Moscow, and
    these industries are dependent upon the
    coal of the River Don basin. It is a truly
    Russian piece of unpracticality not to
    bring the industries to the coal, instead of
    trying to take the coal to the industries, as
    we Germans shall no doubt do if we ever
    got the economic management of Russian
    affairs.
    "That is the main point for Europe to
    think of at present. Russia is down. Her
    leaders and her intellectual classes have
    been murdered and annihilated. Now is
    the chance for non-Russian Europe to step
    in and seize control of the whole of the Rus-
    sian resources. Germany would willingly
    do the work and share the profits with the
    Entente if it would help in the plan.
    "Now is the chance which may never
    occur again. Germany is full of young
    men, excellently trained in technical know-
    ledge and skill in engineering, chem-
    istry, and all the rest of the arts and
    crafts of a modern nation"—he did not
    mention poison gas—"and Russia would be
    a wonderful field for their activities, and
    a safety valve to prevent their explosion
    elsewhere in Europe. In the meantime
    Germany is threatened with the overwhelm-
    ing dangers of Bolshevism."

    All of the photos within this collection were taken in Kyiv during 1919. 100,000′s of Ukrainians turned up to support the Act of Unification between Western and Central Ukraine. In contrast to this one German General that you cite, I’d urge you to take a long hard look at these photos if you’re really intereted in Ukrainian history (my favorite for gauging the vastness of the crowds is the tenth photo).
    Remember, a picture is worth a thousand words!

    http://www.istpravda.com.ua/artefacts/2011/01/22/17352/#10

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @E
    It's all a continuum, and it's somewhat arbitrary where you want to draw the line between Russia and Poland (that's why the borders have changed so often). The further into the past you go, the more true that is, back when there was no mass media or mass schooling to spread the Moscow dialect. If you look at old folk dialects and songs in different parts of Russia (study some ethnographic folklore...), they are ALSO very different from "modern literary Russian". Same thing with Ukraine -- the countryside spoke an "older" dialect, the cities spoke a more "modern", uniform literary/business Russian. The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language by accentuating and everything that was unique about their local folk dialects, as well as replacing some other Russian words with Polish ones (even the words of the national anthem were taken from Poland). And still, many or most Ukrainians in their cities speak in Russian or in some surzhyk mixture.

    If Ukraine was really a stable nationality, how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had "made it"? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123305344/12515549

    We spoke about Russia, which is Hoff-
    mann's speciality. "Russia," he said, "can-
    not possibly remain split up into several
    States. It must sooner or later come toge-
    ther again as a political unity. The Uk-
    raine and its secessionists are a mere pass-
    ing phase. In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation"—here he
    showed his teeth—"and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
    DUTCH COURAGE FOR AUSTRIA.
    "I created the Ukraine, to put it bluntly,
    merely in order to have a part of Russia
    to make peace with. For at that special
    moment I had to make peace with somebody
    in order that Czernin, the Austrian Minis-
    ter, might return home with something in
    hand to show to his down-hearted people
    and check them in the dry rot that had set
    in among them. Austria was in a state of
    absolute desperation, especially about food.
    So, the Ukraine and the Treaty of Ukraine
    had willy-nilly to be manufactured in order
    to put some Dutch courage into the quaking
    Austrians.
    "It goes without saying," Hoffmann
    continued, "that the creation of a separate
    Southern Russia with political independ-
    ence is a rank absurdity—an absolutely
    artificial and temporary thing; and this
    for the simple reason that you cannot have
    a country with its industries in one place
    and its coal districts a thousand miles away
    in another. The centre of whatever in-
    dustries Russia possesses is Moscow, and
    these industries are dependent upon the
    coal of the River Don basin. It is a truly
    Russian piece of unpracticality not to
    bring the industries to the coal, instead of
    trying to take the coal to the industries, as
    we Germans shall no doubt do if we ever
    got the economic management of Russian
    affairs.
    "That is the main point for Europe to
    think of at present. Russia is down. Her
    leaders and her intellectual classes have
    been murdered and annihilated. Now is
    the chance for non-Russian Europe to step
    in and seize control of the whole of the Rus-
    sian resources. Germany would willingly
    do the work and share the profits with the
    Entente if it would help in the plan.
    "Now is the chance which may never
    occur again. Germany is full of young
    men, excellently trained in technical know-
    ledge and skill in engineering, chem-
    istry, and all the rest of the arts and
    crafts of a modern nation"—he did not
    mention poison gas—"and Russia would be
    a wonderful field for their activities, and
    a safety valve to prevent their explosion
    elsewhere in Europe. In the meantime
    Germany is threatened with the overwhelm-
    ing dangers of Bolshevism."

    In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation”—here he
    showed his teeth—”and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.

    Actually this quote seems to not support your view on Ukraine. He is quite clearly implying that a popular Ukrainian identity existed and he is boasting that he has duped the locals into thinking that Germany is actually in favor of the popular sentiment. The long term plan of canceling Ukrainian independence that he explains has economic, not ethnic, motivations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @E
    It's all a continuum, and it's somewhat arbitrary where you want to draw the line between Russia and Poland (that's why the borders have changed so often). The further into the past you go, the more true that is, back when there was no mass media or mass schooling to spread the Moscow dialect. If you look at old folk dialects and songs in different parts of Russia (study some ethnographic folklore...), they are ALSO very different from "modern literary Russian". Same thing with Ukraine -- the countryside spoke an "older" dialect, the cities spoke a more "modern", uniform literary/business Russian. The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language by accentuating and everything that was unique about their local folk dialects, as well as replacing some other Russian words with Polish ones (even the words of the national anthem were taken from Poland). And still, many or most Ukrainians in their cities speak in Russian or in some surzhyk mixture.

    If Ukraine was really a stable nationality, how could a German general boast in 1919 that he had "made it"? https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/123305344/12515549

    We spoke about Russia, which is Hoff-
    mann's speciality. "Russia," he said, "can-
    not possibly remain split up into several
    States. It must sooner or later come toge-
    ther again as a political unity. The Uk-
    raine and its secessionists are a mere pass-
    ing phase. In fact, the Ukraine was my
    suggestion, and my creation"—here he
    showed his teeth—"and not a spontaneous
    wish of its inhabitants at all, although the
    Ukrainians may choose to think so.
    DUTCH COURAGE FOR AUSTRIA.
    "I created the Ukraine, to put it bluntly,
    merely in order to have a part of Russia
    to make peace with. For at that special
    moment I had to make peace with somebody
    in order that Czernin, the Austrian Minis-
    ter, might return home with something in
    hand to show to his down-hearted people
    and check them in the dry rot that had set
    in among them. Austria was in a state of
    absolute desperation, especially about food.
    So, the Ukraine and the Treaty of Ukraine
    had willy-nilly to be manufactured in order
    to put some Dutch courage into the quaking
    Austrians.
    "It goes without saying," Hoffmann
    continued, "that the creation of a separate
    Southern Russia with political independ-
    ence is a rank absurdity—an absolutely
    artificial and temporary thing; and this
    for the simple reason that you cannot have
    a country with its industries in one place
    and its coal districts a thousand miles away
    in another. The centre of whatever in-
    dustries Russia possesses is Moscow, and
    these industries are dependent upon the
    coal of the River Don basin. It is a truly
    Russian piece of unpracticality not to
    bring the industries to the coal, instead of
    trying to take the coal to the industries, as
    we Germans shall no doubt do if we ever
    got the economic management of Russian
    affairs.
    "That is the main point for Europe to
    think of at present. Russia is down. Her
    leaders and her intellectual classes have
    been murdered and annihilated. Now is
    the chance for non-Russian Europe to step
    in and seize control of the whole of the Rus-
    sian resources. Germany would willingly
    do the work and share the profits with the
    Entente if it would help in the plan.
    "Now is the chance which may never
    occur again. Germany is full of young
    men, excellently trained in technical know-
    ledge and skill in engineering, chem-
    istry, and all the rest of the arts and
    crafts of a modern nation"—he did not
    mention poison gas—"and Russia would be
    a wonderful field for their activities, and
    a safety valve to prevent their explosion
    elsewhere in Europe. In the meantime
    Germany is threatened with the overwhelm-
    ing dangers of Bolshevism."

    Same thing with Ukraine — the countryside spoke an “older” dialect, the cities spoke a more “modern”, uniform literary/business Russian.

    When? In 1897 Kiev guberniya was something like 6% Russian speaking. The Russian-speakers were mostly ethnic Russian colonists from Russia.

    The difference with Ukraine is that an elite came into power who for their own legitimacy needed to separate themselves from Moscow, so they decided to create a different standardized language

    Little Russian (identical to Ukrainian) was in writing in the 18th century. It was standardized as Little Russian in the 1850s-1860s, and this standardized Little Russian was renamed as Ukrainian a decade or so later. No Ukrainian government came to power until decades after that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Swedish Family

    (A plausible case could be made that Russia Insider is somekind of CIA project, perfectly timed to self-destruct the pro-Russia public relations).
     
    Yes, but it would very likely be baseless. Like it or not, they give voice to the reductionist worldview of most Western russophiles (Washington = all bad, so therefore Moscow = all good).

    Yes, but it would very likely be baseless. Like it or not, they give voice to the reductionist worldview of most Western russophiles (Washington = all bad, so therefore Moscow = all good).

    And how does this alt-right project using the country’s name help the country? Just attracting all old misfits and bitter crackpots to project their fantasies, while giving a totally wrong impression to normal people, not to mention the local elites of foreign countries, and especially the more middle class, professional and educated young European and American people who a country should be trying get to visit (even just for their tourism spending power).

    Above all, this alt-right stuff gives a completely false impression to the West, of a country which is now quite moderate place, with a significant educated middle class – a country where the attitude of most people is not to notice what you do in your own home.

    A few years ago, the worst PR disaster was related to the sexual minorities. There was some kind of misimpression that sexual minorities were being persecuted – even as the reality is the average member of these groups would be far happier in Moscow, than in Alabama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Swedish Family

    And how does this alt-right project using the country’s name help the country? Just attracting all old misfits and bitter crackpots to project their fantasies, while giving a totally wrong impression to normal people, not to mention the local elites of foreign countries, and especially the more middle class, professional and educated young European and American people who a country should be trying get to visit (even just for their tourism spending power).
     
    Agree on all counts. I just don't think the Kremlin had a hand in setting the project up. Having said that, Bausman has appeared on Russian state TV (Vladimir Solovyov's talk show, if memory serves, and also RT, of course), so they do give him some exposure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. its pretty funny when the left goes on spurious pedo apologist hunts against the right when their own side is openly working to normalize it (see Salon dot com).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I've already refuted this claim, if you look at the newspapers that call Kirkegaard a child-rape or paedophile-apologist etc., they cover the left-right wing spectrum. centre, centre-right and right-wing newspapers call him a child-rape apologist. Now what? This is not a witch hunt by the left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @DFH
    So you admit that he didn't say anything indicating he was 'a fan of animated baby porn' (your words) and you were lying? And you still haven't answered my question if he was apologising for paedophiles when he said they should be castrated

    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in, which is virtually all countries – so it’s the same thing to describe him as a “fan of animated baby porn”. The point is: only paedophiles support possession of CP or cartoon baby porn. If Kirkegaard isn’t a paedophile, why is he pro-CP? Why would a non-paedophile want to legalise obscene cartoons of babies being raped in diapers? Please do care to explain…. Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile. This is why all mainstream newspapers described him as either a paedophile-apologist or paedophile. And these journalists independently read Kirkegaard’s comments and came to the same conclusion as myself. The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard’s cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

    He never posted paedophiles should be castrated, what he said was this:

    “the best solution to one who is exclusively aroused by very young children: castration, either medical or fysical. This will help reduce libido.”

    He’s added “very” there when this was not mentioned earlier, so is talking here of infants or pre-pubescent. In the same post he says there are no moral issues for adults to have sex with ” rather young ones” in puberty, so he’s distinguishing children in puberty to pre-pubescent’s; he’s fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia. Kirkegaard though restricts the term paedophilia to only pre-pubescent’s. This is what paedophilia-apologists do to try to normalise having sex with children in puberty but below age of consent.

    This is all explained on the RW article.

    And if you’re claiming I “smeared” Kirkegaard, are you saying every mainstream journalist/newspaper has as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in
     
    Chief argument against child porn is that real children are raped, tortured etc. for its production. This obviously doesn't apply to animated media. Most people would still regard such media as repellent (I certainly do), but imo it's not a clear-cut issue whether they should be legal or not. Arguing such media should be legal certainly doesn't equal support for real-life child rape.

    Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile
     
    That's not obvious at all, you've provided zero evidence for that accusation; if I were you, I'd be careful, you might get sued for such slander.

    The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard’s cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

     

    Most people here aren't Nazis. And if they are, they're moderate Nazis.

    he’s fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia
     
    That's not correct, see here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
    , @Swedish Family

    Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile.
     
    As German Reader points out, this is not at all obvious. You have no evidence whatever that he ever touched a child or watched child pornography. All you have are some, yes, very disturbing comments of his, but those are not evidence in themselves.
    , @bb.
    These topic are certainly not pleasant and they have certainly disturbed many, but that is no reason to loose your jimmies. You are taking great liberties in interpreting his motives or personality. There is literally nothing controversial about what he said, except the issue itself.
    There is actually good evidence that availability of (animated) child porn acts as a substitute to the deviant, lowering the number of attacks, rapes, molestation.
    (check :https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-010-9696-y)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Lemurmaniac
    its pretty funny when the left goes on spurious pedo apologist hunts against the right when their own side is openly working to normalize it (see Salon dot com).

    I’ve already refuted this claim, if you look at the newspapers that call Kirkegaard a child-rape or paedophile-apologist etc., they cover the left-right wing spectrum. centre, centre-right and right-wing newspapers call him a child-rape apologist. Now what? This is not a witch hunt by the left.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lemurmaniac
    Based on your online footprint, we know you have a weird anti-sex fetish in general. Thus, you have neither temperament nor objectivity to handle the admittedly ill-advised thought experiment Kirkegaard developed.

    Also, the 'spread' (or range in mathematical terms) on the mainstream spectrum is pretty narrow. That's why outlets like National Review and Fox would publish articles like 'The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage' when that debate was going on. Major newspapers, no matter where they ostensibly fall politically, share the same underlying consensus, and merely provide niche interpretations of it depending on what cohorts they choose to target. If Fox wants Western intervention in Syria to uphold the 'American led liberal order', the Guardian wants it for the cause of 'human rights' and 'international accountability.' Same sausage, different slicing. These entities perceive the alternative academic and media sphere as a threat to their hegemony and business model. Thus, they are happy to smear anybody associated with it. This was why it was foolish of K to to given them such easy canon fodder to misconstrue.

    So your "refutation" is really an appeal to authority of the most egregious kind, because the 'authority' is the establishment borg mind. The same people who promoted the idea Trump went to Moscow and enjoyed an interlude of watersports....
    , @Lemurmaniac
    Also, what a sad little man you are. I can only imagine what its like to live a life defined by feuds on the internet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in, which is virtually all countries - so it's the same thing to describe him as a "fan of animated baby porn". The point is: only paedophiles support possession of CP or cartoon baby porn. If Kirkegaard isn't a paedophile, why is he pro-CP? Why would a non-paedophile want to legalise obscene cartoons of babies being raped in diapers? Please do care to explain.... Like I said, it's obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile. This is why all mainstream newspapers described him as either a paedophile-apologist or paedophile. And these journalists independently read Kirkegaard's comments and came to the same conclusion as myself. The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard's cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

    He never posted paedophiles should be castrated, what he said was this:

    "the best solution to one who is exclusively aroused by very young children: castration, either medical or fysical. This will help reduce libido."

    He's added "very" there when this was not mentioned earlier, so is talking here of infants or pre-pubescent. In the same post he says there are no moral issues for adults to have sex with " rather young ones" in puberty, so he's distinguishing children in puberty to pre-pubescent's; he's fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia. Kirkegaard though restricts the term paedophilia to only pre-pubescent's. This is what paedophilia-apologists do to try to normalise having sex with children in puberty but below age of consent.

    This is all explained on the RW article.

    And if you're claiming I "smeared" Kirkegaard, are you saying every mainstream journalist/newspaper has as well?

    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in

    Chief argument against child porn is that real children are raped, tortured etc. for its production. This obviously doesn’t apply to animated media. Most people would still regard such media as repellent (I certainly do), but imo it’s not a clear-cut issue whether they should be legal or not. Arguing such media should be legal certainly doesn’t equal support for real-life child rape.

    Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile

    That’s not obvious at all, you’ve provided zero evidence for that accusation; if I were you, I’d be careful, you might get sued for such slander.

    The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard’s cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

    Most people here aren’t Nazis. And if they are, they’re moderate Nazis.

    he’s fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia

    That’s not correct, see here:

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    it’s not a clear-cut issue whether they should be legal or not
     
    Animated child pornography is legal in the United States, among others. (Kirkegaard himself I think used the example of Denmark, where it's also legal. But I only skimmed through his piece, so cannot comment much on it.
    , @iffen
    Most people here aren’t Nazis. And if they are, they’re moderate Nazis.

    Moderate Nazis; I like it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Oliver D. Smith
    I've already refuted this claim, if you look at the newspapers that call Kirkegaard a child-rape or paedophile-apologist etc., they cover the left-right wing spectrum. centre, centre-right and right-wing newspapers call him a child-rape apologist. Now what? This is not a witch hunt by the left.

    Based on your online footprint, we know you have a weird anti-sex fetish in general. Thus, you have neither temperament nor objectivity to handle the admittedly ill-advised thought experiment Kirkegaard developed.

    Also, the ‘spread’ (or range in mathematical terms) on the mainstream spectrum is pretty narrow. That’s why outlets like National Review and Fox would publish articles like ‘The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage’ when that debate was going on. Major newspapers, no matter where they ostensibly fall politically, share the same underlying consensus, and merely provide niche interpretations of it depending on what cohorts they choose to target. If Fox wants Western intervention in Syria to uphold the ‘American led liberal order’, the Guardian wants it for the cause of ‘human rights’ and ‘international accountability.’ Same sausage, different slicing. These entities perceive the alternative academic and media sphere as a threat to their hegemony and business model. Thus, they are happy to smear anybody associated with it. This was why it was foolish of K to to given them such easy canon fodder to misconstrue.

    So your “refutation” is really an appeal to authority of the most egregious kind, because the ‘authority’ is the establishment borg mind. The same people who promoted the idea Trump went to Moscow and enjoyed an interlude of watersports….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Oliver D. Smith
    I've already refuted this claim, if you look at the newspapers that call Kirkegaard a child-rape or paedophile-apologist etc., they cover the left-right wing spectrum. centre, centre-right and right-wing newspapers call him a child-rape apologist. Now what? This is not a witch hunt by the left.

    Also, what a sad little man you are. I can only imagine what its like to live a life defined by feuds on the internet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    He looks exactly as you would expect him to. And people call phrenology a pseudoscience!

    https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/8/83/OliverSmith03.jpg
    , @Oliver D. Smith
    I don't have "internet feuds". For the past 6 years I've documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes flat-eathers, geocentrists, "race realists", white supremacists, black supremacists, religious fundamentalists, dowsers, occultists, conspiracy theorists, the list is endless.

    When I document and refute cranks: of course most of them get mad and then attack me on the internet to make themselves feel better, usually by writing 'hit pieces' on their own blogs. This is what Kirkegaard did and he links to a load of other crazies on his smear article about me, such as Liard Shaw - a nutcase who believes in demonic possession, reincarnation and pretty much any crazy belief. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laird_Shaw#Views Since I criticize these people for their irrationality, they go around the internet attacking me on websites which explains the Encylopedia Dramatica article in my name. That article was partly written by this neo-Nazi lunatic: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs [funnily enough even this guy's anti-Semitism is too extreme for Kirkegaard, and he banned Michael Coombs aka Mikemikev from his forum].

    Kirkegaard's OpenPsych pseudo-science journals uses to self-publish, hence he is the author of over 50% of paper submissions. These journals are not even formal peer-reviewed. He also abuses Google Scholar by citing his own papers. No other scientist cites Kirkegaard; one paper he self-cites himself 30 times in other self-published papers! This is abusing Google Scholar's citation index - I'll probably send in a report and get him banned from there.

    Originally I had no interest in digging up Kirkegaard's paedophilia-apologism: I simply created an article that criticises his pseudo-journals and racialist beliefs. I only found his child-rape apologism after someone named Oliver Keyes mentioned it (just a coincidence we have the same first name).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in, which is virtually all countries - so it's the same thing to describe him as a "fan of animated baby porn". The point is: only paedophiles support possession of CP or cartoon baby porn. If Kirkegaard isn't a paedophile, why is he pro-CP? Why would a non-paedophile want to legalise obscene cartoons of babies being raped in diapers? Please do care to explain.... Like I said, it's obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile. This is why all mainstream newspapers described him as either a paedophile-apologist or paedophile. And these journalists independently read Kirkegaard's comments and came to the same conclusion as myself. The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard's cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

    He never posted paedophiles should be castrated, what he said was this:

    "the best solution to one who is exclusively aroused by very young children: castration, either medical or fysical. This will help reduce libido."

    He's added "very" there when this was not mentioned earlier, so is talking here of infants or pre-pubescent. In the same post he says there are no moral issues for adults to have sex with " rather young ones" in puberty, so he's distinguishing children in puberty to pre-pubescent's; he's fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia. Kirkegaard though restricts the term paedophilia to only pre-pubescent's. This is what paedophilia-apologists do to try to normalise having sex with children in puberty but below age of consent.

    This is all explained on the RW article.

    And if you're claiming I "smeared" Kirkegaard, are you saying every mainstream journalist/newspaper has as well?

    Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile.

    As German Reader points out, this is not at all obvious. You have no evidence whatever that he ever touched a child or watched child pornography. All you have are some, yes, very disturbing comments of his, but those are not evidence in themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @utu
    I have never seen child porn so I am not sure what it is. Or maybe I did and did not even know it. I have been to museums where I saw paintings or photographs of naked children. I have seen many naked children on beaches in Europe. It used to be normal. I did not think there was anything wrong with it.

    So what is child porn and why are we supposed to be so upset about it that we send people to prison for it? For very stiff sentences here in the US of A. You seem to be very upset about child porn so I presume you know a lot about child pornography. Could you explain to ignoramuses like me why should we be upset like yourself?

    It’s also interesting that he uses Kirkegaard’s defense of animated child porn as a sign of his pedophilia, while animated child porn itself is legal in many countries, and was actually made legal in the US by the Supreme Court in 2002 – in other words, either he is willing to say the Supreme Court consists of pedophiles, or he has to drop the charges against Kirkegaard.

    The reasoning SCOTUS (and I think Kirkegaard, too) used is that no one was harmed while making animated child porn, however vile, and so no crime could have been committed. The only thing illegal would be to depict a real person in child porn, like a real child’s face animated to make it look like the real child is engaged in it, because such a video would harm the child who was depicted that way. But video of a generic child (not resembling any particular person) was permitted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Dmitry

    Yes, but it would very likely be baseless. Like it or not, they give voice to the reductionist worldview of most Western russophiles (Washington = all bad, so therefore Moscow = all good).

     

    And how does this alt-right project using the country's name help the country? Just attracting all old misfits and bitter crackpots to project their fantasies, while giving a totally wrong impression to normal people, not to mention the local elites of foreign countries, and especially the more middle class, professional and educated young European and American people who a country should be trying get to visit (even just for their tourism spending power).

    Above all, this alt-right stuff gives a completely false impression to the West, of a country which is now quite moderate place, with a significant educated middle class - a country where the attitude of most people is not to notice what you do in your own home.

    A few years ago, the worst PR disaster was related to the sexual minorities. There was some kind of misimpression that sexual minorities were being persecuted - even as the reality is the average member of these groups would be far happier in Moscow, than in Alabama.

    And how does this alt-right project using the country’s name help the country? Just attracting all old misfits and bitter crackpots to project their fantasies, while giving a totally wrong impression to normal people, not to mention the local elites of foreign countries, and especially the more middle class, professional and educated young European and American people who a country should be trying get to visit (even just for their tourism spending power).

    Agree on all counts. I just don’t think the Kremlin had a hand in setting the project up. Having said that, Bausman has appeared on Russian state TV (Vladimir Solovyov’s talk show, if memory serves, and also RT, of course), so they do give him some exposure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Agree on all counts. I just don’t think the Kremlin had a hand in setting the project up. Having said that, Bausman has appeared on Russian state TV (Vladimir Solovyov’s talk show, if memory serves, and also RT, of course), so they do give him some exposure.
     
    Yes I agree with that. It's an American project. They usually post various clips from official channels and give them misleading titles and (when they don't copy off official subtitles now provided by the first channel) mistranslating various words (they seem to be using mainly machine translation of the transcripts) . A lot of it seems harmless although of a somewhat low cultural level, but then last month they suspiciously self-destructed any possible PR or 'Hasbara for Russia' benefits by turning into an alt-right website.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @German_reader

    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in
     
    Chief argument against child porn is that real children are raped, tortured etc. for its production. This obviously doesn't apply to animated media. Most people would still regard such media as repellent (I certainly do), but imo it's not a clear-cut issue whether they should be legal or not. Arguing such media should be legal certainly doesn't equal support for real-life child rape.

    Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile
     
    That's not obvious at all, you've provided zero evidence for that accusation; if I were you, I'd be careful, you might get sued for such slander.

    The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard’s cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

     

    Most people here aren't Nazis. And if they are, they're moderate Nazis.

    he’s fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia
     
    That's not correct, see here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

    it’s not a clear-cut issue whether they should be legal or not

    Animated child pornography is legal in the United States, among others. (Kirkegaard himself I think used the example of Denmark, where it’s also legal. But I only skimmed through his piece, so cannot comment much on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Conspiracy corner: AK wrote the RW article to improve this 2018 prediction stats. Oliver D. Smith is actually a long term art project.

    Hey Anatoly… Whatcha doing?

    Read More
    • LOL: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @JW
    I don't think it would even come up. Russians (mostly) don't speak english. Writing in a small alternative magazine wouldn't have any effects.

    It’s enough for one guy to notice and translate, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Remember when Anatoly, out of nowhere, went on that bizarre “We Wuz Kangz!” post storm last year before abruptly backtracking when he realized his readers were going to desert him if he continued? At the time, people here speculated that he had started dating an African girl studying in Russia, but maybe instead he was just trying to get away from the career killing perception that he was an Alt Righter.

    Euros: Is your media reacting at all to the FBI memo stuff? This is huge news in The States but it seems like Europe/Canada/Australia aren’t interested for some reason.

    Also, I know that BLM is pretty much dead now, but when it was going strong would it be correct to say that the Euro media attitude towards it was fairly negative?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    but when it was going strong would it be correct to say that the Euro media attitude towards it was fairly negative?
     
    No, German mainstream media (as far as I can tell, don't really read or watch them anymore) went pretty much with the "racist white cops are hunting down innocent blacks and killing them for fun, so anger among the black population is completely justified" line. Their coverage of race issues in the US pretty much pretends it's always Alabama in 1965 (or maybe even 1915). Probably similar in much of Western Europe.
    Haven't noticed much about those FBI memos, doubt it will get that much attention, it doesn't fit approved narratives, and the intricacies of the whole issue are hard to understand, all the more so for non-Americans.
    , @Mitleser

    Remember when Anatoly, out of nowhere, went on that bizarre “We Wuz Kangz!” post storm last year before abruptly backtracking when he realized his readers were going to desert him if he continued? At the time, people here speculated that he had started dating an African girl studying in Russia, but maybe instead he was just trying to get away from the career killing perception that he was an Alt Righter.
     
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/dating-east-asian-girls-as-a-wn-rite-of-passage/


    The right-wing agitator Mike Cernovich, the writer John Derbyshire and an alt-right figure named Kyle Chapman (so notorious for swinging a lead-filled stick at Trump opponents at a protest in Berkeley, Calif., that he is now a meme) are all married to women of Asian descent. As a commenter wrote on an alt-right forum, “exclusively” dating Asian women is practically a “white-nationalist rite of passage.”
     
    My blog has been recognized as an alt-right forum by the NYT, cool.
     
    First comment

    RationalWiki entry when?!!!
     
    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/dating-east-asian-girls-as-a-wn-rite-of-passage/#comment-2150394

    Eighth comment


    BTW it’s lolworthy that she linked to some random comment under an unrelated post (about Ethiopia).

    Does that suggest she’s a regular reader or did google “alt-right yellow fever” take her there?
     

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/dating-east-asian-girls-as-a-wn-rite-of-passage/#comment-2150542
    , @for-the-record
    Euros: Is your media reacting at all to the FBI memo stuff? This is huge news in The States but it seems like Europe/Canada/Australia aren’t interested for some reason.

    The news I have seen (France, Portugal, UK) has uniformly portrayed it as Trump trying to derail the investigation. The idea that it might on the contrary illustrate the machinations of the "deep state" at work is completely foreign in these parts, so to speak.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Greasy William
    Remember when Anatoly, out of nowhere, went on that bizarre "We Wuz Kangz!" post storm last year before abruptly backtracking when he realized his readers were going to desert him if he continued? At the time, people here speculated that he had started dating an African girl studying in Russia, but maybe instead he was just trying to get away from the career killing perception that he was an Alt Righter.

    Euros: Is your media reacting at all to the FBI memo stuff? This is huge news in The States but it seems like Europe/Canada/Australia aren't interested for some reason.

    Also, I know that BLM is pretty much dead now, but when it was going strong would it be correct to say that the Euro media attitude towards it was fairly negative?

    but when it was going strong would it be correct to say that the Euro media attitude towards it was fairly negative?

    No, German mainstream media (as far as I can tell, don’t really read or watch them anymore) went pretty much with the “racist white cops are hunting down innocent blacks and killing them for fun, so anger among the black population is completely justified” line. Their coverage of race issues in the US pretty much pretends it’s always Alabama in 1965 (or maybe even 1915). Probably similar in much of Western Europe.
    Haven’t noticed much about those FBI memos, doubt it will get that much attention, it doesn’t fit approved narratives, and the intricacies of the whole issue are hard to understand, all the more so for non-Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. I will even be voting for one of the very best Jews on March 18.

    He would not be too happy to hear you calling him that :]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    He would not be too happy to hear you calling him that :]
     
    I kind of think he is more Jewish than average non-neurotic Israelis. Even Schindler's list music is perfect for him :)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3Qy-OMunxU

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Greasy William
    Remember when Anatoly, out of nowhere, went on that bizarre "We Wuz Kangz!" post storm last year before abruptly backtracking when he realized his readers were going to desert him if he continued? At the time, people here speculated that he had started dating an African girl studying in Russia, but maybe instead he was just trying to get away from the career killing perception that he was an Alt Righter.

    Euros: Is your media reacting at all to the FBI memo stuff? This is huge news in The States but it seems like Europe/Canada/Australia aren't interested for some reason.

    Also, I know that BLM is pretty much dead now, but when it was going strong would it be correct to say that the Euro media attitude towards it was fairly negative?

    Remember when Anatoly, out of nowhere, went on that bizarre “We Wuz Kangz!” post storm last year before abruptly backtracking when he realized his readers were going to desert him if he continued? At the time, people here speculated that he had started dating an African girl studying in Russia, but maybe instead he was just trying to get away from the career killing perception that he was an Alt Righter.

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/dating-east-asian-girls-as-a-wn-rite-of-passage/

    The right-wing agitator Mike Cernovich, the writer John Derbyshire and an alt-right figure named Kyle Chapman (so notorious for swinging a lead-filled stick at Trump opponents at a protest in Berkeley, Calif., that he is now a meme) are all married to women of Asian descent. As a commenter wrote on an alt-right forum, “exclusively” dating Asian women is practically a “white-nationalist rite of passage.”

    My blog has been recognized as an alt-right forum by the NYT, cool.

    First comment

    RationalWiki entry when?!!!

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/dating-east-asian-girls-as-a-wn-rite-of-passage/#comment-2150394

    Eighth comment

    BTW it’s lolworthy that she linked to some random comment under an unrelated post (about Ethiopia).

    Does that suggest she’s a regular reader or did google “alt-right yellow fever” take her there?

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/dating-east-asian-girls-as-a-wn-rite-of-passage/#comment-2150542

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Lemurmaniac
    Also, what a sad little man you are. I can only imagine what its like to live a life defined by feuds on the internet.

    He looks exactly as you would expect him to. And people call phrenology a pseudoscience!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Greasy William
    Remember when Anatoly, out of nowhere, went on that bizarre "We Wuz Kangz!" post storm last year before abruptly backtracking when he realized his readers were going to desert him if he continued? At the time, people here speculated that he had started dating an African girl studying in Russia, but maybe instead he was just trying to get away from the career killing perception that he was an Alt Righter.

    Euros: Is your media reacting at all to the FBI memo stuff? This is huge news in The States but it seems like Europe/Canada/Australia aren't interested for some reason.

    Also, I know that BLM is pretty much dead now, but when it was going strong would it be correct to say that the Euro media attitude towards it was fairly negative?

    Euros: Is your media reacting at all to the FBI memo stuff? This is huge news in The States but it seems like Europe/Canada/Australia aren’t interested for some reason.

    The news I have seen (France, Portugal, UK) has uniformly portrayed it as Trump trying to derail the investigation. The idea that it might on the contrary illustrate the machinations of the “deep state” at work is completely foreign in these parts, so to speak.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @German_reader

    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in
     
    Chief argument against child porn is that real children are raped, tortured etc. for its production. This obviously doesn't apply to animated media. Most people would still regard such media as repellent (I certainly do), but imo it's not a clear-cut issue whether they should be legal or not. Arguing such media should be legal certainly doesn't equal support for real-life child rape.

    Like I said, it’s obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile
     
    That's not obvious at all, you've provided zero evidence for that accusation; if I were you, I'd be careful, you might get sued for such slander.

    The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard’s cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

     

    Most people here aren't Nazis. And if they are, they're moderate Nazis.

    he’s fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia
     
    That's not correct, see here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

    Most people here aren’t Nazis. And if they are, they’re moderate Nazis.

    Moderate Nazis; I like it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The real victims of Hitler were the moderate Nazis, who had to spend their whole lives ever since experiencing the backlash.

    #notallNazis
    #IstandwithNazis
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @iffen
    Most people here aren’t Nazis. And if they are, they’re moderate Nazis.

    Moderate Nazis; I like it.

    The real victims of Hitler were the moderate Nazis, who had to spend their whole lives ever since experiencing the backlash.

    #notallNazis
    #IstandwithNazis

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I don't know how it will play out, but it appears that the Germans will, in the long run, be the ultimate victims. Maybe ethnic groups are like individuals in that there is no recovery from certain traumas.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Spisarevski

    I will even be voting for one of the very best Jews on March 18.
     
    He would not be too happy to hear you calling him that :]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpsS1RjY6dM

    He would not be too happy to hear you calling him that :]

    I kind of think he is more Jewish than average non-neurotic Israelis. Even Schindler’s list music is perfect for him :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @reiner Tor
    The real victims of Hitler were the moderate Nazis, who had to spend their whole lives ever since experiencing the backlash.

    #notallNazis
    #IstandwithNazis

    I don’t know how it will play out, but it appears that the Germans will, in the long run, be the ultimate victims. Maybe ethnic groups are like individuals in that there is no recovery from certain traumas.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Lemurmaniac
    Also, what a sad little man you are. I can only imagine what its like to live a life defined by feuds on the internet.

    I don’t have “internet feuds”. For the past 6 years I’ve documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes flat-eathers, geocentrists, “race realists”, white supremacists, black supremacists, religious fundamentalists, dowsers, occultists, conspiracy theorists, the list is endless.

    When I document and refute cranks: of course most of them get mad and then attack me on the internet to make themselves feel better, usually by writing ‘hit pieces’ on their own blogs. This is what Kirkegaard did and he links to a load of other crazies on his smear article about me, such as Liard Shaw – a nutcase who believes in demonic possession, reincarnation and pretty much any crazy belief. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laird_Shaw#Views Since I criticize these people for their irrationality, they go around the internet attacking me on websites which explains the Encylopedia Dramatica article in my name. That article was partly written by this neo-Nazi lunatic: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs [funnily enough even this guy's anti-Semitism is too extreme for Kirkegaard, and he banned Michael Coombs aka Mikemikev from his forum].

    Kirkegaard’s OpenPsych pseudo-science journals uses to self-publish, hence he is the author of over 50% of paper submissions. These journals are not even formal peer-reviewed. He also abuses Google Scholar by citing his own papers. No other scientist cites Kirkegaard; one paper he self-cites himself 30 times in other self-published papers! This is abusing Google Scholar’s citation index – I’ll probably send in a report and get him banned from there.

    Originally I had no interest in digging up Kirkegaard’s paedophilia-apologism: I simply created an article that criticises his pseudo-journals and racialist beliefs. I only found his child-rape apologism after someone named Oliver Keyes mentioned it (just a coincidence we have the same first name).

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    I’ve documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes .... "race realists"
     
    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

    http://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/5ThVCxW.png?w=678


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.3163&rep=rep1&type=pdf (page 16)
    , @szopen
    If you are a contributor to rationalwiki that pretty much means you are flat-earther. It's just you consider your version of flat-earth theory true.

    Rationalwiki follows the same naming pattern as with many other names: "socialist democracy" "communist justice" and so on. There is nothing rational about rationalwiki.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Damn Anatoly, now this is something, this is recognition.
    Congratulations!

    …and even the psycho itself is here in comments, triggered; I count this as double win for you.

    Read More
    • Agree: Daniel Chieh
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @Oliver D. Smith
    I don't have "internet feuds". For the past 6 years I've documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes flat-eathers, geocentrists, "race realists", white supremacists, black supremacists, religious fundamentalists, dowsers, occultists, conspiracy theorists, the list is endless.

    When I document and refute cranks: of course most of them get mad and then attack me on the internet to make themselves feel better, usually by writing 'hit pieces' on their own blogs. This is what Kirkegaard did and he links to a load of other crazies on his smear article about me, such as Liard Shaw - a nutcase who believes in demonic possession, reincarnation and pretty much any crazy belief. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laird_Shaw#Views Since I criticize these people for their irrationality, they go around the internet attacking me on websites which explains the Encylopedia Dramatica article in my name. That article was partly written by this neo-Nazi lunatic: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs [funnily enough even this guy's anti-Semitism is too extreme for Kirkegaard, and he banned Michael Coombs aka Mikemikev from his forum].

    Kirkegaard's OpenPsych pseudo-science journals uses to self-publish, hence he is the author of over 50% of paper submissions. These journals are not even formal peer-reviewed. He also abuses Google Scholar by citing his own papers. No other scientist cites Kirkegaard; one paper he self-cites himself 30 times in other self-published papers! This is abusing Google Scholar's citation index - I'll probably send in a report and get him banned from there.

    Originally I had no interest in digging up Kirkegaard's paedophilia-apologism: I simply created an article that criticises his pseudo-journals and racialist beliefs. I only found his child-rape apologism after someone named Oliver Keyes mentioned it (just a coincidence we have the same first name).

    I’ve documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes …. “race realists”

    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.3163&rep=rep1&type=pdf (page 16)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

     

    I'm going to go way off-topic, but it is something I wished to comment on the topic.

    Sure it's possible that racial differences in IQ test score results are caused by genetics - and this might be measured within a same country perhaps producing valid evidence, where you can at least make a semblance of isolated genetic component, with all other various being equal.

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents' scores - without genetics having relevance to the change).

    People like Richard Lynn who compare between countries (even with their various 'corrections' for other variables, which they draw out of hat), and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries, are not necessarily much more refined than someone who would look at the population of Russia in 1900, and find the majority borderline retarded, and argue that genetics is the explanation. The confounding variables are way too many to even make a semblance of isolating the genetic component, when comparing different countries (which are often at different stages of historical development).

    (Many African countries are still in the position in terms of educational standards as the Russian Empire in the turn of the century).

    ---

    And then even comparing between countries at the same stage of historical development, there will be different cultural approaches to taking these tests, which will influence the scores.

    A post a paper arguing for this in relation to comparisons between American and Russian language test subjects on certain tests:

    In these tests, the American group outscored the Russian group. However, because we selected volunteers with no brain damage and performance on other tests was in normal limits in both groups, it appears unreasonable to attribute low performance of the Russian sample to problems with in attention, concentration, or planning strategies, which are being assessed by these tasks. Rather, the differences might reflect culture-specific effect of relevance of the assessed function to real-life experience. That is, lack of exposure to timed tests and rare occurrence of experiences where timed performance is required or measured in everyday routine of Russian people could provide a salient explanation for the observed group differences. Furthermore, these findings may provide additional support to the notion of cultural specificity of cognitive abilities put forward by Ardila (1995) and Greenfield (1997). That is, because Russian culture does not emphasize importance of timing one's performance, adhering to deadlines, and being prompt as much as does American culture, measuring cognitive performance with timed tests might be not as ecologically valid. That is, understanding the ecological validity of the neuropsychological tests is critical for valid interpretation of the results (Ardila, 2001; Shordone & Long, 1997).
     

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707000091
    , @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @DFH

    I’ve documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes .... "race realists"
     
    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

    http://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/5ThVCxW.png?w=678


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.3163&rep=rep1&type=pdf (page 16)

    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

    I’m going to go way off-topic, but it is something I wished to comment on the topic.

    Sure it’s possible that racial differences in IQ test score results are caused by genetics – and this might be measured within a same country perhaps producing valid evidence, where you can at least make a semblance of isolated genetic component, with all other various being equal.

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).

    People like Richard Lynn who compare between countries (even with their various ‘corrections’ for other variables, which they draw out of hat), and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries, are not necessarily much more refined than someone who would look at the population of Russia in 1900, and find the majority borderline retarded, and argue that genetics is the explanation. The confounding variables are way too many to even make a semblance of isolating the genetic component, when comparing different countries (which are often at different stages of historical development).

    (Many African countries are still in the position in terms of educational standards as the Russian Empire in the turn of the century).

    And then even comparing between countries at the same stage of historical development, there will be different cultural approaches to taking these tests, which will influence the scores.

    A post a paper arguing for this in relation to comparisons between American and Russian language test subjects on certain tests:

    In these tests, the American group outscored the Russian group. However, because we selected volunteers with no brain damage and performance on other tests was in normal limits in both groups, it appears unreasonable to attribute low performance of the Russian sample to problems with in attention, concentration, or planning strategies, which are being assessed by these tasks. Rather, the differences might reflect culture-specific effect of relevance of the assessed function to real-life experience. That is, lack of exposure to timed tests and rare occurrence of experiences where timed performance is required or measured in everyday routine of Russian people could provide a salient explanation for the observed group differences. Furthermore, these findings may provide additional support to the notion of cultural specificity of cognitive abilities put forward by Ardila (1995) and Greenfield (1997). That is, because Russian culture does not emphasize importance of timing one’s performance, adhering to deadlines, and being prompt as much as does American culture, measuring cognitive performance with timed tests might be not as ecologically valid. That is, understanding the ecological validity of the neuropsychological tests is critical for valid interpretation of the results (Ardila, 2001; Shordone & Long, 1997).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707000091

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.
     
    Not if said countries are at a similar level of development.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).
     
    We don't particularly have to speculate - the first IQ studies in the Russian Empire and 1920s USSR showed Russians to be 2/3-1 S.D. below West European norms. Then the entire subject was banned. But after it became politically correct again, Russians are now scoring around 97.

    That said, regional differences within Russia remanied remarkably constant, e.g.: Zverev estimated the Russian IQ in the region of 81 points on a sample of 114 children in the Kursk region (test Binet-Bert) in 1928. A couple of years later, EV Guryanov et al. estimated Russian IQ in the region of 90 points on a sample of 414 Moscow children (Stanford-Binet test) compared to US standards. This, by the way, is exactly equal to today's difference between the Kursk region and Moscow based on PISA tests. (Google Translation of my Russia IQ article)

    ... and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries...
     
    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better - better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture - culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.
    , @DFH
    The question in the graph I previously posted was referring to the black-white gap in the US, not between countries.
    As far as I know, Lynn has never claimed that there aren't environmental effects on IQ, or that average African IQ wouldn't be higher in better conditions. But there's still good reason to believe that the majority of the gap between US/European whites and Africans is genetic, since the difference between them and US blacks (100 vs. 85) is bigger than the gap between US blacks and African blacks (85 vs. about 75). This isn't even taking into account the significant white admixture in US blacks.

    The paper is odd since Russians actually don't score notably worse than (white) Americans or Western Europeans on the data I am aware of or the figures collected by Lynn.
    , @Jaakko Raipala

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).
     
    The early IQ tests tended to ask general knowledge questions on the assumption that a more intelligent person picks up more random facts and a literate person had a huge advantage over an illiterate person even if their biological mental ability was the same. Psychometrics arose as its own field in the 1930s to develop tests that are more dependent on pure mental ability but Russia missed these tests as the communists had taken over.

    If non-verbal tests had been in use earlier we might have seen less of a gap in scores of Russians of 1900 and Russians of 2000. There may be an illusion at work here where you're thinking of today's illiterate people and imagining Russians in 1900 as alike but today an illiterate is going to be someone with a developmental disorder like Down's syndrome. That wasn't true in 1900 when there were plenty of normal children who were just never taught to read.

    There were also ethnic groups with high literacy rates in the Russian empire and people generally did not note an intelligence gap between ethnic Russians and Finns, Latvians etc. But many most certainly did make comments about the clever Jews...

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Swedish Family

    And how does this alt-right project using the country’s name help the country? Just attracting all old misfits and bitter crackpots to project their fantasies, while giving a totally wrong impression to normal people, not to mention the local elites of foreign countries, and especially the more middle class, professional and educated young European and American people who a country should be trying get to visit (even just for their tourism spending power).
     
    Agree on all counts. I just don't think the Kremlin had a hand in setting the project up. Having said that, Bausman has appeared on Russian state TV (Vladimir Solovyov's talk show, if memory serves, and also RT, of course), so they do give him some exposure.

    Agree on all counts. I just don’t think the Kremlin had a hand in setting the project up. Having said that, Bausman has appeared on Russian state TV (Vladimir Solovyov’s talk show, if memory serves, and also RT, of course), so they do give him some exposure.

    Yes I agree with that. It’s an American project. They usually post various clips from official channels and give them misleading titles and (when they don’t copy off official subtitles now provided by the first channel) mistranslating various words (they seem to be using mainly machine translation of the transcripts) . A lot of it seems harmless although of a somewhat low cultural level, but then last month they suspiciously self-destructed any possible PR or ‘Hasbara for Russia’ benefits by turning into an alt-right website.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Oliver D. Smith
    Kirkegaard supports possession of animated child porn and wants to legalise it for the countries he said it was banned in, which is virtually all countries - so it's the same thing to describe him as a "fan of animated baby porn". The point is: only paedophiles support possession of CP or cartoon baby porn. If Kirkegaard isn't a paedophile, why is he pro-CP? Why would a non-paedophile want to legalise obscene cartoons of babies being raped in diapers? Please do care to explain.... Like I said, it's obvious to anyone, Kirkegaard is a paedophile. This is why all mainstream newspapers described him as either a paedophile-apologist or paedophile. And these journalists independently read Kirkegaard's comments and came to the same conclusion as myself. The only people denying this are some neo-Nazi nutjobs on this weird website because you share Kirkegaard's cranky/pseudo-scientific views on race.

    He never posted paedophiles should be castrated, what he said was this:

    "the best solution to one who is exclusively aroused by very young children: castration, either medical or fysical. This will help reduce libido."

    He's added "very" there when this was not mentioned earlier, so is talking here of infants or pre-pubescent. In the same post he says there are no moral issues for adults to have sex with " rather young ones" in puberty, so he's distinguishing children in puberty to pre-pubescent's; he's fine for adults to have sex with children in puberty under age of consent, but not pre-pubescent. Both though are paedophilia. Kirkegaard though restricts the term paedophilia to only pre-pubescent's. This is what paedophilia-apologists do to try to normalise having sex with children in puberty but below age of consent.

    This is all explained on the RW article.

    And if you're claiming I "smeared" Kirkegaard, are you saying every mainstream journalist/newspaper has as well?

    These topic are certainly not pleasant and they have certainly disturbed many, but that is no reason to loose your jimmies. You are taking great liberties in interpreting his motives or personality. There is literally nothing controversial about what he said, except the issue itself.
    There is actually good evidence that availability of (animated) child porn acts as a substitute to the deviant, lowering the number of attacks, rapes, molestation.
    (check :https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-010-9696-y)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Dmitry

    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

     

    I'm going to go way off-topic, but it is something I wished to comment on the topic.

    Sure it's possible that racial differences in IQ test score results are caused by genetics - and this might be measured within a same country perhaps producing valid evidence, where you can at least make a semblance of isolated genetic component, with all other various being equal.

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents' scores - without genetics having relevance to the change).

    People like Richard Lynn who compare between countries (even with their various 'corrections' for other variables, which they draw out of hat), and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries, are not necessarily much more refined than someone who would look at the population of Russia in 1900, and find the majority borderline retarded, and argue that genetics is the explanation. The confounding variables are way too many to even make a semblance of isolating the genetic component, when comparing different countries (which are often at different stages of historical development).

    (Many African countries are still in the position in terms of educational standards as the Russian Empire in the turn of the century).

    ---

    And then even comparing between countries at the same stage of historical development, there will be different cultural approaches to taking these tests, which will influence the scores.

    A post a paper arguing for this in relation to comparisons between American and Russian language test subjects on certain tests:

    In these tests, the American group outscored the Russian group. However, because we selected volunteers with no brain damage and performance on other tests was in normal limits in both groups, it appears unreasonable to attribute low performance of the Russian sample to problems with in attention, concentration, or planning strategies, which are being assessed by these tasks. Rather, the differences might reflect culture-specific effect of relevance of the assessed function to real-life experience. That is, lack of exposure to timed tests and rare occurrence of experiences where timed performance is required or measured in everyday routine of Russian people could provide a salient explanation for the observed group differences. Furthermore, these findings may provide additional support to the notion of cultural specificity of cognitive abilities put forward by Ardila (1995) and Greenfield (1997). That is, because Russian culture does not emphasize importance of timing one's performance, adhering to deadlines, and being prompt as much as does American culture, measuring cognitive performance with timed tests might be not as ecologically valid. That is, understanding the ecological validity of the neuropsychological tests is critical for valid interpretation of the results (Ardila, 2001; Shordone & Long, 1997).
     

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707000091

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.

    Not if said countries are at a similar level of development.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).

    We don’t particularly have to speculate – the first IQ studies in the Russian Empire and 1920s USSR showed Russians to be 2/3-1 S.D. below West European norms. Then the entire subject was banned. But after it became politically correct again, Russians are now scoring around 97.

    That said, regional differences within Russia remanied remarkably constant, e.g.: Zverev estimated the Russian IQ in the region of 81 points on a sample of 114 children in the Kursk region (test Binet-Bert) in 1928. A couple of years later, EV Guryanov et al. estimated Russian IQ in the region of 90 points on a sample of 414 Moscow children (Stanford-Binet test) compared to US standards. This, by the way, is exactly equal to today’s difference between the Kursk region and Moscow based on PISA tests. (Google Translation of my Russia IQ article)

    … and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries…

    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better – better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture – culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better – better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture – culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.
     

    China is historically one of the world's most developed and literate civilizations, which had gone through centuries of decline. While a lot of sub-Saharan African countries have only recently started to leave the hunter-gatherer stage.

    Is the difference in their test scores only cultural or is there a genetic component, or a interacting combination of both, and in what proportions? If you want to isolate the variables, country-to-country comparison is going to be the hardest way to do it.

    The idea that there is a genetic component is very intuitively plausible in explaining differences in test score. But intuitively plausible is not acceptable criteria. We have to control variables and isolate variables before we have evidence for our hypothesis, and preferably show we can manipulate an independent variables, and reproduce this experimentally.

    We are not at the experimental stage yet, so we rely on correlation type study. The usefulness of correlations is very dependent on controlling variables - while with country-country comparison you are just introducing numerous additional confounding variables not found in intra-country comparison. (Although without personal interest in the subject - I am sure there is plenty of work starting in this area, where the most basic first step is to take people from the same culture, but with different genetic profiles - and which you guys will have more knowledge of than me.)

    Richard Lynn approach is not proving anything beyond that the 'phenomena to be explained (different test scores) exists' in different countries, and then adding on what seems to him to be the intuitively plausible explanation. This is fine for entertainment and speculative works - but if an engineer would behave like this, I would not trust walking on their bridge.

    , @szopen
    Anatolu, have you been following the Chanda Chisala discussion? I think he has shown that there have to be quite a lot of black groups even in Africa which have quite hight IQ even by white standards. That of course does not refute hereditarian hypothesis, but it does show that the sarcastic quip about endemic culture is a gross simplification.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. I take it you stole this guy’s girlfriend.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. @Dmitry

    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

     

    I'm going to go way off-topic, but it is something I wished to comment on the topic.

    Sure it's possible that racial differences in IQ test score results are caused by genetics - and this might be measured within a same country perhaps producing valid evidence, where you can at least make a semblance of isolated genetic component, with all other various being equal.

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents' scores - without genetics having relevance to the change).

    People like Richard Lynn who compare between countries (even with their various 'corrections' for other variables, which they draw out of hat), and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries, are not necessarily much more refined than someone who would look at the population of Russia in 1900, and find the majority borderline retarded, and argue that genetics is the explanation. The confounding variables are way too many to even make a semblance of isolating the genetic component, when comparing different countries (which are often at different stages of historical development).

    (Many African countries are still in the position in terms of educational standards as the Russian Empire in the turn of the century).

    ---

    And then even comparing between countries at the same stage of historical development, there will be different cultural approaches to taking these tests, which will influence the scores.

    A post a paper arguing for this in relation to comparisons between American and Russian language test subjects on certain tests:

    In these tests, the American group outscored the Russian group. However, because we selected volunteers with no brain damage and performance on other tests was in normal limits in both groups, it appears unreasonable to attribute low performance of the Russian sample to problems with in attention, concentration, or planning strategies, which are being assessed by these tasks. Rather, the differences might reflect culture-specific effect of relevance of the assessed function to real-life experience. That is, lack of exposure to timed tests and rare occurrence of experiences where timed performance is required or measured in everyday routine of Russian people could provide a salient explanation for the observed group differences. Furthermore, these findings may provide additional support to the notion of cultural specificity of cognitive abilities put forward by Ardila (1995) and Greenfield (1997). That is, because Russian culture does not emphasize importance of timing one's performance, adhering to deadlines, and being prompt as much as does American culture, measuring cognitive performance with timed tests might be not as ecologically valid. That is, understanding the ecological validity of the neuropsychological tests is critical for valid interpretation of the results (Ardila, 2001; Shordone & Long, 1997).
     

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707000091

    The question in the graph I previously posted was referring to the black-white gap in the US, not between countries.
    As far as I know, Lynn has never claimed that there aren’t environmental effects on IQ, or that average African IQ wouldn’t be higher in better conditions. But there’s still good reason to believe that the majority of the gap between US/European whites and Africans is genetic, since the difference between them and US blacks (100 vs. 85) is bigger than the gap between US blacks and African blacks (85 vs. about 75). This isn’t even taking into account the significant white admixture in US blacks.

    The paper is odd since Russians actually don’t score notably worse than (white) Americans or Western Europeans on the data I am aware of or the figures collected by Lynn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    The question in the graph I previously posted was referring to the black-white gap in the US, not between countries.
    As far as I know, Lynn has never claimed that there aren’t environmental effects on IQ, or that average African IQ wouldn’t be higher in better conditions. But there’s still good reason to believe that the majority of the gap between US/European whites and Africans is genetic, since the difference between them and US blacks (100 vs. 85) is bigger than the gap between US blacks and African blacks (85 vs. about 75). This isn’t even taking into account the significant white admixture in US blacks.

    The paper is odd since Russians actually don’t score notably worse than (white) Americans or Western Europeans on the data I am aware of or the figures collected by Lynn.
     

    I understand your first sentence, which is why I said I was going offtopic.

    The other part of your argument - again it will depend very specifically on how well they can isolate variables. It's currently a plausible hypothesis that there is genetic component to intelligence (however you define it - perhaps 'academic intelligence' is clearer), and that there would be racial differences in this, but incompetent cross-country comparisons like Flynn are not exactly convincing works.

    As for the paper I posted. This paper is not about IQ specific tests, but a more wide neuropsychological tests. That's why they seem to make broad speculations about the generalizability of testing across countries - because in one of these tests there should not be a gap in the scores for healthy individuals. So the plausible explanation for them is a different level of accustomedness to this kind of testing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @DFH

    I’ve documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes .... "race realists"
     
    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

    http://i0.wp.com/i.imgur.com/5ThVCxW.png?w=678


    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.695.3163&rep=rep1&type=pdf (page 16)

    It’s a stupid question since “black” and “white” are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain “black” populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain “white” populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant “indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs” for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The ‘hereditarianism’ position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I’ve seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That’s laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. “On Creeping Jensenism”) doesn’t argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    The ‘hereditarianism’ position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I’ve seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That’s laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. “On Creeping Jensenism”) doesn’t argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.
     
    So which of the 44% of intelligence experts who are, even by your own definition, hereditarians have you so far refuted?
    , @szopen
    It's not stupid at all, no more stupid that comparing wealth between whites and blacks in USA, education and so on.
    Unless, of course, it's only pseudoscience when you compare things you think should not be compared, while comparing educational outcomes is perfectly acceptable.
    , @szopen
    Also, if someone is deyning existence of race is a flat-earther (unless he creates a strawman of race and then denies that this strawman "race" exists, which is what most such pseudoscientists do).

    (race is a human population when large number of genes have different frequencies than other populations. Race in taht sense might be two separate village populations - and yes, this is a paraphrasis from old scientific book, from some twenty or so years ago IIRC).

    , @Art Deco
    It’s a stupid question since “black” and “white” are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with.

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.
    , @melanf

    It’s a stupid question since “black” and “white” are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse
     
    Such obviously absurd statements, completely discrediting your argument.
    , @AP

    The ‘hereditarianism’ position would be anything over 50%
     
    Not necessarily. Anything over 0% would ascribe some differences to genetic causes. The question is merely - how much. Context is also important. A "hereditarian" could claim that under ideal equal conditions with no environmental impact, differences could be 100% attributable to genetics. But because such conditions do not exist, he might assume that 40% of the observed differences have a genetic cause. This would not mean that he is not a hereditarian.

    The bottom line is that 83% of experts consider that at least some of the differences in intelligence between races is due to a genetic cause.

    And an anthropologist arguing something about intelligence against a psychologist such as Jensen is like a geologist arguing about climate change against a climatologist. Take these forays out of his area of expertise with a big grain of salt.
    , @AP
    Just to give an example. The difference in average IQ between whites and African Americans is about 15 points. Someone who things that 50% of the difference is due to genes thinks that due to genes African Americans have IQs on average 7.5 points lower than those of whites, with the environment accounting for another 7.5 points on average. Someone who thinks genes account for 30% of the difference thinks that for genetic reason African Americans have average IQs about 5 points lower than those of whites, and environment explains the other 10 points.

    Why do you think that an expert who thinks that genes account for 30% of the difference, or 20% of the difference, is not a hereditarian?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @DFH
    The question in the graph I previously posted was referring to the black-white gap in the US, not between countries.
    As far as I know, Lynn has never claimed that there aren't environmental effects on IQ, or that average African IQ wouldn't be higher in better conditions. But there's still good reason to believe that the majority of the gap between US/European whites and Africans is genetic, since the difference between them and US blacks (100 vs. 85) is bigger than the gap between US blacks and African blacks (85 vs. about 75). This isn't even taking into account the significant white admixture in US blacks.

    The paper is odd since Russians actually don't score notably worse than (white) Americans or Western Europeans on the data I am aware of or the figures collected by Lynn.

    The question in the graph I previously posted was referring to the black-white gap in the US, not between countries.
    As far as I know, Lynn has never claimed that there aren’t environmental effects on IQ, or that average African IQ wouldn’t be higher in better conditions. But there’s still good reason to believe that the majority of the gap between US/European whites and Africans is genetic, since the difference between them and US blacks (100 vs. 85) is bigger than the gap between US blacks and African blacks (85 vs. about 75). This isn’t even taking into account the significant white admixture in US blacks.

    The paper is odd since Russians actually don’t score notably worse than (white) Americans or Western Europeans on the data I am aware of or the figures collected by Lynn.

    I understand your first sentence, which is why I said I was going offtopic.

    The other part of your argument – again it will depend very specifically on how well they can isolate variables. It’s currently a plausible hypothesis that there is genetic component to intelligence (however you define it – perhaps ‘academic intelligence’ is clearer), and that there would be racial differences in this, but incompetent cross-country comparisons like Flynn are not exactly convincing works.

    As for the paper I posted. This paper is not about IQ specific tests, but a more wide neuropsychological tests. That’s why they seem to make broad speculations about the generalizability of testing across countries – because in one of these tests there should not be a gap in the scores for healthy individuals. So the plausible explanation for them is a different level of accustomedness to this kind of testing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    The ‘hereditarianism’ position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I’ve seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That’s laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. “On Creeping Jensenism”) doesn’t argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    So which of the 44% of intelligence experts who are, even by your own definition, hereditarians have you so far refuted?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace's papers, including "On Creeping Jensenism" when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    "However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 - well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between 'racial' or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental." - C. Loring Brace, "On Creeping Jensenism"

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it's totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I've said you HBD"/"race realist" weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job - the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your "alt right" (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Oliver D. Smith
    I don't have "internet feuds". For the past 6 years I've documented and refuted pseudo-scientists on RationalWiki: this includes flat-eathers, geocentrists, "race realists", white supremacists, black supremacists, religious fundamentalists, dowsers, occultists, conspiracy theorists, the list is endless.

    When I document and refute cranks: of course most of them get mad and then attack me on the internet to make themselves feel better, usually by writing 'hit pieces' on their own blogs. This is what Kirkegaard did and he links to a load of other crazies on his smear article about me, such as Liard Shaw - a nutcase who believes in demonic possession, reincarnation and pretty much any crazy belief. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laird_Shaw#Views Since I criticize these people for their irrationality, they go around the internet attacking me on websites which explains the Encylopedia Dramatica article in my name. That article was partly written by this neo-Nazi lunatic: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Coombs [funnily enough even this guy's anti-Semitism is too extreme for Kirkegaard, and he banned Michael Coombs aka Mikemikev from his forum].

    Kirkegaard's OpenPsych pseudo-science journals uses to self-publish, hence he is the author of over 50% of paper submissions. These journals are not even formal peer-reviewed. He also abuses Google Scholar by citing his own papers. No other scientist cites Kirkegaard; one paper he self-cites himself 30 times in other self-published papers! This is abusing Google Scholar's citation index - I'll probably send in a report and get him banned from there.

    Originally I had no interest in digging up Kirkegaard's paedophilia-apologism: I simply created an article that criticises his pseudo-journals and racialist beliefs. I only found his child-rape apologism after someone named Oliver Keyes mentioned it (just a coincidence we have the same first name).

    If you are a contributor to rationalwiki that pretty much means you are flat-earther. It’s just you consider your version of flat-earth theory true.

    Rationalwiki follows the same naming pattern as with many other names: “socialist democracy” “communist justice” and so on. There is nothing rational about rationalwiki.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    It’s not stupid at all, no more stupid that comparing wealth between whites and blacks in USA, education and so on.
    Unless, of course, it’s only pseudoscience when you compare things you think should not be compared, while comparing educational outcomes is perfectly acceptable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Anatoly Karlin

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.
     
    Not if said countries are at a similar level of development.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).
     
    We don't particularly have to speculate - the first IQ studies in the Russian Empire and 1920s USSR showed Russians to be 2/3-1 S.D. below West European norms. Then the entire subject was banned. But after it became politically correct again, Russians are now scoring around 97.

    That said, regional differences within Russia remanied remarkably constant, e.g.: Zverev estimated the Russian IQ in the region of 81 points on a sample of 114 children in the Kursk region (test Binet-Bert) in 1928. A couple of years later, EV Guryanov et al. estimated Russian IQ in the region of 90 points on a sample of 414 Moscow children (Stanford-Binet test) compared to US standards. This, by the way, is exactly equal to today's difference between the Kursk region and Moscow based on PISA tests. (Google Translation of my Russia IQ article)

    ... and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries...
     
    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better - better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture - culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.

    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better – better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture – culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.

    China is historically one of the world’s most developed and literate civilizations, which had gone through centuries of decline. While a lot of sub-Saharan African countries have only recently started to leave the hunter-gatherer stage.

    Is the difference in their test scores only cultural or is there a genetic component, or a interacting combination of both, and in what proportions? If you want to isolate the variables, country-to-country comparison is going to be the hardest way to do it.

    The idea that there is a genetic component is very intuitively plausible in explaining differences in test score. But intuitively plausible is not acceptable criteria. We have to control variables and isolate variables before we have evidence for our hypothesis, and preferably show we can manipulate an independent variables, and reproduce this experimentally.

    We are not at the experimental stage yet, so we rely on correlation type study. The usefulness of correlations is very dependent on controlling variables – while with country-country comparison you are just introducing numerous additional confounding variables not found in intra-country comparison. (Although without personal interest in the subject – I am sure there is plenty of work starting in this area, where the most basic first step is to take people from the same culture, but with different genetic profiles – and which you guys will have more knowledge of than me.)

    Richard Lynn approach is not proving anything beyond that the ‘phenomena to be explained (different test scores) exists’ in different countries, and then adding on what seems to him to be the intuitively plausible explanation. This is fine for entertainment and speculative works – but if an engineer would behave like this, I would not trust walking on their bridge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    China is historically one of the world’s most developed and literate civilizations, which had gone through centuries of decline. While a lot of sub-Saharan African countries have only recently started to leave the hunter-gatherer stage.
     
    Research (in America) IQ white children (adopted white parents) and IQ of black children (adopted white parents), showed a difference (IQ of white children is higher than the IQ of black children in the same environment). I am a person to this topic neutral, but I think that it is very likely that the differences in IQ of blacks and whites are (partly) hereditary. An alternative explanation seem unlikely
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    Also, if someone is deyning existence of race is a flat-earther (unless he creates a strawman of race and then denies that this strawman “race” exists, which is what most such pseudoscientists do).

    (race is a human population when large number of genes have different frequencies than other populations. Race in taht sense might be two separate village populations – and yes, this is a paraphrasis from old scientific book, from some twenty or so years ago IIRC).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    It’s a stupid question since “black” and “white” are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with.

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.
     
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don't look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called "black".
    And in regards to Africa, phenotypical differences between East Africans and people from somewhere like Nigeria are clearly discernible even to outsiders. I suppose such differences must be even more obvious to Africans themselves.
    Race, ethnicity etc. do have a significant biological basis and aren't infinitely malleable, but there is an element of social construction; it's just that it's greatly exaggerated by people like Oliver D. Smith.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    It’s a stupid question since “black” and “white” are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse

    Such obviously absurd statements, completely discrediting your argument.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Dmitry

    How many of these hundreds of intelligence experts who agree that racial differences in IQ are caused by genetics have you so far refuted?

     

    I'm going to go way off-topic, but it is something I wished to comment on the topic.

    Sure it's possible that racial differences in IQ test score results are caused by genetics - and this might be measured within a same country perhaps producing valid evidence, where you can at least make a semblance of isolated genetic component, with all other various being equal.

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents' scores - without genetics having relevance to the change).

    People like Richard Lynn who compare between countries (even with their various 'corrections' for other variables, which they draw out of hat), and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries, are not necessarily much more refined than someone who would look at the population of Russia in 1900, and find the majority borderline retarded, and argue that genetics is the explanation. The confounding variables are way too many to even make a semblance of isolating the genetic component, when comparing different countries (which are often at different stages of historical development).

    (Many African countries are still in the position in terms of educational standards as the Russian Empire in the turn of the century).

    ---

    And then even comparing between countries at the same stage of historical development, there will be different cultural approaches to taking these tests, which will influence the scores.

    A post a paper arguing for this in relation to comparisons between American and Russian language test subjects on certain tests:

    In these tests, the American group outscored the Russian group. However, because we selected volunteers with no brain damage and performance on other tests was in normal limits in both groups, it appears unreasonable to attribute low performance of the Russian sample to problems with in attention, concentration, or planning strategies, which are being assessed by these tasks. Rather, the differences might reflect culture-specific effect of relevance of the assessed function to real-life experience. That is, lack of exposure to timed tests and rare occurrence of experiences where timed performance is required or measured in everyday routine of Russian people could provide a salient explanation for the observed group differences. Furthermore, these findings may provide additional support to the notion of cultural specificity of cognitive abilities put forward by Ardila (1995) and Greenfield (1997). That is, because Russian culture does not emphasize importance of timing one's performance, adhering to deadlines, and being prompt as much as does American culture, measuring cognitive performance with timed tests might be not as ecologically valid. That is, understanding the ecological validity of the neuropsychological tests is critical for valid interpretation of the results (Ardila, 2001; Shordone & Long, 1997).
     

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887617707000091

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).

    The early IQ tests tended to ask general knowledge questions on the assumption that a more intelligent person picks up more random facts and a literate person had a huge advantage over an illiterate person even if their biological mental ability was the same. Psychometrics arose as its own field in the 1930s to develop tests that are more dependent on pure mental ability but Russia missed these tests as the communists had taken over.

    If non-verbal tests had been in use earlier we might have seen less of a gap in scores of Russians of 1900 and Russians of 2000. There may be an illusion at work here where you’re thinking of today’s illiterate people and imagining Russians in 1900 as alike but today an illiterate is going to be someone with a developmental disorder like Down’s syndrome. That wasn’t true in 1900 when there were plenty of normal children who were just never taught to read.

    There were also ethnic groups with high literacy rates in the Russian empire and people generally did not note an intelligence gap between ethnic Russians and Finns, Latvians etc. But many most certainly did make comments about the clever Jews…

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.
     
    The Russian Karelians are genetically indistinguishable from Finns but "socially" almost indistinguishable from the Russian. That is, cultural factors (the adoption of different versions of Christianity and different models of civilization), was in this case more important than genetics.

    Also Russian are divided into two different genetic clusters, but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc.. There are many examples; for this distinction of European Nations is likely to be determined mainly by cultural factors..

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @Anatoly Karlin

    But claims where people are trying to compare between countries are a bit of a speculative joke.
     
    Not if said countries are at a similar level of development.

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).
     
    We don't particularly have to speculate - the first IQ studies in the Russian Empire and 1920s USSR showed Russians to be 2/3-1 S.D. below West European norms. Then the entire subject was banned. But after it became politically correct again, Russians are now scoring around 97.

    That said, regional differences within Russia remanied remarkably constant, e.g.: Zverev estimated the Russian IQ in the region of 81 points on a sample of 114 children in the Kursk region (test Binet-Bert) in 1928. A couple of years later, EV Guryanov et al. estimated Russian IQ in the region of 90 points on a sample of 414 Moscow children (Stanford-Binet test) compared to US standards. This, by the way, is exactly equal to today's difference between the Kursk region and Moscow based on PISA tests. (Google Translation of my Russia IQ article)

    ... and then speculate that genetics is the main variable between countries...
     
    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better - better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture - culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.

    Anatolu, have you been following the Chanda Chisala discussion? I think he has shown that there have to be quite a lot of black groups even in Africa which have quite hight IQ even by white standards. That of course does not refute hereditarian hypothesis, but it does show that the sarcastic quip about endemic culture is a gross simplification.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Where? Who? (I want tests of cognitive ability apart from scrabble)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Dmitry

    Sub-Saharan Africa and China in the 1980s were both pretty much Third World. Even so, the Chinese performed vastly better – better, in fact, than Blacks in the US.

    Two explanations: Culture – culture, moreover, that seems to be endemic to Blacks throughout the entire world; or genetics.
     

    China is historically one of the world's most developed and literate civilizations, which had gone through centuries of decline. While a lot of sub-Saharan African countries have only recently started to leave the hunter-gatherer stage.

    Is the difference in their test scores only cultural or is there a genetic component, or a interacting combination of both, and in what proportions? If you want to isolate the variables, country-to-country comparison is going to be the hardest way to do it.

    The idea that there is a genetic component is very intuitively plausible in explaining differences in test score. But intuitively plausible is not acceptable criteria. We have to control variables and isolate variables before we have evidence for our hypothesis, and preferably show we can manipulate an independent variables, and reproduce this experimentally.

    We are not at the experimental stage yet, so we rely on correlation type study. The usefulness of correlations is very dependent on controlling variables - while with country-country comparison you are just introducing numerous additional confounding variables not found in intra-country comparison. (Although without personal interest in the subject - I am sure there is plenty of work starting in this area, where the most basic first step is to take people from the same culture, but with different genetic profiles - and which you guys will have more knowledge of than me.)

    Richard Lynn approach is not proving anything beyond that the 'phenomena to be explained (different test scores) exists' in different countries, and then adding on what seems to him to be the intuitively plausible explanation. This is fine for entertainment and speculative works - but if an engineer would behave like this, I would not trust walking on their bridge.

    China is historically one of the world’s most developed and literate civilizations, which had gone through centuries of decline. While a lot of sub-Saharan African countries have only recently started to leave the hunter-gatherer stage.

    Research (in America) IQ white children (adopted white parents) and IQ of black children (adopted white parents), showed a difference (IQ of white children is higher than the IQ of black children in the same environment). I am a person to this topic neutral, but I think that it is very likely that the differences in IQ of blacks and whites are (partly) hereditary. An alternative explanation seem unlikely

    Read More
    • Agree: Dmitry
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Art Deco
    It’s a stupid question since “black” and “white” are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with.

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.

    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”.
    And in regards to Africa, phenotypical differences between East Africans and people from somewhere like Nigeria are clearly discernible even to outsiders. I suppose such differences must be even more obvious to Africans themselves.
    Race, ethnicity etc. do have a significant biological basis and aren’t infinitely malleable, but there is an element of social construction; it’s just that it’s greatly exaggerated by people like Oliver D. Smith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    They correspond to the best fit clusters drawn by a computer given genetic data with 99% accuracy.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

    They're no more socially constructed than any other subspecies category.
    , @Art Deco
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”

    No, they'd be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he'd be called white. American blacks generally draw about 15% of their pedigree from Europe. I'll wager Michelle Obama is about average in this respect, Condoleeza Rice a notch above average &c. Obama is unusual in that he had no connection to the domestic black population until he moved to New York at age 20, just his grandpa's checker-playing hookah-smoking chum, Frank Marshall Davis. Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    , @dfordoom

    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”.
     
    And what exactly do we mean by white people? Are we talking about Caucasians? Europeans? Are we including Jews? Armenians? Arabs? Persians? "White people" is pretty much meaningless as a term. Does anybody actually agree on what "white people" is supposed to mean?

    There may or may not be genetic IQ differences between races and/or ethnicities but "black" and "white" are terms that are surely too vague to be useful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @German_reader

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.
     
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don't look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called "black".
    And in regards to Africa, phenotypical differences between East Africans and people from somewhere like Nigeria are clearly discernible even to outsiders. I suppose such differences must be even more obvious to Africans themselves.
    Race, ethnicity etc. do have a significant biological basis and aren't infinitely malleable, but there is an element of social construction; it's just that it's greatly exaggerated by people like Oliver D. Smith.

    They correspond to the best fit clusters drawn by a computer given genetic data with 99% accuracy.

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

    They’re no more socially constructed than any other subspecies category.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @szopen
    Anatolu, have you been following the Chanda Chisala discussion? I think he has shown that there have to be quite a lot of black groups even in Africa which have quite hight IQ even by white standards. That of course does not refute hereditarian hypothesis, but it does show that the sarcastic quip about endemic culture is a gross simplification.

    Where? Who? (I want tests of cognitive ability apart from scrabble)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I only have some personal ancedotes but Igbo-descented Africans do seem to do well although from what they told me, in their native countries, overwhelming corruption still keeps any real progress from being accomplished. You might have individuals with the human capital to setup a reasonably complex IT system to support a business, but the exceeding interest of the government upon discovering anything functional will be to find a way to rob them.

    FWIW, I think that HBDchick has some articles on this as well.

    , @szopen
    If you have followed the whole debate, it wasn't just about scrabble. I would say he conclusively have shown that the IQ levels reported by Lynn for at least some countries are waaay to low.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Jaakko Raipala

    At the beginning of the 20th century, 76% of all people in the Russian Empire could not read or write (imagine their IQ score results). By 1950s, literacy rates in the Soviet Union were among the highest in the world (imagine how different their IQ score results were to their grandparents’ scores – without genetics having relevance to the change).
     
    The early IQ tests tended to ask general knowledge questions on the assumption that a more intelligent person picks up more random facts and a literate person had a huge advantage over an illiterate person even if their biological mental ability was the same. Psychometrics arose as its own field in the 1930s to develop tests that are more dependent on pure mental ability but Russia missed these tests as the communists had taken over.

    If non-verbal tests had been in use earlier we might have seen less of a gap in scores of Russians of 1900 and Russians of 2000. There may be an illusion at work here where you're thinking of today's illiterate people and imagining Russians in 1900 as alike but today an illiterate is going to be someone with a developmental disorder like Down's syndrome. That wasn't true in 1900 when there were plenty of normal children who were just never taught to read.

    There were also ethnic groups with high literacy rates in the Russian empire and people generally did not note an intelligence gap between ethnic Russians and Finns, Latvians etc. But many most certainly did make comments about the clever Jews...

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.

    The Russian Karelians are genetically indistinguishable from Finns but “socially” almost indistinguishable from the Russian. That is, cultural factors (the adoption of different versions of Christianity and different models of civilization), was in this case more important than genetics.

    Also Russian are divided into two different genetic clusters, but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc.. There are many examples; for this distinction of European Nations is likely to be determined mainly by cultural factors..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    ... but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc..
     
    I disagree. There's a pretty clear South-->North transition in Russia (slightly higher IQ, considerably more civic/less corrupt, more saunas over banyas, but more alcoholism, higher murder rates)
    , @Jaakko Raipala
    Actually, no. There are huge gaps between Finnish populations and there is more genetic diversity in Finland than in any other European country (except Russia). Finns are not exactly one ethnic group and some parts of Eastern Finland are Karelians; Karelians in Finland are very close to Karelians in Russia but most Finns are not close to Karelians.

    Here's a dialect map:

    https://sampuliblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/murrekartta.png

    The Eastern dialects of the purple areas are close relatives of Karelian and other nearly dead languages in nearby areas of Russia. In all other aspects of ethnicity (pagan religion etc) except type of Christianity the purple Eastern areas of Finland are closer to Karelians and Vepsians than to Western Finland and they even were to some extent Orthodox first.

    Here's an example of a genetic map:

    http://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/sites/default/files/imagecache/biggest/domain-8142/kuvat/Salmela11.png

    FIW = West Finns (green on dialect map), FIE = East Finns (purple). Their Russian samples seem to be from Vologda and they are actually closer to West Finns than to East Finns.

    There are regional differences in Finland in crime rates, IQ, alcoholism and the like and they may well have genetic components, in fact we already have clear examples of culture-generated genetic differences eg. lactose tolerance is *much* higher in West Finns than in East Finns.

    We spoke about Finno-Ugric admixture in north Russians in other threads and for that, one thing to realize is that in the old theory identified by Finnish linguists there were *two* Finno-Ugric expansions that populated Finland and north Russia, an early one from the Volga that spoke the language that later diverged into Finnish, Saami, Mordvin etc and a secondary one when a set of speakers of this language merged with some Indo-Europeans (Balts or proto-Balto-Slavs) near what's now Baltic states and formed a farming hybrid culture that expanded into Finland and north Russia, leaving behind Finns, Estonians, Vepsians etc who are hybrids of the original Finno-Ugrians from the Volga and the I-E+Finno-Ugric hybrid that expanded as far East as Arkhangelsk.

    In the old theory of Finnish linguists Finland was taken over by Finno-Ugrians twice with a second invasion of the hybrid culture from Estonia hitting mainly the southwest. The genetics seems to be a perfect fit so far and the chase for Finno-Ugric admixture in north Russia should be looking for two waves of Finno-Ugrians, one heavily hybridized with early Indo-Europeans. And the theory of "higher IQ from Finno-Ugric admixture" has a big problem in Finland since it seems like the less Finno-Ugric (?) West does much better in standardized tests. If we had a country of just West-Finns without Swedes, Easterners, and Laplanders we'd score much higher in PISA studies...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    The ‘hereditarianism’ position would be anything over 50%

    Not necessarily. Anything over 0% would ascribe some differences to genetic causes. The question is merely – how much. Context is also important. A “hereditarian” could claim that under ideal equal conditions with no environmental impact, differences could be 100% attributable to genetics. But because such conditions do not exist, he might assume that 40% of the observed differences have a genetic cause. This would not mean that he is not a hereditarian.

    The bottom line is that 83% of experts consider that at least some of the differences in intelligence between races is due to a genetic cause.

    And an anthropologist arguing something about intelligence against a psychologist such as Jensen is like a geologist arguing about climate change against a climatologist. Take these forays out of his area of expertise with a big grain of salt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Oliver D. Smith
    It's a stupid question since "black" and "white" are very large (socially constructed) groups, that are not homogeneous and so are useless to analyse data with. So for example, you can find certain "black" populations in Sub-Saharan Africa with higher average IQ scores than certain "white" populations in Europe, and vice-versa. Wicherts et al. (2010) report a significant "indication of heterogeneity in mean IQs" for SSA countries, i.e. 73.8 to 91.4.

    As to what that 2013 survey shows, I fail to see how it supports the hereditarianism position:

    * 0% of differences due to genes: 17% of experts
    * 0-40% of differences due to genes: 42% of experts
    *50% of differences due to genes: 18% of experts
    *60-100% of differences due to genes: 39% of experts
    * 100% of differences due to genes: 5% of experts

    The 'hereditarianism' position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I've seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That's laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. "On Creeping Jensenism") doesn't argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.

    Just to give an example. The difference in average IQ between whites and African Americans is about 15 points. Someone who things that 50% of the difference is due to genes thinks that due to genes African Americans have IQs on average 7.5 points lower than those of whites, with the environment accounting for another 7.5 points on average. Someone who thinks genes account for 30% of the difference thinks that for genetic reason African Americans have average IQs about 5 points lower than those of whites, and environment explains the other 10 points.

    Why do you think that an expert who thinks that genes account for 30% of the difference, or 20% of the difference, is not a hereditarian?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @German_reader

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.
     
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don't look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called "black".
    And in regards to Africa, phenotypical differences between East Africans and people from somewhere like Nigeria are clearly discernible even to outsiders. I suppose such differences must be even more obvious to Africans themselves.
    Race, ethnicity etc. do have a significant biological basis and aren't infinitely malleable, but there is an element of social construction; it's just that it's greatly exaggerated by people like Oliver D. Smith.

    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”

    No, they’d be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he’d be called white. American blacks generally draw about 15% of their pedigree from Europe. I’ll wager Michelle Obama is about average in this respect, Condoleeza Rice a notch above average &c. Obama is unusual in that he had no connection to the domestic black population until he moved to New York at age 20, just his grandpa’s checker-playing hookah-smoking chum, Frank Marshall Davis. Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    Yet, he was the 2nd black American President.
    , @German_reader

    No, they’d be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he’d be called white.
     
    Yes, but that's the "social construction" part. So in that sense people like Oliver D. Smith are correct that categories like "black" and "white" depend to some extent on the context of a specific society, and aren't necessarily accurate descriptions of genetic reality.
    , @Hibernian
    Pres. Obamas contacts with black Americans while he was growing up in Hawaii included fellow black high school students who tended to come from military families.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Art Deco
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”

    No, they'd be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he'd be called white. American blacks generally draw about 15% of their pedigree from Europe. I'll wager Michelle Obama is about average in this respect, Condoleeza Rice a notch above average &c. Obama is unusual in that he had no connection to the domestic black population until he moved to New York at age 20, just his grandpa's checker-playing hookah-smoking chum, Frank Marshall Davis. Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    Yet, he was the 2nd black American President.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @DFH

    The ‘hereditarianism’ position would be anything over 50%, and most experts are not arguing for this. And I’ve seen a straw-man on this website that restricts the anti-hereditarianism position to not under 50%, but only 0%. That’s laughable because the biological anthropologist C. Loring Brace who denies the existence of race and put out several studies debunking Arthur Jensen back in the 1970s/80s/1990s (e.g. “On Creeping Jensenism”) doesn’t argue for 0% of differences due to genes, but something like 10-20%.
     
    So which of the 44% of intelligence experts who are, even by your own definition, hereditarians have you so far refuted?

    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace’s papers, including “On Creeping Jensenism” when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    “However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 – well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between ‘racial’ or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental.” – C. Loring Brace, “On Creeping Jensenism”

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it’s totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I’ve said you HBD”/”race realist” weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job – the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your “alt right” (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it’s totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial.
     
    This may seem like an amazingly wild idea, but sometimes analysis for truth and understanding is worthwhile for its own sake. You could even call it an intellectual virtue to be open-minded enough to acknowledge various potential genetic factors, rather than embrace an idea just because it'll maximize the number of mooks you can acquire in the glories of demotism.

    Pretty sure if Mr. Karlin's sole goal in life was to maximize readership and hits, his articles might have more clickbait titles, for one. For example, "One weird trick to get 'rationalists' to lose their mind..."

    , @DFH

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it’s totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial
     
    Thanks for showing so plainly that your 'refutation' is just witch-hunting for socially unacceptable views.
    ''''''''''''''''''''''Rational''''''''''''''''''''''wiki - KEK
    , @Art Deco
    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?


    Not a whole lot.

    The problem we face in this country is professional-managerial types who insist on distorting and disfiguring institutions in order to build patron-client relations. The excuse is that otherwise, people are treating their clients unfairly, the evidence for which being that there are differences in performance scores between their clients and the ordinary run of (American) humanity. The foundational excuse was to 'make up for past discrimination', one which later morphed into promoting 'diversity' - i.e. contriving to reduce the presence of social sectors the patronage mill-builders despise a priori.

    People with emotional attachments to non-hereditarian perspectives cannot leave well enough alone and accept a system of natural liberty where it's equal liberty conjoined to careers-open-to-talents. That's the only system perceived as just by the bulk of the population. It's disliked by certain social strata and that dislike is a class delimiter defining in-groups and out-groups, so the chances of public policy being based on what most people want approaches nil.

    It's gotten to the point where that same class of people is making use of various sorts of legal and institutional harassment in order to wreck the livlihood of anyone who opposes them. We putatively have the right to speak in this country. That's eroding, because recognizing that would be recognition by the legal profession and those in their circle of friends that we're not under their tutelage. And that they won't do.
    , @neutral

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?
     
    It's already in use in politics, affirmative action is nothing more than the acknowledgement that blacks are an inferior race. It does not matter where you are, anywhere affirmative action is practiced (USA, Canada, Britain, France) the only criteria to qualify is racial, they never factor in "culture" or "environment" because they know that blacks are inferior and the only way to cover up your pseudoscience is throwing enormous amounts of money at blacks and hoping it will cover up the truth.

    There are no black states, cities, societies that can be measured as a success, absolutely none, not a single exception to this rule, even the contrived example of Barbados simply proves that mulattos are superior to pure blacks. This being the case, the use of politics of this very fundamental truth are the following.
    1) stop mass immigration by inferior races, nobody seriously believes that replacing Germans with low IQ Syrians is going keep Germany the same as before
    2) halt all wasted transfer of resources to black people in the name of affirmative action, if anything this harms black people more than it helps them
    3) create public policy that is based on facts (imagine that) instead of crazed ideologies that have zero grounding in reality


    As for your belief that it is "unpalatable" argument, this is nothing more than being based on fear, fear of going to jail in some states, fear of losing ones job by refusing to accept the faith of equality and fear of black people as their low average IQ makes them prone to sincerely believe they are equal and thus will lash out at anyone that says otherwise. It is safe to say that the vast majority of the non black world sees blacks as inferior, to not see this basic truth is like trying to argue that the sun is not hot, many don't want to be rude in public, but at a certain point your dogmas are going to create such societal damage that people will increasingly not care about respecting your beliefs.

    , @Anatoly Karlin

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?
     
    Here's a summary: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ea-and-intelligence-theory/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @DFH
    Where? Who? (I want tests of cognitive ability apart from scrabble)

    I only have some personal ancedotes but Igbo-descented Africans do seem to do well although from what they told me, in their native countries, overwhelming corruption still keeps any real progress from being accomplished. You might have individuals with the human capital to setup a reasonably complex IT system to support a business, but the exceeding interest of the government upon discovering anything functional will be to find a way to rob them.

    FWIW, I think that HBDchick has some articles on this as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    I don't doubt that some African groups are more intelligent than others or that there are some intelligent individual Africans, but I have never seen any evidence (as the previous commenter suggested) that any groups are as intelligent as Europeans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @melanf

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.
     
    The Russian Karelians are genetically indistinguishable from Finns but "socially" almost indistinguishable from the Russian. That is, cultural factors (the adoption of different versions of Christianity and different models of civilization), was in this case more important than genetics.

    Also Russian are divided into two different genetic clusters, but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc.. There are many examples; for this distinction of European Nations is likely to be determined mainly by cultural factors..

    … but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc..

    I disagree. There’s a pretty clear South–>North transition in Russia (slightly higher IQ, considerably more civic/less corrupt, more saunas over banyas, but more alcoholism, higher murder rates)

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf

    I disagree. There’s a pretty clear South–>North transition in Russia (slightly higher IQ, considerably more civic/less corrupt, more saunas over banyas, but more alcoholism, higher murder rates)
     
    Existing social differences do not coincide with genetic differences that can easily be seen in maps

    http://mapinmap.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Russiamurder2014.png

    https://78.media.tumblr.com/9c33f898654e614cf4b79d9203b73e09/tumblr_oo2wcdYREI1rasnq9o1_1280.png

    http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Russia_alcoholism_2010.png

    Genetic differences exist in the direction North-South, but social differences in the direction East-West.
    IQ gradient North-South IMHO is easy to explain by higher percentage of the rural population in the South.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Oliver D. Smith
    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace's papers, including "On Creeping Jensenism" when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    "However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 - well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between 'racial' or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental." - C. Loring Brace, "On Creeping Jensenism"

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it's totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I've said you HBD"/"race realist" weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job - the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your "alt right" (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it’s totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial.

    This may seem like an amazingly wild idea, but sometimes analysis for truth and understanding is worthwhile for its own sake. You could even call it an intellectual virtue to be open-minded enough to acknowledge various potential genetic factors, rather than embrace an idea just because it’ll maximize the number of mooks you can acquire in the glories of demotism.

    Pretty sure if Mr. Karlin’s sole goal in life was to maximize readership and hits, his articles might have more clickbait titles, for one. For example, “One weird trick to get ‘rationalists’ to lose their mind…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Oliver D. Smith
    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace's papers, including "On Creeping Jensenism" when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    "However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 - well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between 'racial' or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental." - C. Loring Brace, "On Creeping Jensenism"

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it's totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I've said you HBD"/"race realist" weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job - the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your "alt right" (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it’s totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial

    Thanks for showing so plainly that your ‘refutation’ is just witch-hunting for socially unacceptable views.
    ”””””””””””Rational”””””””””””wiki – KEK

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Daniel Chieh
    I only have some personal ancedotes but Igbo-descented Africans do seem to do well although from what they told me, in their native countries, overwhelming corruption still keeps any real progress from being accomplished. You might have individuals with the human capital to setup a reasonably complex IT system to support a business, but the exceeding interest of the government upon discovering anything functional will be to find a way to rob them.

    FWIW, I think that HBDchick has some articles on this as well.

    I don’t doubt that some African groups are more intelligent than others or that there are some intelligent individual Africans, but I have never seen any evidence (as the previous commenter suggested) that any groups are as intelligent as Europeans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I found this blog post by Peter Frost - who is arguably one of the major "entryways" I had into HBD. Note that he doesn't vastly dispute Chisala's position, but the fact that the Igbo do so well versus the rest of Africa only makes the heredity position stronger.

    https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-jews-of-west-africa.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @DFH
    I don't doubt that some African groups are more intelligent than others or that there are some intelligent individual Africans, but I have never seen any evidence (as the previous commenter suggested) that any groups are as intelligent as Europeans.

    I found this blog post by Peter Frost – who is arguably one of the major “entryways” I had into HBD. Note that he doesn’t vastly dispute Chisala’s position, but the fact that the Igbo do so well versus the rest of Africa only makes the heredity position stronger.

    https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-jews-of-west-africa.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Thanks for the article. It would be interesting to see IQ-proxy data about the Igbo relative to the rest of Africa.

    A criticism of Chisla he could have mentioned is that GSCEs are not very G-loaded and all other measures show much bigger white-black gaps in the UK.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA0XGVjQtQM&t=295s
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Art Deco
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”

    No, they'd be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he'd be called white. American blacks generally draw about 15% of their pedigree from Europe. I'll wager Michelle Obama is about average in this respect, Condoleeza Rice a notch above average &c. Obama is unusual in that he had no connection to the domestic black population until he moved to New York at age 20, just his grandpa's checker-playing hookah-smoking chum, Frank Marshall Davis. Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    No, they’d be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he’d be called white.

    Yes, but that’s the “social construction” part. So in that sense people like Oliver D. Smith are correct that categories like “black” and “white” depend to some extent on the context of a specific society, and aren’t necessarily accurate descriptions of genetic reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    It's 'socially constructed' with people who have mixed ancestry. My ancestry is 99.9% European. That I'm 'white' is not socially constructed.
    , @utu
    The “social construction” argument about race like all arguments socially is constructed. Its objective is to shut you up and and make you stop thinking in racial categories.

    Not so long ago I listened on NPR to an interview with a woman activist who said that race is socially constructed, i.e., races do not exist, but then she admitted that race is still a convenient concept for them when fighting the racism, so it is not being abolished yet. What she really meant is that they need a method to create at least two categories of white people and everybody else. By abolishing race they would lose the ability to find identify their enemy.

    Obviously the concept of race can't be abolished entirely as it is fairly easy to define races genetically with the method of clusters. Then the races can be even more nuanced and depend on genetic differences that do not have manifestation in external phenotype, though usually they do.

    If however Bullworth's racial reconstruction is implemented then indeed the concept of race will be less useful.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmNFDJgPrRI
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Daniel Chieh
    I found this blog post by Peter Frost - who is arguably one of the major "entryways" I had into HBD. Note that he doesn't vastly dispute Chisala's position, but the fact that the Igbo do so well versus the rest of Africa only makes the heredity position stronger.

    https://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-jews-of-west-africa.html

    Thanks for the article. It would be interesting to see IQ-proxy data about the Igbo relative to the rest of Africa.

    A criticism of Chisla he could have mentioned is that GSCEs are not very G-loaded and all other measures show much bigger white-black gaps in the UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. I identify as the reincarnation of Mecha-Hitler from Wolfenstein 3D

    LOFL not bad, Anatoly, not bad. I still get to be Emperor of China though. My pronouns are His Imperial Majesty/The Lord of 10,000 Years/Son of Heaven’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. About 50% of variance of SAT(Race, Income) as function of race and income can be explained by race. Family income does not eliminate SAT differences between Black and White even in the highest income brackets. The difference is virtually income bracket independent.

    The SAT(Race, Income) function approximately has the following form:

    SAT(Race,Income)=a+b*income + delta

    where delta=0 if Race=Black and delta=delta>0 if Race =White

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @Oliver D. Smith
    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace's papers, including "On Creeping Jensenism" when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    "However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 - well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between 'racial' or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental." - C. Loring Brace, "On Creeping Jensenism"

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it's totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I've said you HBD"/"race realist" weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job - the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your "alt right" (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?

    Not a whole lot.

    The problem we face in this country is professional-managerial types who insist on distorting and disfiguring institutions in order to build patron-client relations. The excuse is that otherwise, people are treating their clients unfairly, the evidence for which being that there are differences in performance scores between their clients and the ordinary run of (American) humanity. The foundational excuse was to ‘make up for past discrimination’, one which later morphed into promoting ‘diversity’ – i.e. contriving to reduce the presence of social sectors the patronage mill-builders despise a priori.

    People with emotional attachments to non-hereditarian perspectives cannot leave well enough alone and accept a system of natural liberty where it’s equal liberty conjoined to careers-open-to-talents. That’s the only system perceived as just by the bulk of the population. It’s disliked by certain social strata and that dislike is a class delimiter defining in-groups and out-groups, so the chances of public policy being based on what most people want approaches nil.

    It’s gotten to the point where that same class of people is making use of various sorts of legal and institutional harassment in order to wreck the livlihood of anyone who opposes them. We putatively have the right to speak in this country. That’s eroding, because recognizing that would be recognition by the legal profession and those in their circle of friends that we’re not under their tutelage. And that they won’t do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @German_reader

    No, they’d be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he’d be called white.
     
    Yes, but that's the "social construction" part. So in that sense people like Oliver D. Smith are correct that categories like "black" and "white" depend to some extent on the context of a specific society, and aren't necessarily accurate descriptions of genetic reality.

    It’s ‘socially constructed’ with people who have mixed ancestry. My ancestry is 99.9% European. That I’m ‘white’ is not socially constructed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    True enough, and the way this "socially construced" line is used nowadays is, it's mostly obscurantist sophistry.
    , @Hibernian
    The one drop rule is socially constructed, and the left wants to perpetuate it. Latin American classifications of mestizo, mulatto, and whatever the word is for a 3 way mixture of Black, White and Indian, are more grounded in reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Art Deco
    It's 'socially constructed' with people who have mixed ancestry. My ancestry is 99.9% European. That I'm 'white' is not socially constructed.

    True enough, and the way this “socially construced” line is used nowadays is, it’s mostly obscurantist sophistry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Congrats buddy!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  115. @German_reader

    No, they’d be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he’d be called white.
     
    Yes, but that's the "social construction" part. So in that sense people like Oliver D. Smith are correct that categories like "black" and "white" depend to some extent on the context of a specific society, and aren't necessarily accurate descriptions of genetic reality.

    The “social construction” argument about race like all arguments socially is constructed. Its objective is to shut you up and and make you stop thinking in racial categories.

    Not so long ago I listened on NPR to an interview with a woman activist who said that race is socially constructed, i.e., races do not exist, but then she admitted that race is still a convenient concept for them when fighting the racism, so it is not being abolished yet. What she really meant is that they need a method to create at least two categories of white people and everybody else. By abolishing race they would lose the ability to find identify their enemy.

    Obviously the concept of race can’t be abolished entirely as it is fairly easy to define races genetically with the method of clusters. Then the races can be even more nuanced and depend on genetic differences that do not have manifestation in external phenotype, though usually they do.

    If however Bullworth’s racial reconstruction is implemented then indeed the concept of race will be less useful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @German_reader

    No, they are human phenotypes, not socially constructed at all.
     
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don't look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called "black".
    And in regards to Africa, phenotypical differences between East Africans and people from somewhere like Nigeria are clearly discernible even to outsiders. I suppose such differences must be even more obvious to Africans themselves.
    Race, ethnicity etc. do have a significant biological basis and aren't infinitely malleable, but there is an element of social construction; it's just that it's greatly exaggerated by people like Oliver D. Smith.

    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”.

    And what exactly do we mean by white people? Are we talking about Caucasians? Europeans? Are we including Jews? Armenians? Arabs? Persians? “White people” is pretty much meaningless as a term. Does anybody actually agree on what “white people” is supposed to mean?

    There may or may not be genetic IQ differences between races and/or ethnicities but “black” and “white” are terms that are surely too vague to be useful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @neutral
    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Oliver D. Smith
    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace's papers, including "On Creeping Jensenism" when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    "However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 - well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between 'racial' or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental." - C. Loring Brace, "On Creeping Jensenism"

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it's totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I've said you HBD"/"race realist" weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job - the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your "alt right" (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?

    It’s already in use in politics, affirmative action is nothing more than the acknowledgement that blacks are an inferior race. It does not matter where you are, anywhere affirmative action is practiced (USA, Canada, Britain, France) the only criteria to qualify is racial, they never factor in “culture” or “environment” because they know that blacks are inferior and the only way to cover up your pseudoscience is throwing enormous amounts of money at blacks and hoping it will cover up the truth.

    There are no black states, cities, societies that can be measured as a success, absolutely none, not a single exception to this rule, even the contrived example of Barbados simply proves that mulattos are superior to pure blacks. This being the case, the use of politics of this very fundamental truth are the following.
    1) stop mass immigration by inferior races, nobody seriously believes that replacing Germans with low IQ Syrians is going keep Germany the same as before
    2) halt all wasted transfer of resources to black people in the name of affirmative action, if anything this harms black people more than it helps them
    3) create public policy that is based on facts (imagine that) instead of crazed ideologies that have zero grounding in reality

    As for your belief that it is “unpalatable” argument, this is nothing more than being based on fear, fear of going to jail in some states, fear of losing ones job by refusing to accept the faith of equality and fear of black people as their low average IQ makes them prone to sincerely believe they are equal and thus will lash out at anyone that says otherwise. It is safe to say that the vast majority of the non black world sees blacks as inferior, to not see this basic truth is like trying to argue that the sun is not hot, many don’t want to be rude in public, but at a certain point your dogmas are going to create such societal damage that people will increasingly not care about respecting your beliefs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "affirmative action is nothing more than the acknowledgement that blacks are an inferior race"

    That certainly isn't the rationale as I understand it.

    They're not inferior when it comes to running, or jazz improvisation if it comes to that. And if you have to use those labels, white Brits are intellectually inferior to Ashkenazis and Far Easterners. But as a Brit, I prefer my own, even if we're not as fast over 100m or win fewer Fields Medals per capita - as Mr Sailer has pointed out, that's what separate countries are for.

    "many don’t want to be rude in public, but at a certain point your dogmas are going to create such societal damage"

    As has been pointed out many times, those who are loudest in praise of diversity also seem pretty good at minimising its impact on their (and their children's) daily lives.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @dfordoom

    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”.
     
    And what exactly do we mean by white people? Are we talking about Caucasians? Europeans? Are we including Jews? Armenians? Arabs? Persians? "White people" is pretty much meaningless as a term. Does anybody actually agree on what "white people" is supposed to mean?

    There may or may not be genetic IQ differences between races and/or ethnicities but "black" and "white" are terms that are surely too vague to be useful.

    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    , the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white,
     
    No. They were considered part of Caucasian race by early physical anthropologists. Also, in the clustering analysis they are clustered with whites when number of clusters is given as "3".

    I'd say, looking at Syrian refugees, that there are people there who could pass for an Italian or even Polish. It's just in their mass they look unmistakenly alien.
    , @dfordoom

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white
     
    I didn't say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is "middle easterner" a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a "white race" so making comparisons between "black" and "white" races is not really scientifically possible. I'm not saying that race doesn't exist or that it's a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you're trying to make comparisons between populations. "Asian" is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you'd have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.
    , @Dmitry

    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.
     

    I agree mainly with the comment - but there is a difference between white and European. That's why 'White Nationalism' should be called something like 'Pan-European nationalism' instead.

    Perception of white is usually based on how a person looks - whereas being European is a genetic one. That's why the Nazis used their own concept of 'Aryan' and 'non-Aryan', rather than relying on coloration.

    When you talk about European people - then you're referring to people of genetic origin from the Ancient European peoples.

    If you talk about 'white', 'brown', 'yellow', 'black' - you are usually referring to external coloration or appearance.

    External appearance can be deceptive in many cases, as with Middle Eastern people - as a proportion people of Middle Eastern nationalities look externally white, while many people who are European origin (e.g. a majority of Italians, Spanish, Greeks, etc), look brown.

    As nobody is going around giving people forced DNA tests, and we don't have any National Socialist countries (which used the concept of 'Aryan') - the thing which usually effects people in terms of racial treatment, on day-to-day life is external colouration (whether they look white, brown, yellow or black).

    Jews are Middle Eastern origin nationality, so they are clearly non-European ethnic group, and this is proved by modern research. But a proportion of Jewish people have white-colouration (i.e. blonde hair and pale skin) despite Middle Eastern origin. And the proportion with lighter colouration is how the country has the second highest skin cancer rates in the world https://www.haaretz.com/1.4718949

    -

    For example, Jewish model Esti Ginzburg would be described as white (external colouration and potential to get sunburn), but not as European (as genetic origin is the Middle Eastern region). In Israel, about 15-20% of the local population you see on street have a white coloration (at the same time that genetic tests showing they are Middle Eastern origin nationality) -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71XT5yaElK4


    By the way 'white' is also found in smaller numbers amongst the Arabs - as with the famous Palestinian protest girl Ahed Tamimi. She is 'white' but she is differently not European (either genetics or culturally).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=654RvixnTBM

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Anatoly Karlin

    ... but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc..
     
    I disagree. There's a pretty clear South-->North transition in Russia (slightly higher IQ, considerably more civic/less corrupt, more saunas over banyas, but more alcoholism, higher murder rates)

    I disagree. There’s a pretty clear South–>North transition in Russia (slightly higher IQ, considerably more civic/less corrupt, more saunas over banyas, but more alcoholism, higher murder rates)

    Existing social differences do not coincide with genetic differences that can easily be seen in maps

    Genetic differences exist in the direction North-South, but social differences in the direction East-West.
    IQ gradient North-South IMHO is easy to explain by higher percentage of the rural population in the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    The north/south genetic clustering exists in the medieval Russian territory that was already russified before the eastern conquests that began with Ivan IV. It doesn't exist East of the Urals where the ethnic Russian population is newer and drawn from all over the old heartland; the north/side gene difference of the European side was not replicated in Siberia because there was no policy of populating north and south Siberia with different populations.

    What we see in this map in the European regions are two bands of elevated crime rates: an east-west band roughly from Pskov to Arkhangelsk that seems to correspond to the north Russian genetic clustering and a north-south band roughly from Komi to Bashkortostan that corresponds with the presence of Turkic and Finno-Ugric ethnic groups. (I don't think the north/south divide exists in ethnic Russians of these regions, either, since they too are migrants who moved there in the past few centuries.)

    These are very rough patterns though but it would be interesting to see more detailed study of this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @DFH
    Where? Who? (I want tests of cognitive ability apart from scrabble)

    If you have followed the whole debate, it wasn’t just about scrabble. I would say he conclusively have shown that the IQ levels reported by Lynn for at least some countries are waaay to low.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @neutral
    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.

    , the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white,

    No. They were considered part of Caucasian race by early physical anthropologists. Also, in the clustering analysis they are clustered with whites when number of clusters is given as “3″.

    I’d say, looking at Syrian refugees, that there are people there who could pass for an Italian or even Polish. It’s just in their mass they look unmistakenly alien.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @neutral
    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white

    I didn’t say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is “middle easterner” a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a “white race” so making comparisons between “black” and “white” races is not really scientifically possible. I’m not saying that race doesn’t exist or that it’s a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you’re trying to make comparisons between populations. “Asian” is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you’d have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a “white race” so making comparisons between “black” and “white” races is not really scientifically possible.
     
    Scientists in non-western countries use race perfectly well, just like any other subspecies distinction.

    Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.
     
    No more broad on fuzzy than any other distinction made with animal subspecies, which scientists still use.
    , @Dmitry

    I didn’t say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is “middle easterner” a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a “white race” so making comparisons between “black” and “white” races is not really scientifically possible. I’m not saying that race doesn’t exist or that it’s a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you’re trying to make comparisons between populations. “Asian” is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you’d have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.
     

    Middle East is a geographical region - and there are various different native ethnic groups which originate in the region, which have degree of genetic relations between each other.

    Similarly Europe is geographical region, with its own native ethnic groups. European ethnic groups cluster together genetically as much as most geographically close regions, but the main unifying theme is the fact there have been centuries of emerging common European self-consciousness, religion (even if adopted from the Ancient Middle East), and cultural history usually subsumed under the concept - 'Western civilization'

    , @iffen
    d, it ain't that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.

    Most people with black ancestry will identify as black. Mixed race people are dealt a difficult hand. The stubborn and strong willed individuals can refuse to "pick."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @dfordoom

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white
     
    I didn't say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is "middle easterner" a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a "white race" so making comparisons between "black" and "white" races is not really scientifically possible. I'm not saying that race doesn't exist or that it's a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you're trying to make comparisons between populations. "Asian" is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you'd have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a “white race” so making comparisons between “black” and “white” races is not really scientifically possible.

    Scientists in non-western countries use race perfectly well, just like any other subspecies distinction.

    Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    No more broad on fuzzy than any other distinction made with animal subspecies, which scientists still use.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @melanf

    I disagree. There’s a pretty clear South–>North transition in Russia (slightly higher IQ, considerably more civic/less corrupt, more saunas over banyas, but more alcoholism, higher murder rates)
     
    Existing social differences do not coincide with genetic differences that can easily be seen in maps

    http://mapinmap.ru/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Russiamurder2014.png

    https://78.media.tumblr.com/9c33f898654e614cf4b79d9203b73e09/tumblr_oo2wcdYREI1rasnq9o1_1280.png

    http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Russia_alcoholism_2010.png

    Genetic differences exist in the direction North-South, but social differences in the direction East-West.
    IQ gradient North-South IMHO is easy to explain by higher percentage of the rural population in the South.

    The north/south genetic clustering exists in the medieval Russian territory that was already russified before the eastern conquests that began with Ivan IV. It doesn’t exist East of the Urals where the ethnic Russian population is newer and drawn from all over the old heartland; the north/side gene difference of the European side was not replicated in Siberia because there was no policy of populating north and south Siberia with different populations.

    What we see in this map in the European regions are two bands of elevated crime rates: an east-west band roughly from Pskov to Arkhangelsk that seems to correspond to the north Russian genetic clustering and a north-south band roughly from Komi to Bashkortostan that corresponds with the presence of Turkic and Finno-Ugric ethnic groups. (I don’t think the north/south divide exists in ethnic Russians of these regions, either, since they too are migrants who moved there in the past few centuries.)

