Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 6th, 2012 #1
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
Woodpecker Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton died on October 2, 2012,

Remembering J. Philippe


December 3, 1943–October 2, 2012

Greg Johnson

1,222 words

Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton died on October 2, 2012, of Addison’s disease. He was 68. Rushton was born in Bournemouth, England to an English father and a French mother. He studied at Birkbeck College of the University of London (B.Sc. in psychology, 1970), the London School of Economics (Ph.D. in psychology, 1973), and Oxford University (postdoc, 1974).

He moved to Canada in 1974 and taught at York University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Western Ontario, where he was tenured and spent the rest of his career. His research focused on genetic similarity theory and biological race differences. He was the author of five books, including the classic study of biological race differences, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (1995, 1997, and 2000), and more than 200 scientific papers.

I hope to run more extensive tributes to Rushton from people who knew him better than I did and who are better able to pass judgment on his work. In the meantime, however, I want to share my personal thoughts and recollections, limited though they may be.

I first encountered Rushton’s work in 2000, the year of my awakening. I was given a copy of the abridged version of the third edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior (available online here), which I read in one sitting. A few years before, I had read and assimilated the lessons of The Bell Curve, so Rushton’s overall thesis was not surprising, but many of his details were quite unexpected. The whole sweep of his presentation was crushingly convincing, an impression that was confirmed when I read the unabridged first edition. (My copy arrived on March 3, 2001, the day I met Wilmot Robertson.)

I was also impressed by the pedagogical brilliance of Rushton’s presentation of his argument in the abridged edition, as well as the lengths to which he was willing to go to disseminate the book through bulk purchase discounts.

Rushton was, first and foremost, a scientist. He believed that the pursuit of truth was a high moral calling. But he also believed the truths he had discovered imposed new obligations on him, namely to disseminate them as widely and compellingly as possible.

The truth that Rushton discovered is that racial differences are biologically based and systematic: from the most superficial to the most fundamental, all human traits are racially differentiated. But modern white societies operate on the opposite assumption: that racial differences are socially constructed and socially mutable, thus superior white performance in the societies we have created is a function of racial injustices to non-whites that must be redressed through white dispossession.

Not only did Rushton see that these policies based on false premises, he also saw that they were directed at his own people. Thus as a scientist and a white man, he felt obligated to speak out: to deliver scientific truth in a politically effective manner. It is a lesson we should all take to heart, and the abridged edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an ideal model to follow.

(When we first met,*Rushton rather graciously signed my copy of the abridged Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Unfortunately, it was one of those books I constantly loaned out, and I lost it. But in karmic compensation I was given the copy that Rushton sent, with a signed reviewer’s slip, to Sam Francis, complete with Francis’ underlining and annotations.)

I first met Rushton in February of 2002 at an American Renaissance Conference. I found him even more impressive in person than in print. He was a brilliant lecturer and conversationalist. I had a number of questions about Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Since he was eager to welcome another Ph.D. into “this thing of ours,” he was very generous with his time.

I remember a conversation about immigration quite vividly.

First, I asked him his opinion of Francis Parker Yockey’s somewhat apodictic claim in Imperium that a political system will find ways to generate the population that it needs, thus if a society does not encourage immigration from without it will find ways to encourage the existing population to reproduce itself. The population gains due to immigration may, moreover, be partially illusory, since the disruption and competition caused by immigrants suppresses the reproduction of the native population.

As I recall, Rushton thought this was interesting and could be formulated as a testable scientific hypothesis.

Second, I offered the argument that perhaps America would have been better off if it had not allowed in progressively more heterogeneous European and non-European immigrant groups to settle the continent, for immigration depressed wages and created social disruptions that made it more difficult for the original founding stock to reproduce itself. If immigration had not been allowed, the continent would have been peopled more slowly, surely, but the resulting society would have been more homogeneous and more egalitarian, since labor would have been scarcer and thus workers would have had greater bargaining power against capital.

Rushton thought this argument made sense, but he believed that my concerns were ultimately trumped by higher concerns of Darwinian Realpolitik: the United States was not the only contender for control of the North American continent. Mexico was also a contender, and he thought it was better for the white race as a whole that the United States rather than Mexico populated the West, regardless of the costs in ethnic homogeneity or social justice, which were real but less pressing issues that could be sorted out later.

