Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin, Nicholas Wade and the alt right

arroba Email

From Guardian:

Jared Taylor was prominently featured in a Hillary Clinton campaign ad released ahead of her speech denouncing the “alt-right” in Reno on Thursday and “appreciates” the Democratic presidential nominee for “calling attention to the message I have for America”.

Asked to define what the diffuse alt-right stands for, Taylor said there were “areas of disagreement”, but that “the central element of the alt-right is the position it takes on race.”

Now here is where it gets interesting:

For Taylor, and other members of the alt-right, race is an inescapable biological fact, which has consequences. “The races are not equal and equivalent. If a nation changes demographically, its society will change,” he said.

But where does this stuff come from?

In her speech, Clinton cited the US Olympic team as an example of strength in diversity. Taylor uses it as an example of the different capacities and abilities of races. He argues that while black people are good athletes, whites and Asians have higher IQs, offering a form of the “scientific racism” that was widely discredited, and denounced by the UN after the second world war. More.

Scientific racism? Yes, but that was conventional Darwinism until World War II, and alt right appears to be a late survival.

See, for example, H. G. Wells: Popularizing Darwin, racism, and mayhem – the history you never learned in school


Still legal to say this about Darwinism and “scientific racism”? It’s fair to say that the reason this cannot be discussed honestly in most venues is that many progressive icons and pioneers were fuelling the scientific racism.

Oh well, some will say, everything’s changed now. Has it? What about the curious incident of Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History (2014). See: City Journal addresses the “Nicholas Wade reinvents Darwinian racism” story:

As if this isn’t enough, Wade’s penultimate chapter, “The Rise of the West,” argues that natural selection similarly helped produce European societies that were open and innovative, which enabled them to “achieve a surprising degree of dominance in many spheres.” Given the influence that multiculturalists have on today’s American campuses, it’s unlikely that Wade will be delivering any commencement address anytime soon.

Wade was way too smart for that. He retired. And in most venues, this thesis was just not discussed much, or nothing like what one would have expected of a racially charged topic.

Meanwhile, a group that sounds a great deal like the alt right, the “human biodiversity movement,” kept sending me mail for years promoting Wade’s book.

This state of affairs probably explains at least in part why most reporting on the alt right is heavy on simple denunciation (that’s expected) but vague about its origins. So it’s not very helpful.

* As David Klinghofferputs it at Evolution News & Views,

But not till reading Cathy Young’s post did I recognize that the mother lode of pseudo-conservative, pseudo-scientific racism is Richard Spencer’s AlternativeRight.com, which as she points out has been rebranded as Radix Journal, “dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of European people in the United States, and around the world.”

Here, the vein of evolutionary thinking is particularly rich. We read, “Darwinian Evolution Revolutionized the Natural Sciences. The Social Sciences Have Been Immune for Too Long.” In “What Is Identitarian Religion?,” writer “Alfred W. Clark” tells of a “long-standing ‘Trad Catholic’ I know [who] told me recently that he had left the Church. [H]is ‘conservative’ priest had become obsessed with [among other things]…denouncing evolution because it’s ‘racist’.”

– Denyse O’Leary

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Also, how would the bible help you with, say, the morals of copyright infringement, given that copyright was not invented until the 16th century? Pindi
Ellijacket, so you are a believe in command morality? Whatever the bible says is moral must be moral as it is God's word? Pindi
WJM. I agree with your last sentence. That is how I obtain moral knowledge as well. So let's assume that morality is objective in nature. In a practical sense, how does that make any difference? You have said before I think that this objective moral knowledge is not recorded anywhere and can't be discerned or measured empirically. So when you or I come to a different moral position based on our respective consciences and reasoning abilities, we can never know which is "right". We can't ask an independent referee to check the moral code and let us know who got it right. Now, you do say that the objectivity of some moral rules can be assessed in that they can be understood as self-evidently true. First obvious objection is that only applies to a tiny sub-set of moral rules. It doesn't help me find out what the objective moral position on insider trading is. But secondly, you are just using "self-evidently true" in that sense to mean "nearly everyone agrees with this". The 3 self-evident truths you give before the one about child torture are all in a different category. For example, a 4 sided triangle is wrong by definition isn't it? We define a triangle to be an object with 3 sides. Let's apply your method to the question of whether it is moral to forcibly remove a burkini from a woman on the beach. Is the answer to this question self-evident? Pindi
Pindi asks:
How do you know what God thinks is good. Or know what is “Good”. How do you know God does not approve of the holocaust? Good morality may be a reflection of who God is, but without knowing who he is precisely, that doesn’t help you. Is insider trading Good or not Good? How do you know? Is it moral to stop a woman wearing a burkini on a beach. How do you know?
If you're really trying to understand, Pindi, then you have to work from the frame of reference of assuming that morality is objective in nature (for the sake of the argument). If morality is objective in nature, it represents a fundamental aspect of our existence which reflects the purpose for our existence in the world (oughts and ought nots refer to some purpose). Under a philosophical position of Natural Law, humans have a capacity (analogous to other sensory capacities) to sense moral right and wrong. Like the senses, this sense can be faulty, it can atrophy via lack of use, it can be refined. We also have the capacity to utilize reason when interpreting information brought to us by our senses and by our conscience (or ability to sense moral rights and wrongs). How do you "know" whether or not you can jump the distance between two high objects? How do you "know" if what you see is a mirage or the real thing? How do you "know" when you should eat? You develop knowledge of some of these things by intuiting and then developing experience; some of them you rationally examine incoming sensory information and developing an experiential model of prediction; etc. Some things one immediately understand presuppositionally as self-evidently true; like "there are no 4-sided triangles", or "A=A", or "1+1=2", or "it is immoral to torture children for personal pleasure". Like with any knowledge in life, moral knowledge can be hard to gain and difficult to understand. It can be confusing. People and societies can disagree on it, as they can about any knowledge presumed to be about objective commodities. IMO, one way you obtain moral knowledge is through a rational interpretation of the information brought to you via your conscience. William J Murray
Pindi, As I stated in my earlier post....the only way we could know what God thinks is if he revealed it to us and I believe he has. I believe, through much study and struggle, that the Bible is God's revealed word. As for the burkini I could think of no passage in the Bible where wone could build a principle from that would say it is right or wrong to wear one. If a woman decided to wear one it would seem to be morally neutral. God says that cheating is wrong in the Bible. ellijacket
Thanks Ellijacket, but my question is how do you know? When forming a moral view on, say, the burkini, how do you know what the correct position is? Also, for that matter, how do you know that God thinks cheating is wrong? Pindi
Pindi, Insider trading is cheating (and illegal) and would therefore be not good according to what God has revealed as cheating is wrong and breaking man made laws (as long as the law is not evil) is also wrong. It is possible that the wearing of a burkini is neither good nor evil. God may have no opinion on the matter. Some actions may be morally neutral. ellijacket
Ellijacket How do you know what God thinks is good. Or know what is "Good". How do you know God does not approve of the holocaust? Good morality may be a reflection of who God is, but without knowing who he is precisely, that doesn't help you. Is insider trading Good or not Good? How do you know? Is it moral to stop a woman wearing a burkini on a beach. How do you know? Pindi
The concept of "race" is bogus. If you travel from China to west Africa, and go slow enough to notice the people and how they look along the way, you will notice that there is a gradual change from Chinese to middle Eastern, and from middle Eastern to Bantu. People in the 19th century only noticed people from the extreme ends of the earth, but missed all the people in-between. This error brought about the concept of race. Based on DNA studies and the idea of a Mitochondrial Eve, this is also evidence against the concept of race. So the idea that the "races" are fundimenally different from one another is most likely wrong. Alt Right is a reaction to the idiotic concept of "privelage" in my opinion. While the idea of "privelage" is bogus, I am not sure that Alt Right is going about the issue the right way. To me, the problem is that idotic and illogical ideas are being promoted in universities is the real problem. alanbrad
@Seversky @ 29, You are not making a statement just for yourself. You are saying things would be better if we all acted a certain way. You are trying to make an absolute moral value out of your own reasoning while saying there are no absolute moral values. As for wondering how God came to conclusions on morals....I do not believe He did come to a conclusion. He didn't have to conclude anything. Good flows out of His character, out of who He is. He didn't have to decide them. Good is what agrees with who He is. Evil is a twisting of Good. Since God is our Creator then He has a right to expect us to align with who He is. Even if no one on earth agrees with God it doesn't matter. Good is good and Evil is evil. Therefore, it follows that the Holocaust is always wrong no matter what any human has ever thought about it. You cannot say that. You can say you think it's wrong, but you cannot say it is WRONG. Big difference. The real question is how can we know who God is. We really couldn't discover Him on our own. He can't be tested or forced to bend to our whims. However, He can reveal Himself to us. That is what I believe He did. He revealed Himself to mankind and gave us a way to test His revelation. You can test it yourself. You can look at all the great tomes and decide if any of them are authentic or not. That's what I did. I set aside all my own beliefs and looked at the historical aspects, the textual aspects, the apologetic aspects. After doing that one belief system rose to the top as being beyond question. So no, I do not believe morals were arrived at in a capricious way. Good morality is just a reflection of who God is. ellijacket
So, are the Japanese a country of racists? https://amp.twimg.com/v/3d3d3f02-f0fc-4eb0-903e-2f1746e14d4e Also, you may throw as many rocks at Jared Taylor as you wish, but you may want to read this before you pick up the next one. http://www.radixjournal.com/the-red-pill/2016/7/26/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-race riddick
ellijacket @ 17
@Seversky, I’m totally confused about why we have to try and not be racists since you have argued on here consistently that there are no real moral values. You need to quit acting like there are real moral values if you are going to argue there are not.
I have argued that there are no objective moral values, only subjective ones. What intrigues me is why some people seem to believe we are incapable of deciding such things for ourselves. Consider that many people believe objective morality is created by God and either embedded in the fabric of the Universe or otherwise dispensed from on high. I wonder how God arrived at those judgments. Do believers ever wonder that? Do you ever wonder that? Did He just employ a metaphorical toss of the coin - heads, good, tails, evil? Well, that's not so difficult. We can all do that. Or did He reason His way to all those determinations. We can do that as well, maybe not as well as He can but we can take a good stab at it. So what, if anything, is wrong with us working out our own moral values? After all, we are the ones that are going to be subject to them so why shouldn't we have a hand in deciding what they should be? Seversky
Pindi, by now you know or should know that evolutionary materialistic scientism is intellectually and morally bankrupt. (cf here on.) It reduces the consciously aware self to an illusion, and trashes responsible, rational freedom -- thus undermining rationality and moral government. Once we recognise that as patent fact of conscious existence no 1, we are and must be responsibly, rationally free or even a serious discussion is little more than noises used to manipulate or intimidate, then we need to ask what sort of world brings forth such beings. Where, after Hume's guillotine argument there is only one level where moral government can be founded, root reality. Which, we can readily see, has to be necessary being. After centuries of debates, there is just one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. If you doubt this, simply put something else on the table and let us proceed with comparative difficulties. Notice, something that cannot ground responsible reasonable discussion is a non-starter; it would be self-refuting. Which is the problem already outlined. KF kairosfocus
Ellijacket, The argument is not whether or not there are moral values. I don't think anyone denies that there are. The question is how are they derived. Or, more precisely (since we all derive them the same way) are they objective or subjective. I never understand the constant refrain on this site that those who believe morals are subjective are not entitled to judge other people or have moral standards. I believe racism is wrong. I don't believe its written in stone anywhere, but its something that we have come to as a species/group/society. It is a very well established norm in most modern societies. I nevertheless feel strongly that is it wrong and I will denounce anyone who practices it. Racists of course, are free to denounce me. No one is going to rule on who is right though other than the collective will of the people, ultimately through the law enacted by the legislators we vote for. Pindi
I can never fathom why so many of you refer to 'intuition' for the exercise of the most elementary reasoning - so that it almost seems as if it were intuitive understanding ! Axel
The Mayans, Chinese and Indians tell a distinct and unequivocal story. It is about what rings a nation's chimes, what turns them on, what Providence ordains should interest them at a particular time or epoch. Aldous Huxley wrote on the subject. In the case of the Mayans, seemingly negative, but not necessarily so. The analytical intelligence is mortal (in heaven, all will potentially have full divine access to an understanding of our material world ? Why wouldn't we, since it is relatively, such an incredibly base sphere of knowledge ?) ; wisdom, eternal. Part of that story has been explicated on here, under the rubric of the Judaeo-Christian origin of empirical science in a purposeful and hence lasting way ; how the acceptance by Christendom of the material world as good (if flawed by the Fall), and its faith in a divine Lawgiver, prompted it to seek logical laws in the nature of God's Creation. Personally, I am very inclined to believe that the sub-Saharan Africans (rather like women, in terms of the sexes) are potentially the most intellectually gifted racial strain in terms of the analytical intelligence, mostly due to their extraordinarily high emotional intelligence - of which it would be a degradation. Do we covert autism when it is high-performing ? This is not to disparage possession of a high analytical intelligence in absolute terms ; far from it. I believe people are given that gift in order for them to be able to assist the more endemically spiritual non-academic people to survive in this world of time, just as the latter can assist the former by their more spiritual focus - however subliminal, to thrive in eternity. Axel
kairosfocus @21: Thank you for your supporting comment. @22: Always timely reference to one of the greatest Russian thinkers Solzhenitsyn, who spoke serious wake up warnings to the obliviously decadent western societies. Thank you. @23: Sobering commentary on such an important subject related to raising future generations. Thank you. We should think seriously about encouraging youngsters to pursue STEM careers if related interest is detected early. Dionisio
PS, cross threaded. >>F/N: I should add, I am convinced that early childhood stimulation, drawing out and encouragement have a lot to do with where a child goes in terms of its potential. And, parents (and grand parents) are the best such sources of stimulation — one of the failings of a world that seems to ever more disdain the family. Think of the successive doubling times of life in terms of 1st year, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 16th, 32nd as in effect increments equal to the so far life experience. Then as a crude model think of novelty as proportionate to what fraction of cumulative experience one has so far one day is. Multiply by how early experience is embedded in how one processes onward experience. That strongly suggests, getting powerfully stimulating experiences as early as possible, reinforced rapidly so they become baked-in. (Ever wondered why as one gets older, the days seem to speed up? Fractionally speaking, they do.) KF>> kairosfocus
Groov, I read that as little more than, we are polarised and all the 'devils' are on that side of the split. Alinskyism. Solzhenitsyn was far more correct, the line between good and evil passes through the individual human heart. The evidence of design has little or nothing to do with races, classes or cultural divides. It has everything to do with, what is the evidence that points to reliable indicators of design as material causal factor. The projections we see are actually a sign that the design inference is so strong that those who want to fend it off have to resort to ill-founded projections, demonisation, stereotyping and scapegoating. KF kairosfocus
D, you are compiling a reference base and that is to be respected. KF kairosfocus
groovamos @18
It does seem that the animations of cellular machinery are the most effective way to get attention.
Don't they say that a picture is worth a thousand words? :) Even though some of those cool animations seem grossly oversimplified. A fully accurate animation would require information we still don't have, but many animations could be updated with information that is available in recent papers. That's one of the projects I'm working on. That's why I'm collecting so many research papers using Zotero in order to enrich the tech specs for animation programs. I share some of them -the coolest ones- here in UD. BTW, by mistake some got repeated recently. Zotero detects duplicates, but this blog doesn't. I apologize for that error, though probably it went unnoticed. Anyway, very few people look at the threads "Mystery at the heart of life" and "Third Way of evolution". They are not popular at all. Dionisio
harry @12 Interesting comment. Thank you. A friend of mine who lived in a multiethnic/multiracial community took his younger son to visit their relatives in another more racially homogeneous town. When the young boy noticed what he thought was lack of ethnic/racial diversity in that place asked why. One of the local relatives replied passionately that they did have ethnic diversity: Swedes, Dutch, Danish, Finnish, Norwegians, Belgians, Germans, Austrians, Russians, French, Scottish, etc. Then, lowering his voice to a whisper, he told the young boy "BTW, don't trust the Belgians". We were made to love our neighbors as ourselves. The shocking illustration Jesus presented to a Jewish man had a Samaritan helping a Jew on a road. The message was unambiguously sharp. Those two ethnic groups hated each other. Since the first humans in history doubted the words of their Creator and did it their way we've been doomed to man-made divisions. It's our natural condition. That malady has no natural cure. It's been a naturally lost case since shortly after the start of human history. There's only one cure available: spiritual heart regeneration through a unique supernatural means. In Christ we're all equally reconciled to our Creator. Then we understand that each and every person is uniquely special with the same dignity as the rest. All made in the Imago Dei*. (*) http://www.reasons.org/articles/imago-dei-what-does-it-mean Dionisio
rvb8 : ...‘alt-right’ and its unmistakable ID leanings...? This has to be a joke right? Something that is designated with vague moniker, in single quotes no less, is at the same time unmistakable, with unmistakable attributes. About conservatives in general: I'm acquainted with a very large number of individuals involved in music here in my city. I know equal numbers of liberals, conservatives and those in the middle. None of these people have any serious knowledge of ID that I'm aware of or I would have seen it on my many facebook postings of links to this website and the ENV one. They are appreciative sometimes with 'likes' and short comments but no conservatives seem to want to engage in further dialogue with me. People are just too busy or something. Certainly no "ID leanings" seem apparent. BTW It does seem that the animations of cellular machinery are the most effective way to get attention. groovamos
@Seversky, I'm totally confused about why we have to try and not be racists since you have argued on here consistently that there are no real moral values. You need to quit acting like there are real moral values if you are going to argue there are not. ellijacket
This was posted in another thread, but perhaps it is kind of related to this OP too?
The book “Until the Final Hour” (subtitled “Hitler’s Last Secretary”), is mainly based on the personal stories written by Traudl Junge soon after the end of WW2. The story was edited by Melissa Muller for the German edition of the book and translated by Anthea Bell for the first US edition in 2004. The second paragraph on page 108 reads:
Sometimes we also had interesting discussions about the church and the development of the human race. Perhaps it’s going too far to call them discussions, because he [Hitler] would begin explaining his ideas when some question or remark from one of us had set them off, and we just listened. He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his dogma of violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbor and your enemy. ‘Science isn’t yet clear about the origins of humanity,’ he once said. ‘We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved on to human beings, perhaps by way of the apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.’
On page 237, in relation to a story published by the magazine Quick in Munich, Traudl Junge wrote:
I remember that one Shrove Tuesday the editorial office was working on a big story about several war crimes trials and executions in Landsberg. Only then I did find out, for the first time, details of what went on behind the scenes in the Third Reich. Above all, I discovered what lay behind the facades of people I had known as pleasant, cultivated companions. For instance there was Dr Karl Brandt, one of Hitler’s attendant doctors, whom I had thought an educated, humane man, but he was hanged in 1948 for taking part in medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners and practicing euthanasia. I could hardly grasp it.
On page 243 Traudl Junge talks about her friend Luise Lanzenstiel:
Luise was married to a pastor and had had six children. She was amazingly cheerful and steadfast. The family got through the Nazi period very bravely, without sacrificing their ideals. Luise told me she never once said “Heil Hitler” in all that time. The whole family were securely anchored in their faith, in an open-minded way — not at all bigoted. They always said grace before meals, which made me feel very awkward at first, but then I got to feel more and more like part of the family. I owe it to Heinz Bald that I have a substitute family today, because I am friends with those six children and thirteen grandchildren too. I’m their Auntie Traudl. With the Lanzenstiels, I saw for the first time what it’s like for people to have the strength of faith. I envied them very much for their ability to believe — it’s not a gift given to me. But they weren’t missionaries, they accepted me as I am. I’ve gone to Luise when I wanted to hide from the rest of the world. I felt safe with her, I knew I was with someone who understood me.
On page 244 Traudl Junge talks about Sophie Scholl of the anti-Nazi movement The White Rose:
“At that time I must often have walked past the commemorative plaque to Sophie Scholl in Franz-Joseph-Strasse without noticing it. One day I did, and I was terribly shocked when I realized that she was executed in 1943, just when I was beginning my own job with Hitler. Sophie Scholl had originally been a BDM member herself, a year younger than me, and she saw clearly that she was dealing with a criminal regime. All of a sudden I had no excuse anymore.”
History repeats. Unfortunately these days it seems like there are many people in younger Traudl Junge's pathetically oblivious & naïve condition and there are fewer with Sophie Scholl's inquiring minds. Dionisio
JAD, excellent question. KF kairosfocus
As a member of the alt-right, and their theological leader, I believe I am sufficiently qualified to describe them.
Wait, the alt-right has a "theological leader"? And it's you, seriously? Somehow I doubt that. daveS
Harry, dead right. Red vs blond vs dark brown hair is a classic case in point of superficial judgements. And BTW, I have close cousins with blue eyes [and fairly dark skin!], some with blond hair, some with red hair, others with jet black hair. The other day, I looked at a picture of Melanesian islanders with strikingly blond hair. Small mutations account for such features and in my family there is a joke about being born with red hair that has to go black before it can go grey. KF kairosfocus
Christ prayed for our conversion and our unity. The prince of this world wants the opposite and uses a divide and conquer strategy to get it. If the various races didn't exist, and all of humanity had the characteristics of, say, Caucasians, the prince of this world would have us divided into groups where hair color supposedly had some huge significance -- anything to turn us against each other and divide us into groups where each would perceive itself as victims and the others as victimizers, or perceive itself as superior and the others as inferior. The last thing the prince wants is our unity based upon our common humanity. harry
The fact is that racism is found in all human cultures to some degree. Like it or not it is a part of who we are and we are all capable of it unless we make a conscious effort to be on our guard against it. Those who mount a moral hobbyhorse against racism which implies that others are guilty of it but not them are do not help. Only when all sides are humble enough to admit that we are all at fault to some degree will we make progress.
Why should all sides be “humble enough to admit that we are all at fault”? You can only argue something like that if you believe that there is a real transcendent (“objective” and universal) basis for moral obligations and human rights. john_a_designer
More nonsense from rvb8. What a fool! Truth Will Set You Free
Peter First, I speak as a man of tri-continental, Caribbean ancestry who has seen the centuries long impact of aggressive colonialism, piracy, enslavement and worse pretty directly. (My very name reminds me that leadership that sought the good was often kangaroo courted and hanged by the colonial overlords and/or their local lackeys who were more for Massa than Massa himself was. That lesson is written in my family's martyred blood, literally over the door of my native land's parliament.) So, I know that the past 500 years have been a very mixed blessing, and that there is no racial monopoly on crime on the grand scale. (IIRC, a pirate once rebuked Caesar, that as he was a small operator he was deemed a pirate. Bigtime operators had navies and armies duly authorised by governments. But fundamentally, the business was the same. Now, nukes are in the mix.) I am not inclined to take the Alt Right as a serious or responsible movement -- albeit it is patently dangerous; however, I recently ran across this video by Stefan Molyneux, which gives me pause before making a blanket dismissal of the so-called alt right as utterly irresponsible, shallow and angry. I cannot but agree with SM -- on the strength of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire under waves of immigration and invasion that overwhelmed ability to accommodate and integrate -- that mass invasion by incompatible elements is potentially ruinous. Likewise the journal founded by Ms Abedin's mother (and which listed Huma on the masthead for many years) is a clear advocate of the Civilisation/ Settlement Jihad strategy in the American Muslim Brotherhood's Explanatory Memorandum to its Egyptian sponsors and the impact of this is clearly visible in the no go zones of Europe. Similarly, in the Caribbean, post slavery, there was a large scale importation of especially Indian indentured labour that (esp. in the SE triangle) deliberately sowed deep racial-cultural divides while creating competition for jobs that depressed wages for ex slaves. And of course, out of this we saw the first waves of enclave entrepreneurship that makes our business classes so divided and so diverse from the population as a whole. The Toffs always were past masters of divide, manipulate and [mis-]rule. That said, I beg to remind you that those who studied the matter speak of a sharp narrowing of the human gene pool such that it has been said there is more genetic diversity in the typical baboon troop than in the human race. And of course, that is the most scientifically valid conclusion: we are one race, fully interfertile across the range from Japan, China, Java to the Middle East, Europe, Britain, Scandinavia, West Africa, Southern Africa, and across into the Americas. Where else do you think those Caribbean and Latin American exotic beauties come from who keep on topping global beauty contests? For decades, now. As for athletics, do not let Usain Bolt's skin colour fool you, Jamaicans are an astonishingly mixed lot and the gene pool is such that 10% of Jamaicans have Sephardic Jewish ancestry as just one illustration. (The longest settled ethnic group in the country, apart from Arawak traces.) A better explanation for that nation's sprint performance since 1952 is that the 4 x 100 success that year was a thunderbolt that shaped school culture, even as Cricket used to be utterly dominant. Back in the 80's, global cricket dominance would have been just as obvious. But then came satellite TV and basketball etc. Our Test team now hovers just above Bangladesh, and Kenya gave us a run for our money in the short version of the game. Bolt himself was spotted on the Cricket field and was advised to go for athletics. We lost a super-pace bowler there, and the world gained a sprint champion. Oddly, one who fights scoliosis. Which is not exactly a marker of athletic success. And as for mental capacity, I would suggest yes, the surviving pocket of Christendom was the [for centuries unpromising] seed-plot of the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution then the industrial one, in a context where printing and growing mass education made a difference. History counts. Where, not so long ago, the Irish were despised, the Jews also, not to mention all those Slavs and Southern Europeans. The Japanese and Chinese too. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers the lingering effects of the colonial era. Latin America also. The Caribbean too. So do the descendants of slaves in North America, who within living memory were legally discriminated against and suffered from iniquitously abuse prone sharecropping systems. So, I would not be so quick to judge people by skin colour, hair texture, eye-colour, facial features and other such superficial features. I would think that a sounder view is that all of us are human and have fundamentally the same spirit and potential. As for genetic determinism, which seems to lurk behind too many racial comparisons on IQ etc, I suggest that genetic determinism of behaviour, impulses and mental capacity proves too much, as it then leads straight to undermining responsible, rational, conscience guided freedom of the individual. Indeed, the logic leads straight to the conclusion that your arguments and mine are both utterly invalid as genetically driven. In short, such is self-refuting rubbish. Made worse by issues of cultural biases and loadings in the tests that try to assess g, the general intelligence factor. The so-called Flynn effect clearly demonstrates that something key is at work that is not genetic, it is far too fast for an evolutionary development. In effect, three percent points rise on a given norm, per DECADE, i.e. suggesting a doubling time of some 200 years on the good old rule of 72. Wiki, for convenience, to spark discussion:
Flynn effect Main article: Flynn effect Since the early 20th century, raw scores on IQ tests have increased in most parts of the world.[52][53][54] When a new version of an IQ test is normed, the standard scoring is set so performance at the population median results in a score of IQ 100. The phenomenon of rising raw score performance means if test-takers are scored by a constant standard scoring rule, IQ test scores have been rising at an average rate of around three IQ points per decade. This phenomenon was named the Flynn effect in the book The Bell Curve after James R. Flynn, the author who did the most to bring this phenomenon to the attention of psychologists.[55][56] Researchers have been exploring the issue of whether the Flynn effect is equally strong on performance of all kinds of IQ test items, whether the effect may have ended in some developed nations, whether there are social subgroup differences in the effect, and what possible causes of the effect might be.[57] A 2011 textbook, IQ and Human Intelligence, by N. J. Mackintosh, noted the Flynn effect demolishes the fears that IQ would be decreased. He also asks whether it represent a real increase in intelligence beyond IQ scores.[58] A 2011 psychology textbook, lead authored by Harvard Psychologist Professor Daniel Schacter, noted that Human's inherited intelligence could be going down while acquired intelligence goes up.[59]
In short, we do not know enough to make overly strong conclusions. But the rate is far too fast to be genetic, it is patently cultural. We need to do a radical, clear sighted rethink. KF kairosfocus
Cathy Young's (Ekaterina Jung's) recent diatribe against the alt Right is pure self interest. Take her objection to point 14: "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children." This statement would be so uncontroversial as to be invisible were it made about Jews. In fact, even a mild declining to enthusiastically acclaim its enduring truth would be greeted with the standard pointing and shrieking tactic of the globalist left: "Racism! Racism!" Jewish-Americans and their political allies in the USA make exactly this claim every day, with one important distinction; they assert it is the duty of *Americans* to spend blood and treasure to secure the existence of Jews and a future for Jewish children in the middle east. Assert its opposite about Jews and lose everything: reputation, career, and future. But say it about white people and oddly you get the same result: "Racism! Racism!" It's good politics, but lousy logic. Good theatre, but lousy science. Leave it out. ScuzzaMan
Well Robert, that was true to form. Haveyou met Pete? You may want to join his fun group! rvb8