    These are very rough patterns though but it would be interesting to see more detailed study of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @melanf
    "Genetically" in European Russia have to be two pole, and Siberia (where mixed Northern and southern Russian) must have an intermediate position.
    However, the reality is quite different .

    Also with Karelians - Finnish Karelians are very similar to the rest of the Finns, Russian Karelians are very similar to Russian. In this case, the cultural factor is more important than genetic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Oliver D. Smith
    Hereditarianians were refuted on this stuff like 40 years back. Read any of Brace's papers, including "On Creeping Jensenism" when he debated Arthur Jensen. Also read the papers in the following compendium: Race and IQ (ed.) Ashley Montagu, 1975 Oxford University Press, the second (expanded) edition was published in 1999 and is on Google Books.

    "However, he [Jensen] does not mention the fact that adopted children consistently display a substantially higher IQ than their biological parents. Skodak and Skeels (1949) found that the average IQ of the real mothers was 86, while that of their children adopted into other families was 106 - well over a whole standard deviation higher. Surely this indicates that, with an improved socioeconomic background, one can accomplish in one generation change that is greater than any difference between 'racial' or religious groups in the United States. The overwhelming component of this difference is certainly environmental." - C. Loring Brace, "On Creeping Jensenism"

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics? No one will vote for this type of thing, it's totally nuts to the ordinary public, like Holocaust denial. So what exactly are you achieving? Nothing. Indeed, this is why I've said you HBD"/"race realist" weirdos have almost put the SPLC out of a job - the stuff you promote is so unpalatable to voters, your "alt right" (or whatever euphemism you use) political movement is going absolutely nowhere.

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?

    Here’s a summary: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ea-and-intelligence-theory/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen's YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    "Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don't engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn't care about."
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Crwp7Ugd0

    Watch especially from 7:30 - 9:30 minutes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @melanf

    It is perfectly possible that there are genetic differences in time preference and impulsivity between European ethnic groups. Persistent behavioral differences and a West/East gap show up in crime rates and such.
     
    The Russian Karelians are genetically indistinguishable from Finns but "socially" almost indistinguishable from the Russian. That is, cultural factors (the adoption of different versions of Christianity and different models of civilization), was in this case more important than genetics.

    Also Russian are divided into two different genetic clusters, but genetic division is not correlated with crime rates, income levels, intellectual achievements per capita, etc.. There are many examples; for this distinction of European Nations is likely to be determined mainly by cultural factors..

    Actually, no. There are huge gaps between Finnish populations and there is more genetic diversity in Finland than in any other European country (except Russia). Finns are not exactly one ethnic group and some parts of Eastern Finland are Karelians; Karelians in Finland are very close to Karelians in Russia but most Finns are not close to Karelians.

    Here’s a dialect map:

    The Eastern dialects of the purple areas are close relatives of Karelian and other nearly dead languages in nearby areas of Russia. In all other aspects of ethnicity (pagan religion etc) except type of Christianity the purple Eastern areas of Finland are closer to Karelians and Vepsians than to Western Finland and they even were to some extent Orthodox first.

    Here’s an example of a genetic map:

    FIW = West Finns (green on dialect map), FIE = East Finns (purple). Their Russian samples seem to be from Vologda and they are actually closer to West Finns than to East Finns.

    There are regional differences in Finland in crime rates, IQ, alcoholism and the like and they may well have genetic components, in fact we already have clear examples of culture-generated genetic differences eg. lactose tolerance is *much* higher in West Finns than in East Finns.

    We spoke about Finno-Ugric admixture in north Russians in other threads and for that, one thing to realize is that in the old theory identified by Finnish linguists there were *two* Finno-Ugric expansions that populated Finland and north Russia, an early one from the Volga that spoke the language that later diverged into Finnish, Saami, Mordvin etc and a secondary one when a set of speakers of this language merged with some Indo-Europeans (Balts or proto-Balto-Slavs) near what’s now Baltic states and formed a farming hybrid culture that expanded into Finland and north Russia, leaving behind Finns, Estonians, Vepsians etc who are hybrids of the original Finno-Ugrians from the Volga and the I-E+Finno-Ugric hybrid that expanded as far East as Arkhangelsk.

    In the old theory of Finnish linguists Finland was taken over by Finno-Ugrians twice with a second invasion of the hybrid culture from Estonia hitting mainly the southwest. The genetics seems to be a perfect fit so far and the chase for Finno-Ugric admixture in north Russia should be looking for two waves of Finno-Ugrians, one heavily hybridized with early Indo-Europeans. And the theory of “higher IQ from Finno-Ugric admixture” has a big problem in Finland since it seems like the less Finno-Ugric (?) West does much better in standardized tests. If we had a country of just West-Finns without Swedes, Easterners, and Laplanders we’d score much higher in PISA studies…

    Read More
    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @Greasy William

    Actually, no. There are huge gaps between Finnish populations and there is more genetic diversity in Finland than in any other European country (except Russia). Finns are not exactly one ethnic group and some parts of Eastern Finland are Karelians; Karelians in Finland are very close to Karelians in Russia but most Finns are not close to Karelians.
     
    Is there any separatism in Finland? If no, do you think that there would have been had there not been a need to unite in defense against Russia and Sweden?

    Pakistan is a super diverse country that has a very strong national identity based on 2 things: 1. Desi Islam (this is why they were so adamant that Bangladesh not be allowed to leave) 2. The need to unite to defend against India. If India had never existed, I suspect that Pakistan would have ended up being like 6 or 7 different countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Jaakko Raipala
    Actually, no. There are huge gaps between Finnish populations and there is more genetic diversity in Finland than in any other European country (except Russia). Finns are not exactly one ethnic group and some parts of Eastern Finland are Karelians; Karelians in Finland are very close to Karelians in Russia but most Finns are not close to Karelians.

    Here's a dialect map:

    https://sampuliblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/murrekartta.png

    The Eastern dialects of the purple areas are close relatives of Karelian and other nearly dead languages in nearby areas of Russia. In all other aspects of ethnicity (pagan religion etc) except type of Christianity the purple Eastern areas of Finland are closer to Karelians and Vepsians than to Western Finland and they even were to some extent Orthodox first.

    Here's an example of a genetic map:

    http://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/sites/default/files/imagecache/biggest/domain-8142/kuvat/Salmela11.png

    FIW = West Finns (green on dialect map), FIE = East Finns (purple). Their Russian samples seem to be from Vologda and they are actually closer to West Finns than to East Finns.

    There are regional differences in Finland in crime rates, IQ, alcoholism and the like and they may well have genetic components, in fact we already have clear examples of culture-generated genetic differences eg. lactose tolerance is *much* higher in West Finns than in East Finns.

    We spoke about Finno-Ugric admixture in north Russians in other threads and for that, one thing to realize is that in the old theory identified by Finnish linguists there were *two* Finno-Ugric expansions that populated Finland and north Russia, an early one from the Volga that spoke the language that later diverged into Finnish, Saami, Mordvin etc and a secondary one when a set of speakers of this language merged with some Indo-Europeans (Balts or proto-Balto-Slavs) near what's now Baltic states and formed a farming hybrid culture that expanded into Finland and north Russia, leaving behind Finns, Estonians, Vepsians etc who are hybrids of the original Finno-Ugrians from the Volga and the I-E+Finno-Ugric hybrid that expanded as far East as Arkhangelsk.

    In the old theory of Finnish linguists Finland was taken over by Finno-Ugrians twice with a second invasion of the hybrid culture from Estonia hitting mainly the southwest. The genetics seems to be a perfect fit so far and the chase for Finno-Ugric admixture in north Russia should be looking for two waves of Finno-Ugrians, one heavily hybridized with early Indo-Europeans. And the theory of "higher IQ from Finno-Ugric admixture" has a big problem in Finland since it seems like the less Finno-Ugric (?) West does much better in standardized tests. If we had a country of just West-Finns without Swedes, Easterners, and Laplanders we'd score much higher in PISA studies...

    Actually, no. There are huge gaps between Finnish populations and there is more genetic diversity in Finland than in any other European country (except Russia). Finns are not exactly one ethnic group and some parts of Eastern Finland are Karelians; Karelians in Finland are very close to Karelians in Russia but most Finns are not close to Karelians.

    Is there any separatism in Finland? If no, do you think that there would have been had there not been a need to unite in defense against Russia and Sweden?

    Pakistan is a super diverse country that has a very strong national identity based on 2 things: 1. Desi Islam (this is why they were so adamant that Bangladesh not be allowed to leave) 2. The need to unite to defend against India. If India had never existed, I suspect that Pakistan would have ended up being like 6 or 7 different countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    If India had never existed, I suspect that Pakistan would have ended up being like 6 or 7 different countries.

     

    Reminds me of this article:
    https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/pakistan-the-problem-the-solution/
    Interesting proposal, though obviously its implementation would be quite risky and probably not advisable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @polskijoe
    Rationalwiki is garbage. Worse than wikipedia.

    “Rationalwiki is garbage”

    Yes, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of rationality about it.

    Where did the “rational” name come from? Did it start as some kind of atheist group? I know some atheists like to think of themselves (and speak of themselves, and write of themselves) as enlightened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Oliver D. Smith
    He penned an essay defending animated baby-porn and argues for it to be made legal in Norway and Sweden and any other country that has banned it. So he does support legalising it since the vast majority of countries have banned it (Denmark being the only notable exception).

    When questioned if he supports possession/legalising of *real* child porn, what did he say?

    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1862554

    "As for possession, I'm unsure. My blogpost is from 2012, 5 years ago, and I haven't thought much of the topic since."

    What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write. A non-paedophile of course is against child porn, but Kirkegaard is ambiguous/undecided and refuses to be against it.

    Furthermore, Kirkegaard uses the paedophilia-apologist definition of paedophilia as pre-pubescent:
    https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard&diff=prev&oldid=1863285

    In his essay where he proposes a compromise for paedophiles is to rape children while they sleep, Kirkegaard wrote:

    "One can have sex with some rather young ones (say, any consenting child in puberty) without any moral problems."

    Children in puberty are as young as 11-12; in other words Kirkegaard literally supports adults having sex with children, who while not pre-pubescent are still under the age of consent.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emil_O._W._Kirkegaard#Child_rape

    Why are you defending a blatant paedophile?

    “What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write.”

    Sounds like you’re writing from experience.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    No, he is faithful to his waifu: the luscious bouncing boobs of digitized Laura Croft.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Greasy William

    Actually, no. There are huge gaps between Finnish populations and there is more genetic diversity in Finland than in any other European country (except Russia). Finns are not exactly one ethnic group and some parts of Eastern Finland are Karelians; Karelians in Finland are very close to Karelians in Russia but most Finns are not close to Karelians.
     
    Is there any separatism in Finland? If no, do you think that there would have been had there not been a need to unite in defense against Russia and Sweden?

    Pakistan is a super diverse country that has a very strong national identity based on 2 things: 1. Desi Islam (this is why they were so adamant that Bangladesh not be allowed to leave) 2. The need to unite to defend against India. If India had never existed, I suspect that Pakistan would have ended up being like 6 or 7 different countries.

    If India had never existed, I suspect that Pakistan would have ended up being like 6 or 7 different countries.

    Reminds me of this article:

    https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/pakistan-the-problem-the-solution/

    Interesting proposal, though obviously its implementation would be quite risky and probably not advisable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @YetAnotherAnon
    "What kind of an answer is that? Only something a paedophile would write."

    Sounds like you're writing from experience.

    No, he is faithful to his waifu: the luscious bouncing boobs of digitized Laura Croft.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I never thought that Lara Croft was hot.

    You know who was really hot for an animated figure? Stacy Cornbread from Celebrity Death Match.


    For the most part I prefer human females though. Still, nothing wrong with a little variety.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Daniel Chieh
    No, he is faithful to his waifu: the luscious bouncing boobs of digitized Laura Croft.

    I never thought that Lara Croft was hot.

    You know who was really hot for an animated figure? Stacy Cornbread from Celebrity Death Match.

    For the most part I prefer human females though. Still, nothing wrong with a little variety.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    My favorite girl from a video game was Lt. Eva McKenna from Red Alert 3 though the percentage of plastic to human might be a bit high there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Greasy William
    I never thought that Lara Croft was hot.

    You know who was really hot for an animated figure? Stacy Cornbread from Celebrity Death Match.


    For the most part I prefer human females though. Still, nothing wrong with a little variety.

    My favorite girl from a video game was Lt. Eva McKenna from Red Alert 3 though the percentage of plastic to human might be a bit high there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @Anatoly Karlin

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?
     
    Here's a summary: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ea-and-intelligence-theory/

    I’m done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen’s YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    “Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don’t engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn’t care about.”
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics

    Watch especially from 7:30 – 9:30 minutes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Your most recent mistake was to come in here expecting that this is some sort of Spencer fanclub, though it is not nearly as bad at your mother's mistake not to swallow.
    , @Art Deco
    I suggest watching any of Joe Owen’s YouTube

    You, random dude, suggest we random dudes listen to some other random dude on the subject of random dude Richard Spencer. I had a beagle-lab puppy once who would entertain the family chasing her tail.
    , @szopen
    You are complete idiot if you came here thinking anyone here cares about Spencer or Daily Stormer.
    , @Dmitry

    “Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don’t engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn’t care about.”
    - Joe Owens
     
    There isn't a large alt-right following here. Most people in this forum seem just normal right-wing. On the Steve Sailor forum there is more 'alt-right people' (which is a movement which only really exists in America by the way).
    , @DFH
    Funnily enough, I agree with Joe Owens that the correct path is to organise a white nationalist policital party at a local level. I'm a bit surprised that you appear to agree with that as well though, Oliver.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen's YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    "Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don't engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn't care about."
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Crwp7Ugd0

    Watch especially from 7:30 - 9:30 minutes.

    Your most recent mistake was to come in here expecting that this is some sort of Spencer fanclub, though it is not nearly as bad at your mother’s mistake not to swallow.

    Read More
    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @neutral

    But, for sake of argument, if hereditarianism is true: what use is it to politics?
     
    It's already in use in politics, affirmative action is nothing more than the acknowledgement that blacks are an inferior race. It does not matter where you are, anywhere affirmative action is practiced (USA, Canada, Britain, France) the only criteria to qualify is racial, they never factor in "culture" or "environment" because they know that blacks are inferior and the only way to cover up your pseudoscience is throwing enormous amounts of money at blacks and hoping it will cover up the truth.

    There are no black states, cities, societies that can be measured as a success, absolutely none, not a single exception to this rule, even the contrived example of Barbados simply proves that mulattos are superior to pure blacks. This being the case, the use of politics of this very fundamental truth are the following.
    1) stop mass immigration by inferior races, nobody seriously believes that replacing Germans with low IQ Syrians is going keep Germany the same as before
    2) halt all wasted transfer of resources to black people in the name of affirmative action, if anything this harms black people more than it helps them
    3) create public policy that is based on facts (imagine that) instead of crazed ideologies that have zero grounding in reality


    As for your belief that it is "unpalatable" argument, this is nothing more than being based on fear, fear of going to jail in some states, fear of losing ones job by refusing to accept the faith of equality and fear of black people as their low average IQ makes them prone to sincerely believe they are equal and thus will lash out at anyone that says otherwise. It is safe to say that the vast majority of the non black world sees blacks as inferior, to not see this basic truth is like trying to argue that the sun is not hot, many don't want to be rude in public, but at a certain point your dogmas are going to create such societal damage that people will increasingly not care about respecting your beliefs.

    “affirmative action is nothing more than the acknowledgement that blacks are an inferior race”

    That certainly isn’t the rationale as I understand it.

    They’re not inferior when it comes to running, or jazz improvisation if it comes to that. And if you have to use those labels, white Brits are intellectually inferior to Ashkenazis and Far Easterners. But as a Brit, I prefer my own, even if we’re not as fast over 100m or win fewer Fields Medals per capita – as Mr Sailer has pointed out, that’s what separate countries are for.

    “many don’t want to be rude in public, but at a certain point your dogmas are going to create such societal damage”

    As has been pointed out many times, those who are loudest in praise of diversity also seem pretty good at minimising its impact on their (and their children’s) daily lives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @neutral
    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.

    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.

    I agree mainly with the comment – but there is a difference between white and European. That’s why ‘White Nationalism’ should be called something like ‘Pan-European nationalism’ instead.

    Perception of white is usually based on how a person looks – whereas being European is a genetic one. That’s why the Nazis used their own concept of ‘Aryan’ and ‘non-Aryan’, rather than relying on coloration.

    When you talk about European people – then you’re referring to people of genetic origin from the Ancient European peoples.

    If you talk about ‘white’, ‘brown’, ‘yellow’, ‘black’ – you are usually referring to external coloration or appearance.

    External appearance can be deceptive in many cases, as with Middle Eastern people – as a proportion people of Middle Eastern nationalities look externally white, while many people who are European origin (e.g. a majority of Italians, Spanish, Greeks, etc), look brown.

    As nobody is going around giving people forced DNA tests, and we don’t have any National Socialist countries (which used the concept of ‘Aryan’) – the thing which usually effects people in terms of racial treatment, on day-to-day life is external colouration (whether they look white, brown, yellow or black).

    Jews are Middle Eastern origin nationality, so they are clearly non-European ethnic group, and this is proved by modern research. But a proportion of Jewish people have white-colouration (i.e. blonde hair and pale skin) despite Middle Eastern origin. And the proportion with lighter colouration is how the country has the second highest skin cancer rates in the world https://www.haaretz.com/1.4718949

    -

    For example, Jewish model Esti Ginzburg would be described as white (external colouration and potential to get sunburn), but not as European (as genetic origin is the Middle Eastern region). In Israel, about 15-20% of the local population you see on street have a white coloration (at the same time that genetic tests showing they are Middle Eastern origin nationality) –

    By the way ‘white’ is also found in smaller numbers amongst the Arabs – as with the famous Palestinian protest girl Ahed Tamimi. She is ‘white’ but she is differently not European (either genetics or culturally).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Esti Ginzburg: 5/10. Would not bang.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen's YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    "Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don't engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn't care about."
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Crwp7Ugd0

    Watch especially from 7:30 - 9:30 minutes.

    I suggest watching any of Joe Owen’s YouTube

    You, random dude, suggest we random dudes listen to some other random dude on the subject of random dude Richard Spencer. I had a beagle-lab puppy once who would entertain the family chasing her tail.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen's YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    "Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don't engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn't care about."
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Crwp7Ugd0

    Watch especially from 7:30 - 9:30 minutes.

    You are complete idiot if you came here thinking anyone here cares about Spencer or Daily Stormer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen's YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    "Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don't engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn't care about."
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Crwp7Ugd0

    Watch especially from 7:30 - 9:30 minutes.

    “Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don’t engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn’t care about.”
    - Joe Owens

    There isn’t a large alt-right following here. Most people in this forum seem just normal right-wing. On the Steve Sailor forum there is more ‘alt-right people’ (which is a movement which only really exists in America by the way).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @dfordoom

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white
     
    I didn't say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is "middle easterner" a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a "white race" so making comparisons between "black" and "white" races is not really scientifically possible. I'm not saying that race doesn't exist or that it's a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you're trying to make comparisons between populations. "Asian" is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you'd have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.

    I didn’t say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is “middle easterner” a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a “white race” so making comparisons between “black” and “white” races is not really scientifically possible. I’m not saying that race doesn’t exist or that it’s a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you’re trying to make comparisons between populations. “Asian” is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you’d have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.

    Middle East is a geographical region – and there are various different native ethnic groups which originate in the region, which have degree of genetic relations between each other.

    Similarly Europe is geographical region, with its own native ethnic groups. European ethnic groups cluster together genetically as much as most geographically close regions, but the main unifying theme is the fact there have been centuries of emerging common European self-consciousness, religion (even if adopted from the Ancient Middle East), and cultural history usually subsumed under the concept – ‘Western civilization’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm done here, but you and other posters, misunderstood my point completely. I suggest watching any of Joe Owen's YouTube videos if you can find them (unfortunately most were recently taken down), although one was copied, see below.

    "Alt-Right is a group of people who talk about the same old outdated (and failed) approach, and that holds endless conferences talking about the same topics discussed decades ago. And they don't engage in local politics, but push identity, culture and heritage, which the public doesn't care about."
    - Joe Owens

    Richard Spencer, Daily Stormer and crackpot politics
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Crwp7Ugd0

    Watch especially from 7:30 - 9:30 minutes.

    Funnily enough, I agree with Joe Owens that the correct path is to organise a white nationalist policital party at a local level. I’m a bit surprised that you appear to agree with that as well though, Oliver.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    He's not arguing for that. He's telling WN's or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK: the people who want a large decrease in immigration levels do so because of overcrowding (60%) and all the problems it causes (e.g. lack of housing, strain on public services see here: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/public-services-infrastructure), as well as economic competition since natives have to compete with immigrant labour (30%). The other 10% is cultural concerns such as female genital mutilation, but "race" isn't a factor at all.

    So why on earth are there people talking about race and immigration in 2018? Race isn't a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration. And arguably looney-tunes who want to bring "race" into opposing immigration are actually demonising anti-immigration populist parties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @szopen
    You are complete idiot if you came here thinking anyone here cares about Spencer or Daily Stormer.

    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, “race realism”, Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc – are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn’s race & IQ crackpottery – you wouldn’t get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting “race and IQ” nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this…. Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I’m wrong, tell me where “race realism” or race & IQ works – none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don’t care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn’t, but let’s say it it), what can you do with “race and IQ”? Nothing because it’s toxic to voters. Arguably “race realism”/race & IQ – demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    racial IQ pseudo-science
     
    Pseudo science that at least 44% of intelligence experts agree with?
    , @German_reader

    So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it?
     
    It might potentially be a good argument for immigration restriction; current mass immigration policies are based on the idea that people are the same everywhere (and therefore mass immigration and huge demographic changes are no big deal), so it should be possible to turn Somalis and Afghans into tomorrow's engineers if you just send them to a civics course and make them respect women...and if they don't reach their supposed potential, well, it must be due to racism.
    But if even a fraction of the claims of IQ hereditarians about group differences in IQ are true, this is obviously a futile enterprise and immigration policies would have to be much more selective.
    It's probably correct though that one also needs other arguments for immigration restriction since the IQ/race stuff is unpalatable to many people...so other arguments (culture/identity, Islam's illiberalism, the erosion of societal cohesion and trust through mass immigration, economic arguments like the effects on the labor market, housing etc.) are also necessary. But it's not either/or, imo all these approaches have their role in shifting the terms of discussion.
    And regarding Holocaust denial and "antisemitic conspiracy theories", that's not really something AK's blog is promoting, that's an unfair accusation.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    So, are you saying that truth is best found through demotic consensus? How many fingers is O'Brien holding up? Is two plus two five, and are women just as strong as men?

    The benefit of Mr. Karlin's writings is that they focus on finding truth. The "racial IQ pseudo-science" has real-world relevance and explanatory power - it is likely that knowledge increases, we will find errors in its details much as even understanding of germ theory of disease has changed over time. Nonetheless, the hereditary explanation is closer to the truth than the purely environmental one.

    But you will not be able to advance and find truth by rejecting analysis and learning, and especially not for its popular political relevancy. The fact that you keep advancing that as an argument here is is a mildly hilarious example of your projection and ignorance. Indeed, the notion of blogging for votes is so preposterous that I'm not really sure any mockery can do it justice.

    Your presence here, in being a crusader with amazingly close-minded views who participates in witch-hunts to defame and harm individuals for violation of liberal norms, promotes this chimerical "alt-right" of yours better than an army of Spencers.

    , @neutral
    You have quasi governmental organizations such as the ADL and SPLC undertaking mass online censorship operations. Then you have government with the increasing censorship, mass propaganda campaigns and ever more anti white laws. The mass media is now nothing more than promoting extreme left wing views that even 10 years ago would have been seen as ridiculous.

    Strange how such a supposedly irrelevant movement that nobody wants attracts such attention, the fact of the matter is that they want to shut down any talk about racial realities because they know that their own ideology is becoming the toxic one.

    , @AP

    hence the people promoting “race and IQ” nonsense
     
    By your own chart, 83% of intelligence experts believe that at least some of the discrepancy between the races in terms of IQ can be attributed to genes.

    None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world
     
    It has high relevance if one wants to solve certain problems or prevent others, because understanding an issue and its causes accurately promotes better solutions.
    , @dfordoom

    Arguably “race realism”/race & IQ – demonises actual opposition to immigration.
     
    In practical terms there's no doubt that you're correct on this point. Politically it's a guaranteed losing strategy.

    There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons,
     
    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

    then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.
     
    Whether it's pseudo-science or not doesn't matter (and I have no particular opinion on the subject). It's almost universally perceived as pseudo-science and it's a fast track to political failure and irrelevance.
    , @szopen
    But who cares? I am not a politician. I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not. The most irritating thing is when we try to discover truth and then you clowns come in calling valid studies "pseudoscience" only because you don't like the conclusions.

    BTW: are you holocaust denier? Because I have no patience for Holocaust deniers and ... it would be really strange combination - rational wiki contributor and holocaust denier.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    racial IQ pseudo-science

    Pseudo science that at least 44% of intelligence experts agree with?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Pseudo science that at least 44% of intelligence experts agree with?
     
    An enormous number of "experts" agree with man-made climate change, but it's still politically motivated pseudo-scientific poppycock.

    Scientists are just people. They are as prone as anyone else to stubbornness, intellectual prejudice, moral cowardice, self-interest and political agendas. There's one thing that 99% of scientists agree on - that they personally should get more funding.

    When any field of science becomes involved in issues with political consequences then the publicly-expressed opinions of scientists on those issues need to be viewed with extreme scepticism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it?

    It might potentially be a good argument for immigration restriction; current mass immigration policies are based on the idea that people are the same everywhere (and therefore mass immigration and huge demographic changes are no big deal), so it should be possible to turn Somalis and Afghans into tomorrow’s engineers if you just send them to a civics course and make them respect women…and if they don’t reach their supposed potential, well, it must be due to racism.
    But if even a fraction of the claims of IQ hereditarians about group differences in IQ are true, this is obviously a futile enterprise and immigration policies would have to be much more selective.
    It’s probably correct though that one also needs other arguments for immigration restriction since the IQ/race stuff is unpalatable to many people…so other arguments (culture/identity, Islam’s illiberalism, the erosion of societal cohesion and trust through mass immigration, economic arguments like the effects on the labor market, housing etc.) are also necessary. But it’s not either/or, imo all these approaches have their role in shifting the terms of discussion.
    And regarding Holocaust denial and “antisemitic conspiracy theories”, that’s not really something AK’s blog is promoting, that’s an unfair accusation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    "And regarding Holocaust denial and “antisemitic conspiracy theories”, that’s not really something AK’s blog is promoting, that’s an unfair accusation."

    I don't think 'fair' is in the "Oliver D. Smith" lexicon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    So, are you saying that truth is best found through demotic consensus? How many fingers is O’Brien holding up? Is two plus two five, and are women just as strong as men?

    The benefit of Mr. Karlin’s writings is that they focus on finding truth. The “racial IQ pseudo-science” has real-world relevance and explanatory power – it is likely that knowledge increases, we will find errors in its details much as even understanding of germ theory of disease has changed over time. Nonetheless, the hereditary explanation is closer to the truth than the purely environmental one.

    But you will not be able to advance and find truth by rejecting analysis and learning, and especially not for its popular political relevancy. The fact that you keep advancing that as an argument here is is a mildly hilarious example of your projection and ignorance. Indeed, the notion of blogging for votes is so preposterous that I’m not really sure any mockery can do it justice.

    Your presence here, in being a crusader with amazingly close-minded views who participates in witch-hunts to defame and harm individuals for violation of liberal norms, promotes this chimerical “alt-right” of yours better than an army of Spencers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    Truth and politics are two different things. When it comes to the latter, I'm only interested in what people will vote for and that is palatable in terms of the public minds and winnable in terms of ballot box. This certainly isn't nonsense like "race realism" or race & IQ. People didn't tick Leave EU on their ballots because of race. Btw, my understanding is that Spencer and most in the alt-right actually campaigned *against* Brexit because they support mass-migration into UK from Poland. Their opposition to immigration is based only skin colour (how stupid), so since Poles are "white" they have no problem with large numbers of Poles moving to UK. Spencer is a pro-EU twat.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @DFH
    Funnily enough, I agree with Joe Owens that the correct path is to organise a white nationalist policital party at a local level. I'm a bit surprised that you appear to agree with that as well though, Oliver.

    He’s not arguing for that. He’s telling WN’s or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK: the people who want a large decrease in immigration levels do so because of overcrowding (60%) and all the problems it causes (e.g. lack of housing, strain on public services see here: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/public-services-infrastructure), as well as economic competition since natives have to compete with immigrant labour (30%). The other 10% is cultural concerns such as female genital mutilation, but “race” isn’t a factor at all.

    So why on earth are there people talking about race and immigration in 2018? Race isn’t a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration. And arguably looney-tunes who want to bring “race” into opposing immigration are actually demonising anti-immigration populist parties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Are you yourself an immigration restrictionist or is it just concern trolling? Because if you don’t actually want immigration to be restricted, then why do you worry about us being ineffectual?
    , @German_reader

    Race isn’t a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration.
     
    You must be somewhat autistic if you think what people say in public about those issues and what they really think is identical, given all the politically correct speech taboos (backed by the threat of legal prosecution for "incitement to hatred" or such nonsense) that have been created over the last 50 years or so. "Race" is most definitely a crucial reason for people opposing mass immigration, maybe not in the sense that they care about group differences in average IQ, but in an (increasingly correct) perception that the native population of much of Western Europe is being replaced and dispossessed by culturally and ethnically alien immigrants.
    Economic arguments are important, but they'll never have the same emotional resonance as appeals to identity, and will be dismissed as merely a smokescreen for hidden "racism" anyway.
    , @Dmitry

    He’s not arguing for that. He’s telling WN’s or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK:
     
    I doubt anyone on this forum is interested in getting involved in politics, or in becoming politicians, or appealing to voters. It's just a place or virtual teahouse, like most internet forums - for discussing various subjects, and writing down opinions.

    And most people here are arguing different points of view anyway.

    The reason this blog is quite a good one, is that the author doesn't seem to be doing political activism or propaganda - usually tells us some data, and there doesn't seem to be censorship of different views.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    You have quasi governmental organizations such as the ADL and SPLC undertaking mass online censorship operations. Then you have government with the increasing censorship, mass propaganda campaigns and ever more anti white laws. The mass media is now nothing more than promoting extreme left wing views that even 10 years ago would have been seen as ridiculous.

    Strange how such a supposedly irrelevant movement that nobody wants attracts such attention, the fact of the matter is that they want to shut down any talk about racial realities because they know that their own ideology is becoming the toxic one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm arguing the opposite, as does Joe Owens: SPLC loves the fact the alt-right promotes crank theories like Emil Kirkegaard's 'race realism' and 'race & IQ' to demonise anti-immigration sentiment. The fact is, the SPLC doesn't have to do anything to combat the alt-right since they make themselves a laughing stock by promoting stuff like 'race realism' - voters run a mile away from. The difference between me and Joe is Joe is a bit of a daft conspiracy theorist and thinks these people who promote these things are working for the SPLC and are spies (he thinks Spencer is SPLC); I don't - they're just idiots and weirdos. That's a far more simple and probable explanation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Oliver D. Smith
    He's not arguing for that. He's telling WN's or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK: the people who want a large decrease in immigration levels do so because of overcrowding (60%) and all the problems it causes (e.g. lack of housing, strain on public services see here: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/public-services-infrastructure), as well as economic competition since natives have to compete with immigrant labour (30%). The other 10% is cultural concerns such as female genital mutilation, but "race" isn't a factor at all.

    So why on earth are there people talking about race and immigration in 2018? Race isn't a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration. And arguably looney-tunes who want to bring "race" into opposing immigration are actually demonising anti-immigration populist parties.

    Are you yourself an immigration restrictionist or is it just concern trolling? Because if you don’t actually want immigration to be restricted, then why do you worry about us being ineffectual?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth. UK's population growth is explained by 53% -net-immigration and 47% by natural means (i.e. more births than deaths each year, largely because people are now living longer, although in my opinion despite the decline in birth/fertility rates - they're still too high and I support a voluntary 1 child policy by payment of government subsidies only to the first child). The problem is this: left-wing populist parties only want to stop population-growth by abortion, voluntary euthanasia, women's rights (access to contraception) and pro-LGBTQIA. They're aren't anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment. While right-wing populist parties are anti-immigration, are generally supportive of capital punishment - the problem is they are usually against women's rights, are often anti-abortion and always anti-LGBTQIA; probably neutral on voluntary euthanasia. This is why I've never been a member of a political party because I support all these things that cross the right-left spectrum to halt and reverse population growth. The closest party that mixes some of these things would be Italy's Five Star Movement. In my youth though (pre-2012) I supported right-wing populist, even nationalist, parties, but I saw their limitations and flaws. When I got older I changed my mind to stop supporting these (at the time I wrote a whole essay why). There's now though a vacuum for a populist degrowth party like the Five Star Movement in UK; the populist UKIP has been obliterated and is over since they achieved their raison d'être to leave the EU and there were no good candidates in their 2017 leadership election, just anti-Islamic fruitcakes, walter mitty's and other weird characters such as a guy who said a "gay donkey raped his horse"..

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago. He genuinely changed his mind and now criticises the alt-right. As for RationalWiki's political content - I don't agree with all of it, in fact few editors there will agree 100%. There are a few RW sysops who are pro-Brexit like myself, but note how the article is biased against-Brexit. I'm less interested in that site for politics, but to document and refute pseudo-science. The alt-right promotes racialism & race & IQ pseudo-science. Most the people I have criticised is for this e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst etc. Karlin promotes the same junk.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Oliver D. Smith
    He's not arguing for that. He's telling WN's or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK: the people who want a large decrease in immigration levels do so because of overcrowding (60%) and all the problems it causes (e.g. lack of housing, strain on public services see here: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/public-services-infrastructure), as well as economic competition since natives have to compete with immigrant labour (30%). The other 10% is cultural concerns such as female genital mutilation, but "race" isn't a factor at all.

    So why on earth are there people talking about race and immigration in 2018? Race isn't a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration. And arguably looney-tunes who want to bring "race" into opposing immigration are actually demonising anti-immigration populist parties.

    Race isn’t a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration.

    You must be somewhat autistic if you think what people say in public about those issues and what they really think is identical, given all the politically correct speech taboos (backed by the threat of legal prosecution for “incitement to hatred” or such nonsense) that have been created over the last 50 years or so. “Race” is most definitely a crucial reason for people opposing mass immigration, maybe not in the sense that they care about group differences in average IQ, but in an (increasingly correct) perception that the native population of much of Western Europe is being replaced and dispossessed by culturally and ethnically alien immigrants.
    Economic arguments are important, but they’ll never have the same emotional resonance as appeals to identity, and will be dismissed as merely a smokescreen for hidden “racism” anyway.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen, Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Economic arguments are important, but they’ll never have the same emotional resonance as appeals to identity
     
    But you can base your appeals to identity on culture. I suspect that culture has more emotional resonance than race.

    And I think you're underestimating the emotional impact of perceived threats to people's economic interests. Being told that you're losing your job to an immigrant who will work for lower wages tends to reach people emotionally in a pretty big way.

    and will be dismissed as merely a smokescreen for hidden “racism” anyway.
     
    Perfectly true, but there's no need to make things easier for your political opponents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    hence the people promoting “race and IQ” nonsense

    By your own chart, 83% of intelligence experts believe that at least some of the discrepancy between the races in terms of IQ can be attributed to genes.

    None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world

    It has high relevance if one wants to solve certain problems or prevent others, because understanding an issue and its causes accurately promotes better solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Daniel Chieh
    So, are you saying that truth is best found through demotic consensus? How many fingers is O'Brien holding up? Is two plus two five, and are women just as strong as men?

    The benefit of Mr. Karlin's writings is that they focus on finding truth. The "racial IQ pseudo-science" has real-world relevance and explanatory power - it is likely that knowledge increases, we will find errors in its details much as even understanding of germ theory of disease has changed over time. Nonetheless, the hereditary explanation is closer to the truth than the purely environmental one.

    But you will not be able to advance and find truth by rejecting analysis and learning, and especially not for its popular political relevancy. The fact that you keep advancing that as an argument here is is a mildly hilarious example of your projection and ignorance. Indeed, the notion of blogging for votes is so preposterous that I'm not really sure any mockery can do it justice.

    Your presence here, in being a crusader with amazingly close-minded views who participates in witch-hunts to defame and harm individuals for violation of liberal norms, promotes this chimerical "alt-right" of yours better than an army of Spencers.

    Truth and politics are two different things. When it comes to the latter, I’m only interested in what people will vote for and that is palatable in terms of the public minds and winnable in terms of ballot box. This certainly isn’t nonsense like “race realism” or race & IQ. People didn’t tick Leave EU on their ballots because of race. Btw, my understanding is that Spencer and most in the alt-right actually campaigned *against* Brexit because they support mass-migration into UK from Poland. Their opposition to immigration is based only skin colour (how stupid), so since Poles are “white” they have no problem with large numbers of Poles moving to UK. Spencer is a pro-EU twat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @neutral
    You have quasi governmental organizations such as the ADL and SPLC undertaking mass online censorship operations. Then you have government with the increasing censorship, mass propaganda campaigns and ever more anti white laws. The mass media is now nothing more than promoting extreme left wing views that even 10 years ago would have been seen as ridiculous.

    Strange how such a supposedly irrelevant movement that nobody wants attracts such attention, the fact of the matter is that they want to shut down any talk about racial realities because they know that their own ideology is becoming the toxic one.

    I’m arguing the opposite, as does Joe Owens: SPLC loves the fact the alt-right promotes crank theories like Emil Kirkegaard’s ‘race realism’ and ‘race & IQ’ to demonise anti-immigration sentiment. The fact is, the SPLC doesn’t have to do anything to combat the alt-right since they make themselves a laughing stock by promoting stuff like ‘race realism’ – voters run a mile away from. The difference between me and Joe is Joe is a bit of a daft conspiracy theorist and thinks these people who promote these things are working for the SPLC and are spies (he thinks Spencer is SPLC); I don’t – they’re just idiots and weirdos. That’s a far more simple and probable explanation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    crank theories like Emil Kirkegaard’s ‘race realism’ and ‘race & IQ’
     
    These are the 'crank theories' that 44% of experts in the field agree with?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    Arguably “race realism”/race & IQ – demonises actual opposition to immigration.

    In practical terms there’s no doubt that you’re correct on this point. Politically it’s a guaranteed losing strategy.

    There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons,

    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

    then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    Whether it’s pseudo-science or not doesn’t matter (and I have no particular opinion on the subject). It’s almost universally perceived as pseudo-science and it’s a fast track to political failure and irrelevance.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dmitry
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

     

    The main issue problem have with current immigration situation is the threat of terrorism, threat of increased crime - and perhaps change of a political future (as in Houellebecq's novel submission).

    IQ test score debates are not really something most people care about in relation to immigration debates (really if the immigrants are stupid, that means less future job competition for me than if all other immigrants were engineers).

    IQ test score debates are more often something people are discussing because it is an interesting topic.

    , @Anatoly Karlin

    Whether it’s pseudo-science or not doesn’t matter (and I have no particular opinion on the subject). It’s almost universally perceived as pseudo-science and it’s a fast track to political failure and irrelevance.
     
    Really? The Blank Slate and Our Troublesome Inheritance were bestsellers (actually Nicholas Wade came close but dodged out of directly confronting the issue).

    So was The Sports Gene (even Obama snagged a copy).

    Literally *all* that "pseudo-scientists" such as ourselves do is extend those arguments to IQ, the most solid construct in psychology.

    The blank slatist position might remain predominant amongst ordinary people who don't follow these debates, but it is experiencing a crisis of legitimacy in educated circles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @dfordoom

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white
     
    I didn't say I thought they were white. They are usually considered to be caucasian.

    So is "middle easterner" a race?

    My point is that there is no agreed scientific definition of a "white race" so making comparisons between "black" and "white" races is not really scientifically possible. I'm not saying that race doesn't exist or that it's a social construct, it just does not seem to be a very useful concept if you're trying to make comparisons between populations. "Asian" is equally useless. Much too broad and too fuzzy around the edges.

    Ethnicity is more useful but you'd have to accept that there are various white and black ethnicities.

    d, it ain’t that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.

    Most people with black ancestry will identify as black. Mixed race people are dealt a difficult hand. The stubborn and strong willed individuals can refuse to “pick.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    d, it ain’t that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.
     
    That's true, and for everyday purposes that works fine, but if you're trying to make a rigidly scientific argument you need rigidly scientific categories. Relying on self-identification will make your results very questionable if you're classifying someone who is 75% European as black because he "knows" he's black. Or if you're classifying someone who is 90+% European as non-white because he "knows" he's a Cherokee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @DFH

    racial IQ pseudo-science
     
    Pseudo science that at least 44% of intelligence experts agree with?

    Pseudo science that at least 44% of intelligence experts agree with?

    An enormous number of “experts” agree with man-made climate change, but it’s still politically motivated pseudo-scientific poppycock.

    Scientists are just people. They are as prone as anyone else to stubbornness, intellectual prejudice, moral cowardice, self-interest and political agendas. There’s one thing that 99% of scientists agree on – that they personally should get more funding.

    When any field of science becomes involved in issues with political consequences then the publicly-expressed opinions of scientists on those issues need to be viewed with extreme scepticism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    An enormous number of “experts” agree with man-made climate change, but it’s still politically motivated pseudo-scientific poppycock.
     
    It's not. A climate is changing, CO2 levels do influence the climate, and current CO2 level are influenced by man. THose three things are simply facts. What you can reasonably discuss is how much CO2 levels influence climate and how much of current CO2 levels are influenced by man.

    Also, it's useful to differentiate the question into several smaller once
    (1) Are theories of warming gases scientifically valid? (yes)
    (2) Are they true or, what certainty we have that they might be true? (highly probable)
    (3) What would be the consequences? (shifting of climate zones, changing rain patterns, changing ocean streams)
    (4) Will that consequences be advantageous or not? (hard to say, especially per country basis. More plants, but also more bugs eating those plants. Less rain in some regions and more in others. There is also doomsday scenario, which is extremely unlikely and that's why scientists tend not to talk about it)
    (5) What we can do about it? (geoengineering, babe!)

    It seems to me that opposition to the "AGW" is mainly driven by tribal signaling, which was probably triggered by the fact that most of proposals for (5) have distinct leftist taint. However, in (5) we can do a lot in old, good capitalistic way, for example, by geoengineering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @German_reader

    Race isn’t a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration.
     
    You must be somewhat autistic if you think what people say in public about those issues and what they really think is identical, given all the politically correct speech taboos (backed by the threat of legal prosecution for "incitement to hatred" or such nonsense) that have been created over the last 50 years or so. "Race" is most definitely a crucial reason for people opposing mass immigration, maybe not in the sense that they care about group differences in average IQ, but in an (increasingly correct) perception that the native population of much of Western Europe is being replaced and dispossessed by culturally and ethnically alien immigrants.
    Economic arguments are important, but they'll never have the same emotional resonance as appeals to identity, and will be dismissed as merely a smokescreen for hidden "racism" anyway.

    Economic arguments are important, but they’ll never have the same emotional resonance as appeals to identity

    But you can base your appeals to identity on culture. I suspect that culture has more emotional resonance than race.

    And I think you’re underestimating the emotional impact of perceived threats to people’s economic interests. Being told that you’re losing your job to an immigrant who will work for lower wages tends to reach people emotionally in a pretty big way.

    and will be dismissed as merely a smokescreen for hidden “racism” anyway.

    Perfectly true, but there’s no need to make things easier for your political opponents.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    But you can base your appeals to identity on culture. I suspect that culture has more emotional resonance than race.
     
    If you mean some abstract concept of the "white race" probably yes, but I'm not sure at all about that regarding ethnicity which is a complex mixture of culture, identity and at least some element of biological descent. And what's meant by "culture"? If it means you want to have civilizational continuity in Western countries, you can't have that anyway without keeping a majority of "white" people, anything else is really an illusion, meaningful assimilation is impossible given the magnitude of current immigration levels of cuturally and ethnically very alien peoples. When people today say "It's about culture, not race" it usually means something along the lines of immigrants should adopt a minimum of liberal Western values ("don't subjugate women, don't throw homos off high buildings...")...but such appeals are meaningless, merely diversionary tactics to keep the immigration flowing while pretending to do something. And in the end the multiculti/antiracist left will stigmatize even this as hidden "racism" and "culturalism", and come up with arguments how Islam is really quite progressive, the hijab a sign of female empowerment etc.
    Personally I too have my doubts whether the race/IQ stuff will appeal to voters...but saying one should make it an issue of "culture" isn't really a solution.

    And I think you’re underestimating the emotional impact of perceived threats to people’s economic interests.
     
    Sure, those are powerful arguments...given the situation in Germany with its ongoing importation of a parasitical "refugee" class which has a huge amout of resources lavished upon it, with predictably negative consequences for housing and the health care and welfare systems, I can easily see the powerful appeal of economic arguments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @iffen
    d, it ain't that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.

    Most people with black ancestry will identify as black. Mixed race people are dealt a difficult hand. The stubborn and strong willed individuals can refuse to "pick."

    d, it ain’t that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.

    That’s true, and for everyday purposes that works fine, but if you’re trying to make a rigidly scientific argument you need rigidly scientific categories. Relying on self-identification will make your results very questionable if you’re classifying someone who is 75% European as black because he “knows” he’s black. Or if you’re classifying someone who is 90+% European as non-white because he “knows” he’s a Cherokee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Relying on self-identification will make your results very questionable

    No, extensive genetic testing shows that people actually know whether they are black or white. It is an almost perfect alignment between self-identification and genetic identification.
    , @szopen
    Sorry, but that's not true (in social science). You have a lot of research which does not deal with rigid categories (e.g. stereotype threat BS). Nothing in social "science" related to real life can be neatly divided into categories; it's just some categories are more rigid and some are less rigid.

    Also, I will repeat myself, but what the heck: the question whether the measured IQ difference between "whites" and "blacks" are driven by genes or not is not really dependent on whether race is a rigid category. Heck, even if it would be totally socially constructed, the differences still could be driven 100% by genes! I really do not understand this fixation on whether "race" exists or not. It does not matter.

    For the sake of argument, assume we completely randomly assign people into "blue shirt" and "greenshirt" categories. This would be completely constructed category. Yet, if we measure the IQ averages between those two groups, the averages might, in general, differ. Since IQ seems to be 50-80% hereditary (but see very interesting arguments on RaceRealist blog against heritabilities estimations and against IQ in general), then those average differences would be driven at least in part by genetical component.

    What does that would mean? That depends on a question.

    First, it would be absurd to claim someone is "stupid" or "clever" based on her/his shirt color.
    Second, yet if you have no other information, the shirt color would be valid indicator in the absence of other information, and you could guess that "he has green shirt, meaning there is some probability is not as intelligent as the girl in blue shirt"
    Third, it would mean that differences in outcome between "blue" and "green" shirts would not be effect of discrimination and there is no need for affirmative actions.

    Those are pretty much obvious things, yet the irrational guys obsess over things whether race is rigid category.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @dfordoom

    Economic arguments are important, but they’ll never have the same emotional resonance as appeals to identity
     
    But you can base your appeals to identity on culture. I suspect that culture has more emotional resonance than race.

    And I think you're underestimating the emotional impact of perceived threats to people's economic interests. Being told that you're losing your job to an immigrant who will work for lower wages tends to reach people emotionally in a pretty big way.

    and will be dismissed as merely a smokescreen for hidden “racism” anyway.
     
    Perfectly true, but there's no need to make things easier for your political opponents.

    But you can base your appeals to identity on culture. I suspect that culture has more emotional resonance than race.

    If you mean some abstract concept of the “white race” probably yes, but I’m not sure at all about that regarding ethnicity which is a complex mixture of culture, identity and at least some element of biological descent. And what’s meant by “culture”? If it means you want to have civilizational continuity in Western countries, you can’t have that anyway without keeping a majority of “white” people, anything else is really an illusion, meaningful assimilation is impossible given the magnitude of current immigration levels of cuturally and ethnically very alien peoples. When people today say “It’s about culture, not race” it usually means something along the lines of immigrants should adopt a minimum of liberal Western values (“don’t subjugate women, don’t throw homos off high buildings…”)…but such appeals are meaningless, merely diversionary tactics to keep the immigration flowing while pretending to do something. And in the end the multiculti/antiracist left will stigmatize even this as hidden “racism” and “culturalism”, and come up with arguments how Islam is really quite progressive, the hijab a sign of female empowerment etc.
    Personally I too have my doubts whether the race/IQ stuff will appeal to voters…but saying one should make it an issue of “culture” isn’t really a solution.

    And I think you’re underestimating the emotional impact of perceived threats to people’s economic interests.

    Sure, those are powerful arguments…given the situation in Germany with its ongoing importation of a parasitical “refugee” class which has a huge amout of resources lavished upon it, with predictably negative consequences for housing and the health care and welfare systems, I can easily see the powerful appeal of economic arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    but I’m not sure at all about that regarding ethnicity which is a complex mixture of culture, identity and at least some element of biological descent. And what’s meant by “culture”? If it means you want to have civilizational continuity in Western countries, you can’t have that anyway without keeping a majority of “white” people
     
    I agree. But the advantage of focusing on culture is that it makes the argument sound slightly more respectable. Ordinary people (normies if you like) are not quite so threatened by it. They're likely to think that yes, they are concerned by the destruction of their culture (which to me in this context really means the established familiar way of life).

    If you take England as an example then people notice there aren't many fish-and-chip shops any more but there are lots of kebab shops. The tradition English pub is declining. People notice that the village church is empty but there's now a mosque, a Hindu temple and a Nigerian cultural centre. They notice that the freedoms they used to take for granted are disappearing. Their kids are learning about post-colonialism but they're not being taught English history.

    And people feel at least marginally freer to express concerns about their disappearing way of life, whereas mention of race will frighten them.

    When people today say “It’s about culture, not race” it usually means something along the lines of immigrants should adopt a minimum of liberal Western values
     
    That's a definite problem, that automatic assumption that western culture must mean liberal culture, given that liberal Western values are what has all but destroyed the West. The real problem is that our own native populations have embraced these self-destructive values. There isn't really any chance of saving the West unless we can persuade white Europeans to jettison liberal values such as feminism and LGBT worship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @dfordoom

    d, it ain’t that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.
     
    That's true, and for everyday purposes that works fine, but if you're trying to make a rigidly scientific argument you need rigidly scientific categories. Relying on self-identification will make your results very questionable if you're classifying someone who is 75% European as black because he "knows" he's black. Or if you're classifying someone who is 90+% European as non-white because he "knows" he's a Cherokee.

    Relying on self-identification will make your results very questionable

    No, extensive genetic testing shows that people actually know whether they are black or white. It is an almost perfect alignment between self-identification and genetic identification.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Oliver D. Smith
    He's not arguing for that. He's telling WN's or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK: the people who want a large decrease in immigration levels do so because of overcrowding (60%) and all the problems it causes (e.g. lack of housing, strain on public services see here: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/key-topics/public-services-infrastructure), as well as economic competition since natives have to compete with immigrant labour (30%). The other 10% is cultural concerns such as female genital mutilation, but "race" isn't a factor at all.

    So why on earth are there people talking about race and immigration in 2018? Race isn't a factor in the public/voters who oppose immigration. And arguably looney-tunes who want to bring "race" into opposing immigration are actually demonising anti-immigration populist parties.

    He’s not arguing for that. He’s telling WN’s or ethno nats to abandon white/ethno nationalism for populism because populism can still be anti-immigration. Look at public surveys on immigration for UK:

    I doubt anyone on this forum is interested in getting involved in politics, or in becoming politicians, or appealing to voters. It’s just a place or virtual teahouse, like most internet forums – for discussing various subjects, and writing down opinions.

    And most people here are arguing different points of view anyway.

    The reason this blog is quite a good one, is that the author doesn’t seem to be doing political activism or propaganda – usually tells us some data, and there doesn’t seem to be censorship of different views.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP, reiner Tor
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @dfordoom

    Arguably “race realism”/race & IQ – demonises actual opposition to immigration.
     
    In practical terms there's no doubt that you're correct on this point. Politically it's a guaranteed losing strategy.

    There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons,
     
    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

    then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.
     
    Whether it's pseudo-science or not doesn't matter (and I have no particular opinion on the subject). It's almost universally perceived as pseudo-science and it's a fast track to political failure and irrelevance.

    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

    The main issue problem have with current immigration situation is the threat of terrorism, threat of increased crime – and perhaps change of a political future (as in Houellebecq’s novel submission).

    IQ test score debates are not really something most people care about in relation to immigration debates (really if the immigrants are stupid, that means less future job competition for me than if all other immigrants were engineers).

    IQ test score debates are more often something people are discussing because it is an interesting topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    really if the immigrants are stupid, that means less future job competition for me than if all other immigrants were engineers
     
    You're again looking at this only from your own narrow perspective...for people lower down the socioeconomic scale it does mean increased pressure and competition.
    In the context of Western/Northern European welfare states it also means importing a permanent burden on the welfare system which all taxpayers have to pay for (or eventually drastic scaling back of welfare provisions because people don't want to pay for a parasitical underclass of foreign origins that contributes little, but takes a lot...in any case such immigration is detrimental to the native population).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @reiner Tor
    Are you yourself an immigration restrictionist or is it just concern trolling? Because if you don’t actually want immigration to be restricted, then why do you worry about us being ineffectual?

    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth. UK’s population growth is explained by 53% -net-immigration and 47% by natural means (i.e. more births than deaths each year, largely because people are now living longer, although in my opinion despite the decline in birth/fertility rates – they’re still too high and I support a voluntary 1 child policy by payment of government subsidies only to the first child). The problem is this: left-wing populist parties only want to stop population-growth by abortion, voluntary euthanasia, women’s rights (access to contraception) and pro-LGBTQIA. They’re aren’t anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment. While right-wing populist parties are anti-immigration, are generally supportive of capital punishment – the problem is they are usually against women’s rights, are often anti-abortion and always anti-LGBTQIA; probably neutral on voluntary euthanasia. This is why I’ve never been a member of a political party because I support all these things that cross the right-left spectrum to halt and reverse population growth. The closest party that mixes some of these things would be Italy’s Five Star Movement. In my youth though (pre-2012) I supported right-wing populist, even nationalist, parties, but I saw their limitations and flaws. When I got older I changed my mind to stop supporting these (at the time I wrote a whole essay why). There’s now though a vacuum for a populist degrowth party like the Five Star Movement in UK; the populist UKIP has been obliterated and is over since they achieved their raison d’être to leave the EU and there were no good candidates in their 2017 leadership election, just anti-Islamic fruitcakes, walter mitty’s and other weird characters such as a guy who said a “gay donkey raped his horse”..

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago. He genuinely changed his mind and now criticises the alt-right. As for RationalWiki’s political content – I don’t agree with all of it, in fact few editors there will agree 100%. There are a few RW sysops who are pro-Brexit like myself, but note how the article is biased against-Brexit. I’m less interested in that site for politics, but to document and refute pseudo-science. The alt-right promotes racialism & race & IQ pseudo-science. Most the people I have criticised is for this e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst etc. Karlin promotes the same junk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    They’re aren’t anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment.
     
    Eh, what has capital punishment got to do with population growth? Do you want to use the death penalty for decreasing population?
    , @Daniel Chieh
    What you are, in reality, is a living meme to Bioleninism. A low-t, mentally ill and ignorant nutcase who can't see past the most surface of concepts?

    Flying colors on all.

    Perfect.

    The sheer obsession with voter popularity misses so many second-level effects from a movement that it seems incredible that you'll miss it. Consider even Spencer, which I highly doubt most commentators here are fans of - even so, by insisting on explicit white nationalism and by gathering a meaningful number of followers, he nonetheless makes all other far right positions appear more moderate in comparison. In the same way how extreme leftists have been moving the Overton window left, his movement serves to shift a portion of the Overton window right.

    Voter patterns and trends ultimately are only a surface reflection of much deeper movements beneath, and underlying and affecting the underlying causes is far more important(and meaningful). Besides, according to reliable sources in the media, Russian influence is all-powerful, so all that is needed to get the voters is to be nice to Grand Wizard Putin.

    , @szopen
    But if you think IQ is pseudoscience, then pretty much you have to say that all of social science is pseudoscience (because there is not much out there which is of as godo quality as research on IQ). Same relates to race.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth.
     
    And you criticize *us* for adopting unpopular positions, LOL.

    Your agenda is supported by perhaps 1% of the British population.

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago.
     
    And in a couple more years he might convert to radical Islam and demand to stone you for your anti-natalist perversions.

    As is quite a typical pattern amongst extremists who base their ideology on feelz, who flit from one demented ideology to the next depending on their current mood.

    In contrast, being based on science - or at least, the closest approximation to it that we can get in the social sphere - the only way my or many of the commenters' here view of the world could be undermined so radically is if IQ research is indeed proven to be fraudulent (but the trend is firmly in the opposite direction). Otherwise, you would actually have to stone us, or at least credibly threaten to do so, to make us see the (your) light.
    , @dfordoom

    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth.
     
    So why exactly do you oppose population growth? I'm not saying that I disagree, I'm not in favour of population growth either, but I'd be interested to know your reasons.

    Without immigration the population in western countries is going to decline. Fertility rates are below replacement level throughout the developed world. I don't think a fall in population levels would necessarily be a bad thing.

    The corporate sector (and the politician who are owned by the corporate sector) will of course react with hysteria to the idea.

    As for economic degrowth, good luck with selling that idea. If GDP stops growing the sky will fall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Oliver D. Smith
    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth. UK's population growth is explained by 53% -net-immigration and 47% by natural means (i.e. more births than deaths each year, largely because people are now living longer, although in my opinion despite the decline in birth/fertility rates - they're still too high and I support a voluntary 1 child policy by payment of government subsidies only to the first child). The problem is this: left-wing populist parties only want to stop population-growth by abortion, voluntary euthanasia, women's rights (access to contraception) and pro-LGBTQIA. They're aren't anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment. While right-wing populist parties are anti-immigration, are generally supportive of capital punishment - the problem is they are usually against women's rights, are often anti-abortion and always anti-LGBTQIA; probably neutral on voluntary euthanasia. This is why I've never been a member of a political party because I support all these things that cross the right-left spectrum to halt and reverse population growth. The closest party that mixes some of these things would be Italy's Five Star Movement. In my youth though (pre-2012) I supported right-wing populist, even nationalist, parties, but I saw their limitations and flaws. When I got older I changed my mind to stop supporting these (at the time I wrote a whole essay why). There's now though a vacuum for a populist degrowth party like the Five Star Movement in UK; the populist UKIP has been obliterated and is over since they achieved their raison d'être to leave the EU and there were no good candidates in their 2017 leadership election, just anti-Islamic fruitcakes, walter mitty's and other weird characters such as a guy who said a "gay donkey raped his horse"..

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago. He genuinely changed his mind and now criticises the alt-right. As for RationalWiki's political content - I don't agree with all of it, in fact few editors there will agree 100%. There are a few RW sysops who are pro-Brexit like myself, but note how the article is biased against-Brexit. I'm less interested in that site for politics, but to document and refute pseudo-science. The alt-right promotes racialism & race & IQ pseudo-science. Most the people I have criticised is for this e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst etc. Karlin promotes the same junk.

    They’re aren’t anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment.

    Eh, what has capital punishment got to do with population growth? Do you want to use the death penalty for decreasing population?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    Yes.

    And on the subject of being anti-immigration and wanting to stop and reverse population growth: I'm one of the few people with a consistent position. What annoys me a lot is far-right/alt-right/white nationalist types who claim to oppose immigration, or "non-white" immigration, but are pro-natalism and want to increase 'white' birth rates. You see plenty of that on Kirkegaard's twitter who is complaining about western fertility rates being low and pushing for more reproduction, yet the hypocrite claims to oppose immigration.

    Makes zero sense to oppose immigration, but then support large families or increase in fertility rates.

    If I wasn't Grey-Asexual I would have been vasectomised. Simply put, it only makes sense to oppose immigration if you don't reproduce (voluntary childlessness), or if you do, support small, rather than large families -limit to having only one child.

    These alt-right freaks like Kirkegaard and Spencer are pushing for large families. IMO they're as bad as the open-borders lunatics. Alt right and open-borders: opposite side of same coin.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Dmitry

    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

     

    The main issue problem have with current immigration situation is the threat of terrorism, threat of increased crime - and perhaps change of a political future (as in Houellebecq's novel submission).

    IQ test score debates are not really something most people care about in relation to immigration debates (really if the immigrants are stupid, that means less future job competition for me than if all other immigrants were engineers).

    IQ test score debates are more often something people are discussing because it is an interesting topic.

    really if the immigrants are stupid, that means less future job competition for me than if all other immigrants were engineers

    You’re again looking at this only from your own narrow perspective…for people lower down the socioeconomic scale it does mean increased pressure and competition.
    In the context of Western/Northern European welfare states it also means importing a permanent burden on the welfare system which all taxpayers have to pay for (or eventually drastic scaling back of welfare provisions because people don’t want to pay for a parasitical underclass of foreign origins that contributes little, but takes a lot…in any case such immigration is detrimental to the native population).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @German_reader

    But you can base your appeals to identity on culture. I suspect that culture has more emotional resonance than race.
     
    If you mean some abstract concept of the "white race" probably yes, but I'm not sure at all about that regarding ethnicity which is a complex mixture of culture, identity and at least some element of biological descent. And what's meant by "culture"? If it means you want to have civilizational continuity in Western countries, you can't have that anyway without keeping a majority of "white" people, anything else is really an illusion, meaningful assimilation is impossible given the magnitude of current immigration levels of cuturally and ethnically very alien peoples. When people today say "It's about culture, not race" it usually means something along the lines of immigrants should adopt a minimum of liberal Western values ("don't subjugate women, don't throw homos off high buildings...")...but such appeals are meaningless, merely diversionary tactics to keep the immigration flowing while pretending to do something. And in the end the multiculti/antiracist left will stigmatize even this as hidden "racism" and "culturalism", and come up with arguments how Islam is really quite progressive, the hijab a sign of female empowerment etc.
    Personally I too have my doubts whether the race/IQ stuff will appeal to voters...but saying one should make it an issue of "culture" isn't really a solution.

    And I think you’re underestimating the emotional impact of perceived threats to people’s economic interests.
     
    Sure, those are powerful arguments...given the situation in Germany with its ongoing importation of a parasitical "refugee" class which has a huge amout of resources lavished upon it, with predictably negative consequences for housing and the health care and welfare systems, I can easily see the powerful appeal of economic arguments.

    but I’m not sure at all about that regarding ethnicity which is a complex mixture of culture, identity and at least some element of biological descent. And what’s meant by “culture”? If it means you want to have civilizational continuity in Western countries, you can’t have that anyway without keeping a majority of “white” people

    I agree. But the advantage of focusing on culture is that it makes the argument sound slightly more respectable. Ordinary people (normies if you like) are not quite so threatened by it. They’re likely to think that yes, they are concerned by the destruction of their culture (which to me in this context really means the established familiar way of life).

    If you take England as an example then people notice there aren’t many fish-and-chip shops any more but there are lots of kebab shops. The tradition English pub is declining. People notice that the village church is empty but there’s now a mosque, a Hindu temple and a Nigerian cultural centre. They notice that the freedoms they used to take for granted are disappearing. Their kids are learning about post-colonialism but they’re not being taught English history.

    And people feel at least marginally freer to express concerns about their disappearing way of life, whereas mention of race will frighten them.

    When people today say “It’s about culture, not race” it usually means something along the lines of immigrants should adopt a minimum of liberal Western values

    That’s a definite problem, that automatic assumption that western culture must mean liberal culture, given that liberal Western values are what has all but destroyed the West. The real problem is that our own native populations have embraced these self-destructive values. There isn’t really any chance of saving the West unless we can persuade white Europeans to jettison liberal values such as feminism and LGBT worship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    And people feel at least marginally freer to express concerns about their disappearing way of life, whereas mention of race will frighten them.
     
    That's certainly true, a lot of people would be repelled by openly racial talk, since it will sound like some nutty purity obsession about physical types to them and evoke memories of Nazism. I just don't think one should have any illusions that one can avoid accusations of racism by talking about "culture". Those in favour of mass immigration will just claim that's merely a cover for "racism", and that culture is a meaningless concept, because cultures are perpetually changing and mixing and we've always been multicultural anyway ("We're using Arabic numerals...so why do you dislike Islam?"). They'll accuse you of having a static, "essentialist" conception of culture...which is in the end supposedly just as racist as if you were talking about genes, racial types etc.
    And to some extent one probably can't escape the fact that those issues really are to a significant extent about ethnicity and descent. Assimilation may happen on an individual level. But why should the large immigrant communities in England care about traditional English culture, history etc.? It really isn't their culture and history after all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @dfordoom

    but I’m not sure at all about that regarding ethnicity which is a complex mixture of culture, identity and at least some element of biological descent. And what’s meant by “culture”? If it means you want to have civilizational continuity in Western countries, you can’t have that anyway without keeping a majority of “white” people
     
    I agree. But the advantage of focusing on culture is that it makes the argument sound slightly more respectable. Ordinary people (normies if you like) are not quite so threatened by it. They're likely to think that yes, they are concerned by the destruction of their culture (which to me in this context really means the established familiar way of life).

    If you take England as an example then people notice there aren't many fish-and-chip shops any more but there are lots of kebab shops. The tradition English pub is declining. People notice that the village church is empty but there's now a mosque, a Hindu temple and a Nigerian cultural centre. They notice that the freedoms they used to take for granted are disappearing. Their kids are learning about post-colonialism but they're not being taught English history.

    And people feel at least marginally freer to express concerns about their disappearing way of life, whereas mention of race will frighten them.

    When people today say “It’s about culture, not race” it usually means something along the lines of immigrants should adopt a minimum of liberal Western values
     
    That's a definite problem, that automatic assumption that western culture must mean liberal culture, given that liberal Western values are what has all but destroyed the West. The real problem is that our own native populations have embraced these self-destructive values. There isn't really any chance of saving the West unless we can persuade white Europeans to jettison liberal values such as feminism and LGBT worship.

    And people feel at least marginally freer to express concerns about their disappearing way of life, whereas mention of race will frighten them.

    That’s certainly true, a lot of people would be repelled by openly racial talk, since it will sound like some nutty purity obsession about physical types to them and evoke memories of Nazism. I just don’t think one should have any illusions that one can avoid accusations of racism by talking about “culture”. Those in favour of mass immigration will just claim that’s merely a cover for “racism”, and that culture is a meaningless concept, because cultures are perpetually changing and mixing and we’ve always been multicultural anyway (“We’re using Arabic numerals…so why do you dislike Islam?”). They’ll accuse you of having a static, “essentialist” conception of culture…which is in the end supposedly just as racist as if you were talking about genes, racial types etc.
    And to some extent one probably can’t escape the fact that those issues really are to a significant extent about ethnicity and descent. Assimilation may happen on an individual level. But why should the large immigrant communities in England care about traditional English culture, history etc.? It really isn’t their culture and history after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    But why should the large immigrant communities in England care about traditional English culture, history etc.? It really isn’t their culture and history after all.

    That is in fact one of the strongest anti-immigration arguments (not that it will do any good of course, the die is already cast) that one can use with "normal" people. When I point out that in another fifty years or so Shakespeare won't be taught, they really can't put up much argument. I am thus able to present myself as a disinterested (i.e, impartial) protector of "native" cultures.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Oliver D. Smith
    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth. UK's population growth is explained by 53% -net-immigration and 47% by natural means (i.e. more births than deaths each year, largely because people are now living longer, although in my opinion despite the decline in birth/fertility rates - they're still too high and I support a voluntary 1 child policy by payment of government subsidies only to the first child). The problem is this: left-wing populist parties only want to stop population-growth by abortion, voluntary euthanasia, women's rights (access to contraception) and pro-LGBTQIA. They're aren't anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment. While right-wing populist parties are anti-immigration, are generally supportive of capital punishment - the problem is they are usually against women's rights, are often anti-abortion and always anti-LGBTQIA; probably neutral on voluntary euthanasia. This is why I've never been a member of a political party because I support all these things that cross the right-left spectrum to halt and reverse population growth. The closest party that mixes some of these things would be Italy's Five Star Movement. In my youth though (pre-2012) I supported right-wing populist, even nationalist, parties, but I saw their limitations and flaws. When I got older I changed my mind to stop supporting these (at the time I wrote a whole essay why). There's now though a vacuum for a populist degrowth party like the Five Star Movement in UK; the populist UKIP has been obliterated and is over since they achieved their raison d'être to leave the EU and there were no good candidates in their 2017 leadership election, just anti-Islamic fruitcakes, walter mitty's and other weird characters such as a guy who said a "gay donkey raped his horse"..

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago. He genuinely changed his mind and now criticises the alt-right. As for RationalWiki's political content - I don't agree with all of it, in fact few editors there will agree 100%. There are a few RW sysops who are pro-Brexit like myself, but note how the article is biased against-Brexit. I'm less interested in that site for politics, but to document and refute pseudo-science. The alt-right promotes racialism & race & IQ pseudo-science. Most the people I have criticised is for this e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst etc. Karlin promotes the same junk.

    What you are, in reality, is a living meme to Bioleninism. A low-t, mentally ill and ignorant nutcase who can’t see past the most surface of concepts?

    Flying colors on all.

    Perfect.

    The sheer obsession with voter popularity misses so many second-level effects from a movement that it seems incredible that you’ll miss it. Consider even Spencer, which I highly doubt most commentators here are fans of – even so, by insisting on explicit white nationalism and by gathering a meaningful number of followers, he nonetheless makes all other far right positions appear more moderate in comparison. In the same way how extreme leftists have been moving the Overton window left, his movement serves to shift a portion of the Overton window right.

    Voter patterns and trends ultimately are only a surface reflection of much deeper movements beneath, and underlying and affecting the underlying causes is far more important(and meaningful). Besides, according to reliable sources in the media, Russian influence is all-powerful, so all that is needed to get the voters is to be nice to Grand Wizard Putin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Art Deco
    Well yes, but people like Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice don’t look exactly like people from the Congo (nor does Barack Obama), yet in the present-day West they would still be called “black”

    No, they'd be called that in the United States, which has a dichotomous conception of race. In the Caribbean, Powell might be called mulatto. In Brazil, where racial classification is a function of both phenotype and class, he'd be called white. American blacks generally draw about 15% of their pedigree from Europe. I'll wager Michelle Obama is about average in this respect, Condoleeza Rice a notch above average &c. Obama is unusual in that he had no connection to the domestic black population until he moved to New York at age 20, just his grandpa's checker-playing hookah-smoking chum, Frank Marshall Davis. Culturally, he nothing like ordinary blacks of any description.

    Pres. Obamas contacts with black Americans while he was growing up in Hawaii included fellow black high school students who tended to come from military families.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Art Deco
    It's 'socially constructed' with people who have mixed ancestry. My ancestry is 99.9% European. That I'm 'white' is not socially constructed.

    The one drop rule is socially constructed, and the left wants to perpetuate it. Latin American classifications of mestizo, mulatto, and whatever the word is for a 3 way mixture of Black, White and Indian, are more grounded in reality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @German_reader

    They’re aren’t anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment.
     
    Eh, what has capital punishment got to do with population growth? Do you want to use the death penalty for decreasing population?

    Yes.

    And on the subject of being anti-immigration and wanting to stop and reverse population growth: I’m one of the few people with a consistent position. What annoys me a lot is far-right/alt-right/white nationalist types who claim to oppose immigration, or “non-white” immigration, but are pro-natalism and want to increase ‘white’ birth rates. You see plenty of that on Kirkegaard’s twitter who is complaining about western fertility rates being low and pushing for more reproduction, yet the hypocrite claims to oppose immigration.

    Makes zero sense to oppose immigration, but then support large families or increase in fertility rates.

    If I wasn’t Grey-Asexual I would have been vasectomised. Simply put, it only makes sense to oppose immigration if you don’t reproduce (voluntary childlessness), or if you do, support small, rather than large families -limit to having only one child.

    These alt-right freaks like Kirkegaard and Spencer are pushing for large families. IMO they’re as bad as the open-borders lunatics. Alt right and open-borders: opposite side of same coin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Yes.
     
    How do you suppose that would work? If the death penalty should have any appreciable effect on population numbers, you'd have to execute large numbers of people, and there aren't that many murderers...do you want it to be like in 18th century Britain where people were executed for theft and other minor property crimes?

    You see plenty of that on Kirkegaard’s twitter who is complaining about western fertility rates being low and pushing for more reproduction, yet the hypocrite claims to oppose immigration.
     
    I don't see the hypocrisy. Mass immigration is often justified with the low birth rates of the native population, so if you're against mass immigration, it makes sense to think native birth rates should be higher.
    That being said, there are probably already far too many people on earth than would be good for the environment, so it's true that further population growth is a problem. But surely you must be aware that most population growth today is in Subsaharan Africa and some Islamic countries...this is where the focus for family planning etc. should lie. Birth rates in Europe, the Americas and East Asia are already low enough (probably too low in fact).

    If I wasn’t Grey-Asexual
     
    I don't even know what's that supposed to be, but it sure doesn't sound healthy.
    , @utu

    Makes zero sense to oppose immigration, but then support large families or increase in fertility rates.
     
    It make a perfect sense because of economic argument of pro-imiggration lobby. However, I would emphasize the benefit of smaller society, longevity, longer working careers and obviously automation and robotics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Oliver D. Smith
    Yes.

    And on the subject of being anti-immigration and wanting to stop and reverse population growth: I'm one of the few people with a consistent position. What annoys me a lot is far-right/alt-right/white nationalist types who claim to oppose immigration, or "non-white" immigration, but are pro-natalism and want to increase 'white' birth rates. You see plenty of that on Kirkegaard's twitter who is complaining about western fertility rates being low and pushing for more reproduction, yet the hypocrite claims to oppose immigration.

    Makes zero sense to oppose immigration, but then support large families or increase in fertility rates.

    If I wasn't Grey-Asexual I would have been vasectomised. Simply put, it only makes sense to oppose immigration if you don't reproduce (voluntary childlessness), or if you do, support small, rather than large families -limit to having only one child.

    These alt-right freaks like Kirkegaard and Spencer are pushing for large families. IMO they're as bad as the open-borders lunatics. Alt right and open-borders: opposite side of same coin.

    Yes.

    How do you suppose that would work? If the death penalty should have any appreciable effect on population numbers, you’d have to execute large numbers of people, and there aren’t that many murderers…do you want it to be like in 18th century Britain where people were executed for theft and other minor property crimes?

    You see plenty of that on Kirkegaard’s twitter who is complaining about western fertility rates being low and pushing for more reproduction, yet the hypocrite claims to oppose immigration.

    I don’t see the hypocrisy. Mass immigration is often justified with the low birth rates of the native population, so if you’re against mass immigration, it makes sense to think native birth rates should be higher.
    That being said, there are probably already far too many people on earth than would be good for the environment, so it’s true that further population growth is a problem. But surely you must be aware that most population growth today is in Subsaharan Africa and some Islamic countries…this is where the focus for family planning etc. should lie. Birth rates in Europe, the Americas and East Asia are already low enough (probably too low in fact).

    If I wasn’t Grey-Asexual

    I don’t even know what’s that supposed to be, but it sure doesn’t sound healthy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Oliver D. Smith
    You never watched the video. The important point made is race & IQ, "race realism", Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories etc - are all unpalatable/toxic to voters and are therefore useless. If you stood in an election and quoted Richard Lynn's race & IQ crackpottery - you wouldn't get 5 votes. None of this stuff posted on this website has any relevance to the real world (off-the internet), hence the people promoting "race and IQ" nonsense here confined to fringe/weird websites like this.... Please try getting some fresh air or something.

    And if I'm wrong, tell me where "race realism" or race & IQ works - none of this stuff is taken seriously by the public, or they simply don't care, nor does anyone vote on these issues. So why do you weirdos spend your time promoting it? What are you achieving? Nothing. Even if everything you say is true (it isn't, but let's say it it), what can you do with "race and IQ"? Nothing because it's toxic to voters. Arguably "race realism"/race & IQ - demonises actual opposition to immigration. Last time I checked, parties like the FN and Freedom Party of Austria were not goofing around talking about these stupid toxic-to-voters subjects. There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons, then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.

    But who cares? I am not a politician. I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not. The most irritating thing is when we try to discover truth and then you clowns come in calling valid studies “pseudoscience” only because you don’t like the conclusions.

    BTW: are you holocaust denier? Because I have no patience for Holocaust deniers and … it would be really strange combination – rational wiki contributor and holocaust denier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not.

    Discovering the truth allows us to make better decisions and that's a big deal. The truth as sacralized virtue is okay as a guide and as re-enforcement.
    , @Oliver D. Smith
    No. I've criticised and refuted Holocaust denial like 'race realism'/race & IQ on RationalWiki for past 6 years. They're in the same boat as flat earthism and geocentrism. But I don't really understand your position if you're against one pseudo-science, but support another. The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago - as refuted by population geneticists like Cavalli Sforza (1994) and mean differences between populations in IQ is largely explained by non-genetic factors.

    My point about politics not caring about if Holocaust denial and ''race realism' is true or not, is that voters do not care or vote on these issues, or if they do care - they find these topics totally unpalatable - so there's no point in supporting these things in politics. You wouldn't get 5 votes if you stood in an election spouting your "race realism" nonsense.

    The litmus test would be to go into your work office and talk to your colleagues. If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you're an oddball. I worked in a busy office for a year, not once did I hear anyone mention these fringe-topics you discuss on this website; "race realism" never mentioned. It's simply not what ordinary people and voters talk or care about - its confined to the lunatic-fringe. And I've already explained why if you are anti-immigration you should not focus or mention these things at all: potentially you just demonise anti-immigration sentiment if you talk about "race".
    , @utu

    I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not.
     
    It might be so. But if so then usually in a narrow sense. Truth itself does not have s strong motivational power. People are driven by tangible benefits and intangible as well like the satisfaction of proving somebody else is wrong. Truth is an ultimate rhetorical device. Who possess it wins debates. It is about power.
    , @utu

    I have no patience for Holocaust deniers
     
    But there is plenty of room left for revisionism of the official historical narrative about WWII including the Holocaust. But framing the issue as whether Holocaust happened or not w/o defining what Holocaust is any discussion or inquiry becomes impossible. Earlier you have stated

    I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not.
     
    You do not follow your own dictum in the case of Holocaust. You do not seem interested in truth in this case at least. The question about Holocaust is historical and it is of different nature than the question about, say the flat Earth. The latter can be answered by making experiments w/o reference to what was done in the past. The latter is much harder because it will depend on work of people who not necessarily believed "in truth for the truth sake" but where driven to create politically beneficial narratives. W/o revisionists who were conveniently placed as deniers we would still believe (an lots of people still do) in soap stories, shrank heads stories or gas chambers in camps on German territory (not in Poland) or 4 millions in Auschwitz.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @dfordoom

    Pseudo science that at least 44% of intelligence experts agree with?
     
    An enormous number of "experts" agree with man-made climate change, but it's still politically motivated pseudo-scientific poppycock.

    Scientists are just people. They are as prone as anyone else to stubbornness, intellectual prejudice, moral cowardice, self-interest and political agendas. There's one thing that 99% of scientists agree on - that they personally should get more funding.

    When any field of science becomes involved in issues with political consequences then the publicly-expressed opinions of scientists on those issues need to be viewed with extreme scepticism.

    An enormous number of “experts” agree with man-made climate change, but it’s still politically motivated pseudo-scientific poppycock.

    It’s not. A climate is changing, CO2 levels do influence the climate, and current CO2 level are influenced by man. THose three things are simply facts. What you can reasonably discuss is how much CO2 levels influence climate and how much of current CO2 levels are influenced by man.

    Also, it’s useful to differentiate the question into several smaller once
    (1) Are theories of warming gases scientifically valid? (yes)
    (2) Are they true or, what certainty we have that they might be true? (highly probable)
    (3) What would be the consequences? (shifting of climate zones, changing rain patterns, changing ocean streams)
    (4) Will that consequences be advantageous or not? (hard to say, especially per country basis. More plants, but also more bugs eating those plants. Less rain in some regions and more in others. There is also doomsday scenario, which is extremely unlikely and that’s why scientists tend not to talk about it)
    (5) What we can do about it? (geoengineering, babe!)

    It seems to me that opposition to the “AGW” is mainly driven by tribal signaling, which was probably triggered by the fact that most of proposals for (5) have distinct leftist taint. However, in (5) we can do a lot in old, good capitalistic way, for example, by geoengineering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    It seems to me that opposition to the “AGW” is mainly driven by tribal signaling...
     
    Moreover, tribal signaling that is largely limited to the Anglosphere (and Poland, I think). I don't think anybody cares to flog that dead horse anywhere else.
    , @utu

    It seems to me that opposition to the “AGW” is mainly driven by tribal signaling
     
    Perhaps you should rather ask why AGW attracts so many flaky liberals and sloppy scientists and why it is so well funded? The opposition to AGW is to large extent driven by the political character of AGW movement and not about whether CO2 or H2O or CH4 are green house gases or not. The GHG effect is beyond the question. How big it is in a complex system with so many feedbacks is still open to question.

    Your point (5)

    (5) What we can do about it? (geoengineering, babe!)
     
    bothers me. You are taking it too lightly. I would not touch geo engineering. I know people who did modeling of it in 1990's. Sure it is possible. But the unanticipated consequences?
    , @dfordoom

    It seems to me that opposition to the “AGW” is mainly driven by tribal signaling, which was probably triggered by the fact that most of proposals for (5) have distinct leftist taint.
     
    And support for the “AGW” position was driven right from the start by tribal signaling, which was unquestionably because those who came up with it had a distinct leftist taint. Right from the beginning it was a political ideology.

    Radical environmentalists needed an issue since the overpopulation issue which had served them so well was running out of steam. And expressing concern about population was increasingly seen as racist. If they couldn't find a new scare story they were facing political irrelevance. And, lo and behold, they suddenly discovered AGW. It was like a miracle.

    Socialists were also desperately in need of something that would restore socialism's credibility. And, lo and behold, AGW came along. It was like a miracle.

    For scientists it was a wonderful opportunity to get their hands on lots and lots of money. "Climate scientists" were able to build lucrative careers on it. It was like a miracle.

    The whole AGW thing was pure politics from its inception. By an extraordinary, almost unbelievable coincidence, those who got the AGW hysteria bandwagon rolling just happened to be people who stood to gain from it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @dfordoom

    d, it ain’t that complicated.

    In the US, everyone (except for a few mental cases) knows whether they are white or black.
     
    That's true, and for everyday purposes that works fine, but if you're trying to make a rigidly scientific argument you need rigidly scientific categories. Relying on self-identification will make your results very questionable if you're classifying someone who is 75% European as black because he "knows" he's black. Or if you're classifying someone who is 90+% European as non-white because he "knows" he's a Cherokee.

    Sorry, but that’s not true (in social science). You have a lot of research which does not deal with rigid categories (e.g. stereotype threat BS). Nothing in social “science” related to real life can be neatly divided into categories; it’s just some categories are more rigid and some are less rigid.

    Also, I will repeat myself, but what the heck: the question whether the measured IQ difference between “whites” and “blacks” are driven by genes or not is not really dependent on whether race is a rigid category. Heck, even if it would be totally socially constructed, the differences still could be driven 100% by genes! I really do not understand this fixation on whether “race” exists or not. It does not matter.

    For the sake of argument, assume we completely randomly assign people into “blue shirt” and “greenshirt” categories. This would be completely constructed category. Yet, if we measure the IQ averages between those two groups, the averages might, in general, differ. Since IQ seems to be 50-80% hereditary (but see very interesting arguments on RaceRealist blog against heritabilities estimations and against IQ in general), then those average differences would be driven at least in part by genetical component.

    What does that would mean? That depends on a question.

    First, it would be absurd to claim someone is “stupid” or “clever” based on her/his shirt color.
    Second, yet if you have no other information, the shirt color would be valid indicator in the absence of other information, and you could guess that “he has green shirt, meaning there is some probability is not as intelligent as the girl in blue shirt”
    Third, it would mean that differences in outcome between “blue” and “green” shirts would not be effect of discrimination and there is no need for affirmative actions.

    Those are pretty much obvious things, yet the irrational guys obsess over things whether race is rigid category.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    I really do not understand this fixation on whether “race” exists or not.
     
    Nor do I. But whenever the subject of IQ differences comes up it always seems to lead to the race issue. And for those who oppose immigration that's invariably disastrous. It's handing a loaded gun to the pro-immigration lobby. And when you do that you shouldn't be surprised when they pull the trigger.

    That seemed to be the point Oliver D. Smith was making, and on that point I was agreeing with him (although I disagree with him on lots of the other points he was making).

    Just for the record, I'm against immigration. I'm against all immigration, whether it's legal or illegal, whether it's based on race or merit or IQ or any other consideration. And I'm against affirmative action.

    If you want to oppose immigration and you mention race or IQ you'll lose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Oliver D. Smith
    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth. UK's population growth is explained by 53% -net-immigration and 47% by natural means (i.e. more births than deaths each year, largely because people are now living longer, although in my opinion despite the decline in birth/fertility rates - they're still too high and I support a voluntary 1 child policy by payment of government subsidies only to the first child). The problem is this: left-wing populist parties only want to stop population-growth by abortion, voluntary euthanasia, women's rights (access to contraception) and pro-LGBTQIA. They're aren't anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment. While right-wing populist parties are anti-immigration, are generally supportive of capital punishment - the problem is they are usually against women's rights, are often anti-abortion and always anti-LGBTQIA; probably neutral on voluntary euthanasia. This is why I've never been a member of a political party because I support all these things that cross the right-left spectrum to halt and reverse population growth. The closest party that mixes some of these things would be Italy's Five Star Movement. In my youth though (pre-2012) I supported right-wing populist, even nationalist, parties, but I saw their limitations and flaws. When I got older I changed my mind to stop supporting these (at the time I wrote a whole essay why). There's now though a vacuum for a populist degrowth party like the Five Star Movement in UK; the populist UKIP has been obliterated and is over since they achieved their raison d'être to leave the EU and there were no good candidates in their 2017 leadership election, just anti-Islamic fruitcakes, walter mitty's and other weird characters such as a guy who said a "gay donkey raped his horse"..

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago. He genuinely changed his mind and now criticises the alt-right. As for RationalWiki's political content - I don't agree with all of it, in fact few editors there will agree 100%. There are a few RW sysops who are pro-Brexit like myself, but note how the article is biased against-Brexit. I'm less interested in that site for politics, but to document and refute pseudo-science. The alt-right promotes racialism & race & IQ pseudo-science. Most the people I have criticised is for this e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst etc. Karlin promotes the same junk.

    But if you think IQ is pseudoscience, then pretty much you have to say that all of social science is pseudoscience (because there is not much out there which is of as godo quality as research on IQ). Same relates to race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    But if you think IQ is pseudoscience, then pretty much you have to say that all of social science is pseudoscience
     
    But is is pseudoscience isn't it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @German_reader

    And people feel at least marginally freer to express concerns about their disappearing way of life, whereas mention of race will frighten them.
     
    That's certainly true, a lot of people would be repelled by openly racial talk, since it will sound like some nutty purity obsession about physical types to them and evoke memories of Nazism. I just don't think one should have any illusions that one can avoid accusations of racism by talking about "culture". Those in favour of mass immigration will just claim that's merely a cover for "racism", and that culture is a meaningless concept, because cultures are perpetually changing and mixing and we've always been multicultural anyway ("We're using Arabic numerals...so why do you dislike Islam?"). They'll accuse you of having a static, "essentialist" conception of culture...which is in the end supposedly just as racist as if you were talking about genes, racial types etc.
    And to some extent one probably can't escape the fact that those issues really are to a significant extent about ethnicity and descent. Assimilation may happen on an individual level. But why should the large immigrant communities in England care about traditional English culture, history etc.? It really isn't their culture and history after all.

    But why should the large immigrant communities in England care about traditional English culture, history etc.? It really isn’t their culture and history after all.

    That is in fact one of the strongest anti-immigration arguments (not that it will do any good of course, the die is already cast) that one can use with “normal” people. When I point out that in another fifty years or so Shakespeare won’t be taught, they really can’t put up much argument. I am thus able to present myself as a disinterested (i.e, impartial) protector of “native” cultures.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Jaakko Raipala
    The north/south genetic clustering exists in the medieval Russian territory that was already russified before the eastern conquests that began with Ivan IV. It doesn't exist East of the Urals where the ethnic Russian population is newer and drawn from all over the old heartland; the north/side gene difference of the European side was not replicated in Siberia because there was no policy of populating north and south Siberia with different populations.

    What we see in this map in the European regions are two bands of elevated crime rates: an east-west band roughly from Pskov to Arkhangelsk that seems to correspond to the north Russian genetic clustering and a north-south band roughly from Komi to Bashkortostan that corresponds with the presence of Turkic and Finno-Ugric ethnic groups. (I don't think the north/south divide exists in ethnic Russians of these regions, either, since they too are migrants who moved there in the past few centuries.)

    These are very rough patterns though but it would be interesting to see more detailed study of this.

    “Genetically” in European Russia have to be two pole, and Siberia (where mixed Northern and southern Russian) must have an intermediate position.
    However, the reality is quite different .

    Also with Karelians – Finnish Karelians are very similar to the rest of the Finns, Russian Karelians are very similar to Russian. In this case, the cultural factor is more important than genetic

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @dfordoom

    Arguably “race realism”/race & IQ – demonises actual opposition to immigration.
     
    In practical terms there's no doubt that you're correct on this point. Politically it's a guaranteed losing strategy.

    There are a lot of people who oppose immigration for sensible reasons,
     
    Agreed. There are powerful arguments against immigration that have nothing to do race or IQ. There are economic, social, environmental and cultural arguments against immigration and those arguments have at least a chance of gaining actual political traction.

    then you clowns come along and start talking about racial IQ pseudo-science and 19th century eugenics.
     
    Whether it's pseudo-science or not doesn't matter (and I have no particular opinion on the subject). It's almost universally perceived as pseudo-science and it's a fast track to political failure and irrelevance.

    Whether it’s pseudo-science or not doesn’t matter (and I have no particular opinion on the subject). It’s almost universally perceived as pseudo-science and it’s a fast track to political failure and irrelevance.

    Really? The Blank Slate and Our Troublesome Inheritance were bestsellers (actually Nicholas Wade came close but dodged out of directly confronting the issue).

    So was The Sports Gene (even Obama snagged a copy).

    Literally *all* that “pseudo-scientists” such as ourselves do is extend those arguments to IQ, the most solid construct in psychology.

    The blank slatist position might remain predominant amongst ordinary people who don’t follow these debates, but it is experiencing a crisis of legitimacy in educated circles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Oliver D. Smith
    I'm arguing the opposite, as does Joe Owens: SPLC loves the fact the alt-right promotes crank theories like Emil Kirkegaard's 'race realism' and 'race & IQ' to demonise anti-immigration sentiment. The fact is, the SPLC doesn't have to do anything to combat the alt-right since they make themselves a laughing stock by promoting stuff like 'race realism' - voters run a mile away from. The difference between me and Joe is Joe is a bit of a daft conspiracy theorist and thinks these people who promote these things are working for the SPLC and are spies (he thinks Spencer is SPLC); I don't - they're just idiots and weirdos. That's a far more simple and probable explanation.

    crank theories like Emil Kirkegaard’s ‘race realism’ and ‘race & IQ’

    These are the ‘crank theories’ that 44% of experts in the field agree with?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Oliver D. Smith
    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth. UK's population growth is explained by 53% -net-immigration and 47% by natural means (i.e. more births than deaths each year, largely because people are now living longer, although in my opinion despite the decline in birth/fertility rates - they're still too high and I support a voluntary 1 child policy by payment of government subsidies only to the first child). The problem is this: left-wing populist parties only want to stop population-growth by abortion, voluntary euthanasia, women's rights (access to contraception) and pro-LGBTQIA. They're aren't anti-immigration and tend to ignore capital punishment. While right-wing populist parties are anti-immigration, are generally supportive of capital punishment - the problem is they are usually against women's rights, are often anti-abortion and always anti-LGBTQIA; probably neutral on voluntary euthanasia. This is why I've never been a member of a political party because I support all these things that cross the right-left spectrum to halt and reverse population growth. The closest party that mixes some of these things would be Italy's Five Star Movement. In my youth though (pre-2012) I supported right-wing populist, even nationalist, parties, but I saw their limitations and flaws. When I got older I changed my mind to stop supporting these (at the time I wrote a whole essay why). There's now though a vacuum for a populist degrowth party like the Five Star Movement in UK; the populist UKIP has been obliterated and is over since they achieved their raison d'être to leave the EU and there were no good candidates in their 2017 leadership election, just anti-Islamic fruitcakes, walter mitty's and other weird characters such as a guy who said a "gay donkey raped his horse"..

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago. He genuinely changed his mind and now criticises the alt-right. As for RationalWiki's political content - I don't agree with all of it, in fact few editors there will agree 100%. There are a few RW sysops who are pro-Brexit like myself, but note how the article is biased against-Brexit. I'm less interested in that site for politics, but to document and refute pseudo-science. The alt-right promotes racialism & race & IQ pseudo-science. Most the people I have criticised is for this e.g. Emil Kirkegaard, John Fuerst etc. Karlin promotes the same junk.

    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth.

    And you criticize *us* for adopting unpopular positions, LOL.

    Your agenda is supported by perhaps 1% of the British population.

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago.

    And in a couple more years he might convert to radical Islam and demand to stone you for your anti-natalist perversions.

    As is quite a typical pattern amongst extremists who base their ideology on feelz, who flit from one demented ideology to the next depending on their current mood.

    In contrast, being based on science – or at least, the closest approximation to it that we can get in the social sphere – the only way my or many of the commenters’ here view of the world could be undermined so radically is if IQ research is indeed proven to be fraudulent (but the trend is firmly in the opposite direction). Otherwise, you would actually have to stone us, or at least credibly threaten to do so, to make us see the (your) light.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    The Green Party is an open-borders party that wants to increase immigration despite 7/10 voters in UK want to see a reduction in immigration, most of them - a large reduction. So no, I don't support them - the Green immigration policy is ridiculous hence they are only polling 1%. They also make little sense since mass-immigration is destroying the environment (e.g. more homes being built on green-belt areas). Furthermore, there's the fact despite a long-term decline in fertility rates for the native "White British" (ethnic census category) - immigrants and second-generation immigrants are increasing UK's fertility rate as a whole: the fertility rate of "White British" (ethnic census category) is 1.5, yet the UK fertility rate as a whole (including all other ethnic groups) is 1.8.

    As I mentioned in my other comment: the dilemma is that while left-wing populist parties are pro assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia, abortion, feminist and LGBTQIA (like Green Party), they aren't anti-immigration. Right-wing populist parties in contrast are anti-immigration, but aren't pro-abortion and are neutral on voluntary euthanasia; they also are generally against LGBTQIA and women rights (like UKIP). So if someone is anti-population growth, who do they vote for?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @szopen

    An enormous number of “experts” agree with man-made climate change, but it’s still politically motivated pseudo-scientific poppycock.
     
    It's not. A climate is changing, CO2 levels do influence the climate, and current CO2 level are influenced by man. THose three things are simply facts. What you can reasonably discuss is how much CO2 levels influence climate and how much of current CO2 levels are influenced by man.

    Also, it's useful to differentiate the question into several smaller once
    (1) Are theories of warming gases scientifically valid? (yes)
    (2) Are they true or, what certainty we have that they might be true? (highly probable)
    (3) What would be the consequences? (shifting of climate zones, changing rain patterns, changing ocean streams)
    (4) Will that consequences be advantageous or not? (hard to say, especially per country basis. More plants, but also more bugs eating those plants. Less rain in some regions and more in others. There is also doomsday scenario, which is extremely unlikely and that's why scientists tend not to talk about it)
    (5) What we can do about it? (geoengineering, babe!)

    It seems to me that opposition to the "AGW" is mainly driven by tribal signaling, which was probably triggered by the fact that most of proposals for (5) have distinct leftist taint. However, in (5) we can do a lot in old, good capitalistic way, for example, by geoengineering.

    It seems to me that opposition to the “AGW” is mainly driven by tribal signaling…

    Moreover, tribal signaling that is largely limited to the Anglosphere (and Poland, I think). I don’t think anybody cares to flog that dead horse anywhere else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    I don’t think anybody cares to flog that dead horse anywhere else.
     
    I don't have solid numbers like polls etc., but unfortunately one does see quite a bit of that in comments by AfD supporters in Germany as well (and the logic is tribal indeed, something along the lines of "if the establishment and the Greens who are wrong about so much else believe in global warming, it's probably just a hoax").
    Regarding bestselling books dealing with issues like heredity of IQ, group differences etc., Thilo Sarrazin's books were great successes in Germany. So I'd agree, there definitely is interest in those issues, even if many supposedly educated people hold to bizarre blank slatist positions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @szopen
    But who cares? I am not a politician. I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not. The most irritating thing is when we try to discover truth and then you clowns come in calling valid studies "pseudoscience" only because you don't like the conclusions.

    BTW: are you holocaust denier? Because I have no patience for Holocaust deniers and ... it would be really strange combination - rational wiki contributor and holocaust denier.

    I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not.

    Discovering the truth allows us to make better decisions and that’s a big deal. The truth as sacralized virtue is okay as a guide and as re-enforcement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Dmitry

    It seems useful to BLM, and I doubt you are going to confront them about this.

    As for who is white, jews, Armenians, Persians are middle easterners and thus are not considered white, the only reason you think they are white is that the USA added them to the census as white, this was done to cater for the jews as in the past when being white was considered an advantage. Since white is now the worst thing to be, the flight from white is accelerating, jews, and all the other MENA types all now say they are not white.

    When we talk about whites we are talking about Europeans, people that can trace their genetic ancestry to the lands of Europe before the year 1000 at least.
     

    I agree mainly with the comment - but there is a difference between white and European. That's why 'White Nationalism' should be called something like 'Pan-European nationalism' instead.

    Perception of white is usually based on how a person looks - whereas being European is a genetic one. That's why the Nazis used their own concept of 'Aryan' and 'non-Aryan', rather than relying on coloration.

    When you talk about European people - then you're referring to people of genetic origin from the Ancient European peoples.

    If you talk about 'white', 'brown', 'yellow', 'black' - you are usually referring to external coloration or appearance.

    External appearance can be deceptive in many cases, as with Middle Eastern people - as a proportion people of Middle Eastern nationalities look externally white, while many people who are European origin (e.g. a majority of Italians, Spanish, Greeks, etc), look brown.

    As nobody is going around giving people forced DNA tests, and we don't have any National Socialist countries (which used the concept of 'Aryan') - the thing which usually effects people in terms of racial treatment, on day-to-day life is external colouration (whether they look white, brown, yellow or black).

    Jews are Middle Eastern origin nationality, so they are clearly non-European ethnic group, and this is proved by modern research. But a proportion of Jewish people have white-colouration (i.e. blonde hair and pale skin) despite Middle Eastern origin. And the proportion with lighter colouration is how the country has the second highest skin cancer rates in the world https://www.haaretz.com/1.4718949

    -

    For example, Jewish model Esti Ginzburg would be described as white (external colouration and potential to get sunburn), but not as European (as genetic origin is the Middle Eastern region). In Israel, about 15-20% of the local population you see on street have a white coloration (at the same time that genetic tests showing they are Middle Eastern origin nationality) -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71XT5yaElK4


    By the way 'white' is also found in smaller numbers amongst the Arabs - as with the famous Palestinian protest girl Ahed Tamimi. She is 'white' but she is differently not European (either genetics or culturally).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=654RvixnTBM

    Esti Ginzburg: 5/10. Would not bang.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @szopen
    But who cares? I am not a politician. I am interested in truth for the truth sake. I do not care if discovering truth will bring benefits or not. The most irritating thing is when we try to discover truth and then you clowns come in calling valid studies "pseudoscience" only because you don't like the conclusions.

    BTW: are you holocaust denier? Because I have no patience for Holocaust deniers and ... it would be really strange combination - rational wiki contributor and holocaust denier.

    No. I’ve criticised and refuted Holocaust denial like ‘race realism’/race & IQ on RationalWiki for past 6 years. They’re in the same boat as flat earthism and geocentrism. But I don’t really understand your position if you’re against one pseudo-science, but support another. The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago – as refuted by population geneticists like Cavalli Sforza (1994) and mean differences between populations in IQ is largely explained by non-genetic factors.

    My point about politics not caring about if Holocaust denial and ”race realism’ is true or not, is that voters do not care or vote on these issues, or if they do care – they find these topics totally unpalatable – so there’s no point in supporting these things in politics. You wouldn’t get 5 votes if you stood in an election spouting your “race realism” nonsense.

    The litmus test would be to go into your work office and talk to your colleagues. If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you’re an oddball. I worked in a busy office for a year, not once did I hear anyone mention these fringe-topics you discuss on this website; “race realism” never mentioned. It’s simply not what ordinary people and voters talk or care about – its confined to the lunatic-fringe. And I’ve already explained why if you are anti-immigration you should not focus or mention these things at all: potentially you just demonise anti-immigration sentiment if you talk about “race”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    The litmus test would be to go into your work office and talk to your colleagues. If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you’re an oddball.
     
    Let's not even consider the sample size of one, the idea that the entire world is in a Western office, or the hilarious addition of "I worked for one year."

    Simply this: If I walked into an average Western office and talked about bowel cancer, it would not likely be welcomed by laypeople. But it wouldn't stop it from being the second most common cancer in the world, it wouldn't keep it from being deadly, and it would make a heck of a lot of sense to continue to discuss and research it among interested individuals.
    , @szopen

    The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago – as refuted by population geneticists like
     
    Which traditional race concept? As far as I know, geneticists provided the strongest evidence for the existence of races, even though they sometimes pay lip service to modern trends (as Cavalli-Sforza, who first denied race exist, while then freely continuing to use the r-word in their works).
    Give me the definition of race which was refuted by geneticists. Usually I read taht the "race" concept should not be used because it is laden with toxic past or because it might be misuderstood by layman.

    I already gave you the old definition of "race" (which I got straight from book on genetics)

    Boyd: "A population which differs significantly from other populations in regard to the frequency of one or more of the genes it possesses. It is an arbitrary matter which, and how many, gene loci we choose to consider as a significant 'constellation" (1950)

    Such races exist and denying such race is the same as arguing that earth is flat. The criticism is that using that definition one might categorize people in arbitrarily large number of races, which is true; however, this is not argument against existence of race, as the same can be told about - for example - social class.
    There are people using "Social class" in the science and somehow no one is calling them pseudoscientists.

    Another criticism is that race boundaries are fluid, which is true. But - here I will borrow from Sesardic' paper, who quited Dobzhansky: "such criteria do not exist because if they did,
    we would not have races, we would have distinct species."

    Moreover, as I wrote already above, the question of whether race is based on biology has no relevance to the question of whether IQ differences between populations are based on genetics. In fact, you would have to be flat-earther to deny outright the there is at least a possibility that such differences exist (as even perfunctory familiarity with evolution theory would show that such differences might exist) and especially given the genetical evidence.

    For me, people arguing races do not exist are the same category as flat-earthers.


    BTW, I apologize for calling you idiot. I was angry, because I am fed up with people labeling "pseudoscience" things which they don't like.

    If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you’re an oddball.
     
    Well, here in Poland - no problem at all. People are quite comfortable talking those things. I am actually pretty progressive by Polish standards :D I remember drinking with my friend, who invited all sort o his friends. Gee, I felt there like a SJW or something :D
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Oliver D. Smith
    No. I've criticised and refuted Holocaust denial like 'race realism'/race & IQ on RationalWiki for past 6 years. They're in the same boat as flat earthism and geocentrism. But I don't really understand your position if you're against one pseudo-science, but support another. The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago - as refuted by population geneticists like Cavalli Sforza (1994) and mean differences between populations in IQ is largely explained by non-genetic factors.

    My point about politics not caring about if Holocaust denial and ''race realism' is true or not, is that voters do not care or vote on these issues, or if they do care - they find these topics totally unpalatable - so there's no point in supporting these things in politics. You wouldn't get 5 votes if you stood in an election spouting your "race realism" nonsense.

    The litmus test would be to go into your work office and talk to your colleagues. If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you're an oddball. I worked in a busy office for a year, not once did I hear anyone mention these fringe-topics you discuss on this website; "race realism" never mentioned. It's simply not what ordinary people and voters talk or care about - its confined to the lunatic-fringe. And I've already explained why if you are anti-immigration you should not focus or mention these things at all: potentially you just demonise anti-immigration sentiment if you talk about "race".

    The litmus test would be to go into your work office and talk to your colleagues. If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you’re an oddball.

    Let’s not even consider the sample size of one, the idea that the entire world is in a Western office, or the hilarious addition of “I worked for one year.”

    Simply this: If I walked into an average Western office and talked about bowel cancer, it would not likely be welcomed by laypeople. But it wouldn’t stop it from being the second most common cancer in the world, it wouldn’t keep it from being deadly, and it would make a heck of a lot of sense to continue to discuss and research it among interested individuals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago

    If this is defined as Africans vs. Europeans vs. Asians, the idea that the race concept is obsolete is a pseudo-scientific claim.

    as refuted by population geneticists like Cavalli Sforza (1994)

    Obsolete.

    mean differences between populations in IQ is largely explained by non-genetic factors

    Indeed they are largely explained by non-genetic factors.

    But they are not exclusively explained by non-genetic factors (at least, according to an overwhelmingly majority of experts).

    Thus, the idea there are no genetic differences is pseudoscience.

    It’s simply not what ordinary people and voters talk or care about – its confined to the lunatic-fringe.

    Ordinary people don’t talk about particle physics, or nephroblastomas. Doesn’t mean these things don’t exist, or are “pseudoscience.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Oliver D. Smith
    There's no such thing as race, its been refuted by science, and even if there was, no one cares (apart from you autistic Nazi basement dwellers). It's not an issue people vote on.

    The National Front in UK in the 1970s-1980s promoted 'race realism' (they even distributed John R. Baker's book Race, 1974 and put out leaflets with bizarre photos of "races" and their brain sizes), it got them absolutely nowhere. They never polled more than 1% in General Elections, and never had a single local councillor elected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(UK)#General_and_by-elections

    You crackpots are clinging to 40 year old failed election strategies...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Anatoly Karlin

    I oppose population-growth and support economic degrowth.
     
    And you criticize *us* for adopting unpopular positions, LOL.

    Your agenda is supported by perhaps 1% of the British population.

    As for RationalWiki, nothing wrong with folks changing their minds and seeing sense. A current sysop on RationalWiki was an alt-righter less than 2 years ago.
     
    And in a couple more years he might convert to radical Islam and demand to stone you for your anti-natalist perversions.

    As is quite a typical pattern amongst extremists who base their ideology on feelz, who flit from one demented ideology to the next depending on their current mood.

    In contrast, being based on science - or at least, the closest approximation to it that we can get in the social sphere - the only way my or many of the commenters' here view of the world could be undermined so radically is if IQ research is indeed proven to be fraudulent (but the trend is firmly in the opposite direction). Otherwise, you would actually have to stone us, or at least credibly threaten to do so, to make us see the (your) light.

    The Green Party is an open-borders party that wants to increase immigration despite 7/10 voters in UK want to see a reduction in immigration, most of them – a large reduction. So no, I don’t support them – the Green immigration policy is ridiculous hence they are only polling 1%. They also make little sense since mass-immigration is destroying the environment (e.g. more homes being built on green-belt areas). Furthermore, there’s the fact despite a long-term decline in fertility rates for the native “White British” (ethnic census category) – immigrants and second-generation immigrants are increasing UK’s fertility rate as a whole: the fertility rate of “White British” (ethnic census category) is 1.5, yet the UK fertility rate as a whole (including all other ethnic groups) is 1.8.

    As I mentioned in my other comment: the dilemma is that while left-wing populist parties are pro assisted suicide/voluntary euthanasia, abortion, feminist and LGBTQIA (like Green Party), they aren’t anti-immigration. Right-wing populist parties in contrast are anti-immigration, but aren’t pro-abortion and are neutral on voluntary euthanasia; they also are generally against LGBTQIA and women rights (like UKIP). So if someone is anti-population growth, who do they vote for?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Oliver D. Smith
    No. I've criticised and refuted Holocaust denial like 'race realism'/race & IQ on RationalWiki for past 6 years. They're in the same boat as flat earthism and geocentrism. But I don't really understand your position if you're against one pseudo-science, but support another. The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago - as refuted by population geneticists like Cavalli Sforza (1994) and mean differences between populations in IQ is largely explained by non-genetic factors.

    My point about politics not caring about if Holocaust denial and ''race realism' is true or not, is that voters do not care or vote on these issues, or if they do care - they find these topics totally unpalatable - so there's no point in supporting these things in politics. You wouldn't get 5 votes if you stood in an election spouting your "race realism" nonsense.

    The litmus test would be to go into your work office and talk to your colleagues. If you mentioned race & IQ to them, they would either walk away or stare at you thinking you're an oddball. I worked in a busy office for a year, not once did I hear anyone mention these fringe-topics you discuss on this website; "race realism" never mentioned. It's simply not what ordinary people and voters talk or care about - its confined to the lunatic-fringe. And I've already explained why if you are anti-immigration you should not focus or mention these things at all: potentially you just demonise anti-immigration sentiment if you talk about "race".

    The traditional race concept became obsolete decades ago – as refuted by population geneticists like

    Which traditional race concept? As far as I know, geneticists provided the strongest evidence for the existence of races, even though they sometimes pay lip service to modern trends (as Cavalli-Sforza, who first denied race exist, while then freely continuing to use the r-word in their works).
    Give me the definition of race which was refuted by geneticists. Usually I read taht the “race” concept should not be used because it is laden with toxic past or because it might be misuderstood by layman.

    I already gave you the old definition of