Does race exist? The stance of “Scientific American”…

Posted by Guessedworker on May 09, 2005, 06:22 AM | #

The left is in a bind with the shift of the study of racial difference from psychology into genomics.  Psychology is an academic study with next to no commercial interest.  So the realist rebellion, so to speak, was taking place on “home soil” for the left.  Gould and Lewontin could cold-shoulder Wilson and spin their web of deceit to the sound of ear-splitting applause.  Phil Rushton and Chris Brand could be attacked with free rein and the full weight of the academic establishment (and, in Rushton’s case, almost the full weight of Canadian law).

However, there are heavy commercial implications for research into the human genome.  The universities do not have the same purchase on the argument.  The best they can do is to try to keep the lid on the awful truth that, yes, race exists.  Race differences are

implications for public policy.

We all know that the left is desperately concerned to protect it’s Boasian blank slate, self-authoring BS.  It is all it cares about.  It has money, influence and power.  It will fight dirty because the perfect liberal end justifies any means.  Meanwhile, the race realist right has patience, truth and steadfastness on its side.  It will win.

Good post, JR.

Posted by Mark Richardson on May 09, 2005, 07:33 AM | #

Scientists: The earth is flat but researchers can use some astronomical information to group planets into spheroid shaped clusters with geographical relevance.

Posted by Phil Peterson on May 09, 2005, 08:42 AM | #

Scientists: The earth is flat but researchers can use some astronomical information to group planets into spheroid shaped clusters with geographical relevance.

LOL.

Mark, that’s a masterpiece.

Good post, JR.

Posted by JW Holliday on May 09, 2005, 09:29 AM | #

JR, let me add my voice to the chorus: an excellent post.

Please note also the recent Risch lab paper showing that more than 3000 people could be placed into racial groupings baded upon genetic assays with greater than 99% accuracy.

Posted by a reader on May 09, 2005, 10:01 AM | #

GREAT cover. You should send it to the editors (though the issue is a bit old)

Its just a typical example of the intellectual dishonestly -the outright denial - of those who are trying to destroy err, ‘diversify’ the west - THEY understand what we don’t. TRUTH is relative and irrelevent, especially when it gets in the way of the long march.

Posted by Andrew L on May 10, 2005, 01:16 AM | #

It looks like a heavy burden on her brain, what gene is she talking about, The absence of the male Gene by the pictorials, perhaps wishful thinking, but not true.I think it is easely proven that Genetics does have something to to with moronic Leftoids,let alone Race.Blessid Ignorance is evidence enough to start that ball rolling, Was it not Clinton that made that bold dumb statement some years ago.We are all the same?

Posted by Svigor on May 10, 2005, 02:51 AM | #

Whereas I have used photoshop to come up with this cover, the faces shown are not my work, but have been taken from this page.

Those faces aren’t that author’s work either, they’re straight out of a program called facegen.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 10, 2005, 10:35 PM | #

Scientific American, once THE premier popular-science publication in the U.S. and probably the world and politically strictly neutral, veered way-radical-left several years ago, since which it’s very simply been unreadable.  Leftist ideologues are in charge, every bit as much as they are of the New York Times, the Sierra Club, and Hollyweird, and they are totally impervious to any and all criticism no matter how valid, no matter how scathing.  Scientific American now belongs on the trash heap of all those formerly upright, formerly self-respecting institutions that were taken over by Marxist body-snatchers.  They caught the Marxist disease.  Wave bye-bye to them—they won’t recuperate in the foreseeable future (none ever does—Marxism seems to be largely a one-way street:  institutions go in, but no institutions seem to come out—not, at any rate, without really massive social unrest or bloody revolution).

Posted by a reader on May 11, 2005, 11:07 AM | #

“Scientific American, once THE premier popular-science publication in the U.S. and probably the world and politically strictly neutral, veered way-radical-left several years ago, since which it’s very simply been unreadable.”

Interesting, was there any change in ownership..were the usual suspects involved?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 12, 2005, 05:03 PM | #

“Interesting, was there any change in ownership..were the usual suspects involved?”  (—“a reader”)

The question being asked here is whether the change at Scientific American from politically neutral to blatantly, almost “in-your-face” left-leaning coïncided with a change of ownership from gentile to Jewish.  I don’t know the answer.  That’s a good question, because of the frequency with which exactly those two things go together:  Jewish control and a leftward-tilting political stance.  (Another frequently-seen “pair” like that is homosexual control and a leftward-tilting political stance.  In a sense, Jewish politics are very similar to homosexualist politics, for some reason.  Whether it’s that way in Israel I don’t know, so maybe I should have said diaspora Jewish politics are very similar to homosexualist politics.)  Whatever the hidden reasons for this well-known Jewish tendency to veer to the left, this phenomenon should be brought out into the open and discussed until through sober analysis people get to the bottom of it and find out why it’s going on.  Jews often say it’s because of the way the Jewish religion teaches compassion for the poor and downtrodden and so on—which of course the Jewish religion does teach—but I’m not so sure this is the reason for the strong tendency of Jews to veer left.  Prof. MacDonald claims (from what little I know of his ideas—I’ve not read his books) this tendency is part of a way of life the Jews have worked out for themselves over millennia that has the effect of increasing their chances for survival as a group.  Whatever the cause of it, it should be discussed openly and dispassionately whenever appropriate.

Posted by Svigor on May 14, 2005, 06:37 PM | #

Jews often say it’s because of the way the Jewish religion teaches compassion for the poor and downtrodden and so on—which of course the Jewish religion does teach

Err, not so fast.  This, like ALL the tenets of Judaism, falls under the aegis of Jewish particularism.  There is no such teaching regarding the “gentile.”

but I’m not so sure this is the reason for the strong tendency of Jews to veer left.

I think Jews tend left because…Jews tend left.  They’re raised by leftist Jews so they become leftist Jews.  It makes sense for them to do so in the diaspora, but not in their newly-recaptured homeland; so, the trend doesn’t hold in Israel (convenient, ain’t it?)

Prof. MacDonald claims…

You should read his Judaism trilogy (CoC always seems to get the recommend, but I read all three in order and I suggest anyone interested in the JQ do the same).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 14, 2005, 11:13 PM | #

“This, like ALL the tenets of Judaism, falls under the aegis of Jewish particularism.  There is no such teaching regarding the ‘gentile.’ “  (—Svigor)

My two cents:

Jews are pretty philanthropic—“hugely” philanthropic is probably a better word here—in ways that directly and indirectly benefit gentiles, and Jews are a principled lot in the sense that when they give to philanthropy they do so in what Christians would consider the true Christian spirit of giving.  The Jewish Community’s generous philanthropic spirit is one of the many things that reflect great credit on the Jewish race, religion, and culture.  Jews as a group do things that are extremely ill-advised, things that harm other groups and even themselves greatly.  Their philanthropy isn’t one of them. 

“I think Jews tend left because…Jews tend left.  They’re raised by leftist Jews so they become leftist Jews.  It makes sense for them to do so in the diaspora, but not in their newly-recaptured homeland; so, the trend doesn’t hold in Israel”

I think that among the strengths and weakness which individuals inherit as genetically-influenced traits must be ones that affect the ease with which they perceive truths of the social world around them, such as the ease (or lack thereof) with which they perceive, to take one example, that there are crucial inborn differences between males and females.  The inherited ability to perceive that truth may, let’s say, fall along a spectrum from unable at one end to easily able at the other, passing through gradations in between.  Those who inherited the full genetic trait for perceiving it need little or no help in seeing it, those at the opposite end of the scale can’t see it despite lots of help, and those in the middle, let’s say, may not see it at first but will with some explanations and demonstrations.  Those who inherited the genetic ability to easily perceive that truth are less likely, obviously, to become leftists than those whose genes didn’t confer that ability on them.  That is because, clearly, in order to be a leftist one of the things you have to lack is an ability to see that there are crucial inborn differences between males and females.  If you do not lack that ability, it’s harder for you to be a leftist because leftists deny any such differences exist while you’ll see clearly that they indeed do exist.

We assume Jews in their own country prior to 70 AD, the year the Temple was destroyed and they were kicked out, weren’t leftists, because people aren’t normally abnormal (leftism is abnormal). 

My idea is simply that the selection pressures that came to bear on Jews in the diaspora starting at some point subsequent to 70 AD seem to have left the Jewish race with a higher-than-normal incidence of individuals whose genes lent themselves to fostering the leftist outlook, such as, for example, by lacking the full genetic complement needed for perceiving that there are crucial inborn differences between males and females (and in other ways as well).  Maybe some gene that the Jews needed for their diaspora existence couldn’t be strongly selected-for without the gene for perceiving that men and women are innately different being somehow selected against.

So, down through the centuries the diaspora Jews (the Ashkenazis, at any rate) accumulated through no fault of their own—hey they never asked to be kicked out of their country—a genetic complement that included a number of genetic traits that make the individual possessing them more likely to veer left than be normal.

I think, in other words, that the leftism of Jews is partly genetic.  Notice that plenty of leftist Jews do the same destructive, insane leftist things to Israel as they do to the United States and other gentile countries they live in.  Go to MoonbatCentral.com, browse all the archived posts of a blogger there who signs as “Plaut’s Complaint” (the site started in October or November, so the archives aren’t that voluminous—start reading through Plaut’s stuff right from the blog’s beginning), and you’ll see lots and lots of examples in his log entries of leftist insanity directed against Israel by Jews, both Israeli Jews and diaspora Jews. 

What that’s telling us is simply that there are two “genes” (I’m simplifying, of course):  one that makes you a leftist (or, that takes away your ability to see things normally—same thing), and one that makes you stop pushing leftism in situations where it harms what you love.  Some leftist Jews have both “genes,” others only the first.

Posted by David on March 17, 2006, 02:55 PM | #

DOWN with te race!... I’m not NORTIST, im not white..  Ni si quiera hablo inglés… IM A HUMAN… hahaha.. IM HAppy…..!!!

You guys make a real big deal about it…

Take care.

Posted by mo on March 15, 2007, 10:18 PM | #

race? are you kidding?
Not to appear of any political background ( i find myself agnostic at most) but race is a socio-cultural construct that has no genetic bearing. ( I found the genetic discussion of jews and political affiliation particularly amusing).
If you people ever care to look at race from more than one perspective, and would open the dogmatic and tautological reasoning of medical relevance of race as justification for historical discrimination, you would all realize that racism is not more than a human desire to dominate. Has nothing to do with ability, knowledge or selection.
And it is particularly sad that this issue is still so prevalent in a nation that claims to be the leader of the world in freedom, democracy, and equality. Nice…

Posted by ben tillman on March 15, 2007, 10:21 PM | #

Mo no entiende inglés.

Posted by vv on April 21, 2007, 11:10 PM | #

average propagandizing skill, or maybe slightly below average

Posted by JB on April 21, 2007, 11:28 PM | #

mo:

(I found the genetic discussion of jews and political affiliation particularly amusing)

you will be more than amused by this book:

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html

if you don’t burst out of laughter a hundred times it means your reading abilities are defective

Posted by M.A.R.K. on August 03, 2007, 06:07 AM | #

Hello
The revelence of race has been used to descriminate ourselves from our selves. I will make this simple enough for anyone to understand. Racism is like puppies from the same family disliking each other because one is white, another black another gray, and another who is black and white. Or thinking one puppy is dumb for eating grass and another for eating leaves or one puppy barking funny compared to another who barks difference still. The funny thing about my statement is all the puppies come from the same parent. Just like we are all come in different sizes and color and cultures…but, we all have the same parent…the human race.  Instead of find differences and using them as a wall between cultures we should ask question instead of assuming things and in the long run you will find things that are the same. Like for example Food. We all eat rice but, we prepare it different ways in some cultures but, we all eat rice… So the next time someones makes stupid joke, even someone who is asian or non-asian it is said crudely. Just say we all eat rice or rice is all around the world… Another thing that is sad to me is skin tone variation within specific races. Ex.  Like asian people who are cool skin tones and some that are warm skin tones discrimate agains each other as well like warm skin tones bloodline is questions like is s/he fully asian?! or with afro americans, cool skin vs warm skin tone same but, with differences… Than there are those people who fall under this branch. Like those of any heritiage who’s own culture think they are not of their culture and speak their native tongue and talk about them in front of there faces and make comments. Than later that person speaks their native tongue and are suprised and make stupid hurtful comments like I didn’t know you were…(race) like me…and date those of other races because they are more accepting or for other reasons.
The reason why I am writing, is that, 10+ years ago I found a magazine page in a fashion or make-up magazine. The page was a two page fold out. It showed all the different eyes, noses, lips, face shapes, and skin tones, etc; of woman of many “races” and cultures.  Wearing no make up and a simple expression on their faces.  When I saw it it blew my mind away because, I told everyone I knew, that there are many similarites in different races that are the same like how some people could look like other “races”... I tore the magazine page out and forgot to check what magazine it was, because I was excited and I wanted to all my friends of all cultures and even strangers to see this!  I was in High school at the time, at the time before I saw the magazine fold out. I showed some friends and especial they girls, they were suprised and it open everyones eyes who looked at it… but, some how someone ‘lost’ it before I could make color copies to show everyone… My plan was to post all over school to help bridge a racial and culture bridge for everyone in school…but alas my plan was not realized…I was mad for the person who took…all they had to do was ask me to make a color copy… I like the differences and similarites of all girls in different cultures and the same as mine. I see girls as attractive creatures in any race or culture. But, after I saw that I looked at girls in this fold out, I saw all woman are the same and different at the same time, in facial beauty and body types vary and now when I see a girl or woman sometimes my mind now can see some woman look african, asian, european, american indian, latin, etc; or blending of some; Now I use my words different now. like example. Never call anyone of any culture ‘dark’ say they have warm skin tone compared to some with a ‘pale’ skin tone which is cooler. Ex. If a see a black woman or afro american woman or sister and some says she is dark… I say she isn’t she is dark chocolate, and as well all know dark chocolate is good for you.  This makes people feel good about there skin tone without them getting defense about there skin tone.  To me all woman have something beautiful about them and when you make a woman smile her eyes light up and her beauty is like the rising sun. I wish I had the magazine fold now because it made a crowd of kids of different races to think, we are the same we are not so different. Now I am “learning” multi-languages and from what I have learned from that fold out makes me easier for me to bridge the gap between races and cultures… I hope in the future and find a fold out like that again so I can post all over the web, just to bring people together and counter some of the hate people spread around the world like wild fire.  by the way I am afro-american.
Peace and Harmony.
M.A.R.K.

Posted by Joee on October 03, 2007, 05:31 AM | #

Hi Mark and everyone

Ur right we are all the same ... its funny that people just dont get it…our basic needs are all the same… what we want and what we strive for is the same… what makes us happy as what makes us sad is the same ...We all want love and acceptance… we all need a home and work we will be happy with… we all need to belong ..... all of us…

Take Good Care
Joee

Posted by Jim on November 21, 2007, 01:09 PM | #

I’m studying 19th century antisemitism in Germany and I must say that Fred Scooby would probably have felt pretty much at home there.

Posted by Guessedworker on November 21, 2007, 02:57 PM | #

Jim,

Are you studying 19 Century Jewish anti-Germanism, or just the response by Germans?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 22, 2007, 08:38 PM | #

Be sure to add this and this to your syllabus, Jim. 

(Oh and, uhhh ... next time you have a minute, give some thought to answering Guessedworker’s question, won’t you? ...)

Posted by V on April 02, 2008, 03:30 PM | #

Your kidding right. Sure I believe there are what alleles that constitute a race. That is a joke. Tell it straight and don’t lie to these people RACE is a modern myth created in the USA that is the only truth. There isn’t any way to group humans into subspecies because subspecies in humans don’t exist. These are the same clowns that will say blacks are inferior intellectually and blah blah blah. Oh I would be considered black and I have a MBA and soon I’ll have a PHD but I guess i’m not as smart as whites right? I’m genetically inferior right. WRONG!

Posted by Guessedworker on April 02, 2008, 04:17 PM | #

Your kidding right.

Your black, right?

There isn’t any way to group humans into subspecies

You mean genetic clusters?  ‘Fraid so.

Sure I believe there are what alleles that constitute a race ... I have a MBA and soon I’ll have a PHD ... I’m genetically inferior right.

If you say so.  We just say you are negroidalised.

Posted by Rachel on September 12, 2008, 08:33 PM | #

Guessedworker, congratulations on inventing a new word.  Does it have a definition?

Posted by Catfish LeRoy on September 12, 2008, 08:45 PM | #

“Your kidding right.”

Your black, right?

“Sure I believe there are what alleles that constitute a race ... I have a MBA and soon I’ll have a PHD ... I’m genetically inferior right.”

If you say so.  We just say you are negroidalised.

Oh, the LOLz! GuessedWorker, I didn’t know you had it in you!

Posted by Gudmund on November 07, 2008, 02:33 PM | #

I couldn’t even finish reading the post.  It makes me gag.

The funniest (or saddest) thing about all of this is that most of the sheeple out there just lap this pseudo-scientific excrement right up.  Then they get nauseatingly sanctimonious and indignant if you deign to question the holy decree.  Its enough to turn one’s heart black as iron and cold as ice.

Posted by Gudmund on November 07, 2008, 02:39 PM | #

“Your kidding right. Sure I believe there are what alleles that constitute a race. That is a joke. Tell it straight and don’t lie to these people RACE is a modern myth created in the USA that is the only truth. There isn’t any way to group humans into subspecies because subspecies in humans don’t exist. These are the same clowns that will say blacks are inferior intellectually and blah blah blah. Oh I would be considered black and I have a MBA and soon I’ll have a PHD but I guess i’m not as smart as whites right? I’m genetically inferior right. WRONG!”

V, we all know that academia is particularly obsequious to blacks of a certain persuasion - pro-“social justice” (newspeak!), uppity Black Panther types.  You do fit that mold, brotha dear!  They practically hand out the PhDs to you lot, so long as you say the right things (not that its hard for you, they only have to invoke colonialism or some such and it just gets your blood boiling - admit it).  You don’t fool us.

And people wonder why academia is not liked, trusted or respected.

Posted by Ralph on October 08, 2009, 01:12 AM | #

Why does the negroloid africapithicus sport such big lips and broad snouts? Relative to the more diminutive features of caucasoids, that is…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on October 08, 2009, 12:45 PM | #

The commenter several above who signs as “V,” who’s confused on the topic of race, might benefit from reading the following extremely clear piece on the subject by Professor Troost of Canada, published just this morning over at Vdare.com :

http://www.vdare.com/misc/091007_troost.htm .

“V” might also want to have a look at the article on race at this site’s own Wiki, here:

http://wiki.majorityrights.com/race .

Start with those two, V, and see if you can unconfuse yourself.  It’s not hard:  they’re both clearly written.

If neither of those helps, I would say you’re a hopeless case:  I can’t help you, this site can’t, probably no force in the known universe can.  (Maybe try eating lots of fish?  Don’t they say that boosts IQ? ......  In your case, maybe a few tons of the stuff might do the trick ....... see if you can find a fish the size of a whale .......)

Posted by danielj on October 08, 2009, 02:41 PM | #

Oh I would be considered black and I have a MBA and soon I’ll have a PHD but I guess i’m not as smart as whites right? I’m genetically inferior right. WRONG!

Do you think you are representative of your group V?

Do you think that blacks, as a group are inferior, superior or equal to whites?

