Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability

Posted by Matt Nuenke on Tuesday, 03 May 2005 18:01.

J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen have collaborated in publishing “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” in the APA journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235-294. I’m sure the American Psychological Association was not too happy publishing this article, but anything submitted by Jensen (Jensenism) is difficult to refuse. He is considered the leading academic researcher living today on the subject of mental ability along with being the most published and consistently correct in going from theory to providing proof on the inescapable conclusion that intelligence is primarily genetic, and races differ in average intelligence. The article and replies to the article published in the journal are available at:

I will not discuss the article as it is long and detailed, and stands on its own. What I will discuss is Robert J. Sternberg’s reply entitled “There Are No Public-Policy Implications: A Reply to Rushton and Jensen.” Sternberg continues to be one of the most vitriolic antagonists against Jensenism, a person who continues to get his fuzzy ideas about general intelligence published. (See my review of The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, edited by Helmuth Nyborg, 2003.) His attempted rebuttals are hostile, sophomoric, and show a clear inability to refute the accepted conclusion that the genetic component of average intelligence between races is real and not due to environmental differences.

Sternberg states, “The risk in work such as this [Jensenism] is that public-policy implications may come to be ideologically driven rather than data driven, and to drive the research rather than be driven by the data.” This statement is absurd, because of course, data drives public policy as does ideology drive public policy. Right now, public policy is being driven by the ideology that all differences between races are due to discrimination rather than innate differences. This is a dangerous ideology if it is not true, because it means that inequality between races is the same as it is between people—like individuals human races are different. What he has done in the past, and is doing here, is stating that science simply should not even be discussing racial differences in intelligence, and that only the ideology of the Left should be allowed to pursue research showing that genes don’t matter. This unscientific statement is the position of religious dogma, Marxism, and other anti-scientific ideologies and it is inimical to Western scientific research. Scientists are allowed to study anything that they fancy, and if it is wrong then it is up to others to point out the deficiencies, but never is it allowed to simply sweep whole areas of research under the rug so that no one will ever question alternative hypotheses. All science after all is provisional—it new discovery lays a foundation for newer more complete discoveries.

Sternberg continues, “The quest to show that one socially defined racial, ethnic, or other group is inferior to another in some important way, such that ‘the public must accept the pragmatic reality that some groups will be overrepresented and other groups underrepresented in various socially valued outcomes’ (Rushton & Jensen, 2005, p. 283), has what I believe to be a long, sad history. Since ancient times, cynical political, religious, and other leaders have used such arguments to justify discriminatory ideological positions. Does science want to provide them the ammunition?”

A definition of cynical is “scornful of the motives, virtue, or integrity of others.” By this definition, Sternberg is the living embodiment of cynicism because all he does is scorn the scientists who provide the data. What the politicians do with the facts is not the responsibility of the scientists. In addition, Arthur R. Jensen’s reputation is that of a person with extreme integrity. He has always pursued the scientific facts without prejudice, listening and responding to his detractors without malice. This is not my findings, but statements made by other scientists who respect him but do not agree with him. Stenberg, unlike scientists with integrity, is unable to debate the issue without the use of cynicism himself, because apparently he has no data to refute Jensenism, and that infuriates him (along with the fact that his own triarchic theory of intelligence has gone nowhere as an alternative to g and general intelligence.)

Sternberg claims that “sing tests and scoring them in itself represents a value judgment: Taking a test means different things for diverse groups, and the backgrounds of varied groups who take these tests are different. Studying so-called races represents a value judgment because race is a social construction, not a biological concept, and Rushton and Jensen’s entire article is based on the false premise of race as having meaning other than in their and other people’s imaginations.”

Sternberg finds it offensive that we would actually test people to see how prepared they are to enter school, get a job, get a promotion, because apparently that has no meaning because—well because—what if a newly arrived aborigine from Australia wanted to take a test to become a fireman! He has no understanding of tall buildings and extension ladders! This is an absurd charge, and one that could equally be used against the thousands of tests prepared and given to different groups by social scientists to show how rampant racism is in society. These tests are usually so biased that they only show how racist Whites are against minorities, without ever creating unbiased tests that show how racist a race is towards any other race (that is, an unbiased test that shows innate xenophobia or ethnocentrism). Yes, psychometricians like social scientists give tests to people, and psychometricians well understand to consider cultural differences when giving tests to different groups.

The race is a social construction argument is the gasping breath defense when the naïve environmentalists have nothing more to offer in their defense. They have no data so they will merely eliminate the concept of race. This is at the same time that National Geographic begins its world-wide DNA sampling of races to determine the migration routes of humans over the last 100,000 years, which is the very definition of race—a persons genetic lineage.

Sternberg continues: “Deciding to study group differences represents a value judgment—that the problem is worth studying. Deciding to show that one group is genetically inferior on an index is a value judgment as to what is worth showing. These decisions, among others, indicate that there is no value-free science.” Sternberg uses the term “inferior” numerous times in his rebuttal, and yet the word is not used in the article by Jensen and Rushton. Alfred Binet developed the first intelligence test over 100 years ago to determine if children had developmental problems that would keep them from learning. Was Binet looking for inferior children? That is what Sternberg is insinuating. Could it also now be just as relevant to find out if certain races have more or less difficulty learning in some areas rather than others? It has been observed that East Asians excel in performance or visual-spatial intelligence over verbal intelligence. Is this done to show that they are inferior or to see how different races perform on various mental tasks? Sternberg makes accusations again about integrity where none is warranted.

I do agree that there is no “value-free” science, if he means by that that scientists have individual values, worldviews, etc. But that is the beauty of science, no matter what the worldview of a scientist is, no matter how much of a whack-job they might be, scientific data stands on its own. Science factors out personal bias because for every scientist that is trying to prove their theory or hypothesis, there are numerous other scientists trying to knock it down. It is much safer to disprove another researchers data than it is to produce solid evidence on one’s own. That is why science is self-correcting and continues to advance, as long as it is not shackled by people like Sternberg who attacks the person rather than the facts.

Sternberg states, “Rushton and Jensen make what I believe to be ambiguous references—for example, speaking of biological inequality without defining this term. I also believe they inadvertently create ‘straw men.’ These straw men take the form of false dichotomies, such as between the culture-only model and the hereditarian model (as though there is nothing in between), and imaginary oppositions, such as between people who believe in the influence of genetics and people who engage in ‘denial of any genetic component in human variation.’ There are probably no such people, at least among serious scientists. What scientist, for example, believes that height or weight is entirely environmental?”

It is interesting that Sternberg accuses Rushton and Jensen of not defining “biological inequality” when they never use that term. Why should they have to define a term that they do not use? An even more desperate allegation is that they have created “straw men” that Sternberg then claims no one believes in anyway. If no one in science believes in naïve environmentalism, then why do they continue to produce research that ignores “any” contribution from a person’s genetic make up? To make my point, when has anyone, anywhere, read about President Bush’s No Child Left Behind program, that included considerations about racial differences in cognitive ability from genes? Never! Jensen and Rushton are clearly correct in pointing out that though many disciplines in principle do not exclude genetic contributions, they do omit any genetic component in their research assumptions. That is clearly what Rushton and Jensen are objecting to—bias in research by omission.

Let’s return to the “straw men” argument. That has been the tactic of the race deniers over the last decade or so, and it goes like this: “there are no distinct races, therefore races do not exist!” Correct, but then no one has claimed that races are distinct entities, so the race deniers have set up a “straw men” argument to knock over—though the criteria of distinct races is not used by scientists. Races, as describe by Jensen, are arbitrary collections of peoples based on their genetic lineage—that is it. Clean, simple and to the point.

Sternberg then whines, “As was true of Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and their predecessors, the science risks being used to promote social engineering unsupported by the data. In my response, because of space restrictions, I limit my response to their public-policy claims.” Talk about slipping and sliding. Sternberg, if he was interested in science rather than his ideology, would attack their data if it is flawed. The problem is, the data is substantial and expanding on the side of “genes matter” in everything from intelligence, to crime to medical treatment. This genetic juggernaut is driving the Left crazy, and Sternberg is admitting here that the data is sound but the motives are insidious. Who cares? Science operates on firm data, not on motives why the data was collected—and he knows it.

Sternberg: “First, as Rushton and Jensen realize, these correlations, like heritability coefficients, are all obtained under a given social system. Heritabilities of intelligence differ widely even across social classes. Moreover, in a social system that has no welfare, IQ is not correlated with going on welfare. In a social system in which the state ensures that no one lives in poverty, IQ is not correlated with living in poverty. Is divorce heritable? In a system that does not allow divorce, IQ is not correlated with divorce within the first 5 years of marriage. And in a system that does not allow discrimination, who knows what the heritability of intelligence would be?”

Well, I guess we see Sternberg’s agenda: we can’t know anything about anybody until “discrimination” is ended. But how do we know that inequality is caused by discrimination, class, intelligence, or just dumb luck if we are not allowed to explore the different possibilities? And that is where Sternberg is amiss; he does not want science to even question a genetic component to human differences in intelligence or behavioral traits. However, knowing how humans behave, given all of the unique cultural variations he mentions above, does not eliminate the need to understand how and why humans behave as they do.

Sternberg continues, “Many individuals—disproportionately, members of certain minority groups and those in developing countries—grow up in miserable circumstances from which there is no ready exit. Their home life may be bad; their schools may be bad; their economic situation may be bad. It is extremely difficult to escape from these environments because they are members of a socially defined lower caste for which the opportunities for advancement are meager.”

This is more applicable perhaps in some countries like India, where acceptance of the caste systems keeps some groups oppressed. The United States however gives preferences to minorities; they are not deprived by society but are given enormous opportunities based on race to succeed. As research has shown, the low intelligence of Blacks occurs prior to entering school or for that matter interacting with society as a whole. If there is some environmental cause for their low average intelligence, this falls on the shoulders of the child’s own parents and/or their culture. No one else can be blamed. Sternberg will simply not address the research provided, but just keeps repeating the same old stale excuses that have systematically all been addressed by current scientific research. There is nowhere else to hide except personal attacks on the messenger, because the message is so clear and so well supported.

Sternberg laments, “Even when African American students live in affluence, some of their prevailing cultural attitudes may prevent them from achieving at the levels of which they are capable. Such attitudes may affect their ability test scores as well as their achievement test scores, because existing ability tests, including tests of nonverbal abilities, all measure achievement, to a greater or lesser extent.” True, but their “cultural attitudes” may be genetic as well as their innate intelligence. What if on top of a low level of innate intelligence, African Americans also have on average a low level of conscientiousness as a behavioral trait, and preferring sports over intellectual engagement, also something that can be a combination of culture and genetics. Is this a reason to ignore genetics or to do further research to find out if there is a genetic component to “striving to achieve” along with an “ability to achieve.” This is the very dichotomy he claims Rushton and Jensen are making into “straw men,” and yet that is exactly what he is calling for—a denial of any genetic causation in low African American achievement.

And then more absurdities: “Not all the correlates of higher IQ are socially desirable, although Rushton and Jensen (2005) only mention the socially desirable ones. To be fair, we probably ought to list selected undesirable correlates of higher IQ: for example, being able to design and fabricate sophisticated bombs, the capacity to successfully manufacture weaponized anthrax and other biological agents, and planning terrorists attacks without getting caught. In these cases, higher IQ may be correlated with socially devalued outcomes. Arguably, these outcomes do more social harm than divorce (associated, according to Rushton and Jensen, with low IQ).”

We could also prevent terrorist attacks and creation of weapons by just blinding everyone, but I don’t think this would be a better world in the end. In Africa, this new sightless society would still be butchering each other with machetes of course rather than WMDs. In addition, the low IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is responsible for starvation, the spread of diseases like AIDS, the returning of polio because they will not use vaccinations, etc. The high intellect of the Western nations has been responsible for longer life, better health, the elimination of disease, protection of the environment, human rights policies that are globally advocated, etc., etc. Does anyone believe, truly, that this would be a better world if the average intelligence of all of its citizens went from 100 to 70? That is the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans, and it is a place people are fleeing from, not emigrating to.

Sternberg, like Howard Gardner, has been attacking the high heritability of intelligence from the inside—that is by offering up alternatives rather than attacking it directly. Gardner uses multiple intelligences where he claims everyone is good at something, but he has never done any research nor does he claim he needs to. Sternberg takes a slightly different approach, and claims that there are intelligences that are hidden and hard to measure. The purpose of this approach is to attack all tests, claiming they are insufficient at measuring a person’s cognitive ability. So he states, “As these [above] examples illustrate, a problem with our society is its emphasis on intelligence and its corresponding lack of emphasis on wisdom. Unfortunately, it is our foolishness that is likely to destroy our society, not our lack of IQ.”

It seems evident to me, and I would think to most people, that “wisdom” is obtained by having a high intelligence; a desire to understand and learn what is “true, right or lasting.” Wisdom requires intelligence. Foolishness, that is “lacking or exhibiting a lack of good sense or judgment,” is just the flip side of wisdom. Not acting foolish requires intelligence, but is not sufficient to keep even intelligent people from acting foolishly. Sternberg again just tries to mix personality traits and experience with intelligence, trying to convince everyone that we should not even study intelligence. I also doubt Sternberg has made much progress and teasing out ways to determine who is foolish and who has wisdom, and how to create environments where one will flourish and the other parish from out midst.

He continues, “IQ is one attribute that, in our society, is correlated with success. In many other societies, IQ probably matters as well, although not to the same extent. In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table. In a warrior society, IQ will still matter, but physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive. In a totalitarian society, a high IQ may be the kiss of death. During the reigns of Stalin and Pol Pot, among other such reigns, intellectuals were the first to be shot.” He fails to mention that since Ashkenazi Jews have been breeding for high verbal intelligence for 2,000 years, they were also routinely persecuted and killed by those who were jealous of their success (MacDonald, 1994, 2002). Yet, I have never heard a member of that race arguing that they should alter their breeding habits because their high intelligence was the primary reason for the Holocaust! Hitler feared the power of the Jews, and he also thought intelligence tests were a Jewish plot because Jews outperformed the average German.

Again Sternberg, “Their argument incorrectly implies that IQ is the only cause of success. Members of other socially defined racial or ethnic groups might be superior in other attributes correlated with success but still not attain the success of the majority because they find their success blocked by discrimination.” This logic is almost incomprehensible. He seems to be making two contradictory statements; minorities are successful and then again minorities are not successful because of “discrimination.” Well, the only way we will know is to do research on all of the possibilities, not shun one path for an exclusive right to assume only discrimination is the cause.

Sternberg then argues that since height or stature (which is 90% heritable) can be so easily increased by better nutrition, people now score better on intelligence tests because people are more educated and are more familiar with tests, that there is hope of increasing intelligence even further through enrichment programs. What he fails to mention is that the enrichment programs like Head Start have been failures for African Americans (strangely they do have a positive outcome for Whites with regards to lasting intelligence). He even mentions that “Jaime Escalante also apparently had great success” in increasing performance. Well, Escalante was discussed in the book No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning, and the authors provide great praise for his program, but tellingly no data on improving the intelligence of Blacks. Besides, if enrichment programs, new drugs or other enhancements can raise overall intelligence, it will only drive all intelligences higher and perhaps actually widen the present Jewish–East Asians–Whites–Hispanics–Black gaps in intelligence. This will not achieve what Sternberg wants, perfect equality in average intelligence between differing races (except his own perhaps).

Finally, “The quality of science is determined not only by the quality of problem solving but also by taste in the selection of problems to solve. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether the problem addressed in Rushton and Jensen’s article represents good taste in the selection of the problems. Would that Rushton and Jensen had devoted their penetrating intellects to other more scientifically and socially productive problems!”

General intelligence has had over 100 years of penetrating investigation by scientists, for the simple reason that the high intelligence of humans defines our species’ very essence. Sternberg belies his own admonitions against research in intelligence because he has proceeded with his own triarchic theory which is in many ways similar to others except he tries to muddle the concept where testing becomes impossible. Since his own research is of such poor “quality,” he now has redefined science as a pursuit where one must have also good taste—perhaps that means one must be an intolerant egalitarian—a true blue naïve environmentalist. Sternberg is a latter day Gould—he will lie, distort, makeup implausible scenarios, confabulate circular facts—to push his ideological agenda. Since he has no hard data refuting Rushton and Jensen’s summation of the facts as they stand today, he had no choice but to attack the motives of the researchers. In science, that is very bad taste.


Tags: Race realism



Posted by John S Bolton on Tue, 03 May 2005 19:31 | #

Actually, we need to question the motives of the antihereditarians. The merit system is an obstacle in the way of those who wish to exploit racial differences to gain power for officials, by precipitating civil war on such a basis. What is at issue here, is not really intelligence or race, but whether the egalitarians are morally prepared to be granted power. The mention of the Pol Pot regime, is a sign of the gravity of the problem; can we proceeed as if the ecoegalitarians of today can be trusted with power? It is attempted to forestall this question by choosing issues so as to make it look as though all who oppose the progression towards a Pol Pot regime, are thinking only of the position of their race. This is why it is all important now to question the motives of such and such a left, which has set politics in the direction of mass murder as an ideal unto itself.  If they can pretend that race doesn’t exist, yet applicants to schools can be sued for fraud, and affirmative action on that basis is still morally acceptable, their dishonestyshould be obvious enough


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 03 May 2005 21:32 | #

“If they can pretend that race doesn’t exist, yet applicants to schools can be sued for fraud, and affirmative action on that basis is still morally acceptable, their dishonesty should be obvious enough”  (—John Bolton)

Well, of course:  if “races don’t exist” how does the other side know how to apply affirmative action?  On what basis do they apply it?  If no one had a clear idea what race a given individual was supposed to be, wouldn’t affirmative-action preferences accidentally go to whites half the time or something?  The absolutely unerring accuracy with which the other side applies race preferences against whites and in favor of every type of non-white, and engages extremely aggressively in the other aspects of anti-caucasianism, shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that they see perfectly clearly who belongs to what race and who doesn’t.  They’re constantly targeting whites.  How do they know who’s white in order to target them, if “race doesn’t exist”?  If race is so poorly defined how come they’re not unintentionally targeting Negroes, Hispanics, and Orientals by mistake when aiming at whites?  How is it their targeting of the white race is so accurate if everything having to do with racial categories is so blurred as to be indecipherable and “biologically meaningless”?

The anti-Euroism that’s going on represents an alliance (cemented around the mid-70s or so, would be my guess) between the white ruling class and the Marxists against the interests of the white lower and to a large extent middle classes.  It entails, among other things, a deliberate racial-genocidal attack on white Christians( * ), an attack rich whites support because they calculate that supporting it will make them more money than opposing it will, and which Marxists support because, obviously, with those traditional national populations that are predominantly white finally gotten out of the way through forced race-replacement and other means, there’ll be no longer any obstacle standing in the way of the Marxists’ acquiring the absolute dictatorial power they crave, power they’re certainly not going to be denied by the exertions of races such as black Africans, Latin Americans, Indian Subcontinentals, and yellows.  The Marxists laugh at such races and see only whites as obstacles.  That’s why they’re desperately trying to drive whites out of existence and not Negroes, yellows, or Hispanics.  If they feared Negroes, yellows, or Hispanics it would be the other way around:  they’d be trying desperately to commit genocide against them, while not wasting so much as an ounce of energy on whites.

The task lying before whites who see perfectly what’s going on and don’t like it—whites such as friends of, for example (not whites who are friends of GnXp—those whites like what’s going on)—is to throw the monkey wrench into the gears of this Wall-Street/Marxist juggernaut and bring it down. 

That’s a tall order.  But as the expression goes, failure is not an option.

( *  Christian Mexicans aren’t under attack because, though Christian, they aren’t white; Jews aren’t under attack because, though white, they aren’t Christian.  To be targeted for attack you have to be both white and Christian.  White or Christian alone isn’t enough.)


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 00:51 | #

“Moreover, in a social system that has no welfare, IQ is not correlated with going on welfare. In a social system in which the state ensures that no one lives in poverty, IQ is not correlated with living in poverty.”  (—Prof. Sternberg, quoted in the log entry)

Using bitter irony, Prof. Sternberg is here saying the fault for the different performances among races lies with our society’s being insufficiently socialist. 

But voices have been raised in support of the notion that socialism (said by these commentators to be an invention of whites, for whites) can’t be exported or transplanted to non-whites, and furthermore, the greater the number of non-whites welcomed into a nation, the less the hope that socialism will succeed there. 

<u>Here</u>‘s one such voice:

“[M]any liberal policies require an understanding of racial differences. For example, I think government has an important role in helping look after people who cannot look after themselves. But I also think people support welfare programs only when there is a shared feeling of social obligation, which cannot be felt across racial lines. Just as Americans resent it when aliens go on welfare, they resent it when people who are visibly not their kin – but happen to be citizens – take public charity.
“I think welfare benefits at a certain level are a natural reflection of the way whites build societies. Every white nation, without exception, has moved in this direction. If the nanny state goes too far, as it did in Scandinavia, voters will rein it in, but the record suggests that welfare programs are inherent to white societies. It is only when non-whites who do not feel the same reciprocal web of obligations to society are included in welfare that we get abuse and degeneracy so flagrant that we are tempted to throw out the whole system. But it is silly to think that just because blacks and Hispanics make a mess of welfare that welfare itself is wrong.

“The emancipation of women and the loosening of sexual restraints must also be understood in a racial context. It has opened up opportunities for many white women but has condemned huge numbers of black and Hispanic women to wretched single-motherhood. Here again we see racial traits that do – or do not – make ‘liberalism’ possible, and it would be a mistake to condemn liberalism itself because of the havoc it has wrought on certain groups. 

“It is true that in Scandinavian countries illegitimacy rates are high – 65 percent in Iceland, 49 percent in Norway, and 54 percent in Sweden – but this does not mean for the Nordics what it means for Harlem. Swedes may not be marrying but they are cohabiting in exactly the kind of stable relationship that is necessary for children and which marriage is designed to ensure. High rates of black bastardy and its attendant horrors are the price Americans pay for ‘liberalism,’ but in Sweden high rates of bastardy are essentially benign.” (cont’d next comment)


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 00:55 | #

(cont’d from previous comment)

“There are many ‘liberal’ movements – animal rights, environmentalism, ecu-menicism, homosexual rights – that have virtually no following among non-whites, and that unmask liberalism’s best-kept and most embarrassing little secret: only whites can really be liberals (the verdict is still out on north Asians). Try explaining women’s liberation to Africans, or telling Honduran millionaires there should be income redistribution, or arguing for religious freedom with Muslims, or telling Japanese to be nice to homosexuals, or even asking American blacks to recycle beer cans. 

“To repeat: A far-reaching liberalism involving redistribution of wealth requires,  first of all, a homogeneous society in which people think of their nation as an extended family. Those feelings do not easily cross the racial divide. Second, liberalism succeeds only with whites. Although they refuse to admit it, the frustration of so many of today’s liberals comes from trying to make their policies work in a multi-racial society like our own and from trying to export them to places like Haiti. A dedicated liberal with any sense of the practical should be a dedicated separatist.

“Liberalism is no different from so many other practices and institutions that sprang up among whites and are not appropriate for others. Our country keeps mindlessly trying to push democracy, rule of law, freedom of the press, etc. onto people for whom these things are meaningless. But it would be a mistake to note the racial aspect of the mismatch only when a ‘conservative’ idea or institution fails to take root among non-whites. Liberalism deserves the same analysis. 
“[L]iberalism is perfectly sound when practiced by the people among whom it originated and for which it was designed. To expand distinctively white institutions to include others is like putting a saddle on a cow.
“If the country really does become an Afro-Caribbean-Hispanic mish-mash it is not going to meet either the racial or economic requirements for liberalism. You cannot have European-style welfare in a country with a Third-World population or a Third-World economy. It is all very well to pass laws that guarantee universal medical care, but if large parts of the economy are off the books, everyone cheats on taxes, and the doctors are on the take, you end up with private medicine anyway. In its new, anti-white incarnation, liberalism will destroy liberalism. In order to survive, liberalism must reverse course on race. Believe it or not, some of us liberals understand this.”

(The author of that excellent article, by the way, signs with a woman’s pen name and claims to be a woman, but women can’t really conceive of the entities men know as human races and nation-states, concepts the author of the piece draws heavily on, so it seems highly implausible it was written by a woman.  To back that impression up I plugged the text (minus all quotations long or short which didn’t come from the author, and minus all photos and captions) into <u>Gender Genie</u>Gender Genie considers the author to be a male [“Female score 4566, Male score 5857”]).


Posted by ummjack on Wed, 04 May 2005 01:37 | #

Oh please, I plug my blog into gender genie and come out male too.  And I’m not only female, I’m lactating, which makes me extra-female.


Posted by Braveheart on Wed, 04 May 2005 04:31 | #

Does anybody have data about the average brain size of Moroccans?

This could perhaps be an explanation why Moroccans (and the immigrants in particular) mostly adhere to a simple religion (Islam). A religion that in that respect teaches them as a paradox that “the people with small brains are superior to the big brains”, which of course doesn’t correspond with reality.  The “solution” then being to tease the people with big brains (us) away, by raping their women under the pretext that they should dress otherwise…



Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 09:08 | #

What’s your blog, ummjack?  I’ll plug some of your text in and try it.

Gender Genie certainly doesn’t claim to be infallible, and no one takes it to be.  They include their error rate at the site somewhere—I forget off-hand what it is.  (I’ve not known it to make a mistake when used as directed in tests.)

My strong suspicion is the author is male, and that’s based on the subject matter and the specific ways in which that subject matter is presented—which of course is not what Gender Genie goes by.  I plugged the text into Gender Genie only to see if that program agreed with my suspicion on wholely other grounds, and it did. 

If your real problem, ummjack, is with my statement about women being, by and large, unable to conceive those things men call races and nations—my statement that, fundamentally, women don’t have a clue as to what races or nations are—why not come out and say that instead of beating around the bush?


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 09:50 | #

You’re right, ummjack:  I found <u>this page</u> of your stuff (by googling “ummjack”) and plugged all your comments on this page, strung together, into <u>Gender Genie</u> (qualifying them as “blog,” where it asked, “fiction, non-fiction, or blog?”).  This is what it decided:

Words: 1244

(NOTE: The genie works best on texts of more than 500 words.)

Female Score: 1339
Male Score: 2858

The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!

I stand by what I said about strongly suspecting the author of the piece in question is a man.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 13:18 | #

Sorry for straying a bit from the topic of the log entry, but these <u>Aristasians</u> (see also <u>here</u> and <u>here</u>) are allies of those of us who question what’s been happening that’s dragged society down since the 60s and want it stopped and reversed.  I read half-way through <u>the page of comments</u> at ummjack’s blog that I googled in order to plug it into the Gender Genie, and it’s wonderful stuff!  What follows is a small bit of it:

So what does one do? Just say “the people running the show don’t want us to discuss what they are up to and have cleverly fixed it so that we can’t” and leave it at that?

There are so many things one cannot say in the Pit [i.e., the horribly degraded post-60s world, viewed in comparison with what went before]! I came across another example only this afternoon. The president of Harvard University recently made a speech that was supposedly off the record in order to facilitate the free exchange of ideas. But feminists put him on the record, and savaged him, when he spoke of biological differences as one of several possible reasons why there are few women at the top of fields such as engineering and science. The feminist establishment considers this the worst sort of heresy.

A biologist and feminist activist from MIT described her feelings when she heard his speech. “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset.” She fled the room before he’d even finished speaking.

How very… feminine of her. What man would have reacted that way? Doesn’t that tell you something about biological differences that an eminent MIT biologist ought to know? But no! In the topsy-turvy world of the Pit, black is clearly white, and up is without a doubt down.

It might have been funny, except that Miss Belleanne tells me that the Harvard President has been forced to apologise repeatedly for his comments and is still hounded by feminists.

This Soviet-style censorship of scientific enquiry isn’t awfully funny. One might wonder why the said president was such a weed as to apologise for his honestly-held and almost certainly correct beliefs. But then, as would have been the case in the Soviet Union, he undoubtedly has to choose between being a weed and being an ex-President.

Surely the most serious problem here is that, as long as academic enquiry on such subjects is rigorously suppressed by the Red Guards of bongo Policed Consciousness - to the point where University Presidents are forced to apologise for thinking the “wrong thing” - everyone in academia is forced to believe (or pretend to believe) that so long as women are not equally represented with men in departments of mechanical engineering and nuclear physics, this is “proof” that they are being discriminated against.

The corollary of this is that further discriminatory measures are introduced to “rectify” the “problem”; because no one is permitted to discuss whether there actually is a “problem” for fear of saying the “wrong thing”.

To say that women and men have no mental differences is not like debating the highly questionable theory of evolution. It is like declaring the earth to be flat. It simply isn’t the case and this can be seen by anyone with access to brain-scan technology. No one, however feminist, in the sphere of neuroscience has ever attempted to deny this, because it is undeniable.

The widespread belief that femininity is “socially conditioned” is a truly extraordinary example of the supresson of known facts in favour of political mythology.


Posted by ummjack on Wed, 04 May 2005 14:43 | #

I’m not going to link to my blog (the site you found is a message board); it is under a different handle and I keep the online persona I use to discuss gender and race separate from the one I use to discuss parenting and education.  But the gender genie is famously inaccurate at guessing the sex of authors of some kinds of prose.  Try excerpts from  I would expect it would peg her as male.  Try typing in some Carolyn Graglia, Phyllis Schlafly, or Wendy McElroy, or any female journalist not writing about lipsticks and babies. 

Aristasia exists to provide women a forum for normal feminine personae; the gender genie would be pretty useless if it couldn’t peg us there.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 15:20 | #

Thank you, ummjack, and I stand corrected.  (I’ve nevertheless found the Gender Genie a very useful adjunct.)


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 04 May 2005 15:45 | #

Look at this, from ummjack (on <u>that same page</u>):

“The social-construction theory of sexual identity could only have arisen and taken hold after the Eclipse [i.e., the disastrous changes of the 60s, which Aristasians very appropriately call “the Eclipse”]. It is a complete Pit-creature, thoroughly illegitimate, and should be given no quarter. Anyone who is willing to indulge it or its deluded minions in the slightest is a collaborator with evil. I am not seeking rhetorical effects with this language. No language is too strong to deplore the hideous results of forty years of domination by this toxic set of ideas.”

Great stuff!  Well done, ummjack!  Absolutely first-rate, fantastic stuff!


Posted by E.C. on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 04:24 | #

  Jewish people are the most intelligent.  They win almost 40% of the Nobel Prize’s and they have a small population of only 14 million.  So by far they exceed the other races in intelligence.  The other races having huge numbers and such small contributions.

  IQ tests, test intellectual conformity, not creativity and originality.  This would explain the Asian high IQ’s.  They as a people are the ultimate conformists. 

  In IQ tests there is typically only one answer to the problem.  That problem being a social conformity to reason.  But everyone knows that Genius’s and all the greatest developments in the world are not the product of conformity.  Conformity never breeds creativity.  We can see this in the lack of influence the Asian population has had on Science.  China used to be called the “sick man” of Asia.  Their population is massive and their contribution to innovation is almost nil.  We can see this lack of originality in their adoptation of European philosophies, I.e. Communism. 

  Friedrich Nietzsche and other Philosophers have made critized Asian.  Nietsche used the words “Pallid osification” to describe Orientals.

Pallid: lacking sparkle or liveliness, dull.

Osification: Process of becoming inflexible: the process of becoming set and inflexible in behavior, attitudes, and actions.  Inflexible conformity: rigid, unthinking acceptance of social conventions.

  The reality is Asian people have yet to understand that laws and rules are arbitrary.  Europeans make the rules and Asian’s follow them.

  It also doesn’t make sense that Asian’s are considered smart because of the fact that they have destroyed their own countries.  This is due to over-population and their basic lack of enviromental understanding.

  It is also common scientific fact that women who have many children are ignorant, and those who have less children are more intelligent.  This has already been proven in studies.  So it seems strange to say that Asians are smart when the obviousness of their backwards countries, and medieval lifestyle makes them contrary to that premise.

  Europeans have the most advanced civilizations and every other race has yet to meet these levels other than the Japanese.  The Japanese only being good at copying other people’s inventions and making them better.  Other than that their original creativity is lacking as well.  They took American cars and made them better.  They took the German camera and made it better.  And they took German steel and made it better.  Otherwise the greatest advances still come from Europeans and Jews.  Other than that the Orientals have yet to produce an Einstein or a Thomas Edison.   

  When it comes to Black people.  It makes sense that they have low intellectual comformity, I.e. IQ tests.  They are far too creative to be trapped in this unoriginal form of conditioning.  You can tell their creative capacity in their athletics, music, dance, and the way they talk.  They by far exceed the Asiatic races in these areas.  Being better singers, musicians ect.  Blacks far exceed Asians in emotive expression.  In all of North America there is only one or two famous high-paid Asian actors.

  Reality, Europeans rule the world and they have allowed others to exist only out of desire for economic bennifet.  They, (Europeans) are also the physically strongest, winning the Strongest Man competitions again and again.  And they have become the most effective hunters due to their neccesity for animal food stuffs in a northern climate with lack of vegetables. 

  The greater the conformity, the weaker the race.  Thus we see the races as they are today.  The wild animal being bred out of man, and the physically impotent, conformist thriving. 

  Otherwise “Group psychology” is the most destructive thing in the world.  All these stereotypes are false when it comes to the individual.  Individualism is the most important thing for this time.  All countries, Relgions, groups need to dissolve for man to live in peace.


Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:06 | #

E.C.‘s long comment just above was from first word to last a waste of otherwise perfectly good electrons.  I made the mistake of reading it.  Don’t you.


Posted by Darren on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:44 | #

” Otherwise “Group psychology” is the most destructive thing in the world.  All these stereotypes are false when it comes to the individual.  Individualism is the most important thing for this time.  All countries, Relgions, groups need to dissolve for man to live in peace. “

Disagree. Humans evolved to survive in groups. The level of cohesiveness is just a variable between the races. Groups are important and vital, not for the members of the group but so that the group can consistently produce more great individuals. Thus, all groups should strive to hold a very high standard of idealism and seek these people out from within.

I also disagree with your materialistic definition of intelligence. The East Asian peoples certainly had sophisticated societies but just like us, we have become spiritually weak and degenerative because of modernity.


Posted by Darren on Mon, 02 Jun 2008 09:23 | #

“Jewish people are the most intelligent.  They win almost 40% of the Nobel Prize’s and they have a small population of only 14 million.  So by far they exceed the other races in intelligence.”

Do you think that Jews are, as an ethnic group, are creative? You, on one hand, bash IQ tests for not measuring creativity, but on the other hand, welcome Jews, the champion of IQ, without a single question as to their creative contribution.

Jews, as a group, have contributed very little to literature or the arts. Even today, in socities that are largely free of institutionalized anti-Semitism, Jews still fail to contribute to these areas. What we see today being passed off as art from Jews is pornography and filth that is in direct contradiction to our social values (there are, of course, noteworthy contradictions to this, but they are few and far between).

Jews are a nomadic people with no real homeland, no real racial identity (a hodge-podge of races they picked up into their DNA as a result of their diaspora), and no real culture other than being middlemen and merchants. I don’t oppose all Jews, just the ones who want to live without a real culture and make their success off their degeneration of real cultures.

I consider the your definition of “advanced” (i.e. measuring it by the number of inventions and discoveries) to be crass and materialistic. People like Julius Evola, Rene Guenon, and Ezra Pound saw much wisdom in the ancient Chinese traditions and little of value in the Jewish ones. We, as a people, need to get back to our traditional foundations.


Posted by Drew on Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:05 | #

“The Jews are peculiarly and conspicuously the world’s intellectual aristocracy… [Jewish] contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are way out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world… and has done it with his hands tied behind him.” -Mark Twain

Post a comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me

Next entry: A kick in the mouth ... from the horse’s mouth
Previous entry: What?  No arrests?

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem



Endorsement not implied.


Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks






Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties


Europeans in Africa

Of Note


DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:46. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:28. (View)

Terror Suspect Arrested commented in entry 'Terror in Westminster and the official lies which follow' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 13:05. (View)

Student unions boycotting Israel warned commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:55. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:29. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 08:22. (View)

life immitates story commented in entry 'Hermeneutics Circles Back to The Passions of Captain Chaos' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 04:16. (View)

Anonimous commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:21. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Thu, 27 Apr 2017 01:24. (View)

Patrick Le Brun's Bomb (((Shoah))) commented in entry 'In search of a nationalist majority' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 23:15. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 17:12. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Alt-Right cannot be trusted to represent Whites, ethnonationalists on crucial matters' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:48. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 13:11. (View)

Sea Hawk commented in entry 'A Possible Explanation for the Flynn Effect' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:34. (View)

Miss Turismo Carabobo commented in entry 'See Caracas Then Die' on Wed, 26 Apr 2017 02:30. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 22:26. (View)

SERG commented in entry 'The coming battle over the meaning of Brexit.' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:00. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 13:02. (View)

Russian"Pawn Storm" phises Macron campaign commented in entry 'Minister: Russia hacked Danish defence for two years' on Tue, 25 Apr 2017 09:29. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 22:55. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 18:32. (View)

Dugin: Bannon an "ideologicl ally" commented in entry 'The Paleocon agenda behind the Alt-Right & Trump becomes explicit with Trump's attack on Syria' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 13:33. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Mon, 24 Apr 2017 03:15. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 23:54. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:53. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 18:23. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:31. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:13. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:48. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:35. (View)

Kumiko Oumae commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 14:03. (View)

Dr_Eigenvector commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:39. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'GW's Best Friend, Arthur Scargill (well, not really his best friend at all).' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 12:07. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:58. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn't Mean' on Sun, 23 Apr 2017 11:02. (View)