Talk:John Fuerst/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

The only citations of his work are by himself, or his co-author...

http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=QEy6h1AAAAAJ&sortby=title&citation_for_view=QEy6h1AAAAAJ:IjCSPb-OGe4C The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility Journal: Open Behavioral Genetics Total citations: Cited by 1

Socioeconomic Inequality in the US: Ethnicity, Racial Admixture and Environmental Causes EOW Kirkegaard, J Fuerst

And note the citations come from the same pseudo-journal.BenSteigmans (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

John Fuerst email is blacklisted as a penis-enlargement pill spammer

Hi,

if you google the email (Hotmail) Fuerst has published next to his name under (read his papers and it is there next to it), you see it is blacklisted across the net. It appears on anti-spam email websites. The email has been used to send spam about penis-enlargement pills to other Hotmail inboxes.OldSword (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisions needed

Please update the wording of this article to reflect reality:

(1) I don't identify as a "white nationalist" and I don't recall claiming, in the past, to be a "white nationalist." Unless you can find a specific reference, remove this claim. (2) I never published for "far-right/neo-Nazi/white nationalist blogs" unless you classify mine as these, which would be difficult to justify. Remove or clarify the statement. (3) While I have commented and continue to comment on far right, far left, anarchist, etc. blogs, I don't recall commenting on "neo-Nazi" ones. Unless you can cite a specific case, remove this claim. (4) Finally, I have never claimed to be "apolitical". Recognizing that we all have our political biases and that this isn't necessarily bad, in my NofR manuscript, I noted: "We do not pretend to be purely passive voices of science ourselves." Edit the claim accordingly. "Chuck" (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a white nationalist John? Yet you use the word "cuck", claim to oppose "non-white immigration" to the US, are obsessed with racialism, link/advertise Alt Right on your blogs, and also support anti-Semitic conspiracy theories typical of white nationalists (see quotes below). No one is taking serious your "race realist" rebranding. You're a white nationalist kook plain and simple.Welliver (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of references — we have absolutely no proof that you are the real John Fuerst. If you feel like proving that you are (by your own accord; we never force the real identity out of anyone), I'm all ears. Until you chose to do so, however, I naturally cannot assume you to be (or represent) Fuerst. I hope you understand. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

And how would one go about proving this?"Chuck" (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is another erroneous claim: "Curiously, the third author of this publication attempted to remove their name from the paper post-publication.""Chuck" (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Response:

John Fuerst caught lying with his pants down! haha.

http://right-here-in-britain.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/john-fuerst.html

"[John Fuerst] supports Trump "because of his immigration stance", and thinks conservatives should "shut the borders and outbreed liberals", He also bangs on about "primary allegiance" and "Jewish moral hypocrisy", and claims "the vast majority" of Jews "favor the dissolution of their host nations through massive non-White immigration". His education is unclear, although he has a "verified email at ncsu.edu" (North Carolina State University).

Bolded pretty much proves he's a white nationalist kook. To counter his points:

• (1) Very few white nationalists identify publically as white nationalists; instead they try to rebrand or repackage white nationalism as "race realism" or "human biodiversity". So the fact Chuck doesn't identify as a WN, is irrelevant.
• (2) Chuck openly identified as a "racialist" in 2014, writing the article "Why Racialism is Sensible" source
• (3) Chuck's racialist article was cited/linked/advertised on Stormfront by white nationalists as "essential reading" (source on main-page) and Chuck would later claim "he has no beef with SFer's" i.e. Stormfronters. (source on this article).
• (4) Chuck's former blog used to advertise the Alt Right (source on main-page).
• (5) Chuck linked to a Neo-Nazi website with approval on his racialist article: "Here I will briefly add to the points made by Sean Last and Bulbasaur of The Right Stuff and explain why racialism makes sense." The Right Stuff is a Neo-Nazi site.

A link here shows Chuck owns several blogs all fixated with racialism and race & IQ. Someone looking at all those can probably find more links to Alt Right / Stormfront etc. There's also the issue this guy is a pseudo-scientist who publishes his work in pseudo-journal, founded by the paedophilia apologist Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (who posted children raped in their sleep will not be harmed). If you also take a look at Chuck's publications you find 90% of them are published in Kirkegaard's pseudo-journal that is not professionally peer-reviewed; all citations to his papers are by Kirkegaard. So no actual scientist is reading his work. If you check the first link I posted there is also a quote from the scholar Jonathan Kaplan describing Fuerst as an "intellectually dishonest racist". That's pretty much the impression I got when I read the Open Pysch forum when he debated someone on race; see the racialism page for a rebuttal to all his nonsense. Welliver (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

IF I write things that "racialists" would write -- given how that term is defined on this wiki (I haven't checked), you could probably get away with calling me that. That said, this statement is patently false:

"If you also take a look at Chuck's publications you find 90% of them are published in Kirkegaard's pseudo-journal that is not professionally peer-reviewed; all citations to his papers are by Kirkegaard. So no actual scientist is reading his work."

But if you think so, add it to the entry on me, so that I have another false allegation to dispute. (You can check my publication record at research gate.)

Proposed article re-write

John Fuerst (online alias: Chuck) is a racialist pseudo-scientist who publishes in Open Behavioral Genetics - a non-peer-reviewed pseudo-journal set up by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard; nearly all citations of Fuerst's papers are by the editor of the same journal (Kirkegaard), meaning no actual scientists pay attention to his work. Furthermore, neither Fuerst nor Kirkegaard have any scientific qualifications.

Professor of Philosophy Jonathan Kaplan (specialising in the philosophy of biology) has described Fuerst as "an intellectually dishonest racist".

link title

References

Basically after this we can add his white nationalist and anti-semitic politics.Welliver (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

John Fuerst in his own words...

https://archive.is/S4MBd https://archive.is/ZQyQW

John reveals himself as a typical white nationalist anti-Semitic loon who thinks Jews are behind "massive non-white immigration" to US and destroying "white Christian" America:

"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."

"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."

"Excellent article, from Counter Currents, on Jewish moral hypocrisy. One might make more explicit the implicit modifiers e.g., "a disproportionate number of", but ... "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."

"Simple realpolitik strategy for actual conservatives: shut the borders and outbreed liberals"

"This just screams for a Great Wall of America. Don't cuck out Ohio!"

"Going to early vote for Trump now. Will see if I can do it multiple times"

- I also noticed John making his Disqus account private, probably to hide comments like the above.Welliver (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Welliver (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Google Scholar section

I removed:

===Abuse of Google Scholar citations index=== Nearly all citations to Fuerst's papers listed on Google Scholar are by [[Emil O. W. Kirkegaard]], from the pseudo-journals ''Open Differential Psychology'' and ''Open Behavioral Genetics'', draft articles and the ''Mankind Quarterly''.<ref>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=QEy6h1AAAAAJ&hl=en Google Scholar]</ref> This is clear abuse of the Google Scholar's citations index that makes it seem independent scientists are citing or take interest in Fuerst's work, when they aren't. Of 61 citations, over 50 are by Kirkegaard.

What purpose does this section serve? Has anyone made claims about Fuerst's citations index? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 14:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

It falls under pseudo-science/pseudo-journal; Fuerst publishes his work in two pseudo-journals, and nearly all citations to his papers are by Emil Kirkegaard the editor of these journals. I count over 50 citations by Kirkegaard, out of 61 citations. And most the rest are from the Mankind Quarterly, a racist journal. So who is citing Fuerst? Only Kirkegaard 90% of the time and sometimes white supremacists from the MQ (Fuerst has published articles in the latter.) All this is clearly abuse of Google Scholar citation index that was set up to measure researcher impact. 50 citations by the same individual is deceptive, normally this would be 40 or more separate scientists.Welliver (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand why this is abusive and typical of pseudoscience. However, we usually don't document other citation circles. It'd be more interesting to see what the "Network" of citaitons looks like -- what percent of Fuerst is Kirkegaard, what percent of Kirkegaard is Fuerst, same for Lynn, etc. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 14:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone has found it necessary to keep archive.is copies of this page

https://archive.is/http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/John_Fuerst

Reminder to all parties that you can easily refer to a specific revision with https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Fuerst&action=history Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Some argue

This page paints John Fuerst in a false light and makes false, unsubstantiated, and potentially defamatory allegations. Specifically:

1. John Fuerst does not identify as a "white nationalist" and he does not seek to “develop a "national identity" based on that race” (per Rationalwiki's definition of "white nationalism"). This is not to say that he hasn't defended the legitimacy of such a project and the right of others to pursue it.
2. John Fuerst has not published for "far-right/neo-Nazi/white nationalist blogs" or for any blogs other than his own.
3. John Fuerst has not commented on overtly neo-Nazi blogs.
4. John Fuerst has not maintained that he is apolitical; on the contrary, he has noted his biases and he has argued that political biases are not necessarily detrimental to sound research.
5. The third author of his paper, Evidence of dysgenic fertility in China, did not attempt to remove his name from that paper or to disassociate himself from the paper. That individual remains an author.
6. John Fuerst has not published pseudoscience, characterized (per Rationalwiki's definition) by
   1. unfalsifiable claims
   2. a lack of attempt at self-refutation
   3. a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts
   4. an absence of systematic practices when developing theories

"Chuck" (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In case this wasn't already clear, PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIMS. WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING TO YOU, okay?—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-read the pseudo-science article. Your views are unfalsifiable since you move the goalposts. Your stuff was falsified in multiple debates on Open Psych and other forums, but you kept changing the criteria for falsification. As for blogs, your own blogs are "far right/white nationalist". Links are provided. And anyone can also click your facebook (links above) to see you're a white nationalist kook. You left posts showing you believe in a conspiracy theory Jews are responsible for "massive non-white immigration" while recommending a link to Counter Currents - an Alt-Right/white nationalist publisher. Since you're though trying to pretend to be a scientist now on the internet you don't want the public to know your actual white nationalist political views. Rationalwiki is already well familiar with the silly rebranding/repackaging attempts by white nationalists ("I'm not racist, I'm a racial realist!" etc). The point about apolitical is the only thing that could be amended, but I think this was written along the lines of what I am saying about the rebranding (admittedly it could have been worded better.)Welliver (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, posting this here: http://right-here-in-britain.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/john-fuerst.html Its clear from this link, John Fuerst is a white nationalist. Its also telling that he only ever identifies as "white" hence his Facebook comments about "white Christian America" etcetc being destroyed by "non-whites". He also uses the white nationalist/Alt right word "cuck" and so on. Just laughable this guy denies being a WN because he's now trying to promote himself as a scientist and wants to be taken seriously. http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=QEy6h1AAAAAJ&hl=en Observe all citations to his papers are from Emil O. W. Kirkegaard (the editor of the pseudo-journal that publishes him).! How are these two clowns not pseudo-scientists? They're basically as bad as Kent Hovind.Welliver (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I am in a "false light" state, so I do not actually need to prove my points, legally.

As for "pseudo-science" and falsifiable, I have tried to falsify the views myself -- and I have done an OK job at that. For example:

1. As for the "race concept", in my last paper, based on my analysis of historical usages, I "conceded" that the term 'race' was always ambiguously used, and suggested more precise concepts and terms http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12855/
2. Years ago, I noted Richard Lynn's predictions, "If a multiracial society is found where these race differences in intelligence are absent, the evolutionary and genetic theory of these differences would be falsified," and began investigating and found a number of anomalies which I noted in my various papers. These led me to distance myself from a genetic hypothesis (in my published papers), in favor of a non-committal genealogical one. Since, I have collaborated with the Ghanese Stanford fellow, Chanda Chisala, to find more problematic (from the hereditarian perspective) data. For example, I looked, with Chanda's help, and found, curiously, that many African immigrants to the US were no less apt that Whites: http://humanvarieties.org/2015/10/28/using-surnames-to-assess-ethnic-aptitude/
3. In my Admixture in the America's paper, which was replied to by 9 other researchers, we pointed to specific methods of confirming the genealogical model, we also distinguished that from a genetic model.

Perhaps, you could give an example of a research hypothesis or claim I have made that is not falsifiable or that I have not attempted to falsify. Or perhaps you could cite an instance of:

1. a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts
2. an absence of systematic practices when developing theories

You can't at the same time maintain that I am unopen to having my papers critically evaluated AND that my work is subpar as evidence by the fact that so many refuse to respond to requests for reviews.

Again, the point is that by the specific definition of ""pseudo-science" the rationalwiki gives, I can not reasonably be said to be engaging in this.

"As for blogs, your own blogs are "far right/white nationalist"..."And anyone can also click your facebook (links above) to see you're a white nationalist kook."

If this is what you mean, say it and link to these blogs. As it is, you are painting me in a false light, one which suggests that I have written for blogs other than my own. Also, be sure that you can defend that claim that they are "far right" and "White nationalist" per rationalwiki definition. Again, Rationalwiki has a specific definition of "white nationalism". By that Counter Currents is surely White nationalist. However citing CC and agreeing with some of there commentary about Jewish ethnopolitics and also being critical of mass immigration, etc. doesn't imply that I am, in the sense of seeking to “develop a "national identity" based on that race”.

The problem here is that you are calling a tangerine an orange. Were I actually "white nationalist", per Rationalwiki definition, I wouldn't mind being called one. There are a lot of things you could call me, just make sure that they are correct, given how terms are defined on this wiki.^{— Unsigned, by: "Chuck" / talk / contribs}

Race has been falsified by genetics, but you move the goalposts/change the definition of race etc to deny falsification; you do this in your "racialism is sensible" article. Racialism is pseudo-science because racialists move the goalposts: subspecies classification requires a high degree of genetic differentiation and parapatry or allopatry. Knowing human populations fail to pass as subspecies by this test - racialists change the criteria to minimal genetic differentiation and sympatry. This is covered by Hochman in his articles covered on the racialism article. Racialism is pseudo-science and since you identify as a racialist/argue for racialism you're a pseudo-scientist. All racialists move the goalposts, because race has been falsified. Rationalwiki is not treating you any more differently than any other racialist kook. Welliver (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

As for white nationalism you fit all the descriptions on the white nationalism article. For example its clear from your comments your identity politics is about "whites" vs. "non-whites": this is white nationalist political thinking. When opposing mass-immigration all you mention is "non-whites" and your identity is based on "whites" (pan-Europeanism, again white nationalism) rather than an actual ethnicity like Basque or Swede. Also, you aren't going to fool anyone if you suddenly turn around and say your opposition to mass immigration is for another reason, say environmental or concerns about overpopulation (lack of space, resource depletion.) that are actually legitimate; a large % of immigration to the US for example is from Europe, yet I don't see you anywhere complaining about mass immigration from "whites" - its only ever "non-whites". Why is this if you're not a white nationalist?Welliver (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

“”Why Racialism is Sensible: A Pithy Rejoinder to The Prussian"

—John Fuerst

—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 05:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "White nationalism," the rationalwiki definition is quite specific: "White nationalism claims that white people are a race and seeks to develop a "national identity" based on that race." Nowhere do I do the later, though, I do defend the legitimacy of such a project. That I might prefer, for various sociopolitical reasons, that Whites in the US do not become a minority does not imply that I would like or am seeking a national identity based on race.

As for "pseudoscience" and "race," I either discuss "race" in the sociological sense of "self-identified race/ethnicity" or in a specific biological sense, namely that of "biogeographic ancestry group"/"descent group". The latter construct is commonly used in epidemiology and there is surely nothing fake about it. At best one can argue that this sense isn't really what the term "race" 'should' mean, despite this being more or less what was meant by early evolutionists, despite the inventors of the "biogeographic ancestry" concept defining it as "the heritable component of race", and despite at least some philosophers, anthropologists, and biologists recognizing these types of groups as "races". Importantly:

1. I have granted that the term "race" is not essential and that it is often confusing.
2. In my published works, I define "race" as I mean it, leaving no hypothesis unfalsifiable as ordinarily understood.

So, your argument is that I am make "unfalsifiable claims" when I use the term "race" to describe a well defined construct -- descent/ancestry group -- which you don't think should be called "race", given your understanding of that term? 'By "race" I mean "biogeographic ancestry groups"' might be an "unreasonable operationalizaton" but it can't be an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" since it is a specification, not a hypothesis! And the hypothesis '"biogeographic ancestry groups" more or less refer to the same type of thing that were often called "races"' is clearly falsifiable based on historiographic evidence (e.g., Either Darwin's "communities of descent" pick these same things out or not).

I submit again that your claim that I am "pseudo-scientific" or "white nationalist" is unsubstantiated, given the definitions provided on this wiki, which is the reasonable definition to use in evaluating these assertions."Chuck" (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Race as "biogeographic ancestry group"/"descent group" is a trivialised re-definition nothing like how scientists actually define subspecies (synonymous with race); you cherry-pick some obscure pre-Darwinian sources from 300 years ago and ignore virtually all post-Darwinian scientists. Also no contemporary scientist usages your re-definition. So thanks for proving my point. You're moving goalposts/re-defining race because race has been falsified. This is pseudo-science; racialists re-define race so it cannot be falsified because your criteria is minimum, mere ancestry/genetic similarity - with no threshold of genetic differentiation. So how can your race concept be falsified if you are claiming it is actually falsifiable? You don't set any thresholds at all and your criteria is minimum. As Hochman points out, racialists re-define race in such a way that anti-realists ("race denialists") about race do not even deny it, so your position is absurd. No one denies "descent groups" as multigenerational breeding populations - the Amish are an example. Welliver (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ..."clearly falsifiable based on historiographic evidence", yet you ignore or deny the latter. At Open Psych someone posted dozens of sources showing your definition of race has not been in use by the vast majority of biologists or anthropologists over the past 100 years. Your response was to reject all these sources, again moving goalposts. There's more than a dozen definitions for race from science sources on the racialism main-page and talk; none of them define race the way you do. Welliver (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I've not made any edits to your article, its locked. Only sysops can edit it. Above though I've provided more than enough evidence you are a pseudo-scientist and white nationalist. I don't see anything on the RW article for white nationalism that doesn't apply to you. If you want to ban/stop "non-whites" into America, then how are you not a white nationalist? If you had made arguments more ethno specific, it is possible to make a distinction to ethnic nationalism and white nationalism. But you're clearly the latter rather than the former since your opposition is only to "non-whites" and your identity is based on "white" rather than an individual local ethnicity from Europe like Basque or Swede.Welliver (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A final point - Rationalwiki lists racialism as a pseudo-science, on par with creationism, alternative medicine etc. So coming here and trying to dispute you are a pseudo-scientist is a waste of time; creationists also come here and deny being pseudo-scientists, should we take them serious too? And if you deny being a white nationalist, how do you explain your position you want to ban/stop "non-white immigration" into the US? There's a whole load more traits typical of white nationalist that identify you as one, e.g. your use of the word "cuck", your obsession with racialism, the fact you recommend Alt Right websites and publishers and your comments about Jews and "Zionist lobbies" controlling the US etcetc. This is basically nonsense you find on Stormfront, a white nationalist website that promotes your blog(s) and recommends your "racial realist" blog articles as reading materials.Welliver (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are painting me in a false light. I specify the type of "racialism" I defend:

...

For example, from the "Why Racialism is Sensible: A Pithy Rejoinder to The Prussian" post you snapshoted:

"What is Racialism?

The Prussian recently wrote a lengthy critique of “racialism”. His central thesis was that:

"Biology, and to a lesser extent, genetics, has a powerful influence on individual human life but at the group level it is overshadowed by culture and social institutions."

While he doesn’t precisely define his meaning, he implies that “racialism” is the view that genes condition important outcome differences between racial groups."

...

This specification accords with "thin racialism", of which Kelly, Machery, Mallon (2010) note: "There still remains substantial debate about what could be called thin racialism, i.e., the idea that racial categorization might be useful in identifying some important genetic differences or other biological properties". But look how rationalwiki defines the term: "Racialism ... implies that these races are substantially different from each other and that these racial differences strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals and peoples. Essentially, racialism argues that human populations are substantially different from each other to a degree which necessitates biological classification below the species level" Yet in my NofR book (pg. 109), I specifically stated that only by a liberal classification scheme -- or by a liberal concept of species/subspecies such as the phylogenic diagnostic one -- could major continental descent groups be classified as taxonomic subspecies; thus, I clearly do no maintain that formal recognition of human subpecies is NECESSARY. I also note (pg. 121) that continental races do not exhibit differences which strongly determine the abilities and behavior of individuals. In fact, I note that individual level differences "do not typically seem to be large". So, yes I am a "racialist" in a very thin sense (believing that bio-ancestry might be useful in identifying some important genetic differences"), but clearly I am not one in any thick falsified sense. It is dishonest and misleading to state that I am a "pseudo-scientist" because I adopt "thin racialism" and because "racialism" as thickly defined on rationalwiki is deemed pseudoscientific.

As for term use, "race" is not infrequently defined thinly in contemporary genetics dictionaries. In the 8th edition of A dictionary of genetics, King, Mulligan, and Stansfield (2013) define subspecies and race in the following manner:

--subspecies 1. a taxonomically recognized subdivision of a species. 2. geographically and/or ecologically defined subdivisions of a species with distinctive characteristics. See race. (pp. 456)

--race a phenotypically and/or geographically distinctive subspecific group, composed of individuals inhabiting a defined geographical and/or ecological region, and possessing characteristic phenotypic gene frequencies that distinguish it from other such extension groups. Homo Sapiens can be subdivided into five races on the basis of geographic origin. (pp. 391)

Notice that in this prestigious dictionary of genetics, humans are said to be dividable into five major races. Are King, Mulligan, and Stansfield "pseudoscientists" since they note that the human race can be subdivided into five continental races and since, according to "Krom", "race" really "should" mean something more substantive? Can I open a Rationalwiki page for everyone that has said there are "human races" in some biological sense -- and note that these people are all "pseudoscientists"?"Chuck" (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Just take a look around, Steve Sailer's article for example. There's numerous entries covering individual racialists. They've been laughed at on here for years and discredited; they're all described as pseudo-scientists, like Sailer. If you support racialism: "pseudo-science" will appear on your article (the "racialist" nav-box even says "pseudoscience racialism"), just like if you are an advocate of alternative medicine, are an ancient astronaut believer, Afrocentrist (see Clyde Winters), creationist and so on. The purpose of this wiki as stated on the main-page is "refuting pseudoscience... [d]ocumenting the full range of crank ideas and [e]xplorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism". And ask yourself why that dictionary has an entry for "Mongoloid" (p. 301) but no other "oid"; so is there only one race? Most likely "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" were removed at some point; the dictionary has gone through 8 editions since 1968. It just looks like they've forgotten to remove some stuff that was thrown of out genetics/science decades ago. If you get in contact with these scientists, I highly doubt they argue for the existence of human races. Interestingly one of those scientists back in the 1970s wrote this:

A race is genetically, and as a rule, geographically distinct interbreeding natural subdivision of a species. The semi-isolated local breeding populations discussed in Chapter 15 have the potential to become races. The basic problem is to agree on how much genetic differentiation must exist before two populations warrant being called separate races. - Stanfield, William D. (1977). The Science of Evolution. Macmillan. p. 424.

What's clear from this quote is Stanfield maintains there is a threshold of genetic differentiation required for race, hence he distinguishes races to breeding populations (demes) and argues the latter have the "potential to become races" after reaching a significant level of genetic differentiation, although he is unsure of how much. This is more in common with my position, not yours. Instead you're denying a threshold since human populations only show minor genetic differentiation. The latter is why your position is pseudo-science because you move the goalposts of falsifiability. Since human populations are not highly genetically differentiated, you deny a threshold and change the criteria.Welliver (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

So the the pseudo-scientific claim is that "there are human races" and this is "pseudo-science" because I am defining "race" so inclusively that they could not not exit?

First, we are discussing philosophy-of-science (semiotics and ontology) not science (hypothesis testing), proper, so if this is the claim, you should label me a "pseudo-philsophy-of-science" ... Second, this isn't true. And I do give a genetic criteria:

NofR: "This said, we grant that some researchers might conceptualize biological race such to include, at least on the periphery, lineages with intermediate degrees of entwinement, something akin to folk stocks. It makes logical sense to us to understand races to be divisions which are linebred enough such that members are more overall genetically similar to other members of the same division than to members of other divisions (of the same classification scheme..."

Thus, this definition corresponds with that of Hartl and Clark (1997): "In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races." Pseudoscience?

Third, in a subsequent paper, I reason that "race", the term, is confusing, so I call the groups above "lineage-populations". I note this in papers and on the HV blog: "After some deliberation, I determined that the locution “race” is inessential. As such, I now disavow the arguably controversial view that this is necessary when it comes to understanding biological variation, human and otherwise…. "

Thus, I make no definitive claim that this is what "race" should mean. At most, mood depending, I argue that this -- descent group, lineage population -- is a concept that could legitimately, given past usage, be called race. And in NofR I provide a framework for deciding this:

"Next, we must clarify what it would mean for a biological concept to be a biological race concept. Such a biological concept need not always be called “race,” nor does the term “race” need always refer to the said concept, but any biological race concept must have a reasonable claim to the term....Obviously, there is a subjective element involved when it comes to assessing what constitutes a “reasonable claim.” Nevertheless, examples of biological concepts which qualify (microgeographic race, etc.) and do not qualify (sexual morph, life form, etc.) come readily to mind. Biologists and others who discuss race in relation to biology have frequently referred to the former, but not the latter, as “race.” Of course, one could call any biological concept “race,” and no term truly belongs to a concept, but some concepts and terms have a history of common or related usage such that using the particular term to describe the particular concept does not seem equivocal or sophistical."

So the argument that "lineage populations" can legitimately be call "races" is determinable based on historographic evidence, and as I review that I shift my opinion. Now, this same "falsifiable" argument should apply to you, since you argue that "race" should only mean "taxonomic subspecies". Well, how does one "falsify" that claim. Or is it pseudo-philosophy-of-science? I presume, you would adopt roughly the same method: see how the term has been defined in various works and dictionaries. No?

So you have yet to show any pseudoscience -- at best some questionable historiography."Chuck" (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already shown your pseudo-science: you define race in such a way it is impossible to falsify, identical to the Neo-Nazi troll who spams up the racialism talk-page every couple of weeks (he uses your fallacies and you both take these from "race realist" pseudo-scientists like Sesardic; I don't see anything new or interesting in your arguments, its regurgitated). I don't wish to waste much time on this, since I've covered this many times on the racialism talk: I said your criteria will be absolute minimum and you now say it is mere genetic similarity with no threshold (so my prediction was correct.) Danes and English are minimal genetically differentiated, Fst = 0.0021 (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994), so are you saying they're separate races? The problem is at this point you're contradicting yourself since you know you don't call Danes and English different races... Your identity politics is based on a pan-European "white" continental identity as a race, not a localized ethnic group as a race. For example, where's your posts criticizing Danish or English immigration into the US? Instead all you oppose is "non-white immigration". You also identify as "white" and speak in regards to "white [Christian] America" etc., not an actual ethnic group. Welliver (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Show me how if race = mere genetic similarity (with no threshold of differentiation), I can falsify this. Not possible. The definition you're using is similar to Theodosius Dobzhansky's in the 1950s who you quote on one of your 2014 articles; he wrote "race exists regardless of whether we can [easily] define them or not". This is basically an existential statement and impossible to falsify because he equated race with "allele differences" and since no two populations are genetically identical, race in his view = genes. There's no way to falsify an existential statement (for example even if we could not find "genes" this would not falsify them, like if we could not find "unicorns" i.e. they might exist somewhere else, at a different time). The simple rebuttal to this was presented by Montagu in the early 1960s: "Why use the word “race” here when what is being done is precisely what should be done, namely, to describe...gene frequency differences? What, in point of fact, has the antiquated, mystical conception of “race” to do with this? The answer is: Nothing." ("The concept of race". American Anthropologist. 1962 64(5:1):919-928.) Welliver (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your claim my definition of subspecies cannot be falsified is nonsense. Just read Alan Templeton's papers, he tested and falsified subspecies (geographical races) in humans because genetic differentiation between populations is minimal and populations are not geographically isolated (allopatric/parapatric), but sympatric. My view of subspecies/race is the same as standard taxonomy and evolutionary biology, like Templeton. In contrast since race has been falsified you move the goalposts and use a different concept definition, not in use by taxonomists or biologists.Welliver (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Here's some major issues that I think some people have:

1. The fact you correlate IQ to race without getting into socioeconomics.
2. Your definition of race is based off an old, outdated definition (similar to Darwins).
3. The fact you call racialism sensible. Individuals here, well, aren't very big fans of racialism.
4. Stuff you've said on your FaceBook page about Jews
5. You publish(ed) your findings on Kirkegaard's, a pedophile apologist, platform that isn't peer-reviewed.

I find these to be glaring factoids that led to your page's creation.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I did remove some unsourced statements that you've pointed out.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

However, I don't see the words "racialist" or "pseudo-scientist" getting removed anytime soon. Because you've called racialism sensible, this is a more or less all the evidence we need. The racialism article makes it clear we consider this subject to be pure psuedo-science. (P.S. by "we" I think I represent users, I don't represent RationalWiki)—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

For more information, see: Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

The sickening paedophilia apologist who wrote adults raping kids in their sleep is OK, you co-author papers with (do you not have a moral conscience?) in pseudo-journals hangs out with white supremacists and white nationalists like Tara McCarthy. Of course like you he probably denies being a white nationalist, but if that is the case why does he show up on their blogs, websites and platforms? You two are both racialists with all these connections to white nationalists, but deny being WN's. Its ridiculous. Welliver (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Page lock

Like I said, I'm unable to edit the main article. Other sysops have edited/written the main page. Really what is on this talk page is only provisional. The issue with removing white nationalist is that means we have to take serious someone like Millennial Woes who will deny being a white nationalist as well (someone recently created his article here, that I only briefly edited). Very few white nationalists actually want to be identified by this term.Welliver (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

More Corrections needed

Thank you for removing some of the more erroneous claims.

There are still two outstanding issues.

1. "John Fuerst (a.k.a. Chuck) is a racialist, nationalist pseudo-scientist who publishes in Open Behavioral Genetics — a non-peer-reviewed[3] pseudo-journal set up by Emil O. W. Kirkegaard"
   1. "racialist" links to the Rationalwiki "racialist" page; yet I have clarified that I am not a "racialist" in that sense and I have documented the sense in which I could be said to be this. Either change the link or clarify that page.
   2. It hasn't been established that what I have published constitutes "pseudo-science" per rationalwiki's definition.
   3. Open Behavioral Genetics was set up by both Davide Piffer and Emil Kirkegaard.
2. "Fuerst has published on various far-right/neo-Nazi/white nationalist blogs across the internet as "Chuck", and used to run the "Occidentalist" blog which advertised Alternative Right.[5]"
   1. Again this paints me in a false light, since I have only commented on my own blogs, including: "Occidentalist", "Human Varieties", and one other data blog. If you can find "far-right/neo-Nazi/white nationalist blogs across the internet" that I have published on, link to them. Otherwise rewrite this section.

Also, if it helps, the full quote from Kaplan was: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:31 PM, <kaplanj@onid.orst.edu> wrote (to Meng Hu <mh19870410@gmail.com>): "To be blunt, Fuerst is an intellectually dishonest racist, who I no longer regard as worth interacting with at all. I'm sure he has written a 100+ page article -- he really seems to have nothing but time and racist animosity driving him."

For clarification, John Fuerst has communicated that the statement above should not be taken by rationalwiki's editors as giving consent to repeat Jonathan Kaplan's potentially libelous claim ("Fuerst is an intellectually dishonest racist") made in an email to a third party. Mr. Fuerst has disputed the unfounded assertion that he is "pseudo-scientific", "intellectually dishonest," and the like -- statements which make plain claims about his personal intellectual integrity. He also has disputed the claim that he is a "racist" per rationalwiki's definition (i.e., "the belief that humans can be meaningfully defined into biological ethnic categories in order to seperate supposed superior from inferior races ...."). Mr. Fuerst requests that rationalwiki remove Jonathan Kaplan's allegation on the grounds that it constitutes repetition of defamatory matter in context to the allegation of being "intellectually dishonest" and that it constitutes painting him in a false light in context to the allegation of being a "racist" (given rationalwiki's and the ordinary understanding of "racist" versus Jonathan Kaplan's uncertain idiosyncratic meaning).D.M. (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also:

These two statements should be in the "politics" section, not under "Jews".

   Simple realpolitik strategy for actual conservatives: shut the borders and outbreed liberals
   This just screams for a Great Wall of America. Don't cuck out Ohio!

Thanks."Chuck" (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

1. x
   1. I have changed "racialist" to "racist". I gathered this from your blog post about blacks and IQ.
   2. I have removed the "pseudo-science" for now.
   3. Corrected
2. x

   1. Removed the part where you posted on other's blogs.

Thanks for the full quote.

Moved those two statements.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 16:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There's not much point in removing the "pseudo-scientist" description since the racialist nav-box describes racialism as pseudo-science on his article. Above I outline why racialism is pseudo-science and Fuerst confirms this with his responses where he shows race (in his view) is not falsifiable. Race according to him = genes (because no two populations are genetically identical, his idea of race just requires the existence of genes.) It's damn retarded.Welliver (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Welliver,

To be clear, I have claimed that "descent groups" or "lineage populations" can legitimately be called races. In my Lineage Population paper, I note that the term "race" is confusing and point out that other entities could be called this too. So the position is not that biological race = descent group, but that descent groups -- and also some other entities -- could legitimately be called races given past term usage. Now, while there will inevitably be races qua descent groups -- just as there will inevitably be races qua ecotypes (Kaplan's 2003 definition of race) -- it is not inevitable that specific groups will be these. For example, "Asians" in the US are not a descent group, nor are Whites in Brazil. Also, it is an empirical claim that "descent groups" can legitimately be called races, given my proposed method for evaluating the issue i.e., historic usage. Perhaps this needs some refining. But the general point has been discussed by others. Now, I am open to you making that case that historic usage does not justify this usage. And I am not, or no longer, particularly attached to the term "race", though sometimes I still use it as a synonym for "descent group" -- as others do in the genetic epidemiology research program. (if you want examples I can give them.) Whatever the case, if you claim that saying 'descent groups can legitimately be called races' is a unfalsifiable claim, thus pseudoscience, I would ask you to apply the logic consistently. Again Kaplan has claimed that "ecotypes" which inevitably exist can be called "race". Q. Spencer has claimed that "continental populations" which inevitably exist can be called "races". etc. All these people should then be labeled as pseudoscientists.

Dear CheeseburgerFace

Thank you for the updates. This section is much more accurate. It is unfortunate that the tag line under the search still reads:

"May 24, 2017 - John Fuerst is a white nationalist pseudoscientist. He blogs at Human Varieties. Fuerst has published on various far-right/neo-Nazi/white .." But perhaps that will be undated in time.

The only question I have is whether I can accurately be called a "racist" given the rationalwiki definition, which you link to:

"Racism is (1) the belief that humans can be meaningfully defined into biological ethnic categories (2) in order to seperate supposed superior from inferior races and/or (3) generally showing discrimination or hostility against a person(s) on the basis of their race"

Obviously, I think that "humans can be meaningfully defined into biological ethnic categories" but I don't believe this -- or so I think -- in order to separate supposed superior from inferior races. That said, I do recognize that some races are on average better than others in certain traits, though I am unsure about the causes, yet I don't think this makes some races intrinsically better. (I can link to posts where I have stated this.) On the other hand, I have argued that it is not irrational to think some races are "inferior" as such, in some sense, though I noted that the logic is complex and it involves a within group elitism, which for selfserving reasons I don't endorse. As for discrimination, in the marriage market at least, I have discriminate based on race or at least the cultural and phenotype correlate of ancestry. And I have also defended, without endorsing, the logic of, for example, what has been called "intrinsic racism" (See the NofR section on morality) and [redact: I wrote "race" when this should be "ethnic", see link] ethnic nationalism (see here: https://humanvarieties.org/2016/03/19/philosophical-reflections-on-on-genetic-interest/) Now, this, and other positions, all might well qualify me as a "racist" per rationalwiki standards. And if so I am fine with that. I just wanted your judicious opinion on the matter. I think it is important to be precise with terms and be clear about what exactly one is saying, which is why I ask. "Chuck" (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Kaplan retracted what he wrote about ecotypes being races; he admitted he was wrong. And as far as I am aware ecotypes can be falsified, for example ecological/climatic adaptation(s) can be tested. In contrast defining race as you have above as mere genetic similarity is pseudo-science because it is impossible to falsify. Its an axiom in population genetics that no two populations are genetically identical, so by defining race as genetic similarity - means you only require the existence of genes; the existential statement "genes exist" is unfalsifiable. Its impossible to falsify the existence of something based on observation.

So if I wrote a paper and stated that "genes exist" would that constitute pseudoscience, since according to you it's an unfalsifiable statement? I can't think of a scientific paper that would not constitute pseudoscience by this logic. Also, descent groups, as I understand them, are not merely groups between which there are genetic differences, they are groups where members are more related to each other than to members of other groups. Thus for example Americans and Mexicans are not descent groups per this understanding. Let me ask you, is this a pseudoscientific definition of "race": “An interbreeding group of individuals all of whom are genetically distinct from the members of other such groups of the same species.” (Allaby, 2013, A Dictionary of Geology and Earth Sciences.) I ask because that is very similar to what I understand "descent groups" to be.

• You don't defend ethnic nationalism, but white nationalism. Big difference. Your comments show your identity politics is based on a continental European/"white" grouping, not local ethnicity. If you were defending ethnic nationalism, you would oppose immigration into the US from "whites" as much as "non-whites", but all you complain about is the latter. For you, opposition to immigration is based on "whites" vs. "non-whites", not ethnicity; if I'm wrong show me comments you've made where you oppose ethnic Swedish, English, German, Polish or Dutch immigration into the US.Welliver (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, for personal reasons I am rather inclined to not support ethnic or racial nationalism, as you define it here, for the US. But, I agree with the neoreactionary (Nick Land's) principle of dis-integration and voting with one's feet. So in principle I support people's attempts to create communities of their design. As for immigration to the US, that issue is complicated. It's hard to cite stuff I have written on the matter, since I have taken down the relevant blogs."Chuck" (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Google has a cache for its searches, it will get updated whenever Google's web crawler gets to updating it. While you don't meet the criteria for advocating discrimination against races, you do with the other criteria; you argue an inferiority of races and substantial differences between races. You qualify as "good enough" to be put in the racist category. I was suggested to keep factual content in and remove others out. @Welliver Do feel free to add content to the article as you see fit, I've done my part.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 03:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It wasn't clear what you mean by "inferiority of races"; often by this people mean "intrinsic inferiority" when I mean "being better at on overage in trait x"; for example: "on average, Europeans are better at digesting lactose than east Asians." If that's what racism means, here, I surely can't deny being racist in holding such true beliefs. Also, I see that you note other definitions such as: "Racism includes any recognition of race, even without any belief in superiority." I guess I can't deny being "racist" in this sense, either. I wonder if these usages are somewhat misleading, though. Perhaps not, since I do recognize group differences in cognitive ability -- and it's plausible that many people would consider that to be ipso facto racist, despite most polled intelligence researchers agreeing on that point."Chuck" (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Dude, can you stop fooling around? "Because Blacks are cognitively less apt, colonialism was a net good." - John Fuerst. You argue "blacks" are inferior like Richard Lynn who you work at his institute. Lynn wrote there is no doubt in his mind that "Negroids" lack civilization achievements/scientific advances and are inferior or primitive. In his own words:

“”Only the Mongoloids and the Caucasians have built civilizations and all the discoveries and inventions from early metal working to the contemporary scientific advances have been made by these two races." http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html

Welliver (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Chuck reminds me of Peter Cvjetanovic

Peter Cvjetanovic is a Neo-Nazi/white supremacist who attended the "unite the right" Charlottesville protest. He was caught on camera and then got doxed on twitter by an anti-racist activist. He was wearing a Identity Evropa t-shirt, and while attending the protest was shouting things like "Jews will not replace us", "white lives matter" and "blood and soil". After being doxed, Peter did an interview where he denies being a Neo-Nazi/white supremacist, says he never chanted those extreme things (but says everyone around him was) and calls himself an "identitarian" or "race realist", "fighting to protect white Europeans" but as well as all peoples and cultures. In the interview Cjetanovic says he does not agree with white supremacism, nor racism, that Hitler was a monster and he doesn't deny the Holocaust. The problem with all this is behind the scenes in semi-private Facebook comments and on lesser-known websites: Cketanpovic praises Hitler, denies the Holocaust (or at least questions if 6,000,000 Jews were murdered), argues for an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory Jews are behind "non-white immigration" to the US, and promotes the race & IQ literature of Richard Lynn, that argues "blacks" naturally have significantly lower IQ's than whites by manipulating data.

Chuck is very similar to Cvketanovic in that his semi-private Facebook comments expose him as a hardcore racist, white nationalist and anti-Semite, not the moderate "race realist" image he's trying to sell the public. Chuck is outright lying about his actual views above, they're at complete odds with his Facebook posts and comments he's left on old websites, that he's since deleted or tried to bury. For example he comes here asserting he is a "thin racialist", i.e. someone who argues for the existence of races, but not a supreme race and therefore is a moderate. But someone only has to read Chuck's comments to see this is not true: "Because Blacks are cognitively less apt, colonialism was a net good" as well as his anti-Semitic Facebook comments. Chuck has though gone around deleting 90% of his racist comments like this, hence he removed all comments he's posted on blogs/websites via Disqus; who knows what that deleted, probably Holocaust denial and more attacks on Jews and blacks. Google cache however still shows where he left comments like on the white nationalist American Renaissance (magazine) and he also appears on UNZ; his old blog (since deleted) is still promoted on Stormfront. Chuck also lists himself being a researcher for Richard Lynn's institute, that argues clearly for strong racialism, not thin.Welliver (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not going to keep wasting time

If the extraneous, unjustified, and false comments are not removed I will sue rationalwiki for defamation and falselight. It has recently come to my knowledge that at least one researcher has declined to work with me on account of what was read here (months ago), including claims that I wrote pseudoscience. I now have documented damages.

That said, I am still willing to work matters out with Rationalwiki, though it is becoming fairly obvious now that Oliver Smith/Krom is incapable of editing these pages without including defamatory, false light content.

New problems:

(1) The whole section on Pseudo-science is defamatory. No reasonable person would consider the act of defining a concept to be pseudo-scientific. And similar definitions have been proposed by philosophers of science, for example Michael O. Hardimon (Rethinking Race), Quayshawn Spencer, and Neven Sesardic.

(2) The quote at the top of the page constitutes quote mining. If you plan to keep something along these lines, unlink to the rationalwiki definition of racialism and add mine, thus:

"Why Racialism is Sensible: A Pithy Rejoinder to The Prussian ... “racialism” is the view that genes condition important outcome differences between racial groups." —John Fuerst[1]

(3) The claim that my definition of race, in NofR, was "made up" and "unique to himself" and that "scientists centuries ago did not share Fuerst's minimalist re-definition of race" is untrue. For one, my definition accords with that of Hartle and Clark (1997), Leroi (2005), Allaby (2010), Coyne (2014):

-- Hartl and Clark (1997): "In population genetics, a race is a group of organisms in a species that are genetically more similar to each other than they are to the members of other such groups. Populations that have undergone some degree of genetic differentiation as measured by, for example, Fst, therefore qualify as races." -- Leroi (2005): "Populations that share by descent a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else." -- Allaby (2010): "An interbreeding group of individuals, all of whom are genetically distinct from the members of other such groups of the same species." -- Coyne (2014). “To a biologist, races are simply genetically differentiated populations, and human populations are genetically differentiated."

Also, one can compare my definitions to typical 17th and 18th century ones e.g.,

Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages (1861): "But, add the authors that we are here confronting, the differences between these varieties are not very substantial; they only concern unimportant features, such as size, color, etc. – Even though it would be so, even though these differences would be as insignificant as we would like to say, who cares? From the moment they became constant and they pass on by way of inheritance, they are no less real races."

Of course, I am not interested in debating this issue since in my last published paper I deemed that "race" was too ambiguous of a term and noted that it is not necessary. If Krom wishes to dispute minimalistic concepts of race like that of Michael O. Hardimon (Rethinking Race) he can in the rationalwiki page on race.

(4)Some of the claims in the "Race and IQ" section are false.

"Fuerst argues for hereditarianism, the idea that genetic factors play the strongest role in average IQ group differences, rather than environmental and cultural factors predominating."

I do not argue that "genetic factors play the strongest role in average IQ group differences" in general. For one, it depends on the groups under question. For another, this is what I actually say in NofR: 'In short, the true model is necessarily more complicated than a simple hereditarian one and the issue is still undetermined; but, then, no one is arguing for a simple hereditarian model; instead, many are arguing for a simple and implausible purely environmental one. Our point here, though, is not to argue the case for average congenital biological racial differences in intelligence or other behavioral traits. It is simply to note that the issue is presently undetermined.. Now, it might be the case that group differences are primarily due to unjust discrimination – but this needs to be determined. A trial needs to take place before the court of empirical data – not a lynching based on the assertions of social activists in academia... Our conclusion in this regards then is the reverse of Kitcher’s. Now, if it is determined that there are no relevant congenital differences, we agree that the elimination of the false belief in these would be the scientific and ethical thing to do – just as would be the elimination of the false belief in racism insofar as it is found that outcome differences could be accounted for by genetic or other factors'

How is "and the issue is still undetermined" and "it might be the case that group differences are primarily due to unjust discrimination" arguing that "genetic factors play the strongest role in average IQ group differences"? (This of course depends on which groups we are discussing.)

"Fuerst argues for a natural racial hierarchy based on intelligence and justifies colonialism by arguing "Blacks are cognitively less apt" (see full quote below) which constitutes as a racist argument."

I do not argue for "natural racial hierarchy based on intelligence". I do not "justify" (meaning: "show or prove to be right or reasonable) colonialism, rather I argue that it was economically a "net good". Something can be a "net good" without being right or reasonable -- this is why we often say, "the ends do not justify the means".

"Fuerst defends intelligence differences through IQ tests, however, IQ tests are not an absolute determinate for intelligence and IQ measurability itself is questionable."

In the passage that Krom quotes -- and in the comment section where he picks that quote from -- I note that education is important on the global level: "As for education, it probably counts for a significant portion of the Black American-Black African Achievement/IQ gaps" It just does not explain a lot of the differences between Blacks and Whites in the US. We know because we can compare US Blacks and US whites with the same amount of education. In the passage that Krom quotes -- and the other comments -- I also note that it is an open question if IQ tests measure the same construct between groups as with (Intelligence): "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."

So I do not argue that IQ tests are an "absolute determinate for intelligence" or that "IQ measurability itself" is certain.

(5) The section on Jews:

"however a bunch of semi-private Facebook posts that Fuerst thought only he close friends would read, reveal Fuerst to be a supporter of anti-Semitic canards commonly used by white nationalists like David Duke. Fuerst thinks Jews are behind "massive non-white immigration" to US, a Zionist lobby controls the Republican Party, that Jews pose a threat to "white Christian" America, but Trump is a not a part of the "Jewish Coalition".[13][14]"

I left my facebook open and did not think it was "only to close friends". This is more Krom imagination. I did not imply, most or all "Jews are behind "massive non-white immigration" to US" since I noted implicit modifiers are needed e.g., a "disproportionate number of". I did not mention a "Zionist lobby", but rather an Israeli lobby (as in Mearsheimer and Walt). Nowhere did I say "Jews pose a threat to "white Christian" America" (I said neoconservatives dog whistle to White Christians, which I think is an accurate characterization).

I am not going to keep coming back to dispute unsubstantiated and false claims. I would suggest fixing the erroneous ones and locking Oliver Smith/Krom from editing the pages."Chuck" (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The General Biological Race Concept (GBRC) is not found anywhere outside of Fuerst's "The Nature of Race" published in Open Behavioral Genetics (a pseudo-journal), so he made it up;. Its definition is unique to him. I can refute everything else this loon wrote above and I stand by everything I edited on the main-page (as 100% factual), but I left a comment on the Human Varieties talk that covers some of his other points. When this idiot says "defamation" he means he's being exposed for what he truly is: a racist pseudo-scientist (he's a "fellow researcher" of an institute with a president that "claims to have found scientific evidence that there are substantial differences in the average penis length of men from different races. These claims are in line with vulgar racial stereotypes and are part of a larger research agenda based on a belief in ‘race realism’." says spouts bizarre racialist fantasies that blacks have small brains but big penis, while east Asians, big brains, but small penis etc.) https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size This is the sort of "research" of his institute.Welliver (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have banned "Chuck" for his legal threat. As for analyzing whether or not each and every statement is correct, the current content is out of my expertise. I'm not very well versed in race studies, so I can only operate on basic definitions. With my previous edits, I opted on dumping a bunch of Fuerst's quotes, and let the quotes speak for themselves. I do still suggest this.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

something I dug up-

Fuerst debated some guy on race on a blog back in 2014, who said: "Incidentally, your arrogant and insulting style made me curious about the depth of your own expertise", to which Fuerst reveals some info about himself=

"Now and then, I post at humanvarieties.org/ and openpsych.net/ODP/ Since topics often involve race, the SF [[[Stormfront]]] crowd now and then links to HV. As for research, supposedly I’m a second author of a paper in a third rate chemistry journal — though, I lost contact with the advising professor, so I don’t know which. Also, I have half of a phd in experimental psychology from a second rate university; as for biology, I once had a secondary teaching license — that was when I had the crazy idea of teaching in the U.S., after having a blast teaching abroad, I have a bartending certificate — from my early 20s — not sure if that counts. Ya, so when a schmuck like myself can figure things out better than learned professionals that tells you something about either those professionals or their profession, no?" https://violentmetaphors.com/2014/05/21/nicholas-wade-and-race-building-a-scientific-facade/comment-page-1/

Interestingly I left a comment on this same blog comment section, but did not respond to Fuerst as "Chuck", but someone else. In my case I left a short comment. Chuck left over 50 replies of about 100,000 words. That's similar to his walls of text here and on other talk pages. As Jonathan Kaplan said: he appears to have too much time on his hands. sitting on the internet talking about race 24/7 is all he does, its like he has no other hobbies or interests. And what the hell is a "half PhD"? Welliver (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

1. I think the issue is that a lot of your views are outdated and don't represent scientists as of today. You're papers on Google Scholar are source by one person on the website.
2. I did remove this because it was quotemine-y.
3. "Of course, I am not interested in debating this issue since in my last published paper I deemed that 'race' was too ambiguous of a term and noted that it is not necessary." Well, you're not wrong here. I'm not skilled enough to discuss the earlier claims in this number though.
4. "Re: colonialism is a net good." Being a black slave sucks. I don't see how being ripped out of your home country is something positive.
5. The section on Jews: The section explains your quote without your exact words, so I suppose issues were going to come up. I still suggest opting on quote dumping. As for the quotes, you do imply that a group of mostly Jewish people are billionaires. Trump will reveal them, thus him posing as a threat to them. The stereotype of evil Jewish rich people is an old, racist stereotype. And I don't see how them being Jewish is relevant. I did correct "Zionist lobby" to "Israeli lobby"—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 16:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It means little if Fuerst is now not using the word race, since his "lineage populations" reflect his racialist thinking. He's just playing a semantics game and replacing race with another word. I'm sure like how he defines race, he will also define "lineage populations" so they cannot be falsified, hence pseudo-science. Anyway his claim he's moved away from race is also amusing considering he still edits several race-obsessed blogs and talks about this stuff all day on the internet. He should get some fresh air or something - another of his blogs here has race in the title, and 100,000s of words on race. https://abc102.wordpress.com/ Welliver (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Quote mining and unsubstantiated quotes

Please stop quote-mining John Fuerst, For example, the following quote was added:

"I have no beef against SFers or neo-Nazis" -- John Fuerst

But the original was:

Krom: "One of your neo-Nazi fans on Stormfront: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1076596/" John Fuerst: "First, I have no beef against SFers or "neo-Nazis". I do against intellectual frauds."

Notice the quotes around "neo-Nazi", this means "so-called neo-Nazi," as in: who knows who these people are. There are over 325,000 members, who claim to be "racial realists and idealists" and "White Nationalists who support true diversity." If you are going to include this quote, include it as it originally read.

Also, regarding the UNZ review quote, it has been noted that there are multiple chucks whose comments get lumped together:

"I don’t comment on the Unz Review much because my “Chuck” handle always gets mixed up with that of another, snarky “Chuck” — which is annoying. (I am many terrible things, but snarky is not one of them.)"

So, it needs to be established that any "chuck" quote from the forum or any other was make by John Fuerst instead of some other person. FrankTHippo2 (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

{ I suggest you learn what quotemining actually is. "I have no beef against SFers or 'neo-Nazis'. I do against intellectual frauds."; quoting the first sentence is not a quote-mine, nothing has been taken out of context or distorted. And can you please get a life: you're nit-picking over tiny details no one cares about. I'm guessing you're also a sockpuppet of John Fuerst who was banned here for legal threats and trolling. Also Fuerst's claim he opposes intellectual frauds is amusing, considering he is one. He abuses Google Scholar citations, he publishes in pseudo-journals and also seems to lie about his qualifications (what is a "half-PhD"?).Welliver (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuerst or not, it's a valid claim.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump section

I removed:

===Trump=== Fuerst supports [[Donald Trump]]: {{quotebox|This just screams for a [[Great Wall of America]]. Don't [[cuck]] out Ohio!}} {{quotebox|Going to early vote for [[Trump]] now. [[Voter fraud|Will see if I can do it multiple times]].<ref name=facebook1/>}}

As it isn't necessary to understanding that Fuerst holds racialist and racist views. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That first one is notable because he supports the Great Wall of America, Nationalist in origin, and uses an alt-right term, "cuck".—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't be intimidated by legal threats!

You shouldn't give in to this guy and try to tone down the article. Make no mistake - Fuerst is a racist pseudo-scientist with alt-right/white nationalist politics, and his Facebook comments expose he's an anti-Semite. He came here arguing the "I'm not a racist, but..." to absurdity. The crank institute he's a "fellow" of, hit the headlines a few years back after it was behind Lynn's racialist theory that "East Asians" have small penis, but large brains, but "black Africans", the opposite.

As soon as these racist loons come here and post bogus legal threats, suddenly some sysops wet themselves and start giving in to these white nationalist types. I observed the same thing 2 years ago with Clyde Winters - a black supremacist. Welliver (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

LOL at fuzzycat

Dude what are you doing?! Stop wetting yourself. Like I said, don't get scared over legal threats. You're now writing nonsense like "Fuerst is not overt in his his racism" on the page, that directly contradicts Fuerst's actual postings that show he is a hard-core anti-Semite.Welliver (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

When somebody holds views like Fuerst's, it is often easier & funnier to let them speak for themselves. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 23:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. There's a minor spelling error though where his was repeated: "in his his racism". I understand why you prefer just the quote-boxes because then no one can dispute anything or send legal threats because their own words are merely being quoted. I see the page is locked, but I won't further be editing. I'm sure though Fuerst will be back since he left a comment on Emil's article complaining about content there.Welliver (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@FCP: . This article deserves the same treatment Jon Jafari got.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "racialism"

What factual point is the statement, “Fuerst is a racialist,” supposed to express? It's not obviously clear that he is one given wikipedia's and rationalwiki's definitions. Consider the following:

-- wikipedia: "Racialism is the belief that the human species is NATURALLY DIVIDED into races, ostensibly distinct biological categories.

-- rationalwiki:"Racialism is the idea that humanity can be easily divided into well-defined categories ("races") that are both broad (each category should include many humans, such as entire continents) and clearly-DEFINED (the categorization method should rarely misidentify someone's "race"). ... In short, racialism holds that BIOLOGY DIVIDES humans."

The definitions seem to suggest non-arbitrary divisions which "cut nature at its joints." Fuerst's relevant writings are (chronologically):

a. race, genes, disparity b. The Nature of Race: the Genealogy of the Concept and the Biological Construct’s Contemporaneous Utility c. Alice Brues on Race d. Lineage population: A concept needed by an observer of nature?

While some type of race concept seems to be defended in all, it seems to only be a very minimalistic one – basically: descent group.

Just looking through the statements ….

RGD (2011): “The assumption here is not that these ethnoraces are taxonomically identifiable groups or that there are clear boundaries between these groups, but rather that the said groups have different population structures. When the Human Genome Project states that “DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern human,” they are talking about biological taxonomic classifications and saying that there are no population specific genes that would warrant classifying various populations as subspecies. That is a separate issue.”

NofR (2015): "Phylogenetic disjunctions enable, or give one the authority, to divide by distinct character biodiversity into definable evolutionary groups. But in absence, the lineages still exist, just submerged in a continuum, like a statue yet chiseled out of a block of stone. Opponents of the artistic project of cutting these out would note that delineations are necessarily arbitrary – not authorized by a pattern of extinction. Yet, despite only cut in the mind, they still represent concrete reality, natural divisions even if artistically divided."

Lineage population (2017): "A term proposed by Fuerst (2015) is natural divisions, where this refers to divisions into which organisms are arranged by lineage or propinquity of descent (Kant 1777; Darwin 1859). Unfortunately, this term could be taken as implying natural partitions based on phyletic discontinuities. While there are historic precedents for equating ancestry-based arrangements with natural classifications, for some, phyletic discontinuities are a prerequisite for the “naturalness” of biological divisions. Gray (1879, 322), for example, notes that “if the species blended as do the colors of the rainbow… there could be no natural foundation for their classification. The multitude of species would render it necessary to classify them, but the classifications would be wholly artificial and arbitrary.” For Gray (1879), a natural biological classification entails natural partitions, where nature, as Darwin puts it, enables us “to divide the existing species into definable groups.” Following Gray (1879), one could argue that genealogical arrangements into divisions are “not really” natural in absence of sufficient phyletic disjunctions. Thus, the term natural division potentially lends itself to confusion."

What is the factual claim being made here regarding Fuerst’s beliefs? Is anyone who proposes any race concept a “racialist”? Is, for example, Jerry Coyne one too? https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/ Or does Fuerst make a specific claim about "races" which qualifies him as a "racialist" in the sense meant?"FrankTHippo2 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There are descent groups as multigenerational breeding populations (i.e. demes), however these groups (based on propensity of intragroup mating) are localized and contain small numbers of individuals like the Kalash, or Lancaster Amish. This is covered on the racialism article under "populations", read there, instead of spamming walls of text here. Local breeding populations aren't races. There would be no problem if Fuerst was just discussing Kalash, or Amish. But instead his focus is "whites", "blacks" etc., as arbitrary continental aggregates of populations with millions of individuals. This is because Fuersts' politics (see his Facebook comments) is based on some sort of pan-European identity, hence he only speaks in terms of "white America" and "whites"; Fuerst also claims to have set up a "white meet up group". Why "white" and not a local group like the Amish, or a more narrow/local ethnic group (e.g. "English" or "Swede")? And going along with Fuerst's propinquity of descent, why is it he doesn't apply this to actual breeding populations like the Kalash or Lancaster Amish? His work and politics only focuses on arbitrary broad populations covering entire continents, hence racialism. Someone who focuses on local groups wouldn't be a racialist, for example no one considers the Amish a race; the focus of population geneticists is these local populations. There's no "white" grouping in the Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP), but local groups like Orcadian islanders and Pima tribe.

Krom told Fuerst all the above on the Open Psych forum 2 years back. When Krom debated Fuerst he told him that population geneticists focus on local groups. Fuerst in contrast tried to defend arbitrary large aggregates/continental populations of millions of individuals.Mildmay (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As the racialism article highlights: "Racialism is the idea that humanity can be easily divided into well-defined categories ("races") that are both broad" (emphasis added). Fuerst only focuses on broad groupings, not local hence he's a racialist. In contrast if he was focusing on the Amish, no one would care or criticize him for this: there's no controversy and there's been a lot of population genetics studies of the Amish: local breeding population clearly have validity and utility; Fuerst's "white race" however doesn't.Mildmay (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not in a position to argue this point on behalf of Fuerst; perhaps set up a forum where he can directly reply.D.M. (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

John Fuerst trolling on socks with more legal threats

D.M. and the hippo accounts are John Fuerst socks. He's now also claiming Jonathan Kaplan's comment is "defamatory" and wants it removed...

Fuerst is a clown who claims virtually everything is "libel" or "defamatory". He needs to understand people are entitled to freedom of speech and to criticize his work. Screaming "defamation" because someone calls his work pseudo-science isn't going to get you anywhere. Its also foolish Fuerst denies being a racist when his facebook comments expose his racism and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.Mildmay (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

November Changes

In August, there was a lengthy discussion on this page. The discussion resulted in the removal, by the Synop (((CheeseburgerFace))), of many unsupported allegations such as "pseudoscientist" "neo-Nazi" "white nationalist" originally made by Krom, of encyclopedia dramatic fame. Later, however, the main page was unlocked and Krom, presumably, added back his allegations, which, as previously determined, are unsupported.

First, I suggest the following revisions, which leave the main criticisms: https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=John_Fuerst&diff=1902933&oldid=1902932

1) contentious allegations both denied and not solidly backed up are removed e.g., "John Fuerst ... is a Neo-Nazi and alt-right HBD blogger, crank, pseudo-scientist obsessed with race" to "John Fuerst ... is a blogger who edits the websites Human Varieties"

Also the reference to Krom's opinion latter on is removed, because he was the original creator of the page; this is not a solid source. These edits return the page more or less back to the (((CheesburgerFace))) version.

2) The statement summary is rewritten to match the actual quoted material:

"[Fuerst] thinks the founders of neoconservativism were mainly Jewish and that this Jewish faction of neoconservativism substantially accounts for the neoconservative opposition to populism and support for Zionism. He also thinks neoconservatives, more broadly, supports immigration, tax cuts for billionaires, wars abroad, and morally signal against the white Christian republican base. Apart from this, Fuerst expresses support for the view that Jews are disproportionately hypocritical on the topic of nationalism, supporting it in the case of Zionism but not in other cases. Further, someone named Chuck, posting over at Steve Sailer's blog, who might have been Fuerst, once jokingly characterized Middle Eastern mass migrants to Germany as "invaders"."

Or however. Some other changes are made, for example, it is specified what Kaplan meant by "racist" -- inarguably this is correct given his idiosyncratic definition of "denying racism is racism". It is just a highly misleading usage that deserves clarification if our goal is to expose the truth.

This section needs more work. For example, it is unnecessary to have a long, opaque quote showing 'he thinks Blacks are less apt'. MQ and ODP papers clearly defend this position and that some of these and other cognitive difference are most probably have a genetic basis. It is more credible to cite these papers than comments section of a blog post.

Second, I suggest that after we decide on a new version, that the page is locked again, as Krom seems determined to add his unsupported, contentious allegations. The talk page should remain open as new information ma come to light.

Now, on GrammarCommie's talk page, someone made the point, in defense of allegations such as "neo-Nazi" that rationalwiki likes calling a spade a spade. Fair enough insofar as it is fair.

Perhaps before discussing, we have to ask, does RationalWiki uses terms descriptively or emotively e.g., as slurs? Descriptive language requires clear concepts. So let's specify the understanding here of "neo-Nazi" "altright" "pseudoscience" -- to start -- to see if these meanings concur with common usage, and see if the definition fits the views expressed (adopting to rationalist taboo to characterize the latter so we avoid circularity). If it turns out that we are not using terms descriptively or if we allow for equivocal usage, then much of this discussion is pointless.

So for example, rationalwiki says

"Neo-Nazism is a modern movement of some of the ideals of the aborted Nazi regime of Germany. Neo-Nazis are most prominently characterized by a belief in white racial superiority, and their a'nti-Semitism. Examples of neo-Nazism include some skinhead subcultures. The term is often used for any racist or far-right movement, regardless of whether they explicitly espouse the views of Adolf Hitler."

The part in bold describes the term as used as political slur. The part prior describes a not unreasonable descriptive usage. By the former, someone like Matt Hielbach (SP?) is clearly a neo-Nazi, someone like Jared Taylor is not (given the solid evidence principle). By the latter, everyone right of the center can be described so. Ditto the other allegations.--PBJsandwich (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. GrammarCommie (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Until we can decide on acceptable standards, I added a few no less accurate descriptors:

1. routinely identifies as nihilistic (in the 19th century sense) and neoreactionary 2. is atavistic in focusing on race/ancestry 3. is "based" in the altright sense 4. undoubtably cantankerous and tendentious 5. surreptitious with some of his research 6. "typically miserable" might be a stretch, change to "frequently" 7. who isn't misanthropic at times 8. just race is an obsession? even google scholar "research" pic has a hippo

Intro changed to:

John Fuerst (online alias: Chuck) is a nihilistic neoreactionary Neo-Nazi and atavistic alt-right HBD "based" blogger, cantankerous crank, tendentious troll, surreptitious pseudo-scientist, and typically miserable, and at times misanthropic, person, obsessed with race and hippopotamuses/Moomins 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.

--PBJsandwich (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of the issue

Because his account and IP address have been blocked, John Fuerst had asked me to politely communicate to rationalwiki that the rationalwiki page on him repeats defamatory statements made by Jonathan Kaplan. Specifically, writing that an individual is "intellectually dishonest" constitutes a statement of fact. When communicated in writing to a third person, if both false and injurious, this constitutes libel. Repeating a libelous claim, without permission of the offended, is, per U.S. law, libel. John Fuerst has asked for this statement or the libelous content of it to be removed. Contrary to what Mr. Mildmay may think, false statements that are injurious to a person's reputation made with reckless disregard are indeed defamatory. Rationalwiki is being notified about these false and injurious statements so that it may make the appropriate corrections. Fuerst would like to resolve this issue through dialogue; much of the problem has already been dealt with to his satisfaction. As for claims about being a "racialist" the primary concern Fuerst has is that this could be -- as it has been -- used by a hostile editor to back rationalize a claim of "pseudoscience". John Fuerst rejects racialism in all pseudoscientific senses. He further rejects the assertion that he has engaged in "pseudoscience". Insofar as he defends "racialism" it is in a "thin" (per Kelly, Machery, and Mallon's (2010) terminology) epistemically legitimate way -- as noted in specific posts and paper discussing the matter -- i.e., investigating the cause of behavioral differences between major and minor descent groups. This project is currently ongoing, to an extent, in other fields such as "cultural neuroscience". As for claims of "racism" these depend on the specific meaning. Since 2009, Fuerst has distinguished between speaking of extrinsic differences between races and speaking of overall or intrinsic racial superiority; and he has pointed out that the case for the latter is meta-physical and difficult to make (http://bit.ly/2vyWoO2), let alone unpalatable to him especially given the implied intra-racial elitism.D.M. (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Welliver/Mildmay has been banned for being a concern troll. As for Fuerst being labeled a racist, me thinks this is a case of rationalist taboo. To date, I removed any content that Fuerst can even disagree with because it's mostly his words for now.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 01:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking what Fuzzy wrote about our political articles applies to this one especially in its current state... RoninMacbeth (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to his statement?—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 03:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed the article again. As for changing the article any further to suit Fuerst's needs, sue RationalWiki.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 04:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's Fuzzy's essay. RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

article no longer needed since journals have their own page

fuerst can have his section on OpenPsych pseudojournals - same for the other guy. Asgardian (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The article is now more relevant. ive added some info. Fuerst is very deceptive with what he does: in public/academia he argues for a moderate "thin" racialism (that says nothing about IQ etc.), while comments that are more private expose him as a racist who believes in a racial hierarchy.Skeptical (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Fuerst article

You froze the main page, and said to take to talk. But the talk page is locked. lol. --PBJsandwich (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Then @PBJsanwich, let us discuss the matter here. GrammarCommie (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds ok. One issue at a time. The first issue is unsourced, contentious claims in the intro.

"John Fuerst (online alias: Chuck) is a Neo-Nazi and alt-right HBD blogger, crank, pseudo-scientist obsessed with race"

If you scroll through the talk page and history you will see that similar allegations were disputed, removed, and then added again. Why they were removed is detailed in the talk pages, why they were added back is not.

These are some serious allegations to make. --PBJsandwich (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

There are several comments whining about the article true, however I think you'll find that the claims made within the article are indeed sourced. GrammarCommie (talk) 00:5s2, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

lol Where is the solid sourcing for Neo-Nazi" "alt-right 'crank "pseudo-scientist". So you are just going to publish (by reverting changes) hostile, made up claims? --PBJsandwich (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just check John Fuerst's twitter account. He retweets white nationalists & Neo-Nazis such as Kevin MacDonald, and primarily is only using twitter to discuss race or race and IQ his obsession. The article is already sourced about his alt-right politics and anti-Semitism. He is also quoted as saying he has no issue with Neo-Nazis, mostly because his pseudoscientific work on race is only supported by Nazis such as at Stormfront, Metapedia or Rightpedia. Again all this is sourced.Tuna (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

so then say, "he is an ethnat, neoreaction retweeter". That is obviously different from actually being a white nationalist, neonazi (association fallacy).

"he is quoted as saying he has no issue with neo-nazis"

from the talk page:

Quote mining and unsubstantiated quotes[edit] Please stop quote-mining John Fuerst, For example, the following quote was added: "I have no beef against SFers or neo-Nazis" -- John Fuerst But the original was: Krom: "One of your neo-Nazi fans on Stormfront: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1076596/" John Fuerst: "First, I have no beef against SFers or "neo-Nazis". I do against intellectual frauds." Notice the quotes around "neo-Nazi", this means "so-called neo-Nazi," as in: who knows who these people are. There are over 325,000 members, who claim to be "racial realists and idealists" and "White Nationalists who support true diversity." If you are going to include this quote, include it as it originally read. Also, regarding the UNZ review quote, it has been noted that there are multiple chucks whose comments get lumped together: "I don’t comment on the Unz Review much because my “Chuck” handle always gets mixed up with that of another, snarky “Chuck” — which is annoying. (I am many terrible things, but snarky is not one of them.)" So, it needs to be established that any "chuck" quote from the forum or any other was make by John Fuerst instead of some other person. FrankTHippo2 (talk) 07:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC) I suggest you learn what quotemining actually is. "I have no beef against SFers or 'neo-Nazis'. I do against intellectual frauds."; quoting the first sentence is not a quote-mine, nothing has been taken out of context or distorted. And can you please get a life: you're nit-picking over tiny details no one cares about. I'm guessing you're also a sockpuppet of John Fuerst who was banned here for legal threats and trolling. Also Fuerst's claim he opposes intellectual frauds is amusing, considering he is one. He abuses Google Scholar citations, he publishes in pseudo-journals and also seems to lie about his qualifications (what is a "half-PhD"?).Welliver (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Fuerst or not, it's a valid claim.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talk • stalk) 02:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

As for "pseudoscientific work on race"

The article says "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)."

Do you mean crypto-pseudoscientific thinking? Because, as admitted, in the article, the positions are defensible.

As for "anti-Semitism", Macdonald retweet was on ethnonationalism, which is a genuinely interesting subject. All the Facebook claims are quite defensible, if not well worded, when correctly understood, as my revision says:

"... Facebook comments posted by Fuerst which reveal that he thinks the founders of neoconservativism were mainly Jewish and that this Jewish faction of neoconservativism substantially accounts for the neoconservative opposition to populism and support for Zionism. He also thinks neoconservatives, more broadly, supports immigration, tax cuts for billionaires, wars abroad, and morally signal against the white Christian republican base. Apart from this, Fuerst expresses support for the view that Jews are disproportionately hypocritical on the topic of nationalism, supporting it in the case of Zionism but not in other cases."

Do you disagree with any of the points? Which? Apart from that, posts like "The Aptitude of Jews and Gentiles at Selective Universities in the US" which argue against ethnic nepostism models for Jewish overrepresentation and for aptitude ones are only antisemetic in the atypical sense of noticing and trying to account for Jewish over-representivity.--PBJsandwich (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)--PBJsandwich

lol "solid sourcing" = "he retweeted a jewish-critical professor citing a vox article on ethnic favoritism"; "his overall comment history feelz fashy to me" #SolidSourcing --PBJsandwich (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Antisemetic retweet incoming!

"Miller is a one-man antidote to antisemitism: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-stephen-miller-single-handedly-got-the-us-to-accept-fewer-refugees …HT @HbdNrx" (Nick Land)

lol, this is anti-anti-semetic -- as in 'look NAXALT'--PBJsandwich (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Remain civil, you're still on my talk page. GrammarCommie (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuerst supports wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, for example how do rationalise his statement: "The founders of 'neoconservatism' were primarily jewish leftists"? or his approval of a comment on an alt-right website (that he describes as "excellent") that "Jewish organisations... favor the dissolution of their host nations through massive non-White immigration". That's an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory you find on places like Stormfront; only Neo-Nazi cranks make such statements. The real issue here seems to be Fuerst is a white nationalist and anti-Semite but doesn't want to be labelled those terms because he's trying to present himself as a "scientist" and they damage his reputation. On another note, Fuerst only wants to be labelled an "ethnic nationalist" rather than a "white nationalist" because the former is slightly more palatable to the public than "white nationalist" (since most people associate the latter with skinheads and KKK.) This is all about a racist moron just denying what he actually believes so he can fool people he is a scientist; if you Google John Fuerst this is the first result, he's obviously upset he's been exposed for what he really is.Tuna (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Try Paul Gottfried.

Rationalwiki notes that "the founders of neo-conservatism included ex-Trotskyites". These founders happened to be Jewish. Here is Wikipedia: "Historian Edward Shapiro, tracing the debate back to the 1960s, wrote that many Neoconservatives saw their new political philosophy within a specifically Jewish context. This became an element in the dispute with the Paleocons. He said that these neocons equated Conservatism with country club exclusion, racism, and the "Protestant hinterlands." They also considered the Burkean social order as a "premodern social order revered by Edmund Burke and the other pioneers of Conservative thought, a world which had ostracized Jews to the fringes of society." He continued:" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_paleoconservatism#Politics_and_Jewish_identity

Maybe these Jewish founders were not leftist relative to the average American Jewish position of the 1960s, but they were clearly so, at least in the social sense, relative to the average wasp Burkean position. Also, you seriously don't think jewish organizations -- not necessarily population -- overwhelmingly support multicultural societies substantially out of perceived jewish concern? Memory of the holocaust, resulting from a German bourgeois desire for a homogeneous society and hostility at a market dominant minority, doesn't influence the perspective of these organizations on this issue at all?

As for "white nationalist" what does that term even mean? A desire to live in a homogenous European country? Why marry a Chinese girl then? Cant find a WN girlfriend? lol. The problem is that the claims are not true. This is not to say that e.g., ethnat positions are not defended. They explicitly are see: Nature of Race -- the section on ethics -- and Human Varieties e.g., https://humanvarieties.org/2016/03/19/philosophical-reflections-on-on-genetic-interest/ However, they are defended from a neoreactionary framework (Nick Land's patchwork) -- e.g., ethnats should just go do ethnat stuff in their own space, monarchists monarchist stuff, communist communist stuff, multicultural multicultural stuff ... hence twitter-mance with Land. And yes it is reasonable to be concerned about the effect of false claims about indefensible views. These neonazi, altright, pseudoscience allegations were already discussed and removed by the previous synop (((chesseburger))). The page was made open and likely the original editor, Krom, made the reversions. Possibly he heard that legal action is in the works (sloppy claims made on a different site about a different person) and decided to get revenge. Who knows.

Still missing well sourced, credible references. PBJsandwich (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

We propose the following general considerations which, as best we can tell, are consistent with global mores:

"(d) National, ethnic, religious, and racial groups have a right to be and a right to self-determination; the right to be entails some right to their own institutions, communities, and lifestyles. (e) Racial discrimination, conditioned on race, is not inherently unjust. It is though when: (e1) it does not promote an accepted institutional good, in which case it is capricious with respect to the institution; for example, if racial diversity/homogeneity is not a primary good of a state, discrimination conditioned on race would be unjust. (e2) it does not promote an accepted individual good in a forum where such discrimination is accepted in a given region; for example, racial discrimination in the marriage and friendship market is seen as an acceptable forum for discrimination in the U.S. (f) The preservation and advancement of a racial group can be a legitimate institutional good (if that is what the institution is agreed to be for) just as that of cultural, religious, etc. groups can be. (g) Inequality between groups, racial or otherwise, is not morally problematic, per se. Excessive inequality might be, circumstances depending. Inequality due to injustice is problematic, where “injustice” is understood consistent with how it is in context to individuals and other comparable classes. (h) The above noted, if a social formation or practice is so destructive to the social good of a particular sovereign state, suppressing it is generally seen as justified by members of that state. Different nations identify as subversive different social formations e.g., homosexuality in Russia and certain religions in China (e.g., Falun Gong). This consideration stands in tension with many of the ones discussed above"

We take the above to be the ordinary moral backdrop. This is not to say that it is one endorsed by most contemporaneous Western moral philosophers – just that it is one consistent with common moral sensibilities, sensibilities which can become warped in context to thinking about race and certain other classes (see, for example: Tetlock, 2000; 2003). It will be noted that the moral ideal of inclusiveness, in the sense discussed by Kalb (2013), which “requires that persons of every race, ethnicity, religious background, sex, disability status, and sexual orientation participate equally in all major social activities, with nearly proportional presence and success” and which “presents a vision of unity in the world without outsiders and without borders” is not recognized as a general moral custom, despite its seeming adoption by certain intelligentsia in certain Western countries. This would be a parochial societal good and concerns about it would fall under consideration (h). This leads us to another point: many race related behaviors which are not seen as morally problematic given the considerations above would be deemed to be wicked by not a few moralists and perhaps by the publics of certain countries. It is for this reason that we specify a general moral framework."

Intense stuff; possibly beyond the moral pale in some regions. However, "NEO-NATZZI" or whatever doesn't capture it. Lots of stuffy you could note, if you want, the point is to be accurate,PBJsandwich (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki doesn't do the euphemism treadmill thing. For example, racialism was re-branded by its proponents "HBD" (human biodiversity) by Steve Sailer as well as "racial realism" (when there's nothing real about it). We also see a re-branding or re-labelling of white nationalism as "alt-right" (I'm actually against that term in general). And the latest example appears to be white nationalists preferring to call themselves "ethno nationalists" such as Paul Ramsey. There is a distinction between "ethnic" and "white" nationalism though, since the former is based on ethnicity, the latter, "race". As an example, a white nationalist like Richard Spencer is against Brexit and British nationalism because he sees Brexit and British nationalism as discriminating against other "whites" such as Poles (read the section about him being pro-EU on his article). Generally speaking, "white nationalists" are from the US since "White Americans" are a mixture of different population ancestries from across Europe - so they can only identify as "white" in a pan-European sense, rather than a single country/ethnic group. An actual ethno nationalist would oppose immigration from other European countries into their own. I don't see that in any of your writings, instead you only moan about "non-whites". And there are white nationalists and Neo-Nazis with "Asian wives". Take a look for example at John Derbyshire.Tuna (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Does RationalWiki uses terms as ideological slurs, or as descriptive language? Descriptive language requires clear concepts. If "Racialism" means X, "HBD" is only racialist insofar as it affirms "X"; to say "HBD" is "racialist" requires a reasonably clear definition of "racialist" and an analysis of usage. "Alt-right" can be a euphemism for "white nationalist", in which case it should be called "white nationalist" since this term more precisely describes the position. When the term is ambiguously used, this needs to be decided on a case by case basis. For example, if by "white nationalist" we mean "advocating for a any European only society" then we should called Richard Spencer a "White Nationalist", because he affirms this position. However, it would not be correct to call Steve Bannon a "white nationalist" for identifying as altright, since his positions and views don't coincide that those of "white nationalism"; he was using the term differently. So let's specify the understanding here of "neo-Nazi" "altright" "pseudoscience", see if these meanings have external validity, and see if the definition fits the views expressed (adopting to rationalist taboo to characterize the latter so we avoid circularity). Below, GrammarCommie equates "altright" with "neo-Nazi", well, what do we mean by both? I don't think linguistic and conceptual clarity is too much to ask on a site that aspires to encourage rational thinking --PBJsandwich (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey no fair! Without dishonest name calling what do they have? 86.189.15.0 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Both are antisemitic, both believe in white supremacy, both support fascism etc. Look this isn't rocket science, the "Alt-Right" is simply Nazism trying to rebrand itself as an alternative to mainstream political discourse, which would be clever if that wasn't what they did to get in power the first time.

