Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

A repost of a previously posted article that is being reposted because it is being linked in a very stupid Cultural Left feminist site run by some cucked male feminist soyboy. This article is said to make me a huge racist even though every single fact I report here is 100% scientific truth. How facts can be racist is beyond me. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

Alt Left: The Failure of the American "Try Hard" Hypothesis of Human Intelligence and Achievement

In the US, no one is smarter than anyone else. Most think there is no such thing as human intelligence and no one is smarter or dumber than anyone else. And anyway, there’s no way to measure human intelligence. All methods are flawed. So why don’t you invent another one? Doesn’t matter. All efforts to measure human intelligence are doomed forever to failure. I guess measuring human intelligence is like measuring quarks. As soon as you think you’ve pinned it down, it’s already scooted out of view again.
This “Try Hard” BS is a lie. My Mom worked for a clinical psychologist who gave standardized tests for employers. He gave IQ tests all the time. He tested me and he had to go back and check the score a few times because he couldn’t believe it was so high. He told my Mom that in thirty years of giving IQ tests, he had only had 10-15 people score as high as I did. And that was after the drugs and the resulting brain fry had long since set in.
He told my mother that when he started, he was agnostic on the IQ question. But after a while, over and over, he found that Asians scored higher than Whites, and Whites scored higher than Hispanics and Blacks. He scratched his head for a while and wondered if he was onto something.
He thought maybe people scored better because they tried harder, so he found Asians who had breezed through university with straight A’s. He assumed they got that way by trying harder, so he asked them if they studied a lot. He was shocked that they almost always said that they hardly studied at all. “Maybe a little bit a day or two before the test,” they would say. The people scoring the best at university were hardly trying at all! So much for the Try Hard Hypothesis.
Then he found people who scored lower on IQ tests and had struggled through university with C’s. He asked them if they had studied hard in college, assuming that they had slacked off and drank their way through college. Most of them said that they had studied very hard but that the material was just too hard for them. Try Hard Hypothesis failed again.
I printed out a paper with Richard Lynn’s paper in IQ variations among races and my mother, now a liberal Democrat (but always a race realist), had given it to him. He read it and was fascinated. He said that he had always suspected that something  like this was going on. He was a good liberal or even Leftist Democrat, so he always believed that there were no differences between the races because this was the liberal line he got taught, but he always suspected that it might be wrong. He eventually became a liberal race realist like my Mom.

Alt Left: Where Does the Alt Left Stand on Race Realism at the Moment?

Rahul: Robert, I’m a bit confused about thy political stance.
You’re definitely Fiscally Liberal, but I can’t tell when it comes to social shit. For some shit, your extreme right, and for others you are extreme left (some of this shit is really common sense. I mean, why the fuck should incest not be legal)
RL: Where am I extreme right?
Tulio: Probably on the HBD stuff. Whether it’s true or not, it’s still seen as a right wing position. Or at least it’s only right-wingers/libertarians who tend to openly embrace HBD.

Yes! No one on the liberal – Left buys that and most hate it vociferously. The Alt Left is for socially conservative liberals and Leftists, and race realism was one of the original three pillars of the movement. However, all of the Alt Left wings strongly rejected race realism and wanted nothing to with it, so the Alt Left has dropped the race realism stuff.
Interestingly, most anti-race realist Alt Left people didn’t say race realism wasn’t true. They simply said they were agnostic on the question and didn’t know if it was true or not, but they thought that even supporting race realism at all would make the movement poisonous.

Lousy Arguments the Left Uses to Counter “Racist Facts”

Below is a list of the “racist facts” that I listed in a previous post. But first of all, a look at some great progress. Some good news for once.

Blacks Have Made Much Progress in Ameliorating Black Problems and Discrepancies

Yes, Blacks have closed the achievement gap by 1/3, which shows it was not purely genetic. However, 2/3 of the gap remains. Blacks in the UK have closed the achievement gap completely according to scores on the latest high school achievement tests.

Yes, the Black crime rate can go down and has gone down dramatically in the last 25 years. But that occurred at the same time as the crime rate for everyone dropping dramatically. It’s definitely true that you can have large swings in the Black crime rate. Black violent crime is down 40%. That wouldn’t be the case if it was all down to genes.

Nevertheless, crime reduction becomes an arms race as the White rate declines concurrently with the Black rate so the Black 6X discrepancy remains.

Yes, there are Black societies in Africa with over 1 million members who have homicide rates as low as the Japanese. This shows that a high Black crime and violent crime is not a genetic inevitability. And it shows that genes are not destiny.

An excellent environment which does not occur naturally very often (I call it a superenvironment) can wipe out the entire Black tendency towards crime and violence (which I believe is genetic). The problem is that replicating these “superenvironments” Blacks need to get these problems down to low levels seems to be quite difficult to achieve.

The Black IQ gap has closed significantly among Black children, among whom it has closed by 40%, and in places like Barbados and Bermuda, where it has closed by 50%. Nevertheless a significant gap remains. Blacks have closed the standardized test score gap in high school in the UK. Such scores can be seen as proxies for IQ.

The Black single parent rate was quite low in the 1950’s when 80% of Black children lived with a mother and father. So single parenthood is not a genetic inevitability.

There are wealthy Black areas like Baldwin Hills and Ladera Heights that reportedly have low crime rates. They are the opposite of rundown, slummy, blighted, dangerous Hellholes. Apparently if you get a lot of wealthy Blacks in one place, they can create a well-functioning metropolis.

However, in general, it seems that not a whole lot can be done to ameliorate the Black problems and discrepancies below. This is why most of the people talking about such things resort to extreme solutions such as bringing back Jim Crow and legal discrimination or forming a separate White state.

They advocate such extreme solutions because those are the only real ways to deal with the problems below. The problem here is that the solution is immoral. Immoral solutions are not acceptable no matter the problem.

Now we will look at why there is little point harping on and on about these discrepancies unless you can do something about it. If you don’t have even a partial solution to a problem, why talk about it?

Why Bother Writing about “Racist Facts?”

If there’s no solution, and if writing about this just gets me called racist, makes Blacks and liberals hate me, and stimulates a lot of White racism, why bother to write about this stuff unless I want to use these facts as a stick to beat Black people with? See what I mean? That’s why I don’t bother often to write about these things. I write about them once in a while, but I don’t like to harp on and on about them.

What’s the point? There’s no way to fix them, and all writing about them does is cause a lot of bad vibes, exacerbate hostility and racism in society, and make even more people hate me. Why do it?

Now we will look at the absolutely awful rejoinders that the liberal/Left uses as rejoinders against “racist facts.”

Bad Arguments Used by the Left to Counter “Racist Facts”

Nevertheless, the Left still has no arguments or very poor arguments for all of the facts below. I would like to point out first of all that the Left gets away with calling all of the above facts racist because they say they are lies. So we need to determine if these are lies or not. If they’re not lies, then the facts below are not racist. How can you have racist facts? It’s weird.

Even things like “Black schools tend to perform more poorly,” they will say is a lie because it’s a generalization. They will say, “Lots of Black students do very well in school, so that’s a racist lie!” This argument is a logical fallacy, but never mind. The rest of the allegations, they will just say they are not true.

I will list the previously stated facts below along with the bad arguments that the liberal/Left uses to try to refute them. I would like to point out that all of these liberal/Left rejoinders are very bad arguments. All are illogical or do not even attempt to counter the original statement. And in general, they rely in a huge way on all sorts of logical fallacies.

  •    Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests. They will say that’s a lie. However, it is simply a 100% fact. It’s not even 1% controversial.
  •     Black people impose considerable costs on society. They will say that’s a lie or White people impose costs on society too, so therefore the statement is a lie. This is factually true. Black people per capita impose much greater costs on society than other races.
  •     Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. They will say that’s a lie. But this is a straight up pure scientific fact. There’s no debate about that figure either. It’s accepted across the board.
  •     Blacks commit 6X more crime than Whites. They will either say that’s a lie, or it’s due to poverty (which means it’s still true) or that Whites commit just as much crime except they commit corporate crime. Those are all very bad arguments. First of all it is true. Second of all it’s not due to poverty. West Virginia is the poorest state in the country and it has the second lowest crime rate. The kicker? It’s almost all White. As far as corporate crime, so what? Does it effect you personally? Anyway it goes on constantly no matter who’s in power and there’s no way to reduce it. Since it’s always at the same level, isn’t it a good idea to lower street crime then? Are individuals truly and obviously harmed by corporate crime the same way they are by street crime? I say no. When I am walking in a shady neighborhood at midnight, and there is a guy in a suit and tie walking behind me, I will not start running away because I’m afraid he’s about to violate a health and safety code. Get it?
  •     Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime. They will say that’s a lie, or resort to the poverty non-argument, or talk about Whites and corporate crime, imperialism, or White historical crimes like settler-colonialism or slavery. But it’s true. And White settler-colonialism, slavery, and whatever is all in the past. Imperialism doesn’t affect Americans. Corporate crime is always at high levels, but it doesn’t effect people much at the micro level in a brutal way like Black crime does. Anyway, Blacks commit white collar crime at levels much higher than Whites do anyway, so if corporations were run by Blacks, corporate crime would be vastly worse.
  •     Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. They will ask you to define those terms, say there are nice areas in all of those cities, say it is due to discrimination (which means it’s still a fact), or say White cities are slummy too. The terms are obvious. So what if there are nice parts of those towns? Does that obviate the places like look like they just got leveled in a WW2 bombing run? Discrimination doesn’t cause heavily Black cities to turn into slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes. You know what causes those cities to be like that? Black people. Black people created those cities in precisely that way of their own free chosen will for whatever reason. There are almost no slummy White cities in the US. Haven’t seen one yet and I’ve been all over.
  •     Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites. They will say that’s a lie and demand evidence. Never mind the candy bar test originally done in the Caribbean and redone in the US and elsewhere in the Caribbean now replicated ~15 times. These tests showed conclusively that at least Black children are vastly more impulsive than White children at off the charts rates. And it has to be genetic. Those kids were only six years old.
  •     80% of Black kids are born to a single mother. They will say that’s because of racism or because Whites took all the jobs away. Neither of those things are true. This is true because so many Black men of their own free will refuse to stick around and take care of their kids for whatever reason. I’m not sure why this is but this behavior is also very common in the Caribbean and Africa, so maybe there’s a genetic tendency, no idea.
  •     Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. Same thing. Racism makes them do it, or Whites stole all the jobs. Neither of those things are true. Black men do this, it’s a fact, they do it far more than other races, and they do it of their own free will for whatever reason.
  •     Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around. They will say it’s a lie and demand proof. Or they will bring up some weird case of a White raping a Black and say it’s a lie because Whites rape Blacks too. Those are terrible rejoinders. Black men rape White men in prisons all the time. White men almost never rape Black men in prisons. Those are facts. Those Black men in prisons rape those White men of their own free will at insanely disproportionate rates for whatever reasons they have to do that.
  •     Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s. They will say Whites get STD’s too or it’s due to poverty or racism (which means it’s still true). Whites get STD’s at much lower rates than Blacks. Black STD rates have nothing to do with poverty or racism. Who knows what causes it but Blacks are far more promiscuous than Whites on average, so there’s a clue.
  •     Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly. First they will say it’s not true, then they will say it’s due to poverty and racism. It’s not due to poverty or racism. There is a considerable intelligence gap between Blacks and Whites on average. This average lower intelligence would be expected produce poorly performing schools.
  •     Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification. See the candy bar studies. Liberals reject all of those candy bar studies as flawed even though they have been replicated 15 times. And they were done with little six year old children, so there’s little cultural influence. And many were done in the Caribbean, where there is zero racism against Blacks.
  •     One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime. They will say that Whites commit crime too. Sure, but they don’t commit nearly as much! Unarmed Whites are more likely to get killed by police than unarmed Blacks, so Black Lives Matter is based on a fraud, and obviously the high rates of Black killings by police are simply due to Blacks committing six times as much crime.
  •     Black people tend to be louder than White people. They will say that Whites are loud too and bring up some example of loud White people. Ever taught in a Black school? Ever taught in a White school? Hispanic school? Asian school? Pacific Islander (Filipinos and Samoans) school? I have taught all of those races of students countless times over many years. Blacks are much louder than any of those groups. It’s most horrifically noticeable in primary and junior high, but it can still be heard in 9th grade and even up to 10th grade. 11th and 12th grade Black schools even in the heart of the ghetto are rather subdued because all the bad ones are either dropped out and on the streets, in juvenile hall, or dead.

