In modern multinational and multicultural states, the necessity of mitigating any diversity along with the pandemic efforts to achieve a homogenized population comprise the prerequisite of the existence of these states. For this reason, the demands of minority groups, the homosexual rights, or the old fashioned ─ feminist claims for greater "integration" of women into economic and political life, have lost their last traces of radicalism and are now being institutionally promoted by the regimes themselves. That's the reason why scientists who advocate that race is a social construct without biological meaning are being promoted.

In spite of the reactions of some non-modernized sources of power, the constant re-interpretation of urban cachets and civil rights makes sure that these re-interpreted processes are extended to all population groups. This has become a status quo in most modern multicultural societies.

Is race a myth?

To many academics and men of intellect, race is indeed a myth. Their views were presented in a previous article of this site (see: The myth of racial purity). Summing up their views, we can conclude that the core of their belief is that people are born with the same features and qualities holding the environment, the vicious cycle of poverty and the harsh upbringing as the main causes of the differentiated IQ among people.

However, there are others who believe that race is not a myth and in the “politically correct” West, we have been taught that it is a punishable crime differentiating people according to their race or creed.

In this article, we will be attempted to present the views of the “politically incorrect” theorists who claim that race does make a significant difference.

A racialist
who believes in race-realism

Mr. Jared Taylor is one of the most distinguished supporters of racial superiority. Heʼs not just the average supporter of “white power” but rather a very well educated individual with a BA, in Philosophy from Yale University and a Diplôme, from the “Institut dʼEtudes Politiques de Paris”. Jared Taylor was born in Japan, and has taught Japanese at Harvard Summer School. He has also done course work for advanced degree entirely in French. Furthermore, he is an accomplished classical and jazz musician. Jared Taylor was the News Editor for “Washington Times”, the International Lending Officer at Manufacturers Hanover Trust, a Contributing and a West Coast Editor for PC Magazine. Since 1982, he works as a consultant to American companies doing business in Japan. Furthermore, he is the editor of the website “American Renaissance” and the President of “New Century Foundation”.

Mr. Jared Taylor is also a very prolific writer. He has written six books: 1)
Shadows of the Rising Sun: A Critical View of the Japanese Miracle”, 2) “The Tyranny of the New and Other Essays”, 3)”Paved With Good Intentions: The Failure of Race in Contemporary America”, 4) “A Race Against Time: Racial Heresies for the 21st Century” 5) “The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration and the Future of America”, 6)”White Identity: Racial Consciousness for the 21st Century.” Besides those books, Mr. Jared Taylor has written articles for many newspapers such as, “The Wall street Journal”, “The Los Angeles Times”, “ The Chicago Tribune”, “The Washington Star”, “The Baltimore Sun”, “The Washington Post”, “The Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies” just to name a few.


Samuel Jared Taylor
is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication.
Taylor, like many of the organizations he is associated with, is often described as promoting racist ideologies by, among others, civil rights groups, news media, and academics studying racism in the U.S.

Taylor has been described as a white nationalist, white supremacist, and racist by civil rights groups, news media, academics studying racism in the US, and other anti-racism supporters. However, Taylor has strenuously rejected being called a racist, arguing that he is instead a "racialist who believes in race-realism". He strongly denies the accusation of being a white supremacist, describing himself as a "white advocate", and contends that his views on nationality and race are "moderate, commonsensical, and fully consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America's past".

His views are briefly summarized in the following paragraph: “Race is an important aspect of individual and group identity. Of all the fault lines that divide society—language, religion, class, ideology—it is the most prominent and divisive. Race and racial conflict are at the heart of the most serious challenges the Western World faces in the 21st century ... Attempts to gloss over the significance of race or even to deny its reality only make problems worse. I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every peoples has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter”.


Jared Taylor

talks about
the racial differences
in intelligence.

Superficial traits?

Another important figure of the “politically Incorrect” side is Mr. Michael Rienzi (Michael Rienzi is the pseudonym of a biological scientist living in the Northeast). Below a sample of his thoughts:

Racial egalitarianism has failed to produce the “fair and just” society promised by social engineers. At the same time, there has been a marked reawakening of racial and ethnic identity in the post-Cold War world. In response, the left has adopted a new strategy: Deny the very existence of race! This is why we so frequently hear that “race is a social construct, with no biological validity” and that “science proves we are all the same.” Ironically, it is in connection with progress in understanding the human genome —progress in the very field that will definitively prove the biological reality of race— that we most often hear that race is nothing more than “superficial” surface characteristics.

Against this view, there are first of all the obvious physical differences between human population groups that everyone recognizes. There is also genetic evidence that can be used independently of traditional methods to classify different human populations into racial groups that are virtually identical to those based on the allegedly “superficial” traits studied by traditional physical anthropology.


Glayde D. Whitney

was a behavioral geneticist and psychology professor at Florida State University. Beyond his work into the genetics of sensory system function in mice, in his later life he supported David Duke (an American white nationalist, politician, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, Holocaust denier, convicted felon, and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan) as well as research into race and intelligence and eugenics.

As Professor Glayde Whitney has written: “These data are therefore a virtually irrefutable demonstration of the reality of race — a purely statistical analysis of allele frequencies [genetic differences from one group to another] gives results that are essentially identical to the racial groupings established by traditional anthropology”.

An honest evaluation of the data confirms the reality of race. But let us look at the arguments on the other side.

What genes reveal
We are 99.9 percent
(or some other number) genetically identical;

so there can be no race differences and no races.

Although it is true that human populations share roughly 99.9 percent of their genes, it is also true that humans share over 98 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, and a very high amount with animals like mice and dogs. Many of these genes produce basic body structures all mammals have in common; differences between organisms are caused by very small genetic differences.

Current evidence suggests that all the sex differences between men and women are the result of just one genetic difference — one gene (the Testes Determining Factor) out of an estimated 50,000-100,000! This would mean men and women are 99.998 to 99.999 percent genetically identical, yet no one suggests that sex is a mere “social construct.” In like manner, the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees, which no one denies, can be described as 12 to 20 times the genetic differences between racial groups.

Tiny genetic differences can have huge phenotypic consequences because genes are ordered in a hierarchical fashion. Some genes are “master genes,” and control the expression of a number of other genes, each of which may further control several other genes. Also, the expression of each gene is controlled by regions called “promoters” and “enhancers,” usually located in front of the functional part of the gene. A small change in the promoter region of gene “X” can alter its expression. X may control genes A, B, C, D, E, F. Gene A in turn may control its own set of genes. Even if all of the genes other than “X” are identical between two groups, the one difference in “X” would be sufficient to produce large group differences.

It is not the quantity of genetic difference that is important, but the nature of the differences: which genes are different, in what ways they differ, and the consequences of these differences. Breeds of dogs are analogous to human races. It is likely that different breeds are as close genetically as different races of humans, but there is no doubt that these subtle variations result in significant differences in appearance, intelligence, and behavior.

It is also worth considering that a butterfly and the caterpillar from which it developed are 100 percent genetically identical! The genes do not change; the enormous differences between caterpillar and butterfly result from the activation of different genes at different times. This should give some pause to those who think a 0.1 percent difference in tens of thousands of human genes “makes no difference.”

There is more genetic variation within human groups
than between groups; therefore, group differences are invalid.

This is another very popular argument that, although true, does not at all mean that race is of no significance. The flaw in this argument is the same as in the “99.9 percent argument,” in that it stresses quantity — genetic “bean counting” — rather than the importance of genetic differences and their consequences.

Indeed, there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups, but if this variation does not influence the expression of important genes, it is not of much consequence. There is considerable genetic variation between siblings and between parents and children, but this does not alter the fact that they are more closely related to each other than to strangers.



Τhe variation argument

Once again Prof. Whitney has demonstrated the absurdity of the “variation” argument. He points out that one could take the total genetic diversity contained within the population of Belfast and a troop of macaque monkeys and give it an index of 100 percent. Surprising as it may seem, more than half of that diversity will be found both in the population of Belfast and in the monkey troop. There is great genetic diversity even between two individuals who are very similar to each other. This does not, of course, mean that Irishmen are more like macaques than they are like their neighbors, though this is precisely the way the there-are-no-races advocates use the argument when they apply it to humans.

Prof. Whitney explains that just as in the case of the genetic differences between men and women, “the meaningful question about racial differences is not the percentage of total diversity, but rather how the diversity is distributed among the races, what traits it influences, and how it is patterned.” Small genetic differences can translate into important physical and behavioral differences.

Hybrid populations

Population variation is continuous
and human traits vary across a spectrum,
so discrete racial entities do not exist.

This is a scientific way of saying that since hybrids (racially or ethnically mixed populations) exist, no single race exists. This is an amazingly popular argument, even though it is easily refuted. No one has ever thought the existence of hybrid populations of animals means these animals cannot be classified into distinct groups. This is self-evident. Your dog may be a mix of German Shepherd and Great Dane, but this does not mean there are no German Shepherds or Great Danes. The existence of dog hybrids means only that different breeds of dog can mate and produce offspring. Dogs and wolves — separate species — can mate and produce offspring but it is still easy to tell a dog from a wolf.

There are certainly places in which there has been much human mixing and where there are racial gradients — Central Asia, Latin America, North Africa. The existence of hybrid populations in these areas in no way disproves the existence of other populations that are genetically more differentiated — in Europe, the Far East, and sub-Saharan Africa.

Continuous variations

This “continuous variation” argument is so illogical it is a wonder anyone takes it seriously. The existence of mixtures does not invalidate the existence of the original components of mixtures. The fact that red and yellow can be mixed to produce orange hardly means that red and yellow are illusions or do not exist. Although racial gradation is far from being a perfect and continuous gradient, even those variations in nature that do lie along such a gradient can be classified into distinct groups. The continuous variations of light frequencies in the rainbow, for example, are easily grouped into the distinct colors that virtually all people recognize.

All human populations are mongrels,
there is no such thing as a pure race;
thus, there is no such thing as race.

This argument is related to the previous one, except that it says we are all hybrids, so there is no such thing as race. First, no scientists talk about “pure” races. What does racial “purity” mean, anyway? It is true that certain populations are more genetically differentiated and distinct than are other more hybridized groups. If we consider Englishmen, Central Asians, and Koreans, we can make the relative statement that Koreans and Englishmen are more genetically (and phenotypically) distinct and differentiated than Central Asians, who are in some respects intermediate between East Asians and Europeans.

Who is mongrel
and who isnʼt?

This does not imply that either Koreans or Englishmen are “pure,” which would presumably mean they can all trace their ancestries to a single population at a certain time. The English, for example, are a predominantly Nordic population made up of Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans/Vikings, Romans, and possibly early Mediterraneans. Many European groups are similarly composed of multiple related strains; if having an ancestry of different but relatively similar European groups makes someone a “mongrel,” then indeed we are all mongrels. But this does not invalidate in any way the concept of race, or the fact that the various “mongrel” populations are still genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other and thus are separate races. Both genetically and physically, Englishmen clearly belong in the European group and Koreans in the Northeast Asian group.
The “we are all mongrels” argument fails in two ways. First, the various stocks that have gone into producing many of todayʼs ethnic groups were relatively similar to each other, so it stretches the definition of the word to call them “mongrels.” How different were the Anglo-Saxons from the Celts? Likewise, would a person of mixed English and German ancestry be considered a “mongrel?” French-Italian? Do we call the millions of white Americans of mixed European stock “mongrels?”

Second, mixtures of related stocks can stabilize over time, and form a new, unique, and separate ethnic group, race, or breed. Such is the case with the various European ethnic groups, formed by mixtures of related ethnic strains. Europeans could be bred for hundreds — perhaps thousands — of generations without producing offspring that look like Africans or Asians. The reverse is also true. Even if todayʼs races are the result of ancient mixtures the mixtures are distinct and extremely stable.

Not only skin differences
Population differences
are superficial and only skin-deep.

This is simply not true. Many consistent group differences have been found in intelligence, behavior, brain size, resistance to disease, twinning rates, speed of maturation, etc. Prof. Arthur Jensen has gathered irrefutable proof of racial differences in average intelligence.
In Race, Evolution and Behavior Prof. Philippe Rushton has not only documented the large number of other racial differences but shown how they fit the varying reproduction strategies followed by different racial groups.

Sometimes the race-does-not-exist argument appears to be a desperate attempt to shut down the argument about racial differences that the left has clearly lost.

Since egalitarians have nothing to say in the face of mountains of evidence for racial differences, they have suddenly shifted their ground and try to pretend that race itself does not exist.
Even the most anti-racist medical doctors recognize that transplant donors and recipients often have to be matched not just on the basis of race but on close ethnicity within race, because inter-racial transplants are likely to be rejected. They also know that people of different races react differently do the same drugs and suffer from different diseases. To say these differences are only “skin-deep” is completely at odds with reality.


African Americans in the US are not distinguished for their academic or scientific performance. They are clearly distinguished in areas where strength, speed and other physical characteristics are required, such as in sports. The best basketball players in the NBA, the best runners in the races are all African-Americans. You rarely meet someone white who can compete against them with success.

The evolution
of racial differences

There has not been enough time
for racial differences to have evolved.

This is an odd argument because there has clearly been enough time for physical differences to evolve. Pygmies and Norwegians presumably once had a common ancestor but are now so different from each other a biologist from another planet might well think them different species. This argument therefore is an attempt to deny differences in average intelligence or other mental traits.
In Why Race Matters Professor Michael Levin shows that the IQ difference between Europeans and black Africans has had more than enough time to develop during the estimated 4,400 generations since the two groups split from a common ancestor.

According to his calculation, it would have required a rate of selection per generation of 0.000106 against recessive genes, a very small rate of genetic change that is the equivalent to a change in 11 individuals per 100,000 per generation. In nature this is an extremely slow rate of evolutionary change.

Is race an illusion?

The white race —like all the others—
is a social construct.

Here we begin to see the motivation behind all of the “there is no such thing as race” nonsense. If people of European descent can be convinced that race does not exist, in particular that their race does not really exist, there will be no resistance to the displacement of whites by the forces currently at work in America, Europe, and elsewhere. People will not defend something they have been convinced is not real.

If —against their own instincts and the clear evidence of their senses— whites can be made to think race is an illusion they can have no reason to oppose across-the-board integration, miscegenation, and massive non-white immigration. If whites are mixing with and being displaced by people who are really no different from themselves nothing is being lost.

The irony, of course, is that when it comes to “affirmative action” —policies that penalize whites— the very people who say race is a social construct insist that it is a valid basis for preferential treatment. People who say race is not biological somehow have no difficulty claiming to be “black” or “Asian” or “American Indian” if there is an advantage in doing so.

Nor in the vast majority of cases is there the slightest disagreement about who belongs in which race. Children can distinguish race unerringly by the age of two or three. Nature is parsimonious and does not often endow its creatures with senses to distinguish things that do not matter. An inborn ability, acquired at a very early age, of who are “our people” and who are not is essential to group survival. Any attempt to override or downplay that ability is a direct attack on the group itself.

Needless to say, it is only whites who parrot obviously absurd notions about race and who pretend that indifference or even disloyalty to race is a virtue. Non-whites have a healthy consciousness of race and know that it is a fundamental part of individual and group identity. They must be hugely amused by the potentially suicidal silliness they hear whites urging each other to believe.

The claims of certain demagogues notwithstanding, Europeans are both a cultural and a biological reality. Like all racial and ethnic groups they have the right to preserve that reality and to resist efforts to obfuscate science in an attempt to eliminate races in fact, as well as name”.


“Why should someone be proud of being gay?
Why should someone be proud of being straight?
Why should someone be proud of what he does on his bed?”.
Christos Simardanis, Greek gay actor.

There are so many things in life that can make someone proud. His academic achievements, his hard working job, his contributions to humanity, his kids and his role in the family. The sexual preferences of somebody cannot be a reason for feeling proud.

Mainstream Science

As pointed out in several articles, mainstream science doesnʼt seem to share the views of either Jared Taylor or Mike Rienzi.
About 100 years ago, an American sociologist, W.E.B. Du Bois was concerned that race was being used as a biological explanation for what he understood to be social and cultural differences between different populations of people. He spoke out against the idea of "white" and "black" as discrete groups, claiming that these distinctions ignored the scope of human diversity.

Science would favor Du Bois. Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning.

Nevertheless, we might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like "white" and "black" being used as biological variables.

In an article published not long ago, in the Journal Science, four scholars say racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out. [Unraveling the Human Genome: 6 Molecular Milestones].

William Edward Burghardt
"W. E. B." Du Bois was an American
sociologist, historian, civil rights
activist, Pan-Africanist, author,
writer and editor, one of the
co-founders of the National
Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909.
They've asked the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine to put together a panel of experts across the biological and social sciences to come up with ways for researchers to shift away from the racial concept in genetics research.

Due to the director's
in a scene 
of Mozart's Idomeneo
, which was to be
presented at the
Berlin Opera House,
the protagonist placed
in four chairs
the cut heads
of Poseidon, Christ,
Buddha and Muhammad.
Fearing strong reactions
by Muslim fanatics,
the Opera Director
chose self-censorship
instead of being lynched
so she cancelled the show.

The mainstream scientific belief today is that there is no genetic sequence unique to blacks or whites or Asians. In fact, these categories donʼt reflect biological groupings at all. There is more genetic variation in the diverse populations from the continent of Africa (who some would lump into a “black” category) than exists in all populations from outside of Africa (the rest of the world) combined!

There is no neurological patterning that distinguishes races from one another, nor are there patterns in muscle development and structure, digestive tracts, hand-eye coordination, or any other such measures.

The "politically correct" paranoia
and the three little pigs.
Even the children's fairy tales did not escape from the defenders of «politically correct" morality. Like the "Fathers" of Christianity, they urge the people not to say pagan tales ─the ones that have always existed─ or to their children. They even forbade them from singing "pagan" lullabies (see John Chrysostom) to them. So, their current “descendants” suggest that the fairy tale of the “three little pigs” is offensive to Muslim inhabitants of the Western countries (Muslims do not eat pork) and therefore the "three little pigs" must be converted into other animals that are of no religious significance to anyone.



Fairy tales such as the “Little Red Riding Hood” and “Cinderella” are considered to be phallic, or sexist, and must either be drastically modified or not narrated at all. The same should be done with many classic novels for children as well as theatrical plays.

Even something thought to be as ubiquitous as skin color works only in a limited way as dark or light skin tells us only about a humanʼs amount of ancestry relative to the equator, not anything about the specific population or part of the planet they might be descended from.

There is not a single biological element unique to any of the groups we call White, Black, Asian, Latino, etc. In fact, no matter how hard people try, there has never been a successful scientific method to justify any racial classification, in biology. This is not to say that humans donʼt vary biologically. They do a lot.  However, that the variation is not racially distributed.

Agustín Fuentes
is an American primatologist and biological anthropologist whose work focuses largely on human and non-human primate interaction, pathogen transfer, communication, cooperation, and human social evolution.

As Agustín Fuentes PhD points out, “There is no inherently biological reason that most starting running backs in the NFL are black or most CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are white.  Nor is there a “natural” explanation for why race relations are often difficult, but there are lots of interesting social, political, psychological, and historical ones.  Go find out what they are, and bust some myths for yourself”.


Pictures of homosexual pride parades in major cities of the world.
Everyone should have the right to create or participate in "Politically correct" quaint spectacles.
However, it is the right of everyone else who doesnʼt like what he sees to burst into laughter without hypocritically pretend to be serious in the name of political correctness.

The creeping fascism
of political correctness

Political correctness is a movement which constitutes a part of an academic initiative which began around the mid-1970s as an effort to rebuild the language in order to select ─or even devise─ on a case-by-case basis, the words and expressions that are not considered offensive to racial, religious, or to specifically oriented sexual groups. This movement originally appeared to have an undetermined political position. It was progressively formulated in an ideological sermon on the rights of various human groups preaching the supposed "demolition" of "prejudices" among them.

Progressively, there was a degeneration and a diversion of this movement to a form of thought control that threatens the freedom of expression while it calls for a compliance with the demands of pressure groups. Umberto Eco believed that political correctness tends to evolve into a new form of fundamentalism.


There is no political correctness in the religious beliefs of uncivilized tribes
although they are not different from the ones of the civilized.


The movement of "political correctness" is self-righteous in the face of individual freedoms and tolerance. However, the very notion of "political correctness" itself exhibits its hidden fascism, since all kinds of "righteousness" have been entrenched upon repeated human bloodshed.


Adam and Eve in Paradise.
If a person believes that snakes can talk, the people who surround him will think that heʼs crazy. In Genesis III, however, we read: "Did God really say, ʽYou must not eat from any tree in the gardenʼ?”
 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ʽYou must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.ʼ”
 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (1-2).
The conversation between Eve and the snake is fundamental to Christianity, perhaps the most important fact of the Bible, and every Christian believes in it. If this conversation had not taken place, he would not have followed the original sin, so Christ would have no mission on Earth. But the Christians who believes in speaking snakes, is not only justified but also supported by “political correctness," which demands from all of us to respect his faith. Similar nonsense exists in all religions, and we are all obliged to respect them so as to be "politically correct."
Instead of being willing to restrict the freedom of speech because of hypocritical respect for religion, we should limit our respect for religions so as to exercise our freedom of speech right more broadly. This is exactly what is required if humanity is determined to continue its search for truth and freedom.


The bulldozing notion of "equality" of people, and the fact that all cultures are placed in the same cultural "parade", were the pinnacles of the primary Christian fascism: we are all "the same" in front of the sight of God who now distributes the "same" rights to his "equal" subjects. The way that Christianity treated culture and the people when it came to power, reveals how the word "equality" was interpreted by Christianity.
The propagandists of "political correctness" who appear in today's world use exactly the same tactics that Christianity used before it established itself.


It should be noted that racial differences if they do exist, should not constitute a platform for discrimination.

Perhaps, there are races that are better in certain things and worse in other. This doesnʼt mean that that there are superior or inferior races.

However, the notion of political correctness is by definition an authoritarian approach as it limits the freedom of speech and expression.

“Political correctness” will be dangerous if it attempts to tamper with scientific evidence that do not fit in its framework.

Have such interventions been made? Well, no one can say with certainty.

Having said all that, one question remains:

Has science been a victim of “Political Correctness and we know nothing about it?”

For those who are not politically
correct, especially in the “Holocaust
issue, prison is awaiting.
The maximum prison sentences for
the Holocaust denial in the European
countries: Austria: 10 years,
Lithuania: 10 years, Germany:
5 years, Romania: 5 years, Slovakia:
3 years, Poland: 3 years, Czech:
2 years, France: 2 years, Belgium:
1 year, Spain: no specific prison
time is set.
Well, I guess itʼs up to the readers to decide after they have researched these issues more thoroughly.

Muammar Ignatius-Yiannis Lazaris



  • Ανώνυμος 43441

    11 Ιουλ 2017

    Race or nation is neither a biological reality in the sense racists mean it nor a political construct in the sense anti-racists mean it. The flux of genes is governed by chaos and this chaos is morphed into an identity by human politics. The outcomes of the game of human politics itself are chaotic and unforeseeable as well.

    African-Americans are indeed physically stronger, faster etc. yet not simply because of their West African origin. The cause is natural selection among their more recent ancestors. The conditions of slavery ensured that the strongest and healthiest had more capacities to endure hardship and more capacities to carry on their genes. Their big penises are the result of promiscuity. Those with bigger penises were more likely to pass on their genes and remove competing semen.

    The fact that no large-scale agricultural civilization, and empires arose in Africa is explained simply by the climatic inability of the regions they inhabited to produce agricultural surpluses. Complex societies are functionally impossible without surplus production and the need to distribute it.

    The reason African-Americans were gradually segregated from the ranks of the new nation and are considered something not just racially but politically and socially different has to do with peculiarities of American history. It doesn't have to do with human ''tribalism'' or anything of the sort. The reason they are 'unsuccessful' is the result of that social exclusion. If that didn't exist, the more intelligent of their numbers could and would have gained good place in society. Notwithstanding, there do exist ample cases of socially successful African Americans outside the domain of sports.

    Those who claim that Asians are naturally superior in all the things that make up a good society should have a look at Korea. Both the North and the South are the same people. Yet the social differences are striking. The cause cannot be explained by virtue of biological determinism.

    Also, much of Asia is underdeveloped. The fact that Japan and South Korea are highly developed societies doesn't imply that Asians are biologically superior. A few decades and centuries ago, China was at the mercy of foreign powers and socially degraded. Today it's fiercely independent and developing with astonishing speed. How can racialism explain that?

    There's also a caricature about the holocaust. I don't think anybody should go to prison for denying it. But to deny it only proves one is a Neo-Nazi.

  • Ανώνυμος 43286

    17 Ιουν 2017

    At least he dares to have a nickname you sissy

  • Ανώνυμος 43285

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Bielidopoulos: A no count scared cunt that smells like a sewer!

  • Ανώνυμος 43284

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Good question comrade.

  • Ανώνυμος 43283

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Why don' you have a nickname? You boring greek!!!

  • Ανώνυμος 43282

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Its not personal insults. Its the truth. Your ironic argument was as usual stupid. If you want personal insults, fairy tales and other nonsense read some other comments. Just dont post anymore. Its for the best.
    Really why the stupid who write english comments do not take a nick? And the answer is because are the same guys who used to write the same bullshit in greek. Boring.

  • Ανώνυμος 43281

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Since you did not understand the irony your post is a silly one. You have nothing to say but personal insults.

  • Ανώνυμος 43280

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Thats a miracle dude. At last you manage to write something which is real. Wow! No fairy tales and subjective nonsense. Just for a change I guess.
    Stupid argument from a stupid greek who writes in english. Same shit except this time is in english. Thats funny.
    Just dont post, will ya?

  • Ανώνυμος 43279

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Thank God you are a clever one 43278 :)

  • Ανώνυμος 43278

    17 Ιουν 2017

    43276 just another stupid commentator..

  • Ανώνυμος 43277

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Anti-bielidopoulos league is a good customer of bielidopoulos.

  • Ανώνυμος 43276

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Do you think that 43255 questions about "The Black Panther" etc have something to do with the article?

  • Ανώνυμος 43275

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Don't bother friend.
    It's Bielidopoulos, the chronic pain in the ass commentator behind all this.
    He's the one who had a big argument with Dimopoulos. You're perhaps new here so you don't know the man. The reason is Bielidopoulos is hiding his identity is because of his shitty English.
    For example:You are wrong. When somebody uses series of questions as arguments or proofs he is fake. Let us know his kind of answer of the question or questions. But he needs guts for that".

    How do you interpret this statement? "Don't ask me questions. I won't bother to reply because I have no solid answers."
    The guy is a moron, a stupid jerk who knows nothing.
    Well, I knew he was a helpless little p@ssy but not to that extend.
    He's such a coward!
    Don't bother with this guy and most of all, don't be nice to him.
    Once an idiot, always an idiot.

    The Anti-Bielidopoulos League

  • Ανώνυμος 43274

    17 Ιουν 2017

    "I am also against people who prevent others from asking questions."
    You are wrong. When somebody uses series of questions as arguments or proofs he is fake. Let us know his kind of answer of the question or questions. But he needs guts for that.

    "The article is not about the racism of whites against the blacks but also vise versa."
    The article is confusing and ambiguous. The author is trying to criticize mainstream science and political correctness by quoting known racists and fascists, which is ridiculous. Thats why a guy tried very hard to reduce the value of wikipedia in the beginning of the comments, because wikipedia and internet make it very easy for everybody today to find some common truths. And here comes to my mind another similar case of Marios Dhmopoulos a well known bullshit author of the past and now I see that he found other victims to propagate dietary supplements as a cure for cancer and every other chronic desease:
    Also another problem is that many people believe that someone who writes an article or a book is saying something important or expresses a higher truth. Well, there is a lot of nonsense bullshit out there.

  • Ανώνυμος 43271

    17 Ιουν 2017

    You are doing the same you moron 43269.

  • Ανώνυμος 43270

    17 Ιουν 2017

    Ignatius is the author. Enough said.

  • Ανώνυμος 43269

    17 Ιουν 2017

    With a few exceptions, none of the commentators have read the article.
    It's the usual mambo jumbo bullshit the modern Greeks use to show that they know it all. They know nothing.

  • Ανώνυμος 43268

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Oh dear 43265, I never knew that all of them were racists….. LoL :) Commenting on them or on the credibility of wikipedia is misleading. Do not panic. Focus on the subject of this thread. If you have not any serious argument against my own about Taylor (as his theory and own words are presented in the Ignatius-Lazaris article) then there is no point of arguing with you. It is black and white. Take it or leave it.

  • Ανώνυμος 43267

    16 Ιουν 2017

    U dont have to confirm that ur an idiot. An idiot who thinks that by producing stupid questions or imagining fairy tales is doing something important or is proving something (except his stupidity). Just dont post any questions. Its a confirmation that ur a dumbass. Dont comment at all is the optimum. The only clear and well defined part of the article is the fifth paragraph:
    "In this article, we will be attempted to present the views of the politically incorrect theorists who claim that race does make a significant difference."
    The rest is confusing more or less and ambiguous. Why? Either the author doesnt know very well the sensitive subject of races and genetics which is big, either he has a hidden agenda, either he is mental. Knowing the author from previous articles I would say that the second is the problem. He has to come in a conclusion about his views and ideas and what exactly wants to prove to the others, but most importantly to himself.

    He writes in particular, "Whites and East Asians have wider hips than Blacks... because they give birth to larger brained babies." He also argues that "hormones that give Blacks an edge at sports makes them restless in school and prone to crime".

    Levin agrees with Arthur Jensen and Richard Lynn that white people score higher on IQ tests than black people due to genetic differencesa view that has been criticized by scholars such as Leon Kamin of Princeton University.

    Samuel Jared Taylor (born September 15, 1951) is an American white nationalist who is the founder and editor of American Renaissance, a magazine often described as a white supremacist publication.

    American Renaissance (AR or AmRen) is a monthly online magazine described as a white supremacist publication by several sources, including The Washington Post, Fortune, and the Anti-Defamation League. It is published by the New Century Foundation, which describes itself as a "race-realist, white advocacy organization".

    They are all "mpoumpoukia".

  • Ανώνυμος 43266

    16 Ιουν 2017


    "The putana wants to hide 43258 but her happines lets her not.

    Give us some free lessons swiss-living romie"
    Sorry pal, I didn't know that your mom lives in Switzerland.
    Does she have a good time there making...................chocolate?

  • Ανώνυμος 43265

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Sure it does. These are black supremacists. They believe that the black race is superior to any other race. Do your homework. Concerning Wikipedia, my opinion is that the information it provides need to be double checked since it is written by various contradicting authors with no proven credentials. If you think that Wikipedia is enough for you, it's fine by me. What you said before about e-pedias is right. We all need e-pedias. This doesn't mean that Wikipedia being one of them, has the highest credibility degree of all.
    In this world my friend, there isn't just black and white. There are many shades of gray in between and that's a fact. I hope we agree on this.

  • Ανώνυμος 43263

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Somebody may make mistakes when he writes in english but that doesn't mean that he has not comprehend the article.
    Itʼs easier to understand a foreign language when reading than to speak or write it.
    I would like to read all the views and I donʼt give a shit about grammar mistakes.
    Long live mistakes

  • Ανώνυμος 43262

    16 Ιουν 2017

    The putana wants to hide 43258 but her happines lets her not.
    Give us some free lessons swiss-living romie.

  • Ανώνυμος 43261

    16 Ιουν 2017

    @ 43253
    Wikipedia is a tool, and like all tools, has its limitations. If you are not satisfied with wiki or any other electronic or printed encyclopedia I recommend that you start studying biology, anthropology or medicine.
    Jared Taylor is not a biologist (or M.D. or anthropologist or even a sociologist) but he uses in his so called “proofs” arguments of sciences that he has not studied at all.
    Very “scientific” behavior.

  • Ανώνυμος 43260

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Dear 43255, the article has nothing to do with the "Black Panthers”, Malcom X, Louis Farrakhan and Amiri Baraka. Have a nice day.
    Thank you once again wikipedia for showing the fools among us.

  • Ανώνυμος 43259

    16 Ιουν 2017

    The article is fine but I am more interested in the movie where the actress jumped from one vehicle to another. Does somebody know if she stopped there? I want to find out if she jumped anything else in the process.


  • Ανώνυμος 43258

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Well, bad English.
    Although "tales" is a noun, in this particular sentence it acts as an adjective and adjectives have no plural form in English. So, please take the "s" off. We say, "a five hundred page book" (not pages). A 10 minute walk (not minutes). My question to you smart ass: How come with such bad English you read in detail the whole article and came to the conclusion that the article and its author are bad?

    Let me tell you something buddy. Do yourself a favor and go learn some descent English. Otherwise, no matter how hard I try, I just can't take you seriously. Nobody can.

  • Ανώνυμος 43257

    16 Ιουν 2017

    "Only an idiot would use such a stupid expression that means nothing."

    Its an ok expression for fairy tales idiots like u.

  • Ανώνυμος 43256

    16 Ιουν 2017

    @43254 Muammar Ignatius is the author. Enough said. ;)
    He has a secret agenda of the style: take the egg and give it a haircut.
    Funny but no facts. What is the secret agenda of the author? What do you mean by "secret agenda of the style: take the egg and give it a haircut" ? Why is this so called "trimmed egg" agenda, a secret?
    Listen buddy, you neither read the article nor you have any idea of what is presented here. The reason? You know no English. Only an idiot would use such a stupid expression that means nothing.

    On the other hand, you seem not to like the author. Fair enough! You are entitled to your opinion. Like Clint Eastwood (as Dirty Harry)said once: "Opinions are like ass-holes. Everybody has one". Just don't make it so smelly.

  • Ανώνυμος 43255

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Would you call the "Black Panthers" movement a racist one?
    Would you classify Malcom X and Louis Farrakhan as racists?
    How about the famous African-American author Leroi Jones who changed his name to Amiri Baraka and became a Muslim?
    What do you have to say to about the expressed hatred of Mr. Baraka against the Whites and Jews?

  • Ανώνυμος 43254

    16 Ιουν 2017

    "I would expect from the authors, however, a more clean cut presentation of their views although one can sense that they dislike "political correctness""

    Muammar Ignatius is the author. Enough said. ;)
    He has a secret agenda of the style: take the egg and give it a haircut.

  • Ανώνυμος 43253

    16 Ιουν 2017

    I believe that discussing the credibility of Wikipedia has nothing to do with the article. The article presents all possible views and encourages the readers to conduct a more detail research on their own. Whether Jared Taylor is a full- fledged racist or a political correctness enemy is something very debatable. I would expect from the authors, however, a more clean cut presentation of their views although one can sense that they dislike "political correctness". Nothing wrong with that I believe. Everyone is entitled to his opinion.

  • Ανώνυμος 43252

    16 Ιουν 2017

    What is your point? What is your personal view about J. Taylor? Do not be shy for being a racist 43251.

  • Ανώνυμος 43251

    16 Ιουν 2017

    "CHICAGO, March 14, 2012Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., announced today that it will cease publication of the 32-volume printed edition of its flagship encyclopedia, continuing with the digital versions that have become popular with knowledge seekers in recent decades.
    The Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has been primarily an online product for almost 20 years, will cease to be available in book form for the first time in 244 years when the current stock runs out. It was originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1768 and has been in print continuously ever since.
    The move is the latest in a series the company has made over many years in the direction of digital publishing and a wider range of educational products."

    Present and future is online encyclopaedias. What u dont understand?

  • Ανώνυμος 43250

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Fools are the ones who rely exclusively on wikipedia.

  • Ανώνυμος 43249

    16 Ιουν 2017


  • Ανώνυμος 43248

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Thank you once again wikipedia for showing the fools among us.

  • Ανώνυμος 43247

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Most people have an ancestry from different geographic regions, particularly African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors.[142] If racial IQ gaps have a partially genetic basis, one might expect blacks with a higher degree of European ancestry to score higher on IQ tests than blacks with less European ancestry, because the genes inherited from European ancestors would likely include some genes with a positive effect on IQ.[143] Geneticist Alan Templeton has argued that an experiment based on the Mendelian \"common garden\" design where specimens with different hybrid compositions are subjected to the same environmental influences, would be the only way to definitively show a causal relation between genes and IQ. Summarizing the findings of admixture studies, he concludes that it has shown no significant correlation between any cognitive and the degree of African or European ancestry.[144]
    Studies have employed different ways of measuring or approximating relative degrees of ancestry from Africa and Europe. One set of studies have used skin color as a measure, and other studies have used blood groups. Loehlin (2000) surveys the literature and argues that the blood groups studies may be seen as providing some support to the genetic hypothesis, even though the correlation between ancestry and IQ was quite low. He finds that studies by Eyferth (1961), Willerman, Naylor & Myrianthopoulos (1970) did not find a correlation between degree of African/European ancestry and IQ. The latter study did find a difference based on the race of the mother, with children of white mothers with black fathers scoring higher than children of black mothers and white fathers. Loehlin considers that such a finding is compatible with either a genetic or an environmental cause. All in all Loehlin finds admixture studies inconclusive and recommends more research.
    Another study cited by Rushton & Jensen (2005), and by Nisbett et al. (2012), was Moore (1986) study which found that adopted mixed-race children\'s has test scores identical to children with two black parents - receiving no apparent \"benefit\" from their white ancestry. Rushton and Jensen find admixture studies to have provided overall support for a genetic explanation though this view is not shared by Loehlin (2000), Nisbett (2009),Hunt (2010), Mackintosh (2011), nor by Nisbett et al. (2012).

  • Ανώνυμος 43246

    16 Ιουν 2017


  • Ανώνυμος 43245

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Did you 43242 see the video provided by the authors? Watch and learn. He compares societies instead of showing undisputed scientific facts. IQ studies show nothing because intelligence is associated with education and culture and other “uncontrolled variables”. And, if he is right, he will never be able to explain the fact that theatre, democracy, philosophy, geometry, mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, architecture, medicine and the rest of the sciences did not appear simultaneously among the white people without considering at least education and culture. Now, letʼs see what wikipedia says about Racial admixture studies:

  • Ανώνυμος 43244

    16 Ιουν 2017


  • Ανώνυμος 43242

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Wikipedia, that "scientific"information provider quite often contradicts itself. Why? Because the people who "enrich" it are different and have different views on various topics. Let's see what wikipedia says for itself:
    The reliability of Wikipedia (primarily of the English-language edition), compared to other encyclopedias and more specialized sources, has been assessed in many ways, including statistically, through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in the editing process unique to Wikipedia.[1] Recent incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted frequent publicity.[2][3]

    You want more? Here it is: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html

    So, once again (as you say), thanks wikipedia for being the only information and research tool for fools, uneducated, lazy and people in general who have no ability to search for more validated pieces of information (that goes to the ones who don't know much English).

  • Ανώνυμος 43241

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Wikipedia also says that "Taylor believes that white people have their own racial interests...."and "Taylor believes in a general correlation between race and intelligence...".Which, in simple words, means that he has not any scientific proof; he believes as someone else believes in God.
    Not to mention that "Taylor supported Donald Trump's presidential campaign".
    Thank you wikipedia once again.

  • Ανώνυμος 43240

    16 Ιουν 2017

    Martin Luther King had been described by the press of that time as a "communist" working for the Soviet Union. Anybody can write anything he wants. The newspaper that the Wikipedia mentions is not a major one. That of course doesn't mean that it is for the dogs. However, let's see what wikipedia says about Taylor: "Taylor has "strenuously rejected"[9] being called a racist, arguing that he is instead a "racialist who believes in race-realism".[23][24] He has also said he is not a white supremacist, describing himself as a "white advocate",[25] and contends that his views on nationality and race are "moderate, commonsensical, and fully consistent with the views of most of the great statesmen and presidents of America's past".[9]"

    Thank you Wikipedia for providing fools with false arguments.

  • Ανώνυμος 43239

    16 Ιουν 2017

    «A 2005 feature in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Taylor as "a racist in the guise of expert".»
    Thank you wikipedia.

  • Ανώνυμος 43238

    16 Ιουν 2017

    A well written article.
    Well presented facts.
    Quite peculiar for a Greek site to publish articles of this sort.
    Thumbs up!