Why I believe in race-realism

I can’t remember what led me to it, but I recently found an article titled “I Posed as a White Supremacist Online” that peaked my interest. The article is by Greg Stevens, and it turned out to be very entertaining. The forum he had infiltrated was called “Skadi.” Some of y’all may be familiar with it; it’s now defunct. From what I gather, it was a lot like Stormfront and most of its members probably migrated there. Stevens was surprised by the diversity of opinions there, but put off by (among other things) the anti-Semitism.
I was able to contact Mr. Stevens and informed him that there are pro-white people/race-realists out there who are not neo-Nazi types. That we count, within our ranks, people of several races – and that some of us are Jews. Mr. Stevens (who, I believe, holds some P.H.D.s, but is too modest to use the title “Dr.”) was happy to correspond with me and he turned out to be a real mensch. To all my readers: Please do not contact Mr. Stevens directly unless he asks you to. I don’t want to be responsible for an inundation of unwanted messages. Just post your comments and questions here; he has the link.
A couple of items I’d promised to clarify were a) Why do I believe in non-superficial racial differences? and b) Have I experienced anti-white discrimination personally? I’ll add c) Why is it important to recognize racial differences? For many regular readers, none of this should be new. This essay will, for the most part, only deal with “a.” “b” and “c” will have to wait for future posts. For the sake of simplicity, I’ve focused mainly on blacks and whites. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I deal almost exclusively with intelligence here.

Why do I believe in non-superficial racial differences?

I don’t claim to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that such differences exist. Mr. Stevens writes, in a different article:

There is a possibility that someday, someone will gather enough detailed data and perform a complex enough analysis, that they will be able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, with no apparent flaws in experimental design or methodology, that there is some difference between two groups of people that we really wish, for political reasons, we hadn’t found.
To illustrate this, I’m suggesting the hypothetical example where a group of people with genetic marker X (which is present more in white people) performs spatial rotation tasks on average 1.3 times faster than people with genetic marker Y (which is present more in black people).

In a perfect world, scientists could go about their research unhindered – and without fear of asking the “wrong” questions. In our world, however, there are grave consequences for any scientist who dares broach the topic of racial differences. James Watson, Michael Levin and Philippe Rushton are a few examples of academics who suffered for their racial research. Other scientists, such as Armand LeRoi and Steven Pinker avoided this fate by (mostly) speaking in hints and being extremely diplomatic. In 2006, Bruce Lahn claimed to have made a breakthrough in evolutionary science. According to The Wall Street Journal (the article can now be found at American Renaissance):

CHICAGO—Last September, Bruce Lahn, a professor of human genetics at the University of Chicago, stood before a packed lecture hall and reported the results of a new DNA analysis: He had found signs of recent evolution in the brains of some people, but not of others.
It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country’s most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. “It’s getting too controversial,” he says.
Dr. Lahn had touched a raw nerve in science: race and intelligence.
What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren’t common in sub-Saharan Africa.

Professor Lahn, originally from China, did not understand that such research is not welcome in the West.
Mr. Stevens admits that we would not wish to find such differences – for “political reasons.” Stevens’ desire to not find such differences is the default position of our government at all levels, of our media at all levels, of our educational system at all levels, of every single one of our corporations – and of practically every individual in the West with any substantial clout or influence. The ENTIRE EDIFICE  of Western civilization is bent on NOT finding such differences.
If they don’t want to find them, they certainly are not going to look for them. As an iconoclast (years ago, as I was forming my opinions), this made me question the motivations of all these powerful forces. It caste a shadow of doubt over their claims and made me want to investigate further.
Who makes the rules? Who sets the expectations and mores of society? It’s those with money and influence who do so. They own the media, they run the government and schools, and they control the corporations. More intelligent people tend to rise to the top. This is true regardless of race. Consequentially, those who pull the strings have little intimate contact with average people. The blacks they know in their personal lives are among the talented tenth. With the exception of their outward appearance, these blacks differ little from elite whites. Thus, when a newspaper editor thinks of blacks, it’s the well-spoken one on his staff that comes to mind. When the corporate executive reads about claims of lower black I.Q., he thinks, “How ridiculous. I play golf with a black man and he’s very intelligent!” These powerful people are not forced to use public transportation with the hoi polloi. They do not live in the inner cities, and their children do not attend ghetto schools. Therefore, it’s easy to see why the ruling class feels revulsion at the concepts people like myself advance; it conflicts with their own life experience – and everything they see in the media.
What do we mean by “intelligence?” I’ll quote “The Affirmative Action Hoax” (first edition) by Steven Farron (Appendix IV):

The reason why the scores on all these tests correlate closely with each other is that they all require analyzing, synthesizing, and manipulation information; distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information; and other types of abilities that are commonly called “intelligent.” For the same reason, they have a low correlation with scores on tests of spelling or simple arithmetic computation…

Assumptions can be very expensive. The assumption that all races are equal in average intellect has cost the United States many billions of dollars, and untold ruined lives. If we assume, as the government/corporations/media/educational system does, that there are no innate differences in intelligence between the races, then the consistent disparities we observe MUST be the result of systematic discrimination – or the legacy of slavery/Jim Crow. This assumption forces us to caste whites in a negative light. It taints us all with some sort of original sin. A sin we are forever obliged to atone for. It means, ultimately, that public schools will not teach white children to be proud of their heritage as whites; in contrast to the way those schools teach blacks to be proud of their heritage as blacks.
When various populations obviously vary in average height, hair texture, skull shape, muscle type, bone density, disease resistance and overall bodily strength, why should we assume that these populations, having evolved in vastly different environments, would miraculously end up with exactly the same mental capabilities. Such a belief, in my opinion, requires faith in a god who would perform such a wondrous feat. I’ll quote James Watson:

