Evo-psycho bros believe race exists ~ do they believe racism exists?

Koran-Burning Pastor Hangs Obama in Effigy in Church’s Front Yard
do evo-psycho bros believe that ANYTHING is racist?

In Biosocial Criminology: Directions in Theory and Research edited by Anthony Walsh, and Kevin M Beaver, John Paul Wright says:

Moreover evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.

Wright also states:

...neighborhoods often stand in stark contrast to one another. Those composed of criminals, of large single-parent households, of drug abusers, of the mentally ill, and of individuals of limited intelligence are visibly different than those composed by the educated, the intelligent, and the pro-social. Unfortunately, these factors do tend to cluster on race. Areas afflicted by crime and other social pathologies are more frequently black than white, and even less frequently Oriental. Part of the reason for these visible and dramatic differences may have to do with the differential abilities of races to organize socially.

Although Wright wrote the statements I haven't found any evidence that the other Criminal Justice evo-psycho bros have any problems with his statements. So I think it's safe to assume they all agree that black people have "evolved" to be innately...

• less intelligent
• more criminal
• less able to organize socially

...than other "races."

Wright goes even further on his blog (co-authored with Matt DeLisi, Coordinator of Criminal Justice Studies, Professor in the Department of Sociology, and Faculty Affiliate of the Center for the Study of Violence at Iowa State University) which blurs the line between his professional and his political views since it's called "Conservative Criminology."

Conservative Criminology shares descriptions of black "thug life"

Her sons, age 14 and 16, had witnessed a murder and were in fear for their lives.  Instead of leaving town, moving, or, heaven forbid, helping the police, she instead did nothing.  Her kids, she said at one point, “were doing work” and had to “make their names.”  When you hear someone use these phrases, they mean engaging in crime and earning a street rep. 

The boys left home Saturday and did not return.  The police, finding their charred remains, had a sketch drawn up and circulated.  A teacher at the boy’s school recognized the faces and called the police.  Mom, as the cops point out, did nothing.  Immediately afterwards, however, she went on TV to plead her case......as she has done twice now.
Thug life is brutal and despite all the rhetoric of “I’ve got your back” you can never really trust anyone.  You do not find honor on the street.  You find savagery.  Their alleged killer is a man named Brice Rhodes, AKA “Rambo.”  Rhodes is an aspiring rapper, apparent drug dealer, and the likely murderer of 3 people. 

Conclusion:

​Let me be clear:  The social conditions that killed these two young boys was a culture that glorifies crime and violence, that rejects all social conventions and morality, and that embraces thuggery as a lifestyle.  Thugs, like Brice Rhodes, are part of the tapestry of criminal influences that converge to destroy lives--mainly young, black lives.  They attract lost boys, mentor them in the life, use them like bait, and discard them when done.   

And you don’t want to know what they do to girls and women.
Studying people like “Rambo” and the mom tells us a lot about the depths of pathology found in the criminal underclass.  None of it is pretty.  None of it is moral.  None of it vanishes if we ignore it. 

​I suspect a lot of criminologists know this........especially those who have worked in the field or who have studied crime beyond confines of their office computer.  Few, however, speak honestly or candidly about crime--especially black crime--for reasons that are complex.  Part of me, however, believes they don’t want to know how bad, how vulgar, and how horrible people in the life really are.  Knowing this may shake their assumptions that criminals are victims or it may change their minds about the necessity of incarceration.  They certainly don’t want you to know how bad it is because they fear you more than they fear thugs like “Rambo."

Since we know that Wright believes that blacks are less intelligent, less able to organize socially and more inclined to criminality it's likely that he thinks those factors are responsible for "a culture that glorifies crime and violence, that rejects all social conventions and morality, and that embraces thuggery as a lifestyle."

Wright doesn't just dislike black "thugs" though, he doesn't seem to like many other black people either. This is what he said about Black Lives Matter:

Much of the movement is predicated on the demonstrably false narrative that police officers wantonly and without justification murder blacks.  Unfortunately, this narrative finds a receptive audience within academia because it gels with leftist beliefs that the police are racist barbarians.  In my mind, the rush of academics to embrace BLM and to lend it academic legitimacy is shameful, entirely partisan, and even cowardly.  

In fact, he thinks Black Lives Matter is immoral.

Just as evo-psycho bro Jerry Coyne doesn't trust Muslim women to make choices about their own lives, so apparently John Paul Wright doesn't trust black people to be honest about their lives. Wright seems to believe that black people are just inventing police brutality and then selling it to gullible leftist academics who for some reason just want to hate the police.

The left and blacks have long been targets of conservatives:

One of Richard Nixon's top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper's Magazine. 

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday."You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Wright says this about Barack Obama:

While I did not support the election of President Obama, I did hope that he would move more to the center and would govern from the center.  Instead, he made it clear that “elections have consequences,” that “he won,” and that he “had a mandate for change.”  Time and again, when he had the chance to signal his respect for the other side of the country, he doubled-down and further alienated them.  Even after massive Tea Party protests and losing congress and a large number of states, his administration never wavered in their commitment to ignore, tarnish, or besmirch the other half of the country.   

As I pointed out in our book, for example, the Tea Party movement was well organized and largely civil.  Over 2,000,000 citizens left their homes and marched on Washington DC to peacefully protest their government.  What was the lefts response:  The Tea Party is racist.

Wright doesn't offer any examples of Obama doing things to disrespect and alienate "the other side of the country." I remember Obama as being extraordinarily measured in his actions and responses. In fact as we see in this story, many blacks thought Obama didn't do enough for blacks:

As President Obama's administration draws to a close, observers — and the president himself — are taking stock of his legacy on race in America. In a wide-ranging interview this week with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Obama responded to critics among people of color who say that, despite their overwhelming support at the ballot box, the president hasn't done enough to deliver results for their communities.

We have evidence the Tea Party was largely racist, just as we have evidence that Trump supporters are mostly racist. 

John Paul Wright thinks the Tea Party was not racist. But I don't think he's a reliable judge of racism.

Meanwhile the Winegard brothers and Brian Boutwell in their article On the Reality of Race and the Abhorrence of Racism advise their readers:

Therefore, with appropriate care and caution, scientists can and should study racial variation. This argument may appear alarming to people concerned about racial justice. But it doesn’t need to be. Tolerance and cosmopolitanism don’t require the leveling of diversity; they require the celebration of it. Race exists, but racism does not have to.

So what have the studies of "racial variation" from the Criminal Justice evo-psycho bros wrought? Claims of black intellectual, moral and social inferiority and John Paul Wright in particular has a clear animosity towards black people.

So given all this what exactly do the Winegards and Boutwell consider "appropriate care and caution"? Is there anything that an evo-psycho bro can say that qualifies as racist?

In a recent magazine article I found these various descriptions:

The men proposed killing every male member of the rival gang. Then a woman from the clan spoke up. “Kill them all,” she said. “Even the women. Even the kids.” 

*** 

As they grew older, their lives adhered to a prescribed course: marriage quickly followed by motherhood. (She) left school at thirteen. At fourteen she eloped with a twenty-year-old... 

***  

Soon (her husband) was regularly beating her, mostly for speaking out of turn. “He beat me when I said what I thought,” she said later. “He attacked me to get me to shut up.” And it wasn’t long before he was arrested and jailed... 

***  

Within a few years, she had eloped with him, begun to endure his beatings (including one in which he held a gun to her head), and seen him hauled off to jail. She, too, eventually had three children with her husband. 

***  

In time, she learned how the men in the family moved cocaine... the locations around town where her husband had helped bury the family’s arsenal: rifles, pistols, and machine guns, stored in preparation for war.  

***  

(records of surveillance included) descriptions of rituals, evidence of murders, locations of bunkers, and detailed accounts of cocaine smuggling, extortion rackets, money laundering, credit-card fraud, and public corruption. 

***  

Her father and her brother... beat her until they cracked a rib. The men refused to let (her) be treated in the hospital, arranging for a... doctor to visit the house instead. It was three months before she was well enough to step outside. Even then, male cousins followed her wherever she went.

*** 

Where do these thugs live? Some decaying city in the US? 

The article, The Women Who Took on the Mafia, begins:

In Calabria, Lea Garofalo’s disappearance required no explanation. The local Mafia, known as the ’Ndrangheta, had a term for people who simply vanished: lupara bianca, or “white shotgun,” a killing that left no corpse. Residents of Pagliarelle, the mountain village where Garofalo’s family lived, added her name to a list of victims who were never to be mentioned again. In three decades, thirty-five local men and women had been murdered in Mafia vendettas, including Garofalo’s father, her uncle, and her brother.

So it's Calabria, in the Southern tip of the Italian "boot" and these events took place in the 21st century.

We've already seen that John Paul Wright believes:

areas afflicted by crime and other social pathologies are more frequently black than white, and even less frequently Oriental

and

evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime.

and

No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.

Judging by his name, Wright's co-author Matt DeLisi may be of at least partial Italian ancestry. So maybe John Paul Wright should ask Matt DeLisi: are Italians white?

For a comparison of Italian and black criminality in the United States I recommend Malcolm Gladwell's The Crooked Ladder.

In spite of the racist right's extreme hatred of Barack Obama, Obama helped a greater number of white people than black people thanks to the Affordable Care Act if only because there are more white people in the US.

I think this "Tom the Dancing Bug" cartoon is the best parable for the impact that racism has had to degrade the quality of life of whites in the United States.

The Claire Lehmann brilliance keeps expressing itself

I'll be getting back to the evo-psychos bros and their racism soon, but had to share alt-right Claire Lehmann's latest Twitter hits.

Claire Lehmann: hooray for individuality!

Followers: ditto!

Followers: LEFTISTS all think the same!

The alt-right and other feminist-haters cannot resist the urge to lie about the Roiphe controversy. The piece was never blacklisted, people had heard Katie Roiphe planned to out the creator of the "Shitty Media Men" list, which Roiphe apparently had originally planned and were concerned the creator would be targeted a la Gamergate.

Once the creator outed herself it was no longer an issue. But Claire Lehmann and her followers like to feel oppressed by The Left.

Christina Hoff Sommers, the Koch brothers favorite hack on their payroll is naturally on Team Roiphe:

OK that's really not fair - the Koch brothers have a lot of hacks on their payroll, I don't know that Sommers is their favorite.

Roiphe simply rehashed her usual themes for the Harper's piece - but that's what Harper's expected when they assigned her. Roiphe is always reliably anti-feminist and likes to posture as a contrarian.

Katha Pollitt responded to the first round of Roiphe idiocy in 1993 and much of what she said then still applies. Or as this feminist on Twitter noted:

Although my favorite response was

Republicans are driving the obesity epidemic

Contrary to alt-right Claire Lehmann's claim that feminism is fueling the obesity crisis, thanks to the Pew Research Center we can see that in the US at least it's Republicans who are fueling - and driving - the obesity crisis with their preference for large houses with everything located miles away that you can't walk to.

This would also explain why liberals flock to cities and conservatives stay out in the sticks.

I have another theory - large houses with lots of ground far away from everything favors the old patriarchal model of family life, with the husband as the king of the castle and the wife and children his subjects. Especially if the wife doesn't work, the "king" owns the house and the car and everything depends on him.

Black History Month: the rediscovery of Florence Price

I was attracted to the New Yorker's tweet about this American composer because this illustration caught my eye. Of course I had never heard of Florence Price.

The New Yorker article notes:

The obvious objection that could be lodged against the modest Florence Price revival—Radio 3, the BBC classical station, will also participate by airing previously unheard Price works during an International Women’s Day broadcast, on March 8th—is that the composer benefits from special pleading. If she were not black and a woman, would she be played? But other hypotheticals could be asked as well. If racism and misogyny had not so profoundly defined European and American culture, would as many white male composers have prospered? Granted, the repertory of older music cannot be drastically reëngineered to reflect contemporary values. The idea is not to replace all performances of the “New World” with renditions of Price’s symphonies and concertos. But her pieces warrant more attention than they are receiving now—especially from major orchestras. The same goes for neglected figures like Amy Beach, whose “Gaelic” Symphony (1896) packs a considerable punch, or William Dawson, whose “Negro Folk Symphony” (1934) is a brilliant, idiosyncratic creation.

I have to wonder if the evo-psycho bros believe that Price was actually discriminated against for being black and a woman. I'm beginning to get the impression they think all charges of discrimination have been, since the end of the Civil War, the result of a nefarious collusion against the truth by blacks and liberals. I will talk more about that in the next post.

Clip from a documentary about Price.

Evo-psycho bros & the reproductive success of Immanuel Kant

It's easy to understand why some people are drawn to evolutionary psychology. Their studies don't take much work:

1. Detect a human social behavior
2. Write a paper declaring the social behavior to be a direct result of sexual selection based on the evo-psycho just-so stories about human behavior in pre-historical times.
3. Get published.

Also if you have old data handy,  developed by white supremacists, do not hesitate to base claims of black intellectual inferiority on that data.

Here we see a work in progress by the Winegard brothers, joined by David C. Geary of the University of Missouri entitled The Status Competition Model of Cultural Production.

They argue that most of what men do is to impress other men and thus make them more desirable as mates for women indirectly. Although sometimes men do things to directly impress women. Like write treacly love poetry.

The paper doesn't address the inconvenient fact of homosexuality which will always remain one of the most obvious problems with evolutionary psychology. If we are here because every non-survival activity that humans perform is meant to attract mates which leads to reproduction, how is there homosexuality?

The evo-psycho homosexuality quandry was on display via Andrew Sullivan, observed by Tom Scocca in the image above.

Evo-psycho bro Jerry Coyne admires Sullivan's rhetorical, if not actual dedication to the principles of evolutionary psychology.

The Winegards/Geary paper references the usual evo-psycho suspects Buss and Toby and Pinker.

And what evo-psycho work would be complete if it didn't cite a right-winger with no credentials other than she makes a living being paid by the Koch brothers to attack feminism?

Although I didn't realize that Christina Hoff Sommers  considered herself a "philosopher" now.

How about "Koch Brothers Handmaidens"?

The Winegards and Geary are simply rehashing Pinker's claims in The Blank Slate. The New Yorker had an excellent response to the Darwinian fundamentalism of Pinker's views of culture:

Most of life is conducted in an environment of man-made stimulants and inhibitors, incentives and deterrents. Many impulses are channelled or suppressed, and many talents and feelings are acquired, and have no specific genetic basis or evolutionary logic at all. Music appreciation, for instance, seems to be wired in at about the level of "Hot Cross Buns." But people learn to enjoy Wagner. They even learn to sing Wagner. One suspects that enjoying Wagner, singing Wagner, anything to do with Wagner, is in gross excess of the requirements of natural selection. To say that music is the product of a gene for "art-making," naturally selected to impress potential mates—which is one of the things Pinker believes—is to say absolutely nothing about what makes any particular piece of music significant to human beings. No doubt Wagner wished to impress potential mates; who does not? It is a long way from there to "Parsifal."

Heads up breeder wanna-bes! Parsifal is coming to Manhattan in 2018!

And that brings us around to Immanuel Kant. The Winegards and Geary use Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" to illustrate their theory that creating culture, including philosophical works, makes one attractive to mates.

Immanuel Kant is widely believed to have been celibate and not only that, it seems likely that devoting himself to the Critique of Pure Reason actually prevented him from reproducing.

According to Kühn, whose acclaimed biography of the philosopher has just been published in Germany, Kant also had "amorous interests" in two women - though there is no evidence these were consummated.

It was only at the age of 57, after Kant had published his most famous work, his Critique of Pure Reason, that he was in a position to support a wife. "By this time it was too late," Kühn said.

With the exception of Schopenhauer they couldn't have picked a worse philosopher to illustrate their theory of philosophy as an enhancer of reproductive success.

How much does alt-right Claire Lehmann of Quillette hate feminists?

Claire Lehmann knows a feminist who agrees with
Claire Lehmann that feminists are to blame for everything.

NOTE: for more criticisms of Lehmann and Quillette, see PINKERITE: Steven Pinker, the Intellectual Dark Web and Race Science.

Claire Lehmann hates feminists. As I pointed out earlier, all mentions of feminists and feminism in her magazine Quillette are negative.

And she wasn't any better when she was a regular on the Canadian alt-right Rebel Media.

I normally wouldn't care - few people have heard of Lehmann or Quillette, but evo-psycho bros like Steven Pinker, who has 376K followers on Twitter keep promoting Quillette, recommending articles written by evo-psycho bros about why race is real, and why it's a scientific fact that "black" people are by nature less intelligent and more criminal than other "races."

I will discuss the connection between that and Pinker's PC video soon.

Here we see Claire Lehmann at the Rebel  explaining why feminism is to  blame for obesity.

Lehmann tells us she submitted a paper to the European Parliament on stress and female unhappiness. My guess is that it says similar things to the Helena Cronin/Oliver Curry policy paper from almost two decades ago, later rebranded as an editorial "Pity the Poor Men" which argued that the British government should have a two-track employment system to ensure that women spend more time with their children and to ensure that men earn more money than women. Because of evolutionary logic.

Lehmann doesn't say what happened to her paper, but my guess is the European Parliament laughed in her face since she finishes up the video by suggesting that there is a big conspiracy against the truth.

What amazes me is the alt-right's belief in the power of feminists to first create jobs for women and then force women out into the workforce against their will. And then make them stop cooking.

Lehmann points to British feminist Rosie Boycott to back her up. And in spite of Lehmann's hatred of feminists, she and Boycott are on the same page: just like the alt-right, Boycott believes in the supernatural power of feminist rhetoric. So rather than looking at the complex historical and economic forces that made such big changes to society over decades, Boycott believes that she was so powerful she talked everybody out of cooking...

Ms Boycott said she felt “partly responsible”, having co-founded the seminal feminist magazine Spare Rib in 1971. “I said ‘don’t cook, don’t type. You’ll get ahead.’ We lost it. Schools gave up cooking. Everyone gave up cooking.” 

In fact women started to work outside the home in great numbers before feminism became a significant social force. It was women working outside the home that empowered feminism and not the other way around.

As we see in this chart below. The chart has data point pop-ups that you can't see in the image but online here you'll see that in the United States in 1940 women were 25.4% of the workforce and in 1974 women were 45.66% of the workforce.

While 1972, the year "I Am Woman" by Helen Reddy was a hit, is considered by some to be the advent of feminism as a major social force, I'd rather give that honor to 1974, the first year that women were allowed to apply for their own credit cards. So the female workforce had increased 79.5% in 34 years by the time The Equal Credit Opportunity Act forced credit card companies to treat women like adults.

Although thanks to a re-run of the Mary Tyler Moore show it was brought to my attention that as late as 1975 women were expected to quit their jobs when they got married.

If only Claire Lehmann could get into a time machine and live her life in those glorious yesteryears before all this awful feministing forced womanly women such as herself to stop being housewives and instead work for - and create - shitty right-wing media entities.

Steve Sailer in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" 2004

Ugh

Ugh, I'm probably the only human being to read "The Cousin Marriage Conundrum" since 2005.

Steven Pinker and Steve Sailer go back to at least 2002 when Sailer interviewed Pinker about The Blank Slate. although he mentioned Pinker even earlier on his iSteve blog and used the term "human biodiversity" too. I haven't found Pinker mentioning Sailer publicly after 2011 when he used Sailer for a positive blurb for "Better Angels."

Sailer still talks about Pinker though, posting Pinker's PC video in a recent Unz column.

Pinker must have been aware of Sailer's attitudes about race by 2004. Sailer was already saying this kind of stuff in 1997:

On average, black men tend to appear slightly more and Asian men slightly less masculine than white men, while Asian women are typically seen as slightly more and black women as slightly less feminine than white women. 

Obviously, these are gross generalizations about the races. Nobody believes Michael Jackson could beat up kung-fu star Jackie Chan or that comedienne Margaret Cho is lovelier than Sports Illustratedswimsuit covergirl Tyra Banks. But life is a game of probabilities, not of abstract Platonic essences. 

This is notable not only for what he says about race (and his identifying three races, black, white and Asian) but especially his use of "Platonic essences." I think the evo-psycho bros got the term "Platonic" in reference to race from Steve Sailer.

Turns out Sailer uses the term a lot, including the definition most people are familiar with, "non-sexual." But he uses other meanings more often. In addition to Platonic essences Sailer mentions Platonic archetype, idealism, idea, ideals, essentialism, universal, Temptation and form.

Sailer had also had a column at VDARE since 2000 and had published The Left Side of the Bell Curve in 2000 which says things like:

Thus, in the 1960s when American intellectuals imported Swedish sexual morals, along with Swedish-style welfare for unmarried mothers, it had few ill effects in Minnesota (traditionally the highest IQ state). But it proved an instant disaster for African-Americans.

I have yet to find Steven Pinker disavowing anything Sailer has ever said.

I can't guess what made Pinker think it was a good idea to include a known racist in a collection of science writing. Especially since "The Cousin Marriage Conundrum" isn't really about science, unless you mean political science since Sailer doesn't get into the genetics of inbreeding except in passing. The final paragraph:

In summary, although neoconservatives constantly point to America's success at reforming German and Japan after World War II as evidence that it would be easy to do the same in the Middle East, the deep social structure of Iraq is the complete opposite of those two true nation-states, with their highly patriotic, cooperative, and (not surprisingly) outbred peoples. The Iraqis, in contrast, more closely resemble the Hatfields and the McCoys.

It's interesting he didn't mention the third member of the Axis, Italy. We'll come back to that.

He is claiming that the history of feuds between the Hatfields and McCoys had something to do with inbreeding. Apparently since the families lived in West Virginia and West Virginia has a reputation for inbreeding hillbillies which is bogus Sailer decided to go ahead and conflate inbreeding with the feud. That's the level of scholarship we're talking about here.

By "reforming" Iraq what Sailer means is "rebuild Iraqi society in order to jumpstart the democratization of the middle east."

A quick glance at a Five-Thirty-Eight data form on global consanguinity by country indicates that Iraq is not the most consanguineous country in the world. It's number 16. Meanwhile Kyrgyzstan is number 7 and has a Presidential Republican form of government, like Bangladesh, which is only number 33 on the list. Croatia, which has the same form of government has a cousin marriage rate of 0.1% - less than the US with 0.2%.

So there doesn't seem to be any connection between a country's percentage of cousin marriages and form of government. But you couldn't expect Steve Sailer to do any research, he has his nice simple theory about cousin marriages and democratic reform and it's so much easier than doing any work.

And why should he work, when Steven Pinker will apparently include any old crap in "the best" American science and nature writing.

There's really no structured argument in this article, Sailer is all over the place. He uses the Bible as an example of "Middle Eastern norms" writing:

Jacob's dozen sons were the famous progenitors of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. Due to inbreeding, Jacob's eight legitimate sons had only six unique great-great grandparents instead of the usual eight. That's because the inbred are related to their relatives through multiple paths.

And don't even get Sailer started on the incest problems with Adam and Eve's children! Sailer doesn't mention Adam and Eve but why not? They're in the Book of Genesis too.

Sailer cites Jacob's family as actual historical people. I can't wait until Sailer explains the genetics of how Jacob lived to be 147.

The only time Sailer talks about the genetics of cousin marriage is this:

Of course there are also other disadvantages to inbreeding. The best known is medical. Being inbred increases the chances of inheriting genetic syndromes caused by malign recessive genes.

He then gets into kin selection and declares that "nepotism is biologically inspired "- which is the standard evo-psycho literary atrocity since by definition nepotism is "inspired" by one's family connections. "Nepotism is biologically inspired" is a tautology.

And while Sailer admits that inbreeding is a medical risk, he should probably say that he believes it's also an indicator of high genetic intelligence. The evo-psychos as a group seem to be convinced that Azkenazi Jews are genetically the smartest "race" and yet Israel is number 29 on the cousin-marriage list and also the Ashkenazi Jews in particular are massively inbred. The Jewish magazine Forward reports:

A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today’s Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago. 

The math also indicates that today’s sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews — there are more than 10 million around the world — derived from just 350 people or so. That previously postulated population bottleneck — a drastic reduction in population size — occurred between 25 to 32 generations ago, the scientists say. 

The study was published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications by a team headed by Columbia University’s Shai Carmon.

So apparently inbreeding makes Jews smarter but only makes Arabs incapable of democratic forms of government.

OK so now we get to the Italian issue. Sailer writes:

Are Muslims, especially Arabs, so much more loyal to their families than to their nations because, due to countless generations of cousin marriages, they are so much more genealogically related to their families than Westerners are related to theirs? Frank Salter, a political scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany whose new book Risky Translations: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity takes a sociobiological look at the reason why Mafia families are indeed families, told me: "That's my hunch. At least it's bound to be a factor."

This is such a perfect evo-psycho paragraph. It sounds learned - hey, Max Planck Institute! - but when you actually try to figure out what he's getting at, it falls apart.

The actual description of the Salter book on Amazon is:

Trust is a central feature of relationships within the Mafia, oppressed minorities, kin groups everywhere, among dissidents, nationalist freedom fighters, ethnic tourists, ethnic middlemen, exchange networks of Kalahari Bushmen, and families subjected to Stalinist social control. Each of these types of trust is examined by a leading scholar and compared with the expectations of neo-Darwinian theory, in particular the theories of kin selection and ethnic nepotism.

A search of the book on "consanguinity" shows that the Mafia use three other relationship types besides consanguinity. In contrast to the reason Arab families "are indeed families" which Sailer claims is because they are related by blood. So where is the connection? Just because Salter takes a "sociobiological look"? And the best Salter can do is "that's my hunch." Wow, so scientific.

And by the way, Italy is rated as 0.6% on the cousin-marriage data sheet, lower than France, Sweden or Canada.

There's a fascinating article in the New Yorker from the last month called The Woman Who Took On the Mafia by Alex Perry. And the sexual politics among these mafia families, people evo-psycho bros would characterize as "white" (or European or possibly Mediterranean  depending on their mood) are every bit as regressive as the most traditional patriarchal tribe in the Middle East. Which should tell you that it's not about race or religion - both things that evo-psycho bros have used to explain when some groups of people in the Middle East are violent.

But they can never admit that it's socio-environmental and economic conditions that drive the behaviors and not genes or sacred texts. Because they have this whole simple paradigm set up, and in order to make it work, you have to deny environmental factors.

Evo-psycho bros sometimes admit environment is important but they have no actual theories on how environment impacts human behavior so they almost completely ignore it. That was the problem at the root of Pinker's "Better Angels" which the New Yorker trashed. If your primary way to explain human behavior is evolution, which is of course the point of evolutionary psychology, well you aren't going to be much good at explaining any changes in human behavior that happen in less than hundreds of thousands of years.

So why did Pinker include a poorly-reasoned, non-scientific explanation for Iraqi non-democratic tendencies in this collection? Well apart from blackmail I think it's most likely because Pinker didn't realize how bad it was himself, because Pinker is not a very good writer and not a clear thinker.

The New Yorker, which knows from good writing, consistently trashes Steven Pinker's work on the basis of his shoddy reasoning. I'll talk about that soon.

J'adore mon premiere ministre d'amour, toujours

sigh.....

Trudeau backstage in Edmonton before one of his many town hall meetings. Shared by his right-hand man Gerry Butts. I love candid shots like this.

The bigotry and misogyny of evo-psycho bro Jerry Coyne

Today Jerry Coyne reminds us of the Islamaphobia and misogyny that are part of the evo-psycho/New Atheist world view.

Do they really think they are fooling anybody by their opposition to the hijab? It's not because they care about women's rights - the anti-hijab people are almost all anti-feminist as Coyne has proven to be by his frequent attacks against feminism. The Right and their New Atheist sympathizers care most keenly about women's rights when it's Muslim women's rights in question, as Richard Dawkins clearly established back in 2011 with the Dear Muslima letter.

The rantings of the Right and Right-sympathizers like Coyne against the hijab, sooner or later have real-world consequences as we saw in the Portland tragedy last May. And what the rantings serve to do is turn the hijab from a symbol of oppression to a symbol of resistance to bigots and thugs of the Right and their allies who blame all Muslims for the actions of homicidal fanatics:

Coyne in 2010:

Do I oppose the center’s construction? No.  Do I think that building it on that site is a good idea? No.  It’s no better an idea than would be building an American cultural center near Ground Zero in Hiroshima.  It was Islam, after all, that propelled those planes into the World Trade Center nine years ago.

It's true that the original purpose of the hijab was patriarchal control over women's bodies. But so what? That's religion for you. Hasidic women shave their heads and wear wigs for the same reason. Coyne has written about Hassids many times but if he's ever gone on a rant agains their head-shaving and wearing wigs I haven't found it on his blog. In the past month he's mentioned hijab 6 times. 

Since Coyne is stupid about feminism and stupid about Islam, it stands to reason he is most stupid  about them together. Here he is promoting the far-right idiocy of Prager University. Arguing that feminists excuse sexism in Islam. Because Coyne doesn't like the idea of living in a pluralistic society and expects women to behave like cranky ranting New Atheists:

Western women should stop coddling all religions that have misogynistic attributes, and those are not limited to Islam.

Coyne is truly Republican in his outlook, he really needs to stop pretending to be liberal. Democrats work by coalition. Republicans have talking points and everybody is expected to fall in line.

I dislike religion - but am I going to join religious women who are marching to oppose Trump? Hell yeah I am. And I'm sure Coyne works with religious people when it suits him - as usual misogynists have higher standards for how women should behave than they have for themselves.

Coyne gives the whole misogynist game away when he doubts that Muslim women are able to make their own choices:

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip is a good one, particularly timely, and speaks directly to the notion of the degree to which Muslim women “choose” to be covered. When a Western Muslimah (not one in Iran or Saudi) declares that she wears the hijab “by choice,” I never accept that claim at face value. Was she brought up wearing one? Did she go to school where other girls wore them? Are her friends mostly hijabis? This whole notion of “choice” in Islamic dress needs to be examined, yet I haven’t seen a single article on it. It’s the rhino in the room.

I was brought up Catholic and sent to Catholic school and told not to use birth control. I was able to decide to quit the Catholic church and use birth control. So yeah,  if I can make decisions in spite of my upbringing, then I guess I can accept that Muslim women can make their own choices. Even if I don't agree with their choices.

If women are forced to wear something then yeah, we need to fight for their right to make their own decisions. Otherwise it's not our business.

Coyne is unable to understand why feminists in a pluralist society support Muslim women's rights to wear something that signifies their religion - even if the feminists in question don't agree with some of the things the religion says. In a free society we must accept some people will make personal choices we don't like. Coyne is not comfortable in such a society. Because he believes women who make choices he doesn't like are incapable of making their own choices.

Because Jerry Coyne is a bigot. And a misogynist.

Something to get my spirits up

I'll just watch a little Justin Trudeau defend women's rights in the face of religious fanaticism to raise my spirits before diving in to the ugliness of Steve Sailer's brain.

Trudeau speaks in English in this video and doesn't say explicitly that he is a feminist, but it's very good anyway. Although seriously, if there is anything more erotic than Justin Trudeau speaking in French, declaring himself a feminist well I don't want to know what it is because it would make my head explode. 

He does talk about being a feminist in this video. Oh dear baby Jesus I could watch that on a loop for hours.

If they ever allowed Americans to serve on the Canadian secret service detail then they should hire me because I would take a bullet for this man. That is not hyperbole.

I have written about how Trudeau is a 21st Century Man, along with Obama and Macron. I should really make this into a series to remind myself of the truly good men in the world, after slogging through a series about the awful evo-psycho bros.

Evo-psycho bro conversion narrative ~ where are the scientists?

Literally Victorian
A politically correct snowflake upon
spying a copy of "The Bell Curve."

I should be writing about Steve Sailer's contribution to the Steven Pinker-edited edition of "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" but Sailer's prose is such a chore. More about that soon.

But I stumbled upon this evo-psycho conversion narrative recently and wanted to discuss.

In his video with alt-right racist Stefan Molyneux, Brian Boutwell alludes early on to being talked into biosocial criminology by Kevin M. Beaver (who also chatted with Molyneux.)

And then I found a discussion of same in The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality edited by Kevin M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, Brian Boutwell. Notice how often they use the words converted or conversion.

One of the key discussion points that repeatedly emerges when talking with biosocial scholars is how they converted to the biosocial perspective. Take, for example, the experiences of two of us (Boutwell and Barnes). Perhaps most fortuitous was that Beaver was a new faculty member - already deeply enmeshed in the biosocial perspective - when Brian Boutwell and J. C. Barnes arrived at Florida University (FSU) for their graduate studies. Like most students, they entered into the program with very little background in biology, genetics and evolutionary psychology. Boutwell completed his doctoral training in criminology. Barnes studies criminology and criminal justice, also receiving a doctorate in criminology. Our exposure, though, was to the same concepts, theories, and ideas that most of our colleagues experienced in their graduate and undergraduate training in various sociology, political science, and criminology/criminal justice programs. How, then, did we arrive at our current stance that biosocial research is perhaps the most appropriate method for studying human behavior? 

Boutwell’s conversion to biosocial science occurred during his first semester in graduate school at FSU. Many of the graduate students elected to enroll in a class known as Proseminar. In the course, a different faculty member would lecture each week regarding his or her particular substantive area of research, offering the students a broad overview of what the faculty as a whole was doing within the college. It was intended, in many ways, to jump start potential mentoring relationships between new students and current faculty. Each week, following the lecture, a group-based reaction paper was due, which included a general response to the topic of that week's presentation. Brian's group was assigned to write a reaction paper to the lecture given by Kevin Beaver. That week, Kevin discussed the broad strokes of biosocial research, offering a very general overview of the basic concepts and ideas. The reaction paper, interestingly enough, expressed concern and reservation regarding the dangers and moral questionability of biosocial research. On further reflection, however, Brian felt somewhat guilty about this incorrigible stance on a body of research he knew nothing about; he sought Beaver out for a further conversation. That conversation blossomed into a broader discussion, which eventually led to collaboration, publication, and ultimately a mentoring relationship that continues to this day (Boutwell & Beaver, 2008). 

Barnes' conversion to biosocial research involved far less resistance. He enrolled in FSU's doctoral program via the University of South Carolina's (USC) Master's program. Though he was not attending FSU with the intention of becoming a biosocial scholar, he was introduced to Kevin during his first semester and quickly developed a mentor-mentee relationship. Early discussions between Beaver and Barnes were not particularly "biosocial"but more broadly concerned current theoretical explanations of antisocial behavior. At some point J. C. and Kevin conjured up a paper idea, which J. C. was to take the lead on. The paper required a brief discussion of genetic factors related to human behavior. J. C., recalling a lecture from his time at USC, pulled his notes from a filing cabinet and was surprised to find that he had taken extensive notes on the subject and had even written in the margins of several papers comments such as "this is the type of research I want to do." 

Within a year of each other, Boutwell and Barnse because immersed in the work of behavior geneticists, psychiatrists, molecular geneticists, developmental psychologists, neuroscientists, and biologists. Terrie Moffatt and Avshalom Caspi's work, for instance, revealed the intimate connection between environment and genotype, and how ignoring either one produces an incomplete picture of human development. Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, along with other eminent scholars like Richard Lynn, Hans Eysenck, and Linda Gottfredson, revealed the far-reaching importance for traits like human intelligence on a host of outcomes that criminologists and sociologists spend  great deal of time trying to understand. The writing of Judith Rich Harris, perhaps one of the most important yet least appreciated of child developmentalists ever, shook many of their closely guarded beliefs about the role of parenting in child development. And of course, the writings of Charles Darwin illustrated in a broad sense what true science should look like - unashamedly based in fact, carefully constructed, and logically assembled in a testable and falsifiable manner. The list could go on. 

Ultimately, the evidence for Brian and J. C. became too overwhelming. Human behavior was a product of biology and the environment. In some cases, biology appeared to matter more, and in some cases it appears to matter less. But in no instance was there a complete irrelevance for either biology of the environment when studying human behavior. Both are intimately intertwined and simply must be studied in all their interwoven complexity. For all three of us, there was no way around this fact. To operate in a void, only offering passing lip service to the importance of biology was simply not going to be good enough. 

Oddly enough, however, it has recently become almost "fashionable" to do biosocial research. Indeed, on might argue that setting up a "debate" between sociology and biology is tantamount to erecting a straw man. As we have already mentioned, certain lines of research (like findings in molecular genetics) have yet to penetrate some of the top journals in criminology. More important, there are still areas that are staunchly off limits to biosocial scholars. Consider the experience of one of the editors while sitting in his office on campus. The door was open and a colleague entered to chat. The conversation was pleasant, until the visitor noticed a copy of Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve (1994) lying on the desk. This realization prompted an odd look from the colleague followed by a very interesting question, which we paraphrase here: "Why would you read such a book. Don't you realize that it is a dangerous piece of literature?" You might have thought a rattlesnake lay curled on the desk. The idea had never entered the editor's mind that the book, or any of its ideas, was dangerous. The editor responded by asking whether the individual had read the book. The response was a resounding "no," why spend timer reading something that simply had to be false? 

Though it is a mere anecdote, the collegial conversation represents in a microcosm our experiences since converting to biosocial research. Indeed, there is evidence bearing on a larger trans int he field (Wright et al., 2008). A general rejection of biosocial research is clearly illustrated by Wright and colleagues' analysis of over 6000 criminology/criminal justice faculty members across 33 doctoral granting programs in the discipline. Of those faculty members, 12 reported any time of training or interest in the incorporation and examination of biological factors in relation to overt from of antisocial and aggressive human behavior. As Wright and colleagues note, that represents a whopping 2% of the scholars who are responsible for training the next generation of criminological scientists. If one thinks that the filed has moved past the need for a debate, perhaps one should reconsider.

It's funny how they admit to paraphrasing someone's response to The Bell Curve as "Why would you read such a book. Don't you realize that it is a dangerous piece of literature?" You can just imagine some Victorian woman, clutching her pearls and reaching for her smelling salts.

Evo-psycho bros like to imagine themselves as bad-asses, a courageous band of brothers facing down the politically correct anti-science mob. I can't imagine anybody referring to "The Bell Curve" as "dangerous" no matter how wrong they think it might be. Unless it's that "The Bell Curve" relies on studies provided by the white supremacist Pioneer Fund.

And by the way, don't hold your breath waiting for any of those Bravehearts to mention that "dangerous" fact. This is what Charles Murray said when he was forced to acknowledge the connection:

BILL BLAKEMORE
As for The Bell Curve's co author, Charles Murray, when we told him what we'd found out about the Pioneer Fund, he accused us of being on an intellectual witch hunt that would have a pernicious effect on research.

I've already discussed how bad evo-psycho bro "science" is - not only do they rely on data from white supremacists, but their methodology on race does not actually deal in the genetics of ancestry as Beaver admitted in an email to me.

Going by the narrative above, Boutwell and Barnes were not introduced to any critics of evolutionary psychology, so they probably don't know that Stephen Jay Gould called it Darwinian fundamentalism.

But part of the problem, as I have mentioned earlier in this series, is that so many scientists don't take the claims of evolutionary psychology seriously so few bother to address them. Gould used to engage with them directly but he's been dead since 2002. Linda Spelke, cognitive psychologist, debated Pinker, and although she presents an excellent argument against Pinker's claims the match up isn't equal - Pinker is a well-known, well-practiced media personality who considers evolutionary psychology a cause, and a political cause I would argue, while Spelke just wants to focus on her work. Real scientists focus on their work - evolutionary psychologists band together for The Cause.

PZ Myers is one of the few scientists out there actually bothering to address the many wacky theories these evo-psycho bros come up with, as we saw him do recently with Jordan Peterson.

I think Neil deGrasse Tyson said what many scientists think - if they think about it at all -  about the issue of gender/racial genetic differences.

In a 2014 interview with Grantland, Tyson said that he related his experience on that 2005 panel in an effort to make the point that the scientific question about genetic differences can't be answered until the social barriers are dismantled. "I’m saying before you even have that conversation, you have to be really sure that access to opportunity has been level." 

So there, that settles that, in Tyson's mind. And meanwhile there is a growing - through "conversion" -  network of Criminal Justice academics who are promoting the claim that blacks are by nature less intelligent and more criminal than whites and "orientals" and so it's their own biology, and not social injustice springing from the legacy of slavery - that is the primary reason for black crime.

Tyson, as one of the most prominent black scientists, would be perfect to address the issue but he'd rather not:

 In that same interview, Tyson said that race is not a part of the point he is trying to make in his career or with his life. According to Tyson, "That then becomes the point of people’s understanding of me, rather than the astrophysics. So it’s a failed educational step for that to be the case. If you end up being distracted by that and not [getting] the message." He purposefully no longer speaks publicly about race. "I don't give talks on it. I don’t even give Black History Month talks. I decline every single one of them. In fact, since 1993, I've declined every interview that has my being black as a premise of the interview."

I'm sure most non-whites in science professions feel the same way - tired of talking about their race. They have other interests, which is perfectly understandable, but the result is that right now there is a group of right-wingers making racist claims based on the flimsiest possible "science" to American college students, and they are not being directly challenged on the science.

And many of them are right-wingers -  in spite of how much whining the evo-psycho bros do about their opponents' political motivations, Boutwell, Beaver, Wright have given interviews to Stefan Molyneux and Wright actually has a book and web site devoted to "Conservative Criminology."

Their influencers have also appeared with Molyneux: Charles Murray, Richard Lynn and Linda Gottfredson. Hans Eysenck died in 1997 or I suspect he would have appeared too, but his connection to the far-right is well-documented.

And they aren't suggesting that it's only criminality and intelligence that are genetic faults of black people. As John Paul Wright wrote in Biosocial Criminology: New Directions in Theory and Research (my bolded emphasis):

...neighborhoods often stand in stark contrast to one another. Those composed of criminals, of large single-parent households, of drug abusers, of the mentally ill, and of individuals of limited intelligence are visibly different than those composed by the educated, the intelligent, and the pro-social. Unfortunately, these factors do tend to cluster on race. Areas afflicted by crime and other social pathologies are more frequently black than white, and even less frequently Oriental. Part of the reason for these visible and dramatic differences may have to do with the differential abilities of races to organize socially.

With this view of black people considered scientifically valid in its Criminal Justice department is it any wonder that there are racist incidents at FSU?

When I read that phrase, "abilities of races to organize socially" it reminded me of something I had read recently from Steve Sailer, written in 2005:

What you won`t hear, except from me, is that "Let the good times roll" is an especially risky message for African-Americans. The plain fact is that they tend to possess poorer native judgment than members of better-educated groups. Thus they need stricter moral guidance from society.

A year ago New York Magazine wrote of Sailer:

Sailer’s influence is impossible to understand without recognizing how far what he refers to as the conventional wisdom has drifted from the common sense of a large part of the country, creating a demand for people who are indifferent to the castigation that normally deters the airing of sometimes wrong, sometimes merely inconvenient ideas. “In 2017, I’m the voice of reason and moderation,” Sailer told us, in reference to the open ethnonationalists to his right and cosmopolitan liberals to his left. 

Of course we can see his influence on the evo-psycho bros, even if he doesn't get a shout-out in their scholarly tomes. It takes Steven Pinker to give Sailer his science bona fides.

And now I'm going to have to write about Sailer's contribution to the 2004 Science book edited by Pinker, next.

(PS there is a Pinker connection to  The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology: On the Origins of Criminal Behavior and Criminality. He gets a shout-out right in an essay title: Darwin, Dawkins, Wright and Pinker and the Reason That Crime Declined.)

Happy Black History Month, evo-psycho bros!

"I'm ever so pleased you and your family could join my household, Jim.
And by the way, that little daughter of yours is looking mighty fine
Do you think it would be OK if I decided to have sex with her?
Oh, wait, that's right - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!
Hah hah hah hah! I'm just swelling with Southern Pride right now!"

You might think that "Black History Month" could feel a little awkward to evo-psycho bros, but I'm confident they are able to ignore the history of black people in the United State in February as well as in every other month.

To the right we see an image which is discussed in a Daily Beast article from August 2016 entitled How Dixie's History Got Whitewashed. I bolded the first line, since it is so mind-boggling.

As late as the ’70s, the state of Virginia still used the popular textbook Virginia: History, Government, Geography by Francis B. Simkins, Spotswood H. Jones, and Sidman P. Poole, first published in 1957. 

Its chapter on slavery—“How the Negroes Lived under Slavery”—featured a well-dressed African-American family on board a ship shaking hands with a white man, who is presumed to be the family’s new owner. Here is how it describes slavery: 

A feeling of strong affection existed between masters and slaves in a majority of Virginia homes . . . The house servants became almost as much a part of the planter’s family circle as its white members . . . The Negroes were always present at family weddings. They were allowed to look on at dances and other entertainments . . . A strong tie existed between slave and master because each was dependent on the other … The slave system demanded that the master care for the slave in childhood, in sickness, and in old age. The regard that master and slaves had for each other made plantation life happy and prosperous. Life among the Negroes of Virginia in slavery times was generally happy. The Negroes went about in a cheerful manner making a living for themselves and for those for whom they worked . . . But they were not worried by the furious arguments going on between Northerners and Southerners over what should be done with them. In fact, they paid little attention to these arguments.

As I have shown in this ongoing series on evo-psycho bros, especially the posts on the Inconvenient Truth About Slave Rape the evo-psycho bros ignore the genetic impact that slave rape had on the ancestry of blacks, and minimize or deny the impact that slavery and its ongoing legacy has had on the lives of people designated "black" in the United States, as when John Paul Wright says in Biosocial Criminology: Directions in Theory and Research (I bolded the last sentence):

Moreover evolutionary theory helps explain why race-based patterns of behavior are universal, such as black over-involvement in crime. No other paradigm organizes these patterns better. No other paradigm explains these inconvenient truths.

As you probably guessed if you've been reading this series, where there is an evo-psycho bro, there is a Steven Pinker connection. Here is Wright thanking Pinker for how much his work has informed Wright's thinking in Criminals in the Making Edition 2 by John Paul Wright, Stephen G. Tibets and Leah E. Daigle.

I, John Paul Wright, would like to thank Francis T. Cullen for all his years of academic and personal mentorship. I would also like to acknowledge Kevin Beaver, Matt Delisi, and Michael Vaughn for their encouragement and dedication to this field of study. I also want to recognize the pioneers in the field, whose work has informed much of my thinking: E. O. Wilson, David Rowe, Steven Pinker, Avshalom Caspi, Terri Moffatt, and Judith Rich Harris. Finally I would like to salute Anthony Walsh and Lee Ellis, whose careers exemplify the scholarly pursuit of truth.

Could I love Justin Trudeau even more?

I didn't think it was possible but his feminism makes him more beautiful every year.

What a nice change from thinking about the evo-psycho bros. It's important to remember there are good men in the world.

The fact that alt-right creeps like Jordan Peterson hate him makes him even more attractive - obviously he is doing something right!

J'adore mon premiere ministre d'amour!

Now that we can clone primates we must clone this man!

EVO-PSYCHO BROS live onstage

"Alas poor J. Phillipe. I knew him, Horatio."

I'm going to switch things up for this post and instead of using my technical writing skills I'm going to use my playwriting skills.

Artistic license applies but I have not misrepresented any evo-psycho bro claims about race and African Americans, as I have been thoroughly documenting throughout this evo-psycho bro series.

Although Steven Pinker hasn't said everything the EVO-PSYCHO BRO says, he has been supporting people who say that black people are genetically less intelligent and more criminally-inclined, from the time Pinker included Steve Sailer in a collection of science writing in 2004, to Pinker frequently recommending the work of Brian Boutwell and the Winegard brothers in Quillette.

(EVO-PSYCHO BRO enters. He smooths his hair. Ponders whether this audience can handle THE TRUTH or if they are a bunch of politically-correct leftists and radical feminists. Decides to proceed.)

EVO-PSYCHO BRO 

Ahem. African Americans are genetically less intelligent and more innately criminal than other races. 

I know, I know, you think I'm "Hitler" now.

(Grins and does air quotes. EVO-PSYCHO BRO's fanboys chuckle appreciatively.)

To claim that race is nothing more than a social construct is to deny reality itself. 

However, please do not expect evolutionary psychologists to give a definition of race, or say how many races there are or provide a methodology by which an individual is assigned to a race. Yadda yada yadda, all those details. We like to wing it. That's just how we roll.

    (He puts on a pair of sunglasses for effect.)  

By censoring data about black criminality and intelligence the college campuses and the New York Times and the respectable media are radicalizing the highly-literate, highly-intelligent people who gravitate to the alt-right. 

And let's get something straight: you cannot be on the Left and be objective. That is why you should never listen to any leftist on evolutionary psychology, whether it's Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Lewontin or Steven or Hillary Rose.

However if you are a conservative you can never be anything but objective. 

We have evo-psycho bros who were actual right-wing operatives like Razib Khan - let's hear it for RK!

     (Fanboys applaud.)   

AND we've cited and published Steve Sailer who is well known as a racist and who makes a living writing for alt-right and white supremacist periodicals. American Renaissance! Taki's Magazine! Unz Review! VDARE! 

We just do NOT have any fucks left to give, do we?

     (Fanboys yell "noooooo!")   

Hell, we get our data about blacks from J. Phillipe Rushton, a guy who was literally the president of a white supremacist organization, the Pioneer Fund! AND WE CITE HIM ALL THE FREAKING TIME!  

     (Fanboys applaud the alpha-maleness of it all.)    

Now on to African Americans. First let's put aside any discussions of the actual ancestral composition of these people. Black is black. Amirite?

    (Cheers.)    

Blacks in the United States are poorer than other races. Because they've failed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps! 

Because they are less intelligent by nature. 

Because they are more criminal, by... 

    (Fanboys: "NATURE!" )

And don't start boo-hooing about slavery and racial discrimination!

    (He pretends to cry, in a funny way. Fanboys laugh. )

Slavery was a hundred and fifty years ago! The last ex-slave died in 1971! That was 46 years ago! How long is it going to take those people to just get over it?

    (A fanboy calls out "get over it snowflakes!")

Since slavery ended everything has been pretty OK, right? Sure there have been a few glitches, like lynchings and Jim Crow. And sure, our president Donald Trump was sued by the US government for refusing to rent to black people. That was back in 1973! There has been no discrimination against blacks in housing since 1973. Obviously.

             (Cheers)  

And can we all just stop with the tall tales of police being mean to blacks? When the New York Times runs stories demonstrating that blacks are stopped more often for no reason it's fake news!

     (Fanboys cheer for a long time.)

OK, quiet down now, I'm about to lay some SERIOUS TRUTH on you. This truth is at the heart of the evo-psycho,  sociobiologist, hereditarian and human biodiversity movements' understanding of African Americans and we have never said it out loud before:

If any other race had been in the same situation as blacks in America ~ 

and by situation I mean being kidnapped from their homes, enslaved for hundreds of years then set free without resources, terrorized, cheated, discriminated against, raped with impunity, segregated, denied voting rights, jailed in massive numbers thanks to the war on drugs, blah blah blah   

~  they would be doing better than the blacks!  

Slavery and lynchings and all the rest of it would have just rolled off the backs of the other races like it was nothing! They'd be thriving by now! 

It's not racism to say that, it's just THE TRUTH!

    (Fanboys hoot and cheer.) 

(POLITICALLY CORRECT LEFTIST calls out: "how do you know it's the truth?" EVO-PSYCHO BRO squints into the audience.)

Who said that? Was that a CULTURAL MARXIST? 

    (Fanboys laugh.) 

  (RADICAL FEMINIST yells: "You can't just make claims like that without evidence!") 

  (EVO-PSYCHO BRO grins.) 

Uh oh, I see we've been reported to the AUTHORITARIAN LEFT!

(Fanboys laugh uproariously.) 

Evidence? EVIDENCE?

     (Mexican accent) 

We don't need no stinking evidence!

     (Fanboys laugh.) 

It simply stands to reason that if blacks are still not doing as well on intelligence tests and still committing crimes more than other races, after all this time, it's because that's how black people are. They are just different from the rest of us. Genetically.

     (Puzzled expression on his face.) 

Why do I even have to explain this? I guess this is what happens when you have a Postmodern dictatorship in Academia. Nobody knows how to think logically!

     (Fanboys laugh and clap.)  

By the way, the same reasoning tells us that women are by nature inferior at STEM careers, Islam is the most violent religion and capitalism is the greatest invention in the world YOU GODDAM COMMUNISTS!!!    

      (Huge cheer from the fanboys.) 

Now let me just leave you all with this thought: reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it. 

      (Wild applause from the fanboys.)  

Thank you, thank you! Now go out there and use what you have learned to write books and scholarly periodicals. And always remember, data can never be racist. Facts can never be racist. The TRUTH can never be racist! 

(BLACK OUT)