Simon Webb Unearths More Evidence for Race Realism

1,126 words

Simon Webb’s “History Debunked” YouTube channel is an excellent source for race realist content. Without fail, Webb delivers lucid arguments which squash ideology whenever it runs afoul of demonstrable fact. He keeps emotion and rancor out of it, and if he employs irony it’s usually of the gentle sort. He speaks with the confidence of a man who knows he has the truth on his side, and therefore has nothing to prove. Yes, much of his content goes over what we already know, for example psychometrics, racial double standards, leftist oppression, political corruption, Islamic subversion, and, of course, history. Being British himself, he naturally emphasizes British history and British current events. Some dissidents might question his past coverage of Patriotic Alternative or his more conventional opinions on the Jewish Question, but in light of the sterling content Webb serves up daily, this, in my opinion, can be easily overlooked. Webb comes across as a highly perceptive and erudite normie, not so much a committed dissident. So we really shouldn’t expect dissidence from him.

One of the most unique aspects of Webb’s channel is how he sometimes covers the latest in scientific breakthroughs, which makes him a valuable resource for those who rarely research hard science themselves. It was Webb who first called my attention to Arun Durvasula and Sriram Sankararaman’s groundbreaking 2020 study which suggests that up to 19 percent of Sub-Saharan African DNA results from an admixture with archaic humanin populations which are more ancient than Neanderthals. As I pointed out in my subsequent essay, this discovery “explains the relative low intelligence among sub-Saharan blacks as well as their violent tendencies and general lack of impulse control—which is, frankly, chimp-like.”

In a more recent video, entitled “Possible Scientific Confirmation about the Nature of Intellectual Differences Between Ethnic Groups,” Webb makes an insightful inference regarding two separate studies, and I wonder if he was the first to make it. One was conducted in the UK in 2006 and concludes that by nine months black and Indian children have on average developed more advanced gross motor skills than white children. Sadly, the researchers ignored possible genetic causality and simply foraged for “socioeconomic factors and markers of cultural tradition” which could explain these racial or ethnic differences. They discovered that delays among Bangladeshi and Pakistani children could be explained by their environments, but this was not the case for their black and Indian cohorts. As they state in their abstract:

In conclusion, unexplained ethnic differences were seen in the attainment of gross motor milestones, with Indian, Black Caribbean, and Black African children less likely to be delayed (in adjusted models).

Later in the paper, they make this stunning admission [emphasis mine]:

The differences we observed between Black African and Black Caribbean compared with White infants are large and remain unaffected after adjusting for important covariates. This makes it tempting to conclude that the remaining effect must be a consequence of genetic differences. However, such a conclusion would be prematurely drawn. First, we have not included the measurement of genetic factors in our analysis, and, therefore, the presence of such effects cannot be demonstrated. Second, speculating on such effects should only be done alongside recognition that the model we have been able to test contains imperfect measurement.

Basically, they don’t want to root down the rabbit hole of race before exhausting the myriad of “socioeconomic measures across ethnic groups” that, in theory at least, would explain such large and  widespread differences.

Fast forward to May 2025, and we have a study published in Nature—and reported on by the UK Telegraph—which does include “measurement of genetic factors.” A meta-analysis involving over 70,000 white, European toddlers, it isolated genetic causes for age of onset of walking (AOW), a primary example of gross motor skills development, and searched for correlations with “physical health indicators, cognitive traits, neurodevelopmental conditions, psychiatric disorders, and cortical phenotypes.” Essentially, the 2025 study did the heavy scientific lifting that 2006 study did not. What the researchers found was an inverse relationship between AOW and health outcomes such as BMI and neurological outcomes such as ADHD. More importantly, they discovered significant correlations between AOW and educational attainment and cognitive function.

The third conclusion from our results is that AOW is partly influenced by the same genetic variants that influence individual variability of other complex traits measured at later ages. We found that common genetic variation associated with AOW is partly overlapping with common genetic variation associated with cognitive performance and years in education, likelihood of ADHD and cortical folding index. We note that the direction of these associations was consistent in the three largest individual cohorts (MoBa, NTR and Lifelines) (the fourth cohort, NSHD was not well-powered for genetic correlation estimates) as well as the meta-analysed results, indicating robust findings. Interestingly, MiXeR analyses showed that a large proportion of variants explaining the heritability in AOW were shared with educational attainment and cognitive performance, with more than half of these variants having concordant effects on the two phenotypes (which explains the overall positive genetic correlations obtained with the LDSC method shown in Fig. 4a). Thus, results indicated that genetic predispositions to later onset of walking also contribute to high cognitive performance and more educational attainment.

Note that several cortical phenotypes also have significant positive correlation with AOW. These include isotropic volume fraction, folding index, local gyrification index, and cortical surface area. Studies have shown that the last three of these four traits may be linked to IQ. Below is figure 4a mentioned above with significant correlations indicated in red boxes. It seems that one drawback to later onset of walking is a greater likelihood of bipolar disorder.

A final observation is the negative yet non-significant correlation between AOW and cortical thickness. One of the studies linked in the previous paragraph, entitled “Changes in Thickness and Surface Area of The Human Cortex and Their Relationship with Intelligence,” found that among children cortical thickness corresponds inversely with IQ.

So the connection here becomes quite obvious. Given . . .

1. the identifiable genetic component of AOW, and
2. the significant correlation between AOW, educational attainment, and cognitive performance, and
3. the considerable evidence pointing to black and brown children on average learning to walk before white ones,

. . . we can conclude that there is a significant genetic basis for academic and cognitive differences between the races—the very point Simon Webb successfully makes in his video. The only leap here is assuming that the age of onset of walking among black and brown children bears the same predictive power it does with white ones. Hardly a stretch in my opinion, since we are, after all, the same species.

It takes a well-informed and insightful person indeed to make such a connection, and for that we owe a debt of gratitude to Simon Webb.