Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin, Nicholas Wade and the alt right

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
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

and

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!

Comments
More nonsense from rvb8. What a fool!Truth Will Set You Free
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
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
August 29, 2016
August
08
Aug
29
29
2016
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Well Robert, that was true to form. Haveyou met Pete? You may want to join his fun group!rvb8
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2016
August
08
Aug
28
28
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply