RSS
David Reich [Email him] Professor of Genetics at Harvard, has published a book about ancient human DNA : Who We Are and How We Got Here. He heralded publication with a March 23rd New York Times op-ed [How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’ ] that got the chattering classes a-chattering and the sputtering classes a-sputtering. What’s the fuss about?
DNA is, of course, the stuff that makes up your genome, the material in your cells that you inherited from your parents, and some of which, spliced with some of your mate’s, you will pass on to your children.
The genome is upstream from the phenome, the collection of all your observable traits that are under some degree of genetic control (from the Greek verb for “to appear”). Your size, shape, color, agility, disease susceptibilities, personality, intelligence, and characteristic behaviors: these form your phenome.
Not all your observable traits are determined by your genome. If you lose a leg in an automobile crash you will thereafter possess the trait “one-legged.” But nobody could learn that by scrutinizing your genome.
(Although there may none the less be a low-order cause-to-effect path from genome to trait. If the crash was caused by your being drunk, and if you are usually drunk because you are a chronic alcoholic, then your genome may be a causal factor in your one-leggedness.)
Some of your observable traits are accidentally determined like that. Some others, while under genetic control, are environmentally tweaked. North Koreans are on average shorter by two or three inches than South Koreans, in spite of having (presumably) statistically indistinguishable genomes. Nutrition is better in the South.
It is none the less the case that well-nourished South Koreans with many centuries of Korean ancestry are shorter on average by five or six inches than well-nourished Dutch people w ith many centuries of Dutch ancestry.
That’s because of regional differences in the human genome. Like any widely-distributed species, ours has developed regional varieties due to local inbreeding under well-understood genetic rules: founder effect, genetic drift, natural selection. The simplest name for these varieties—the one favored by Charles Darwin, the father of modern biology—is “races.”
That, of course, is what the fuss is about.
A very remarkable and fascinating scientific development of the past few years has been our ability to recover the genomes of human beings, and of extinct related species like the Neanderthals, who lived in the remote past—thousands or tens of thousands of years ago.
By comparing these ancient genomes to each other, and to modern genomes from various parts of the world, we can reconstruct humanity’s deep history, the great migrations and encounters of peoples that formed today’s human world.
This is scientific work of the highest degree of difficulty and deep intellectual complexity. If you get nothing else from Prof. Reich’s book, you will come away in awe at the diligence and ingenuity he and his colleagues (pictured right) have brought to their research.
For a glimpse of the procedural difficulties involved, read Prof. Reich’s account in Chapter Two of the pains taken to ensure that the samples of ancient DNA he has worked with are free from contamination by bacteria, human handlers, and fragments of modern DNA on microscopic dust particles.
On the theoretical side, I wasn’t surprised to see that the person Prof. Reich describes as “my chief scientific partner” is a mathematician, Nick Patterson. There is a ferocious amount of mathematical and statistical analysis indvolved in getting information out of genetic material.
This is, in short, heavy-duty science, on whose overall value very few of us—certainly not this reviewer—are qualified to pass judgment.
But then, Prof. Reich has chosen to write a book describing his work to the general public. Non-specialists can pass judgment on how well he has done that: how much we learn from reading the book, how difficult the reading is, and whether, when the author steps outside his specialist sphere, he says sensible things about other subjects.
Though I am no geneticist, I count myself a connoisseur of popular science books since having been given those by Andrade and Huxley to read back in the first Eisenhower administration. I’ve tried my own hand at the genre, too, so I appreciate the problems faced by an author.
So how does Who We Are measure up as a work of popular science exposition?
Before proceeding I should record again my profound respect for Prof. Reich’s energy and prowess as a scientist, uncovering facts about the world not previously known.
That said, I can’t say I enjoyed reading Who We Are. The style is dry and lifeless. There is very little of what makes reading pleasurable: colorful metaphors, amusing asides, rhetorical acrobatics, sly allusions, interesting historical or biographical titbits, snippets of verse. I’m certainly willing to believe that Prof. Reich is a very good scientist. He’s just not a very good writer.
Razib Khan, in an otherwise enthusiastic advance notice of the book, observed that: “Who We Are and How We Got Here is not rich with the same stylistic flourish and engagement as one might find in a popularization by Steven Pinker or Richard Dawkins.”
Razib was being nice.
Knowing very much less about the subject matter than Razib does, I’d add that the science is not well explained. Time and again I found myself going back and re-reading, then re-re-reading two or three pages to figure out what was meant. A couple of times I was driven to a reference book or internet search for clarification.
This happened with, for example, Prof. Reich’s accounts of the Four Population Test and the related Three Population Test. I think I got the hang of them at last, at least well enough to go on reading. If you were to ask me to explain them now, however, as a closed-book exam, I would probably fail.
All right, this is difficult material. Still, with some felicity of style and some allowable over-simplifications, flagged as such, it could have been made more digestible.
Unnecessary confusions could have been avoided, too. In Chapter Eight, for example, we read that:
By using a principal component analysis, we found that the ancestry of the great majority of East Asians living today can be described by three clusters.
Hoo-kay; but then five paragraphs later:
Our analysis supported a model of population history in which the modern human ancestry of the great majority of mainland East Asians living today derives largely from mixtures—in different proportions—of two lineages that separated very anciently.
Three clusters, two lineages … wha?
Again, if you go back and re-read, the contradiction is resolved; but all this going back and re-reading makes Who We Are hard work.
But if you persevere through these shortcomings, you do learn a lot. The heart of the book—Chapters Five through Nine (of twelve)—describes what we now know, or can reasonably surmise, about the ancient demographic histories of, in turn, Europe, India, Native Americans, East Asia, and Africa.
Reich’s account of Indian genetics is especially striking. I never knew the caste system was so fractal. Nested within the caste system are thousands of jati groups—micro-castes—some of which have maintained strict endogamy for millennia, with the result that each is a tiny race. As Reich puts it:
People tend to think of India, with its more than 1.3 billion people, as having a tremendously large population, and indeed many Indians as well as foreigners see it this way. But genetically, this is an incorrect way to view the situation. The Han Chinese are truly a large population. They have been mixing freely for thousands of years. In contrast, there are few if any Indian groups that are demographically very large, and the degree of genetic differentiation among Indian jati groups living side by side in the same village is typically two to three times higher than the genetic differentiation between northern and southern Europeans. The truth is that India is composed of a large number of small populations.
Amazing and fascinating.
In regard to China, I was hoping for an update on the speculations of mid-20th-century scholars like Eberhard and Forrest that the Chinese of the Bronze Age were two distinct races. Forrest:
There is, further, evidence that even at a comparatively late date the aristocratic part of the population of ancient China was of different origin from the plebeians … The plebeians had customs so far removed from those of their overlords as to make the hypothesis of racially distinct origin likely, even apart from other evidence …
Alas, there is nothing about this in Who We Are. Reich tells us, however, that it’s hard to get good genetic data from China “because of regulations limiting the export of biological material.
And then there is Reich’s flagrant Virtue Signaling in Who We Are, already much remarked on by Dissident Right commentators, notably Greg Cochran (who, like Razib, really knows genetics) and our own Steve Sailer.
Greg’s remarks can be found in several recent posts on his website, West Hunter. For Steve’s see below:
- David Reich: “How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics”
- Soft Scientists After David Reich: “How Not to Talk About Race and Genetics”
- GUARDIAN: David Reich’s Book Shows Civilizations Should Submit to Barbarian Invasions
- The Sociologists Are Out to Get David Reich
- The Anthropologists Are Hunting for Geneticist David Reich’s Head
- David Reich in NYT: “How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’”– i.e. (Ahem!) It’s Real
And more here–the “David Reich” tag has two pages of VDARE.com posts.
As we all know, a peculiar orthodoxy about human nature has come up among the Liberal Arts and Grievance Studies (LAGS) types who staff academic administrations, media, and government bureaucracies, including those that approve money grants to research scientists. A key tenet of this orthodoxy: There Is No Such Thing As Race. According to this tenet, race is a “social construct,” a sort of collective optical illusion.
(As weird as this is, it is not the weirdest thing LAGS folk profess to believe. You can, as I pointed out when addressing AMERICAN RENAISSANCE conference last year, find credentialed academics who will assure you that there is no such thing as sex: that men and women are biologically indistinguishable. We live in an extraordinary time: a good portion of our intelligentsia is clinically insane.)
For some reason, Prof. Reich feels the need to touch his forelock to this race denialism. That is not easy for him to do, as the science he’s been describing in the first three-quarters of his book makes plain what nonsense the LAGS orthodoxy is.
Prof. Reich spends the last three of his twelve chapters trying to square this circle, with results that are painful to read.
What, to take a sentence at random, am I supposed to make of this?
The centrality of mixture in the history of our species, as revealed in just the last few years by the genome revolution, means that we are all interconnected and that we will all keep connecting with one another in the future.
How does Prof. Reich know what will happen in the future? One can speculate, of course; but this is the guy who, eleven pages earlier, was chiding Nicholas Wade for including “entirely speculative” material in his 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance.
And isn’t the entire thrust of Prof. Reich’s results that some of us are a lot more mixed, a lot more recently, than others? We present-day West Eurasians, he has told us, are a mighty mixture of earlier West Eurasians; but we are not at all mixed with Andaman Islanders, nor with anyone else for a very long time indeed.
Prof. Reich’s enthusiasm for “mixture” is repeated many times throughout his book; at the end of Chapter 4, for example: “Mixture is fundamental to who we are, and we need to embrace it, not deny that it occurred.”
But how did it occur? Well, no you mention it, that’s actually rather awkward:
When the Bantu first expanded out of west-central Africa several thousand years ago, they had a profound influence on the indigenous rainforest hunter-gatherer populations they encountered … Even today, the overwhelming pattern is that Bantu men mix with pygmy women …
And:
In the Antioquia region of Colombia, which was relatively isolated between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, about 94 percent of the Y chromosomes [i.e. from male progenitors] are European in origin, whereas about 90 percent of the mitochondrial DNA [from female progenitors] sequences are of Native American origin.
And:
Massive sex bias in population mixture also occurred between four thousand and two thousand years ago during the formation of the present-day populations of India.
It is plain from the evidence, amply presented in this book, that many—perhaps most—of the “mixture” events Prof. Reich urges us to “embrace” in fact involved one group of human males killing off another group’s males and mating with their females. (Steve has had lively sport with this; see several of his posts, as above.)
Does Prof. Reich really expect males from that second group to “embrace” their annihilation?
The last three chapters of Who We Are are marbled with incoherent gibberish like this, punctuated with shamefully gratuitous insults to more honest and brave human-science writers like Wade, Cochran, the late Henry Harpending, and even the great James Watson.
What makes it all very odd is that these preposterosities and insults are interleaved with commendably frank statements about the reality of biological race differences, e.g.
If selection on height and infant head circumference can occur within a couple of thousand years, it seems a bad bet to argue that there cannot be similar average differences in cognitive or behavioral traits.
Reich’s lurching between PC pablum and honest race realism left this reader feeling positively dizzy.
Why is the book like this? The most charitable explanation: Prof. Reich believes he needs to do the signaling in order to preserve his funding.
Perhaps he does. Given the thoroughness of his work and the quantity of travel involved, funding requirements must be considerable.
Or perhaps there is a genuine mental struggle going on here. When human-science blogger Steve Hsu reproduced Prof. Reich’s pre-publication New York Times op-ed article, one of Steve’s commenters opined that (slightly edited):
The article is about the author’s inner struggle between reality and ideology. During the first half, he is the cautious realist. But by the time we reach the second half, he is overtaken by a guilty conscience and swiftly reverts back into the dark cage of human ideology.
Who We Are itself is structured in a similar way to the op-ed article, those three last chapters trying to twist a dull but informative book into ideological orthodoxy.
A Jewish character in one of Chaim Bermant’s stories, seeing that his child has been gifted with a Christian Bible, angrily tears out the New Testament section at the end and throws it in the trash.
I wanted to do the same with the three last chapters of Who We Are.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Thank you for the review, Mr. Derbyshire. After reading through “… are qualified to pass judgement”, I was ready to look for this book. The latter portion of the review convinced me otherwise, so you saved me some time (not money because I’d have gotten it from the library). I think some bright people do not know how to correctly write to the level of the average reader that they expect. When you brought up the seeming contradiction between “3 populations” and “2 lineages”, or what have you, and that you had to look back to get it straight, you gave an example of this. He should have thought during the writing that the readers would be confused and made it easier on them.
Sure, but that’s usually just the guys in the math department.
Oh, don’t take that joke personally. I wrote it without even thinking of your math background … just more of the people in the math department at a certain college.
You can, as I pointed out when addressing AMERICAN RENAISSANCE conference last year, find credentialed academics who will assure you that there is no such thing as sex: that men and women are biologically indistinguishable. We live in an extraordinary time: a good portion of our intelligentsia is clinically insane.
This actually isn’t very surprising. All through the ages, the idea threatened to usurp the reality that it was supposed to represent. Art also went from representing reality to usurping reality. Art came to represent art.
It’s like what Gospel of John says about how there was first the Word.
When reality is turned into ideas and when these ideas are treated as abstractions in an enclosed ivory tower, there is the danger of people forgetting about the crucial link between reality and ideas.
This happened with Confucianism too. It began as a philosophy of life. But over time, it just turned into scholarship-for-scholarship’s sake.
And with foot-binding, the IDEA of femininity overrode reality, the fact that feet are supposed to grow naturally.
In the West, we have a lot of headbinding.
Why is the book like this?
Same old story. Galileo knew. Official Geo-centrism vs Empirical Helio-centrism.
When it comes to evolutionary science, there is bio-centrism under attack from ideo-centrism.
Reich is torn. He grew up under the Shoah Narrative that has become like a faith. It said German ‘Aryans’ believed in racial differences and waged wars and committed genocide. But good guys won and established that All Peoples are Equal. This is the faith of the West, as powerful as Geo-centrism in Galileo’s time. It was especially useful to Jews who were targeted by ‘Aryans’.
And yet it was always an uneasy myth. After all, Germans feared Jews because they were ‘too smart’. Also, black athletes who demolished the ‘aryan’ myth of superiority established the black fact of superiority in running and fighting.
Reich thus becomes the genomic equivalent of Eric Turkheimer. Turkheimer became a well-recognized behavioral geneticist, going so far as to articulate the Laws of Behavioral Genetics, the 1st Law being that EVERY human trait is heritable to one degree or another. The 2nd Law is that genetic differences amongst people do more to explain differences in intelligence and personality traits than child-rearing differences or differences in the social environment. The main findings in the field are among the best replicated in the history of psychology.
However, Turkheimer has spent much of his career trying to explain away the findings of behavioral genetics. In particular, he has claimed that the heritability of IQ among poorer children is low because of poor socioeconomic conditions. His work suggests that black IQ is depressed by these poor socioeconomic conditions although his own research did not have such a finding (which he never disclosed until he was called on it).
Reich says that it is no longer tenable to say that there are no biological races, but he lashes out against (in his words) “the evils of racism and nationalism”, although he knows that there are differences across races in gene frequencies. He talks as if there isn’t any non-genomic evidence for racial differences when, in fact, intelligence researchers have discussed these differences for many years.
Does Prof. Reich really expect males from that second group to “embrace” their annihilation?
Isn’t this a mute point with respect to the victims?
I guess this is the Conan the Barbarian genetic phenomena.
Finally we have a victim group that can’t be appeased.
Ummm… “WHO we got there”?
Oops. Perpetrated a typo of my own. Here we go:
“WHO We Got Here”?
Blacks also have an IQ 20-30 points below whites – causing young males to challenge the male dominance hierarchy as apex predators.
FEED THE CHILDREN? — NOT ON YOUR LIFE – then they breed like roaches and burst their borders.
WHAT HAVE WE DONE? — Sorry, but it is kill or be killed time, and not just in Europe. We could have left the Africans to perish in their own excrement… but CHRISTIANS… those idiots… kept proffering more cheeks.
I root for Ebola. AIDS… anything to rid us of this plague
The contrast within the book was dramatic as you note. Is it possible his wife was largely responsible for some of the non-science parts? The first acknowledgment was: “First thing first. This book emerged out of a year of intense collaboration with my wife, Eugenie Reich. We researched the book together, prepared the first drafts of the chapters together, and talked about the book incessantly as it matured. This book would not have come into being without her.”
https://eugenier.wordpress.com/
Hasn’t Sailer been making this point for years?
So you think he’s actually saying “Don’t blame me, my wife wrote the dross parts”?
Harsh!
Don’t be a sissy. Go down to your local gun store, root for an AR-15, and start taking care of it yourself. Trust me, others will follow suit.
Yes, history shows that blacks are as much better at fighting than whites as they are at music:
I did not mean to imply Reich was saying that. I think the acknowledgement was well meant. It is just that I suspect her influence (as a science writer) may have been important for the content of the less scientific (and more ad hominem) parts. Of course, I could be completely wrong…
Ah, old classics.
But even back then I found that scene cringeworthy. The teenagers behaving like stupid arrogant brats. In that school, not much learning was being done. Might as well close the door.
Little did I know that things would become worse in education.
Agreed, though to be fair, in a way the idea is what makes us human, or rather, the fact that we can derive ideas from reality. Therefore, the Word is in practice first; the mistake is in forgetting that the Word is intrinsically connected to reality, as the speaker is connected to the listener. When we forget that, we either get head-bound with utopian ideas to avoid the world, or emptied and materialistically chained to ether grey reality.
To be fair, Christians also had that old Paul quote about “being kind to your slave”, and the ideas of the guy who opposed Bartolome de las Casas in effectively arguing for race realism in Spain. That debate was won by the encomienda owners of Amerindians, to be fair; but even then the philosophical feeling of the Colonia caste system being good did not start to change until the Enlightenment reached the Spanish Bourbons and they started liberalizing – Napoleon’s invasion was the other spark that set off the Latin American independence movements. So perhaps Christians are not to blame always for their cheek-turning, at least not in continental Europe as much as the more faith-based abolitionist movement in Northern Europe and the Anglosphere.
Even then, you could say Christianity was integration-friendly originally, what with being born in the multi-culti milieu of the Roman empire that had just squashed the nation in which the Messiah was just killed. But precisely because later the papacy inherited the purple mantle of philosophical leader of the West, he in effect led the defense of the West alongside the monarchs he validated in their divine right. When the papacy in turn became full of institutional corruption and lost its immaculate moral power, the aforementioned Caesars recovered the mantle of defending their nations/races – the thing is, this in effect split the West (and whites really) into conflicting national interests, including imperial colonization of other peoples for power and money that eventually comes back to bite us (the Roman influence was too strong in this sense). Which wouldn’t be a bad thing in theory, if the ultimate resolution of major Western national interests in 1945 didn’t involve a complete reversal of roles, which has devolved into the current cuckery. Considering that by then most Western intellectuals believed in Marx more than in Jesus, we cannot entirely blame said cuckery on the Nazorean. “Turning the other cheek” has certainly had good and bad results (usually the interpreter forgets that turning the other cheek means not backing out, and was used in a religious sense), same as “needle through camel’s eye”… lest we forget, however, how he mentioned “coming to bring a sword” and being “zealous for His Father[land]’s house”… a true and honest evaluation of Christianity would acknowledge that Christ was more complex than the one icon of the Lamb, and therefore his followers shouldn’t be sheep…
Yeah, but you’ll hold the gun sideways and miss your target. A civil war based on race will unleash a genocidal beast and high self-esteem/low achievement African Americans will suffer greatly.
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2018/04/jordan-peterson-on-lobster-hierarchy.html
Does Prof. Reich really expect males from that second group to “embrace” their annihilation?
Yeah, Bruce Lee kicked Derb’s ass but he still ran off with a Chinese girl.
“That’s because of regional differences in the human genome. Like any widely-distributed species, ours has developed regional varieties due to local inbreeding under well-understood genetic rules: founder effect, genetic drift, natural selection. The simplest name for these varieties—the one favored by Charles Darwin, the father of modern biology—is “races.”
But we now know that it was an incorrect term and convolutes the meaning of what it means to be a human being. One can dress the matter up in all kinds intellectual and even valid scientific garb. The reality genetically is that we are all of one race — human race. The issue is not all that complex.
And withing the human race there are variation in the biological, social and intellectual, emotional existence and expression of the same. All of which has been shaped over millions of years by environmental actors static and nonstatic. That Darwin and others used race to make distinctions of human hierarchy of most to least human is an issue we have inherited and are now wrestling with. It is untruthful to claim that the academic community are race denialists, though I suspect that some are.
The issue surrounds, the meaning of the variations and for whites in particular, the suggestion that they are not in fact at the top of the pyramid via genetics. And by challenging that standard exported throughout the world and enforced with great vigor — a lot of white people are just scared. And many in some manner of panic are racing, no pun intended, though I suppose it works, to solidify their superior status in science.
When the issue of race is discussed, in modernity, we are not talking about genetics, we are generally discussion its social construction of meaning. And while it is convenient to hoola hoop the debate into one of science, it is a slight of hand gimmick, for the purpose of blurring the matters of question by ignoring the bridging.
I won’t ignore the bridging.
________________________________
Your point . . . .
“As we all know, a peculiar orthodoxy about human nature has come up among the Liberal Arts and Grievance Studies (LAGS) types who staff academic administrations, media, and government bureaucracies, including those that approve money grants to research scientists. A key tenet of this orthodoxy: There Is No Such Thing As Race. According to this tenet, race is a “social construct,” a sort of collective optical illusion.
There is certainly a strange thing happening in and among academics. But the nexus of that discussion has nothing to do with race being real or not. Continuing to make that claim is to abuse the issue(s). The second aspect of the argument concerning “race” as a social construct, is not one of optical illusion save that the social implications of racial superiority has been premised on some faulty science and reasoning that on test don’t play out for a myriad of reasons.
But in all my life I have never met anyone who claimed genetics didn’t matter to human existence in the real.
LOL, well then great, you guys won’t need ebola.
Sort of an off topic book review, I listened to Comey’s book while shelving books, so my attention often wandered. But towards the end, when the book and the recently released memos on his meetings with the presedent become synoptic, I can clearly see Comey’s agenda in that everything the book adds to the original memos is derogatory of Trump.
For example, in one of the memos, Comey arrives early to his solo dinner with Trump and takes the time to chat with the severs, former military men, before the president arrives. In the book, two additional details to this scene are that the servers are black and Trump never acknowledges them at all.
Someone should closely study the differences, because the same things happen in moments that Comey now claims Trump obstructed justice. He has changed his accounts to make them much more damning, significantly reducing their credibility.
At one point, he favorably compares himself to “many people [who] hesitate to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to their bosses” in the spirit of “keep ’em in the dark and feed ’em sh-t,” which, it seems to me, is exactly how he treated Trump, in not telling him the origin of the Steele Dossier, for example.
At another point, he claims that Hillary was too ignorant of technology to be regarded as culpable for her use of a private server. He quotes her, as if he believes she is this stupid, as believing that her government records were safe from hacking because stored on a server in a house guarded by the US Secret Service.
I am personally tired of scientists apologizing for their discoveries.
That past is interesting, but its the future that some have planned for us Caucasians that will be dismal.
In a hundred years, no one will be looking back and asking what happened.
https://youtu.be/iGmfFG7s4xs
The inability of humanity to think out of the box and to adopt new ideas are functions of the experience of the individual and the restrictions of the societies that the individual respects and not much else. The ability to use actual experience and transferred experience is genetically controlled, but access to experience is environmentally dictated and politically controlled. A society changes as a critical mass of similar thoughts are allowed or occur.
Propaganda specific to the society and links to the inner close family, the school, its instructors, and media icons all add inputs that determine much of the ability of a human to entertain and to present outside of the culture restricted box.
One need look no further than the information expansive capacities of the Internet to see the impact of a broader view of the world.
What I see coming is the intelligent robot.. as that robot acquires experience and broadens its capacity to relate that experience to immediate need and cloud type thoughts many things are going to change. Robots have genes just the same as do humans; robotic gene sets are found in the software routines or hardware switches that compose its operating systems, just as genes and gene sets are software routines or hardware switches that control experience determined human response to environment.
My gymnasium professor at gymnasium told us about a friend of his, also a scientist, deeply religious.
This friend had said to him ‘there are two compartments in my head, one scientific, the other religious, I hope the wall between will never break trough’.
Maybe the scientific part of the mentioned book, and the ideological part, are the result of a break through.
Derb is the Über Mensch, he will always prevail.
And withing the human race there are variation in the biological, social and intellectual, emotional existence and expression of the same.
And some of those variations, many of which are unevenly distributed among the various “populations,” advantage a higher or lower proportion of a given population with regard to circumstances and environments. Certain “populations” have a higher mean with regard to the variation that leads to the best chances of “success” in a given pursuit. This being reality, you can demand quotas for white sprinters or just accept the results of the race, pun intended.
That is his granddaughter you are talking about… shame on you for suggesting it is something other than what it is. Derb can do no wrong, morally or otherwise!
I think it is a unique and important time in the history of science. Science has exposed itself as mystical Neo-Platonism.
Most of what calls itself science is actually fable generation for problems that are massively undetermined. And the particular fable that wins out is the one that justifies the ruling class’s ideology. Every time.
Just remember this rule of thumb: if the scientist can’t build it, drive it or fly it, it isn’t science-it’s propaganda.
It has alway been so. In fact, many working assumptions of Western, post Enlightenment culture are nothing more than Neo-Platonic mythology.
There is another aspect of genetics and DNA coding that has not been explored. Today’s scientists involved in genetics and DNA believe that much of our DNA merely consists of “place holders” and is of little importance, being considered “junk DNA”. An interesting premise on DNA was presented by Dr. Michael Tellinger in his book “Slave Species of God”. His premise is that this “junk DNA” is not “junk”, at all, but has been purposely deactivated by extraterrestrials or some other “supreme being”. Whether one believes in the existence of extraterrestrials or a supreme being, the premise that much of our DNA has been “deactivated” in order to control us is an interesting premise. It is possible that when humanity was “created”, all of our DNA was active, resulting in the ability to communicate without limits–telepathy, etc. with the possession of extensive knowledge. If one takes the Biblical story of Adam and Eve being banished from the “Garden of Eden”, it is possible that our “creator” purposely deactivated certain portions of our DNA in order to control us. The “Garden of Eden” story was written for the ages; for those who would not understand scientific principles of DNA and genetics.
Attempting to apply scientific principles to Biblical stories, it could be argued that “Noah’s Ark” was actually a DNA repository.
Dr. Tellinger’s premise is that our dormant, inactive DNA is slowly reactivating itself; hence, the continuing scientific advances in humanity.
Scientific arrogance is rampant in today’s society. If an ordinary person makes an observation, it is considered a “myth” or a “fable” until it is personally observed by a “scientist”. This arrogance propels what is considered science into the realm of being a “religion”, not unlike “holocaustianity ™” which itself, has so many holes in it, outright fabrications, lies,, and outright impossibilities, but is still taken as total truth, subjecting those who dare to go against the prevailing orthodoxy to prosecution and incarceration in many countries for merely seeking out the truth.
Science is no different…
Mariners from ancient times made their oceanic observations of “sea monsters”, giant eels, squids and other large ocean-dwelling creatures and have always been discredited by “scientists”. It turns out that these giant sea creatures DO exist, despite the deniability of so-called “scientists”.
Another observation by mariners is the “super wave”, which has been responsible for the destruction of many ocean-going vessels which were also discredited by “scientists”, just because they did not personally observe them.. These “super waves” have been observed from orbiting satellites.
It turns out that these old-time mariners were not so “stupid” and “backwards” as scientists claim.
Another example of scientific arrogance involves weather phenomenon, particularly tornadoes. There have been ordinary people who have observed tornadoes in action, but were informed that they were merely “straight line winds” despite funnel clouds being observed.
Let’s not forget “funding” especially from government agencies that are looking to promote their agenda, the truth be damned. “Climate change” is but one prime example of scientific arrogance, misconduct, and malpractice taking place. “Climate” is ALWAYS changing and is actually influenced by solar factors to a much greater degree than previously believed. There are no SUVs on Mars or Venus, (one of the climate change crowd’s blame for “global warming”) yet solar variability has been observed on other celestial bodies. The East Anglia emails are the “smoking gun” in the “climate change” fraud. FOLLOW THE MONEY…
Name one Jew you can mention in the same sentence as Kepler, Leibniz, Gödel, Frege, Weierstrass, Heisenberg, Riemann, Hilbert, Planck.
Oh, yeah, Emmy Nother and the intellectual middleman, Albert Einstein, who borrowed from the relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz and added slight amplifications. But hey, when you control the narrative Einstein is the greatest thinker in history and Maya Angelou is the greatest writer and poet.
It will eventually come to light that David Reich’s dry and lifeless style, as well as his extensive collaboration with mathematicians, both result from the fact that his genetic research is actually explaining nothing. He must use brutal statistical falsification in order to generate any results at all, and then he needs to write in an obscurantist manner in order to conceal the fact that he has no coherent story to tell.
“Genetics” is not really a specific term, as it applies broadly to the study of origins; and not just the origins of living things, but the origins of anything. There have always been practical theories of genetics in the living realm, as offspring are clearly derived somehow from their progenerators and this is significant for determining what they will be. But today’s obsession with biomolecular genetics and information is simply junk science, to put it kindly. The idea that there is some single, simple, unique causal factor responsible for transmitting information from one generation to the next, is a mythology that was fully developed in the absence of any empirical support. When DNA was discovered, it was immediately cast into this role and enthroned there ever since. The fact that DNA cannot perform this function is responsible for the increasingly arcane hypotheses needed to patch evolutionary theory together.
In 50 years’ time, no serious person will still be a Darwinist and “genetics” will have perished out of frustration and boredom.
“the black fact of superiority in running and fighting”
African armies may be musical, don’t know; but they can’t fight.
The peoples on the America’s survived successfully before Europeans arrived. In fact they have managed to exist successfully in spite of Europeans. The people’s on the Continent have survived and son so successfully longer than the Europeans. And they both survived in periods of drought, famine, warfare, flood, earthquake, etc. And have thrived in spite of it all. They managed to develop waterways, plumbing, roads, technology without destroying the environments they thrived in.
I think what we are beginning to understand about IQ as defined by the European mind is that it is predicated on need and desire (desire from idleness). On neither continent did the people’s needs vast arrays of vaccines, though people in Africa had as practice vaccinations before encountering Europeans. On neither continent did the people’s engage in killing their environments for sport as to demonstrate superiority. A practice that has thrown nearly every — well every environment out of balance that Europeans came into contact with.
Perhaps, the construct of IQ demonstrates the every present insecurity that Europeans are constantly trying to outrun. The incessant desire to demonstrate superiority. And yet history tells us that to be successful, one need not be superior in any manner. Perhaps, the obsession with IQ to demonstrate superiority — is but the insecurity of a child constantly having to prove itself to the point of exhaustion. One considers the genius of national parks. When considering why they were created, one must consider how such an obvious composition could have been an oversight in developing cities in the first place.
One considers the circular rhetorical dynamic, Europeans develop solutions to more problems that they themselves create than the environment demands they create to overcome. Perhaps that is why so many of the indigenous populations look at our heritage as one full of reckless energy that we install as intelligence. And no greater example as that of the Europeans willingness to utterly destroy for the sake of acknowledging superior status as opposed to being a success on the planet. Wiping out the buffalo/bison for profit did not end the native american populations.
Importing immigrants is not going to save the US republic and one would think people with a successful IQ would learn that lesson from obvious hard core realities of history. Yet the people touting superior intelligence are the advocates of destructive social policies and claiming to be superior humans.
You bet there is variation in the distribution, but how that interacts with environment or whether said distribution makes humans of this or that more successful is highly dependent on the definition and purpose of success.
The Jellyfish it is said has successfully exists longer than humans — as have whales, and even monkey’s whether they have the ability to successfully survive humans is predicated on their ability to survive are destructive nature of the few who seem incapable of living without destroying to demonstrate their superior quality.
Mixing with Bushmen seems a good explanation for giant bums on so many black women.
Overeating probably doesn’t help (or does, since a giant bum is seen as desirable by many black men).
I compare giant arses on obese women of European, African, and east Asian descent, my mental term is ‘bench arse’. If you were sitting opposite, you could use it as a chair. The Africans are way on top. I am convinced that this is from earlier intermixing with Bushmen women, and similar types that were wiped out by the Bantu invasion from the north.then selection for huge bums.
With European women, bench arse tends to coincide with the combo of obesity and same-sex attraction. Otherwise rare, even among the obese.
I am friends with three or so women who are quite obese in my life, so east Asian, but they do not have bums one may see and think of ‘possible seating’.
Of course, actually sitting on a bench arse without permission would cause great offence and trouble,
Hating to even mention the name, but does anybody *not* think that Kim Kardassian had implants to make a giant bum for Kanye West? I pay little attentinn to such garbage , but it is seeming obvious from photos.
If what you propose is actually true, then human advancement is on the verge of massive acceleration, as the age of CRISPR, and other, yet more powerful genetic editing and engineering tools is now upon us.
one Shorter perspective of the several I posit:
version — mistaking muscle power for IQ is the history of European practice. During WWI, africans trained by the French were ensconced in a small french village. The villagers gradually accepted the Africans as they sought to supplement their incomes by engaging community projects and odd kibs. Initially, it was thought the africans simpletons, they spoke a very basic crude french. But eventually one women discovered that the africans had in fact been taught only rudimentary french. She took it upon herself to offer the africans the french as it was intended as language and lo and behold discovered that the blacks were in fact as sophisticated a people as those in the village and they adopted general french linguistics which they mastered as well or better than many french themselves.
It was uncovered that the french deliberately denied teaching the language in full so as to maintain a superior status. The US refused to permit black US troops to fight along side their US brothers in arms. They assigned them to the French, who discovers that the blacks were as sophisticated humans as themselves. equal to or superior in bravery. And when they began awarding blacks medals for the same, the US military demanded they refrain from doing so — l’est they begin seeing themselves as equals.
It is deeply embarrassing to visit a plantation only discover the unacknowledged technology that blacks brought to building technique (s), purposefulness and architectural design. It is the uncovering of the manipulation on mass scale that whites in power – have engaged to delimit knowledge about the intelligence of others. To ignore that is to miss the dilemma concerning the distribution of IQ.
Power is not by definition linked to IQ.
laughing
not very short —
excuse me.
A big part of creating civilisation was realising that ‘fast running and thug-like fighting’ are not all that useful in a war. In Africa that didn’t happen, so they were helpless. War is not a sport.
What brand of anti-Darwinist are you?
that variations deposited in varying degrees withing the human species among various groups of humans
Saying
“duh”
seemed a bit trite.
Well, actually, no. Mankind (homo sapiens) is not a race, but a species. A race is a subspecies.
Ynu are making a good point, but overpopulation is the biggest problem of all, the populations being destroyed, except in east and *parts of* south-east Asia (Malaysia of now, for example, is a slow-motion horror story of Islamism, as, in technically different ways, is Indonesia). The Burmese are correct in rejecting the Bengali invaders who call themselves ‘Rohingya’. Sure, it is unjust in the few cases where they were there for many generations.
At the start of the great east Asian war, Burma (or Myanmar) had much the same state in the British empire and simhlar constition to as Australia or Canada, so largely independent. The reason the majority of Burmese nationalists took the side of Japan was the British having placed Indians at the top of the courts and bureaucracy there. NaturalJy, the Burmese did not like that.
Essentially, Mr Derbyshire is criticizing Professor Reich for doing what he himself and his VDare friends do all the time: twisting science to prop up a pre-conceived political ideology. The modern European ethnic groups didn’t just drop ready-made out of the sky! Europe was populated by successive waves of invaders from central Asia who did indeed slaughter the men and marry the women, thereby creating a new gene pool and giving us the rich diversity of ethnic identities we know in Europe today. That’s established science. Mr Derbyshire then resorts to a rather silly propaganda trick: if you can’t refute your opponent’s argument, attribute to him an argument he didn’t make but which you can refute, refute that and claim you’ve refuted your opponent. Thus: “Does Prof. Reich really expect males from that second group to “embrace” their annihilation?” But earlier he quotes the professor: “Mixture is fundamental to who we are, and we need to embrace it, not deny that it occurred.” “We”. “We” obviously means modern white Americans and the professor’s argument is that they need to accept the scientific reality of their own European ancestry in place of the weird myths and distortions about Europe common in the US (and which we Europeans find amusing, at least until Americans try to ram them down our throats as historical and scientific “fact”!). I suspect that Mr Derbyshire’s “gripe” with Professor Reich is that he has presented a scientific view of genetics, thereby demolishing the rather comical pseudo-genetics which the VDare people use to prop up their political ideology.
What are the odds of there being group differences in this gene and its expression?
“Ramped up fight-or-flight response points to history of warfare for humans and chimps”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180419141517.htm
I will reading the article you pnsted tomorrow, but my one USA friend as of now is Puerto Rican and Domican mixed, Bronx-born, cannot help but notice that his waK is like that of a chimp, it is strange.
Hence one od the many categorical debates about the meaning of race.
Human kind is all of one species — one race categorize into various racial groups. There are no subspecies of humans — there are categorical distinctions based on constructs as decided by and among various groups of humans.
The social playground of the term race in no manner changes a single reality, despite different shapes, sizes, colors and practices — humans begat humans and will continue to beget humans, regardless of shape, size, practice or skin color.
Humankind a race of beings who tower babble our way through rhetorical discourse about who we are and on occasion about which one of us is superior.
Hey ma . . . watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
This from people in the US who have thug lifed their way across the planet who are incapable of adhering to agreements they draft and force upon others. and are now mugging the middle east again . . .
Next some genius will be spouting that the planet is over populated. And what the US needs is more immigrants to get rid of those .3% of violent blacks who want to take away white guns so when the apocalypse occurs — they can “get white people.”
Good grief . . . superior analysis from IQ to superior morality has no end.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human
Pray tell, what “study” confirmed this? Seems to me I’m black and I’m smarter than you.
Speaking of plagues, your ancestors were nearly wiped out because they weren’t smart enough to figure out that filth is deadly.
Read him before, Creationist
A breed, if you will.
Peace.
Excellent points – thanks!
Peace.
Couldn’t agree more. It is up to the individual to decide if he prefers subsistence farming over modern technological economies and to make a determination as to which is “better.”
BTW, you keep going on and on about superiority and hierarchy and I haven’t mention that at all.
Power is not by definition linked to IQ.
Correct. Do you know what is linked to IQ? Chances for successful life outcomes in the modern world.
Considering it’s been near-impossible to get their homepage to appear the last few days, I’m certainly glad they got that permission!
Human kind is all of one species — one race categorize into various racial groups. There are no subspecies of humans — there are categorical distinctions based on constructs as decided by and among various groups of humans.
There are no subspecies of animals – there are categorical distinctions based on constructs as decided by and among various groups of animals. Polar Bears and Grizzly bears are really the same subspecies, but the Polar bears are bear surpremist and who wish to kill and oppress the Grizzy bears who dindu nothin’
The social playground of the term race in no manner changes a single reality, despite different shapes, sizes, colors and practices — humans begat humans and will continue to beget humans, regardless of shape, size, practice or skin color.
So…different groups of humans evolved to have different size, shapes, and skin color but have the same brains. How is this possible?
Humankind a race of beings who tower babble our way through rhetorical discourse about who we are and on occasion about which one of us is superior.
HBD is not about superiority, it’s about scientific reality. You could understand that if you won’t so insecure.
Hey ma . . . watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Sooner this than provide evidence for race denial.
There are many at Unz who use syntax and diction to sound much more intelligent than they actually are – they all do it better than you.
But power historically outpaces IQ for being successful. So IQ is limited as per the descriptors I referenced. That’s the point, our world demonstrates that power is primary, and IQ contends to demonstrate superiority make the case.
But this far, the people with high IQ’s claiming success demonstrate a peculiar definition of success as I referenced.
Furthermore people around the globe with median or even below average IQ’s are very successful, especially if success is not measured by IQ. Problem solving, relational dynamics, work ethic, productivity, are also more important than IQ.
Trying to link IQ to farming and its ubiquitous environmental randomness (chaos theory here) is like guessing which child will grow to engage in same sex behavior.
Uhhh no but I have.
Laughing.
Agree.
It may be just my interpretation, but I get the impression that physicists themselves express less adulation for Einstein than does the general(ly misled) public.
Thanks, Derby.
Of course, you’re spot on. Burn that book! All science is science until new discoveries prove that the previous science was, in fact, pseudoscience, virtu-signaled drivel. The LEFTIST science is erroneously based politics and its filthy, grubbyhand has been putted, exposed for just what it is…Rothschild NWO Poppycock.
Kim’s “bench bum”?
The old phrase was “five and a half axe handles wide”.
I just finished the book today–well okay, I have one chapter left.
There is a bit of legerdemain going on in the author’s summary of his own arguments. As the Derb points out, the word “mixture” is used a lot, but taken out of context, this is deceptive. And the reviews published in the left wing press do deceive in just this manner.
Reich is talking about mixtures of groups of people. Todays populations are being spoken of as Sets made up of numerous Subsets. Those Subsets themselves are treated as Sets in their own right, which means they have an identity. Having an identity presupposes both a center of gravity and a perimeter. So the “races” today are not really mixtures in the sense that they are made up of a well-stirred jumble of randomly selected individual bits, which is the impression given by left wing reviews. The Subsets which have combined to create today’s Sets had, themselves, a coherent identity in their own right; they too were Sets.
What Reich ignores is the issue of why humans tend to group themselves into these coherent Sets. His math demonstrates that they do and I understand that he feels no need to go beyond that, but then by the same coin, he should lay off the moralizing and desist from warning us of the need to avoid hasty generalizations. Either he should take it head on or he should leave it alone. That’s the dishonesty in the book.
Come on Commie, don’t pretend you didn’t read my post. Tells us how “races” evolved different size, shape, and skin color while have the same brains, an organ much more complex than skin color. I’m surprised no one asked you this
You wrote: social playground of the term race in no manner changes a single reality, despite different shapes, sizes, colors and practices — humans begat humans and will continue to beget humans, regardless of shape, size, practice or skin color.
Race is just a social concept so an explanation should be simple to provide….
You do believe “races” have the same brains don’t you? Because if they don’t, RIP race denial. I’m sure you can provide evidence of that as well.
I’ll be waiting for your erudite response, or at least a response that a stupid person sounds erudite. Use “begat” again. Yeah, that sould fool other simpletons.
Not necessarily, why do people keep forgetting the correlation between high intelligence and dysgenic lifestyle choices.
Many intelligent people might live great lives materially, but they are more likely to forget to pass on their genes.
You cannot escape the biological imperative that lies behind every choice a person engages in (that is if you want to evaluate it without the ghost in the machine).
https://edwarddutton.wordpress.com/books/
This guy is simply a more successful organism – Islam actually tries to keep studs like this in check so other men can have a chance:
You may not like his lifestyle (I certainly don’t approve since he is breaking with the Shariah), but it’s irrelevant to the equation.
As of now, all the evidence (when looked at objectively) is pointing towards a certain high level of intelligence being dysgenic.
Peace.
Indeed, Einstein, the faked poster boy for the not so genius Jews.
Jews:
the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral
Albert Einstein was a Fraud
http://coconutrevival.com/?p=5656
and
and
Einstein, plagiarist of the century
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einstein.htm
http://www.codoh.com
said:
“Yes, history shows that blacks are as much better at fighting than whites as they are at music”
A bizarre comparison.
Apparently you are not aware of classical music.
“He grew up under the Shoah Narrative that has become like a faith”
Not ‘like’, it IS a faith. An irrational religion unbothered by science and the impossibilities contained in it’s mandated absurdities.
http://www.codoh.com
Revisionists are just the messengers, the ridiculous impossibility of the ‘holocaust’ storyline is the message.
“Pray tell, what “study” confirmed this?”
Yawn.
Simple observation does the trick.
In every instance where blacks are in great numbers, control the governments of cities, counties, regions, states, countries, & continents we see:
massive murder rates
massive crime in general
degraded property
massive disease, especially STDs
massive drug abuse
general filth, squalor
massive, unable to support their own children, birthrates
massive youth pregnancies rates
massive school dropout rates
incredibly low IQs & test scores
violence as a way of life
fathers nowhere to be found
Hmmmm . . .
the assumption that I read your comments is if course a sign of your superior intellect.
I hate to disappoint, but I had thought I was done here. And no, I have not read your post.
In a whisper,
it’s called human genetics as impacted or interacting with environment and chance.
Shhhhh . . . that’s just between the two of us.
Which variety?
Excellent comment. I agree.
The Race (haha) is on. Can The Elite build that Technological Ark before our destruction of our Habitat results in our extinction prior to evolving to Mecha entirely? Who’s Genomes/Phenoms get to be represented in the Upload since Genomes/Phenoms present themselves culturally? The notion of the Virtual World is itself the Cultural Expression of certain Genomes/Phenoms that have dominated Science, and in fact the manner in which Science is practiced & structured today can be said to be distinct to certain Genomes/Phenoms that have usurped the practice of Science and Institutionalized it thus containing any Chaos that’s a necessary Byproduct of Scientific Discovery. That ability to usurp doesn’t make those/these Genomes/Phenoms that comprise and are represented by various Cultures any more Superior, by the way. Domination does not equal Superiority. Under different Environmental Precursors, other Genomes/Phenoms could & would prevail and Dominate.
Here’s a great Documentary on the topic.
Enough of us are not having this conversation and yet it’s our Future if we have a Future.
If only AIDS had appeared in 1950 rather than the 1980’s. The West might not be staring into the abyss…
the Europeans willingness to utterly destroy for the sake of acknowledging superior status
Ah yes, those rapacious and ruthless Europeans sowing death and destruction amongst the
Noble Savages, err, angelic peace loving native peoples, a meme that just keeps on giving century after century. It is a veritable double bladed sword (pun intended) wielded by the righteous to slay goblins, Bell Curves and standardized tests.Apropos, germane, pertinent and context; these are not just mere words but inscrutable and confusing concepts.
The future ((( some ))) have planned is only possible should ((( they ))) remain in power Indefinitely and I firmly believe that they will not remain in power, I believe that the European Peoples will take back control of our nations it is when not if. The trend is towards Nationalism or Nationalist inspired parties and the same trends are observed all over the European world The Visegrad Group openly say the same things that we say on here and add to that growing appeal and credibility of the likes of Salvini Le Pen Wilders Afd etc and we can turn it all around.
Not necessarily, why do people keep forgetting the correlation between high intelligence and dysgenic lifestyle choices.
We have discussed this and I am not convinced that higher IQ people are having fewer children. People more knowledgeable than me say that the curve is shifting to the left and I know enough to know that will not be a good thing for the right-side tail. That said, there are still different Bell Curves for different groups and it is still advantageous for the individual in a modern economy to be as far as possible to the right side of the curve that you are in.
My panties are not in a wad over welfare moms and welfare babies like this author and his fanboys in the comment section. Mine are in a wad over the elites that structure the economy and institutions in such a way that produces the conditions that coerce and reduce decent people to welfare status and traps and encourages them to stay there.
Einstein was one the greatest physicists who ever lived, close to Newton in eminence. Only ignoramuses & conspiracy “theorists” would deny that.
Although, it is almost impossible to range one’s achievement because there is no universal measuring stick. The greatest physicists seem to be Newton, Maxwell & Einstein. After Einstein, it all became so rich & specialized no one could work on so many areas.
That’s incorrect and hence irrelevant, Europeans and people outside of Europe of European descent are Genetically homogeneous and draw much of our ancestry from the paleolithic hunter gatherers ( early modern Europeans ) and a smaller amount from neolithic farmers ( 86% HG 14% NF according to Cavalli S forza ). And writers like Derbyshire offer a counter narrative to the anti white msm propaganda which is very pervasive at the moment.
I am not inclined to respond to arguments i did not make ,
Whether the savages are noble, angelic, or demons from hell has nothing to do with anything I have stated. Nor is there attack on the existence of IQ or western emphasis on academic entrance exams — all societies create, well most create a standard by which to judge said competencies and acknowledge when said standards are exceeded. I could hardly contend otherwise given human history.
You are misconstruing the issue of what constitutes success and superiority as to value and meaning of IQ. I think my position(s) are “Apropos, germane, pertinent and” in the context, I frame well supported by real world dynamics.
There is value in IQ, but it’s value has place and such value is bound by context.
It seems to me that Reich likely had two objectives in mind with the ideology chapters. One is a sort of green grocer sign to protect himself from the orthodoxy police. The second would be a sincere attempt to disassociate his work from its use by the VDare types.
11 Uncomfortable Facts About How IQ Affects Your Life
Eric Goldschein and Kim Bhasin
http://www.businessinsider.com/facts-you-dont-want-to-know-iq-2011-11
Old news that you can use.
It took me a few seconds to parse it, but was laughing after. Thank you for that.
Hey Talha, do you think that I could be exchanging comments with a bot?
Dear John Derb,
You are making many valid points, but ‘scientific work of the highest degree of difficulty and deep intellectual complexity’ are simply untrue.
The analysis is by machines designed by people far more systematic and intelligent than the people using the results to make their ‘careers’.
It is a little like much of modern astronomy and particle physics, success depends upon access to data from experimental equipment that all but a few ‘researchers’ would not have the slightest clue on design, but no matter how unintelligent, some have access to the latest results, so have publshed.
“the professor’s argument is that they need to accept the scientific reality of their own European ancestry in place of the weird myths and distortions about Europe common in the US..”
Reich just got done saying that Europeans share a genetic heritage that has been stable for roughly 5000 years. Why is it “weird myth and distortion” to acknowledge and value that? We can trace most of our genes to three basic groups. That’s not random mixing of an infinite number of possibilities.
The point Reich makes is that our evolutionary “tree” looks more like a river composed of braided streams. Groups split off here and there, go their own way for a while and/or combine with other streams and then split again and recombine. Obviously it’s still possible to trace coherent racial subgroups–that’s exactly what he’s so excited about.
You guys keep treating the subject as though humans are a mere aggregation of disparate stuff–a conglomerate. That’s a “weird myth and a distortion”.
They young man does have a point there, Gusto.
Laughing.
Telling someone that acknowledges that IQ matters won’t change the positions, just because you insist on contending something they are not advancing.
Einstein’s theories matter in the arena in which they explicate science, but most people neither need to know Eisenstein’s theories or detailed scientific facts to be successful.
Yes, Albert was some sort of a Loserferian/Kikemason deceiver. But then, so is everyone in this world above a certain level of money, power, or fame. the fact that he was jewISH has very little to do with it.
Your world is fictional, and oh yeah; science is a religion.
On Einstein’s wall hanged portraits of Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday.
You mean with EliteComm? Nothing’s for sure on the internet. I’ve exchanged with him before, seems to be a personable fellow. Maybe we both have exchanged with a bot.
Peace.
One of the reasons I’m awaiting that book by Dutton.
For sure, the higher IQ countries are having less kids, but maybe that is because the less intelligent people are choosing not to. I’m not sure. I am in an IT Dept and i can tell you that plenty of intelligent people around here have opted to not have kids or just one. But there are some that also have sizeable families – so I am not sure what the net is.
Agreed – which is why I mentioned them being very materially successful. However, that does not necessitate intelligent choices in all spheres.
You and me both, Bro.
Trust me, the Muslim world knows well about this. A picture recently making the rounds shows the King of Morocco with the King of Saudi, hanging out in Paris.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/hariri-selfie-mbs-king-mohammed-morocco-180410100145910.html
This stuff is surreal…
Peace.
I’m not sure if he was an ignoramus or a conspiracy theorist, but noted mathematician E.T. Whittaker, Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge University, Fellow of the Royal Society, Copley Medal winner, et al., in his two-volume A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity attributes E=mc^2 to Poincare?
Btw, I read Isaacson’s biography of Einstein and was shocked at what a major sleezeball he was. I must give credit to Isaacson for writing one of the few non-hagiographic biographies of Einstein out there.
Genetics would not be a problem if we didn’t live in a world where there was democracy and competition.
We would be in the “Garden of Eden” living as animals without the ability to discriminate.
Is this the Utopia our sliver spooned devils advocate for us?
well its mute if its the usual story where the cucks have no choice, the currently the cucks still have the power to eliminate everyone else on the planet in 15 minutes if they so choose and half of them so choose and the other half wish to die. so no its not the usual story of being conquered its a very odd story of utter faggotry infecting a large portion of the dominant races population and history on the edge of its seat to see what happens next. My bet is stick with the strong horse, its unlikely a large portion of any life form could have actually lost its source code of survive by any means and multiply, and more likely they are temporarily confused about whats going on and if they say are pushed to realize they are in a marginally existential situation die to misinformation they will look up and kill the jews and niggers then the slants then the rest and inherent the universe as they should have done in 1900 when it became clear the rest of the so called humans were no longer needed
Einstein’s famous world voyages were in the company of Theodor Herzl, and mainly intended to promote Zionism.
You may want to read and learn a little more history before calling yourself ‘Truth’.
You have little of that quality.
In my experience as one of several site admins., on a popular U.S. site, such u-names are always correlated with IRL names like ‘Donte’, ‘Trayvon’, etc.
Everything done by EVERY famous person on EVERY media outlet, and much of what is done on minor media outlets, including this one, is intended to promote “zionism.”
I meant to compliment you on your reply, but probably fell asleep before posting that.
However, I don’t think that what you are saying is universally true, and think that it is not true of this site.
I may be wrong there, but the writers Mr. Unz selects and the large subset published or re-published here, don’t seem very Zionist.
Also, since you are clearly intelligent, hope that you have read or will read more about Einstein as a propaganda vehicle and plagiarist.
The Spielberg movie Ai? Mainly crap, and Aldiss, the writer who inspired the original Kubrick project, wrote a very good critical essay on the spiel in the movie.
Dr. Know is clearly based on Einstein, more pop-culture boosting for the uberuntermensch
I appreciate Einstein for one point: his (or his Serbian wife’s) expression of the mathematical proofs of special relativity are much easier to work through than the earlier works that imply it.
Otherwise, the Einstein myth is pure propaganda.
Why am I not surprised that your source of “old news” (Business Insider) is owned by a corrupt, racist-supremacist, minority sect that claims they are the “chosen people”? Do you really fall so easily for their “divide and conquer” propaganda designed to keep you dumb, divided, distracted and easy for the sect to manipulate?
The Israel Lobby in Germany | Freemasonry – Scribd
https://es.scribd.com/document/236970539/The-Israel-Lobby-in-Germany
The ProSieben / Sat1 Group, which combines the German TV station ProSieben, Sat.1, Kabel eins, N24, 9Live and which are especially designed for women transmitter Sixx under one roof, is in possession of the Jew Haim Saban. The Axel Springer Foundation, which was part of the Axel Springer AG conducted from 1981 to 2010 by the Jew Ernst Cramer. After Cramer’s death Friede Springer himself took over as CEO. Friede Springer is a Zionist and got 2000 even the Leo Baeck Prize, the highest award of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. CEO of Axel Springer AG is the Zionist Dopfner Matthias, who has held a position at the Aspen Institute Berlin at the same time. The Aspen Institute is an American lobby, which was founded after WW2 propaganda purposes. The Institute is managed by Trustees, the President and CEO is the Jew Walter Isaacson. …..
Thanks, I’ll try to be more careful going forward.
“Mixing with Bushmen seems a good explanation for giant bums on so many black women.”
Source?
“Overeating probably doesn’t help (or does, since a giant bum is seen as desirable by many black men).”
This is true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15135331
“Hence one od the many categorical debates about the meaning of race.”
P1) There are differences in patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry
P2) These patterns are exhibited between real groups, existing groups (i.e., individuals who share common ancestry)
P3) These real, existing groups that exhibit these physical patterns by geographic ancestry satisfy conditions of minimalist race
C) Therefore race exists and is a biological reality
An irrefutable argument for the biological existence of race.
“Chances for successful life outcomes in the modern world.”
Built into the test. You can put things into or take things out of any test you want by careful selection and analysis of items. IQ doesn’t “cause” this.
I’m glad you’re back. Because I’ve been hoping to ask you this question. So there’s race as a concept – fine. I’m concerned how one defines its parameters – because if you have ambiguity to define what belongs in one or the other category, then the category is likewise ambiguous.
What race do I belong in? I’m originally from Pakistan (ancestors from Northern India, Persia, etc.). I look Persian and could easily pass for Mexican or Mediterranean – most Pakistanis at the mosque don’t think I’m Pakistani at first glance.
So am I White? People here say I’m not White. Is there a separate race for Caucasoid people like Persians/Armenians, etc. and European people? What about Southern Europeans and Northern ones?
I’m really hoping you can sort that out, because thus far it’s just been opinions here and there based on feelz without anything definitive.
Peace.
It’s not irrefutable, but already refuted. Phenotypic variation between populations is clinal, with no sharp discontinuity (unless you consider climatic adaptations, but which do not mirror ancestry). So you would need to explain how you make the “geographic ancestry minimalist races” you do: they’re totally arbitrary and have no biological reality. If you had any knowledge of physical anthropological literature you should know this. No physical anthropologist could agree how many races there are, or where to make geographical divisions. See my other comments where I refuted Steve Sailer on this.
I actually did find a source for this in the last few weeks, but did not record the link.
It was partly on language, noting that the click consonant in Xhosa was originally from Bushmen or Bushmen-like people wiped out by the blacks from further north.
At least i offer search terms that would lead you in the right direction.
You may also consult 19th century illustrations of women from Bushmen and related tribes, to confirm the shape and its similarity with that of some portion of eastern and southern sub-Saharans.
B.T.W, I was meaning ‘western’, not ‘eastern’, but in southern Africa, the distinction doesn’t seem to have much effect.
The minimalist race concept (MRC) takes the minimal from the racialist concept and argues that race is a biological reality. When you say “Phenotypic variation between populations is clinal, with no sharp discontinuity” that’s a holdover from the racialist concept of race which I did not argue.
“So you would need to explain how you make the “geographic ancestry minimalist races” you do”
If the five populations that correspond to major areas are continental-level minimalist races, the clusters (from Rosenberg et al 2002) represent minimalist races.
“See my other comments where I refuted Steve Sailer on this.”
Where?
You seem to take issue with P1 and P2. You deny that there are visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry? You deny that these are distributed amongst real, existing groups? That’s more extreme than Lewontin or Brace who allow this. Furthermore, the minimalist race concept is vague and doesn’t say which populations are minimalist races. That’d be the populationist race concept (PRC).
These patterns exist, they correspond to populations that are real and exist and they satisfy the conditions of minimalist race. Therefore race exists and is a biological reality since those physical features that correspond to geographic ancestry are biological in nature.
Race Caucasian. The populations you bring up belong to the Caucasian minimalist race. South and North Europeans are the same race. This concept is simple. It’d be really tough to refute the argument and Oliver D. Smith did not refute it.
I’m aware of how the fat deposits on San women are, that’s not evidence for your assertion however.
Sure, you are correct. My evidence is nil, except for observation of physcal similarites, and the linguistic transfer.
Further investigation up to you, you seem to be of the opinion that bench arses on black women are purely the result of gross obesity, I posit the hypothesis of partly genetic origin as a factor.
Up to you to work it out, if interested.
That totally makes sense. So I guess “White” as it is used in the vernacular is not analogous to Caucasian, but rather means “European” – correct?
In which case, “White” would be a subset of Caucasian like Semetic or North African would.
Peace.
The clusters at the continental level in Rosenberg et al 2002 are arbitrary. So the races you claim exist – don’t reflect biological reality. There is phenotypic variation (what you call patterns i.e. different mean frequencies) between populations, but it is clinal so populations grade smoothly into each other. You mentioned Brace, so read his work on this:
“To the extent that the people in a given region look more like one another than they look like people from other regions, this can be regarded as ‘family resemblance writ large.’ And as we have seen, each region grades without break into the one next door.” (Brace, 2000)
Since there is a phenotypic continuum (to quote Brace: “each region grades without break into the one next door”); I’m asking you how you decide where to draw the boundaries to delineate races. If you cannot explain this (you’ve so far failed) then the minimalist race concept doesn’t reflect biological reality because someone can make different racial classifications to your own. As I said, that is precisely what has happened for decades, if not centuries.
Furthermore, as I explained to Steve Sailer – the broad/continental classifications you are defending as races are not what scientists work with to determine ancestry; the focus of population geneticists and forensic anthropologists is local, not broad groups. Since you’re talking about physical/forensic anthropology: then look up the population samples in FORDISC & CRANID. The samples refute your continental clusters (Rosenberg et al.). For example in FORDISC, there are “Norse” (Norway) and “Zalavar” (Hungarians). These populations are not clustered together and have their own mean craniometrics for 57 (up to 82) measurements of the skull. If we use your definition of minimalist races, then Norse and Hungarians would be separate races and this contradicts your defence of Rosenberg.
“Northern Europeans” (e.g. Swedes) and “Southern Europeans” (e.g. Greeks) are not the same race; at least you’ve not offered any evidence they are. Why are these populations “Caucasian”? You’re also contradicting yourself again. There are physical differences between these populations, so using your own race concept, Swedes and Greeks would be separate races, not “Caucasian” etc.
OK – I’m game – how is “race” defined? Where indeed are the markers for the boundaries? Can you please point out to some scientific journal or publication which breaks them down by category and how you tell one from another?
From what I can see, human ethnicities seem to be like dog or horse breeds; I can tell you the difference between a stock Arabian or Turkmen or Lippizan because they have definitions and certain well known traits. Ethno-linguistic groups seem to follow that and are (usually) discernible. But with “race”, how do you define it? Your definition of “race” seems to be more like ethnicity.
So…how many races are there and which authority is able to define them? For horses, they have breeders’ associations which make these definitions:
http://www.horsechannel.com/horse-resources/breed-associations.aspx
Peace.
Perhaps you misunderstood my position: my viewpoint/argument is that human races don’t exist. The fact we cannot clearly demarcate human racial boundaries and they are arbitrary is an argument against their existence since subspecies (geographical races) in non-humans have clear-cut boundaries because they are allopatric (living in separate non-overlapping geographical areas) or parapatric, not sympatric. As an example, look up subspecies ranges of Giraffes, and you will find that they have clear-cut boundaries.
There are virtually no geographically isolated human populations like this- so there are no races. This doesn’t mean there isn’t population structure, but it’s clinal (with populations grading into each other) and populations are localised. As I explained population geneticists work with local populations, including ethnic groups like Manx, Dutch, Kabyle Berber etc. see: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Racialism#Populations_.28demes.29 “White”, “Caucasoid” or “Black” as an ancestry group is invalid; population geneticists and physical anthropologists do not work with these. The only people clinging to these today are people who are politically motivated (e.g. white nationalists).
The thing people cannot wrap their minds around, My friend, is the sheer scope of the deception,communism, satanism, zionism, controlled opposition, it is totally interconnected even if many of the talking heads and saynothings don’t realize it, and a few of them do.
https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/04/NWO-is-Throwback-to-Totalitarian-Judaism%20.html?_ga=2.64947567.130863205.1524855889-1191021077.1516813890
I am not sure anything ion my comments suggests that “race” is not real.
Quite the opposite in fact.
IQ doesn’t “cause” this.
It doesn’t cause it, but allows for it.
LOL!
I see what you are saying, so like for Sumatran or Bengal or Siberian tigers you have clearly demarcated ranges of habitats that do not overlap and mixing occurs. So scientists deal with those specific categories, but they don’t come up with something like North-Asian vs South-Asian tigers.
This makes the most sense to me and seems far more accurate than race because of the reasons you mentioned. I do think what RR88 mentioned (MRC) is a good way to categorize (if not completely accurately) phenotype ball-parks.
One question here; when you mention Manx, Dutch, Balochi – what are the boundaries for that? Like do they split up the Dutch even further? How do they decide they’ve finally come across a distinct group – is there a methodology?
Peace.
Well , my friend (and sincerely apprecitng tha form of adress), I am very tired, and wilc be checking the iinks you posted tomorrow.
OK, read the link, surprised by the source, not the fhrst time i have read Markow’s writing, but thx., my friend.
“Headbinding” is very good. Shall steal.
We-ell … he got one of ours in exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lee_Cadwell …
Harvard Geneticist David Reich Explains ‘Who We Are And How We Got Here’
Why do people keep saying that?
It’s not as if there’s a lack of verified textual material from the time that shows precisely why Germans disliked (as opposed to ‘feared’) Jews.
Chief among them:
① their canonical literature does not sanction fraud, theft, assault or murder when the victim is a member of an outgroup; and
② their culture was (and is) highly cohesive and nepotistic, alien to their ‘host’ culture, and had groupwise aims that were being pursued at the expense of their ‘host’ population.
Those two things – both of which are not really contentious – means that Jewish dominance of some high-reward/low-effort fields of economic endeavour (journalism, bureaucracy, finance) are captured by in-group Jews by nepotism – which undermines the field as lower-quality entrants are subsequently promoted (the good old ‘Peter Principle’).
The only other group with similar aims: the Freemasons. So it’s no surpirse that they were also the target of Third Reich unpleasantness – even though Freemasonry is not culturally at odds with European culture.
Hitler and his coterie did not ‘fear’ Jews; they were not in awe of Jewish achievement, either in absolute terms or compared with AngloSaxon/Teutonic achievement; and they did not believe in the self-promotional drivel like “siechel“.
In stark contrast: Hitler deeply disliked Jewish culture, and thought that the culture was undermining German culture, and was adversely affecting government and the economy through nepotism and dishonesty. He didn’t rate Jewish intelligence highly, but he knew that their strong group affiliation enabled them to tilt the field in their favour.
When there is a group with solid ingroup identification, nepotism is a better explanation for over-representation than merit. HUD had black people in 31% of senior management positions just before the FNME/FMCC débâcle: you think they got there on merit? Just sayin’.
Bear in mind that Germany had long been the fence that separated ‘the West’ from the riff-raff; the Jews who fled the Pale in the 1800s disproportionately settled in Germany (and Poland). It was those Jews that were the initial focus – not the indigenous German Jews who were well-integrated into German society and whose ingroup-identification was weak (or non-existent).
The final criterion for Jewishness was a minimum of 3 Jewish grandparents – meaning a 75% Jewish quotient, if gene combinatorics is linear, which it’s not.
Compare that to the various versions of the ‘one drop’ rule that prevailed in the US right up until Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967): laws banning inter-racial marriage, two years after I was born.
The German government’s view on how to manage undesirable contamination of their nation was guided by reference to the written work of esteemed American scientists, and to US Supreme Court cases (like Buck v Bell 274 U.S. 200) – these guys get mentioned in all manner of German documents in the first half of the 20th century.
To get some idea on the type of stuff that motivated Plecker and Drake in the 1940s, just go back a generation to the ‘state of the art’ in Eugenics during WWI:
That is a terrible rule of thumb – it’s so backward as to give the reader the impression that when it comes to thumbs, yours probably aren’t opposable.
Build me a Helium atom.
Too hard?
OK, then just build me a proton. I’ll take it from there.
FACTS!