UFOs being taken seriously?

Even though I believe intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, I’ve long been a UFO skeptic because:

a) we’ve found no evidence of even microbial life on other planets, let alone complex life.

b) Earth is the most life friendly planet we know of, and even here life seems to have occurred only once in 4.5 billion years.

c) If aliens had visited us, it seems unlikely to me that governments would have been able to conceal it anymore than the chiefs of Native American tribes could have concealed the arrival of Europeans from their people.  Why would the aliens take the trouble to come all this way only for their arrival to be kept a secret?

But now the number of reputable people publicly taking UFOs seriously has reached a critical mass, including prestigious members of the U.S. military and reporters for The New York Times: 

People have been reporting UFOs for thousands of years, but the legend really took off after an alien space craft allegedly crash landed in Roswell,  New Mexico in 1947, only to be covered up by the U.S. government.


A popular theory among UFO enthusiasts is that when the United States nuclear bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, it created such an explosion that the aliens took notice and they’ve been keeping an eye on us ever since, kind of like how the U.S. and Israel are worried about the nuclear ambitions of countries like North Korea and Iran.  If so, it’s interesting that recent credible UFO sightings have occurred around the time that Trump and Kim Jong-il have been sparring over who has a bigger nuclear button.

If UFOs really are aliens, in a weird way it kind of validates J.P. Rushton for the following reasons:

a) Intelligent humanoid life on other planets fits nicely with his view that evolution is progressive since it “progressed” in the same direction on other Worlds.

b) It would explain the anomaly in Rushton’s theory of whites being more technologically advanced than East Asians, despite being less evolutionarily advanced, since UFO enthusiasts believe the U.S. stole its most advanced technologies from the crashed aliens.

c) The fact that these highly evolved aliens are believed to look a bit East Asian is consistent with Rushton’s theory that East Asians are the most evolved in human race.




Trump’s IQ professionally tested?

Yesterday The New York Times reported:

Dr. Jackson said that despite expressions of concern, a cognitive test was not indicated for Mr. Trump and he had not planned to conduct one at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., where the president underwent his annual physical on Friday.

“This has been the narrative for a while. He saw doing the physical as an opportunity to put some of that to rest,” Dr. Jackson said during a nearly hourlong question-and-answer session in the White House briefing room. “He actively asked me to include that in it, so we did.”

Dr. Jackson said that Mr. Trump received a score of 30 out of 30 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, a well-known test regularly used at Walter Reed and other hospitals.

The test is described as a “rapid-screening instrument for mild cognitive dysfunction” that focuses on “attention and concentration, executive functions, memory, language” and other mental skills. It asks patients to repeat a list of spoken words, identify pictures of animals like a lion or a camel, draw a cube or draw a clock face set to a particular time.

Dr. Jackson said the president did “exceedingly well” on the screening test, adding evidence to the doctor’s own assessment that the president has been “very sharp” during numerous interactions he has had with him during the past year.

Psychiatric experts said the brief, 10- to 15-minute screening test is not comprehensive and might not catch all patients with early stages of dementia. Dr. Bandy Lee, the author of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” which expresses concern about the president’s mental health, said in a brief interview that the president requires a full, detailed neuropsychiatric evaluation.

However, Dr. Jackson said he had observed Mr. Trump closely, often several times a day, for the past year, and was satisfied that the Montreal test is “sensitive enough” to have picked up serious cognitive issues if they were present.

In order to convert Trump’s perfect score of 30/30 to IQ,  I found a study that tried to norm the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.   The norms showed that Trump scored 1.82 standard deviations (SD) above the mean for his 70+ age group, implying an IQ of 127+ since each standard deviation above the mean on the IQ scale equals 15 points above 100.


However as the table below shows, the sample was overwhelmingly non-white , and IQ has traditionally been normed with reference to the white population.  Unfortunately the samples were too small to provide norms specifically for whites in Trump’s age group but from the table below we can calculate that being +1.82 SD with respect to total norms equals +1.74 with respect to white norms.  Assuming the same holds in Trump’s age group and assuming he legitimately scored perfect on this test (no monkey business),  it implies an IQ of  126+ (white norms).


In the past I’ve estimated Trump’s IQ to be as high as 125, but it looks like he’s at least that smart, and possibly much smarter, since the Montreal Cognitive Assessment doesn’t measure beyond 126+ in Trump’s cohort, and it’s tempting to add a 5 point bonus because many of the dullest folks in Trump’s birth cohort are excluded from these norms because of death, poor health and impairment.  If all had survived and been tested the average score would have been lower, thus making Trump perhaps 5 points smarter.  On the other hand, the standard deviation of the raw scores might be deflated by the mean being so close to the ceiling, thus inflating Trump’s IQ 5 points.  These two biases likely cancel each other out.

Oprah opposed the Iraq war before it began

I blogged about all this way back in December 2014, but in light of all the Oprah for President talk, it’s worth repeating what I said back then.

It’s hard to think of a more disastrous decision for America than the 2003 U.S.-lead invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, which cost America an incalculable amount of blood, treasure, security, and political capital, and continues to wreak havoc today, so those who had the intellect, courage, and integrity to oppose the war before it began deserve a large amount of credit, particularly if they did so publicly; and it’s hard to think of anyone who did so more publicly than Oprah, who did so repeatedly.

Of course Oprah was not publicly opposed to the Iraq war from the start.  After being bombarded with hate mail for doing a 2001 show asking whether war with Afghanistan was the only answer, she was not eager to appear anti-war when it came to Iraq too.  Indeed in October 2002 she did an Iraq show that was largely pro-war, and where Oprah was dismissive of an anti-war audience member.

Professor Daphne Read explained that in the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center, The Oprah Winfrey Show, like all mainstream media, “was very closely tied to the Bush administration’s response and the media rhetoric of America Under Attack,…however, the content of Winfrey’s forum began to diverge from the purely consensual, giving voice to a much wider range of views

By November 2002, Oprah had jumped off the media’s pro-war bandwagon.  In his book Dude where’s my country? anti-war advocate Michael Moore praised her for being the only mainstream media at the time to show footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein’s hand in the 1980s.

However the most significant anti-war show Oprah would do was a two-day special that aired the day after Colin Powell’s pivotal February 2003 U.N. speech making the case for war, which was credited with shifting public opinion in favor of regime change.  Winfrey recruited reporters from CNN to gather clips from people from countries as diverse as Britain, France, South Africa, Iraq, and Pakistan all trying to persuade America not to go to war, along with anti-war luminaries like Nelson Mandela and Pope John Paul II.  Here’s a brief clip from that show.



Buzzflash.com claimed there was a deliberate attempt to stop the show from airing in some markets:

Bush pre-empted Oprah for no reason other than to stop her broadcast regarding Iraq and insert his own propaganda!…In the middle of the show a “Special News Report” notice came up, then Peter Jennings announced Bush would be making a MAJOR announcement on Iraq. Then Bush and Powell came in and Bush summarized what Powell had said yesterday at the UN. He spent about 20 minutes in all…The Administration would have known the content and timing of today’s show because it is broadcast live and/or in the morning in many markets such as Oprah’s home base in Chicago. This was in such bad form I couldn’t believe it! I called Harpo Studios in Chicago to let them know and they said they had received a lot of phone calls. I said Oprah should tell her audience what happened and that I thought Bush was purposely interfering with her show. They commented they didn’t know what the reason was and in any case there was no way to prove anything

Academics for Justice made the same assertion:

Today, Oprah Winfrey started a two-part series focusing on the impending U.S. war on Iraq. About halfway through the show the broadcast was pre-empted by coverage of Pres. George Bush, with Colin Powell at his side, reading a prepared statement on Iraq. The coincidental timing of this pre-emptive press statement raised immediate questions about the motives of the White House war strategists. Students of the Civil Rights Movement will recall an incident in 1964 when activist Fannie Lou Hamer sat before a live television audience and gave a riveting account of the oppression she and other Blacks faced in the South. President Lyndon Johnson was so convinced of the power of her appeal to undermine his own political/racial agenda, that he hastily called a press conference to pull cameras away from Hamer’s impassioned revelations…The pre-emption of Winfrey’s show today should be seen in the same light. Oprah’s audience is a vast and powerful—but largely apolitical—force of middle-class white women. It is likely that most did not watch Colin Powell’s live testimony at the U.N. yesterday. In fact, it is likely that this huge audience was being oriented to the issues of the Iraq war for the first time…The first 30 minutes of the show was decidedly anti-war and highlighted not only worldwide unanimity in opposition to the war but presented many of the heretofore unheard voices of ordinary people speaking forcefully against Bush’s motives

Undeterred by the alleged attempt to stop part of her February 2003 anti-war shows from airing, Oprah made one last ditch attempt to stop the war in March 2003. Just 48 hours before the war the began, Oprah aired an anti-war show that included Michael Moore and the following shocking video:


Shortly after the show aired, Harvard Law grad Ben Shapiro condemned the show, calling Oprah a dangerously powerful political force, shaping the views of millions with her ignorant views and wacky reasoning.  In fairness, Shapiro was really young at the time.  However Canada’s most respected media critic, John Doyle of the Globe and Mail, praised the show as “an act of extraordinary intelligence from Oprah.”



Doyle wrote:

At a time when the consensus in American television is that everybody should pull together and support the men and women in the U.S. military, what Oprah Winfrey did was outright subversion. In the last week, Clear Channel, Worldwide Inc., America’s largest radio conglomerate (and a company looking for a break from the U.S. government), has been organizing pro-Bush and pro-war rallies and then reporting on them. A Nashville TV station has been charging local advertisers to take part in an on-air, support the military campaign and gloating about the profits. That’s just the tip of it…In normal circumstances, the perspectives [Oprah] presented would not be notable, but in the contemporary context, they were amazing.

The decision to invade or not invade Iraq was arguably the most important test of the courage, integrity, and intelligence, that America’s leadership has faced in the last half century, and the fact that Oprah passed this test speaks very well of her qualifications to be President.

Trump’s comments about Haiti & Africa


According to a New York Times article published at the end of 2017,  during a June meeting over the amount of visas given to certain countries, an angry Trump claimed that 15,000 Haitians who had recently entered the U.S. “all have AIDS” and that the 40,000 Nigerian visitors would never “go back to their huts” in Africa.

The White House strongly denied that Trump used the words “AIDS” and “huts”.

However just this week The Times reported:

President Trump on Thursday balked at an immigration deal that would include protections for people from Haiti and some nations in Africa, demanding to know at a White House meeting why he should accept immigrants from “shithole countries” rather than from places like Norway, according to people with direct knowledge of the conversation…When Mr. Trump heard that Haitians were among those who would benefit from the proposed deal, he asked whether they could be left out of the plan, asking, “Why do we want people from Haiti here?”

Shithole-gate has been condemned Worldwide, though Lion of the Blogosphere defended Trump’s alleged view of Haiti.

One reason Tump’s alleged comments were so disturbing was not just the racism, but the utter vulgarity.  Last year I scolded an underling for merely saying he had a “shitty” day, because that word, and all the imagery it evokes, is so crude and disgusting that I just can’t take it.  The other word I most hate is “asshole”, and for the leader of the World to combine the two most vulgar words in the English language into one (“shithole”), words that literally describe such a disgusting brown substance, and use it to describe folks from brownish black countries was like a punch to the gut to all peoples of colour.


Trump is either a fool or it’s worth it to him to spend this much of his own, and America’s, political capital to make the West white again.  At the very least he’s smart enough to know what so many liberal don’t: That by constantly baiting the left into calling him racist, the word loses all its power and whites will just get sick of all the “whining” from minorities.  They would be would be wise to not fall into his trap.

On the other hand, this comment threatens to destroy the dignity and prestige of the American presidency, so of course the Left can exploit this to show Trump’s “incompetence”.

Post updated Jan 13, 2018:

Lion of the Blogosphere writes:

Trump is not smart enough for this to be part of a 4D chess-master strategy so “conscious” is also the wrong word, he’s just talking like the construction workers he hung out with in the 1950s or early 1960s when he went to work with his father, because that’s who he is.But the point here is that the Overton window is being moved. Trump is the greatest president of my lifetime despite being a Mr. Magoo who can’t manage the White House.

People have some psychological need to think it’s one extreme or another.  I don’t think he needs to be a super genius  to know what he’s doing here, just an IQ of at least 120 combined with a good understanding of the white working class.  “Racists” probably average IQs 10 points below the white mean, so a “racist” president probably has an IQ around 10 points below the president mean of 130.  IQ 120 also seems consistent with Trump’s publicly observed cognitive performance.

But I’m glad Lion associated the word “conscious” with smart.  Commenter Race Realist argues that bacteria are intelligent because they display adaptive behavior which reminded me that adaptive behavior is not enough to be smart as we know it.  It must be goal directed adaptive behavior.

The end of evolution?

Great lecture by geneticist Steve Jones arguing evolution as we know it has essentially stopped in modern humans because of massive declines in natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift.

Declining natural selection

Today any fool can survive to reproductive age so natural selection is essentially over.

Declining sexual selection

In the past some surviving men would father orders of magnitude more babies than others, but today the range is much more restricted.

Declining genetic drift

Our population has become so big that it’s hard for any population to become genetically isolated enough to mutate a new morphology.

There’s NOTHING better than being loved by your OWN people


Although Oprah became America’s first multibillionaire black by having an uncanny ability to understand the psyche of white suburbia, there’s nothing better than being loved by your OWN people.   According to a brand new NPR poll, an impressive 64% of Americans like Oprah, and an astonishing 83% of black Americans do.


Oprah is so beloved by blacks not just because she’s an icon, but also the critical role she played electing Obama, the role she played reconstructing black neighborhoods after Hurricane Katrina and the fact that she’s helped over 64,000 kids get an education, including 415 Morehouse men.  Historically black colleges are the most important institution black America has, and they hold a special place in black America’s heart.

Brilliant Meryl Streep says Oprah’s more than qualified to be President

After a spellbinding speech at the Golden Globes, Oprah is all but being drafted to run against Trump in 2020, but could she win?  A recent poll by Rasmussen Reports found 48% of likely U.S. Voters would vote for Oprah while 38% would choose Trump, with 14% undecided.  Indeed back in 1999, Trump wanted to run on the same ticket as Oprah who he described as “brilliant”, “wonderful”, “very special” and “very exceptional”:

The bigger challenge for Oprah would be getting through a Democratic primary.  Some might think that if fellow billionaire TV star Donald Trump could plough through seventeen candidates in the Republican primary, Oprah should have little trouble dominating the Democratic field,  however Trump used his wealth and fame to oppose lobbyists and promise average Republicans exactly what they wanted like a crackdown on immigration.  Would Oprah want to oppose lobbyists and promise average Democrats exactly what they want?  Bernie Sanders, who I famously endorsed in 2016, is already doing that, so unless she wants to compete for his far-left turf, I’m not sure what niche she would exploit in the primaries.

Nonetheless, the sheer POWER of Oprah’s speech was such that the most impressive people in society are begging her to run.  Meryl Streep gushed:

She launched a rocket tonight. I want her to run for president. I don’t think she had any intention [of declaring]. But now she doesn’t have a choice.

And while many question whether a former daytime talk show host is qualified to run the most powerful country ever, Streep seems to feel that not only is the brilliant billionaire qualified, she’s MORE than qualified.

The sheer POWER of Oprah’s speech is such that she’s inspired the best actor of all time, along with her wildly popular sidekick Tom Hanks, to go on a media tour drafting Oprah for the White House:

So broad is Oprah’s appeal that she connects with everyone from ignorant couch potatoes to the very personification of high class: Meryl Streep.

pumpkinperson.com had nearly half a million readers in 2017!


According to wordpress statistics, when I founded this blog in 2014, about 9,773 unique visitors stopped by sometime during the year.  At the time I wasn’t famous, so the fact that nearly 10,000 people a year were already reading my blog was a huge thrill!

Then in 2015 the unthinkable happened. A mind blogging 140,844 people read my blog!  Well, I’ve peaked I thought.  It’s all downhill from here.

Then in 2016 a STRATOSPHERIC 334,202 people read my blog.

And in 2017, I’ve come dangerously close to the half million mark, with 406,170 readers.

I’d like to thank each and every one of you!

And a special thanks to all my great guest bloggers and prolific commenters, without whom this blog would be a much less interesting place!

Happy belated New Year!


Race and Strength on the Big Four Lifts by Race Realist

[Note from Pumpkin Person, Christmas Eve, 2017: The following is a guest article and does not necessarily reflect the views of Pumpkin Person.  Out of respect for the author, try to keep the comments on topic.  I understand conversations naturally evolve, but at least start on topic]

Different races have different morphology/somatype. Therefore, we can reason that different races would fare better or worse at a certain lift depending on their limb length, such as leg length, arm length, torso length and so on. How do somatypic differences lead to differences in strength between the races on the Big Four lifts? The four lifts I will cover are bench press, deadlift, squat and overhead press.


East Asians

East Asians have higher levels of body fat (for instance the Chinese, Wang et al, 2011) and have lower BMIs, yet higher levels of body fat (Wang et al, 1994). This, along with their somatype are part of the reason why they excel in some strength sports. Since East Asians have a smaller stature, averaging about 5 feet 8 inches, with shorter arms and legs. Thinking about how the ancestors of the East Asians evolved, this makes sense: they would have needed to be shorter and have shorter limbs as it is easier to warm a body with a smaller surface area. Therefore, while squatting they have a shorter path to travel with the bar on their back. East Asians would strongly excel at the squat, and if you watch these types of competitions, you’d see them strongly overrepresented—especially the Chinese.


African-Americans are descended from West African slaves, and so they have longer, thinner limbs with lower amounts of body fat on average (especially if they have more African ancestry), which is a classic sign of a mesomorphic phenotype. They do also skew ecto, which is useful in the running competitions they dominate (in the case of West Africans and descendants and certain tribes of Kenyans and Ethiopians). Either way, due to their long limbs and a short torso, they have to travel further with the weight therefore here they suffer and wouldn’t be as strong as people who have a long torso with shorter limbs.

European Americans

Like East Asians, Europeans have similar morphology—skewing ectomorphic, the somatype that dominates strength competitions. Having a long torso with shorter limbs and more type I than type II fibers, they would then be able to lift more, especially since these competitors keep a high body fat percentage. Again, like with East Asians, there is a biomechanical advantage here and due to their higher levels of body fat and endomorphic somatype along with shorter limbs, they would be able to move more weight on the squat, especially more than African-Americans. Biomechanics is key when it comes to evaluating different groups’ morphology when attempting to see who would be stronger on average.


East Asians

The deadlift is pretty straightforward: bending down and deadlifting the weight off of the ground. Key anatomic differences between the races dictate who would be better here. East Asians, with shorter limbs and a longer torso the bar has to travel a further path, compared to someone with longer limbs and shorter torso. Though, someone with short limbs and a short torso would also have a biomechanical advantage in pulling, it is nothing like if one has long arms and a short torso.


Here is where they would shine. Their anatomy is perfect for this lift. Since they have longer limbs and a shorter torso, the bar has a shorter path to travel to reach the endpoint of the lift. At the set-up of the lift, they already have a biomechanical advantage and they can generate more power in the lift due to their leverage advantage. The deadlift favors people with a long torso, short femurs, and long arms, and so it would favor African-Americans. (Their long arms off-sets their short torsos, though the bar would still have to travel further, they still would have the ability to move more weight.)

European Americans

European Americans would have the same biomechanical problems as East Asians, but not as much since they have a taller stature. It is well-known in the world of weightlifting that having shorter, ‘T-rex arms’ impedes strength on the lift, since speaking from an anatomic viewpoint, they are just not built for it. No style of deadlift (the sumo or conventional) suits people with short arms, and so they are already at a biomechanical disadvantage. Relative to African-Americans, European Americans have ‘T-rex arms’ and therefore they would suffer at pulling exercises—deadlift included.

Overhead press

East Asians

The overhead press is where people with shorter arms would excel. Thus, East Asians would be extremely strong pushers. Say the bar starts at the top of their chest, the path of the bar to the lockout would be shorter than if someone had longer arms. The size of the trapezius muscles also comes into play here, and people with larger trapezius muscles have a stronger press. The East Asians short stature and therefore shorter limbs is perfect for this lift and why they would excel.


African-Americans would suffer at the overhead press for one reason: their long limbs, mainly their arms. The bar has a further path to travel and thus strength would be impeded. Indeed, people not built for pressing have long arms, long torsos, and long legs. Performing the full range of motion, African-Americans would have less strength than East Asians and European Americans.

European Americans

Again, due to similar morphology as East Asians, they, too, would excel at this lift. Since the lift is completed when the arms lock out, those with shorter arms would be able to move more weight and so what hurts them on the deadlift helps on pressing movements like the overhead press.

Bench press

East Asians

Lastly, the bench press. East Asians would excel here as well since they have shorter arms and the bar would have a shorter path to travel. Notice anything with bar movement? That’s a key to see which group would be stronger on average: looking at the average morphology of the races and then thinking about how the lift is performed, you can estimate who would be good at which lift and why. The bench press would favor someone with a shorter stature and arms, and they’d be able to lift more weight. (I personally have long arms compared to my body and my bench press suffers compared to my deadlift.) However, Caruso et al (2012) found that body mass is a more important predictor of who would excel at the bench press. East Asians have a higher body fat percentage, and therefore would be stronger on average in the lift.

African Americans

Here, too, African-Americans will suffer. Like with the overhead press, the bar has a further path to travel. They also have less body fat on average and that would also have the bar travel more, having the individual put more exertion into the lift compared to someone who had shorter arms. The longer your arms are in a pushing exercise, the further the bar has to travel until lockout. Thus you can see that people with longer arms would suffer in the strength department compared to people with shorter arms, but this is reversed for pulling exercises like the deadlift described above. (There is also a specific longitudinal study on black-white differences in bench press which I will cover in the ‘Objections‘ section.)

European Americans

Again, like with East Asians due to similar somatype, European Americans, too, would excel at this lift. They are able to generate more pound-for-pound power in the lift. The bar also has a shorter path to travel and since the people who compete in these competitions also have higher levels of body fat, then the bar has less of a distance to travel, thus increasing the amount of force the muscle can generate. Limb size/body mass/somatype predict how races/individuals would do on specific lifts.


One of the main objections that some may have is that one longitudinal study on black and white police officers found that blacks were stronger than whites at the end of the study (Boyce et al, 2014). However, I heavily criticized this paper at the beginning of the year and for good reason: heights of the officers weren’t reported (which is not the fault of the researchers but of an ongoing lawsuit at that department since people complained that they were discriminating against people based on height). The paper is highly flawed, but looking at it on face value someone who does not have the requisite knowledge they would accept the paper’s conclusions at face value. One of the main reasons for my criticism of the paper is that the bench press was tested on a Smith machine, not a barbell bench press. Bench pressing on the Smith machine decreases stability in the biceps brachii (Saterbakken et al, 2011) but there is similar muscle recovery between different bench presses in trained men (Smith, barbell, and dumbbell) (Ferreira et al, 2016). This does not affect my overall critique of Boyce et al (2014) however, since you can move more weight than you would normally be able to, along with the machine being on one plane of motion so everyone has to attempt to get into the same position to do the lift and we know how that is ridiculous due to individual differences in morphology.

Some may point to hand-grip tests, which I have written about in the past, and state that ‘blacks are stronger’ based on hand-grip tests. Just by looking at the raw numbers you’d say that blacks had a stronger grip. However, to get an idea of the strength differences pound-for-pound there is a simple formula: weight lifted/bodyweight=how strong one is pound-for-pound on a certain exercise. So using the values from Araujo et al (2010), for blacks we have a grip strength of 89.826 with an average weight of 193 pounds. Therefore pound-for-pound strength comes out to .456. On the other hand, for Europeans, they had an average grip strength of 88.528 pounds with an average weight of 196 pounds, so their pound-for-pound grip strength is about .452, which, just like African-Americans is almost half of their body weight. One must also keep in mind that these hand-grip studies are done on older populations. I have yet to come across any studies on younger populations that use the big four lifts described in this article and seeing who is stronger, so inferences are all that we have.

Further, Thorpe et al (2016) also show how there is an association between household income and grip-strength—people who live in homes with higher incomes have a stronger grip, with blacks having a stronger grip than whites. Thorpe et al (2016) showed that black women had a stronger grip strength than white women, whereas for black men they only had a stronger grip than white men at the highest SES percentile. This could imply nutrient deficiencies driving down their ability for increases grip strength, which is a viable hypothesis. Although Thorpe et al (2016) showed that black men had a stronger grip strength, these results conflict with Haas, Krueger, and Rohlfson (2012) though the disparities can be explained by the age of both cohorts.

Nevertheless, grip strength—as well as overall strength—is related to a higher life expectancy (Ruiz et al, 2008; Volkalis, Haille, and Meisinger, 2015). If blacks were stronger—and this is being debated with studies like hand-grip—then we should expect to see black men living longer than white men, however, we see the opposite. Black men die earlier than white men, and it just so happens that the diseases that are correlated with strength and mortality are diseases that blacks are more likely to get over whites. One should think about this if they’re entertaining the idea that blacks have an inherent strength advantage over whites.

Others may argue that since chimpanzees have a higher proportion of type II fibers and that’s one reason why they are stronger than us by 1.35 times (O’Neill et al, 2017) and have the ability to rip our faces off. Of course, other factors are at play here other than the chimps’ fast twitch fiber content. Of course, one must also think of the chimpanzee’s way smaller stature when discussing their overall strength. It’s not just their type II fibers, but how much smaller they are which gives them the ability to generate more force pound-for-pound in comparison to humans. So this is a bad example to attempt to show that blacks are stronger than whites based solely on the composition of the muscle fibers.

Finally, back in July, I argued that Neanderthals would be stronger than Homo sapiens due to their morphology and a wide waist. This, of course, has implications for strength differences between the races. People with a wider waist would have the ability to generate more power. Blacks have a higher center of gravity due to longer limbs whereas whites and Asians have lower centers of gravity due to a longer torso. Along with climatic conditions, the Neanderthal diet also contributed to their wide waist and thorax, which would then help with strength. Therefore, this has implications for racial differences in strength. We can replace Europeans with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens with Africans and the relationship would still hold. This is yet more proof that blacks are not stronger than whites. This article also contributes to the argument I laid out in my article on how racial differences in muscle fiber typing predict differences in elite sporting competition. Morphology/somatype is the final piece of the puzzle; without the correct morphology, it’d be really hard for someone to become an elite athlete in a certain field if they do not have the correct morphology.


Looking at the big four lifts, the advantage goes to European Americans and East Asians. This is due to their average somatype and morphology. The only lift that Africans would excel at is the deadlift and this is due to their morphology—mainly their long arms. People with longer arms excel at pulling exercises whereas people with shorter arms excel at pushing exercises. Hand-grip strength studies show blacks having a higher grip strength than whites, however in one study if you see who is stronger pound-for-pound, the differences are insignificant. The longitudinal bench press study is highly flawed due to numerous confounds and is therefore unacceptable to assess strength and race. The fact that chimpanzees have a higher proportion of type II fibers compared to humans is also irrelevant. Chimpanzees have a smaller stature and they can, therefore, generate way more power pound-for-pound. Attempting to replace Africans with chimpanzees in this scenario doesn’t make sense because Africans have longer limbs than Europeans and would, therefore, generate less force pound-for-pound. Overall strength is related to mortality; stronger people live longer and have fewer maladies than weaker people. This too lends credence to my argument that whites are stronger

Donald Trump drops 92 spots on the Forbes 400


Back in October the media was gloating that Donald Trump dropped an incredible 92 spots on the Forbes annual ranking of the 400 richest Americans.  In 2016 he was the 156th richest American with a net worth of $3.7 billion, but in 2017 he was the 248th richest American with  $3.1 billion.   New York’s sinking real estate market combined with the fact that his polarizing politics has tarnished his brand with the very elites his buildings and golf courses target, may help explain this setback.

Of course we shouldn’t feel too sorry for the Donald.  After all, he’s still the only person in history to get to be both a billionaire and the President.

You now need an astonishing $2 billion just make last place on the Forbes 400.  A billion dollars is no longer enough to be super rich in America.  When the list was started back in 1982, only $100 million was enough to qualify.

Despite the fact that Jews are only 2% of America, they’re an astonishing 50% of the ten richest Americans in 2017:


I estimate that self-made members of the top 10 average incredibly high IQs (150), while self-made members near the bottom of the list are probably in the low 130s, while those who merely inherited their way on to the list probably average around 115.  It’s ironic that old money looks down at new money, when new money is so much smarter.

Despite the fact that blacks are 13% of America, they are only 0.5% of the Forbes 400 (Oprah and private equity mogul Robert Smith, each worth over $3 billion).   I don’t think there’s ever been more than two blacks on the Forbes 400 at any given time.    Way back in 1986 there was also only two blacks on the list (John Harold Johnson, the Chicago publisher of Ebony magazine worth $185 million, and Motown Records’ Berry Gordy, worth $180 million).  Yet another example of how little progress blacks have made in the last several decades, and while some might argue that ethnic wealth gaps can be explained by ethnic IQ gaps, the genetic component of race IQ gaps are too small to fully explain such huge disparities.

Blacks were forced to work without pay in America for hundreds of years and even after slavery ended, they endured another 90 years of Jim Crowe, and in the 1990s their communities were further devastated by mass incarceration, and then were devastated again by mass illegal immigration.  And while affirmative action opened up a few doors for blacks, it was nowhere near enough to compensate for centuries of structural inequality, causing many blacks to now call for reparations.

If reparations are given, DNA tests should determine how much black slave blood each American has.  Even though Oprah’s a multibillionaire, she should be given more reparations than the average black American, because the average black American is only 75% black slave, while Oprah’s DNA is 89% black slave.