A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

On the face of it, the burden of proof lies with race-denialists. They are the ones whose position is at odds with science. The default position should be that of race-realists – and public policy should be determined accordingly: That each individual should be judged on his own merit, and let the chips fall where they may – and that our right of freedom of association be honored. If there are no black physicists, and only a handful of female engineers, then so be it. If neighborhoods and schools end up being racially, religiously, or gender, segregated, then so be it.
But enough beating around the bush. Here are the reasons I believe in innate racial differences:
1) Race realists/hereditarians do not ignore the impact of environment. Most of us claim that our genes account for some 50% of our mental capabilities, with environmental factors (such as nutrition, cultural upbringing and health making up the rest). But race-denialists ignore/deny the importance of genetics on intelligence (however we define it). They accept the “blank slate” (tabula rasa) dogma, which claims that our mental capabilities are shaped entirely by environment. Though the concept of tabula rasa had existed long before the genetics of race became a contentious issue, race-denialists have forced themselves into ascribing to this archaic and discredited notion. They have locked themselves into a sinking ship.
While it’s true that race CAN BE a social construct, as Stevens points out, when race-realists speak of “race,” we’re referring to one’s actual genetic/geographical origins. A person who chooses to call himself “Native American” because his great great grandmother was pure-blooded whatever, is NOT a Native American. If the rest of his ancestry is European, then he’s “white”. Most of us don’t give much credence to “pure races.”
Geographical origins correspond closely with what we call “race” for the simple reason that humans have, until recently, bred almost exclusively with those from the same area. As long as we accept that genes play a role in intelligence, which is all but undeniable (considering numerous twin/adoption studies), then it’s reasonable to assume that different regions will produce people of different aptitudes. These difference may be small, or they may be large; without research, no assumptions should be made.
2) I.Q. tests, though they may have been culturally biased early on, are no longer so. The fact that Asians consistently score higher than whites, even in tests that were devised by whites, should tell us as much.
There have been numerous claims of modern police/fire department entrance tests (proxies for I.Q. tests) being “racist,” nobody has been able to identify specific questions, within those tests, that are culturally biased. Were we so inclined, we could use this phenomenon to help us define “intelligence.” Intelligence would then be “the talent required for any academic task where blacks perform worse than whites.” At any rate, this makes about as much sense as claiming that all black deficiencies are the result of bias.
Has anybody come up with an academic test where blacks consistently score higher than whites? Where whites score higher than Asians? If there were such a test, we would never hear the end of it. The news would be splashed all over the front pages of newspapers, television shows would feature the story at prime time for months on end, and billboards would announce it for all to see. If it’s cultural bias that’s behind low black scores, then it should be easy to devise a test that favors blacks – and the political will is certainly there. Yet this has not been done. In light of this fact, any unbiased person would conclude that lower black scores are the result of lower innate mental capabilities.
There is another, often overlooked, aspect to this matter: Blacks do not all share a single culture. There are thousands of cultures in Africa, the Caribbean and the Americas that blacks belong to. Culture is NOT a common denominator among blacks. Neither is religion or socio-economic status. The only trait that unites all blacks is that their ancestors came from sub-Saharan Africa. If we filter out the more intelligent ones (through selective migration, wealth or attendance at exclusive schools), then naturally we’ll see higher scores. This same trick can be done with with any other group. Controlling for S.E. status is thus not a valid counter-argument – unless we do the same with other races when we compare them. In this case, the gap would persist and nothing would be gained.
3) On average, blacks have smaller brains than whites and whites have smaller brains than Asians (taking into account body mass). While it’s true that brain-size is only moderately correlated with intelligence, the correlation is still there and should be taken into account. Here I’ll quote myself, from my critique of  Joseph Graves’ “The Emperor’s New Clothes”:

Graves can’t quite make up his mind in the matter of  brain size.  He repeatedly references (pg. 3, 46 and 86)  Stephen Jay Gould’s research, which supposedly exposed Samuel Morton’s research (which showed negro skulls to be, on average, of lower capacity than Caucasian and Asian ones).  He writes:

Many assertions and assumptions about race and racial relations that were taken for granted during the Enlightenment have subsequently been proven false (such as the incorrect assertion that Negroes’ brains are smaller than those of white Europeans) (pg. 3).

But he also writes:

However, when unbiased measurements of human brains were made, there was no evidence for differences in brain size.  In 1838, Friedrich Tiedemann… measured the brains from fifty cadavars (both Negro and European) and found no weight differences… The twentieth-century anthropologist Ashley Montagu concluded that the average cranial capacity difference between blacks and whites was about 50 cubic centimeters (pg.  87 and bold mine).

Surely that last study, by Montagu, warrants further study – but Graves does not seem interested in such a study.  Does he believe that 50 cubic centimeters is not meaningful – even when taken together with other evidence?  How many neurons can fit into 50 cubic centimeters?  In any event, how unfortunate for Graves that it was Gould’s study that proved to be fraudulent, not Morton’s.  From Science Fair of June, 2011:

The late scientific icon, Stephen Jay Gould, botched and perhaps faked his critique of a racist 19th-Century scientist’s skull collection, suggests a second look at his efforts.  In a 1978 Science paper, Gould (1941 – 2002) , reported that the Samuel George Morton (1799-1851), “a prominent Philadelphia physician,” had mis-measured the cranial capacities of his 1,000-skull “American Golgotha” collection gathered from around the world, to suit his racist beliefs. The finding led to one of Gould’s best-known books, The Mismeasure of Man, a critique of scientific racism.  Overall, they find, Morton did make mistakes in measuring skull capacity (he first stuffed them with seeds, and later lead shot to measure their brain size). But the mistakes were random. The random mistakes didn’t favor any racial theory of larger brain sizes for white people over others…
Morton neither manipulated his skull samples, unfairly selected which data to report, skewed results by gender, or ignored his mistakes to favor racist interpretations of his skulls, the PLoS Biology study authors conclude — all charges made by Gould against the long-dead physician.
What’s more, the researchers found Gould made some mistakes in his re-analysis of Morton. “Our analysis of Gould’s claims reveals that most of Gould’s criticisms are poorly supported or falsified,” they conclude:

Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that ”unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth”. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in ”science studies”. But our results falsify Gould’s hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton’s initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

4) If we read the aforementioned article in Science Fair, we’ll see that the author, Dan Vergano, dismisses any serious implications of this brain-size disparity with these words:

Today, researchers know that larger average skull size is largely a function of cold weather…

How convenient. Even if larger skulls, and the brains within them, are a result of colder weather – how, exactly, would this preclude any impact on overall intelligence? No explanation is given.
Many have pointed out that it takes more intelligence, foresight and future time-orientation to survive the cold winters of the North than it does to survive in the tropics. Game is plentiful in tropical Africa. Yes, it takes cunning and planning to capture a wildebeest – but these clearly are not part of the same mental tool-kit that is required to survive the winter in Europe. I’ll quote Brian Fagan, from his book “Cro Magnon – How the ice age gave birth to the first modern humans” (pg. 170. Read my review here):

Infinite patience and persistence were also qualities common to tropical and cold-climate hunters alike. Everywhere, mental attitudes were important, but they were particularly central to survival in environments where strong winds and the bitter cold of subzero temperatures for days on end sapped human energy. Successful hunting and survival depended on deeply ingrained attitudes of self-assurance and competence, on mental attitudes that were part of the Cro-Magnon personality.

The natives of Europe had to store up food during the warm months so that they’d have something to eat during the winter. This was not necessary in Africa. Today, black Americans don’t save nearly as much of their earnings as white Americans. Are we to believe that these phenomena are not related in any way? If we do note the parallels, are we to be condemned as “racists” for doing so? The worn-out “legacy of slavery” excuse doesn’t hold much water when we consider that black Africans are in even worse shape than black Americans economically.
Some scientists claim that, even though certain advantageous traits developed in specific areas, they gradually dispersed throughout human populations. This might make sense for higher intelligence if we assume that it is, indeed, an advantage throughout the world. But this is not the case. Higher intelligence is often an evolutionary disadvantage. For example, it’s an evolutionary disadvantage in modern Western society; more intelligent people tend to have fewer children. Furthermore, the brain is an expensive organ.
5) The higher a black’s proportion of white ancestry, the more intelligent he tends to be. The late Philippe Rushton, in his seminal work “Race, Evolution and Behavior” writes (pg. 30,31):

Trans-racial Adoption StudiesThe best evidence for the genetic basis of race-IQ differences comes from trans-racial adoption studies of Oriental children, Black children, and Mixed- race children. All these children have been adopted by White parents at an early age and have grown up in middle-class White homes.
One well known trans-racial adoption study is Sandra Scarr’s Minnesota project. The adopted children were either White, Black, or Mixed- race (Black-White) babies. The children took IQ tests when they were seven years old and again when they were 17.
In their initial report, the authors thought that their study proved that a good home could raise the IQs of Black children. At age 7, their IQ was 97, well above the Black average of 85 and almost equal to the White average of 100. However, when the children were retested at age 17, the results told another story (reported in the 1992 issue of Intelligence).
At age seven, Black, Mixed- race, and White adopted children all had higher IQ scores than average for their group. Growing up in a good home helped all the children. Even so, the racial pattern was exactly as predicted by genetic theory, not by culture theory. Black children reared in these good homes had an average IQ of 97, but the Mixed- race children averaged an IQ of 109, and the White children an IQ of 112.
The evidence for genetic theory got stronger as the children grew older. By age 17, the IQs of the adopted children moved closer to the expected average for their race. At age 17 adopted White children had an IQ of about 106, Mixed- race adoptees an IQ of about 99, and adopted Blacks had an IQ of about 89. IQ scores are not the only evidence in this study. School grades, class ranks, and aptitude tests show the same pattern.

Similarly, if we examine lists of famous black inventors and statesmen, we find that most of them are of largely white ancestry. Radishmag has a good article on this that he calls “Mulatto History Month.” Here’s a segment:

What do almost all successful “black” Americans have in common? Below, from left to right: the first “black” president; the first “black” attorney general; the first “black” secretary of state; the first “black” female secretary of state; and the first “black” cabinet member.
The first “black” Supreme Court justice; the first “black” elected congressman; the first “black” governor; Booker T. Washington, the famous “black” writer; and W.E.B. Du Bois, another famous “black” writer:


Charles Drew, the famous “black” surgeon; Daniel Hale Williams, the first “black” cardiologist; the first “black” man to earn a B.A.; the first “black” man to earn a Ph.D.; and the first “black” general:


If ever there was a case of “socially-constructed race,” it would be the list of notable black statesmen and scholars.
6) All races have some archaic features. Caucasians have large brow-ridges and hairy bodies. Many Asians have noticeable prognathism and sloped foreheads. Morphologically speaking, the most archaic living human population is Australian Aborigines. Is it coincidence that they also happen to score among the lowest in I.Q. tests? Here’s an illustration from the above article in Radishmag:
Can we point to specific individuals, who happen to sport archaic features, and conclude that they must be stupid? Obviously not. My contention is that there seems to be a correlation between a preponderance of archaic features in a population and that same population’s average I.Q. Blacks have many more archaic features than whites. Asians have less than whites. Is it coincidence that we find the same hierarchy in I.Q. scores?
7) I was raised to believe that we all have our strengths and weaknesses. I was taught in school that there is no “superior race.” Imagine that! But what if one race turned out to be stronger and faster than other races – but just as intelligent and creative? Wouldn’t that make the race in question “superior?” I’m speaking, of course, of blacks. They dominate most contact sports and we’re told that they’re highly spiritual and moral. After all, it was whites who enslaved blacks and persecuted them through lynching and Jim Crow. As a young man I had a check list:
a) Morally superior… Check!
b) Physically more imposing and better at all sports that mattered… Check!
c) Inventive and intellectually accomplished… Check!
Voila! We have found the superior race – and he’s black. Specifically black male. “But wait a minute”, I said. “Surely the black man must have a weakness.” White people must be better at SOMETHING! Perhaps, had I lived in Canada, I’d have satisfied myself with hockey. But I wasn’t Canadian. Hockey was not enough, so I re-examined my list – and found that only “b” could be argued with any credibility. Leaving morality aside for the moment, I satisfied myself with the notion that blacks are physically superior while whites and Asians are mentally superior. That way, I reasoned, there is no “superior race.” I had some pretty good teachers in school, and some of them were black. They had been vindicated after all.
8) Studying history, I noticed that there were few black African civilizations that were not either a) relatively late or b) spawned by other, non-black, civilizations. Ethiopia is only partly black, and has been in contact with its Semitic cousins in the Middle East since ancient times. This relative void of civilization, and lack of technology, made Africans easy prey for Arab and European colonizers and slave traders. Neither writing nor the wheel were discovered by blacks, and this backwardness persists to our own era. No significant architectural monuments dot the sub-Saharan African landscape; the “Great Zimbabwe” is of uncertain origin, and is not very old. It could be said that the tropical heat, and isolation of that region conspired to stunt the growth of civilization – yet Meso-America faired much better, and even saw the invention of writing. With the exception of small island nations, chaos and a lack of intellectual life seem to follow blacks wherever they go. Witness Haiti and Detroit for example – and now even Africa’s newest nation, South Sudan, is plagued by violence and corruption, despite billions of dollars in foreign aid and advisers.
Regarding Jared Diamond’s theories, see my critique of his book “Guns, Germs and Steel.”
Can the reader think of any city or neighborhood where the quality of life went up since blacks became a majority? When we witness this phenomenon, it should be perfectly reasonable to link it with low I.Q. scores. This should not be controversial at all.
9) Speaking of cities and neighborhoods, I have personally witnessed what happens when a neighborhood becomes majority black. I don’t claim that this is always the case. In general, however, we see an increase in graffiti, violent crime, neglected houses and yards, “troubled youths,” social vice and joblessness. All of these are linked to lower I.Q.
I have seen, with my own eyes, how corporations set lower standards so that they can count blacks among their (especially higher-paid) employees. They do this to avoid lawsuits. Blacks are wildly over-represented in government jobs such as DMV’s, IRS call-centers and the Postal Service. Less so in government jobs that still require written tests (see above). It’s not for want of employers’ willingness to hire blacks that their unemployment rates are so high; it’s because so many of them have criminal records or are unmotivated. Both are correlated with lower I.Q.
10) My own life-experiences have led me to believe in racial differences. It’s true that I’ve known some very intelligent people of all races – and some not-so-intelligent ones of all races as well. But I would have been deceiving myself had I not noticed the racial patterns that kept asserting themselves. As a child, I attended three different high schools: One in the ghetto of Inglewood, California, another in redneck territory in central Oregon, and the last in a racially mixed area of Seattle. I was considered a “genius” in the ghetto, “pretty smart” among the rednecks – but just average among the Asians and fellow Jews of Seattle. The first time I felt stupid, compared to those around me, was in a yeshiva (rabbinical school) in Israel.
It’s hard to swallow the dogma of racial egalitarianism with so much evidence, and life experience, stacked against it. If nothing else, all the above should at least merit objective discourse – and not be shrugged off as “pseudo-science” or “scientific racism.” Such name-calling is only evidence of the narrow-mindedness of the accuser. Outside of that, it’s no different than calling somebody a “heretic” or a “blasphemer.”

This entry was posted in Race science, racial differences and how they manifest themselves/race science. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Why I believe in race-realism

  1. countenance says:

    I’m not even aware of IQ testing ever having any real cultural bias. And that’s the point of an IQ test: Not to have it so it can measure innate intelligence.
    As far as tests that are less g-loaded, this business about cultural bias largely comes from the SAT, because the SAT is largely favored by northeastern upper crust schools, and in the past, the SAT’s verbal sections had the odd question that required you to know the anatomy of a yacht. But it’s been a long time since the SAT has had these kinds of questions, mainly because they’re sensitive to these accusations.

  2. Egalitarianism will be the death of us all. Since throwing money at the ‘inequality’ of Black and White children in education hasn’t worked, the next ‘logical’ step in the progressive agenda will be to lobotomize every White and Asian child to ensure equal intelligence between all races. It’s just a matter of time.

  3. I found it very irritating – if predictable – when liberals have to keep parroting that this and that racial idea “has been throughly debunked, discredited” etc., when it clearly hasn’t been – except in their own deluded minds. I recently had a liberal FB friend of mine say (on his wall) that “Guns, Germs and Steel” has “totally discredited the “knuckle dragging racists who got a rush from reading The Bell Curve”. I replied, pointing out some of the silly ideas and contradictions in GGS, hoping we would get into a debate of some kind. Instead of answering he just deleted the entire conversation and when I messaged him to ask why he said “I don’t want my son or HIS BLACK FRIENDS to see this sort of thing”. This guy lives in Tasmania, btw..! The black plague has reached every corner of the white world.

  4. Atheist Race Realist says:

    Just a note for our guest. If you spend enough time in the “Dark Enlightenment” part of the internet you will be convinced of a few things, including the realities of race. How do I know this? The same reason I know that I can convince someone that the Earth rotates around the Sun, because it’s the truth.
    But the sad part is, you wont be able to admit it to anyone. You would lose whatever jobs you have, your friends and family would go find pitchforks and torches and run you out of town if you so much as admitted that race was real.
    Maybe we could work out some special signal to let us know that you have come around to our way of thinking? (ONE OF US! ONE OF US!)
    Maybe a hand gesture or special phrase like “The moon is made of cheese” so we know that you got it.
    Good luck and have fun.

  5. Atheist Race Realist says:

    Question: Have you ever had a colleague, friend or family member talk to you about race in a candid way?

  6. Jagdflieger says:

    While whites are giving advances in cancer immunotherapy and other important scientific breakthroughs to the global community that will improve the quality of life for all the biggest contribution that blacks have given us this year has been… twerking! And if that’s not enough, guess what? Blacks claim that whites have stolen it from them and they want it back!

  7. panjoomby says:

    Excellent post! It could be expanded into a book (which i’d buy:) thank you for being both bright & brave – mainly biological traits, sure – but still, the act of both thinking & writing about it all – that’s above & beyond the call of biology:)

  8. Julian says:

    If Mr Stevens is curious why people would believe in non-superficial racial differences, I think the more serious question is why anyone would be surprised they exist?
    After all,
    1. Behavoural traits are heritable (e.g.. Turkheimer 2000).
    2. Different cultures and environments may favor different traits.* For example, a tropical environment where women do most of the work (female farming systems) and there is low paternal investment may likely favor different male behavoural traits to those in colder climates with greater state control and higher demand for paternal investment.
    * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/weekinreview/12wade.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    I’d recommend Mr Stevens read some articles by Greg Clark or ‘The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution’. Also, various posts by Professor Steve Hsu discussing the same.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Steve Hsu is a good place to start, for some people, because he’s a liberal and a race-realist. But there’s so much to read on the subject, it’s really hard to advise people where to start. I suppose the REAL start is a decision to embark on the path to the truth, regardless of where it may lead. To fearlessly forge ahead and let honesty be one’s guide. After that, everything else is pretty easy.

      • Julian says:

        Very true. I think about 10 years ago I first googled an HBD related issue and came up with a documentary called ‘Race: the Power of an Illusion’. All those unpleasant concerns I had about race differences in NZ were allayed! Unfortunately, not long afterwards I came across a (now defunct?) site called ‘Stalking the Wild Taboo’.
        It had articles by JP Rushton noting that black women could run faster because they had thinner waists, and gave birth to babies with smaller heads! It was totally shocking to read this, but I was intrigued. This went against everything I had been told about race being skin deep, but the guy was a Professor and had stats to back up his claims. I mentioned it to a friend who dismissed it as phrenology that had long been discredited.
        It probably took another 3-4 years before I really grasped that HBD was real.

  9. “Stalking the Wild Taboo” was a great site, sadly now gone. A quick search did find this very good essay on diversity by Jared Taylor.

    • Rob says:

      A good read. Thanks. I find it encouraging but odd that it’s hosted on the Virginia Tech website rather than in some more obscure corner of the web.

    • Julian says:

      It certainly had an interesting range of articles. Another author on the site I found interesting was Ed Miller. Miller was a Professor of Finance, but published a number of articles on intelligence and evolution. His article in the journal Intelligence about myelination underpinning brain processing speed was later confirmed by neuroscientist Paul Thompson.
      I found his article about paternal provisioning explanation for group differences quite plausible. The version from the Stalking the Wild Taboo site has been saved here.

  10. Californian says:

    Here’s the thing: what if race realism really is right? What does that portend for the future of civilization? We’ve already see entire cities laid waste–such as Detroit–because of egalitarian ideology. How much more of the first world is going to have to be destroyed before people “get it?”

  11. Bill says:

    With the exception of their outward appearance, these blacks differ little from elite whites. Thus, when a newspaper editor thinks of blacks, it’s the well-spoken one on his staff that comes to mind. When the corporate executive reads about claims of of lower black I.Q., he thinks, “How ridiculous. I play golf with a black man and he’s very intelligent!” These powerful people are not forced to use public transportation with the hoi polloi. They do not live in the inner cities, and their children do not attend ghetto schools. Therefore, it’s easy to see why the ruling class feels revulsion at the concepts people like myself advance; it conflicts with their own life experience – and everything they see in the media.
    This is a pet theory of mine, too. Yglesias Syndrome. Matt’s experience with blacks presumably were almost entirely limited to servants and the tokens let into his fancy prep schools and Harvard. A particularly toxic strain of Yglesias Syndrome seems to exist amongst military brats. In their childhood, black vs white differences looked pretty small. They don’t know that the blacks in the military are highly positively selected and that the whites in the military are not (they have both the very bottom and the top of the distribution cut off, if I am recalling correctly). Plus, the military is well-designed to promote good behavior amongst the intemperate.
    I constantly have the experience that utterly toxic anti-racism amongst whites is present only amongst those with basically no experience with real blacks. Not that people who do have experience with real blacks are out and proud racists, but they are just kinda quiet on the subject. Which means they are closeted racists who don’t like to lie.
    This is all based on anecdotal evidence. I wish I knew of some systematic evidence of it, though.

  12. john says:

    Thanks for writing about your journey to HBD. Actually, since my own conversion, I have been more forgiving when I see reports of crime and laziness etc. from blacks. At the same time, I feel like I am on the Titanic and only a few of us see the iceberg ahead, while the rest is going about their merry way.

  13. Stogumber says:

    Dr. Stevens may be an amiable person, but I can’t believe that he is honest. He calls himself a “science correspondent”, and as such he can’t really believe – as he pretends – that race studies were an invention of Nazi or proto-Nazi Germany.
    For the record, the classification of the three great races was invented in the Enlightenment and used among others by Immanuel Kant (normally not known as a Nazi precursor).
    Skull measurement began in the Mid 19th Century. Not particularly in Germany, but a German, Rudolf von Virchow, was one of its most energetic supporters – and a luminary of the Liberal Party.
    The Germans got a leading part in Physical Anthropology only around 1900 because they were the first to combine Mendelian Genetics with empirical anthropological studies – which forced them to distinguish more clearly between biological/genetical and cultural/traditional aspects of anthropology. (That was, at that time, definitely a progress. Franz Boas, who separated Cultural from Physical Anthropology, did the same from the opposite end.)
    In fact. the kind of race studies Dr. Stevens ridicules were the international state of the art till the 1950s, and likewise accepted by Germans and fierce Anti-Germans (like Prof. Hooton).
    Of course I would like Dr. Stevens to make use of these informations; but as I said, I suppose that he knows all this and only “forgets” it when he’s writing for the public.

  14. James Scott says:

    Any pro white who cannot see that organized jewry is the problem is simply dumb. Jews like you should not be a reason to pretend jews are not a huge threat to white people. You are probably just another jew playing both sides of the field.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Why on Earth would somebody play “both sides of the fence?” There’s no societal benefit to be gained from being a pro-white activist. Or do you actually believe that I’m a spy for the SPLC or the ADL? I only play one side of the fence James. There’s nothing ulterior, or deceptive, about my motives.

    • Stan D Mute says:

      “(O)rganized Jewry is THE problem”???
      I’m neither Jewish nor have any reason whatever to particularly like Jews. More often than not, interaction with Jews has been very expensive or otherwise unfavorable for me. But to claim Jews are “THE” problem is both wrong and counter-productive.
      Whites were infected with race blindness long before Jews were much of a political or media force. In England in the late 18th century, it was elite whites who had zero exposure to negroes who crusaded against slavery and colonialism. In America in mid 19th century, it was white Quakers and universalists who led the charge for Abolition. Like England, it was white elites who had no exposure to common negroes who insisted they must have the same rights and treatment as whites (“we are ALL God’s children”). Jews only became interested when Marxism fever swept the world and we saw the beginnings of secular “we are all equal” dogma.
      Fast forward to the present and Jews are among the most race realist people on the planet. Israel is evicting their negroes. Jews are openly proud of the well known fact that their IQ scores are the highest of all peoples. To the extent that Jews may use their positions in media and politics to agitate in favor of negroes in nations other than Israel, I’d point out that this is absolutely no different from elite goyim (that’s you and me). The commonality is that race blindness is a status symbol for elites whether Jews or not. Elites have zero personal exposure to common negro depravity and criminality.
      I do acknowledge the *possibility* that there is an *organized* Jewish effort to promote negroes in white countries. I could certainly understand a motive anyway for a people who have traditionally been the *only* minority in many white nations and who have been persecuted in those nations, to want a *more visible* and arguably much more disruptive minority upon which the host nation may focus any urges to persecute. But the existence of a potential motive does not prove culpability *especially* when we see ALL white elites behaving in exactly the same manner.
      The other problem I have with the “Blame the Jews!” school is that this requires goyim (US!) to be mindless idiots easily deceived to believe any nonsense that a day or two of immersion in negro population will immediately show to be false. I never needed the results of IQ tests, anthropological research, DNA testing, or even study of history to know negroes were less intelligent and more violent than whites – I needed only to spend some time surrounded by them. Having firsthand direct exposure it was blindingly obvious that negroes were significantly different and more primitive than whites. No amount of media or government propaganda could have instructed me otherwise. Am I extraordinary?
      Subscribing to “Blame the Jew” theories does nothing more than make you out largely the same as the elites who believe victimhood the greatest status symbol of all. “The Jews did it to us! Poor innocent little us goyim were tricked by those nasty meanie Jews!” Next you’ll be wanting special government protections from those wicked Jews who are out to get you. Pathetic. Just plain pathetic. And counter productive as the sought relief will do nothing to solve the problem of the negro in our midst.
      Face the fact that this is the handiwork of white elites, most of the Christian, and you’ve taken a giant step toward figuring out how to get us out of this mess.
      Stan D Mute

      • Very good post with many good points, but methinks you are letting the Jews off far too lightly. How do you explain the fact that almost all the leading Bolsheviks (and possibly Mensheviks, I haven’t checked) were not “elite whites”, but Jews? How do you explain that virtually every white in the (South African) ANC was and is a Jew, and not “elite whites”? How do you explain that virtually every major spy – and giver-awayer of Atom bomb secrets during the cold war were Jews and only very occasionally, and less importantly, “elite whites”? It is not as simple as you pretend.

  15. pentazoid says:

    Africans and other human populations in warmer climateshad to compete with multiple predators for food because there are more species in a warmer environment than they are in a colder environment. Also,, there were numerous diseases people in warmer climates had too avoid too in order to survive. It wasn’t like they were in the Garden of eden.
    You pick 4 successful mulattos(condaleeza rice isn’t mixed) from today and five successful mulattos from the past , but I could easily an equal number find intelligent scholars and successful entrepreneurs who are “full black” that equal that number like; Neil Degrassi Tyson, slyvester james gates,Ron mallet , Hakeem Oluseyi and Stephen R. Stafford II.
    That set, that isn’t good enough, you should have chosen a more representative sample
    You conspicuously ignored the fact that COLORISM was rampant in the black community and still exists in a more benign form today. Have you ever heard of the brown paper bag test, the jack and jill society that excluded dark skinned blacks and welcomed light skined blacks .
    The ‘cold habitat leads to higher intelligence” theory doesn’t explain why the native americans on the north american continent didn’t create similar civilaztions nor does it explain as a group why they have IQ ranges closer to black americans than the do northeast asians(the population that they are most related to)”
    Also,before coming into contact with the romans via war, most northern europeans were living in mudhuts and had nothing resembling a civilization. Why didn’t the first civilizations appear in places like germany , the british isles and france rather appear near the equator like they actually did if your theory is correct?
    Sorry, your personal anecdotes with black people and other races are irrelevant.
    Skulls sizes of different ‘races’ are inconsistent. Morton’s data collection actually shows europeans having the largest skulls, not asians. (vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/sloth/lieberman-on-rushton.pdf)
    You ignored the fact that Lahn was heavily criticized by his peers and the factt that other related studies showed that the microcephelian gene and brain size had nothing to do with each other. http://www.scribd.com/doc/76103685/Race-and-IQ-in-the-postgenomic-age-The-microcephaly-case
    There were many other factors that affected the adoption rates for various races in the sandra scarr study, like the fact that blacks were adopted at later rates than whites and asians. Plus, the study also showed that asians as a group had an IQ score lower than the whites and mixed people in the study.
    You can’t just rely on one study and come to a conclusion about race. You have to look at repeated studies to see if they yield a similar result. Thats how good science is supposed to work. The tizart studies show that mixed race children and black children scored similarly on IQ tests.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Firstly I’d like to thank you for debating me; too many race-denialists insist on name-calling, or threats, rather than addressing the actual issues.
      Now to your arguments:
      You said “Africans and other human populations in warmer climateshad to compete with multiple predators for food because there are more species in a warmer environment than they are in a colder environment. Also,, there were numerous diseases people in warmer climates had too avoid too in order to survive. It wasn’t like they were in the Garden of eden.”
      While it’s true that there were other predators in Africa, it’s hard to compare the hunting skills of beasts with those of humans. Maybe if we’re talking about our distant past, when we had just come down from the trees, your point would be valid. But I don’t think anybody’s claiming that the various races diverged from each other that long ago. Humans have had the edge on animal predators for a very long time. Check this Wikipedia article
      As for disease, of course Africa has a lot of that. Are you suggesting that Africans met this challenge with effective cures? If so, this is patently false; Africans died in droves from disease – until the white man came and gave them modern medicine. That’s when their population exploded. To this day, their strategy for overcoming high death rates from disease is to simply have more children.
      You already know my position: That different environments produced different kinds of humans. This is in line with the theory of evolution. But I’m not sure what YOUR position is. Do you believe that humans are immune from environmental pressures? That different human populations DO NOT adapt to their environments? What, exactly, are you trying to say?
      You wrote:
      “You pick 4 successful mulattos(condaleeza rice isn’t mixed) from today and five successful mulattos from the past , but I could easily an equal number find intelligent scholars and successful entrepreneurs who are “full black” that equal that number like; Neil Degrassi Tyson, slyvester james gates,Ron mallet , Hakeem Oluseyi and Stephen R. Stafford II. ”
      There are far more (more or less) pure negroes in America than there are mulattoes, so to say that we can find an equal number of gifted true blacks as mulattoes doesn’t really help your case.
      As for Condoleezza Rice being not mixed, actually she is. Look here
      As for colorism, I ignored it in this essay because I didn’t feel it was important to bring up here. But I’ve dealt with it elsewhere. I’m well aware of colorism, but if you’re trying to claim that colorism is responsible for the lower I.Q.s of darker blacks, then you’ll need to present some evidence. I’m not aware of any evidence that oppression, or being of a lower class, depresses one’s I.Q. On the contrary, Jews, diaspora Chinese and the Farsi have all been seriously oppressed – yet they all sport high I.Q.s. Blacks and Hispanics are coddled in today’s America – yet they have low I.Q.s.
      You wrote:
      “The ‘cold habitat leads to higher intelligence” theory doesn’t explain why the native americans on the north american continent didn’t create similar civilaztions nor does it explain as a group why they have IQ ranges closer to black americans than the do northeast asians(the population that they are most related to)”
      Nobody claims that cold, and cold alone, will raise the I.Q. of a population. In general, the farther north one goes, the higher will be the average I.Q., but there is also a close relationship between the existence of civilization (urban centers) and I.Q. For a long time, northern peoples needed their extra I.Q. points just to survive. They didn’t have the luxury of creating civilizations because their environment was too harsh for frequent travel, trade or to support a large idle class.
      Native Americans branched off from Asians long enough ago that we cannot expect them to have the same I.Q.; You should realize that humans adapt very quickly. Two or three thousand years of separation is enough to create distinct populations. We see this with the Tibetans and the Chinese, the various Polynesian groups and even in Europe.
      You wrote:
      “Sorry, your personal anecdotes with black people and other races are irrelevant.”
      Actually, they’re very relevant. I’ll point out that the title of my essay is “Why I Believe in Race-Realism.” It’s not intended to present incontrovertible evidence to that effect, only to explain my own lines of reasoning and what led me to my conclusions. To say that my own personal experiences are “irrelevant”, in such an essay, is ridiculous.
      You wrote:
      “You ignored the fact that Lahn was heavily criticized by his peers and the factt that other related studies showed that the microcephelian gene and brain size had nothing to do with each other.”
      How can you say this when the whole point was to bring attention to this criticism. While writing the essay, I considered pointing out that whether or not Lahn’s research was actually valid is irrelevant; what matters here is that he was warned not to pursue research such as this. I thought this would be self-evident. Apparently this is not the case with everyone.
      Regarding your comments about adoption studies, I suggest you read “Race, Evolution and Behavior.” This book cites numerous studies, not just one. As for Asians, this is a difficult subject because the government lumps Northeast Asians together with Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders.

      • I also found it strange that he claimed “condaleeza rice isn’t mixed”. Just take one look at her – I’d best she is at least half white if not 60% or more. If you put her in a crowd of Africans she would be “white”, but he obviously has never been to Africa. I couldn’t take the rest of his post very seriously after he said that.
        As for his question “Why didn’t the first civilizations appear in places like germany , the british isles and france rather appear near the equator like they actually did if your theory is correct?”.
        I would guess that this had something to do with a low population density due to the legacy of the ice ages (which almost totally depopulated N.Europe) and far more difficult conditions for agriculture.

  16. anonymous says:

    Anthony Rawdon: “almost all the leading bolshevists were Jews” ???
    That is not true. 5 out of 23 is a long way from all. And the vast vast vast majority of the millions and millions of Jewish people in Eastern Europe were not Marxists, let alone Communists. In fact, the vast majority were opposed to atheist Communism.
    Suggest you read the wiki on this carefully and get the facts.
    On the eve of the February Revolution, in 1917, the Bolshevik party had about 23,000 members, of whom 364 were known to be ethnic Jews.[15][21] Between 1917 and 1919, Jewish Bolshevik party leaders included Grigory Zinoviev, Moisei Uritsky, Lev Kamenev, Yakov Sverdlov, Grigory Sokolnikov, and Leon Trotsky. Lev Kamenev was of mixed ethnic Russian and Jewish parentage.[22][23] Trotsky was also a member (or “Narkom”) of the ruling Council of People’s Commissars.[24] Among the 23 Narkoms between 1923 and 1930, five were Jewish [22]
    Conditions in Russia (1924) A Census – Bolsheviks by Ethnicity
    According to the 1922 party census, there were 19,564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total.[22] Jews made up 7.1% of members who had joined before October 1917.[24]
    Among members of the Central Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets in 1929, there were 402 ethnic Russians, 95 Ukrainians, 55 Jews, 26 Latvians, 13 Poles, and 12 Germans – Jewish representation had declined from 60 members in 1927.[25] With regards to Jewish representation in the ruling Politburo, it waned very rapidly starting in 1918. It began with the assassination of Moisei Uritsky, the most radical member of the Politburo, in August 1918. Then Yakov Sverdlov died of disease in March 1919 and Sokolnikov was shunted aside. Three years later in 1922, Jewish members in the Central Committee, the Politburo’s new name, had shrunk to a minority of three: Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Eventually they were all physically eliminated by Joseph Stalin: Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1936 and Trotsky in 1940.
    In the 1920s, of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, the People’s Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews.[22]

  17. How I Saw The Light. Personal accounts of how individuals became race-realists, from American Renaissance:

  18. Okechukwu says:

    Africa’s environment was so harsh that the white man couldn’t even go into the African interior without modern medications, whereas black Africans could go anywhere on the planet and survive. The idea that Africa was a cakewalk while Europe was inhospitable is one of the dumber talking points of so-called race realists. There was no harsher environment than Africa, which is why humans evolved there in the first place, while the colder north yielded apelike Neanderthals. Europe has abundant fresh water, “refrigeration” in the form of permafrost, dead animals lying around preserved that could be scavenged, etc. Even today, strong powerful animals like lions and elephants die of thirst and hunger in Africa. Conversely, no animals are dying in Europe from cold.
    All this race and intelligence nonsense is just a means by which frustrated Internet keyboardists try to raise their low self-esteem by looking down on others. Can you identify any institute of learning anywhere in the world where this junk is taken seriously? And if you think that blacks are less intelligent, I can introduce blacks that are much smarter than you and everyone you know. I’m probably one of them.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Looks like you just skimmed the post, without reading it carefully. I explained WHY there are no “institutes of higher learning” that take race science seriously; it has to do with the political climate. I’ve already admitted that there are certainly blacks who are more intelligent than the average white; you should familiarize yourself with the bell curve. If Africa is such a harsh environment, and Africans so smart, then why have Africans not developed THEIR OWN technology to deal with it? Why did they wait for the white man to come and introduce medicine and other technology?

  19. Pingback: Welcoming Nautilus to the fold | Jewamongyou's Blog

  20. Pingback: Alzheimer – oogenhand

  21. BLynn Meyers says:

    This is complicated, but youll never get federal government backing. Perhaps there is a reason Blacks were in Africa in 1st place rather than whites.
    No way to equalize intelligence but inter breeding then?
    So what good will this do ultimately for all of mankind?
    Ive met Chinese in person & online. Smarter in some ways but they also have deficits which may be contradictory to intelligence like lack of flexibility and not as apt to think outside the box. What they see is what they get attitude. Nature or nurture? Hard to say. But they think they are smart even if they dont notice nuances in text conversations so their English becomes unintelligible. Not all but many.
    Too late fir me to learn languages at 77. Age also ties in. I was ince smarter. Not now.

    • jewamongyou says:

      As for interbreeding, no race can compete with blacks when it comes to making large numbers of babies. So interbreeding would, in the long run, simply mean a world full of blacks and various shades of mulatto. Mankind would not be better off for it, as the world would resemble some of the worst parts of Brazil, with small wealthy enclaves of whites/Asians protected by walls and private security.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *