The Reality of Racial Differences

An outstanding overview of race realism.

I would note, however, that it would have been easy to conclude, both from general observation and perhaps also from detailed, statistically valid surveys, that Germans and Japanese are hopelessly militaristic and authoritarian.  But something has clearly happened to dramatically change the political cultures of both nations, a change with deep roots.  Perhaps it is only that their most fanatical warriors and imperialists were killed off in war -  which, although no situation is exactly analogous to any prior historical one, implies that our “bare minimum and out ASAP, just enough and no more” approach in the war against Islamism is woefully inadequate.  I hope that instead it is a matter of psychology and culture.  For hyper-masculine cultures such as militarist Germany and Japan, strength and honor were all - and when they were utterly and annihilatingly defeated, without the slightest hope of any effective resistance, they could bow to their superior foes and obey our commands.

“The races differ in sexual behavior: blacks are more sexually promiscuous than whites and are less inclined to form long-term sexual partnerships.”

Blacks (at least the criminal underclass) place an almost unbelievably exaggerated sense of importance on sexuality and sexual acting out. I have worked in the criminal justice system, in various “lock ups” in a civilian support role for over nearly a decade. While the incorrigibles in the solitary or lockdown blocks generally act barbarically regardless of race and spew sexual threats and innuendoes at the staff, if duty requires one to walk through them, blacks regularly up the ante by exposing themselves or grabbing their crotches if feeling less energetic. I have yet to have a white prisoner expose himself to me purposely and even grabbing themselves is rare (this is usually the mark of a highly antisocial white prisoner,) this is not the case with blacks.

Also, the aggressive sexual predations and rapes tend to be black on white in the inmate population; while not unheard of with whites (that is white on white, or even white on black) it is more focused on “favor trading” and somewhat “consensually” based. With blacks it has a more violent and intimidating pattern, that runs from coercion to outright forced rapes. Normally the victim or target is a young white (or fair skinned minority) male perceived as frightened, weak, and naïve; the perpetrator(s) older and with a long history of incarceration and weight lifting under their belt.

Truly a case for segregating by race, age, and physical size, but “he leadership” in such systems see things differently. One notably exception is the Wayne County Jail in Detroit, Michigan. There a policy of segregation on such characteristics is in place; for example, there is actually a unit for declared homosexuals, for obvious reasons! A rare case of sanity, in a world gone mad!

“Above all, is it a good idea to accept black immigrants into our societies if they are naturally incompatible with it? So crucial are these questions, and others like them, that the very future of the West may depend on our finding the right answers.”

The above while a pertinent point, is fast becoming moot; for a long time while writing on these types of topics at AmRen, I have held a certain optimism that we would avoid disaster by way of a political solution to these problems. That is a hope that fades further and further into the realm of fantasy it seems, with each election cycle. The recent loss of the Republicans (not really prizes on this topic either, but better than the alternative) in the Congressional elections to the Democrats, only solidifies my beliefs here.

Most astoundingly (or willfully) that buffoon in the White House, has taken this to be a signal from the public that they approve of his amnesty plans. That it was a rebuke to the House and Senate “leadership,” and not his failure as Commander-in-Chief. Thus, 10 to 20 million invaders and their families will likely be on the “pathway to citizenship.” Thus, a country of 300 million becomes one of 310 to 320 million in an eye blink! Whites will then move from being about 67% of the country, to only 64% to 62% of it!

To driver this point home, it is important to note that we will be at the dispossession levels normally scheduled for the 2025 period. Heck in 2000 we were already ahead of schedule having become only 69.1% of the population, instead of the officially predicted 72% by the Census Bureau’s timetables. This is only hastening, what “the elites” have caused to be “inevitable.”

I write this without any relish, as I do not find any excitement or desire for what it portends, this being a civil/race war. I only hope that if should whites win it, they remember those self-styled “elites” of ours who brought it about, and act accordingly!

If we accept the arguments of this essay, and accept that the mixing of the races produces strife, injustice, conflict; and that whites will be the victims of crime in mixed race societies; if we accept this, then what is the ideal? The racial arguments imply the need for geographic racial separatism; that there should be a black homeland where blacks can have their own government, their own police force, juries, judges, schools, etc. Is that the ideal? Or more social programs to promote harmony in a mixed race society?

IMO, the enviornment determinist vs the genetic determinist dichotomy is a false dichotomy. I believe it’s approximately an 80/20% combination. Genetics plays the dominant role in IQ and personality traits; environment plays the lesser. However, the right enviornment and proper training can enable even low IQ blacks overcome their anti-social and hedonistic propensities that are hardwired in their genes. Also, many tend to overlook the fact we all are born with a free will; we have freedom to chose how we conduct our personal behavior. If educators could use a combination of corporal discipline and positive motivation training(behavior modification) as the preferred method, they could induce blacks to behave in a manner compatible to Western culture. It CAN be accomplished, but at what cost? Not only would it take allot of time money and effort to obtain the desired results, PC doctrine forbids corporal discipline - especially for blacks.

Note: I am in no way saying innate IQ can be raised through behavior modification.

PS, Kudos go to Realist for another outstanding article.

I’ll give my religious perspective (take it or leave it, I couldn’t care less). The Bible says there are 3 races - descendants of Noah’s three sons. Ham - the Africans, Shem - the Asians, and Japeth - the Europeans. Ham turns out to have a sex problem, and the Biblical text could suggest that perhaps Ham’s mother was not the same as Noah’s wife, the mother of the other two boys. This is suggested in the fact that Ham apparently slept with Noah’s wife while Noah was passed out. The other two sons “covered their father’s nakedness” without looking, and that expression is used elsewhere in the Bible to mean a man’s wife. Ham’s descendants end up dark skinned, suggesting that Ham’s line has the blood of Cain, who bore a “mark” given following his murder of Abel. That “mark” of black skin could have passed to Ham through Noah’s concubine, a woman descendant of Cain, who failed to enter the ark. Nevertheless, the other two sons are blessed, while Ham’s decendants (the curse was on Caanan, Ham oldest son (named after Cain?) but this is representative of all of Ham’s seed) they are cursed to be slaves. The other two sons blessings are as follows: Shem is blessed religiously, Japeth is blessed territorially. Their union in blessing is suggested to the exclusion of Ham, who’s descendants are cursed to be the slaves of the other two sons. Shemites go east, they are the Orientals, and from them (as Noah predicted) all world religions derive (Jews, Zoroasters, Buddists, Hindus, Shintos, etc.) Their “problem” is the pride of life, a mystical and unworldlyness, sometimes even a rebellious impracticality and, in some cases, savagery. The native Hispanics and American-Indians demonstrate some of the lower tendancies of this racial group. The Japethites go North and form the European tribes. They have territorialy excelled (Again, as Noah predicted) and the “problem” is the lust of the eyes - always desirous of new things to learn, see, hear, do. Their adventurous, daring, and materialistic. They excell in this world, but lack the (as a general rule) the sensitivity and mysticism of the Oriental. They are the “eldest brother” of the races of men, and hence take to themselves responsibility for their two younger siblings. Germans and Anglo-Saxons represent the most typical Japethites, but their many tribes run the gambit in personality traits. The third race, Ham, are the dark swarthy people who went South after the Flood, and he has the sex problem, called the lust of the flesh. (The Bible categorizies all sin into these three problem areas: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life). Intermingling with Ham is the source of problems over and over again in the Biblical narative. Their race is cursed with problems, and the Patriarchs (who live in their midsts) must constantly contend with fighting against their currupting influences, and the city life (Babylon) where Ham’s “Cain” like tendencies flourish most. From this analysis no race is all saintly, they all have their negative points. But racial segregation is definately a theme in the Bible. Salvation comes through the Shemites’ chosen people, the Jews, from whence comes our Saviour Jesus Christ.

“These racial differences create major differences in lifestyle between blacks and whites that cause blacks to struggle in white societies.“

That is one of the most important ideas in this article.

“’ll give my religious perspective (take it or leave it, I couldn’t care less).“

Cool; now explain to me how that guy lived in a whale’s belly for three days.

Brilliant.

Realist: “The culture of the age that we live in is founded on a lie: racial egalitarianism. It is an article of faith in the West that all racial differences in abilities and personality stem from environmental, rather than biological, factors.”

Ulsterman: “The Bible says there are 3 races - descendants of Noah’s three sons. Ham - the Africans, Shem - the Asians, and Japeth - the Europeans.”

([my words]with markedly different character traits.)

Bud White: “Genetics plays the dominant role in IQ and personality traits; environment plays the lesser.”

I believe all three of these statements are correct and complimentary to each other.

God created the races innately distinct, both physically and behaviorally. Scientists, by the mapping of the genome, and though empirical evedence, are able to identify those differences. It is Man, through social engineering, that is trying to erase those differences. The question is: Is this experiment in racial egalitarianism a wise thing to do? So far,it is shaping up to result in the total genocide of the white race.

What say you?

While racial differences no doubt exist culture is even a bigger determinate on an individual’s or group’s trajectory. It would have been just as easy to put up a picture of some white, meth addicted, trailer trash alongside of some black entrepeneur or a Barack Obama. Human diversity and behaviour are more than just our biology. Culture is the meme that plays itself out in our existential world.

A person does not have to be very smart to get a decent job.Most work is routine and blacks as well as whites can handle the tasks.The issue of “Smartness” is a superficial one because it is the rare person who is smart.Those that fit well into society are people with social skills and the fortunate that look good.Blacks do have a problem with developing the social skills that lead into economic success but is has little to do with IQ.A positive environmental experience had by most people will reduce the racial economic and social divide to almost zero.Those that are very smart can continue making lots of money but their numbers are so few that it has no effect on the general realm of things.I think things will get better more quickly if only we downplay the “smart-dumb”issue.
Melvin

Although I agree with the contents of this article, the media and our schools overwhelmingly expose us to the achievements of Blacks, while ignoring their detriments. Hence we remain ignorant of the big picture.
When most people generally think of blacks, these one sided portrayals induce images of the likes of Oprah Winfrey,Michael Jordan, Codeleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Obama, etc…, and a host of other Black entertainers, athletes, politicians, and journalists who have become part of American culture, and are positive symbols of perserverance and achievement.
  Also, since we usually associate with people of our own class, we are far more likely to associate with blacks that are on the far right of the bell curve, who are more “like us”.
  The result is that we develop a highly skewed positive attitude towards blacks, thus instilling in us egalitarean beliefs, and positive feelings towards multiculturalism.

  Much was made by the networks of this being the first time we have two Black head coaches facing off in the Super Bowl.
This is one more example of how we have been induced to assume egalitarean beliefs.

It would be interesting to learn of research studies that correlate the relationship between successful Blacks and the percent of white genes in their genome, although I doubt such studies exist.
Such research might explain why some blacks are quite successful.
Even if an individual were 25% white, they could be fortunate enough to have most of their genes that are of white ancestry be the ones that are dominant for intelligence.

“When most people generally think of blacks, these one sided portrayals induce images of the likes of Oprah Winfrey,Michael Jordan, Codeleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Obama, etc…, and a host of other Black entertainers, athletes, politicians, and journalists who have become part of American culture, and are positive symbols of perserverance and achievement.”

Steve,

I think you make a pertinent point, but only to a point!

The blacks you list above, excluding one (Secretary of State Rice) in general fill me with nothing but disgust! The first, Oprah the Oracle is nothing but a pompous cult leader for affluent suburban white women, with a neurotic emptiness fostered by an overindulged lifestyle and lack of intellectual stimulation. Michael Jordon is an overpaid clown (like all “professional” athletes, regardless of race) with a gambling problem, that reflects this society’s total lack of priorities. Colin Powell, is a foolish Marxist who has done more than his fair share in bringing about a global “government.” And finally Comrade Obama, an empty suit who’s only real selling point is that he is black and speaks the English language devoid of “Ebonics;” were he white, his presidential aspirations would a laughingstock given his actual “accomplishments.”

Thus, your point is made in that a society devoid of Egalitarianism would never have produced such a worthless pack of “celebrities” of color!

One thing I’ve noticed regarding most successful blacks is that there ARE NOT 100% black. They have a good bit of white genes in them.

They are more light skinned, more patient, steady and family oriented.

Look at Colin Powel, C. Rice, Tony Dungee, and many others.

I’m not saying it’s a prerequisit, but it seems to help.

But if you look the majority of rappers and black atheletes, they are more likely to be 100% traditional black(NBA, NFL, boxing, track & field).

The ones who have come from mixed breeding with whites seem to do better in social and educational arenas.

“Cool; now explain to me how that guy lived in a whale’s belly for three days.”

By Truth on 1/26/07 at 12:23 pm

Truth:

Maybe you should stick to your favorite branch of metaphysics; unlocking the mystery of Colonel Sanders secret recipe.

A response to your site: http://kvetcher.jewschool.com/2007/01/some-seriously-inverted-yidden.html

My response to the Kvetcher, posted at his website:

I am the man who started The Inverted World and who has written all of its original content so far.

The data on the IQ of Ethiopian immigrants to Israel is from Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence, pp. 52-53. Lynn cites two IQ studies of this group, one of which found an IQ of 63 and the other, of 65. So, you see, I was being generous! You could have found this out from reading the footnotes to the article.

What are our goals? We want people to face reality. Who are our friends? All realists and everybody who loves the West.

To The Realist, regarding:

“What are our goals? We want people to face reality. Who are our friends? All realists and everybody who loves the West.”

That about sums it up, but don’t expect critics that compare Racial Realists to Multiculturalists to get that!

You cannot reject the genocidal anti-white, anti-Western dogmas and embrace them at the same time. That is the reality of the situation, embracing the West through its Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman roots, is the only means to reality, period. That this translates into an Anglo-American hegemony (quickly being lost in the vapid “tolerance” that is the black hole of Multiculturalism) in terms of accepting these common roots in this and the last century,and that this is totally lost to the “others” is a confirmation of what we should in total stand for.

Rejecting both Communism, Nazism, and its corollaries in the here and now, Multiculturalism and Islam as the foundations of the struggle.

Self-reliance, sanity, and regretless synthesis of the two into solutions, should be our collective principles!

If not, then God help us all!

The thing i don’t understand is this: “… Richard Lynn found that the 57 studies of the IQ of blacks in Africa conducted between 1955 and 1994 consistently showed that they had a mean IQ of around 6712. Fourteen studies between 1986 and 2002 of blacks in the Caribbean and Latin America found a mean IQ of 7113. Thirty-one studies of American blacks between 1918 and 1998 found a mean IQ of 8514. Twenty-nine studies conducted in Britain and the Netherlands between 1966 and 2002 found a black IQ of 85 there as well…”

It seems strange that Blacks would have comparable IQs at 85 in both USA and Europe, since the Blacks in USA has 20-30% White admixture, which recent immigrants from Africa to Europe would not have. The Blacks living in Europe simply cannot have the same admixture rate as US Blacks, as their arrival is a relativly new occurrence. Their score should be close to the African at 70.  

Either admixture doesn’t make a difference, and it is usually assumed that admixture is the reason US Blacks have an average IQ at 85, a full SD above the African average at 70, or there must be some specific European environmental factor adding to their score by a full SD.

Anyone?

Either admixture doesn’t make a difference, and it is usually assumed that admixture is the reason US Blacks have an average IQ at 85, a full SD above the African average at 70, or there must be some specific European environmental factor adding to their score by a full SD.

Anyone?

As I always hold, the IQ question is a 50/50 prospect; thus, one hypothetical guess is that an interaction between both the genetic admixture and environmental factors, is occurring. The environmental factors could be as basic as improved nutrition and more stimulating educational inputs, that are more common in Western countries from an earlier age and onwards.

Just a thought!

Larsen,

Richard Lynn’s explanation of relatively high black IQ in Britain is the same as John PM’s. Great minds think alike!

A 1975 study of Caribbean children in Britain showed that those who were born in the Caribbean had an IQ of 73, whereas those born in Britain scored 82 (Race Differences in Intelligence, p. 50). Lynn attributes the difference to better nutrition and health care in Britain. So environment does count for something in IQ, although the primary environmental determinants of IQ are nutrition and health care, not education, racial discrimination, or poverty, as most environmentalists believe.

“Twenty-nine studies conducted in Britain and the Netherlands between 1966 and 2002 found a black IQ of 85 there as well…”

Larsen, can you give us a source for those studies? I’m wondering if the study refers to immigrants from all of Africa which would include Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians etc., and not specifically sub-Saharan blacks? If so, that IS the explanation.

“A 1975 study of Caribbean children in Britain showed that those who were born in the Caribbean had an IQ of 73, whereas those born in Britain scored 82 (Race Differences in Intelligence, p. 50). Lynn attributes the difference to better nutrition and health care in Britain.”

Never mind Larsen, I asked the question before reading Realists post. But your question about admixture still remains a curiosity. Given the same nutrition factor, you would think American blacks would have more than a 3 point difference to that of British born Caribbean blacks. I’m assuming the Caribbean blacks born in Britain have no white admixture.

Thanks for the replies.

But like Bud said, the role of admixture is still curious, especially if you believe that we’re not talking about a 50/50 split, but the more likely 80/20 split in favor of a genetic role, that follows from the twin adoption studies correlation at + 0.85. One would assume that even with a 50/50 split US blacks would score higher than Blacks in Europe, due to their greater degree of admixture. 

Now from what i understand, Lynn believes that the admixture rate for US Blacks is very small, and that 85 is the result of a maximised environment, but he’s the only one i’ve heard of that has taken that position, everyone else seems to believe it’s around 20-30%. Of course it would all make sense if he’s right, as the mean IQ of Africans around 70 has to be the result of an entirely deprived environment, which sums up Africa well, and that would make 70 the raw genetic score. Add the potential 20% environment “bonus” that Blacks recieve in the West, and you get 70 + 14 = 84, which seems to fit both sides of the pond and the 80/20 split nicely.

But if US Black do have 1/5 to 1/3 White admixture, that falls to the ground, and then i don’t see any real explanation to the problem, unless of course Blacks in Britain has the same admixture rate as US Blacks somehow.

Its simply possible that the blacks in Europe are the cream of the African Crop.

Everything you write about is prima facie reality, easily observable in the course of living a life. It does not take reading reams of statistical studies to know, for example, that the races differ in the mean length of the penis. It’s enough to have been to a gym’s locker room—and the more locker rooms one visits, over more years, the more reality is imprinted on one’s mind. Yet, if you make a comment about this, even that is labelled as ‘racist,‘ ‘biased’ etc.
Most white people have been so brainwashed that their minds refuse to recognize what their brains perceive. Being able to refer people to an easy compilation of “scientific” studies may help in the process of removing the calcified layers that do the job of cognitive suppression.

Please always keep this column at the top of the page.

Of course there is another explainat…Naaah, never mind.

“Its simply possible that the blacks in Europe are the cream of the African Crop.” MensaRefugee

I think your right.

Let’s see here: Cream of the crop + optimum nutrition, health care and education, and it all adds up to a mean IQ score of 83!

OUCH!!! The “Truth” is not a very pleasant thing.

“Its simply possible that the blacks in Europe are the cream of the African Crop.“ By MensaRefugee

Well, i suppose that might be the case.

Re: The Reality of Racial Differences

I think you’re on the wrong track in that by judging a person according to their race you are allowing people who by dint of their color will be overlooked even though they may have something great to offer society.

I propose a different tack.  Why not test everyone’s IQ by a certain age and let the people with the higher IQs run the show?  Relegate the less intelligent to the jobs they can do like garbage man, McDonald’s dishwasher, etc.  That would prevent a situation like we have today with a person of sub-standard intelligence running this country. 

We could give everyone readily visible IDs that indicate their intellectual status so people of higher intellects would know right away who to trust and who not to trust.  Maybe armbands of different color would work.

Just take a look at the Jerry Springer Show if you have doubts that the white race contains it’s share of idiots. Would you want your son or daughter to date a Jerry Springer attendee?  We know that the IQs of people who take J.S. seriously have to be below average.  Let’s make it so we can identify these people instantly.

Also, if you look at Jane Elliot’s “A Class Divided” you can understand why people of other races that have been discriminated against fail to do well on tests, exhibit more criminal behavior and are more likely to be sexually promiscuous.

In reality what are we looking for here?  To make a better world?  Can this be done by judging people by color?  Or…should we put the emphasis more on a personal worth qualifier like IQ?  Let’s make the basis of discrimination something we can have true reason for.  How can we discriminate against a person of color solely on that basis alone with reasonable certainty as to their lack of worth?  What if we are relegating a person of very high intelligence to a life of drudgery when that person could conceivably contribute a cure for cancer?

No, I say we scientifically figure out who are the true persons of worth based on IQ.  Certainly, we must apply other tests other than IQ alone to judge a persons worth but IQ will be the first and most important.

Have a go at me now, I’m waiting.

Youre absoluely right…why would anyone have a go at you?

Except for
“Also, if you look at Jane Elliot’s “A Class Divided” you can understand why people of other races that have been discriminated against fail to do well on tests, exhibit more criminal behavior and are more likely to be sexually promiscuous.“

I havent (and wont) read that book, but try ‘The Bell Curve’,‘A question of Intelligence’, ‘The G Factor’,‘Race, Evolution and Behaviour’ or any of a dozen others before bowing low before the altar of mushy-gooey feel-good emotions.

Apologize for coming into the discussion late. I will not make the mistake of having a life again.

CJ’s view seems to be not dissimilar to Sailer’s “citizenism” or to the view conservatives took of racial issues 25 yrs ago. As we would all concede, there are blacks with IQs > 135, I’ve met several (and have felt irrational gratitude for the sheer unexpected pleasure of it). As for the crotch-grabbers—the less said the better. Let’s judge people without regard to colour based on their personal merit and simply not notice racial asymmetries.

The problem is that racial asymmetries are noticed, not least by blacks. If the directors are white and the janitors black; if the prison population is “chocolate” to use Nagin’s lovey euphenism, and the professoriate vanilla, demands for redistributive policies will be made—menacingly. The reason we can’t simply judge people as inviduals is simple: blacks and their elite constituents won’t let us.

Any system of individual merit will begin to demographically resemble apartheid, with painfully rare exceptions. This led some conservatives to espouse merit instead of white interests as such. Unfortunately, though merit may represent a demographic proxy for white interests, it is not a political substitute. We don’t defend abstractions like “merit” with the same passion that we defend our own. Sam Francis saw that paradox: effective polemics for whites equaled ineffective politics. I think we need something like the racialist vigor that a Mensa brings to the table, good manners be damned at this point.

I studied three years of graduate Social Psychology at Columbia, and came to respect data.  I also learned to critically evaluate research looking for bias of every kind. 

The writer is mostly on target.  To deny racial differences is to deny the fundamental process of evolution.  Random variation is the essence of natural selection.  So individuals, and yes sub species, which are biologically what human races are, have differences.  If we didn’t we would never have become human.

“The Bell Curve” is the gold standard for validating that racial differences exist.  But, let us acknowledge that this difference has been used in the past to inflict injustice on many races. We do not lightly make such claims without acknowledging the use that will be made of them.

I question whether the evidence on attributes other than IQ, such as sexual impulsiveness, will withstand the test of excluding environmental causation. Maybe it will, but it will take a Bellcurve-like study to prove it.

The major weakness of this article is including such speculative differences with those such as IQ, which is proven to my satisfaction. The default option should be rejection of differences, simply because of its social history.

“Either admixture doesn’t make a difference, and it is usually assumed that admixture is the reason US Blacks have an average IQ at 85, a full SD above the African average at 70, or there must be some specific European environmental factor adding to their score by a full SD.

Anyone?

By Larsen on 2/3/07 at 12:04 pm”

The Carribean and African immigrants to Europe went voluntarily, i.e., they were self-selected.  It’s not unreasonable to think that these were people with greater moxy and initiative than those that stayed at home.

While their is a hierarchy in IQ rankings based on race, if you take a white and a black with the exact same IQ and raise them both in one society that is neither considered black or white, wuold they end up the same? My gut instinct would say yes, but I wander if you could point me to tests regarding this.

“While their is a hierarchy in IQ rankings based on race, if you take a white and a black with the exact same IQ and raise them both in one society that is neither considered black or white, wuold they end up the same? My gut instinct would say yes, but I wander if you could point me to tests regarding this.“

It is well established that mental traits are partly genetically determined. Read Rushton’s work to see how Blacks and Whites differ in these traits.

Both in the US and in Britain Blacks commit more crime and are sexually more promiscous than Whites of comparable IQ score. Low IQ is not the only explanation to Black crime.

When will we whites become aware and focused enough to take the initiative to start our race on a positive trend to move toward survival and …. eventually, racial strength? Can we ever become cohisive in this regard of utmost importance?

White nationalists indulge in a form of equalitarianism that we must be on our guard against: the minimisation of subracial differences within the white race. The reality of subracial differences is just as important, from the standpoint of population quality control, as the reality of racial differences. Arabs are of the same race as Europeans, but is that sufficient cause to import millions of Arabs into European countries? Likewise, Alpinids may be of Europid stock, but they differ radically from other Europids in their personality, temperament, and physical characters.

Touche,! Yes I know these facts and I whole heartedly Agree! Many marginally White groups have gone in and out of being accepted or not accepted as white. We know very well that the Anglo Saxon ( or truer? ) version of white is drastically different than, say the Southern Italian, or the Hungarian even. When most people think of white in the USA they usually have the image of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant. The question remains among so many———- —— just exactly WHAT constitutes White?

(( The blacks you list above, excluding one (Secretary of State Rice) in general fill me with nothing but disgust! ))

Anyone who’s investigated Dr. Rice’s academic achievements (as I have) knows that they are remarkably thin. All the talk about her “great accomplishments” is just a lot of hot air.

She has a legitimate Ph.D. and published her doctoral dissertation as a book. The book was harshly panned by reviewers, notably by the main journal of the American Historical Association. She was a co-author of one other book, which means that she might have written a lot of the book or almost none of it. She has apparently written no articles for academic journals. I found no evidence that she knows Russian or any other foreign language beyond the level of “como esta usted” or “kag dyila”.

Right or wrong, “publish or perish” is the normal rule of academic advancement. Thus, Dr. Rice’s appointment to any job at Stanford is something of a mystery. Or perhaps it’s not a mystery, given her three most important qualifications: (1) black, (2) female, and (3) in the words of a character from “Animal House,” possessed of “a certain moral flexibility.”

Would you please be so kind and

(a) define the exact objective physical characteristics that define race,

(b) explain the objective basis for the choice of the particular physical characteristics you selected as indicative of race,

(c) define the exact objective physical characteristics and measurements thereof that define a black person. (For example “broad” nose would be inexact, 2 inches to 3 inches would be exact),

(d) define the exact objective physical characteristics and measurements thereof that define a white person. (For example “broad” nose would be inexact, 2 inches to 3 inches would be exact).

Thank you

Dear Realist,

Whilst I am in no way denying that racial differences exist, the way in which you present your case implies that blacks are racially inferior to whites. The wholly negative comments you make on those of African lineage shows as much. Value judgements are not scientific: we should be interested in the truth of racial differences from a purely intellectual standpoint, not as a justification for backwards, social-darwinist ideologies. Using a picture of 50 Cent is unquestionably racist, the man is an idiot. Placing a picture of Barack Obama next to a picture of George W Bush would give a completely different impression. I wonder if you would approve of an article which tells of white-European intellectual inferiority to that of East Asians, written in a derogatory tone such as your article takes? We must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past, there is no place for racism in an enlightened society. Notions of racial superiority are the preserve of the inadequate and the first step towards inhumanity.

Duncan,

I certainly respect your opinion on the matter. Issues of inferiority and superiority are indeed value judgments, but can also be backed up by statistics. Establishing superiority and inferiority shouldn’t be the priority, though; the priority should lie in preserving cultural and racial differences. As a European-American, I strive to specifically preserve my culture, race, and heritage, but I believe in addition that all races should have the chance to do the same, as long as it isn’t to the detriment of my race/culture/heritage. Oh yeah, and one more thought: notions of racial superiority in any aspect are not in and of themselves the first step towards inhumanity, but history has demonstrated what power-hungry people will do to exploit those notions.

Michael Fisher wrote:

“(a) define the exact objective physical characteristics that define race,”

We do not first apprehend the essence of the objects of study, because there are, as yet, no objects of which we have apprehended the essence. We do not “define” the objects of study - we label them. Scientists are nominalists in method, and it is completely unnecessary to “define” what a given race “essentially” is.

“The scientific use of definitions characterized by the approach ‘from the right to the left’, may be called its nominalist interpretation, as opposed to its Aristotelian or essentialist interpretation. In modern science, only nominalist definitions occur, that is to say, shorthand symbols or labels are introduced in order to cut a long story short. And we can at once see from this that definitions do not play any very important part in science. For shorthand symbols can always, of course, be replaced by the longer expressions, the defining formula for which they stand. In some cases this would make our scientific language very cumbersome; we should waste time and paper. But we should never lose the slightest piece of factual information. Our ‘scientific knowledge’, in the sense in which this term may be properly used, remains entirely unaffected if we eliminate all definitions; the only effect is upon our language, which would lose, not precision, but merely brevity.” — Karl Popper

Michael Fisher wrote:

“(b) “explain the objective basis for the choice of the particular physical characteristics you selected as indicative of race,…”

The criterion for ‘race’ or ‘subspecies’ agreed upon my taxonomists is that group ‘A’ belongs to a different subspecies from group ‘B’ if 75 percent or more of the individuals constituting group ‘A’ can be recognised as not belonging to group ‘B’. Seventy-five percent is, of course, an arbitrary figure, but the percentage is usually so high that no statistical investigation is necessary. In human races, the figure exceeds 99 percent.

Also, if a population differs statically from other populations of its species in a congeries of genetically transmitted physical characters in such a way that it is possible to name the geographic region from which any given specimen of that population was obtained, it is customary to assign a name to this population and to regard it as an intraspecific taxon.

Michael Fisher wrote:

“For example ‘broad’ nose would be inexact, 2 inches to 3 inches would be exact’”

Words such as ‘broadness’, ‘stockiness’, etc., are frequently used by biologists in describing the physical characters of non-human species and races. They are convenient for many purposes.

Jewish Racial Conservative…

“The criterion for ‘race’ or ‘subspecies’ agreed upon my taxonomists is that group ‘A’ belongs to a different subspecies from group ‘B’ if 75 percent or more of the individuals constituting group ‘A’ can be recognised as not belonging to group ‘B’. Seventy-five percent is, of course, an arbitrary figure, but the percentage is usually so high that no statistical investigation is necessary. In human races, the figure exceeds 99 percent.”

