Is #CommonCore the ultimate idiocracy or complete sabotage?

A good friend of mine recently has become embedded in his state’s common core debate and, as a result, I’ve been been proxy to some of the chain emails among his friends.  I’ve always thought common core a bad idea for various reasons but it’s never been something I’ve really looked into.  Some states have recently dumped common core, as it has been attacked both by traditionalists and even some inner city districts.  But as the ship is going done, it seems to become more and more radicalized. Based on the info I’ve received recently from a couple friends, one of whom is a professor of mathematics, here are some interesting facts I’ve discovered about Common Core.

– Common Core was originally packaged as standardized testing on reading and math, which was supposed not to involve content, but that quickly changed.  The original intent, it seems, all along was to modify content.

– Common Core has radically changed the way mathematics is taught — basically the general trend from Newton / Leibniz to the present has been overturned.  Most of the symbols, notations, descriptions, vocabulary, etc., have been discarded and are replaced by more “visual” approaches, often involving silly video-game-like graphics. A math professor I know said students who have learned math by this approach aren’t even able to comprehend traditional math because it seems like a foreign language to them.  Apparently the unspoken rationale behind this approach is that blacks and mestizos cannot learn traditional math and Common Core  is more “POC friendly,” although it seems to have made little difference in test scores.  Nonetheless, at least trying to advance blacks is a worthy cause to discard two thousand years of accumulated mathematical wisdom.

– Common Core has dumped the study of grammar altogether.  Literally, no traditional grammar.  Grammar has been replaced by “feel good” unstructured expository writing and basic new-speak guidelines.  There are students now who have no idea what an adjective, relative clause or diagramming a sentence is.  Students who learn English this way would never be able to learn an inflected grammar-heavy language, like Latin or German, but maybe that’s the point.  Rationale?  Apparently the Schools of “Education” think grammar is racist because blacks and mestizos cannot fully comprehend it.  Modern (as in post-Middle) English grammar must be discarded to make way for some new Third World hybrid language (Dindu-Spanglish?).

– Although Common Core was originally sold as “content free,” it quickly scrapped nearly all the European and other white writers from reading lists.  Vergil’ Aeneid, Beowulf, Goethe’s writings, and Shakespeare’s plays have made way for bunch of non-white writers complaining about something — usually white people for their shortcomings.  Defenders of Common Core say it prescribes no particular books.  It’s about “how to read,” not what to read. It just so happens in learning “how to read” one shouldn’t read white people.

If these descriptions are true, and I really have no reason to believe they are not, as I’ve seen many of the source materials, what in the hell is going on here?  Is it complete idiocracy or a deliberate ((( attempt ))) to sabotage learning and the accumulated knowledge of the past 2000 years?  Both?

If you know kids in a public school, tell them to GTFO.  The bitch is run by Upgrayedd now.

Related:

“School Vouchers: A Trojan Horse to Destroy Private Schools”

Human BioDiversity Reading List

Extreme Anti-White Tweets from #BlackLivesMatter Movement

For those in the know about human biodiversity, it comes as no surprise that multi-racial states lead to societal decay.  As Robert Putnam has demonstrated, the more racially diverse a neighborhood or organization is, the lower the social trust.  (For a more expanded reading list on this theme, see here.)

Add blacks into the equation (who have low average IQs and low impulse control), the situation becomes even worse.  Blacks have been told their entire lives that all their failures are due to some mysterious white magic called white racism, so now they angrily attribute all their failings to this magic.  The #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) movement illustrates this truth.

People on Twitter have been taking screen shots of various BLM activists, which run the usual litany of anti-white hatred.  Here they are:

Camp of the Saints: Why @RodDreher is wrong about race and culture

Rod Dreher recently decided to review the 1973 novel Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail.  In my estimation, this is one of the greatest novels of the 20th century, a novel that everyone should read (here’s a free PDF of the English translation), so I was pleased that Dreher was bringing attention to the novel.  Nonetheless, I am disappointed at the politically correct tone and factually incorrect nature of the review.

For instance, Dreher writes:

Raspail does not separate skin color from culture and civilization…  …Everything else in the novel ties civilization precisely to skin color.

Dreher throughout the review seems disturbed that Raspail considers race as an important factor.  Dreher seems to think that culture somehow hovers in some hyperdimensional sphere completely removed from the biological reality of race.  I know that Dreher occasionally reads HBD blogs, so I’m a little surprised that he would advocate a position so contrary to recent findings in science.

Here are some problems with Dreher’s account….

Dreher is too hung up on skin color.  Yes, skin color, or let’s just say general “looks,” are important in evolution.  For instance, in the famous Russian fox experiment, we know that when the foxes were selected for behavior it also affected their looks.  As the foxes became more behaviorally domesticated, their looks become more domesticated as well.  In short, as far as we can tell at this point, “looks” are probably in many cases tied to behavioral traits.

Nonetheless, race is more than just skin color.  It encompasses tens of thousands of years of evolution. As this chart shows, humans genetically cluster into races:

And you can measure the genetic distances between ethnic groups and races:

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.

On average, Europeans are around 100x more closely related to each other than to sub-Saharan blacks. Something more than mere “skin color” obviously is going on here.

What Dreher fails to understand is the gene-culture evolution thesis.  Ancestry / race and culture are interlinked – and probably deeply so.

For instance, Peter Frost offers a succinct summary here of recent findings.

For a more detailed and theoretical account, Cochran and Haprending’s 10,000 Year Explosion is necessary reading (free PDF).  This book traces the gene-culture evolutionary history of humans over the past 10,000 years.  It is definitely one of the most influential books I’ve ever read.  If Dreher has not read it (I suspect he hasn’t), I hope he does so.  Perhaps he could even write about it at TAC.

Raspail in the 1970s was not aware of recent findings in human genetics and evolution, but as a novelist he was way ahead of his time.

Updates:

Here’s a translation of an essay Jean Raspail wrote more recently:  “Fatherland Betrayed by the Republic“

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry (@pegobry) jumps on the Marxist bandwagon

The French Catholic neoconservative Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry has a ridiculously trite article out at The Week entitled “Gay marriage, racism, and what everyone misses about the inevitability of social change.” Normally, I wouldn’t pay much attention to such prattle, but since it is getting attention on Twitter, I thought I’d address it.  Gobry, by the way, has had contact with various reactionaries, although he has denounced the Dark Enlightenment as “racist” — shocking.  That said, Gobry is not new to parroting the latest nonsense of neoconservatives and Cultural Marxists — whether it’s bombing North Korea, flooding Europe and the USA with Third World immigrants, or demanding that whites pay reparations to non-whites.

I indeed find it interesting that mainstream Christians today – both Catholic and Protestant – seem to have wholeheartedly adopted the mindset of Cultural Marxists, as Gobry does in his latest article by insisting that race is a “social construct”.  The one issue that Christians have not yet given into the Cultural Marxists is gay marriage, but this is only matter of time and, as I’ll show, Gobry’s very “reasoning” paves the way for gay marriage.

Gobry, in his latest, argues that gay marriage is not inevitable because tokens of progress have been wrong in the past.  His bogeymen of false tokens of past progress are the concept of race and eugenics (with, of course, the obligatory reference to Margaret Sanger).  He writes:

“As people on the left of the left, who usually care more about the history of ideas than milquetoast progressives, never tire of pointing out (and rightly), race is a social construct…. [Race] is an idea that has a very specific history, whose birth can be dated, which came to dominate the cultural worldview, and thence changed law and behavior. In other words, it was a socio-cultural revolution.”

At least Gobry is honest about siding with the far left, although he doesn’t correctly identify its origins.  (One of the first Marxists to champion the idea of race as a “social construct” was Franz Boas, who recently has recently been proven to be a fraud. Marxist Stephen Jay Gould has also been shown to be a fraud.)

Gobry seems to think that somehow the science of race is wrong since it’s a product of the Enlightenment, or, more specifically, the Scientific Revolution:

This reasoning, however, is wrong on a number of counts.

First, race in and of itself is not a modern concept.   As Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele point out in the “Ancient Concept of Race,” the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and later Muslims all had concepts of race.

What is different about the modern concept of race is that it is more scientific.  And this is supposed to discredit it?  Modern genetics is also a product of this “socio-cultural revolution,” so it should also be discredited?  Maybe Gobry thinks so, since genetics overwhelmingly proves the biological reality of race:

Like all good Marxist Christians today, Gobry quotes Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.”  I’m not very religious nor am I an expert on Biblical exegesis, but scholars have told me that the traditional interpretation of this passage is one of a heavenly allegory but the more recent Marxist interpretation is that on Earth race and gender aren’t real but are “social constructs”. Gobry obviously sides with the later interpretation.

Which undermines Gobry’s very support of traditional marriage.  For, if gender – like race – is but a social construct, then why should any credence be given to traditional marriage grounded in a biological notion of reproduction (as the Latin verb maritare suggests by meaning both to marry and impregnate).  If gender is but a social construct, then participants in marriage should not be be discriminated against by gender.

Such deductions, however, may be beyond the intellectual powers of grandstanders like Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry.

Updates:

Michael B Dougherty seems to agree with the article because of something someone might have once said about his ancestors 100 years ago.  Newsflash, Michael, the Irish genetically cluster with Europeans and and there were never anti-miscegenation laws against the Irish.

Gobry warns that ideas like HBD must be kept “marginal”.

The Duck tells it like it is.

Genetics: White Americans are VERY white

A recent genetics ancestry survey by 23andme found that White Americans (European Americans) on average are: “98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.”  Wow, that’s pretty white.  I’ll come back to that in a minute.

The survey also found that Latinos are “18 percent Native American, 65.1 percent European and 6.2 percent African.”  There might be a little self-selection here, resulting from testing more upper-class Hispanics, who tend to be more white. For instance, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be: 59% Amerindian,
34% European,  and 6% black.

Back to European Americans and their utter whiteness. The 98.6% figure, mind you, is an average. According to other studies, more than 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and the 5% who do seem to have very little, so it is probably this 5% of White Americans who might be adding the 1.4% admixture into the average.

Let that sink in: 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and those who do seem to have very little.  Wow.

Nonetheless, this study puts African Americans at “73.2 percent African, 24 percent European and 0.8 percent Native American.”  Other studies have estimated African Americans at around 80% African and 20% European.

What does this mean?

As I previously noted:

First, the USA historically has not been a hotbed of miscegenation as Cultural Marxists like to tell us.  Your eyes and common sense should tell you that if there were widespread miscegenation, there would be hardly any white Americans but rather large mestizo/mulatto-like populations such as one finds in many Latin American countries (and even there, small white upper classes still exist).

Second, the people in USA tended to cross the color line in only one direction: white —> black. Mulatto people would identify as black and then reintegrate into the black gene pool.

Which brings us to another question, why do mulattoes almost always identify as black?

The standard Cultural Marxist answer to this question is because of culture, such as the one-drop rule.  But the reality of the situation belies this half-truth.

The most straightforward answer is what Oxford zoologist Jonathan Kingdon suggested in 1996:  black looks are dominant while other looks are recessive.  Observation seems to bear this out.  A person with only 1/16th black ancestry will still often have visible black characteristics, whereas a white person with 1/16th Japanese ancestry would probably pass for 100% white.

In other words, the reason why most mulattoes identify as black is at least in part biological.  Perhaps the white phenotype really is recessive and is easily diminished.

As philosopher Nick Land succinctly formulated: White + Color = Color.

Updates:

Razib Khan: “American Racial Boundaries Are Quite Distinct (For Now)”

Sailer: “the big surprise has been how white are American whites”

On only a semi-related note, you should read Peter Frost’s recent post on human biodiversity.

Robert Wald Sussman’s religious catechism: “race does not exist”

The Cathedral is panicking.  Modern science overwhelmingly shows that not only is race biologically real but it is also correlates with a number of important traits.    Such findings have made the guardians of Politically Correct Thought even more brash and, unfortunately, monotonous in their assertion of  “race is not biologically real.”

Case in point.  Professor of anthropology Robert Wald Sussman (who recently defamed Jared Taylor) published a hit piece in this week in Newsweek, “There Is No Such Thing as Race” (also reprinted at Raw Story), which is an excerpt from Sussman’s new book on why race is not real.  The target of the piece is race, which is not hard to miss, since it’s quite repetitive.  In fact, it’s not really an argument at all but just a broken record.   Sussman early on says his book has not “dwelt upon all of the scientific information that has been gathered” by scientists et al. about race, and then goes on to discuss Hitler, Medieval injustices against Jews, more Hitler, etc.   It’s funny that he cites Franz Boas as a savior of sorts, even though Boas has been thoroughly repudiated as a fraud.   He also engages in numerous logical fallacies, such as the one that since race is clinal it cannot exist (race is not always clinal (e.g. think oceans or mountain ranges) and many things are clinal and still exist).

Back to the repetitiveness.  In my quick reading of the short essay I counted at least 20 variations of the phrase “race does not exist,” often times back to back with another variation of the claim.  Here are samples:

– “race” is not a biological reality

– racial structure is not based on reality

– no biological reality to human race

– myth of race

– racist fallacies

– biological race in humans is nonexistent

– hypothetical “races”

– there are no races

– biological races do not exist

– races do not exist as a biological reality

– race is not a part of our biology

etc

I think you get the point. When I began to focus on how repetitive the excerpt is, it dawned upon me that this is no “essay” but it is a religious catechism for New Creationism, the target audience being the believers (Cultural Marxists), with the hope of picking up a few new converts.   The obvious desperation of the piece leaves two possibilities.  Either the race-denying New Creationists are on their last legs, or soon we’ll have  full-blown Idiocracy.

Updates:

Theden covers this as well.

Robert Wald Sussman

New Creationism

Are Jews natural race realists?

The question whether Jews are natural race realists might seem odd to some considering that Jews, since the 1950s, have been at the forefront of promoting the “race is a social construct” myth.  In fact, Jews today, following the lead of people like Franz Boas and Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu), have almost single-handedly transformed the social sciences away from Darwinian models toward black-slatist / race-does-not-exist models.

But things were not always this way.  Prior to WWII, Jews (and by ‘Jews’ I mean mostly Ashkenazis) were some of the most adamant race realists.   Mitchell B. Hart’s 2011 book by Brandeis University Press, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880 – 1940 (reviewed here), shows that Jews, prior to WWII, overwhelmingly believed in the reality and importance of racial differences.  Even Franz Boas, who later would promote the “race is a social construct” myth, early on believed in the hardwired reality of racial differences.

So what happened?  In short, WWII happened, whereafter Jews decided race realism was bad for Jews and began to promote race denialism.  Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu) and others even muscled the United Nations into declaring that race isn’t biologically real.

But things aren’t so simple.   Although Jews today prescribe race denialism for the West, in Israel they are the ultimate race realists and ethno-nationalists.  For instance, not only do Israelis deport and sterilize African immigrants, but they also practice eugenics (in the form of genetic testing of potential mates to avoid hereditary disease).  And such a double-standard is the norm among American academics, where anthropologists like Jonathan Marks & Alan Goodman stir up lynch mobs against goys (such as Nicholas Wade) who argue for the general truth of human biodiversity, but they themselves are rather silent on Israel.

Although the acknowledgement of this double-standard  a decade ago was limited to the fringes, awareness is becoming more mainstream.   For instance, Ann Coulter recently wrote a syndicated op-ed criticizing the casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson for supporting tough immigration laws for Israel but open-borders and amnesty for the USA.  And there are hundreds of similar blog posts floating around the web.  Twitter is awash with tweets about Israeli ethno-nationalism.  Even this week there was a protest in Israel against African immigration, where the Israelis were chanting, “Niggers, go home!,” which gained a lot of attention on Twitter.

My guess is that Jews naturally believe in HBD and naturally are very ethnocentric, but are terrified at the idea of white gentiles believing in HBD and being ethnocentric.  But what is important here is the “natural inclination”.  If race realism is the natural inclination of Ashkenazis and post-WWII race denialism an aberration, will Jews come back around?  Will the adamant ethno-nationalism of Israel force them to once again publicly acknowledge race realism?

Perhaps for some.  Others might just go ahead and deny race realism for and denounce Israel.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens.

Predictions?

The Horror of Rotherham

Wow.  Just wow.  The depravity of this is truly unbelievable.  Over 1,400 young white girls were tortured and sexually molested by Pakistanti gangs for years and no one lifted a finger to stop it because they were afraid they would be called “racist”. In other words, it’s better to have your white children raped and tortured by brown curry pimps than it is to be a “racist”.

I think it’s time we retire the word “racist” from our usage right now.  This insidious, Marxist term has already done too much damage.   And while we’re retiring things, let’s retire these Rotherham officials and put them in prison.  In fact, a major purge of sorts is long overdue throughout the West.

As we reach the 11th hour of the West, we need to ask some serious questions. Like, isn’t it high time for a moratorium on all Third World immigration into the West?   Do white people have the right to exist?   And if so, how?  Shouldn’t whites have racially exclusive homelands to raise their families, just as all other races have including Ashkenazis?

Some must reads:

Kevin MacDonald:  “The Rotherham Pathology”

Heartiste:  “The Rotherham Evil”

HBD Chick:  “Stop creating a climate of fear!”

Statistics on crime and race.

Roger Scruton: “Taking Revenge on Traditional Britain”

Polls:

Updates:

Coming…

 

 

 

Cthulhu and the White worldview

Moldbug famously (at least in some quarters) once wrote that Cthulhu only swims left.  Having myself recently re-read H. P. Lovecraft’s “The Call of Cthulhu,” I’ve been thinking about what Cthulhu means.

One interesting facet of Lovecraft’s story is how HBD-friendly it is; in fact, “The Call of Cthulhu” could be called “HBD literature,” if such a genre exists.  In the story, you find ancient gods (extraterrestrials), which are adamantly worshiped by non-whites, especially blacks, mulattoes, and mestizos.  These gods are primordial.   Whites, however, seem to have more difficult time intuiting these gods and when they do, they often die.  Professor George Gammell Angell, the Norwegian sailor, and the narrator (it’s implied) all die after coming into some form of contact with Cthulhu.  It reminds me of a passage from Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct where someone states that Westerners (European-descended people) now seem psychologically incapable of the collective ecstasy of primitive religion.

Sam Francis writes:

Lovecraft’s stories are dramas of modernity in which the forces of tradition and order in society and in the universe are confronted by modernity itself—in the form of the shapeless beings known (ironically) as the “Old Ones.” In fact, they are the “New Ones.” …The conflicts in the stories are typically between some representative of traditional order (the New England old stock protagonist) on the one hand, and the “hordes” of Mongoloids, Levantines, Negroes, Caribbeans, and Asians that gibber and prance in worship of the Old Ones and invoke their dark, destructive, and invincible powers.

The irony of the Old Ones is that evidence of them is often in plain sight, but whites simply cannot see them, when when whites do, it’s often through reason (such as the professor and narrator) and not through spiritual intuition.  Most whites, however, will probably never see Cthulhu; they are incapable.

Cthulhu in this sense is like HBD.  It’s right there in front of your eyes, but most whites are incapable of seeing it.  Outbred Northwest Europeans project their own psychological worldview onto the world and non-whites – for whites, it’s all blank-slate deracinated universalism.  For whites, everyone is white. (And even some non-whites strive to be be white.)  Whites can’t hear Cthulhu.

One of the wisest things ever said about HBD was actually once said to be my a black man to the effect (paraphrase): “Whites are fighting other whites about HBD.  Deep down, most blacks probably know HBD is true, even though whites tell them it is not.”

So if Cthulhu only swims left, it’s because whites allow him to do so by unknowingly ignoring his very existence instead of harnasing his primordial power.  To acknowledge Cthulhu is the ultimate red pill.  Although Lovecraft had most whites die when coming into contact with Cthulhu, this is not true of HBD.  In this case, it’s probably a sine qua non for survival.  Maybe the rise of multi-racial states will hasten Cthulhu’s return.

Cthulhu

Racism and the prisoner’s dilemma

Guest Post: Racism and the prisoner’s dilemma

By Zith Met

The prisoner’s dilemma should be familiar to everyone (see here).

It is generally best for society as a whole if everyone within it cooperates*, and moral teachings can broadly be thought of as guidelines designed to influence individuals to sacrifice their own interests in favor of group interests. Many, if not most, moral and ethical questions have prisoner’s dilemma aspects. (See a list of these sorts of problems here.)

Since society has an interest in moving people toward cooperation, social norms tend to develop to influence people to cooperate. The Golden Rule is an example of a widely-followed ethical rule that increases cooperation. If you’re in a society where people generally follow the Golden Rule, you may be able to cooperate with confidence that you won’t be defected upon. Additionally, religions usually have moral codes designed to increase cooperation among members. Social norms punishing or shunning defectors also work to increase cooperation.

When social norms are insufficient at generating cooperation (or when scale makes coordination too difficult), government and the legal system step in to increase cooperation and punish defection. This implies that the burdens of government will be reduced in places where social norms (and people’s innate inclinations) result in widespread cooperation.

People are naturally more inclined to cooperate with more closely related people–it can be an effective evolutionary strategy to help people like oneself. This is most obvious in the context of the nuclear family, but it is also true in the context of more distant relations. In societies with a tradition of cousin marriage, clans are distinct and individuals are more distantly related to people outside their clan. In contrast, in societies like much of northwest Europe with a history of prohibitions on cousin marriage, clans are relatively absent and genes have spread more evenly through society.

Unsurprisingly, the societies with the greatest cooperation and with the most effective norms promoting cooperation tend to be the most historically outbred societies. Consider the cooperative spirit and socialism of Scandinavians as an expression of this. Neoreactionaries often refer to the “universalism” of progressives, and this universalism leads to universal cooperation. In contrast, consider the tribal and corrupt nature of places like Afghanistan at the other extreme.

Although it’s a winning strategy for everyone in society to cooperate, it’s a losing strategy for a person to cooperate with someone who is going to defect. If one person follows the Golden Rule and another follows a strategy of pure self-interest, the self-interested party will consistently defect and the Golden Rule follower will be a loser. This is the fundamental flaw of strict universalism–it is ultimately suicidal. If social norms that cause people to cooperate break down, defection becomes more and more common and government intervention becomes more and more necessary.

One prominent way for cooperation to break down is to add a lot of very unrelated people–something that becomes more likely in a universalist, xenophilic society. Diversity reduces social bonds and trust (see here). People are less likely to cooperate as more distantly related groups move in. Even if you’re a Swede who naturally wants to cooperate with everyone, the Somalis you just brought in don’t necessarily have any interest in cooperating with you. The Somalis will defect on you all day and all night while raping your women. The result is a net loss to society and particularly large losses for cooperators.

The best bet for effective cooperation and a pleasant, efficient society is a relatively small, outbred nation with minimal distinct groups within that nation. Ideally, people will want to cooperate with everyone else within the society for the overall good of the society as much as possible. Strong social norms promoting cooperation and punishing defection help. Significant immigration should be avoided to prevent an increase in defection.

* I suspect that a society that goes too far into cooperation will not only have the problems described above with respect to dealing with defectors and outsiders, but also creativity and advancement may require some defection. Imperfect information and varying time preferences complicate the picture as well. However, promoting cooperation is more important as a primary moral concern, and the utility of defection is beyond the scope of this post.

Christianity becoming more left-wing

Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig has an article up at Salon (real Salon, not parody) arguing the Christianity is  becoming a left-wing phenomenon, which is not a surprise to readers of Occam’s Razor as we’ve had posts here such as “Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?”  On the global scale, Christianity is becoming a non-Western, Third World religion, which means that Christians globally will tend to support things like redistribution of wealth from whites to non-whites, as well as dispossession of whites from their own lands (aka Third World immigration).

What’s particularly interesting is the role that mainstream Christian churches are playing in the current boarder crisis along the US-Mexico border.  Not only are these Christian churches supporting the invasion, they are facilitating it, and with US taxpayer money.  As recently noted by Refugee Resettlement Watch, the Catholic Church, as well as other Protestant churches such as the Baptists and Lutheran Church, are getting millions of dollars of taxpayer money to facilitate the refugee invasion of the USA.  It’s disgusting.

What will be the reaction?  Already, you see younger people leaving mainstream Christianity for things like Pro-Western Christianity or neo-paganism. If trends on Twitter are any indication, anti-Pope Francis images like this  floating around suggest that conservatives might be getting fed up with mainstream Christianity.

Related:

“Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

“A new trend: Identitarian Religion”

“The Laws of the Cathedral. Obey or Perish”

“Is Mainstream Christianity Dead Set on the Destruction of Western Peoples?”

Gregory Hood:  “The Antifa Avenger Rides Again”

Kevin MacDonald:  “Immigration gets on the public radar”

 

Mexico & Genetic Diversity: HBD on the cutting edge of science

Mexico holds the record for many things.  For instance, Mexico is the fattest country on the planet.  Mexico also has the highest rate of diabetes on the planet.  (Interestingly, this astronomical rate of diabetes might be a result of the Amerindian ancestry of many Mexicans.)  Although not the most violent country in the world (esp. by African standards), Mexico is a very violent county; since 2006, more than 60,000 people in Mexico have been murdered, often the result of gang / cartel rivalries.

And, according to a recent study, it also seems that Mexico might be one of the most genetically diverse countries on the planet.   Mexico hosts various groups of Amerindians, Mestizos, and very small groups of Europeans.  Interestingly, a few dimwitted Cultural Marxist creationists have tried to spin this study to evince the Cultural Marxist mantra that “biological race doesn’t exist” — as if showing that elements can be blended together demonstrates that atoms don’t exist.   Probably most stunning, however, is how shocked people are – or at least pretend to be – by this study.  Are they clueless?  Where have they been for the past couple decades?

I mean, the CIA World Fact Book for the past couple decades has been reporting that Mexico is: 60% mestizo, 30% Amerindian, and less than 10% European.

Looking at the genetic ancestry of mestizos, Rubén Lisker in 2005 found the average admixture of lower-class mestizos of Mexico City to be:  59% Amerindian, 34% European, and 6% black.

Furthermore, for the past decade at least, HBD writers have been writing on the genetic diversity of Mexico.  See Steve Sailer’s: “Importing Mexico’s Worsening Racial Inequality” or SocioBiological Musings’ “What Race Are Hispanics?“.  Also interesting is Richard Lynn’s “Pigmentocracy: Racial Hierarchies in the Caribbean and Latin America,” which explores the racial caste system of Latin America showing that the upper-classes tend to be very European, while the lower classes tend to be more Amerindian, mestizo, or mulatto.  HBD bloggers have also argued that the cultural designation of ‘Hispanic’ should be broken down into racial groupings, such as Amerindian, Mestizo, European, etc.

The general surprise by many scientists and others who should know better on this topic – the genetic racial diversity of Mexico –  only underscores how much HBD is on the cutting edge of science.  If these people had been reading HBD writers for the past decade, nothing in this study would really be a surprise.

Further Reading:

HBD Chick:  “Who Are Our Mexicans?”

Sociobiological Musings: “What Race Are Hispanics?”

Hispanics:  A Statistical Portrait

Gregory Cochran:  “Zones of Thought”

Jason Collins:   “Immigration Externalities”

CIS: 74.7% of Mexican immigrants with children use some form of welfare in the USA

Faces of the World’s Races 

Steve Sailer: “How White Are Hispanics?,” “White v. Hispanic cognitive gap across 39 studies with 5,696,529 sample size,” “Ortiz & Telles: Mexican-Americans lag for 4 generations (at least),” “How do Hispanics score on grad school admissions tests?,” “64% of Hispanic high school graduates don’t score high enough to enlist,” and “PISA and Mexico.”

Karol Estrada: “Is the Amerindian ancestry of Mexicans to blame for their record-high levels of diabetes and obesity?”

 

 

Roundup of Book Reviews of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance

Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History was officially released today.  Here at Occam’s Razor we previously discussed “How will the Cathedral deal with Nicholas Wade’s new book?”  Let’s see.  We’ll catalog the reviews here, adding them as they’re published.

An excerpt from A Troublesome Inheritance was published at Time: “What Science Says About Race and Genetics”

Nicholas Wade writes about and discusses (audio clip) A Troublesome Inheritance at The Spectator:  “The genome of history: DNA explains more than you think”

Nicholas Wade responds to critics: “In Defense of A Troublesome Inheritance”

Nicholas Wade responds to critics again:  “Five Critics Say You Shouldn’t Read This ‘Dangerous’ Book”

Nicholas Wade:  “Race Has a Biological Basis. Racism Does Not”

Nicholas Wade: “A Letter to the NY Times: A Troublesome Inheritance”

Positive Reviews:

James D. Watson (co-discoverer of DNA): “A masterful overview of how changes in our respective lineages let us begin to understand how human beings have evolved from ancestral hunter-gatherer forebears into effective members of today’s advanced human societies.” (From cover of book)

Edward O. Wilson (Harvard):  “Nicholas Wade combines the virtues of truth without fear and the celebration of genetic diversity as a strength of humanity, thereby creating a forum appropriate to the twenty-first century.” (From cover of book)

New Scientist:  “Wade provides a masterful summary of recent research.” (From cover of book)

Lionel Tiger (Anthropology, Rutgers): “Nicholas Wade has delivered an impeccable, fearless, responsible, and absorbing account….Bound to be the gold standard in the field for a very long time.”  (From cover of book)

Richard Cohen (Washington Post):  “[Wade] is a robust and refreshing critic of scientific political correctness.” (From cover of book)

Charles Murray: “A scientific revolution is under way—upending one of our reigning orthodoxies”

Steve Sailer: “The Liberal Creationists,” “A Couple of Wild-Eyed Wackos: Me and the NYT,” “The Race FAQ,” “From the Steveosphere on ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’,” and “The Strange Evolution of Eugenics”

John Derbyshire:  “A Troublesome Inheritance — A Small, But Significant, Step For Race Realism” and “John Derbyshire Reviews The Reviews”

Jared Taylor: “Nicholas Wade Takes on the Regime” and “A Troublesome Inheritance”

Ed West:  “Darwin’s unexploded bomb” (Great review at the Spectator)

Robert VerBruggen: “Race Is Real. What Does that Mean for Society?” (Kudos to Real Clear Science for such a good review.)

Bryce Lalibert: “The Trouble with Inheritance: A Review of Nicholas Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance”

Genetic Literacy Project:  “Genes and evolution trump culture in shaping human differences”

Andrew Sullivan quotes from Wade’s new book on reality of race.

Ross Douthat: “I found the less-speculative first half of the book extremely persuasive….”

Margaret Wente:  “What if race is more than a social construct?”

Larry Arnhart: “Human Biodiversity Supports the Natural Right to Equal Liberty,” “Human Biodiversity (2): The Genetic Evolution of Capitalism and the Bourgeois Virtues?,” “Human Biodiversity (3): Nicholas Wade, Abraham Lincoln, and Racial Genetics,” “Human Biodiversity (4): The Importance of Culture in Gene-Culture Coevolution,” and “Human Biodiversity (5): Cultural Group Selection Through Migration and Assimilation,” “Human Biodiversity (6): Would the Recent Genetic Evolution of Human Beings Subvert Darwinian Natural Right?,” “Human Biodiversity (7): Rising IQ in Developing Nations”

Joost Niemöller:  “De IQ discussie. Nature wint.” [“IQ debate . Nature wins.”]

RGambler: “Genetics, gender and race – how will social policy cope with recent scientific discoveries?”

28 Sherman: “Nicholas Wade Shows Why the System Needs Feminist Biology”  And ThedenTV reprints it here.

John Derbyshire, Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer discuss A Troublesome Inheritance and its responses.

Ashutosh Jogalekar: “Genes and Race: The Distant Footfalls of Evidence” (Kudos to Scientific American for publishing such a thoughtful review. John Derbyshire responds.  Apparently, Ashutosh Jogalekar just got fired from Scientific American for preferring scientific inquiry to New Creationism; see here, here, here, etc.)

James Thompson: “‘It’s the people, stupid’: a review of Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance”  (Perhaps the most thorough review yet written. Steve Sailer comments. John Derbyshire responds.)

HBD Chick: “Human Biodiversity, Racism, Eugenics, and Genocide”

Fred Reed: “A Troublesome Inheritance – #603”

Milo Yiannopoulos: “Political Correctness Makes Race and Genetics Taboo in the West, Which is Why China is Winning” (See also Geoffrey Miller’s classic essay: “Chinese Eugenics“)

The Politically Incorrect Australian: “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History”

Gregory Cochran: “Phenotypes vs genetic statistics” (Great comments.  More of a criticism of Wade’s critics than a defense of Wade.)

Gregory Cochran:  “Unknown Phenotypes” (More a criticism of race deniers than a defense of Wade)

Ron Unz: “Does Race Exist? Do Hills Exist?” (Good summary how Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould & Richard Lewontin have tried to silence the truth on racial reality. Sailer responds.)

Bo Winegard:  “Darwin ’s Duel with Descartes” (A good read from the journal Evolutionary Psychology.)

Cooper Sterling: “Reestablishing the Significance of Race: Nicholas Wade’s ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’ rebuts the pseudoscience of race denial”

Takuan Seiyo: “To Live and Die Under a Mentirocracy: Wading into a faked controversy”

Steve Sailer: “Reconstructing Race,” “The biological construct of race in America” and “Race of the Amish” (In “Race of the Amish” Sailer surmises what’s really behind the criticisms of Wade.)

Chuck at OA: “The idiocy of race denialism”

Gina O’Neill-Santiago: “No, Inquiring About A Possible Biological Basis for Race is not ‘Scientific Racism’”

Steven Malanga: “A Biological Basis for Race?”

Chemiotics:   “A Troublesome Inheritance – I,” and “A Troublesome Inheritance – II – Four Anthropological disasters of the past 100 years”

Unsilenced Science: “The Warrior Gene, Back from the Grave” and “Christopher Irwin Smith is an Idiot”

Henry Harpending: “At Least Erroneous in Faith”

Unsilenced Science: “Correcting the Critics of Nicholas Wade & MAOA”

Audacious Epigone:  “On A Troublesome Inheritance”

Jonathan Anomaly: “Genes, Race, and the Ethics of Belief”

Mixed:

Greg Cochran: “A Troublesome Inheritance” (John Derbyshire comments here.  Wade disagrees with Cochran on two alleged errors; Cochran writes, “These errors do not materially impact [Wade’s] arguments in the book.” Cochran follows up with a post on Lewontin’s Fallacy (used by critics of Wade).)

Tyler Cowen “appreciated the honesty and courage of the work” but felt Wade could have “pushed deeper in book-length form.”  (As is often the case at MR, the comments are more interesting than the post.  Here’s an interesting comment regarding Cowen’s review.)

Viscount Matt Ridley:  “Humans are not all the same under the skin” (full text)  (James Thompson and Richard Lynn respond here. Steve Sailer responds here. Ridley offers a follow up here. Greg Cochran responds.)

Steven Pinker on Twitter.

Tabitha M. Powledge: “Troublesome genetics and race”

Emily Willoughby and Jonathan Kane: “Reviewing A Troublesome Inheritance”

Steve Hsu offers initial impressions and a visual on the reality of race.  And:  “What’s New Since Montagu?”

Pseudoerasmus: “Nicholas Wade and the Social Phenotype” (Not a review proper but thinks Wade should have focused more on IQ)

Black Avenger: “Review: Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance. Many of its critics seem to hate black people.”

Charles Bloch: “Nicholas Wade Wrong–1924 Immigration Cutoff Not Reponsible For The Holocaust”

Ronald Bailey: “Different Races Exist. So What?”

Noah Millman: “What Does Human Evolution Explain?”

appreciated the honesty and courage of the work

appreciated the honesty and courage of the work

appreciated the honesty and courage of the work

Negative Reviews:  (Could the vanguard of attacks end up being a strange coalition of Cultural Marxists and religious creationists?)

Anthony Daniels:  “Genetic Disorder” (Comment from James Thompson on this review: “Weak. Picks at a few points and ignores the broad sweep of evidence.”  John Derbyshire points out many flaws in Daniels’ review here.)

The Creationists are attacking Wade’s book (here and here) because, you know, “evolution is racist” and all.  LOL. (We discuss this phenomenon here.)

Andrew Gelman: “The Paradox of Racism” (Given that Gelman is a statistician, I was hoping for more than just the usual pointing and sputtering. Jayman responds to Gelman here. Sailer responds here and here.  HBD Chick responds here. Gelman writes more here.)

American Spectator editor (and rabid anti-evolution creationist) Tom Bethell criticizes Wade and defends Marxists Lewontin and Gould (yea, these frauds). What a joke.  For creationists like Bethell, it’s all about “racism”.  It’s noteworthy how religious creationists and liberal creationists seem to be motivated by the same things.  John Derbyshire responds here.

Noah Smith: “Academic racism has a K=N problem”  (It seems that Smith hasn’t even read the book. Sailer responds here. Jayman responds here.)

Pete Shanks tires to smear Wade by associating him with Stormfront and KKK.  Shameful.  More smearing from Pete Shanks here.

PZ Myers admits race is real but then goes off on some tangent about “hbd really is just the slick new marketing term for modern racism“.  Disappointing review, as it seems to imply that political correctness should trump scientific truth. Sailer responds here.

Jonathan Marks: “The Genes Made Us Do It:  The new pseudoscience of racial difference”  (This ideological hit piece is strong evidence that cultural anthropology is now more of a religion than an actual science.  Marks interestingly used to study genetics and hard science (and was briefly on Sailer’s email list), but then denounced science all in favor of Marxist critiques of culture.  Marks has even denounced genetics as a “political ideology“.  LOLs.   Old Sailer piece on Marks. Jayman responds. Outsideness parodying Marks: “Left-wing ideology is far more objective than genetic science. Hitler pretty much invented DNA out of pure hate.” Misdreavus responds here. J. Arthur Bloom comments here. Marks writes a second hit piece. Marks is obsessed with smearing Wade. Willoughby & Kane respond to Marks. Nicholas Wade responds. The Black Avenger responds. Jon Marks responds again. Chuck responds with “The idiocy of race denialism“)

Agustín Fuentes: “Things to Know When Talking About Race and Genetics”  (A slightly more sophisticated version of Lewontin’s Fallacy, which is unsurprising given that Marxists Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould are Fuentes’ heroes (by his own account) and he seems to share their Marxist outlook. Parody of Fuentes: “Yes, I’m always confusing Northeast Asians and Sub-Sahara Africans.  I can barely tell them apart!” Sorry, Agustín, but race is real.  Fuentes writes more. Gregory Cochran posts on Lewontin’s Fallacy. Ron Unz responds here. Gregory Cochran responds here. Nicholas Wade responds. The Black Avenger responds. Major error uncovered in Fuentes’ hit pieces; see Steve Bloomberg’s response. B Weinberg on dishonest tactics of Raff and Fuentes. Steve Sailer responds. Chuck responds with “The idiocy of race denialism“. Razib Khan responds about Structure and the biological reality of race.)

Annalee Newitz: “The 9 Most Influential Works of Scientific Racism, Ranked”  (A ridiculous smear job by someone with a degree in “American Studies” who previously authored a book on “white trash”.)

Jerry Coyne admits that race is real but doesn’t like the conclusions that Wade draws from this reality.  (Coyne seems not entirely familiar with the notion of fast evolution.  Has he read the 10,000 Year Explosion?  Does Coyne think human evolution for past 50k years has only occurred from neck down? Scharlach responds. Coyne replies (big debate in the comments). Peter Frost on recent evolution. Razib Khan responds to Orr & Coyne, noting Wade isn’t necessarily wrong about 14% of human genome being under recent selection. Gregory Cochran responds here. Pseudoerasmus responds.)

Arthur Allen:  “Charging Into the Minefield of Genes and Racial Difference” (Not a very substantive critique coming from Wade’s home publication. Comment: “At least the reviewer waited until the second sentence to bring up Hitler.” Steve Sailer responds here.)

Monica Heller: “Is Cultural Anthropology Really Disembodied?” (A hit piece, saying A Troublesome Inheritance “attempts to justify inequality.”  More proof that Cultural Anthropology today is more of a New Age religion than a serious academic discipline.)

H. Allen Orr: “Gene Stretch” (Like Coyne, Orr admits race is real (sort of) but doesn’t think conclusions can be drawn from this reality.  Like Coyne, does Orr think human evolution for the last 50k years has occurred only from the neck down? Orr has long railed against evolutionary psychology or any notion that biology might affect human behavior.  A sarcastic older piece on Orr by Razib Khan. Coyne replies (big debate in the comments). HBD Chick responds here. Peter Frost on recent evolution. Razib Khan responds to Orr & Coyne, noting Wade isn’t necessarily wrong about 14% of human genome being under recent selection. Sailer responds. Pseudoerasmus responds and responds again.)

