In Defense of A Troublesome Inheritance

Nicholas Wade, Huffington Post, May 30, 2014

Three attacks on my book A Troublesome Inheritance have appeared on The Huffington Post’s blog this month. For readers puzzled by the stridency and personal animus of these compositions, I’d like to explain what is going on.

The issue is how best to sustain the fight against racism in light of new information from the human genome that bears on race.

My belief is that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on science. If I oppose racism and discrimination as a matter of principle, I don’t care what the science may say because I’ll never change my position. As it happens, however, the genome gives no support to racism, although it does clearly show that race has a biological basis, just as common sense might suggest.

Many social scientists, on the other hand, have long based their opposition to racism on the assertion that there is no biological basis to race. I doubt they personally believe this and suspect that they oppose racism on principle, just as I do. But they believe that other people, less enlightened and intelligent than they, will not abandon racism unless told that everyone is identical beneath the skin. So whenever someone points out that race is obviously biological, defenders of the social science position respond with attacks of whatever vehemence is necessary to get the inconvenient truth-teller to shut up.

For many years this tactic has been surprisingly effective. It takes only a few vigilantes to cow the whole campus. Academic researchers won’t touch the subject of human race for fear that their careers will be ruined. Only the most courageous will publicly declare that race has a biological basis. I witnessed the effects of this intimidation during the 10 years I was writing about the human genome for The New York Times. The understanding of recent human evolution has been seriously impeded, in my view, because if you can’t study the genetics of race (a subject of no special interest in itself), you cannot explore the independent evolutionary histories of Africans, East Asians and Europeans.

The attacks on my book come from authors who espouse the social science position that there is no biological basis to race. It is because they are defending an ideological position with a counterfactual scientific basis that their language is so excessive. If you don’t have the facts, pound the table. My three Huffington Post critics–Jennifer Raff, Agustín Fuentes and Jonathan Marks–are heavy on unsupported condemnations of the book, and less generous with specific evidence.

Despite their confident assertions that I have misrepresented the science, which I’ve been writing about for years in a major newspaper, none of these authors has any standing in statistical genetics, the relevant discipline. Raff is a postdoctoral student in genetics and anthropology. Fuentes and Marks are both anthropologists who, to judge by their webpages, do little primary research. {snip}

It would try the reader’s patience to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the three reviews, so I will address just the principal arguments raised by each. Let’s start with Raff, who asserts, “Wade claims that the latest genomic findings actually support dividing humans into discrete races.” In fact, I say the exact opposite, that the races are not and cannot be discrete or they would be different species, but it’s easier to attack an invented statement.

{snip}

The chief point extractable from Fuentes’ review is that since I don’t say exactly many races there are, races can’t exist. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of continuous variation. People may disagree on the number of colors there are, but that doesn’t mean colors don’t exist. Humans cluster into five continental groups or races, and within each race there are further subclusters. So the number of human races depends on the number of clusters one wishes to recognize. Contrary to Fuentes’ belief, this has no bearing on whether or not races exist.

The wider issue arising from these three reviews is that the social science position on race that they represent is obscurantist, counterfactual and outdated. As I show in my book, understanding the nature of human racial variation lends no support to racism. But such understanding is essential for the simple reason that there is not one story of recent human evolution but at least five different stories, given that the populations on each continent have evolved largely independently of one another since the dispersal from Africa some 50,000 years ago.

{snip}

[Editor’s Note: Here is Agustín Fuentes’ response to this article.]

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.
  • Publius Pompilius Quitus

    “The issue is how best to sustain the fight against racism in light of new information from the human genome that bears on race.”
    —————————————————————–
    Facts about racial diffrences are only new to people who’ve chosen to remain ignorant. Denying the biological basis for racial diffrences is willful ignorance. Worse than just being sheltered from the truth, these people are surrounded by evidence but turn a blind eye.

    • bilderbuster

      “Willful ignorance” is one way to put it.
      Another way to put it may be “knowingly lying” to advance ones career while giving the appearance of being a morally superior human being and all the phony self righteousness, smug arrogance and financial gain that comes along to those who play the game.

      • Nonhumans

        You could also call it “Indulgent Stupidity”. Ignorance implies a total lack of the knowledge. Indulgent Stupidity would imply a refusal to recognize and apply it.

        • bilderbuster

          Maybe in some cases, but the both of you are much too kind to people like that who don’t deserve any kindness because of the damage they do to all peoples and to Whites in particular.

          • Nancy Thomas

            I agree; they are filthy lying scum, from Boas and Meade to Adorno and “Montague” to Gould and Diamond….liars all, lying anti-white anti-science FILTH.

          • bilderbuster

            A mountain of guilt can be laid directly on the heads of “those people”.
            Their intentional lies and “Jewish Science” are responsible for all kinds of horrors that have been inflicted on our people and they have spent the better part of the last century dismantling our entire Western Civilization with the help of their greedy and selfish little White race traitors.

  • Ernest

    “the nature of human racial variation lends no support to racism.”

    What exactly does this mean? What is racism?

    • Nancy Thomas

      Racism is an invention by marxists to blame whitey for everything under the sun.

    • Brian

      He’s taking ‘racism’ to mean an insistence that a black guy is dumb because he’s black and blacks are less intelligent, in spite of that particular black guy being an exception to the rule. He wants to follow statistical evidence but not make unwarranted assumptions about individuals.

      • David Ashton

        Horses for courses. The cleverest pupil I ever taught in 30 years was a black girl, who later read physics at Cambridge. Most blacks I taught were very dumb indeed by comparison. The individual is relevant to some situations, but the aggregated mass is relevant to others – social behavior and reproductive impacts.

    • John R

      I’ll put it in a nutshell. I believe blacks on average are less intelligent than Whites. That explains why blacks generally don’t do as well in school and have a host of other problems in society. Does that mean I hate all black people? Of course not. Does it mean that I am relieved of guilt at problems blacks have that are supposedly caused by racism? Yes. So, the cultural Marxists have every reason to fear and hate this book.

      • Nancy Thomas

        Low IQ, high testosterone, low impulse control.

  • Tarczan

    This book will be attacked to no end. It questions the entire liberal/leftist paradigm; that all human beings are interchangeable.

    All leftist hands on deck for this one.

    • BernieGoetzFan

      It is selling pretty well for a dry, science-themed book.

      • Martel

        Any numbers?

        • BernieGoetzFan

          I looked it up on Amazon the other day and it was #1 in science books and 600 or so in overall books.

          • BernieGoetzFan

            Ranked #600.

    • Tom Thumb

      Seems this book hit a nerve.

      • John R

        Of course. It threatens the very “religion” if you will, that our society has been subjected to for at least the last fifty or so years.

      • ElComadreja

        As did “The Bell Curve”. Remember how relentlessly it was and still is attacked?

  • revilo evola

    As long as the debate turns around the supposed sin of “racism,” nothing can be done by way of clarifying the topic. In fact, the word racism is too loaded to have any valid argumentative meaning. It is simply a word someone uses when they want to shut down debate, or to accuse. The fact that the author makes his defense nothing more than an apology for anti-racism shows that he is stuck inside his opponents mental prison, and hence he will never be able to break out to clear thinking, regardless of what his “science” tells him.

    Against the notion of anti-racist equality, it is better to argue for justice among the races, using the meaning of “just” in a Classical sense: justice is giving one his (or a group their) due–that is, what is proper for them given their racial nature. Equality of races within a social order can never be just, because some races cannot work within a civilized paradigm, and those disparate races that can, will in fact develop their civilizations differently.

    • Nancy Thomas

      Hmmm….then what should his response have been?

      • revilo evola

        I cannot tell you what “his” response should have been. He either believes his liberal social/political philosophy, or he is too timid to move on. I suspect the former. I am only making the point that we must get “beyond” liberalism and egalitarianism, if we want to make sense of human nature. That being said, his article is important in the sense that it shook certain people up. For that I give him some credit.

    • John R

      Racism=Heretic. The new Middle Ages.

  • Nancy Thomas

    His response was well measured and devastating….he made the critics seem like the idiots they really are.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    My belief is that opposition to racism should be based on principle, not on science. If I oppose racism and discrimination as a matter of principle, I don’t care what the science may say because I’ll never change my position.
    .
    This is disingenuous at best. The liberals at PuffHo want discrimination – against Whites. They don’t oppose racism in the slightest, and pretending they do is either naïve or disingenuous. The science at minimum shows that Whites are not blame for black and brown failure, and points to an obvious solution of strict meritocracy. However, with a strict meritocracy blacks and browns will fail in great numbers and cause great upheaval due to the unwise policies of the last 60 years that have encouraged them to multiply and flood over the border. Such a measure will ultimately fail. A small technocratic elite will not be able to hold on to power.
    .
    So the liberals at PuffHo who recoil at his book are inadvertently correct in seeing it as a game changer that will either lead to the expulsion of blacks and browns, or the separation of Whites into their own homelands. Blacks and browns already have prickly egos, how are they going to react when the powers that be decree that their place at the bottom of society is all they can expect because that’s all they’re genetically capable of? No multiracial society will survive the truth.

    • Nancy Thomas

      A multiracial society can’t survive the inherent social distrust, let alone the truth.

      • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

        Indeed, forcing us to live a lie has already created a society that is coming apart at the seams, but it will also lend the truth an explosive power when it finally becomes undeniable.

        • Kenner

          The lies require more lies, and yet more lies to justify the origional lies– it’s where we are today.

    • JSS

      I don’t see how one can maintain the tired fight against racism as its understood today by discounting science and relying on principle alone as Wade advocates. That’s totally backwards because the modern fight against racism is actually a war against Whites and the civilizations they have built. Anti racist really is just anti White. Furthermore the suppression of science that shows humans are not exempt from the laws of nature and that human sub groups are real just like with any other species has led to untold misery for Whites and Western civilization. How can one support that on principle unless you are actually anti White? I’m not implying Wade is anti White but he is trying to defend himself with in the framework they have set up. That’s always a losing battle.

      • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

        Thank you, you put it much better than I did.

      • LHathaway

        There’s nothing wrong with Wade being against racism. Wade just hasn’t realized most racism in the country is committed against whites. Wade wont be discovering that anytime soon unless he is actually victim of racist attack, in which case, he may discover it, but I doubt it would do him much good railing against this attack as racism. So he might make the personal discovery (of what he might suspect already) but he’s not quite ready to ‘fight against racism’ no matter what he says. Not quite ready.

      • Wholly Unconvinced

        Or maybe he’s Counting on the “principal alone” concept to be exactly what it is, unrealistic and unsustainable. How can he be attacked for believing that even if we AREN’T equal, we shouldn’t be treated differently? Maybe he’s holding up a mirror which, when gazed upon by a libtard, reveals that the beliefs he’s surrounded himself with have no substance.

        Or maybe i give him too much credit. Who knows…

    • LHathaway

      It might seem “the separation of Whites into their own homelands” would be done for reasons Wade suggests (and the left approve and sanction) in order to prevent injustice and reduce racism. This might not be the case, however. I suspect whites will be separated into their own white homeland for reasons the racists espouse, and in defense of naked racism. White women will vote for racial separation in order to prevent an otherwise inevitable white extinction, which ironically, they will be blamed as obvious for causing.

  • My eyes told me their were different races from the time I first saw a Negro (a mailman, of course) as a toddler. Scared the poo out of me, it did. Later, I would observe how Negroes always behaved differently from whites.
    I paid no attention to the “race is a social construct” crowd because it denies my own observations and I never liked buying into society’s lies, whether about race, Vietnam, the JFK assassination, etc.
    That there are professors promulgating such lies is shameful.

    • Nancy Thomas

      The lies are promulgated strictly as a form of ethnic warfare against whites.

    • MooTieFighter

      Funny, your story reminded me of a lab I had as a child. He was the most gentle soul (he would let kids do anything to him and just lie on the ground). That was until he seen a black. He would go nuts, barking and growling (literally foaming at the mouth). Dang, I miss that dog.

    • Tim_in_Indiana

      “I never liked buying into society’s lies, whether about race, Vietnam, the JFK assassination”

      …or religion? That’s one of the biggest lies in existence (including, but not limited to, the religion of multiracialism).

  • dd121

    Save your breath. Reason can’t penetrate ideology.

    • Nancy Thomas

      It can and eventually it will.

      • E_Pluribus_Pluribus

        Genetics are our friend. It will change some minds in our favor and firm up our own views, which is why acquiring some mastery of the subject will pay off. Good start: the Douglas Whitman address to this spring’s Amren conference — available on this site.

    • M.

      It will. It just needs some unrelented and repetitive pounding.

      And even if it doesn’t convince those you direct your arguments at, there are still third-party readers who will be attracted to the one with the rational arguments. Especially the fence-sitters.

      • dd121

        Hope you’re right. At least that’s what we do here at AmRen five days a week.

      • robinbishop34

        “And even if it doesn’t convince those you direct your arguments at,
        there are still third-party readers who will be convinced by the one
        with the rational arguments.”

        This is exactly what I do (when I can).

  • Jesse James

    Raff put his finger on the heart of the matter, were man a different animal they would count the major races at least as different sub-species. I think generally it is accepted by scientist that if two animals can mate and produce fertile offspring that they are the same species. However, how does this same perspective account for the most recent genome research that neanderthals are a different species and not a sub-species of Homo Sapiens and yet they also maintain that European man has a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA. I don’t know enough of the current research to know but I do know it deserves much deeper study. The science on this issue is not settled and is being held back by PC dogma that is preventing researchers from properly studying the issue of human race and speciation.

    • M.

      Europeans and some Asians have some amount of Neanderthal DNA (3% on average) because the very early Eurasian interbred with them. That’s by the way how the Neanderthals went extinct: the Cro-Magnons outnumbered them by a lot -mainly because they were smarter than them-, and through massive interbreeding, Eurasians just absorbed them out of existence.

  • JohnEngelman

    Before we condemn “racism” we should define it. I do not want anyone to be discriminated against because of the person’s race. I do not want anyone to be discriminated in favor of because of the person’s race either. That is why I oppose affirmative action.

    On the other hand, because races, ages, and sexes differ in rates of crime and propensity toward terrorism, race profiling makes sense when one does not and cannot know other things about a person than the person’s race, age, and sex.

    • Publius Pompilius Quitus

      I was told, when I was young, that racism is hating someone only on the basis of their race; which I still oppose. But antiracists tell me racism is a white person not appologizing for their whiteness. This term is indeed very confusing; let’s agree on a clearer term: bigotry.

      • Martel

        Lets call it “natural”, short for “Natural tensions existing in any multi-ethnic society”,

      • LHathaway

        “let’s agree on a clearer term: bigotry”.

        I would object to that. Much of what I agree with is condemned as bigotry. Objection to gay marriage, objection to continuing affirmative action, these things and less are condemned as bigotry or it is implied that they are.

        • Brian

          The practical definition of ‘bigotry’ is ‘less than enthusiastic support for whatever save-the-world, reality-denying perversion that cultural Marxists (say they) support’.

      • kikz2

        in a word…..no. by the cultural standard we are currently operating under… someone could literally beat me down in the street for disagreeing in principle with their right to beat me down in the street…and call me a bigot and a racist and feel completely justified in doing so. i call bullshite on that, mate.

  • WR_the_realist

    Here is the Merriam Webster definition of racism:
    1. poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
    2. the belief that some races of people are better than others

    And here we see the problem. We have two definitions of “racism” — one that can be readily condemned and the other which has good justification. Always people are labeled “racist” because they fit definition (2) and then heaped with the opprobrium appropriate only for those who meet definition (1). If by “better” you mean “more capable of creating, maintaining, and advancing civilization” then, yes, both whites and Orientals are better at that than blacks are. So I am a racist by definition (2), because I refuse to reject the evidence of my senses. I don’t want to inflict violence on blacks and I won’t treat a black person any worse that I would a white with the same behavior and circumstances. But still, my enemies will happily accuse me of wanting to lynch black people.

    Nicholas Wade says he opposes racism. Which one? Racism(1) or Racism(2)? If both, what if genes back up the evidence from twin and adoption studies that the races do differ in ways that determine the societies they create, with some of those societies obviously better than others?

    • Kenner

      Excellent distinction.

    • Martel

      I do not condone the term “racism”. Those using it should be considered out of touch with reality, possibly disturbed, in the future.

    • Da Troof

      You know what racism means?

      “Bad”

      That’s pretty much it. The term has lost all meaning.

      • ElComadreja

        “Racism” means “I’m a liberal and I can’t win an argument with you based on the facts”.

    • Sick of it

      What does it matter when the other races go hand in hand with #1? Why do we wring our hands over things white people usually don’t do, but of which they are often the victim?

    • LHathaway

      “If by “better” you mean “more capable of creating, maintaining, and advancing civilization” then, yes, both whites and Orientals are better at that than blacks are”

      In saying Asians are better than blacks, because Asians build better societies, you run the risk of judging individual blacks by something they themselves may be in no way responsible for (conceivably the opposite). You are also make the unproven assumption that race creates culture and not the opposite.

      • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

        You are also make the unproven assumption that race creates culture and not the opposite.
        .
        No proof has been offered for the opposite, yet it’s widely believed. When you look at Detroit and Haiti, do you think it’s a coincidence that both places replicate Africa, its norms, customs and (lack of) civilization?

        • LHathaway

          Even if so, it’s nothing to condemn. Let those working in the anti-immigration movement use these ‘facts’ to their advantage. The evidence speaks for itself, anyway. Print the story, let’s not make ourselves look bad by going over-board in the opposite direction. It may sound like deductive reasoning to you, to other’s it sounds like bigotry and stereotyping.

          Haiti, Detroit, Africa? What happened to conspiracy theory that so many believe in? I know I do.

          Haiti, Africa and Detroit, no need to condemn them when whites can rightly be proud of, both the adoption of civilization in these places (which has been and is being adopted despite your protestations) and the (white) AID we give them?

          • The Verdict of History

            Perhaps I misunderstand you, but WHY be proud of the fact that we’ve wasted resources by providing AID to these forsaken people, ANYWHERE?????

            Has the aid produced anything useful or admirable? Nope.

            Adoption of civilization? We clearly see that civilization evaporates when they’re in control of such places.

            Self-evident, no?

            Sounds like stereotyping? Who cares. The stereotype has proven true, and all sensible people know it.

            If this is “bigotry” then I a gladly accept the label. What is more? I’m “proud” of it, to use your term.

          • M.

            The only thing aid and healthcare did to Africa was help them replicate fourfold. Which means four times more people suffering.

            And believing in one’s superiority -based on abundant historical evidence- will prove to be a good thing in the long run. When white people believed in their superiority, they expanded. And whenever white people expanded, civilization expanded with them. Yes, taking other peoples’ lands and believing one is superior are bad things in themselves. But in the long run, and overall, it does more good than bad. And not only to white people, but to all of humanity. The advances in science and technology in the U.S. and other new countries of European extraction alone will benefit humanity forever. And to me, that make up largely for the takeovers and ‘belief’ in superiority.

            If white people didn’t think they were worth expanding, and if they didn’t take over North America and Australia, those places would still be hellholes run by the indigenous.

          • WR_the_realist

            And let’s add to that last paragraph, according to the president of Mexico himself, wherever Mexicans go Mexico goes with them. And Mexico is such a failure that Mexicans themselves don’t want to live in it.

      • WR_the_realist

        Races do create culture. Cultures don’t create races, environmental circumstances over tens of thousands of years did.

        I am not responsible for being short. But I am. Saying I’m not likely to be good at high jumping or professional basketball is just stating a fact, it is not assigning blame to me. It is not black people’s fault that their average IQ is 85. It’s not anybody’s fault. But it’s a fact nonetheless.

        There are black individuals who are smart, honest, and hard working. They do well in a majority white society, which provides them with the intellectual and physical infrastructure to achieve their potential. But those same individuals, stuck in Nigeria or Haiti or the Congo, would probably do rather poorly. When building an entire society the average matters at least as much as having a few genius outliers.

        • John R

          Good point. Would Kanye West, and Oprah Winfrey be rich in all black societies? Of course nit. Even the richest blacks in a sense, sponge off White society.

      • John R

        Well, I see one of the liberal Cultural Marxist has snuck in the door. So, it is the poor “root causes” that have magically held down the Negro for 10,000 years, right? And if could only “address” these “root causes” they would be equal to us, huh? To quote one of our greatest presidents, Ronald Reagan,
        “There you go again!”

        • LHathaway

          Right! If I were you, I wouldn’t be resting on my laurels. I’d be worried about them surpassing you.

        • LHathaway

          “I see one of the liberal Cultural Marxist has snuck in the door”

          Slamming Cultural Marxism does nothing to change the fact this ideology Has taken over and is the dominate one in the USA. Most conservatives accept this framework unthinkingly (even as they rail against it). Calling it a name is less likely an illumination on your part and more likely an act encouraging polarization?

          Yes, if these ‘root causes’ are addressed they will create societies equal to ours. If I were you, I’d be worried about them surpassing you.

          Nice quote of Reagan, by the way.

      • Nancy Thomas

        Race and genetics DO make culture.

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    In the heart of the liberal bastion known as HuffPo in order to make his case that he’s not a “racist.”

    Talk about throwing yourself to the wolves…

  • TL2014

    In defense of HuffPo, they published this.

    • Martel

      I will give them some credit. I’m sure all the editors will be complaining of a stomach ulcer next week.

    • italian guy

      Their site is full of anti-White garbage, i made the mistake of looking at some articles and it’s full of race-mixing, White bashing propaganda, I’m not going there ever again.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    In my experience, people who believe that race is a social construct are either complete idiots or radical leftists who argue in favor of “abolishing” the white race.

  • Da Troof

    Wade makes the same mistake that anyone who has their heart in the right place does.

    He thinks he can reason with these people.

    He thinks that if he just explains to him why he’s not actually an evil Nazi (as if they don’t already know that), they might approach his ideas with an open mind.

    He’s wrong.

    • willbest

      You don’t reason with these people. You put forth reasonable argument so that the rational 3rd party can see how unreasonable others are being. They might not grasp the entirety of an argument, but if somebody is jumping up and down screaming and the other is not, they will gravitate toward the side behaving like an adult.

      • Urbane Neanderthal

        Exactly, watching Jared Taylor debate a leftist is a perfect example.

        • Einsatzgrenadier

          I just saw this. JT is first attacked by negroes and then by angry white leftists (at the very end). The ad hominem fallacy is a favorite debate tactic used by left-wing nutjobs and insane Christians. Great Q & A. JT always performs well under pressure.

          • Nancy Thomas

            Yes, he’s truly a gentle man. i would probably slap the idiots.

      • Dave West

        Arguments with lefties go something like this:

        You state you position, the lib yells and rants, you finally get him/her to calm down and further try to explain your position.

        The libtard then starts throwing accusations. At this point the typical liberal has yet to even state their position regarding whatever issue.

        Once the liberal states their position i can usually prove them wrong. After being proven wrong the lib always says something like, “you don’t fully understand,” “you’re not educated enough to get it.” They never actually prove anything I said wrong, they just make baseless accusations.

        • John R

          And don’t forget the liberal catch phrases: “You are coming from a white racist point of view. You don’t understand what life is like for African Americans and the racism they endure every day of their lives…”(blah blah blah..)

      • Spikeygrrl

        How I wish you were correct. 🙁

        Today, alas, most folks jump on the bandwagon which yells and screams the loudest. So much more COOL, donchaknow. You might even get laid…or, better yet, “earn” your 15 minutes of media fame.

  • coco bongo

    The term “racism” is now so loosely defined that the mere recognition of race is considered “racist.” These anti-racist tools are really anti-science. That is, they’ve placed their personal agendas ahead of the facts.

    • kikz2

      maybe we can use the term ‘breed’ like unc’ fred reed……as in various breeds of dogs…….and quell ‘rayyyyyycisssss’ hissing? how could even the most ignorantly dense deny that there are differing breeds of dogs?

  • Ahnenerbe ᛟ

    Well Mr. Wade I would start saying sub-species instead of race, once the word race is used the first thing to come to the brainwashed masses and the demagogues is racism

    • Bill Moore

      Hello Ahnenerbe,

      I like that, “sub-species”, I’ll try to work it into my conversations with the Liberals, Progressives, and Communists that I have to deal with.

      Let’s assume there is one “race”. Then there is a sub-species called “Africans”.

      It doesn’t seem to work.

      Bill Moore

      • Ahnenerbe ᛟ

        There is one species homosapien sapien and then evolved to sub-species through gene mutations, hybridizing with homo neanderthalensis, environmental pressures, etc. Then those sub-species broke down into smaller groupings.

  • Wholly Unconvinced

    I’ve got to admit im a bit puzzled by what seems to be quite a few of my fellow Amrenners responses here, and in some of the other posts about Wade. There is so much vehement anger directed against him for not bravely fighting against the hordes of evil liberals because he said thing X instead of Y, whereas Y is apparently something akin to “the jews are masterminding the destruction and genocide of the white race! Blacks are violent animalistic primitive monsters who need to be immediately removed to Africa! Mexicans are invading and their birthright citizenship should be revoked and they should all be forcibly removed to Mexico! Whites are supreme, hurrah! Huzzah!” and so on and so forth. What i dont understand is who, exactly, do you think Nicholas Wade is ? A white leader running for president? A white supremacist of some sort ? Is he a poster on Amren perhaps ? I think, perhaps, he’s merely an intelligent man who understands that science is being hindered by all this nonsense about everyone being exactly the same. I think he got fed up, and wrote an intelligent, measured, fact based book with the intention not of destroying the establishment and bringing down our evil overlords, repatriating mexicans and africans, and beginning the revitalization of our once great country, but simply one to drive a reality shaped wedge into the twisted and warped minds of liberals who believe that race is just a social construct. He’s making a chink in their thought based armor, providing an opening for someone else to speak up and build off his work. He’s no crusader for our, or your cause, even if he fully believes in all the same obvious truths. And you, all of you, have no right to sit behind your keyboards and rail against the man for not being what you want him to be, and something he never professed to be in the first place. Its almost embarassing, especially coming from a few of you i have the utmost respect for.

    In regards to the response by Wade to his detractors, i think its absolutely fantastic, and it leads me to believe he’s even more intelligent than i gave him credit for. He’s dancing carefully, attacking, and effectively destroying his opponents intellectually, without leaving an opening for them to strike back with spittle flecked cries of “RAYCISS! WE KNEW IT, YOURE ONE OF THOSE WHITE SUPREMACISTS!”

    And if you’re really, truly dissatisfied with Mr. Wade and his responses, might i suggest writing your own book, and taking up your own banner, instead of living vicariously through him ?

    • Before I read this comment, I had just read all the others and I saw no overwhelming condemnation of Wade as described.

      “… to drive a reality shaped wedge into the twisted and warped minds of liberals who believe that race is just a social construct. He’s making a chink in their thought based armor, providing an opening for someone else to speak up and build off his work.”

      Nicely put.

      • Wholly Unconvinced

        Thank you, i am occasionally eloquent, although it’s hampered somewhat by posting from a cell phone. So many little typo’s and little issues like never capitalizing “i” on the first go around, which i don’t bother to fix due to the hassle.

        As far as the meat of my little rant, it was brought about within reading the first 10 comments or so. I’ll typically read all the comments before anything else, but within those first few i saw what seemed to be a trend which i’ve noticed rather often in the past few months, and specifically in comments directed towards Mr. Wade. There is a great deal of support for his book here, but i’ve also seen a lot of disparaging remarks which to my mind are completely pointless and unnecessary. 99% of my activity here is merely reading, or lurking in internetese, and i read everything, every story, every comment, so the ebbs and flows of the river of sentiment and general opinion here is something i pay attention to, and something which occasionally gives me hope, and occasionally makes me think there is no hope. But i think im beginning to ramble, i was basically making a preemptive strike due to my noticing what was the beginning of another negative tide of sorts, and couldn’t resist the urge to say something about it. I may have been out of place, or mistaken in what i thought was starting, and if so, my mistake!

        • “Thank you, i am occasionally eloquent, although it’s hampered somewhat by posting from a cell phone.”

          My hat is off to you, I don’t even own a cell phone. Keep on posting.

  • scutum

    There are a few talented and intelligent blacks. They are referred to by their fellow negroes as the talented 10 due to the fact that they are roughly ten percent of the black population. Unfortuneately this is not enough statistically to build or maintain a civilization. The other ninety percent will destroy whatever the talented ten percent build faster than they can replace it. Witness Detroit or Chicago, and by the way , Chicago will soon share the same fate as Detroit based on present demographic trends in that city.

  • MooTieFighter

    Any book that does not insinuate that blacks are a superior species, will be attacked. Truth is no longer accepted in American culture.

  • John R

    “understanding the nature of human racial variation lends no support to racism.”
    Maybe true. But, understand, and from the cultural Marxist perspective, more important: It destroys the very foundation of the reasoning behind liberal multiculturalism. Thus these people have every reason to hate and fear this book.

  • Peter Connor

    Three cultural marxist idiots/liars attacked you for stating the scientifically obvious fact that there are different races on the planet. Well, that’s what HuffPost does best…print Marxist drivel.

  • Charles Martel

    But his position does support racism, or superiority in important areas for some races. It clearly shows there are genetic reasons why the average black does not have the intellectual power of the average white. Without that intellectual power, blacks are incapable of reasoning required to develop and sustain a western style civilization. Impulse control also has a biological component further hindering the average black from properly integrating into western society successfully. I would take a different approach and say who cares if you call me racist. Let the facts of science lay where they will. And the next time you criticize the Christian for being and idiot and unscientific just look in the mirror. Take the power of the word racist away.

    • Nancy Thomas

      I agree. I don’t care. I shoot back, “And you are a hate filled anti-white bigot.”
      Their eyes pop out and they are stunned speechless.

      • Bill Moore

        Hello Nancy Thomas,

        I’ve had relatives call me a racist, and I quietly respond that I’m a realist.

        They usually make a quick exit from my presence. If they stick around, I start giving them real-life examples of the real behavior of Africans.

        Bill Moore

  • LHathaway

    I can be a pie-in-the-sky optimist, at times.

  • Spikeygrrl

    The elephant in the room: Those of us who BASE our race-consciouness on the facts…I.e., those who have long known — based on experience and intuition alone — that something was DEEPLY amiss in the 1950s’ Utopian gospel of “colorblindness”…but on moral grounds could not commit to race-consciouness until the irrefutable data started pouring in. AT LAST, PROOF that our intuitions did not lie!

  • Jacobite2

    Nothing at all new here. From Global Warming, through Lysenko, back to the original Enlightenment (Human Nature does not exist; every man born a tabula rasa), Leftism is based on a denial of Nature, Science, and Truth. Their real target is the concept of normality itself.

  • David Ashton

    And I am sorry you think I am deluded or a liar.