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  Grammar has been replaced by “feel good” unstructured expository writing and basic new-speak guidelines.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:

Continue reading

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:

RacesoftheWorld3And 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:

GobryThis 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:

RacesoftheWorld3

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

Robert Wald Sussman

New Creationism

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?

Screen Shot 2014-10-08 at 12.48.09 PM