Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance—A Small, But Significant, Step for Race Realism

John Derbyshire, VDARE, March 13, 2014

Every Tuesday the print edition of the New York Times includes a Science section. I don’t bother with it much, in spite of having been a science geek since infancy. Like most aspects of our metropolitan culture, the NYT Science section has been colonized by the hipster lifestyle. Girly concerns dominate, and there is very little hard science to be found.

The March 11th Science section, for example, had articles on:

  • gadgets to track your physical activity
  • brain workouts
  • online dating
  • apps to help you sleep
  • apps to help you relax
  • kids’ ice-hockey helmets
  • apps to monitor pets
  • better eating
  • parental smartphone usage
  • cycling skills
  • treadmill desks
  • more on activity-tracking gadgets

The writers’ forenames were: AlbertTaraAbbyClaireAnahad, Albert again, NickCatherinePerriMeghanAmy, and Gretchen.

If you don’t own a smartphone and don’t worry about your health, diet, and kids, there is not much of interest in the Science section. It’s hard to imagine Niels Bohr absorbed in it over his Tuesday cornflakes. (The online version, which has additional posts, is slightly better.)

All the more reason to treasure Nicholas Wade, longtime science reporter at the Times. Wade belongs to the older tradition of science writer. Before joining the Times he worked for Nature, the most prestigious British general-science journal (Wade is British-born), and for Science, the U.S. equivalent. His scientific interests are deep and wide. It is possible—I don’t know, but it is possible—that he does not own either a smartphone or a bicycle.

Although Wade certainly knows his periodic table and undoubtedly could tell you how many miles there go to the light year, most of his writing in recent years has been on the human sciences. In his articles on genetics he has distinguished himself for at least the past dozen years by writing frankly about biological race differences—for example Race Is Seen as Real Guide to Track Roots of Disease, NYT, July 30, 2002.

This is unusual in mainstream science reporting. For the New York Times, it is astounding. Charles Murray expressed the general bafflement: “Do any of the reporters at the New York Times who cover other beats read the Science section?”

All journalists in the West—including all the conservative commentators you have ever heard of—and most other educated people cleave to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM) of human nature, which declares race to be a “social construct,” a sort of figment of our collective imagination.

There has, says the SSSM, been no significant evolutionary change in Homo sapiens since one group of us left Africa to begin the colonization of Eurasia and the Americas 50,000 years ago.

Even academic professionals in the “soft” human sciences like anthropology and sociology take the SSSM as gospel. Wade’s 2006 book Before the Dawn in fact occasioned heated criticism from anthropologists: for example, see Jonathan Marks response to the Leakey Foundation regarding controversial writer Nicholas Wade, by Mark Dawson [Ethnography.com, October 15th, 2007] and Nicholas Wade Speaks to Leakey Audience | Productive Dialogue or Dangerous Advocacy? by Rachel Dvoskin, Anthropology News, September 2007. (I reviewed the book here.)

*

In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History, scheduled for publication May 6th, Wade raises high the banner of race realism and charges head-on into the massed ranks of the SSSM. He states his major premise up front, on page two:

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional.

Those last four words are repeated at intervals throughout the narrative. They are, as it were, the keynote of the book; Wade returns to them many times to anchor his observations—and some speculations—on the history and development of human societies.

Along the way he has fun tweaking the SSSM-niks:

A few biologists have begun to agree that there are human races, but they hasten to add that the fact means very little. Races exist, but the implications are “not much,” says the evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. Too bad—nature has performed this grand 50,000-year experiment, generating scores of fascinating variations on the human theme, only to have evolutionary biologists express disappointment at her efforts.

That “too bad” is priceless. Even better is Wade’s tossing and goring of Jared Diamond’s absurd best-seller Guns, Germs, and Steel:

It is driven by ideology, not science. The pretty arguments about the availability of domesticable species or the spread of disease are not dispassionate assessments of fact but are harnessed to Diamond’s galloping horse of geographic determinism, itself designed to drag the reader away from the idea that genes and evolution might have played any part in recent human history.

In a dry little footnote to Diamond’s well-known assertion that the tribes of New Guinea are “in mental ability probably genetically superior to Westerners,” [Guns, Germs, and Steel, p. 21] Wade notes, with a reference, that the mean IQ for Papua New Guinea is 83, and adds:

If Diamond is thinking of some more appropriate measure of intelligence, he does not cite it.

Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker is also given a jab of the lance, though more respectfully.

Thus Wade’s longest and meatiest chapter, “The Recasting of Human Nature,” begins with economic historian Gregory Clark’s argument, in his 2007 book A Farewell to Alms, that the industrial revolution happened in England when it did because of evolved changes in behavior across the previous six centuries.

Clark documented four types of English behavior that changed: interpersonal violence, literacy, the propensity to save, and the propensity to work.

The first of those behaviors leads into the territory covered by Pinker in The Better Angels of Our Nature (my review here). Pinker writes about the steady decline in violence across human history, but explicitly denies that any biological changes are involved. The human mind, says Pinker, is adapted to the conditions of 10,000 years ago and hasn’t changed since.

Wade is having none of this:

Since many other traits have evolved more recently than that, why should human behavior be any exception? Well, says Pinker, it would be terribly inconvenient politically if this were so. “It could have the incendiary implication that aboriginal and immigrant populations are less biologically adapted to the demands of modern life than populations that have lived in literate states for millennia.”

Whether or not a thesis might be politically incendiary should have no bearing on the estimate of its scientific validity…[Emphasis added].

Damn right! If I had been wearing a hat at that point, I would have thrown it in the air. Such strong, clear endorsements of scientific independence against political orthodoxy are all too rare. Three cheers for Nicholas Wade!

*

Some readers might downgrade that to two cheers. Although he makes no really substantive concessions to the SSSM mob, Wade does emit a certain amount of squid ink by way of showing that he understands why frank talk about evolved group differences makes people nervous.

The first chapter of his book is brief and introductory. The second, titled “Perversions of Science,” is a particularly mighty blast of squid ink: a trip through the various scientific follies and political evils that the concept of race has been associated with.

We read of BlumenbachGobineau, and Morton. The last of those names gives Wade an opportunity to give a poke of his lance to the corpse of Marxist con-man Stephen Jay Gould, who, in defense of the SSSM—of which he was of course a fierce and dogmatic adherent (the SSSM is an essentially Marxist construct)—wilfully misrepresented Morton’s work.

Darwin’s sensible views on race are described, then Wade leads us through Social Darwinism and the early 20th century fad for eugenics.

Here he gets into something of a tangle.

Francis Galton’s scheme of positive eugenics was, says Wade, “to induce the rich and middle class to change their marriage habits and bear more children.” Wade pooh-poohs that: “The eugenic program, however reasonable it might seem, was basically incoherent.”

Was it? Then what of that later chapter on Gregory Clark’s thesis, which was precisely that, in Wade’s own words:

The fact that the rich were having more children than the poor [i.e. in England from a.d. 1200 to 1760] led to the interesting phenomenon of unremitting social descent. Most children of the rich had to sink in the social scale, given that there were too many of them to remain in the upper class.

Their social descent had the far-reaching genetic consequence that they carried with them inheritance for the same behaviors that had made their parents rich. The values of the upper middle class—nonviolence, literacy, thrift, and patience—were thus infused into lower economic classes and throughout society. [Pages 159-160.]

That sounds strangely like an undirected form of Galtonian eugenics, with a highly beneficial result. So Galton’s program was “incoherent” . . . how?

The real problem with Galtonism—as Wade, to be fair, points out—is that positive eugenics was politically impractical. The minimal government of Victorian England was in no position to boss its upper and upper-middle classes around to the necessary degree.

The American lower classes were a different matter, so thatnegative eugenics made some headway on this side of the Atlantic. The 1927 Buck v. Bell case—“Three generations of imbeciles are enough”—has a starring role here.

So, unfortunately, do the U.S. immigration restriction laws of the 1920s. If, as Wade says, the eugenicists influenced those laws—thepoint is disputed—it is hard to see that influence as other than benign. Why should a nation accept physically or mentally defective immigrants?

And why should immigration laws not seek to preserve a nation’s ethnic balance? Senator Edward Kennedy, speaking forty years later, thought they should (or believed it expedient to seem to think so); and the following eight chapters of Nicholas Wade’s book provide ample evidence that he was right.

Thence of course to Germany and the National Socialist programs of slave labor and mass murder. Wade:

Ideas about race are dangerous when linked to political agendas. It puts responsibility on scientists to test rigorously the scientific ideas that are placed before the public.

Some ideas about race are dangerous when linked to some political agendas. But the horrors of the Holocaust did not happen because the German public misapprehended some point of biology. They happened, along with many other great evils, because the Germans surrendered their government to a lawless gangster-despotism.

This chapter-length blast of squid ink at the front of the book is presumably strategic, its purpose being to deflect critics who might otherwise say, with a roll of the eyes, that obviously Wade has never heard of Social Darwinism, Buck v. Bell, or the Holocaust.

(If you don’t believe SSSM defenders could possibly say something that staggeringly infantile, you don’t follow human-science controversies very closely.)

Having emitted the ink-blast in Chapter 2, Wade mainly sticks to straight science in the remaining eight chapters, with only an occasional brief ink-puff here and there.

He skips hurriedly over the black-white IQ gap, for example (“That issue needn’t be resolved here …”), proceeding directly to a somewhat skeptical survey of Lynn and Vanhanen’s work on correlations between IQ and national wealth.

Into that latter survey he incorporates some of Ron Unz’s 2012 critique of Lynn and Vanhanen’s data. We published a lengthy response to Unz by Lynn here at VDARE.com; apparently Wade has not read it. Perhaps in future editions of his book he will take it on board.

*

Wade is merciless towards the standard SSSM appeal to what I, in my own 2009 book We Are Doomed, called “Culturism”—the notion that the human beings of two different societies are identical at some psychic level, so that each society could switch its institutions for the other’s if they felt inclined to do so.

To the contrary, says Wade, those institutions “are largely cultural edifices resting on a base of genetically shaped social behaviors.”

If the differences between a tribal society and a modern state were purely cultural, it should be easy to modernize a tribal society by importing Western institutions. American experience in Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan generally suggests otherwise. [Page 241.]

Indeed. The much more prolonged and determined efforts of European colonial powers to shape African and Asian societies likewise slid off those societies like water off a sheet of glass.

The British left their African territories with parliaments, universities, and judges in horsehair wigs; tribalism, corruption, and Big Man despotism took over almost immediately.

Cambodian students in Paris took the silly but harmless abstractions of Left Bank theorizing back to their now-independent country and made the killing fields.

Again and again Wade contrasts the speed of cultural change—Germans and Japanese switching from militarism to pacifism well-nigh overnight—to the comparatively slow changes in genetically shaped behaviors.

The Malay, Thai, or Indonesian populations who have prosperous Chinese populations in their midst might envy the Chinese success but are strangely unable to copy it.People are highly imitative, and if Chinese business success were purely cultural, everyone should find it easy to adopt the same methods. This is not the case because social behavior, of Chinese and others, is genetically shaped. [Page 237.]

Those are my italics there. The readiness of human beings to imitate others, when they can, is a key feature of all our societies. It is, for example, the basis of fashion, and the rationale behind the concept “role model.”

Yet it seems not to operate at all when a brutish tribal society needs to be brought up to a civilized level.

*

That same phrase, “people are highly imitative,” shows up in Wade’s chapter titled “Jewish Adaptations.”

People are highly imitative, and if the Jewish advantage [in cultural achievements, which Wade has just listed] were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a special devotion to education, there would be little to prevent others from copying it. [Page 199.]

(Amy Chua please note.) Instead, it seems more likely that Ashkenazi Jews have adapted to a particular cognitive niche through natural selection across several centuries.

This is the thesis of Cochran, Hardy, and Harpending’s 2005 paper “Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence,” discussed at the time on VDARE.com here, and summarized in Chapter 7 of Cochran and Harpending’s 2009 book The 10,000 Year Explosion.

Wade gives a good account of the original paper, then contrasts it with later work by economic historians Botticini and Eckstein, who offer a different theory. They stress the priestly demand, from the first century a.d., that all male Jews be literate. This met with much resistance: “The Talmud is full of imprecations against … boorish country folk who refuse to educate their children.” [Page 211.]

These boors fell away from the Jewish community, commonly into Christianity (“Judaism Lite”), leaving the bookishly inclined element to become more concentrated generation by generation. This too, says Wade, amounted to an evolutionary adaptation.

*

There are many other good things in this book: an excellent short course on population genetics; a brisk five-page debunking of arguments against the existence of race (including Lewontin’s damn fallacy—”More variation within groups than between groups”—which seems to be unkillable: I just spotted it in a book I am reviewing for another outlet); a closing explanation for the rise of the West, built on all that has gone before; and an argument that we are currently in a transition period as momentous as that from hunter-gatherer bands to settled communities—“the Meso-Industrial Age,” Wade calls it.

Wade is also illuminating on the very local, inbred quality of human populations. Until very recently, humans mated almost exclusively with near neighbors: Siberians with Siberians, Patagonians with Patagonians, Bushmen with Bushwomen.

I have for years been using my own elementary-school class photograph to illustrate this fact. Three-quarters of the kids in that picture, I note, had parents and grandparents born within fifty miles; and this was the most advanced nation of its time, with a long seafaring and colonizing history.

Once you have internalized this fact it is not surprising, although still striking at a first read, to learn that by close scrutiny of the genome, our geographical origins can be discovered to quite high resolution. Wade writes:

Researchers at Stanford University have found a strong correspondence between the genetics and geographical origins of Europeans. In fact, 90 percent of people can be located to within 435 miles of where they were born, and 50 percent to within 193 miles. Europeans are fairly homogeneous at the genetic level, so it is quite surprising that enough genetic differences exist among them to infer a person’s origin so precisely. [Page 77.]

If you frequent websites like VDARE.com, or InfoProc, or hbd* chick, or West Hunter, there is nothing very breathtaking inTroublesome Inheritance, and the squid ink is mildly irritating.

Most people don’t visit these websites, though, and are raised and educated taking the SSSM for granted. To them, the facts that Wade’s book presents and the ideas it discusses will come as thunderclaps.

Will it do any good? Will, for example, Wade’s book hasten the day when the American Anthropological Association issues a statement beginning: “Of course race is a real, biologically-based feature of human populations! How on earth could we ever have been so dumb as to think otherwise…”?

American Renaissance Editor Jared Taylor, in his own review of Wade’s book, expressed pessimism on this point (while praising Wade and his publisher for bringing out the book).

I’ll declare myself somewhat more hopeful than that. No, the AAA won’t be embracing race realism this month, or this year. The preposterosities of “Affirmative Action” and “disparate impact” won’t cease to insult our intelligence just because of Nicholas Wade’s book.

(Indeed, as I was writing this, the New York Post carried a story lamenting the dire performance of black and Hispanic students on the entrance exam to get into the city’s elite high schools: “Of the 5,096 students accepted by eight specialized schools, just 5 percent were black and 7 percent were Hispanic … Advocates say the low pass rate for blacks and Hispanics is an outrage …” etc. [Black & Hispanic pass rates drop in elite high school exams, By Aaron Short, March 12, 2014] Five years, probably ten years from now, those advocates will still be outraged.)

But, ultimately, fantasy must yield to reality, falsehood to truth, superstition to science. Nick Wade’s calm, brave assault on the enemy’s lines will likely be repulsed, but not without enemy losses, making the next assault more likely to break through.

Entrenched orthodoxies don’t fall easily, but they fall at last. In Coventry Patmore’s words:

When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.

I don’t share Jared’s pessimism, but I join with him in heartfelt praise for Nicholas Wade and his publisher, The Penguin Press, who have put into the public arena a plain, clear statement of well-supported facts about our human nature.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • David Ashton

    Derbyshire asks why should a nation accept biologically defective immigrants? Why should a nation encourage biologically defective offspring among its own population? I am simply inviting answers to this question.

    • MBlanc46

      I’ll bite. Because we’re civilized human beings, not Spartans. We’re willing to pay certain economic and social costs to not murder infants.

      • Sick of it

        He said encourage, not tolerate. Those in power actively encourage dysgenics.

      • IstvanIN

        We should treat all of our own with compassion and fairness. That we have evolved into a civilized society is something we should be proud of and protect. We have no moral obligation to do the same for those not of our racial family or tribe. Their should be no non-white immigration, no refugee program and no bringing in of foreigners who are elderly or physical or mental defectives. We should stand before the world as an example of how a society can be.

      • David Ashton

        Personally I am against the murder not only of all infants but also unborn sentient and viable babies even if defective. Eugenic contraception is another matter.

      • Triarius

        That is most likely a myth, probably Athenian propanganda. Fun fact, not a single writing about Spartans (Laconians) were written by them, always someone else. There are no Spartan scripts that survived. What we get about them comes from other peoples, usually written hundreds or thousands of years later

        http://www.freerepublic (dot) com/focus/news/1938506/posts

        • MBlanc46

          I’m pretty sure that the Athenians exposed their infants, as well.

          • Triarius

            There is no proof for one or the other.

          • MBlanc46

            I’m not a classicist, so I can’t answer the question with authority. But I do know that Sophocles certainly believed that the Thebans did. Using some strict criterion of “proof”, we’ve no proof of just about anything regarding classical Greece.

          • Triarius

            True, but there are plenty of things we can take as truth. What professors do is find at least two different sources, and see if they match up. 9 times out of 10 you find a balance in between the two,but some historical accounts have more credibility than others. No one has multiple accounts of the Spartans doing this.

      • newscomments70

        Sterilization isn’t murder. That would be a better way. I don’t believe in abortion either, but without it, about 12 million black babies would have been born since 1970. Black populuation would have increased by 80 million, give or take. That would also be a horrible tragedy. I still believe abortion is evil, but imagine 80 million more blacks?

        • MBlanc46

          I certainly wouldn’t oppose generous inducements for sterilization.

          • newscomments70

            The government already tried that with a small number of mentally deficient black women. They were humanely sterilized for their own good. years later, the “victims” sued for millions and won.

    • wildfirexx

      I think it becomes more clear as we explore our genetic past and inheritance, that europeans were probably the first step in civilization and the last step in evolution as I see it.
      And Yes…Why should we as a nation, as a people, as a force…turn the clock backwards on evolution by diluting our distinct culture and racial identity with foreigners that were not part of our tribal awareness. I think white Europeans (as with any other race) have a tribal instinct to want to be with their own kind.

    • JohnEngelman

      I cannot think of a single reason.

    • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

      “Why should a nation encourage biologically defective offspring among its own population?”
      ===
      Recall a particular “biologically defective” relative or acquaintance of the non-violent, very needy variety. What should society do, if anything, for such individuals or for families who are their caretakers? Lines have to be drawn, but where to draw those lines?
      The innate altruism of white westerners coupled with democracy has led in the past century to very aggressive steps to accommodate the biologically defective, steps which are ultimately dysgenic.
      That’s why Richard Lynn thinks that only authoritarian regimes like the Chinese will avoid civilizational decline. I hope Lynn is wrong, that the West will wake up. Wade’s book provides some hope.

      • David Ashton

        The right to life and the right to produce life need to be distinguished. Humanitarian concern for “defectives” is a reason to discourage their reproduction. We need to produce relatively more doctors than patients, relatively more police than criminals and relatively more teachers than pupils than we are doing at present. The CULTS of disability, deviance, and drug-taking are the epiphenomena of decadence and dysgenics.

    • Ed

      Because they are their biologically defective children. If society is affluent enough caring for them should pose no real burden.

      • David Ashton

        Higher birth-rates among the creators of affluence are welcome.

    • stewball

      ‘Derbyshire’ asks. What about ‘Jennings’?
      Sorry David. Don’t shout. I couldn’t resist it. 🙂

      • David Ashton

        I wonder how many Americans know the books? Most countries have Just William translations too, but the USA is “thin” on English schoolboy characters.

        • stewball

          Jennings would be over their heads. It’s too boarding school/upper class stuff. After all as a Jew I’d not have been very welcome at a boarding school although I’d love to have gone. Get away from home.
          I loved Jennings and still have a book of his.
          Right Jennings is put to rest.
          Carry on discussing sterilisation of women. I notice there was no mention of men being sterilised. Strange ha ha.

          • Young Werther

            I noticed that too.

          • stewball

            Thank you for noticing. I wonder why that was. I think it’s shameful ‘oumushing’ only unfortunate women as if it was only them bringing defective babies into the world taking into consideration that many weren’t.

          • Young Werther

            ha ha…not strange. On male dominated sites like this one and many others one sees the *woman hater* often make these kinds of comments. The Authentic White Man would never make nasty remarks about the women of his own race. The Authentic White Man embraces the help and power from his Sisters, they are his mother, wife, daughter, neice. They need Him and He needs them. It is THE WAY. The Authentic White Man and White Woman know that this is what caused the demise of White World Unity and Power. When half of one’s race turns its face against the other half…that race is already dead.

          • Young Werther

            Although AR staff/foundation is all or may be, or certainly its writers are, male…when I say, as above,* mostly male dominated*…I am speaking only about a male dominated comments section…or so it may appear (wink)…I have detected, over a long period of time, many female *voices* with names such as *Spike*…I can speak MAN-SPEAK too. If one says, “I am an unreliable narrator”, does that make it so?

  • Hal K

    People are highly imitative, and if the Jewish advantage [in cultural achievements, which Wade has just listed] were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a special devotion to education, there would be little to prevent others from copying it.

    Ah, but culture does play a key role in the West. Non-Jewish whites have a culture that suppresses group solidarity, while Jews have a culture that encourages it. I am guessing that, in contrast, majority group solidarity is allowed and even encouraged in the Southeast Asian countries listed. Jews do have higher innate average verbal intelligence, but let’s not lose sight of the real problem in the West.

  • MBlanc46

    I’m definitely waiting for this to come out.

  • JohnEngelman

    That “too bad” is priceless. Even better is Wade’s tossing and goring of Jared Diamond’s absurd best-seller Guns, Germs, and Steel:

    – John Derbyshire, VDARE, March 13, 2014

    Jared Diamond’s book explains why civilization began where it did, rather than somewhere else. It just so happened that the Near East had animals and plants that were easy to domesticate, and that sub Saharan Africa did not.

    What Jared Diamond overlooks (or does not want to look at) is the fact that once civilization began it had different evolutionary pressures than what preceded it. Intelligent men had more descendants. Physically aggressive men had few or none.

    • IstvanIN

      A good argument for ending most military careers no later then 40 tops to allow the aggressive men to marry young women and pass on their genes. Upper officers could stay beyond for their 40thy if they are married with children. WE rake the military more family f friendly.

      • JohnEngelman

        Currently in the U.S. military it is possible for enlisted men to raise families. However, in the past it was not. Enlistments were often for twenty years, or longer.

      • JohnEngelman

        Physically aggressive people have high crime rates. I would rather civilization select for superior intelligence, while suppressing physical aggression.

        Physical aggression is inappropriate in a professional setting. Imagine challenging a co-worker to fight you in the parking lot because he does not like a proposal you make at a business meeting.

        • IstvanIN

          The problem is other races are aggressive so we need our own aggressive men to kill those people who want to kill us. Or at least keep them in line.

    • The near east and Africa had animals that were not a “virgin” population. African animals, on the other hand co-evolved with hominid apex-hunters.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    A must-read review of a must-read book. I read Nicholas Wade’s Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (2007) and ever since have been eagerly awaiting his next book on human biodiversity.
    John Derbyshire has produced a detailed, superlative review. May 6 is release date. Make a mental note.

  • Hell_Is_Like_Newark

    What is ‘squid ink’?

    • Katherine McChesney

      Ink from a squid.

    • IstvanIN

      The ink squids and octopuses squirt out when in danger to help them escape. Makes the water dark. I have seen films about it on TV nature shows.

    • Hell_Is_Like_Newark

      I should have been a little more clear: I have never read the term ‘squid ink’ as a literary reference. I assume ‘squid ink’ is in this case someone writing in a way that allows him/her to address race realism, but leaves an out from being labeled a racist.

      • bilderbuster

        Yes it is.
        It’s described as a politically correct smokescreen.

  • CourtneyfromAlabama

    He mentions Jared Diamond (who he rightfully disagrees with). Diamond has done more to degrade the historical achievements of whites more than any other author in our history. The reason I say that is because I see him quoted all the time, and I see documentaries and “scholarly articles” referring to him.

    A fine example is “A history of the world in 2 hours” put on by the History Channel. I think we may be coming up on the anniversary of that first airing. The whole thing is a liberal soap box.

    The first half focuses on everything that happened on our Earth before man came. And during that time there is extreme anti-Christian, anti-man, and environmentalist approaches taken. The second half , or hour I should say, focuses on man and the history of civilization. That is the hour (the second hour) , that I have the most issue with.

    It is during the second hour that the shift goes from anti-man to anti-WHITE-man. It starts off showing the first civilizations, such as Sumeria, and they went out of their way to make the Sumerians, and Egyptians, look as black as possible. The narrator keeps informing us about how these early civilizations were the roots of Modern Europe’s success.

    Then absolutely nothing is said about Greece and Rome and their achievements. They suddenly jumped from the theme of “Ancient civilizations in the Near East and Asia that gave the world most of our inventions” to “the Age of Religion and Empires”.

    So it is during the “Age of Religion” that we see different civilizations interacting, and once again, they make it seem as if it was all in one direction (Europe learning from everyone else).

    Some of the stuff shown during that segment is flat out offensive. When they talk about gunpowder, they show a sophisticated looking Chinese alchemist in his sophisticated Medieval “laboratory”. Then they show advanced and dark skinned Muslim arabs using gunpowder induced cannons, and shooting cannon balls that fall to the ground, and then out of nowhere, a clumsy looking European Christian Crusader knight stumbles out of a fort and picks up the cannon ball that landed, inspects it, and that is how Europeans learned about gunpowder, and the only reason they went on to perfect firearms.

    During another scene they show Fibonacci strolling through a Muslim market, observing black skinned merchants using arabic numerals. Up until that point those stupid Europeans must not have done anything with math I presume, even though the Fibonacci character in the scene is shown wearing sophisticated Renaissance clothing. How could it be if Europe was the stupid continent learning from everyone else? I thought he would have appeared dressed like a barbarian.

    Then we get to Columbus and the narrator reminds us that his voyage was possible because of Chinese and arab technology. Once again, we hear nothing about Europe’s technology. It begs the question as to why Europe made the voyage at all as opposed to those smarter people to the East and South.

    Not once are Europeans ever given credit for producing anything positive during the second hour of the program. All we hear about is the violence and disease they produced. But then, suddenly………..we get to……the Industrial Revolution!!!!!!! And then we are led to believe that that was the first point in history that Europeans did anything original. But even during that whole sequence, the narrator never mentions the nationalities of all the inventors. The Industrial Revolution gets treated as a “point in time” as opposed to being associated with a place. So we get presented with a long list of inventions, like electricity, but we don’t get told of the nationalities responsible.

    So, stay away from “A history of the world in 2 hours” on the History Channel. It seemed to be a big deal when it first aired last year. It is another fine product of Jared Diamond propaganda.

    • JohnEngelman

      The main problem with Jared Diamond as I see it is that he promotes the misconception that the races are innately equal. His assertion that New Guinea tribesmen are at least as intelligent as Europeans is preposterous.

      Once civilization begins it increases the number of descendants intelligent people are likely to have. This is why Europeans and Orientals tend to be quite a bit more intelligent than New Guinea tribesmen, and other dark skinned races.

      • CourtneyfromAlabama

        I agree with that too, of course. But my other issue on top of that is these constant efforts by liberal historians to try to make excuses for why Europeans accomplished more than everyone else (East Asians are smart but they haven’t invented much compared to us).

        I have never read Diamond’s book all the way through, and I am not sure if his historical narrative fully mimics the History Channel program I described above, but I saw his influence on it, based on what I know about him. For instance, it is patently dishonest to claim that Europe became great only because it learned from Asia and the Middle East. And that was the obvious message in the program I describe above, and it seems to mirror some of the claims Diamond has made.

        One day I might read his book all the way through. I get the impression that he basically skips the Ancient Greeks and Romans. By doing that, it makes his argument more convincing, even though it is dishonest to do so, just like it is dishonest to ignore everything Europeans did during the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and after, that contributed to making Europe great.

        One thing I found interesting about “A history of the world in 2 hours” is that the only inventions they went into, before The Industrial Revolution, were, gunpowder and firearms, the compass, the triangular sail on old ships that they claimed the arabs invented, arabic numerals, farming, paper, writing, cities, the wheel, and the chariot. The narrator claimed that non-Europeans did all those things, and those were the only inventions listed that “brought Europe into the modern age”.

        There are so many glaringly obvious problems with that argument. How in the world did Europe become great if it was only based on those few inventions that they claim came from other people? (I don’t even agree that all those inventions uniquely came from outside of Europe in the first place).

        And to another degree, the History Channel program actually makes its argument look specious by only being able to list those few inventions that came from outside of Europe. Very interesting to say the least.

        • JohnEngelman

          Civilization began in Egypt, and in what is now Iraq. From there it spread to Greece. From Greece it spread to Italy. From there it spread to the rest of Europe.

          Nevertheless, in Egypt and Iraq it lagged behind. The Arab world has not created much of anything since the Mongolian conquests in the thirteenth century. The average IQ of an Arab is about 85. I think this is because of Negro genes imported during the Arab slave trade. Arabs castrated male slaves, but they had children by female slaves.

          • Malgus

            I urge you to do some research before you make declarative statements like “civilization began in Egypt”.

            In the case of Göbekli Tepe, which is a series of temples built in what is now Turkey, it predates everything by several thousand years. Yes, even your Egyptians and their pyramids, too.

            It was actually “discovered” twice. Once in the 1960’s, it was looked over by an English archaeologist, but he walked away from it – too staggered to come to grips by what it implied. Then a German archaeologist went there roughly 20 years ago, and stayed… and followed the evidence, no matter where it led.

            Dated to about 12,000 years ago (10,000 BC), it predates even such things as crop and animal domestication, metallurgy, large sophisticated hierarchical societies, pottery, etc. In fact, it predates all the things necessary for its own production. You cannot have huge, monumental structures like Göbekli Tepe without large, sophisticated groups of humans working together. Or engineering. Or some form of math. Or metallurgy. Or even a means to feed everyone (which calls for crop and animal domestication).

            Which brings us to an uncomfortable conclusion. Either the archaeologists and historians are full of garbage when it comes to human history, or we don’t know half of what we think we know.

          • JohnEngelman

            Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof. We need to learn more about Göbekli Tepe before we can classify it as a “civilization” by any reasonable definition.

          • Malgus

            I never said it was a “civilization”. You just did.

            I said that they were temples built in what is now Turkey. I also said that they were buried – on purpose – supposedly by their creators. The simple fact that those temples exist disproves the self-styled “experts” who seem to know who did what first, when they did it, where “civilization” originated, etc, because you need to meed certain requirements in order to make something of that magnitude.

            You cannot get around those needs. Widely scattered, disparate competing bands of hunter/gatherers are by definition incapable of building such things. And that is what the self-styled “experts” say we were 12,000 years ago. Do you not understand the implications? That series of temples pre-dates even the most basic tech like crop domestication and animal domestication/husbandry, both of which are required if a loose collection of hunter/gatherers is going to progress any further.

            So how does it exist?

            Well, since everything points to G-T being 12,000 years old, and I have no reason to dispute that number, then that means the “experts” are wrong. Period.

          • JohnEngelman

            Whatever is it is interesting, and merits greater study. The prehistory of our species is a work in progress which continues to be rewritten as new evidence is found.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            Being the “first” doesn’t necessarily mean “best” or even “good”. Neanderthals started messing with tools and fire before humans came along and did the same, but it doesn’t mean Neanderthals are better.

            The math in Egypt was very basic and elementary, which most historians seem to agree on. The pyramid is a shape that was used in many non-European civilizations in one form or another, and to me, it was hardly a sophisticated method of building.

            In the case of the Babylonians, I will give them a little more credit. They created a very advanced math for their time that was passed on to Greece, but this doesn’t mean that Greek math wasn’t later better and much more advanced. I have seen some sources say that they were closely related to Europeans,….or at least the Assyrians were. So just because Europeans weren’t able to do too much in Europe early on, they seemed to be doing it elsewhere.

            I don’t mind giving certain civilizations outside of Europe credit
            for being the “first”, when it comes to rudimentary civilization. It
            makes sense when considering that these first civilizations started in lush river valleys. At the same time, much of Europe wasn’t settled and was still covered in ice.

            India had a very basic early civilization as well, but I have seen sources that give them credit for a very advanced sewage system, but we still aren’t sure who they learned it from. India experienced lots of invasions, and it seems it was after the Indo-Europeans invaded, that India had pretty advanced math and astronomy, but again, they learned some of it from Greece.

            China is credited with doing interesting stuff with technology early on, but most historians agree that they didn’t do much with actual science, and the math they produced is treated as separately from our math and is noted as not having any influence on ours’ .

            Later, the Muslims made some advancements in science, but they learned so much from Greece, and a lot of sources say that the actual Muslim scientists were white Persians as opposed to arabs. The Muslims learned some stuff from India too.

            I don’t mind acknowledging everything I go into above. What I DO mind, is when modern day liberal historians act as if all the civilizations I mention above are responsible for the modern world, while acting as if Europe didn’t do anything original until 1500 AD. The fact remains that most of the roots of the modern world were developed in Europe, with these other civilizations contributing in minor ways.

            I think Greece owed a lot of knowledge debt to Babylonia, but that doesn’t mean the Babylonians weren’t white themselves, or that Greece didn’t produce an even more impressive civilization than they did. As far as the other non-European civilizations go, I think their influence on us was peripheral and minor, and I think by 1800 AD we had influenced them much more than they had us.

          • They have to focus on technological achievements, because if they didn’t it would be even more apparent that the West was ahead of everybody else.
            The Aryans, who migrated from Southwest Russia down into Iran and India, invented Hinduism and Zoroastrianism, which are the two base religions of the entire world.
            Aristotle basically invented science as well as formal logic in 300s BC. That is a monumental fact and you would think it would be inculcated into every child’s head to the point of nausea. I wonder why it isn’t…
            The Westerns were by far the most philosophically advanced people. Nobody else had Zeno, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Augustine, Boethius, Abelard, Aquinas, William of Ockham, Machiavelli, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer, Mill, Frege, Nietzsche…
            Westerners were the only people to have systematic harmony in music. Westerners literally invented music as we know it. Nobody else has Palestrina, Monteverdi, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner…

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I agree. Historians like to make a big deal about math and technology, but those are two subjects that anybody who is smarter than Aborigines has applied to some degree in order to survive. You can’t sell fish at the market or build a hut without applying some math.

            I am sick of seeing historians make claims like “the Chinese discovered Pi before Pythagoras”. I have three responses:

            Number 1, if it was that great of a discovery then why do these same historians brag about the Babylonians and Indians doing it “first” too? How is it great if everybody did it on their own at some point?

            Number 2, if the Chinese did it first, why does it matter if they didn’t apply it to developing anything important like Europeans did?

            Number 3, why are we always hearing about how so and so did such and such before Europe? We never hear historians make points about how “the arabs had more advanced math at this time than Africans and Indians” or “the Greeks messed with gunpowder before China”. Why is Europe always the gold standard that everyone else gets compared to, and that everyone else gets brownie points for “doing it before” (before Europe)?

          • It’s because we’re all equal. If I invented something great, you must have done it also, since we’re equal. But if you didn’t, then it was pure luck that I did it, so we’re still equal.

            For example, one time I was reading a book on the history of Western music and the author, trying to explain why Europeans were the only people to innovate harmony in any systematic way in music, said that the discovery of harmony was an accident. An accident. We accidentally discovered how to write fugues, I guess.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            Yeah, the whole thing is sickening. I could write a book about it. I am a pretty rare breed of female in that regard….ha ha.

          • Malgus

            You are preaching to the choir. We are on the same side, and I cannot find anything in your post to disagree with. I agree that modern liberal historians have an agenda and are willing to do or say anything to advance it. They are zealots, and no amount of hard proof to the contrary will convince them otherwise…

            Since you took the time to set out your personal belief system, I will return the favor.

            I don’t think we know a fraction of what we think we know. I don’t think we really have a clue as to who was ‘first’ with anything. Göbekli Tepe? The only reason it exists at all is because its creators took the time to bury it – on purpose – and thus it was preserved. If they had not done that, chances are we would still be clueless.

            We still have no idea who made it, why they made duplicates of it, or why they buried them all and left the area…

            According to the “experts” who profess to tell us our own ancient history, G-T should not even exist since it predates all the tech necessary to make it. Which blows a great big hole in all their little theories about who did what first and when…

            According to which “expert” you talk to, humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) have been around for what? 200,000 years? And our official ‘history’ is only about 6,000 years? What happened to the other 194,000 years? We were picking berries, chucking spears and chasing mastodons off cliffs for all that time? I seriously doubt it.

          • JohnEngelman

            “Arabic” numerals were invented in India. They were transmitted to Europe by way of the Arabs.

            A number of years ago I took a course in the C++ computer programming language. One of the assignments was to take an Arabic number and change it to a Roman number, and visa versa. From this assignment I learned about what an advance Arabic numbers were. Arithmetic was much more awkward and difficult without Arabic numbers.

            Nevertheless, it was not until the Arabic numbers reached Europe that the modern rules for arithmetic were invented.

            Years earlier I decided to review my high school knowledge of mathematics. One of the books I used had a chapter that taught earlier methods of division and multiplication using Arabic numbers. They got the same results, but they were more awkward to use.

            When the Jesuits began to proselytize in China in the late sixteenth century the Ming emperor asked his scholars to find out who they were, and what they had to offer. The scholars told the emperor that the Jesuits had a better system of mathematics than the Chinese did.

            The emperor decided that if the Jesuits would teach the Chinese Western mathematics, they could also teach Christianity. At that time the Jesuits would have been able to teach arithmetic using Arabic numbers, algebra, and Euclidean geometry. René Descartes was still developing analytic geometry, which combined Euclid with algebra.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            I agree with everything you say but the Greeks did some stuff with Algebra too. Europeans after the Renaissance also developed Algebra much further than anything the arabs did. It is modern liberal historians who make blanket statements like “arabs taught us algebra”. That is only partially true. Also, the Greeks created some pretty advanced math without “arabic” numerals. It is yet again another liberal fabrication of history to claim that Europeans did elementary math until being exposed to “arabic numerals”. And how did those Romans create such great engineering feats if they were stupid with their “primitive” Roman numerals?

          • wildfirexx

            I think most of us can agree that civilization arose somewhere in central Asia around 1000 BC. Where the hunter/gathers threw down their spears in favor of cultivation and livestock. And that these people were of Caucasian stock, probably very similar to white Europeans today. (not Asian or black African).
            At that point it seems more than likely, that over thousands of years
            these new methods would spread to all the corners of the accessible earth, with the exception of deep Africa.
            We know the Aryans migrated south to India and established a feudal caste system to protect their race . We also know that most Arabs at that time were nomads and predominately Caucasian. Mummified Caucasian graves dating back 5000 years have been discovered in China, and the 5000 year old iceman has been believed to practise some form of acupuncture.
            It seems central, west and south Africa…where the only places that didn’t come in contact with Caucasian technology at that time!
            We even know that close 99% of the Egyptians today are not related to the Egyptians pharos of the past through DNA testing.
            This tells me that any advancements and discoveries over the last 5000 years can be attributed to all these different racial and ethnic groups coming in contact with the civilized Caucasians.
            It’s only because of the continuous migration into central Asia, north africa and Europe that the demographics of these areas have changed so much.

          • JohnEngelman

            A 1000 B.C. King David established an Israelite empire by conquering Syria and what is now Jordan. By then Egypt, and the Tigris Euphrates River Valley had known civilization for at least another two thousand years.

            The ancient Egyptians and the Sumerians were not Semites, but they were more closely related to the Semites than to the Indo Europeans.

            The first civilization in the Indus River Valley was Dravidian. The Indo Europeans came latter.

          • CourtneyfromAlabama

            The only part I don’t agree with is your point about arabs. Arabs have always been semites and they originated in the Arabian Peninsula far away from Indo-Europeans. Not everyone who is Caucasian is white or Indo-European. There were a lot of Indo-Europeans in the Middle East at the times you refer to, but these Indo-Europeans were distinct from arabs.

          • wildfirexx

            I use caucasian instead of indo european, or even prehistoric european cro-magnon, because it represents a much broader picture of many ethnic caucasian cultures from that time.
            Theoretically their are only three distinct races of men left, Caucasian, Oriental and Negroid. Australian Aborigine is no longer considered a separate race. But many of these pure races have interbred with one another or possibly others extinct races, creating subspecies of a sort.

          • Triarius

            So much is wrong about your knowledge of the history of civilization. Stick to Sinophilia it’s what you know best.

          • JohnEngelman

            What did I get wrong, Professor?

          • Triarius

            As for Egypt, start with the Hittites and work your way back to Sumerian. From there the Third Dynasty of Ur, and onto what most consider the first known civilization in ancient Thrace before that.

            As for the Egyptians influencing Hellas, it was minimal. Hellas was in fluenced much more by the Myceneans and especially the Minoans. In fact, the Minoans influenced Egypt quite a bit. Hellas and Rome influenced Egypt significantly more, primarily starting with Ptolemy.

            And the Roman Republic found Greek civilization very off putting and even alien. Senators would accuse their political opponents of dressing in Greek attire as an insult. You can start with anything by Adrian Goldsworthy for this. As for Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean I like Professor Harl.

            There is your 101.

          • wildfirexx

            OOPS, I meant civilization arose somewhere in central asia around 10,000 BC… not 1000 BC.
            And the Chinese are very protective of their historical culture, and have denied findings in Asia that would indicate European influence.
            As far as the DNA testing of the pharos in Egypt goes, I will have to re-visit, but last time I checked they were connected more to southern european ancestral, than any other ethnic group at the time.

          • JohnEngelman

            The ancient Egyptians were Caucasians. The Caucasian race evolved on the other side of the Sinai Peninsula. It began to develop agriculture ten thousand years ago. As the agricultural population increased, Caucasians crossed the Sinai Peninsula back into Africa, and populated the Nile Delta, displacing the paleolithic Negro hunters there.

            While this was happening, the Sahara Desert was expanding, pushing the Negroes further south.

            The Egyptians were more closely related to Semites than to Europeans, but they were whites.

    • Glad you’re back! Now where’s Bon?

  • Thanks for the comprehensive review Mr. Derbyshire. I fear that the only way the masses can be reached (directly) is through television and the movies.

  • LHathaway

    It is ‘white supremacy’ that is killing us. Whether Derbyshire’s version, or the SSSM’s fight against it. It will continue to kill us until we are finally collected inside a small (certainly much smaller) reservation for whites. This perhaps, will be a final admission that we are not superior, after all. Perhaps then tribes in New Guine will be able rally around and find their smart genes, after all. There will certainly be no reason for them to be kept ‘economically’ behind us any longer. What Whites do after this is what should concern us.