The Truth Is Racist

  • Black people are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests.
  • Black people impose considerable costs on society.
  • Your average Hispanic has an IQ of 90. Queera flagged this fact as racist when I used it in a post and threatened to ban me.
  • Blacks commit 8X more crime than Whites.
  • Blacks are 13% of the population but commit over half the violent crime.
  • Large cities with high percentages of Black people tend to be slummy, dangerous, rundown, blighted hellholes.
  • Blacks tend to be more impulsive than Whites.
  • 80% of Black kids are born to a single mother.
  • Many Black men do not stick around and take care of their children. My Black female next door neighbor flipped out and called me racist when I made this remark.
  • Most prison rape is Black on White. Almost none is the other way around.
  • Blacks have quite high rates of STD’s.
  • Heavily Black schools tend to perform poorly.
  • Blacks tend to be poorer than Whites at postponing instant gratification.
  • One of the main reasons so many Blacks get shot by police is because they commit so much crime.
  • Black people tend to be louder than White people. When I was a schoolteacher, a principal flipped out and threatened to fire me once when I said this in his office.

Those are all straight up facts, but if I say any of them out loud or write them on my website, I will be barraged with accusations of racism.
Queera flagged this entire quote as racist and threatened to ban me if I kept writing stuff like this.

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn't Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.
It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!
Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.
Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.
Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!
So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.
You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.
A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.
In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.
Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.
Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.
To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.
Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.
This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Robert Stark Interviews Rabbit about Hillary's Speech & the Alternative Left

Superb interview. Rabbit talks about me a lot on here and he says that we pretty much agree on most things, and the only areas that we disagree on are solutions for the problems that we have identified. I would actually agree with Rabbit here. I do agree with about everything he says, but I don’t see eye to eye with him on what if anything to do about it. Although even there we share common interests such as ending illegal immigration, restricting legal immigration, etc.
Rabbit’s traffic definitely went through the roof after Hitlery’s speech about the Alt Right. The Alt Right has been going berserk over all the publicity, although frankly, most people who never heard of them before are going to be more appalled than enthralled by this group.
My mother had never heard of them before, and I discussed it with her. She said they were White Supremacists, and her attitude was screw them. Like many Whites, she despises what she calls White Supremacists. She does not like White nationalists either. She says those are just White Supremacists. About their White state, she laughs at them and asks, “Why don’t they just move to Iceland or Idaho?”
What is interesting is that my mother is also a Liberal Race Realist from way back. She has long believed in differences between the races, especially in intelligence.
It was something that she long suspected, but I converted her and her boss, a PhD Hispanic Clinical Psychologist, to actual race realism via a fine article by Roger Pearson in the late 1980’s. The psychologist said he had always suspected this was true as he had been observing exactly these differences in intelligence for decades, as he did IQ testing (he tested me in 1987).
He also felt that intelligence might be more inborn that anything else. He said he always thought that smarter people just studied more, but he used to ask high IQ Asians, etc. how much they studied, assuming they would say all the time, and he was stunned when they laughed at him and said we never study, maybe one day before the test. Then he had lower IQ people who studied all the time and got poor grades. It didn’t add up.
My Mom keeps these views pretty much to herself, but she is not stupid. She has a ~145 IQ around my score, and she is not dense to the world around her. I told her how the HBD’ers were part of the Alt Right, and she said, “You know that stuff should not be about Left or Right.” But she didn’t think much of the rest of the Alt Right, and she was shocked that I had spent a lot of time over there. I submit that there are an awful lot more soft Liberal Race Realists out there than one might think.
Because the speech was about the Alt Right, a lot of folks started thinking, “Hey, what about the Alt Left?,” so they ended up at Rabbit’s site.
However, the Alt Left meme was quickly grabbed and destroyed by utterly moronic and insipid mainstream conservatism in the US which decided improbably that the mainstream Left and the Democratic Party were the actual Alt Left. Well if that were true, there would be no need for us to make an Alt Left eh? As the Alt Left is against most everything the supposedly Alt Left Democratic Party and Left is for. These pundits went on and on about how SJWish and socialism are examples of the Alt Left, but that makes no sense as socialism has been around longer than most trees and the real Alt Left is reaction against the Cultural Left.
So the Cultural Left or “Alt Left” is just the Left nowadays, and increasingly it is also the Democratic Party. And what’s so Alt about socialism? The Left has been socialist since the term was invented in the French Parliament. This characterization is insipid as usual for mainstream conservatism, where nearly everything they say is retarded or asinine in some way. Well, they can go around to all of the Cultural Left and socialist Left and ask them if they are the “Alt Left.” See what they say. I am sure that these people do not wish to be characterized this way, and they would probably take offense.
The term is in safe hands.
A few scattered pieces here and there discussed the real Alt Left as founded by people like Rabbit and me, there was not much talk going on. The general perception was that this was some very odd but tiny movement on Left that no one could make much sense of.
So while Rabbit got a ton of traffic out of this, mostly what happened was that a truly retarded and false narrative of the Alt Left was created by cuckservative pinheads, which served only to confuse matters and no doubt will never catch on with any sensible political observers.
This matter confirms my opinion that while the Alt Right is evil, I don’t think they are retarded. Their discourse is at least coherent and rational. It’s just wrong, morally.
Mainstream Republican conservatism as usual constructs yet another puerile narrative that doesn’t even make sense. So the Alt Right is evil but rational while the cuckservatives are mostly just Down’s Syndrome nutcases. They’re almost too crazy to even be evil. Is a ranting nut on the street evil foremost, or is he just nuts? Mostly he’s just nuts. That guy with the headphones jabbering away at the sky is modern WND/Breitbart/Free Republic/Republican Party conservatism – the ravings of idiots and fools rather than menacing hardheaded thugs.
Anyway, take a listen.

Robert Stark Interviews Rabbit about Hillary’s Speech & the Alternative Left

http://www.starktruthradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Clinton-768×432.jpg
Topics include:
Hillary Clinton’s speech against the Alt Right
Donald Trump’s response to the speech, that there’s no altright or altleft,”  just “common sense.”
This comment led to a massive inquiry into the Alt Left and resulted in massive traffic for Rabbit’s AltLeft blog.
AltLeft in the National News
How mainstream journalists often fail to do research on the topic they are covering.
How mainstream conservatives are now saying Hillary Clinton is behind the Alt Left.
Conservative trolls on Twitter accusing Rabbit of being part of Clinton’s campaign.
Many people are also claiming the Alt Left is Bernie Sanders’ and Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s.
How the Alt Left is a movement started by blogger Robert Lindsay for liberals who oppose political correctness.
Rabbit’s Alt Left Manifesto.
Third Positionists, Rabbit views them as potential allies but is also in conflict with them over their opposition to his interest in futurism, modern art, and his socially liberal views.
Is there room for a chic, left-wing, futurist variety of “soft fascism?”
How political labels such as Left and Right have become obsolete.
Rabbit’s plans for his blog to focus more on culture instead of politics
The Vaporwave themed Neonopolis in Las Vegas.
Conceptual ideas for self contained autonomous futurist societies.

Ryan England on the Alt Left

A comment from Ryan England who has set up his own Alt Left page.
He is pretty much coming from the same place I am, except his wing or tendency wants nothing to do with race realism, racialism, HBD or any of that. He wants to stay out of the race question altogether and says the Alt Left should be neutral on race, which is probably a good idea.
I believe he thinks that race is indeed real, but he does not see the point in talking about it, as all it will do is increase racism against NAM’s and empower the Right. I guess his attitude is that this type of theory can lead to no good, so why should we even talk about it? Let’s not talk about that, he seems to be saying.
He also says that if we are race realists we will be completely destroyed in public opinion, which may well be true.
I believe Ryan said that racialism is a risk of any Alt Left but that it is a trap that the Alt Left should not fall into. That is probably true also.
I think he has good points, but I still want an Alt Left tendency that is race realist but still nonracist and against White nationalism.
Ryan’s Alternative Left Facebook page.

Cool list. An alternative left has been needed for quite some time now. I started a Facebook page to promote the idea.
I’ll submit as a defining characteristic of the alternative left vs. the more mainstream progressives is that the alt-left is much more skeptical of the transcendentalist underpinnings of a lot of leftist thought, especially post 1960s. We are, at heart, a push to bring enlightenment rationalism back to the center of leftist thought and activism.
Transcendentalism – the kind originating back in 19th century New England, had its roots in European Romanticism, and is marked by a kind of idealistic utopianism. Religion and scientific alike were distrusted, in favor of subjective personal intuition and creativity. Nature and people considered “closer to the earth” (indigenous peoples and women) tended to be idealized. Emotion and intuition were extolled as being a kind of liberation from the bonds of strict empiricism. People were thought of as naturally good but corrupted by overly rationalized institutions and belief systems, against which struggle was seen in idealized terms.
I suspect that the alt left’s appeal is to people with liberal sensibilities but who are off-put by romanticist elements in mainstream progressivism. This is marked by the progressive’s tendency to go beyond mere equal rights for “marginalized” peoples and into flagrant idealization of them.
Women, immigrants, people of color, indigenous people, Muslims, Buddhists, LGBT people and so on are not necessarily viewed as superior to white Christian (or atheist) males (although they can be) but as being less corrupted by the soul destroying rationalism of capitalism, objectivism and/or Christian theology, which is thought to instill in the white male an oppressive, dominating mentality. I find this kind of thinking to absolutely pervade post modern progressive thought.
It is anathema to me, and I think the rise of the as yet embryonic alt-left is kind of rationalist and realist reaction to the romanticist conquest of materialism on the left.

 

"In Black and White," by Phil

As a guest author, I’ve figured for a while that I would either plan or be forced for my sanity to write an article focusing my “politics”, having more faith in the latter.
The lack of clarity regarding them has, to my disadvantage, sparked claims or suspicions of me being a White Supremacist in disguised or bordering such ideology despite being Black. Though when repeatedly queried, said accusers couldn’t cite a legit case of me showing clear, non-statistical or subjective bias against Blacks (consistent with my actual politics to be mentioned further on).
At the same time, regulars in the comment section such as William or Tulio have expressed curiosity in whatever “path” has drawn me to my current thoughts. These questions caused me to drift back towards my own agenda in HBD towards a recurring dilemma dating since my initial exposure to modern research of racial differences. Both challenged and conflicted, I’ve decided to devote time and energy into a subject matter that I’ve found, honestly, was not even that clear to me prior to typing this.


Why I’m not a online “Stormer”
1. I have a deep intolerance towards self-hate. Being blunt with shortcomings of your background and reflecting it in your character is one thing, but complaining about it to the point where you reject your own and try to emulate another group is rather pathetic and treacherous to me regardless of one’s race or culture . With that said, it became apparent to me that many people have had experiences where they witness these shortcomings up front with a profound effect that forces them out of it, ones I’ve never had. Regardless, I’m not ignorant of “Negro vices,” and I’ll address that afterwards.
2. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t commit to a “new White identity”. This is largely due to me having physical traits that obviously wouldn’t pass the “Ubermensch” test, which is to be expected when I’m about 82-84% Black. My only features that deviate me from the typical “Negro” look would be my skin tone, head size, and some isolated facial features, and even then, they could still be within a typical range in certain subgroups. Second would be mental and personality traits.
3. Though we could argue the extent of the stereotypes in their general application to Blacks, I’m simply going to point out the ones that apply to me. One would be laziness, which had actually cost me a semester of Advanced Calculus, but I’ve fortunately managed to make it up. Another match would be my emotion. Often I find myself invested in sadness, excitement, anger, and ponderousness for little or no reason. The third would be how simplified I try to make my daily activities, often in favor of my own leisure. There may be more, but I these traits pretty much match with what one would read from such titles such as Among the Ibos by G. T. Basden. Even then, I don’t actually hate myself as much as I discourage these tendencies in me.
4. As far as mental differences goes, what separates me from other Blacks is my lack of a gregarious nature, being more inclined to individualism. While it often results in me having more White friends, it doesn’t actually correlate with me having a deep desire to be White.
5. I hate Black-bashing with a passion. Criticism, sure, but modern Internet-Nazi mantra makes my blood boil more than reading Europeans in the past actually comparing Blacks to apes. That reason is because, as blunt as they were, the early Europeans could articulate that intelligently and others even tried to give better context to it, one I remember rejecting it in favor of “Paleolithic Man”. Needless to say, the type of Black- bashers that anger me are little like these early explorers.


Why I Bother with HBD

As said before, I have an agenda like most who acknowledge race realism. Before even researching the specifics, I thought that I could use my knowledge and experiences of personal vices that hold people back, making me an efficient adviser and communicator towards individuals that could use my help. Particularly, ones like my cousin Zachary who failed high school, has no job, and has a record for burglary.
At face value, I have no good reason to help him. While I barely know him and once when he visited me, he treated me like crap, my mother who cared about him when he was younger has already accepted his current fate, and currently his father has had enough and kicked him out after years of caring (and admittedly spoiling) him. The real reason I want to help him can be found when you look deeper into the situation.
When he respected my mother when he was younger, she was likely placeholder for his mother who barely acknowledged. Being both updated in his habits and having experience in knowing “real” thugs, she asserts that Zachary wasn’t one. She explains how a thug at his luck would be selling dope or on the streets or whatever crime to get by, but Zachary isn’t hardened like them and he only hangs out with them for “face”. He hadn’t done much else since the one burglary, leading me to suspect he did it out of peer pressure.
Instead he has been borrowing money and making empty promises of either school or work, really never sticking to anything. More evidence for his non-thug nature is that he actually does want to invest in his son, but currently the mother and her family are trying to find a “sugar daddy” to support the mother.
As far as I see it, my cousin is in a position where the Left isn’t actually going to the tackle his issues, and the Right wouldn’t even bother. It makes me stop and wonder how many are like him. With that said, I’m not stupid. While lacking in real life experience, reports from others now and in the past have given me a clear idea of dangers in engaging this too lightly. Unlike the active Left, I don’t generalize the situation of unfortunate Blacks from  my cousin’s plight. I use HBD to understand my limitations and reassess my goals.


Am I Smart Because I’m Part White?

While I find my partly White background it a likely contributor, I would like to point out regardless that I’m more of the “sloppy Black genius” Robert has written about in the past. To roughly understand my psychology, I’ll refer to my personality type and trends in behavior of different Black tribes that would be likely candidates.
INFP’s tend to improvise more than plan, like blacks when “nigger-rigging” as Robert once elaborated. INFP’s are also have bias towards feelings and are led by virtues. While blacks have been noted to be somewhat endowed in observing emotions, how to actually consider them and respond with intuition was noted to be a separate skill. I’m unsure if this would be due to IQ or personality, likely both because I believe this would be a common vice in extroversion. Still, I wouldn’t pass off a Black component, which could be likely in my case.
Certain Blacks, like the Krumen or the Eboe, were noted for a more gentle nature than other Blacks during slavery, Eboes in particular being prone to suicide (an extreme extroverted trait). The latter were wanted for tobacco plantations, and as luck would find it, my mother’s side (where I owe my introversion) were tobacco sharecroppers, and my admixture results have me as 30% Nigerian, the largest single ethnicity out of all my ancestry results. On top of that, I’m rather sure both tribes had a form of a “mediator” as well as being noted for their fidelity, basically fitting a INFP caricature.
My father’s side is where I get my analytical skills. While my father is light skinned with a flatter face and more pointed nose than me, those are the only remotely White things about him. His cranial and body shape and other facial features are “Negro”. I suppose he would either fit the Congolese Bantu or Senegambian background. I would say likely Senegambian due to foresight, traditionalism and organization which overlap with some Bantus.
He’s not really that sensitive, which actually is a rather common thing in Black tribes aside from Eboes sand Krumen. This spawns from a combination of extroversion and logic such that he is not much of a feeler. He somewhat reminds me of a pastoralist in facial appearance and character, like a Tuareg or Fulani. I would say that he emulates some White Southerner traits right off the bat though, but I’m unsure if that’s through admixture or selection for certain traits when adapting to Southern society. Maybe a paternal lineage, like the pastoralists that were already mentioned.
So in summary, my White ancestry would play as a boost to latent traits which likely may come from certain Black backgrounds since I’m 82% Black. Another mechanism may be outbreeding, which increases individualism, if not “Whiteness” itself. If I knew my father’s specific components, I may have a better picture. As well I would encourage any info from Jm8 on behaviors of African tribes.

California and White Decline

William Playfair Web writes: It does appear to have a strong economy, at least for some. I would like to see Robert elaborate on this one.
I also thought he believed “White genocide” or “White decline” type ideas to be stupid?

It is a strong economy only for some. Rents are sky high. When you figure in the cost of rent, California has the most poverty, the highest poverty rate, of any state except Mississippi. So California is 49th in poverty rates in the US, above only Mississippi. How is that the state that has the second worse poverty rate in the country has a “booming economy?” Screw that.
White genocide means Whites are going extinct and that there is some special project to drive Whites extinct. Whites are not going extinct, and there is no project to drive Whites extinct (that I know of). Also the White genocide types think that importing Syrians is part of a project to drive Whites extinct. But Syrians are White themselves.
But the % of Whites in the US and in other White countries is definitely going down, that’s for sure. The % of the world population that is White appears to be declining, but that is mostly if you throw out Turks, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, and North Africans as non-Whites. I would say that the Euro-White % of the Earth’s population is on a decline. So it’s not stupid to state that as a fact.
And here in the California anyway, when a city or town goes from majority White to majority non-White, there is often a noticeable decline.
White -> non-White = decline, generally speaking.
It cannot be denied.

"Black Women and Beauty," by Phil

This article shall partake in an investigation of “attractive traits” with females of West African extraction in terms of their effects with regard to appearance, along with a discussion of their development. Such an endeavor is undertaken due to Satoshi Kanazawa’s controversial work in analyzing differences in perceived beauty among races.
Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?
In my honest opinion, this was something that I had trouble going through when thinking of women. I mean sure, I could think of attractive black women but typically they were mixed noticeably.
However, it wasn’t until I read and saw pictures of Native African women that I noticed four appealing physical aspects of African women.
Traits:
1. Eye Shape – Defining eye shape of Blacks is sort of weird, for there are various caricatures. The type encompasses the big “wide eyes”, “sad eyes” (almost like triangles, giving a sad look to them), small slits, etc. The big eyes I find to be more common in deeper jungle Blacks, I believe, sad eyes and slits to those that came from the desert. Medium/almond eyes, that are sometimes considered “pseudo Asian” eyes on black women, were among the one I found rather appealing.
2. Lips – While “Big lips” are sometimes seen as unattractive as opposed to small or lips that are just full, depending on the actually shape of the lips themselves they look nice as well. The thing is though is that they are less of a sexual appeal of beauty and just more of a comely feature when they are big but well shaped.
3. Contrast of features against skin – In the case of having attractive features they become more pronounced. Not a huge necessity for standard beauty, but a nice trait at least – though its effect depends on the presence of pre-existing features. The trend was present, although further examining led me to conclude it wasn’t that uncommon.
4. The fourth one has at first a bit of a dubious nature to it. Basically it deals with cases where typically discouraged traits like prognathism and prominent cheek bones look good when coupled with a slimmer face, prominent chin, and not as exaggerated. Basically what this does is further draw attention to these features in an organized and pleasing composition. The issue is that I was unsure of how significantly “common” this trend was, though further examining led me to conclude it wasn’t that uncommon.
Here. This would be a decent example of what I’m talking about.
However, it’s time to get to cons.
1. Head shape – From what I read, at least for the average African American female, they tend to get a wider face. Personally, a face that’s more pointed or oval – that is, having a thinner lower face – is more attractive on women. In the case of Black women this is caused by the larger Jaws of Blacks generally, more prominent cheek bones, and emphasized with a narrower forehead amongst blacks. However, I believe this is more of a male trait than female.
2. Nose – Basically more angular noses are preferred but I think it is more of its relative size and how much the nostrils flare.
3. Body – Reading info from Steve Sailor, while Black men in America have narrower hips than Whites or Latinos, Black women have the widest waists of women and even wider waists than Black men.
This is basically due to a combination of earlier development of female fat distribution in females and Blacks being on average more impulsive, in this case particularly with food. In some African cultures it’s a sign of beauty. Often before marriage ceremonies the women go through a fattening period.
Examination:
While many are probably familiar with European-mix progression, examples of African progression can be seen here amongst these Igbo women, an ethnic group of various looks.
Igbo Women
The two on the right and the second from the left are overall better looking than the one in the middle or on the left end (though the one in the middle is of course notably older). The causes are more noticeable in the one second from the left and the one on the far right, having less prominent cheek bones, more expressive eyes, and smaller lower lips. The eye traits are present in the one second from the right, though she has prominent cheekbones. This trait is complimented with a wider forehead and what I believed to be a more prominent chin.
More African women.
Compared to the one on the far left, the other two look more appealing due to having smaller jaws. But overall none look hideous, just more “ethnic looking” in which they have the traits to a noticeable but not to an exaggerated degree. All three, however, show the cheekbone trait (which I may add looks actually nice when coupled with a smaller jaw) but they seem to have “better” facial proportions where their faces don’t look unpleasingly wide. Their eye shapes seem to vary, too.
Ibo women.
The one on the far left shows African achievement of a face highly reduced of maxillary prognathism, while the one on the right shows one that is only partially reduced but is at a point that displays that unique “attractive” jutting I mentioned earlier. The one second from the right when compared to the one second from the left has wider (more almond) eyes and less prominent cheekbones, appearing more attractive due to a slimmer looking face and more expressive eyes. The one in the very middle is blurry but appears to resemble the type on the far right.
Young Ibo Women of Ibuza
Each of these girls, in my opinion, deviate a fair amount from typical vices due to the lower jaws with smaller lips and noses, though the one on the left seems to have a lower forehead (a vice that I forgot to add as well as possessing more slit eyes. The one on the right is quite the opposite, having quite a wider and higher forehead with bigger eyes.)
Igbo Women
This is a favorite of mine in which it shows a very good example of African progression that I speak of, being prognathism that is subtle and pronounces the fullness of the lips, not extending further than nose length, an overall smaller nose, what appear to be almond eyes, cheek bones that are showing but not overly prominent, with a forehead that is round.
The only concerning “flaw” it the forehead’s height but it’s not that big of a deal.
Biafrans.
The one on the right has the smallest jaw, thinnest lower face, intermediate nose and eyes size, and least exaggerated cheekbones. Still, all are rather pretty in my opinion anyway.
Though we’ve seen many examples of well-formed faces, actual specimens of body shapes yield little variation (from what I could find) to offer in forms of images. Most were slim, lanky forms that, while not truly unpleasing in my opinion, I must admit I would be biased in saying that it wouldn’t have limited appeal. Among African-American women these forms seems occasional but not that common, at least to me. Thus, it is likely due to nutritional factors if not wholly due to admixture, for native Africans were often recorded to be vegetarians, meat being held more commonly as a luxury rather than a given.
However, I’m fortunately in possession of positive commentary of European comments on Gold Coast women of both the Fanti and Ashanti tribes.
“The women when young are ugly in face and beautiful in form, when old they are in both.” (This is likely due to R/K breeding, causing faster maturation and possible loss in the retaining of younger traits).
“In general appearance the Ashanti much resemble the Fanti though they are not perhaps so strongly built. They are however quite as good looking and according to Mr Bowdieh the women are handsomer than those of the Fanti.”
The Uncivilized Races of Men in All Countries of the World Volume 1. by J. G. Wood
Discussion:
Now that we are familiar with the identification of African progression of attractive female traits, what possible mechanisms in Africa caused the common (without influence of modern opinions) stereotype type to prevail?
Well, Satoshi, after ruling out BMI and intellect differences, claims testosterone differences. The reasoning behind this is due to his findings that, net of intelligence, Black men were rated higher than men of other races. This led him to suggest that difference in testosterone, which produces masculine features and being recorded to being highest in blacks, resulted in Black males deemed more attractive and females not.
I’m unsure of this inference, but it does draw attention to the stronger association between “beauty” and intellect in Black males compared to females. The topic between his research of beauty and intellect can be accessed here for others to discuss in the comments, for now I’m going into some knowledge of why the results are the way they are.
Beautiful People Really Are More Intelligent
One possible reason for these results is social roles in regards to sexual selection. From reading Among the Ibos by George Thomas Basden:

“In the majority of cases young man makes his own choice. He happens to a girl who attracts his attention and he immediately inquiries as to her parents and whether she be engaged or not. If she is free he endeavors to through her friends information concerning her in cooking trading and other useful and profitable accomplishments. He also inquires about her whether she be of good temper quiet industrious and so forth. Should these investigations prove satisfactory he lays his case before his parents or his friend for he cannot make the first advances personally.”

According to this, while initial notice (likely attraction) starts courtship, it is actual character that causes union to follow. Some HBD’rs claim that populations in Eurasia had a more directed course of selection, often described as self-domestication. It’s possible that in cases like here with some African tribes different standards in selection caused for different measures of association of intellect – for example, a proxy of character – that caused the weaker association in black women. It is worth mentioning, however, that based on Satoshi’s research that the correlation between attractiveness and intellect is higher in men than women by about 2.4 IQ points. I believe the association becomes stronger as a society develops. The Ashanti have often been commented to have a higher culture than Fanti, and the women of the Ashanti were commented to be more beautiful as well, though the margin between men was regarded as relatively smaller, with the Fanti males having a better build but the Ashanti being superior in facial features.
Regardless, I’m an amateur at best with the topic and I urge anyone else knowledgeable on the topic to share in the comment section.

Robert Stark Interviews Rabbit about Futurism

Here.
Great interview. Rabbit is now a regular co-host on Stark’s program, which is great because it gives the Alternative Left more publicity. Also it seems to imply that Stark himself is identifying as Alt Left! Yay! And maybe more of Stark’s guests will start identifying as Alt Left. Wow, looks like we could really start to grow a movement here. I have noticed that Stark’s guests have become more Third Positionists or even “Alt Left-like” in recent months. It’s a great trend!
Really cool interview with Rabbit. Rabbit and Stark discuss me in the last 10 minutes of the show. Rabbit says he thinks that I am afraid to take much of a stand on race because I am afraid of being called a racist. You know what? He is right! I do not want my Alt Left wing to be associated with any sort of real, hardcore racism at all. Forget it. On the other hand, race realism, cultural critique and just straight up honest talk about race is fine.
If it’s just SJW’s calling me racist, I don’t care because they call everyone racist who doesn’t buy the lunatic Cultural Left line on race. And the modern anti-racist movement can burn in Hell. That said, racism does exist and at some point, you are just being a flat out nasty, ugly racist. That sort of thing is wincingly repellent and unacceptable in my book.
Rabbit’s Alt Left wing is much bigger on race, especially being pro-White, than I am. Rabbit for all intents and purposes is some sort of a leftwing White nationalist, or at least he is not afraid to hobnob with such folks. That’s fine for him, but I am going to have to pass. I am not into primarily emphasizing race and I am not a White nationalist. If you are more into being Alt Left in a ore explicitly pro-White sense, then  maybe you want to identify with Rabbit’s wing. Sadly, he does not have a comments section.
In his favor though, I will say that I think Rabbit is a brilliant thinker and a fine writer, and he’s doing something that has needed to be done for a long time.
To me, Alt Left means more left on economics and moderate on social issues (in between the insane Cultural Left and the regressive social conservatives). However, I would still accept people who are economically left and socially conservative. That actually describes a lot of the working class right there and we need to quite turning these people off and shoving them towards the Republican Party.
Rabbit blogs at AltLeft.com
Topics include:
Filippo Tommaso Marinetti & Italian Futurism.
Marinetti’s Manifesto of Futurism.
How Futurism emphasized speed, technology, youth, and violence, and objects such as the car, the aeroplane, and the industrial city.
How Hitler’s exhibition on “degenerate art” included Marinetti and other futurists’ work.
Italian Futurism’s connection to fascism and how that led to its marginalization.
How despite that, Italian Futurism had a major influence on culture, art, and architecture, including Cubism and Art Deco.
Antonio Sant’Elia and his Futurist urban vision which inspired the films Metropolis and Blade Runner.
Constantin von Hoffmeister’s National Futurism.
Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturism.
Transhumanism.
A Short Trip through the Long View.

Commenter Phil on Jewamongyou’s Site

Here.

Phil is a new commenter, a young Black male who has been talking to me about various issues around race, race realism and possible ways forward for the Black race, which we must acknowledge has some issues. Phil’s project is to try to come up with system(s) that will reduce pathology among the Black race.

You might want to head on over there and partake in the discussion.

 

Why Race Is Important

We must admit that the Black race displays a lot of typical human pathologies at quite elevated rates.

Truth be told, it is all this bad behavior and not the color of their skin that causes so much racism against Black people. If Black people looked exactly like they do now but acted like Norwegians or Japanese people instead of how they do act, I do not think many people would hate them simply based upon the color of their skin or or the way they look.

Almost all Black people get very mad when you bring this up, and they issue the usual rejoinders like, “But other races do all these same things too!” You try to tell them it’s not so much the behaviors themselves but the rates at which they are displayed that makes all the difference in the world, and they just don’t get it.

And if you bring up the concept that someone might simply wish to avoid or not deal with racial or ethnic groups that display bad behaviors at an elevated rate, they flip out and insist that this notion is racist. Life’s an odds game, and they just don’t get it. Almost all Blacks insist that aversive racism is simply racism and is completely irrational.

If my group, Group A, engages in some bad behavior, say homicide, at X rate, and another group, Group B, engages in homicide at a rate that is 8X that of my group, I think I would prefer to live around my group as opposed to Group B.

I am anticipating the typical anti rejoinder here “But Group A commits homicide too!” Yes, there is homicide in Group A’s community. Of course there is. Homicide is a typical, common human behavior after all.

But homicide happens a lot less frequently in Group A’s community as opposed to Group B’s community, so your odds of getting killed via homicide are much less in Group A’s town than in Group B’s town. Hence you might want to consider the racial breakdown of some area that you plan to move to. And in that sense, race is indeed quite important, and it shows that antis are wrong when they say that race is not important at all and anyone who puts any emphasis on it is nuts.

This is why we need to pay attention to race. My sort of race realism more than anything else simply says that race is real, and it is important in society, if only for the example above that the racial breakdown of a place might influence whether you wish to move there or not.

And this is one of the reasons I want to talk about race on this site. Because race is important in society, like it or not, and it needs to be talked about, dammit. The antiracist/SJW line that we can’t discuss race outside the parameters that the antis and the Left have set up for us is absurd and insane.

Phil is a really interesting fellow, and you might be interested to know hat he is a teenager who is still in high school. He’s not even an adult yet and he’s smart as a whip!.

In Defense of Liberal Race Realism

Nominay writes:

“Liberal race realism” is repugnant. Some of it’s true, some of it’s bullshit, but clearly the bullshit comes out on top. And I’ve never once seen described or provided from a LRR point of view what the solution for Black inferiority is. There may be some points made by Robert and co. about Blacks that are (unfortunately) accurate, but Liberal Race Realism is endlessly negative.
It just reads like a parade of White virtue while stomping on Blacks. The only difference between racists and Liberal Race Realists are that Liberal Race Realists care about Blacks (I guess). But even then, nothing positive is expressed from that. It’s easy to beat up on Blacks and showcase them as an easy target, but it takes something more admirable than that to gain insight into what can be done about the challenges Blacks face. I don’t exactly see White, Black activism today the way I did when Robert Kennedy was their advocate.

LRR doesn’t engage in bullshit. We demand fact-based analyses and hopefully fact based theory supported by some sort of fact based solutions that are at least experimentally valid while still open to challenge and in need of replication.
Also we don’t engage in racism. LRR is officially nonracist as a general rule, and some of us are antiracists. We do argue that one ought to be able to avoid and have a negative opinion about some ethnic or religious group that has harmed you or your people one too many times. LRR doesn’t know if that’s racism or not, but even if it is, then LRR would be for that “racism.”
LRR doesn’t believe in any particular causes of the behavior of various groups.
For instance, Black IQ scores are lower. But LRR takes no position on why that is. Some of us think it’s genes, some think it’s environment, some think it’s the flying purple people eaters. We urge LRR supporters to draw their conclusions about the causes of ethnic behavioral rates and metrices.
But LRR’s would say that a high IQ state should not be importing a lot of low IQ people. It makes no sense societally or genetically.
As far as crime goes, LRR simply points out with alarm that certain ethnies and even religions in certain places have elevated crime rates. We list the different rates for the different groups, and then we discuss why this might be happening. The main thing LRR does is get the truth out there about the differing rates, as it is a pubic safety matter, and PC society buries this stuff.
Now as far as what causes some groups to commit more crime than others, LRR takes no position. Personally, I think Blacks have an inborn elevated risk of criminal behavior. I am not sure how that works, but I figure it might be genetic. Now other LRR’s are free to disagree. There are LRR’s who say that the causes of high Black crime are strictly environmental. They are free to feel that way as LRR generally take no stand on causation of racial variables.
LRR would say though that it makes little sense for a nation to mass import groups that have a higher crime rate than the natives of the land. If the majority native group has 1X crime rate, why mass import a group that commits crimes at 7X the native rate? It’s irrational. Also there may be groups that have .25 the crime rate of the natives. LRR’s might say that you should import these immigrants so as to lower the nation’s crime rate and maybe even improve the genetic stock.
LRR generally doesn’t advocate solutions to race-based problems because we doubt if there are any.
Inferiority? LRR doesn’t believe in inferiority. Sure, Black crime rates are higher, and IQ scores are lower, but I don’t see how that makes them inferior people and us superior people. Why do you think a lower IQ score and a higher crime rate makes them inferior people and us superior people? Those are just matrices. Nobody’s really better than anybody else at the end of the day.
LRR is just stating observational facts. Yep, Black crime rates are higher. All over the damn world in fact. What’s causing it? That’s not really important. What might be important would be to quit importing them.
Yes, Black IQ scores are lower. LRR is just pointing that out. All we want to do is point that out. Yep. At the moment, on average Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. Fact.
Now what do you want to do with that fact? I do not know, but at least people should know it is true.
LRR has no idea how to raise Black IQ scores or lower their crime rates. That’s for educators, criminologists and police chiefs to deal with.
I would like to point out that the crazy antis and the PC nuts don’t have any solutions to these problems either.
The IQ issue they say is not even true, so they scream and yell about an achievement gap which of course is to be expected if there are intelligence differentials. Mostly these folks just fall back on insisting that poor Black school performance is all the fault of White people!
On the crime issue, first of all, they generally just deny it and refuse to talk about it. Or they make bizarre statements saying that White collar crime done by Whites is just as bad or even way worse than Black street crime.
Then they spread malicious libelous claims about Whites saying that we are evil criminals too. For instance, they lie and say Whites have a far higher rate than Blacks of being serial killers and pedophiles. Now I would be perfectly happy to claim a couple of notorious crime categories for my people, but that statement isn’t even true. Blacks are more likely to be both serial killers and pedophiles than Whites are.
So you talk about the very serious problem of Black crime, and PC types first of all say it’s not a problem because Wall Street. Then they level vicious hate attacks on my great people calling us serial killers and child molesters.
If you really press these people, they will admit that Blacks cause an incredible amount of crime, but it’s all White people’s fault that they do this. So they turn Black bad behavior into an excuse to use hate speech against my people.

Why Race Realist Politics Is Often Wrong

IC says:

Well, it is important for policy making. If it is genes, no child left behind policy is wasting money and should be discarded. Also criminal rehabilitation program is also waste of money.

This is the classic political agenda that tends to flow from HBD or race realist folks. All race realist and HBD’ers are committed to this sort of politics without exception. This is a rightwing political agenda of using the genetic reality of race as an excuse to reduce or eliminate social spending for races that score lower in school or commit more crime than other races.

As a man of the Left, of course, I oppose this sort of thing. Furthermore, almost all of their arguments are based on lies. Not one single dollar has ever been spent in the United States “trying to bring Blacks up to par with Whites.” The only thing we spend money on in the US is trying to educate Black folks. They get the same education as other races; in fact, they probably get a much worse education. Instead of blowing money trying to get them up to par with Whites, Black schools are classically underfunded. At any rate, all people of all races are deserving of a decent and normal education suited to their needs and abilities.

I’m afraid that this policy prescription is something like, “Blacks score lower on IQ tests, so let’s stop educating them altogether!” That is simply breathtaking. Even an ethnic group with an average IQ of 85 benefits dramatically from a K-12 education as opposed to no education at all.

It’s the same thing on crime. Although it is nowhere near proven, I believe that Blacks have an inborn elevated risk of criminal behavior. But even here, this is not destiny. There are even Supercultures that are such effective circus tents that they envelop and overwhelm the genetic tendency, rendering it inoperative. For instance, an African tribe numbering 1 million in Burkino Faso has a homicide rate equal to the Japanese. I assume they have the same inborn genetic tendency towards crime as other Africans.

Genes are rarely destiny as far as crime goes. All you will inherit is a tendency, and we all inherit a tendency to be criminals. I assume I inherited a fairly low risk, but others end up with a higher risk. Even among those with a high inherited risk, many will live law-abiding lives. Genetic tendencies are triggered, increased, subdued or neutered depending on environments that either allow one’s genetic legacy to be expressed or suppressed. Someone with a higher genetic loading towards criminality can certainly be rehabilitated the same as someone with a lower risk. It’s just that rehabilitation will be less successful with the high loading group.

I am afraid this is just another excuse for reactionary policy. “Nigger are genetic criminals, so spending money trying to rehabilitate them is useless, since as soon as we let them out, their genes will force them to commit crimes again. So lock the nigger criminals away forever and never let them out. And don’t waste one nickel of my taxpayer dollars with your libtard rehabilitation program.”

You can see where this crap is headed. The science of HBD is used as a fake fig leaf to give lab coat approval for reactionary politics that reactionaries want to impose anyway whether the science is there or not. The science gives them one more excuse for retrograde politics, a shiny veneer of academic approval.

No Child Left Behind was always insane. All children have a right to an education. There is no excess money spent trying to bring low scorers up to par with the rest. In fact, poor schools spend much less money than the rest. Both low scoring and high scoring students have the right to an adequate education.

If it can be proven that a given criminal rehabilitation program works, and especially if it is cost effective, then we should go ahead and do it. Anyway, even Black crime rates fluctuate wildly, so it’s not all genes driving the rates. Even someone with an elevated genetic tendency to be a criminal can be easily convinced to stop committing crimes, commit fewer crimes or commit less serious crimes.

From Civil Rights to Modern Antiracism, a Moral Inversion

Found on the web:

After the chicken’s chicks were all killed at eaten by the fox, a liberal chicken then said to the surviving chicken “Ya know, not all foxes are like that.”

Nice. Increasingly, modern antiracism is simply becoming absurd, stupid, dangerous, belligerently abusive and pro-suicidal.
Thinking back to our salad days in the Civil Rights Movement, I remember how things were so much different back then. We Whites were fighting for good people! Good, fine, upstanding Black people, of which there were plenty at the time and even now.
Was James Meredith a dirtball? Of course not? Was Rosa Parks a slimebag? You kidding? Were the Little Rock a bunch of scumbuckets? Huh?
If you think of yourself as a good person, it feels good to be fighting for the rights of other good people. And it is painful to see good people being so mistreated merely because of who their parents were. It’s so wrong it hurts. This was the essence of the moral impetus behind the Civil Rights Movement.
We won most of our battles, and here it is, 50 years on, and anti-racism is so far away from the Civil Rights Movement that it seems like it’s on another planet altogether.
Now the antiracist movement does nothing but support criminals.
All of the modern antiracist heroes have been criminals, often pretty bad ones. Most of them are dead and in the ground now, which is really where they belong if you ask me. It’s hard to feel good about supporting a bunch of scumbuckets. It’s hard to feel sorry for them, even if they are getting their rights violated. And typically, the people who aggressed on the Black criminals were the victims in one way or another of the crooks, or they were law enforcement or school officials trying to arrest or discipline the crooks. The ultimate hero of the antiracist movement is none other than OJ Simpson, a narcissistic sociopath who decapitated his girlfriend with a meat cleaver before he sliced her boyfriend to blood-spattered bits.
Many of the antiracist cause celebres have involved Black criminals who get shot by cops, sometimes under dubious circumstances. One thing you will notice that everywhere Black folks move in the world, this racist phenomenon called police brutality rears up its head. There is  this mysterious phenomenon whereby cops all over the world want to fuck over and kill Black people for racist reasons and only racist reasons.
Here is what happens:

  • Lots of Blacks moved to a country, often a Western country.
  • Over a period of time, they start to commit lots of crime, particularly violent crime, including homicide. They also start joining gangs and dealing a lot of dope.
  • This goes on for a while, and the police start arresting a lot of the Black criminals, for good reason.
  • The Black community starts to hate cops for “taking so many of our good men away.” Police are seen as a hostile because they are doing their job, which is to arrest Black criminals.
  • Sooner or later, a Black criminal is shot dead or badly beaten under possibly dubious circumstances. There is nothing necessarily racist about this. Most Western police departments have wildly stringent anti-discrimination policies and are far more PC than your average workplace. Police commissioners are tired of getting sued for this stuff so they are taking pre-emptive action.
  • What happens is once Black people start committing tons of crime and getting arrested all the time, sooner or later there is going to be a questionable shooting. It’s the law of averages. If Whites committed crime at Black rates, there would be a lot of dubious police shootings of White people. Dubious shootings are part and parcel of a group that commits lots of crime.
  • Blacks start rioting because one of their criminals got shot dead or beat up badly by police, which is a pretty bad reason to tear down a city if you ask me.
  • Antiracist movements begin to take up the “antiracist” cause of police brutality, an issue that usually has little to do with race.

These antiracist movements spend almost all of their time defending the absolute worst of Black society, the scum of the Earth. These are their heroes. If you are on the Left, you are supposed to support the lionization of these sociopaths. If you point out what scumbags they are, you are accused or racism yourself.
You see how far we have come? Pointing out that the Black criminal cause celebre du jour who may have been victimized is actually a piece of dirt is racism! It’s racism for good people to call criminals what they are!
That’s pretty breathtaking.
It goes far beyond that. All criticism of mass dysfunction in Black America, typically in the more ghetto areas, is slammed as racism. Good people are called racists for complaining about bad people acting bad! Wow! That takes my breath away.
If you try to counter an anti-White myth such as that Whites are more likely to be child molesters or serial killers by pointing out that actually Blacks have higher rates of both serial killing and child molesting, you are a racist! Whoa! It’s racist to pore through crime statistics to try to catch people telling racist lies about crime rates of various races! It’s racist to point out that Group X commits way more of Crime Z than Group Y.
Pointing out the obvious is racist. Telling the truth is racist. Hard and fast statistical truths are racist. Apparently, The Truth itself is racist.
The only way not to be a racist in this modern era is to be a liar!
This idiotic movement extends to the rest of the world. Much of the 3rd World is very screwed up. A lot of it is non-White. Pointing out how lame, dysfunctional, and pathological these failed states and cultures are is racist. Damn! Good people criticizing bad people overseas for acting bad is racist. People from decent cultures criticizing sick cultures for being stupid and evil is racist.
Pointing out that Country X is swarming with crooks, liars, cheaters, frauds and thieves, not to mention violent crooks, is racist. Telling people to avoid these shitholes is racist. In fact, we are ordered to travel to these shitholes just to prove how antiracist we area. In this sense, modern anti-racism is pro-suicidal. They want good people to go to places were lots of terrible people who act awful and stay there a while (presumably until they get victimized, which won’t be long) just to prove their antiracist mettle.
If you say, “I don’t see why I should risk my life and limb to associate with this group just because a few of them are good people,” you are racist.
Modern antiracism does nothing but defend bad people.
All of its heroes are criminals, often very bad criminals. These are the leading lights of the movement. It is racist for good people to criticize the bad behavior of these criminal heroes.
The only cultures it defends are non-White 3rd World cultures where a large percentage of the people act terrible, where states are failed, where cultures are toxic when they are not flat out wicked. Yes, to modern antiracism, the worst, most dysfunctional, corrupt, amoral and idiotic cultures of all are actually the best ones of them. These are the “heroic cultures” of modern antiracism. Modern antiracism fetes barbaric cultures above all else.
Cultures are crappy because they are full of crappy people – who behave in lousy ways and think in even worse ways. There is no such thing as a crappy culture full of good people. Good people make good cultures. Lousy people make lousy cultures.
The bottom line is that antiracism criticizes good people for attacking the behavior of bad people. It’s racist for good people to defend themselves against bad people – I assume we are supposed to let them kill us to prove earn our antiracist stripes in the afterlife. Anti-racism attacks people from good, competent, successful cultures for attacking lousy, incompetent and failed cultures. Once again, it punishes the good for attacking the bad.
I could go on here, but I think I will stop. You get the idea.
All I have to say is that this is a complete inversion of the moral principles I signed up for in the Civil Rights Movement. We were the good guys fighting for the good people against the bad people. Now it’s the other way around.
Let me off this bus please, Rosa.

Official Blog Position on Race and Intelligence

Dave M. writes:
AJ said, “There is nothing superior about your genes…”

Not true! I believe Robert may at least partially agree that there is a lot of truth in the fact that genetics of groups, and group intelligence, are intertwined. European and East Asian, Along with Jews, are superior in “intelligence” to the rest of the world.

Hello, the official position of this blog, as stated on the About page, is that there are presently differences in intelligence between the races as measured by IQ tests, and IQ tests are a valid way to measure intelligence.
Whether those differences are due to genes, environment or something in the air is uncertain. It is also uncertain whether the lower performing groups will be able to close the gap with the higher groups and if so, to what extent.
So the “revolutionary” positions of Liberal Race Realism are:

  1. 1. At the moment, different groups on Earth differ intelligence as measured accurately on IQ tests. For instance, Blacks are less intelligent than Whites as measured accurately by IQ tests, and Jews, European Whites and East Asians are more intelligent than the other groups as measured accurately by IQ tests.
  2. 2. IQ tests accurately measure intelligence.

That’s it! Pretty meager, no?
For these positions, LRR is absolutely vilified across the board as a hideously racist and White Supremacist organization. A lot of liberal/Left sites remove any links to my site and some Left sites have blanket policies to not link to me on the basis of “no platform for fascists” (apparently I am a fascist).
I think if we could get society go agree to even these two modest tenets, we would be accomplishing something revolutionary.

Types in the Manosphere Part 1

From a comment on a very interesting blog called Gunlord. I like this guy a lot. He’s basically a MGTOW type (perfectly happy being a total bachelor, not really wild about women anyway), but he doesn’t like to talk about it, doesn’t hang out on the MGTOW forums and thinks the whole movement is stupid.
Some of his ideas I seriously don’t agree with, but others make a lot of sense.
From the comments page:

You have the standard male supremacists who want women back in the kitchen, the MGTOWs who think women in the kitchen are “parasites,” the transhumanists who think some combination of artificial wombs, sexbots, and buttsex will liberate men from women, the “Human Bio-Diversity” enthusiasts who are called “white knight nationalists” by everyone else, the Christians who want to establish a theocracy, the atheists who think religion is a sneaky plot by women to enslave men, the Aspies who think even men without autism are just “women lite,” and so on and so forth…

In this post, I will go over the male supremacists, the MGTOW’s, the transhumanists, the Christians, the atheists and the HBD’ers.
Male supremacists: Very common on the Manosphere. They want to go back to the old days, which means, I dunno, before 1920. Take away all women’s rights because they are too crazy and emo to deserve them anyway. I never could get down with these guys. I’ve long been an equity feminist, and at one point I was actually a member of NOW (The National Organization for Women). This is so retrograde and reactionary that it’s simply bizarre.
MGTOW’s: These are a light version of female separatists, but they are not a corollary of lesbian separatists. They are into living the bachelor life and putting off marriage for as long as possible. They have a very dim view of women to say the least and advocate replacing them with dolls, fleshlights, porn, masturbation and at the very most prostitutes. They wish to avoid relationships with women and even advocate not dating them. They think men should even limit their friendships with women. In other words, they think women are a plague to be avoided at all costs.
They have a somewhat rocky relationship with the rest of the Manosphere, especially the PUA types who they call “pussy beggars.” In return, the PUA’s refer to MGTOW’s as “Omega losers.” Politically, they are almost all Libertarians.
They have a very open view of what is available to men lifestyle-wise: live at home, live with roommates, move around the country, take off and go live in foreign countries, change careers, make as much or as little money as you like, and especially, quit caring about what society demands of you and start embracing nonconformism. Do it your own way, and don’t let women, kids or society get in the way. Guys, do whatever the Hell you want and quit caring what anyone thinks about your choices. There are supposedly a few MGTOW’s who are married or in relationships, but I have not met them.
I like these guys in a way. I like their open-ended view of the possibilities for males. They don’t care if an adult male lives at home! Wow. Face it, societal demands and restrictions trap a lot of men into this or that job, location or lifestyle. When you have a wife and kids to support, you can’t exactly be a free-spirited vagabond.
I also love that they are reclaiming bachelorhood. Yay! For too long bachelorhood has been seen as a bizarre pathology, and at some point, all men are required to marry and hopefully have kids. At my age, it’s not that I need to get married but more that it’s seen as way weird that I never got married even once. If I would have tied the knot for a year, I would be in much better shape.
Bachelors are seen as possible homosexuals, incel losers, antisocial loners or out and out bizarre and possibly/probably dangerous weirdos. In other words, if you never got married, well obviously it is because something is wrong with you. At some point in your bachelor life, you will reach a point where pretty much all society is rejecting you, and it does not feel good.
I am not down with the living without women and avoiding sex out of preference, as I have never been that way. Sure, there have been periods with no girlfriend in my life, maybe even years, and there have been periods of incel living ranging from months to a year or possibly more. I never cared about marriage as long as there was one or more women in life and hopefully I was getting some sex. As long as I have women and sex somewhere floating about my life, even on the horizon, I am happy as a clam and see no need or reason to marry.
I don’t regard women as parasites to be avoided at all costs. I’d just as spend most of my socializing with women and blow men off. Why would I prefer to be around women all the time? Because I like to live dangerously!
Transhumanists: Ok, this is insane. These are the male version of lesbian separatists. Replace sex with women with sexbots and mix in a lot of fagging off with other guys while you’re at it. For babies, we will grow them in artificial wombs. No need for women and those yucky ovaries. I have no idea what their politics is like. Sorry, this is way too weird for me.
HBD’ers: I had no idea they were part of the Manosphere. Apparently they are a very wussy part of the Manosphere because they spend most of their time white-knighting. These guys don’t care about women or men. All they care about is genes, IQ tests and eugenics. They love those wonderful White and Asian races, and they have nothing but utter contempt for those disgusting, inferior Black and Brown races. Politics is conservative to Libertarian. Many are strong supporters of the Republican Party and spend much of their time Democrat-bashing.
Christians: Supposedly want to establish a theocracy. I haven’t heard of any of these sites. There is one good Christian Manosphere blog by a guy named Dalrock who isn’t even a misogynist. Extreme hypergamy is even effecting these hardcore Protestant fundamentalists. Politics is probably Republican Party.
Atheists: They supposedly blame women for the plague called religion and think women set up religion as a plot to enslave men. That’s pretty crazy, and thankfully I have never been to such a site. Politics? No idea.

Sapir Whorf Reversed

The Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is a very interesting hypothesis in Linguistics that states that the language you speak actually effects your brain, or at least the way you look at and see the world. Since its publication, the silly Linguistics profession has torn this fine hypothesis into a million pieces, but I still believe that there is something to it, and Everett’s very controversial work on the Piraha language in the Amazon seems to have revived Sapir-Whorf. At any rate, Benjamin Whorf was a very smart man.
How about if we reverse the hypothesis, and say that instead of language shaping the brain, the brain shapes language, even worse, that your genes in part determine what type of language you may speak. This is raw HBD stuff, so the ridiculous Linguistics profession is going to go insane with rage over this, but it seems there is something to it.
Tone languages and genes.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

New Race Realist Book Out

And it is apparently written by a science journalist too.
The view of it is by the horrific Charles Murray, co-author of The Bell Curve. The Bell Curve was an excellent book although it was coming from a far right point of view. Murray’s view is that since some races are less intelligent and capable than other races, let’s cut them off of all the social programs!
What the heck? If that is true, and in fact it is true that at the moment some races are on average less intelligent and capable of intellectual tasks than other races, it actually increases the case for welfare instead of decreasing it! Can’t you reactionaries see that?
If all the races are equal, then that decreases the case for social programs because it implies that people are poor and it’s all their fault that they are impoverished. But if they are permanently less intelligent and they had nothing to do with this fact, then it’s not their fault that they ended up poor? See?
Not only that, but we have a much better case for an extremely unequal society if all the races are equal. It they are all equal, then the high achievers deserve every nickel that they earned since they deserve at as they only got it via hard work and whatnot. On the other hand, equality implies that those who are losing in the money race are doing so due to the their own poor choices: it’s their own damn fault!
Inequality between the races means that the monetary achievements and wealth of high achieving races are completely undeserved as they only got it by lucking out in the genetic lottery. So we should redistribute their undeserved gains to the lower achieving races who do not deserve their fate of falling behind.
This is really is so obvious, but 99% of race realists are Libertarians or other hard rightists so it’s clear that they have not thought this through very well.
About the book, the poor sod who wrote what looks like an excellent volume is about to creamed and smeared all over US society. I feel for him.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

The Problem with Writing about Race

Coward writes:

Robert, I have been reading this blog since I was 13, although I haven’t posted until I was 15. I remember back in the good ole’ days of this blog, you discussed race freely and notoriously with titles such as, “Black People Like To Fuck”, and “Are Blacks Closer To Apes Than Other Humans”, “Nigger Genes Ruined Portugal”, “Pictures from Shithole India”. Nowadays this blog is all about politics, economy, Bigfoot, and random shit. Now I know why you don’t want to post about race; some commenters, myself included, aren’t mature enough to discuss race. I admit it. I have contributed my fair share of Black-bashing and Asian-bashing. However, I don’t really bash Blacks anymore, and the Asian bashing wasn’t even serious.

One of the purposes of this site was to develop something called “Liberal Race Realism,” which is a movement that I started. Admittedly, it hasn’t gone anywhere at all. Actually, it has been a complete failure. But that is ok. Really what it shows though is just how messed up people, especially Americans, are about race.
We simply cannot discuss race in any kind of a sensible way at all.
There are really two options when it comes to talking about race:
PC: race denial, no such thing as race, race is a social construct, etc. Focus on White racism against non-Whites as the cause of all problems among non-Whites. All discussion of racial differences banned as racist. No discussion of problems or failings of non-Whites allowed, as this is considered racist.
The PC style is really the only acceptable way to talk about race in America. But obviously, it has got some serious problems. Mostly it just seems like another effort at self-censorship. Many aspects of the race question are simply banned outright as racist, and they are replaced with a strange and obsessive focus on White racism as the only kind that matters. The effects of this racism (which is real) are vastly exaggerated.
White supremacism or ethnic chauvinism of some form or another. This is simply exaggerated, out and out racism, often of the worst kind. If you reject the PC game, it seems that you default into a Nazi or supremacist super-racist of some sort.
Clearly this leaves something to be desired also. This sort of racism is ugly and nasty and we fought a world war against it already.
In part, the two reinforce each other. If you stray the slightest from the PC line, the PC crowd gathers around and relentlessly bullies you, calling you eugenicist, racist, Nazi, KKK, on and on. So people who are forced out of the PC camp are labeled as members of the supremacist camp and are more or less forced into that nasty camp. The supremacist camp sort of does that too. Any attempt to be reasonable with those folks results in accusations that one is a PC anti-racist.
Most folks simply default to the PC position since that is the one that is socially sanctioned by society.
Truth is that both camps are pretty much nuts and neither one is an adequate way to talk about race. Ideally, the perfect camp would be in between the two. That is what I tried to do with Liberal Race Realism.
However, LRR failed. My posts about race in general get taken over by nasty, ugly Supremacists of differing breeds, and the comments section degenerated into ugly race wars, mostly about whose race is superior and whose race is inferior.
It appears the PC crowd may be right. People simply are not mature enough to talk about race without degenerating into horrible Supremacists of this type or that. So the PC crowd has decided to pretty much just ban the whole subject, which might be a good idea, as folks simply can’t seem to handle it.

About the "Racism" Stuff on the "About" Page

From the smallpox article here.
They are also ripping me apart for this stuff. Bottom line is that none of those are real racism. That’s why I wrote that.

I admit I am what is called a “liberal racist.” I am also a “White man’s burden” racist, which is pretty much the same thing. I am also a “scientific racist,” but I just call that telling the truth. In addition, I am a “colorblind racist.” I’m comfortable with these political errors of thought.

Liberal racist is some BS made-up term. Basically a liberal racist pities minorities, especially Blacks. They are condescending. “Oh the poor Blacks! They are so screwed up! We need to help them!” So I am guilty of that, ok.
White man’s burden is pretty similar. “It is the duty of us Whites to uplift the poor, suffering Blacks and Browns. Supposedly what is implied is that we are superior and they are inferior, but really what is implied is we have our act together and they don’t. And in general, their civilizations are inferior, yeah. But have no fear, darkies! The White man is here to help! As you can see, that’s not really racism either. It’s just normal.
Scientific racist is anyone who says that there are differences between the races and they we should attempt to measure those differences scientifically, as in with IQ tests, and then discuss them. That’s all it is. Most scientific racists go far beyond that, but still the raw definition is not so bad. If you think the races’ differences are more than skin deep, guess what? You’re a scientific racist!
Colorblind racist is some other nonsense the PC people made up. Supposedly, colorblind racists say, “I don’t see color,” but then they act differently. It’s mild stuff. I guess I am one of these. Hey, why not be one, right?

We're Number One

Via Stormfront:

A fascinating thread. Lots of good information. One problem I’ve come across when searching the web for more research on this subject is that there more liberal leftist centered sites than not. A Google search for racial differences almost always brings up stuff from this site:
Robert Lindsay | If I’m Not Making You Mad, I’m Not Doing My Job
It is apparently quite popular as it comes up near the top of all searches on this subject. Has anyone here looked over his writings? The guy seems to be a first class flake.

Amazing, I had no idea that when you did a Google search on racial differences, my site typically comes up near the top no matter what sort of differences you are looking for.
I suppose that’s nice though, as I am trying to look at this from a nonracist perspective while at the same time not going over into the racial nihilism of nonproductive race denier theory that simply says that the question itself does not even make sense.
I think most sane people realize that the question does make sense. Even if they get brainwashed into race denial, they still wonder if it’s true.
I myself got brainwashed into race denial of a sort myself for a long time, but it never quite sat right with me. If you’re a race denier, all you have to do is go outside in any multiracial area and look around a bit or partake of world news with any kind of an open mind and after a while you start wondering about the truth of race denial. Race denial theory seems to almost refute itself upon simple examination of the evidence. The races just seem to be so different. It’s all down to culture? Get real.
I am glad I am near the top though. Better me than a bunch of Nazis feeding people poison, or less bad but just well-intentioned silliness, race deniers feeding people’s heads full of vacuum-sealed nothingness that only puts off the question for a later day.
This is what I always hoped to do with Liberal Race Realism. Just advance the debate a bit towards sanity, while trying to avoid overt racist toxin as much as possible.
I would also like to thank Stormfronters from the bottom of my heart for calling me a flake. There are no finer enemies than Stormfronters, thank you very much guys.

Are Blacks Closer to Apes Than Other Humans?

Justin writes:

Since Khosians lie at the root of modern humanity, are they more closely related to apes than the races that followed? I’m serious. Africans have features like flatter faces and noses, flared nostrils, big lips, etc which make them look more like more like Mighty Joe Young than Paddy the Irishman.
You can pick any black out of a crowd in America, strip ‘em of his clothes and place him in a jungle and he’d look right at home. Just give him a spear and wish him good luck.

Whether or not Khoisans are closer to apes than other races of humanity is not known.
Whether or not Blacks are closer to apes than other races of humanity is very controversial. There is a book out called Erectus Among Us by a virulent racist named Richard Fuerle that makes the case for this. His argument is that Blacks are actually a separate species, a vestigial Homo Erectus. As far as his Homo Erectus argument, the general agreement is that Blacks are Homo Sapiens sapiens, just like all the rest of us. Fuerle’s argument that Blacks are Homo Erectus is completely specious.
I am uncertain of the evidence he presents that Blacks are more ape-like (he does present a lot of evidence for this case), as the studies he references are mostly very old, from the early racist era of US history. It’s not an issue that is likely to be looked into soon in this era of political correctness.
If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

Black – White IQ Gap in the US

Here.
From Chuck’s excellent Occidentalist site which lately has been dealing a lot with the issue of race realism and IQ. He spends an incredible amount of time and research dealing with these questions and he’s smart as all get out. I dare say he might even be smarter than I am. At any rate, I have a hard time keeping up with him.
He had several extremely long articles about the Black-White IQ gap in the US. Since he generally takes an anti-HBD stance when it comes to race and IQ, I figured that was his take on this issue too.
But you see in the above post that he thinks the B-W Q gap in the US is probably more a result of genetics than anything else. That was a pretty amazing admission for an anti-HBD IQ guy. I have been studying the B-W IQ gap for at least 30 years now. I started in the 1970’s and never quit. Lately I don’t read much about it because I pretty much made up my mind a long time ago. I still hold out hope that it might be amenable to a closing of the gap, but I get less and less certain over time.
If you spend as much time researching the gap as I have, after a while, the conclusion that it must be generally keeps on punching you in the face. It knocks you down over and over. People who study it that much and still say it’s environmental have pretty much been KO’d 1000’s of times and are standing up once again to fight George Foreman and lose.
I don’t talk about much on here, and officially, my line is only that at the moment in the US, Whites are more intelligent than Blacks by about 13.2 points.
Through a lot of fancy messing around with statistics and some journalistic license, I was able to shave a couple of points off the standard 1 SD gap, but I realize that’s not particularly scientific, only that one can make the case by choosing certain tests. Chuck agrees with me that adult Blacks have shaved ~1.5 points off the gap, we both agree that Black kids have shaved ~5-6 points off the gap.
I would argue that IQ tests are a valid measure of intelligence, and that at the moment, Whites are smarter than Blacks on average. Officially, I am not saying what is causing the gap, but we ought to be discussing the fact that it’s real. Whites are smarter. Blacks are not as smart or dumber or however you put it. That’s the important question, and the one society ought to be talking about.
Instead, once you say that, you get an instant derail into whether the gap is genetic or environmental. Frankly, I could care less, and I am not even sure if it’s an important question! We need to stop those derails on move back to the question that one privileged group is much smarter than a group that has a ton of problems. I am afraid that a lot of the problems of Blacks, though not all of them, flow directly from that IQ gap itself.
People (racists) say we need to quit spending so much money trying to close the IQ gap, but society doesn’t spend a dime on this endeavor. Nor do we spend a dime on trying to close the testing gap which mysteriously mirrors the IQ gap. Educators try their best to educate both Whites and Blacks, and there’s not one single penny spent on trying to close any gaps, nor should there by. Educational resources instead should be distributed equitably.
Racists also say that the gap means that Blacks cannot be educated. This is not true. Any person above 70 IQ can be educated, and even the retarded can be educated to some extent. A person with an 85 IQ can and should be educated to the maximum of their potential, and this is what we can or should do. Saying that an 85 IQ human being cannot be taught a single thing in life is the most utter nonsense.
One thing that unfortunately flows from this fact is that once folks figure there’s an IQ gap set in stone, they typically decide that Whites therefore must separate from Blacks. But this makes no sense.
50% of the White population has IQ’s below 100 and so does 84% of the Black population. 16% of the White population has IQ’s below 85, and no White people talk about separating from them and forming some over 85 IQ White state.
In White society, people of all IQ’s live happily together, and there’s no reason to think that races with differential IQ’s cannot also live happily together.
Please feel free to discuss…

Jewamongyou Reviews “The Emperor’s New Clothes”

Here.

An excellent book review (warning: long at 44 pages) of a book, The Emperor’s New Clothes, written by Joseph Graves, a black scientist (geneticist) who works with fruit flies. It was published a while back in 2001, but it’s still relevant. Graves claims to totally destroy the arguments of race realists, but JAY shows that he does no such thing.

It’s a good review, honest, forthright, respectful, decent and gentlemanly. JAY concedes points to Graves where he deserves points. Just goes to show once again that the race realists are some of the more honest conservatives out there.

Let’s get real though: a lot of these race realists have an agenda (I will not comment on whether or not JAY has an agenda). It isn’t just, “Let’s get at the truth here.” Most HBD types have deep and abiding hatred or dislike to non-Whites, in particular Blacks. I’m not sure to what extent they dislike Hispanics too. I’ve long noticed that the vast majority of the racism coming from US Whites is towards Blacks. It overrides all of the others by a long shot. The agenda of HBD types, honestly, is “stick it to the niggers.”

This can be shown in the fact that the vast majority of HBD types are Libertarians. NAM’s will crash and burn in the worst way in a Libertarian society. A lot of Whites will too, but HBD Whites think that they will climb to the top of crab barrel.

The worse HBD types, the White nationalists, have another project going on. They are actually trying to revive White racism as a respectable ideology among White society. In this, they are shoveling sand against the tide.

White racism has been declining in intensity probably every year since the 1960’s. It’s going to keep on going that way, Tea Partiers be damned. You can’t stop the forces of history. Time moves forwards, not backwards. Attempts to turn back clocks to the “bad old days” typically fail, because they go against human cultural evolution, which moves in a progressive direction along with human genetic evolution. We aren’t going back to pre-Civil Rights Days.

These are guys are in a race against time.

Deconstructing Leftism Reviews One of My Posts

Here.

Although I want to dislike this guy just for the name of his blog, this piece of his is very fair and honest. I can’t find much in the way of untruths in the piece. He is decent, fair minded and gentlemanly.

There is something strange about race realists. The better of them are among the only honest conservatives out there. One thing is that they have the left the Republican Party, so they are thinking for themselves instead of repeating Republican Party politically motivated lying bullshit.

Another thing is that much race realism, properly formulated anyway, just seems to be the truth. I remember a while back when Hunter Wallace wrote a piece on Liberal Race Realism. His commenters could not figure me out and they did not get why I was so controversial. They found out that it was mostly due to the race realism and after a bit of “What’s that?” they were even more puzzled. The WN’s stated that race realism was not controversial in any way, shape or form, and that “race realism is just the truth,” as one puzzled fellow put it.

That’s why it’s so infuriating to many people. It’s true, so it’s hard to argue with it honestly. And for us liberals and Leftists, not to mention for many NAM’s, the consequences of race realism are potentially devastating.

Nevertheless, HBD types frequently overstate the case against liberals. We don’t necessarily believe that “all people are equal.” We may be liberal, but we are not stupid. Obviously all people do not have equal gifts and detractions. That’s true even within races.

Now if you get into whether or not races are equal or not, the statistics show that on average they are not. So the debate is over. The races are not equal. Period.

All that is left to discuss is whether it is due to environment or genetics or both. At some point, it doesn’t even matter. Black crime is a catastrophe, and getting down to brass tacks, who cares if it’s caused by environment or genetics? The victims don’t care, the cops don’t care, the criminals don’t care. It’s a big problem, that’s all there is to it, it has to be dealt with, and it’s not very important what causes it.

Theories of causation in social science at some point are just intellectual onanism. It’s irrelevant on the ground where it really matters.

Jared Taylor, “White Identity: What It Is and Why It Is Necessary”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oVv3aF5Q84&feature=player_embedded#!]

I helped edit the book that he holds up at the beginning of the video.

One of the reasons that Taylor is so hard to argue with is that he is so honest. Most of what he says is straight up true in one way or another. For a liberal, the facts of race are cold, hard and brutal, a devastating slap to the face. There’s no need to exaggerate them by lying. The facts are bad enough as it is.

If and when Taylor starts lying like most pundits, politicians and public figures, his argument will deteriorate. The more he lies about race, the more his enemies will be able to tear him apart. By being largely comparatively truthful for a pundit and political figure, he remains a gentleman and actually dramatically increases the power of his arguments. Why? Because it’s hard to argue with facts.

Your comments are welcome.

On HBD: The Difference Between Me and Steve Sailer

The difference between Sailer and me is that Sailer is a conservative Republican. There’s nothing for Blacks in conservative Republicanism. You can even see it as a Black-hostile politics, though this is often masked. Since the election of Obama though, it is increasingly out in the open.

For a long time I defended Sailer on the charge of racism, because I honestly did not think he was racist. Since the election of Obama, he has frankly gone over the line. Someone like me does not toss around the charge of racism lightly. I think long and hard before I call someone that. But in the last couple of years, yes, I must call Steve Sailer a racist.

He wrote a recent book about Obama that was frankly racist in a multitude of ways. One of the main premises of the book seemed to be that Obama hates Whites and has for most of his life. That’s ridiculous.

Recently he has been harping on the “NAM Recession.” In other words, the recession was caused by niggers and beaners buying houses they could not afford because the government forced kind, loving, sweet, adorable banksters to loan to the worthless NAM’s in order that they not be racist.

The NAM’s were not qualified to buy the homes, but the evil affirmative action, nigger loving, White-hating government forced the tender-hearted banksters to loan the money. Also, the NAM’s were too stupid to figure out the crappy terms of the fraudulent loans so they got deservedly fleeced. In addition, the NAM’s were so financially irresponsible that they went bankrupt because they can’t sensibly manage their money.

I have written a number of pieces in which I explain in detain why this is a pack of stinking lies. There’s no truth to any of it, seriously. It’s a noxious racist charge, and even the Republican Party and the corporate rightwing media like the Wall Street Journal are starting to peddle it lately.

The definition of racism to me is not complaining about this or that group or saying they have some problems or pathologies. Statistics will tell you that plain and simple. Racism is simply more along the lines of is this person hostile to this group or not. Sailer is hostile to Blacks, as are 98% of HBD’ers.

So that’s the difference between Sailer and me. I’m not particularly hostile to Blacks. In fact, I go out of my way to try not to be, though there are always forces pushing me in that direction (Black behavior). Understand that I come from a base of liberalism and Leftism, and we folks are simply not comfortable with racism per se (hostility towards this or that group). We spend most of our Lefty liberal lives trying to avoid this way of thinking. And when we do get into that way of thinking, it makes us very uncomfortable.

Sure, 98% of HBD’ers are racists. Of course they are. That’s why I don’t write about it much. It pisses off the good people on the site and stirs up anti-NAM hostility amongst the already inclined.

I’m not particularly interested in stirring up anti-Black racism.

There’s already way too much of it as it is, it doesn’t do society any good, and Black folks have it rough enough as it is without me piling on and adding to the damage. I see anti-Black racism as bullying. Blacks are like the guy at school that everyone thinks it’s ok to beat up on. And I should join in this party? Don’t think so.