Danish Government Tries to Censor Science it Doesn’t Like

Helmuth Nyborg, American Renaissance, November 14, 2013

Editor’s Note: Helmuth Nyborg is a distinguished Danish psychologist whose research has caused controversy. In 2011, he wrote a paper arguing that Middle-Eastern immigration to Denmark will have a dysgenic effect because of the low average intelligence of the immigrants. He has now been officially censored by the Danish government for “scientific misconduct.” His statement, which follows, is a chilling account of how ideological fanatics can enlist the power of government to thwart science.

Please send a carefully argued message to the addresses that Professor Nyborg includes in this statement. He is a brave soldier in the struggle for freedom of scientific inquiry and deserves widespread support.

The images below have been added by AmRen staff.

Helmuth Nyborg

Helmuth Nyborg

Statement by Helmuth Nyborg

A local Danish committee has requested, on questionable grounds, that an already published paper on intelligence and demography be withdrawn from the international literature. If you worry about this censorship, please read on. If not, please skip, and have a nice day.

Introduction

As some of you may know, I wrote a paper: The Decay of Western Civilization: Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection published online 2 April 2011, and printed in 2012 in Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 53, issue 2, 118-125).

Three Danish academics found that this publication is devastating for the trustworthiness of Danish Research. They further found that “Steps have to be taken to stop researcherswho assist political organizations in ‘white-washing their propaganda material’, in such a way that it becomes part of peer-reviewed’ international research and is used in the public debate as authorized knowledge”.

They accordingly filed a case against me on 12 September 2011 at the The Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), established under The Ministry for Research, Innovation, and Higher Education in Denmark. On 28 October 2013 DCSD found me guilty of scientific misconduct, and requested that the Decay paper be withdrawn from the international scientific literature–with no options for appeal.

As you will see below, the verdict is based on flawed premises (The Case), and the governmental committee was exploited as a useful tool in a long-standing systematic, goal-directed, politically motivated, left-oriented attempt to censure psychometric and differential psychology (The Background) by the three academics.

Could I ask you to take a moment and read The Case and The Background. I believe this will enable you to decide whether the Decay paper is an example of white-washing of “extreme right-wing propaganda” to be withdrawn from scientific literature, or rather that we here can identify a politically motivated, and governmentally supported, attempt to censure “controversial” science, which presents a threat to free science, and calls for counteraction.

In the latter case, you may wish to write a note with your qualified considerations (with your name, position, and affiliation at the top) to the minister responsible for the proceedings of DCSD, with a copy to the addresses given below (Your considerations may take point of departure in one or more of the questions lined up under Perspectives).

  • Morten Østergaard, Minister for Research, Innovation, and Higher Educations (min@fivu.dk).
Morten Østergaard

Morten Østergaard

With copies or other notes to:

  • The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (uvvu@fi.dk; a description in English of DCSD can be found here.
  • Rector, Aarhus University (au@au.dk), where Mammen and Kjeldgaard are, and to
  • Rector, Aalborg University (aau@aau.dk) (where the third plaintiff–Jens Kvorning–works).

I would appreciate receiving a copy as well (helmuthnyborg@hotmail.com).

Please feel free to forward this invitation to anybody you think might also worry about censure of international science.

If you need further information, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Helmuth Nyborg

Prof. emer., dr. Phil.

helmuthnyborg@hotmail.com; Mobile +45 24241655

The Case

Two psychologists, professor emer., dr. phil. Jens Mammen from Aarhus University, Denmark, and assistant professor Jens Kvorning at Aalborg University, and molecular biologist, lic. Scient., Morten Kjeldgaard at Aarhus University, filed on 12. September 2011 a case for scientific misconduct against Helmuth Nyborg (HN) to the official Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) under the Ministry for Research, Innovation, and Higher Education, in Denmark.

The complaint relates to the publication of HN’s paper The Decay of Western Civilization: Double Relaxed Darwinian Selection, first published online on 2. April 2011, and then printed in 2012 in Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 53,issue 2, 118-125.

The accusations1

The plaintiffs filed a very long list of accusations, which vary far and wide in scope and nature: Improper use of academic titles; extensive plagiarizing; misleading and manipulative application of data; misleading reference; HN did not properly describe the unusual and misleading statistical methods; data and methods lack transparency; another person has written substantial parts of the paper, but this is deliberately not being acknowledged; we see a case of illegal “Ghost Authorship”; there exists a “hidden” contract between the HN and an economist (JEV), who is secretly hired as consultant to supply commercially available demographic data for money; the hidden deal is that his name should be kept secret; the paper exemplifies uninformed taking over of other peoples’ ideas, methods, and arguments; there are hidden preconditions for use of the method applied; HN presents misleading interpretation of his own results and conclusions; HN deliberately omits data from other sources that would weaken the conclusions; HN deliberately ignores the fact that birth rates are declining in practically the whole world; HN deliberately ignores relevant and contradictory data from Danmarks Statistik Bank; HN misapplies “all the talk” about genetics and Darwinian selection as purely ornamental [staffage]; HN intends to provide his paper with an undeserved biological/genetic authority; HN misinforms his readers by pretending support from natural science; HN took advantage of personal relationships with the international journal that printed his paper, in order to publish plagiarized and misleading research in a special issue in the journal, for which he was the editor; the Decay article is an example of downright promotion of right extremist propaganda; the Decay article serves the secret purposes of a right-extremist organization (Den Danske Forening); the Decay article weakens the international trustworthiness of national Danish research, because it is secretly subjected to external, strongly politically motivated, interests.

1Please note that all translations here and later from Danish are mine.

The verdict

After more than two years of proceedings, the DCSD came on 28. October 2013 to a conclusion: Out of the long list of accusations, two had substance:

1.      HN has presented a misleading reference to a data source. This is scientific misconduct and compares to uninformed construction of data or substitution with fictive data.

2.      The majority (4) finds HN guilty in wrongfully assuming the role of sole author. The minority (2) finds that HN had not indicated wrongful authorship.

DCSD accordingly requested that the Decay paper shall be retracted from the international literature in accordance with Paragraph 15, stk. 1, no. 2.

DCSD stressed that there is no option for appeal.

Reply

I will in this brief reply argue that the verdict is based on substandard premises, which do not justify retraction of the paper. Because the verdict cannot be appealed, I will appeal for your support, based on the following arguments.

Ad.1. Misleading reference

Based on an evaluation by an external expert (Lisbeth B. Knudsen; LBK, Aalborg University, DK), the committee concluded that the reference to UN birth data was misleading, because it was used to support data, which are not found there.

This is incorrect. The reference leads correctly to the data used for analysis.

However, I made an error of omission, when I failed in the methodology section to describe a proportional parameter transformation. This transformation was needed, because the UN Fertility Rates at the correctly referenced data source could be used as input in the mathematical projection model only if transformed to Crude Birth Rates. A few words serve to illustrate the function of this straightforward data parameter transformation and why it has no consequences whatsoever for the conclusion.

When two countries have similar Total Fertility Rates (the UN measure presented at the correctly referred data source), and close to or similar age distribution, then there will be born close to or a similar number of children per 1.000 per year (Crude Birth Rates) in the two countries. Contrary-wise, if two countries have very different Total Fertility Rates, and comparable age distributions, then the number of children born per 1.000 per year will be very different in the two populations.

The transformation of one measure into the other by proportionality calculation has nothing to do with construction of data, neither with substitution with fictive data. An estimation of data, based on variables and parameters, differs fundamentally from producing fictive data.

The obvious character of this operation is the most likely reason why several anonymous international review specialists did not ask HN to add the description of it to the methodology section, well knowing that the paper was under heavy space restrictions (max. 5.000 words total). They also knew that the parameter transformation makes no difference whatsoever to the conclusion of the study.

Fig. 1 from Prof. Nyborg's paper. Immigrants have higher birth rates than Danes.

Fig. 1 from Prof. Nyborg’s paper. Immigrants have higher birth rates than Danes.

However, as soon as this omission was seen as problematic, HN submitted an Addendum to the publisher, explaining the proportional data transformation (with a copy to DCSD). Issuing such Addenda is the normal scientific procedure for correcting omissions, even if the omission changes nothing of substance. It is considered good scientific practice, rather than serious breach of same.

The external expert (LBK), who advised DCSD, also stated that she had not previously in the literature encountered a mathematical [population] projection model with IQ. This observation is of particular relevance in connection with accusations for “unusual”, “uninformed”, or “misleading” application of methods. However, the expert opinion cannot be considered part of a critique, but rather a statement of a fact: The systematic population development – IQ coupling is, to the best of my knowledge, a new, creative, and highly useful construction, not to be found elsewhere in the demographic literature.

Finally, LBK apparently did not realize that the committee only asked her to comment on the formula for population development without IQ–the one which was correctly presented in the Decay article in the form of a simple mathematical population projection model. The fact that IQ was later coupled to the outcome of this population model in the form of a simple multiplication and a weighted average is neither a matter for judgment in the present court case, nor for the external expert on demographics to comment on, and it is certainly not relevant for the question of scientific misconduct.

Ad.2. Flawed accusations about hidden authorship

The DCSD committee was divided with respect to the accusation that HN had deliberately disguised the existence of an important co-author (JEV), had secretly used him as a so-called Ghost-writer, or simply had wrongfully claimed sole authorship.

The majority (4) found him guilty of intentionally and wrongfully claiming sole authorship, and further stated, that “The majority finds that even if he [the accused] refers to the Vancouver Rules [in his reply], this does not change this evaluation, because the Vancouver Rules were not followed.”

This decision is as easy to counter at their first. The paid economist (JEV) did not write one word in the paper, but he did suggest changes to, and proof-read, and corrected the short methodology section with respect to proper use of the population projection model.

He further acted as a consultant on how the data were optimally and correctly treated in the population model (which, by the way, differs in application from his own model). The model was needed to circumvent deficits in the officially available data on births for the present purpose. I needed numbers for birth by country of origin, so the officially given numbers by legally ascribed citizenship were of little use. Moreover, the number of immigrants and their children of foreign origin at any time status point was also absent. These problems with the official data are described in the Decay paper.

I wanted to appreciate JEV’s contribution to the analysis, so I wrote twice (documentable) to him, and invited him to co-author the paper. By so doing I unknowingly deviated from the qualifications of the Vancouver Protocol for authorship. This protocol states that in order to be credited as an author, each and every author on a publication needs to have been involved in the:

1.      Conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data

AND

2.      Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content

AND

3.      Final approval of the version to be published.

I informed DCSD that JEV did qualify only on the first of these points – analysis and interpretation of data. However, DCSD did not consider it relevant that JEV twice declined my invitation for co-authorship, and that he had not written one word in the paper. To the contrary, the majority finds that HN’s “… reference to the Vancouver Rules does not change [their] evaluation, because the Vancouver Rules were not followed”.

In other words, if a paid data consultant declines an invitation to appear as co-author, the DCSD decision leaves a scientist with three choices: 1. To physically force him to put his name on the paper (as co-author or in an acknowledgement), which I believe is against the law, 2. To not publish it, which I believe is against the interests of science, or 3. To respect his decision to leave out his name, publish the paper, and risk being accused of scientific misconduct.

DCSD decided that I had deliberately left out JEV’s name and wrongfully brought myself in the role as sole author of the paper.

Perspectives

The case raises questions.

In general, is it in the best interest of science, that:

  • A group of self-admitted politically motivated academics can be allowed to shortcut the ordinary scientific process in the way described?
  • The submission of an addendum to supply missing methodological information equals gross scientific misconduct?
  • A Danish governmental committee issues requests for withdrawing published international peer-reviewed research?
  • An acting Dean and groups of academics can get away with making false accusations against a large segment of academia, respected professional journals, international conferences, societies and associations, named colleagues, and sympathetic journalists (see next section)–accusations of political right-wing extremist sympathies that the targets of these accusations actually despise–and without even notifying these individuals and groups of their accusations?
  • A national committee takes consequential actions on basis of neglecting important information about how the correctly referred data was used and about co-authorship?
  • A national committee disregards the criteria of the Vancouver Rules?

censorship

More specifically, the case also raises questions, which are partly related to DCSD, partly to the practice at other universities:

  • Some prominent Danish law commentators find that DCSD creates new standards for proper scientific conduct, and then raise them to such a high level, that they become counterproductive to science. Do you agree that the standards were raised too high in the present case?
  • Would similar circumstances elicit similarly serious personal consequences at your university?
  • Would a missing description of a proportional parameter transformation – corrected later by submission of an Addendum – equal scientific misconduct at your university?
  • Is it acceptable, and legally defensible, when a committee demands a paid data consultant to sign a paper against his will – in particular when the consultant himself argues that he neither conceived the paper, nor drafted it, nor approved the final version of it?
  • Is it acceptable in this situation to leave you with the decision to either sacrifice the project or risk being accused of scientific misconduct?
  • Has your university issued unequivocal directions for under which circumstances a paid data consultant or other assistants are required to appear as co-authors, or is this rather a question of internal and informal agreement among interested parties?
  • Do you find that a university has an obligation to protect its scientists against politically motivated attacks, in particular when they do politically “incorrect” research, instead of exposing them?
  • Do you find that a university Dean, a Director, and an ordinary faculty member should be disciplined, when they lie in order to harm or block a particular research project or smear a “politically incorrect” scientist or groups of scientists, in the eyes of the public?
  • What are your thoughts about rectors who gloss over such events?
  • What do you think of rectors, who state that “My primary duty is to care for the good reputation of the university, but I will also go far to defend freedom of research as expression”?
  • Do you agree with Steven Pinker, who on 9. December 2009 wrote to then Rector Laurits B. Holm-Nielsen at Aarhus University, that “If he [Nyborg] is incorrect, that will be established by a community of scholars who examine his evidence and arguments and criticize them in open forums of debate, not by the exercise of force to prevent him from pursuing his research. These are the tactics of a police state, and bring shame on any institution that uses them”?

Before these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I shall neither accept DCSD’s basic premises for the verdict, nor the accusation for having committed scientific misconduct in two cases, nor the request to withdraw the Decay paper.

However, as my local defense line has been run down, I am interested in learning about your response to one or more of the above mentioned questions, and in you making it known.

The background

Science is self-correcting. When a paper on an important matter is published with invalid methods or questionable conclusions, other researcher will soon correct this, and science moves on.

The three plaintiffs use the opposite strategy. They never publish their critique in the relevant international specialist-forum, where the Decay article is printed. Instead they submit a veritable broad-side of very different accusations to local and national newspapers and committees, hoping that at least some of them sticks. In this way they can be sure to shun critical responses from specialists in the areas, and instead correspond with the occasional invited external reviewer who does not always address the relevant questions. This strategy is not intended to promote science, but rather to obstruct scientists working in psychometrics, differential psychology, behavior genetics, or with evolutionary theory, which they dislike and see as right-wing extremism.

The plaintiffs are even admirably candid about their strategy. In fact, they politically motivated their critique of the Decay paper when they wrote to DCSD, to the Trade Union Periodical (Forskerforum), and when addressing the public press. As previously mentioned, they find that its publication is devastating for the trustworthiness of Danish Research, so  “Steps have to be taken to stop researchers, who assist political organizations in ‘white-washing their propaganda material’, in such a way that it becomes part of ‘peer-reviewed’ international research and is used in the public debate as authorized knowledge”. In this they line up with the actions of American similarly left-wing oriented groups of academics who describe themselves as fire brigades, who feel obliged to put out all scientific right-wing inspired fires they find morally or politically offensive (conf.  for references) . These groups have long attacked well-known American scientists, and done much damage to American intelligence research over the years

The plaintiffs’ current actions also have a long past in Denmark. When HN in 1997 chaired the Biannual Meeting of The International Society for the Study of Individual Difference (ISSID), where most of the international elite-researchers on intelligence and personality were invited to Aarhus, one of the plaintiffs–Morten Kjeldgaard–publicly afterward compared the scientific events taking place at this open scientific meeting to what happened during the worst periods of Hitler’s and Stalin’s periods (www.eugenik.dk). He also questioned the funding of this political “pseudo-science.” Kjeldgaard has ever since closely monitored all HN’s activities, private as well as professional, and published his observations at his home page or in the public press. He associates offensive personal descriptions to photographs of named members of ISSID and The international Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR). He often refers to, misinterprets, or condemns lectures that HN either presents or attends. He routinely scorns those few who dare describe HN’s research objectively.

Aarhus University

Aarhus University

The second plaintiff, professor emer., dr. phil. Jens Mammen, recommends HN’s former colleagues and anybody else to follow Kjeldgaard’s continuously updated homepage. He also deliberately misrepresents HN’s previous project on sex differences (see http://www.helmuthnyborg.dk/ and Answers to questions raised by concerned colleagues below).

The plaintiffs never respected the request of DCSD–to keep proceedings secret until the final verdict–and they even leaked HN’s “confidential” responses to the Trade Union Membership periodical (Forskerforum) and to the daily press. The left-oriented periodical systematically misconstrued the case and raised a biased public debate, but denied HN proper response. When HN protested, the various academic Trade Unions behind the periodical (Magisterforeningen, DJØF, and others) simply referred to editorial freedom, and did nothing to prevent the clearly biased attack on one of their own members.

Such a strategy is guaranteed to succeed. Few research projects are entirely flawless and finding just one error – intended or not – suffices to claim evil intentions, given proper malice. This is why the Decay article at the same time enjoys a good reception (it is fairly well cited) in critical international circles, but is being considered a prime example of extreme propaganda and scientific misconduct in Denmark, eagerly saluted by a sympathetic press.

DCSD’s procedure in the Decay-case is cause for worry for scientists both in Denmark and abroad. Biased colleagues can now exploit official committees by turning them into a People’s Court against basically defenseless scientists of all colors. All it takes is to fabricate a series of accusations, then leak confidential hearings to a sympathetic press, and finally to prevent the accused from a proper response. The plaintiffs were, in fact, able to correctly predict with confidence the outcome of current process, months before the actual verdict was available.

The verdict gives food for thought for young scientists. They have from now on to make absolutely certain, that not even the slightest error or misunderstanding or omission occurs in their manuscript or reference list. Just one silly error or omission may ruin their career forever. This obviously is not productive for creative science. As a reviewer and editor for a life-time, I routinely came across multiple minor, and sometimes also major errors, even in papers from the best in the field. Ordinarily, none of these faults are ill-willed, but even if they were, all the important ones will be eagerly corrected by competent critiques in the relevant open scientific fora – also those which went under the radar of the reviewers. The less important errors will mercifully die out in the fullness of time.

There is accordingly no need for institutions like DCSD, which are bound by narrow legal rules and only partly enlightened by specialized scientific insight. The Decay case is a first-class illustration that determined colleagues can misuse DCSD to serve their personal and political purposes, in order to impede politically incorrect science like intelligence research. They turned the committee into a useful misconstruction, which ought to be closed down as soon as possible.

In conclusion, the Decay case illustrates a full-scale attempt to try and close down research in important areas of science – demography, psychometrics, differential psychology, behavior genetics, and evolutionary theory.

I urge all objectively oriented academics to react strongly against such attempts to censure papers in these areas. I urge you to take active countermeasures. As they say: Bad things happen when good men remain silent.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    You mean to tell me that an entire government has declared a war on science?

    Someone tell the Democrat Party, so they can ride to the resc…

    …Oh wait, this is about race.

    Then don’t tell them. They’ll only add more censorship.

    • Le Fox

      There, there…the same thing happened for global warming. Remember that?

  • Stogumber

    I didn’t understand how a paper already published shall be “withdrawn from international literature”.

    • Rhialto

      Joe Paterno , football coach of Penn State, was deprived of football victories that no one questioned were rightful his. Why? A retired assistant coach, Sandusky, was convicted of sex crimes; Joe Paterno may have been aware of them. I also read about a masters degree thesis being retroactively rejected in France because of the anti-Liberal attitudes of the author.

      When dealing with Liberals the absurd becomes the usual.

      • John R

        Don’t get that story into this. We are discussing issues of race realism. Don’t confuse the issue! “Joe Pa” covered up for child rape! If he lived he would have been prosecuted most likely-and rightfully so! Libs? Even THEY are right some of the time. “Even a broken clock…”

        • IstvanIN

          I think the point is it is absurd to rewrite history just to prove a point. Penn State won those football games and it is absurd to now say they didn’t. Just as it is absurd to reject a thesis after it was accepted because of the political views of the author or to censor the truth because it makes those who commit treason against their own people uncomfortable.

      • NM156

        Joe Paterno is a de facto child molester. Long may his football record be covered in shite.

        • Blue-eyed Devil

          Harsh words for one of the greatest coaches of all time in college football. I hope you feel even more strongly about O.J. Simpson (AKA “The Brentwood Butcher”).

          • Anon

            I take great solace in the thought that Simpson is woken up each morning by a gang rape and vicious beating.

        • KingKenton

          Even as a young boy / teenager, I knew there was something “wrong” with Paterno. Just had that feeling. I was really nauseated when I found out that Penn. St. fans referred to the man as, ‘Papa Joe’. Say what? Talk about a cult. Disgusting…

        • Anon

          The problem isn’t with Paterno. Every society has its criminals. Sane societies hang them, traditionally at dawn, immediately after the are discovered. Dead criminals victimize no one and that is the end of the matter.

          The problem is our society is so very sick that a huge number of people were so weak and desperate to root their identity in something that they wanted to give Paterno a pass as a child molester. Their attitude was so what if he molested children, he’s a great coach and without him, my team won’t win and that is more important.

          So many people felt this way and so strongly that they rioted. Quite frankly, every single one should have been hung right next to Paterno. Why? Because their very existence threatens society. People degenerate to THAT extent don’t last long and cannot be trusted.

          What type of society venerates child molesters? Crazy and evil ones. Certainly, no one from THAT group of people is welcome among MY type of people, if you catch my drift. Sodom and Gomorrah burned. And those that looked back after fleeing turned to salt.

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            One of my ex-friends was a child-molester. Do I hate him? You bet I do.

            I will also say that back in the day he was a good man: the sort who would bring his own truck to help somebody move.

            People are complicated animals. You don’t get all of one thing. You don’t even get to order character traits as if off a Chinese restaurant menu. What you get are just people.

            He molested children, lied and stole and signed a false police report against me. He also beat up one of his girlfriends so badly she miscarried their child.

            He’s seven years into a three-to-life sentence now. He can’t run down the clock and MRD (mandatory release date) his sentence. His termination date is December 31, 8888, so unless he plans on living to be 6913, he can’t do it.

            On the other hand, I can not – and wouldn’t even want to – take back the good things about him before he decided to be a dirtbag. If he has to wear the dirt for the rest of his life, he also gets to keep the good things as well.

            Perhaps this sort of thinking is why I am still home after 10 years.

    • The Final Solution

      The Journal of Personality and Individual Differences is a highly regarded academic journal for his field too. This is a witch hunt, pure and simple. I haven’t looked at his study or his methods but there’s no way it could be on par with that rubbish associating gun owners with racism or the one that found aggressive looking people are more likely to be racists. That stuff is pseudo science at its worst.

    • Defoe

      You’re right to a point, but from now on whenever some other researcher tries to use the paper as a reference, the point can be made that “that paper has been discredited; it was bad science”.

      • Fr. John+

        You mean, like Darwinism as a means for giving non-Whites, ontological status? Look at my post about ‘Darwin and Stowe in the clinch,’ over at White Christ wordpress, etc. Darwin wrote what he did, because, as an amalgamationist, he was worried that science was showing that non-Whites have less IQ than whites, and he INVENTED the theory of evolution, to counter what Victorian science was proving to be fact! This ‘tyranny of the magisterium’ has been going on for a LOOOOONG time. Just ask Galileo.

        • ThomasER916

          I hate when people name-drop Galileo. It’s smacks of the J.I.M. name-dropping tactics.

  • JDInSanD

    I’m often angered by many of the stories here and heartened by the response of the commenters but

    this…just…scares…me.

  • ThatguyinTN

    So if you even enter the realm of race you must scientifically prove it to extreme standards just so it can be labelled junk science on a technicality or even if everything is done perfect it be labelled racist and socially discredited. While on the other hand it can be claimed we are all equal with no scientific research or proof and no one can scream foul on that?

    Yep hell in a handbasket.

    • Sick of it

      The people pushing egalitarian ideology the hardest know quite well that not everyone is the same.

  • John R

    Danish government is trying to censor information about race they don’t like? Terrible! Tell the Danes that unless they put a stop to this their country might become as bad as…..THE UNITED STATES!

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      That Lisbeth Knudsen “person” looks fat enough to pass for an American. I thought European women were supposed to look better than that. They’re well on their way!

  • Spartacus

    Maybe the Danish government should rewrite the entirety of human knowledge to fit with their idiotic marxist agenda…

    • Non Humans

      You mean that they dont? Im surprised.

  • dd121

    Our white ancestors protected us from multiple muslim invasions over the last 1500 years. Now our marxist political leaders want to open the gates and let the invades slaughter us. This is utter suicidal madness.

    • ms_anthro

      The elites surely think they’ll be spared. These psychopaths really think they’ll be able to control brown, low-IQ hordes of primitive peasants that follow a convert-or-die ideology disguised as a religion. UN Agenda 21 spells it out. Kill off most of the world’s people and keep a nice herd of worker drones/slaves to serve the elite. They want almost the entire planet turned into a nature preserve for themselves. One wonders who offered them such a tempting deal? Certainly not our Creator.

      Anyway, their hubris will be their downfall, as always. They have to be stopped before they take the rest of us down with them. It’s time for the West to abandon its corrupted, rotting old institutions and build new ones. If they’re going to discredit objective reality because it doesn’t fit their agenda, don’t fight them. Walk away and rebuild. We don’t need them to thrive but they do need us.

      Starve the beast.

    • ThomasER916

      They also protected us from Juice. Jared Taylor and John Engleman will sell us out for their crypto-rabbis.

  • MBlanc46

    “The Danish Committees for Scientific Dishonesty”.
    That’s the sort of thing I would have expected from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Shame on Denmark, shame.

    • JohnEngelman

      It reminds me of the House Committee on Un American Activities. Back then the right suppressed intellectual freedom. Now the left does.

      • Jesse James

        If the House Committee on Un American Activities had done much more we would have a much better country today. We should have barred thousands of academics from teaching and banished or imprisoned known communist.

        • ms_anthro

          Indeed. After the reset, our founding documents must contain ironclad clauses that prevent them from being amended. Rights cannot be amended away. Politicians that suggest amending those founding documents must be removed from office immediately.

          Our unwillingness to fight back is what got us into this mess. Our enemies use “tolerance” as a bludgeon against anyone and anything they don’t want to tolerate. No more.

        • JohnEngelman

          During the Cold War Communist espionage was a legitimate concern. Communist subversion was not. Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers had every right to peacefully influence government policy and public opinion.

          Democracy works best when the voters are exposed to many different points of view and facts.

          • Martel

            The subversives where victorious, did you miss the entire “trivialize communist crimes and turn students into little leftist radicals” spectacle which has unfolded since the sixties?

            Did you miss speechcodes being instituted in universities across the nation?

            Did you miss the victory of communists in dictating the views represented in the American Historical Review and many other academic publications?

          • JohnEngelman

            Any effort to inhibit intellectual freedom is wrong, whether it is exerted by the right or the left.

          • Sick of it

            Guess you wouldn’t have enjoyed living in ancient Greece, John. And the Greeks were some of the smartest people in the history of our world (unlike modern pseudo-intellectuals).

          • ThomasER916

            Look up the History of “The New School” where “The Tribe” was given false credentials to teach in the new schools and colleges created by the GI Bill. When it became a Graduate School in 1933 it served as nothing more than a way for the Tribe to bilk Americans out of tax money and pave the way for the 1965 Immigration Act. This, like everything anti-white in our history and government, has been covered up but the records are still there. So-called “refugees” arriving off the boats from Europe and within a year or less they have graduate degrees.

            Doesn’t this sound like our colleges today?

            You’re trying to talk sense into someone who agrees with this because they’re his Tribe. Not you. He hates you. You’re just a buffer between him and the collective actions he still supports that inflicted this mass anti-White, anti-Western immigration upon us. The truth is every boat should have been sank.

          • Sick of it

            Indeed, certain “refugees” entering this country in the 1910s and 1920s have completely altered the nature of the American nation. They have committed treason and yet are protected, making them above the law. For now anyway. Americans in the past were wise not to trust foreigners.

          • ThomasER916

            The 1925 Immigration Act protected us for a few generations but their hooks were digging in. They gave our nuclear technology to their Tikkun Olam Empire and by 1965 they’ve given away our nation. Now they’re scrambling to infiltrate and subvert all sides so they’ll have another Ship of Fools to ride on when America and the West sinks.

          • Martel

            The communists not only subverted US politics, making it what it is today, they destroyed academic freedom.They supported an enemy which had every intention to destroy all values we hold dear, this is not an issue of intellectual freedom. Since you are in the age category in which you could have recognized and analysed this phenomenon, you could have spoken up about it. But naturally you are again, clueless, another item on your list of failures. I’m very grateful for all the marxist professors, marxist politicians crawling around and over the white house, and speechcodes in every university, thank you!

          • Jesse James

            Actually communist subversion was and is a legitimate concern. The communist and their fellow travelers have a stranglehold on education in this country and it must be overturned.

            You state “Being exposed to different points of view and facts” is necessary for the best working of democracy. Is this what you think is happening in America today? Do you think the schools, MSM and government present a range of opinion, political philosophy, and policy? I think you know better than that and you have yourself stated that in matters of real genetic and behavioral racial differences these institutions hold positions that are unsupportable scientifically and actively work to cover up the real truth of HBD. Do you suppose that it is only matters of race that academia and the government are wrong about?

          • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

            The American Communist Party crossed the line in a big way when they accepted funds from outside the United States. Doing this meant that it stopped being an American movement and reverted to being a foreign one that American traitors were attempting to help impose here.

          • Mergatroyd

            I defy you to refute one word of this well-researched essay.

            www [ ] darkmoon [ ] me/2013/under-jewish-rule-by-lasha-darkmoon/comment-page-1/#comments

            You have also claimed many times on this board that Jews do not control the media. They not only control the media, they control all major banks, the U.S. and other Western governments, upper academia and the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve

            Who Controls America?: //the-tap [ ] blogspot [ ]co [ ]uk/2013/11/who-controls-america [ ]html

            But, as others here have said, like the apologist and Cultural Marxist that you are, you’ll ignore any facts and data that are presented to you and carry on with your anti-white narrative.

            You have nothing pertinent to say and have driven off many of the best posters, which is a shame.

          • JohnEngelman

            Your first article said that the Jews ruined Germany. Nevertheless, Germany today has one of the most successful economies in Europe, second only to the Social Democracies of Scandinavia.

            Otherwise the article complained about Jewish prominence in fields requiring superior intelligence. The Jews have that intelligence. That is why they are so rich and powerful.

          • Mergatroyd

            Just as I thought. You couldn’t refute a single word of either article.

          • JohnEngelman

            What was there to refute? There were just a bunch of hostile attitudes, and the completely unfounded assertion that Jews somehow ruined Germany. Jews enrich every country the live in with their talent. The only people who do not like them are subhumans who cannot compete with them.

          • JohnEngelman

            If I drove off any posters that was because they could not respond to my fact based and logical arguments. Some people just simply cannot handle the truth.

        • Mergatroyd

          Agreed. McCarthy held up a list of Communists working in the state department. He had a right to be worried, as did the American people. Eastern Europe and China had fallen to Communism, The Soviets had the atomic bomb and high level spies such as Alger Hiss had been exposed.

          McCarthy and his hearings were hugely popular at first, including support from the Kennedy family. In a single week thirteen million Americans all over the nation signed petitions to the U.S. Senate in support of McCarthy

          When he started exposing high level, NWO Communists in the ruling establishment, however, the media, led by William Paley and Edward R. Murrow came after McCarthy with a vengeance, smearing McCarthy with hit pieces on TV and in the newspapers. President Eisenhower, who had previously supported McCarthy (so he said) came out against him. McCarthy himself said there was a “conspiracy so immense.”

          McCarthy died at age 48, most likely the victim of a poisoning, the official death certificate states “inflammation of the liver.” His death was unexpected and sudden, occurring about an hour after he had taken a turn for the worse on the fourth day after he entered the hospital.

          To this day, McCarthy’s image is vilified and dragged through the mud.

          McCarthy’s Wisconsin Senate seat is now held by Lesbian Marxist, Tammy Baldwin.

          www [ ] rense [ ] com/general94/frr [ ] htm

      • Martel

        The soviet archives have long exonerated the committee, but the fact that you are unfamiliar with this again proves how clueless you are concerning globalization and ethnic conflict.

        • ms_anthro

          He’s not unfamiliar, just dishonest. A truth allergy is common to all Marxists, because Marxism is incompatible with both human nature and objective reality.

          • JohnEngelman

            When have I ever lied about anything?

      • MBlanc46

        And they’re still trying to push creationism on us.

  • IstvanIN

    ……and a new dark age descends upon us. The enlightenment was great while it lasted. Now where is that asteroid or virus to put an end to all this.

    • ms_anthro

      No need to kill the body to cure a cancer. Let’s cut out the tumors first and see if it can be saved.

  • The Final Solution

    I love the expression “authorized knowledge”. That doesn’t even sound a bit Orwellian.

  • gemjunior

    I’m writing to them and my main point will be that it is beneath contempt to ban what you don’t agree with. Also point out that other learned and educated men have published on these “sensitive” matters and give their names. And that they should be ashamed of themselves for bringing shame on what used to be known as academia and their inability to adhere to facts no matter what emotion may or may not be attached. To be considered a man of science or academia and unable to divorce oneself from “feelings” of oneself or of others on a matter, is just craven.

    • ms_anthro

      Do we have any talented cartoonists and satirists among us? These ridiculous people take themselves seriously. That has to be remedied. Mock them, and do it loudly. They’re flat-earthers parading around as scientists! They are beneath contempt.

      Derision is the best weapon against such buffoonery.

      • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

        See my post below.

      • gemjunior

        Yes, I read also that mockery and ridicule of a subject is a sign to everyone that nobody is being taken in by the b.s. It causes a sigh of relief to those who’ve been afraid and hiding their feeling and contemptuous laughter in those who already knew what these liars have been up to. I think you have a great idea in calling for some talented satirist to poke fun at them. And as you’ve pointed out , that’s their worst nightmare.

        • Mergatroyd

          This is why leftoids wish to control speech and the Internet, to prevent mocking and derision turned on them and to prevent the mass of sheeple from learning the truth about the lies that have been shoved down their throats.

      • Mergatroyd

        The devil does not like to be mocked, LOL.

        This is a tactic that has been used on US for decades now, particularly as pertains to White America, i.e., they’ve mocked our entire culture as “sterile,” “white bread,” “cold,” etc. We’ve been the subject of withering dersion for too damn long and it’s time we started to fight back, and some are.
        Saul Alinsky said: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

        Lefties have NO sense of humor when it comes to holding a mirror up to their sick, sadistic beliefs. Their reaction, like blacks, is violence or using to courts to shut you up (hate speech laws, etc.).

  • NM156

    Yes, I have, and Joe Paterno is a f**king scumbag. Howzat?

  • http://www.flowsimulations.com/ Claudius_II

    It does appear from the article that errors were minimal and the only standing item was a clarification of statistical procedure that was published in errata. I was thinking that some of the conclusions of the article were a little bold [although in my opinion correct and probably understated] but the response from the plantiffs is so nonobjective that this probably had nothing to do with it. They [the plantiffs or those trying to get the article retracted] seem driven by some overarching motive that compels them to knowingly resort to the most unscrupulous actions to achieve their ends.

    • rowingfool

      Claudius_II says; “They [the plantiffs or those trying to get the article retracted] seem driven by some overarching motive…”

      True, and that motive is that, in their own words; “Steps have to be taken to stop researchers, who assist political organizations in ‘white-washing their propaganda material’, in such a way that it becomes part of ‘peer-reviewed’ international research and is used in the public debate as authorized knowledge”

      In plain language, they are accusing him of what amounts to intellectual money laundering.

    • Mergatroyd

      Godless Cultural Marxists have replaced the powerless Catholic Church.

  • ShermanTMcCoy

    The Empire Strikes Back

  • JohnEngelman

    Those who maintain that the races are equal cannot win an honest debate so they resort to censorship.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    The case raises questions.
    .
    It does, and one question completely overrides the others. What legitimacy does any government have deciding scientific validity? Science already contains a more-than-adequate method of self-correction: peer review. Nothing else is required. Scientific inquiry, like speech, must be free; anything less is worthless.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      “Anything less is worthless.”

      Anything else is not “science”.

      In related news, the Danish government has ruled that pi is exactly equal to 3 and that e is exactly to 2, because the whole concept of irrational numbers is irrational, and might upset someone. Demands that the whole world scrap mathematics will be shortly forthcoming.

  • Blue-eyed Devil

    The truth hurts. Helmuth Nyborg is my new hero. I wouldn’t be surprised if the powers that be in Denmark blacklisted this poor man in his chosen for profession for daring to scientifically prove that Muslim immigrants will have a negative effect in that country.

  • emiledurk16

    A modern day Galileo.

    The attempt at academic ostracism is tantamount to 16th century house arrest.

    A few of the senior speakers at AR conferences have encountered a similar scenario.

    All the more stronger it makes my resistance.

    It’s very gratifying to see Jared make calm, reasoned and eloquent arguments in the hostile sea of academe today.

    Our cause is not lost by any means.

  • gemjunior

    That is the type of language used in China during the Cultural Revolution. One’s family could be imprisoned or tortured because they were related to a person who had “incorrect thoughts” or was “politically dubious”. To think that Denmark is even being remotely compared with the use of the type of language is shocking.

  • http://www.awpn.net/ Celestial Time

    Time now begins to be precious to you. Every day you lose, will retard a day your entrance on that public stage whereon you may begin to be useful to yourself. However, the way to repair the loss is to improve the future time. I trust, that with your dispositions, even the acquisition of science is a pleasing employment. I can assure you, that the possession of it is, what (next to an honest heart) will above all things render you dear to your friends, and give you fame and promotion in your own country. When your mind shall be well improved with science, nothing will be necessary to place you in the highest points of view, but to pursue the interests of your country, the interests of your friends, and your own interests also, with the purest integrity, the most chaste honor.

    —Thomas Jefferson, 1785

    When I contemplate the immense advances in science and discoveries in the arts which have been made within the period of my life, I look forward with confidence to equal advances by the present generation, and have no doubt they will consequently be as much wiser than we have been as we than our fathers were, and they than the burners of witches.

    —Thomas Jefferson, 1818

  • ms_anthro

    You misunderstood my larger point if you think I’m advocating apathy or blind trust in government documents. Notice words 2-4 of my previous post and think about them. I also said “Our unwillingness to fight back is what got us into this mess.” Seems pretty clear to me.

  • Martel

    Because pro-communist artists and entertainers, professors, union leaders and politicians flooded America and are still able to trivialize communist crimes and whip up resentment against the United States and free market economics today. The German Bund was never an actual threat, communist sympathizers have been able to radically transform American culture and politics.

  • ms_anthro

    Perhaps because an organized movement isn’t what we need, at least not in the sense that I understand you to mean it. Each person is a movement unto himself. One organization can be decapitated and easily dispersed by its enemies. Unconnected units working in tandem toward the same goal, but not unified by any identifiable leadership, are unstoppable. They pop up everywhere randomly and unexpectedly, like a game of Whack-A-Mole.

    Think creatively. Don’t despair–they want us to give up. They want us to believe they’re the Great and Powerful Oz, and not some craven, degenerate gangsters who managed to hustle and thieve their way into power. Don’t fall for it. They’re scared, overreaching, making stupid decision after stupid decision, pushing, pushing, pushing…stand back and let them seal their own fate. The wind they sowed a long time ago is almost ready for the harvest.

    Think of the USSR. When it finally collapsed, it was because everyday citizens had stopped pretending that the Party had any credibility or right to rule over them. They openly mocked the authorities. They had nothing left to lose and living the lie was less interesting than telling the truth. That day rapidly approaches in the US and other Western countries. The internet makes the process much faster.

    Keep writing. Keep talking. Keep telling the truth. Don’t be afraid and don’t let them make you think you’re alone. You aren’t, and it starts with each one of us.

    • Defoe

      Thanks for your encouraging words, and don’t think for a nano-second that I intend to give up! I spend a lot of time recruiting and advertising this site.

      What you describe reminds me of “leaderless resistance”. I agree to a point. However, at some point, “we” will need funding, and organization to push ourselves to where I want to be which is an ethnocentric country.

      Sorry, John, if I want to have some Chinese food, I’ll visit a Chinese country.

      • Ella

        I know the feeling. We have over 500 Chinese/Asian restaurants. I can hardly find 5-10 authentic Northern or Central European cuisine restaurants in the city. There are a handful of Mediterranean eateries but they close over time too. I’m sick of it.

    • Mergatroyd

      They’re not as powerful as they want us to think and they certainly are not invincible. There will be a righteous backlash in this country when our resources are cut off, i.e., water, food and land, once our very survival is in question. There may be a lot of dead, but we will prevail, we have before and will again, but to do this we must target our main enemy, polarize and neutralize him. This enemy is trying to genocide us and won’t stop until he’s finished.

  • panjoomby

    thank you for the links, i wrote a letter for Dr. Nyborg, below, with personal info removed:)

    …Personality and Individual Differences is a peer-reviewed journal. Science has no need of a superfluous higher court (which may or may not contain members with a conflict of interest). The latter is how people were found guilty of being a witch.

    Is the court familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s research on the potential for bad science if certain hypotheses are taboo? One wonders if the court is even familiar with Occam’s Razor.

    Psychology needs all the science it can get – it does not benefit from interference with the scientific process – which works best, as Dr. Haidt points out, when all hypotheses are allowed to be considered. to the court of would-be censors – it seems those who mean well commit the most heinous acts of all…

  • Jesse James

    The Bund was investigated by several government agencies which led to its loss of popularity. First its leader, Fritz Julius Kuhn, was investigated for embezzlement and sent to jail by the New York City District Attorney in an effort to cripple the German American Bund. He was convicted of tax evasion and embezzlement and sentenced to 2 1/2 to 5 years imprisonment on December 5th, 1939. One of his successors, Gerhard Kunz fled to Mexico in 1941 to escape prosecution for counseling Bund members to resist conscription.

    The House Committee on Un-American Activities DID investigate the German American Bund. Under the leadership of Senator Martin Dies they did work to prevent Nazi-sympathetic organizations from operating against America during the Second World War. Kuhn by the way was rearrested after being released from 43 months imprisonment in a New York state prison and imprisoned as an enemy alien by the Federal government and was released and deported to Germany in 1945.

    • JohnEngelman

      Thank you for telling me that.

      • ms_anthro

        It’s rich of you to crow about how you support even speech with which you disagree. I wrote a calm, reasonable post about Marxism a few places above this, and you promptly deleted it without a trace.

        You’re a joke.

      • Jesse James

        John if their is still such a thing as Americanism I think we would both agree that it was always moderate and marked by a dislike for extremism of any kind. More than even the imprisoning of the German American Bunds leadership it was the common decency of Americans in general, including the once enthusiastic supporters of the Bund, that ended the movement when the violent extremism of Nazism became clear. This is the same thing that ended the KKK. Common. American. Decency.

        The problem is that the conservative right had and has no answer for the step change that is often illustrated with the idea of the frog being boiled alive so slowly he never jumps out of the pot. We now find ourselves in a “future” present that is radical left beyond the imagining of the average citizen in even the 1980s. I remember believing that communism was not a threat because anyone who really studied the various attempts over the past century to put it into operation would realize its tendency to descend into totalitarianism and terror. When the Soviet Union collapsed I thought for sure it was the end of communism. Yet here I am with a President who is beyond doubt a communist in thought, word and deed. This to me is unacceptable.

      • ThomasER916

        I’ll be happy when all three are gone. The best part is I won’t have to do anything except convince whites not to protect them from Muslims. That should be fairly easy given your track record…

        TIm Wise
        SPLC
        David Sirota
        George Soros
        Gloria Steinem
        Lazar Kaganovich
        Herbert Marcuse
        Max Horkheimer
        Margaret Mead (covering up the hoax)
        Bill Ayers
        Abbie Hoffman

        Should I keep going?

        • JohnEngelman

          The Jews have outlived their enemies.

          • ThomasER916

            Keep posting your ethnocentric nonsense as you openly support that laundry list of anti-Whites on an Amren forum. Your support for massive non-white immigration to white nations makes you no different from anyone on that list.

          • JohnEngelman

            On several occasions I have pointed out that I am in favor of more restrictions on legal immigration, and a vigorous crackdown on illegal immigrants. I want them to be identified and deported. I want their employers to be punished.

            I like Orientals and Jews. Nevertheless, I recognize that all immigration has economic costs, particularly during a time of high and persistent unemployment.

            I do not believe that any white or Oriental country should admit black and/or Muslim immigrants.

  • Ella

    You stated, “The American Communist Party has never dominated education in the United States or any other institution.” Technically you are right about party affiliation. Hollywood may be different. However, many hard-line socialist Jews emigrated to the US during the rise of European Fascism (20-30’s) and especially post WW2. I studied humanities for many years, so I can trace these changes. At first, we may blindly celebrate these “new thinkers” being ignorant but we see the effects (socialist dominations in academia) now after 50 years. Once you control the media (storytellers), within months you can control the nation. (Socrates) HUAC should have looked at our public universities for a clean out starting with anthropology and sociology depts. We’re fighting Leftist hard-line socialism. Many Jews emigrating from Eastern Europe were less assimilated and held tightly to socialist and communist ideologies. American Jews even warned new immigrants to “knock off” their extremism if they want to be accepted in US society. Read some Jewish publications on the Internet; they openly discuss some of these social and political changes, John. When I had time, I did. A small minority group has such a major impact on our educational institutions that still baffles me.

    “If you give away your power, then, you will be controlled as someone else sees fit.”

    • JohnEngelman

      What you desire is a purge of left wing thinking from the academy and journalism. That is just as morally unjustified as purging arguments that the races are intrinsically unequal.

      • Ella

        There is no longer fair equal hiring practices to balance the Left in academia. An even enough spilt can be considered equal. They ask for lengthy diversity statements as part of upholding your contract at time of hiring and disclosure of clubs or affiliations. They scan for the Right and there is no close balance currently. Do you prefer to have a paid education being 90% Leftist influenced? Keep up and maintain the propaganda machine with these discriminatory hiring by gate keepers.

        “If you give away your power, then, you will be controlled as someone else sees fit.”

      • Defoe

        It’s not a matter of “…purge of left wing thinking…”, it is a matter of purging totalitarian thinking and an encouraging of freedom.

        Virtually all of the modern totalitarian thinking comes from the “progressives/left”. To see this clearly, simply look at most of dictatorships around the world. North Korea comes immediately to mind.

      • Jesse James

        Some balance is way overdue John, all we have now is the left, the far left and the insane left. That is not academic balance and it is not a good environment if we wish to have a society that can benefit from the best of all intellectual movements.

  • JohnEngelman

    Excuse me. What have the Venona files proven? That Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers were peacefully engaged in political activism? They had the right to.

  • Whirlwinder

    It is not a war on science. It is a war on freedom of speech, among other things.

    • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

      Science depends on freedom of thought and speech. In the old Soviet Union, for example, the Lysenko school did an incredible amount of damage to the sciences of biology and medicine. Lysenko was not merely wrong; he was a nincompoop, but the police state apparatus there ensured that no rational discussion could be made.

      • ThomasER916

        So was Sigmund Fraud. Can you name anyone who was cured of a mental illness using Greek Myths? Yet the Tribe created a web of propaganda, screaming “anti-Semitism” until people gave up and still considering him a “pioneer.” The same goes for Margaret Mead. Both belong to the Tribe of the Self-Chosen.

        Look up “Samoa Hoax”. What we find is Mead’s “Coming of Age” was pure anti-white, anti-western, anti-Christian propaganda as a Boasian protege and Frankfurt School Cultural Marxist. Try and point this out and you’ll still have the Cult screaming anti-Semitism. This is the same group that created the Political Correctness.

        Don’t worry! Here at Amren John Engleman will scream anti-Semitism and have you chased out.

        • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

          Even Freud once said “Sometimes a guitar is just a guitar.”

          • ThomasER916

            No he didn’t.

      • Mergatroyd

        So has Gould, whose idiot books are still being promulgated in upper academia as the ONLY acceptable IQ theory (IQ across races is the same).
        Anyone who deviates is roundly denounced, mocked and sometimes attacked physically.

  • Sick of it

    The Founders would be making war against the government and any retards who got in their way.

  • http://www.amren.com/ Michael Christopher Scott

    There are also people who claim that the world is hollow, in spite of the fact that any object the size and mass of the earth would pull itself into a solid sphere under its own gravity. Nobody is demanding that these cranks be censored, precisely because they’re just crackpots and everyone else can see it.

    It is only truths that some find politically inconvenient that spark demands for censorship and criminal penalties.

    • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

      And the worst part? The people who say the Earth is hollow get that four hour a night radio show at midnight telling you what “the government doesn’t want you to know” (that show is on 500 some odd radio stations, every single station has an FCC license), meanwhile, when was the last time Jared Taylor (who is really telling us what the powers that be, government or otherwise, doesn’t want us to know) was on any terrestrial media?

      • ThomasER916

        The Tribe only hates the Truth. They hate mirrors.

  • Jesse James

    The American Communist Party is just one organization in America and has never been very popular. Which is why the far left radicals (communists) have conducted their march through our institutions in dishonest and stealthy ways to push their agenda. Free discourse only works with people who respect others opinions and the process of intellectual give and take. Communists do no respect opinions that vary from their orthodoxy which is why they created the whole Politically Correct process that so stifles free thought and speech in America today. Tolerance doesn’t work unless all sides participate and place equal value on tolerance.

  • GOD

    The truth to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

    • Mergatroyd

      Welcome, Larry Elder.

  • Pro_Whitey

    I’m sure I’m not the first, but I’ll write it anyway. There’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.
    Also, this is a prime illustration of why universities are crawling with leftists. Do you think it’s just ‘cuz they so smart? No, it’s mostly because they crush the careers of those who don’t toe the line.

  • cloudswrest

    He still won the football games. Corrupting the historical record is wrong whether the guy was a scumbag or not.

  • WardKendall

    I’m not convinced that this case, on behalf of the defendant Helmuth Nyborg, is driven entirely by a clarion call for academic and scientific Truth. There are often other factors involved, often impelled by the frenetic pursuit of scientific funding and research grants from a finite pie of subsidies, and therefore not all complaints of this nature carry quite the noble banner into the fray as one might think.

    Be they Right or Left, scientists throughout the world know which side their bread is buttered upon, and so, quite often, any hint of a threat to their economic bottom line is raison d’être to launch into such a protest as this. One must always dig deeper and ask: Is it “truth” at stake here – alone? Or is cold hard cash at stake as well, in the form of elevated job positions, academic funding, grants from other sources, even income potentially generated from navigating the television talk-show circuit, especially where controversial scientific research spawns media interest?

    Because as much as I despise the machinations of the Cultural Marxists -be they Danish or American – I remain wary that such cases as this aren’t also driven just as much by financial greed as they are by “scientific truth”.

  • MartelC

    Its funny how the current global elite keep alive the idea they are the custodians of reason and learning, and that anything ‘right wing’ ‘national’ or christian is ignorant and anti-reason, anti science. but since the ‘enlightenment’ they secular humanist movement has been the most violent and intolerant

  • MartelC

    I visited the American Museum of Natural History in New York a couple of years ago. Throughout the museum they had aggressive neodarwin ‘volunteers’ that wanted to retread over Scope monkey trial. but at the end of the hall of evolution, they had a statement that ”
    ‘although we may have evolved different skin color, we’re all the same underneath’ and prominently displayed in their gift shop was a shelf dedicated to stephen j. gould, one of the biggest frauds of the 20th century.

  • gregCall

    Always remember when dealing with academia, if an idea is destructive to traditional society the leftist in academia will defend it and advance it all they can with the mantra that all ideas should be considered and nothing should be taboo. However if an idea comes forward that is conservative in nature or even deviates from leftist ideology sufficiently it is “dangerous and the public must be shielded from it.
    It’s purely hypocritical, but the left is nothing if not inconsistent.

  • Chip Carver

    Who’s footing the bill for the deniers of facts? That’s the real story. Once again our enemies actually working hand in hand with people(s) they claim are historical enemies, their biggest enemy and threat right now. Nothing but a smokescreen. In their collective mind, their biggest enemy is Whitey, and they feel Whitey has developed technology far enough to allow them to run the show forever. Something they can’t do if Whites are on this planet in appreciable numbers. Think about it.

  • Anon

    The interesting thing here is that they have a point. IQ itself is junk science, for the most part. As are all the soft sciences. More like 5% science and the rest politics, armchair theorizing, and lack of anything that makes them “scientific” other than appeals to non-existent authority.

    That being said, what the Danes are doing is ten times worse than anything they accuse Nyborg of doing.

    The bottom line. Race exists and forms the basis of culture and societies. Certain societies are CLEARLY superior to others in various ways. Often, however, societies inferior in one manner are often superior in another. Something anyone with even a small amount of experience in traveling abroad can tell you (which is why, in fact, people DO, travel abroad).

    The question is, are such clear and obvious differences, advantages, disadvantages, “scientific”. I would argue that they are not. Or, more importantly, the scientific method has nothing useful to say about these things and putting the label “scientific” on something is an abuse of the term to give someone’s opinion a weight it does not deserve. Almost all of the soft sciences fall into this category, which is why they should in fact, be removed as scientific disciplines. Common sense is not science. Neither is religion. Nor is any observation about culture nor individual personalities. All these things, in their time and on their own have failed the basic standards of “science”. Controlled observations of phenomena that can be measured, reproduced reliably and have a useful predictive element. All science is logical but not all logic is science.

    A useful analogy. Is a microscope the correct instrument for viewing a forest? No, it is not. And someone who views the forest from the sky has alot more useful things to say about it than the one who views it through a microscope.

    Will immigration cause dysgenics? It could. But probably not. Why. It hasn’t in the past.

    However, should you allow immigration? Of course not. There are sooooo many obvious, blatantly harmful problems being caused by it right now.

    Also, there is the red herring issue. While people nobody really cares about or has heard of, argue outside the view of 99.9999% of the population, about stuff that doesn’t matter, the real issue of the horrible problems happening right now from the immigration issue, go unaddressed.

    Such aren’t the business of people like Nyborg. They are the business of people who wear badges, guns and military uniforms…..these people are not doing their jobs and need to be replaced by people who will.

  • Anon

    The irony is, in that past, the muslim invaders were actually a threat. They planted crops, built cities etc. In other words, they could wage war and had supply lines.

    What muslims do that in white lands? None. Today, if we wanted to kick every single muslim out of every single white country, it would be as simple as cutting off their welfare. As invaders, they are pathetic. Unfortunately, their white victims are even MORE pathetic….having thrown away their guns, long ago.

    • dukem1

      1000 up-votes.

  • obot

    Liberals love to bring up science until it disproves their theories.

    • Mergatroyd

      That’s when they get really ugly, when they’re backed into a corner by facts that they cannot refute. That’s when they call YOU a racist and hater and threaten to get your fired from your job.

  • https://politicallogical.wordpress.com/ WideBridge

    it is better to just rewrite history in this case.

    Argh. An extremely bad statement. No matter what part of the political spectrum it comes from. It stands for everything I am against.

  • ThomasER916

    John Engleman is co-conspirator with the Litvaks. He’s actually happy they did it. Just read into his posts.

  • ThomasER916

    John’s exhibiting the Tribalism of the Self Chosen. You can’t talk any sense into him or use facts. You’d might as well try to reason with a Negro.

  • ThomasER916

    John is exposing himself and his Tribe in the comments. I want John to comment because people need to see how there is no reforming a pathological anti-White ideology. That’s precisely how we got here. He is not one of us. There would be no problems in South Africa if the Litvaks were shot on sight. There would be no problem in Sweden if they were wise enough to turn away a Ship of Fools. John believes, in his ethnocentric delusions, that he can subvert us with propaganda slogans. The problem with John is he doesn’t seem to understand how we got here. We’ve already resisted a lifetime of slogans and he thinks his rah-rah ethnocentrism, the kind we see on every Hollyweird movie and TV show will impress us? He’s pathological, but so is his culture, ideology and Tribe. And it seems that everyone but John and Jared understand there is no accepting the Tribe that did this to us.

    Keep posting and engaging. Watch the show. Tell your children what to look for through iron sights.

    • Mergatroyd

      Thank you for the very informative and well-written post.

      Even Kennedy tried and ultimately failed to resist the tribe. JFK and brother Bobby tried to get the American Zionist Council registered as an agent of a foreign government, but a certain assassination got in the way.

      JKF was also opposed to putting Israel first over America and fought bitterly with David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister over Israel becoming a nuclear-armed country, which Kennedy was dead set against. Ben-Gurion finally resigned.

      “Rep. Paul Findley, who was quoted in The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs in March, 1992, ‘During John Kennedy’s campaign for the presidency, a group of New York Jews had privately offered to meet his campaign expenses if he would let them set his Middle East policy. He did not agree … As the president, he provided only limited support of Israel.'”

      –Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment

      More here: http://www [ ] john-f-kennedy [ ]net/mossadandtheassassination [ ] htm

  • ThomasER916

    John is subverting. Read his posts carefully. He has no problem with mass non-white immigration and non-whites lording over whites. It justifies the actions of his Tribe.

  • http://whiteradical.blogspot.com/ white radical blogger

    if you really care about causing change, about stopping the invasion of nonwhite foreigners, then stop talking about IQ and start talking about who benefits from the invasion–the rich.

    Cui bono? Who benefits from mass immigration and how. Get some substance on that angle and you might get a wide audience.

    But you won’t do that. Why? Because just as the Liberals have been programmed to see only certain truths, so too have the conservatives been programmed to see other certain truths.

    Both sides have been cognitively crippled with propaganda.

    Or are you aiming for a readership of a select few that might give more money? Money or change? Which is more important?

    • Ella

      If you really want to fight a battle against immigration, start from an environmentalist perspective on the devastation of overpopulation and resource shortages within urban cities. We do NOT need more people, period, in Western nations! We can use robotics and machinery for any small labour shortages as our manufacturing base economy declines. Until human labour becomes more expensive, there tends to be less focus on any innovation.

      • Mergatroyd

        Organizations can be bought off like the Sierra Club to the tune of $100 million by David Gelbaum who donated the millions with the stipulation that the Sierra Club remain completely silent about immigration.
        So, while illegals tear up riparian desert landscapes along the southern border, tossing trash and trampling delicate plants, and setting up large marijuana farms in national parks ruining the “protected” landscape with fertilizers, clearing of flora and diverting and spoiling streams, the Sierra Club looks the other way.
        They are now a bought off, emasculated, useless organization.

        • Ella

          I knew about the Sierra Club scandal; I quit donating monies for the reasons stated. Maybe, one can start a new environmental club. Mr. Gelbaum and Madoff were also major contributors to ACLU, around 20-30 million p/y. You’re right; everyone is so bought out today. Even nonprofit ethnic clubs can be heavily controlled by certain donors. We are dealing with censorship and “heresy” charges currently where jobs, reputation and education depend on the social and political sphere. It’s a direct attack on family and individual. I’ve read Libtard Web pages that encourages the shaming and bullying at home or work of conservatives over gun ownership and illegal immigration issues.

  • Mergatroyd

    Sure, this is publicized for YOUR consumption, not their. Meanwhile, in THEIR country, they are busy expelling Africans.

  • Mergatroyd

    There are a lot of similarities between the anything goes, decadence of the Weimar Republic and modern day America. A lot of similarities in the economy too, with hyperinflation right around the corner.
    Communism violates human nature and that is why it eventually fails everywhere it’s been tried. Unfortunately, many tens of millions (USSR, Red China, Cambodia) die before the system implodes in on itself because it is NOT sustainable.

  • ThomasER916

    John is saying this because it justifies their existence. We hear from John and his ilk that Diversity is a necessary good. Why? It justifies their existence.

    Iceland is related to Sweden and Norway in genes and culture. Sweden took in a Ship of Fools and by 1975 Diversity was a necessary good. What’s the exact opposite of white Europeans and Christians? African and Arab Muslims. They must be good because all Diversity is a necessary good. Iceland never got a Ship of Fools and they have a great little country. Peaceful, quite, free from the International Entanglements that Ship brings with it.

  • Cold_Gravy

    Makes you wonder what other scientific studies have been censored?

  • Transpower

    This is why science should be privatized. If you run to the government for grants and handouts, you have to abide by the ideology of the ruling class.

  • cloudswrest

    If he had cheated in the sense of players using steroids, spied on (i.e. Watergate) the opposing teams strategies, etc. then yes, the victories would have been tainted. But even murdering babies, outside the purview of the football games, should have no relevance.

  • John R

    The scandal was brewing for weeks before Mr. Paterno’s untimely death. He had numerous opportunities to defend himself, not to mention most of the Penn State community defending him. He said nothing that would have excused his behavior. No, I am not “picking on” poor Mr. Paterno. He was handled with kid gloves. The people being picked on were the victims of Mr. Paterno’s good pal, Jerry Sandusky-who was permitted to rape young boys in the Penn State locker room long after Joe Pa found out about it. Seems Paterno’s death was very timely for his supporters. I regret that it happened. I would have loved to see him indicted.