Subpage of anglo-pyramidologist/oliver-d-smith-evidence/
(Oliver responded in detail to this page, reported and studied below.)
On Encyclopedia Dramatica recently, Oliver Smith has been complaining about being called a former fascist or racist. He has acknowledged that he was Atlantid on Metapedia. What does the record show? It is long, over 2000 edits (and at one point he claimed he had 10,000 edits. That might be true, because many pages may have been deleted). But I will see what I can find.
10:45, 30 November 2018 Dysklyver (talk | contribs) secretly changed visibility of 21 revisions on page Douglas Weller: content hidden, edit summary hidden, username hidden and applied restrictions to sysops (To prevent access)
Confirming this, there is a suppressed contribution for Boglin, suppressed at that time. So the record shows for any sysop at RW that this was Boglin, who is obviously Oliver.
Thanks for the tip! Someone is protecting Oliver, and recently. Dysklyver was made a tech three days before. This is the Talk page, archived. On that Talk page, at least two Smith brother accounts show up, DinoCrisis (Darryl) and Boglin (Really Obvious Oliver). The Talk page was deleted by David Gerard, 12 July 2017. Why the suppression in 2018? All it would show would be Oliver’s opinions apparent race-realist opinions about Weller. While there is a difference between that and racism, Oliver generally claims it’s meaningless.
From Douglas Weller himself on Wikipedia. Clearly identifies the troll as Bookworm44, i.e,. Anglo Pyramidologist. That actually looks more like Darryl. I’ll keep that in mind. It’s a set of accounts I had not linked before. Back to Metapedia.
- Picts this might be a racialist addition, removed later. Used white as an description of a people.
- Alexander_the_Great about hair color
- Germanic_peoples 1/2013, added section on Racial type, replaced 10/2013 with “Physical appearance.“
- Race_realism by 4/2013, removed more blatant previous racism, added much racialism, treats “race denialism” as the view “today” of “race realists,” ‘those apolitical scientists and laymen not influenced by political correctness,” and refers to the denialist arguments as “pseudo-anthropological,” and he claims that “Race realism is apolitical and objective, and should not be confused with race-based political movements or racial supremacist ideologies.” Removed the blatant racialism 11/2013.
- Scythians used”Race” and left it in October, 2013.
- Race makes argument for “race realism.” quotes Richard Lynn with approval. Here is a paragraph he edited. His additions are in bold:
Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and [[political correctness]] the [[race realism|reality]] of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being [[deracination|deracinated]]. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing [[One World Government]], with the goal of promoting [[miscegenation]].
Conclusion so far: By August 30, 2012, Oliver was certainly “racialist,” but that can be an excuse for racism. From the above, it becomes obvious why it would be claimed that Oliver was racist. The issue with Douglas Weller (articles on Weller appeared on Metapedia, RationalWiki, and Encyclopedia Dramatica), shows how he took his attack on a user cross-wiki, how he induced local admins to enforce his personal vendetta, all of which he repeated later. Later, he added more material justifying racialism, November, 2013, the same kind of arguments he later attacked when they were associated with Emil Kirkegaard and others.
(It is not my purpose here to take a position on racialism, though over fifteen years ago I argued on-line that race was not a biological reality. At the time, a common response was “What? Are you blind?” I have an Asian daughter (probably Han Chinese) and an African daughter (Ethiopian, Kambata tribal region) and have seen subtle racism popping up in surprising places, as well as more “normal” ones. I’m not surprised to see a Nazi skinhead with racist ideas, but how about the director of a preschool, academically run by a university, who would be horrified to realize that she was racist, so she didn’t. But she was, it was completely obvious. We took our daughter to a different school where there were no problems.)
- Roger_Pearson (April 2013) Oliver explores and expresses Pearson’s ideas and seems sympathetic to him in comparison to attacks on his work. “Roger Pearson (b. 1927) is a British anthropologist, traditional hereditarian, eugenicist and race realist.” Later, in going after Kirkegaard and the London Conference on Intelligence, those terms become derisive and pejorative epithets.
- Carleton_Coon by October, 2013, Oliver removed the more extreme racist commentary, replacing it with race realism and objection to “political correctness.”
- Sub-Saharan_Africans edits appear heavily racist, March 14 2013, promoting fringe theory. “Primitive-looking” is not a scientific category, for example. He quotes this without source: . . . no matter, under which climate negroes live, and how long, they remain intellectually inferior and corporally violent. Dr. F. L. Hoffman, found that: “The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly is inferior to the Caucasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds.”
This is so extreme, racist eugenics, not mere racialism, that I wondered immediately if this was a hacked account. Atlantid was blocked 13 November 2013 by Mikemikev. He was admin from 22 August 2012 to 27 November 2013. He continue to be active. No, “hacked” very unlikely, unless he can be found to have promptly claimed it.
- British_National_Party removed references, 24 August 2013, to racist nationalism (party organized an anti-Muslim, “rights for whites” march).
- National_Front “white nationalism.”
- The_Apricity Oliver’s scandal-seeking opinions show. He removed some.
- Patria “ethnonationalist” splinter from BNP
- African_Americans Racist, 17 February 2013.
quoting racist Oliver
The Boasians taught race egalitarianism, and although they didn’t outright deny the existence of races, they downplayed their biological basis (although Montagu later went on to deny them). According to Boas, environment is the deciding factor in understanding racial and cultural difference. In Boasian pseudo-anthropology, unlike real (or traditional) anthropology, racial research is essentially irrelevant because racial differences are considered to be trivial. Boasianism also places societies of non-European derivation as essentially peaceful. When these non-European societies engage in conflict it is because of their exposure to European civilizations. This inter-ethic in intra-ethnic conflict was commonly ascribed to European colonial oppression and interference. Lax sexual mores and loose pair bonding and are of significant importance in Boasian theories; European societies have traditionally been in strict opposition to such practices. Boasian pseudo-anthropology also comes to the conclusion that Western peoples must learn and adapt to these non-European values and structures.
- (Struck above because Oliver had not written that, but merely used it from the prior version. He did add a section emphasizing Jewish involvement in Boasian anthropology, using the Star of David template with each alleged Jew mentioned.)
- Donald_A._Swan “racialist anthropologist.” Some would simply say “fascist Nazi.” Wikipedia. And, of course, if he were not a racialist, he’d be called a “pseudo-anthropologist.” I will move to looking at early Oliver editing on RationalWiki.
- The_Mankind_Quarterly defends the journal, 12 March, 2013. This is ironic because when, five years later, when “published in Mankind Quarterly” was being used as a code phrase for “racist fascist eugenicist,” by Oliver, I wrote that the journal was a peer-reviewed academic journal, as did Oliver, and which it is and was, which is quite distinct from a possible bias that may or may not reflect all papers. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.
- Gypsies Oliver reverted an anti-racist comment, blocks the user with no discussion. The block reason:
Oliver was not only racialist, he was racist, and he was not only hereditarian, he was ignorant about intelligence. “IQ”is a score on a standardized test. Besides the possible effect of culture on test design and performance, it is obvious that if one is subjected to a toxic environment as a child, it could affect cognitive and learning ability. This is is not “liberal nonsense,” and pointing this out is not a product of political correctness, it’s simple common sense.
That was fascist administration.
- Wesley_Critz_George whitewashes the Wikipedia article. Racist.
- John_Baker Racialist at best, September 2013. The Wikipedia article.
- Ruth_Benedict very important to point out that she was a ” lesbian Jewish Boasian cultural anthropologist.” He forgot to write “pseudo.”. That was fixed in 2017. Metapedia is so charming. Wikipedia
- RationalWiki 2 February 2013. Attacks the RW point of view. Easy enough, but he uses RW type reasoning and argument, makes the standard pseudoscientific “unnatural” argument against homosexuality. Last edit of Boglin on RW was racist, (Torch would be Darryl).
- Conservapedia Oliver inserted this, 2 February 2013:
- Strangely despite claiming to oppose macro-evolution, Conservapedia embraces it to explain the physical variation in humans. Since they maintain everyone today descends from Noah’s children from the ark, roughly 4,000 years ago, Conservapedia maintains there were massive mutations in a short space of time to account for such physical diversity we observe today from Noah’s family. For example, they maintain Capoid, Negroid and Mongoloid phenotypes all suddenly morphed from Noah’s son’s in a few hundred years. In reality, Genesis does not explain the origin of these other races, since the authors had no contact with them. Thus, having analysed the Table of Nations, Professor William F. Albright came to the conclusion: “All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called White or Caucasian race”.
- Race_and_penis_size Yes, Oliver actually created this article. Nothing terribly objectionable in it, but it seems that it was not appreciated, it has been redirected to a single sentence in another article.
- Ireneusz_Michalski anthropologist who used racial types.
- Andrzej_Wiercinski “typologist” who “published racial typological and anthropometric papers through to the late 1980’s.”
- Charles_Galton_Darwin stub left out the juicy bits. EUGENICS! ZOMG!
- Carleton_Putnam “race realist” Never mind the blatant racism. Wikipedia.
- Charles_B._Davenport, “race realist” stub. see Wikipedia.
- Metapedia:Featured_article_nominations gives Oliver’s views on race denialism as of March 2013.
- Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party — Oliver was definitely not antifascist. If it might reduce the BNP vote, this is a serious problem. No giggling allowed, or aloud, whatever.
- Nordicism reveals obsession as of 28 April with on-line forums. Later, by 20 October 2013, removed.
- Mediterraneanism Oliver was obsessed with Anthroscape. See the RationalWiki sock drawer. Talk page deleted 31 October 2017, by Skeptical (Oliver), reason given (removing a whole page of doxing (enclopedia dramatica links etc) Talk was archived 26 Jun 2016, nothing was lost. CharlieBass would be Oliver. Dust77 was Oliver, who placed the ED link to attack Mikemikev. In 2015, as Dust77, Oliver explained his change in beliefs, having been a Metapedia sysop. It all matches. Schizophrenic also commented. It was Oliver, all the way down. The Talk page was archived, nothing was lost.
I looked at every Metapedia page that was edited before the middle of April, 2013, and I’m now skimming. If I miss something important, Oliver can tell me! (or anyone can)! (Many talk pages seem to have been deleted by Der Metapedia Fuehrer, so some might be archived, they can be more difficult to find.)
- Australoids pseudoscience abounds in Oliver’s work in July, 2013. 12 November, 2013, Oliver removed some material (not particularly controversial), two weeks later, Mikemikev restored all of it.
- Ashley_Montagu this is one of the most outrageous examples of the yellow journalistic style that Oliver developed further on Rationalwiki. He was writing exactly what racists would want to see. See the Wikipedia article.
Around 9 September, Oliver begins removing material, it stands out in his Contributions, from the red text showing removed content. This would be expected to attract the attention of other administrators. So I looked at User talk:Atlantid. He deleted his user talk page. (On RationalWiki, they would generally restore the page and desysop the user. There are good reasons for those traditions.)
There is a note added to the user page later that refers to a LANCB message on the Community Portal, which has been deleted. Incompetent wiki administration does not trust the public. . . .
In any case, it is on archive.org.
I’ve renounced most my former views, and no longer support the aims of the Metapedia project. For this reason I request my account to be permanently blocked. Since I extensively read and process information quickly, my position on race has changed. However, it was constantly being re-defined or shifting over the last year or more. There are legitimate (scientific) arguments against biological races. The online “race realist” faction do not adress these and just employ the political correctness card, or “you’re a Jew” instead of adressing any of the arguments, this is demonstrated here:  and on many other pages. These same online “race realists” also use outdated sources, holding typological or essentialist views, which have been discredited. I know all these well, since I uploaded most of the sources, e.g. Typology and was once a proponent of them. In fact most online content of this nature is mine, or links back to me [even the material on Anthrocape where ironically I am attacked]. All of the following individual entries I added: Anthropologists (race). Note that the literature in their bibliographies (as listed on each entry) I have read, have (formerly) owned, or have been uploading a while back. Increasingly however i’ve read the “other side” of the debate (Livingstone, 1962; Brace, 2005; Glasgow, 2009 etc), and have managed to see how pseudo-scientific must stuff written about race by men like Coon, John Baker or Rushton and the valid arguments against it [race] not existing biologically etc. This has nothing to do with political correctness. I don’t believe I can be tagged in though with race skeptics, since there may be a viable third position: races exist, but not how we percieve them (therefore “whites” etc don’t exist, again I have literature on this stance). I started developing this as my most recent posts show (Andreasen etc) and I wrote an entire book on the ecological race concept which does not mirror folk races/taxonomies. These concepts however also have flaws. Race however is no longer a topic I wish to waste time with, and racism is something I have come to completely reject e.g. race and IQ, or the idea of racial superiority [its all junk science]. Fixation with race has also deteriorated my mental health, since I suffer from various disorders, and it is something I am no longer wasting time with. With that said, my account can now be blocked. Whether you want to remove my edits is up to you, I had around 10,000. Most are still useful edits, where I have uploaded bibliographies. Atlantid 17:53, 4 December 2013 (CET)
I left this site, however strangely I see today my account is unblocked. I requested it to be perm blocked as I no longer support the aims or views of Metapedia as above clarified. I also see Mikemikev and Thjassisdottir (“Faintsmile1992”) are still posting libel or emailing about me from Anthroscape or elsewhere, even going as far as having created a thread about me and posting on it for several days. The claim I have involvement in the Mikemikev entries or discussion at rationalwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica are lies, I do not. I’m not on any sites and have no interest in either of those individuals. Its seriously pathetic that there are certain people still stirring hostilities up. Anyone posing as me on such websites, are not. The last thing I would do is waste more time with this. Atlantid 21:49, 5 December 2013 (CET)
He was lying about not being involved on other sites. Maybe that day or even that week, but long-term, he’s been very, very involved.
There are references to a conflict between Oliver and Mikemikev. I have yet to see much directly on that, but this is on User talk:Mikemikev.
I’m not on rationalwiki or Encyclopedia Dramatica and have no interest in you or Faintsmile1992, therefore I don’t know why you are creating threads about me on other sites. If someone is pretending to be me, then ignore them. Our debate on population genetics was settled, and I’ve left Metapedia having renounced my views (I requested for my ban, but oddly I was unblocked, but you or another can perm block me now). I don’t want to waste any more time with this. The faheem account was hacked at Egyptsearch. I’ve left this site and all others, but there seem to be a whole crowd of people elsewhere now reporting our behavior and stirring things up. I have no intention or involvement in this and am trying to move on. Atlantid 01:29, 6 December 2013 (CET)
Yes Mike I also suffer from schizophrenia. I am now bettering my health,renouncing my former views and association with Metapedia, this is my final message here. I’ve blocked my own account and changed the pass,so i won’t be able to log back in. Atlantid 03:08, 6 December 2013 (CET)
Oops I forgot I lost my admin rights, I cannot block myself. You can block me though asap. I’ve changed my pass though and cannot log back on.
I have seen claims that the schizophrenia story was from an impersonation. I don’t think so. What actually happened on Metapedia? It looks like the pages where Stuff might have Happened have been deleted. But the basic story, the reason for my doing this research in the first place, has been satisfied. I will now use this page for reference.
We now know how to reduce Oliver Smith to a gibbering pile. Do unto him what he does routinely to others, interpret what he wrote 6 years ago, in a way that he detests. In fact, I did less, above, than what he has routinely done with Emil Kirkegaard or myself, for that matter.
In any case, I afford anyone described here a right of reply, and since this is a page, nobody needs to read this unless they choose to (which was also true of the entire page above), I will copy his entire response below. Take it away, Oliver:
From Encyclopedia Dramatica. Warning: much of that site is NSFW, and it is a parody site, run by lulzheads, like RationalWiki, only with less pretense at being “rational.” Much less.
(He was pissed! Wanna see fireworks? Poke a pompous fascist. Warning: collateral damage is possible.)
Questions are to be answered: No, I won’t ever stop, beyond death, by the sword or otherwise. Just the way things are, until the lies stop and the planet is safe, the universe is safe. That’s a vow taken long, long ago.
His last edit was responding to Yellowbird warning me to stop. Stop exactly what was unclear, but I have decades of on-line experience. When an admin says “STOP,” with a big red sign, stop everything and proceed with caution. I had just called the admin, Yellowbird, a “wikidimwit,” in keeping with ED traditions. I now apologize for that, he actually responded just about perfectly. He warned me, strongly, and then included Oliver in it, and Oliver responded in a way that I have seen trolls respond in the past. They don’t care about being blocked, they expect it, and if they can get their target blocked, they have accomplished their goal and can then use that fact against the target elsewhere. It’s an old play from the playbook, and some admins fall for it. Especially if they were inclined to block the target already.
(i am playing a very different game. For one thing, except for very unusual conditions, I don’t sock. If a site doesn’t want me posting or editing, to the extent of blocking me, I stop, with little fuss. Warning is generally enough. If I do “block-evade,” normally I disclose who I am except under even rarer conditions. I’m responsible for what I do, whether it has my name on it or not. So is Oliver, but he pretends otherwise.)
This means you too, diebythesword. Yellowbird (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
– Hi, I would appreciate if you could just indef-ban Abd Lomax’s account and also ban my latest now. He’s only using ED to spread lies about me.Diebythesword
Oliver is asking to be “banned.” He’s highly experienced, knows the difference between a block and a ban. In any case, he previously responded in detail to the documentation above, which is useful. (Yellowbird blanked it, blocking him with “23:43, 29 January 2019 Yellowbird blocked Diebythesword with an expiration time of infinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Butthurt revisionism)”
I’m not planning on testing Yellowbird without getting permission first, and even that I won’t do without a hefty pause.
Using ED to “spread lies,” is what Oliver has been doing for years, on many pages, about many people, whoever become his targets. The talk page for the article he created there on me is full of them, willful, deliberate lies, obvious, easy to see. (And then he excuses blatant as for the lulz, but doesn’t do that in situ, but elsewhere when he is confronted. He does not clean up the messes he makes.) So here is his response.
Lomax is lying about my Metapedia edits, what a surprise
Too bad for Lolcow-Lomax-Liar, there are archives of my old papers on race, roughly from the period I was still editing Metapedia. They easily disprove his trolling, lies and distortions about my Metapedia edits, that seems to consist of cherrypicking comments, taking them wildly out of context, while also erroneously claiming I wrote some things I never did to smear me as a “fascist” or “Nazi” (insane):
I will be looking for any misquotations, and I was aware that what he wrote in articles might be quotations from others instead of his own opinions, so I was careful about that. Further, I was not attempting to prove that he was racist or fascist, my goal was to discover (and I did actually look for contrary evidence and reported evidence for his change of mind — which is what he explicitly claimed on Metapedia when he retired — but rather how those edits would “appear.” I am not exactly a mind-reader but he remains responsible for not only what he intended, but how it appeared. A person who has private definitions may claim he was not lying, but remains responsible for any intention to deceive, or even careless appearance uncorrected. “I did not have sex with that woman” was said under oath = hot water, even for a President. Even if he had a special definition of sex (which I know, having heard thousands of sex addicts talk about themselves). They were indeed “cherry-picked,” i.e., remarkable statements, out of thousands of edits standing. Nevertheless, they show some consistencies. I will especially be looking for examples of errors, which will promptly be corrected, unconditionally.
And he’s insane. That’s not a “fact,” it’s a judgment. Nobody else cares what he thought or believed six years ago, except that when people have pointed to his former affiliations, he has called them “liars.” He has also claimed, generally without evidence, that he was impersonated. Notice that, so far, he has not claimed that any of what I cited was impersonation. It’s extremely unlikely that it was, and he has had years to point out any standing impersonations.
There may have been (I think I have seen) comments that were even more outrageous than anything I found. Perhaps those were impersonations, but they have apparently been deleted, unless someone can point to them. The fascist admin of Metapedia has deleted many Talk pages, which is where they would probably have been.
For background, the entire site was racist and fascist, and so Oliver was helping to build a racist, fascist project. That, all by itself, would be enough. Creating good articles on non-racists, non-fascist subjects is still serving the Beast. Years ago, when I was eligible for the draft, I declared I was a conscientious objector, and, no I would not serve the military in a noncombatant role, because of a similar argument. I also was not going to flee to Canada. Instead, if required, I would serve time in federal prison. Didn’t happen. But I was willing to go.
- Race – I wrote 5 papers on race, 1 paper on race and cryptozoology and 1 paper on race and intelligence, uploading them on my Academia profile from 2010-2013 when I was at university and I liked to research controversial things, but over the years some were temporarily removed or revised and none now exist because I lost interest in race and deleted them.
He “lost interest in race” but handles that by trying to erase his past, instead of acknowledging it and explaining his errors. Further, he began attacking people, strongly, exaggerating their positions and cherry-picking whatever can make his targets look bad. So, for example, Emil Kirkegaard posted a photo of himself giving a fascist salute, as an obvious joke. Bad taste, for sure, politically incorrect. But he was also Oliver’s age, early twenties, young and foolish. And that kind of joke is still quite common. So if I point this out, am I, as Oliver has claimed, “defending a fascist?” No, for two reasons: first, it has not been established that Kirkegaard is a fascist, and, second, if he were, it is a political position and is not illegal, and the immorality of it would be highly situational.
Oliver made many statements easily interpreted as fascist or racist (especially the latter), which, to me, simply shows that he was a young, ignorant male, pseudo-intellectual, and pseudo-liberal in the sense of disregarding social norms (be called “politically correct.”). Common in adolescence and “callow youth,” it is even to be respected to a degree, adolescent rebellion probably being instinctive and necessary for species survival under changing conditions. Getting stuck there, however, is a developmental disorder.
Anyway, in 2010, I published “Palaeo-Races: Leiotrichi and Ulotrichi” and “Yeti and the Mongoloid”, in 2012 I published “Race: an Alternative to Hereditarianism”, in 2013 I published “Climatic Race Concept”, “Races, Clines or Populations”, “Do Races Exist in Homo Sapiens? The Seven Concepts of Race” and “The Racial Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians”. Archived screenshots of some of these papers still exist, proving I wrote them:
This is possibly irrelevant. The topic of this blog page was his views as expressed on Metapedia.
- http://archive.li/gvSQN Full paper: “Do Races Exist in Homo Sapiens? The Seven Concepts of Race”, screenshot dated September 2013 (the paper was written & uploaded in April and was more than 10,000 words and took a while to put together since it references over a hundred sources)
So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why? At one point I called Oliver a “wanna-be academic” or something like that. He denied any academic intention. However, he or his brother have ridiculed me for noting that I learn by writing. He would learn by writing, and the fastest way to learn is to be wrong and correct it. Instead, Oliver attempts to hide that he was ever “wrong.” And if someone points it out, he cries “lies.” Who hides? Truth-tellers or liars?
In any case, that paper has, as its concluding words:
[. . .] although it is widely agreed ecotypic classification below the species level has a biological basis, some biologists assert ecotypes are not races. This largely seems to be rooted in political correctness than anything else. The typological concept should not also be abandoned given the fact if the traits it elects are non-arbitrary and are ecological – it can be used to distinguish races as adaptive phenotypic complexes though polydimensional clustering. It is therefore incorrect to conclude like Lewontin (1972) that while races have no “taxonomic significance” races do not biologically exist. This is a nonsequitur. While races in modern humans are not taxons, they can have a biological basis.
This is racialist, concluding that a contrary definition is “incorrect.” “Political correctness” refers to how words are interpreted by the polis, the people. Yes, Oliver was considering the arguments. If he wants to clean up the mess, I will be showing here how to comment on anything available on the web, using hypothes.is, which was designed for that. At the very least, if there is too much mess to clean up, he could formally disavow the paper, instead of trying to hide it, as he did through deletion. (There are situations where deletion is appropriate, but that’s complicated. On wikis, where a discussion has received response, it is generally considered inappropriate to delete it, rather strikeout and emendation will be used.) That would be much closer to academic practice. Crying “lies” is not part of clean-up, it’s part of the mess.
The page was already archived a year ago. I just archived the comment. Oliver praised the article, with the title “Race is not an accurate or productive way to describe human biological variation,” but this was 2014, when he had already changed his views. Dates matter. Because I have lost the numbering, due to WordPress idiosyncracies, #3 and #4 were the next two papers, which apparently Oliver has no copies of.
- . https://www.academia.edu/6045331/Climatic_Race_Concept (written & uploaded in September 2013) but no screenshot
- . https://www.academia.edu/5920220/Races_Clines_or_Populations (written & uploaded in October 2013) but no screenshot
The title of the first “Climatic Race Concept” appears to be his invention. It sounds like a pseudoscientific attempt to preserve the legitimacy of “race,” it sounds like population genetics through adaptation to local climate. Nice try, though. Variation on “the Nordic races are smarter because they had to deal with the cold?” If that’s not fair to his actual ideas, “unfair” is a natural consequence of deleting work once published, i.e., the next two.
- . http://archive.li/oyKBh Abstract: “The Racial Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians” (dated upload to ResearchGate October 2013, unsure when I had actually written it, probably June or August)
- . Screenshots of my pre-2013 papers, including paper on intelligence likely exist but I cannot find them right now, although they’re referenced in old comments.
The “Racial Affinities” paper obviously uses race as a concept. How does he do this? From the Abstract:
One cannot discuss the racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians, without first defining “race”.
Debates continue between those that deny human races exist, and those that argue they are taxonomic. In actual fact, the truth lies between these two extremes.
Tipoff: this is the opinion of a naive student, writing about “truth,” which is not a scientific concept. “Actual fact” here is used to mean “my opinion.” He is correct in one way: “race” obviously exists, but as what? As a “biological reality”? I will express my own opinion: as an “actual fact,” “race” is reactive, a judgement or assessment. It can be made objective, but Oliver is aware of at least some of the problems with that.
While taxonomic or folk concepts of human races have been discredited (Templeton, 1998) ecological race concepts are scientific. Ecological races (ecotypes) however do not mirror folk racial categories, which are culturally constructed (Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003).
To state this sympathetically, “race” can be used in a way to make it useful, but this process will disconnect it from “folk concepts.” This is therefore dangerous, because the “folk,” the people, the polis, will read the word as what they imagine it to mean, instead of how some academic or wanna-be academic defines it. Given that there are other words to use for the more objective ideas, why would he use “race” at all?
Like most species, there are ecotypes in humans – defined as groups or populations showing region-specific adaptations which vary as a result of climatic selection (solar radiation, humidity, temperature). Since adaptive traits are selected for in certain environments, eco-clines are not randomly distributed; instead they are circumscribed reflecting climatic zones (Krantz, 1980, p. 27: “…there are steep places on the climatic clines and one can draw lines along them dividing mankind into climatic races”).
Why not “dividing mankind into population groups sharing some average genetic characteristics based on long adaptation to local conditions?” Why use the word “race” at all? I’ll suggest how it appears to me:
Oliver believed, still, in something called “race” and was looking for a rationalization. He was, at best, a racialist. Did this translate to actual racism? I used to define “racism” as the belief that race was real, and the unreality of race used to be a fairly unpopular idea in many circles (which were not academic). “What, are you blind?” However, more popularly, “racism” is racialism combined with concepts of superiority or crucial or critical differences indicating a need for separation and the maintenance of power over the “other.” At least in “one’s own region.”
And then we get into IQ studies, which push every political correctness button there is. And that’s a separate topic, though with minor relevance here.
- In #1 that can still be read: I listed seven definitions or concepts of race to see if they’re applicable to living humans – I concluded taxonomic and ancestry based definitions have been falsified, but that races exist in terms of phenotypic adaptation to climate. The conclusion of my paper: “Races may or might not exist in Homo sapiens depending on the race concept.
Something exists. Patterns exist. Where do they exist? Generally, a pattern like “race” exists in the mind, not in biology. He is still believing that it is legitimate to call this something that exists “race,” and does not seem to be aware of the difference between interpretation or mythos and “truth.” Yes, whether X exists or not depends on the concept of X. However, in science, concepts are not truth, but are models, organizing tools, and they are useful or not. The issue of usefulness largely revolves around predictive power. However, language, words, have effects entirely aside from the possible intended meanings of authors, and that’s what editors are for, in real academic publication, to identify usages of language that harm communication. What “race” brings to mind is a set of models that have long outlived their usefulness, except as political wedges.
It is possible to have a discussion about these things with a racialist, if I am correct in calling Kirkegaard one. It has not been possible for a long time with Oliver, because it all becomes quickly personal.
- The multiple concepts and definitions have made race as a word highly ambiguous. Taxonomic concepts of human races are though obsolete, unless one is discussing the early fossil record, for example Neanderthals (Jurmain et al., 2011).”
Yes, got it. However, this page looked at his views as expressed on Metapedia in 2012-2013, not his private thinking at the time or later. Again, is it necessary or useful to use “race” to distinguish the Neanderthals?
- To further examine the concept of climatic races, I then tested it on ancient Egyptian skulls (using cranial measurements from various collections); in that paper I note: “One cannot discuss the racial affinities of the ancient Egyptians, without first defining ‘race’. Debates continue between those that deny human races exist, and those that argue they are taxonomic. In actual fact, the truth lies between these two extremes.
He seems to imagine that this proves something. “In actual fact,” Oliver pronounces on the truth as if he is above the debate, when he was heavily plunged in it. The “truth” is not a definition of a word, and definitions are not “actual fact,” except as being facts about people using words. “Races don’t exist” is obviously false if taken literally, because “races” exist as concepts, and do concepts exist? No, to be meaningful, “races don’t exist” is a denial of the usefulness of the race concept, which includes centuries of baggage.
- While taxonomic or folk concepts of human races have been discredited (Templeton, 1998) ecological race concepts are scientific. Ecological [climatic] races (ecotypes) however do not mirror folk racial categories, which are culturally constructed (Pigliucci and Kaplan, 2003).” It’s mindboggling how any of this makes me a “fascist” – I was debunking taxonomic and ancestry-based definitions of race, but rather than adopt a liberal race denialist view, came up with an alternative between hereditarianism and race denial. Is Lomax trying to troll me again? Fail.
I did not claim that this made him a fascist, and that term came from elsewhere in his work. I will come back to this, but what I had in mind was his own authoritarian behavior, which has been demonstrated wherever Oliver has obtained power to exercise over others. As well, it would be in his general support for a fascist site, Metapedia, and possibly political parties inclined to fascism as a political idea. By not quoting the exact source statements, Oliver follows his habitual practice of crying “lies” without being specific. I was aware that “fascist” was relatively weak, but it was still stronger than the evidences Oliver has used in attacking others. What most impressed me was how he acted when faced with someone defending Gypsies. Fascist and racist, with no necessity. Arbitrary and brutal.
Moving on to some of Lomax’s blatant distortions, lies and taking things deliberately out of context:
- Hereditarianism – Lomax outright lies constantly labelling me a “hereditarian” despite I’ve never agreed with hereditarianism and have criticized it; read my papers old man… He provides no evidence I was a hereditarian, just takes a couple of comments out of context.
Self-contradictory he is. On the one hand, “no evidence,” and on the other “a couple of comments out of context.” That would be evidence. “No evidence” is a common Oliver comment when evidence is presented. Yes, evidence can be misleading and cherry-picked, but it does not therefore become false or misleading unless the context actually reverses the sense.
I first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for “
Oliver also has “Lomax outright lies constantly labelling me a “hereditarian.” The above study was fairly long (though I did not comlete going through his editing). I called him a hereditarian once. The term also occurs in his description of Pearson, but I did not use that to term Oliver hereditarian. So, again, this is Oliver, reactive as usual, exaggerating what he hates. He is not accustomed to someone carefully going over what he writes, he imagines that he can say whatever and accomplish his goals. And he has, often, because, in fact, most people do not actually look at evidence, or if they do, they only look superficially and see whatever they want to see in it. Wiki problem, long-standing, one of the reasons wikis go south, they are afflicted with “quick,” right there in the name.
- Eugenics – Lomax lies and claims I supported “racist eugenics” because I quoted “Dr. F. L. Hoffman” (who?). It’s a single cherrypicked edit, taken out of context. I know nothing about a “Dr. Hoffman” and merely copied a small quote onto the page, I found elsewhere. Needless to say, I don’t agree with the quote and I don’t support eugenics. There are numerous other sources and content I added on the same page I didn’t agree with. Where’s Lomax’s evidence I agreed with this and am a eugenicist? *crickets*
It’s hard to hear even crickets with one’s ears stuffed. The context is shown. This is significant, it shows the concept I was following of responsibility for what one writes. So here it is again (now bolded):
Sub-Saharan_Africans edits appear heavily racist, March 14 2013, promoting fringe theory. “Primitive-looking” is not a scientific category, for example. He quotes this without source: . . . no matter, under which climate negroes live, and how long, they remain intellectually inferior and corporally violent. Dr. F. L. Hoffman, found that: “The mulatto may be superior to the Negro but he certainly is inferior to the Caucasian in intellectual ability. At best, amalgamation can improve the Negro only at the expense of the White race. Amalgamation is not, therefore, desirable on scientific grounds.”
This is so extreme, racist eugenics, not mere racialism, that I wondered immediately if this was a hacked account. Atlantid was blocked 13 November 2013 by Mikemikev. He was admin from 22 August 2012 to 27 November 2013. He continue to be active. No, “hacked” is very unlikely, unless he can be found to have promptly claimed it.
So, first, “edits appear heavily racist” is a report of my personal impression, obviously. That would be a matter of what he chooses to quote. However, he then added material without sourced attribution. He would be, unless he fixes it, responsible for that content. He was putting up what would be popular on Metapedia. I consider him responsible for content that he wrote without attribution, even if he copied it from somewhere else. I did not quote everything, so here is more, from March, 2013:
Palaeo-anthropological findings question the status of Negroids as modern anatomically Humans (Hss) [sic], since their morphological features are very primitive
This introduces a quotation with slightly blunted language. Editors are responsible for that kind of introduction, because it presented the conclusion of what was quoted as if fact.
There is more, much more, actually.
Most Negroid females will go to extremes to artifically [sic] straighten their hair texture while wigs are also very commonly purchased.
This is not the place to debate “race reality,” i.e,. what it means to be identified as a “racial minority” in some places. As I have mentioned, I have a daughter born in Africa, and I’ve seen some of what such people face here. She has very kinky hair. It’s beautiful, but also a boatload of work. Society is changing, but racism is still alive, though on the run. When I was raised, racism was open and unapologetic. However, the article was not about the difficulties of minority groups, but about condemning them as inferior. That comment was a racial stereotype and probably false.
I am claiming that Oliver is responsible for what he wrote. He is even responsible for what he left in place when he heavily worked on a page, but the examples I have given are text he introduced. Nobody held a gun to his head to make him do this. If he were paid as an editor to follow an editorial policy, I would still hold him responsible for what he chose to do for a living, though it might be a little more understandable. If he retracted it and attempted to undo the damage, that would be a mitigating factor. He did not do this.
He still has not done this. Instead, he cries “lies,” when there were no errors, even, not so far, anyway.
He went on.
- Boasian anthropology – Lomax lies and quotes something on the Boasian anthropology article I never wrote, but says “quoting racist Oliver”. I never wrote this comment he’s quoting that I didn’t even agree with. This can easily be checked by looking at the article edit history and seeing what Lomax has quoted, appeared on the article before I touched it.
I attempted to avoid that by how I linked. Here is his set of changes. He is correct, he did not originally write the more outrageous comments. But he left them in place in the middle of his work and so it appeared as if his. Had he merely made a few small changes, his responsibility would be less, but he did not. He did add:
All but one of Boas’ students were Jewish, and recent immigrant arrivals to America. The sole exception was Alfred Kroeber, who unlike the Jewish Boasians, was the sole student of Boas to reject race egalitarianism (Kroeber was apolitical). It is sometimes claimed Ruth Benedict Template:J was also not Jewish, however Modell (1983) on page 166 of her biography on Benedict, cites various evidences that Benedict was of Jewish descent. It was also no secret that Montagu Template:J was Jewish; his real name (which he changed) was Israel Ehrenberg.
Franz Boas Template:J was also himself a Jewish immigrant, born in Germany, but later moved to America.
Template:J was a small yellow Star of David, it was deleted by Metapedia admin in 2015, so Oliver used that flag. The focus on alleged Jewishness or Jewish ancestry is characteristically anti-semitic, and this was in line with what had been in the article before.
I am accepting this as an error and have struck that comment.
- Richard Lynn – Lomax claims in 2012 on Metapedia I quoted “Richard Lynn with approval” and that I wrote the following comment: “Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and political correctness the reality of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being deracinated. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing One World Government, with the goal of promoting miscegenation.” Both these claims are false; I never cited Lynn with approval, merely posted his definition of race (that I didn’t agree with and I posted multiple race definitions) and I’ve long criticised his hereditarianism theories as can be seen in my papers. I never also wrote the above statement; it was copied or paraphrased as can be seen in the edit history: prior to me editing the page its found under Deconstructionism of race. This comment is obviously nonsense, I just reworded some of it, but made the mistake of not outright removing it.
Oliver admitted an error! Congratulations! Tell me, did it hurt? Did you bleed excessively? Get help if there is concern about consequential damage. Even major foot-in-mouth insertion can be remedied, the sooner the better.
Now, to the substance. This was in the article on Race. Oliver edited that in three sessions. First in August, 2012. In that edit he introduced a quotation from Lynn on the issue of race. Lynn was not quoted as one opinion among many. It was “quoted with approval,” as I stated. I’ll stand with that. Now, that does not mean or require that he agrees with it, which would be his mental state. Rather, he is editing an article explaining the topic, and he chose that quote to explain it. The quote is about a definition and definitions may or may not reflect general usage. By the time Lynn wrote that, it was passing out of usage. Oliver was deprecating the rejection of “race” in biology, by picking Lynn (who is practically ancient and is holding to older usages). This sticks. Merely “posting Lynn’s definition” does not relieve one of responsibility for it, even if one silently disagrees or writes disagreement elsewhere. This was on Metapedia where the position he was expressing is the house view. He was establishing himself as a “reliable editor” on Metapedia, and I can speculate that this was so he could use it as an attack platform, of which a few examples may still be visible. “Hereditarianism” generally refers to intelligence and is not relevant here.
As to the quotation, there is much more in his editing that is racist or certainly racialist (“race reality”). Quoting from above:
Race makes argument for “race realism.” quotes Richard Lynn with approval. Here is a paragraph he edited. His additions are in bold:
Since the mid-20th century, with the emergence of egalitarianism and [[political correctness]] the [[race realism|reality]] of race is undergoing deconstruction. People the world over are being [[deracination|deracinated]]. Deracination ideology is about bringing about the culture necessary for implementing [[One World Government]], with the goal of promoting [[miscegenation]].
He claims that the language was there before, and, indeed, some of it was. He paraphrased (as a restatement, unless we are very careful, the statement becomes our own. At best, he was not careful, but, in fact, it seems he wanted to appear to be “one of the team” at Metapedia. But the most racist comment here is the reference to miscegenation. That word was not there before, Oliver added it with this edit.
This was not merely a matter of accidentally leaving something in. He is denying what he actually did. This is typical. The edit history was long and complex. He points to it, but not to a specific place. And he was lying, but most people won’t check, and that’s what he has learned from a decade of editing wikis.
Or he is insane, not actually “lying,” but living in delusion about himself and reality. Take your pick. He has acknowledged schizophrenia. I know very much what schizophrenia is like. It is very possible to factor for it and live well, but it requires a willingness to recognize and distinguish carefully between what we actually experience and how we interpret it. As long as we see the world as an enemy, there is very little hope. As long as we believe what we think, there is little hope.
- Recent African origin of modern humans – Since 2006, I’ve been critical of the ROA/OOA (“Out of Africa”) human origins theory and still am. Unclear why Lomax mentions me editing the OOA article on Metapedia in 2012 as proof I’m a “fascist”, since disagreeing with OOA outside of the West, such as China, is rather common and has nothing to do with fascism, but science, especially fossils that question the politically correct Westernised OOA theory. Clearly disagreeing with OOA (as does the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, e.g. see the Wikipedia article I created on Wu Xinzhi) doesn’t make someone a “fascist”.
Once again, I did not claim editing that article as “proof” he is a “fascist.” In fact, all that I wrote on this was to note that it was his first edit to Metapedia. At that point I listed every article he edited, and only commented on a few. The only way this would relate to “fascist” would be that he was working on a fascist project. Suppose I had gone to Rightpedia and wrote general articles for them. Suppose they simply improved the overall usefulness of that site. Would I then be open to a claim I was a racist antisemite? Of course I would, unless I did this very, very carefully! — and even then it would be highly questionable. Editing Wikipedia is not like that, nor is editing RationalWiki. by the way. I’ve edited Conservapedia, a little. Making a major project of it would be another matter.
Yes, an AP sock started that article, identified as “Goblin Face,” which was Darryl, so not exactly correct. The account has many Oliver flags. But they don’t care on Wikipedia, they are both defacto-banned, to be blocked on sight. Many of the socks escape notice, because they have actually succeeded in getting some of those who would identify them blocked and banned.
- Talk:Confessions of a Reluctant_Hater – Lomax takes this comment completely out of context and says I “praise[d] an article on book by white nationalist” to presumably try to claim I agree with white nationalism which is false (I clearly rejected and criticized ethnic nationalism on Metapedia as can be seen on my edits on ethnopluralism, see below). In reality, all I did was be kind to a user who created an article on a book, since I was logged on when it appeared and I saw a new article page creation. I’ve never even read the book, barely had read the article, nor “praised” the article content.
I stated the fact. It’s not worth correcting “praised an article” to “praised a user for creating an article.” Oliver might save himself some upset if he doesn’t react to every imagined claim that might be made. Then again, he fully deserves to soak in his own bile for a very long time. Still, I don’t like to see even nasty people suffer.
- English_Democrats/England_First_Party/British_Freedom_Party/UK_Independence_Party/National Front – Various political party articles I mostly edited in 2012. Despite Lomax cherrypicking my comments, I was critical of all of them, especially EFP, EDs, NF and UKIP and later BNP. As mentioned in another comment above, I became critical of anti-immigration populist parties by 2013, if not earlier. And for the record, I’ve never been a member of any of these parties, nor even voted for them. Some trolls spread misinformation I was a UKIP or BNP member, both these claims are false.
Again, I am not responsible for what “some trolls” might spread, unless I started the rumor. Oliver had claimed that the idea he had been racist or fascist or far-right was a “lie,” so I looked for evidence. He made a lot of edits, thousands of them, so examples would be “cherry-picked” as to their relationship to the alleged lie. Mostly I just listed the political parties, and in one case I pointed out that he white-washed the BNP article.
What I found was sufficient cause for someone to make such claims (very little based on the political party edits). The liar is Oliver. That he may have later become critical (or even that he was critical at the time) would not change this. I was not claiming that Oliver “is” far-right or hereditarian or whatever, including racist. He might be, he might not be. (And an unfortunately consequence of his lying so much is that I won’t believe he has two feet unless I can verify it.) I am only claiming that what he wrote then can be seen in those ways, and reasonably.
- Ethnopluralism – An article I started and shows I was a critic of ethnic nationalism; Lomax of course doesn’t mention this. I also had my own ethnopluralist think-tank at the time. This was closed in 2013.
Lots of things I don’t mention, it’s meaningless. Links? The article does not show what he claims, nor does it show him as the opposite.
- Indo-Europeans/Aryans – Articles I edited where I heavily criticised 19th century Germany and Nazi Germany “Aryan” theories, especially about blondism eg. “This study was a blow to theorists such as Poesche, who argued Germans most closely represented the Aryan ideal, under the false assumption the majority of Germans were blonde.” Again, Lomax doesn’t mention this – after all how could I be a “fascist” critical of Nazi racialism and blonde-Aryanism? Doesn’t fit his fake biography about to smear me as a “fascist”, so he doesn’t mention what I actually wrote on these two articles…
Ask a question, get an answer. One can be fascist and think the Nazis were wrong about this or that. “Fascism” is as fascism does. From Merriam-Webster:
Fascism: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
A fascist certainly could be critical of, even hating “Nazi racialism and blonde-Aryanism. We have seen how Oliver acts when he has power, that’s the best test of a “fascist.”
- Doug Weller – Lomax mentions some off-topic nonsense about a Wikipedia admin named Doug Weller. Note that I deleted the latter’s Metapedia article. What’s the problem? More of Lomax’s trolling.
This is my blog, and unless the community here sets up another process, I decide what is on-topic or not, and that will probably remain the prerogative of one writing a page. I was researching what happened on Metapedia, and recorded what I found, and the Weller incident is of high interest. Sure, he deleted the Weller article. Who wrote it in the first place? This was Oliver using Metapedia as an attack platform. What did Weller have to do with Metapedia? Here is what. From Metapedia Talk:Roger Pearson. So Oliver blames the Wikipedia article on Pearson on “Two race denier wikipedia admins, including mega-troll Douglas Weller have uploaded lies about him and his research.” There is no denying that at that point, on the POV spectrum, Oliver was a “race realist.” And the ordinary average Wikipedian he would classify as “race denier.” It is correct that “race realism” is not necessarily racism, and I was careful to distinguish it, but the social reality is that race realism is heavily associated with racism.
Oliver added, “I’m glad Metapedia exists as a truthcentric place to set the record straight. Atlantid 21:02, 4 September 2012.”
The Metapedia article on Pearson, written by Oliver, does not do any such thing. What “lies”? This is Oliver’s academic bent. He called Plato a liar for repeating stories that he had probably heard. Academics will rarely call others liars, nor will encyclopedia editors of real encyclopedias, or Wikipedia editors who are following the basic policies and guidelines. (Many don’t, including some administrators, and that’s Wikipedia’s problem.) If Weller “uploaded” lies, that should be exposed, as far as I’m concerned, not by calling them lies, but by showing truth, i.e., for Wikipedia, better, reliably sourced information, or, for synthesis that does not fairly represent what is in sources (a common problem), calling attention to the sources. And, yes, you can get blocked for doing this. That’s life. Stand for truth and there will be people shooting at you.
Wikipedia had Rule Number One: If a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it. I wrote that there was a corollary: if you have not been blocked, you are not trying hard enough to improve the project. Blocks were not bans, by the way, and if one really was trying to improve the project, under normal conditions, one would not be banned for it. That shifted over time, as what Wales called the “administrative cabal” became more entrenched. But most Wikipedia administrators are sincere and would not lie. Some would, and some were — and are — POV-pushing fanatics.
In any case, this was the Wikipedia article when Oliver wrote his complaint about it. What lies? Crying “lies” is nearly useless. Pointing out errors, misleading statements, correcting them or distinguishing between reality and implications by authors (which may or may not reflect reality), that’s useful. Oliver, here, would be a “Pearson apologist,” apologist being a derisive term often used by him to cast opproprium on someone who points out errors in critiques. It is a weak proof, but given that Oliver does not actually point out the “lies,” the reflection on him is earned.
Maybe he did in the articles on Weller. But I have not yet seen a copy, just the talk page. Oliver deleted his own Talk page, covering up the history. So, hey, I looked at his deletion log. Lots of cover-up deletions, including his Talk page, twice. This answers the question I had above about who wrote the Weller article:
So, indeed, he wrote that article, with familiar Oliver Smith rant. There are others:
and this led to something interesting:
23 November 2013, he deleted the prior discussion and replaced the page with a new copy, including this comment. I think there are errors with this article? It was posted by Vir, who was banned. So i’ve cleaned his discussion. The talk page can be used to discuss controversial/disputed studies. Atlantid 15:43, 23 November 2013 (CET)
Deceptive, he was. Archive.org had an older copy. Vir was not the only one to comment, Oliver had commented, so he was covering up his prior blatantly racist comment. (The older comment led me to yet another bio of Oliver Smith. I did not take what I have reported about the Smith brothers from ED or Lolcowiki. I have reported what I personally confirmed. Generally, though, I have confirmed much or even most of what has been put up in other places.
Oliver, I previously reported, has made extensive efforts to get pages about him removed from Google searches, and on RationalWiki and Metapedia, he used administrative tools to cover up his own history, where he could get away with it. If he were merely someone with mistakes in his past, this would not be worthy of any investigation, but he also libelled many and claimed that simple reporting of his history was lies and libel and he has acted to harass many, and actual damage has been done in places (from him and from similar behavior by his brother.)
I’m completing his response:
- Norse_mythology/Huns/Anglo-Saxons/Celts – No relevance?
My research starts with lists without strong agenda. These were articles he edited, showing interests. This would later be used in comparisions of interests to support sock identification. There is no claim of any reprehensibility because of topics edited. These are only very weakly related to possible racism.
- Picts – Lomax says “this might be a racialist addition, removed later.” Not sure what he means. Secondly, he says “Used white as an description of a people.” when this simply refers to the UK ethnic census category, which I’ve actually been critical of for a long time. On the UK census it’s not possible for persons to ethnically identify as a Scot, Welsh or English etc, but instead only “White British”.
“This” was in the next words, linked.
The term “white” probably was the basis for an assessment of “might be a racialist addition.” I was inclined to strike that assessment, however, the excuse given is weak. An author is not obligated to use the categories of the UK Census in factual descriptions, and it certainly is “possible” for persons to identify in those ways, just not — if this is true — on the census form. I was always told I was “Scotch-Irish,” not “Welsh” or “white British.” In fact, there was a family story about the “Black Irish,” which I won’t go into here.
- Several more sections of false or inaccurate claims, I don’t feel like wasting more time rebutting, especially concerning Mikemikev.
It’s really very simple. I quoted Oliver, what is there to rebut? I did not make any assessment of Mikemikev. The fact that Oliver’s last comments were made on Talk:Mikemikev is irrelevant. Mike didn’t force him to say anything. This is Oliver, he’s been doing it over and over, including directly in email with me. He cries “lies.” When asked for specific errors (and a lie would not only be an error, but a deliberate one), he would say that it’s too much work. But he just did a large amount of work, finding very, very little. One real correction, other minor nitpicks.
He makes it difficult by trying to hold back the flood with his finger in a disintegrating dyke.
In conclusion, no evidence was presented for the fascist smear. Lomax also incorrectly labels me a “hereditarian” despite I never was and criticized hereditarianism in my papers.
He is just repeating himself. I called him out on one action which enforced a hereditarian POV (i.e, denied and dismissed environmental influence on intelligence, which is little short of preposterous, but it’s what he did.)
His claim I supported hereditarianism on Metapedia is based on distorting what I wrote or wrongly attributing to me comments I never wrote.
I mentioned hereditarianism twice only, and the first mention did not claim he was supporting it. By the way, this is another play in the trollbook: if there is a single example of something, refer to it as a repeated pattern.
First example I saw on Wikipedia, a troll was after a teenage girl who liked to get DYK mentions. He filed a report on her that had, among other claims, that she “inserts copyright violations.” There was one example only, and it had extenuating circumstances, it was accidental.
My first real block on Wikipedia was related to that incident, in fact, because I defended her. The defense was successful, by the way, and the administrator whom I had supposedly attacked later became my best friend on Wikipedia and said that the whole thing was a mistake. He ran for the Arbitration Committee, telling me that I had inspired him, and won a seat. And then retired because he and his family were threatened in real life, face-to-face, by thugs who knew where they lived. Wikipedia could be, in the darker spaces, very, very ugly.
There was also never any anti-Semitism in my comments. So the “anti-Semite” claim above, is yet another smear.
I see it differently, and if anyone cares, they can read what is above.
The claim I was or am a fascist is not only false, but the opposite of who I am – I’ve campaigned for direct democracy since I was 16.
Direct democracy can be fascist, where the mechanisms are defective, as they commonly are. I used “fascist” in specific reference to Oliver’s behavior as an administrator, which was authoritarian and oppressive. I have seen authoritarian behavior from people dedicated to careers in “democracy.” Oliver assumes the word has a narrow and specific meaning that he can then deny, but he’s not willing to look at what might be real about it.
Basically, Lomax just comes across as an insane SJW who attacks people as fascists or Nazis since they don’t agree with him.
Agree with him about what? And whom have I “attacked” in that way? In this case, Oliver had been called — by many — a racist and fascist party supporter by others and he had claimed that this was lies or based on impersonations. So I looked and found basis for the claims in his Metapedia record. This was not about whether he “is” a fascist or Nazi. It was about that record and what appears in it.
The list of people whom I have “attacked as fascists or Nazis”? Let’s see: I called the administrator of Metapedia who took certain actions “fascist.” It clearly had the dictionary meaning as I gave above, and whether or not he is also fascist in other senses I don’t know, but from Metapedia overall, I would say “probably,” but that is certainly weak as an accusation. It would be rebuttable, for sure.
Wikipedia defines fascism as: “a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society”. He’s not provided a shred of proof I support any of these things, I don’t and never have.Diebythesword (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
But that’s simply the Wikipedia definition, and does not confine the word to that meaning. Is Oliver claiming that he never supported the British National Party? He certainly edited the Metapedia article on the BNP massively, and some of it appears to be whitewashing.
Lots of evidence was provided. What is a “shred of proof”? This is reactive rhetoric only.
Corrections remain welcome. Claims of lying are not so welcome, but fact will still be considered.
Oliver responded on Encyclopedia Dramatica, defying Yellowbird. The admin left the response in place, but blocked Oliver for making it. Here is that self-justifying response, beating a dead horse.
Lomax’s insanity continues…
Lomax responded to my other reply, so I’ll leave this that can be removed since I know he reads here:
He could respond here, but as a confirmed and dedicated troll, he will respond where he is blocked and nobody wants it. And if he stops responding for a few days, he will announce that he is no longer editing that wiki. Then a few days later, a new account continues the same trolling, obviously him, and if someone points to the obvious, he screams “doxxing!!!” and sees if he can get the person blocked. Dedicated troll, and if he and his brother did not do actual damage to the real world, I wouldn’t care.
- Hereditarian: As explained (and anyone can read my 2013 paper), I never was a hereditarian. Out of 2000 Metapedia edits, Lomax ignores me criticizing hereditarianism, which is how I got to clash with Mikemikev in the first place, and he finds only a single edit in January 2013 to misconstrue i.e. Lomax says “I first termed Oliver “hereditarian” because of his comment when he blocked a user without warning, merely for (Inserting false information: vandalism on the Gypsy page (the usual liberal nonsense they have lower IQ because of social-economic conditions). The edit. By his response, Oliver was negating “environmentalism,” in a way that leaves only hereditarianism in place. I see no excuse, and he does not attempt to provide an explanation.” — This is a non sequitur. There have been oppressed and discriminated groups throughout history living in squalor, but examples exist of these populations having on average, a high IQ. So the idea Gypsies have low IQ on average because of racism and/or poor living conditions is a liberal fantasy. I’m not sure why Lomax thinks if I point this out I must be a hereditarian i.e. maintain IQ differences between populations are due to genetic factors. I was always critical of the latter and I fully debunked hereditarianism on RationalWiki. My simple explanation for low Gypsy mean IQ is their backward culture, which is environmentalism, but a different explanation than racism or poverty. I don’t believe all world cultures are equal e.g. Australian aboriginal tribes have an undeniably primitive culture. I’m not going to deny this reality to avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Liberals of course think all cultures are equal; they’re not, so they avoid discussing culture in the race and IQ debate unless they’re talking about cultural biases on IQ tests, when it suddenly is the white man’s fault… And I consider the liberal view to be as bad as the hereditarian hypothesis; the cultural theory to be common-sense and middle-ground between the two extremes.
One comment referred to “hereditarian,” because it reflected an anti-environmentalist action, not a fixed and exclusively hereditarian view. To justify his hereditarian action, he resorts to cultural racism. I personally consider the hereditarian/environmentalist debate a debate between black and white as to which color best represents reality, but racism is a political position, not a scientific one. “Primitive” is a racist category. So is “fault.” Oliver is taking pseudoscientific positions to justify himself. This I consider fact: he was assisting the development of an openly racist/racialist wiki, Metapedia. His action fit in with that. Does that make him a “hereditarian.” That comment was a single mention and not a categorization of the present reality of Oliver. The action, politically, was hereditarian (or similarly according to culture, which could be seen as environmentalist). Oliver supports whatever local political views will give him power to abuse others, so on RationalWiki he is fiercely anti-racist, but on Metapedia — which he edited at the same time — he was supporting a racist project.
He accuses others of various offensive positions, with, in some cases, far less evidence, yet if someone points out the obvious, he is up in arms because they are “lying.” That others sometimes support him and enable him is even more disgusting than what he does. He’s admittedly schizophrenic, so he at least has an excuse.
- Fascist: Lomax now claims I’m a fascist not because of my political-ideology (direct-democracy), but my alleged “authoritarian behaviour” on the internet which is a load of BS.
First of all, direct democracy is not in opposition to fascism. It can create mob rule, which can be highly fascist, in all senses. Oliver thinks of political positions as abstractions, divorced from actual personal behavior. Let’s say that I disagree. He is radically intolerant of differing opinions and generally seeks to ban them. On RationalWiki, he and his brother vigorously pursue people he calls “fascist,” and others as well, whoever lands for them as targets. If they try to defend themselves, they are blocked. That’s fascist.
Fascist, fascist, fascist.
- Racialist: Lomax describes my April 2013 paper as “racialist”. At that time I was indeed arguing for the existence of human races as opposed to a non-racialist who denies their biological reality. I don’t have a problem with this label, but it’s somewhat misleading since in that paper I outline 7 definitions of race and I dispute or rather debunk 5 of them, while being critical of another…
Oliver has gotten himself blocked everywhere, among racists, among trolls (ED is a trollsite), among SJWs (I don’t like that term, but it is often applied to RationalWiki and I think Oliver himself may have used the term), on Wikipedia which pretends to be neutral, on Reddit, but it’s not so easy to document all that because he keeps creating more and more accounts, more and more confusion. He creates new accounts when there is no necessity at all. Usually he abandons them quickly, but sometimes not. He just came back with an obvious RatWiki sock, Aeschylus, after almost a year, going after . . . guess who! His favorite target, whom he blames for almost everything. That person shows up, probably, in this discussion. This sequence will get some coverage on other pages, it demonstrates exactly how RatWiki went down the RatHole.
Fascist fascist fascist. Did I mention that Oliver is a fascist?
- So for those 5 (or 6) definitions of race: I’m a race denialist i.e. non-racialist. Depending on what specific race definition someone uses they can be simultaneously a racialist and a non-racialist. This is something Mikemikev fails to understand. He disagreed with my race definition and labelled me a race denialist on Metapedia, when I actually was using a race concept, but not the definition he used that is pseudoscience. And because I disagreed with the more popular definitions of race for an atypical definition (ecotypes), Anthroscapers even called me in November 2013 a “borderline race denier”.
Bottom line, he is insane and every political grouping can see it. He is arguing against Mikemikev everywhere. Mikemikev is irrelevant here.
- Paper deletions: Lomax asks “So Oliver wrote extensively-researched papers, a lot of work, and then deleted them. Why?” The simple answer is I lost interest in these topics, as I already said. For the same reason I deleted my papers or essays on UFOs. I wrote about a lot of different things when I was at university; some interests I had ages back, I no longer write or think much about, others I still do. Lomax instead ignores this straightforward explanation of why I deleted these papers, and claims I deleted them to “try to hide” them. No idea what he’s talking about. I’ve never tried to hide anything.
If he weren’t insane, that would be just another lie. I did not ignore the straightforward explanation, but sane people do not necessarily delete their work, crazy people commonly do, I’ve seen years of work vanish in a flash. Oliver will copy whatever he finds from others to archive.is so that he can they crow about them trying to hide what they have written. But I showed a clear example of his attempt to hide his racist comments on Metapedia, one of his last acts with admin tools there.
- “Disavow the paper”: Lomax oddly wants me to “disavow” the aforementioned paper I wrote. Unclear why.
No, Oliver has little or no idea of what I want. These papers were published (on the internet). *If* the problem was that he wrote in error or expressed some political or academic position that he later wished to disavow, doing exactly that would be academic honesty. But he is not honest, he is a regular, serial, habitual liar.
- I disagree with very little I wrote in it; I more or less have the same opinions I wrote in this paper nearly 6 years back, only that my semantics for the race definition I defended has changed. I’ve pointed this out elsewhere, such as a post on Sci Forums in 2016; I no longer consider calling ecotypes as races and neither does Jonathan Kaplan (who co-wrote a paper on ecotypes in 2003), although I cannot be bothered to dig that quote up when he changed his view about the semantics (it was in 2011).
- Lomax is a pseudo-sceptic and is labelling all this “pseudoscience” when he doesn’t even know what it is e.g. this race concept never has involved IQ, only a handful of phenotypic characters (skin colour, hair texture, nose size etc) as I mentioned in my paper quoting Grover Krantz. Since Lomax knows almost nothing about the topic, he should refrain from further commenting.
Knowing nothing about the topic never prevented Oliver from commenting on my work or that of others. I was writing about race easily by fifteen years ago, but I did not study the topic academically. This is not an academic debate, and I can say whatever I please about what Oliver has done. It is fascists who want to suppress dissent. The right of dissent includes a right to be wrong, to make mistakes, and to state opinions, ignorant or otherwise. Again, Oliver is fascist, it’s his style, and it’s very likely what got him banned on Wikipedia originally. He has not changed on that. His specific opinions change, and former friends become enemies, but the center of it all is not only batshit crazy, but certain that he is right, was always right, except for insignificant details. And he claims that others are insane, racist, pedophiles or pedophile apologists (on crazy-silly weak, misleading evidence), etc.
Is Mikemikev racist? Probably, or a troll.
I really don’t know and it’s not my business. I actually have not, however, seen him lie. I don’t believe that people should be banned for being, much less allegedly being racist, that is a flipped fascist position. Democracy is in danger from both the left and the right. Hence I was a member of the ACLU in 1962.
- Anti-Semitism: There’s no anti-Semitism in my Metapedia edits, if you want anti-Semitism just view Mikemikev’s edit history who vilified and attacked Jews in nearly every edit and was obsessed with trying to disprove the Holocaust; I criticized him for both.
On a blatantly antisemitic web site, labelling scientists as “Jews” was an antisemitic act. Whether Mikemikev was antisemitic or not does not change that. Whether or not he criticized antisemitism, he would be like a German who criticized someone for being antisemitic, and yet turned in his neighbor in for being Jewish and not wearing a required symbol. That template he used, that placed a yellow Star of David after names, was an emblem of antisemitism, and he was serving an antisemitic agenda, obviously and blatantly. Metapedia apparently decided it was way too blatant and deleted it.
- According to Lomax out of my 2000 edits, the only “anti-Semitism” he could find was me adding a star of David next to someone’s name who actually was a Jewish person… And I don’t even remember doing this and couldn’t care less, if I did do it, the fact I only did it once out of 2000 edits shows its triviality.
First he will claim there is no evidence. Then he will claim that it only happened once. Yet he once claimed he had many more edits than that on Metapedia, my sense is that the large majority have been deleted. That was blatantly anti-semitic and that doesn’t change if it indeed only happened once, it is merely a clear example of the overall activity, which was supporting Metapedia, ignoring that helping develop that project was serving its political agenda. Writing something in a single article, that would be one thing. People with a special interest will sometimes edit a project which has overall goals that they despise, but Oliver was obviously a dedicated Metapedia editor, putting in many hours. How did he even know the star template existed? What led him to even note that those scientists were Jewish unless he thought it was significant?
This is far stronger evidence than what Oliver routinely relies on in his attack articles.
Antisemitic or serving an antisemitic agenda. The former would be more honest!
— If you continue to smear and lie about me being a fascist, hereditarian or anti-Semite, Mr. Lomax, provide some actual evidence for once…
This is a standard trope for fanatics: claim there is no evidence. When evidence is presented, demand “actual evidence.” Evidence is evidence and is distinct from conclusions. “Proof” is rarely available outside of math, where the logical field is very restricted. I did not accuse him of “being” those things, but pointed out that he had taken actions or made statements that can be seen that way.
I never met Oliver in person, so far, and even if I did, I would not know what he is “actually.”
You also spend a lot of time now setting up straw man arguments. You’ve mostly now shifted from the absurd fascist allegation to claiming I wrote some racist comments 6 years ago. I’ve never denied the latter and no one except you seems to care.The Mark of Kri (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
So why does Oliver place his response on Encyclopedia Dramatica, in the Talk page for the article he wrote on me? He could actually comment here if he has corrections to make. It’s much more reliable that I will see comments here.
Fascist. Racist. Antisemitic.
Grandstanding for an unknown audience. The EDiots don’t want it. For whom is he writing?
When I say “GTFO”, I mean it. That is all. Yellowbird (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
He meant it, but did not actually enforce it by removing the comment. That’s up to him if he wants that page to be insanely long, as it became, out of Oliver’s trolling. Not my problem.
Looks like Mikemikev showed up.
Great thread there. Obviously you (parroting Kaplan) are just offering a strawman race concept of no relevance to what your opponents are saying. I never worked out whether you were being dishonest about that or whether you were really too stupid. It’s really not complex. Maybe you’re just insane. Vikevikeme (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, tough problem. Not actually my problem, either.