PS: I did not equate the Alt-Right with Neo-Nazism (though it is that too) I equated it with Nazism. GrammarCommie (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GrammarCommie. Its all about rebranding with these deceptive people. White nationalists decades ago used to walk around like idiots in white bedsheets or scream "heil Hitler!", now because that image is so toxic and goofy to ordinary people they dress up in smart suits with slick haircuts like Richard Spencer. But their political ideology and views remain identical. Claiming you are a "race realist, but not a racist!" is not fooling anyone. Look for example at [1]. Like Fuerst, "RaceRealist88" claims to not be a white nationalist, when he clearly is.Tuna (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what "altright" means to you or means to most. I like maps and here is a map of the "altright/Dark enlightenment" network prior to Trump's election. https://occamsrazormag.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/alt-right-dark-enlightenment.png I am comfortable affiliating with elements of that; indeed, HV is said to be apart of it. What you seem to be referring to is the so-called "alt-Reich" wing of the ethnonationalists.

At least for this discussion, it would really help to specify meanings. Try the "rationalist taboo": "Fuerst believes ..." What? Ask and I will answer; state and I will clarify. After we can edit the article as needed.--ReallyJohnFuerst (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Wait, how in the world is LessWrong part of the rightosphere? Spriggina (puhua) (maksut) @ 06:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ask Scharlach. Maybe he meant "More Right" (Anissimov's blog). I believe the original was a map of "neoreaction" which became associated with the "altright" in the media as ethnat was part of the Trich system. Seems ages ago, so I don't really recall.--ReallyJohnFuerst (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Nationalism

Let's give Mr. Fuerst a chance to prove he isn't a white nationalist, but another form of nationalist that he says he is. There are key differences between racial ("white", "black" etc.), ethnic, cultural and civic nationalisms and all these have separate articles on Wikipedia that list the differences. Looking at Fuerst's writings and comments: his main focus and obsession is "race" and "white people" or "Europeans", so that makes him a white racial nationalist, not any of the others. I mean if Fuerst could show a blog post where he talks about culture, not IQ and genetics that would be a start. I've looked at all his blogs such as "Human Varieties", "Occidental Ascent" and "Race, Genes and Disparity" and only find genetics, race, etcetc. These blogs are of an obsessional nature - fixated only with race.Tuna (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly define "White nationalism" and the inclusion criteria for being one--ReallyJohnFuerst (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd, because I have wasted time explaining the obvious evolutionary problem of WN to WNs (to no avail).

https://ibb.co/ennJx6

As for motivation, I have never denied an ideological component; it is just different than what you imagine.

https://ibb.co/gQnOVR

HBD happens to be a very useful tool to reveal the long arms of the Cathedral (e.g., the systematic ideological bias in science).ReallyJohnFuerst (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

enough

The complaints have been going on for too long, also look at archives. the article as it now reads just quotes what Fuerst has written.

If Fuerst wants to further complain, then he's arguing with himself - since he posted the quoted comments. Tuna (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So ...

John: "Not funny."

Chuck: "Oh, come on."

John: "No seriously, change it; some muddlehead might not grasp the facetiousness."

Chuck: "Oh Ok. Change to (accurate representation) in 3, 2 ....."

Tuna (to Krom-self): "Noooo! He demolished my goofy race arguments; he can't get away with that!"^{— Unsigned, by: ReallyJohnFuerst / talk / contribs}

Jesus Christ, this whole entire talkpage is one big unreadable mess.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 07:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@ John Fuerst, that's quite funny considering you appear to have been heavily influenced by Krom and be robbing most his views since 2015. You were originally defending "macro-groups"/large continental populations as races like a white nationalist and your idiocy was all about "whites" and "white America"; after Krom schooled you on why this is erroneous, you've shifted to more local populations such as ethnic groups. Now you call yourself an "ethno-nat" in direct contradiction to your position over 2 years ago when you debated Krom. You've changed your views after reading Krom's posts on demes and how population genetics only uses small ethnic/breeding population groups (e.g. populations section).Dr. Witt (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A thread exists on OpenPysch showing how in 2015 Fuerst argued for continental populations and this was his primary focus; Krom showed up and refuted him on this, pointing out how population genetics instead focuses on demes/local populations and denies or at least questions the utility of large aggregates as clusters of populations (e.g. Cavalli-Sforza, 1994; Marks, 2010 who uses the term "small biopackages"). For the past year or more, I've observed Fuerst, influenced by Krom, shift his position to the latter. As far as I am aware Fuerst hasn't yet denied race outright like Krom does, but he likely will do by next year given how he's stolen most of Krom's views so far., Also note that recently Fuerst published a paper using different semantic terms; he now prefers "lineage population" to race. I have no problem with people changing their thoughts and opinions, but to sit there attacking the person who you're now copying - is rather bizarre. I predict that in 2018 Fuerst will start denying race outright, after realising he doesn't need to believe in large clusters of populations ("races") to work with demes, e.g. tribes, clans, rural village populations, ethnoreligious sects, local ethnic groups etc. Furthermore, Krom's message to white nationalist cranks from the start is you don't need to believe in race, to support ethno-nationalism; there is also an argument that race is antithetical to ethnic nationalism since race as continental population promotes mixing and migration between different native ethnicities on each continent. I get the feeling Fuerst has started to realise this after reading more of Krom's posts. And since I've monitored how Fuerst has changed his views closer to Krom's over the past 2 years; instead of criticising Krom, Fuerst should be giving him credit. Dr. Witt (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Permanent protection?

Should we write protect pages related to John Fuerst and Emil O. W. Kirkegaard indefinitely? I have witnessed editor(s) who have a lot of motivation to covers these people and have an ax to grind. Certainty, there's evidence that Fuerst has alt-right tendencies, but the article overall sounds like it was written by a butthurt person who just wants to trash the man.—CheeseburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 07:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Both these crazy people attack the person they are robbing their views from. Above I document how Krom has influenced Fuerst to change his views on "race" over the past two years and if you compare Fuerst's 2015 online postings to present to see the change. With Kirkegaard - after Krom criticized his association with Neo-Nazis, Kirkegaard publicly posted he doesn't support neo-Nazism. But note he has never done any criticism or "public denouncing of Nazism" before this. I just find it odd both these people spend a large amount of time attacking Krom over their RW articles, yet have been massively influenced by him. Dr. Witt (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

lol

https://twitter.com/jfuerst0/status/950027663858651136 Dr. Witt (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Please dogwhistle your genocidal intentions, thank you" ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Description by London Student

http://londonstudent.coop/news/2018/01/10/exposed-london-eugenics-conferences-neo-nazi-links/

John Fuerst, a fellow of the UISR, spoke at LCI 2015 and 2016, and frequently collaborates with Kirkegaard on OpenPsych. As well as writing various blogs, which he describes as “race realist”, , he also frequently posts anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on Facebook. When questioned about his popularity on the neo-Nazi forum Stormfront, he stated that he had “no beef against…“Neo-Nazis”.”

SkepticDave (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"Fuerst attended the UCL conference on intelligence in 2015 and 2016, alongside neo-Nazis, white supremacists and child-rape apologist Emil Kirkegaard who he has co-published papers with in the OpenPsych pseudojournals.[1]"

This is incorrect. Never attended. Check the conference speaker list. The other news articles corrected the error.

"Of course, I would tend to say that hatreds based on ancestors' deeds are not deserved -- but granting @Alex_Goldberger 's dictum, which seems to have more than a little currency, we should apply as consistent as possible."

This is misleadingly incomplete. The 2 part tweet continues:

"Of course, I would tend to say that hatreds based on ancestors' deeds are not deserved -- but granting @Alex_Goldberger 's dictum, which seems to have more than a little currency, we should apply as consistent as possible."

Does anyone argue groups should not be treated equally?

"eugenicist"

This is false and unsourced.

"anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist"

False and unsourced. Arguably make "antisemetic" comments.

Changes made.--PBJsandwich (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So why does Fuerst list a UCL 2015 conference paper/speech he wrote on his google scholar?

Admixture in the Americas J Fuerst, EOW Kirkegaard 2nd London Conference on Intelligence https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=QEy6h1AAAAAJ&hl=en Pringles (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Kirkegaard attended conference, presented research. ^{— Unsigned, by: Samiamsam / talk / contribs 05:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)}

Plenty of evidence Fuerst is an alt-right anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist crank on the "racism and anti-Semitism" section already. Furthermore, just view his twitter to see his obsession with Jews and making more anti-Semitic comments; he also re-tweets white nationalists and Nazis.Pringles (talk)

Include the full quote if not the a link to the discussion. https://imgur.com/a/eDsOO Added. ^{— Unsigned, by: Samiamsam / talk / contribs 05:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)}

Minor correction made that Fuerst did not personally attend in 2015, but he still co-wrote the paper that was delivered by Kirkegaard. The point is though: Fuerst's pseudoscience was given in a UCL lecture attended by white supremacists and Nazis.Pringles (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you give an example of nazis that attended. I suppose you would say that Lynn is a "white supremacist". ^{— Unsigned, by: Samiamsam / talk / contribs 05:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)}

A source about the conference, Fuerst's paper was presented: http://www.irr.org.uk/news/eugenics-free-speech-double-standards/

Earlier this month, the London Student newspaper revealed that a eugenics conference has been secretly held at University College London for the past three years. The London Conference on Intelligence has been hosted annually by James Thompson, an honorary senior UCL lecturer, who invited white supremacists, misogynists and eugenicists to discuss the alleged links between genetics and racial disparities. Contributors to the London Conference on Intelligence included Richard Lynn, whom the US-based Southern Poverty Law Center calls an ‘unapologetic eugenicist’ and a ‘white nationalist’. Lynn argues that ‘racial difference in intelligence’ causes differences in wealth, and that ‘incompetent societies’ must be ‘phased out’ to ensure countries remain ‘racially homogenous’. Eugenics has once again found a home in the modern day, particularly in regard to migration, whereby immigrants are perceived as a threat to a western nation’s success. Lynn claims that ‘mass immigration of third world peoples will lead to these becoming majorities… this will mean the destruction of European civilisation’. Toby Young, who was briefly the Director of the Office for Students before resigning over misogynistic tweets, also attended the conference, as did blogger Emil Kirkegaard, who has written supportively of paedophiles being allowed to have ‘sex with a sleeping child’.

Pringles (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

John we aren't playing any of your troll euphemism word games. You're not alt-right but a "neo-reactionary", not a racist, but a "race realist" etc. Just stop. You're alt-right/white nationalist. Someone only has to view your twitter to see this.Pringles (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rationalwiki should strive for accuracy, not polemics.--Samiamsam (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

LOL

How surprising that looking at this article on "rational" wiki I just see one long ad hominem attack. Must remember not to waste my time here. 109.144.215.155 (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

'Bye then. Scream!! (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

'But I thought this was Rational Wiki' - and thanks for not wasting active contributors' (including would-be humourists) time. Anna Livia (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

109 is just Michael Coombs on another sock IP. Matches: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.144.219.141 Freddo (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)