Comments on: Jean Philippe Rushton is Dead

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:04:01 +0000

In reply to dean. Well put.

By: dean

dean — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 22:09:35 +0000

I think the message here is clear: don’t point out that ass-hats like Rushton were simply racists and don’t do science without realizing more ass-hats like dirk and others of that ilk will get butt-hurt.

Apparently ignorance racists aren’t very bright but do stick together. Like dog shit on a hiking boot.

By: Dirk

Dirk — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 22:01:51 +0000

Dear Lord how much I despise vile, toxic lib-tards such as yourselves.

By: En neuroforskare, en statsvetare och en svensk riksdagsledamot går in i en rasistisk diskurs… – antrologiskt

Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:12:05 +0000

[…] science” (p. 643). Men är självfallet inget annat än vulgär vetenskaplig rasism. Rushton var oerhört ogillad och få tog hans forskning […]

By: Cartier McCloud

Cartier McCloud — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:29:03 +0000

And if you think niggers are in any way equal to Whites, you’re even more brainwashed.

mccloud.cartier@gmail.com
108.84.185.100

By: Cartier McCloud

Cartier McCloud — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 00:27:54 +0000

Greg, you are a jew brainwashed fool. One day YOU’LL be dead. Ding dong.

mccloud.cartier@gmail.com
108.84.185.100

By: Michael Söndergaard

Michael Söndergaard — Sat, 16 Apr 2016 14:57:09 +0000

I am writing a piece about Rushton right now (in Swedish). I have a special chapter on friends and foes of Rushton. The foes do often act in a strange way (like Greg Laden). Let me give you two examples: 1. One thing that strikes me is that the foes of Rushton often refer to the things he has not written about. For instance does he argue thar africans are not inferior to europeans. He rest this argument on evolution. 2. John Philippe Rushtons name is John Philippe Rushton (and not Jean-Philippe Rushton). The mistakes done by Greg Laden are quite common and are therefore excused because he lacks knowledge. Ignorance is bliss. A tip for the future to the harsh critics of Rushton: Read his articles before critizing. This alternative give rise to proper criticism instead of politicallly correct statments that don´t represent the reality. Racism must be fought with truth instead of meta-stupid lies.

Michael Söndergaard

By: John

John — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 19:07:46 +0000

Ok, I give up. You win. You obviously do not understand r/K selection, or Rushton’s theory regarding its relation to humans, or have any desire to. You probably haven’t and won’t ever read anything he has actually written. I could try to point out each flaw in your derisive thousand-word tirades but it would just evoke more of the same. For anybody who stumbles across this blog like I did last year, here is something interesting and pertinent to the conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
You can respond all you like but I won’t see it. I’m done. You win.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:31:22 +0000

John, dude! You did not refute the population number issue. You hopped over it with an unexciting response. Broken Butterfly cannot do anymore for you as you’re far too closeminded to cope with what they’ve put forth. You act like you don’t get why people use birth control. I’m worried. Are you even aware that there is such a thing as birth control? Whites and Orientals only appear to have “small litter size” because they use birth control to largely reduce their numbers. Take away the birth control, and their numbers would shoot up again. Trust me! They’ve decided they don’t want to have many kids anymore. China is using the “one child policy” to forcibly reduce their numbers. This is engineering, not natural evolution. If Oriental Chinese adapted to their environment, and adapted to have “small litter size” then why on earth would they need such a policy? This suggests to us that they can’t keep their “reproduction” in check and need more drastic measures to control it, so their government has taken matters into their own hands.

Chinese were not always such a big population, you know. They had a sudden huge increase over a few decades and then ended up with an overpopulation problem.

Do you honestly think it could change that rapidly if reproduction in humans was a set pattern?

Blacks don’t reproduce the most, and most crucially, whites don’t reproduce more than Orientals. The white population, worldwide, has been seriously shrinking and it’s NOT because Europe and North America is flooded with “disease” and “famine” and “aids”. Whites have the lowest birth rate, not the highest death rate, and they do not fall between blacks and Orientals. The three-way-pattern is NOT consistent on reproduction.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

The main problem I see is that Rushton was using “litter size” to estimate the rate at which human groups have sex. And he was using “promiscuity” to estimate little size as well. Accept this is manipulated by birth control and humans regularly engage in non-procreation sex. Some females fall pregnant with the first male they go with, other females fall pregnant after having been with many males. Some females have many children with the same male, while other females have many children with different males. Some folks could have lots of casual sex and still be childless. You can’t overlook the effects of birth control on “litter size”. It’s not a matter of whether kids survive to adulthood; it’s a matter of them not being born in the first place!

And furthermore, if sexual activity does not determine “litter size” then it is an arbitrary point to make. It’s like saying, well, blacks and whites appear taller when standing next to Orientals. And? So what?

By: Broken Butterfly

Broken Butterfly — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:34:56 +0000

Part 3

John,

Are we meant to be like animals now?

Do men act out of pure instinct and copulate with whatever female they can get their hands on? And Africans are the most predisposed to this, right? That is essentially what Philippe Rushton was going for. Aside from being very degrading to men – especially ones with big penises – it perverts evolution to create a racial bias.

And what about the rape epidemics caused by Semite Muslims? How are you going to explain them? Semites don’t have quite as much testosterone as do Africans, but Semites sure can rape. Even worse than African-Americans, since Semites rape small girls as often as they rape adult women.

Japanese, also, did a big rape on Chinese and Korean women during WW2.

You see, none of it fits in with the genetic-basis argument.

Instead, it looks like it has a lot more to do with humans abusing their act of free will, and being encouraged to do so by religious beliefs and culture and upbringing.

Even rapists are selective about their victims, which again supports the idea of choice and not genetic predisposition. Rapists are a lot more selective than muggers are. Muggers will mug anyone in a dark alleyway. Rapists hunt and groom and plot. Rapists, typically, know their victims. Raping is far more psychological than physiological. It’s about hurting the victim by dominating over them. Rape is full of malice and hate.

Now, a ‘psychologist’ like Philippe Rushton should know better than to blame rape on the physiological need to be gratified.

A man who rapes on ‘impulse’ wouldn’t even been normal I think. He’d be disturbed. Most rapists are not found to be mentally disturbed and their raping isn’t impulsive. Selfish, spiteful, hateful and abusive, but not mentally disturbed.

What’s next…?