Well, I can do you one better than your 99% recognition.

One can recognize persons of height 5’8 and below by 100% from persons of height 6’ and above.

Does each group constitute a different race?

If yes, why?

If no, why not?

I guess whites are kind of like pornography in that you know one when you see one.

Definitional problems such as the one Michael Fisher may be worth exploring, but they have no relevance to the points I make in this article. People may disagree on whether an aquamarine color is blue or green; this fact does not, however, mean that the colors blue and green do not exist.

Michael Fisher wrote:

“One can recognize persons of height 5’8 and below by 100% from persons of height 6’ and above.”

Subdividing humans into taxa on the basis of a single trait, such a height or skin colour, would be nonsensical, for such a scheme would have very little predictive validity. The concept of biological race has high predictive and construct validity.

Jewish Radical Conservative…

“Subdividing humans into taxa on the basis of a single trait, such a height or skin colour, would be nonsensical, for such a scheme would have very little predictive validity. The concept of biological race has high predictive and construct validity.”

You want I add more traits? No problem. Lemme see.

How about adult height of 5’7” and below, plus right hand middle finger length of between 2.5 inches and 3 inches, plus eye iris color of a particular chromatic value.

If you need more physical traits added, let me know. I can come up with as many as you want.

Ian Jobling…

“I guess whites are kind of like pornography in that you know one when you see one.”

If that is your criterion, then white is legitimately open to individual interpretation, is it not?

If white is is legitimately open to individual interpretation individual interpretation, there are myriad legitimate definitions of white.

How then, can you make a generalized statement about your whites which is any more legitimate than a generalized statement about </i>my</i> whites, or the that of the next person’s whites?

Which brings me to the following. There are plenty of whites who argue that a Jew (whatever that is) is not white. Then again there are plenty of whites who say that a Jew is indeed white.

Who is right and why?

And the following question goes to the Jewish Racial Conservative:

If there are such persons as racially black Jews as well as racially white Jews what is a Jewish Racial Conservative?

The problem with your definitions of whites is that no one would agree with them. The proper meanings of words are agreed upon by the public at large. Thus, in a lineup, most Americans would agree about which was the white man, which the Hispanic, and which the black man. The fact that there would sometimes be disagreements in ambiguous cases does not invalidate racial categories that work almost all of the time.

The best definition of the white race would, I suppose, be all of the population groups that existed in non-trivial numbers in Europe one thousand years ago. The Turkish Ottomans would not be comprised in this definition, as they did not come into Europe until the Middle Ages.

Although Jews are genetically more similar to Arabs than to whites, I consider them honorary whites since they have assimilated so well into Western culture and contributed so much to it.

Ian Jobling…

“The problem with your definitions of whites is that no one would agree with them. The proper meanings of words are agreed upon by the public at large.”

Sir, rigorous scientific inquiry is not conducted by means of social convention. The public at large at one time agreed that the earth is flat and that whales are fish.

In your article you have made specific claims which you ascribed to an innate biological condition of distinct human races.

You refer to a “science of behavior genetics”, and thus indicate that you are moving on scientifically fortified ground.

If that be so, then you must be able to define the subjects of your study scientifically without the fickle input of the public at large. Moreover, I am sure that you would agree that what is considered “white” or “black” in different regions of the United States may not be so considered in Europe or Brazil.

Empirical studies of classes of subjects that can not be defined in objective biological terms and that measure traits such as intelligence and temperament thus measure non-biological, that is socio-politically agreed upon (as you indicate the American public agrees upon what certain racial persons are to look like)classes of subjects.

These empirical studies may be correct in describing the behavior, temperament, and intelligence of the classes of subjects studied. However, this, in the context of your initial premise, that is the innate biologic attributes of these classes of subjects, is besides the point.

You have not, Mr. Jobling, at any time proven the existence of biological races, but only been able to refer to the perception of race. Thus your quite correct statement “whites are kind of like pornography in that you know one when you see one”. However, for the purposes of rigorous scientific inquiry that’s not good enough.

Michael Fisher wrote:

“How about adult height of 5’7” and below, plus right hand middle finger length of between 2.5 inches and 3 inches, plus eye iris color of a particular chromatic value.”

It would be customary to assign a name to such a group and to regard it as a zoological taxon subordinate to ‘species’ only if (a) the population shared a common ancestry and evolved through partial genetic isolation from the nominate form (so that a Irishman with a stature of 5’7” would share more ancestors with similarly statured East Asians or Negrid Africans than his higher statured Irish compatriots), and (b) such a category had any predictive validity beyond the initial classification. The morphological features by which a subspecies can be recognised are not arbitrary because they are based on common ancestry.

(Formerly Jewish Racial Conservative)

Michael Fisher:

<i>”(d) define the exact objective physical characteristics and measurements thereof that define a white person.”<i>

The physical characteristics of the Caucasoid race are well dcoumented. The cranial capacity is large (1,367 cc) and the shape is ovoid. The temporal lines are widely separated from the median sagittal plane. The mastoid apophyses are large. The plane of the occipital foramen magnum meets the face at the middle of the apertura pyriformis. The skull is orthognathous. The apertura pyriformis is leptorrhine or mesorrhine. The centra of the lumbar vertebrae are shaped such that they accentuate the forward convexity of this region. The distance from the anterior to the posterior spine of the ilium, expressed as a percentage of the total length of the innominate bone, gives a low figure. The combined length of the humerus and radius gives a high figure.

The brain is large, the gyri of the cerebral hemispheres very tortuous. The visual area striata at the occipital pole of each hemisphere does not push around from the medially facing to the external surface in such a way as to produce thereon an operculate sulcus lunatus.

There is no cartilage in the plica semilinaris of the eye. The inner corner of the eye is not rounded off by a Mongolid fold or plica naso-palpebralis superior. The nose is strongly projecting, its right and left sides forming an acute angle with one another. The nostrils are elongated in the antero-posterior direction. The length of the scalp-hair, when left uncut, does not exceed 40 cm in the male and averaging 70 cm in the female. The skin of young children is pale.

Secondary characteristics: Thirty percent of Caucasoids are unable to taste phenyl-thio-urea (the number of non-tasters is very high compared to other races). The percentage of persons with haptoglobins in their blood plasma is 50 percent (compared to 3 percent or less in other races). The percentage of persons belonging to blood group ‘A’ is high compared to other races (48 percent).

Michael Fisher,

I just posted a blog entry relating to your point. I discuss evidence from population genetics on the validity of commonsensical racial categories.

Jewish Race Realist…

“It would be customary to assign a name to such a group and to regard it as a zoological taxon subordinate to ‘species’ only if…”

While your requirements are quite arbitrary, let’s work with them nonetheless.

To wit:

All physical characteristics absent environmental factors such as physical mutilation or the availability of certain food supplies etc., by definition, are genetic. And all genes are passed on along a line of successive generations. Thus it stands to reason, that particular physical characteristics such as X height that show up in different geographic regions are to be traced to a particular individual that is ancestral to each of the individuals who, while geographically separated, are of the same height X. Which satisfies your initial requirement “(a) the population shared a common ancestry…”.

What you label a “nominate form” is another expression for one or more individuals who are possess the same physical characteristic or other. Which satisfies your second requirement “(b) such a category had any predictive validity beyond the initial classification.”

All persons possessing one or more physical characteristics such as X height (unless X height itself is the nominate form, that is the individual or group of individuals possessing X height) are, by definition, derivations of a nominate form, in this case an individual of group of individuals of height Y. In addition all genetic evolution occurs through total genetic isolation from the nominate individual. In other words, individuals are always geographically separated, whether by inches or by thousands of miles. Thus the second part of your requirement “evolved through partial genetic isolation from the nominate form” is satisfied.

One can predict with relative certainty that if two people who both possess a certain height X mate, their offspring will be of certain height X (unless the original normative Y gene “punches” through).

Since the choice of height X was absolutely arbitrary on my part, your conclusion “The morphological features by which a subspecies can be recognised are not arbitrary because they are based on common ancestry” [emphasis added], does not hold.

Once again. No one is denying that there exist physical differences between human individuals or even genetic similarities among human individuals. The question here is what are the choice of (1) the biological markers which one selects to determine race, and (2) of the exact definition of each biological marker so selected, and(3) what is the scientific rationale for selecting (1) and (2).

Lastly my question to you:

If there are such persons as racially black Jews as well as racially white Jews what is a Jewish Race Realist?

Daedalus…

“The physical characteristics of the Caucasoid race are well dcoumented. The cranial capacity is large (1,367 cc) and the shape is ovoid…”

Thank you for a concretely quantified measurement. If a physical characteristic of the Caucasoid race is a cranial capacity of 1,367 cc then a person with a cranial capacity of 1,366 cc is, by your definition, not a member of the Caucasoid race.

Further, your usage of terms such as “low figure”, “high figure”, “very tortuous”, etc., are non-descriptive without a context of standard measurement (such as you did when you gave us the figure of 1,367 cc), and thus completely useless in scientific terms.

Michael Fisher,

Your objections are ridiculous because you’re expecting people to give you a definition of the white race that is inappropriate. You want a definition in terms of physical measurements. However, a race is not ultimately a physical entity, but rather a genetic one. A race is a community with a shared descent and with shared genes that distinguish it from other races. How exactly these genes will be expressed in physical characteristics cannot be precisely defined, as genes express themselves differently in different circumstances. As I pointed out in my recent blog post, linked to in my previous comment, geneticists have found that the races are genetically distinct, and that is good enough for me, and presumably, for the rest of the people who read this site. If you want more details about the state of research in population genetics, you should consult this work yourself and stop plaguing us, since we have already given you an adequate answer.

Ian Jobling…

“I just posted a…”

I read your blog entry and the associated articles. Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Jobling. No one, particularly I, denies that there are myriads of different physical and therefor genetic markers which distinguish human individuals.

The crucial question is which of these physical characteristics are to be selected as markers for “race” on a value-free, non-arbitrary basis.

Accepting for argument’s sake that the study that you cited is accurate, (though it really measures nothing but the populations which were not randomly selected and geographically quite constricted), the question still remains whether it is not just as valid to choose four groups which self-selected according to, to stay with my previous comments, the physical characteristic of height. Thus we’d have a group which self-designated itself as round-shape headed group, egg-shaped headed group.

As to the geographic origins of each of these groups.