Ian Steadman: “‘Jews are adapted to capitalism’, and other nonsenses of the new scientific racism”  (Deep review; sentence one dismisses book as “racist”.)

Patrick Appel:  here, here, here, here, here (An acolyte in the “race is a social construct” church of liberal creationism but I give him credit for quoting opposing views.)

Eric Michael Johnson:  “On the Origin of White Power”  (Hysterical hit piece with picture of KKK in article. Pseudoerasmus responds here. John Derbyshire responds. Genetics Literacy Project responds.)

Jennifer Raff:  “Nicholas Wade and race: building a scientific façade”  (Raff is a newcomer to the Cultural Marxist “race is a social construct” club.  Her piece is just another twist on Lewontin’s Fallacy.  Sorry, Jenn, race is real.   See Gregory Cochran’s: Phenotypes vs genetic statistics“.  Raff’s fallacy:  Just because accounts of number of races vary, it doesn’t follow race doesn’t exist.  Accounts of number of planets in our solar system and even shapes also vary, but planets and shapes are real.  Raff’s second fallacy:  Just because race is clinial in some areas of world (but not in all: mountain ranges, oceans, etc), it doesn’t mean individual races don’t exist (see Jayman).  See Razib Khan’s “Why race as a biological construct matters“.  Razib Khan responds. See Josh Rosenthal’s comment. Ron Unz responds here. Gregory Cochran responds here. Nicholas Wade responds. The Black Avenger responds. Raff responds, and ridiculed in comments. B Weinberg on dishonest tactics of Raff and Fuentes. Steve Sailer responds. Chuck responds with “The idiocy of race denialism“. Razib Khan responds about Structure and the biological reality of race.)

Seth Shulman: “Book review: ‘A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,’ by Nicholas Wade”  (At least the reviewer waits until the third sentence to bring up genocide.  Between the lines: This reviewer suspects HBD is true but doesn’t think it should be discussed publicly.  Sailer responds. Audacious Epigone responds.

Alan Goodman: “A Troublesome Racial Smog”  (A silly piece on Marxist website CounterPunch by another radical “race is a social construct” anthropologist.  Little wonder that no one really cares what anthropologists have to say any longer. Sorry, pal, race is real. Sterling Cooper responds. The Black Avenger responds.)

Jeremy Yoder: “How A Troublesome Inheritance gets human genetics wrong” (This suffers from the same logical fallacies as Jennifer Raff’s hit piece: Just because accounts of number of races vary, it doesn’t follow race doesn’t exist.  Accounts of number of planets in our solar system and even shapes also vary, but planets and shapes are real.  Second fallacy:  Just because race is clinial in some areas of world (but not in all: mountain ranges, oceans, etc), it doesn’t mean individual races don’t exist (see Jayman).  See Razib Khan’s “Why race as a biological construct matters“. Gregory Cochran’s: Phenotypes vs genetic statistics” and “Unknown Phenotypes“. Commenter finds major error in Yoder piece. Steve Sailer responds. Chuck responds with “The idiocy of race denialism“.  Razib Khan responds about Structure and the biological reality of race.)

Michael Eisen: “On Nicholas Wade and the blurring of boundaries between science and fantasy”  (JayMan demolishes Eisen.)

David Altshuler & Henry Louis Gates Jr.: “Race in the Age of Genomics” (Although Gates hosts show on DNA, I don’t think he really understands DNA. Steve Sailer responds.)

David Dobbs: “The Fault in Our DNA” (Dobbs responds here and here.  Sailer responds here.)

The Cathedral witch hunt is is growing too large to document in full, so here are some more New Creationist attacks on Nicholas Wade:  Sam Wang here (Dienekes Pontikos responds); Chris Smith here (Unsilenced Science responds), here (Unsilenced Science responds), and here (Unsilenced Science responds); Jenn Raff  here; Joe Graves here; Greg Laden here; John Terrell here; Dan Lende here; Philip Cohen here; Kenan Malik here; Alondra Oubré here (Unsilenced Science responds); etc.

Over 100 scientists (witch hunters?) publish anti-Wade letter essentially denouncing speculative part of Wade’s book as speculative (Nicholas Wade responds; Henry Harpending responds; Geoffrey Miller responds; Ron Unz responds; Unsilenced Silence responds; Nicholas Wade responds again); etc.

On Nicholas Wade and the blurring of boundaries between science and fantasy

– See more at: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1609#comment-1240393

Other Material:

Occam’s Razor: “How will the Cathedral deal with Nicholas Wade’s new book?”

“A Troublesome Inheritance – A discussion on genes, race and human history with author Nicholas Wade and Agustin Fuentes”

HBD Chick also offers some summaries here.

A free PDF of Cochran and Harpending’s 10,000 Year Explosion (another very important book on recent human evolution).

A list of articles on the reality of race.

Rex Golub: “Get ready for Nicholas Wade’s ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’”

Rod Dreher:  “Race, Genetics & Nicholas Wade”

JayMan: “Race, Inheritance, and IQ F.A.Q.”

Get your Troublesome Inheritance t-shirts:  “Recent. Copious. Regional.”

Free Northerner: “Black Enlightenment”

Nicholas Wade to appear on the Leonard Lopate show.

Interview with Nicholas Wade at American Scientist.

Nicholas Wade appears on CBC radio.

Razib Khan comments.

The Daily Caller ran a story saying Nicholas Wade was fired over a Troublesome Inheritance.  This story is false. (If it were true, it wouldn’t be surprising, as the USA now seems committed to anti-Darwinian liberal creationism.) Anyway, just heard from reliable source that Wade took a retirement package a couple of years ago.  The deal was that he could continue to make occasional contributions on a fee basis.   Info on NY Times buyouts is here.  Charles Murray tweets corrective here and here.  Nicholas Wade confirms here that he was not fired.

Luke Ford interviews Nicholas Wade.

Creationists accuse Occam’s Razor of “essentially defending Darwinian gene-based racism.”

Breitbart summarizes reviews of Wade.

Rosemary Bennett discusses reviews of Wade.

J. Arthur Bloom:  “Nicholas Wade vs. the anthropologists”

James Thompson:  “Preparing for Wade?  Read Rindermann”

Rex Golub on “What happened at the Fuentes-Wade Webinar”

Henry Wolff on Nicholas Wade answering questions at Washington DC book signing.

Helian discusses blank-slate dogmatism.

Robert Lindsay (liberal HBD blogger) argues that acknowledgement of HBD could still entail left-wing political prescriptions.

JayMan writes on “Squid Ink”

Foolish Reporter:  “Nicholas Wade critics: Look around the world”

Vox Day writes about pair-bonding discussed in Wade’s book.

Bryce Laliberte interviews Nicholas Wade.

Malcom Pollack discusses some of the reviews.

Peter Frost comments on recent evolution.

ThedenTV has a brief interview with Nicholas Wade.

James Fulford comments on human biodiversity, Kennewick Man and fast evolution.

Gregory Cochran posts on Lewontin’s Fallacy.

Brian Bethune surveys Wade debate (but only quotes people opposed to Wade).

Some “satire” of Wade and Dawkins, which tries to paint both as “racist”.

Holly Dunsworth comments on debate about reality of race: “If scientists were to make the arbitrary decision that biological race is real, can you think of a positive outcome?” (Why acknowledge the biological existence of race?  Because it’s the truth and the truth matters.)

Kevin MacDonald:  “Political correctness in reviews of Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance””

Jared Taylor interviews Nicholas Wade.

New Creationists:  Those who profess to believe in Darwinism but deny biological reality of race and seem to think that human evolution for past 50k years has occurred only from the neck down.  In other words, they believe in miracles.

“Race does not exist” – the Nicene Creed of New Creationists (orthodox version)

“Race is a social construct” – the Nicene Creed of New Creationists (reformed version)

For more on New Creationism, see here.

If you know of anything that should be added, please list it in the comments below and we’ll add it.

N.B.  We’re not including every blog post mentioning this book but focusing more on major reviews (in publications or blogs) about this book.

Human BioDiversity and the Dark Enlightenment

Here at Occam’s Razor we have previously discussed elements of the Dark Enlightenment / Reaction with the posts “What are Characteristics of the Dark Enlightenment?” and “The Laws of the Cathedral“. Now reader Zith Met has made the following contribution explaining what he thinks these elements are.

 

Dark Enlightenment / Neoreaction Summary

By Zith Met

Neoreaction, also known as the Dark Enlightenment, is primarily a critique of modern liberalism.  It is a reaction to the growing oppression of the left and the increasing ineffectiveness of the US and other Western governments.  It is not based on mainstream American conservatism–instead, it is defined by an attempt to use science and reason to uncover basic rules which govern human relations.  Where modern liberalism sees humans as blank slates molded by society and free will, neoreactionaries see people as governed by incentives and their own inherent natures.  This outlook unites such disparate areas as HBD (human biodiversity), economic commentary, and anti-democratic political theory.

Mainly approaching from the perspective of HBD, I have created a list of some important conclusions related to neoreaction:

1. All human traits are heritable.
2. Racial and ethnic groups form genetic clusters.
3. Genetic differences result in varying frequencies of behavioral traits between racial and ethnic groups.
4. Human evolution can be relatively fast, and even populations without significant migration can change significantly over the course of hundreds of years.
5. People are naturally happiest around others with similar traits.  Trust and other positive community attributes decline with increasing diversity.
6. People with different psychological traits tend to have different political preferences.
7. Culture, including politics and morality, is largely a manifestation of the collective traits of a group of people.  Society is not an accident of environment or history, but a result of the actions of people in that society.
8. IQ and other traits with strong genetic bases such as aggression levels explain most inequality between nations.
9. Racial inequality within the US is attributable to genetic factors rather than structural, institutional, or other forms of racism.
10. Favoritism toward one’s own group, known as clannishness, is an example of a trait that varies between racial/ethnic groups due to historic breeding patterns (particularly levels of inbreeding or outbreeding) and selection pressures.
11. Northern Europeans have evolved low clannishness due in part to a high degree of outbreeding historically encouraged by some forms of Christianity.
12. Low clannishness leads to progressivism/universalism, which is based on the idea that all groups of people are fundamentally equivalent, and so they all should be treated equally.  The Cathedral refers to all institutions that promote this and suppress any contrary views, particularly universities and most media sources.
13. In-group preferences are a prisoner’s dilemma.  A homogeneous, universalist society with low in-group preferences tends toward the optimal outcome (cooperation).
14. The introduction of more clannish people into a society with low clannishness results in a move away from the optimal outcome of the prisoner’s dilemma (defection).  People who favor their own group have an advantage over those who don’t.
15. The defection problem can be resolved by suppressing clannishness and promoting assimilation or by adopting one’s own clannishness and promoting separatism.  Note that each solution is prohibited by the Cathedral’s multiculturalist ideology.
16. Technological changes (the robot economy) are reducing the need for labor. This is increasing inequality and causing society to move in the direction of neofeudalism.  Socialism is one possible response to this.
17. Socialism is fundamentally incompatible with open borders.
18. Open borders create externalities in the emigrant countries–pressures that would prevent those peoples from overpopulating the land under their control are removed.
19. Open borders also result in intelligence declines in first-world countries.  Societies with declining intelligence will have a hard time supporting their people and maintaining their standard of living.
20. Many socialist policies also promote dysgenic breeding and a resulting decline in the intelligence of a population.
21. Affirmative Action and other racial preferences can be viewed as political spoils, so we may expect racial preferences in the US to grow stronger as minorities increase in number and power.
22. Institutions tend to grow, ossify, and become increasingly fragile over time.  Eventually, complex systems collapse.
23. A functional society keeps incentives, human nature, and society’s needs all in accord. Modern society does not, leading to anomie, atomization, economic malaise, and misery.

 

A challenge to open-borders advocates @Bryan_Caplan and @AlexNowrasteh

Here’s a challenge to open-borders advocates Bryan Caplan and  Alex Nowrasteh.  While Caplan & Nowrasteh seem thrilled at the idea of flooding white / Western countries with the Third World, they are rather silent on Israel’s immigration policies, such as:

– Israelis sterilizing African immigrants

– Israelis deporting unwanted Africans to Africa

– Israelis deporting unwanted Africans to Sweden

– Israelis advocating ethno-biopolitics at expense of African immigrants

– Israelis wanting to protect Jewish wages and standard of living by opposing African immigration

– Billionaire lobbyists like Sheldon Adelson supporting tough immigration laws for Israel, while supporting open-borders for USA

Not that I personally oppose  Israel wanting to restrict immigration from Africa; it’s quite sensible.  But if Caplan & Nowrasteh are truly for mass immigration in general (and not harboring some animus against white gentile countries), shouldn’t they be for mass immigration for Israel too?  Shouldn’t they be opposed to the above?

But Caplan & Nowrasteh are largely silent on this issue. So, here’s my challenge:

I’d like for Caplan & Nowrasteh  to write a series of articles condemning Israel for restricting immigration and demanding that Israel open its borders to the millions of Africans who want to immigrate there.

What I’m advocating is a Fairness Doctrine:  For every article or blog post that Caplan & Nowrasteh write demanding that white gentile countries be flooded with the Third World, they should write another article demanding the same for Israel.  And I don’t want lackadaisical articles; I want impassioned pleas, some real heavy-handed lobbying, demanding that Israel open its borders to the millions of Africans who want to immigrate there.

Will Caplan & Nowrasteh accommodate, or do their views of “open borders” only apply to white gentile countries?

We’ll see….

Related:

The Laws of the Cathedral

Primer on Human Biodiversity & Immigration

Who Supports Open Borders? Summary of Open-Borders Elite in USA