Some commenters are supporting Mr. Philippine Rushton, who is indeed a scientist. I will grant him that. But he is a scientist whose ideology has led him astray into some faraway places.
Commenters are saying that there is nothing racist at all about Mr. Rushton, a ferocious hereditarian who has never openly acknowledged that environment plays any role in IQ at all. In fact, every argument that shows an environmental role for IQ has been painstakingly attacked by Rushton, along with his partner in crime, the super-racist Arthur Jensen.
First of all, Philippe Rushton is on the board of an organization that supports segregation, champions slavery and Jim Crow, and sees themselves as neo-Confederates. What is the point of that?
Rushton is on record, along with Arthur Jensen and almost all “race realists” as wanting to get rid of all civil rights laws and anti-discrimination laws. It seems that once one goes “race realist” the first thing that follows is a desire to wipe out all civil rights and anti-discrimination laws.
Often this is done under the crap umbrella of something called “libertarianism.” In fact, almost all hardcore hereditarians at some point or other go “libertarian” and come out for getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. One just follows the other.
That’s de facto racism right there, especially considering Rushton’s publishing record as a staunch hereditarian.
Rushton is not a very nice person. He has spent most of the past few decades arguing that Blacks are genetically stupid and criminal and that there is nothing to be done about them.
He has in particular vociferously argued against very interesting environmental trends such as the Flynn Effect, showing a 3 pt/decade rise in Black IQ since 1930, and the results showing that Blacks have closed the achievement gap with Whites by 1/3. He is silent on the plummeting Black crime rate. He is silent on the massive increase in head size in US Blacks, precisely paralleling the Flynn Effect.
Niggers* are stupid and criminal and there is nothing to be done, so says Rushton and Jensen. Just keep them out of your damned country.
There are almost no Blacks in Canada, so one would think it is paradise. About 2% of Canada’s population. That’s way too many for the charming Mr. Rushton. He’s on record complaining of the increase in Blacks in Canada, though they are only there in tiny numbers. But wait! He’s not a racist!
Granted, the guy is a scientist, but you don’t think there is some nasty agenda in back of all this stuff?
Rushton’s claim to fame is R-K theory. Niggers* are sort of like snakes to Rushton. They just lay a bunch of eggs (babies) and then engage in extremely hands-off parenting. Whites are like raccoons, hanging out with the young for part of a season and chirping to them in the night (Ever heard that?). Asians are like chimps, engaging in long term, multi-year investment in their young.
Rushton charmingly insists that Blacks are the most primitive race of all, with K selection for high births and low parenting investment, along with high testosterone and exaggerated sex drive.
He thinks high sex drive and low IQ are primitive traits in Blacks. The more you want to fuck, the less you want to take care of the kids.
Rushton draws a parallel between IQ and parental strategy. Blacks are stupid snakes. They just want to fuck constantly and when the babies get born, they forget about them or invest little in them. Lots of the babies die due to parental neglect, but no one cares since the ladies are popping out new ones all the time.
Asians hardly have any kids but invest in them tremendously. Whites are in between. The fuck all the time Blacks have exaggerated sex characteristics, so they can listen to rap, smoke crack, and get down with the big Black dicks and the big Black booties.
Asians have low sex drives, tiny tits and teenie weenies, because they’d rather study and get married than fuck like rabbits. The smarter you are, the more you stick your nose in a book and don’t fuck too much, which is a Godsend anyway considering the humiliation of your little Asian dick. The dumber you are, the bigger your tits, dick and sex drive, and the more you want to fuck. You’d rather screw and dance than read, and you can’t read anyway.
See the pattern here?
Let us look at the Khoisan, the most primitive of all Blacks with an extremely low IQ, far lower than Bantus. They have few children and barely reproduce enough to survive. They invest in a lot in the very few children that they have. They are actually infant-like. The Khoisan are also very gentle and peaceful, and they have very low levels of testosterone. Rushton’s theory states that the dumber you are, the higher your testosterone, and they other way around, and also the more violent and promiscuous you are.
The link between high sex drive and stupidity and testosterone completely falls apart when looking at the Khoisan or for that matter the Pygmies. The Pygmies, next to the Khoisan, are probably the second stupidest people on Earth. Yet they are probably the second gentlest too. The Khoisan are probably the gentlest and most feminine race of men, yet their IQ’s are rock bottom. The Pygmies are so gentle and shy that they avoid all conflict and have almost no fights, yet they are probably dumb as rocks.
Looking at these two groups, Rushton’s R/K theory looks like it is on the rocks too.
Where is Rushton’s bullshit theory now? His theory is that primitive and stupid races are violent. This is not the case. The dumbest races of all are the least violent and most passive. They have the lowest birth rates, not the highest.
Where is Rushton with his R/K crap? Nowhere and going further fast.
Against Philippe Rushton
Some commenters are supporting Mr. Philippine Rushton, who is indeed a scientist. I will grant him that. But he is a scientist whose ideology has led him astray into some faraway places.
32 thoughts on “Against Philippe Rushton”
Im not sure where youre getting your idea that the Khoisans are in any way effeminate or infantile. They’re short, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Rushton’s three-race spectrum theory. They have even more exaggerated 2ndary sex characteristics than West African blacks, and blacks in Africa probably think the same of Khoisans as whites do of blacks. But please explain what you mean; there may be things I dont know.
Also I didnt know Jensen was still around. It seems like he is but I think he’s not really an “active” researcher the way Rushton and those others are.
That’s not to say that I believe Rushton’s three-race theory is correct 100% of the time, though; I think we can find exceptions that we would both agree on as well as some that we wouldn’t (like the Khoisans).
I read a British ethnologist who lived in the Philippines over a hundred years ago. He lived with the negritos or pigmies if you will. He described them as being the happiest albeit dirtiest people he ever encountered, however he detailed on incident were one of their hunters had been killed, and the war like resolve it generated amongst the negritos. He did not describe them as in any ways peaceful, and postulated that until that introduction of modern firearms Philippinos very much feared them.
Your comment about Pygmies probably pertains to those in Africa, who I believe to be very dissimilar genetically from those in the Philippines and the Andaman islands, however my bet is that deep in the heart of Africa those little pygmies are nasty little buggers.
The females have exaggerated sex characteristics in their butts and vaginas.
Everyone knows they are childlike. They also have very low levels of testosterone. This is another of Rushton’s theories. The more testosterone, the dumber and vice versa. Also they are very peaceful and nonviolent and invest a lot in the few kids that they have. They don’t have many kids at all.
Negritos are not Pygmies. They are actually Asians, but they are totally outside of Rushton’s theory and he doesn’t even deal with them at all, I guess, because they don’t really fit with the NE Asians that he describes. A lot of primitive peoples are dirty. The Ainu 100 years ago were described as some of the filthiest people on Earth. Rushton’s theory pretty much leaves out all sorts of Asians really. Oceanians, Papuans, Negritos, Aborigines, he doesn’t deal with them at all.
The Pygmies of the present day are related to Blacks and live deep in the African jungles where they hide in fear much of the time because the Blacks take advantage of them, kill them, enslave them, EAT THEM. If you get in good with them though, you will find the most peaceful and gentle people in the whole world. Also there testosterone level is very low.
Rushton concerns himself almost exclusively with three races: North East Asians, European Caucasians and Negros. His rankings may be accurate, but rankings are best left to sports because what really counts is the magnitude of differences between groups, not whether one outranks the other.
Let’s take Peter, Paul and Patrick. Their respective annual incomes are 41000, 40,000 and 39000. There is a clear ranking there, but it is trivial. We also have John, Jack and Jim. Their respective incomes are 70,000, 40,000 and 10,000. Again we have a clear ranking, but what a difference from Peter, Paul and Patrick. Well, it seems that most difference between the races are like the differences between Peter, Paul and Patrick rather than the differences between John, Jack and Jim.
Unfortunately, IQ is not one variable which shows only trivial differences between the races studied by Rushton. Given the importance of intelligence, that is a racial difference with important consequences. If blacks are not the intellectual equals of whites and the difference between them is considerable, then they will never be able to perform at the same level as whites in fields requiring considerable intelligence, as women will never be able to perform at the same level as men in sports.
Blacks may be only about 2% of Canada’s population, but over half of them live in Toronto and Montreal, where they are overrepresented among criminals and underrepresented among university graduates. One black leader in Toronto even suggested the creation of “Afro-centric schools” as a remedy to the poor school performance of blacks.
As to Rushton’s opposition to affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, I’m opposed to them too even though I’m a social-democrat. Affirmative action is reverse discrimination. It is like organizing sports on the assumption that men and women are physically equal and then creating unisex sport competions with a headstart for women to insure that they get as many medals as men.
The problem with anti-discrimination laws is two-fold. First, they are a violation of the freedom of association, and two, they almost inevitably lead to quotas if there is an assumption that races are perfectly equal.
Suppose that a company has 1000 employers, of whom 40 are middle managers and 10 are senior managers. 40% of the employees are black and the other 60% are white. With strict meritocratic promotion, 8 of the middle managers may be black and only 1 of the top managers, so blacks are underrepresented in management. If you assume that there is no difference in ability between the two races, then it is natural to suspect that the company is practicing racial discrimination.
To prove otherwise, the company will have to use objective tests, but those tests can be dismissed as discriminatory because of their disparate impact. To get away from it all, it is best to hire and promote with objective tests in the public sector and to let the private sector do as it likes.
Affirmative action, whether it is for the benefit of Gentiles in Europe, for Malays in Malasia, for blacks in the US, is always an implicit recognition of differences in ability. If Gentiles are as smart as Jews, why would quotas be necessary to avoid overrepresentation of Jews in universities? In the US, affirmative action is based on two false assumptions: that races are equal and that there is widespread racial discrimination in the US.
Rushton calls NE Asians “Asians or Mongoloids”, European Whites “Caucasians” and African Blacks “Negroids”. This is absurd and says little or nothing about the human species. In order for the theory to make sense, it needs to encompass all of humanity, otherwise, what good is it?
California is 7% Black. They cause lots of problems of course, but they are often concentrated in ghettos where they mostly victimize themselves. Everyone feels bad about them, but we just throw up our hands and most sane people just never go to these places so we hardly get victimized by Blacks out here. The Blacks outside the ghettos are often pretty civilized and act pretty good and there are few of them anyway. Bottom line is to your average White here, Blacks are simply not a problem, and it’s really weird and racist to screech about them. To me, it’s simply appalling that Rushton is complaining about Blacks when they are present at only 30% of California’s density. To us, that’s just appalling racism.
Opposition to civil rights laws is de facto racism. That’s all there is to it. Together with his rather appalling research, the two things make Rushton quite a nasty racist of a fellow for sure.
The fact that there are IQ differences in the races Rushton discusses does not mean that they are set in stone. There is interbreeding, evolution and there are environmental changes. Are you aware of the Flynn Effect, whereby the Black IQ has risen 22 pts over 80 yrs.? Such massive secular intelligence gains imply that IQ is heavily manipulable via environment and that possibly the differences could change over time. Already in the US, East Asians went from 97 IQ (3 pts less than Whites) to 105 IQ (5 pts more than Whites only since WW2. That right there shows that these rankings can be changed.
I agree that the rankings shows that Blacks are less intelligent than Whites at the present. Therefore, it is absurd to demand equality of outcome in school or in the workforce. This is the absurdity of affirmative action. With the present rankings, it is perfectly possible for an anti-racist manager to have many fewer Blacks than Whites in his high-IQ workforce.
hey robert lindsay – cool new website you might like: http://www.toqonline.com/
” If Gentiles are as smart as Jews, why would quotas be necessary to avoid over-representation of Jews in universities? In the US, affirmative action is based on two false assumptions: that races are equal and that there is widespread racial discrimination in the US.”
That’s pretty vile stuff James – I’m surprised at you. Are you telling us that jews are 25 times smarter than gentiles, which is about what their representation in various key areas would suggest if you were right? And you’re wrong about IQ – the differences between the races are not great, assuming that tests are done professionally (i.e. making proper statistical allowances for cultural factors), and assuming even then (which is a big assumption) that these tests really show much.
What are you James, a white supremacist or a jewish supremacist? Because that is the logical endgame of your position. Are you seriously saying that there isn’t widespread racial discrimination in the USA? That isn’t even worth arguing about. There is serious discrimination against blacks, who at any rate have a historical cultural disadvantage which we should attempt to redress in the interests of social cohesion, and because we want to live in a just society – because a just society is safer, more productive and creative than an unjust one. And there is serious discrimination in favour of jews, by other jews who have entrenched themselves in the elite by dint of their international money-laundering service to the gentile elites, and are beavering away to place their footsoldiers in all the key institutions of our society (Western, not just US). Maybe you believe they ARE 25 times cleverer than gentiles? OK – where’s the art, music, literature, science? Hollywood is infantile crap; our art galleries are full of scrap because they are just tax-havens, like our classical music world which is increasingly jews playing crap jew music; Kafka was good – who else? Einstein ? Maybe if he wasn’t jewish, his theories would have been discarded long ago – as they certainly will be. But if they really are so much smarter than us, we should kill them before they enslave us. The alternative and obvious explanation is that jews got into the fractional reserve business first, and since the house never loses, capitalism has just been one big process of vacuuming all the world’s money into their pockets, minus what it takes to bribe gentile politicians. Enough’s enough – serious affirmative action is what’s called for.
Dear Robert and Lafayette
Let me first state that I’m not a supremacist of any sort. I don’t want any group to dominate any other group. I advocate equal rights for all citizens. However, equal rights for all should be matched by equal standards for all. If Peter needs a higher score than Paul in order to be accepted into an institution simply because Paul belongs to a different race, then there is no question of equal standards.
No, IQ doesn’t have to be written in stone. Height isn’t written in stone either. Dutch people have been getting taller for many decades now, but the height gap between men and women in the NL hasn’t disppeared. Furhtermore, I don’t expect that the average Dutch male will be 3 meters tall in the year 2200.
What matters for purposes of equal outcome is whether there is an ability gap or not. As long as there is a significant IQ gap between blacks and whites and as long as IQ is a rough indicator of intelligence and as long as intelligence is an asset in many professions, it is futile to expect equal outcomes for whites and blacks.
A theory doesn’t become false because it is incomplete. Rushton’s research excludes Amerindians, and by implication most Latin Americans, Northern Africans, West Asians, South Asians, South East Asians plus a lot of smaller races such as the Pygmies and Abos. It doesn’t follow that his conclusions about the rest of mankind are false.
As to Jews, whenever they can compete on an even footing with Gentiles, they end up over-represented in areas requiring lots of intellectual capacity. When you get the same result over and over again, there has to be a common factor. Of course, that doesn’t explain everything. It certainly doesn’t explain why there are so many Jews in Hollywood.
I think that foreigners have a tendency to exaggerate the racism in the US. Between 1870 and 1960, the US operated with an equal rights amendment. As a result blacks were entitled to schools and soon became much more literate than most Europeans. In 1880, American blacks between the age of 20 and 30 had higher literacy rates than Southern European and Eastern European immigrants.
As to the aftereffects of slavery, in 1860 the majority of Russians were serfs. Serfdom was abolished in Russia in the same decade in which slavery was abolished in the US. Should the performance of Russians still be negatively influenced by serfdom?
When it comes to social mobility, there are three important areas: schools, the government and the market. Blacks had access to schools and the market was open to them, although they were for practical purposes excluded from the best government jobs. The US has a firm respect for property rights, so blacks could acquire property and go into business. When property rights are more or less equal, then unpopular minorities can prosper. Jews often prospered despite anti-Semitism and the Chinese in Southern Asia became richer than the majority despite widespread animosity to them.
If many blacks in California are living in ghettos and never victimize whites outside the ghettos, they can still be a burden on the rest of society if they are frequently unemployed and have many problems inside the ghetto which the police and social workers have to deal with.
If Rushton is a de facto racist because he opposes civil rights legislation, then I’m one too. Of course, I believe that people should be protected against wrongful dismissal and harassment on the job, but that type of problem would exist even in a racially homogeneous society and can be dealt with by non-racial legislation.
Hi testosterone and high sex drive = low iq? Bill Clinton would be surprised to hear that, among others.
James – there’s a huge difference between the initial circumstances of the freed (not quite) black slaves and those of the jews and Chinese. The jews and Chinese arrived in the USA piecemeal, with family contacts and business skills and experience in their community, with some capital in their community. I know the Chinese often worked as ‘coolies’, but at least they had that option, to work as free men, save money and raise their families maybe to have a small business like a restaurant or a laundry. The Afro-Americans on the other hand had their family networks destroyed or disrupted over many generations, they had very low literacy, no experience of anything but labour, and knew no-one who had any other experience; they were freed in millions to compete with jobs for poor whites who resented them and repressed them in every way possible, and after the civil war it seems that their condition for a long time more or less reverted to not much better than slavery again. They were effectively prohibited from voting till the 60s and so couldn’t exercise any political influence to improve their position. And there are far more of the blacks than the Chinese or jews, so the situation today, historically not a long time since the end of slavery, is just what you’d expect – a fringe group of blacks developing capital and business skills, some feeding back into the community, some not, but the mass of them still at a disadvantage; and with the de-industrialisation of the USA, and the ruling class importing masses of illegal scab labour, the problems of the black community are compounded again. Comparison with the achievements of jews and Chinese is not therefore appropriate.
You are making a very good point about the importance of numbers. It is easier for a minority of 3% to excell than it is for a minority of 30%. The smaller a minority is, the more it is able to specialize in profitable niches. If the Chinese minority in Indonesia were 30% instead of 3%, then the Chinese-Indonesians would on average be less rich than they are now. Blacks in the South were about 30% of the population.
A fair comparison is between Italian and Polish immigrants to the US and black migrants from the South. Both tended to settle in industrial Northern cities. None of the three groups had much in the way of physical and human capital. However, the black migrants knew English, were more familiar with the country and on average more literate. They should have outperformed the Poles and Italians in the long run. They didn’t. Are the blacks in Chicago, NY and Detroit better-off than the Poles or Italians? It seems not.
As to black family life in the US, the percentage of black babies born out of wedlock was lower in the period between 1870 and 1970 than it has been since then. If slavery had had such a devastating impact on black families, why were its effects weaker 100 years ago than today?
All non-biological explanations for the achievement gap between whites and blacks in the US are just as contrived and unconvincing as the non-biological explanations for the under-representation of women in engineering and architecture compared to law and medicine. This is not to say that biology is destiny, only that it is an important factor.
Have a sunny day in England 🙂 James
If the Chinese minority in Indonesia were 30% instead of 3%, then the Chinese-Indonesians would on average be less rich than they are now.
I suppose that’s possible, but it’s also possible that Indonesia would look more like Malaysia (which is substantially richer overall than Indonesia..) Malaysia has a roughly 30% Chinese minority and the Malays are pretty close cousins to the Indonesians.
Shot in the dark here. Maybe blacks underachieved because they were discriminated against. You think?
Shot in the dark here. Maybe blacks underachieved because they were discriminated against. You think?
Why didn’t this affect Jews in Europe and why didn’t/doesn’t this affect Northeast Asians in the US..? Both of the groups above out perform (in some cases substantially..) gentile Whites academically, often economically, and have lower crime rates.
This is some funny shit . I would stick around and discuss the merits of my Bantu IQ but I see my wife’s fat ass coming out of the bathroom . Catch you later brainiacs, I’m gone to fuck ! .
I have read that, despite their gentle manner, the homicide rate among the !Kung has been found to be around 29 per million population per annum, which is quite high by Western standards.
Yes I understand that they have a high homicide rate, but I did not know it was that high. A lot of primitive peoples have high homicide rates. There’s a lot of homicide in primitive life. Humans are savages.
He is silent on the plummeting Black crime rate.
The plummeting Black crime rate is very likely due to the much higher incarceration rate since the late 80s due to tougher sentencing laws. In the 1950s when Blacks (and Whites) were supposedly dumber the Black crime rate was lower.
Yes, I’ve often wondered why Black people are said to have “exagerrated” sex characteristics.
There are plenty of scientists that denounce this guy. He is dead wrong and, furthermore, not a biologist. See Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins (two far more reputable scientists) on the subject. Rushton is a racist and his studies are highly flawed.
Also- it should be noted that there is a large difference between ‘race’ and isolated breeding populations. Rushton and his peer group conflate them. For example- there is a greater genetic difference on the African continent then anywhere else.
What is that difference and what are its implications for Rushton’s theories?
One more thing- I just went to The Pioneer Funds website. They state that they are bringing back a Darwinian approach. What a TOTAL joke! Darwin NEVER supported human taxas when they were first developed in the 18th century. AND- he argued for variation and that any sort of hierarchy was wrong. Darwin would staunchly refute everything Rushton claims now. Unbelievable.
Thank you very much for these comments Tina.
Must say I am very much a Rushtonite. Absolutely marvellous chap in my estimation. We all have our prejudices, and find arguments to support them. Good on you, Prof Rushton.
The day I see whitey liberals packing their bags to go and live amongst those wunnerful nigger boys ‘ n gals in Africa is the day when I’ll start believing some of this marxist crap.
Until then, put me in the bigoted, racist, antisemitic, anti- marxist trash can…..and proud to be there.
“We all have our prejudices, and find arguments to support them”
Spoken like a true jew. Are you a member of the British Zionist Party…er…I mean the British National Party?
If you are going to post nonsense at least make an effort write and spell English properly. This not Jerry Springer forum.
“There are plenty of scientists that denounce this guy. He is dead wrong and, furthermore, not a biologist.”
Well you really showed him!
Actually, if he is simply “dead wrong,” that would mean the majority of psychometricians are dead wrong about IQ and head size, since they basically agree with his findings.
He is a psychologist — an evolutionary psychologist with a strong background in evo psych theory — which is very relevant to the research he does.
Speaking of denunciations by scientists, somehow you missed Rushton’s praise and accreditation by scientists which I suspect add up to far more than you’ll ever receive. He’s a professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario. Rushton holds two doctorates from the University of London (Ph.D. and D.Sc) and is a Fellow of the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is also a member of the Behavior Genetics Association, the Human Behavior
and Evolution Society, and the Society for Neuroscience. Rushton has published six books and nearly 200 articles. In 1992 the Institute for Scientific Information ranked him the 22nd most published psychologist and the 11th most cited. Professor Rushton is listed in Who’s Who in
Science and Technology, Who’s Who in International Authors, and Who’s Who in Canada.
Do you know who Hans Eysenck was? He was hugely influential, ingenious, and far more knowledgeable in the pertinent fields than you plausibly would be. By the time of his death, he was the researcher most referenced in science journals. Anyway, he held Rushton’s research in high regard.
“Professor Rushton is widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work….Few concerned with understanding the problems associated with race can afford to disregard this storehouse of well-integrated information which gives rise to a remarkable synthesis.”
~Hans J. Eysenck, University of London
“The data are startling to the uninitiated….Race, Evolution, and Behavior confronts us as few books have with the dilemmas wrought in a democratic society by individual and group differences in key human traits.”
~Linda Gottfredson, Politics and the Life Sciences
“Rushton’s Race, Evolution, and Behavior…is an attempt to understand [race] differences in terms of life-history evolution….Perhaps there ultimately will be some serious contribution from the traditional smoke-and-mirrors social science treatment of IQ, but for now Rushton’s framework is essentially the only game in town.”
~Henry Harpending, Evolutionary Anthropology
.“This brilliant book is the most impressive theory-based study…of the psychological and behavioral differences between the major racial groups that I have encountered in the world literature on this subject.”
~Arthur R. Jensen, University of California, Berkeley
“The only acceptable explanation of race differences in behavior allowed in public discourse is an entirely environmental one…Professor Rushton deserves our gratitude for having the courage to declare that ‘this emperor
has no clothes,’ and that a more satisfactory explanation must be sought.”
~Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., University of Minnesota
“See Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins (two far more reputable scientists) on the subject.”
Gould was a disingenuous bullshitter. Next you may as well cite Jared Diamond, who claimed that New Guineans (IQ <70) are more intelligent than Europeans! Dawkins has hinted at agreeing with some of Rushton's observations and theory or damn close but it's clear that he is afraid and with good reason.
“Rushton is a racist and his studies are highly flawed.”
There is enough evidence to at least strongly suspect that Rushton is personally racist with a strong bias against blacks, but it has not been demonstrated that this prevents his research from being rigorous.
Robert did make some good points. I hope to be able to address them tonight.
That’s pretty vile stuff James – I’m surprised at you.
Vile? Not really. Fair is fair – if we can bluntly point out that we’re more intelligent than blacks, Jews can bluntly point out that they’re more intelligent than us white gentiles. If anything, there is even more evidence for higher Jewish intelligence vis-a-vis white gentiles than Eu-Am vis-a-vis Af-Am.
Are you telling us that jews are 25 times smarter than gentiles, which is about what their representation in various key areas would suggest if you were right?
If he wanted to tell you that then he’d tell you that, I’m guessing. He hasn’t and there’s no indication he will. No, “their representation in various key areas” suggests no such thing. However, it is consistent with the empirical findings that Ashkenazi Jews are on average considerably brighter than white gentiles, and are at least several times more likely to score in the genius (>140) range.
And you’re wrong about IQ – the differences between the races are not great, assuming that tests are done professionally (i.e. making proper statistical allowances for cultural factors), and assuming even then (which is a big assumption) that these tests really show much.
This is both theoretically and empirically false. Generally, the more properly done and therefore g-loaded the tests the greater, not lesser, the differences.
There is serious discrimination against blacks, who at any rate have a historical cultural disadvantage which we should attempt to redress in the interests of social cohesion, and because we want to live in a just society – because a just society is safer, more productive and creative than an unjust one.
There is serious stereotyping of women as one-dimensional nurturers who suck at math and science, yet women comprise 38% of enrolled student body at CalTech (ultra-rigorous university with high standards, focus is on mathematics, engineering, hard sciences, etc., average IQ about 140). Meanwhile, blacks comprise 1.3%.
Yes, Hollywood produces “infantile crap,” and guess who consumes it? GENTILES, white gentiles very much included. If there were no huge gentile demand, Hollywood Jews would not rush to hugely supply it.
Einstein ? Maybe if he wasn’t jewish, his theories would have been discarded long ago – as they certainly will be.
HAHA! Oh man. You’re just as goofy and delusional as an Afrocentrist.
But if they really are so much smarter than us, we should kill them before they enslave us.
In a slightly better world, you’d be humanely confined to a padded cell and given decent medical treatment.
This article was probably written by Rushton – he was just looking for some affirmation and if he couldn’t get that, then at least he could get people talking about his pet theory. He knows that when he goes, his theories will fade into obscurity, possibly resurfacing now and again as amusing anecdotes on the road to better understanding. The man is a chode.