Abiola_Lapite's photos More of Abiola_Lapite's photos

« Rod Dreher Sees the Light | Main | Sharia in Ontario »

September 12, 2005


Abiola Lapite

[There is no universal "black behavior".]

Try telling that to idiots who know absolutely nothing about Africa's history (and no, watching Tarzan movies does NOT qualify), who lack any knowledge whatsoever of any African languages - and yet see fit to judge polyglot Africans as mentally deficient despite being ignorant of any languages but English themselves, who haven't even touched the soil of the immense continent once in their lives, and yet who imagine that watching "Boyz N Tha Hood" or a Live Aid appeal makes them fully qualified to pronounce on "black" "pathology" and other such nonsense.

You know, for me the most appalling thing about these idiots, even worse than their eagerness to embrace brazenly manipulated datasets published by preachers of racial genocide, is that by the standards they're so eager to hold up as evidence for "black" inferiority, their own not-so-distant ancestors don't hold up too well either: what were all those Celtic and Germanic types doing when the Romans were going to Athens to study rhetoric and philosophy, and after Rome fell, how brilliant was the society all those Germanic tribesmen replaced it with? How many peasants could read and write throughout those long centuries when Europeans were busy slaughtering each other in wars which wiped out greater proportions of their populations than the civil war in the Congo has managed, and why did it take them all of 1400 years or so to attain Roman levels of literacy? How come all those genetically high-IQ endowed Europeans suffered through plague pandemics so devastating today's AIDS crisis seems like almost nothing in comparison? The literacy rate in most sub-Saharan African countries is higher today than it was anywhere in continental Europe at the close of the 18th century, and its even higher than in today's supposedly higher-IQ South Asia, but these dishonest maggots won't let such inconvenient facts get in the way of their rush to write off "blacks" as uneducable savages.


Sometimes I am baffled that Intellectual positions that I assume sane people take for granted are still questioned in well funded quarters. Its like someone debating the shape of the earth or something - It would be comical if these guys werent so serious!!!

[...polyglot Africans as mentally deficient despite being ignorant of any languages but English themselves...]

This is of course notable - Languages in different *language families* of course; certainly of a higher scale than a French person telling me he speaks Spanish also. Its funny isnt it: Given the fairly decent oil bubble economy of the 70s and 80s, the Nigerian High school Student in a city could count on graduating with knowing English, 2 Nigerian Languages and either Arabic or French. In Francophone countries like Togo, toss in German to boot. You encounter people like this in the West, 18 years old and you're like - *wow* - You *come* from Africa?
Indeed, I know a young lady from Chad who uses at least 4 different languages when she's on the phone. I mean, even claiming that Blacks are verbally equipped (as some Race realists do) is insufficient. The acquisition of language is no mere trait explainable by "verbal equipping".

[...what were all those Celtic and Germanic types doing when the Romans were going to Athens to study rhetoric and philosophy...]

Shagging Horses? But this is always covered up by claiming Mediterranean patrimony in the guise of "wesetern civilization" - a fanciful gimmick no doubt - Yet, dare raise the notion that Egyptian cultural influence was not so divorced from the Hellenistic world and not so unrelated to Southern African cultural movements and you get a hellstorm - in spite of the evidence! Ergo, Egyptians (whose colour I am not the least interested in) are vigorously affirmed to be raceless or at least non-black (a la Lefkowitz and Howe) - while the Greeks and the Romans are definitely white: The strange reality, that race was as meaningless to the Greeks as it was to the Egyptians is chucked outside the window. Greeks = white; Egyptians = Not Black.

[...and why did it take them all of 1400 years or so to attain Roman levels of literacy?...]

Not just Roman - not too long ago, the Asiatics were also inferior. Now a couple of them are Honorable whites. Anytime some idiot starts harping to me about Proust of the Papuans or Bach of the Bantu - I tell him; Shussh - what were Europeans doing when Murasaki Shikibu was penning Genji Monogatari? Chaucer's Canterbury Tales didnt appear until late 14th century almost 400 years after - but this didnt stop some folks from opining about the inferiority of *all* non-white peoples: I realize the position has changed somewhat - Now Asians have been "grudgingly" accepted while Africans get the schtick.

[... suffered through plague pandemics so devastating today's AIDS crisis seems like almost nothing in comparison?...]

The Black death killed more people in Europe in 3 years than AIDS has been able to kill in the whole world for 50 years - and really, technolgical advancements dont correct for this: You would think that suffering, disease and war was the perpetual lot of Africans!

[...these dishonest maggots won't let such inconvenient facts get in the way of their rush to write off "blacks" as uneducable savages...]

It helps their psychosis, I guess. Look at this (Ctrl F and "Nigerian"):

"Ethnographic" engagements like this certainly help to dispel a lot of these nasty stereotypes. When it comes to talking about peoples and cultures, there simply is no substitute for engagement. I just cannot believe that the halls of Western academia for all their objectivity can be penetrated by this kind of nonsense - this kind of "Africa is country, Nelson Mandela is the President" reasoning. I know, I studied other cultures long and hard - why people cant make the same concession for Africans instead of the stereotypical lumping, dismissiveness and sheer ignorance is beyond me! It takes some work to get from the Odu Ifa to Proust, but I did it: I just get amazed at the laziness of some of these folks and it has only helped me to appreciate Cultural Anthropologists more: Even though I disagree with most of all their theoretical frameworks.


interestingly, lots of race nuts appear to claim Irish ancestry (Malloy is certainly an Irish name) and it really is not so long ago that Western scientific opinion was divided between those who thought that the Irish were genetically inferior because they were a separate race intermediate between black and white and those who thought that they were actually white people whose intellectual and moral character had been eroded by the potatoes they ate. There was a good book (or at least, Max Sawicky recommended it to me which is usually good enough) out a couple of years ago called "How the Irish Became White".

Jason Soon

abiola & co
you might be interested in the latest outbreak of academic racial crankery in Australia - details here

and here is the pulled article

Jason Soon

as you can see from the article, both Asians and Africans get an equal serve - Africans because of their allegedly high crime rates and Asians because they will become Australia's new Overlords and discriminate in favour of their coethnics!

Kevin Donoghue

I believe the book D^2 mentions is about how Irish-Americans differentiated themselves from African-Americans in the 19th century. That’s probably the main reason why there are lots of race nuts with Irish ancestry – those ancestors had to insist on their whiteness in order to be accepted in polite society.

I don’t follow the twists and turns of the IQ fetishists very closely, but they must have a problem with the results they were reporting a generation or two ago, when there was a “significant” gap between Irish and British IQs. Sir Cyril Burt and Hans Eysenck were quite fond of using this to explain why the Irish were mostly to be found on building sites rather than in the City. Presumably the IQ scores have narrowed in recent decades? Of course the racists often qualify their case to extinction by stressing that there are many variables involved (cue the statistical sophistry). But it must be tiresome having to reinterpret the earlier results, as Koreans, Indians and others get moved up the rankings

Abiola Lapite

I can't say I'm in the slightest bit surprised at the "Goldilocks" thinking of Andrew Fraser: "Them blacks are bad because they're dumb, violent and lazy, and them yellows are dangerous cause they're such cunning, servile coolies, but we - ah, we are Just Right, not too clever, not too dumb, neither too hardworking nor too idle, not too polite and not too confrontational - we're right in the middle in every way, just the way God the Aryan intended for everyone else to be."

The only reason these types aren't yet giving Asian immigrants a hard time in the United States is because they don't yet percieve them to be a numerical threat, and they need some cover to push their agenda in a country whose ugly history of government-sanctioned racism is still too recent to forget: given enough time and a shift in the demographics, and I'm sure they too will start playing up the "gelbe gefahr" nonsense a kook like Andrew Fraser's trying to pass off as serious academic work in Australia.


Noel Igantiev (How the Irish Became White) used to write for Race Traitor magazine - I believe it is now defunct.
There is another book on the same lines by David Roediger (The Wages of Whiteness). It is called "Working Towards Whiteness" - It came out a couple of months ago. It seems that a general prerequisite of social mobility in America is to differentiate yourself from blackness. Its not just the Irish, its Eastern Europeans who come here today not knowing anything about the Race Structure but "find out" that they are white after a couple of months.
I recollect the Fraser brouhaha - It seems he has a particular problem with Sudanese immigrants.

David B

I haven't checked out this thread for a while, and now I remember why: the high ratio of personal smears and abuse to serious discussion. Also, Abiola's constant insinuation that he is some great mathematician. I don't doubt that he is a better mathematician than I am - which is not difficult - but as he keeps on proclaiming his own expertise, perhaps he could give us a list of his peer-reviewed publications? I think by now we are entitled to ask.

In my previous comment on this thread I said that "if it [the gene in question] really does have effects on brain function, and if it really has been strongly selected, for whatever reason, in some geographical regions, then people in those regions are likely to differ (on average) in brain functions from those in other regions."

Abiola replies: "This is a non-sequitur: the changes in the gene sequence which have been selected for need have absolutely no effect on the brain itself. Genes don't act in a vacuum, and we already know for a fact that both ASPM and MCPH1 are expressed in many other tissues besides the brain."

