Book Review: ‘A Troublesome Inheritance’ by Nicholas Wade

Charles Murray, Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2014

{snip}

The orthodoxy’s equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in “The Apportionment of Human Diversity” (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” The second, popularized by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” as he put it in an essay of that title in 1984.

Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2003, what is known by geneticists has increasingly diverged from this orthodoxy, even as social scientists and the mainstream press have steadfastly ignored the new research. Nicholas Wade, for more than 20 years a highly regarded science writer at the New York Times, has written a book that pulls back the curtain.

It is hard to convey how rich this book is. It could be the textbook for a semester’s college course on human evolution, systematically surveying as it does the basics of genetics, evolutionary psychology, Homo sapiens’s diaspora and the recent discoveries about the evolutionary adaptations that have occurred since then. The book is a delight to read–conversational and lucid. And it will trigger an intellectual explosion the likes of which we haven’t seen for a few decades.

The title gives fair warning: “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History.” At the heart of the book, stated quietly but with command of the technical literature, is a bombshell. It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong.

Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. But, as Mr. Wade reports, that’s exactly what happens. A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans–from among the millions of them–will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide the best statistical fit. If the subjects’ ancestors came from all over the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea. If the subjects all come from European ancestry, the clusters will instead correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the rest of Europe’s many ethnicities. Mr. Lewontin was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. It appears that the most natural of all ways to classify humans genetically is by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified from time out of mind.

Stephen Jay Gould’s assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa has also proved to be wrong–not surprisingly, since it was so counterintuitive to begin with. Humans who left Africa moved into environments that introduced radically new selection pressures, such as lethally cold temperatures. Surely, one would think, important evolutionary adaptations followed. Modern genetic methods for tracking adaptations have established that they did. A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception.

The question, then, is whether the sets of genes under selection have varied across races, to which the answer is a clear yes. To date, studies of Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. We also know that the genes in these regions affect more than cosmetic variations in appearance. Some of them involve brain function, which in turn could be implicated in a cascade of effects. “What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown,” Mr. Wade writes. “But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene.”

{snip}

The problem facing us down the road is the increasing rate at which the technical literature reports new links between specific genes and specific traits. Soon there will be dozens, then hundreds, of such links being reported each year. The findings will be tentative and often disputed–a case in point is the so-called warrior gene that encodes monoamine oxidase A and may encourage aggression. But so far it has been the norm, not the exception, that variations in these genes show large differences across races. We don’t yet know what the genetically significant racial differences will turn out to be, but we have to expect that they will be many. It is unhelpful for social scientists and the media to continue to proclaim that “race is a social construct” in the face of this looming rendezvous with reality.

After laying out the technical aspects of race and genetics, Mr. Wade devotes the second half of his book to a larger set of topics: “The thesis presented here assumes . . . that there is a genetic component to human social behavior; that this component, so critical to human survival, is subject to evolutionary change and has indeed evolved over time; that the evolution in social behavior has necessarily proceeded independently in the five major races and others; and that slight evolutionary differences in social behavior underlie the differences in social institutions prevalent among the major human populations.”

To develop his case, Mr. Wade draws from a wide range of technical literature in political science, sociology, economics and anthropology. He contrasts the polities and social institutions of China, India, the Islamic world and Europe. He reviews circumstantial evidence that the genetic characteristics of the English lower class evolved between the 13th century and the 19th. He takes up the outsized Jewish contributions to the arts and sciences, most easily explained by the Jews’ conspicuously high average IQ, and recounts the competing evolutionary explanations for that elevated cognitive ability. Then, with courage that verges on the foolhardy, he adds a chapter that incorporates genetics into an explanation of the West’s rise during the past 600 years.

{snip}

{snip} Discoveries have overturned scientific orthodoxies before–the Ptolemaic solar system, Aristotelian physics and the steady-state universe, among many others–and the new received wisdom has usually triumphed quickly among scientists for the simplest of reasons: They hate to look stupid to their peers. When the data become undeniable, continuing to deny them makes the deniers look stupid. The high priests of the orthodoxy such as Richard Lewontin are unlikely to recant, but I imagine that the publication of “A Troublesome Inheritance” will be welcomed by geneticists with their careers ahead of them–it gives them cover to write more openly about the emerging new knowledge. It will be unequivocally welcome to medical researchers, who often find it difficult to get grants if they openly say they will explore the genetic sources of racial health differences.

The reaction of social scientists is less predictable. The genetic findings that Mr. Wade reports should, in a reasonable world, affect the way social scientists approach the most important topics about human societies. Social scientists can still treat culture and institutions as important independent causal forces, but they also need to start considering the ways in which variations among population groups are causal forces shaping those cultures and institutions.

How long will it take them? In 1998, the biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a book, “Consilience,” predicting that the 21st century would see the integration of the social and biological sciences. He is surely right about the long run, but the signs for early progress are not good. “The Bell Curve,” which the late Richard J. Herrnstein and I published 20 years ago, should have made it easy for social scientists to acknowledge the role of cognitive ability in shaping class structure. It hasn’t. David Geary’s “Male/Female,” published 16 years ago, should have made it easy for them to acknowledge the different psychological and cognitive profiles of males and females. It hasn’t. Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate,” published 12 years ago, should have made it easy for them to acknowledge the role of human nature in explaining behavior. It hasn’t. Social scientists who associate themselves with any of those viewpoints must still expect professional isolation and stigma.

“A Troublesome Inheritance” poses a different order of threat to the orthodoxy. The evidence in “The Bell Curve,” “Male/Female” and “A Blank Slate” was confined to the phenotype–the observed characteristics of human beings–and was therefore vulnerable to attack or at least obfuscation. The discoveries Mr. Wade reports, that genetic variation clusters along racial and ethnic lines and that extensive evolution has continued ever since the exodus from Africa, are based on the genotype, and no one has any scientific reason to doubt their validity.

And yet, as of 2014, true believers in the orthodoxy still dominate the social science departments of the nation’s universities. I expect that their resistance to “A Troublesome Inheritance” will be fanatical, because accepting its account will be seen, correctly, as a cataclysmic surrender on some core premises of political correctness. There is no scientific reason for the orthodoxy to win. But it might nonetheless.

So one way or another, “A Troublesome Inheritance” will be historic. Its proper reception would mean enduring fame as the book that marked a turning point in social scientists’ willingness to explore the way the world really works. But there is a depressing alternative: that social scientists will continue to predict planetary movements using Ptolemaic equations, as it were, and that their refusal to come to grips with “A Troublesome Inheritance” will be seen a century from now as proof of this era’s intellectual corruption.

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.
  • Homo_Occidentalis

    Nicholas Wade and Charles Murray: two lions among sheep being led by wolves.

    How long will it take them?

    That right there is the million shekel question. Until the Semitic death-grip on Academic expression is lifted through renewed admissions quotas and free speech statutes, speaking honestly about race in the way these two have done remains a career-ending proposition for most gentile intellectuals.

    • kjh64

      It’s not just Semites, there are plenty of gentiles who are against academic expression as a matter of fact, most gentiles in the academic world are.

      • Homo_Occidentalis

        That I will not even try to deny. Many a gentile is complicit in this anti-racist consensus. But how many of them are sincere? How many are giving the stock responses to cover their own hides? We have to look at the ones vociferously pushing the multi-cult agenda.

        • JohnEngelman

          Ashkenazi Jews have reason to take pride in the findings of race realism.

      • Yes, all the carrots and sticks reinforce the PC view, so that is no surprise.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      ” I expect that their resistance to “A Troublesome Inheritance” will be fanatical, because accepting its account will be seen, correctly, as a cataclysmic surrender on some core premises of political correctness. There is no scientific reason for the orthodoxy to win.”

      There is a certain tipping point, an inertia to the Truth once it starts oozing between the cracks of censorship. We live in interesting times.

      • Oil Can Harry

        My fearless prediction is that the elites will simply ignore this book.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          These things take time to sink in and percolate. Certainly they will ignore that to which they cannot respond. Short of “Galileo’ing” people it’s increasingly all they have left.

          There is a growing weight of evidence that will require a police state to suppress eventually. That’s when it will get ugly.

          It WILL get ugly before it gets better.

          • Jacobite2

            Galileo? You’re 100 years behind the curve. Ever hear of the Gulag? Pol Pot? Lysenko?

          • NeanderthalDNA

            More like 3 or 4 centuries off.

            I chose Galileo as an example because what happened to him is eerily similar to what happens to geneticists or any other real scientist when they tell the Truth regarding race.

            Galileo, an early “scientist” figgers out something that runs counter to prevailing ideology, is forced to recant upon pain of death. But of course he was right

          • I get your point, but our situation is actually worse in some ways than that of Galileo’s. The Church had plausible reasons for rejecting Galileo’s theories, reasons Galileo could not refute, whereas the Orthodox nowadays simply plug their ears and cover their eyes.

          • MikeofAges

            The Galileo story has been seriously misrepresented. The Catholic Church negotiated extensively with Galileo. Although he was threatened with torture, he was never tortured. Nor was he imprisoned. In spite of the excesses of the inquisition, he was merely put under house arrest. He lived out his life in his personal villa and continued his research and even published another book. House arrest meant in practice, forced retirement.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Then that is very similar to how modern heretics are treated by our “cathedral”.

          • The part you never hear is that the reason Galileo was persecuted is because he was a jerk. The Church praised him, supported him, and taught his theories. But Galileo wasn’t content with his theories being taught as theories. He wanted them taught as The Truth, and went around making fun of the stupid Pope and everybody, even though the Church had legitimate scientific reasons for rejecting Galileo’s theory as The Truth.

          • MikeofAges

            I know the story. I didn’t want to be too emphatic. By the way, more hokum in the history of science than there is in a traveling carnival. Scientists, with some exceptions, are not scholars and do not have the fine senses of a professional scholar. They are opinionated and ignorant just like everyone else. Perish the thought if I ever had to do something like explain what literary genre popular works on topics such as UFOs and lost civilizations belong to. Fantastic travel literature, by the way. Based on what experience I have had, it would be hell to explain this simple idea to one of them.

          • Jacobite2

            Galileo was ordered to cease publication until he had proof of his theory. He had a simple explanation for the movements he observed, but not the only possible one. Many in the Curia (especially the Jesuits) agreed that Galileo was correct, but he didn’t have proof to offer. Actually, the whole debate is a wonderful proof of Occam’s Razor. As observations of celestial-body movements got better and better, the existing explanation couldn’t cover the facts. So, they came up with perturbations and epicycles of planetary orbits. The better the observations, the more epicycles had to be added. But these revised orbits did fit in with the observations. Too complicated to be true however. That is why nobody goes wrong accepting the simplest explanation as the true one. And you may have noticed that, not only does Leftism offer extremely complicated explanations for their theories, but Leftists also reject out of hand “simplistic” answers, BECAUSE they are simple . Leftism is one huge cloud of Lies.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Never diminishing discontent is one tactic. To some extent it’s an unavoidable consequence of the angst of existence, what drives us to improve. But the “leftist” (I call them messianic democratic totalitarians and yes they are a nest of crypto-Marxists) use this in a very unsavory way.

            The misery of the human condition must be magnified in order to build an entitled sense of indignation used to control the mob-like masses with promise of the spoils of retribution.

      • Jacobite2

        To support the “Hockey Stick” graph of historic temperatures, the Left has had to ignore the actual, historic Medieval Climatic Optimum between 1000 A.D. and 1350. Just ask one of the Global-Warmers why glacier-covered Greenland is called…. Greenland. These people can beat the truth most of the time by straightforward violence against honest men. Only violence, better aimed and more vigorously applied, can defeat violence.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          I personally suspect there is something to anthropogenic affected global warming. I also know that the left dearly wishes to use this whole thing to institute “green socialism”, which is unfortunate on many levels.

          • Jacobite2

            Let’s use the old cliché to make a point here. You’re in a movie theater waiting for the opening credits to roll. The guy in the next seat jumps up and starts screaming “Fire!” (quick look-around — no fire). Do you: 1) get on your cellphone and dial 911?; or 2) beat the SOB senseless to shut him up? Lesson learned — debating lies is not efficient. Lies, known to be such, must be silenced.

    • JohnEngelman

      Ashkenazi Jews who pretend to deny the connection between race and average IQ are being humble.

      • Eagle_Eyed

        Or they aren’t too smart.

      • Martel

        In your view, Jews are a noble people, flawless and biologically superior, and European gentiles a low and immoral people. In this light, it makes sense for you to claim Jews are being humble if they deny the connection. Any normal individual can see this comment makes no sense.

        • JohnEngelman

          I have never said that “European Gentiles [are] a low and immoral people.” Claiming that I have is an example of a straw man argument. In a straw man argument one distorts the opinion of one’s opponent in order to make it easier to refute.

          • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

            You’ve implied that they seethe with jealousy and only dislike the Tribe for that reason. That would certainly be a moral failing, would it not?

          • they cant help it, Judaism teaches that gentiles are sub human.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have never said that of all European Gentiles, only anti Semites.

            Because anti Semitism is irrational it needs to be understood psychologically.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            I consider Jews to be White, most of them. Descended from a closely related Caucasoid group, similarly mixed with our old buddy, Neanderthal Man.

            I suspect the original population of ME Semites looked a lot more like European Jews and Assyrians than the highly Africanized Muslim Arab.

            I consider it possible to be pro-Aryan without being anti-Semitic, “Semitic” referring to Jews in this case.

          • Martel

            No, this can be easily deduced, the former part from the statement above, the latter part by many statements you have made,especially your interpretation of the white nationalists while simultaneously supporting other forms of ethnic nationalism.

        • blight14

          Thank you Martel, his &^%$ comment made me consider the need to purchase a new monitor.

      • Or it is part of a larger agenda.

      • NoMosqueHere

        Secular or reform jews in the US are intermarrying at a very high rate; I believe it’s 71%. Eventually, jewish influence on the popular culture will end; it’s already starting, as we see jews distancing themselves from Israel and explicit jewishness, such as the prohibition on intermarriage.

        • John Ambrose

          Well, I don’t know if the increase in intermarriage/assimilation will necessarily end this groups disproportionate involvement in promoting wacky, pie-in-the-sky leftwing nonsense. For example, cultural Marxists Tim Wise and Gloria Steinem are two radicals who are the products of intermarriage. (there are other ones as well)

          • blight14

            I truly doubt Wise and Steinem are really that different from their co-racialists beyond the fact that they are openly vocal and get media coverage.

        • Could you provide a link for the 71%? I see no evidence of this purported lessening of influence. We can say almost anything will happen “eventually.” I recall reading in the case of one influential media political pundit, a Mr. Brooks, that he intermarried, but his wife converted and even changed her first name to a beloved Jewish name. Sounds as if the assimilation in that family is headed almost totally in one direction. Maybe in this way the Tribe adds some strengthening to its genetic roots, particularly when it comes to intelligent attractive Gentile women.

      • El_Baga_Doucha_Libtard

        John,

        Do you think that race realism will ever become mainstream in Western Europe? If it does, then I think that we — as a race — will be alright (although we might have to retreat back to our homelands).

        If race realism becomes mainstream in Western Europe, then more whites in the US, Canada, and Australia will be open to the idea that we aren’t all the same, since a respected professor in Europe can hardly be dismissed as a crackpot by the loony left.

        I would like some assurance that, after the US breaks apart, the new white nations in the US do not make the same catastrophic mistake of loving diversity that we, as a nation, have made.

        • JohnEngelman

          The scientific evidence in favor of race realism is mounting. Those who continue to say, “Race is only a social construct,” do so with an angry tone in their voices. This indicates that they are not willing to discuss the issue, because they do not really believe what they are saying.

          If Nicholas Wade does not experience the intolerance and persecution that has been directed at Richard Herrnstein, Arthur Jensen, J Philippe Rushton, Jared Taylor and others of like mind it will indicate that the restrictions of political correctness are weakening.

        • blight14

          Indeed, ‘free/cheap labor’ turned out to be the most expensive, tragic error in our nations history. Hopefully part two will not see us making such horrible mistakes.

          • zanegray

            It’s people’s realisation that the whole political correctness construct is a cover for the import of cheap labor that is weakening the arguments of the ‘Left’ in matters of race and culture.

            Increasing numbers of ordinary folk are seeing through it all.
            At least that is the case in Europe.

      • Thats why there are so many at CalTech and at Harvard Phi Beta Kappa.
        🙂

        • blight14

          Sir, that borders on Anti-$emitrailerism™, please be advised. (LOL)

      • captainc

        As matter of fact, Jews or Jewess to be exact are not known for having good moral. Read Sir Richard Burton’s Jews, Gypsy and El Islam.

        • JohnEngelman

          If you read that book, explain the argument in your own words. If you cannot, you did not understand it.

          • captainc

            The Book is about what he heard and observed in his time about the Jews, the prevailing stereotypes. Why they got expelled many times from Europe. Two types of Jews, Middle Easterners and Ashkenazis. Why don’t you read it? it’s in the net.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have better things to do than read anti Semetic screeds.

            There are only three significant areas where Jews differ from Gentiles: they have a different religion; they tend to be more intelligent; they tend to be more prosperous as a result. By no commonly accepted criterion do they tend to be less moral than Gentiles.

      • Jacobite2

        Everywhere on earth except in Israel, Jews are a tiny minority of ethnic aliens. Above all, they must suppress any mention, hint, thought, daydream of race or ethnicity. Lately they’ve taken the course of denying that race exists. Not hard to figure out why a tiny racial minority would like thoughts of race to vanish. Can’t get those white Christians stirred up. To be fair, at one time or another, Jews have been expelled from every country or principality in Europe. They have reason to fear.

        • JohnEngelman

          Persecution of the Jews was never justified. It did select the Ashkenazim for superior intelligence.

          • Jacobite2

            If you’re an ethnic alien, and don’t want to be persecuted, you’d better stay out of other people’s countries.

          • JohnEngelman

            Jews benefit every country they live in with their superior intelligence.

          • Jacobite2

            What benefits do Jews contribute that they couldn’t contribute from Israel? Dr Salk certainly could have created the polio vaccine in Tel Aviv. Yes, Eastern-European Jews are the most intelligent ethnic group known. So what? High IQ scores do not make them Englishmen, Poles, or Italians, although those high IQs do make them contemptuous of those people. And, guess what — those people don’t like it. No people anywhere at any time have liked it. Another characteristic of Jews, which confounds the goyim, is that none of this hatred and loathing bothers Jews in the least. White people certainly don’t sue in court to be admitted to clubs and associations where they are not wanted.

          • JohnEngelman

            Jews benefit the United States as scientists, physicians, inventors and creative artists. Those who resent them are those who cannot compete with them.

          • Jacobite2

            That’s the party line — anybody who resents Jews is envious. And anybody who disagrees with Obama is a racist. I mean, what other reason could there possibly be? ACLU? George Soros? CPUSA? Hollywood? The Rosenbergs? The ADL/SPLC? The NYT and WaPo? The Emmanuel brothers? Wall Street? ABC/CBS/NBC? Everywhere I turn, Jews are helping America.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am glad that there are so many Jews in the United States. I am pleased that they are prospering.

            Jews are hated and loathed by those who resent their superiority.

          • Jacobite2

            “Superiority”? Yep, that, dear readers, is exactly where anti-Semitism begins. Throw in your pawn-broker and you have the picture. Jews are sharp-dealing, greedy, pushy, arrogant, dishonest, cosmopolitan, and smarter than you can ever hope to be. If you decide that intelligence is the sole characteristic determining superiority, the commenter’s correct. Other people believe different characteristics ought to be determinative. That’s why actual ‘racism’ (a belief that one race is objectively superior to others) is impossible — there are too many characteristics, and each race scores differently on each one. What racism is not, and cannot be, is the noticing of inherent racial differences. Modern genetics has left the old race-is-a-social-construct Big Lie ‘way behind. But the Big Liars are still pushing it.

    • blight14

      Well stated……….

  • nexus974

    This book just shot up to the top of my reading list.

  • The phrase used repeatedly, ” . . . humans left Africa . . . ” begs the question:
    Who (or what) is it that stayed behind?

    • IstvanIN

      Assorted primates.

    • Rurik

      Might we also ask if Africa has left the humans.

  • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

    The top three “take-aways” by my light:

    “The orthodoxy’s equivalent of the Nicene Creed has two scientific tenets. The first, promulgated by geneticist Richard Lewontin in ‘The Apportionment of Human Diversity’ (1972), is that the races are so close to genetically identical that ‘racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.’ The second, popularized by the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, is that human evolution in everything but cosmetic differences stopped before humans left Africa, meaning that ‘human equality is a contingent fact of history,’ as he put it in an essay of that title in 1984.”

    * * *

    “It is now known with a high level of scientific confidence that both tenets of the orthodoxy are wrong.

    “Mr. Lewontin turns out to have been mistaken on several counts, but the most obvious is this: If he had been right, then genetic variations among humans would not naturally sort people into races and ethnicities. But, as Mr. Wade reports, that’s exactly what happens. A computer given a random sampling of bits of DNA that are known to vary among humans—from among the millions of them—will cluster them into groups that correspond to the self-identified race or ethnicity of the subjects. This is not because the software assigns the computer that objective but because those are the clusters that provide the best statistical fit. If the subjects’ ancestors came from all over the inhabited world, the clusters that first emerge will identify the five major races: Asians, Caucasians, sub-Saharan Africans, Native Americans and the original inhabitants of Australia and Papua New Guinea. If the subjects all come from European ancestry, the clusters will instead correspond to Italians, Germans, French and the rest of Europe’s many ethnicities. Mr. Lewontin was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. It appears that the most natural of all ways to classify humans genetically is by the racial and ethnic groups that humans have identified from time out of mind.

    “Stephen Jay Gould’s assurance that significant evolution had stopped before humans left Africa has also proved to be wrong—not surprisingly, since it was so counterintuitive to begin with. Humans who left Africa moved into environments that introduced radically new selection pressures, such as lethally cold temperatures. Surely, one would think, important evolutionary adaptations followed. Modern genetic methods for tracking adaptations have established that they did. A 2009 appraisal of the available genome-wide scans estimated that 14% of the genome has been under the pressure of natural selection during the past 30,000 years, long after humans left Africa. The genes under selection include a wide variety of biological traits affecting everything from bone structure and diet to aspects of the brain and nervous system involving cognition and sensory perception.

    “The question, then, is whether the sets of genes under selection have varied across races, to which the answer is a clear yes. To date, studies of Caucasians, Asians and sub-Saharan Africans have found that of the hundreds of genetic regions under selection, about 75% to 80% are under selection in only one race. We also know that the genes in these regions affect more than cosmetic variations in appearance. Some of them involve brain function, which in turn could be implicated in a cascade of effects. ‘What these genes do within the brain is largely unknown,’ Mr. Wade writes. ‘But the findings establish the obvious truth that brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene.””
    * * *

    • Geo1metric

      Scientific proof for what many of us have known through long-standing observation and critical thinking.

  • Romulus

    The three books listed in the article should be included in everyone’s home library.

    As to Mr. OCCIDENTALIS comment on the tribe controlled academia;…. They will not readily cede control. There were a number of their ilk at the conference, albeit the exact nature of their presence was a mystery to me.
    I found Reuben H. To be a pleasant individual and well spoken. By all accounts, as first impressions go, he was quite amicable.
    Still, I’ll sleep with one eye open. Erring on the side of caution has always served me well.

    • blight14

      I agree with you fully……a few of the people at the conference made me uncomfortable for lack of a better word.

      • Geo1metric

        They were probably the ones from the ADL who were “taking names”.

        • blight14

          There were 2 or 3 that really stand out, at least two of them were there last year too…….I’ll leave it at that.

      • Romulus

        I can’t readily recall if we became acquainted. I tried to communicate with as many as possible.
        My apologies if I couldn’t meet with you.

        • blight14

          My nametag simply read ‘Brett’……

          • Romulus

            What was your overall impression?

            I thought it went exceedingly well considering the climate in the former USA.
            Meeting likeminded fellows from the old world was especially hopeful.

          • blight14

            I thought it went great, it was only my second conference but note how many more people there were in attendence this year compared to last. That is a good sign I’d imagine.

          • Romulus

            It was only my first.
            I took the identity of one James Crowe on my tag.

            Perhaps Mr.Taylor and Co. will endeavor to come a little further north next year.
            🙂

          • blight14

            Ha, I saw that nametag, it took me a few seconds to put 2+2….LOL……I don’t think we talked though…..good moniker!

          • Romulus

            Lol. I took that moniker for obvious historical reasons.
            Perhaps we can meet at the next one.

            I especially liked prof. Whittman’s presentation. I asked him privately, that perhaps next year (if he attends) that he might cover regression to the mean in his speech.

          • blight14

            Hopefully there WILL be another event next year, they’re generally every two years but due to the cancellation of at least two conferences, Jared decided to have this last one.

  • sounds like a good read, but who will touch it, I fear this may be decades befor it is ever discused.
    As P.C everthing is right now, i don’t think many will even discuss it at all, if they do any bets they loose there job, credibility, and only to be seen as a mayter in there field years after there death.

  • Geo1metric

    Nicholas Wade is a brave man. I hope that he and his book survive the coming “witch trials” and kangaroo courts he will surely face.

    Do your part, buy his book. Give it to your friends, relatives and children.

    • shawnmer

      Will his paper’s editorial writers call for his firing? I hardly see how they couldn’t.

      • JohnEngelman

        In the Star Chamber of political correctness truth is no defense.

        • Martel

          ^ This guy voted Obama into office twice, without remorse.

          • JohnEngelman

            I would vote for Barack Obama a third time against any Republican out there.

          • Martel

            I just inform people about what you are, some may be duped by some of your statements, by believing you actually give two cents about white victims of these policies. The fact that is your issue with Obama again demonstrates my objections.

          • blight14

            Thank you Martel…..

          • Geo1metric

            If we ignore the inane, maybe it will disappear.

          • Martel

            My problem is less with him then those who encourage his ridiculous behaviour.

          • JohnEngelman

            What is ridiculous about telling the truth about innate racial differences?

          • Martel

            Where did I say this?

          • JohnEngelman

            You say it in every post where you flame me.

          • Martel

            I never said such a thing. This leaves two options, you are either disingenuous, or you have trouble digesting qualitative information, which explains why you hold onto an select number of quotes and little data which you repeat endlessly. I can’t tell which one it is, but for the time being, as I’m sure you ”forget” it later, let me comfort you again by stating I have no issue with someone detailing objective views about racial differences. Rushton is a great example of someone I disagree with on some levels, but have no issues with whatsoever.

          • Geo1metric

            My point is that responding encourages. The self-described polemic would have nothing to respond to.

          • Martel

            This would make sense, but too many respond to his posts already.He is actively encouraged in his claims that whites are morally and biologically inferior. Disturbing on a forum such as this.

          • JohnEngelman

            I am a convinced race realist. Race realism reinforces my high regard for Jews and Orientals.

          • Martel

            Praising an entire race for success on the right half of the bell curve, therefore praising all those who fall below the average too, makes no sense. Praising someone for his or her IQ when you do not know them also makes little sense.

    • Peter Connor

      Request it from your library.

  • Dave4088

    From Wikipedia:
    “Lewontin was born in New York City to parents descended from late 19th-century Eastern European Jewish immigrants.”

    Stephen Jay Gould in also Jewish. Readers should take note that those in academia like Richard Lewontin and Gould (among others) most strongly opposed to evidence proving the biological reality of race and racial differences are invariably Jewish. This is because they have a vested interest in promoting the lie that all races are essentially the same and that any differences are negligible and easily surmounted by government programs and wishful thinking.

    The cult of universal human equality should be considered a weapon that was devised to afflict and eventually destroy white gentile nations.

    • Truth Teller

      People should be judged as individuals. If you underestimate an intelligent person, you will either end up holding that person back or you’re asking to get tricked or taken advantage of.

      • Dave4088

        Our enemies don’t judge white people as individuals, so we’re under no obligation to extend them that courtesy. Ever heard of white individual skin privilege? Ever heard Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton acknowledge that there’s good white people? And whites are always collectively guilty for everything that goes wrong in the black and brown communities.

        • Truth Teller

          I’m saying that if you always underestimate someone’s intelligence, there is potential for them to milk you for what you’re worth or sabotage you. Wouldn’t you feel like doing the same to someone who underestimates you?

          • FeuerSalamander

            No one is saying we are underestimating a certain group’s intelligence. No one is suggesting we want to do that. On the contrary, what is being suggested is that they have “put one over one us” and that we need to remove them from our midst.

          • LHathaway

            interesting post

          • tlk244182

            If you corner one, I predict he will say that any White who is not actively working to destroy ‘White privilege’ is passively benefiting from it and is therefore guilty, or he will recite the popular Holocaust narrative in which all Gentiles are historically complicit in anti-Semitism. In no case will he ever be at a loss for words.

          • Geo1metric

            No loss for words, that’s for sure. 🙂

      • HJ11

        We, as individuals, are no obligation to judge others as individuals. We should not spend a single second or burn a single calorie in trying to determine the content of the character of non-Whites. There is no return on the investment for us, so why make it? I have absolutely no interest in being friends with or associating with any non-Whites. I’m simply indifferent to them. My world doesn’t need them at all.

      • It is not either/or. Most people are always judging individuals and making generalization. But Whites have made such a pious fetish out of judging people only as individuals that they are getting clobbered.

      • paul marchand

        I basically agree with you, but also being realistic about group propensities. As I have repeated: when the b > w rape per capita numbers are THOUSANDS of times the reverse, ” sumpin gawn on ya”.

      • Geo1metric

        When you’re in a fight for the very survival of your race, you cannot revert to a tactic of one-on-one. You must take the big picture approach or you will surely lose.

    • FeuerSalamander

      IT has been used as a devastating weapon against America

    • JohnEngelman

      Those who deny the importance and genetic causes of a high IQ are not “invariably Jewish.”

      Richard Herrnstein was the co-author with Charles Murray of The Bell Curve. In October 1971 he anticipated many of the arguments that later appeared in The Bell Curve in an article in The Atlantic that was entitled “IQ.” Because of this in the spring of 1972 the Students for a Democratic Society called a convention at Harvard in an effort to get Professor Herrnstein fired from the faculty of Harvard.

      Fortunately, SDS failed. Richard Herrnstein was Jewish.

      • Truth Teller

        Except you would probably call a Jewish family stupid if they were to convert to Christianity or maybe even Islam and lived in a lower IQ country due to your perception of the family. This is how arbitrary ethnic labels are.

        • JohnEngelman

          The Ashkenazim are a racial category. Orthodox Jews, Reform Jews, and Conservative Jews are religious categories. A brilliant Ashkenazi Jew who converts to Christianity takes his high IQ with him.

          • MikeofAges

            In my view, and I am of paternal Jewish descent, while Judaism is a religion, Jews are an ethnic group. I utterly detest the term “secular Jew”. No one should apologize for their existence. No one else does, except some handwringing Jews and their Protestant counterparts within the mainline denominations. The “liberationists” within Catholicism and Protestantism may be twisted, but they ain’t sorry.

            The possible legitimate use of the term “secular Jew” might be to describe someone who was raised in the religion but has since dropped out. For those of Jewish descent whose practicing forebearers were generations back, I don’t see how the idea applies to them. Perhaps it use represents an attempt by those of Jewish parentage who have dropped religious practice to discount those who are of only partial Jewish descent and removed from any recent practice of the religion.

            I am Christian in my religion, but consider myself to be an ethnic Jew nevertheless. No apologies.

          • JohnEngelman

            No apologies are called for.

          • Martel

            You will be part of some of Engelman’s most disturbing fantasies from now on. Before you get any weird messages, I suggest you say it was a joke.

          • MikeofAges

            I know where Mr. Engleman comes from, literally. I lived there myself. I remember him once recalled the scary people who lived in an hung around downtown San Jose in the 1970s. I pointed out that I was one of them. Some of the locations he has alluded to in his post I am very familiar with.

            The next time I visit California, I’ll leave a hint about when and where I can be found in the San Jose area. If I meet him, I’ll report back. Perhaps I can even come up with a Dickens-esque description of him. Myself, if I put a suit on, I look like I could run a country. Unfortunately, the country I look like I could run might be one of those small countries in Central Europe or that little country on the eastern end of the Mediterranean.

          • Martel

            Just be careful, there might be a reason JE left his former hunting grounds, he gets frisky when he senses Asian or Jewish ancestry. I heard he used to stare at the people coming from the synagogue, it creeped them out.

          • MikeofAges

            I’ll wear a disguise. LOL.

      • You are correct, but these are ‘the exceptions that prove the rule,’ although exceptions still appreciated by yours truly.

        • JohnEngelman

          Jews agree with me that anti Semitism is motivated by jealousy and resentment over Jewish intelligence and success. That is why many prefer to pretend that IQ differences are not important.

          Because I dislike ethnocentrism I would not praise Jews as I do if I was one of them.

          • Martel

            In reality most ”antisemites” are motivated by the fact that Jews are overrepresented in certain political movements, and historically had issues with conflicting loyalties. Personally I came to this understanding because I was allowed to criticize all ethnic groups, but one. As I am a capitalist, not driven by envy such as democrats, I care little about someone’s wealth, unless they spend it on causes damaging to white sovereignty. Jews single handedly cracked open US borders in the sixties using their tremendous influence.

            This is one example of your claims that white gentiles are morally inferior. Unless you can give me examples of Jews motivated by the same immoral tendencies.

          • JohnEngelman

            Anyone on an internet forum can claim any number of achievements and distinctions.

            Moreover, Jewish businessmen have often been resented by their less successful Gentile competitors.

          • Martel

            Businessmen may resent each other, I admire talent. Claiming some sort of jealousy motivates me in my understanding of Jewish ethnic activism is as ludicrous as claiming my issues with Islam are because Arabs receive billions in petrodollars. Does the mumbling in your first paragraph mean anything?

          • Laura Dilworth

            most jews here are ashkenazi-eastern european origin-they don’t have any racial connection to the mideastern semitic race do they?

          • blight14

            That is utter fantasy, they’ve been chastised since time began and ‘jealousy and resentment’ isn’t the motivating factor, period.

          • JohnEngelman

            Psalm 129: 1-2 Many a time have they fought against me from my youth up, may Israel now say. Yea, many a time have they vexed me from my youth up, but they have not prevailed against me.

          • blight14

            Thankfully I’m not burdened by such fantasy. Don’t believe everything you read.

          • “Jews agree with me that anti Semitism is motivated by jealousy and resentment over Jewish intelligence and success.”

            Wow, then it must be true! Gee, I thought it was wrong to say all Jews believe, say or do the same thing, but apparently not when you want to believe that they all agree with you. Why would an ethnicity that has been in the forefront of a ‘multicultural’ invasion want to admit that they are importing millions cultural indigestible low-IQ peoples into Western nations? You obviously can’t be blissfully unaware of all these things, so apparently you just come here to make your same propaganda points over and over. You have that right, but I will take the advice of many others and try not to encourage you with any answers again.

      • Rosenmops

        Steven Pinker is also Jewish.

    • Oldcorporal

      I know what you mean. The editor of the newspaper from which I retired was Jewish. When I wrote a feature story with any element in it that emphasized actual differences among various ethnic/racial groups in any way, he would always delete that portion from my story.

    • blight14

      Well stated Dave.

    • Pro_Whitey

      I like the phrase of Paul Kersey at SBPDL: “weaponized equality”.

  • Truth Teller

    The question is, should high IQ people from low IQ nations use it to rule as overlords and have all the wealth or should they instead encourage a mass culling eugenics so that no one underestimates them? Sometimes it’s better to be underestimated because it means you can easily trick your opponent.

    • Oldcorporal

      A very perceptive observation. I was recently raked over the coals by a poster on YouTube for a comment in which I compared the fact that while there is indeed a “human race” to which we all belong, there are also “races” that differ from each other in more than just appearance. I made the comparison that Great Danes, cocker spaniels and chihauhaus are all “dogs,” but they have different sizes, appearance and characteristics. She ridiculed me for “comparing humans to dogs.” But I maintain that my comparison was apt.

      • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

        Your comparison WAS apt according to a Norwegian medical geneticist featured in Norwegian journalist Harald Eia’s documentary “Race”:

        EIA [to viewers]: … Dag Undlien is a professor in medical genetics in Ullevaal Hospital. He has recent figures [on similar humans are to each other]. What is the right number?

        UNDLIEN: 99.5 percent is what we talk about now . . .

        EIA [to viewers]: So there is only a half a percent that differs in us humans. But how similar are we to our closest relative, the chimpanzee?

        UNDLIEN: Then we’re down to 98.5 percent roughly. That’s the last I saw.

        EIA [to viewers]: So only 1.5 percent differs from this little lady [camera shows chimp] to us humans. [to Undlien] Dog breeds are different. How dissimilar are they genetically?

        UNDLIEN: There is no greater difference in dogs from different breeds than in humans.

        EIA [to viewers, while camera shows a split screen shot of a poodle and a German shepherd]: These two dogs are more similar genetically than these two humans [camera shows a split screen of the head of a bushman and of Eia]. So that half a percentage point may be more meaningful than we think.

        UNDLIEN: What’s striking is that we are very similar. But the small percentage that differs in us is very interesting. Because it’s there our differences originate. That gives us our different traits.

      • saxonsun

        Completely apt.

    • Peter Connor

      Probably not nearly that rapidly because of regression to the Mean and cumulative mutation load in such a population.

    • Terry

      You could do that but with animals those that do not conform are not bred from or are destroyed.

    • Bossman

      Yes, humans like dogs and horses can be bred for certain qualities but nobody, it seems, knows who should be in charge of that and there’s also the problem of personal taste.

      • DelmarJackson

        We leave immigration, which decides the fate of our country, to the agenda of the open border globalists running the federal Government. Immigration we are told, every time a citizen wants less of it and is trying to change it at the local or state level, is a federal matter. I do not see how eugenics as ordained by the federal government can be any worse than our immigration agenda of turning the USA into a 3rd world country. And since China is pursuing eugenics, full speed ahead, the point is moot. I vote we aim for the children to be at least half as smart as Jared Taylor, as half good looking as Uma Thurman, and at least half as brave as Ann Coulter.

  • Rurik

    Particularly fortuitous was Douglas Whitman’s presentation on “The Evolutionary and Biological Reality of Race”, at the AmRen conference, which offered much supportive evidence on this topic. With luck, the whole presentation will soon become available.

  • shawnmer

    Murray is wrong in one respect. I state flatly that neither Gould nor Lewontin EVER believed their own lies. They were cultural Marxist propagandists with an agenda: to discredit the longstanding science that undermined egalitarianism.

    Honest scientific inquiry had nothing to do with it.

  • WR_the_realist

    I have ordered that book. I just got another book I ordered – Gaining Ground – The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods. Both books are about evolution. Guess which one will get me in trouble with the thought police, and which one won’t?

    • Rosenmops

      The liberal creationists will get hysterical if anyone tries to teach Wade’s book in a school or university. I guarantee it.

    • tetrapod

      The story of my origin and evolution is indeed fascinating, despite the many rogues and ne’er-do-wells in my family tree. One of my synapsid descendants — gorgonopsid — was especially nasty.

      Nevertheless, I’m flattered by your attention.

  • 4321realist

    Steven Gould shouldn’t even be named in the same sentence as science.

    Quite simply he was either a liar or a delusional wishful thinker.

    • WR_the_realist

      Gould was a perfectly competent paleontologist. But of course when he stepped out of his specialty into sociological issues he never let the facts get in the way of his prejudices.

    • Peter Connor

      He was a Marxist crook who faked evidence in The Mismeasure of Man and very likely elsewhere.

      • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

        Stephen Jay Gould mismeasured skulls in racial records dispute
        Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
        Jun 08, 2011

        OPENING SENTENCE:

        “The late scientific icon, Stephen Jay Gould, botched and perhaps faked his critique of a racist 19th-Century scientist’s skull collection, suggests a second look at his efforts.”

        • Geo1metric

          Someone who will lie about small things, will lie about anything. A “scientist” who will manipulate data for nefarious reasons is not a scientist. He/she is a liar.

      • JohnEngelman

        Most of The Mismeasure of Man consists of describing shortcomings of early intelligence testing. Steven J. Gould does not acknowledge that intelligence testing has become more accurate over the years as a way of predicting intellectual performance.

        I discussed that in the Amazon review I wrote of The Mismeasure of Man.

        • Peter Connor

          I was referring to the skull measurement data, where Gould committed clear fraud. No doubt his IQ stuff is wrong too, and I would guess he knew it.

          • JohnEngelman

            When ever I defend the assertions found in The Bell Curve I am told that Steven J. Gould has “decisively refuted” those assertions. Those who tell me that are unable to evaluate arguments rationally. Professor Gould can write well. He writes what they want to believe, so they assume it is true.

    • sbuffalonative

      Gould manipulated and deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted data to advance an egalitarian lie.

  • OhWow

    In my psychology grad classes, we went over a lot of things regarding racial discrepancies on IQ tests. Everything was explained away to us as “Biased testing, error, and socioeconomic differences”. I was so tempted to raise my hand and challenge those excuses…many of the new tests today are virtually bias free. They cannot get anymore generalized to the entire population. Via factor analysis, we can see that IQ tests really do measure certain constructs. Any lay person can see this via Eigenvalues and correlation coefficients. So don’t let anyone tell you “IQ tests don’t measure anything real”.

    I decided not to challenge though, because I wanted to graduate and stay off the professor’s hit list. I was actually frightened I might be kicked from the program if I suggested that racial disparities in IQ are due in part to genetics in addition to culture. This stuff needs to be put in the mainstream a lot more. First these ideas seem crazy, then they are rejected, then they become more normalized, then they become accepted as fact. It will take time, but it will happen if these books keep popping up.

    By the way, our program requires every student to read Gould’s “Mismeasure of Man”. It basically says every test minorities every had was biased and racist or plain wrong.

    • Evette Coutier

      Do me a favor and ask you psych professor why is it that psychologists have been trying to remove bias from testing but have not been able to do so. Really, is the field of psychology so incompetent? They have talked about test bias since the 1960’s, and yet no improvement or progress. If they can’t remove test bias it can only mean one of two things. First, they are incompetent, or second, there are inherent racial differences that cause poor performance by blacks.

      • tlk244182

        I read somewhere that when bias is removed the results get even worse.

      • Geo1metric

        How do these professors explain why asians seem to do well on these culturally biased tests while blacks do so poorly?

      • NeanderthalDNA

        That’s just another polite excuse.
        The problem with such politeness is that it forces lying which forces us to find polite explanations.
        Oh, here’s something polite which satisfies our masochistic fantasies – it’s all our fault!
        But no – the tests have never been perfect, but they’ve always measured the same no matter how well “fixed”.
        Problem is not the test, never has been.

    • JohnEngelman

      The Mismeasure of Man should only be assigned to courses on logical fallacies. Many logical fallacies are found in the book, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Emotion, Biased Sample, Guilt By Association, Personal Attack, and Straw Man.

    • FransSusan

      I’ve given IQ tests, and I agree that they are not biased.

  • Oldcorporal

    I have already placed a purchase request with my local library to have a copy of this book purchased. The library assistant in charge of ordering books told me today that she would be ordering a number of books, including that one, just after the first of June. So I’ll take her word for it, until and unless she DOESN’T order it. But a couple of years ago I tried to donate a copy of Jared Taylor’s “White Identity,” to the same library, and the same library assistant, who is the sole decider on which donations are accepted and which rejected, wouldn’t take Mr. Taylor’s book. She said she couldn’t find any reviews of it in a limited number of sources to which she is required to confine her searches. I had a notion to say, “Of course you couldn’t find any reviews; do you think the mainstream media are going to give any publicity to a book that flies in the face of all they hold true and sacred about race?”

  • LHathaway

    “Humans who left Africa moved into environments that introduced radically new selection pressures, such as lethally cold temperatures. Surely, one would think, important evolutionary adaptations followed”.

    This ‘science’ doesn’t sound too different from the social science of minority activists who claim blacks genes have been augmented by the value system of the sun and that white people are “ice people: dirty, devilish, devious, diabolical folks”.

    Humans groups are different. This just means whites may be inferior, at least in some ways, to other races. But if Murray keeps harping on this heredity issue, women of color are going to be wanting to sleep with caucasian men any day now. . .

    “with courage that verges on the foolhardy, he adds a chapter that incorporates genetics into an explanation of the West’s rise during the past 600 years”.

    I agree with the idea presented by Murray about these great dangers and that we need to watchdog our genetic future, all of us, and that humans should strive to improve themselves. I disagree with this ‘genetics’ theory explaining the West rise the last 600 years. I think it likely it is ‘racism’ itself which explains the West’s rise more so than genetics.

    Thinking it is genetics just means we will likely to continue to ignore our own fall from the ‘pinnacle’, but at least women of color will want to sleep with us, in our own fallen and soon to be degraded lands. That’s OK with me, I would prefer to sleep with them.

    • Bossman

      Mother nature selects for things that lead to survival. Qualities like “inferior” and “superior” are human valuations that nature itself does not recognize.

  • MBlanc46

    I hope that there will be a least one hell of an intellectual battle over this book. I fear that it will be consigned to the flames by all right-thinking people.

  • Peter Connor

    The Science of HBD is so clear that I think (hope?) that the academic witch-smellers will fail and have to retreat in the face of Wade’s book.

  • JDInSanD

    Warrior gene? That makes it sound noble. Wouldn’t aggression gene be more accurate?

    • Peter Connor

      Violence gene, I would say.

    • JohnEngelman

      “Crime gene” is even more accurate than that.

      • LHathaway

        At what point does ‘genetics’ simply provide an Excuse for ‘wanting to slap someone upside the head’? something we all might want to do. . . .

        Right now, ‘racism’ seems to be the only excuse needed for wanting want to satisfy our Cainian urges. Someone once told me, “It would just be a reaction (if I were you I would have just hit her – as a natural reaction).

        At what point will ‘genetics’ become the new excuse? In my opinion, they are all excuses and will be until such time as whites are more violent than others, at which point, the excuses end.

    • FransSusan

      I thought the same thing when I read “Warrior gene.” Let’s call it what it is!

  • paul marchand

    We all have minds, which, IMO are God-given.

    However, to not acknowledge what is intuitive, and now apparently supported by DNA evidence, that PEOPLE A.R.E. DIFFERENT, is a little bit nuts.

    • Geo1metric

      PC IS nuts!! It flies in the face of all that is NATURAL. That is why it cannot stand in the long run.

  • Pelagian

    The two evolution parties arguing about who is right is about as interesting to me as watching paint dry. Almost as interesting as watching the two enlightenment parties (Democrat and Republican) argue who is right.

  • Our open-borders overlords will try to ignore this book, of course made easier by their control of the Mainstream Media, at the same time allowing a few reviews that will try to dismiss the book with various clever quips, dodges and spins. However, a final straw of reality will one day break the PC camel’s back and this is one very nice big thick bundle of them.

  • Viking_61

    How did this article EVER make it into the New York Times???

    • LHathaway

      I suspect it is opinion and Charles Murray making a guest opinion, but you make a valid point just the same.

    • Rosenmops

      This article is in the Wall Street Journal. But the author of the book being reviewed is a science writer for the NYT. He will probably get fired.

  • Martel

    This is quite a milestone for race realists. Especially those who are living in a leftist environment should purchase this book, its source will help open up conversations. Then always introduce it by discussing the author and the general position of the NYT.

  • Truth Teller

    Why can’t the monitors get rid of englemann? I think I’ll stop commenting and contributing. Why doesn’t everyone else do the same?

    • JT isn’t a WN either. It isn’t just JE. As you can see JE gets a lot of support from some of the same people in threads who, though often taking opposing stances, end up giving the impression that JE is worth debating with, that he is a race realist, that he isn’t just here to guide the discussion away from those who must not be named.

      The answer to why, when comments in true opposition to JE abound, this place keeps him around is simple: they like what he’s selling.

      • Martel

        If only Jared Taylor would spend his time disparaging white nationalists from behind his computer.

        What was your theory about me again?
        I do discuss Jewish ethnic activism in great detail, but you don’t agree with everything, therefore I am somehow a puppet of the Jews. And Heidi, she doesn’t give you up votes, which is clear evidence that she is in fact a cryptojew. That is what you said on takimag, right?

        Amren would be better of without the both of you.

        • Someone who claims to advocate for white rights while simultaneously claiming that Jews not only aren’t the architect of our destruction, but are themselves also white, is not a white nationalist. He even said as much in his recent interview, an article he published here on his own site, “Every Man His Own Commissar”. Such a person is in fact a Judas Goat and it’s part of my duty, as one who sees the truth, to point this truth out to others so long as this Judas Goat is still leading people away from truth.

          • Martel

            He is a Judas! Paid by the Zionist oppressive regime. Ridiculous. Ball and chain, that is what you are, on the legs of the white nationalist movement. The fact that you can’t even see that insulting and attacking not only Taylor but individuals like myself, who do advocate the problems with all ethnic groups, shows you are either in too deep or not serious at all. You integrity is clearly questionable though, instead of smearing the names of others, do something useful, we can use a bit more help.

          • Read that article, an interview by him, published here, that I mentioned. It indicates that at the first AmRen conference nearly half the speakers were Jews. Nearly half. That’s an impressive over-representation for about 1.8% of the U.S. population, in a white rights group at that, by an identifiable ethnic group of their own that isn’t even white.

            Tell me, how many actual non-Semitic, non-Ashkenazi, non beta-Israeli whites were there at the first AIPAC meeting? How about the NAACP? Oh look, it’s Jews there again too. Bad example. Probably doomed the comment for the dustbin.

          • Martel

            I have no doubts that Taylor finds it important to involve Jews because this helps defend against all kinds of preposterous accusations, and because a lot of Jewish individuals step up to do so. Byron Roth is one of my favourite Jewish speakers(2013) as he also recognizes the value of Macdonald. Do you seriously think its some kind of plot, with these Jewish speakers pretending to sympathise with the views of Amren?

            It would not surprise me, given the level of foolishness it takes to accuse me of being a puppet. I agree that Jews are a different ethnic group, though Ashkenazi’s are close to Europeans, I also agree being cautious is wise, but to label Taylor useless simply because of this makes no sense. Set up your own organisation if you can do it better, organize conferences, put out material, what is the use of attacking commentors like me and activists like Taylor?

            Anyone who doesn’t want to be a positive force needs to reevaluate their position, or find a different hobby.

    • sbuffalonative

      Start collecting some of his more obnoxious comments and the associated story link.

      When you have enough, submit your argument as to why E should be banned.

      For the record, I have been banned from a few sites for innocuous comments so I’m very supportive of peoples’ right to speak their mind. However, Engelman is a challenge. While I don’t mind people making provocative comments, Engelman doesn’t seem to understand that this group is concerned with preserving white culture.

  • Truth Teller

    Maybe the designers of the site could install an engleman filter? When we opened an article there could be yes or no englemann boxes to click and we would not have to waste time going past his hateful racist postings. We are hated by the media, our employers, our schools and our churches. Even our families are sometimes against us because we are race realists or tell them to be sure to check black on any college or job application.

    We come here for therapy and support among the very few Whites who know what is going on. And what do we find making about 20 percent of the comments? The goy hating jew engleman.

    • guest

      Well then, how about a Martel filter as well?
      For myself, I have no problem with contrarian views, but I do have a problem with people making umpteen comments, going on and on and on. (And that’s both of those guys, at least on this board today.)
      You come here for therapy and support? Hmm, that’s a little odd. But anyway, the majority of commenters are in your camp, so I should think you would feel supported even despite some minority dissension.
      I try to keep an open mind and don’t mind a debate that challenges my opinions.

  • Guest

    gff

  • Jacobite2

    Jews had many discoveries to their credit also. Per capita, many more than whites. Gotta be fair here.

  • MarcB1969

    Twentieth Century egalitarianism is based on these “blank slate” tenants. I knew back in the mid-1990’s that the whole facade would crumble with the emergence of evolutionary biology/psychology and studies of twins separated at birth. The advancements in DNA research and brain mapping will further create the requisite cognitive dissonance in thinking men for them to realize that the concept of equality among the races is little more than a ruse. Whether they will ever truly understand the how and why it was perpetrated is a different story entirely…