Talk:J. Philippe Rushton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
Note icon
It is requested that a photograph or picture of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The page inappropriately simplifies the controversy.[edit]

On one side, there is the evidence (especially from domestication research) that evolution can go very fast, and differences in famine rates should theoretically affect evolutionary pressure in brain energy budgets while differences in child mortality should theoretically make differences in maturation rate and thus learning period. But on the other hand, there is the empirical evidence that all supposed race-intelligence links disappear when social factors are taken into account. That contradictory evidence requires an explanation not thought of by either side of the controversy. There are metastudies linking extreme recoveries after brain damage to tolerant social environments (Kurt Fischer, Christina Hinton: Mind, Brain and Education). The solution of tolerant social environments allowing neuroplasticity to break free from all biological limits can solve the contradiction, since racist discrimination is a form of intolerance. See the article "Brain" at the topic page "Psychology" on http://purescience.wikia.com 37.250.52.67 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

That's not contradictory evidence, that's clear evidence for one side and tangential abstract theory for the other side. "There is empirical evidence of a. On the other hand, if b works like c, then d could maybe be true, which would at least allow for e, which isn't a." 67.80.153.207 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi sympathies[edit]

I'm not sure how to cite this, but Rushton had clear sympathies with Neo-Nazis, and not just through the Pioneer Fund:

(When we first met, Rushton rather graciously signed my copy of the abridged Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Unfortunately, it was one of those books I constantly loaned out, and I lost it. But in karmic compensation I was given the copy that Rushton sent, with a signed reviewer’s slip, to Sam Francis, complete with Francis’ underlining and annotations.)

I first met Rushton in February of 2002 at an American Renaissance Conference. I found him even more impressive in person than in print. He was a brilliant lecturer and conversationalist. I had a number of questions about Race, Evolution, and Behavior. Since he was eager to welcome another Ph.D. into “this thing of ours,” he was very generous with his time.

I remember a conversation about immigration quite vividly.

First, I asked him his opinion of Francis Parker Yockey’s somewhat apodictic claim in Imperium that a political system will find ways to generate the population that it needs, thus if a society does not encourage immigration from without it will find ways to encourage the existing population to reproduce itself. The population gains due to immigration may, moreover, be partially illusory, since the disruption and competition caused by immigrants suppresses the reproduction of the native population.

As I recall, Rushton thought this was interesting and could be formulated as a testable scientific hypothesis.

Second, I offered the argument that perhaps America would have been better off if it had not allowed in progressively more heterogeneous European and non-European immigrant groups to settle the continent, for immigration depressed wages and created social disruptions that made it more difficult for the original founding stock to reproduce itself. If immigration had not been allowed, the continent would have been peopled more slowly, surely, but the resulting society would have been more homogeneous and more egalitarian, since labor would have been scarcer and thus workers would have had greater bargaining power against capital.

Rushton thought this argument made sense, but he believed that my concerns were ultimately trumped by higher concerns of Darwinian Realpolitik: the United States was not the only contender for control of the North American continent. Mexico was also a contender, and he thought it was better for the white race as a whole that the United States rather than Mexico populated the West, regardless of the costs in ethnic homogeneity or social justice, which were real but less pressing issues that could be sorted out later.

Third, I asked Rushton if he thought the that the rising tide of non-white immigration into white countries could be explained as the result of businesspeople looking for cheap labor and welfare statists looking for needy constituencies, without any consideration of the common good or long-term demographic consequences. Thus white dispossession is merely a ghastly mistake, the unintended consequence of selfish and short-sighted policies.

Rushton thought this was an inadequate explanation and stated flatly that he believed that mass non-white immigration was also driven by a conscious purpose: the extermination of the white race. Good old Phil. What I admired most about him was his manner of stating the most radical claims in a calm and unapologetic way. His manner conveyed both moral certitude and openness to reason.

He also suggested that if I wanted to know who was behind non-white immigration, and why, I needed to read chapter 7 of Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. (I had already been there, of course, but I wanted to see if that’s where Rushton would go.)

WARNING: Neo-Nazi site: http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/10/remembering-r-philippe-rushton/#more-32157 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.212.191 (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the author Greg Johnson or the website are connected with Neo-Nazis? I didn't find anything typically Nazi on the first few pages I opened there. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

A part of this article was worded "His theory was that Muslims have an aggressive personality with relatively closed, simple minds, and were less amenable to reason." I changed "Muslim" to Arab, because "Muslims" are obviously represented by peoples of varying ethnicity. Orasis (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for what the late Professor Rushton thought, which is what is really at issue here? Maybe he used one term (or the other) intentionally; the source citation appears to point to "Muslim" as the group of people being spoken about. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)