Clinton is wrong. diversity is irrelevant to the Olympic team. China is number two and all Chinese.. The american team has blacks a lot and thats the point. Not diversity but about particular identities. Then diversity means what they call diversity. Its the modern segregational concepts of the ethnic libera; establishment and democratic party. Then also the women are only on the team because they only compete with other women. Otherwise it would be all men. It is segregated about who gets fame and fortune. I agree with sex segregation but lets remember the truth. Its amazing to see the old ideas of intelligence and innateness coming up again. by the way blacks only prevail because of greater intelligence in these sports. its a thing of the mind and distantly the body. Even if they were the same size as the rest they would prevail as much, or ALMOST, as much. Its poor analysis to see sports separated from the mind. its all about great intellectual skill using the body. IQ levels are irrelevant as scoring intelligence. it just scores memorizing. there is a curve to being studious and later intelligent but only that. Asia has high IQ's but always were the most unintelligent peoples relative to numbers and stability. Less then Africans. Europeans are not equal. Only today. In the past it was protestant and not Catholic. Intelligence is from motivation working with data close at hand. All people are born equal in smarts and its not based on race/sex. This is useful as a subject for creationism however. I think it should be seized.its like evolutionism has blundered again into what they did a century ago. They can't get away from evolving smarts in races/sex. Funny if they finally discredit themselves on a secondary issue here. SOMEBODY ask Clinton if she thinks people by race, by evolution, are differently intelligent innately?? Robert Byers
Thanks Peter, although your point of view did not need explaining, I think we all know it. I expect when you say 'White people',(Heh:) you mean those of European descent. 90% of discoveries you say? And you, as 'white' person, what did you contribute? 50% of the crime you say, I'd like that figure backed up, as your white bank manager, stockbroker, insurance salesman, car salesman etc screws you. I like your world Pete (can I call you Pete?) it's the kind of world I think God has planned for heaven, all white, pink, gingham, and Confed flags; for eternity as well. rvb8
As a member of the alt-right, and their theological leader, I believe I am sufficiently qualified to describe them. The alt-right is a group young White people that have rejected the prevailing notion in academia and the MSM that White people are inherently evil and deserve to be genocided with immigration and miscegenation. If anything describes the alt-right, it is a grasp of reality and the bravery to reject the influence of the MSM that few academics have. Comparing the contributions to scientific research it is shown via Twitter that White people have contributed over 90% of the modern advances in science. Similarly, evidence is presented that Blacks, while a minority in America, account for over 50% of the crime. Similar realism is found in observing the disproportional control of the MSM and Hollywood by Jews. Some would call them racist for believing the truth. An effective critic on the weak and cowardly mind. They would say that the facts are not racist. Another fact which they are concerned about is the demographic change in America where Whites will be a minority by 2070. They are a key support group for Donald Trump, and this explains why his popularity never seems to go down, regardless of the coordinated attacks by the MSM. They know the MSM is anti-White, and reject its biases. If anyone cares to find out for themselves what the alt-right is about you need only go onto Twitter and search White genocide. Peter
The Alt-Right Is Neither Christian Nor Conservative Erick Erickson has had a lot of experience with the Trump-faction and the alt-Right. In short, it's nothing but white power, white grievance, and nationalism. rhampton7
What is the point of this incoherrant thinking? Scientists today are not rascist, it interfears with their work, generally rascism resides with the masses. Darwin was probably a rascist, but also a humanist and derided slavery! So again, what is the point of this poorly written, very poorly thought out, incredibly vague argument? Is it to say, in Darwin's day he was enlightened, or is it to say that 'alt-right' and its unmistakable ID leanings is not? The 'lame-stream' media may be lame, but at least it's coherrant. rvb8
It sounds to me as if alt-right is just an Internet meme for a strand of racism that has been endemic in human culture for as far back as we have records. It certainly pre-dates Darwin's theory. Darwin was a liberal by the standards of his time but held views which today are regarded as racist. Yes, some elements of his theory were co-opted by social movements that pursued policies that we rightly condemn today as racist. That doesn't make his theory inherently racist or a major cause of racism. Anyone who tried to make such a case must contend with the much longer history of racism in the Christian cultures of Europe and North America. The fact is that racism is found in all human cultures to some degree. Like it or not it is a part of who we are and we are all capable of it unless we make a conscious effort to be on our guard against it. Those who mount a moral hobbyhorse against racism which implies that others are guilty of it but not them are do not help. Only when all sides are humble enough to admit that we are all at fault to some degree will we make progress. Seversky

Leave a Reply