While reading a news story about a substitute teacher’s bizarre behavior, I was reminded of my own high school experience, also involving a substitute teacher. As odd as Mr. Deutsch’s behavior, described in the above article, may have been, I like to think that my own story tops it.

It was my freshman year at Morningside High School in Inglewood, California. This school was 90% black, and a rough place to try to get an education. Staying alive was a more pressing priority. I’ve written about some of my experiences there previously.

I can’t remember which class it was, but it certainly had nothing to do with magic or paranormal phenomena. Nevertheless, our class (in which I was the only non-black) found itself with a rather peculiar substitute teacher one day. It was a young, white, new-age type woman. Maybe this woman had forgotten what our class was supposed to be about, or maybe she considered her own priorities more important.

At some point, she placed an object on a table and told us to be silent. She then instructed all of us to concentrate on the object – and, with the power of our minds, levitate it. That’s right. Our substitute teacher thought she could harness the mental power of 30 gangbangers, with their bitches and hos (and yours truly, of course), to raise an object into the air.

As I recall, I didn’t even try. The embarrassment I felt for her was almost painful – and even though I’ve always been an oddball myself, this was too much even for me.

In case you were wondering, the object remained motionless on the table.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted, and the main reason for that is all the stuff going on in my life. It’s mostly good stuff, among them, my recent acquisition of a new scooter.

My old scooter, a 150cc Schwinn, has been non-functional for a while, so I’d been shopping around for a newer one. While browsing Craigslist, I found a 250cc Kymco Grand Vista, and immediately realized it had all the features I was looking for. The problem was that its current owner lives in Madras. Madras is in central Oregon, on the other side of the Cascade mountains.

I took a buddy with me for the drive. He’d drive my car back, while I’d ride the scooter. We soon realized that we wouldn’t be able to take the same route back as we did there; the mountain pass was covered in snow and extremely treacherous. To attempt it on a two-wheeled vehicle would be suicide.

We decided to take Highway 97/197 north to The Dalles, and then Highway 84 west back to Portland. Highway 197 was mostly a straight shot, the scenery was nice – and we had the road almost completely to ourselves. We’d go for miles without seeing another soul.

I soon realized that my new Grand Vista will go as fast as I want it to go. Had I wished to accelerate to 90 MPH, it would have gladly accommodated me. The only nuisance I had to contend with was that damn wind.

If somebody ever organizes a scooter-racing event around here, I might consider participating. If I do take part in races, wouldn’t that make me a “racist?”


Y’all may be shocked, but I enjoy an occasional movie just like the rest of you mortals. Sometimes I like to escape the boring mundaneness of my life and make believe I’m travelling among the stars hundreds of years in the future, or that I’m reliving history in an era we like to imagine was more exciting than our own.

To fulfill these entertainment “needs,” I tap into the practically inexhaustible resources of Youtube, Hulu or similar sites. Generally speaking, I stick to pre-1965 shows. The reason is that I watch these shows in order to escape from reality, not to have the diversity agenda shoved into my face. I understand that each of us has our point of view, and that this includes writers and producers. That’s all fine and well, but just as I wouldn’t appreciate seeing a McDonalds or a Pepsi product strategically placed in a movie about Genghis  Khan, so too do I not appreciate having token blacks shoved in my face in Gladiator, Thor, The Hobbit and others too numerous to count. Before 1965 or so, movie producers could focus almost exclusively on the story. They weren’t bogged down by the dictates of the diversity cult.

With the exception of background characters (such as in The Hobbit), the token black’s role is carefully scripted. The producers don’t want to be too obviously Afro-centric, or they’ll pay the price at the box-office. But they must include at least one prominent black character – and he (it’s usually a man) must be portrayed in a positive light. Typically, we find him sacrificing himself to save the lives of others.

The 2003 movie Core is typical. In Core, Delroy Lindo plays Ed Brazzelton, in the end:

After some calculations, they decide that by splitting their nuclear weapons into the remaining compartments and jettisoning each at specific distances, they can create a “ripple effect“, where the power of each bomb will push against the blast of the next, generating the needed energy wave. However, because Virgil was not designed to jettison undamaged compartments, the plan requires someone to deactivate a safety switch that is in an area exposed to the extreme temperatures. Brazzelton volunteers and deactivates the switch, dying shortly afterwards.

There are exceptions to this rule. For example, in the movie Unbreakable, the villain is black, while the hero is white. It’s worth noting, however, that Unbreakable was “written, produced, and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.” Shyamalan also wrote, produced and directed The Village, which is clearly pro-white. Since Shyamalan himself is not white, but Indian, he can actually get away with producing an occasional pro-white film – though I’m fairly certain even he has taken some heat for it.

What kind of role will this black man have in Pompeii?


He will speak of his family back in Africa. He will be a victim of oppression, probably having been captured as a slave or gladiator fighter. He’ll be a sympathetic character, providing wisdom to his white friends. In some way, he’ll probably end up a martyr.

Blacks were not unknown in ancient Rome. It would be perfectly acceptable to include one or two black faces in Pompeii, but against the backdrop of Hollywood’s predictable racial policies, the presence of such prominent characters is as distracting as if they’d had a Starbucks on every corner in Pompeii. It’s product-placement, and a stark reminder of TODAY’S politics. It should not be thrust upon us within the context of this historical drama. I wouldn’t be surprised if some black people feel the same way. They too want to experience the story of Pompeii, not to be reminded of racial quotas and the demands of the black lobby.

With the advance of video technology, it’s now possible to create entire movies without using actual human actors. More importantly, this technology is becoming increasingly available to those of us who are not wealthy and powerful. Hopefully, the ranks of those whose minds are free of the diversity cult will produce some talented animators. If so, we’ll be able to enjoy high-quality movies that are not beholden to the rigid racial rules of Hollywood. We can make our own Pompeii – or digitally remove the diversity from the current Pompeii and share it on our own “white market.” The authorities will fume, but there won’t be much they can do about it.


If you’re reading this, it’s either because you stumbled across my page by chance, or you consider me a fairly decent blogger. For those of y’all in the latter camp, I have a confession: Most of my blogging skills can be traced to the fact that I’m a good complainer. I complained when I was a kid, I complained as a young man – and now I’m turning into a complaining old geezer. I’m considering having a selection of prerecorded messages installed inside my tombstone so that visitors can push an assortment of buttons and hear me complain even after I’m dead.

But once in a while I like to take a break from complaining. Sometimes it’s nice to stop and smell the flowers, to take a moment and appreciate how good we have it. Even those of us who are miserable in life can enjoy some luxuries that past generations couldn’t even imagine. Just today, for instance, I happened across these two news articles:

1) Microscopic photography contest

2) Hubble Tarantula Nebula photo

What would our ancestors have given for the privilege of seeing such things?

The internet is abuzz, and in an uproar, since “Tiger Mom” released her newest book “The Triple Package.” The headline of Salon.com is typical:

Tiger Mom is back with despicable new theory about racial superiority

Yale Law professor Amy Chua, who would live in obscurity among the general public if it weren’t for her persona as the disgustingly smug Tiger Mom, is trolling America with yet another theory personal rant about her cultural superiority…

In it, Chua and Rubenfeld use what reviewer Maureen Callahan calls “specious stats and anecdotal evidence” to argue that Jewish, Indian, Chinese, Iranian, Lebanese-Americans, Nigerians, Cuban exiles and Mormons are superior to other races or cultures, and “everyone else is contributing to the downfall of America.”

It would be interesting to see those “specious stats” and their rebuttals – but I’ve got a hunch that all we’ll see, from the corporate media, is rants like the above from Salon. For my part, I figure if the corporate media becomes hysterical, and foams at the mouth, over a book, then that book is probably worth reading. It’s tantamount to a recommendation. But since when are Mormons, or Cuban exiles, a “race?”

If Prachi Gupta, the Salon author above, is so convinced that there are no superior, or inferior, demographics, then she should live her life accordingly – and buy her house in the ghetto (where it’s cheaper) and not worry about sharing a dark alley with blacks or Hispanics.

Are Nigerian Americans really superior, or did Chua include them in the list in order to protect herself from charges of “racism?” I’ve seen claims that Nigerians are “the most educated group in America.” This is possible, since the immigration process filters out practically all but the far right of Nigeria’s intellectual bell curve. According to Wikipedia:

During the mid- to late-1980s, a larger wave of Nigerians immigrated to the United States. This migration was driven by political and economic problems exacerbated by the military regimes of self-styled generals Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha. The most noticeable exodus occurred among professional and middle-class Nigerians who, along with their children, took advantage of education and employment opportunities in the United States.

Some believe that this exodus has contributed to a “brain-drain” on Nigeria’s intellectual resources to the detriment of its future. Since the advent of multi-party democracy in March 1999, the former Nigerian head-of-state Olusegun Obasanjo has made numerous appeals, especially to young Nigerian professionals in the United States, to return to Nigeria to help in its rebuilding effort. Obasanjo’s efforts have met with mixed results, as some potential migrants consider Nigeria’s socio-economic situation still unstable.

I’ve long argued that, with current trends, sub-Saharan Africa is doomed to become an ever more wretched cesspool. In a vicious cycle, the worse things get, the more desperate Africa’s intellectuals are to flee. We see the same phenomenon, on a smaller scale, in ghettos. Indeed, this is one argument for segregation; if responsible, and more intelligent, blacks are forced to remain with their brethren, then they might put an end to this social polarization. It might be possible to reverse this descent into the abyss. Such a “black gentrification” would probably be more palatable, and productive, than the “white gentrification” we now sometimes see. Instead of simply driving lower-income blacks into other neighborhoods, it might actually improve their lot where they are. Perhaps they’ll even become less dangerous.

All this talk of “highly educated Nigerians” needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Firstly, given the massive corruption in Nigeria, how much does a Nigerian degree really mean? Secondly, given the massive corruption in the U.S. (AKA “Affirmative Action”) how much does an American degree, in black hands, really mean? Thirdly, compared to American blacks, just about any other group will seem highly educated. Since Nigerians look (to the untrained eye) just like American blacks, their comparatively higher scholastic achievement will appear even more pronounced. Fourthly, considering how desperate the Establishment (the “Cathedral”) is to portray blacks as high achievers, all such claims are suspect. The powers that be simply have too much of an interest in the matter for us to take their claims at face value. If Chinese researchers also conclude that Nigerians are “among the most educated groups in America” then I’d take those claims more seriously.

Chua has gotten a lot of publicity for her new book, and as they say, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.” Thanks to the media uproar, I predict that her book will be a best-seller. We can’t expect meaningful insight from the likes of Salon, but I’m hoping somebody from the “Dark Enlightenment,” will provide some solid research on Nigerian Americans.

I can’t remember what led me to it, but I recently found an article titled “I Posed as a White Supremacist Online” that peaked my interest. The article is by Greg Stevens, and it turned out to be very entertaining. The forum he had infiltrated was called “Skadi.” Some of y’all may be familiar with it; it’s now defunct. From what I gather, it was a lot like Stormfront and most of its members probably migrated there. Stevens was surprised by the diversity of opinions there, but put off by (among other things) the anti-Semitism.

I was able to contact Mr. Stevens and informed him that there are pro-white people/race-realists out there who are not neo-Nazi types. That we count, within our ranks, people of several races – and that some of us are Jews. Mr. Stevens (who, I believe, holds some P.H.D.s, but is too modest to use the title “Dr.”) was happy to correspond with me and. He turned out to be a real mensch. To all my readers: Please do not contact Mr. Stevens directly unless he asks you to. I don’t want to be responsible for an inundation of unwanted messages. Just post your comments and questions here; he has the link.

A couple of items I’d promised to clarify were a) Why do I believe in non-superficial racial differences? and b) Have I experienced anti-white discrimination personally? I’ll add c) Why is it important to recognize racial differences? For many regular readers, none of this should be new. This essay will, for the most part, only deal with “a.” “b” and “c” will have to wait for future posts. For the sake of simplicity, I’ve focused mainly on blacks and whites. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I deal almost exclusively with intelligence here.

Why do I believe in non-superficial racial differences?

I don’t claim to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such differences exist. Mr. Stevens writes, in a different article:

There is a possibility that someday, someone will gather enough detailed data and perform a complex enough analysis, that they will be able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, with no apparent flaws in experimental design or methodology, that there is some difference between two groups of people that we really wish, for political reasons, we hadn’t found.

To illustrate this, I’m suggesting the hypothetical example where a group of people with genetic marker X (which is present more in white people) performs spatial rotation tasks on average 1.3 times faster than people with genetic marker Y (which is present more in black people).

In a perfect world, scientists could go about their research unhindered – and without fear of asking the “wrong” questions. In our world, however, there are grave consequences for any scientist who dares broach the topic of racial differences. James Watson, Michael Levin and Philippe Rushton are a few examples of academics who suffered for their racial research. Other scientists, such as Armand LeRoi and Steven Pinker avoided this fate by (mostly) speaking in hints and being extremely diplomatic. In 2006, Bruce Lahn claimed to have made a breakthrough in evolutionary science. According to The Wall Street Journal (the article can now be found at American Renaissance):

CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.

It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.

Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.

What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.

Professor Lahn, originally from China, did not understand that such research is not welcome in the West.

Mr. Stevens admits that we would not wish to find such differences – for “political reasons.” Stevens’ desire to not find such differences is the default position of our government at all levels, of our media at all levels, of our educational system at all levels, of every single one of our corporations – and of practically every individual in the West with any substantial clout or influence. The ENTIRE EDIFICE  of Western civilization is bent on NOT finding such differences.

If they don’t want to find them, they certainly are not going to look for them. As an iconoclast (years ago, as I was forming my opinions), this made me question the motivations of all these powerful forces. It caste a shadow of doubt over their claims and made me want to investigate further.

Who makes the rules? Who sets the expectations and mores of society? It’s those with money and influence who do so. They own the media, they run the government and schools, and they control the corporations. More intelligent people tend to rise to the top. This is true regardless of race. Consequentially, those who pull the strings have little intimate contact with average people. The blacks they know in their personal lives are among the talented tenth. With the exception of their outward appearance, these blacks differ little from elite whites. Thus, when a newspaper editor thinks of blacks, it’s the well-spoken one on his staff that comes to mind. When the corporate executive reads about claims of of lower black I.Q., he thinks, “How ridiculous. I play golf with a black man and he’s very intelligent!” These powerful people are not forced to use public transportation with the hoi polloi. They do not live in the inner cities, and their children do not attend ghetto schools. Therefore, it’s easy to see why the ruling class feels revulsion at the concepts people like myself advance; it conflicts with their own life experience – and everything they see in the media.

What do we mean by “intelligence?” I’ll quote “The Affirmative Action Hoax” (first edition) by Steven Farron (Appendix IV):

The reason why the scores on all these tests correlate closely with each other is that they all require analyzing, synthesizing, and manipulation information; distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information; and other types of abilities that are commonly called “intelligent.” For the same reason, they have a low correlation with scores on tests of spelling or simple arithmetic computation…

Assumptions can be very expensive. The assumption that all races are equal in average intellect has cost the United States many billions of dollars, and untold ruined lives. If we assume, as the government/corporations/media/educational system does, that there are no innate differences in intelligence between the races, then the consistent disparities we observe MUST be the result of systematic discrimination – or the legacy of slavery/Jim Crow. This assumption forces us to caste whites in a negative light. It taints us all with some sort of original sin. A sin we are forever obliged to atone for. It means, ultimately, that public schools will not teach white children to be proud of their heritage as whites; in contrast to the way those schools teach blacks to be proud of their heritage as blacks.

When various populations obviously vary in average height, hair texture, skull shape, muscle type, bone density, disease resistance and overall bodily strength, why should we assume that these populations, having evolved in vastly different environments, would miraculously end up with exactly the same mental capabilities. Such a belief, in my opinion, requires faith in a god who would perform such a wondrous feat. I’ll quote James Watson:

A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

On the face of it, the burden of proof lies with race-denialists. They are the ones whose position is at odds with science. The default position should be that of race-realists – and public policy should be determined accordingly: That each individual should be judged on his own merit, and let the chips fall where they may – and that our right of freedom of association be honored. If there are no black physicists, and only a handful of female engineers, then so be it. If neighborhoods and schools end up being racially, religiously, or gender, segregated, then so be it.

But enough beating around the bush. Here are the reasons I believe in innate racial differences:

1) Race realists/hereditarians do not ignore the impact of environment. Most of us claim that our genes account for some 50% of our mental capabilities, with environmental factors (such as nutrition, cultural upbringing and health making up the rest). But race-denialists ignore/deny the importance of genetics on intelligence (however we define it). They accept the “blank slate” (tabula rasa) dogma, which claims that our mental capabilities are shaped entirely by environment. Though the concept of tabula rasa had existed long before the genetics of race became a contentious issue, race-denialists have forced themselves into ascribing to this archaic and discredited notion. They have locked themselves into a sinking ship.

While it’s true that race CAN BE a social construct, as Stevens points out, when race-realists speak of “race,” we’re referring to one’s actual genetic/geographical origins. A person who chooses to call himself “Native American” because his great great grandmother was pure-blooded whatever, is NOT a Native American. If the rest of his ancestry is European, then he’s “white”. Most of us don’t give much credence to “pure races.”

Geographical origins correspond closely with what we call “race” for the simple reason that humans have, until recently, bred almost exclusively with those from the same area. As long as we accept that genes play a role in intelligence, which is all but undeniable (considering numerous twin/adoption studies), then it’s reasonable to assume that different regions will produce people of different aptitudes. These difference may be small, or they may be large; without research, no assumptions should be made.

2) I.Q. tests, though they may have been culturally biased early on, are no longer so. The fact that Asians consistently score higher than whites, even in tests that were devised by whites, should tell us as much.

There have been numerous claims of modern police/fire department entrance tests (proxies for I.Q. tests) being “racist,” nobody has been able to identify specific questions, within those tests, that are culturally biased. Were we so inclined, we could use this phenomenon to help us define “intelligence.” Intelligence would then be “the talent required for any academic task where blacks perform worse than whites.” At any rate, this makes about as much sense as claiming that all black deficiencies are the result of bias.

Has anybody come up with an academic test where blacks consistently score higher than whites? Where whites score higher than Asians? If there were such a test, we would never hear the end of it. The news would be splashed all over the front pages of newspapers, television shows would feature the story at prime time for months on end, and billboards would announce it for all to see. If it’s cultural bias that’s behind low black scores, then it should be easy to devise a test that favors blacks – and the political will is certainly there. Yet this has not been done. In light of this fact, any unbiased person would conclude that lower black scores are the result of lower innate mental capabilities.

There is another, often overlooked, aspect to this matter: Blacks do not all share a single culture. There are thousands of cultures in Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas that blacks belong to. Culture is NOT a common denominator among blacks. Neither is religion or socio-economic status. The only trait that unites all blacks is that their ancestors came from sub-Saharan Africa. If we filter out the more intelligent ones (through selective migration, wealth or attendance at exclusive schools), then naturally we’ll see higher scores. This same trick can be done with with any other group. Controlling for S.E. status is thus not a valid counter-argument – unless we do the same with other races when we compare them. In this case, the gap would persist and nothing would be gained.

3) On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites and whites have smaller brains than Asians (taking into account body mass). While it’s true that brain-size is only moderately correlated with intelligence, the correlation is still there and should be taken into account. Here I’ll quote myself, from my critique of  Samuel Graves’ “The Emperor’s New Clothes”:

Graves can’t quite make up his mind in the matter of  brain size.  He repeatedly references (pg. 3, 46 and 86)  Stephen Jay Gould’s research, which supposedly exposed Samuel Morton’s research (which showed negro skulls to be, on average, of lower capacity than Caucasian and Asian ones).  He writes:

Many assertions and assumptions about race and racial relations that were taken for granted during the Enlightenment have subsequently been proven false (such as the incorrect assertion that Negroes’ brains are smaller than those of white Europeans) (pg. 3).

But he also writes:

However, when unbiased measurements of human brains were made, there was no evidence for differences in brain size.  In 1838, Friedrich Tiedemann… measured the brains from fifty cadavars (both Negro and European) and found no weight differences… The twentieth-century anthropologist Ashley Montagu concluded that the average cranial capacity difference between blacks and whites was about 50 cubic centimeters (pg.  87 and bold mine).

Surely that last study, by Montagu, warrants further study – but Graves does not seem interested in such a study.  Does he believe that 50 cubic centimeters is not meaningful – even when taken together with other evidence?  How many neurons can fit into 50 cubic centimeters?  In any event, how unfortunate for Graves that it was Gould’s study that proved to be fraudulent, not Morton’s.  From Science Fair of June, 2011:

The late scientific icon, Stephen Jay Gould, botched and perhaps faked his critique of a racist 19th-Century scientist’s skull collection, suggests a second look at his efforts.  In a 1978 Science paper, Gould (1941 – 2002) , reported that the Samuel George Morton (1799-1851), “a prominent Philadelphia physician,” had mis-measured the cranial capacities of his 1,000-skull “American Golgotha” collection gathered from around the world, to suit his racist beliefs. The finding led to one of Gould’s best-known books, The Mismeasure of Man, a critique of scientific racism.  Overall, they find, Morton did make mistakes in measuring skull capacity (he first stuffed them with seeds, and later lead shot to measure their brain size). But the mistakes were random. The random mistakes didn’t favor any racial theory of larger brain sizes for white people over others…

Morton neither manipulated his skull samples, unfairly selected which data to report, skewed results by gender, or ignored his mistakes to favor racist interpretations of his skulls, the PLoS Biology study authors conclude — all charges made by Gould against the long-dead physician.

What’s more, the researchers found Gould made some mistakes in his re-analysis of Morton. “Our analysis of Gould’s claims reveals that most of Gould’s criticisms are poorly supported or falsified,” they conclude:

Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that ”unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth”. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in ”science studies”. But our results falsify Gould’s hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton’s initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

4) If we read the aforementioned article in Science Fair, we’ll see that the author, Dan Vergano, dismisses any serious implications of this brain-size disparity with these words:

Today, researchers know that larger average skull size is largely a function of cold weather…

How convenient. Even if larger skulls, and the brains within them, are a result of colder weather – how, exactly, would this preclude any impact on overall intelligence? No explanation is given.

Many have pointed out that it takes more intelligence, foresight and future time-orientation to survive the cold winters of the North than it does to survive in the tropics. Game is plentiful in tropical Africa. Yes, it takes cunning and planning to capture a wildebeest – but these clearly are not part of the same mental tool-kit that is required to survive the winter in Europe. I’ll quote Brian Fagan, from his book “Cro Magnon – How the ice age gave birth to the first modern humans” (pg. 170. Read my review here):

Infinite patience and persistence were also qualities common to tropical and cold-climate hunters alike. Everywhere, mental attitudes were important, but they were particularly central to survival in environments where strong winds and the bitter cold of subzero temperatures for days on end sapped human energy. Successful hunting and survival depended on deeply ingrained attitudes of self-assurance and competence, on mental attitudes that were part of the Cro-Magnon personality.

The natives of Europe had to store up food during the warm months so that they’d have something to eat during the winter. This was not necessary in Africa. Today, black Americans don’t save nearly as much of their earnings as white Americans. Are we to believe that these phenomena are not related in any way? If we do note the parallels, are we to be condemned as “racists” for doing so? The worn-out “legacy of slavery” excuse doesn’t hold much water when we consider that black Africans are in even worse shape than black Americans economically.

Some scientists claim that, even though certain advantageous traits developed in specific areas, they gradually dispersed throughout human populations. This might make sense for higher intelligence if we assume that it is, indeed, an advantage throughout the world. But this is not the case. Higher intelligence is often an evolutionary disadvantage. For example, it’s an evolutionary disadvantage in modern Western society; more intelligent people tend to have fewer children. Furthermore, the the brain is an expensive organ.

5) The higher a black’s proportion of white ancestry, the more intelligent he tends to be. The late Philippe Rushton, in his seminal work “Race, Evolution and Behavior” writes (pg. 30,31):

Trans-racial Adoption StudiesThe best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed- race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.

One well known trans-racial adoption study is Sandra Scarr’s Minnesota project. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed- race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.

In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).

At age seven, Black, Mixed- race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed- race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White children an IQ of 112.

The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. At age 17 adopted White children had an IQ of about 106, Mixed- race adoptees an IQ of about 99, and adopted Blacks had an IQ of about 89. IQ scores are not the only evidence in this study. School grades, class ranks, and aptitude tests show the same pattern.

Similarly, if we examine lists of famous black inventors and statesmen, we find that most of them are of largely white ancestry. Radishmag has a good article on this that he calls “Mulatto History Month.” Here’s a segment:

What do almost all successful “black” Americans have in common? Below, from left to right: the first “black” president; the first “black” attorney general; the first “black” secretary of state; the first “black” female secretary of state; and the first “black” cabinet member.


The first “black” Supreme Court justice; the first “black” elected congressman; the first “black” governor; Booker T. Washington, the famous “black” writer; and W.E.B. Du Bois, another famous “black” writer:


Charles Drew, the famous “black” surgeon; Daniel Hale Williams, the first “black” cardiologist; the first “black” man to earn a B.A.; the first “black” man to earn a Ph.D.; and the first “black” general:


If ever there was a case of “socially-constructed race,” it would be the list of notable black statesmen and scholars.

6) All races have some archaic features. Caucasians have large brow-ridges and hairy bodies. Many Asians have noticeable prognathism and sloped foreheads. Morphologically speaking, the most archaic living human population is Australian Aborigines. Is it coincidence that they also happen to score among the lowest in I.Q. tests? Here’s an illustration from the above article in Radishmag:


Can we point to specific individuals, who happen to sport archaic features, and conclude that they must be stupid? Obviously not. My contention is that there seems to be a correlation between a preponderance of archaic features in a population and that same population’s average I.Q. Blacks have many more archaic features than whites. Asians have less than whites. Is it coincidence that we find the same hierarchy in I.Q. scores?

7) I was raised to believe that we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I was taught in school that there is no “superior race.” Imagine that! But what if one race turned out to be stronger and faster than other races – but just as intelligent and creative? Wouldn’t that make the race in question “superior?” I’m speaking, of course, of blacks. They dominate most contact sports and we’re told that they’re highly spiritual and moral. After all, it was whites who enslaved blacks and persecuted them through lynching and Jim Crow. As a young man I had a check list:

a) Morally superior… Check!

b) Physically more imposing and better at all sports that mattered… Check!

c) Inventive and intellectually accomplished… Check!

Voila! We have found the superior race – and he’s black. Specifically black male. “But wait a minute”, I said. “Surely the black man must have a weakness.” White people must be better at SOMETHING! Perhaps, had I lived in Canada, I’d have satisfied myself with hockey. But I wasn’t Canadian. Hockey was not enough, so I re-examined my list – and found that only “b” could be argued with any credibility. Leaving morality aside for the moment, I satisfied myself with the notion that blacks are physically superior while whites and Asians are mentally superior. That way, I reasoned, there is no “superior race.” I had some pretty good teachers in school, and some of them were black. They had been vindicated after all.

8) Studying history, I noticed that there were few black African civilizations that were not either a) relatively late or b) spawned by other, non-black, civilizations. Ethiopia is only partly black, and has been in contact with its Semitic cousins in the Middle East since ancient times. This relative void of civilization, and lack of technology, made Africans easy prey for Arab and European colonizers and slave traders. Neither writing nor the wheel were discovered by blacks, and this backwardness persists to our own era. No significant architectural monuments dot the sub-Saharan African landscape; the “Great Zimbabwe” is of uncertain origin, and is not very old. It could be said that the tropical heat, and isolation of that region conspired to stunt the growth of civilization – yet Meso-America faired much better, and even saw the invention of writing. With the exception of small island nations, chaos and a lack of intellectual life seem to follow blacks wherever they go. Witness Haiti and Detroit for example – and now even Africa’s newest nation, South Sudan, is plagued by violence and corruption, despite billions of dollars in foreign aid and advisers.

Regarding Jared Diamond’s theories, see my critique of his book “Guns, Germs and Steel.”

Can the reader think of any city or neighborhood where the quality of life went up since blacks became a majority? When we witness this phenomenon, it should be perfectly reasonable to link it with low I.Q. scores. This should not be controversial at all.

9) Speaking of cities and neighborhoods, I have personally witnessed what happens when a neighborhood becomes majority black. I don’t claim that this is always the case. In general, however, we see an increase in graffiti, violent crime, neglected houses and yards, “troubled youths,” social vice and joblessness. All of these are linked to lower I.Q.

I have seen, with my own eyes, how corporations set lower standards so that they can count blacks among their (especially higher-paid) employees. They do this to avoid lawsuits. Blacks are wildly over-represented in government jobs such as DMV’s, IRS call-centers and the Postal Service. Less so in government jobs that still require written tests (see above). It’s not for want of employers’ willingness to hire blacks that their unemployment rates are so high; it’s because so many of them have criminal records or are unmotivated. Both are correlated with lower I.Q.

10) My own life-experiences have led me to believe in racial differences. It’s true that I’ve known some very intelligent people of all races – and some not-so-intelligent ones of all races as well. But I would have been deceiving myself had I not noticed the racial patterns that kept asserting themselves. As a child, I attended three different high schools: One in the ghetto of Inglewood, California, another in redneck territory in central Oregon, and the last in a racially mixed area of Seattle. I was considered a “genius” in the ghetto, “pretty smart” among the rednecks – but just average among the Asians and fellow Jews of Seattle. The first time I felt stupid, compared to those around me, was in a yeshiva (rabbinical school) in Israel.

It’s hard to swallow the dogma of racial egalitarianism with so much evidence, and life experience, stacked against it. If nothing else, all the above should at least merit objective discourse – and not be shrugged off as “pseudo-science” or “scientific racism.” Such name-calling is only evidence of the narrow-mindedness of the accuser. Outside of that, it’s no different than calling somebody a “heretic” or a “blasphemer.”

I recently traveled on the Portland MAX (our version of the subway that’s mostly above ground). Among the various signs posted above us was this one:


Let’s forget, for a moment, that people rarely have loud telephone conversations in public anymore; they text each other instead.  Are white women offended by such signs? Of course not – because they know such accusations are ridiculous. Everybody knows that white women are not a major source of annoying noise on urban public transportation. But let’s say, hypothetically, that the sign had the black man yammering away on his phone, and the white woman being annoying. The uproar would be instantaneous. It would be national news, and the City of Portland would quickly grovel in front of the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Representing racial reality the way it actually is, or even displaying a sign that has a basis in racial reality, is offensive.

But we should be offended. The City of Portland could easily have depicted two race-neutral individuals of the same gender. That way, the sign couldn’t be construed as being hateful toward any particular group. But not only did they turn this into a racial scenario, they even made the extra effort to make sure her eyes were blue. Brown eyes just wouldn’t do; somebody might have mistaken her for Mexican or Asian.

Why did they make the offender female? My guess is in order to have the sign include more diversity. This was more important to them than risking upsetting women – which wouldn’t happen anyway in this case. Also, race trumps gender.

Here is a rule I generally follow: If an issue is too complex to wring the truth out of in a reasonable amount of time and effort, go with your gut feeling.

Hence, when I was told that my cholesterol levels were too high, I declined my doctor’s recommendation to take medication for it. Instead, I opted for continued vigorous exercise and a strict low-cholesterol diet. I maintained this lifestyle for almost a year and then had my cholesterol checked again. It had hardly budged. At that point, I realized that this is a genetic trait that I could do little about. My family has virtually no history of heart disease, so I reverted to eating pretty much what I pleased (within reason – and I do happen to like fruits and vegetables). I’ve been doing this for several years. More recent tests have shown that my cholesterol levels have dropped somewhat.

But my new doctor was adamant that I should start taking statins to lower my cholesterol levels. He confronted me about it twice, and each time I firmly refused. The whole matter seemed fishy to me. I knew that somebody was making a ton of money off of these medications. I knew that they were being heavily promoted in the media – and I was suspicious.

It’s not at all clear that cholesterol, even “bad” cholesterol, (LDL) is bad for us.  Dr. Shane Ellison has made a case that the benefits of cholesterol outweigh its risks. I recommend reading the article, though it’s somewhat long. Ellison is not alone; many others have questioned the premise that cholesterol (LDL) is our enemy, and that we should fight it with drugs.

Others opine that Low Density Lipids (LDL) are, indeed, a risk factor that needs to be addressed – but only when the patient is already suffering from heart disease. Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, at The Huffington Post, makes this argument, and backs it up with several studies. He claims that millions of Americans are harming their health, and wasting their money, by taking cholesterol medication when it is not indicated at all.

In the pro-Lipitor camp, we find articles touting its benefits not only in combating heart disease, but also, in combination with Viagra, in relieving impotence. For example, in drugs.com we read:

Men with erectile dysfunction who do not experience symptom relief with Viagra (sildenafil) may have another option: A new study suggests Lipitor (atorvastatin) may improve men’s response to Viagra.

This is interesting… because a lot of people are claiming that Lipitor itself can cause erectile dysfunction (impotence). For example, here and here. We read on ehow:

According to the Mayo Clinic, Lipitor may cause difficulties in achieving or maintaining an erection. It may also trigger loss of sexual desire or drive.

I won’t be the first to point out, however, that the company that markets Viagra is the very same company that markets Lipitor: Pfizer.

That’s right. Pfizer markets a drug that is widely claimed to cause impotence – and it also markets a drug to treat that impotence. If you check the Lipitor official website, you will find a list of possible side effects. Conveniently, erectile dysfunction is not listed. I think Pfizer is not being on the up and up with us.

When your doctor speaks to you, he’s probably not lying. Most likely, he has your best interest in mind. But he may be swayed. I don’t claim to be an expert in the matter, but money talks. Lots of money talks a lot – and, in this case, we’re talking about a very large sum of money. I’ll conclude with a quote from Dr. Ellison:

With dollar signs in their eyes, drug companies have launched a massive fear campaign about cholesterol. Being led by the pharmaceutically-compliant National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), the campaign convinced the entire world that LDL- cholesterol is bad and that total cholesterol levels should remain below 200 mg/dL in order to prevent heart disease. (Of the nine nerdy members of the NCEP, eight had financial ties to cholesterol lowering drug makers like Pfizer, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AstraZeneca. This fact was concealed when the NCEP made its recommendations public.)…

Pfizer’s blockbuster drug Lipitor became the first prescription drug to make more than $10 billion in annual sales. To date, Forbes Magazine tells us that statins are earning drug pushers $26 billion in annual sales – the equivalent of your lifetime income, plus 1500 others, every year! Think this can buy medical journals, ads and lobbying to push fear along with the cholesterol-lowering agenda?

I know some of y’all have been wondering about me. Yes, I’m still alive – but it’s SUMMER! In any event, here’s what happens when white people get together for a flash mob.

It seems the Homeland Security Administration has outsourced its signage operations to China. At least that’s the impression I got yesterday while driving along the Oregon coast with some friends. One of us wanted to stop for coffee, so we pulled into an espresso booth next to a gas station. Across from the booth, I noticed the following abomination:

bad English

I’ll go ahead and transcribe the wording here, in case you thought your eyes were deceiving you or the glare makes it hard to see:

Land Mgt. & Fire Skills to end loss via terrorist spawned coordinated wildfire Attacks & extreme fire storms, that suppression agencies evacuate  from.

When it comes to butchery of the English language, have the terrorists already won? Have there actually been any “terrorist spawned coordinated wildfires?” If terrorists wished to start such fires, would we realistically be able to stop them? Is it necessary to have a grade-school diploma in order to write signs for Homeland Security?

How many grammatical errors can you find in the above sentence?

Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 116 other followers