Now, first, given what I actually said, it is *not* a non-sequitur. I did not refer to 'changes in the gene sequence', but to a *gene* which has effects on brain function. By 'gene' I meant the particular gene variant (allele) we are all talking about. I think this should be clear from the context, and in particular the previous sentence which said "It is entirely possible that a gene with effects on brain function has been selected in Eurasia for some other reason, e.g. disease resistance". If my intended meaning was not clear, you can accuse me of vagueness or ambiguity but not of a non-sequitur, since my inference *does* follow validly from at least one obvious meaning of what I said. My vagueness is perhaps excusable, because nearly every biologist sometimes talks about 'genes' when strictly they mean 'alleles'. It is best to avoid technical terms as far as possible, and 'gene' is less technical than 'allele'.

Of course I agree with Abiola that it is possible that a gene with some effects on brain function may undergo natural selection for mutations which do *not* change its effect on brain function. This may turn out to be the case. No doubt we shall find out in the next few years.

Abiola Lapite

"Abiola's constant insinuation that he is some great mathematician. I don't doubt that he is a better mathematician than I am - which is not difficult - but as he keeps on proclaiming his own expertise, perhaps he could give us a list of his peer-reviewed publications? I think by now we are entitled to ask."

Look, asshole, you aren't "entitled" to even a wart off my backside, and I don't need to "prove" a goddamn thing to you on my own blog. If you don't like it, stop reading, I personally could not give a crap, but I'm not going to be patronizingly lectured on mathematics by the likes of you or Jason Malloy. You're just not in my league, and you never will be other than in your dreams.


Jason Soon is a racist at heart, don't believe his "conversion", this is just a distraction, he is a GENE EXPRESSION blogger in cahoots with infamous racist pseudoscientists Paul Wickre and Newamul Khan.

This is a game the GENE EXPRESSION people play, to make someone appear moderate and others voice their truly far-right racist beliefs to convert the unsuspecting and Jason Soon is playing it. Paul Wickre himself promoted this deception. Jason Soon is a racist and his true colors can be seen here.

Richard, you don't know any of us. If you want to argue that we're muddleheaded that's fine. But you still seem stuck with the idea that people who in good faith accept the possibility of a genetic component to racial differences that go beyond sporting ability are racist, whereas to me not accepting that this is a possibility leaves me with the unpalatable options of either being a Cartesian or a 100% environmentalist.


well, Richard you certainly have an inflammatory way of putting things that some of the more immoderate posters on this blog can only sometimes match (Godless and Razib talk about statistical averages in performance of psychometric tests). As a matter of fact, one prominent Malaysian to advance the theory that Malays are congenitally 'stupid and lazy' compared to Chinese and therefore warranted affirmative action because they developed in friendlier climes was none other the prominent Malaysian nationalist and current PM Mahathir. As for me, as I have suggested in past posts, I admit the *possibility* of a genetic component to persistent measured differences (is admitting a possibility really enough to justify consignment to hood wearer territory? what does Steven Pinker think of this?) and there is a lot of data on this in America. I don't know how significant this possibility is as per Malay vs Chinese - obviously Malays and Chinese are closer to each other than they both are to Caucasians but there is sufficient genetic distance between them to put them in different racial 'extended families' too. Nor is there data on IQ for Malays for me to judge how strong the actual disparities are (comparable to say the 1 standard deviation differences one finds in other comparisons). Cultural differences may well be sufficient to account for the disparities in commercial and educational performance - the British practiced benign neglect with respect to the Malays under the misguided idea of 'protecting their culture' while Chinese and Indians were recruited into Malaysia specfically to work the mines and fields. In conclusion I'm not certain - my degree of uncertainty on this issue is less than my degree of uncertainty with respect to the existence of genetically based disparities in the case of blacks and whites though I remain agnostic on both.

As for your other inferences I went to a Malay school (90% Malay students) for 2 years in primary school, and my uncle by marriage is a bumiputera (and so by implication is my cousin). One can have civil discussions on this issue without lynching anybody, you know.
Posted by: Jason Soon


Incidentally you should note - go back to the old gnxp blog at blogspot and read the comments facilities. You can see the record of the discussions I've had with Razib and Godless over HBD where I was putting the culturalist perspective. I was arguing the Jared Diamond/Tom Sowell case with them. I still find Diamond's book far more compelling than the sketchy story that Rushton has produced. I still fundamentally think that the 'culturalist' story may be important and don't think there's enough evidence to stick to any quantification at this stage. But I'm happy to stick up for GeneXP. Why? Because if I thought that lack of a detailed story currently was enough to exclude something as a hypothesis then I should be in favour of Intelligent Design. And because I like to think I'm open minded and the main posters on GeneXP and most of their readers are open-minded.
The other reason is the anti-Cartesianism I alluded to. My open-mindedness to HBD is an unavoidable consequence of consistent adherence to philosophical materialism and reductionism. Let me reproduce the following argument from Godless' old blog
1. Human beings, like all living things, were shaped by the forces of evolution. In particular, natural selection pressure applied to humans.

2. All traits evidenced by humans are the result of chemical processes. Under the hood, all your pains, thoughts, and feelings are nothing more than a very complicated cocktail of neurotransmitters and nerve cells.

3. Your genetics fundamentally influence your behavior by controlling which chemical processes are triggered in response to environmental stimuli. Furthermore, genetics are affected by natural selection.

4. Therefore, we must admit that it is possible for there to exist genetic differences between individuals that are more than skin deep and were shaped by natural selection pressure

Add in the 'race as extended family' idea and logic leads you to some acceptance of HBD even if Rushton's story is a crock
Posted by: Jason Soon


My friend and guest blogger Jason Soon has some very level headed things to say on the message board (check out some of the comments-I used to joke with godless that we were "Darwin's Wolves," but my readers are a veritable pack!):

This is a matter of True Vs False - end of story - and taking a position on this one way or the other doesn't make anyone a cross burner. Anyone who implies otherwise is no different from the sorts of relativists who can't separate the political from the Truth. As for interest - some people are interested in this human biodiversity stuff because it's intrinsically interesting. Not because it supports an agenda, not because they wear white hoods in their spare time but because they find it interesting. I find it interesting and fascinating. Perhaps people like Richard don't believe people are capable of finding this interesting for its own sake because he's a political hack and like all political hacks everything is about Politics (that sounds a bit like the relativists too). The Positive and the Normative are 2 different things, Richard, get it?....


Mr. Soon obviously does NOT get it. This speech is incitement to race-hatred andis illegal in Europe. It should be illegal in the United States and we are going to move beyond talk to make it so. Maybe the threat of a jail term will stop these racist assholes from twisting science and spreading their filth.


I believe this is Jason Malloy:

David B

Have I touched a nerve? If someone (Abiola) constantly make claims to know more about something than other people (including Anthony Edwards, professor of statistics at Cambridge, etc) then his readers are entitled to ask what are his qualifications for making such claims.

Abiola Lapite

Where do you get your sense of entitlement from? You aren't "entitled" to anything, your name isn't Anthony Edwards, and if you don't like my rules, don't bother commenting here. Nobody's forcing you to read this, I really don't give a shit what you choose to believe or not, and I will show absolutely zero tolerance of snidely condescending crap from people like you and Malloy who will never learn half as much mathematics as I've managed to forget. Either you have something to say and you say it in a respectful manner, or you try to talk down your nose to me one more time and get yourself banned permanently from here, which is what you seem to want.

Jason Soon

uhh yeah Onepeople's Project. I haven't had a 'change of heart'. You can find similar arguments on Lavartus Prodeo where I argued that the Ashkenazi intelligence study should be considered on its merits rather than its political implications. I go out of my way to talk about cultural differences even in that response to a blogger who was accusing us all of being racist (this was back in the days when I'd been invited to join GNXP despite being a fan of Jared Diamond). It's all there and Abiola can make his call if he thinks my consistently agnostic stance on this is 'racist'.

Abiola Lapite

"It's all there and Abiola can make his call if he thinks my consistently agnostic stance on this is 'racist'."

Obviously, I don't share any such view. There's nothing wrong with investigating any genetic underpinnings that may or may not underlie whatever we choose to call "intelligence" (assuming such a thing can so easily be universally defined); what *is* wrong is the mendacious and logically-addled pushing of ideologically-motivated junk science, and the systematic distortion of the more modest claims of serious researchers, in order to advance a racialist worldview. It is precisely in order to maintain the distinction between the two sets of activities that real scientists (as opposed to the armchair, Steve Sailer variety) know enough to tread carefully in such matters, as they are too well-aware of the dubious history of "race" obsessed thinking to wish to see their subject thrown into disrepute yet a second time.


[...know enough to tread carefully in such matters...]

From all indications, Bruce Lahn is himself a Genetic Determinist to a significant extent - but the caution with which he approach the interpretation of his results vis-a-vis intelligence is something these blogtype pontificators lack.

Abiola Lapite

Exactly: he must know that there's no better way for him to piss away his scientific credibility than for him to start leaping to generalizations his research findings can't support.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Notes for Readers