The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPeter Frost Archive
A Modern Myth
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Your blood group cannot reliably identify your ethnicity, your race ... or even your species. Credit:  Wikipedia Commons, Etan Tal
Your blood group cannot reliably identify your ethnicity, your race ... or even your species. Credit: Wikipedia Commons, Etan Tal

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

What sort of ideas will guide our elites twenty years from now? You can find out by observing university students, especially those in the humanities and social sciences. One popular idea is that race doesn’t exist, except as a social construct. Its proponents include Eula Biss, a contributor to the New York Times Magazine:

Whiteness is not a kinship or a culture. White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people. [...] Which is why it is entirely possible to despise whiteness without disliking yourself. (Biss, 2015, h/t to Steve Sailer)

The last sentence needs little explanation. It’s possible to like yourself a lot while despising your own people. Such individuals have existed since time immemorial. But what about the second sentence? One often hears it among the educated, even those who dislike genetics and biology. Where does it come from?

From a study by geneticist Richard Lewontin, in 1972. He looked at human genes with more than one variant, mostly blood groups but also serum proteins and red blood cell enzymes. His conclusion:

The results are quite remarkable. The mean proportion of the total species diversity that is contained within populations is 85.4%, with a maximum of 99.7% for the Xm gene, and a minimum of 63.6% for Duffy. Less than 15% of all human genetic diversity is accounted for by differences between human groups! Moreover, the difference between populations within a race accounts for an additional 8.3%, so that only 6.3% is accounted for by racial classification.

[...] It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. (Lewontin, 1972)

The problem here is the assumption that genetic variation within a human group is comparable to genetic variation between human groups. In fact, the two are qualitatively different. When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection, since the group boundary also tends to separate different natural environments (vegetation, climate, topography) or, more often, different cultural environments (diet, means of subsistence, sedentism vs. nomadism, gender roles, state monopoly of violence, etc.). Conversely, when a gene varies within a population, the cause is more likely a random factor without adaptive significance. That kind of variation is less easily flattened out by the steamroller of similar selection pressures.

This point isn’t merely theoretical. In other animals, as Lewontin himself noted, we often see the same genetic overlap between races of one species. But we also see it between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct. Some two decades after Lewontin’s study, this apparent paradox became known when geneticists looked at how genes vary within and between dog breeds:

[...] genetic and biochemical methods … have shown domestic dogs to be virtually identical in many respects to other members of the genus. [...] Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves. Eighteen breeds, which included dachshunds, dingoes, and Great Danes, shared a common haplotype and were no closer to wolves than poodles and bulldogs.

[...] there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species. (Coppinger and Schneider, 1995)

Initially, this paradox was put down to the effects of artificial selection. Kennel clubs insist that each breed should conform to a limited set of criteria. All other criteria, particularly those not readily visible, end up being ignored. So artificial selection targets a relatively small number of genes and leaves the rest of the genome alone.

But is natural selection any different? When a group buds off from a population and moves into a new environment, its members too have to conform to a new set of selection pressures that act on a relatively small number of genes. So the new group will diverge anatomically and behaviorally from its parent population, and yet remain similar to it over most of the genome. This is either because most of the genes respond similarly to the new environment—as with those that do the same housekeeping tasks in a wide range of species—or because they respond weakly to natural selection in general. Many genes are little more than “junk DNA”—they change slowly over time, not through the effects of natural selection but through gradual accumulation of random mutations.

With the extension of population studies to nonhuman species, geneticists have often encountered this paradox: a gene will vary much less between two species than within each of them. This is notably the case with sibling species that have emerged since the last ice age, when many new and different environments came into being.

Thus, the genetic overlap between dog breeds also appears between many natural species. In the deer family, genetic variability is greater within some species than between some genera (Cronin, 1991). Some masked shrew populations are genetically closer to prairie shrews than they are to other masked shrews (Stewart et al., 1993). Only a minority of mallards cluster together on an mtDNA tree, the rest being scattered among black ducks (Avise et al., 1990). All six species of Darwin’s ground finches form a genetically homogeneous genus with very little concordance between mtDNA, nuclear DNA, and morphology (Freeland and Boag, 1999). In terms of genetic distance, redpoll finches from the same species are not significantly closer to each other than they are to redpolls from different species (Seutin et al., 1995). The haplochromine cichlids of Lake Victoria are extremely difficult to identify as species when one looks at their nuclear or mitochondrial genes, despite being well differentiated anatomically and behaviorally (Klein et al., 1998). Neither mtDNA nor allozyme alleles can distinguish the various species of Lycaedis butterflies, despite clear differences in morphology (Nice and Shapiro, 1999). An extreme example is a dog tumor that has developed the ability to spread to other dogs through sexual contact. It looks and acts like an infectious microbe, yet its genes would show it to be a canid and, conceivably, some beagles may be genetically more similar to it than they are to Great Danes (Cochran, 2001; Yang, 1996).

We see this genetic overlap not only between sibling species, but even between some species that have long been separated, like humans and other primates. This is the case with ABO blood groups:

Remarkably, the A, B, and H antigens exist not only in humans but in many other primates [...], and the same two amino acids are responsible for A and B enzymatic specificity in all sequenced species. Thus, primates not only share their ABO blood group, but also the same genetic basis for the A/B polymorphism. O alleles, in contrast, result from loss-of-function alleles such as frame-shift mutations and appear to be species specific. (Segurel et al., 2012)

Just think. Lewontin used the same blood group polymorphisms for his study. While the O alleles are specific to each primate species, the A and B alleles show considerable overlap between primates that have been separated for millions of years. So it’s not surprising that this polymorphism should vary much more within human races than between them, as Lewontin found. Little did he know that the same pattern can continue above the species level.

Some have argued that this genetic overlap between humans and apes is only apparent. In other words, the same antigens have evolved independently in each species. Well, no. It seems that this polymorphism has survived one speciation event after another for millions of years:

That different species share the same two A/B alleles could be the result of convergent evolution in many lineages or of an ancestral polymorphism stably maintained for millions of years and inherited across (at least a subset of) species. The two possibilities have been debated for decades, with a consensus emerging that A is ancestral and the B allele has evolved independently at least six times in primates (in human, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon/siamang, macaque, and baboon), in particular, that the human A/B polymorphism arose more recently than the split with chimpanzee. We show instead that the remarkable distribution of ABO alleles across species reflects the persistence of an old ancestral polymorphism that originated at least 20 million years (My) ago and is shared identical by descent by humans and gibbons as well as among distantly related Old World monkeys. (Segurel et al., 2012)

Are blood groups a special case? Perhaps. But there seem to be quite a few trans-species polymorphisms, at least between humans and chimpanzees:

Instances in which natural selection maintains genetic variation in a population over millions of years are thought to be extremely rare. We conducted a genome-wide scan for long-lived balancing selection by looking for combinations of SNPs shared between humans and chimpanzees. In addition to the major histocompatibility complex, we identified 125 regions in which the same haplotypes are segregating in the two species, all but two of which are noncoding. In six cases, there is evidence for an ancestral polymorphism that persisted to the present in humans and chimpanzees. (Leffler et al., 2013)

Many of these appear to be “disease polymorphisms.” If an epidemic sweeps through a community, it pays to have surface antigens that differ somewhat from your neighbor’s. The result is selection that inflates within-group variability, especially for the sort of structural proteins that are easy to collect and examine for studies on population genetics.

If such polymorphisms can remain intact despite millions of years of separation, how many more persist among human populations that have been separated for only tens of thousands of years?

In sum, if we are to believe blood groups and other genetic markers, it seems that Eula Biss may have more in common with certain apes than with the white folks she despises. Let’s hope she feels gratified.

When I discuss Richard Lewontin’s study with antiracists, preferably those with some background in biology, they often agree that he misunderstood his findings. They nonetheless go on to say that their position has many other justifications, particularly moral ones. Fine. But it is above all Lewontin who gave antiracism a veneer of scientific objectivity. He still impresses people who are less impressed by academics who attack racism by attacking objectivity, like Stephen Jay Gould. “I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is” (Gould, 1996, p. 53). It was in this spirit that he impugned the integrity of long-dead scholars who could not defend themselves—or point out that Gould himself was manipulating the data to suit his preconceived views (Frost, 2013).

When one takes Lewontin and Gould out of the picture, who is left? A lot of people, to be sure. Followers for the most part—those like Eula Biss who believe because everyone else in their milieu seems to believe, at least anyone with moral authority.

References

Avise, J.C., C.D. Ankney, and W.S. Nelson. (1990). Mitochondrial gene trees and the evolutionary relationship of mallard and black ducks, Evolution, 44, 1109-1119.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2409570?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Biss, E. (2015). White Debt, The New York Times Magazine, December 2
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/magazine/white-debt.html?_r=1

Cochran, G. (2001). Personal communication.

Coppinger, R. and R. Schneider (1995). Evolution of working dogs. In J. Serpell (ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-47.
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=I8HU_3ycrrEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA21&dq=evolution+of+working+dogs&ots=BccrPzh5v3&sig=Cy-uz8gKk_epZRPTP58-k-1D9wg#v=onepage&q=evolution%20of%20working%20dogs&f=false

Cronin, M. (1991). Mitochondrial-DNA phylogeny of deer (Cervidae), Journal of Mammalogy, 72, 533-566.
http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/content/72/3/553.abstract

Freeland, J.R. and P.T. Boag. (1999).The mitochondrial and nuclear genetic homogeneity of the phenotypically diverse Darwin’s ground finches, Evolution, 53, 1553-1563.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Boag/publication/233529125_The_mitochondrial_and_nuclear_genetic_homogeneity_of_the_phenotypically_diverse_Darwins_Ground_finches/links/0deec514a004f3a887000000.pdf

Frost, P. (2013). Not getting the point, Evo and Proud, June 22
/pfrost/not-getting-point/

Gould, S.J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man, New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Mismeasure-Man-Revised-Expanded/dp/0393314251

Klein, J., A. Sato, S. Nagl, and C. O’hUigin. (1998). Molecular trans-species polymorphism, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 29, 1-21.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/221700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Leffler, E.M., Z. Gao, S. Pfeifer, L. Ségurel, A. Auton, O. Venn, R. Bowden, R. Bontrop, J.D. Wall, G. Sella, P. Donnelly, G. McVean, and M. Przeworski. (2013). Multiple instances of ancient balancing selection shared between humans and chimpanzees, Science, 339(6127), 1578-1582.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6127/1578.short

Lewontin, R. (1972). The apportionment of human diversity,Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381-398.
http://www.philbio.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Lewontin-The-Apportionment-of-Human-Diversity.pdf

Nice, C.C. and A.M. Shapiro. (1999). Molecular and morphological divergence in the butterfly genus Lycaeides (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in North America: evidence of recent speciation,Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 12, 936-950.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.1999.00111.x/full

Sailer, S. (2015). White Debt, The Unz Review, December 5
http://www.unz.com/isteve/white-debt/

Ségurel, L., E.E. Thompson, T. Flutre, J. Lovstad, A. Venkat, S.W. Margulis, J. Moyse, S. Ross, K. Gamble, G. Sella, C. Ober, and M. Przeworski. (2012). The ABO blood group is a trans-species polymorphism in primates, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 109, 18493-18498
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/45/18493.abstract

Seutin, G., L.M. Ratcliffe, and P.T. Boag. (1995). Mitochondrial DNA homogeneity in the phenotypically diverse redpoll finch complex (Aves: Carduelinae: Carduelis flammea-hornemanni),Evolution, 49, 962-973.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2410418?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Stewart, D.T., A.J. Baker, and S.P. Hindocha. (1993). Genetic differentiation and population structure in Sorex Haydeni and S. Cinereus, Journal of Mammalogy, 74, 21-32.
http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/content/74/1/21.abstract

Yang, T.J. (1996). Parasitic protist of metazoan origin, Evolutionary Theory, 11, 99-103.

(Republished from Evo and Proud by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 111 CommentsLeave a Comment
111 Comments to "A Modern Myth"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Sean says:

    Bliss is a journalist, the most competitive occupation there is, and cognitive dissonance being what it is she simply has to write like that to get used by the NYT, so she believes it. Then Rachel Dolezal goes and passes for black just to get on. These people profess to find Dolezal inexplicable.

    ‘ ‘‘If giving up whiteness is a privilege, what do you call hanging on to it?’’ As Dolezal surrendered her position in the N.A.A.C.P. and lost her teaching job, I thought of the white police officers who killed unarmed black people and kept their jobs. That the penalty for disowning whiteness appears to be more severe than the penalty for killing a black person says something about what our culture holds dear.

    Now this is simply dishonest. Dolezal was criticised for appropriating a benefit of blackness that she was not entitled to, by passing as a black body when she is 100% white race. She did a black person out of the position, and there was no net disowning of any privilege in becoming a local NAACP leader by passing for black. She got to complain about discrimination and intimidation by white extremists, and be quoted in the media. Life as a white person was empty and meaningless,until she became someone worth listening to, because of a lived reality based on a tiny objective biological fact that she simulated. Bliss has to just muse about her guilt for being white like bad whites, and criticise those as vicious. But she is no less white for what she believes or does than Dolezal is. Certainly Bliss would have an easier time getting published if she was part black, but she gets Bliss gets around that by saying she has white privilege while skewering the “white” (ie evil) whites. Bliss:

    The power to punish, Nietzsche notes, can enhance your sense of social status

    How true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Western race claim is based on Aryan ancestry and "whiteness" of their skin. The bigots don't realize that many people in Iran, north Pakistan and Hindu Brahmin also claim Aryan ancestry even though they carry both white or colored skins.

    Susie Green in an article at VDARE (July 14, 2011), entitled "Jews, Leftists, Immigration: My Journey To Nietzsche", tells her journey from Judaism to philosophy of Nietzsche. She claims that Nietzsche was not only objective about Jews but also predicted they will play a major role in the decline of Western Civilization. This proves that even leaving Judaism, she is still attached to her former "tribal race".

    Friedrich Nietzsche (d. 1900) was an athiest German philosopher and author. He was a White supremacist. In his 1888 book The Anitchrist, Nietzsche while scathing polemic against his Christian faith, did praised Islam in certain ways.

    “One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top …… Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down…. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church–but well paid…..”

    http://rehmat1.com/2011/07/21/nietzsche-on-christianity-jews-muslims-and-supremacy/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pfrost/a-modern-myth/#comment-1258471
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Sean says:

    American definitions of race allow for a white woman to give birth to black children, which should serve as a reminder that white people are not a family.

    That seems to imply that the white mother can gave birth to a black child that she shares less genes with than a random white person (I think this is in fact possible). Not exactly a refutation of race as a biological concept, nor is the personal life of Ms Biss who is married to a man who looks a bit like the young James Coburn.

    When I discuss Richard Lewontin’s study with antiracists, preferably those with some background in biology, they often agree that he misunderstood his findings. They nonetheless go on to say that their position has many other justifications, particularly moral ones. Fine. But it is above all Lewontin who gave antiracism a veneer of scientific objectivity.

    I think the ideological change came first (often with folk Lamarckianism) and Lewontin supplied a scientific rationale for what was already a fixed trajectory of western societies

    When one takes Lewontin and Gould out of the picture, who is left? A lot of people, to be sure. Followers for the most part—those like Eula Bliss who believe because everyone else in their milieu seems to believe, at least anyone with moral authority.

    Yes, but if white people were not capable of coming together and, on the haystack group model, all pitching in with unrelated others, society would not work very well. The type of who-whom group-centred thinking , which Badcock calls mentalistic

    IF this is so, here perhaps lies the ultimate genetic basis of the self as a separate, independent being: in the male, individualistic, mechanistic bias of the individual’s paternal genome by contrast to the female, collectivistic, mentalistic predisposition of maternal genes. Literacy may have given the self its voice and vocabulary of modern mentalism, but the mechanisms of genetic conflict ultimately enabled such an outcome and stamped it with the indelible imprint of the paternal genome. Indeed, here may also lie the basis of the Age of Asperger, with its cult of individualism, mechanistic cognitive configuration, and distrust of fascist, tribalist, or collectivist ideologies.

    The style of thinking Biss is using is in many ways a good thing. The scientific outlook has far less usefulness for a group, because it is not suited to perceiving the way groups might be rivals. Scientists are besically antinationalistic and think in a one world mindset, and even a universal universe mindset Fears over new Seti plan to repeatedly broadcast greetings to habitable planets for hundreds of years dismissed as paranoia..What makes scientists so sure it is paranoia is their own peculiar way of looking at problems, which is of limited usefulness in predicting how others might act. They call it moral, it’s a blind spot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Realist says:

    “One often hears it among the educated, even those who dislike genetics and biology. ”

    You may consider them educated….I sure as hell don’t

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. iffen says:

    it seems that Eula Bliss may have more in common with certain apes than with the white folks

    Would you have written this if Eula Bliss was black?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And if she was black would it have been unacceptable in America to say she had more in common with certain apes than with the black folks?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. angus says:

    Biss, btw. Not Bliss.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Rehmat says:
    @Sean
    Bliss is a journalist, the most competitive occupation there is, and cognitive dissonance being what it is she simply has to write like that to get used by the NYT, so she believes it. Then Rachel Dolezal goes and passes for black just to get on. These people profess to find Dolezal inexplicable.

    ‘ ‘‘If giving up whiteness is a privilege, what do you call hanging on to it?’’ As Dolezal surrendered her position in the N.A.A.C.P. and lost her teaching job, I thought of the white police officers who killed unarmed black people and kept their jobs. That the penalty for disowning whiteness appears to be more severe than the penalty for killing a black person says something about what our culture holds dear.
     
    Now this is simply dishonest. Dolezal was criticised for appropriating a benefit of blackness that she was not entitled to, by passing as a black body when she is 100% white race. She did a black person out of the position, and there was no net disowning of any privilege in becoming a local NAACP leader by passing for black. She got to complain about discrimination and intimidation by white extremists, and be quoted in the media. Life as a white person was empty and meaningless,until she became someone worth listening to, because of a lived reality based on a tiny objective biological fact that she simulated. Bliss has to just muse about her guilt for being white like bad whites, and criticise those as vicious. But she is no less white for what she believes or does than Dolezal is. Certainly Bliss would have an easier time getting published if she was part black, but she gets Bliss gets around that by saying she has white privilege while skewering the "white" (ie evil) whites. Bliss:

    The power to punish, Nietzsche notes, can enhance your sense of social status
     
    How true.

    Western race claim is based on Aryan ancestry and “whiteness” of their skin. The bigots don’t realize that many people in Iran, north Pakistan and Hindu Brahmin also claim Aryan ancestry even though they carry both white or colored skins.

    Susie Green in an article at VDARE (July 14, 2011), entitled “Jews, Leftists, Immigration: My Journey To Nietzsche”, tells her journey from Judaism to philosophy of Nietzsche. She claims that Nietzsche was not only objective about Jews but also predicted they will play a major role in the decline of Western Civilization. This proves that even leaving Judaism, she is still attached to her former “tribal race”.

    Friedrich Nietzsche (d. 1900) was an athiest German philosopher and author. He was a White supremacist. In his 1888 book The Anitchrist, Nietzsche while scathing polemic against his Christian faith, did praised Islam in certain ways.

    “One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top …… Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down…. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church–but well paid…..”

    http://rehmat1.com/2011/07/21/nietzsche-on-christianity-jews-muslims-and-supremacy/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @iffen
    it seems that Eula Bliss may have more in common with certain apes than with the white folks

    Would you have written this if Eula Bliss was black?

    And if she was black would it have been unacceptable in America to say she had more in common with certain apes than with the black folks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Stupid comment on my part.

    Yes, in America you can't compare blacks with chimps or apes and not be considered racist. (And rightly so.) But it is funny(ironic)(?) that you can compare white people who are uncomfortable with their whiteness to our cousins.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Peter

    Could you please help one who is short of both time and sleep to understand by some simple figuring how you work out that the genetic difference within species or race or breed us greater or less than between? What differences on what measures count?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Lewontin's implies genetic differentiation within races to be an index of function and relatedness. For what Lewontin's measured there are indeed more similarities between races than within races, but there are probably also more similarities between primate species (humans and apes) than within humans. So Eula Biss (her name is Biss not Bliss) may well be more genetically related to apes than her own race (or species) by Lewontin's blood system allele criterion.

    Biss will understand quite a lot of this, because she wrote an aclaimed book on anti vaccination http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/books/review/on-immunity-by-eula-biss.html
    Indeed, when everyone else's kids are vaccinated it may be not worth taking even a tiny risk to vaccinate your own.


    Even though the scientific literature cited by the anti-vaccination movement has been repeatedly debunked, American children — particularly those of white, wealthy, educated parents — are going unvaccinated in increasing numbers, with the predictable consequences. .
     
    Anti racism is a bit like anti vaccination, the elite are quick to see that the traditional way (vaccination or racial community feeling) is no longer paying off so handsomely and so they abandon it. But I think they are a bit hasty these white, wealthy, educated folks

    There have been recent outbreaks of mumps and whooping cough. Measles, which had all but disappeared in America, made a major resurgence this year.
     
    Anti racism is a bit like that. There is something in it, but the nice white elite have taken it so far and fast that it is already counterproductive. Lewontin's fallacy is the equivalent of "the scientific literature cited by the anti-vaccination movement which has been repeatedly debunked". American children — particularly those of white, educated parents — are going suffer the predictable consequences.

    It is difficult for me to see how a brilliant geneticist such as Lewontin failed to understand that the similarity between people of the same race that made them look related had little or nothing to do with the random or immunity-related genetic dissimilarities he was talking about, but that is not what he said.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. jay-w says:

    This looks like a fascinating essay. Unfortunately, one would have to spend many hours of careful reading to fully absorb it.

    I would like to see a pithy, concise, one-paragraph executive summary that could be used to demolish Lewontin’s Fallacy whenever the anti-racists bring it up.

    When anybody starts talking about “… correlated alleles at different loci …” people’s eyes glaze over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    I think what he's talking about is even though the within-group variation of two groups may be large for Groups A and B, if the within-group variation of Group A is very similar to the within-group variation of Group B, then the between-group variation of A and B is very small. In this case one can say that the within-group variation of A and B is "larger" than the between-group variation. Combining this with the fact that the great majority of the genome is boilerplate programming that is not exposed to selection pressure, and thus does not change much over time between groups, it appears that comparison of any two collections of Homo Sapiens will likely exhibit more within than between-group variation. In fact, it may hold in a larger universe, say comparing humans to neandertals. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
    , @anon
    Use height.

    For example

    Population A adults vary from 4' to 6' (average 5')
    Population B adults vary from 5' to 7' (average 6')

    The variation *within* both groups is 2'
    The variation *between* both groups is 1' (average)

    It's not an exact analogy but it is close enough and the average person will instantly see it for what Lewontin's fallacy was - a deliberate con trick.

    And that's the key point - it was a deliberate politically motivated con trick like the rest of the blank slate.

    .

    An extension is this pattern is exactly what you would expect from environmental adaptation. If a population moves from one environment to another why would *every* gene need to change. If a population moves from region A to region B they don't suddenly need three legs and two hearts - most of the basics stay the same. The changes are only where needed e.g. people moving to high altitudes have changes to genes related to breathing more efficiently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    More PC hysteria

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/argument-sexual-assault-race-harvard-law-school

    Cult of victimhood + pampered upbringing = demand for ‘safe spaces’. A demand that calls for precious privileged protection in the name of opposing privilege. Princesses playing at paupers, rather like Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess.

    Also, millennials were raised by PC parents and teachers who monitored what the kids said and did 24/7. “You can’t say that. It is ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘antisemitic’, ‘Islamophobic’, ‘misogynist’, ‘right-wing’, blah blah blah.” They were raised to always watch over their shoulders, and in turn, they came to see others that way.

    Only unfettered freedom is with sexuality, which is why millennial liberty is about fuc*ing and sucking.
    But even there, we hear calls for total safety and ‘yes’ culture because millennial girls, even as they emulate hos and biatches, see themselves as ‘victims’ of men… though tranny men are allowed to see themselves as ‘victims’ of women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Cult of victimhood + pampered upbringing = demand for ‘safe spaces’. A demand that calls for precious privileged protection in the name of opposing privilege.
     
    Sounds like you just a few weeks ago! Have you fascists no shame?
    , @Jim Christian
    Disagree. Well, to a degree. Politically correct in all ways, in all aspects is about what WHITE men say and do. Blacks drop "N"-bombs. Feminists and women say "fag" and "cunt" and "slut"(check Jezabel if you don't believe THAT) but White men don't dare say that. Black men can say that, but not White men. Women aren't happy about men-identifying-as-women claiming female privilege and so call those men fags. Exactly who is going to hassle a feminist for saying "fag, or a Black for saying the N bomb?

    Black men are the filthiest, most misogynistic, sexist pigs toward women and feminists say not ONE word about Black Male Art, ie, rap. Why? Because feminists are cowards, they aren't going to take up misogyny with Black men directly, because Black men would slap the shit out of them. And get away with it. Same for Islam. NOW doesn't lay a glove on Islam because Islam would set off bombs at NOW and feminists at NOW know it. Cowards. Who is going to take up with a lesbian/feminist/straight woman for saying "fag", "cunt" or "slut"? No one. Because a White man didn't say it.

    The forgiving nature of feminism toward Islam, a true rape culture, tells me feminism is desirous of strong, dark, men. If feminists were true to their cause, millions of women would march against Mosques, Islamic-society diplomats and their embassies, they would demand that the United States crush Islam. But feminists defend Islam to the hilt. They WANT strong men. In Sweden, women love their gang-rapes, they don't object a bit, they love rape-threats, slaps in the ass and the misogynists they've imported. Islam rules there. Women love rape culture. They must, because feminists give Islam a pass.

    White Men. The Number One definition in Webster's Dictionary for the word "Pussy". Women and the races and lower order in the world shit all over them and all white men do is beg forgiveness, yet, they keep the world running. Pussies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Why is everybody in HBD-land so down on Lewontin all the time? Is it only because his studies have been cited (usually by others) in support of the idea that race is a mere social construction? What if that had not occurred? Would his findings themselves still generate so much animosity?

    In this case, both sides of the political divide (i.e. the HBDers and the One-Worlders) are completely wrong about the significance of the cited biology. The fact of the matter is that it is completely immaterial how close or how far apart the races are genetically. DNA does not matter; DNA is not the Holy Grail, or the “Blueprint of Life,” or the End-All-and-Be-All that each political camp is making it out to be. DNA is merely an organ of protein synthesis—and that’s it. It has no explanatory power. Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones. Saying that different races have broadly similar genetic profiles tells us no more than the uncontroversial observation that we are, after all, all human. Biological facts can be cited in support of either political position; and as each political position is always underdetermined modulo the biological facts, it should not be surprising that these arguments convince no one who is not already convinced for other reasons.

    Now a true man of the Right would never resort to biology in order to make his case that there are intrinsic differences between races that would make it difficult for us to live together in the same society. He would say that these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space. In short, that these are metaphysical distinctions whose essence is not to be looked for in a test tube but in the substantial forms of the beings themselves. The resort to biology is a weak and unpersuasive argument and is a sign of a lack of the confidence necessary to articulate the real political objective, which can only be re-segregation and White Nationalism.

    Furthermore, a man of the Right would condemn out of hand all such scientism, biologism, and Darwinism as being incompatible with reality. It does not harmonize with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, with the Natural Law, with the perennial philosophy, or with Divinely Revealed Truth, and therefore it must be wrong. Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left. Instead of militating against these things as befitting a proper Traditionalist, a certain portion of the alt-right have swallowed this poison and morphed into the spavined host of ghouls known as “HBD.”

    That race doesn’t matter is only one side of the modern myth. The other side is the equally erroneous belief that molecular genetics do matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Maybe I have misunderstood but that seems like a load of codswallop to me. However.....

    Maybe you can explain why molecular genetic differences aren't part of the explanation why your cousin scores 25 more on IQ tests than you, or vice versa. How is molecular genetic difference not a probable part of the explanation for Ashkenazi Jewish IQs being well above and African-American IQs (on average) being well below the European average IQ? Of course you may say that it is not the bare molecular descriptions and their differences which matter but the way the molecules are combined that counts. OK but that would be a pathetic verbal wriggle out of a simple truth.

    , @Anonymous
    I'm surprised that someone going by your handle advocates substituting one metaphysic for another. Heidegger argued that the same fundamental "metaphysical thinking" pervades modern scientism, biologism, and Aristotelianism.
    , @iffen
    Thank God Sailer squashes your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Hitler says:

    I support the total eradication of “race” categories and eventually an extremely individualized humanity with one world government and equality in opportunity for all at birth via genetic or environmental means(aka make the blank slate happen).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @Intelligent Dasein
    Why is everybody in HBD-land so down on Lewontin all the time? Is it only because his studies have been cited (usually by others) in support of the idea that race is a mere social construction? What if that had not occurred? Would his findings themselves still generate so much animosity?

    In this case, both sides of the political divide (i.e. the HBDers and the One-Worlders) are completely wrong about the significance of the cited biology. The fact of the matter is that it is completely immaterial how close or how far apart the races are genetically. DNA does not matter; DNA is not the Holy Grail, or the "Blueprint of Life," or the End-All-and-Be-All that each political camp is making it out to be. DNA is merely an organ of protein synthesis---and that's it. It has no explanatory power. Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones. Saying that different races have broadly similar genetic profiles tells us no more than the uncontroversial observation that we are, after all, all human. Biological facts can be cited in support of either political position; and as each political position is always underdetermined modulo the biological facts, it should not be surprising that these arguments convince no one who is not already convinced for other reasons.

    Now a true man of the Right would never resort to biology in order to make his case that there are intrinsic differences between races that would make it difficult for us to live together in the same society. He would say that these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space. In short, that these are metaphysical distinctions whose essence is not to be looked for in a test tube but in the substantial forms of the beings themselves. The resort to biology is a weak and unpersuasive argument and is a sign of a lack of the confidence necessary to articulate the real political objective, which can only be re-segregation and White Nationalism.

    Furthermore, a man of the Right would condemn out of hand all such scientism, biologism, and Darwinism as being incompatible with reality. It does not harmonize with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, with the Natural Law, with the perennial philosophy, or with Divinely Revealed Truth, and therefore it must be wrong. Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left. Instead of militating against these things as befitting a proper Traditionalist, a certain portion of the alt-right have swallowed this poison and morphed into the spavined host of ghouls known as "HBD."

    That race doesn't matter is only one side of the modern myth. The other side is the equally erroneous belief that molecular genetics do matter.

    Maybe I have misunderstood but that seems like a load of codswallop to me. However…..

    Maybe you can explain why molecular genetic differences aren’t part of the explanation why your cousin scores 25 more on IQ tests than you, or vice versa. How is molecular genetic difference not a probable part of the explanation for Ashkenazi Jewish IQs being well above and African-American IQs (on average) being well below the European average IQ? Of course you may say that it is not the bare molecular descriptions and their differences which matter but the way the molecules are combined that counts. OK but that would be a pathetic verbal wriggle out of a simple truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    "How is molecular genetic difference not a probable part of the explanation for Ashkenazi Jewish IQs being well above and African-American IQs (on average) being well below the European average IQ? "

    Agree. But also wish to observe regarding "Ashkenazi Jewish IQ," your "molecular genetic difference" will be more tightly distributed around your mean when by definition you include only fifth-or-so-cousins (and their more common molecular genetic arrays) in the population in question.

    "Whites" as a psychometrics category by contrast have all sorts of populations lumped together. If NW Europeans were allowed to have our own fifth-cousins-or-less IQ club, as Ashkenazim grant themselves, I'd bet that it would be tightly distributed around a mean as high as, or higher, than theirs. Start adding Arabs, Southern Mediterraneans, Slavs, etc., and there's a strong downpull effect.

    I don't mean this competitively, just that there are also Tribal/kin-group imperatives in psychometrics. This leaves the entire field open to criticism for being political rather than scientific. If anything Gould was very typical of his Tribe, wanting the data to reify his perspectives as one of the Most Chosenist People Ever, basking in his special smartness and criticizing white America for whatever the heck it was. I always found him something of an egomaniac and blowhard, selective in his perception and framing of evolutionary biology, so never got very far with his arguments.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Why is everybody in HBD-land so down on Lewontin all the time? Is it only because his studies have been cited (usually by others) in support of the idea that race is a mere social construction? What if that had not occurred? Would his findings themselves still generate so much animosity?

    In this case, both sides of the political divide (i.e. the HBDers and the One-Worlders) are completely wrong about the significance of the cited biology. The fact of the matter is that it is completely immaterial how close or how far apart the races are genetically. DNA does not matter; DNA is not the Holy Grail, or the "Blueprint of Life," or the End-All-and-Be-All that each political camp is making it out to be. DNA is merely an organ of protein synthesis---and that's it. It has no explanatory power. Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones. Saying that different races have broadly similar genetic profiles tells us no more than the uncontroversial observation that we are, after all, all human. Biological facts can be cited in support of either political position; and as each political position is always underdetermined modulo the biological facts, it should not be surprising that these arguments convince no one who is not already convinced for other reasons.

    Now a true man of the Right would never resort to biology in order to make his case that there are intrinsic differences between races that would make it difficult for us to live together in the same society. He would say that these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space. In short, that these are metaphysical distinctions whose essence is not to be looked for in a test tube but in the substantial forms of the beings themselves. The resort to biology is a weak and unpersuasive argument and is a sign of a lack of the confidence necessary to articulate the real political objective, which can only be re-segregation and White Nationalism.

    Furthermore, a man of the Right would condemn out of hand all such scientism, biologism, and Darwinism as being incompatible with reality. It does not harmonize with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, with the Natural Law, with the perennial philosophy, or with Divinely Revealed Truth, and therefore it must be wrong. Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left. Instead of militating against these things as befitting a proper Traditionalist, a certain portion of the alt-right have swallowed this poison and morphed into the spavined host of ghouls known as "HBD."

    That race doesn't matter is only one side of the modern myth. The other side is the equally erroneous belief that molecular genetics do matter.

    I’m surprised that someone going by your handle advocates substituting one metaphysic for another. Heidegger argued that the same fundamental “metaphysical thinking” pervades modern scientism, biologism, and Aristotelianism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @jay-w
    This looks like a fascinating essay. Unfortunately, one would have to spend many hours of careful reading to fully absorb it.

    I would like to see a pithy, concise, one-paragraph executive summary that could be used to demolish Lewontin's Fallacy whenever the anti-racists bring it up.

    When anybody starts talking about "... correlated alleles at different loci ..." people's eyes glaze over.

    I think what he’s talking about is even though the within-group variation of two groups may be large for Groups A and B, if the within-group variation of Group A is very similar to the within-group variation of Group B, then the between-group variation of A and B is very small. In this case one can say that the within-group variation of A and B is “larger” than the between-group variation. Combining this with the fact that the great majority of the genome is boilerplate programming that is not exposed to selection pressure, and thus does not change much over time between groups, it appears that comparison of any two collections of Homo Sapiens will likely exhibit more within than between-group variation. In fact, it may hold in a larger universe, say comparing humans to neandertals. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Luke Lea says: • Website

    Nice piece, as usual. A collection of your essays would make a nice Christmas present.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. bondo says:

    we can BS ourselves into any belief, eg, there is a chosen cult, muslims perpetrated 9-11, wmds here/there/everywhere except the shitty one

    use your brain

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Here’s some counter-myth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    https://www.facebook.com/HighCastleAmazon/videos/1644496425809743/

    Hey look, it’s like Nazi Madmen or Nazi Mormons(take over America). (The new STAR WARS movie will also surely push this theme.)

    Funny, but the video looks like life in Israel where some people are more equal than others.

    Btw, if Nazism shows us the danger of majoritarian tyranny, what might minoritarian tyranny look like?

    Well, let’s look at South Africa where minority ruled over the majority with apartheid.
    Well, let’s look at West Bank where the minority rules over the majority with apathowicz.
    Well, let’s look at India where the British minority ruled over the majority with imperialism.
    Well, let’s look at the USSR where the communist elites made of national minorities(with good number of Jews) ruled over the majority of Russians and destroyed 50,000 churches and wiped out millions or sent them to gulag.

    By the way, Nazi tyranny was at its worst when it turned minoritarian.

    Nazis ruling over Germans in Germany was simply a case of German elites ruling over the German majority. Nazis in Germany didn’t kill many, and many Germans were okay. Nazi majoritarianism in Germany did limited harm.

    It was when Nazis invaded other countries and imposed minoritarian rule over them that the real horror began. Ask the Poles, ask the Russians, ask the Jews. Nazi minority imperialists ruthlessly oppressed and killed millions.

    So, minoritarian tyranny is worse.
    And the reason why US is turning into a hellhole is it is now ruled by a minoritarian elite that is utterly corrupt and unaccountable. This minoritarian elite pushed policies that led to millions of deaths in the Middle East and displacement of millions more.
    This minoritarian elite has opened the gates of EU and US to countless foreigners who are totally changing the racial and cultural landscape of the West.

    Japanese majoritarian rule over Japan was never the problem. Japanese only became problematic when they imposed minoritarian rule over other nations like China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Priss Factor
    More PC hysteria

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/argument-sexual-assault-race-harvard-law-school

    Cult of victimhood + pampered upbringing = demand for 'safe spaces'. A demand that calls for precious privileged protection in the name of opposing privilege. Princesses playing at paupers, rather like Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess.

    Also, millennials were raised by PC parents and teachers who monitored what the kids said and did 24/7. "You can't say that. It is 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic', 'xenophobic', 'antisemitic', 'Islamophobic', 'misogynist', 'right-wing', blah blah blah." They were raised to always watch over their shoulders, and in turn, they came to see others that way.

    Only unfettered freedom is with sexuality, which is why millennial liberty is about fuc*ing and sucking.
    But even there, we hear calls for total safety and 'yes' culture because millennial girls, even as they emulate hos and biatches, see themselves as 'victims' of men... though tranny men are allowed to see themselves as 'victims' of women.

    Cult of victimhood + pampered upbringing = demand for ‘safe spaces’. A demand that calls for precious privileged protection in the name of opposing privilege.

    Sounds like you just a few weeks ago! Have you fascists no shame?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Biss, btw. Not Bliss.

    Thanks. I’ve made the appropriate corrections on the original column.

    Western race claim is based on Aryan ancestry and “whiteness” of their skin. The bigots don’t realize that many people in Iran, north Pakistan and Hindu Brahmin also claim Aryan ancestry even though they carry both white or colored skins.

    Human diversity is a lot more than skin color. In any case, white skin evolved well before the Indo-Europeans. Unlike certain HBD writers, I don’t believe that the Indo-Europeans tell us much about why certain mental and behavioral traits came into being.

    Could you please help one who is short of both time and sleep to understand by some simple figuring how you work out that the genetic difference within species or race or breed us greater or less than between? What differences on what measures count?

    There are different statistical approaches, the simplest one being an analysis of variance. Richard Lewontin opted for a somewhat more complicated methodology. Basically, he took the following approach:
    - those genes that have only one allele are excluded from analysis
    - diversity is at a maximum when all alleles have the same frequency
    - diversity increases with increasing numbers of alleles
    - diversity thus follows a convex curve as a function of allele frequency

    One can criticize this methodology on various points, but other methodologies have come to the same conclusion. Genes tend to vary more within human populations than between them. Of course, most genes are of low selective value, especially the ones population geneticists tend to sample and measure. There is thus a built-in bias toward low-value genes that will vary within populations despite being exposed to the same selection pressures.

    I would like to see a pithy, concise, one-paragraph executive summary that could be used to demolish Lewontin’s Fallacy whenever the anti-racists bring it up.

    The same methodology that cannot tell human races apart also cannot tell many species apart, even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct and, in some cases, even when they have been separated for millions of years.

    The main flaw in Lewontin’s study is his assumption that a gene should vary within a group for the same reasons that it varies between groups. The two situations are not comparable. Between-group variation is more likely to involve a gene of high selective value, since it is varying across a boundary that separates different pressures of natural selection.

    Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones.

    It would be very strange if natural selection acted only on skin color while not acting on mental and behavioral traits that are just as heritable. Moreover, human genetic evolution increased a hundred-fold at a time (about 10,000 years ago) when humans had already colonized the earth’s surface from the equator to the arctic. They were no longer adapting to differences in the intensity of sunlight. They were now adapting to differences in culture.

    I assume you have no problem with the statement that we are shaped by our culture. You say as much in the following:

    [...] these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space.

    All of these traits have heritable components, and typically their heritability is moderate to high. Why, then, would they be immune to natural selection? Why would they make no difference in determining who lives and who reproduces?

    Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left.

    You’re talking about the Left of a hundred years ago. The Left has changed since then … and not for the better. I can assure you that the modern Left is now zealously anti-Darwinian and hostile to genetics. Do a Google Search for “genetic reductionism.” Look at the people who use that term.

    Combining this with the fact that the great majority of the genome is boilerplate programming that is not exposed to selection pressure, and thus does not change much over time between groups, it appears that comparison of any two collections of Homo Sapiens will likely exhibit more within than between-group variation. In fact, it may hold in a larger universe, say comparing humans to neandertals.

    Boilerplate programming doesn’t change much because it codes for structural proteins and controls physiological processes that are useful in a wide range of environments. If DNA is not exposed to selection pressure, it will gradually degrade over time through an accumulation of random mutations that don’t get removed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    "even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct "

    shouldn't that be "distinct"?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thanks Peter. I think I'm getting to the point where I can handle the debate even with half a bottle of wine insude me and not enough sleep. Indeed I might add the analogy of huge variation within Africa to emphasise that most individual variations don't matter much and it is precisely because of that that they persist with insufficient negative selection to strip variety from the functionally trivial parts of the genome.

    BTW do you see a problem with "anon" [next post after yours] giving the difference between population A's 4 to 6 ft range and B's 5 to 7 ft range as illustrating Lewontin's fallacious argument?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jay-w
    This looks like a fascinating essay. Unfortunately, one would have to spend many hours of careful reading to fully absorb it.

    I would like to see a pithy, concise, one-paragraph executive summary that could be used to demolish Lewontin's Fallacy whenever the anti-racists bring it up.

    When anybody starts talking about "... correlated alleles at different loci ..." people's eyes glaze over.

    Use height.

    For example

    Population A adults vary from 4′ to 6′ (average 5′)
    Population B adults vary from 5′ to 7′ (average 6′)

    The variation *within* both groups is 2′
    The variation *between* both groups is 1′ (average)

    It’s not an exact analogy but it is close enough and the average person will instantly see it for what Lewontin’s fallacy was – a deliberate con trick.

    And that’s the key point – it was a deliberate politically motivated con trick like the rest of the blank slate.

    .

    An extension is this pattern is exactly what you would expect from environmental adaptation. If a population moves from one environment to another why would *every* gene need to change. If a population moves from region A to region B they don’t suddenly need three legs and two hearts – most of the basics stay the same. The changes are only where needed e.g. people moving to high altitudes have changes to genes related to breathing more efficiently.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan D Mute
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. with dog breeds the discussion is often similar to the discussion with humans. Environmentalists say that there are no inherent behavioral differences between dog breeds. It is often the same people who for example own Pit Bulls. They say the pitbull is me just the same as a golden retriever. Yet they have actively choose this breed out of hundred. The same is going for e.g. female antiracist who deny the existence of races, yet actively try to get black husband out of all possible males.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Good post.

    Tangential but sorta on topic I’ve been thinking about “white guilt” and assuming it’s a thing – which it is imo – and assuming there’s a genetic element – which i believe there is – then there must be a reason it evolved.

    It seems to me “white guilt” may be “winter guilt.”

    If you have a population that needs food for 12 months but can only get food for 9 months then how do you make them work twice as hard in the 3 months before winter when there is no state, police, slave drivers etc to make them?

    You need some internal drive to make a guy go out into the snow when he already has a month of meat in the ice locker and a month of logs stacked up outside his hut.

    If a guy has enough meat stored in the ice locker to feed himself over the winter months then he needs some internal drive to make him go out into the snow to get enough meat for the wife and chilluns.

    So, I think guilt – defined as an internal rather than external shaming mechanism – would do the trick.

    (If so it wouldn’t be specifically white so much as a latitude cline with the far north being at the extreme end of the cline.)

    Once the biological mechanism has evolved it doesn’t necessarily restrict itself to fretting over having enough food and logs for the winter – maybe it can misfire or be manipulated.

    (For example you can imagine how people with this biological guilt mechanism might readily identify with the doctrine of original sin.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Sean says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Peter

    Could you please help one who is short of both time and sleep to understand by some simple figuring how you work out that the genetic difference within species or race or breed us greater or less than between? What differences on what measures count?

    Lewontin’s implies genetic differentiation within races to be an index of function and relatedness. For what Lewontin’s measured there are indeed more similarities between races than within races, but there are probably also more similarities between primate species (humans and apes) than within humans. So Eula Biss (her name is Biss not Bliss) may well be more genetically related to apes than her own race (or species) by Lewontin’s blood system allele criterion.

    Biss will understand quite a lot of this, because she wrote an aclaimed book on anti vaccination http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/books/review/on-immunity-by-eula-biss.html
    Indeed, when everyone else’s kids are vaccinated it may be not worth taking even a tiny risk to vaccinate your own.

    Even though the scientific literature cited by the anti-vaccination movement has been repeatedly debunked, American children — particularly those of white, wealthy, educated parents — are going unvaccinated in increasing numbers, with the predictable consequences. .

    Anti racism is a bit like anti vaccination, the elite are quick to see that the traditional way (vaccination or racial community feeling) is no longer paying off so handsomely and so they abandon it. But I think they are a bit hasty these white, wealthy, educated folks

    There have been recent outbreaks of mumps and whooping cough. Measles, which had all but disappeared in America, made a major resurgence this year.

    Anti racism is a bit like that. There is something in it, but the nice white elite have taken it so far and fast that it is already counterproductive. Lewontin’s fallacy is the equivalent of “the scientific literature cited by the anti-vaccination movement which has been repeatedly debunked”. American children — particularly those of white, educated parents — are going suffer the predictable consequences.

    It is difficult for me to see how a brilliant geneticist such as Lewontin failed to understand that the similarity between people of the same race that made them look related had little or nothing to do with the random or immunity-related genetic dissimilarities he was talking about, but that is not what he said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Peter Frost
    Biss, btw. Not Bliss.

    Thanks. I've made the appropriate corrections on the original column.

    Western race claim is based on Aryan ancestry and “whiteness” of their skin. The bigots don’t realize that many people in Iran, north Pakistan and Hindu Brahmin also claim Aryan ancestry even though they carry both white or colored skins.

    Human diversity is a lot more than skin color. In any case, white skin evolved well before the Indo-Europeans. Unlike certain HBD writers, I don't believe that the Indo-Europeans tell us much about why certain mental and behavioral traits came into being.

    Could you please help one who is short of both time and sleep to understand by some simple figuring how you work out that the genetic difference within species or race or breed us greater or less than between? What differences on what measures count?

    There are different statistical approaches, the simplest one being an analysis of variance. Richard Lewontin opted for a somewhat more complicated methodology. Basically, he took the following approach:
    - those genes that have only one allele are excluded from analysis
    - diversity is at a maximum when all alleles have the same frequency
    - diversity increases with increasing numbers of alleles
    - diversity thus follows a convex curve as a function of allele frequency

    One can criticize this methodology on various points, but other methodologies have come to the same conclusion. Genes tend to vary more within human populations than between them. Of course, most genes are of low selective value, especially the ones population geneticists tend to sample and measure. There is thus a built-in bias toward low-value genes that will vary within populations despite being exposed to the same selection pressures.

    I would like to see a pithy, concise, one-paragraph executive summary that could be used to demolish Lewontin’s Fallacy whenever the anti-racists bring it up.

    The same methodology that cannot tell human races apart also cannot tell many species apart, even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct and, in some cases, even when they have been separated for millions of years.

    The main flaw in Lewontin's study is his assumption that a gene should vary within a group for the same reasons that it varies between groups. The two situations are not comparable. Between-group variation is more likely to involve a gene of high selective value, since it is varying across a boundary that separates different pressures of natural selection.

    Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones.

    It would be very strange if natural selection acted only on skin color while not acting on mental and behavioral traits that are just as heritable. Moreover, human genetic evolution increased a hundred-fold at a time (about 10,000 years ago) when humans had already colonized the earth's surface from the equator to the arctic. They were no longer adapting to differences in the intensity of sunlight. They were now adapting to differences in culture.

    I assume you have no problem with the statement that we are shaped by our culture. You say as much in the following:

    [...] these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space.
     
    All of these traits have heritable components, and typically their heritability is moderate to high. Why, then, would they be immune to natural selection? Why would they make no difference in determining who lives and who reproduces?

    Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left.

    You're talking about the Left of a hundred years ago. The Left has changed since then ... and not for the better. I can assure you that the modern Left is now zealously anti-Darwinian and hostile to genetics. Do a Google Search for "genetic reductionism." Look at the people who use that term.

    Combining this with the fact that the great majority of the genome is boilerplate programming that is not exposed to selection pressure, and thus does not change much over time between groups, it appears that comparison of any two collections of Homo Sapiens will likely exhibit more within than between-group variation. In fact, it may hold in a larger universe, say comparing humans to neandertals.


    Boilerplate programming doesn't change much because it codes for structural proteins and controls physiological processes that are useful in a wide range of environments. If DNA is not exposed to selection pressure, it will gradually degrade over time through an accumulation of random mutations that don't get removed.

    “even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct ”

    shouldn’t that be “distinct”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Willis says:

    This story should elicit feelings of brotherhood between all races of man and yet, like comments on so many articles on this site, responses to this story become racially charged.

    I am not a globalist nor do I condone violence or dishonesty from anyone, generally because that is how wars are started. I got the impression from reading this site that many people here are veterans of war and as such should appreciate the horrors of conflict. In stead of adopting a live and let live attitued, many commenters here appear to have never left the battle field or wish that the world were one big one.

    Like Mr. Putin asked the people who claim superiority over the rest of the world and have killed millions in the process, ‘Do you realize what you have done?’

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    1400 white children were sexually groomed by non whites because of their race in rotterham uk and the authorities did not take it seriously because of fear of being accused of racism. Failure to acknowledge and respond to patterns in the social world under the threat of being accused of racism is deadly. Antiracism can be just as deadly as racism. Pol pot killed millions to bring about more equality in the economic sphere. Racial egalitarianism could proe just as deadly. Many horrible things have been done to white south africans in the name of fighting racism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Rehmat says:

    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    The leaders of World Zionist movement applied the so-called “genetic history” (Tribal race theory) to claim that European Jews were “semite people”, who were expelled from Palestine by Roman, Persians, Christians and Muslims.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, refuted that Zionist claim.

    Since the publication of the study, Elhaik has been called “a self-hating Jew” and “antisemite”. Fed-up with Supremacists’ name-calling – Elhaik has thrown an open challenge to his accusers to come up with some new genetic data to prove that European Jews belong to the original Semite tribes.

    “Though oral history suggests Middle Eastern ties to almost all Jewish community, genetic evidence is scant. The question of Jewish origin has broad implications beyond history, which have critical relevance for medicine, anthropology, linguistics, social justice, and more,” says Elhaik.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/09/21/israeli-historian-jews-are-not-semitic-people/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    If the Jews aren't smart, why are you so scared of them? Is it their clannishness? Valid point, but Arabs are far more clannish than are Jews. Why is no one scared of them, except bomb in hand?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You are still doing Israel favours with your sloppiness. You depend on an outlier like Eran Elhaik for your point, whatever it is ultimately, but wrongly describe him as a historian, which he is not. (Google for "who is eran elhaik" and the first occupational description you will see is "geneticist").

    No one seriously disputes the existence of non ME ancestry in Ashkenazim. How could they if they actually know or live among lots of them and note the red hair, blue or grey eyes and pale skin?

    But the idea of predominant Turkic ancestry from the Caucasus is immediately seen to be so farfetched as to be almost nonsensical once you consider how it came about that Ashkenazim spoke/speak a German dialect. (Maybe you didn't know something so basic to the thoroughgoing anti-Semites armoury. Himmler certainly did).

    Nor is it "mental illness" which is said to be more prevalent amongst Jews. It is a set of genetically determined neurological diseases including Tay Sachs, Nieman Pick, Gaucher's, Wiston's Dystonia and others referred to in the work of Cochran, Harpending and Hardy about 10 years ago. Whatever the merit of their explanation the disproportionate prevalence of the diseases is evidence for a lot of inbreeding for a long period. How do the Armenians and Georgians - Elhaik's surrogates for the Khazars - compare as sufferers from those diseases?

    Apart from the dubious linking to your own website what cause do you expect to advance by relying on the work of one much criticised young scholar on the make to cast doubt on the undoubted long cherished feeling of peoplehood amongst Jews over most of the last 2000 years? So there were converts and intermarriage? So what? No one can seriously accept those subjective feelings about Jewishness and Israel as adding anything to the pragmatic argument that Israel exists as a nation and will only cease to exist as a country controlled by Jews any time in the next 100 years or so if there is horrendous loss of life and material destruction.
    , @Anonymous
    Razib Khan, a doctoral student in genetics who now blogs on the Unz site, wrote about problems with Elhaik's analysis :

    Setting aside the historical fuzziness of the paper, the major issue I have is that though the methods are totally kosher, so to speak, the data you put into them strongly shape your outcomes. Dienekes and Maju both anticipated my own key concern. The "Middle Eastern” aspect of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry might in fact be most well represented by populations in the zone of the northern Fertile Crescent and Eastern Anatolia; rather near or overlapping with the homelands of several of the Caucasian populations used in the above study as a proxy for Khazars. Additionally, modern Palestinians (the HGDP data set) are used as a reference to the Middle Eastern ancestors of Jews. I now believe that the Arabian contribution to the ancestry of Levantine and Iraqi Muslim population which dates to after the 7th century, and differentiates Muslim Arabs from their local non-Muslim Arab* co-ethnics, is significant. Perhaps on the same order of Germanic ancestry in modern England which dates to the 6th century and later. In plainer language the Caucasian component that is being detected in this paper may simply be a indigenous Middle Eastern ancestral element which has now been somewhat displaced northward in its modal frequency due to the expansion of the Arabs, and later the admixture of some Sub-Saharan admixture among Muslim Arabs.
    , @epochehusserl
    We need to treat intelligence tests like a controlled substance, only to be administred by credentialed professionals in order to fulfill mlk's dream. My fear is that a black market in intelligence tests will be developed. If we ban iq tests then only criminals will have iq tests. I wish to be the Al Capone or Pablo Escobar dealing in black market iq tests under such a system, finding talented inappropriately credentialed white children. Its not that hard to assess mental abilities using the internet. What happens to affirmative action if private credentialing mechanisms are developed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. iffen says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Why is everybody in HBD-land so down on Lewontin all the time? Is it only because his studies have been cited (usually by others) in support of the idea that race is a mere social construction? What if that had not occurred? Would his findings themselves still generate so much animosity?

    In this case, both sides of the political divide (i.e. the HBDers and the One-Worlders) are completely wrong about the significance of the cited biology. The fact of the matter is that it is completely immaterial how close or how far apart the races are genetically. DNA does not matter; DNA is not the Holy Grail, or the "Blueprint of Life," or the End-All-and-Be-All that each political camp is making it out to be. DNA is merely an organ of protein synthesis---and that's it. It has no explanatory power. Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones. Saying that different races have broadly similar genetic profiles tells us no more than the uncontroversial observation that we are, after all, all human. Biological facts can be cited in support of either political position; and as each political position is always underdetermined modulo the biological facts, it should not be surprising that these arguments convince no one who is not already convinced for other reasons.

    Now a true man of the Right would never resort to biology in order to make his case that there are intrinsic differences between races that would make it difficult for us to live together in the same society. He would say that these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space. In short, that these are metaphysical distinctions whose essence is not to be looked for in a test tube but in the substantial forms of the beings themselves. The resort to biology is a weak and unpersuasive argument and is a sign of a lack of the confidence necessary to articulate the real political objective, which can only be re-segregation and White Nationalism.

    Furthermore, a man of the Right would condemn out of hand all such scientism, biologism, and Darwinism as being incompatible with reality. It does not harmonize with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, with the Natural Law, with the perennial philosophy, or with Divinely Revealed Truth, and therefore it must be wrong. Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left. Instead of militating against these things as befitting a proper Traditionalist, a certain portion of the alt-right have swallowed this poison and morphed into the spavined host of ghouls known as "HBD."

    That race doesn't matter is only one side of the modern myth. The other side is the equally erroneous belief that molecular genetics do matter.

    Thank God Sailer squashes your comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    And if she was black would it have been unacceptable in America to say she had more in common with certain apes than with the black folks?

    Stupid comment on my part.

    Yes, in America you can’t compare blacks with chimps or apes and not be considered racist. (And rightly so.) But it is funny(ironic)(?) that you can compare white people who are uncomfortable with their whiteness to our cousins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    in America you can’t compare blacks with chimps or apes and not be considered racist. (And rightly so.)
     
    Why is that right? It's just another PC taboo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Rehmat
    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    The leaders of World Zionist movement applied the so-called "genetic history" (Tribal race theory) to claim that European Jews were "semite people", who were expelled from Palestine by Roman, Persians, Christians and Muslims.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, refuted that Zionist claim.

    Since the publication of the study, Elhaik has been called “a self-hating Jew” and “antisemite”. Fed-up with Supremacists’ name-calling – Elhaik has thrown an open challenge to his accusers to come up with some new genetic data to prove that European Jews belong to the original Semite tribes.

    “Though oral history suggests Middle Eastern ties to almost all Jewish community, genetic evidence is scant. The question of Jewish origin has broad implications beyond history, which have critical relevance for medicine, anthropology, linguistics, social justice, and more,” says Elhaik.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/09/21/israeli-historian-jews-are-not-semitic-people/

    If the Jews aren’t smart, why are you so scared of them? Is it their clannishness? Valid point, but Arabs are far more clannish than are Jews. Why is no one scared of them, except bomb in hand?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @iffen
    Stupid comment on my part.

    Yes, in America you can't compare blacks with chimps or apes and not be considered racist. (And rightly so.) But it is funny(ironic)(?) that you can compare white people who are uncomfortable with their whiteness to our cousins.

    in America you can’t compare blacks with chimps or apes and not be considered racist. (And rightly so.)

    Why is that right? It’s just another PC taboo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Or is it because stupidity confounds bad manners with "racism" - itself perhaps a manifestation of stupidity or intellectual sloth at best?

    Of course one shouldn't normally compare blacks to chimps or apes in the presence/ hearing of blacks. That's just ordinary politeness. It would convey contempt or casual disdain in a way which is more offensive than to do so when referring say to a particular large hairy white footballer. (And you might hesitate in the latter case if you thought it would be taken as specifically intended to suggest that he was all brawn and no brain rather than as more or less genial mockery - rather as a bald brother or cousin might say of his hirsute brother/cousin "well it had to be a choice of brains or hair and you can see what Mum chose for him").

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Peter Frost
    Biss, btw. Not Bliss.

    Thanks. I've made the appropriate corrections on the original column.

    Western race claim is based on Aryan ancestry and “whiteness” of their skin. The bigots don’t realize that many people in Iran, north Pakistan and Hindu Brahmin also claim Aryan ancestry even though they carry both white or colored skins.

    Human diversity is a lot more than skin color. In any case, white skin evolved well before the Indo-Europeans. Unlike certain HBD writers, I don't believe that the Indo-Europeans tell us much about why certain mental and behavioral traits came into being.

    Could you please help one who is short of both time and sleep to understand by some simple figuring how you work out that the genetic difference within species or race or breed us greater or less than between? What differences on what measures count?

    There are different statistical approaches, the simplest one being an analysis of variance. Richard Lewontin opted for a somewhat more complicated methodology. Basically, he took the following approach:
    - those genes that have only one allele are excluded from analysis
    - diversity is at a maximum when all alleles have the same frequency
    - diversity increases with increasing numbers of alleles
    - diversity thus follows a convex curve as a function of allele frequency

    One can criticize this methodology on various points, but other methodologies have come to the same conclusion. Genes tend to vary more within human populations than between them. Of course, most genes are of low selective value, especially the ones population geneticists tend to sample and measure. There is thus a built-in bias toward low-value genes that will vary within populations despite being exposed to the same selection pressures.

    I would like to see a pithy, concise, one-paragraph executive summary that could be used to demolish Lewontin’s Fallacy whenever the anti-racists bring it up.

    The same methodology that cannot tell human races apart also cannot tell many species apart, even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct and, in some cases, even when they have been separated for millions of years.

    The main flaw in Lewontin's study is his assumption that a gene should vary within a group for the same reasons that it varies between groups. The two situations are not comparable. Between-group variation is more likely to involve a gene of high selective value, since it is varying across a boundary that separates different pressures of natural selection.

    Saying that different races have different genetic profiles tells us no more than the readily observed fact that they have different skin tones.

    It would be very strange if natural selection acted only on skin color while not acting on mental and behavioral traits that are just as heritable. Moreover, human genetic evolution increased a hundred-fold at a time (about 10,000 years ago) when humans had already colonized the earth's surface from the equator to the arctic. They were no longer adapting to differences in the intensity of sunlight. They were now adapting to differences in culture.

    I assume you have no problem with the statement that we are shaped by our culture. You say as much in the following:

    [...] these differences are of pulse and direction, of feeling and sentiment, of perception and thought, of values and character, of history and destiny; soul-deep differences that lead to inevitable misunderstanding, conflict, and mutual resentment when forced to coexist in the same space.
     
    All of these traits have heritable components, and typically their heritability is moderate to high. Why, then, would they be immune to natural selection? Why would they make no difference in determining who lives and who reproduces?

    Darwinism, scientism, and genetic reductionism belong to the black arts of the materialist Left.

    You're talking about the Left of a hundred years ago. The Left has changed since then ... and not for the better. I can assure you that the modern Left is now zealously anti-Darwinian and hostile to genetics. Do a Google Search for "genetic reductionism." Look at the people who use that term.

    Combining this with the fact that the great majority of the genome is boilerplate programming that is not exposed to selection pressure, and thus does not change much over time between groups, it appears that comparison of any two collections of Homo Sapiens will likely exhibit more within than between-group variation. In fact, it may hold in a larger universe, say comparing humans to neandertals.


    Boilerplate programming doesn't change much because it codes for structural proteins and controls physiological processes that are useful in a wide range of environments. If DNA is not exposed to selection pressure, it will gradually degrade over time through an accumulation of random mutations that don't get removed.

    Thanks Peter. I think I’m getting to the point where I can handle the debate even with half a bottle of wine insude me and not enough sleep. Indeed I might add the analogy of huge variation within Africa to emphasise that most individual variations don’t matter much and it is precisely because of that that they persist with insufficient negative selection to strip variety from the functionally trivial parts of the genome.

    BTW do you see a problem with “anon” [next post after yours] giving the difference between population A’s 4 to 6 ft range and B’s 5 to 7 ft range as illustrating Lewontin’s fallacious argument?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. iffen says:

    Taboos can be a good thing.

    You seem to know a little about psychology. Apparently you don’t know much about politics or history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine that you know about anything.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Why do you read selectively and set up straw men? I wrote it's another "PC taboo." You respond, taboos can be good. Of course. But the point isn't taboos in general but PC taboos.

    [PC taboos are designed to raise the status of designated groups by creating artificial distinctions, such as you can't call x y but you can call z y. Are you going to defend PC taboos? If so, "taboos can be good" doesn't cut it.]

    You have some kind of narrow moralistic viewpoint that prevents you from comprehending alternative points of view. Rather like Peter Frost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Stephen R. Diamond

    in America you can’t compare blacks with chimps or apes and not be considered racist. (And rightly so.)
     
    Why is that right? It's just another PC taboo.

    Or is it because stupidity confounds bad manners with “racism” – itself perhaps a manifestation of stupidity or intellectual sloth at best?

    Of course one shouldn’t normally compare blacks to chimps or apes in the presence/ hearing of blacks. That’s just ordinary politeness. It would convey contempt or casual disdain in a way which is more offensive than to do so when referring say to a particular large hairy white footballer. (And you might hesitate in the latter case if you thought it would be taken as specifically intended to suggest that he was all brawn and no brain rather than as more or less genial mockery – rather as a bald brother or cousin might say of his hirsute brother/cousin “well it had to be a choice of brains or hair and you can see what Mum chose for him”).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @iffen
    Taboos can be a good thing.

    You seem to know a little about psychology. Apparently you don't know much about politics or history.

    Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to determine that you know about anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Is that my deficiency or yours?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. iffen says:

    Of course one shouldn’t normally compare blacks to chimps or apes in the presence/ hearing of blacks. That’s just ordinary politeness.

    No. If this is what you think then you qualify.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @iffen
    Taboos can be a good thing.

    You seem to know a little about psychology. Apparently you don't know much about politics or history.

    Why do you read selectively and set up straw men? I wrote it’s another “PC taboo.” You respond, taboos can be good. Of course. But the point isn’t taboos in general but PC taboos.

    [PC taboos are designed to raise the status of designated groups by creating artificial distinctions, such as you can't call x y but you can call z y. Are you going to defend PC taboos? If so, "taboos can be good" doesn't cut it.]

    You have some kind of narrow moralistic viewpoint that prevents you from comprehending alternative points of view. Rather like Peter Frost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Why do I need a strawman when I have you.

    Comparing black Americans to other primates is not a good thing and is racist.

    I do have a narrow moralistic viewpoint what good would a broad one be?

    Why are you taking a stab at Peter Frost?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. iffen says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine that you know about anything.

    Is that my deficiency or yours?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    I think it's yours, but it might be more because of your unintelligible writing style than actual ignorance.

    [I'm very ready to acknowledge strengths in opponents.]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. iffen says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Why do you read selectively and set up straw men? I wrote it's another "PC taboo." You respond, taboos can be good. Of course. But the point isn't taboos in general but PC taboos.

    [PC taboos are designed to raise the status of designated groups by creating artificial distinctions, such as you can't call x y but you can call z y. Are you going to defend PC taboos? If so, "taboos can be good" doesn't cut it.]

    You have some kind of narrow moralistic viewpoint that prevents you from comprehending alternative points of view. Rather like Peter Frost.

    Why do I need a strawman when I have you.

    Comparing black Americans to other primates is not a good thing and is racist.

    I do have a narrow moralistic viewpoint what good would a broad one be?

    Why are you taking a stab at Peter Frost?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Why do I need a strawman when I have you.
     
    Well, ask yourself that question. Why do you need straw men? Or if you don't need them, why do you create them anyway? Your argument was that taboos can be good. That failed because I never said taboos were generally bad. Now you make another moralistic assertion that doesn't deal with why it's OK to demonize chimp analogies to blacks in particular. You've bought into the whole PC bullshit that has spawned the campus degeneration. Where do you draw the line between a supposedly racist analogy and a supposed micro-aggression? [Bright lines are everything in politics.]

    You should admit your failed arguments before proceeding. It's honest, and it will make your writing clearer.

    I'm not taking a stab at Frost any more than I would be taking a stab at negroes if I happened to make a chimp analogy. I'm trying to convey an understanding that requires examples.

    A broader viewpoint would put more of a premium on honesty and less on your inflated view of your own moral intuitions: "not a good thing and is racist." Why would you write such an empty platitude and subject readers to it?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @iffen
    Is that my deficiency or yours?

    I think it’s yours, but it might be more because of your unintelligible writing style than actual ignorance.

    [I'm very ready to acknowledge strengths in opponents.]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. iffen says:

    I don’t consider myself a writer.

    I confess to ignorance in certain areas.

    I am not sure why I should consider you as an opponent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @iffen
    Why do I need a strawman when I have you.

    Comparing black Americans to other primates is not a good thing and is racist.

    I do have a narrow moralistic viewpoint what good would a broad one be?

    Why are you taking a stab at Peter Frost?

    Why do I need a strawman when I have you.

    Well, ask yourself that question. Why do you need straw men? Or if you don’t need them, why do you create them anyway? Your argument was that taboos can be good. That failed because I never said taboos were generally bad. Now you make another moralistic assertion that doesn’t deal with why it’s OK to demonize chimp analogies to blacks in particular. You’ve bought into the whole PC bullshit that has spawned the campus degeneration. Where do you draw the line between a supposedly racist analogy and a supposed micro-aggression? [Bright lines are everything in politics.]

    You should admit your failed arguments before proceeding. It’s honest, and it will make your writing clearer.

    I’m not taking a stab at Frost any more than I would be taking a stab at negroes if I happened to make a chimp analogy. I’m trying to convey an understanding that requires examples.

    A broader viewpoint would put more of a premium on honesty and less on your inflated view of your own moral intuitions: “not a good thing and is racist.” Why would you write such an empty platitude and subject readers to it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You should admit your failed arguments before proceeding.

    I admit it. You can’t address what I write. My argument therefore fails.

    BTW, bright lines are of no consequence, even blind people can see them. It is the gray, hazy and indistinct lines that are controlling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. “Bliss is a journalist, the most competitive occupation there is, and cognitive dissonance being what it is she simply has to write like that to get used by the NYT, so she believes it. ”

    I wonder to what degree political correctness comes down to the intense competition for jobs in fields where the primary criteria for entry is verbal intelligence. Today we have huge numbers of women and men competing for jobs in verbally-orientated fields like journalism, law, teaching, academic research, advertising, government administration and policy making, and employers have never had so much freedom to ruthlessly sack anyone who shows any signs of being politically insensitive or unfashionable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Rehmat
    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    The leaders of World Zionist movement applied the so-called "genetic history" (Tribal race theory) to claim that European Jews were "semite people", who were expelled from Palestine by Roman, Persians, Christians and Muslims.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, refuted that Zionist claim.

    Since the publication of the study, Elhaik has been called “a self-hating Jew” and “antisemite”. Fed-up with Supremacists’ name-calling – Elhaik has thrown an open challenge to his accusers to come up with some new genetic data to prove that European Jews belong to the original Semite tribes.

    “Though oral history suggests Middle Eastern ties to almost all Jewish community, genetic evidence is scant. The question of Jewish origin has broad implications beyond history, which have critical relevance for medicine, anthropology, linguistics, social justice, and more,” says Elhaik.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/09/21/israeli-historian-jews-are-not-semitic-people/

    You are still doing Israel favours with your sloppiness. You depend on an outlier like Eran Elhaik for your point, whatever it is ultimately, but wrongly describe him as a historian, which he is not. (Google for “who is eran elhaik” and the first occupational description you will see is “geneticist”).

    No one seriously disputes the existence of non ME ancestry in Ashkenazim. How could they if they actually know or live among lots of them and note the red hair, blue or grey eyes and pale skin?

    But the idea of predominant Turkic ancestry from the Caucasus is immediately seen to be so farfetched as to be almost nonsensical once you consider how it came about that Ashkenazim spoke/speak a German dialect. (Maybe you didn’t know something so basic to the thoroughgoing anti-Semites armoury. Himmler certainly did).

    Nor is it “mental illness” which is said to be more prevalent amongst Jews. It is a set of genetically determined neurological diseases including Tay Sachs, Nieman Pick, Gaucher’s, Wiston’s Dystonia and others referred to in the work of Cochran, Harpending and Hardy about 10 years ago. Whatever the merit of their explanation the disproportionate prevalence of the diseases is evidence for a lot of inbreeding for a long period. How do the Armenians and Georgians – Elhaik’s surrogates for the Khazars – compare as sufferers from those diseases?

    Apart from the dubious linking to your own website what cause do you expect to advance by relying on the work of one much criticised young scholar on the make to cast doubt on the undoubted long cherished feeling of peoplehood amongst Jews over most of the last 2000 years? So there were converts and intermarriage? So what? No one can seriously accept those subjective feelings about Jewishness and Israel as adding anything to the pragmatic argument that Israel exists as a nation and will only cease to exist as a country controlled by Jews any time in the next 100 years or so if there is horrendous loss of life and material destruction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    The leaders of World Zionist movement applied the so-called "genetic history" (Tribal race theory) to claim that European Jews were "semite people", who were expelled from Palestine by Roman, Persians, Christians and Muslims.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, refuted that Zionist claim.

    Since the publication of the study, Elhaik has been called “a self-hating Jew” and “antisemite”. Fed-up with Supremacists’ name-calling – Elhaik has thrown an open challenge to his accusers to come up with some new genetic data to prove that European Jews belong to the original Semite tribes.

    “Though oral history suggests Middle Eastern ties to almost all Jewish community, genetic evidence is scant. The question of Jewish origin has broad implications beyond history, which have critical relevance for medicine, anthropology, linguistics, social justice, and more,” says Elhaik.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/09/21/israeli-historian-jews-are-not-semitic-people/

    Razib Khan, a doctoral student in genetics who now blogs on the Unz site, wrote about problems with Elhaik’s analysis :

    Setting aside the historical fuzziness of the paper, the major issue I have is that though the methods are totally kosher, so to speak, the data you put into them strongly shape your outcomes. Dienekes and Maju both anticipated my own key concern. The “Middle Eastern” aspect of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry might in fact be most well represented by populations in the zone of the northern Fertile Crescent and Eastern Anatolia; rather near or overlapping with the homelands of several of the Caucasian populations used in the above study as a proxy for Khazars. Additionally, modern Palestinians (the HGDP data set) are used as a reference to the Middle Eastern ancestors of Jews. I now believe that the Arabian contribution to the ancestry of Levantine and Iraqi Muslim population which dates to after the 7th century, and differentiates Muslim Arabs from their local non-Muslim Arab* co-ethnics, is significant. Perhaps on the same order of Germanic ancestry in modern England which dates to the 6th century and later. In plainer language the Caucasian component that is being detected in this paper may simply be a indigenous Middle Eastern ancestral element which has now been somewhat displaced northward in its modal frequency due to the expansion of the Arabs, and later the admixture of some Sub-Saharan admixture among Muslim Arabs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Use height. For example

    Population A adults vary from 4′ to 6′ (average 5′). Population B adults vary from 5′ to 7′ (average 6′)

    The variation *within* both groups is 2′. The variation *between* both groups is 1′ (average)

    No, this wasn’t Lewontin’s argument. He wasn’t trying to compare the range of variation within groups to their mean differences. If that were the case, he would truly have been mendacious. He wasn’t.

    There have been different approaches to measurement of the extent to which human genes vary within and between groups. Regardless of the methodology, they all come to the same conclusion:

    In summary, however, the rough agreement of analysis-of-variance and pairwise-difference methods supports the general observation that the mean level of difference for two individuals from the same population is almost as great as the mean level of difference for two individuals chosen from any two populations anywhere in the world.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531797/

    This conclusion is inevitable once you accept the premise that the way a gene varies within a group is comparable to the way it varies across a group boundary. Most people have little trouble with that premise because most people have a weak understanding of natural selection. Or they assume that natural selection came to an end once humans invented culture.

    This point is important. Antiracists aren’t stupid. There is a logic to their argument, and that logic must be confronted.

    It seems to me “white guilt” may be “winter guilt.”

    If guilt proneness were an adaptation to cold, seasonally variable environments, it should be just as strong in northeast Asia as in northwest Europe. It isn’t. Northeast Asian societies use shame much more than guilt to regulate social relations. And cold winters don’t explain why kinship ties are weaker in northwest Europe.

    Indeed, when everyone else’s kids are vaccinated it may be not worth taking even a tiny risk to vaccinate your own.

    This is the free rider problem. In a sense, Eula Biss is perfectly correct when she speaks about “white privilege.” White Americans gain a lot of privilege simply by living within a predominantly White American society — low incidence of personal violence, high-trust environment, spontaneous help from strangers, etc. At some point, however, a recipient of White privilege has to start paying back. Those who don’t pay back become free riders.

    “even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct ” shouldn’t that be “distinct”?

    Thanks! I shouldn’t write so fast.

    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    It would be very strange if all human populations had the same mean IQ, given its heritability. As for your second sentence, you’re probably referring to the higher incidence of Tay Sachs, Niemann-Pick, and Gaucher’s among Ashkenazi Jews (and not Jews in general). All of those disorders involve the same metabolic pathway in the brain (lysosomal storage), so they’re probably a side-effect of strong selection for that aspect of mental functioning. But if we look at mental illness in general, Jews are no better and no worse than anyone else.

    employers have never had so much freedom to ruthlessly sack anyone who shows any signs of being politically insensitive or unfashionable.

    If we go back in time, there was just as much intolerance against people who denied the existence of God. What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    The anti-discrimination theology is at its base self-refuting. It is not possible for any social arrangement to accommodate every possible perspective or individual or group without discrimination. Discrimination against bigots is still discrimination. All social organizations have to have boundaries, exclusions, domains and hierarchies. The persistence of social thinkers to fail grasp this particular nuance of social cooperation shows how cowardly and self-indulgent our elite have become. The triumph of this line of reasoning comes from three sources 1. A sentimental and persistent desire of feminine instinct to want to make everyone welcome. This is a good instinct, but not if it is taken so far as to interfere with the fundamental competence of everyday life. 2. A well founded fear of being called racist under duress. Its hard for people to accept that having the government dictate every social relation is in itself a form of discrimination. Being lynched by social justice warriors who can be every bit as spiteful as the KKK is still being lynched. 3. The desire of amoral large organizations to want to present a happy face to the public as being warm and inviting to all potential customers and students. This has a practical effect of making organizations useless to large numbers of the population. For an organization to claim to be against islamophobia and homophobia is to be against having any firm identity at all.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    We need competent social thinkers who will explain to the public that social cohesion and trust come from interelatedness not from shoving incompatible people together and telling them that they are racist if they question the purpose of it.
    , @Sean

    Richard Lewontin :"It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals.
     

    Lewontin opted for a somewhat more complicated methodology. Basically, he took the following approach:...- those genes that have only one allele are excluded from analysis ... diversity is at a maximum when all alleles have the same frequency
     
    It seems to me that stipulation was tendentious and made the genetic differences far from random. If all alleles have the same frequency none are likely to have any specific purpose, except maybe being different to the others. So the diversity he set out to give special weight to was in functionless alleles. It's hardly likely Lewontin misunderstood that.
    ----

    If we go back in time, there was just as much intolerance against people who denied the existence of God. What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.
     
    Until the shoe is on the other foot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Combes
    , @Erik Sieven
    but some kind of discriminations seem to be OK for this ideology. For example only few people talk about the very strong discrimination on the partner market in favor of subsaharan African males. There is anyway nothing one can change about that, as choices on partner market simply react to different levels of attractiveness which are probably the result of different selection processes in different world regions, as argued in earlier articles of this column. Yet it is strange that if this ideology is against discrimination first and foremost then why does it not reflect these kind of discriminations? This is especially interesting as success or failure on the partner market have a much greater influence on the life satisfaction of a person than e.g. different levels of income, which is a typical subject of the anti-discrimination talk
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. iffen says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    Why do I need a strawman when I have you.
     
    Well, ask yourself that question. Why do you need straw men? Or if you don't need them, why do you create them anyway? Your argument was that taboos can be good. That failed because I never said taboos were generally bad. Now you make another moralistic assertion that doesn't deal with why it's OK to demonize chimp analogies to blacks in particular. You've bought into the whole PC bullshit that has spawned the campus degeneration. Where do you draw the line between a supposedly racist analogy and a supposed micro-aggression? [Bright lines are everything in politics.]

    You should admit your failed arguments before proceeding. It's honest, and it will make your writing clearer.

    I'm not taking a stab at Frost any more than I would be taking a stab at negroes if I happened to make a chimp analogy. I'm trying to convey an understanding that requires examples.

    A broader viewpoint would put more of a premium on honesty and less on your inflated view of your own moral intuitions: "not a good thing and is racist." Why would you write such an empty platitude and subject readers to it?

    You should admit your failed arguments before proceeding.

    I admit it. You can’t address what I write. My argument therefore fails.

    BTW, bright lines are of no consequence, even blind people can see them. It is the gray, hazy and indistinct lines that are controlling.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    Progs say that race and identity are bogus constructs. Therefore, such should be done away with.

    But they also say that non-whites need to maintain their identities since such were forced on them and used as excuses to oppress and disenfranchise them.

    Following this logic, had it not been for white imperialism and ‘racism’, there should be no reason for any people to maintain their identity or preserve their race.

    According to PC, ‘racist’ whites in America forced inferior identities on non-whites. So, some groups were oppressed or discriminated against as ‘blacks’, ‘yellows’, ‘reds’, ‘browns’, and etc.
    Such identities of inferiority was forced on these groups, and such categories kept them down.

    If the libertarian-conservatives argue that it’s time to end stuff like ‘affirmative action’ and just be ‘Americans’ than hyphenated-Americans, progs and people of color say that identity is still important for non-whites since there is subtle or hidden ‘racism’, and also, the negative legacy of the past will linger for some time.

    Since their non-whiteness was invoked to keep them down in the past, non-whites must seek empowerment as ‘non-whites’ because, deep down inside, many whites still see non-whites as inferior, if only subconsciously or subtly.

    Using such logic, the ONLY rationale for preservation of identity is oppression and dispossession.
    Since white identity was formulated to gain superiority and privilege, it must be done away with totally. It was the identity formulated to oppress.
    But since non-white identities were formulated to be oppressed & to be deemed socially and politically inferior AND since this legacy still remains(despite progress in attitudes and laws), the people of color must seek empowerment based on their identities before they can finally let their identities go.

    It’s sort of like the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat idea of the Marxists. Marx prophesied a day when the government would eventually wither away and people would all live in peace and harmony in a something like a stateless society.
    But since the power of the state had traditionally been used to oppress the working classes and since old reactionary habits die hard, there would have to be a long period of statist rule(by radical revolutionaries) to force everyone to be equal and be conditioned with good ideas. And only when class oppression has been stamped out and everyone has been cleansed of old habits could the state wither away and people live in stateless peace and harmony.

    Likewise, PC argues that since the politics of identity in the past had been used to favor whites over non-whites, we need a counter-politics of identity that will raise the non-whites to the level of whites. And only then, the politics of identity could fade away in a world where everyone is equal.

    But should identity be so politicized and ideologized. Is that all it is?

    Doesn’t identity have value as heritage, culture, history, aesthetics(as every race has its own kind of beauty), and etc. Whether your people did the oppressing or were oppressed, your race, culture, and history have value cuz they are a rich treasure trove of what your people are.

    This is true of Jews. Jews oppressed, Jews were oppressed. Jews dispossessed others, Jews were dispossessed by others. But Jewish identity is more and bigger than ‘Jews did good or Jews did bad’. It is about continuity, unity, family, tradition, custom, history, genetics.

    If the world were to indeed become totally free of antisemitism and treat Jews well, should Jews just give up their identity since it’s just a social construct and no longer necessary as something to empower against forces of antisemitism?
    Should blacks give up memory and heritage of their African-ness if indeed it can be proven that blacks are no longer oppressed in the US and have been made totally equal with everyone else socio-economically?

    True identity goes beyond politics, ideology, and a history of who-did-what-to-whom.

    Tribal Marxism is a stupid fad.

    Because PC ideology says identity is ONLY justified as a tool of empowerment against oppression, it causes a problem among Jews and Asians.
    It is obvious to many that Jews, Hindus, and yellows often do better than white gentiles. Since they are just as successful or even more successful than white gentiles, shouldn’t they abandon their identities and just become part of a blah-race?
    If identity is a mere social construct and if its only reason-for-existence is a tool of empowerment and resistance against oppression, then it means any group that is no longer oppressed should give up its identity.

    Should identity be seen as mere crutches to throw away once one can walk normally?

    Ridiculous.

    No wonder Jews and Asians are still insisting that they are oppressed. It’s the only way they can keep their identities. Jews are better at this than Asians are since Jews got chutzpah whereas the Asian way, at least among yellows, is to be quiet and submissive.

    How this will all play out is anyone’s guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Peter Frost

    No, this wasn’t Lewontin’s argument.

    I didn’t say it was. It works on the average person in terms of getting them to think in terms of fiddling around with numbers.

    If guilt proneness were an adaptation to cold, seasonally variable environments, it should be just as strong in northeast Asia as in northwest Europe.

    Not if the population of NE Asia used to be white* but were displaced by east Asians later.

    (*as in the same population even if not physically white yet)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    maybe it makes sense to expand the height metaphor. One could include other variables like for example length of hair, music preferences, school grades etc. And despite certain some correlations like that between school grades and height (much likely via IQ) this would result in a situation where there is much more variance inside the "tall group" and the "short group" than between. Yet the two groups still have significant average differences, which are relevant for example for the ability to play basketball.
    Though this way the metaphor still not makes clear the qualitative difference between differences inside and between populations which are explained in the article
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. anon says: • Disclaimer

    To clarify on the Lewontin thing – get the average person to describe what they *think* it means and you’ll see why the height argument works.

    People who understand the actual thing are a completely different kettle of fish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Peter Frost
    Use height. For example

    Population A adults vary from 4′ to 6′ (average 5′). Population B adults vary from 5′ to 7′ (average 6′)

    The variation *within* both groups is 2′. The variation *between* both groups is 1′ (average)


    No, this wasn't Lewontin's argument. He wasn't trying to compare the range of variation within groups to their mean differences. If that were the case, he would truly have been mendacious. He wasn't.

    There have been different approaches to measurement of the extent to which human genes vary within and between groups. Regardless of the methodology, they all come to the same conclusion:

    In summary, however, the rough agreement of analysis-of-variance and pairwise-difference methods supports the general observation that the mean level of difference for two individuals from the same population is almost as great as the mean level of difference for two individuals chosen from any two populations anywhere in the world.

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531797/

    This conclusion is inevitable once you accept the premise that the way a gene varies within a group is comparable to the way it varies across a group boundary. Most people have little trouble with that premise because most people have a weak understanding of natural selection. Or they assume that natural selection came to an end once humans invented culture.

    This point is important. Antiracists aren't stupid. There is a logic to their argument, and that logic must be confronted.

    It seems to me “white guilt” may be “winter guilt.”

    If guilt proneness were an adaptation to cold, seasonally variable environments, it should be just as strong in northeast Asia as in northwest Europe. It isn't. Northeast Asian societies use shame much more than guilt to regulate social relations. And cold winters don't explain why kinship ties are weaker in northwest Europe.

    Indeed, when everyone else’s kids are vaccinated it may be not worth taking even a tiny risk to vaccinate your own.

    This is the free rider problem. In a sense, Eula Biss is perfectly correct when she speaks about "white privilege." White Americans gain a lot of privilege simply by living within a predominantly White American society -- low incidence of personal violence, high-trust environment, spontaneous help from strangers, etc. At some point, however, a recipient of White privilege has to start paying back. Those who don't pay back become free riders.

    “even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct ” shouldn’t that be “distinct”?


    Thanks! I shouldn't write so fast.

    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    It would be very strange if all human populations had the same mean IQ, given its heritability. As for your second sentence, you're probably referring to the higher incidence of Tay Sachs, Niemann-Pick, and Gaucher’s among Ashkenazi Jews (and not Jews in general). All of those disorders involve the same metabolic pathway in the brain (lysosomal storage), so they're probably a side-effect of strong selection for that aspect of mental functioning. But if we look at mental illness in general, Jews are no better and no worse than anyone else.

    employers have never had so much freedom to ruthlessly sack anyone who shows any signs of being politically insensitive or unfashionable.

    If we go back in time, there was just as much intolerance against people who denied the existence of God. What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.

    What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.
    ———————————————————
    The anti-discrimination theology is at its base self-refuting. It is not possible for any social arrangement to accommodate every possible perspective or individual or group without discrimination. Discrimination against bigots is still discrimination. All social organizations have to have boundaries, exclusions, domains and hierarchies. The persistence of social thinkers to fail grasp this particular nuance of social cooperation shows how cowardly and self-indulgent our elite have become. The triumph of this line of reasoning comes from three sources 1. A sentimental and persistent desire of feminine instinct to want to make everyone welcome. This is a good instinct, but not if it is taken so far as to interfere with the fundamental competence of everyday life. 2. A well founded fear of being called racist under duress. Its hard for people to accept that having the government dictate every social relation is in itself a form of discrimination. Being lynched by social justice warriors who can be every bit as spiteful as the KKK is still being lynched. 3. The desire of amoral large organizations to want to present a happy face to the public as being warm and inviting to all potential customers and students. This has a practical effect of making organizations useless to large numbers of the population. For an organization to claim to be against islamophobia and homophobia is to be against having any firm identity at all.
    —————————————————
    We need competent social thinkers who will explain to the public that social cohesion and trust come from interelatedness not from shoving incompatible people together and telling them that they are racist if they question the purpose of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Sean says:
    @Peter Frost
    Use height. For example

    Population A adults vary from 4′ to 6′ (average 5′). Population B adults vary from 5′ to 7′ (average 6′)

    The variation *within* both groups is 2′. The variation *between* both groups is 1′ (average)


    No, this wasn't Lewontin's argument. He wasn't trying to compare the range of variation within groups to their mean differences. If that were the case, he would truly have been mendacious. He wasn't.

    There have been different approaches to measurement of the extent to which human genes vary within and between groups. Regardless of the methodology, they all come to the same conclusion:

    In summary, however, the rough agreement of analysis-of-variance and pairwise-difference methods supports the general observation that the mean level of difference for two individuals from the same population is almost as great as the mean level of difference for two individuals chosen from any two populations anywhere in the world.

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531797/

    This conclusion is inevitable once you accept the premise that the way a gene varies within a group is comparable to the way it varies across a group boundary. Most people have little trouble with that premise because most people have a weak understanding of natural selection. Or they assume that natural selection came to an end once humans invented culture.

    This point is important. Antiracists aren't stupid. There is a logic to their argument, and that logic must be confronted.

    It seems to me “white guilt” may be “winter guilt.”

    If guilt proneness were an adaptation to cold, seasonally variable environments, it should be just as strong in northeast Asia as in northwest Europe. It isn't. Northeast Asian societies use shame much more than guilt to regulate social relations. And cold winters don't explain why kinship ties are weaker in northwest Europe.

    Indeed, when everyone else’s kids are vaccinated it may be not worth taking even a tiny risk to vaccinate your own.

    This is the free rider problem. In a sense, Eula Biss is perfectly correct when she speaks about "white privilege." White Americans gain a lot of privilege simply by living within a predominantly White American society -- low incidence of personal violence, high-trust environment, spontaneous help from strangers, etc. At some point, however, a recipient of White privilege has to start paying back. Those who don't pay back become free riders.

    “even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct ” shouldn’t that be “distinct”?


    Thanks! I shouldn't write so fast.

    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    It would be very strange if all human populations had the same mean IQ, given its heritability. As for your second sentence, you're probably referring to the higher incidence of Tay Sachs, Niemann-Pick, and Gaucher’s among Ashkenazi Jews (and not Jews in general). All of those disorders involve the same metabolic pathway in the brain (lysosomal storage), so they're probably a side-effect of strong selection for that aspect of mental functioning. But if we look at mental illness in general, Jews are no better and no worse than anyone else.

    employers have never had so much freedom to ruthlessly sack anyone who shows any signs of being politically insensitive or unfashionable.

    If we go back in time, there was just as much intolerance against people who denied the existence of God. What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.

    Richard Lewontin :”It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals.

    Lewontin opted for a somewhat more complicated methodology. Basically, he took the following approach:…- those genes that have only one allele are excluded from analysis … diversity is at a maximum when all alleles have the same frequency

    It seems to me that stipulation was tendentious and made the genetic differences far from random. If all alleles have the same frequency none are likely to have any specific purpose, except maybe being different to the others. So the diversity he set out to give special weight to was in functionless alleles. It’s hardly likely Lewontin misunderstood that.
    —-

    If we go back in time, there was just as much intolerance against people who denied the existence of God. What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.

    Until the shoe is on the other foot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Combes

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Priss Factor
    More PC hysteria

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/argument-sexual-assault-race-harvard-law-school

    Cult of victimhood + pampered upbringing = demand for 'safe spaces'. A demand that calls for precious privileged protection in the name of opposing privilege. Princesses playing at paupers, rather like Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess.

    Also, millennials were raised by PC parents and teachers who monitored what the kids said and did 24/7. "You can't say that. It is 'racist', 'sexist', 'homophobic', 'xenophobic', 'antisemitic', 'Islamophobic', 'misogynist', 'right-wing', blah blah blah." They were raised to always watch over their shoulders, and in turn, they came to see others that way.

    Only unfettered freedom is with sexuality, which is why millennial liberty is about fuc*ing and sucking.
    But even there, we hear calls for total safety and 'yes' culture because millennial girls, even as they emulate hos and biatches, see themselves as 'victims' of men... though tranny men are allowed to see themselves as 'victims' of women.

    Disagree. Well, to a degree. Politically correct in all ways, in all aspects is about what WHITE men say and do. Blacks drop “N”-bombs. Feminists and women say “fag” and “cunt” and “slut”(check Jezabel if you don’t believe THAT) but White men don’t dare say that. Black men can say that, but not White men. Women aren’t happy about men-identifying-as-women claiming female privilege and so call those men fags. Exactly who is going to hassle a feminist for saying “fag, or a Black for saying the N bomb?

    Black men are the filthiest, most misogynistic, sexist pigs toward women and feminists say not ONE word about Black Male Art, ie, rap. Why? Because feminists are cowards, they aren’t going to take up misogyny with Black men directly, because Black men would slap the shit out of them. And get away with it. Same for Islam. NOW doesn’t lay a glove on Islam because Islam would set off bombs at NOW and feminists at NOW know it. Cowards. Who is going to take up with a lesbian/feminist/straight woman for saying “fag”, “cunt” or “slut”? No one. Because a White man didn’t say it.

    The forgiving nature of feminism toward Islam, a true rape culture, tells me feminism is desirous of strong, dark, men. If feminists were true to their cause, millions of women would march against Mosques, Islamic-society diplomats and their embassies, they would demand that the United States crush Islam. But feminists defend Islam to the hilt. They WANT strong men. In Sweden, women love their gang-rapes, they don’t object a bit, they love rape-threats, slaps in the ass and the misogynists they’ve imported. Islam rules there. Women love rape culture. They must, because feminists give Islam a pass.

    White Men. The Number One definition in Webster’s Dictionary for the word “Pussy”. Women and the races and lower order in the world shit all over them and all white men do is beg forgiveness, yet, they keep the world running. Pussies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    One of the white man's main problems is not understanding that that other's dont share their sense of fairness. The main reason why these issues cannot be addressed is our therapeutic culture which attempts to silence all moral conflict as the result of a misfiring brain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Since white identity was formulated to gain superiority and privilege, it must be done away with totally. It was the identity formulated to oppress. But since non-white identities were formulated to be oppressed & to be deemed socially and politically inferior AND since this legacy still remains(despite progress in attitudes and laws), the people of color must seek empowerment based on their identities before they can finally let their identities go.

    The above ideology is now very dominant at most universities, particularly the ones that train the elite of tomorrow. The only opposition is a sort of old-style liberalism/libertarianism: “Why can’t we all be just individuals?” Unfortunately, the people who respond the most to that message are people from cultures that are already highly individualistic.

    At some point, we have to point out that cultural identities exist for other reasons and that they have an inherent value in and of themselves.

    To clarify on the Lewontin thing – get the average person to describe what they *think* it means and you’ll see why the height argument works. People who understand the actual thing are a completely different kettle of fish

    People who understand Lewontin’s argument are a small minority, but they are well represented among the educated intellectual and political elites.

    Lewontin never denied the existence of human races. He simply stated that human races account for a very small percentage of human genetic variability. One might think there is little genetic overlap between a group of Swedes and a group of Senegalese, but the genetic data will show considerable overlap. The data will show that the differences between those two groups are just a tiny fraction of total variability.

    People are intimidated by the “voice of science,” and when the “voice of science” tells them something that seems intuitively false to them, they will nonetheless go along because no one wants to seem stupid. It’s like the tale of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

    Again, genetic variation within a group is not comparable to genetic variation between groups. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Variation across a group boundary is much more likely to be sculpted by differences in natural selection. I don’t think your example of differences in height conveys that message, and that’s the message that has to be conveyed.

    All social organizations have to have boundaries, exclusions, domains and hierarchies.

    This is common sense, but it’s a kind of common sense that has been lost on the political right (libertarians) and on the political left (personal autonomists). If you want to have a society with lots of personal freedom, that society will have to be composed of people who are not prone to personal violence, who are willing to help out other members of their society (and not just their own kin group at the expense of everyone else), and who are willing to follow social rules that apply to everyone equally (and not “fairness for thee” and “favoritism for me”).

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    All social organizations have to have boundaries, exclusions, domains and hierarchies.

    This is common sense, but it’s a kind of common sense that has been lost on the political right (libertarians) and on the political left (personal autonomists). If you want to have a society with lots of personal freedom, that society will have to be composed of people who are not prone to personal violence, who are willing to help out other members of their society (and not just their own kin group at the expense of everyone else), and who are willing to follow social rules that apply to everyone equally (and not “fairness for thee” and “favoritism for me”).
    -----------------------------------------------------
    If its common sense then would there be social opposition for asserting this? When highly educated and influential people are convinced that 2 plus 2 equals 5 then how do you combat this? The complete inability of people to understand nuance? What is so horrible about asserting the idea that private people form organizations and associations towards the purpose of bettering their own existential condition as they understand it using private property and the legal concepts of consent and consideration? What about that needs to be nipped in the bud? What other reason is there for people to form organizations?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @Peter Frost
    Use height. For example

    Population A adults vary from 4′ to 6′ (average 5′). Population B adults vary from 5′ to 7′ (average 6′)

    The variation *within* both groups is 2′. The variation *between* both groups is 1′ (average)


    No, this wasn't Lewontin's argument. He wasn't trying to compare the range of variation within groups to their mean differences. If that were the case, he would truly have been mendacious. He wasn't.

    There have been different approaches to measurement of the extent to which human genes vary within and between groups. Regardless of the methodology, they all come to the same conclusion:

    In summary, however, the rough agreement of analysis-of-variance and pairwise-difference methods supports the general observation that the mean level of difference for two individuals from the same population is almost as great as the mean level of difference for two individuals chosen from any two populations anywhere in the world.

     

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531797/

    This conclusion is inevitable once you accept the premise that the way a gene varies within a group is comparable to the way it varies across a group boundary. Most people have little trouble with that premise because most people have a weak understanding of natural selection. Or they assume that natural selection came to an end once humans invented culture.

    This point is important. Antiracists aren't stupid. There is a logic to their argument, and that logic must be confronted.

    It seems to me “white guilt” may be “winter guilt.”

    If guilt proneness were an adaptation to cold, seasonally variable environments, it should be just as strong in northeast Asia as in northwest Europe. It isn't. Northeast Asian societies use shame much more than guilt to regulate social relations. And cold winters don't explain why kinship ties are weaker in northwest Europe.

    Indeed, when everyone else’s kids are vaccinated it may be not worth taking even a tiny risk to vaccinate your own.

    This is the free rider problem. In a sense, Eula Biss is perfectly correct when she speaks about "white privilege." White Americans gain a lot of privilege simply by living within a predominantly White American society -- low incidence of personal violence, high-trust environment, spontaneous help from strangers, etc. At some point, however, a recipient of White privilege has to start paying back. Those who don't pay back become free riders.

    “even when these species are anatomically and behaviorally extinct ” shouldn’t that be “distinct”?


    Thanks! I shouldn't write so fast.

    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    It would be very strange if all human populations had the same mean IQ, given its heritability. As for your second sentence, you're probably referring to the higher incidence of Tay Sachs, Niemann-Pick, and Gaucher’s among Ashkenazi Jews (and not Jews in general). All of those disorders involve the same metabolic pathway in the brain (lysosomal storage), so they're probably a side-effect of strong selection for that aspect of mental functioning. But if we look at mental illness in general, Jews are no better and no worse than anyone else.

    employers have never had so much freedom to ruthlessly sack anyone who shows any signs of being politically insensitive or unfashionable.

    If we go back in time, there was just as much intolerance against people who denied the existence of God. What has happened is that the mental space once occupied by Christianity has now been replaced by a new ideology, which may be called the anti-discrimination ethos. Thou shalt not discriminate.

    but some kind of discriminations seem to be OK for this ideology. For example only few people talk about the very strong discrimination on the partner market in favor of subsaharan African males. There is anyway nothing one can change about that, as choices on partner market simply react to different levels of attractiveness which are probably the result of different selection processes in different world regions, as argued in earlier articles of this column. Yet it is strange that if this ideology is against discrimination first and foremost then why does it not reflect these kind of discriminations? This is especially interesting as success or failure on the partner market have a much greater influence on the life satisfaction of a person than e.g. different levels of income, which is a typical subject of the anti-discrimination talk

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @anon
    Peter Frost

    No, this wasn’t Lewontin’s argument.
     
    I didn't say it was. It works on the average person in terms of getting them to think in terms of fiddling around with numbers.

    If guilt proneness were an adaptation to cold, seasonally variable environments, it should be just as strong in northeast Asia as in northwest Europe.
     
    Not if the population of NE Asia used to be white* but were displaced by east Asians later.

    (*as in the same population even if not physically white yet)

    maybe it makes sense to expand the height metaphor. One could include other variables like for example length of hair, music preferences, school grades etc. And despite certain some correlations like that between school grades and height (much likely via IQ) this would result in a situation where there is much more variance inside the “tall group” and the “short group” than between. Yet the two groups still have significant average differences, which are relevant for example for the ability to play basketball.
    Though this way the metaphor still not makes clear the qualitative difference between differences inside and between populations which are explained in the article

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I probably didn't state this clearly enough at the beginning.

    My experience when arguing with people who've been taught this but didn't really understand it is

    (some academic authority said)(variation within races is much bigger than between races to the extent that differences between are irrelevant to real life)

    The height thing pops their balloon quick and easy - with the emphasis on quick.

    For the actual fallacy itself - which I've forgotten as I don't usually come into contact with people like that - I'd point at academic explanations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Jim Christian
    Disagree. Well, to a degree. Politically correct in all ways, in all aspects is about what WHITE men say and do. Blacks drop "N"-bombs. Feminists and women say "fag" and "cunt" and "slut"(check Jezabel if you don't believe THAT) but White men don't dare say that. Black men can say that, but not White men. Women aren't happy about men-identifying-as-women claiming female privilege and so call those men fags. Exactly who is going to hassle a feminist for saying "fag, or a Black for saying the N bomb?

    Black men are the filthiest, most misogynistic, sexist pigs toward women and feminists say not ONE word about Black Male Art, ie, rap. Why? Because feminists are cowards, they aren't going to take up misogyny with Black men directly, because Black men would slap the shit out of them. And get away with it. Same for Islam. NOW doesn't lay a glove on Islam because Islam would set off bombs at NOW and feminists at NOW know it. Cowards. Who is going to take up with a lesbian/feminist/straight woman for saying "fag", "cunt" or "slut"? No one. Because a White man didn't say it.

    The forgiving nature of feminism toward Islam, a true rape culture, tells me feminism is desirous of strong, dark, men. If feminists were true to their cause, millions of women would march against Mosques, Islamic-society diplomats and their embassies, they would demand that the United States crush Islam. But feminists defend Islam to the hilt. They WANT strong men. In Sweden, women love their gang-rapes, they don't object a bit, they love rape-threats, slaps in the ass and the misogynists they've imported. Islam rules there. Women love rape culture. They must, because feminists give Islam a pass.

    White Men. The Number One definition in Webster's Dictionary for the word "Pussy". Women and the races and lower order in the world shit all over them and all white men do is beg forgiveness, yet, they keep the world running. Pussies.

    One of the white man’s main problems is not understanding that that other’s dont share their sense of fairness. The main reason why these issues cannot be addressed is our therapeutic culture which attempts to silence all moral conflict as the result of a misfiring brain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    The White man's main problem is entertaining the therapeutic culture in the first place. There was no therapeutic culture while White men invented everything from the wheel to air conditioning to keep the masses comfortable. While White men fought the wars, where was the therapeutic culture? Therapy came in for women, after the wars had been fought and White men had made everyone comfortable. At that point, psychiatry-for-profit decided women needed the therapeutic culture. The trouble flowed from there.

    White men handed their privilege over and those they handed it over to, are abusing it. But that's ok. It will come back. We cheat biology for now, but not forever. These men that blow things up and shoot people, even Islamic men, they're mostly protesting the loss of their privilege. Or even any sense of fairness from their own societies. Look at that pussy Islamic man in California, led by the nose by his ISIS woman to lose his life to achieve HER goals, Jihad. And this will not end. Whatever. I tolerate nothing, in my own life, I say as I wish because I don't work for government, academia or the press. I'm untouchable. So I can tell the truth.

    The truth is, by and large, the current crop of White men are pussies. White women own the world and they dole out the goodies to the races as they choose. And White men aren't invited to the party unless it's to a divorce-rape party, errrr, wedding.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Peter Frost
    Since white identity was formulated to gain superiority and privilege, it must be done away with totally. It was the identity formulated to oppress. But since non-white identities were formulated to be oppressed & to be deemed socially and politically inferior AND since this legacy still remains(despite progress in attitudes and laws), the people of color must seek empowerment based on their identities before they can finally let their identities go.

    The above ideology is now very dominant at most universities, particularly the ones that train the elite of tomorrow. The only opposition is a sort of old-style liberalism/libertarianism: "Why can't we all be just individuals?" Unfortunately, the people who respond the most to that message are people from cultures that are already highly individualistic.

    At some point, we have to point out that cultural identities exist for other reasons and that they have an inherent value in and of themselves.

    To clarify on the Lewontin thing – get the average person to describe what they *think* it means and you’ll see why the height argument works. People who understand the actual thing are a completely different kettle of fish

    People who understand Lewontin's argument are a small minority, but they are well represented among the educated intellectual and political elites.

    Lewontin never denied the existence of human races. He simply stated that human races account for a very small percentage of human genetic variability. One might think there is little genetic overlap between a group of Swedes and a group of Senegalese, but the genetic data will show considerable overlap. The data will show that the differences between those two groups are just a tiny fraction of total variability.

    People are intimidated by the "voice of science," and when the "voice of science" tells them something that seems intuitively false to them, they will nonetheless go along because no one wants to seem stupid. It's like the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes.

    Again, genetic variation within a group is not comparable to genetic variation between groups. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Variation across a group boundary is much more likely to be sculpted by differences in natural selection. I don't think your example of differences in height conveys that message, and that's the message that has to be conveyed.

    All social organizations have to have boundaries, exclusions, domains and hierarchies.

    This is common sense, but it's a kind of common sense that has been lost on the political right (libertarians) and on the political left (personal autonomists). If you want to have a society with lots of personal freedom, that society will have to be composed of people who are not prone to personal violence, who are willing to help out other members of their society (and not just their own kin group at the expense of everyone else), and who are willing to follow social rules that apply to everyone equally (and not "fairness for thee" and "favoritism for me").

    All social organizations have to have boundaries, exclusions, domains and hierarchies.

    This is common sense, but it’s a kind of common sense that has been lost on the political right (libertarians) and on the political left (personal autonomists). If you want to have a society with lots of personal freedom, that society will have to be composed of people who are not prone to personal violence, who are willing to help out other members of their society (and not just their own kin group at the expense of everyone else), and who are willing to follow social rules that apply to everyone equally (and not “fairness for thee” and “favoritism for me”).
    —————————————————–
    If its common sense then would there be social opposition for asserting this? When highly educated and influential people are convinced that 2 plus 2 equals 5 then how do you combat this? The complete inability of people to understand nuance? What is so horrible about asserting the idea that private people form organizations and associations towards the purpose of bettering their own existential condition as they understand it using private property and the legal concepts of consent and consideration? What about that needs to be nipped in the bud? What other reason is there for people to form organizations?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Erik Sieven
    maybe it makes sense to expand the height metaphor. One could include other variables like for example length of hair, music preferences, school grades etc. And despite certain some correlations like that between school grades and height (much likely via IQ) this would result in a situation where there is much more variance inside the "tall group" and the "short group" than between. Yet the two groups still have significant average differences, which are relevant for example for the ability to play basketball.
    Though this way the metaphor still not makes clear the qualitative difference between differences inside and between populations which are explained in the article

    I probably didn’t state this clearly enough at the beginning.

    My experience when arguing with people who’ve been taught this but didn’t really understand it is

    (some academic authority said)(variation within races is much bigger than between races to the extent that differences between are irrelevant to real life)

    The height thing pops their balloon quick and easy – with the emphasis on quick.

    For the actual fallacy itself – which I’ve forgotten as I don’t usually come into contact with people like that – I’d point at academic explanations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Olorin says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Maybe I have misunderstood but that seems like a load of codswallop to me. However.....

    Maybe you can explain why molecular genetic differences aren't part of the explanation why your cousin scores 25 more on IQ tests than you, or vice versa. How is molecular genetic difference not a probable part of the explanation for Ashkenazi Jewish IQs being well above and African-American IQs (on average) being well below the European average IQ? Of course you may say that it is not the bare molecular descriptions and their differences which matter but the way the molecules are combined that counts. OK but that would be a pathetic verbal wriggle out of a simple truth.

    “How is molecular genetic difference not a probable part of the explanation for Ashkenazi Jewish IQs being well above and African-American IQs (on average) being well below the European average IQ? ”

    Agree. But also wish to observe regarding “Ashkenazi Jewish IQ,” your “molecular genetic difference” will be more tightly distributed around your mean when by definition you include only fifth-or-so-cousins (and their more common molecular genetic arrays) in the population in question.

    “Whites” as a psychometrics category by contrast have all sorts of populations lumped together. If NW Europeans were allowed to have our own fifth-cousins-or-less IQ club, as Ashkenazim grant themselves, I’d bet that it would be tightly distributed around a mean as high as, or higher, than theirs. Start adding Arabs, Southern Mediterraneans, Slavs, etc., and there’s a strong downpull effect.

    I don’t mean this competitively, just that there are also Tribal/kin-group imperatives in psychometrics. This leaves the entire field open to criticism for being political rather than scientific. If anything Gould was very typical of his Tribe, wanting the data to reify his perspectives as one of the Most Chosenist People Ever, basking in his special smartness and criticizing white America for whatever the heck it was. I always found him something of an egomaniac and blowhard, selective in his perception and framing of evolutionary biology, so never got very far with his arguments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    ItGlad to meet someone on the same wavelength. I think you may be missing something from your hypothetical however. That is class. I think Greg Clark's work (as in "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World") indicates that the British (and no doubt Dutch eg.) non aristocratic nouveau upper middle classes from about 1400 till about 1900 produced the same sort of brains as earlier selection had produced in Ashkenazim.

    Sadly the dysgenics set in long ago for the Protestants and only the fertile Orthodox are preserving Jewish genes for intellect for 2100 (as well as, amongst the Ultra Orthodox, lots of mentally disabled children cursed by cousin marriage).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @epochehusserl
    One of the white man's main problems is not understanding that that other's dont share their sense of fairness. The main reason why these issues cannot be addressed is our therapeutic culture which attempts to silence all moral conflict as the result of a misfiring brain.

    The White man’s main problem is entertaining the therapeutic culture in the first place. There was no therapeutic culture while White men invented everything from the wheel to air conditioning to keep the masses comfortable. While White men fought the wars, where was the therapeutic culture? Therapy came in for women, after the wars had been fought and White men had made everyone comfortable. At that point, psychiatry-for-profit decided women needed the therapeutic culture. The trouble flowed from there.

    White men handed their privilege over and those they handed it over to, are abusing it. But that’s ok. It will come back. We cheat biology for now, but not forever. These men that blow things up and shoot people, even Islamic men, they’re mostly protesting the loss of their privilege. Or even any sense of fairness from their own societies. Look at that pussy Islamic man in California, led by the nose by his ISIS woman to lose his life to achieve HER goals, Jihad. And this will not end. Whatever. I tolerate nothing, in my own life, I say as I wish because I don’t work for government, academia or the press. I’m untouchable. So I can tell the truth.

    The truth is, by and large, the current crop of White men are pussies. White women own the world and they dole out the goodies to the races as they choose. And White men aren’t invited to the party unless it’s to a divorce-rape party, errrr, wedding.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    How do you see it coming back? I see cities such as Gary Indiana and Detroit destroyed by non-whites and the equalist status posturing not only continues unabated but is actually increasing. Some people in that city have to collect their water through rainbuckets yet we are still purging the racists from society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Jim Christian
    The White man's main problem is entertaining the therapeutic culture in the first place. There was no therapeutic culture while White men invented everything from the wheel to air conditioning to keep the masses comfortable. While White men fought the wars, where was the therapeutic culture? Therapy came in for women, after the wars had been fought and White men had made everyone comfortable. At that point, psychiatry-for-profit decided women needed the therapeutic culture. The trouble flowed from there.

    White men handed their privilege over and those they handed it over to, are abusing it. But that's ok. It will come back. We cheat biology for now, but not forever. These men that blow things up and shoot people, even Islamic men, they're mostly protesting the loss of their privilege. Or even any sense of fairness from their own societies. Look at that pussy Islamic man in California, led by the nose by his ISIS woman to lose his life to achieve HER goals, Jihad. And this will not end. Whatever. I tolerate nothing, in my own life, I say as I wish because I don't work for government, academia or the press. I'm untouchable. So I can tell the truth.

    The truth is, by and large, the current crop of White men are pussies. White women own the world and they dole out the goodies to the races as they choose. And White men aren't invited to the party unless it's to a divorce-rape party, errrr, wedding.

    How do you see it coming back? I see cities such as Gary Indiana and Detroit destroyed by non-whites and the equalist status posturing not only continues unabated but is actually increasing. Some people in that city have to collect their water through rainbuckets yet we are still purging the racists from society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    I don't see anything coming back. I know it's terribly "racist" to look at it this way, but facts are facts. Look at all the (formerly) wealthy cities handed over to Black majority rule. At every position from the schools, police, fire, hiring, infrastructure, every function of municipal government sees Whites are replaced by Blacks with no consideration other than race for hiring qualification criteria. Immediately, from the mayors on down, they corrupt the system from top to bottom. Cronies hire cronies, the Whites that are actual public servants are flushed for their salaries to be handed over to more cronies and so it goes until the entire civil government is Black. And everything that government is for is now a failed system, only the decay and rot is left to begin.

    How do you place a Black with no experience in public water systems or modern sewage treatment plants in Detroit? In Philly? Washington? And they're all in violation of EPA regs and they're all producing sub-standard performance in all areas of public works. Of course, the current "leadership" isn't pressing the point on these things and why? Black-on-Black cooperation. Why else?

    In all our big cities run by Black majority, you have English teachers teaching high school, grades 9-12 with qualifications and reading skills below those of an eight-grade student. They don't test to the GRE, these teachers cannot READ. They can't do algebra, how the Hell are they mathematics teachers? Doesn't matter because in these urban hellholes AKA public schools, any kid that tries to learn is beaten up for "acting White". The girls graduate to the lower standard and get a free pass to college and a government-sponsored job, but never the boys. And who pays? Well, no one anymore, not in the cities, they're all under receivership. But the kids pay. Their communities pay. In robberies, in murders. It's all there to see, but little is said.

    And the Whites move further and further away, the States and Federal Government take over these failing entities and prop them up. As White Flight becomes complete, the great cities, handed over really at the point of a gun (riots) given, by Whites, to Blacks. And all lies in ruin. Detroit is a complete picture. Atlanta, Baltimore, Philly, Birmingham, Huntsville, Newark, the list goes on an on. If you want a refresher, just look at Chicago, somewhat White for now, but that's about to change. Blacks marching in the streets, deliberately disrupting shopping season, the Whites that would spend money on shopping, dinner out and whatnot, gone from the streets, only the non-productive to be seen.

    There they are, demanding Rahm Emmanuel's head and of course, nothing will do but that the next Mayor of Chicago will be Black. The Federal AG is in on the act, setting up the lawsuits against the Chicago PD, this in a city where 40 or 50 shootings occur every weekend and 6-10 deaths, Black-onBlack murder, is normal, all routine. But one kid shot by police is a Federal Case. Chicago's Blacks will have killed over 500 Chicago Blacks by Year's end, yet that is ignored and we're going to focus on one kid with a knife that got shot by a White cop. Black cops shooting Blacks, ok however, you'll never hear of it. And Chicago will get their Black Mayor and the decline will begin there, really the last great city in the Midwest..

    And the Whites move further away. The shopping districts, the great corporations, the occupants of the towers, they'll all move out of Chicago. And Chicago, somehow spared for all these decades is about to start down the long, corrupt, decaying and rotting road followed by all the others, handed over by Whites to Blacks.

    It's never coming back, Epoche. Never. Sad, eh?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Olorin
    "How is molecular genetic difference not a probable part of the explanation for Ashkenazi Jewish IQs being well above and African-American IQs (on average) being well below the European average IQ? "

    Agree. But also wish to observe regarding "Ashkenazi Jewish IQ," your "molecular genetic difference" will be more tightly distributed around your mean when by definition you include only fifth-or-so-cousins (and their more common molecular genetic arrays) in the population in question.

    "Whites" as a psychometrics category by contrast have all sorts of populations lumped together. If NW Europeans were allowed to have our own fifth-cousins-or-less IQ club, as Ashkenazim grant themselves, I'd bet that it would be tightly distributed around a mean as high as, or higher, than theirs. Start adding Arabs, Southern Mediterraneans, Slavs, etc., and there's a strong downpull effect.

    I don't mean this competitively, just that there are also Tribal/kin-group imperatives in psychometrics. This leaves the entire field open to criticism for being political rather than scientific. If anything Gould was very typical of his Tribe, wanting the data to reify his perspectives as one of the Most Chosenist People Ever, basking in his special smartness and criticizing white America for whatever the heck it was. I always found him something of an egomaniac and blowhard, selective in his perception and framing of evolutionary biology, so never got very far with his arguments.

    ItGlad to meet someone on the same wavelength. I think you may be missing something from your hypothetical however. That is class. I think Greg Clark’s work (as in “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World”) indicates that the British (and no doubt Dutch eg.) non aristocratic nouveau upper middle classes from about 1400 till about 1900 produced the same sort of brains as earlier selection had produced in Ashkenazim.

    Sadly the dysgenics set in long ago for the Protestants and only the fertile Orthodox are preserving Jewish genes for intellect for 2100 (as well as, amongst the Ultra Orthodox, lots of mentally disabled children cursed by cousin marriage).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Rehmat
    The higher IQ level in certain races is nothing but a myth just like mental illness is more common among the Jews than Gentiles.

    The leaders of World Zionist movement applied the so-called "genetic history" (Tribal race theory) to claim that European Jews were "semite people", who were expelled from Palestine by Roman, Persians, Christians and Muslims.

    Israeli historian, professor Eran Elhaik (Johns Hopkins University) in a study published by the Genome Biology And Evolution on December 5, 2012, refuted that Zionist claim.

    Since the publication of the study, Elhaik has been called “a self-hating Jew” and “antisemite”. Fed-up with Supremacists’ name-calling – Elhaik has thrown an open challenge to his accusers to come up with some new genetic data to prove that European Jews belong to the original Semite tribes.

    “Though oral history suggests Middle Eastern ties to almost all Jewish community, genetic evidence is scant. The question of Jewish origin has broad implications beyond history, which have critical relevance for medicine, anthropology, linguistics, social justice, and more,” says Elhaik.

    http://rehmat1.com/2013/09/21/israeli-historian-jews-are-not-semitic-people/

    We need to treat intelligence tests like a controlled substance, only to be administred by credentialed professionals in order to fulfill mlk’s dream. My fear is that a black market in intelligence tests will be developed. If we ban iq tests then only criminals will have iq tests. I wish to be the Al Capone or Pablo Escobar dealing in black market iq tests under such a system, finding talented inappropriately credentialed white children. Its not that hard to assess mental abilities using the internet. What happens to affirmative action if private credentialing mechanisms are developed?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @epochehusserl
    How do you see it coming back? I see cities such as Gary Indiana and Detroit destroyed by non-whites and the equalist status posturing not only continues unabated but is actually increasing. Some people in that city have to collect their water through rainbuckets yet we are still purging the racists from society.

    I don’t see anything coming back. I know it’s terribly “racist” to look at it this way, but facts are facts. Look at all the (formerly) wealthy cities handed over to Black majority rule. At every position from the schools, police, fire, hiring, infrastructure, every function of municipal government sees Whites are replaced by Blacks with no consideration other than race for hiring qualification criteria. Immediately, from the mayors on down, they corrupt the system from top to bottom. Cronies hire cronies, the Whites that are actual public servants are flushed for their salaries to be handed over to more cronies and so it goes until the entire civil government is Black. And everything that government is for is now a failed system, only the decay and rot is left to begin.

    How do you place a Black with no experience in public water systems or modern sewage treatment plants in Detroit? In Philly? Washington? And they’re all in violation of EPA regs and they’re all producing sub-standard performance in all areas of public works. Of course, the current “leadership” isn’t pressing the point on these things and why? Black-on-Black cooperation. Why else?

    In all our big cities run by Black majority, you have English teachers teaching high school, grades 9-12 with qualifications and reading skills below those of an eight-grade student. They don’t test to the GRE, these teachers cannot READ. They can’t do algebra, how the Hell are they mathematics teachers? Doesn’t matter because in these urban hellholes AKA public schools, any kid that tries to learn is beaten up for “acting White”. The girls graduate to the lower standard and get a free pass to college and a government-sponsored job, but never the boys. And who pays? Well, no one anymore, not in the cities, they’re all under receivership. But the kids pay. Their communities pay. In robberies, in murders. It’s all there to see, but little is said.

    And the Whites move further and further away, the States and Federal Government take over these failing entities and prop them up. As White Flight becomes complete, the great cities, handed over really at the point of a gun (riots) given, by Whites, to Blacks. And all lies in ruin. Detroit is a complete picture. Atlanta, Baltimore, Philly, Birmingham, Huntsville, Newark, the list goes on an on. If you want a refresher, just look at Chicago, somewhat White for now, but that’s about to change. Blacks marching in the streets, deliberately disrupting shopping season, the Whites that would spend money on shopping, dinner out and whatnot, gone from the streets, only the non-productive to be seen.

    There they are, demanding Rahm Emmanuel’s head and of course, nothing will do but that the next Mayor of Chicago will be Black. The Federal AG is in on the act, setting up the lawsuits against the Chicago PD, this in a city where 40 or 50 shootings occur every weekend and 6-10 deaths, Black-onBlack murder, is normal, all routine. But one kid shot by police is a Federal Case. Chicago’s Blacks will have killed over 500 Chicago Blacks by Year’s end, yet that is ignored and we’re going to focus on one kid with a knife that got shot by a White cop. Black cops shooting Blacks, ok however, you’ll never hear of it. And Chicago will get their Black Mayor and the decline will begin there, really the last great city in the Midwest..

    And the Whites move further away. The shopping districts, the great corporations, the occupants of the towers, they’ll all move out of Chicago. And Chicago, somehow spared for all these decades is about to start down the long, corrupt, decaying and rotting road followed by all the others, handed over by Whites to Blacks.

    It’s never coming back, Epoche. Never. Sad, eh?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. but some kind of discriminations seem to be OK for this ideology.

    This is also my impression when I talk with thoughtful, educated people — the kind who end up shaping elite opinion (as opposed to the dumb conformists and camp followers). They will agree that humans do vary — somewhat — from individual to individual in terms of innate abilities and predispositions. They will also agree that humans do vary — somewhat — from population to population in terms of innate abilities and predispositions.

    This was actually Lewontin’s position. He never denied that human races exist. He simply concluded that human races account for only a small fraction of genetic variability in our species, less than 15% (and only 6.3% for large continental races).

    So our opinion-shapers will concede — in private — that race and ethnicity do have some bearing on innate ability, but only at the margins, only among outliers. If you screen out the real misfits you no longer have anything to worry about. In any case, as they see it, the real danger comes from people like Marine Le Pen, who exaggerate things and play on people’s emotions.

    Let’s take the current wave of immigration that is pouring into Europe from the Middle East and Africa. Elite opinion will concede that this immigration wave does present a problem, but only at the margins. So let’s keep out the “terrorists” and other misfits and let everyone else in. After all, most of them are just decent folk like the rest of us.

    Unfortunately, the majority of those decent folk cannot function in a pacified high-trust, high-empathy society. If you let in too many of them that model of society will collapse.

    The height thing pops their balloon quick and easy – with the emphasis on quick.

    That hasn’t been my experience. I agree that most differences among human populations are weakly statistical, as is the case with stature. But those differences also tend to be less adaptively significant. The more significant a trait is, the more likely it will be sculpted by differences in natural selection, and those differences will develop much more across population boundaries than within populations.

    I don’t like to argue. I’m a consensus person. But on this point you’re terribly wrong. If you concede the point that human populations explain less than 15% of human genetic variation, you’re setting yourself up for “discrimination at the margins” — let’s keep out the terrorists and the misfits … and let everyone else in.

    the current crop of White men are pussies. White women own the world and they dole out the goodies to the races as they choose.

    White men haven’t changed. What has changed is the moral authority that guides their behavior.

    In general, women are politically conformists. This is because they tend to value social relationships more than men do. Conversely, many men are social retards.

    For the same reason, people who gravitate to the Alt Right tend to be loners, misfits and exhibitionists. Those are the ones who are weakly influenced by the dominant mindset.

    If Alt Rightists wish to reach out to women, they should stop acting like losers and learn to act collectively. Like in France. The leader of the FN is a woman, as is a growing proportion of the FN electorate.

    Again, I don’t like to argue. But this kind of negativism and misogyny does far more harm than good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Perhaps I am not understanding the significance of the 15 difference thing but being 15 percent more efficient at something day in and day out at an activity can make a huge difference in social results depending on the nature of the activity. A baseball player who hits 345 batting average is probably an mvp candidate while someone who hits 300 is very good in itself is lucky to get himself into the allstar game. The pay difference between those results may be much more than 15 percent because of the relative scarcity of people who can hit 345. I know that is a trite example but official discussion will not admit any discussion of differences other than hateful bigotry. The other problem is that some islamic refugees engage in inbreeding which may hinder any potential closing of socioeconomic gaps while the assumption is equality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. helena says:

    I don’t like to argue either and the way Peter has explained the fallacy is very clear and useful. But I still think that the height analogy has a simple function and that is to simply explain this one idea:

    genetic variation within a group is not comparable to (ie. not the same thing as) genetic variation between groups.”

    Just that. Many people do not understand stats and their minds cloud over even when hearing such a sentence and that cloud prevents them from proceeding to understand:

    Variation across a group boundary is much more likely to be sculpted by differences in natural selection.

    The difficulty of communicating science is easy to underestimate.

    So when Peter says, ” I don’t think your example of differences in height conveys that message, and that’s the message that has to be conveyed.” That’s true. But that’s not the point of the example. The point is to prepare the mind for the apples and oranges.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @Peter Frost
    but some kind of discriminations seem to be OK for this ideology.

    This is also my impression when I talk with thoughtful, educated people -- the kind who end up shaping elite opinion (as opposed to the dumb conformists and camp followers). They will agree that humans do vary -- somewhat -- from individual to individual in terms of innate abilities and predispositions. They will also agree that humans do vary -- somewhat -- from population to population in terms of innate abilities and predispositions.

    This was actually Lewontin's position. He never denied that human races exist. He simply concluded that human races account for only a small fraction of genetic variability in our species, less than 15% (and only 6.3% for large continental races).

    So our opinion-shapers will concede -- in private -- that race and ethnicity do have some bearing on innate ability, but only at the margins, only among outliers. If you screen out the real misfits you no longer have anything to worry about. In any case, as they see it, the real danger comes from people like Marine Le Pen, who exaggerate things and play on people's emotions.

    Let's take the current wave of immigration that is pouring into Europe from the Middle East and Africa. Elite opinion will concede that this immigration wave does present a problem, but only at the margins. So let's keep out the "terrorists" and other misfits and let everyone else in. After all, most of them are just decent folk like the rest of us.

    Unfortunately, the majority of those decent folk cannot function in a pacified high-trust, high-empathy society. If you let in too many of them that model of society will collapse.

    The height thing pops their balloon quick and easy – with the emphasis on quick.

    That hasn't been my experience. I agree that most differences among human populations are weakly statistical, as is the case with stature. But those differences also tend to be less adaptively significant. The more significant a trait is, the more likely it will be sculpted by differences in natural selection, and those differences will develop much more across population boundaries than within populations.

    I don't like to argue. I'm a consensus person. But on this point you're terribly wrong. If you concede the point that human populations explain less than 15% of human genetic variation, you're setting yourself up for "discrimination at the margins" --- let's keep out the terrorists and the misfits ... and let everyone else in.

    the current crop of White men are pussies. White women own the world and they dole out the goodies to the races as they choose.

    White men haven't changed. What has changed is the moral authority that guides their behavior.

    In general, women are politically conformists. This is because they tend to value social relationships more than men do. Conversely, many men are social retards.

    For the same reason, people who gravitate to the Alt Right tend to be loners, misfits and exhibitionists. Those are the ones who are weakly influenced by the dominant mindset.

    If Alt Rightists wish to reach out to women, they should stop acting like losers and learn to act collectively. Like in France. The leader of the FN is a woman, as is a growing proportion of the FN electorate.

    Again, I don't like to argue. But this kind of negativism and misogyny does far more harm than good.

    Perhaps I am not understanding the significance of the 15 difference thing but being 15 percent more efficient at something day in and day out at an activity can make a huge difference in social results depending on the nature of the activity. A baseball player who hits 345 batting average is probably an mvp candidate while someone who hits 300 is very good in itself is lucky to get himself into the allstar game. The pay difference between those results may be much more than 15 percent because of the relative scarcity of people who can hit 345. I know that is a trite example but official discussion will not admit any discussion of differences other than hateful bigotry. The other problem is that some islamic refugees engage in inbreeding which may hinder any potential closing of socioeconomic gaps while the assumption is equality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Peter Frost

    I don’t like to argue. I’m a consensus person. But on this point you’re terribly wrong.

    No argument. I think we debate with different kinds of people. I’ll keep my height example for the tabloid version.

    If you concede the point that human populations explain less than 15% of human genetic variation, you’re setting yourself up for “discrimination at the margins” — let’s keep out the terrorists and the misfits … and let everyone else in.

    Right, hence the followup point about altitude genes – less than what, 0.0001% of the total genome? but the difference between survival or not in a particular region.

    It’s tiny genetic differences that make all the difference.

    Which is what you’d expect. If population A moves into region B they don’t need to change everything just the critical bits – and the critical bits are by definition critical.

    It’s an argument for a different audience though so no worries.

    yupz

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    It’s tiny genetic differences that make all the difference.
     
    I think Biss feels part of the human race, whatever she has in common with other whites she assumes it has to be far less relevant than what is shared with all humanity . But it is funny how she talks about her little son (who got half his genes from her) being so much in tune with advanced views on race.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Sean says:
    @anon
    Peter Frost

    I don’t like to argue. I’m a consensus person. But on this point you’re terribly wrong.
     
    No argument. I think we debate with different kinds of people. I'll keep my height example for the tabloid version.

    If you concede the point that human populations explain less than 15% of human genetic variation, you’re setting yourself up for “discrimination at the margins” — let’s keep out the terrorists and the misfits … and let everyone else in.
     
    Right, hence the followup point about altitude genes - less than what, 0.0001% of the total genome? but the difference between survival or not in a particular region.

    It's tiny genetic differences that make all the difference.

    Which is what you'd expect. If population A moves into region B they don't need to change everything just the critical bits - and the critical bits are by definition critical.

    It's an argument for a different audience though so no worries.

    @helena

    yupz

    It’s tiny genetic differences that make all the difference.

    I think Biss feels part of the human race, whatever she has in common with other whites she assumes it has to be far less relevant than what is shared with all humanity . But it is funny how she talks about her little son (who got half his genes from her) being so much in tune with advanced views on race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. But I still think that the height analogy has a simple function and that is to simply explain this one idea: “genetic variation within a group is not comparable to (ie. not the same thing as) genetic variation between groups.”

    Let’s take the height analogy. Height varies between sexes and within sexes. How much of the total variability in height is explained by the difference in height between men and women? The answer is … 58% Yes, sex explains the majority of human variability in height. That’s a big difference from less than 15%, i.e., Lewontin’s finding.

    The height scores for male graduate students are clearly higher than for female graduate students, with relatively little overlap between the two distributions. [...] Here we simply compute the Pearson r between sex and height. The value of that r is .76, and it is statistically significant, t(47) = 8.005, p < .001. This analysis is absolutely identical to an independent samples t test with a pooled error term (see the t test output above) or an Analysis of Variance with pooled error. The value of r here can be used as a strength of effect estimate. Square it and you have an estimate of the percentage of variance in height that is “explained” by sex.

    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiL67H3kePJAhUjq4MKHfghBaoQFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.ecu.edu%2Fpsyc%2Fwuenschk%2Fdocs30%2FDichot-Contin.docx&usg=AFQjCNGFPn1rLPzooWHOhvNnx7cJcvn6Vg

    This is an analysis of variance. Of course, the result is very different if you compare the sex difference in height with the range of variation in height of each sex. But no statistician would use such a methodology. The range of variation is distorted by outliers at each end of the distribution. Most variation actually takes place within a much smaller range, typically the mean plus or minus the standard deviation.

    I understand that many people are impressed by the height analogy, but if you pursue that analogy you’ll end up with a lot of egg on your face.

    Perhaps I am not understanding the significance of the 15 difference thing but being 15 percent more efficient at something day in and day out at an activity can make a huge difference in social results depending on the nature of the activity.

    The number 15 can be very big or very small, depending on its context. Here, I’m not talking about a 15% increase in something. I’m talking about the percentage of variability that is explained by one factor. In that context, less than 15% is very small. Moreover, as Lewontin pointed out, that figure is inflated by data from outliers, like Pygmies and Australian Aborigines. If you remove those groups, the figure is even smaller.

    Again, I don’t like to disagree with well-meaning people, but I have to consider how an argument will pan out farther down the road.

    No argument. I think we debate with different kinds of people. I’ll keep my height example for the tabloid version.

    Then at some point you’ll end up being disowned by the statisticians. Not a good idea.

    But it is funny how she talks about her little son

    People understand parent-child kinship well enough, but they sometimes have trouble understanding that the same principle extends to one’s gene pool. Of course, Lewontin’s paper makes it all seem like one big illusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428628/rachel-dolezal-race-not-real

    “What I believe about race is that race is not real,” she continued. “It’s not a biological reality. It’s a hierarchical system that was created to leverage power and privilege between different groups of people.” [...]
    That sure as hell sounds like someone that cares about race to me. I mean, how could she possibly explain believing that race doesn’t matter and being too scared to attend a rally because people of a certain race would be there? Was she saying that it’s all about how you identify; she was afraid of the Tea Partiers because they identified as white and not because they physically appeared that way?
     
    Lewontin’s paper gave a scientific rationale for what I think was already an established moral position. But the much-trumpeted anti racist belief that biological race is a front for whites fixing the system evaporated when a white tried to appear to be black. Biss is trying to make sense of Dolezal losing her job and NAACP position as the "penalty for disowning whiteness", although it was anti racists who were bewildered and upset at the case.
    , @epochehusserl
    People look at who is on top in a given situation. That is the whole purpose of these discussions - rationalizing social status.They dont care about equality in truck driver slots. The number of whites who have intelligence in the upper third of humanity in the us so outnumbers other groups that it would have to be institutional racism against whites to not expect it to be a white lead country. The people with median intelligence shouldnt be lead really anything that matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Sean says:
    @Peter Frost
    But I still think that the height analogy has a simple function and that is to simply explain this one idea: “genetic variation within a group is not comparable to (ie. not the same thing as) genetic variation between groups.”

    Let's take the height analogy. Height varies between sexes and within sexes. How much of the total variability in height is explained by the difference in height between men and women? The answer is ... 58% Yes, sex explains the majority of human variability in height. That's a big difference from less than 15%, i.e., Lewontin's finding.

    The height scores for male graduate students are clearly higher than for female graduate students, with relatively little overlap between the two distributions. [...] Here we simply compute the Pearson r between sex and height. The value of that r is .76, and it is statistically significant, t(47) = 8.005, p < .001. This analysis is absolutely identical to an independent samples t test with a pooled error term (see the t test output above) or an Analysis of Variance with pooled error. The value of r here can be used as a strength of effect estimate. Square it and you have an estimate of the percentage of variance in height that is “explained” by sex.
     
    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiL67H3kePJAhUjq4MKHfghBaoQFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.ecu.edu%2Fpsyc%2Fwuenschk%2Fdocs30%2FDichot-Contin.docx&usg=AFQjCNGFPn1rLPzooWHOhvNnx7cJcvn6Vg

    This is an analysis of variance. Of course, the result is very different if you compare the sex difference in height with the range of variation in height of each sex. But no statistician would use such a methodology. The range of variation is distorted by outliers at each end of the distribution. Most variation actually takes place within a much smaller range, typically the mean plus or minus the standard deviation.

    I understand that many people are impressed by the height analogy, but if you pursue that analogy you'll end up with a lot of egg on your face.

    Perhaps I am not understanding the significance of the 15 difference thing but being 15 percent more efficient at something day in and day out at an activity can make a huge difference in social results depending on the nature of the activity.

    The number 15 can be very big or very small, depending on its context. Here, I'm not talking about a 15% increase in something. I'm talking about the percentage of variability that is explained by one factor. In that context, less than 15% is very small. Moreover, as Lewontin pointed out, that figure is inflated by data from outliers, like Pygmies and Australian Aborigines. If you remove those groups, the figure is even smaller.

    Again, I don't like to disagree with well-meaning people, but I have to consider how an argument will pan out farther down the road.

    No argument. I think we debate with different kinds of people. I’ll keep my height example for the tabloid version.

    Then at some point you'll end up being disowned by the statisticians. Not a good idea.

    But it is funny how she talks about her little son

    People understand parent-child kinship well enough, but they sometimes have trouble understanding that the same principle extends to one's gene pool. Of course, Lewontin's paper makes it all seem like one big illusion.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428628/rachel-dolezal-race-not-real

    “What I believe about race is that race is not real,” she continued. “It’s not a biological reality. It’s a hierarchical system that was created to leverage power and privilege between different groups of people.” [...]
    That sure as hell sounds like someone that cares about race to me. I mean, how could she possibly explain believing that race doesn’t matter and being too scared to attend a rally because people of a certain race would be there? Was she saying that it’s all about how you identify; she was afraid of the Tea Partiers because they identified as white and not because they physically appeared that way?

    Lewontin’s paper gave a scientific rationale for what I think was already an established moral position. But the much-trumpeted anti racist belief that biological race is a front for whites fixing the system evaporated when a white tried to appear to be black. Biss is trying to make sense of Dolezal losing her job and NAACP position as the “penalty for disowning whiteness”, although it was anti racists who were bewildered and upset at the case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Lets play the racial blame game:
    Whites buying blacks in africa from other blacks was even though the social systems revolved around the concept everywhere from the beginning of time was racist. Whites wanting to separate but equal was racist. Whites agreeing to the civil rights act only because it forbid quotas and allegedly prevented a marxist revolution was racist. Whites being angry at mlk because couldnt comprehend that equal before the law doesnt guarantee anyone a job was racist. Whites opposed to the banning of iq tests was racist. Whites pointing out that dysgenic fertility hinders the closing of any gaps is racist. Blacks acting like whites are uncle toms which is racist. Whites not wanting to give affirmative action to international students who werent born in the country is racist. White identity is racist. Criticizing non-whites is racist. Not wanting to abandon the concept of a nation state is racist. Questioning ethnocentrism in any group other than whites is racist. Not wanting to subsidize student loans and grants for affluent foreigners is racist. Questioning the accusation of racism in non racial matters is racist. Pointing out the costs of islamic inbreeding in the uk is racist. No wanting to be talked to like a jackass as a white man in instititions that your ancestors built and you have been taxed to subsidize by people born in a different country who have never paid a dime in income tax is racist. Wanting to create social spaces away from people that hate you is racist. Pointing out jewish privilege is racist. Pointing out social activist privilege is racist. Noticing the race of people raping white children who were targeted in rotterham uk was racist. Wanting to preserve your heritage is racist. Matt Damon disagreeing with how diversity should be applied in a private organization is racist. Defending yourself against violent student activists is racist. Pointing out that no one who uses the word privilege has ever done anything useful is racist.
    Questioning why racial quotas exist if race doesnt exist is racist. Question why natural selection exists in animals but not humans is racist. Worrying about educational Having the audacity to note the gross mismanagement of formerly white cities into third world status where water coming out of the pipes is not a given is racist. Pointing out jewish scapegoating of whites is racist. Noting that racial tension exists in all societies so whites giving up their privilege wont make a difference is racist.
    --'------------------------
    Its not a complete list and I could go on but its obvious at this point that the lack of guts on the part of whites is the issue not biology.
    , @helena
    "But the much-trumpeted anti racist belief that biological race is a front for whites fixing the system"

    Would it be true to say that modern genetic research is not 'immediately' reproducing the biological classifications that arose from categorising organisms based on anatomy and behaviours - and that the current challenge is to find ways to explain this seeming paradox?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Peter Frost
    But I still think that the height analogy has a simple function and that is to simply explain this one idea: “genetic variation within a group is not comparable to (ie. not the same thing as) genetic variation between groups.”

    Let's take the height analogy. Height varies between sexes and within sexes. How much of the total variability in height is explained by the difference in height between men and women? The answer is ... 58% Yes, sex explains the majority of human variability in height. That's a big difference from less than 15%, i.e., Lewontin's finding.

    The height scores for male graduate students are clearly higher than for female graduate students, with relatively little overlap between the two distributions. [...] Here we simply compute the Pearson r between sex and height. The value of that r is .76, and it is statistically significant, t(47) = 8.005, p < .001. This analysis is absolutely identical to an independent samples t test with a pooled error term (see the t test output above) or an Analysis of Variance with pooled error. The value of r here can be used as a strength of effect estimate. Square it and you have an estimate of the percentage of variance in height that is “explained” by sex.
     
    http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiL67H3kePJAhUjq4MKHfghBaoQFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcore.ecu.edu%2Fpsyc%2Fwuenschk%2Fdocs30%2FDichot-Contin.docx&usg=AFQjCNGFPn1rLPzooWHOhvNnx7cJcvn6Vg

    This is an analysis of variance. Of course, the result is very different if you compare the sex difference in height with the range of variation in height of each sex. But no statistician would use such a methodology. The range of variation is distorted by outliers at each end of the distribution. Most variation actually takes place within a much smaller range, typically the mean plus or minus the standard deviation.

    I understand that many people are impressed by the height analogy, but if you pursue that analogy you'll end up with a lot of egg on your face.

    Perhaps I am not understanding the significance of the 15 difference thing but being 15 percent more efficient at something day in and day out at an activity can make a huge difference in social results depending on the nature of the activity.

    The number 15 can be very big or very small, depending on its context. Here, I'm not talking about a 15% increase in something. I'm talking about the percentage of variability that is explained by one factor. In that context, less than 15% is very small. Moreover, as Lewontin pointed out, that figure is inflated by data from outliers, like Pygmies and Australian Aborigines. If you remove those groups, the figure is even smaller.

    Again, I don't like to disagree with well-meaning people, but I have to consider how an argument will pan out farther down the road.

    No argument. I think we debate with different kinds of people. I’ll keep my height example for the tabloid version.

    Then at some point you'll end up being disowned by the statisticians. Not a good idea.

    But it is funny how she talks about her little son

    People understand parent-child kinship well enough, but they sometimes have trouble understanding that the same principle extends to one's gene pool. Of course, Lewontin's paper makes it all seem like one big illusion.

    People look at who is on top in a given situation. That is the whole purpose of these discussions – rationalizing social status.They dont care about equality in truck driver slots. The number of whites who have intelligence in the upper third of humanity in the us so outnumbers other groups that it would have to be institutional racism against whites to not expect it to be a white lead country. The people with median intelligence shouldnt be lead really anything that matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Sean

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428628/rachel-dolezal-race-not-real

    “What I believe about race is that race is not real,” she continued. “It’s not a biological reality. It’s a hierarchical system that was created to leverage power and privilege between different groups of people.” [...]
    That sure as hell sounds like someone that cares about race to me. I mean, how could she possibly explain believing that race doesn’t matter and being too scared to attend a rally because people of a certain race would be there? Was she saying that it’s all about how you identify; she was afraid of the Tea Partiers because they identified as white and not because they physically appeared that way?
     
    Lewontin’s paper gave a scientific rationale for what I think was already an established moral position. But the much-trumpeted anti racist belief that biological race is a front for whites fixing the system evaporated when a white tried to appear to be black. Biss is trying to make sense of Dolezal losing her job and NAACP position as the "penalty for disowning whiteness", although it was anti racists who were bewildered and upset at the case.

    Lets play the racial blame game:
    Whites buying blacks in africa from other blacks was even though the social systems revolved around the concept everywhere from the beginning of time was racist. Whites wanting to separate but equal was racist. Whites agreeing to the civil rights act only because it forbid quotas and allegedly prevented a marxist revolution was racist. Whites being angry at mlk because couldnt comprehend that equal before the law doesnt guarantee anyone a job was racist. Whites opposed to the banning of iq tests was racist. Whites pointing out that dysgenic fertility hinders the closing of any gaps is racist. Blacks acting like whites are uncle toms which is racist. Whites not wanting to give affirmative action to international students who werent born in the country is racist. White identity is racist. Criticizing non-whites is racist. Not wanting to abandon the concept of a nation state is racist. Questioning ethnocentrism in any group other than whites is racist. Not wanting to subsidize student loans and grants for affluent foreigners is racist. Questioning the accusation of racism in non racial matters is racist. Pointing out the costs of islamic inbreeding in the uk is racist. No wanting to be talked to like a jackass as a white man in instititions that your ancestors built and you have been taxed to subsidize by people born in a different country who have never paid a dime in income tax is racist. Wanting to create social spaces away from people that hate you is racist. Pointing out jewish privilege is racist. Pointing out social activist privilege is racist. Noticing the race of people raping white children who were targeted in rotterham uk was racist. Wanting to preserve your heritage is racist. Matt Damon disagreeing with how diversity should be applied in a private organization is racist. Defending yourself against violent student activists is racist. Pointing out that no one who uses the word privilege has ever done anything useful is racist.
    Questioning why racial quotas exist if race doesnt exist is racist. Question why natural selection exists in animals but not humans is racist. Worrying about educational Having the audacity to note the gross mismanagement of formerly white cities into third world status where water coming out of the pipes is not a given is racist. Pointing out jewish scapegoating of whites is racist. Noting that racial tension exists in all societies so whites giving up their privilege wont make a difference is racist.
    –’————————
    Its not a complete list and I could go on but its obvious at this point that the lack of guts on the part of whites is the issue not biology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Its not a complete list and I could go on but its obvious at this point that the lack of guts on the part of whites is the issue not biology.

    Are you keeping a list?

    I disagree that the problem is a lack of guts, and if it is then a lot of it would be biological.

    Problem # 1 is defining your group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. helena says:
    @Sean

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428628/rachel-dolezal-race-not-real

    “What I believe about race is that race is not real,” she continued. “It’s not a biological reality. It’s a hierarchical system that was created to leverage power and privilege between different groups of people.” [...]
    That sure as hell sounds like someone that cares about race to me. I mean, how could she possibly explain believing that race doesn’t matter and being too scared to attend a rally because people of a certain race would be there? Was she saying that it’s all about how you identify; she was afraid of the Tea Partiers because they identified as white and not because they physically appeared that way?
     
    Lewontin’s paper gave a scientific rationale for what I think was already an established moral position. But the much-trumpeted anti racist belief that biological race is a front for whites fixing the system evaporated when a white tried to appear to be black. Biss is trying to make sense of Dolezal losing her job and NAACP position as the "penalty for disowning whiteness", although it was anti racists who were bewildered and upset at the case.

    “But the much-trumpeted anti racist belief that biological race is a front for whites fixing the system”

    Would it be true to say that modern genetic research is not ‘immediately’ reproducing the biological classifications that arose from categorising organisms based on anatomy and behaviours – and that the current challenge is to find ways to explain this seeming paradox?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. iffen says:
    @epochehusserl
    Lets play the racial blame game:
    Whites buying blacks in africa from other blacks was even though the social systems revolved around the concept everywhere from the beginning of time was racist. Whites wanting to separate but equal was racist. Whites agreeing to the civil rights act only because it forbid quotas and allegedly prevented a marxist revolution was racist. Whites being angry at mlk because couldnt comprehend that equal before the law doesnt guarantee anyone a job was racist. Whites opposed to the banning of iq tests was racist. Whites pointing out that dysgenic fertility hinders the closing of any gaps is racist. Blacks acting like whites are uncle toms which is racist. Whites not wanting to give affirmative action to international students who werent born in the country is racist. White identity is racist. Criticizing non-whites is racist. Not wanting to abandon the concept of a nation state is racist. Questioning ethnocentrism in any group other than whites is racist. Not wanting to subsidize student loans and grants for affluent foreigners is racist. Questioning the accusation of racism in non racial matters is racist. Pointing out the costs of islamic inbreeding in the uk is racist. No wanting to be talked to like a jackass as a white man in instititions that your ancestors built and you have been taxed to subsidize by people born in a different country who have never paid a dime in income tax is racist. Wanting to create social spaces away from people that hate you is racist. Pointing out jewish privilege is racist. Pointing out social activist privilege is racist. Noticing the race of people raping white children who were targeted in rotterham uk was racist. Wanting to preserve your heritage is racist. Matt Damon disagreeing with how diversity should be applied in a private organization is racist. Defending yourself against violent student activists is racist. Pointing out that no one who uses the word privilege has ever done anything useful is racist.
    Questioning why racial quotas exist if race doesnt exist is racist. Question why natural selection exists in animals but not humans is racist. Worrying about educational Having the audacity to note the gross mismanagement of formerly white cities into third world status where water coming out of the pipes is not a given is racist. Pointing out jewish scapegoating of whites is racist. Noting that racial tension exists in all societies so whites giving up their privilege wont make a difference is racist.
    --'------------------------
    Its not a complete list and I could go on but its obvious at this point that the lack of guts on the part of whites is the issue not biology.

    Its not a complete list and I could go on but its obvious at this point that the lack of guts on the part of whites is the issue not biology.

    Are you keeping a list?

    I disagree that the problem is a lack of guts, and if it is then a lot of it would be biological.

    Problem # 1 is defining your group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    I am not keeping a list. I think you are getting closer to the truth though. The issue is that we are not even allowed to define our group, as that wouldnt be inclusive and would be against our anti-discrimination theology. What I would advocate is for people to have the re-establish the right of people to exclude others based upon self defining criteria. Here is really the nature of the problem :
    From
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html

    The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

    Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
    -----------------------------------
    The problem is the lack of courage in articulating the problem which is really a political so biologists finding something about the h12a halotype receptor wont lead to advancement in these arenas. That was my point in saying such.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @iffen
    Its not a complete list and I could go on but its obvious at this point that the lack of guts on the part of whites is the issue not biology.

    Are you keeping a list?

    I disagree that the problem is a lack of guts, and if it is then a lot of it would be biological.

    Problem # 1 is defining your group.

    I am not keeping a list. I think you are getting closer to the truth though. The issue is that we are not even allowed to define our group, as that wouldnt be inclusive and would be against our anti-discrimination theology. What I would advocate is for people to have the re-establish the right of people to exclude others based upon self defining criteria. Here is really the nature of the problem :
    From

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html

    The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

    Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
    ———————————–
    The problem is the lack of courage in articulating the problem which is really a political so biologists finding something about the h12a halotype receptor wont lead to advancement in these arenas. That was my point in saying such.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I agree that the problem is political. I don’t agree that people who are not in support of the reigning PC ideology are prevented from organizing an opposition. I think that it is a failure of “our” side to organize and present an effective counterweight. The extreme PC ideology wins by default; there is no coherent opposition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. The people with median intelligence shouldnt lead really anything that matters.

    Intelligent people are very good at gaming the system to reach their personal goals, often at the expense of what is good for everyone else.

    Globalism has been very, very good for the elites. The top 1% is getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. They are the ones who benefit when jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries and when low-wage workers are insourced. We have a situation where the elites are pursuing policies that are good for them but ruinous for their societies.

    It takes intelligence to do these things. It takes intelligence to alter the political culture. Think of all the effort that has been invested in think tanks to persuade people that globalism is good for them. Don’t worry! We’ll all be richer! They’re still peddling that message even though the signs of economic decline are to be seen everywhere in the Western World. They’re now arguing that we haven’t been globalist enough.

    We need intelligent people who care not only about themselves but also about the common man and woman.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    We need intelligent people who care not only about themselves but also about the common man and woman.

    There does not seem to be a critical mass of these people.
    , @Anonymous

    Globalism has been very, very good for the elites. The top 1% is getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. They are the ones who benefit when jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries and when low-wage workers are insourced. We have a situation where the elites are pursuing policies that are good for them but ruinous for their societies.
     
    The outsource destinations and imported labor benefit, don't they? I believe that's one of the justifications for globalism.

    Inequalities persist with or without globalism, and there are beneficiaries of globalist and non-globalist arrangements, but the distributions and identities change. So it doesn't make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general "common man". It has to be qualified.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. iffen says:
    @epochehusserl
    I am not keeping a list. I think you are getting closer to the truth though. The issue is that we are not even allowed to define our group, as that wouldnt be inclusive and would be against our anti-discrimination theology. What I would advocate is for people to have the re-establish the right of people to exclude others based upon self defining criteria. Here is really the nature of the problem :
    From
    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-deconstruction-of-marriage.html

    The left's social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.

    Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
    -----------------------------------
    The problem is the lack of courage in articulating the problem which is really a political so biologists finding something about the h12a halotype receptor wont lead to advancement in these arenas. That was my point in saying such.

    I agree that the problem is political. I don’t agree that people who are not in support of the reigning PC ideology are prevented from organizing an opposition. I think that it is a failure of “our” side to organize and present an effective counterweight. The extreme PC ideology wins by default; there is no coherent opposition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. iffen says:
    @Peter Frost
    The people with median intelligence shouldnt lead really anything that matters.

    Intelligent people are very good at gaming the system to reach their personal goals, often at the expense of what is good for everyone else.

    Globalism has been very, very good for the elites. The top 1% is getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. They are the ones who benefit when jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries and when low-wage workers are insourced. We have a situation where the elites are pursuing policies that are good for them but ruinous for their societies.

    It takes intelligence to do these things. It takes intelligence to alter the political culture. Think of all the effort that has been invested in think tanks to persuade people that globalism is good for them. Don't worry! We'll all be richer! They're still peddling that message even though the signs of economic decline are to be seen everywhere in the Western World. They're now arguing that we haven't been globalist enough.

    We need intelligent people who care not only about themselves but also about the common man and woman.

    We need intelligent people who care not only about themselves but also about the common man and woman.

    There does not seem to be a critical mass of these people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    There is a critical mass of such people among certain populations. They have been cleverly misdirected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Willis
    This story should elicit feelings of brotherhood between all races of man and yet, like comments on so many articles on this site, responses to this story become racially charged.

    I am not a globalist nor do I condone violence or dishonesty from anyone, generally because that is how wars are started. I got the impression from reading this site that many people here are veterans of war and as such should appreciate the horrors of conflict. In stead of adopting a live and let live attitued, many commenters here appear to have never left the battle field or wish that the world were one big one.

    Like Mr. Putin asked the people who claim superiority over the rest of the world and have killed millions in the process, 'Do you realize what you have done?'

    1400 white children were sexually groomed by non whites because of their race in rotterham uk and the authorities did not take it seriously because of fear of being accused of racism. Failure to acknowledge and respond to patterns in the social world under the threat of being accused of racism is deadly. Antiracism can be just as deadly as racism. Pol pot killed millions to bring about more equality in the economic sphere. Racial egalitarianism could proe just as deadly. Many horrible things have been done to white south africans in the name of fighting racism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Pol Pot's killings were basically a violent rural, agrarian populist revolt against urban elites, which is what some of the more extreme racialists at the Unz Review want.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Peter Frost
    The people with median intelligence shouldnt lead really anything that matters.

    Intelligent people are very good at gaming the system to reach their personal goals, often at the expense of what is good for everyone else.

    Globalism has been very, very good for the elites. The top 1% is getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. They are the ones who benefit when jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries and when low-wage workers are insourced. We have a situation where the elites are pursuing policies that are good for them but ruinous for their societies.

    It takes intelligence to do these things. It takes intelligence to alter the political culture. Think of all the effort that has been invested in think tanks to persuade people that globalism is good for them. Don't worry! We'll all be richer! They're still peddling that message even though the signs of economic decline are to be seen everywhere in the Western World. They're now arguing that we haven't been globalist enough.

    We need intelligent people who care not only about themselves but also about the common man and woman.

    Globalism has been very, very good for the elites. The top 1% is getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. They are the ones who benefit when jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries and when low-wage workers are insourced. We have a situation where the elites are pursuing policies that are good for them but ruinous for their societies.

    The outsource destinations and imported labor benefit, don’t they? I believe that’s one of the justifications for globalism.

    Inequalities persist with or without globalism, and there are beneficiaries of globalist and non-globalist arrangements, but the distributions and identities change. So it doesn’t make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general “common man”. It has to be qualified.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    So it doesn’t make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general “common man”. It has to be qualified.
     
    Globalists are also citizens and have an implicit (should be made explicit) duty of care to fellow citizens - iSteve's citizenism aka non-natio nationalism.

    Ignoring that duty should be a crime.

    They implicitly acknowledge this when they lie about their polices being good for the country as a whole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. iffen says:

    So it doesn’t make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general “common man”. It has to be qualified.

    Peter Frost, his family and the people that are dear to him and that he cares about. Iffen, his family and the people that are dear to him and that he cares about. Dickhead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    That's better than "common man", but still inadequate. Political struggle has to be made under certain pretenses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    1400 white children were sexually groomed by non whites because of their race in rotterham uk and the authorities did not take it seriously because of fear of being accused of racism. Failure to acknowledge and respond to patterns in the social world under the threat of being accused of racism is deadly. Antiracism can be just as deadly as racism. Pol pot killed millions to bring about more equality in the economic sphere. Racial egalitarianism could proe just as deadly. Many horrible things have been done to white south africans in the name of fighting racism.

    Pol Pot’s killings were basically a violent rural, agrarian populist revolt against urban elites, which is what some of the more extreme racialists at the Unz Review want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    People get angry when they see the fairness for you and favoritism for me doctrine being played out. They were blaming george zimmerman a hispanic man as an example of white supremacy he is not even white. Thats just white scapegoating for the failures of non-whites. People get angry when the ceo of sams club says she discriminates against whites and then whites are threatened for wanting to form a white student union as a blatant form of racism. Racial tension exists in all societies, whites giving up their privilege wont solve anything.
    , @epochehusserl
    1400 white children being trafficked as sex slaves because of their race in the uk. They were targeted because of their race. Is that not racism? The reason this happened was because whites lacked racial solidarity. The authorities failed to act because of being afraid of being called racist. Should people happy about this? Should they do nothing? Should they say well the kids that were raped well thats an acceptable priced to pay as along as we are moving towards better world? The ends dont justify the means. The antidiscrimination theology brigade is not innocent. To the left oppressing the oppressor is always justified. I dont agree. Failure to recognize and respond to social patterns because of the threat of racism kills people. Its like saying well yes the boat is taking on water but your social betters dont like the tone of your voice in bringing the issue up so get back to your seat and then calling someone crazy for not accepting that response. What is so absurd about allowing people to create their own communities through restrictive covenant laws? Or creating the framework so that people could create a more modern version of the amish that is exempt from social security? What is so offensive about those ideas? Why do the elite have such moral capital invested in the antidiscrimination theology?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    So it doesn’t make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general “common man”. It has to be qualified.

    Peter Frost, his family and the people that are dear to him and that he cares about. Iffen, his family and the people that are dear to him and that he cares about. Dickhead.

    That’s better than “common man”, but still inadequate. Political struggle has to be made under certain pretenses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I apologize for the rude comment. Thanks for ignoring it. I guess I don’t grasp your main point. Common people know who they are. People who use, manipulate or separate themselves from common people know who the common people are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    We need intelligent people who care not only about themselves but also about the common man and woman.

    There does not seem to be a critical mass of these people.

    There is a critical mass of such people among certain populations. They have been cleverly misdirected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    There are a large number of discontented intelligent people but it is hard to get anything off the ground because of a lack of cultural, moral and ethnic solidarity. Even someone who paints himself as a skeptic such as richard dawkins buys into the antidiscrimination theology because it is a career move probably but still. There is a lack of men with courage and intelligence. The only way I could see it changing is to teach some academics a skill or trade so they knew if they came out of the closet as being against this that or the other they knew they could still support themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous

    Globalism has been very, very good for the elites. The top 1% is getting a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. They are the ones who benefit when jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries and when low-wage workers are insourced. We have a situation where the elites are pursuing policies that are good for them but ruinous for their societies.
     
    The outsource destinations and imported labor benefit, don't they? I believe that's one of the justifications for globalism.

    Inequalities persist with or without globalism, and there are beneficiaries of globalist and non-globalist arrangements, but the distributions and identities change. So it doesn't make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general "common man". It has to be qualified.

    So it doesn’t make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general “common man”. It has to be qualified.

    Globalists are also citizens and have an implicit (should be made explicit) duty of care to fellow citizens – iSteve’s citizenism aka non-natio nationalism.

    Ignoring that duty should be a crime.

    They implicitly acknowledge this when they lie about their polices being good for the country as a whole.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Globalists would suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that they are citizens of the world. Furthermore, they would disagree with the notion that they are failing to take care of their fellow citizens. They would say that they have different notions about what the acceptable levels of care are, and what the acceptable levels of costs are in caring for fellow citizens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Anonymous
    Pol Pot's killings were basically a violent rural, agrarian populist revolt against urban elites, which is what some of the more extreme racialists at the Unz Review want.

    People get angry when they see the fairness for you and favoritism for me doctrine being played out. They were blaming george zimmerman a hispanic man as an example of white supremacy he is not even white. Thats just white scapegoating for the failures of non-whites. People get angry when the ceo of sams club says she discriminates against whites and then whites are threatened for wanting to form a white student union as a blatant form of racism. Racial tension exists in all societies, whites giving up their privilege wont solve anything.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My point was that it's mistaken to characterize Pol Pot's killings as having to do with "antiracism" or simple egalitarianism. They were a populist conflict against urban elites, which is basically the same dynamic that animates many of the racialists and others at the Unz Review.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Sean says:

    Kevin MacDonald’s PTSDA on Puritans

    Membership in the church required a vote of the congregation. “The principal criterion, besides an upright behavior, was evidence that God had chosen the candidate for eternal salvation, that he was a regenerate spirit rather than a man or woman who had wanted to be picked for salvation,” Prospective members had to convince the congregation that they had indeed been chosen by God by relating “the workings of Christ” on their soul

    Biss’s article is a modern version

    And whiteness is costing me my community. It is the wedge driven between me and my neighbors, between me and other mothers, between me and other workers. I know there’s more too. I have written and erased a hundred sentences here, trying and failing to articulate something that I can sense but not yet speak. Like a bad loan, the kind in which the payments increase over time, the price of whiteness remains hidden behind its promises.

    ‘‘Her choice to give up whiteness was a privilege,’’ Michael Jeffries wrote of Dolezal in The Boston Globe. Noel said to me, ‘‘If giving up whiteness is a privilege, what do you call hanging on to it?’’ As Dolezal surrendered her position in the N.A.A.C.P. and lost her teaching job, I thought of the white police officers who killed unarmed black people and kept their jobs. That the penalty for disowning whiteness appears to be more severe than the penalty for killing a black person says something about what our culture holds dear.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. @anon
    There is a critical mass of such people among certain populations. They have been cleverly misdirected.

    There are a large number of discontented intelligent people but it is hard to get anything off the ground because of a lack of cultural, moral and ethnic solidarity. Even someone who paints himself as a skeptic such as richard dawkins buys into the antidiscrimination theology because it is a career move probably but still. There is a lack of men with courage and intelligence. The only way I could see it changing is to teach some academics a skill or trade so they knew if they came out of the closet as being against this that or the other they knew they could still support themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Yeah I meant they are currently on the wrong side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Anonymous
    Pol Pot's killings were basically a violent rural, agrarian populist revolt against urban elites, which is what some of the more extreme racialists at the Unz Review want.

    1400 white children being trafficked as sex slaves because of their race in the uk. They were targeted because of their race. Is that not racism? The reason this happened was because whites lacked racial solidarity. The authorities failed to act because of being afraid of being called racist. Should people happy about this? Should they do nothing? Should they say well the kids that were raped well thats an acceptable priced to pay as along as we are moving towards better world? The ends dont justify the means. The antidiscrimination theology brigade is not innocent. To the left oppressing the oppressor is always justified. I dont agree. Failure to recognize and respond to social patterns because of the threat of racism kills people. Its like saying well yes the boat is taking on water but your social betters dont like the tone of your voice in bringing the issue up so get back to your seat and then calling someone crazy for not accepting that response. What is so absurd about allowing people to create their own communities through restrictive covenant laws? Or creating the framework so that people could create a more modern version of the amish that is exempt from social security? What is so offensive about those ideas? Why do the elite have such moral capital invested in the antidiscrimination theology?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon

    1400 white children being trafficked as sex slaves because of their race in the uk.
     
    And that's just in one town.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    People get angry when they see the fairness for you and favoritism for me doctrine being played out. They were blaming george zimmerman a hispanic man as an example of white supremacy he is not even white. Thats just white scapegoating for the failures of non-whites. People get angry when the ceo of sams club says she discriminates against whites and then whites are threatened for wanting to form a white student union as a blatant form of racism. Racial tension exists in all societies, whites giving up their privilege wont solve anything.

    My point was that it’s mistaken to characterize Pol Pot’s killings as having to do with “antiracism” or simple egalitarianism. They were a populist conflict against urban elites, which is basically the same dynamic that animates many of the racialists and others at the Unz Review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    Pol pot was a economic marxist. He believed in the inevitabilty and righteousness of his worldview and accordingly rationalized many horrible crimes. He believed that he was paving the way for a better world. Our racial and sexual marxists believe in the righteousness of their program and according to their gramscian eschatology they believe in inevitability of their program. They believe that the native white population is guilty of racism and sexism and no amount of penance will undo their crimes. The racialists as you call them mostly just want to be left alone to raise families unhindered by these elite visions. If you attack someone for who they are is it extremist for them to defend themselves? If someone attacked me at yale and said f you white supremacist l would have attacked them back. Would that be racialist? Is it racialist to question why privileged youth on elite campuses cannot come up with anything more productive to do than get in peoples faces like uncivilized animals? In the old days people would DISCRIMINATE against such people. If they cannot come up with anything more productive then they dont belong there. Racialist isnt even a word by the way. There was a diversity officer in the uk who tweeted kill all white men. Can l tweet kill all diversity officers or would that be racialist? Should people tolerate that? Whites are not only denied the right to have any racial solidarity but they must tolerate being threatened. They must drink the koolaid. These problems stem fundamentally from the lack of respect for property rights brought about by activists and their antidiscrimination theology.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anon

    So it doesn’t make sense to oppose globalism on behalf of vague, general “common man”. It has to be qualified.
     
    Globalists are also citizens and have an implicit (should be made explicit) duty of care to fellow citizens - iSteve's citizenism aka non-natio nationalism.

    Ignoring that duty should be a crime.

    They implicitly acknowledge this when they lie about their polices being good for the country as a whole.

    Globalists would suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that they are citizens of the world. Furthermore, they would disagree with the notion that they are failing to take care of their fellow citizens. They would say that they have different notions about what the acceptable levels of care are, and what the acceptable levels of costs are in caring for fellow citizens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    I'm sure they would. I'm suggesting they get explicitly outvoted. If they want to be a plutocrat in whichever country they have a passport for - no dual obviously, just one - then fine but the rules are x, y, z.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Anonymous
    My point was that it's mistaken to characterize Pol Pot's killings as having to do with "antiracism" or simple egalitarianism. They were a populist conflict against urban elites, which is basically the same dynamic that animates many of the racialists and others at the Unz Review.

    Pol pot was a economic marxist. He believed in the inevitabilty and righteousness of his worldview and accordingly rationalized many horrible crimes. He believed that he was paving the way for a better world. Our racial and sexual marxists believe in the righteousness of their program and according to their gramscian eschatology they believe in inevitability of their program. They believe that the native white population is guilty of racism and sexism and no amount of penance will undo their crimes. The racialists as you call them mostly just want to be left alone to raise families unhindered by these elite visions. If you attack someone for who they are is it extremist for them to defend themselves? If someone attacked me at yale and said f you white supremacist l would have attacked them back. Would that be racialist? Is it racialist to question why privileged youth on elite campuses cannot come up with anything more productive to do than get in peoples faces like uncivilized animals? In the old days people would DISCRIMINATE against such people. If they cannot come up with anything more productive then they dont belong there. Racialist isnt even a word by the way. There was a diversity officer in the uk who tweeted kill all white men. Can l tweet kill all diversity officers or would that be racialist? Should people tolerate that? Whites are not only denied the right to have any racial solidarity but they must tolerate being threatened. They must drink the koolaid. These problems stem fundamentally from the lack of respect for property rights brought about by activists and their antidiscrimination theology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were nationalist and organized politically against Vietnamese and Chinese minorities, and mobilized populist revolt against urban elites. They're not an accurate analogy for contemporary leftists, but rather reflect the sort of populist discontent that animates racialists and rightists today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. iffen says:
    @Anonymous
    That's better than "common man", but still inadequate. Political struggle has to be made under certain pretenses.

    I apologize for the rude comment. Thanks for ignoring it. I guess I don’t grasp your main point. Common people know who they are. People who use, manipulate or separate themselves from common people know who the common people are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    People create political and social arrangements to benefit themselves not humanity. The nation state, the family, and private property are all concepts based upon exclusion discrimination. You can do away with them but will 'humanity' benefit? The state university system of ny, earned income credit, and the import export bank are not our inheritance as children of god. Rather they are real social goods that people have been forced to support. If we got rid of them, how would 'humanity' be said to suffer?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Epochehusserl
    Pol pot was a economic marxist. He believed in the inevitabilty and righteousness of his worldview and accordingly rationalized many horrible crimes. He believed that he was paving the way for a better world. Our racial and sexual marxists believe in the righteousness of their program and according to their gramscian eschatology they believe in inevitability of their program. They believe that the native white population is guilty of racism and sexism and no amount of penance will undo their crimes. The racialists as you call them mostly just want to be left alone to raise families unhindered by these elite visions. If you attack someone for who they are is it extremist for them to defend themselves? If someone attacked me at yale and said f you white supremacist l would have attacked them back. Would that be racialist? Is it racialist to question why privileged youth on elite campuses cannot come up with anything more productive to do than get in peoples faces like uncivilized animals? In the old days people would DISCRIMINATE against such people. If they cannot come up with anything more productive then they dont belong there. Racialist isnt even a word by the way. There was a diversity officer in the uk who tweeted kill all white men. Can l tweet kill all diversity officers or would that be racialist? Should people tolerate that? Whites are not only denied the right to have any racial solidarity but they must tolerate being threatened. They must drink the koolaid. These problems stem fundamentally from the lack of respect for property rights brought about by activists and their antidiscrimination theology.

    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were nationalist and organized politically against Vietnamese and Chinese minorities, and mobilized populist revolt against urban elites. They’re not an accurate analogy for contemporary leftists, but rather reflect the sort of populist discontent that animates racialists and rightists today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    Respecting private property rights is the exact opposite of pol pots marxism, which is what animates rightist discontent. That is the common thread between racial and economic marxism -taking everything into common property. Making up words such as racialist obfuscates the issue. All over society we see the problems caused by a lack of respect for private property and private social arrangements. Demands for safe spaces on college campuses, debates over transgender bathrooms, destruction of formerly glorious white cities into third world status, gay wedding cake arguments, attacks on intellectuals who point out the problems caused by dysgenic fertility. If respecting property rights and liberty of contract makes me a racialist according to the antidiscrimination disparate impact peanut gallery then so be it.
    , @iffen
    What does leftist discontent look like today in the US?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Anonymous
    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were nationalist and organized politically against Vietnamese and Chinese minorities, and mobilized populist revolt against urban elites. They're not an accurate analogy for contemporary leftists, but rather reflect the sort of populist discontent that animates racialists and rightists today.

    Respecting private property rights is the exact opposite of pol pots marxism, which is what animates rightist discontent. That is the common thread between racial and economic marxism -taking everything into common property. Making up words such as racialist obfuscates the issue. All over society we see the problems caused by a lack of respect for private property and private social arrangements. Demands for safe spaces on college campuses, debates over transgender bathrooms, destruction of formerly glorious white cities into third world status, gay wedding cake arguments, attacks on intellectuals who point out the problems caused by dysgenic fertility. If respecting property rights and liberty of contract makes me a racialist according to the antidiscrimination disparate impact peanut gallery then so be it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Racialist isn't a made up term. I think it's an accurate term, but if you find it politically incorrect, you don't have to use it.

    I disagree with you that rightist discontent is driven by libertarian ideology. Rightist discontent is populist and racialist, not libertarian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @iffen
    I apologize for the rude comment. Thanks for ignoring it. I guess I don’t grasp your main point. Common people know who they are. People who use, manipulate or separate themselves from common people know who the common people are.

    People create political and social arrangements to benefit themselves not humanity. The nation state, the family, and private property are all concepts based upon exclusion discrimination. You can do away with them but will ‘humanity’ benefit? The state university system of ny, earned income credit, and the import export bank are not our inheritance as children of god. Rather they are real social goods that people have been forced to support. If we got rid of them, how would ‘humanity’ be said to suffer?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    Respecting private property rights is the exact opposite of pol pots marxism, which is what animates rightist discontent. That is the common thread between racial and economic marxism -taking everything into common property. Making up words such as racialist obfuscates the issue. All over society we see the problems caused by a lack of respect for private property and private social arrangements. Demands for safe spaces on college campuses, debates over transgender bathrooms, destruction of formerly glorious white cities into third world status, gay wedding cake arguments, attacks on intellectuals who point out the problems caused by dysgenic fertility. If respecting property rights and liberty of contract makes me a racialist according to the antidiscrimination disparate impact peanut gallery then so be it.

    Racialist isn’t a made up term. I think it’s an accurate term, but if you find it politically incorrect, you don’t have to use it.

    I disagree with you that rightist discontent is driven by libertarian ideology. Rightist discontent is populist and racialist, not libertarian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Epochehusserl
    Fair enough. There are plenty of libertarians who would be attacked for their views as racist because we oppose mandatory inclusiveness even though the issue has nothing to do with race. I would be called a white supremacist if my views were addressed in a public forum because the left cannot tolerate nuance, not because i am a racist. Am I racialist?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Anonymous
    Racialist isn't a made up term. I think it's an accurate term, but if you find it politically incorrect, you don't have to use it.

    I disagree with you that rightist discontent is driven by libertarian ideology. Rightist discontent is populist and racialist, not libertarian.

    Fair enough. There are plenty of libertarians who would be attacked for their views as racist because we oppose mandatory inclusiveness even though the issue has nothing to do with race. I would be called a white supremacist if my views were addressed in a public forum because the left cannot tolerate nuance, not because i am a racist. Am I racialist?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. iffen says:
    @Anonymous
    Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were nationalist and organized politically against Vietnamese and Chinese minorities, and mobilized populist revolt against urban elites. They're not an accurate analogy for contemporary leftists, but rather reflect the sort of populist discontent that animates racialists and rightists today.

    What does leftist discontent look like today in the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @epochehusserl
    A student protest at Oberlin wanted to overthrow the white supremacist patriachal system. One of their demands was that the practice of charging individuals with trespassing who were deemed dangerous be curtailed as a part of a system of oppression. What could more racialist, nativist and xenophobic than excluding people of color anytime or any place through an established legal procedure? Fences, doors, do not trespass signs are all part of a system designed to keep the black man down and in chains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    There are a large number of discontented intelligent people but it is hard to get anything off the ground because of a lack of cultural, moral and ethnic solidarity. Even someone who paints himself as a skeptic such as richard dawkins buys into the antidiscrimination theology because it is a career move probably but still. There is a lack of men with courage and intelligence. The only way I could see it changing is to teach some academics a skill or trade so they knew if they came out of the closet as being against this that or the other they knew they could still support themselves.

    Yeah I meant they are currently on the wrong side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @epochehusserl
    1400 white children being trafficked as sex slaves because of their race in the uk. They were targeted because of their race. Is that not racism? The reason this happened was because whites lacked racial solidarity. The authorities failed to act because of being afraid of being called racist. Should people happy about this? Should they do nothing? Should they say well the kids that were raped well thats an acceptable priced to pay as along as we are moving towards better world? The ends dont justify the means. The antidiscrimination theology brigade is not innocent. To the left oppressing the oppressor is always justified. I dont agree. Failure to recognize and respond to social patterns because of the threat of racism kills people. Its like saying well yes the boat is taking on water but your social betters dont like the tone of your voice in bringing the issue up so get back to your seat and then calling someone crazy for not accepting that response. What is so absurd about allowing people to create their own communities through restrictive covenant laws? Or creating the framework so that people could create a more modern version of the amish that is exempt from social security? What is so offensive about those ideas? Why do the elite have such moral capital invested in the antidiscrimination theology?

    1400 white children being trafficked as sex slaves because of their race in the uk.

    And that’s just in one town.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Globalists would suggest, explicitly or implicitly, that they are citizens of the world. Furthermore, they would disagree with the notion that they are failing to take care of their fellow citizens. They would say that they have different notions about what the acceptable levels of care are, and what the acceptable levels of costs are in caring for fellow citizens.

    I’m sure they would. I’m suggesting they get explicitly outvoted. If they want to be a plutocrat in whichever country they have a passport for – no dual obviously, just one – then fine but the rules are x, y, z.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @iffen
    What does leftist discontent look like today in the US?

    A student protest at Oberlin wanted to overthrow the white supremacist patriachal system. One of their demands was that the practice of charging individuals with trespassing who were deemed dangerous be curtailed as a part of a system of oppression. What could more racialist, nativist and xenophobic than excluding people of color anytime or any place through an established legal procedure? Fences, doors, do not trespass signs are all part of a system designed to keep the black man down and in chains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I should have qualified my question by specifying economic discontent.

    I don’t consider the student protests as having anything to do with defending or advancing the interests of working people, although I do understand that such protesters are considered part of the “left.” I don’t see the people and institutions that they are protesting against as “the white supremacist patriarchal system.” I view the protests as a squabble between members (and hoping to be members) of the same reigning ideology.

    I am not a libertarian. I think libertarianism is a dead-end ideology in a modern complex society. That said, I am open to some of the specific political ideas that libertarians support. I like to think of myself as a pragmatic communitarian. If a libertarian approach will work, say freedom of religion, then I am all for it. OTOH if it fails, say opposition to forced retirement savings (SS), then I go with the community value.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. iffen says:
    @epochehusserl
    A student protest at Oberlin wanted to overthrow the white supremacist patriachal system. One of their demands was that the practice of charging individuals with trespassing who were deemed dangerous be curtailed as a part of a system of oppression. What could more racialist, nativist and xenophobic than excluding people of color anytime or any place through an established legal procedure? Fences, doors, do not trespass signs are all part of a system designed to keep the black man down and in chains.

    I should have qualified my question by specifying economic discontent.

    I don’t consider the student protests as having anything to do with defending or advancing the interests of working people, although I do understand that such protesters are considered part of the “left.” I don’t see the people and institutions that they are protesting against as “the white supremacist patriarchal system.” I view the protests as a squabble between members (and hoping to be members) of the same reigning ideology.

    I am not a libertarian. I think libertarianism is a dead-end ideology in a modern complex society. That said, I am open to some of the specific political ideas that libertarians support. I like to think of myself as a pragmatic communitarian. If a libertarian approach will work, say freedom of religion, then I am all for it. OTOH if it fails, say opposition to forced retirement savings (SS), then I go with the community value.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Peter says
    Re- Eula Biss
    Whiteness is not a kinship or a culture. White people are no more closely related to one another, genetically, than we are to black people. [...] Which is why it is entirely possible to despise whiteness without disliking yourself. (Biss, 2015, h/t to Steve Sailer)

    Biss can perhaps be criticized as plugging a trendy line in liberal quarters. She is a writer- a product of the English and fine arts type university departments. She is also not an anthropologist, and will lack a handle on detailed anthro concepts. But she is correct on some points. Whiteness is not a kinship or culture in any rigorous scientific sense. The notion of “whiteness” is primarily a product of racialists and racists in the 19th and 20th century. Credible historians have long shown this. See books such as How the Irish became White, and The Wages of Whiteness, for detailed scholarship on the issue.

    .
    The last sentence needs little explanation. It’s possible to like yourself a lot while despising your own people.

    Maybe but it is pretty clear what Eula Biss is condemning is not the fact that she is white, but the edifice of racism and propaganda that has arisen during the last 2 centuries to justify white greed, corruption, exploitation and violence against non-white peoples, or peoples viewed as “tainted” in the non-white manner- such as Jews. Nazi teachings for example held that Jews absorbed a certain proportion of “negro blood” during their long stay in Egypt and Palestine, and this in part, explained their collaboration or acquiescence to the presence of black colonial troops of France during the occupation after WW1. Under this section of Nazi whiteness doctrine therefore, Jews were a racial enemy. During the Holocaust, in the name of that whiteness doctrine- which called for the liquidation of “tainted” elements, millions of “sub-human” Jewish children where murdered, some by injecting them with chemicals, others by incinerating them with flamethrowers, others by mass shootings, into mass graves.

    Whiteness proponents in America also have not been shy about where they stood. Aside from the usual hordes of Jim Crow supporters, in America, until rather recently, white union members murdered black men working on the railroads because some of them worked in allegedly “white only jobs.” Likewise white union members went on strike specifically to force companies to fire decent black workers who had paid their dues for years, so the whites could take over their jobs. And they did this explicitly in the name of whiteness (Rothmayr 2013). Indeed, into the 1970s unions were still up to such tricks albeit in a “softer” way such as manipulating seniority rules to ensure black workers did not move up. It took years of marches, lawsuits and government pressure to quell such practices, even as greedy white unions kept denying what they were doing. There are of course many more examples. This is what Biss is condemning- the edifice of deception, hypocrisy and greed, explicitly in operation in the service of whiteness.

    It also seems clear that Bliss is condemning a whiteness that seeks to advance its own interests at the expense of the other groups, by any means necessary. The concept of whiteness that Bliss is condemning seeks to ensure that non-white groups have fewer resources, lower social status, and proportionately less political power. All means are deployed so that whiteness secures these ends, including deception, mass violence and genocide. Oh to be sure, there are different flavors of whiteness- some “soft”, some much more explicit, but the essential bottom lines are the same. Tactics might vary- such as “soft” versions. For example rather than openly refuse to hire blacks, white unions in various venues, would and did maintain two “seniority” lists based on job classification. To move up to a higher job classification, you would have to give up all the years vested while held back in the lower level slots, including pension payments. On the face of it such “mere” seniority rules are “neutral”- after all, skilled machinists should be on a separate track from manual laborers- right? Sounds fair- but the result is to basically eliminate any attempts from blacks in lower categories to move up, since they would lose all their previous seniority rights and pension levels. See, the racist white unions say, “we can’t get black people to apply for any of these higher level jobs, we don’t know why…” (wink).. Thus white “plausible deniability” is maintained. The history of American railroads and indeed society is filled with such white deception and hypocrisy. Biss appears tired of people, particularly right wingers, trying to justify it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. Peter says:
    Richard Lewontin, in 1972. [...] It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. (Lewontin, 1972)

    Lewontin’s overall conclusions have been validated numerous times by credible modern scientists. See Templeton 1999, 2003, 2002 for example, or Barbujani et al. 2010. (Human genome diversity..) below.

    [MORE]

    .
    When a gene varies between two groups the cause is more likely a difference in natural selection, since the group boundary also tends to separate different natural environments (vegetation, climate, topography) or, more often, different cultural environments (diet, means of subsistence, sedentism vs. nomadism, gender roles, state monopoly of violence, etc.).

    Natural selection is only one player. Genetic drift can play just as large a role or even larger. It is a article of faith in some quarters to tout “natural selection” for this or that physical or “behavioral” trait. Mexican guy cuts you off in traffic? Well ancient environmental pressures in the Valley of Mexico circa 15,000 BC “selected” for such lineages that lack “restraint”. But reality is a lot more complicated:

    “It may appear counter-intuitive, but a large part, if not the majority, of genetic change in human populations is not thought to be due to natural selection but rather due to the play of chance (genetic drift; Harris and Meyer, 2006; Li et al., 2008; see Table 2 for a glossary of terms frequently used in population genetics). Many opportunities for chance can occur in the transmission of alleles from parents to offspring, and evidently did occur as part of the demographic process of dispersal out of Africa. Thus, finding differences in the frequency of alleles at a particular locus between populations is not an evidence of natural selection per se. The default position is that of neutral theory, whereby chance events account for most patterns of genetic diversity (Harris and Meyer, 2006). Of course, deleterious mutations will be selected against (purifying selection) and beneficial mutations may increase in frequency to fixation, but overall these events will contribute little to explaining the presence of most polymorphisms.”
    –J. Rees and R. Harding 2011. Understanding the Evolution of Human Pigmentation: Recent Contributions from Population Genetics.

    .
    Conversely, when a gene varies within a population, the cause is more likely a random factor without adaptive significance. That kind of variation is less easily flattened out by the steamroller of similar selection pressures.

    What is missing here is that the SAME population can inhabit widely different climatic zones or be subject to many different influences causing variability. There are African groups for example that have narrow noses due to living in desert areas, or at high altitude, yet their genetic counterparts at lower altitudes or more humid locales have broader noses. The same variation WITHIN the same group can occur based o mode of subsistence, geographic barriers etc etc and other variables. Furthermore same populations can be spread out over thousands of miles. The notion that human populations can be neatly diced up into little “races” due to neatly placed geographic phenomena, etc etc is simplistic and has been pretty much debunked by several scholars. Again see Templeton, Armelagos 2001, Keita 2005 et al. There can be, and is, plenty of variability WITHIN groups, and this Lewotinin and others show. See Barbujani (Human genome diversity..) 2010 for example:

    .
    This point isn’t merely theoretical. In other animals, as Lewontin himself noted, we often see the same genetic overlap between races of one species. But we also see it between many species that are nonetheless anatomically and behaviorally distinct.

    Yes, and there is a threshold in which scientists look for a consistent and SUBSTANTIAL differentiation before declaring a “sub-species.” The proponents of biological race have repeatedly failed to show such consistent and substantial differentiation between humans with the same rigor credible scientists use for mammalian subspecies. As shown above the highly artificial conditions of dog breeding do not exist in any credible sense in nature. Some proponents push the use geographical “barriers” as a sort of magic litmus test- declaring people west of the Himalayas, or south of the Sahara – as a different “subspecies.” Such claims lack both scientifically and logically, and are among the foremost reasons most credible scientists have abandoned such simplistic “race” models. Unfortunately this does not stop assorted racialist or “HBD” types from rushing off to proclaim for example Asians, or even Jews to be a different “subspecies.”

    .
    Some two decades after Lewontin’s study, this apparent paradox became known when geneticists looked at how genes vary within and between dog breeds:

    The weakness with the dog breed argument is that dog breeds are heavily an artificial creation, with even minor variations being taken and developed in isolation, sometimes for centuries, sometimes within just a few miles of each other. While dogs as a class share certain broad commonalities, artificial dog breeds are not a realistic representation of how normal species interact in nature, nor of how the human species developed, and show variation.

    .
    Kennel clubs insist that each breed should conform to a limited set of criteria. All other criteria, particularly those not readily visible, end up being ignored. So artificial selection targets a relatively small number of genes and leaves the rest of the genome alone.

    Which is exactly why the analogy continues to be relatively weak.

    .
    But is natural selection any different? When a group buds off from a population and moves into a new environment, its members too have to conform to a new set of selection pressures that act on a relatively small number of genes. So the new group will diverge anatomically and behaviorally from its parent population, and yet remain similar to it over most of the genome. This is either because most of the genes respond similarly to the new environment—as with those that do the same housekeeping tasks in a wide range of species—or because they respond weakly to natural selection in general. Many genes are little more than “junk DNA”—they change slowly over time, not through the effects of natural selection but through gradual accumulation of random mutations.

    But natural selection does not exist in, or create the heavily artificial environment that controlled dog breeding does. Yes, natural selection is quite different. And even if a new environment creates new selection pressures, it does not at all follow that the variation developing will meet a credible threshold for declaring a new race or sub-species. Much variation is simply not, just another set of variants along a continuum that does not meet the threshold for any race or sub-species to be declared. Declarations of “racial subspecies” are arbitrary constructs developed by racialists to push their particular ideological agendas.

    And some bio-race proponents ignore the reality that human groups do not neatly sit behind apartheid-like geographic barriers waiting for “sub-species” to develop. They move around and interbreed and having being doing so for tens of thousands of years. Indeed, the geographic barriers are themselves in flux, such as the Sahara which once was a lush greenbelt, that even now fluctuates with a general southern tendency of several kilometers a year. This means that groups supposedly defined by racial geographic barriers, change their “race” as the “barrier” moves, sometimes in a relatively short period, rendering shaky simplistic geographic claims. Declaring people a “race” or “sub-species” due to a shifting barrier, when the same people are on BOTH sides of the barrier sharing numerous genetic links is a dubious exercise that too often, passes for “logic” among assorted racialists.

    .
    Thus, the genetic overlap between dog breeds also appears between many natural species. In the deer family, genetic variability is greater within some species than between some genera (Cronin, 1991).

    Indeed. Variation can always be shown depending on time, place and entity in question, but again, it does not at all follow that humans show this same trend with enough rigor, consistency and substantiality to declare a “sub-species.” Another factor that debunks simplistic thinking is that humans outside Africa are themselves a sub-section of the original African diversity. Human diversity does not divide itself neatly up into little “subspecies” or “race” checkboxes, often arbitrarily defined in advance. The reality is a lot more complicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Peter says:
    Just think. Lewontin used the same blood group polymorphisms for his study. While the O alleles are specific to each primate species, the A and B alleles show considerable overlap between primates that have been separated for millions of years. So it’s not surprising that this polymorphism should vary much more within human races than between them, as Lewontin found.

    Fine, but this fact in itself does little to establish that races or subspecies exist among humans, at the same rigorous level at which we differentiate subspecies among other mammalian species. Artificial dog breeds by their very artificality, do not reflect the real development of humans or other species. Biss is a novice writer on science, but here is what Alan Templeton, a credible heavyweight geneticist has to say:

    “Sometimes traits show independent patterns of geographical variation such that some combination will distinguish most populations from all others. To avoid making “race” the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human “races” are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A “subspecies” can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human “races” are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human “races” are not and never were “pure.” Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate.”
    –Templeton, A, 1999. Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. Amer Anth 100(3) 632-650

    [MORE]

    And other scholars:
    (Goodman, Heath and Lindee 2003, Genetic Nature/Culture) show that interbreeding among humans is not only strong, but furnish strong evidence that African and Eurasian populations are not isolates sufficient to create any “sub-species.” Even one of the strongest examples of genetic fragmentation, that of the peopling of the Americas, turns out to be not so spectacular upon closer examination, for multiple colonization events and large population movements have resulted in extensive sharing of genetic polymorphisms between new and Old World populations. In fact strong statistical analyses up to the 95 percent confidence range show recurrent gene flow between human populations for the last 600,000 years (Templeton 2002).

    In short – quote:

    “..the major human populations have been inter-connected by gene flow (recurrent at least on a time scale on the order of tens or thousands of years or less) during at least the last six hundred thousand years, with 95 percent statistical confidence (Templeton 2002). Hence the haplotype analyses of geographic associations strongly reject the existence of multiple evolutionary lineages of humans, reject the idea that Eurasians slit from Africans one hundred thousand years ago, and reject the dea that “pure races” existed in the past, Thus the idea that “races” existed among humans has no biological validity under the evolutionary lineage definition of subspecies.” (Goodman, Heath and Lindee 2003, Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science beyond the Two-Culture Divide 247-248)

    .
    We show instead that the remarkable distribution of ABO alleles across species reflects the persistence of an old ancestral polymorphism that originated at least 20 million years
    Fine, but likewise detailed statistical analyses have show that humans have been interbreeding and sharing genetic polymorphisms for the last 600,000 years, (Templeton 2002) debunking claims of so-called “evolutionary” racial lineages. See Goodman, heath and Lindee above.

    .

    In sum, if we are to believe blood groups and other genetic markers, it seems that Eula Biss may have more in common with certain apes than with the white folks she despises. Let’s hope she feels gratified.

    Only the blood group data actually supports what Biss is saying overall, that there are no biological races or “sub-species” among humans in the same way that we define races or subspecies among other mammalian species. Assorted racialists usually throw out the “eyeball argument” to claim scientists are “denying” that “race exists.” But this is a strawman. Of course a tall, dark-skinned Dinka looks different from a short pale-skinned Eskimo. Human variation exists- who is going about “denying” this truism? The key issue is not whether variation exists – but whether in a biological sense, such variation can be credibly said to represent a race or subspecies, the way scientists define the threshold of races or subspecies in other animals. That is s the key issue, not strawmen about whether Swedes or Zulus look different.

    .
    .But it is above all Lewontin who gave antiracism a veneer of scientific objectivity. He still impresses people who are less impressed by academics who attack racism by attacking objectivity, like Stephen Jay Gould. “I criticize the myth that science itself is an objective enterprise, done properly only when scientists can shuck the constraints of their culture and view the world as it really is”

    Youare absolutely correct to criticize Gould, and Lewontin 1972 is dated, but Lewontin’s OVERALL bottom line has been verified many times over by scholars coming after him. Antiracists do not have to rely on Lewontion for any veneer of objectivity. There is plenty of hard data, from credible scientists and geneticists, that debunks claims of biological race, as noted above (Templeton 1999, 2003, 2002 for example among many others).
    And Gould, while himself running into problems with objectivity, in general is right. The history of anthropology proves his point- there have been plenty of cases where objectivity is lacking. And both data and results can be manipulated, and have been to produce the desired ideological effects- ranging from skewed sampling, selective sampling, to use of predefined “race” categories and then shoehorning data into said categories in advance, rather than letting the data speak for themselves after an analysis (long 2009, Armelagos 2001) These are among the problems widely noted in the literature among scientists themselves. It is not mere bloggers on the web pointing out such weaknesses.

    .
    When one takes Lewontin and Gould out of the picture, who is left? A lot of people, to be sure. Followers for the most part—those like Eula Biss who believe because everyone else in their milieu seems to believe, at least anyone with moral authority.

    Not so. Both Lewontin and Gould are old news chronologically, but again, Lewontin has been validated numerous times by credible scientists. Here is Long 2009 for example who demonstrated that genetic classifications of reputed “races” outside of Sub-Saharan Africa are simply subsets of Sub-Saharan African diversity. Ironically the same “exclusive” “race” categories at times themselves have to include “sub-Saharan” Africans. Quote:

    , “a classification that takes into account evolutionary relationships and the nested pattern of diversity would require that Sub-Saharan Africans are not a race because the most exclusive group that includes all Sub-Saharan African populations also includes every non-Sub-Saharan African population” (Long et al. 2009:32 cited in Goodman et al ).

    Indeed, Long et al
    “agree entirely with Lewontin that classical race taxonomy is a poor reflection of human diversity” (Long et al. 2009:32).

    They disagree with Lewontin over whether this is intrinsic to human genetics–rather, it is a product of evolutionary history and migration, but they validate his overall 1972 conclusion as to the relatively small differences between groups. Says another heavyweight geneticist- Guido Barbujani (2010):

    “Is it accurate to assign individuals to discrete geographical groups, thus envisaging our species as essentially discontinuous at the genetic level, or in this way do we misrepresent some aspects of human biodiversity? Since 1972 [19] many independent studies have established that differences between continental populations are small, accounting for less than 10% of the global species variance [20]. That figure holds also for loci under balancing selection, such as the human leukocyte antigens (HLA; 7%), and has been recently confirmed in the analysis of 624000 SNPs(9%)[26].”
    – Barbujani et al. 2010. Human genome diversity. –Trends in Genetics, Vol. 26 No. 7.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. […] then, courtesy of the Unz Review, are two good items on Lewontin’s Fallacy, from Peter Frost and Razib […]

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Peter Frost Comments via RSS