John Fuerst

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
John Fuerst with a fellow Aryan snowman.
Frogs and swastikas
Alt-right
Icon altright.svg
Hitler wannabes
Their loud fanboys
Rebuilding racism
Buzzwords
The colorful pseudoscience
Racialism
Icon race.svg
Hating thy neighbour
Divide and conquer
Dog-whistlers

John Fuerst (online alias: Chuck) is a Neo-Nazi and alt-right HBD blogger, crank, pseudo-scientist obsessed with race who edits the websites Human Varieties,[1] Occidental Ascent[2] and Race, Genes and Disparity.[3] In 2015, he published a book (over 100 pages) The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility in an OpenPsych pseudojournal, arguing for the existence of human races against the scientific consensus they don't exist.

Questionable views[edit]

The Nature of Race[edit]

In his book The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility (2015) Fuerst argues for the utility of race as a categorization when applied to humans, but says he is agnostic or non-committal concerning things such as behaviour and IQ, writing: "the case for average congenital biological racial differences in intelligence or other behavioral traits... the issue is presently undetermined."[4] He therefore says he is arguing for a so-called thin version of racialism, as opposed to hereditarianism.Wikipedia's W.svg In his view, his ideas about race are moderate since he doesn't propose any form of racial hierarchy, or racism. However, there are a number of problems with taking Fuerst seriously about this:

  • Kevin MacDonald, an external OpenPsych reviewer for The Nature of Race, is a virulent anti-Semite and white nationalist.[5]
  • In an email exchange about The Nature of Race, Professor of Philosophy Jonathan Kaplan remarked "Fuerst is an intellectually dishonest racist... I'm sure he has written a 100+ page article — he really seems to have nothing but time and racist animosity driving him."[6]
  • Fuerst was involved in a long debate about race on the OpenPsych forum with an ex-editor from RationalWiki named Krom who arrived independently at the same conclusion as Kaplan, that Fuerst is a racist.[7] Fuerst's posts on OpenPsych also seem to defend hereditarianism.[8]
  • In 2014, Fuerst wrote a blog post "Why Racialism is Sensible", asserting: "A substantial global cognitive hereditarian hypothesis is robust yet not established. If global cognitive differences are only 40-60% heritable, we would still have moderate to large congenital cognitive differences, thus vindicating racialism (qua racial hereditarianism)."[9] In his post Fuerst criticizes an anti-racialist blogger for not "address[ing] the evidence in support of racialism, understood as the view that genes condition important outcome differences between racial groups" (i.e. hereditarianism).
  • Fuerst has published in the racist pseudo-scholarly journal Mankind Quarterly that is known for publishing controversial hereditarianism research.[10]
  • On his Google Scholar and ResearchGate pages, Fuerst describes himself as a research fellow of the Ulster Institute for Social Research.[11] This phony institute was founded by an outspoken proponent of hereditarianism, Richard Lynn. The Ulster Institute for Social Research received over $600,000 in grants from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1996; the Pioneer Fund is a US-based organisation dedicated to promoting white supremacism, and whose founding members had Nazi sympathies.[12][13] The Ulster Institute for Social Research publishes the Mankind Quarterly.
  • Fuerst chose to publish The Nature of Race in an OpenPsych pseudojournal that supports hereditarianism; the latter is confirmed by a former reviewer who left one of the journals after complaining about the bias of the reviewers and editors, i.e. he points out all are "friendly (at least not hostile) to the hereditarian position regarding racial differences".[14] This is one of the reasons OpenPsych journals are bogus and unreliable.
Fuerst's The Nature of Race is promoted on Stormfront as "mandatory reading".
  • The Nature of Race has been generally ignored by academics and scientists, most (like Kaplan) regard Fuerst to be a racialist crank; support for Fuerst's book appears to be confined to HBD websites, as well as alt-right and white nationalist blogs, wikis and forums, such as "Human Biological Diversity Reading List" (Fuerst's book is listed under: "New to HBD? Requisite materials for novices"[15]), VDARE, Stormfront,[16] Rightpedia and Metapedia. When Krom raised concerns about this on OpenPsych, Fuerst responded "I have no beef against SFer's or neo-Nazis".[17] Go figure.

