Counter-Currents
The Intelligent Person’s Guide to Race & Racial Differences
F. Roger Devlin
3,706 words
Race has been discussed to the point of weariness, yet most discussion consists of little more than wishful thinking, contradiction, and outright malice: “All the races are equal, but whites oppress everyone else. Then again, race doesn’t really exist, which is why we must strive for greater racial diversity.” It is understandable that many people are at once confused by, and sick of, the entire subject—especially white people, the targets of so much blame and hostility.
The Origin of the Races
It need not be this way. The basic facts about the races of mankind can be stated briefly and clearly. According to our best current information, human beings (i.e., the biological genus Homo) originated in Africa between two and three million years ago. From there, beginning about 1.8 million years ago, they spread out across Asia and Europe.
When any animal species spreads out across a large area, it encounters new environments which present different challenges to its survival. Individuals that would have done well in the original home environment may not do so well in the new one, and so may die or fail to reproduce. A few individuals may be better suited to the new environment than the old, and thus produce more offspring. New genetic mutations may multiply and spread in one area while they disappear in the other. Thus, over time, the animals in the new region become different both from their ancestors and from their cousins who remained in the ancestral region.
This process occurs in all sexually reproducing species, and is the driving force behind evolution. It also occurred with early human beings when they left Africa for Europe and Asia. Light skin, for example, is a harmful trait in tropical Africa, but is useful in northern latitudes which do not get as much sunlight. Hence, light skin remains a rare anomaly in Africa (mostly limited to albinos), whereas it gradually became the norm in Europe.
An Example of Racial Differences: Athletic Performance
There are countless areas in which the races may be compared and differences found. Let us begin by considering one narrow area: athletic performance. Ordinary sports fans cannot help noticing that certain sports are dominated by persons of a particular race. American basketball is dominated by Blacks, while the Olympic table-tennis gold medalists are usually East Asians. Whites dominate certain field events such as the shot put and the hammer throw.
Not only are such differences well-established; in most cases, they can be explained. For example, the dominance of international sprinting competitions by West Africans (or persons of West African descent) is due to at least six traits they share. As compared to wites and Asians, they have, on average, 1) longer legs, 2) narrower hips, 3) lower center of gravity, 4) lower body fat, 5) higher quantity of fast-twitch muscle tissue (useful for short bursts of speed), and 6) higher testosterone levels. With all these advantages, how could they not excel at sprinting?
Further Reading: Richard Lynn and Edward Dutton, Race and Sport: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability (2015), is filled with fascinating data on differential performance by race in over fifty types of sporting competition, along with explanations of the patterns. Reviewed by F. Roger Devlin, The Occidental Quarterly, Spring 2016, “White Men Can’t Jump, Black Men Can’t Shot Put.”
Two Fallacies That Hinder Clear Thinking About Racial Differences
Reluctance to discuss or even to admit the existence of racial differences is commonly motivated by fear of possible invidious distinctions between “superior” and “inferior” races. To this our answer is twofold. First, racial differences always relate to some particular trait. West Africans may indeed be a “superior” race when it comes to sprinting. In reference to other traits, other races may be more gifted. No race is best in everything, and it is meaningless to speak of any race being superior per se. The recognition of racial differences in particular traits implies no such idea.
Second, the existence of racial differences does not logically imply that one race should rule over others or benefit at their expense. No one has ever claimed that the superiority of West Africans at sprinting entitles them to preferential treatment over whites and Asians. The same goes for all other races and all other traits. This may sound like an elementary point, but much opposition to the open discussion of racial differences is based upon a tacit assumption that recognizing such differences would ipso facto justify the mistreatment of one or more races. It is important to understand clearly that this is a fallacy.
Race and Intelligence
One of the more sensitive traits for which racial disparities have been found is average intelligence. In 1995, egalitarian liberals were scandalized by the publication of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, because the book mentioned that, in America, average black IQ lags about fifteen points behind average white IQ (85 vs. 100). But this difference has been known to exist since the First World War, when the first IQ tests were administered to American soldiers. The Bell Curve merely popularized information that had long been familiar to specialists.
In fact, much larger differences can be found around the world. Black Africans have an average IQ of around 70. Australian Aborigines are even lower at 62. Northeast Asians, including Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans, average 105, slightly higher than Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews average as high as 112 (or even higher according to some estimates).
Scholars who do not want to admit that races differ have gone to great lengths developing complicated theories to account for mysteries such as persistent African poverty and widespread Jewish success. Meanwhile, such observed facts are no mystery at all for those who understand that racial differences are natural and normal.
Some people perceive differences in intelligence and the ability to achieve economic success as unfair. It would be more accurate to say they are neither fair nor unfair, since no one is responsible for them; they are a natural product of different evolutionary histories. Is it “unfair” that Border Collies are more intelligent than Bulldogs? If so, who exactly is guilty of this “unfairness?”
In one respect it is actually heartening that differences in economic success can be explained by intelligence. Egalitarians usually teach that white/black disparities in America, e.g., are due to injustices committed by whites toward blacks (“racism”). In the absence of any evidence of a white conspiracy to harm blacks, they have developed elaborate theories of “institutional racism” for which they are not able to present much evidence. If it were generally understood that whites are not responsible for the inability of most blacks to match average white levels of academic and professional achievement, racial tensions in America would be greatly eased.
Some people admit that racial differences in intelligence exist, but deny that they are natural or genetic. In their view, such differences are caused by the conditions under which people grow up. Black Americans, for example, typically grow up in poorer families and less desirable neighborhoods than whites. But children of the wealthiest twenty percent of black families still do worse in school than children of the poorest twenty percent of white families. Studies of identical twins reared apart and of trans-racial adoptions make clear that intelligence correlates with genetic relatedness rather than early childhood environment. No champion of the “environmental” theory of racial differences has ever been able to explain these facts.
Another argument is that intelligence tests are “culturally biased” against blacks because they were developed by whites. But no one has ever explained why white test designers would have designed a test on which East Asians outscore whites. Moreover, recent intelligence tests avoid culturally specific references; they are based on pattern recognition involving geometrical shapes and numbers.
Further Reading: Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1995), chapter 13, “Ethnic Differences in Cognitive Ability.”
Richard Lynn, Racial Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, 2nd edition (2016).
Race and Crime
Another sensitive area in which races may be compared is crime rates. Although it may be thought impolite to mention in mixed company, every American understands that black neighborhoods are more dangerous than white neighborhoods.
Detailed statistics on race and crime in America are kept by the FBI. Here are some highlights from this data:
* In 2013, black Americans were six times more likely to commit murder than non-blacks.
* In 2014 in New York City, blacks were 31 times more likely than whites to be arrested for murder, and Hispanics over 12 times more likely. Blacks were over 98 times more likely to be arrested for shooting (i.e., firing a bullet that hits someone) than whites, and Hispanics 23 times more likely. If New York were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91% and the shooting rate by 97%.
*Blacks are about 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice-versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
* Hispanics commit violent crimes at about three times the white rate, while Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
*Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians nine times more likely.
* Despite recent claims by the Black Lives Matter movement and others, evidence suggests that police shootings of blacks are not more common than would be predicted by black crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
* However, 2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities that may be related to “depolicing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.
Further Reading: The Color of Crime, New Century Foundation, 3rd edition (2016) and 2nd edition (2005).
The Preference for One’s Own
Much of today’s confused thinking about race stems from America’s unsuccessful effort of the past several decades to eliminate racial discrimination, i.e., people’s tendency to prefer those of their own race. There is abundant evidence from psychological research that people of all races do practice such discrimination, often unconsciously.
* Three-month-old infants look longer at faces of their own race than those of other races.
* When whites are shown short film clips of needles pricking white- and black-skinned hands, the sympathetic pain reaction is greater and pulse increases more noticably when the white hand is pricked. When blacks view the same clips, their reaction is greater for the black hands.
* When white and black people are shown pictures of strangers, the amygdala region in their brains displays heightened activity, indicating vigilance or wariness toward unfamiliar faces. But when the pictures are shown a second time, only the other-race faces provoke high amygdala activity: the brain perceives the same-race faces as “familiar” after only one viewing.
* Various studies have shown that people are more likely to perceive those of their own race as trustworthy and to associate positive qualities with them.
* People also find it easier to distinguish between faces of their own races than those of other races. This difference has been observed in children as young as three and a half months.
In fact, the only people who do not seem to have any preference for their own race are those who suffer from a condition called Williams Syndrome. They have no fear of strangers or the unknown, and are sometimes described as “hypersocial.” They are also usually retarded and suffer from other problems.
The preference for one’s own race is a product of our evolutionary history. For most of the time humans have lived upon the earth, we have lived in kinship-based hunter-gatherer bands of between fifty and a hundred individuals. Survival depended on cooperation within the group, even extending to a willingness of individuals to sacrifice themselves for their fellows. On the other hand, such groups were surrounded by similar, rival human bands. Survival also depended on an ability to compete successfully with these rivals. Relations between such bands, therefore, fluctuated between deep suspicion and murderous hatred. Humans became adapted to this state of affairs by developing a dual pattern of behavior: cooperation and altruism within the kin group, suspicion of those outside.
This evolutionary adaptation is still visible in its rawest form among man’s nearest evolutionary relatives, African chimpanzees, which unhesitatingly kill intruders found within the territory of their troop. Any chimp suffering from Williams Syndrome, and hence unable to distinguish between his own and rival troops, would not be likely to last long in the jungle.
Kin preference can also be observed much farther down the evolutionary scale. Beehives are kin groups, and bees are very good at perceiving degrees of relatedness when they must decide whether to admit other bees to their hive or block them as intruders. Even some plants that normally try to spread their root systems as widely as possible have been observed to accommodate the nearby root systems of closely related plants rather than competing against them for space.
What this means is that efforts to eliminate “racial discrimination” are fighting against a deeply rooted fact of our human nature, or even biological nature. Exhorting normal people not to prefer their own race is, therefore, about as likely to succeed as exhorting them never to get hungry or sleepy.
Moreover, it is almost exclusively white people who are being asked today not to prefer their own race to others. Blacks, Mexicans, Jews and others are allowed to form exclusive organizations and pursue their particular interests in America. Only whites are denounced as “racist” if they do this. In effect, whites are being told to disarm themselves in a competitive and often hostile world.
Further Reading: Jared Taylor, White Identity (2011), chapter 4, “The Science of Human Nature.”
Northern vs. Southern Races
As mentioned above, the various human races emerged when early humans migrated out of Africa. Perhaps the most important single environmental difference faced by these early humans was that much of the Eurasian landmass turns cold for several months of the year, and food is scarce during this time. It required intelligence, resourcefulness, foresight, and an ability to delay gratification (i.e., impulse control), for ancient hunter-gatherers to survive cold winters. People with these qualities were more successful raising children than those who lacked them, so humans in more northerly areas gradually became more intelligent and future-oriented than those who remained in the tropics. The higher intelligence and lower crime rates of whites and East Asians as compared with Africans may be due in large part to the selective pressure of cold winters.
Another important environmental change experienced by early humans migrating out of Africa was that many diseases common to tropical Africa (Malaria, Dengue, Chagas and others) are non-existent farther north. Such diseases were and still are a very common cause of death among black Africans. Since for most of the continent’s history the causes of such diseases were not understood, it was a matter of chance whether one caught them or not; there was nothing much one could do to avoid them.
Biologists distinguish two strategies that living organisms may employ in reproducing: one, labeled ‘r,’ involves high fertility with little or no parental investment in offspring once they are born; the other, labeled ‘K,’ involves lower fertility but higher investment in protecting and nurturing offspring. Organisms may be arranged along an r-K scale according to their fertility and level of parental investment. Oysters have half a billion offspring in a typical year and take no notice of them at all: they are extreme r strategists. Mammals and birds generally have fewer offspring but feed and care for them in early life. (Rabbits are a popular byword for fertility, but the twelve offspring they average per year come nowhere near the fertility of fish or amphibians.)
Humans are the most extreme K strategizers in all of nature: they seldom have more than one child per year and several over a lifetime, but typically devote much time and effort to raising them. However, not all human groups are equally K strategizers. Compared to white and Asian populations, black Africans are more fertile and tend to devote less time and effort to their offspring. The highest fertility rates in the world today are found in sub-Saharan Africa, where women have averaged as many as seven or eight children in recent years. African women begin having children early, but the fussy parenting style common to Europeans and Asians is not usually found among them; African children are often sent out to foster parents (commonly more distant relatives) so that the mother can turn her attention to producing more babies.
This relatively ‘r’ reproductive strategy of black Africans is a natural response to an environment in which diseases that seem to strike randomly are a leading cause of death. By having a lot of children, Africans increase the likelihood that some will live long enough to have children of their own.
At northern latitudes, on the other hand, the biggest threat to survival is the regular annual recurrence of winter, a threat which may be overcome by intelligence and forethought. These conditions favor a ‘K’ strategy of devoting more effort to preparing their children for the challenges they will face, rather than simply having more of them.
A whole host of measurable differences between the races can be explained in terms of r/K selection theory. Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton (1943 – 2012) found that East Asians average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, greater sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law abidingness and social organization than those of other races. Black Africans are at the other extreme, while whites score in between (usually closer to East Asians than to Africans). He found that this same pattern prevailed for the racial averages of more than seventy traits. The consistency of this pattern provides important evidence that racial differences are objectively real, not a mere matter of “the color of one’s skin” or socially instilled prejudice.
Further reading: J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior, 2nd abridged edition, (2000).
Race and High Achievement
A small fraction of the human race—inventors, explorers, scientists and artists—have made particularly large contributions to history and the lives of modern men. It is more difficult to define and quantify high achievement than intelligence or crime rates, but Bell Curve coauthor Charles Murray has made one of the more rigorous attempts in his later book Human Accomplishment (2003). His results will not surprise anyone with a little education, but are an embarrassment to egalitarians and multiculturalists.
For the simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of great accomplishments in history have been the work of White men living in Europe or, more recently, North America.
As mentioned above, White Europeans are not, on average, the most intelligent people in the world. Clearly, something more than mere intelligence is needed for great accomplishment. There is considerable evidence that East Asians are more conformist than Europeans, making them less likely to venture into the uncharted waters where new discoveries may be found. Recent research has found a possible genetic cause for this.
Since Jewish emancipation in the nineteenth century, Jews have contributed mightily to the arts and sciences, but for centuries before that, the most gifted Jews had their attention engrossed by trade or the study of the Talmud, and contributed little to the march of discovery and invention. Clearly, there are cultural preconditions for great accomplishment as well as genetic preconditions.
Desperate efforts are being made today by fashionable academics to deny the obvious fact of Western achievement. Some attribute it to a multi-millennial run of dumb luck; others try to make out Chinese accomplishment to have been more impressive; others still claim Western superiority did not begin until the Industrial Revolution of the Nineteenth Century. A good account of such attempts to rewrite history in an anti-Western direction is Ricardo Duchesne, “Multicultural Historians: The Assault on Western Civilization and Defilement of the Historical Profession,” Part 1, Part 2. For more detail, see Duchesne’s book The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (2011).
Caveats
I hope you have found this material interesting and informative. It is, however, somewhat simplified, so here are a few caveats:
There was not just one exodus from Africa 1.8 million years ago; there have been many, with the most recent significant expansion occurring as recently as 50,000 years ago. Today’s races are the result of a complicated history of interbreeding between earlier and later arrivals. Many of the details are still matters of controversy, and likely to be affected by future fossil discoveries. (The African Diaspora of the past five hundred years is too recent to have had much in the way of evolutionary effects thus far.)
Also, while IQ tends to be hereditary, it is not completely so. Other factors, like sub-optimal nutrition, illness, and injury, may have a negative influence on intelligence. Poor nutrition may explain why Africans have a lower average IQ than American Blacks. Recent research seems to indicate that what is hereditary is the highest IQ one may attain under optimal environmental conditions. Circumstances may intervene to lower a particular person’s IQ, but there don’t seem to be circumstances that can raise it above the individual’s genetically determined potential.
Cold winters are not a sufficient cause of high intelligence or the other “K” traits. If they were, Eskimos ought to be the most intelligent people on earth. They are, in fact, the world’s most intelligent hunter-gatherers, but on average they are not as smart as Europeans or East Asians. What’s holding the Eskimos back is that they are a very small population—not more than several thousand in pre-modern times—and spread over a very wide area. Helpful genetic mutations occur more often in larger populations, and they spread more easily in dense populations. For this reason, the world’s smartest people live in moderately cold climates, but not so cold as to make large, dense populations unsustainable. Thus, in Europe, we find the highest intelligence in Finland and the Germanic countries (German, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian) rather than in Lappland; in Asia, we find that Chinese and Japanese are more intelligent than the tiny native tribes of Siberia.
In other words, a short essay like this is not enough to make you an expert on racial differences. Research is ongoing on many points. But it is a beginning, and enough to help you see through a great deal of ill-informed propaganda.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
33 comments
None of the above data will change the mind of science writer Phillip Ball.
Writing in the Guardian he reinteratesto readers that resurgent so-called racial science is actually a dangerous cognitive bias of white ideology deriving from the historical and ongoing exploitation of other races.
He has been persuaded of this by reading the well-received book, Superior, of Oxford-educated British Indian journalist Angela Siani, who has also appeared on the BBC to promote her work. Siani’s thesis is that race is an obsolete social construct invented by imperialists to justify slavery. Before this race was not really noticed or important to anyone.
Thus all so called racial science, masquerading as IQ testing, genetics or whatever, is tendentious, harmful and must be stopped. White people need urgently to relinquish their arrogation of cultural, intellectual and aesthetic superiority if the human race is to survive and proceed into the sunlit uplands of justice and equality for all.
She movingly concludes the book movingly by apostrophising her young son, hoping that he will grow to adulthood in a truly multiracial Britain, unhindered by the ideology of Whiteness that stunted his mother’s trajectory.
This circular topos is already irrefutable by logic or evidence: but increasingly it is the diktat of educators and employers and has even in places acquired the force of law. It is my belief that it will only be discarded when its consequences have become unbearable to our own people.
If ‘racial science’ was proving that non-Whites were superior in meaningful areas of human effort (not ‘sports’), Siani would be all about ‘the science’. But it’s not, so Siani’s not. None of this struggle is about ‘truth’. The struggle is about power. To the extent that being aligned with The Real enhances the ability to acquire and use power, ‘truth’ has value. But reality shows us that — at least in the short and medium term — power can keep ‘reality’ at bay for an extended time, certainly long enough to make the idea of ‘truth’ simply another name for ‘power’.
I don’t have the quote to hand, but Saini cannot even accept that athletic ability might have a genetic component — for Saini it is all down to ‘training’. The opposite viewpoint is regressive or abhorrent.
She also perpetuates Lewontin’s Fallacy: that intra-group variation exceeds inter-group variation, showing that population groupings are arbitrary or non-functional. This is even discussed on Wikipedia, so it is strange that the full argument is not rehearsed in Superior.
But then, as immigration-advocate and Guardian writer Jonathan Portes recently observed on Twitter, perhaps critics of Saini are simply too unintelligent to understand that her book is the last word on the subject? And who indeed has the social capital to risk debating such luminaries?
If they deny that then they’re a stone’s throw away from being a flat earth conspiracy theorist. “Academics” and “Intellectuals” today . . . .
Ah yes, Angela Siani : she’s had recent programs on both BBCtv and radio. Her latest Radio 4 output had her advocating for greater censorship of the internet. Get that? She gets promoted on the BBC – which would never give a voice to her opponents – yet she also wants race realists silenced on The Web.
Re this article’s “Three-month-old infants look longer at faces of their own race than those of other races” : has that definitely been confirmed? It would be embarrassing if black kids also preferred looking at white faces !
Good point! Recall how Kenneth Clark (the 20th century black sociologist, not the British art historian and BBC presenter of the series “Civilisation”) did a bunch of “doll studies” in the 1940s showing that young children of all races preferred playing with blonde dolls to black ones. These studies were later scandalously cited in the odious 1950s Brown v. Board of Education decision, which struck down the old “separate but equal” doctrine and mandated racial integration in public schools (and eventually everything else), as “proof” that black children’s self-esteem had been negatively affected by the “internalization of systemic racism” (because there is no way that regular black kids might find a blonde doll more attractive than a black one …). Such negative self-perception would be overcome, it was held by the Court, via racially integrated classrooms.
Anglo-Indian journalist Angela Saini is not a population geneticist, nor as far as I can tell has she published anything on genetics, evolution or physical anthropology in any peer-reviewed journal. PubMed lists five articles of non-technical ‘science journalism’: puff pieces for international collaboration in biology. Her first book was 2011’s Geek Nation: How Indian Science is Taking Over the World. A meagre and tangential publication record for one launching an attack on an entire field of knowledge?
However as her Twitter blurb reminds us, she did read Engineering at Oxford and is an MIT fellow (of what?) She is telegenic and her story is an inspiring one to minorities struggling to enter the white-male dominated fortress of elite academia.
Yet sadly, as others have detailed, Superior is replete with blunders and bias, disclosing a poor grasp of bioinformatics and the subtleties of statistical inference. At best it has value as a social history of the reception of the concept of race, where it is uncontroversial — not to say obvious — that cultural and economic factors will be in play.
So why then is the book praised to the skies and promoted along with its author by elite media as The Last Word? To the extent even that opposing voices — or even correctives to Siani’s misconceptions — must be suppressed and defunded? Why is Angela Saini, apparently so emotionally invested in a debate she is ill-qualified to conduct, the poster girl for the Defeat of Race Science?
When these questions are answered, and the networks of academics, publishers, journalists and broadcasters that boost and market the endless line of these identikit careerist leftist nay-sayers is exposed, then the contrary arguments may stand a change of being heard.
One terminology that is common among “normies” who lean toward social conservatism is the phrase “social engineering”. Most of the (more or less) astute and politically engaged conservatives you meet will admit to understanding that society is not engaged in a “natural” progressive trajectory but rather and ideological and deliberate one.
What they fail to address is exactly WHO is doing all the “deliberating”, and WHY? They also fail to adequately argue that this tinkering is absolutely doomed to fail, and end very badly. We on the dissident right point out all of the symptoms. We “spell it out” very precisely. We lay out the crime statistics, and we demonstrate quite accurately how the resources spent on this never-ending mission at achieving parity among the races never amount to a return on the investment. Literally, the ONLY way to achieve equality or parity of any kind is to DESTROY the race that is the highest achiever…through a soft genocidal policy..:and through hybridizing all the races into a mulatto mud race.
Point is, most people are ALMOST there. The DO get that something is terribly amiss. They’re just scared witless to articulate it fully, because the consequences of the truth are too difficult to grasp.
Great essay.
Oxford-educated British Indian journalist Angela Siani … concludes the book movingly by apostrophising her young son, hoping that he will grow to adulthood in a truly multiracial Britain, unhindered by the ideology of Whiteness that stunted his mother’s trajectory.
Well, now if she wants her son to grow up in a multiracial country, then she is more than free to move her family to India, which is just such a land. Better, she could migrate to Haiti or Zimbabwe, where White people have long since been ethnically cleansed and thus are free of all the horrors of White Supremacy.
Of course, she will make no such move. And this gets back to the same old question: “If White people are so oppressive, then why are People of Color(tm) so willing to migrate into their countries where they will, ghee whiz, be oppressed by White Supremacy?” The reason, which is implied but not openly stated, is that certain races do indeed produce superior societies.
This circular topos is already irrefutable by logic or evidence: but increasingly it is the diktat of educators and employers and has even in places acquired the force of law.
Racial egalitarianism is an ideology, one that flies in the face of reality as well as sanity.
The contrary view, that race is real and is a product largely of genetics, is increasingly being criminalized. This ought to give the egalitarians pause, since their own side has to rely on repression of dissent. If the environmental school were so correct, its assertions ought to stand up to scientific scrutiny and peer debate. But we have seen what has happened with actual dissenters such as Rushton, Shockley and Watson.
In the bigger picture, what happens when countries abandon the scientific method and replace it with ideologically driven policies? We can see the answer in the ruins of Detroit.
Well, perhaps when Britain becomes one big Rotherham, Siana will be happy. And if not happy with living in a third worldized Britain, she and millions more People of Color ™ will no doubt migrate to some new White country where they can renew their complaining. A cycle which will continue until White people stand up and declare, “Enough!”
“Australian Aborigines are even lower at 62.”
I saw some data indicating the average skull size of aborigines is smaller than Homo Heidelbergensis, the predecessor of modern humans, who died out roughly 300,000 years ago. Having said this, aboriginal culture was fairly advanced in terms of ritual. The funeral ritual in this video is very well done.
https://youtu.be/ZNIPXa5USZE
Aborigines today are fat because of having hunter gatherer metabolisms on a modern western diet. They don’t look as good doing their rituals anymore either. Whites have lost their religious rituals too and drift around in for-profit bars and cafes. Modernity harms the communal cultures of whites and aborigines alike.
“On the other hand, such groups were surrounded by similar, rival human bands. Survival also depended on an ability to compete successfully with these rivals.”
Different races lived alongside each other in Europe–though all being Eurasian and somewhat close.
Ice age Europeans hailed from a different founding population than modern Europeans. Their skulls resemble the Ainu people of Northern Japan, ie, quasi Caucasoid generalized Eurasians. Immigrants from the south, from whom modern Europeans descend, absorbed them beginning around 14,000 years ago, so male lineages from ice age Europeans are very rare. C1a is a Y haplotype from them, and a few men in Europe have been found to have it. Supposedly, up to 15% of female lineages in Europeans come from ice age Europeans as traced via mitochondrial DNA. The people who replaced them were western hunter gatherers. As recently as 5,700 years ago, they lived in northern Europe. By that time they had ubiquitously acquired blue eyes along with dark tan skin. Gum containing preserved saliva from a girl’s mouth was tested for DNA and proved this. Her remains were found in Scandanavia. The phenotype of blue eyes and dark skin was also found in England on Cheddar man, who lived 9,100 years ago, and La Brana in Spain 7,000 years ago. Light-skinned Early European farmers absorbed western hunter gatherer 6,000 to 4,000 years ago. As you can tell from that long time span, things moved slowly in prehistoric times– by millennium rather than century or generation. Western hunter gatherer genes survived, it seems, due to their blue eyes protecting people from seasonal affective disorder during the dark winters of Europe.
During the bronze age Aryan-speaking steppe nomads spread throughout Europe, contributing a half to a fifth of DNA in most places.
Whites are descended from four races of Caucasoid people–well, mostly Aryans and Early European farmers but some western hunter gatherer ancestry and, from what I can see, trace ancestry from ice age Europeans. At different times they lived alongside each other and competed for resources and territory. Hunter gatherers got largely absorbed, but farmers could hold their own a bit better.
What history tells us is that region is the fundamental determinant of genes and race. Groups will eventually mix. Do we want to stay white? If so, we must have white ethnostates. A continual influx of non-whites–particularly feverishly multiplying r selected Africans–will make us a trace ingredient of a mixed people. I wish the ice age Europeans were still with us. Their cave paintings are beautiful. Let’s not follow in their footsteps. We aren’t ice age hunter gatherers. We are generators of world-leading civilization. We can survive. We will survive.
Thank you for that comment, interesting read.
Interesting read. And thank you for the added information.
But, could you clarify a couple of your claims, please:
“By that time they had ubiquitously acquired blue eyes along with dark tan skin. ”
Blue eyes is a recessive gene. How do you “acquire” it? In my school biology book you must have had it in the first place, and just avoid loosing it by mingling with the brown-eyed.
“The phenotype of blue eyes and dark skin was also found in England on Cheddar man, who lived 9,100 years ago”.
Was there a positive proof of dark (tan) skin? Or was it no positive proof of white skin, and hence just PC assumed it must have been dark or tan?
Dr. Devlin,
As always, your article is excellent and informative. However, you write
“According to our best current information, human beings (i.e., the biological genus Homo) originated in Africa between two and three million years ago.”
Why do you say “the genus Homo” and not the species “Homo Sapien”? This suggests to me that you regard “Homo Erectus” as also human. Am I missing something here?
Thank you for this informative post. Thoughts:
1. Dr. Devlin should consider writing one of those “intelligent person’s guides” on this very subject. I’ve read a couple myself. It’s a good series. Of course, it may already exist, only it is or would be one long denialist tract, a guide to unlearning race and racial differences! The Oxford Very Short Introduction to Racism was predictably awful.
2. How is it “meaningless to speak of any race being superior per se”? Scientifically, that “superior” may be too vague, but not sociologically or social psychologically. Is it meaningless to speak of a superior or inferior man? “Superior” in that latter sense refers to the totality of a man’s being, and especially his character. How desiccated our language has become if we can no longer speak of that which is intuitively understood! There are poetic meanings which convey deeper understanding than narrow semantic precision. It’s hard to define “pornography”, but, except in marginal cases, we know it when we see it. Who, looking at whites and blacks now and in history, wouldn’t intuit that whites are superior? An idiot, I suppose.
3. Of course, whites are superior because our race has produced or discovered so much of what is dominant in the world (the combustion engine, vaccines, constitutionalism, the university, objectivity, philosophy, human rights, the scientific method, calculus, etc ad infinitum). Blacks are inferior because they have produced almost nothing (except for things which have lowered global civilizational quality, like rap).
4. The best reference for the “Preferring One’s Own” section is Salter, On Genetic Interests.
5. Devlin says “White Europeans are not, on average, the most intelligent people in the world.” But perhaps they either a) used to be (how much has the genetic component of white IQ been lowered over the past century due to dysgenic trends which have thus far been most pronounced in the West?), or b) have the greatest intraracial genetic variation, and thus give birth to more of the geniuses who produce outsized human accomplishment.
I suspect that most of the supreme geniuses in history were in fact white (or Jewish), notwithstanding alleged East Asian conformism.
6. The reason American Africans have higher IQs than sub-saharan Africans is that the former possess substantial admixtures of European blood. This has been confirmed genetically/forensically, as well as visually, and historically in terms of the disproportionate number of high achieving blacks who in fact were mulattoes or quadroons (Pushkin, Frederick Douglass, Barack Obama, etc).
7. To what extent has racial integration lowered European-American IQ, and esp accomplishment?
A housewife Ahnenerbe 1-100 Calabrese (2014-2019) the complete collection of texts that definitively demolished the theory of the out of Africa and the Ex Oriens Lux.
Please translate and spread as much as possible.
Download it for free from here
https://it.scribd.com/document/419922552/Una-Ahnenerbe-Casalinga-1-100-Calabrese
https://www.ereticamente.net/2019/04/una-ahnenerbe-casalinga-novantacinquesima-parte-fabio-calabrese.html
>Ashkenazi Jews average as high as 112…
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Both this article and the Replies to this clear and concise explanation of race and reality today are an uplifting joy to read. There is hope indeed for our future, and perhaps 10 or 20 years down the line, our offspring (May there be many of them!) will look up this article online and find joy and inspiration in its words, and courage and idealism as well to carry on this battle for our survival.
And as for how Angela Siani has become the ‘poster girl’ for the ‘Defeat of Race’ without any credentials in the field, remember her earlier statement that ‘Whiteness” in England had destroyed her ‘trajectory in life’ — she being a graduate of OXFORD, for goodness sake! I can only wonder who I could possibly blame for my trajectory in life — I only made it through UCLA, and I’m white.
Dont be too ethousiatic…..i feel like many white ethno-nationalist are really underestimating non-whites and especially the whole notion of black people having a low IQ which based on my own observations are far from the truth. The poverty in africa is also been made bigger then it really is, as France is one the major factors to african poverty in its formor colonies. The jews are succesful as group because they have religous comminality and majority come from german-jewish backgrounds which is aslo a factor…Spielberg, Zuckenberg, Weinstein etc all Germans. Here in western Europe i see many groups of west african orgin/heritage doing extremly well and scoring high on academic levels higher then the natives whites and east asians and exeeding well. . I also feel we are to focused on black this and that….while east asians have taken over population wise places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and parts of west coast america and Europe. The chinese are making major moves behind the scenes. At the same time muslims from middle east, north africa and asia are getting babies left and right in Europe. These things have to be discussed more in essence. Many muslims are focused on dominanting the west and the same with asians and in particular the Chinese diaspora community.
Best comment. Please, someone must write an article about this, or a series of them. Especially about asians and their developments. It’s so underestimated, but they should be feared for a reason. It does not look well at all. We are so few.
Murray surveys accomplishments from 800 B.C. to 1950. But nothing before 1950 matters. The former Communist world is full of places where even just 25 years ago there was nothing but goats and mafia, and now there is software industry and robotics.
The international student competitions are good proxies for the ability of societies to mine their gene pool for exceptional talent. Watch the red tide.
Mathematics. Physics. Chemistry. Hacker Ranks.*
(This is what the US team ususally looks like.)
China is hugely innovative. They win the most important high tech contracts in the EU, ahead of European companies, despite national security concerns and weekly phone calls to EU leaders from Donald Trump. Not because Chinese stuff is cheaper, but simply because we don’t have anything that can compete with their offerings.
Yesterday they successfully launched their massive Long March 5 rocket. Two years ago it fell off the sky. Not anymore.
Individualism is a mixed bag. So is authoritarianism. Emphasizing only the negatives of authoritarianism is misleading. Yes, under mediocre leaders it can stifle innovation. But under talented leaders it doesn’t. And many problems that are intractable in an individualistic society can be solved with a strike of a pen in an authoritarian one. In the next decades the biggest problem of China will be, surprise, demographics. And Chairman Xi will issue a decree ordering IQ > 130 Chinawoman to produce 4 babies, or else. And that’ll be it, problem solved.
We’d better get our act together. Step 1: Subscribe to the official Chinese government propaganda channels. Ignore the statistics, they’re probably manipulated. Observe the values and ethos that they promote.
People’s Daily, China
China Xinhua News
* The most interesting part is the Which country never gives up? table. Eastern Europe wins because of the fighting spirit. China wins by simply being good.
I have lived in China. It’s an ecological disaster zone, a pollution nightmare denuded of all wild animals. They routinely torture animals. For example, feeding pigs strychnine in order to cause weight gain before selling for human consumption. They use the body parts of various animals in teas. An example would be tiger parts to give them courage. They are behind the poaching throughout the 3rd world.
Because of their routine abuse of dogs there was an outbreak of rabies in one province. The Chinese authorities had men clubbing any dog they found and throwing its half-dead body in a truck bed. They killed 50,000 dogs this way. In one town the Chinese hung two dogs in the public square.
Yes, let’s emulate the Chinese.
There are two problems with this type of thinking. One, it doesn’t take into consideration the perverse nature of humans. Simply explaining something to someone in calm reasonable manner that this is a fact means nothing if there is envy involved. Envy is irrational and has been around since Cain killed Abel. And it’s never going away.
And two, how do you explain the Inuit? They lived in isolation in winter conditions for thousands of years and could not raise themselves above hunter-gatherer levels of existence. Not to mention the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans who, while creating complex societies similar to pre-Christian Europe, engaged in startling amounts of human sacrifice.
Surely, there is something else going on besides an environmental explanation for human differences.
“Surely, there is something else going on besides an environmental explanation for human differences.”
I wholeheartedly agree. But you may have to be too red-pilled even for this site to dare go down that rabbit hole.
Recent article about early modern humans circa 50,000 years ago
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/humans-hominin-introgression-07438.html
We already know this, but any new article about human evolution in the normie sphere is a good thing.
in Europe, we find the highest intelligence in Finland and the Germanic countries (German, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian) rather than in Lappland
Really? The cultural region of Lapland, nowadays known as Sápmi, is in fact the northernmost parts of Scandinavia and Finland (and a small part of Russia).
The vast majority of the people in the Norwegian, Swedish, and Finnish parts of this region are mainly Norwegians, Swedes, and Finns. The Sami people, formerly known as “Lapps,” only make up about 5% of the population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sapmi .
As for the intelligence it seems rather difficult to find any studies that show that northern Finns and Scandinavians have a lower IQ than their southern compatriots.
However, one study on a Sami tribe in the Finnish part of Sápmi/Lapland found that they had an IQ around 101, which was similar to the neighboring Finns: https://www.unz.com/jthompson/lapps-finns-cold-winters-and/ .
“No race is best in everything, and it is meaningless to speak of any race being superior per se.”
Technically true but this always comes across as a copout to normies. If whites are superior to blacks in intelligence, they are superior in the way that matters to building and maintaining civilization. In other words, they are superior in the way that anyone would prefer to be superior. Most blacks would gladly trade those Olympic gold medals for a chance to have nice countries of their own.
Normie: “Why do whites have it so much better than blacks?”
Me: “Because whites are smarter.”
Normie: “So whites are superior?”
Me: “Pretty much.”
So mestizos commit 3 times the violent crime whites do, but whites commit 4 times the violent crime Asians do? That is quite a stRiki-Eiking statistic with respect to white and Asian differences.
Race is real. But does it matter? Civilization? Can we transcend our animal nature? Can any race? If not, then is the distinction meaningful? Read the Bhagavad Gita. I love my white brothers and sisters. I respect non-whites who respect me and my race. But, what makes me special? It’s my imagination. Only white folks have it. Only white kids play dungeons and dragons. Why?
Race is much simpler. It is who your parents were, who you are, and who your children will be. Genetically speaking.
Only the person who thinks he is going to live forever doesn’t see race.
How would Evola’s theory of ‘human involution’ and overall anti-evolutionary perspective (also seen in Guenon) play into this? I have not been able to understand how human involution (Revolt Against the Modern World) and the ‘out of Africa’ theory can be harmonized as ideas.
For me, this is the most interesting topic, and really hard to answer. First, we have to consider two points:
– Even Evola and Guenon couldn´t make a scientific argument for the involution thesis. They simply didn´t care for materialistic science, since their main concern is metaphysics. So, they just applied the involutionary traditional thesis into biology as well, altough loose and general.
– Second, very few WNs have a deep understanding of esoteric theories, although most are not skeptic and absolute materialistics. So, we can expect that, in the lack of a better theory, WNs will end up with the modern evolutionary consensus, which we all learn in school.
Christians have a simplistic version of this theory, with things like: the Fall of Men, giants, Sons of God interbreeding with humans, people who lived hundreds of years, etc.
Evola, a much more racialist author than Guenon, stated that the primitive peoples in Africa are in a cycle of involution, and their future is to gradually disappear. And he can´t affirm which race appeared first in the planet, but he says that they are not primitive (from firsts), but are a degeneracy of something higher, aka, the Gods.
If we take Sitchin works (which in general, I don´t trust – jew and freemason), he translates a interesting story: the first created man (homo sapiens) was a black worker (Adamu), to work in the gold mines, and the second creation (Adapa), was a civilized man, white like the Anunnaki, meant for rule.
Lloyd Pie is a author that argues that we didnt evolve in the jungle, and have convincing arguments for that. So, we can conclude that natural evolution and adaptation exists, as most creationists do, but the creation of species, must have a mastermind behind, wheater God or Astral entities which guide life.
In this way, we come back to Plato: in order to have a material thing, it must exist before in another subtler realm. So the firsts cells in nature had the potencial to become plants and animals, and they did, because there were something guiding them, or they suddenly appeard, like creationists tend to belive, but the appearence out of nowhere is a weak thesis, for me.
So my main point is this: humans are not a product of evolution, but a creation from the Gods. If they come from other planets, its a though question. I tend to prefer the esoteric explanation, from the “ideal man” on a subtler realm, that appears on the north pole (Hiperboreans), go south, create the Atlantic empire, may create the black race for work (or, the black race can be a creation of other Gods, terrestrial gods, as the Hiperboreans, como from a higher or extraterrestrial gods), or the black race can be a mixture of Atlanteans with animals (a event which God in the Bible despites, and throws the Deluge to whipe the aberrations created by mixing Divine blood with beasts, which caused depravation, wars, etc.
So, we can resume as: nature, animals, and lower races, are a product of slow evolution, or just stagnation, and their fate is death, as they are passive towards nature.
The hiperboreans, atlanteans and aryans come from higher realms, maybe outside earth, have control over nature, and if the pure original divine blood / spirit is not preserved, what happens is involution. Something that happened in the past, and is happening now again.
Let me know what you think, and sorry for my poor english. Cheers!
So,
What exactly is a Christian Interpretation? It means reverse ritual in that man no longer looks upwards to the gods but within. Bottom up. Evolution is in the Book of Enoch .
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment