Intelligence aside, we already know the gene responsible for intrinsic violent behaviour Monoamine oxidase A, and we already know that it varies in occurrence and levels between the races, with whites having the lowest reading; as to be expected with this research, already ‘ideological objections’ have been raised.

There is going to be a lot more than one gene involved in violent behaviour, and all genes express through interaction with the environment. MAOA is not the complete answer to racial crime differences, it only accounts for a minority of the expressed difference, but what it is is a proof of concept. It varies by race, and it has associations and relative risk stats every bit as good as those that are trivially and routinely accepted as those between certain genes and coronory heart disease, for example, and more so than many other genes which have an effect on human behaviour and are accepted as doing so routinely (e.g. the dozen or so genes that have been linked to schizophrenia or bipolar).

It may well be the case that blacks also have higher frequencies of genes that have effect to reduce their crime rates compared to whites, and that all those genes commulatively mean that whites and blacks have equal propensities to crime without environmental differences, so the blank slatists have some rabbit holes they can run down into. However it will get to the point where the no average racial differences proponents will start to look ever increasingly ridiculous, having to deny useful science in association studies that have been beneficial in things like heart disease, in order to maintain their dogma and not let the sheeple get bad ideas. Either that or an authoritarian regime will have to be established.

Rageh Omaar’s excellent Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo blew apart the biological racism crap you cite as authoritative. You can watch it starting here.

It did no such thing. “Cite as authoritative” is an interesting choice of phrase. As if science were a matter of authority. It is not. The things that convince are numbers and evidence. That blacks score the same in the US and UK despite different histories. Crime rates showing patterns above and beyond any cultural explanation in multiple countries. Adoptions of identical twins including transracial adoptions showing the same things in relation to IQ and race.

Some of the most interesting questions will relate to how this applies to individuals and not races. How will education, the bastion of blank slatism, react when we can point to good correlations between academic success and failure and specific genes? Or even that those effects can be altered with drugs, diet or even gene therapy?

How will we react to crime and punishment where a gene scan can give a very good estimate of recidivism rates, and criminality itself may be found to be largely genetic, and again potentially mitigated by drugs, diet or gene therapy?

Pretty odd and petty distinction to make; doesn’t change the facts, but well done if it makes you feel any better. It is partly true.

Monoamine oxidase A, also known as MAOA, is an enzyme which in humans is encoded by the MAOA gene.

This gene encodes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.

An association between a rare 2 repeat of the VTNR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found

As already described, we already know that it varies in occurrence and levels between the races, with whites having the lowest reading; as to be expected with this research, already ‘ideological objections’ have been raised.

No surprise really. The truth is not welcome in this world right now.

Pretty much all shows in that vein are little more then left wing masturbation fantasises and empty propaganda; another I watched a little while back on C4 about the merits of mixed race and this also biased show actually raised the fact that darker races (east Asians aside) were less intelligent genetically but were ‘bridging the gap’ at a huge rate due to racial mixture merely to validate their propaganda point.

The weight of evidence is that Terrapin is right, and so agree the leading experts. Many more would too if we didn’t live in such a tyranny whereby objective science and scientists are subjected to Orwellian style consequences if they dare to research the politically incorrect or dare to find politically incorrect data.

Intelligence aside, we already know the gene responsible for intrinsic violent behaviour Monoamine oxidase A, and we already know that it varies in occurrence and levels between the races, with whites having the lowest reading; as to be expected with this research, already ‘ideological objections’ have been raised.

We know race and genes are extremely important, and as Terrapin says, we are finding out more each day, albeit much more slowly then would be the norm if the subject were no so ‘un PC.’

Rageh Omaar’s excellent Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo blew apart the biological racism crap you cite as authoritative. You can watch it starting here.

Thanks! I will certainly look for recipes online. If you say that Dock Pudding is delicious, I wil take your word for it. I like tasting new things. I live in the countryside so dock leaves are abundant. But I would not recommend them in late summer or autumn when they are swarming with these beauties:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrian_morgan/3623874828/in/set-72157611861775685/

Gastrophysa viridula, the green dock leaf beetle

It was probably the (actual German) Wolf Mittler who was first called Lord Haw Haw. Margaret Joyce who was undoubtedly English and who also broadcasted for Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda pretty much got off scott free. Farndale’s biography of them both is quite entertaining (reviewed here:)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article528150.ece

Still. For us former London University students its always fun to wind up someone from Birkbeck by asking them who was their most famous alumni.

That is because, despite attempting to cover up the fact that the BNP is an ideologically racist party, most voters know this and reject it.

True.

The people who support the BNP are either ideological racists, or people who haven’t quite realised that this is the nature of the party. When they do, they generally denounce it, for that reason.

I’d say that the majority of BNP voters are not ideological racists, they know the BNP are, but vote for them anyway because they think that other issues just over-ride that in importance and nobody else is addressing them. Many of them would vote for a Geert Wilders type if one were available instead of the BNP (UKIP doesn’t quite cut it).

Racism just isn’t popular. Opposing immigration, ‘law and order’ and ‘anti politics’ has some traction. But thinking that skin colour is destiny just isn’t a runner for more than 5% or so.

True. Though the BNP doesn’t go on about things like race / IQ or race / crime / genes in public. Their racism is more “tribal loyalty” and subjective as presented, but also I’d say in reality.

The unfortunate thing though is that those horrible heretics who do go on about those things, a mixture of retired or tenured professors and internet “warriors”, have a massive load of truth and objective reality on their side, and lies have to be maintained by a self censored media culture that the internet can short circuit. So Kevin Rudd’s internet censorship will have to be enacted outside Australia and have a broader remit than kiddy porn if it is to be prevented from happening that race, crime, IQ and what flows from it, are all to be linked right down to specific genes in the next 5-10 years or so, and the public are going to know about it, as the shrinkage in hours spent looking at TV continues and hours on the internet increases – the current Christmas No 1 being a portent of that.

How is the public going to take to the fact that race is important to outcomes and effects average attributes not just below but above the neck? One plausible sounding consequence is that the public will find the BNP’s racial message at least somewhat less objectionable.

All of those are Eugenic terms, is this something you support?

No. They were, thankfully, consigned to the dustbin long before I studied psychology, tainted by association with the eugenicists as you say.

However, those are the historical origins of the words now only used as insults and I feel a certain irony in turning that against a representative of a party whose forebears were at the forefront of the eugenics movement. The point of the insults was about his rank in the BNP, wasn’t it?