Motte and bailey strategy[edit]

For more information, see: Motte and bailey

In 2016, Kaplan and Krom's suspicions about Fuerst being a racist were arguably proven by bigoted and anti-Semitic Facebook comments posted by Fuerst which reveal he thinks a group composed mainly of Jews are behind "massive non-white immigration" to US, that certain non-whites in Germany are "invaders", that an Israeli lobby controls the Republican Party who are "moral signalling" against "white Christian" America, but that Trump is a not a part of the "Jewish Coalition" and is a patriot (Fuerst says he also voted for Trump).[18]

http://www.unz.com/isteve/okay/#comment-1285716 This is L. Auster's "First Corrolary to the First Law of Majority-Minority relations in a Liberal Society" in action: "The more egregiously any non-Western or non-white group behaves, the more evil whites are made to appear for noticing and drawing rational conclusions about that group’s bad behavior." Police in Germany must now crack down on those who notice and complain about the misbehaving invaders.[18]
The founders of "neoconservatism" were primarily jewish leftists who felt that the democratic party was not sufficiently supportive of Israel as an ethno-nationalist state. The jewish element explains why they are utterly hostile to all forms of populism and nationalism except in the case of Israel. Trump is dangerous to them because he is a genuine American patriot, one who isn't indebted to Republican Jewish Coalition/Israel lobby.[18]
neoconservatives: wars for Jewish nationalism (Israel) while a war against a coherent American nation, tax cuts for mostly progressive billionaires while open borders to keep wages down, dog whistling to while moral signaling against a mostly White Christian base. IMO, the party deserves to be destroyed.

Fuerst also describes the article "Jewish Hypocrisy" from alt-right website Counter Currents as "excellent" (though he would prefer it with qualifiers like "a disproportionate number of") and quotes the following:[19]

Jews are, of course, deeply hypocritical in their political behavior. A Jew who advocates open borders for Western nations while supporting the preservation of a Jewish state in Israel is clearly guilty of failing to practice what he preaches. Since the vast majority of Diaspora Jews and all major Jewish organizations both support Israel as an apartheid ethnostate and also favor the dissolution of their host nations through massive non-White immigration, we can justly call Jews a hypocritical race on this important subject.

Furthermore, Fuerst argues on Facebook "blacks are cognitively less apt" which would appear to go completely against his thin racialism:

Because Blacks are cognitively less apt, colonialism was a net good; it jump started African societal development. As for cognitive tests, whether they are predicatively biased or not is an empirical question. The issue of predictive bias is distinct from that of whether scores differences have the same meaning within and between groups. For example, cognitive tests are about as predictive of job performance for first generation Hispanics as for third generation (non-Hispanic) Whites. I can guarantee, though, that the first generation Hispanic/ third generation Whites gap is partially due to linguistic bias. Separate issues. Causation is yet another.

Is a test equally predicative for group A and B?

Does the between group score difference have the same psychometric meaning as within group differences?

Does the score difference have the same causal antecedents as the within group differences?

Separate questions.As for education, it probably counts for a significant portion of the Black American-Black African Achievement/IQ gaps. One can see that it explains little of the White-Black American one simply by looking at the differentials within schools controlling for attendance selectivity. I did this here using department of defense schools. As for regional performance on IQ tests, I would be surprised if there wasn’t gene-environment co-evolution. If North Eurasian cultures socially and materially rewarded intellectual performance, then, pre-welfare state, there should have been selection for more intelligent individuals. Biology shapes culture; culture shapes biology.[20]

Fuerst's thin racialism is a clearly a motte and bailey strategy: in his published work, Fuerst presents and defends a moderate position on race (the motte), while his underlying racist view is a lot more unreasonable and less-defensible (the bailey). Fuerst's bait and switch method is not a new tactic by HBD bloggers, for example euphemisms are often adopted by such as "race realism" by white nationalists and Fuerst similarly tries to present himself as being 'merely interested in human biodiversity' (hence his blog-title "Human Varieties").

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

References[edit]