The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Who Really Won the Cold War? Race-Denying “Jena Declaration” More Evidence Science Entering New Dark Age
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

See also It’s Official: Even Hard Science Entering New Dark Age

In 1945, the city of Jena found itself in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany and in 1949 it became part of the Soviet satellite known as the German Democratic Republic (GDR). With its ruthlessly efficient secret police, the STASI, East Germany was one of the nastiest Communist regimes. Marxist-Leninist ideology was a state religion and humans were a blank slate, to be molded towards the Marxist Utopia. But it seems that these kinds of anti-scientific attitudes did not leave Jena with the collapse of the GDR in 1989. Anti-science is still entrenched, most notably in the Department of Zoology at the city’s sixteenth century Friedrich-Schiller University: Don’t use the term ‘race,’ German scientists urge, Deutsche Welt, September 9, 2019.

Hence the recent “Jena Declaration,” made at the 112th Annual Meeting of the German Zoological Society at which Jena’s Institute for Zoology and Evolutionary Research organized an “evening” on the question of whether there are human races, or whether “racism creates races.” According to the Declaration:

There is no biological basis for races, and there has never been one. The concept of race is the result of racism, not its prerequisite.

The signatories:

All of these are hard scientists. Yet their Declaration really reaches a new low in race denial—yet more evidence that Political Correctness is driving science into a new Dark Age. It’s intellectually confused, acknowledging that evolutionary selection has resulted in differences like light skin and eyes in the Northern hemisphere and bizarrely conceding that differences exist among animal breeds but claiming that doesn’t matter because it’s the result of human intervention (!). Even the rabidly anti-scientist journalist Angela Saini

would be able to present something more convincing.

But nevertheless this Jena Declaration will be trotted out by the woke-minded and the weak-minded alike. So those of us who are genuinely interested in science should be armed with a response.

From the Jena Declaration:

The primarily biological justification for defining groups of humans as races—for example based on the color of their skin or eyes, or the shape of their skulls—has led to the persecution, enslavement and slaughter of millions of people. Even today, the term ‘race’ is still frequently used in connection with human groups.

If you going to declare that “race” doesn’t exist, you should probably define it.

“Races” are defined as breeding populations that have been separated, for example by geography (i.e. not just by human intervention) for a sufficient period of time that they vary in gene frequencies for physical, and perhaps psychological, traits. As they are adapted to different environments, these gene frequency differences push in a particular direction. “Race,” therefore, is a meaningful scientific category because it allows accurate average predictions to be made about the physical and mental characteristics of different races.

This is the essence of any “scientific” category. There are always things that don’t fit completely into any scientific category and are “on the borders.” In the case of “races,” these gradations are called “clines”. (See Race Differences in Intelligence, by Richard Lynn.)

The Declaration’s first argument against the existence of race: the concept of “race” has led to bad consequences. This is the fallacy of “appeal to consequences.” That a scientific category has led to bad consequences is irrelevant to whether or not it is scientific. One could argue that the concept of “species” has led to bad consequences for all non-human animals. That doesn’t mean that it is not scientifically valid to distinguish between humans and chimpanzees—the key point here being that we can’t produce fertile offspring with chimpanzees.

The Declaration’s second argument: there is no “biological basis” for “race.” However, if even the implicitly superficial race differences the Declaration identifies (eye, skin color, hair color) are genetic—which they are—then there is clearly a biological basis for race.

And, anyway, these differences are not “superficial.” They are important environmental adaptations which have, therefore, been selected for. Straight hair allows you to absorb more Vitamin D from the sun in a dark, northerly ecology as do blue eyes and light skin. Dark skin protects you from solar radiation in a sunny climate. People who lacked these vital adaptations were simply selected out. See The 10,000 Year Explosion, by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, 2009.

More importantly, it has been shown from genetic assay data from 120 alleles that humans do neatly divide into roughly twelve distinct “genetic clusters” which almost precisely parallel the “twelve races of Classical Anthropology”: Europeans, North Africans, South Asians, Northeast Asians, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, Arctic Peoples, Australian Aboriginals, Sub-Saharan Africans, Bushmen and Congo Pygmies. A person’s “race” can be identified from the skull alone at an accuracy rate of about 80%. [The History and Geography of Human Genes, By Luigi Cavalli-Sforza et al., 1994]

And there are very non-superficial consequences to ignoring race. If you need a kidney transplant, your body is much more likely to reject a kidney from a donor from a different race. This is why health services are crying out for minorities to donate their organs.

There is, therefore, no question about it: there is a sound biological basis for “race.”

The third argument, that “race” is “as a result of racism” is plainly untrue. How can you be “racist” if you do not first have a category called “race”? Even if you haven’t quite articulated it yet, you are responding—supposedly negatively—to something. What you are responding to is people who are genetically different from you, in consistent physical and mental ways. You have created a “stereotype”—which is actually nothing more than what might be called “everyday scientific categorization.”

Stereotypes, including racial stereotypes, have been shown to be strongly empirically accurate and they allow correct predictions to be made. Which is why they develop in the first place. [The Things They Say Behind Your Back, by W. Helmreich, 1982]

Also, the late J. Philippe Rushton’s concept of “Genetic Similarity Theory” has shown that we constantly act to maximize our genetic fitness by indirectly passing on more of our genes. Grandparents invest more resources in offspring that resemble them more; we find opposite sex faces more attractive if our own face is morphed into them; friends are more genetically similar than two random members of the same ethnic group; couples are even more so. [Ethnic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory, by J. Philippe Rushton, Nations and Nationalism, 2005.]

Acting in the interests of your “race” is simply an extension of this model. It cannot be seen as something conscious, motivated by “racism.”

More from Jena Declaration:

[D]etermining which taxonomic difference or genetic differentiation would be sufficient to distinguish races or subspecies is completely arbitrary and thus also makes the concept of races/subspecies in biology purely a construct of the human mind.

This is inaccurate. The borders between races are not drawn arbitrarily at all. They are demonstrated to exist via a method known as cluster analysis, where you analyze the strength of the relationships between different components to reach different groupings or clusters. The signatories would surely accept this method in other analyzes, so it is they who are being ‘arbitrary’ by refusing to accept it when it comes to race.

Finally, the Jena Declaration falls for “Lewontin’s Fallacy”[PDF]—that the genetic variance within races is greater than the variance between them.

This is easily refutable. The number of variations is not as important as the direction of the variations. If the variations all push in a particular direction—which they do, because “races” are evolved ton different ecologies—then this will cause there to be significant, consistent and predictable differences between races, meaning that “race” is a biologically-useful category.

The Jena Declaration shows that there is a powerful anti-science and anti-logic trend in German Zoology—apparently as strong as it ever was when Jena was part of the Soviet bloc.

We have to ask: who really won the Cold War?

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. getaclue says:

    The Commies won the Cold War, no doubt, the KGB Defector Uri said this decades ago, the USA was thoroughly infiltrated at every level and Joe McCarthy was actually right but vilified by the Communist infiltrated Mainslime Media– look around, the proof is everywhere….The Frankfurt School Communists/Jewish Supremacists are the basis of what is going on in Academia and bleeding out all over– “hate Whitey” is theirs and it is a cancer that has spread all over, so the NWO of Bush was actually the continuation of the Commie way….

  2. anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:

    Why bother looking at Jena for this sort of nonsense when similar things have been going on here in the US for years without any part of the US having been ruled by a communist party. What’s more, there’s nothing Marxist at all about claiming race doesn’t exist. Marx was against non-whites being exploited and brutalized but nowhere did he claim race didn’t exist or that all races were equal. Quite the opposite; Marx was a racial chauvinist who looked down on many other ethnic/racial groups and nations. The loony leftism going around these days is some sort of identity mish-mash, a form of cult-think that borders on being a religion. Most of this has developed in the West from which it’s being spread, the capitalist West. The Germans are under heavy influence by the US so at this point in time it would be more likely to have an American inspiration since the US is the world center for spreading this PC-cult-think religion.

  3. But it seems that these kinds of anti-scientific attitudes did not leave Jena with the collapse of the GDR in 1989.

    No, this is not continuation of communism but importation of Western PC.

    True, communism was officially anti-‘racist’, but communist nations were pretty nationalist and insular. Jena is now taking cues from places like Sweden and San Fran.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
  4. @getaclue

    The Commies won the Cold War, no doubt, the KGB Defector Uri said this decades ago, the USA was thoroughly infiltrated at every level and Joe McCarthy was actually right but vilified by the Communist infiltrated Mainslime Media

    It’s more the commie east was thoroughly infiltrated by blue jeans and coca cola.

    Also, race-denying ‘science’ has long existed outside Marxism. Both mainstream ‘left’ and ‘right’ in the West deny the reality of race.

  5. The meat of this article may be correct. It’s packaging is plain crap.
    The writer essentially says we lost the cold war on the basis that the communist antiscientific attitudes have only worsened.
    This is based on the bald assertion that Marxist Leninism was a religion that said we’re all blank slates. No evidence. Nothing. Nevermind the fact that even IF the communists did reject race (a big if) that is but one small aspect of the massive field of “science”.
    Actually, Lance ? Stick to science — because you are totally bogus when it comes to history, politics etc….actually, you’re really just another ideologue….

  6. @getaclue

    The fascists won WW2.

    The fascists won the Cold War, especially since the Cold War was a managed project to create the need for billions in defense spending.

    The Fascists carried out 9/11 and created the need for trillions in defense spending.

    Marx created Marxism and Communism as a project to keep the Proletariat and Bourgeois classes divided against the other, to prevent classic “republican” revolutions in Europe from toppling the Aristocracy, of which Marx was a born member. Married to a Rothschild, you think he cared at all about the common man?

    It was obvious in the ’90s that science was no longer hard, when manmade global warming became the universal state science-religion.

    • Agree: Maowasayali
  7. anarchyst says:

    I have come to the conclusion that enacting of the so-called “civil-rights” acts were mistakes. The more “rights” these black bastards demand, the more they complain and make demands not available to whites. When whites become a “minority” in our own country, do you think the “civil-rights” acts will benefit us? I think not…

    When whites become a minority, this country is finished. All one has to do is look at Zimbabwe, South Africa, and other black-run “basket cases”. This is our future…

    That being said…

    The term “racism” was invented by communists, and is used to destroy cultures and defuse (and render impotent) those with differing points-of-view on “racial” issues.


    True “racism” is desirable as it merely cements cultural and social bonds that are necessary for a society to function and flourish.

    True “racism” merely denotes commonality of purpose and advancement within each respective racial group.

    Blacks have the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanics have La Raza and Mecha, Jews have the $PLC, ACLU and ADL. These are all “racist” organizations that serve to promote the interests (and political power) of their respective races.

    It is only whites who are castigated and threatened for attempting to show any signs of racial solidarity.

    Let’s look at what us “evil, privileged” whites have done for Western society and the world:

    1. “Civil-rights (for some)” laws (that effectively destroy “freedom of association” for whites, but not for other races) and do not apply to whites–only “people of color” are covered by these so-called “civil-rights (for some)” protections.

    2. “Affirmative action” policies (that push better qualified whites out of positions and jobs that they would ordinarily qualify for) in favor of lesser-qualified minorities. In fact, “affirmative action” policies actually damage those minorities who are quite capable of “making it on their own” because they get “lumped in” with the groups that cannot make it on their own without “help”,

    3. “Contract set-asides” (that are specifically targeted for minorities (that white people are prohibited from bidding on) and immigration policies (that specifically exclude whites, most of who have skills that would benefit the USA) in favor of those from the third-world (with no marketable skills).

    4. Scholarships that specify particular ethnic groups are looked upon favorably by most people, save one–scholarships that are intended for whites only are looked upon as being “racist”, and therefore impermissible and improper in today’s racially-charged climate of “political correctness”.

    NO OTHER RACE (BUT WHITES) HAS (EVER) BENT OVER BACKWARDS to assure that all non-white races receive a “fair shake” in being a part of American life, even to the detriment and social well-being of “our own kind” (whites).

    Whites possess an externalized altruism that no other races possesses. This externalized altruism that “looks out for the other guy” will be the demise of the white race. This altruism needs to be internalized and focused inward, just as other races have done. There is NO SHAME in looking out for one’s own kind.

    I blame those of the “greatest generation” for selling out our birthright with the passage of the “Civil-Rights Acts” of 1957 and 1964, and the “Hart-Cellar immigration act of 1965”. To those of the “greatest generation” (who are still alive) thanks for NOTHING…

    Let’s not forget that “freedom of association” (but only affecting the white majority) was eviscerated by the enacting of these clearly unconstitutional acts.

    As whites comprise only 6% of the world population, it is us whites who should be the most protected and cherished of minorities…

    “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are code-words for white genocide.

  8. Tulip says:

    The statement is interesting because it acknowledges biological differences between populations, but it claims that dividing up populations based on those differences is “arbitrary”.

    Of course, it is, just like the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. But that doesn’t mean the Indian Ocean is in our heads and doesn’t correspond to a physical reality. Or the line between fat and plump is arbitrary, that doesn’t mean that “fat people” however that set is constructed aren’t biologically and medically different from non-fat people.

    In other words, its not conceptually very sound.

    The main problem with “race” is that it is used to refer sometimes to ethnicity, sometimes to continent-level genetic diversity, sometimes even to refer to a religious sect (Islamophobia is racism), and is intrinsically caught up in politics. In American racial politics, you have “African Americans” which are something like 20 to 30 percent Euro on average. In South America, you have all kinds of Euro/Indian/African mixes of people. In the Americas, what is the utility of talking about race? And the author of this article notes you have to break Sub-Saharan Africans out into sub-groups (Bushmen and Pygmies). You might as well just say political “other”.

    Biologists and ethnographers would do better using something more precise and de-politicized, while not denying there are biological differences between human populations.

  9. SMK says: • Website

    The problem with sub-Saharan Africans, including those who live in the U.S. and Canada and the UK and Western Europe, is not the “color or their skin” and texture of their hair and so forth but their low-average intelligence, higher levels of testosterone (most perniciously in males in their 20’s and teens), greater impulsiveness, and the resultant propensity of blacks in general as compared to other races and especially whites and Asians for sexual and nonsexual violence, predation, and criminality.

    If blacks were green or blue or purple rather than dark brown, they would still be far more violent and criminal, impulsive, salacious, impoverished, etc, than whites and “Asians.” If blacks were green and whites were blue, Haiti would still be Haiti, sub-Saharan Africa would still be sub-Saharan Africa, Detroit would still be Detroit, etc., and Wyoming and Vermont would still be Vermont and Wyoming, and so forth. Nothing would differ and change because of skin color and other superficial characteristics.

  10. SMK says: • Website

    As for Lewontin’s fallacy: “That the genetic variance within races is greater than the variance between them” doesn’t mean the variance between races, e.g. blacks as a group vs. whites and East Asians, is not relevant and significant, culturally and politically. For whites in the U.S, in regard to violence and criminality, the variance between races -between whites and blacks and Mestizos/Amerindians- is far more significant, vitally so, than the variance within races. In discussing race, it’s imperative to distinguish between groups and individuals. In respect to black-on-white violence and criminality, and open borders and the invasion of tens of millions of legal and illegal aliens, overwhelmingly Mestizos and pure Amerindians from Mexico and Central America, that will soon transform the U.S. into a nonwhite-majority country in which European-Americans will be an increasingly dispossessed and persecuted minority, the variance within races is totally irrelevant.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to 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 Lance Welton Comments via RSS