The designations “Africa”, “Europe”, “Asia”, etc. are completely arbitrary designations for completely arbitrary regions on the planet Earth.

Why designate Asia and Africa two different continents, for example? Clearly they are both part of a single land mass. Now I easily can construct one or more geographic regions which I could designate round-shape headed geographic region (continent), egg-shaped headed geographic region each of which would feature a predominant population of people of round and egg head shape. The geographic configurations may appear strange at first glance since they would likely twist and turn in unusual shapes, but they would have no less validity than the shapes currently labeled Africa, Europe, Asia, etc. In other words these geographic designations, both the conventional ones and mine are nothing but a form of gerrymandering.

I can thus satisfy any (again arbitrarily set) criteria which demands that a particular or a particular set of physical characteristics be selected in conjunction with geographic region or “origin”, and then designate the same as a “race”. If I then run these two (or four if I want to add more variations of head shape or height or whatever) races through the same process as described in the studies you linked, I would, logically, get similar results.

In other words, I can construct as many races as your and my heart desire from the myriads of physical markers and none of these races will be any less legitimately a race than any other. The key, however, is that it is I, or in this case you, or even the so classified individuals themselves chose a particular combination of psychical characteristics to designate as race. That choice is a value-laden choice and not one based on objective scientific, valueless criteria.

Thus I could then, for example pose the question: Do we have here two races of round-head shaped individuals and egg-head shaped individuals who each feature race members who are white and black in color or do we have two races of black individuals and white individuals who each respectively feature race members whose heads are round shaped and egg shaped?

Clearly then, “race” is whatever one desires to make it.

Michael Fisher,

The work by Neil Risch that I cited in my blog entry demonstrates that commonsensical racial categories distinguish genetic populations very well. Sorting people into a commonsensical racial categories like black or white is likely to yield groups that have distinctive genes in common. It is doubtful that your round and egg-headed categorization would better capture underlying population differences in genes. Therefore, it is wrong for you to suggest that all systems of categorization are equally valid. It is not surprising that commonsensical racial classifications should mark genetic populations, as people of the same race share a common descent and should thus be expected to share distinctive genes.

Michael Fisher’s Socratic dialectic has been most illuminative. May I join in?

Mr. Jobling, you wrote: “I consider [Jews] honorary whites since they have assimilated so well into Western culture and contributed so much to it.”

Because East Asians have also assimilated so well into Western culture by such measurements as blacks are deemed not to have assimilated — e.g., high IQ, low rates of crime, strong family structure, strong work ethic — do you consider Chinese Americans to be “honorary whites”?

If not, why not?

Also… do you consider Ethiopian Jews to be honorary whites? Do you consider Moroccan Jews to be honorary whites? Do you consider Syrian Jews to be honorary whites? Do you consider Kurdish Jews to be honorary whites?

Mr. Jobling, if you will indulge one other line of questioning…

You wrote above: “[A] race is not ultimately a physical entity, but rather a genetic one. A race is a community with a shared descent and with shared genes that distinguish it from other races.”

Is the offspring of one African parent and one European parent — sometimes referred to as a mulatto — “white”?

Is the offspring of one mulatto parent and one European parent — which used to be referred to as a quadroon — “white”?

Is the offspring of one quadroon parent and one European parent — which used to be referred to as an octoroon — “white”?

In the last case, the person would possess 7/8 of the “shared genes” of a white person. Is that enough to qualify as “white” under the “commonsensical” criterion?

‘Undercover Blaqck Man wrote’-

‘Is that enough to qualify as “white” under the “commonsensical” criterion?’

What IS most certainly commonsensical, is for every white who is obviously white, to make sure all of their offspring are made with those who are obviously white.

Why are people who subscribe to this notion and rule for life, (and maybe even try to convince others of the value of it), constantly harrased? One thing that is used to torment and harrass us by the politically correct crowd is the fact that there are not any overreaching commonly accepted lines of what is White. This gray area is used to try to throw the whole idea of white survival out the window and bring forth the mixing away of whites until there is no such thing as a white race! So far, they seem to be winning but without any real logical merit.

Michael “I am not a member of a biological black race” Fisher,

So you are a “black” man only in the socially-constructed sense because no scientifically-approved empirical evidence exists that distinguishes a “black” man from any other man in the biological arena?

This is your take?

First, let’s bypass the idea that your skin color is a biological fact and get to your main assertion that you are a socially-constructed “black” man living in a global white supremacy system.

How do we know that you aren’t the very one who has socially-constructed both your “blackness” and the “system” that holds you down? I certainly haven’t constructed either and yet you claim as much. Where is your empirical evidence that is then put to the rigorous tests of the scientific method?

For instance, does your theory predict massive “white” to “black” subsidies and a media blackout concerning black on white crime? Does your theory predict a high correlation between “black” rights advocates/politicians and a pro-death advocacy of future socially-constructed “black” babies?

“What IS most certainly commonsensical, is for every white who is obviously white, to make sure all of their offspring are made with those who are obviously white.”

Let’s talk about the malignancy of this statement. I think it sums up so much of what is wrong with most racialists: they purport to be scientifically objective, but irrational ill-intent lurks just beneath the surface.

The logical flaw should be obvious. Even if you believe some ethnicities excel above others intellectually in general, you can’t dismiss an entire population out-of-hand as unsuitable for love. Some will be geniuses, some won’t; some will be your intellectual and emotional ppers, and some won’t.

To suggest that men or women seeking mates should completely exclude other races from their marital prospects is irrational.

“What IS most certainly commonsensical, is for every white who is obviously white, to make sure all of their offspring are made with those who are obviously white.”

A call to primitive tribalism disguised as rationalism, as are so many of the posts here. Uncovering the simmering tribalism makes for troubling reading.

Josh “Thordaddy” Farst…

“your skin color is a biological fact…””

So is my height and my foot size.

Mr. Farst, one of the reasons I came to this site is that I’ve been looking to engage sophisticated and intelligent white supremacists or white nationalists from whom, via a challenging discourse, I can learn a thing or two.

It is my assessment that, given the cited prerequisites, there unfortunately is nothing to learn from an engagement with you. I hope that you will thus understand that I am not prepared to engage in any further discussions with you, Mr. Farst.

Thank you

Michael Fisher wrote:

“The designations ‘Africa’, ‘Europe’, ‘Asia’, etc. are completely arbitrary designations for completely arbitrary regions on the planet Earth. Why designate Asia and Africa two different continents, for example? Clearly they are both part of a single land mass… . In other words these geographic designations, both the conventional ones and mine are nothing but a form of gerrymandering.”

This argument is without merit. Plants of the subspecies (race) japonica are not restricted to Japan and actually originate in China; the fossile Homo rhodesiensis is so called even though the nation of Rhodesia has been changed to Zimbabwe. Because Rhodesia is an arbitrary region of the earth, and Japonica is an arbitrary designation for a subsecies of rice whose habitat extends beyond Japan, both of these categories, following your logic, are taxonomically invalid. Taxonomy is crackpot science.

The ‘European’ genetic cluster you are referring to is not restricted to Europe, but extends to North Africa, Western Asia, and India. The ‘Asian’ genetic cluster is not restricted to Asia, but extends to the Arctic regions of Alaska, Greenland, and Canada. ‘Asian’, ‘African’, ‘European’, etc., are only convenient labels, like Oryza sativa var. japonica or Homo rhodesiensis; they are not to be confused with the real thing.

Undercover Black Man wrote:

“Because East Asians have also assimilated so well into Western culture by such measurements as blacks are deemed not to have assimilated…”

One can adopt the culture of another race, but one’s genetic configuration is not subject to one’s control. The success or failure of East Asians to assimilate into Western culture has no bearing on their taxonomic classification.

You have suggested that because ethnic taxa have changed over time, such categories merely depend on social context. It is doubtful that this argument can be applied with greater force to human racial categories than to other taxa. There has been much disagreement, for instance, over the precise classificaiton of subspecies of the crested newt. Taxonomic categories are frequently readjusted as new information becomes available. This is the normal state of affairs in taxonomy.

Undercover Black Man wrote:

“Also… do you consider Ethiopian Jews to be honorary whites? Do you consider Moroccan Jews to be honorary whites? Do you consider Syrian Jews to be honorary whites? Do you consider Kurdish Jews to be honorary whites?”

All Caucasoids are white, as a matter of definition. Not all Caucasoids are assimilable into Western culture. Jews of Ashkenazi and Sephardic origin are whites capable of assimilating into Western culture; Arabs and East Indians, though white, are generally incapable of so doing.

Jewish Race Realist…

<i>”All Caucasoids are white, as a matter of definition. Not all Caucasoids are assimilable into Western culture. Jews of Ashkenazi and Sephardic origin are whites capable of assimilating into Western culture; Arabs and East Indians, though white, are generally incapable of so doing.”<i>

It is my understanding that significant sectors of white persons do not consider any Jews white at all. Mr. Jobling earlier in this tread gave Jews “honorary” (and thus not genuine) white status.

You, on the other hand, declare that certain Jews are indeed white.

Clearly both views can not be correct.

Who (which person or person(s)) is the final arbiter of truth in this matter?

Michael Fisher wrote:

“If there are such persons as racially black Jews as well as racially white Jews what is a Jewish Racial Conservative?”

A Jewish Race Realist is an ethnic Jew who believes that race in the biological sense is a significant factor in human affairs and should inform public policy. I am not Jewish by faith.

The Falasha of Ethiopia are of obscure origin. They belong to the Aethiopid subrace, a group predominantly Europid but with some indications of Negrid ancestry. The Falasha are genetically unrelated to the Jews of Europe and the Middle East. The Judeos of the Congo were a special caste of Negrids who were called ‘Jews’ by the Portuguese. Their origin is a mystery, but they did not practice the Jewish religion and they were not Jewish in the ethnic sense of the term. Like the Falasha, there is no indication that they descend from the ancient Hebrews.

The Falasha, the Judeos, the Cochin Jews, the Bene-Israel, and the Tsung of China are all racially or subracially different from the Jews of Europe and the Middle East. Their descent from the ancient Hebrews has been open to serious question. In any event, they constitute less than 1 percent of the population to whom the name of ‘Jew’ has been applied.

Not all Caucasoids are assimilable into Western culture. Jews of Ashkenazi and Sephardic origin are whites capable of assimilating into Western culture; Arabs and East Indians, though white, are generally incapable of so doing.

The same used to be said of Slavs. At least one American lawmaker in the early 20th century included Slavs on the verboten side of his proposed anti-miscegenation legislation.

Would you happen to know, Jewish Race Realist, what it is about the genetic nature of Arabs and East Indians that renders them incapable of assimilating into Western culture?

Conversely, what is it about the genetic nature of Ashkenazi Jews that renders them capable of assimilating into Western culture?

Judging by this comment thread, the notions of “race” and “culture” which constitute the castle keep of white racialism seem like a house of cards built on a foundation of meringue.

I mean… dude, you just declared that some white populations aren’t white enough to fit into a white society!

Yet you still think you’re talking about “taxa” and not a social construct (like pornography — Dr. Jobling having offered up an ideal metaphor for race science)?

interesting wrote:

“Let’s talk about the malignancy of this statement.”

How is the desire to preserve one’s own kind inherently malignant?

interesting wrote:

“Even if you believe some ethnicities excel above others intellectually in general, you can’t dismiss an entire population out-of-hand as unsuitable for love.”

Parenthood is not only an individual but also a public service; one does good to society by treating children well, and does bad to society by treating them ill. Parenthood is therefore a public service; its fruits are in the public domain. Child abuse should be prevented, not simply because it is injurious to children, although that is sufficient cause for its prohibition, but because it hurts the community by filling it with crippled individuals. Just as individuals can be crippled by poor upbringing, so they can be disadvantaged by poor heredity. My argument, therefore, applies with at least equal force to the rearing of children, as to their birth. Fill the community with persons disadvantaged by heredity, and you injure the community. Miscegenation with genetically disadvantaged races should therefore be avoided; the offspring will be of intermediate quality between the advantaged and the disadvantaged race (on the average).

interesting wrote:

“To suggest that men or women seeking mates should completely exclude other races from their marital prospects is irrational.”

What you propose has been tried in many nations. Brazil and many other Third World countries spring to mind. Thomas Jefferson was horrified at the thought of the U.S. becoming like the West Indies.

UBM,

“A house of cards built on a foundation of meringue?”

Hogwash! You and Michael Fisher fall prey to elementary fallacies and confusions that you are bright enough to see through. I’ll list some of them.

1. Fallacy 1: Because a category has fuzzy boundaries, it is meaningless. Obviously fallacious: almost all the time people will agree on what counts as blue, and it is a crucial category for understanding the world. But where blue merges into green, people will sometimes disagree whether the color is more blue or more green. The same objection applies to UBM’s mulattoes and octaroons and so forth. The problem of definition you raise is real, but trivial, as the category “white” is unproblematic almost all of the time. It would be inappropriate for me to deal with trivial matters right now, since so few understand even the important ones.

2. Fallacy 2: The definitional ambiguities surrounding the term “white” in this discussion point to a problem with the science of race. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m not trying to do science here, but develop a social and political movement. The type of categories necessary for the latter are basically different from those used in science. Our pro-white social movement is located at the intersection between science and practical reality. In engaging with reality, social thinkers must sacrifice some of the exactness of science. That leads to…

3. Fallacy 3: Including Jews as honorary whites means my racial taxonomy is arbitrary and subjective. Despite the fact that Jews are genetically more like Arabs than Englishmen, they are still a Caucasoid people who have been part of European culture for millenia, and I don’t regard them as a serious threat to white culture. Thus I include them in the category “white” in order to facilitate the formation of a social movement. Essentially, I want to minimize useless arguments—fat lot of good that does me!

Of course, this exception would be illegitimate for a scientist, but I am not a scientist. I’m a social thinker who draws on science, as explained above.

Including Jews as honorary whites is far less of a stretch than including Asians would be, as the latter are relative newcomers to the West who are not Caucasoid and whose loyalty to and compatibility with the West have not, in my view, been adequately tested.

Michael “I am not a member of a biological black race” Fisher,

You are a mere man (and not even a black man) asking me to believe in your fantastical theory with no substantiation. Substantiation, by the way, that you require.

Science has not discovered the black gene, therefore, you are not a black man and yet you play one on the Internet.

Why should I believe this man spouting off about scientifically-invalidated notions of race while silmutaneously spewing socially-contructed nonsense about racism?

“A 1975 study of Caribbean children in Britain showed that those who were born in the Caribbean had an IQ of 73, whereas those born in Britain scored 82 (Race Differences in Intelligence, p. 50). Lynn attributes the difference to better nutrition and health care in Britain. So environment does count for something in IQ, although the primary environmental determinants of IQ are nutrition and health care, not education, racial discrimination, or poverty, as most environmentalists believe.” By The Realist on 2/4/07 at 2:33 pm

So how does the fact that blacks in African nations that have well-fed populations still score only in the low to mid-seventies on I.Q. tests? The diference in diet between well-fed African countries and Britain or the US is not significant. South African blacks, not a part of the outer areas of poverty, probably enjoyed the best nutrition of any black Africans, yet their scores are not much better than the African average.

Does anybody dare entertain the thought that it is entirely possible that black I.Q. scores determined by white Europeans and Americans, the same groups who falsify so much information for the sake of political correctness, have been adjusted to favor blacks over the years? I mean, do you think, for example, that Flynn or one of his collaborators, or someone in his camp, is really going to issue an honest report on test results?

And knowing the multicult dishonesty in Briton, does anybody not believe that they are apt to show more favorable scores to African Carribeans than they own home-grown variety?

Yes, Rushton, Lynn and a couple others refer to American black I.Q. in the 80’s, but how much are they taking for granted, and how much do they go along to get along?

Feeding someone better is definitely going to make the individual a better person in every way, but significant I.Q. improvement comes from genes, not the mouth, and what is put into it.

For those of you who might agree and say so, first keep in mind what happened to Dr. watson when he told the truth.

Even skeptics don’t like to rock the boat too much. There’s something more to this matter than what has been reported so far.

Dr. Jobling: Thanks for your willingness to defend your scientific and sociopolitical assumptions against a polite challenge.

You wrote: “The problem of definition you raise is real, but trivial, as the category ‘white’ is unproblematic almost all of the time.”

This is untrue. And the very existence of this blog illustrates why.

The category “white” is profoundly problematic, especially among white nationalists, because most white nationalists believe tenaciously that Jews have no place in white society… that Jews are, indeed, poisonous to white society and should be expunged.

Your philosemitic brand of white racialism marginalizes you even within the fringe-dwelling community of white racialists. The question couldn’t be less trivial, given your stated political purpose.

A sociopolitical movement built upon the idea of whiteness must inevitably define whiteness more concretely than “I know it when I see it.”

Who’s in, who’s out? The Lebanese? The Turks? The Slavs? You likely won’t find many Britons who consider Pakistanis to be “white,” regardless of their Caucasoid taxonomy.

Now, may I try to unpack your thought regarding Asians and their place in white societies? Particularly that their “loyalty to and compatibility with the West have not… been adequately tested.”

In 1991, Asians made up 18 percent of the undergraduates at Stanford Univesity and 29 percent of UC Berkeley’s undergraduates.

In 2006, 42 percent of the freshman class at Berkeley was classified as Asian.

Meanwhile, Asians make up only 3.4 percent of the prison population in California.

These numbers are in accord with a general perception that Asians contribute much to the United States in terms of intelligence, hard-workingness and law-abidingness.

What, then, calls into question their “compatibility”?

And by what means can their “loyalty” be tested?

If Asians were to meet the “compatibility” and “loyalty” thresholds, but you still viewed them as undesirable in a white society… then what is it about the genetic nature of Asians that renders them undesirable?

UBM,

I’ve already answered most of your objections, and in many different ways, in my comments above. I’ve already offered at least two definitions of whites that are more substantive than the “you know them when you see them” one. I’ve already answered why Asians aren’t white. For more on differences between Asians and whites, see here. I’m not going to repeat myself.

I don’t care if my inclusion of Jews in the white race is problematic for anti-Semites—I’m not writing for them. In fact, my definition of the white race is exactly the same as that of the American majority, who also think of Jews as white, and that’s who I’m writing for.

Mr. Jobling, my arguments had little or nothing to do with what you outlined in fallacy #1. Maybe Mr. Mills’ (UBM) arguments do, however, I am loath to speak for him.

As to your fallacy #2 and #3 I am in complete agreement with your assessment of what you are actually doing and trying to accomplish. Here you are honest enough to admit that this is not really a matter of science, but, on balance, purely a matter of socio-political power which you seek to obtain and/or perpetuate for a group of persons as you see fit to define them. The logic of said notion is quite acceptable and clarifies things.

I shall not try to persuade you of the utter immorality of what you are advocating. I do wish, however, that your honesty would extend to the point to which you would admit that you seek power for that group purely for the sake of power for that group and not based on the perceived inadequacies of groups of persons whom you do not include within that “in-group” of yours.

Childish abuse from someone who has lost the argument. I hope you’ll direct the same ire at the other racial advocacy groups in America, including the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza. Try telling them that sticking up for their people is immoral and see what they say. Only whites are expected to transcend race.

Michael “I am not a member of a biological black race” Fisher,

You continue to insist that only a scientifically-validated theory of “race” gives such thing existence. And because no such theory of “race” is scientifically-validated according to you then “race” does NOT exist.

Yet, this is NOT the same standard you apply to your theory of Global System of White Supremacy.

You continue to insist that such a “system” is the creation of “white man” to which your very first line of thought denies even exists.

Does “white man” have an actual physical representation or a first name? How did “white man” create this “system?” What year did “white man” create this “system” and in what town or country? Is “white man” still alive to see his GSWS in action?

Where is “white man,” Michael?

“…… one of the reasons I came to this site is that I’ve been looking to engage sophisticated and intelligent white supremacists or white nationalists from whom, via a challenging discourse, I can learn a thing or two.” By Michael Fisher on 7/5/08 at 4:21 am

With all due respect, Mr. Fisher, you seem to be intent mostly on nitpicking items of no real consequence, and you certainly haven’t offered any intelligent concepts or rebuttals.

If I were Mr. Jobling, I wouldn’t have given you the benefit of my time and efforts after your first couple of posts when it was evident you had absolutely nothing useful to contribute.

Thank you so much!! I knew it was a Lie, I just knew it!

It’s really important to know genes are the major factor influencing our abilities and behavior and I am so thankful some one is getting the word out.

I wonder how big a factor? 70% 80% I bet it’s over 90%

This sure puts the boots to those nutty ideas like applying one self in life is important.

Thank God I saved myself from that big lie as well.

Hey, it was in my genes and I never had a chance against those naturally smart, white guys.

We humans have amazing powers of discrimination and when we are properly trained we can detect and detail huge differences in what would otherwise be considered to be the smallest of things.

Go tell a world class wine taster that one dry red pretty well tastes the same as an other. He can detect thousands while I can detect, maybe 2.

A girl from the Congo can have a wonderfully healthy child with a guy from Finland.

That is enough for me,

We would be laughed out of the room if we could find a truly alien observer to ask about our big, important race debate.

Our training must start early because pretty well every one seems to be world class at detecting Racial differences. While we are debating the issue, multi racial children are being born in the millions (I’m talking millions) and we now hear from scientists that the “so called” races share 99.999% of the same genes. That makes us 99.999% the same.

“Race” like height or weight is useful to identify some one, but that is about it.

Nothing positive is being achieved by this “Big Lie” blather?

This article is so incredibly biased and flawed that I cringed when reading it. It merely demonstrates your own ethno-centric outlook, and has rather weak foundations. The evidence cited is either inadequately explained or really old.

You disagreed earlier with an assessment that economic, social and social factors should be considered when looking at race (which in itself is simply a social construct). And yet you readily accept the results of a Walter Mischel’s 1961 social experiment? The experiment took place almost fifty years ago, in a time very different from our own.

The conclusions Mischel drew were so typical and narrow-minded. I suppose that he would be so blind to his own position of White privilege that he would not consider that perhaps Black children did not trust an old white man to fulfil his promise of giving them candy in a week. I’m thirteen years old and Black. I have gone hungry for long periods of time. If some psychologist offered to give me either a small candy bar now or a large one at the end of the week, I know that I would take the former. There are many events that throughout the course of the week that could prevent being able to receive anything at the week’s end. Yet rather than looking into various economic and social reasons for the experiments outcome, Mischel and yourself blame an “inability to defer gratification” on the part of Black people. How precisely does this, an old experiment involving young Black children, link to the prevalence of Black people in prison? The argument itself is weak and flawed. Rather than rationally looking at all evidence, you’ve just stated your opinion and used evidence when it suits you. That is just plain ignorance.

I’m saddened by this misguided propaganda that is under the guise of a serious article. I could easily rebutt many of the points made in this article, but I fear I would be wasting time. It looks as though you’ve been brainwashed and are unwilling to listen to fact or reason.

In contrary to the last person,I disagree that the article is biased in any way. I believe that this article may be one of the only well thought out,and statisticly based postings,on this non-”politicaly correct” subject. As a realist,I have the ability to bring myself to realize that there are distict differences,over a wide range,between different races of mankind. The facts that you can not dispute,are the ones you see with your own eyes. Physical characteristics,and behavioral traits,are the two most prevalent. They are the primaries in this subject,because a person of sound mind can not be in denial of these visual facts. Popular secondaries are: 1.)the famous I.Q. test results mentioned 2.)sexual preferance based on study 3.)reaction to environment These are secondary,because even though they may be factual,they are still subject to dispute,by the most extreme of people. The biggest problem,is people look at this politicaly. Realists,like myself,do not. We look at it in a natural sense. It is natural for there to be distict differences,among very diffent peoples and animals of a certain genus. Black Africans,and white Europeans,naturaly,should not be the same.If nature intended us to all be equal,in every way,across the board,then nature would have provided all of us with the means to be. The cold hard truth,is we are very different peoples,with very different brains,and very different body chemistries,but we are all of the same species,and we should not hold up one,above any other. The fact that Africans are superior in natural strength potential,and whites and asians are superior in mental potential,(whites in industrialization,asians in mathematics)is not racist,its just true. The different races that we are,have evolved that way over time. The evolution is both genetic,and environmental. That is the non-biased realist truth.

Though I find it probable that there are inherent genetic differences between races, this article was not convincing in the least; overstepping the boundary between reporting objective facts and twisting a few pieces of information to suit the authors purposes.

Most of the statistics in the article are largely dismissable. Crime rates, test scores, general behavior, can effectively dismissed with the concept of socio-economic disadvantages.

However, the study that showed mean IQ of adopted blacks is lower than whites, in upper class white households is very interesting and assertive. The only caveat is that the black children had parents of a different race; however, I don’t see that as being sufficient to dismiss the statistic. Anyone attempting to deny biological differences in race has to answer difficult questions like this one.

The power of this lie, that the races are all the same and that social factors account for all of the differences, is amazing. The two posters Quinn and joe are fine examples.

If you’re old enough to remember the “killer bee”(*) phenomena of the seventies, please explain to me what social factors accounts for the different behavior of the African bees? These are genetically very close to European bees, easily interbreed with them, and have very different behavior. Not a different species, but a “subspecies”. Gee, we could even call it a different race of bee!

Consider dogs. Almost all dogs can interbreed with each other (and wolves, and coyotes!) and yet we have no problem in saying that, on average, border collies are smarter than bulldogs, and that pit bulls are more aggressive than Irish setters. Why is it so damned hard to accept the evidence of our eyes that human races are, similarly, different from each other.

Social reasons only? Go to countries that are almost entirely (West African) Black run, like Haiti and Jamaica. How many math, physics, or and engineering geniuses are produced from them? From Blacks in the USA, or the UK? Africa? I know there are some, but the number is tiny, and they are not at the level of other races. One thing almost all the Black run countries have is high crime and low overall achievement level. And I bet that will never change, unless Blacks decide to do selective breeding to change their characteristics, which is highly unlikely.

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africanized_bee

I was reading along and thinking maybe this person has a point here. Until you wrote all that hog wash about middle eastern people being violent. Palestanians were among the smartest educated people during the 50’s when there were no big wars. Thousands upon thousands of Iranians have imigrated to the us and contributed to Science and Economics and universities all over the US and Europe. This is not myth, this is reality. The incredible poets and mathmaticians and philosophers that Iran produced is not myth its reality. After reading all that junk I came to realize that you are nothing but a whining white racist. See in Iranians eyes, The Europeans and Most of all American whites are among the most ignorants people of the world. American whites are mostly white trash with no culture at all. They kick their kids out at 18 and the kids turn themselves into wiggers. Bravo American whites it seems like you are the real idiots amongst all the races. As for me myself. I did not care for the SAT and remember not doing any homework and not paying any attention to anythig in my precalculus class in High School. Yet when the teacher notifed my Dad and said his only hope to get a D to pass is to ace the midterm. I took 3 days reading the material and understanding it myself, and got the second highest grade in the class, an A-. I got a 98 out of 100 and I studied myself for 3 days with no help from the teacher nor anyone else. So I along with thousands of Iranian Professors and scientist will never allow your ridicilous analysis to hold water, just by our very existence. Get a life you racist white piece of shit.

HalfJew:

>Not a different species, but a “subspecies”. Gee, we could even call it a different race of bee!

FWIW, I actually prefer that “race” is reserved for humans only, and different words (subspecies, breed etc.) are used for animals.

———

Jeff:

Way to dispel the negative stereotypes about your group.

So Jeff, since you’re such a knowledgeable person, especially compared to us racists here, why don’t you name some of these amazing Iranians and Palestinians who’ve contributed so much to the intellectual life of the West? Keep it focused on mathematics, because if most Iranians write like you, I don’t think I’d find their poetry that interesting.

Let’s also be clear about something else. Since you seem to be incapable of thinking clearly and rationally, especially about topics which discomfort you, I’ll spell it out for you in great detail. Even if Iranians have lower IQs (and no one here has said that, it’s just an example, understand?) on average, that does not imply that every Iranian has a low IQ. Read that last sentence a few more times until it sinks in.

It’s also true that even if Iranians had low IQs, by selective breeding, they could raise it, as could any race. Iranians are a good example, since the Parsis of India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi_people

are descended from Iranian Zoroastrians who fled from Muslim harassment, and they have extremely high IQs.

As for Cavalli-Sforza’s argument about Middle Easterners, I haven’t read it yet, so it’s hard for me to say. I do know that in Islamic societies, in particular, Arab ones, cousin marriage is far more widespread than it is here (the USA) where we have strong taboos against it. I would imagine that this would reinforce the natural tribal nature of all humans, since the tribe members would share even more genes.

And finally, if you dislike Americans so much, I’d encourage you to leave. Americans were doing perfectly fine without your Iranian poetic genius.

for some reason,i was sent that last comment through the mail service of this site. but since i was,let me just make the comment,that your statement about palestinians being the smartest during the 1950’s,is because that region of the middle east,was filled with european knowledge and culture,brought by the british and others whom were militarily occupying parts of the middle east,during that time,followed by the very intelligent european jews. although i hate that the jewish state was forced on palastine,and i hate that palastinians were suppressed from learning in the 60’s,from 1910-1957,they were taught european culture and knowledge,by europeans,which is most likely why they were the smartest in the world at that time. what im saying is its no coincidence that the people in that area were soo smart,while some of the smartest people in the world were in that area for the 40+ years prior. hate the western world as much as you want,but if it werent for europe,most of the rest of the world would still be in mud huts,and hunting with spears……and thats realism.

Some interesting YouTube clips on fallacies about race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JOkCTQf7EY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShLF3e9YHg8

Thucydides:Both in the US and in Britain Blacks commit more crime and are sexually more promiscous than Whites of comparable IQ score. Low IQ is not the only explanation to Black crime.

Races have different levels of testosterone which is probably a greater factor than IQ when crime is concerned. I am basing this assumption on the fact that white men commit more crime than black women.

——- Great article by the way.

Duncan Robertson:Dear Realist,

Whilst I am in no way denying that racial differences exist, the way in which you present your case implies that blacks are racially inferior to whites.<i> I wonder if you would approve of an article which tells of white-European intellectual inferiority to that of East Asians, written in a derogatory tone such as your article takes? We must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past, there is no place for racism in an enlightened society. .

Realist did not say or imply that blacks were inherinty inferoir to whites, your reading into to it..

The wholly negative comments you make on those of African lineage shows as much. Value judgements are not scientific: we should be interested in the truth of racial differences from a purely intellectual standpoint, not as a justification for backwards, social-darwinist ideologies.

Did he not provide evidence or racial differences? Besides, this is not a scientific paper, value judgments don’t add or take away from anything this article has to say.

Using a picture of 50 Cent is unquestionably racist, the man is an idiot. Placing a picture of Barack Obama next to a picture of George W Bush would give a completely different impression.

Since the word racist means anything anyone wants it to mean at any given time, I won’t argue with you on that point, but I believe the picture of thug rapper served as a symbol of low grade black culture(but unlike race deniers I can’t read minds)

Notions of racial superiority are the preserve of the inadequate and the first step towards inhumanity

I don’t think a mild mannered race racialist is looking to put blacks in death camps, your over analyzing his motives, our you projecting, sometimes people simply want to inform. I’m a black racialist and when I start blogging I will have a great deal to say racial about differences, but not so I can shipped off to Africa.

Based upon the findings… Should I resign my military commission, stop rearing my children for success and stop living by the rules and mores set by the dominate race in the country, and maintain my current lifestyle vis my genetically prescriptive means?

Lyndon, those are good questions but I think I am not understanding you right. What are genetically prescriptive means? And which is the dominant race in the country? I myself couldn’t answer the latter question, because a majority of the numerically dominant race also fear and loathe that race….

joe

Most of the statistics in the article are largely dismissable. Crime rates, test scores, general behavior, can effectively dismissed with the concept of socio-economic disadvantages.

Has anyone actually proven thats SOS(socio-economic status) is a better predictor of crime than race? If so I would like to see some evidence.

From the article:

“The Color of Crime” also proves that this difference in criminality is not caused by black social disadvantage. Examining violent crime rates by state, the report finds the percentage of the state’s population that is black or Hispanic is a far better predictor of crime levels than poverty, unemployment, or high-school dropout rates. Furthermore, even when you control for these factors, the relationship between percentage black and Hispanic and crime rates remains almost as strong as before. This indicates that even if whites were just as socially disadvantaged as blacks, the racial difference in criminality would still be almost as great as it currently is.

The worst thing about the environment that non-Asian minorities are raised in is the leftists encouraging them to blame everything they do on white people. This obviously cuts across class lines, which explains why blacks and Latinos of high socioeconomic status are more criminal than equivalent whites.

But others would say that environment matters fairly little. NAMs produce children with lower IQs. Low IQs (but not extremely low IQs) are correlated with criminal behavior. I myself can’t separate genetics from environment in criminal behavior, but huge changes in environment can obviously have some effect. For each race, US-born people have several times the incarceration rate of people born abroad:

Incarceration Rates by Ethnicity and Country of Birth

nH Black Foreign-born 2.5; Native 11.6

Latino Foreign-born 1.0; Native 6.7

nH White Foreign-born 0.6; Native 1.7

nH Asian Foreign-born 0.3; Native 1.9

Source: Rumbaut, 2007

What is it about being born in America that increases criminality? Some combination of permissiveness, diversity, materialism, and the anonymity of urban life, that is my guess. Whatever it is, something about America tests a person’s morals, and non-Hispanic whites seem best able to pass that test.

The Blacks living in Europe simply cannot have the same admixture rate as US Blacks, as their arrival is a relativly new occurrence. Their score should be close to the African at 70.

I would hazard a guess that most ‘blacks’ in the UK are from the Caribbean, not Africa. Caribbean blacks have high admixture (at least in the former British colonies). I grew up there and the majority of blacks you see do not look that black, they look similar to African Americans. In the UK inter-racial relationships are much more culturally accepted and are quite common. Look at some of the greatest young Footballers coming out of Britain today: Aaron Lenon, Theo Walcott, both have one black caribbean parent. So whilst blacks have had much less time to get admixture, their ability to get it is greater.

In France, the majority of blacks are probably more likely to be from Africa, but French speaking parts of Africa tend to be in the areas where there is more admixture with Arabs (i.e. Chad, Niger, Mali, etc.)

Other European nations do not have significant black populations (though that is now changing with the recent waves of immigration)

After reading the first few entries of all this rubbish I realized that most all of you not only lack intlligence, but also lack the understanding of what intelligence is. If any of you were up to date on this topic you would reaalize the concept of race has been obsolete for many years.

Those of you trying to argue about genetic factors influencing intelligence obviously don’t realize that there is more genetic variation within the so-called “races” than between them.

I’ll now leave you small minded people to ponder your belly-buttons, and maybe read the latest academic literaure (not layman propogana).

Ta Ta Twits

Ignorance hater,

You said that the concept of race has been obsolete for many years.

Does that mean that you agree that affirmative action and the congressional black congress should no longer be around.

In you opinion this is rubbish. You only say that because Whites are talking and you want freedom of speech to apply only to yourself.

You also might want to do some reading yourself, propaganda is not spelled propogana and literature is not spelled literaure. Intelligence is not spelled intlligence, and realize is not spelled reaalize.

This is a little off subject, but shows the actual morality and behavior that is typical for most of the black men I have known in my life. Please forgive any angry overtones in this, but I am a father that just discovered his 16 year old over weight white daughter was seduced and screwed by a 20 year old Black man. I have read the online dialogs between the two of them and this smooth bastard talks of eternal love and everything a young girl wants to hear. Soon as he got her vaginity he was gone. I am more than a little angry about it (at my X as well). The liberal courts of Massachusetts took away my paternal rights so I was not around to have any influence on my daughter.

I have investigated the SOB and he has been seducing young overweight white girls for some time and I am one of at least a dozen angry white fathers. What even further infuriates me is the courts are more concerned about a black mans rights than the fact he raped a 16 year old girl. There are three other woman in my family that were raped by black men, but none to my knowledge were ever raped by a white man.

I am tired of the all the political correctness and brain washing that has been going on. My daughter has been taught by the schools and by television that blacks are equal and interacial dating is a good thing. I am sick of this liberal agenda that is propagating these lies. I grew up in Boston and the reality is blacks are different from whites in intelligence and behavior. I have see it in school, at work and in sports. The liberal “feel good” treatment of blacks has to come to an end. We have wasted 50 years of resources on them and nothing has changed.

I don’t have a solution to the problem (although if you had heard me when I found out my daughter was raped you would have heard the words “final solution” and seen steam shooting out of my ears). Something has to be done about the behavior of blacks. If you have a young daughter do you wants sexually aggressive black predators targeting your daughter? I don’t know why blacks are so sexually aggressive, but I have seen it again and again.

For those of you who want to write me off as just being prejudice, go ahead. I liken this to the difference in temperments between a golden retriever and a pitbull. I would have no trouble letting my child near a golden retriever (unless it was being aggressive), but I would be very unlikely to let my child near a pitbull, even if it was acting friendly. You can see it the way you want, but I have had a life time of bad experiences with blacks. Now my little girl has been raped by one of them and all this society can see is the poor black man! Arrrrrrrrrr!

I was just looking to this site because I am currently doing a dissertation on the biological difference between different ethnicities. I would just like to add my personal view.

What a lot of people on here are doing is suggesting that black people are inherently stupider than white people, basing this on IQ. However, this is completely wrong. Black people as a race are not stupider than white people as a race. There are only one type of person who believes the opposite to be true: A racist

The difference between a black person and a white person is only limited to their enviroment and one gene which regulates how much melonin a person has (thats skin tone). White people have adapted to living in cold weather and therefore have little melonin, Black people adapted to living in hot weather and have more melonin.

Saying this though, there is no difference between black and white people other than their enviroment. Black people generally live in worse conditions than white people and therefore do not benifit as much from education as white people do and therefore on average have lower IQ scores. however, when given an opportunity, black people can get to the pinnacle of our society, see the USA president for example.

Well,I have heard it all on here,which I expected to. People on here seem to be very ignorant,from one extreme to the other,except for the people whom are obvious in their position,and try to trick us all,by touting scientific background,and expertise. The topic was falsely brought up,and published. The theme was set,on purpose,for a racial ”war” on the board. The topic should have emphasized the differences between all races,not just black to white. This would have presented a wider spectrum,and showed real catagorical differences,in a concrete manor. It is scientific,and biological fact,that there is one race of man,on this planet,but there are many mutations within that race. In fact,there is not one,clear cut racial construct that is ”the original”. We are all products of that mutation,which is an inevitable growth,that comes with evolution. However,some racial constructs,have evolved through mutation,in non-constructive ways,for the society of today. It is my feeling that this doesnt need to be explained,because it is forced in our faces,everyday. If you are a coherent person,whom grasps reality,you can see these mutations,with your own eyes. I fear,that if I were to cite examples,I would only be met with hatred and rage,so I leave it to all of you,to look at reality. One thing though is certain,our differences are not only skin deep.

There are only one type of person who believes the opposite to be true: A racist

And that is wrong because…?

Oh, I see, you called someone a “racist,” therefore that dismisses any scientific evidence that they may have.

Saying this though, there is no difference between black and white people other than their enviroment.

This is so because when blacks took over in Zimbabwe there was no difference in their performance than when whites ran the country as Rhodesia. After all, the environment is the same. Today, freed from the heavy hand of the White racist capitalist imperialist exploiters, blacks have turned Zimbabwe into a model of prosperity, honest government, and human rights. In fact, it is such a model state that we see millions of people from all over the world migrating to Zimbabwe to partake in the vibrancy of their multicultural paradise—especially those who espouse liberal rhetoric in the West.

You want to do a dissertation, you delusional liberal freak? Go live with your precious blacks and get back to me in a year. I’m so sick of clowns like you, you brainwashed little child. Your entire generation has been taught and lives a lie. You’re so pathetic, I imagine you making excuses for TNB while you are being robbed, raped, tortured, ad nauseum. It is elitist White’s like you, barely out of your mothers womb but YOU and you alone have all the answers, because your pointy-headed professor told you it’s so. But yet, you refuse to have any real interactions with your beloved Urban-Americans. Why is this? Do you even have any black friends? I doubt it. EVERY liberal hypocrite I have ever met had few, if any, black friends. Have you ever lived in a majority black ‘hood? Didn’t think so. Have you dated any blacks? Again, didn’t think so. Look at DOJ black-on-White crime stats, look at CDC STD rates, rates for crime in general, illegitamacy rates, drop-out rates, and yes, the dread IQ differences. People like you make me seriously sick. I truly, TRULY wish some good ol’-fashioned black crime on you and/or your family. THEN come sing me your multi/culti song, child! Shut up, child, the adult’s are trying to speak!