Posted by Kenneth S. Doig on January 23, 2012, 06:22 PM | #

Franz Boas, dr Hab. (=senior research PhD in Germany & several other European lands) had no undergrad, graduate-, doctoral, or post-doc training in phys.anthropoiogy, cultural anthropology (sociology), or any related fief such as biology, zoology, anatomy, physiology, medicine/surgery, genetics [I don’t believe that field had yet been created in the latter-half of the 19th centur], osteology, or other bio, medical sciences, or even more distant natural sciences fields that would have given him some of the proper scientific background, such as bio-chemistry, botany, taxonomy, veterinary medicine,etc.) to assume the first chairmanship (NOTE on “chairMANship”. For any of you idiots, yes idiots or self-deluded fools on the PC left, communists, Marxist-Lenisnists, Maoists, Socialists, apologists for anti-Gentile Talmudism, Rabbinism, Pharisaism, Zionism, the word “man” when the last part of a compound word in modern English & in all other living Gmc tongues denotes human-being of either gender. Furthermore the word “man/mann” in OE {West-Saxon, from 700AD never mean a person with testes, penises, it meant humans, as in homo sapiens, period. The words the meant a male adult in OE, wēr,, cf. “werewolf”,  cognate to West-Norse verr/uerr, Lat vir/uir, whence English Latinate, “virile”, Gaulish-Celtic, uiros, among other IE cognates. Also guma, from which we get the mangled word with an invading “r”, groom, bridegroom cognate, BTW, “cognate means words from the same original parent-language, NOT a borrowed word. For example, our non-native ‘NN’ English word ‘virile’ is NOT cognate to Latin vir/uir, but an indirect borrowing via Norman-French, but our native, Gmc Anglo-Saxon ‘AS’ word ‘were-’ as in ‘werewold’ is cognate. The other word was AS, Carl, ceorl, “churl”, carlmann, cēorlmann, cf. Swed, karl, Icel. karlmaður, acc. karlmann. Cognate from Lat.}cognatus, lit. ‘born together’. Another example, our NN word “cardiac” is NOT cognate to Greek kard- or Latin cors/cordem or to Gaelic, metathesized, cride; but our native Gmc AS word ‘heart’ AS, ‘heorte’, ON, ‘hiārta’, Gothic , ‘hērto’, Swed. ‘hjärta’, from early PGmc *khērton, later *hērto. Thru the phonological process called Grimm’s Law, yes, the same Brothers Grimm of the fairytales, the PIE, proto-IE, obstuents, namely stops, were either devoiced or changed from stops to fricatives/spirants, e.g., {the order is PIE to Gmc} ‘B>‘P’, ‘K’>‘H’, “P” >“F”, “G”>“K”, “GH” >“G”, ‘T’ to ‘TH/Þ, ‘D’ to ‘T’ & Huge ex cetera. Examples, Lat. pater, father, PIE*deub-, deep, Latin cornu, horn, Lat, Gaelic, Aeolic Greek, Gaulish, Span, Ital, Fren, tú or tu, Gmc þū, thū, thou, Germ, Swe, Dan, Norw, du, Modern Icel. & As, Gothic, Runic,  þú,, etc.  I am a highly-trained philologist/linguist specializing in general Indo-European & Germanic linguistics,  sub-specializing in IE & Gmc historical linguistics & philology [philology is a broader discipline, similar to linguistics, but we examine linguistic groups in historical, cultural, anthropological, ethnological context, usually starting on a timeline from any given linguistic group’s or any given language’s prehistory, i.e, prehistory, then from their earliest attested {direct written literature, runes, manuscripts, stone/-wood inscriptions, fragments made in the given language itself} forms, to medieval, renaissance to modern. Obviously linguistic evolution & comparative linguistics is paramount. Philology is like a mixture of linguistics, Classicism, history, sociology, anthropology, ethnology & to a lesser extent, archaeology, all rolled up in one field. It was the predecessor from which linguistics is derived. It is possible, at least in the US, for a PhDd not to speak a foreign language and most of my professors did not speak any, not at a competence-level of 2.0, casual, very basic knowledge, being able to read any given language but not understanding double-entendres, puns, sub-rosa writings, barely capable of holding a flowing conversation Whereas I, an American WASP, both sides of my family “old-time Yankees”, mother’s side came from England as a Puritan in 1651, Dad’s side from Scots {a Germanic language base much more on Northern Old-English, Northumbrian or Anglo-Jutish with a lot of Old-Norwegian/Icelandic/Flemish and Gaelic loanwords. Not only does it have a very different accent, it is more archaic, having in large part preserved the Anglo-Saxon/proto-Gmc/ long vowels as have all modern North-Germanic, NGmc, a.k.a. Norse, Scandinavian, Nordic]
In short, having a PhD doesn’t necessarily make you a qualified expert in another field The lying picece of communist sh&t had undergrad degrees and a doctorate in GEOGRAPHY & PSYCHOPHISIC, WHAT IN THE HE’LL IS THAT? Furthermore, he admitted openly to be a leftist, admire chief agronomist Dr Trofim Lysenko, a whole ideology is named after him, “Lysenkoism”, politically motivated scientific lying & willful dissemination of lies to further world communism or any other agendum. Also, later in life, the lying, liar, fraud, Dr. Boas had an open penal relationship with the greatest massmurder/dictator in history, Stalin. Low estimates, 20 mil, average est’s, 60 mil some scholars say as many as 140 mil from 1901, from the first Bolshevik assassinations, insurrections, failed revolutions, all the way to Stalin’s death in 53 all the way(to a much lesser degree) to 1989.