From the Telegraph (behind paywall) we have an article from an affirmative action beneficiary (and she is definitely some talentless nobody who only got a writing gig because of her colour; her writing is atrocious) expressing confusion and fear that despite many years of pro-diversity programming at school, home and public places the youth of Britain are still not quite on board with giving up the whole “ethnic self-preservation” thing and instead insist on maintaining their distinct ethnic and cultural history:
These comments were not made by neo-Nazis in 1970s Britain: “Rights for whites.” “LGBT: Let’s Gas Blacks Too.” “This is Britain, not Africa.” They were made by 20-something millennials today.
Just last week, footage was filmed by a black woman locked in her room at Nottingham Trent University went viral, as it showed chants of ‘We hate the blacks’ and other racist abuse coming from outside her door. Two men have since been arrested in conjunction with the incident.
Then it emerged that five law students Exeter University were suspended after sending messages on a Whatsapp saying that the university’s law society should be for white people only, saying: “If they’re black, send ’em back.”

So far so normal, and it’s not as if you wouldn’t hear youth in the Far East engaging in the same behaviour.
“There’s a general belief that universities are beautiful, liberal spaces of tolerance and acceptance where racism doesn’t happen,” explains Ilyas Nagdee, Black Student Officer for the NUS.
Liberal = people who believe in fairytales like race is a social construct and diversity is a strength.
The people most horrified by obstinate indigenes refusing to lay down quietly and die are either non-whites who profit handsomely by being allowed to live in white countries and taking advantage of anti-white policies such as affirmative action or race traitors who are paid handsomely by Jewish run organisations that are given taxpayer money to dispossess the majority of taxpayers (whites):

Recently, Jo Marney, the 25-year-old Ukip supporter and now ex-girlfriend of the party’s ex-leader Henry Bolton, was vilified for her private text messages.“I wouldn’t with a negro,” she told a friend, explaining why she disliked Prince Harry’s fiance Meghan Markle.
“Her seed [will] taint our royal family. This is Britain not Africa.” On being called racist by her friend, she replied: “Lol. So what?”
Her response, with its flippant ‘laugh out loud’ abbreviation, is telling of a millennial attitude to racism – according to Dr Kehinde Andrews, co-chair of Birmingham City University’s Black Studies Association.
James Kingett, an education manager at (((Show Racism The Red Card))), agrees. “Young people are constantly being told racism was a big problem in the 1970s and 1980s, and it’s less of a problem now. They didn’t see it back then – so they don’t understand what it was truly like – and they’re constantly being told how much progress has been made…”
Although I can’t find any biographical information for this Kingett fellow, he looks to be in his 40s perhaps so I highly doubt he knows what it was “truly like” either. More hyperbole to play on whites’ natural propensity to altruistic behaviour.But fortunately they reveal in this article that the number of indigenous British who have awoken to their slow demise and decided to fight back has increased. They offer some very telling comments:
Heather Jones, 20, used to edit a prominent alt-right website that featured articles on the oppression of whites. She is often called racist for her views, but refuses to accept the label: “I don’t think it’s racist to what [sic.] to preserve the culture of your country. I have an issue with the fact people want to change our culture, take away the things that made us who we are. That’s what I don’t like.”
She also hints that those with views like hers are thriving because of a politically correct culture, and not in spite of it. “I feel like there’s a lot of anti-whiteness in general. I don’t necessarily think we’re oppressed, but I think people can be very extreme against white people at the moment.”
Peer pressure is a big issue with racism among millennials, especially with politics. Nick Ryan of anti-fascist advocacy group (((Hope Not Hate))) explains that far-right groups have grown in recent years, and a poll by his organisation found a quarter of its 4,000 respondents have anti-immigration, right-wing views – while 39 per cent now identify as liberal.
That’s right, all right-wing views are necessarily evil.
The polarisation is something that millennials are noticing. While some are labelled ‘snowflakes’, others, like libertarian Jakub Jankowski who supported Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim ban and used to identify with the alt-right, are labelled racist for their views.
“I am economically liberal and socially conservative,” explains the University of London student. “I’m sceptical of immigration – but I don’t think that’s racist.”
“Polarisation certainly is obvious at my university. There’s been an increase this year in the amount of people who identify as right wing. I knew about 15 last year, but now I easily know of about 40.”
The article then veers into the ridiculous in a bid to appear relevant but unfortunately all it does is show us how humourless and frightened the left is and hence their desperation to maintain a stranglehold on what is acceptable discourse much like a cult:
“The idea of banter is something we’ve been concerned about for a long time,” explains Kingett. “There are a lot of people who interpret it as a means to say anything they want.”

Banter was the same excuse of medical students at Cardiff University, who wrote a play that included blacking up, “racist, sexist and homophobic jokes and stereotype references”. Dinesh Bhugra, Emeritus Professor of Mental Health and Cultural Diversity at Kings’ College London, was commissioned [i.e. paid handsomely] to write a report on it.

After the ridiculous comes the creepiness; what is wrong with the left that they think these sorts of statements won’t raise alarm bells with normal, common sense people? Infiltration tactics were what the secret police in communist hellholes utilised to maintain their tight grip on power.
Ryan says that while most students are prevailingly tolerant, there are small pockets of racist groups, such as fragmented extreme right groups, which his organisation often filtrates, where there are more reports of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. “In terms of the general situation, the pocket has become a bit more worrying,” he admits.
In the end they provide a way for white Brits to avoid their children becoming indoctrinated and falling for the diversity macht frei lie: remove your offspring from state-funded schools and universities. Homeschool them or make them take on an apprenticeship then they won’t bother learning all the leftist shibboleths and golden calves (or send them to the same school as these woke boys).
The only way to combat this rise in millennial racism is something all the experts agree on: education. “Young people need to be involved in conversations,” explains Kingett. “They’ve grown up with the idea that racism is difficult to talk about, so no one does. We need more education to show them what it looked like through history.

I think the people who really need re-educating and therapy are those who suffer from Nation Dysphoria. I don’t care how “based” a non-white is, they can go back to their own country and try to make it great for once, never mind again. Being born in Europe does not make you European.


LOVE the Mishmo graphic above. It’s SO true. I know non-Whites who are actually clued in to White genocide and yet, still think they’ll be able to come and live in a White ethnostate when this nightmare is over. It’s like they can’t understand they’re not White.
I have a friend from Peru who gets all this and yet, he only wants to date White women. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t date much because of that. He doesn’t see the contradiction based on everything we walk about and his wanting a White wife. Just insane. He’s very educated, having been in the country since he was 6, but I really don’t think he understands he’s not White. Very weird.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I think the people who really need re-educating and therapy are those who suffer from Nation Dysphoria. I don’t care how “based” a non-white is, they can go back to their own country and try to make it great for once, never mind again. Being born in Europe does not make you European.” Okay why? Then a white can’t live in Africa yet we had colonialism. Genetic drift is not the same as speciation.
Phenotype is not genotype like you seem to imply with skin: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/16/white-nationalists-genetic-ancestry-test/&ved=2ahUKEwj6_LzY3IjaAhUEwVkKHcu3DFoQFjAHegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw2V6irlCScEdaKdndg19UlP
“Banter, or hateful?” Hateful. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2015/11/28/response-to-daily-stormer-article-black-africans-are-genetically-closer-to-bonobos-than-to-white-humans/
“Liberal = people who believe in fairytales like race is a social construct and diversity is a strength.”
LikeLike
Evolving separately for tens of thousands of years is speciation.
What about colonialism? Tu quoque fallacies don’t justify white countries becoming overrun with the third world and losing their white identity.
Phenotype obviously is 100% influenced by genotype and in any event I don’t care about their skin colour but it just so happens to correlate to the behaviour determined by their genetics. How convenient.
Thanks for stopping by!
LikeLike
“Evolving separately for tens of thousands of years is speciation”
What is a species?
“Phenotype obviously is 100% influenced by genotype”
How?
“it just so happens to correlate to the behaviour determined by their genetics.”
Genes don’t ‘determine’ nor ’cause’ behavior.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Phylogenetic,_cladistic,_or_evolutionary_species
Because your genes determine what you look like?
phenotype
ˈfiːnə(ʊ)tʌɪp/Submit
noun BIOLOGY
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.
Yes, genes do determine your behaviour to a degree. They don’t cause behaviour but they do determine levels of hormone in your body, IQ, time preference etc. Tabula rasa is obsolete.
LikeLike
What do species have to do with human races?
How do ‘your genes determine what you look like’?
How do genes ‘determine your behavior to a degree’? How do genes ‘determine levels of hormone in your body’? Examples?
‘IQ’ IQ is garbage. Useless.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/17/the-non-validity-of-iq-a-response-to-the-alternative-hypothesis/
Many more articles on the IQ myth on my blog.
Who argued for ‘tabula rasa’?
LikeLike
I don’t have time for this Socratic elenchus especially when a lot of your questions are otiose or redundant.
LikeLike
Let’s try something different then since you don’t like to answer questions.
Genes do not determine hormone levels. For instance, testosterone: it is indirectly controlled by DNA; it is not direct control. Genes do not determine, nor do they cause behavior. They do not cause individual variation in behavior. Genes are background conditions for, not causes of, behavior.
You’re wrong that genotype 100 percent influences phenotype; I suggest reading Evan Charney, Susan Oyama and David Moore.
I never invoked ‘tabula rasa’ (whatever that strawman is), I only said genes don’t cause, nor determine, behavior. They’re background conditions. It’s impossible for psychological traits to be inherited. Genes do not cause/determine/influence behavior differences between individuals nor races.
LikeLike
Why bother interacting with me since you think you know everything? It will be unedifying for you and annoying for me. You don’t understand arguments, you seem to lack reading comprehension (there’s the strawman and ad hominem you were looking for) so there’s no point in continuing this game.
You don’t understand what genes do, you haven’t seem to come out of the 1980s and discovered epigenetics and the heritability of personality traits. You make the outrageous claim that IQ is worthless and cite yourself as an authority.
If you want to stoke your megalomania do it elsewhere.
LikeLike
I never claimed to know everything. What makes you think I don’t ‘understand arguments’ and that I ‘lack reading comprehension’? Which ad hominem attack did I use?
Why do you think I don’t understand what genes do? Please explain to me why what I wrote about genes was wrong. If I am in error I’d like to be corrected.
Everything I’m saying to you can be verified. Read Denis Noble and Jablonka and Lamb. I’ve written about epigenetics before, see my blog.
Heritability is a useless measure because it assumes genes and environment are additive and independent of each other. IQ is worthless.
Yes I cited myself there are references in the article. I have numerous references in those articles. You claim I used a logical fallacy (how did I use it? You made a claim but didn’t provide evidence) but you’re appealing to authority.
Can you explain to me how and why IQ is a valid measure? You made a claim about IQ. I provided a link to my blog with references for my claim. Is anything wrong? Why? Can you have a serious conversation with someone who knows what they’re talking about?
A you ready for a conversation or are you just going to write a whole bunch of nothing to what I’m writing to you?
LikeLike
If IQ correlates with observable real-world outcomes such as income level, examination success, average GDP, then how can it be worthless?
LikeLiked by 1 person
IQ tests correlate with academic achievement because IQ tests and achievement tests are different versions of the same test. IQ tests correlate at .4 with incorrect if I recall correctly.
IQ tests are constructed to show the current social stratification we see now. That doesn’t mean that IQ *causes* poverty. Classes are socially stratified. This is due to multiple migrations within countries. Overtime this then leads to cognitive differences between classes which are nongenetic in nature. This occurs because lower class people don’t have access to the same cultural and psychological tools needed to score well on the tests. The biggest fallacy of IQ is believing it tests intelligence. We have no theory of individual intelligence differences, nor an agreed-upon theory of intelligence as well as no agreed-upon definition. So how do we find ‘genes for’ IQ?
Lower class people score lower because they’re differentially prepared for the test since it tests learned skills and knowledge more prevalent in certain classes over others. The sociocognitive-affective nexus explains why certain people under-perform. It’s nothing ‘genetic’ or ‘biological’.
http://sci-hub.tw/10.15252/embr.201744140
https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/250660667/Richardson-2002-What-Iq-Tests-Test
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354314551163
LikeLike
If they correlate with academic achievement, then they are not worthless unless academic achievement is itself considered worthless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes they’re worthless because teacher assessment is a better predictor.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00346543059003297
IQ poorly predicts educational success
More telling is the degree to which IQ scores
predict the more independent measures of
job performance: Raw correlations are
surprisingly small, usually around 0.2 [8]. More usually cited, however, are “corrections” (such as that for measurement error)
that double correlations to around 0.5. But
these entail much socio-psychological idealism. For example, variation in a test score
may not be owing to measurement errors so
much as natural variation in testee performance. Again, correction becomes, to some
extent, guesswork, yet the adjusted correlations depend upon it. Moreover, job performance is very difficult to rate. The usual
ratings–those of supervisors–both show
very poor agreement with each other and
with other ratings of performance (for
discussion see [8]). Finally, there is considerable evidence that correlations may be
attributable to non-cognitive factors, such as
self-confidence, which again reflect social
background [9].
http://sci-hub.tw/10.15252/embr.201744140
IQ is useless.
LikeLike
The higher the IQ score of a country the higher the score of its human development index. IQ correlates very strongly with success in life, not just success in your job but how happy you are (which arguably is the most important measure of success):
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
Who cares about academic success? IQ isn’t some single score, there’s verbal, spatial, mathematical IQ.
The genes that are linked to IQ are also linked to longevity indicating that higher IQ individuals are healthier overall.
I don’t understand your angle. Blacks have an average IQ of <60-85 depending on country. Why would you want to import thousands of people from low IQ countries? What benefit could it give to your society or to her people?
Are you black? I'm wondering why you would try to hard to engage in prevarication in a bid to downplay the heavy socio-economic costs importing hundreds of thousands of low-IQ individuals into your country.
It's not even that their IQ is lower on average, they're more violent, quicker to anger and thoroughly unsuited to life in an advanced western society. We have our fair share of average individuals, why import more averaged and below average ones?
LikeLike
Even if teacher assessment was a better predictor, teacher assessment is not always available. Therefore IQ measures are not worthless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lies, lower class whites score IQ at the same level as upper class blacks and there was also the transracial adoption study done by the University of Minnesota.
Have you not been reading the news? DNA tests can predict intelligence:
https://archive.fo/ElzNe
LikeLike
By the way, perhaps the most important thing, the model of the gene that HBDers rely on has been falsified long ago. Genetic reductionism is wrong. Therefore HBD is wrong.
Would you also like me to expand on why IQ is worthless? We can discuss that too if you’d like. What do you really know about IQ?
LikeLike
A theory of biological relativity: no privileged level of causation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/
Reduction to Absurdity: Why Epigenetics Invalidates All Models Involving Genetic Reductionism
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319695811_Reduction_to_Absurdity_Why_Epigenetics_Invalidates_All_Models_Involving_Genetic_Reduction
Genetic reductionism is huge in HBD circles.
So genetic reductionism is falsified. There is no privileged level of causation. Therefore HBD (race realism) is wrong.
LikeLike
That’s exceptionally spurious reasoning. Why do you use the name RaceRealist when you argue (unsuccessfully) against it?
LikeLike
czackl,
“Even if teacher assessment was a better predictor, teacher assessment is not always available. Therefore IQ measures are not worthless.”
IQ tests learned knowledge and skills more pertinent in some social classes over others. It’s a waste of time and money to take an ‘IQ’ test; they do not test ‘intelligence’ (whatever that is).
Chrysotomos,
“The higher the IQ score of a country the higher the score of its human development index”
Reverse the causation.
“IQ correlates very strongly with success in life”
No it doesn’t.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557354/
“https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf”
SES is not social class; there are tons more variables to control for that just ‘SES/parental occupation/parental education’ does not capture.
“IQ isn’t some single score”
Serious?
“there’s verbal, spatial, mathematical IQ.”
What is ‘mathematical IQ’? I’ve never read a paper on that. Obviously when I talk about ‘IQ’ I mean the average of the different ‘IQs’, not just one part of the ‘measure’.
“The genes that are linked to IQ are also linked to longevity indicating that higher IQ individuals are healthier overall.”
Which genes? Higher IQ individuals are ‘healthier overall’ because they have better access to nutrition etc. The ‘g as a fitness indicator’ is a non-theory pushed by psychologists to attempt to give one of their only ‘findings’ some weight.
“Blacks have an average IQ of <60-85 depending on country."
Lynn's numbers are garbage.
"Why would you want to import thousands of people from low IQ countries?"
Who argued this?
"Are you black?"
Appeal to motive. My race is irrelevant to this discussion. But if you must know, I am white (this literally has no bearing on the discussion). Are you white? Can I then say that you have a bias to push this canard? Will that get us anywhere?
"I'm wondering why you would try to hard to engage in prevarication in a bid to downplay the heavy socio-economic costs importing hundreds of thousands of low-IQ individuals into your country."
Who argued this? Why are you strawmanning my position on IQ, saying that because I believe and argue that IQ is useless that that means that I want to "import thousands of people from low IQ countries'? I don't know who you've discussed this with in the past but I am not a leftist. Just because I refute IQ garbage doesn't mean I am a leftist. I am far right. But I guess in your world, only leftists 'deny IQ'?
"It's not even that their IQ is lower on average, they're more violent, quicker to anger and thoroughly unsuited to life in an advanced western society."
What causes violence?
"why import more averaged and below average ones?"
This is the third time you've attributed this position to me when there is no indication I hold this belief. Can you please show me the quote from me that makes you believe that I want to 'import' people from other countries?
"lower class whites score IQ at the same level as upper class blacks"
The SAT is not an IQ test. Further, family income is not social class.
"there was also the transracial adoption study done by the University of Minnesota."
You're right.
… that there is no consistent IQ difference between Black adoptees raised by Whites and White adoptees raised by Whites
http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1/htm
This paper is a re-analysis of IQ adoption data.
Drew Thomas’ re-analysis shows that when corrected for attrition, the gap was 2.5 points.
There’s also data in that paper for East Asian adoptees too.
“Have you not been reading the news? DNA tests can predict intelligence”
No it can’t. It can predict 7 percent of variance; and this 7 percent of variance can be explained by social class stratification (i.e., there are genetic differences between classes that are functionally irrelevant to cognitive ability and educational attainment). I’m aware of the paper. Low variance explained, again.
“That’s exceptionally spurious reasoning.”
Far from it. The reasoning in the first paper is this: there are numerous levels in a biological system that each influence each other, therefore, a priori, you cannot state that there is a privileged level of causation. Genes don’t “cause”.
Second paper refutes genetic reductionism (the model that HBD relies on). Both of these papers, in conjunction, show how flawed the HBD model truly is.
“Why do you use the name RaceRealist when you argue (unsuccessfully) against it?”
I believe that race is a biological reality since races differ by morphology, physiognomy (other biological traits like skin color, nose shape, hair type etc) which then correlate to geographic ancestry.
Trust me, I am successful in my endeavor here.
LikeLike
So you’re not going to publish my comment? How honest… Shows a lot about you and your ability to defend your views, to be honest.
LikeLike
There is no pre-moderation of comments. When I saw this comment, I looked in the spam folder and saw your earlier comment. I’ve now approved it so it should appear.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike