Oh, My God! Your Rat Wiki Page!

Rational Wiki is an extreme-Woke, anti-science website which defames and simply concocts information about scholars it dislikes because these scholars’ research questions Woke dogmas. The fact that it calls itself ‘Rational’ surely implies that it ‘doth protest too much.’

Unfortunately, some people, who are otherwise highly intelligent and discerning, don’t seem to realise its true nature, possibly because it involves the word ‘Wiki,’ which should be a red-flag anyway, considering the Woke biases of Wikipedia. It is written in a deliberately mocking-style, which should, surely, sound alarm bells.

Every scholar associated with Emil Kirkegaard, and the London Conference on Intelligence, has a particularly vicious, slanted and dishonest Rat Wiki page, because of one obsessive individual’s loathing of Kirkegaard, as Kirkegaard has documented. This person is a self-confessed schizophrenic and self-confessed habitual liar.

I respond below to what Rat Wiki says about me, even though it is mainly emotive ‘shut up’ terms, and manifestly a hit piece which completely ignores, for example, my articles for The Guardian or anything else which might undermine its desire to portray in a certain simplistic fashion:

“Alt Right”

This term is a synonym for ‘white nationalist.’ I have been clear in many books and speeches that an optimum low level of immigration can be a net positive for society, striking a balance between being too open (and so Balkanizing) and being too closed (and so stagnating). I will, however, happily have discussions with people who may disagree on this and that includes many ‘Alt Right’ people, though also a leftist anarchist and a climate activist. Naturally, my focus in on the ‘right’ as, in a leftist society, they are more taboo and also because prizing the empirical method appears to inherently make one ‘right wing.’ If someone, or something, is taboo, then, if you are of a questioning disposition, you will surely find this of great interest.

“Terrorist Sympathiser”

The citation for this is Richard Spencer saying “Something like Islam is ultimately necessary” and me replying “Yes, I agree.” This person also remarked that terrorism – that is violence – can be a natural reaction in certain circumstances, which is empirically accurate, but this does not mean that he thinks it is a good thing. This is the fallacy of fact-value conflation. This aspect of the Rat Wiki article is especially misleading. By the way, if Spencer wishes to fund my research, and part of the deal involves appearing on a podcast with him (as was so), I see no problem with this. Non-Woke research requires funding.

“Anti-Feminist” and “Sexist”

Would such a person interview numerous female researchers on his show, take their views seriously and treat them respectfully?


Would such a person happily interview an open homosexual on his show?


Would such a person interview a Muslim convert and an Iranian Muslim on his show, appear on a Muslim podcast, work for universities in a Wahhabi Islamic country, write numerous papers with Muslim colleagues, and write a book saying many positive things about Islam which actually irked many people on the ‘Alt Right’?


Would such a person respectfully interview a transwoman on his show?


Would such a person select a Rabbi as his PhD supervisor and interview numerous Jewish people on his show including a West Bank Settler Zionist Rabbi, Prof. Amy Wax, Prof. Paul Gottfried, Ilana Mercer, Curtis Yarvin and Ron Unz?

“White Supremacist”

Would a person who thought white people were inherently superior to other people take the time to interview on his show academics and other writers who were Sub-Saharan African, Southeast Asian, and South Asian?

Actions speak louder than words, though I’m fairly sure I haven’t even used words that might evoke such allegations. I have merely dared to disagree with illogical and dogmatic arguments.

“He Thinks/Says/Believes . . .”

This is extremely dishonest, as it implies that I have expressed a personal opinion. In reality, I have summarized the findings of peer-reviewed, scientific research which presents the most parsimonious interpretation of available data based on objective criteria. The writer of the Rat Wiki page, however, dislikes, or pretends to dislike, the finding.


This is the most dishonest allegation of the lot. I wrote review of a book on paedophiles called A Long Dark Shadow, the author of which was a transman. I quoted or alluded to other academics’ research on some males being attracted to extreme youth and the evolutionary reasons for this. That someone should be so triggered by this that they term it “Ephebophilia-apologism,” and engage in fact-value conflation, could be interpreted as saying a great deal about their own psychological conflicts.


In 2016-17, I was subject to manifestly unfair, and clearly politically motivated, plagiarism investigation by Oulu University and, predictably, found guilty, despite manifestly not being so. I respond to this particularly devious form of covert ‘cancellation’ in my article “Envy Wears the Mask of Love.”

“Fake Professor” etc.

I have placed official documents refuting this extraordinary allegation in the ‘About’ section. The cognitive dissonance that this appointment evokes among anti-scientists is truly amazing.