Third, I asked Rushton if he thought the that the rising tide of non-white immigration into white countries could be explained as the result of businesspeople looking for cheap labor and welfare statists looking for needy constituencies, without any consideration of the common good or long-term demographic consequences. Thus white dispossession is merely a ghastly mistake, the unintended consequence of selfish and short-sighted policies.

Rushton thought this was an inadequate explanation and stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination*of the white race.

Good old Phil. What I admired most about him was his manner of stating the most radical claims in a calm and unapologetic way. His manner conveyed both moral certitude and openness to reason.

He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. (I had already been there, of course, but I wanted to see if that’s where Rushton would go.)

Intellectual excellence is seldom combined with good character or social graces.*Most academics are in large part wimps, dorks, and slobs. Phil Rushton was a brilliant and hard-working scientist, but he was also a well-rounded and virtuous man: cultured, socially polished,*masculine, self-assured, and enormously courageous.

Because of his scientific and political convictions, Rushton endured decades of social ostracism, professional discrimination, grotesque smears, mentally unhinged stalkers, attempts to have him fired from his job, and even physical assaults at the hands of Canada’s egalitarian peace- and love-mongers.

I met Rushton four or five more times in subsequent years, and although to him I should have been a nobody, he always remembered my name and greeted me warmly. His professional trials and more recent health problems would have embittered most men, but not Phil. All I saw was magnanimity and good humor and undimmed intellectual curiosity.

A truly great man has died.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...on/#more-32157
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media

Last edited by James Hawthorne; October 6th, 2012 at 04:52 PM.
 
Old October 6th, 2012 #2
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

I, for one, will mourn his passing. He was a great and truthful man in a world that despises truth.
 
Old October 6th, 2012 #3
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default R.I.W. (Rest in Whitopia)

 
Old October 6th, 2012 #4
bcroger2
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Hawthorne View Post
Remembering J. Philippe

The Heritability of World IQ Differences by Philippe Rushton part 1 - YouTube

December 3, 1943–October 2, 2012

Greg Johnson

1,222 words

Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton died on October 2, 2012, of Addison’s disease. He was 68. Rushton was born in Bournemouth, England to an English father and a French mother. He studied at Birkbeck College of the University of London (B.Sc. in psychology, 1970), the London School of Economics (Ph.D. in psychology, 1973), and Oxford University (postdoc, 1974).

He moved to Canada in 1974 and taught at York University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Western Ontario, where he was tenured and spent the rest of his career. His research focused on genetic similarity theory and biological race differences. He was the author of five books, including the classic study of biological race differences, Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective (1995, 1997, and 2000), and more than 200 scientific papers.

I hope to run more extensive tributes to Rushton from people who knew him better than I did and who are better able to pass judgment on his work. In the meantime, however, I want to share my personal thoughts and recollections, limited though they may be.

I first encountered Rushton’s work in 2000, the year of my awakening. I was given a copy of the abridged version of the third edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior (available online here), which I read in one sitting. A few years before, I had read and assimilated the lessons of The Bell Curve, so Rushton’s overall thesis was not surprising, but many of his details were quite unexpected. The whole sweep of his presentation was crushingly convincing, an impression that was confirmed when I read the unabridged first edition. (My copy arrived on March 3, 2001, the day I met Wilmot Robertson.)

I was also impressed by the pedagogical brilliance of Rushton’s presentation of his argument in the abridged edition, as well as the lengths to which he was willing to go to disseminate the book through bulk purchase discounts.

Rushton was, first and foremost, a scientist. He believed that the pursuit of truth was a high moral calling. But he also believed the truths he had discovered imposed new obligations on him, namely to disseminate them as widely and compellingly as possible.

The truth that Rushton discovered is that racial differences are biologically based and systematic: from the most superficial to the most fundamental, all human traits are racially differentiated. But modern white societies operate on the opposite assumption: that racial differences are socially constructed and socially mutable, thus superior white performance in the societies we have created is a function of racial injustices to non-whites that must be redressed through white dispossession.

Not only did Rushton see that these policies based on false premises, he also saw that they were directed at his own people. Thus as a scientist and a white man, he felt obligated to speak out: to deliver scientific truth in a politically effective manner. It is a lesson we should all take to heart, and the abridged edition of Race, Evolution, and Behavior is an ideal model to follow.

(When we first met,*Rushton rather graciously signed my copy of the abridged Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Unfortunately, it was one of those books I constantly loaned out, and I lost it. But in karmic compensation I was given the copy that Rushton sent, with a signed reviewer’s slip, to Sam Francis, complete with Francis’ underlining and annotations.)

I first met Rushton in February of 2002 at an American Renaissance Conference. I found him even more impressive in person than in print. He was a brilliant lecturer and conversationalist. I had a number of questions about Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Since he was eager to welcome another Ph.D. into “this thing of ours,” he was very generous with his time.

I remember a conversation about immigration quite vividly.

First, I asked him his opinion of Francis Parker Yockey’s somewhat apodictic claim in Imperium that a political system will find ways to generate the population that it needs, thus if a society does not encourage immigration from without it will find ways to encourage the existing population to reproduce itself. The population gains due to immigration may, moreover, be partially illusory, since the disruption and competition caused by immigrants suppresses the reproduction of the native population.

As I recall, Rushton thought this was interesting and could be formulated as a testable scientific hypothesis.

Second, I offered the argument that perhaps America would have been better off if it had not allowed in progressively more heterogeneous European and non-European immigrant groups to settle the continent, for immigration depressed wages and created social disruptions that made it more difficult for the original founding stock to reproduce itself. If immigration had not been allowed, the continent would have been peopled more slowly, surely, but the resulting society would have been more homogeneous and more egalitarian, since labor would have been scarcer and thus workers would have had greater bargaining power against capital.

Rushton thought this argument made sense, but he believed that my concerns were ultimately trumped by higher concerns of Darwinian Realpolitik: the United States was not the only contender for control of the North American continent. Mexico was also a contender, and he thought it was better for the white race as a whole that the United States rather than Mexico populated the West, regardless of the costs in ethnic homogeneity or social justice, which were real but less pressing issues that could be sorted out later.

Third, I asked Rushton if he thought the that the rising tide of non-white immigration into white countries could be explained as the result of businesspeople looking for cheap labor and welfare statists looking for needy constituencies, without any consideration of the common good or long-term demographic consequences. Thus white dispossession is merely a ghastly mistake, the unintended consequence of selfish and short-sighted policies.

Rushton thought this was an inadequate explanation and stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination*of the white race.

Good old Phil. What I admired most about him was his manner of stating the most radical claims in a calm and unapologetic way. His manner conveyed both moral certitude and openness to reason.

He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. (I had already been there, of course, but I wanted to see if that’s where Rushton would go.)

Intellectual excellence is seldom combined with good character or social graces.*Most academics are in large part wimps, dorks, and slobs. Phil Rushton was a brilliant and hard-working scientist, but he was also a well-rounded and virtuous man: cultured, socially polished,*masculine, self-assured, and enormously courageous.

Because of his scientific and political convictions, Rushton endured decades of social ostracism, professional discrimination, grotesque smears, mentally unhinged stalkers, attempts to have him fired from his job, and even physical assaults at the hands of Canada’s egalitarian peace- and love-mongers.

I met Rushton four or five more times in subsequent years, and although to him I should have been a nobody, he always remembered my name and greeted me warmly. His professional trials and more recent health problems would have embittered most men, but not Phil. All I saw was magnanimity and good humor and undimmed intellectual curiosity.

A truly great man has died.

http://www.counter-currents.com/2012...on/#more-32157
All true
 
Old October 7th, 2012 #5
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 7,093
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley View Post
I, for one, will mourn his passing. He was a great and truthful man in a world that despises truth.
Comments in this http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/04/ru...-died-with-him article would indicate that many, perhaps even most people are open to truth. Another local article here http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/04/co...e-rushton-dead. Apparently there were 27 comments before they closed them down. I wonder how 'dangerous' the content of the commentary was before the censors at our local London unFree Press decided to take them down so that readers couldn't be exposed to them.

__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #6
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 7,093
Default

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/06/lead...ies_in_canada/
http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca...died.html#more
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #7
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 7,093
Default

Even before I became a racialist I thought David Suzuki was obnoxious. He's not only an obnoxious loudmouth but also quite stupid. If it was true that there are greater genetic variations within one race than between the mean genetic variations between different races then African Negroes would be able to make blond blue-eyed babies from time to time, but it never happened. For someone who claims race/genetics is irrelevant he sure seems to bitch and moan a lot about racism. Obviously he's not one of the smarter Asians Rushton was talking about. My favourite quote of his at about 1:07:45 "You cannot make that statement because you can't control for the environmental effects of racism." That's rich. So was it racism that prevented Africans from utilizing the wheel before Whites showed them how? Also good for a laugh was that highly 'edumacated' Negro (who had trouble figuring out the microphone) at about 1:09:09 claiming that Rushton is crazy. After listening to his only semi coherent crap I bet many in the audience started to give more credence to Dr. Rushton's work.

I just googled "David Suzuki "environmental effects of racism"". I wanted to see whether that world renowned geneticist (Has he even done ANY AT ALL cutting edge genetic research lately or even in the last 10 years???) even defined that bullshit term of his. So far there is one and only one result - MY VERY OWN VNN FORUM POST http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=1447209.

https://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=...w=1920&bih=898
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #8
Robin King
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 420
Default

Of course there will be greater variation between individuals within a race than there will be differences in means between races for many characteristics. Take criminality for example. There will be variation from raping traits (arbitrarily given a value of 10) to no raping traits (0) shown within any race (all races have rapists but not all people within that population commit rape). So within that race, the variation is 10 (the difference between 10 and 0). Let's say 1% of a population are rapists and those people had a score of 10 each. Then the mean score of that population would be 0.1.

Take another race with exactly the same number of people within it. This race will also have rapists and people who do not rape just like the other race. There are ten times the number of rapists in this population however—that is, 10% of the population are rapists (compared to 1% in the other population). The average score for this race is therefore 1.

The difference in mean between the two populations is therefore only 0.9 despite the fact that the second population has 1000% the number of rapists as the first population (the total population is the same in the two populations). The intra-race difference in both populations is 10. So there is greater variation within each race with respect to raping tendencies (10) than variation between the two races (0.9). The Suzukis will be claiming the difference between the two races (1000% the number of rapists in one population compared to the other) is insignificant because both populations have rapists as well as non-rapist types!

Now calculate the means between populations and the variations within populations for thousands of other behavioral characteristics. You will find that in the human species, groups classified according to "race" will show significant differences between the means in almost all of those characteristics. And patterns in those differences in means for behavioral traits can be determined with reasonable accuracy because these populations show predictable trends; for example, blacks will show patterns of behavior that show higher criminality, poorer parenting and less ability to delay gratification.

It is the collection of the thousands, if not the millions, of phenotypes (phenotypes that are primarily determined by genes) that differ in their mean value between two races that makes them distinct from each other.

A group of people of one race in one environment will show similar means in many characteristics as a group of people of the same race in a different environment. That is what twins studies in genetic/behavioral research have shown. So the fact that Rushton's studies have predictive value indicates that his results and conclusions are valid.

1. Differences in mean values between races exist and these differences are significant
2. These differences show certain patterns that are consistent (eg direction toward high "r" values and direction toward low "r" values)
3. The differences have predictive value.
4. The differences are consistent in different environments (twins studies)

And like humans, members of different species can mate so the fact that members of different races can mate with one another is irrelevant. The classification of their offspring is not any mystery either—they will be mixed, the same as the classification of the product of mating of two species, eg. liger, mule. The existence of ligers and mules does not mean that the lion and tiger are the same species or that the horse and donkey share the exact same taxonomy either.

The argument promoted by Suzuki and others is a very tricky one. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that this argument is sound. But closer examination reveals that all they are saying is that the distributions of the populations being studied for a certain trait fall under a bell-shaped curve, with some people at one end of the curve, and some people down at the other end of the curve, and that the distance between the two extreme points is wide relative to the distance between the means of the curves. That is no different to what Rushton, Lynn and others are saying. They too say the distributions of the populations are a bell-shaped curve, with overlapping of the curves. But their point is that the means of the curves are different and the bell shapes do not exactly overlap each other, and that there is a pattern to the differences, all of which indicate the existence of evolutionary differences among racial groups.

Having said that, the increased mating between races, which is being promoted in zog societies today, means that the races that are currently in existence are steadily losing their distinctiveness.
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #9
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 7,093
Default

Being a rapist is an outward behavioral characteristic very likely influenced by genetics as we here know. But take a (non behavioral) genetic variation like red hair and green eyes. How many green-eyed redheads were full fledged African Negroes able to produce, ever? Likely ZERO. Saying like douche-bag David Suzuki that there are greater genetic variations within one race than between the mean genetic variations between different races is like saying that there may exist some Negro somewhere that is more similar to me genetically than my brother, which of course is pure bullshit. When they're searching for organ donors it is always more likely that they'll find a match from a close genetic relative.
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #10
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasz Winnicki View Post
Being a rapist is an outward behavioral characteristic very likely influenced by genetics as we here know. But take a (non behavioral) genetic variation like red hair and green eyes. How many green-eyed redheads were full fledged African Negroes able to produce, ever? Likely ZERO. Saying like douche-bag David Suzuki that there are greater genetic variations within one race than between the mean genetic variations between different races is like saying that there may exist some Negro somewhere that is more similar to me genetically than my brother, which of course is pure bullshit. When they're searching for organ donors it is always more likely that they'll find a match from a close genetic relative.
This type of argument is frequently posed to diminish the notion of race as a biological construction. Of course, there is typically wide genetic variation amongst individuals in categories as broad as race. Whether the distance between those groups (and they like to call them "population groups" these days) is adequate to distinguish them as separate sub-species, or even species, is the question. As substantial is the variation within races, the distance between them is sufficient, more than sufficient in the case of the negro, to consider them different sub-species.

Anything to obfuscate this understanding has become the calling of many liberal scientists who have fallen under the yoke of popular (environmental-leaning) science authors such as Stephen Jay Gould, who had a clear political agenda. Should the public come to understand race as genetic heritage, and that heritage as largely determining important characteristics, such as native intelligence, then the entire arena of public policy making could be redefined. Certainly, Murray and Hernstein had mad this argument and were quickly reviled by their libtarded colleagues.

A rather comical exercise along these lines was the National Geographic Genomics Project and its associated documentary. Utilizing the "population groups" terminology, they examined the genetic heritage of (initially) thousands of participants world wide. What did they end up with? You guessed it - "population groups" that were identical to the already defined three races. NG of course tried to play up the African group as something special, something original. And, of course, they managed to find a nigger to throw into the Caucasian group; spent a lot of time highlighting that case. At the end, they have all the Caucasians and Asians join the niggers in a smarmy "back to Africa" hug-a-thon. We all beez one big human fambly, an' sheet. Gotta make the jigs feel good about themselves, no matter the results.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #11
Rick Ronsavelle
Senior Member
 
Rick Ronsavelle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,006
Default

This is the Lewontin Fallacy:




This chart is the basic method for squashing the jew lewontin.

A sticky thread on the lewontin, his influence and lies, would be nice.
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #12
R. Pearson
The Jew Hunter
 
R. Pearson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Apelanta
Posts: 638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Ronsavelle View Post
This is the Lewontin Fallacy:

The Concept of Race - YouTube



This chart is the basic method for squashing the jew lewontin.

A sticky thread on the lewontin, his influence and lies, would be nice.
He was a very good friend of the (late) Stephen Jay Gould.

I actually met Dr. Lewontin back in the early nineties. He's the nicest guy, very well spoken and open to criticism. But, he will never change his mind on the subject. He says he's a biologist (which he is), but rejects strict biological constructions of race, saying, essentially, that there has already been so much mixing that the notion of race is defunct. He will then in the same breathe say that the notion of race is merely a social construct; so why would mixing have made any difference?

The immediate question is that if race is socially constructed, or that mixing has been so extensive, then why do biologists find consistent genetic markers defining three distinct races and also find it so easy to demonstrate the genetic distances between each "population group"? Why are they able to determine, genetically, the race of the deceased, based on DNA samples alone, with about 99% precision?

His mathematics are flawless (as far as fruit fly experiments go), but his assumptions concerning racial definitions are simply not credible. In fact, he more or less rejects them and proceeds from a position of ignorance (they must all be the same, because no one knows what these categories really mean). He is wrong in this assumption - dismissing decades of research - but correct that there are no single genes that differentiate the races. He is a master of mixing scientific truth and opinion, much like his good buddy, Gould.
__________________
Only Whites, Worldwide
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #13
AlexanderHaynes
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 106
Default

Lewontin, like the so-called "sociobiologists" (people who hold politically incorrect views on heredity, but refuse to talk of race), simply likes to play on the words. He's a semantist wanker.

It is undediably true that from a darwinist and historical POV, there is no pure race defined by clear borders and which must be preserved from miscegenation with foreigners at all costs. Races are also constantly evolving, consider simply the problem of dysgenics: debasement of the race that does not include miscegenation with Negroes.

Our little fellow jumps to the conclusion that, because the racial issue is complex, and because there can be more differences between two members of the same race than two members of opposite races, there is no race.

He is missing the point, which is that race is a logical concept expressing a statistical reality.
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #14
James Hawthorne
Senior Member
 
James Hawthorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,038
Blog Entries: 89
Default

Quote:
He says he's a biologist (which he is), but rejects strict biological constructions of race, saying, essentially, that there has already been so much mixing that the notion of race is defunct. He will then in the same breathe say that the notion of race is merely a social construct; so why would mixing have made any difference?
Typical bioziologist speaking out both sides of his mouth.
__________________
Aryan Matters

VNN Media
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #15
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Thus as a scientist and a white man, he felt obligated to speak out: to deliver scientific truth in a politically effective manner.

Where's the evidence he was politically effective or understood such? The fact he would appear with an anti-White clown like Jared Barnum Taylor speaks against it.

The facts about race hardly require scientific grounding as mere observation confirms the ones that matter politically. Anyone can see niggers aren't stained white men, and being around them in any numbers for even a short time is enough to tell you that they are incompatible with white civilization.

Here's the truth about politics, and it's something that neither the scientist nor Brown Johnson understands. I happened across it last night as I opened "Three Who Made a Revolution," a jew's study of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky:

Society can never think things out:
It has to see them acted out by actors,
Devoted actors at a sacrifice --
The ablest actors I can lay my hands on."

--God to Job, in Robert Frost's "The Masque of Reason"


Using facts and reasons never has or will work on the masses, but guys like Johnson will never figure that out, even as they yap yards about political effectiveness and the power of myth. One real political leader willing to use the term nigger publicly is worth all the racial science ever produced if the measure be political effect.

Why is Golden Dawn succeeding? Because they put their lives and bodies behind their words.

Last edited by Alex Linder; October 8th, 2012 at 04:43 PM.
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #16
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 7,093
Default

Funeral services for professor John Philippe Rushton.
http://communications.uwo.ca/western...professor.html
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #17
AlexanderHaynes
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Thus as a scientist and a white man, he felt obligated to speak out: to deliver scientific truth in a politically effective manner.

Where's the evidence he was politically effective or understood such? The fact he would appear with an anti-White clown like Jared Barnum Taylor speaks against it.

The facts about race hardly require scientific grounding as mere observation confirms the ones that matter politically. Anyone can see niggers aren't stained white men, and being around them in any numbers for even a short time is enough to tell you that they are incompatible with white civilization.

Here's the truth about politics, and it's something that neither the scientist nor Brown Johnson understands. I happened across it last night as I opened "Three Who Made a Revolution," a jew's study of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky:

Society can never think things out:
It has to see them acted out by actors,
Devoted actors at a sacrifice --
The ablest actors I can lay my hands on."

--God to Job, in Robert Frost's "The Masque of Reason"


Using facts and reasons never has or will work on the masses, but guys like Johnson will never figure that out, even as they yap yards about political effectiveness and the power of myth. One real political leader willing to use the term nigger publicly is worth all the racial science ever produced if the measure be political effect.

Why is Golden Dawn succeeding? Because they put their lives and bodies behind their words.
I completely agree.

It is very sad to see that Greg Johnson, despite his pretensions of anti-democracy and elitism, is actually convinced WNism will one day win through the ballots or a popular revolution.

There is only one way to get WNism in power, it’s the NSDAP/Golden Dawn way: anti-democrat politics during an economic collapse. No need to convince the masses; the only thing that’s required is the presence of leaders who act at the right moment.
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #18
The Bobster
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Filthydelphia
Posts: 10,095
Default

http://www.vdare.com/posts/jean-philippe-rushton-rip

J.P. Rushton, R.I.P.
By John Derbyshire on October 8, 2012 at 11:48am

It's been depressing to read online obituaries of Jean Philippe Rushton, other than those on race-realist websites.

Salon, which seems to have drifted further out into the bizarre say-what? left every time I look at it, actually called in the SPLC to write an obituary. I guess Richard Williams wasn't available.

Salon's headline: LEADING RACE "SCIENTIST" DIES IN CANADA.

I bet I can name a deceased writer whom Salon would call a scientist without the scoff quotes, notwithstanding that he cooked his data.

The Salon piece was picked up by radical-left biologist P.Z. Myers. Myers was fairly restrained ─ "[Rushton] wasted most of his life poisoning the discourse with evil racist nonsense" ─ but his comment thread rose to the occasion: "Oh good news" . . . "I’m all for speaking ill of the dead if it prevents other people from being like them" . . . "I also have no trouble speaking ill of the dead, or for that matter being glad that they’re dead if I think they’re bigoted enough to deserve it" . . . "Well, it is better than [sic] a racist is dead than alive. We did not even have to cause it!"

(And what is it with lefties and taboo words? The 37 comments to Myers' piece contain four. Every leftie comment thread is like that ─ indeed, so are some of the articles. They kiss their mothers with those mouths?)

Myers' pal Greg Laden got in a kick at the corpse, too.

I never met Rushton, but I read his book about 12 years ago, and it seemed like the work of a conscientious researcher. There are 29 pages of references ─ well over 700, the majority to scholarly journals.

If Rushton left one big idea behind, it was surely the Rule of Three. A large number of quantifiable physiometric, psychometric, and behavioral indices (he said) show the population mean for white Europeans falling between those for East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans.

His book is full of substantiating data, and the Rule of Three anyway agrees with common observation and with racial outcomes worldwide, past and present. I'd be surprised to find Rushton proven wrong on the Rule of Three, and to the best of my knowledge he hasn't been.

If that's correct, Rushton added something to our stock of understanding. That's what scholars are supposed to do. So the case against Rushton, point'n'sputter aside, is . . . what?

Like the rest of us, though, Rushton was not infallible. At 0m10s here he argues that the "click" languages of (mostly) southern Africa have no vowels.

That is nonsense. Indeed, East !Xoon, a click language, has the most vowel sounds of any language on earth: either 24 (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language) or 26 (Wikipedia), if you include all glottalized, pharyngealized, nasalized, and murmured variants.

It is in fact an odd thing about languages that those spoken by the most civilizationally primitive peoples often have the most complex phonologies and grammars. In the language of the Torres Straits, between Australia and Papua New Guinea, the verb has six tenses (remote future, today future, present, today past, recent past, remote past) and three aspects (perfective, imperfective, habitual), not to mention four numbers (singular, dual, specific plural, animate active plural), two voices (active and attainative), and two moods (indicative and imperative).
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #19
Fred O'Malley
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jewnited Snakes of Amnesia
Posts: 13,622
Default

The world will miss Rushton.
RIP, go easy brother.
 
Old October 8th, 2012 #20
Robin King
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 420
Default

How ridiculous. Between the liberals (including liberal scientists) with their anti-science dogmas about race, behavior including IQ, criminality, Holohoax and their misunderstanding of basic scientific principles, and the religious right with their unscientific beliefs about how the world was formed, what chance does America have? America has become an intellectual hellhole thanks to these people. How does believing in talking snakes, virgin birth, talking asses, or walking on water any different to the witch doctor/voodoo beliefs of the Africans and Haitians?

Rep. Paul Broun

Quote:
Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats.

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

Broun also said that he believes the Earth is about 9,000 years old and that it was made in six days. Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.
After you eliminate all the Christards (including the CI ones and "Jesus was a black man" ones), and you exclude all the libtards, how many normal people are left in America?

(And I haven't even counted the patriotard Alex Jones-loving paranoiacs with their belief in the "Illuminati", "Germanic Death Cults", "New World Order", modern-day race of Nazis running the government ... )
 
Reply

Tags
intelligence, race, white

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 AM.
Page generated in 0.33202 seconds.