Racism disclaimer! Are we racist for citing statistics and research?

We wish prosperity, success for Africans and Blacks world wide

We actually would be extremely happy if Africa could follow in the footsteps of Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea and become rich, highly productive and low crime citizens and states. We would love to see Blacks world wide to become leaders in scientific research, earn Nobel Prizes in natural sciences.

But we do not want ………

  1. Black success based on unjust quota, Black Privilege  job admissions, hiring and promotion of fire fighters, in affirmative action college admission, affirmative action in substandard college graduation.
  2. censorship, taboo, repression of free speech and severe punishment for speaking the truth (James Watson),
  3. repression of scientific research , free information (Rushton). 
We do propose equal opportunities. Not equal outcome.

Like Martin Luther King, we favor color blindness, not special perks, advantages, quotas determined by skin color.

We are sad that everything indicates that races are different, that equal opportunities produce very unequal outcomes for different populations and races. This is not our fault. We wish that PC’s (political correctness‘) assumptions were right and there were remedies.

A trillion dollars spent on half a century of social experiments (head start, affirmative action, forced busing, forced integration) could not attain equal outcome except through constant unending "reverse discrimination".

We want the scientific truth

We believe in scientific truth, the scientific method in natural and social sciences. We believe that dogma and taboo are not the best way to solve real life problems.

We believe that grave repression of scientific research (Rushton) and of press reporting [A Censored Race War][3] is not the right way and will not solve problems. We have to face the truth about race and iq, race and crime, and face the truth, no matter how racist the truth is. We oppose whitewashing the failure of head start and affirmative action. We certainly want to shed light on Black Privilege from Kindergarten to College to government hiring. It is a secondary issue if this is deemed good policy, our main issue is to tell the truth.

We oppose unscientific dogmas like the Catholic Church in the age of Galileo Galilei, which are now continued by Modern Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism’s dogmas. Some of these are: tabula rasa blank slate dogma, equality dogma, diversity is strength dogma, race does not exist dogma.

If the US department of justice data shows that Blacks commit more crime, then we insist on telling the racist truth. If the press has a code to hide the race of criminals (unless if they are white), we dare question such policy.

We favor Occam’s razor 

Political Correctness invents convoluted theories, like micro aggression, effects of slavery 100 years ago, when much simper explanations are more obvious.

So if consistently all over the world Blacks commit more crimes and have low intellectual performance and economic success, the most obvious, simplest, and parsimonious conclusion should be a valid hypothesis. Such hypotheses can be tested scientifically, using the scientific method. 

100 years of IQ testing at the US armed forces confirm IQ differences.  50 years of failed Head start and affirmative action could not change this, studies of twins reared apart and transracial adoption studies, all confirm race differences iq

If this is wrong or can be changed, we demand scientific proof, not crude dismissal of science as "racist".

Policy changes

We are aware that facing the truth can lead to major policy changes in issues like

  1. immigration policy
  2. affirmative action (racist privilege for Blacks, Hispanics) in hiring, college admission
  3. educational policies
  4. crime, police, and prison policies

We focus mainly on saying the truth. We have no firm opinion on policies.

We can decide to continue giving financial privileges to Blacks, support for the poor, less fortunate, less intelligent.

Political correctness = hate speech

But we must tell the truth that we are giving handouts. Then the recipients of such welfare and  "reverse discrimination" will be grateful and will not be incited to anger and violence by race bashers like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.  Political correctness causes anger.

Feminist dogma = anti-racism dogma

Total equality of the sexes (genders), myth of patriarchy, lies about domestic violence are equivalent dogmas promoted by feminism.

If statistics show that women commit domestic violence at about equal rates then men, we oppose efforts to hide this truth by stigmatizing researchers.

Author: Human-Stupidy (Admin)

Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.

10 thoughts on “Racism disclaimer! Are we racist for citing statistics and research?”

  1. The “Out of Africa” theory is about Homo sapiens itself, that is, happening less than 120K years ago. So don’t be lured by the name of the theory, which is also called “remplacement theory” or “Recent African Origin theory”. It implies that this new species replaced Homo erectus and Neanderthal, with minor admixture.

    The competing theory says that Homo sapiens does not come from Africa, but is just a group of various regional branches from Homo erectus. That is, we would be out of Africa for 1.6 millions years.

    Contrary to the Holocaust parody of religion, with pretends to have a universal message and applies penalties to the unbelievers, both opposing sides try to get support from science. In this case, paleontology and genetics.

  2. Thanks for having the intellectual courage to go where the truth leads you. I’d be interested in hearing your opinions on two other controversial issues – the competing theories to Out-of-Africa and the Holocaust.

    I was called a racist on The Guardian’s website for mentioning a competing theory to OoA – which came as a surprise to me, although I suppose it shouldn’t have.

    I’d always accepted the Holocaust unquestionably as well until I started to research the issue. What I found was that there appears to be very little evidence for the idea that the Nazis were running a deliberate programme to exterminate the Jews. There seems credible evidence that many of the Holocaust deaths could have been attributed to over-work/disease. Now, it’s difficult to know what to think.

    1. I am not aware to any theories competing with out of Africa, but that is not my specialty. What difference would it make?

      Africans developed first. Other races, in other places, needed more discipline and intelligence to survive in cold winters. And to survive in European and Asian medieval cities. See Nicholas Wade’s book “a troublesome inheritance” that describes evolution in the middle ages. I should write a post about that.

      I will not get into Holocaust denial. There might be exaggeration in details, but it seems to have happened. Stupid Germans kicked out the high IQ jews that built the nuclear bomb and were the most capable scientists. But, there was lots of cruelty by others. Stalin, Mao, Dresden firestorm, etc.

      1. You are scientifically illiterate. Saying that Africans developed first would be like saying that Europeans developed first vis-a-vis the Europeans that immigrated to America. No one developed first.

        There is no evidence that colder weather enhanced intelligence. In fact Africa is/was the most inhospitable inhabited area on earth, which is why humans evolved there in the first place, while the colder north yielded ape-like Neanderthals. It required greater intelligence, planning and foresight to make it in Africa. Let me also remind you that civilization radiated from the southern latitudes. In fact people in the northern hemisphere where in caves while those in the warmer south were constructing great pyramids.

        You as a white man are the beneficiary of white privilege and generational, institutional advantage. A more level playing field would require you giving up those things before anyone else is required to give up Affirmative Action.Nothing is more harmless to society or puts more unqualified people into position than white privilege. In fact you are also a beneficiary of Affirmative Action more so than blacks, via white women, who themselves are the prime beneficiaries of Affirmative Action.

        You are called a racist because that’s what you are. You will not entertain any views in opposition to your theories. You will stick your head in the sand (like the ostrich in your avatar), whenever anyone points out the the myriad flaws, inconsistencies and comical unscienticism of your entire worldview.

        1. Nothing is more *harmful to society or puts more unqualified people into position than white privilege.

  3. I appreciate the passion of this piece even if I disagree with some of the particulars. The fact that I just finished reading this piece here: http://takimag.com/article/a_case_for_nostalgia_taki/print

    …might color my response. I recommend that article.

    Here’s what Taki hasn’t put together (and I’m a great admirer and longtime reader of his work):

    The Great Society and President Johnson along with all the policies which arose out of the early sixties were a reaction to a Baby Boom beyond all proportion. However, in the midst of a huge population of what would soon be the standard bearers of hedonism, “scientific administration” of huge populations of people was also coming of age. Our captains of industry to include the Bushes, Harrimans, Rockefellers, Carnegies, etc. had determined that they were in no need of an excess of intelligent, educated, scientific leaders but rather were in need of a huge undereducated soldier class/workforce in order to cement their own power and prevent rebellion for all eternity. To do this, they needed to make *everyone* believe that they were intelligent, educated, and scientific while homogenizing and equalizing all possible variations on this field-replaceable identical unit required to both inflate government and reduce wages–a.k.a. Fascism. They of course were also fixated on both genes and demographics to create an easily administered, hopeless, self-centered, unable-to-organize, shapeless mass, that was nevertheless heavily separated–culturally–and according to demographic metrics to include race, zip code, income, IQ, etc. Each unit which was to be processed through the system would be pushed, nudged, urged, and otherwise directed like cattle having a specific purpose to the state and industry as opposed to being entrepreneurs or otherwise in control of their own destiny. For it is only independent thinkers which truly threaten the status quo.

    It is my firm belief that if this locked-down dystopia has any chance of being eroded it will require cooperation among men of all races who, it would seem, have more in common than differences with regard to the sheer psychological damage pummeled onto them. As for women, well, while perversely we are all supposed to be the same age, “intelligence,” class, and of course “beauty,” we are more fractured and at each others’ throats than ever.

    Just my opinion.

    1. Interesting theory, interesting points. I wonder how much empirical scientific support this has.

      That of course might fit with conspiracy theories that Jews came with such large scale manipulations (I have no comments about this).

      If we populations have very different IQ, they still can collaborate and live together. I believe that the Indian caste system works like this, of course very politically incorrect nowadays. And we dumb IQ 100 Whites can work with IQ 107 East Asians and IQ 115 Jews.

      PC is based on the equality dogma. Thus low education low performing people are supposed to be disadvantaged. If it were not for discrimination against the poor, the theory goes, the street bum would be a nuclear physicist.

      I have observed that in high IQ countries like Switzerland even lowly street sweepers or store clerks are quite qualified. In low IQ countries like Brazil, most professionals are under-qualified and inefficient by European standards. Sometimes it is even worth paying a swiss maid, because she is so much more efficient, faster, and does not break things nor steal like the average Brazilian house maid. But I understand the temptation of wanting low pay for helpers and employees. Orania, the white city in South Africa does not hire any outside hands and so the residents have to do all the work themselves.

      This article actually was mainly meant as disclaimer for future posts of mine on race and not as a profound article on race IQ etc.

      1. “If we populations have very different IQ, they still can collaborate and live together. I believe that the Indian caste system works like this, of course very politically incorrect nowadays. And we dumb IQ 100 Whites can work with IQ 107 East Asians and IQ 115 Jews.”

        This is, although indirectly, a very very optimistic stance regarding human nature. And also an equalist one.

        It doesn’t into account that different groups of people are different in every psychological (and physical) respect. And some of those respects are ethnocentrism and drive to discriminate between in-group and out-group, aggression (physical, but also intellectual/psychological), drive for dominance over the others.

        It is not true at all that you can grow different plants in a little square of soil and they will all thrive. It depends on the force gap, and also tendency to dominate gap. Some different (groups of) plants will go along. In other cases one (group) will be etiolated.

        Granted… an extremely submissive group (or one made to be so) and an extremely domineering one may go along well. The slave-master pair is a tenet of social structure. However, it’s something I find much harder than you to like.
        Also considering what the effects of dominance are on the character and attitude of who dominates.
        Unbalanced power takes away balance from the mind of humans. Power is the most addictive substance that there is.

        An example?
        What has happened since 2008’s “crisis”. Bailout + the same policies as before, and a larger than ever bubble.
        Why? Because the ordinary people have been left without political-economic representation/representatives. Normal, given how dependent politics are on money. Capitalism will tend to slavery.
        But then, socialism ends in slavery all the same.

        That’s why I say: balance is the only way to relative justice.
        That could have changed were Sanders elected, but he didn’t.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.