What we call the “left”, which I don’t know if it’s even appropriate to call them that anymore, has managed to pull off a great trick. And that trick is to convince people like me, and probably you, that the experts overwhelmingly disagree with race realism and white nationalism. That the relevant experts all know that biological races don’t exist, that the experts all know that races don’t differ in intelligence, and that diversity is great and mixed marriages are as good or better than same-race marriages.
And I’m kicking myself over how long I let myself believe this.
The Existence of Race
Note: this section is a cut and paste from the first section of this article
Ann Morning looked at the usage of race in the 80 most commonly used high school biology textbooks from 1952-2002. While not as good as a survey of biologists, it gives us a rough indication of the trend in biology:
And so we see a steep decline in the use of race, reaching a low point in 1983-1992, but an increase from 1992-2002, including an enormous increase in medical descriptions.
In 2004 Leonard Lieberman reviewed several surveys of anthropologists in North America and Europe, and found that 31% of anthropologists in North America recognized race, while 43% in Europe recognized race:
In 2009 Katarzyna Kaszycka surveyed physical anthropologists in Eastern and Western Europe, and divided the results up by age group:
Kaszycka shows an important split between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. This is an important clue as to how, where and why race denial emerged.
In 2001, Sun and Strkalj looked at 779 articles in “Acta Anthropologica Sinica”,China’s only biological anthropological journal. They were able to get 74 of the 78 issues that existed from 1982 to 2001. In it they found that 324 articles dealt with human variation. They described their results:
“When we applied Cartmill’s approach to the Chinese sample we found that all of the articles used the race concept and none of them questioned its value. Since these active researchers are also members of the teaching staffs at various educational institutions, it is very likely that this attitude will be transmitted to the next generation of Chinese scientists.”
Of course it is possible that the views of the Chinese have changed since then. But there’s no reason to think that they have, and even if China’s exposure to “the west” has allowed that rotgut to enter China, thus causing a rise in race denial in China even as it is in decline elsewhere, how much do you think the situation has changed in 15 years?
So the only place to have any evidence of a consensus on race at some point is in China, and it’s that race existed. And this is totally my opinion, but I think China’s views on race are very telling because they were cut off from ideological influence in anthropology. Sure they had Maoism and pseudo-communist thinking, but denying that biological races existed was never part of that ideology, and so anthropologists in China were free to simply pursue their field, and came to the obvious conclusion.
I think a similar thing happened in Eastern Europe; sure the state had all sorts of opinions in the USSR and Warsaw Pact, but “black people don’t exist” was not one of them. And so anthropologists were more free. And the Russians most certainly hated Hitler even more than the West, that stuggle was framed in patriotic terms, a Russian victory over an evil foreign enemy, whereas in the west it was framed as an anti-racist crusade.
The best info on what “experts” believe on the existence of race comes from anthropologists. And all of these only deal with physical anthropologists. But what about biologists and geneticists?
Well I don’t know of any recent data on biologists’ views on race, however Lieberman 1992 looked at biology textbooks and surveyed college professors and graduates with BAs, MAs and AAs.
First we can look at the textbooks:
Physical Anthropology Textbooks:
And so the trend to race denial in the textbooks was much more pronounced in Physical Anthropology than in Biology.
Next we can look at Biologists and Physical Anthropologists with varying degrees of education:
And what we see is that, at all levels of education, Biologists are more likely to recognize race than Physical Anthropologists. At the PhD level, in 1983-1984, Biologists were 1.46 times more likely to accept race.
It’s always hazardous to extrapolate too much into the future toward the present, but there’s no reason to believe that Biologists are all on board the race denial train today when Physical Anthropologists aren’t even all on board today.
Regarding Geneticists, I don’t know of any scientific survey. But I do know of multiple genetics papers lamenting the return of “the race concept” in genetics:
“Until Armand Marie Leroi’s New York Times Op-Ed of March 14, 2005, it is unlikely that many Americans, even among the daily readers of the paper, knew that we are living in the midst of a raging debate over the existence of human races. This debate is occurring among and between a variety of researchers in genetics and social scientists from a range of disciplines. A number of evolutionary biologists, geneticists, biological anthropologists and medical researchers have recently challenged the view put forth by other scientists and social scientists that ‘Race is only social concept, not a scientific one.’”
2009 – “Return of the race myth?”
“The aim of this Hypothesis and Theory is to question the recently increasing use of the “race” concept in contemporary genetic, psychiatric, neuroscience as well as social studies.”
And there are certainly many more, this is just what I found with a google search and going to page 2.
Obviously it would be better to have proper surveys of geneticists, but the winds seem to be blowing in the direction of race recognition.
While the survey and textbook data is a bit spotty and / or dated, and for the geneticists we only have subjective analyses about trends in the field – it’s enough to where we can say that this “consensus” on race denial simply does not exist, or in the case for geneticists there’s certainly no evidence of a consensus or a trend against race.
The point here is not to appeal to a consensus to say that race exists, but to remove this appeal to authority as a line of argument so that we can move past authority games.
Black-White IQ Gap
Believing that the black-white IQ gap is largely down to genetics is something that, in a bizarre way, has been pathologized as some extreme belief. But actual intelligence researchers not only think there is a large genetic component, but there is no sign that it’s trending toward more environmental explanations. We can look at two surveys, one from 1984 and 2013.
A survey done by Snyderman and Rothman in 1984 found that 45% of researchers said that the black-white IQ gap was a mixture of genes and environment, 1% said it was totally genetic, 15% said that it was totally environmental, 14% did not respond, and 24% said there was insufficient evidence:
For the survey in 2013 by Rindermann, Coyle & Becker, they found that 42% of the 228 experts though that 0-40% of the black-white IQ gap was due to genes, 18% said that 50% of the gap was due to genes, and 39% said that 60-100% of the black-white IQ gap was due to genes:
In addition, 17% said that the black-white IQ gap was 0% genetic, and 5% of the experts said that the black-white gap was 100% genetic.
Now my view is that the heritability of the black-white IQ is 0.8. This happens to be the consensus on the general heritability of IQ for adults in the United States, and so I’m saying that the racial gap is merely of function of things that cause IQ to vary generally. That poor blacks are no worse off than poor whites, that there’s nothing race-specific about the black-white IQ gap, and thus the black-white IQ will have the same heritability as the general heritability of IQ.
Another reason is that the more heritable the subtest, the bigger the racial gaps are, and if we go by subtest heritabilities, they point toward a heritability of the racial gap of 0.8, again, the same as the consensus on the general heritability of IQ.
And as a result, I am on the high end with my estimate, however, I’m not completely out of the mainstream on this. But the expert consensus is a respectable starting point, and from there my higher estimate is just a matter of degree.
Racial Diversity and Civic Engagement and Social Trust
Another thing I argue is that racial diversity is bad. And on this, there is no survey on people who research diversity that I know of. The most popular example of this is Robert Putnam’s paper “The Downside of Diversity” which showed that more racially diverse neighborhoods have less social engagement, are less likely to know their neighbors, and have less trust both of their neighbors and less trust of society in general.
That was the first major paper on this that made a big splash. But every paper since that talks about racial diversity reports negative effects of diversity, but then proceeds to control for things and say it’s not really caused by diversity, but by thins that correlate with diversity.
For example, the paper “Does ethnic diversity erode trust?: Putnam’s ‘hunkering-down’ thesis reconsidered” looked at the effect of racial diversity in 25,000 individuals in Britain. And in their abstract they say this:
“There is a statistically significant association between diversity and a measure of strategic trust but, in substantive terms, the effect is trivial and dwarfed by the effects of economic deprivation and the social connectedness of individuals.”
Now having read the paper, this abstract has subjective terms that I don’t think most would agree with. First off, what is “trivial” and what is “dwarfed”? But second off, if you read the paper and look at the reported effect sizes of various criteria on generalized trust and trust of neighbors, the effect of ethnic diversity does not seem “trivial” or “dwarfed” by the next four largest correlations in their own analysis:
|Criteria||Association with Generalized Trust (Model 4a)|
|Criteria||Association with Trust of Neighbors (Model 4a)|
What the authors do to say that diversity has no driving effect is to control for a bunch of these things. For example, knowing your neighbors has a bigger impact on whether or not you trust your neighbors than ethnic diversity does, in this study. The problem is that knowing your neighbors is itself a function of diversity.
Now if you simply read the abstract, you would have no idea that the second biggest association with generalized trust or trust of neighbors is racial diversity, and that racial diversity is THE BIGGEST negative association with both forms of trust.
Moreover, there is zero attempt to assess the possible self-selection of white people who live in racially diverse areas.
But I digress. My point here is not to get into the arguments about causation. That would be something for a whole video. My point here is simply to say that the research on diversity shows a universal, overwhelming negative association. The sociologists will then try to say that the negative effects go away when you control for things, but then there’s the possibility that those things being controlled for are themselves an effect of diversity, at least in part, and so by controlling for whether or not you know your neighbors, you are controlling for racial diversity, and it’s a big argument.
The simplest observation, the raw association between racial diversity and trust and social capital, without any controls, is always overwhelmingly negative. And so saying that “diversity is bad” is not a crazy thing to say. It could be wrong, those controls could be valid, but the position that racial diversity is bad is not obviously stupid. I’m not “ignorant” of the research on racial diversity.
Certainly the researchers on this would never say that their research supports white separatism. But would you expect them to say so if it did?
(Venture Ooo-Ray Clip)
White separatism? What do you mean my research showing that white people are happier and healthier in white-only communities is an argument for white separatism?
In addition, being interracial is the second highest thing that increases the risk of a marriage in ending in divorce, second only to one of the partners having an anxiety disorder:
|Criteria||Increased risk of divorce|
|Cohabitation before marriage||29.0%|
|High School Dropout||16.7%|
One counter to this would be that mixed-race couples have lower incomes and fewer years in school, and those people are more likely to have domestic violence and divorce. This is a possibility, but in the absence of any evidence on this, there’s no reason to just assume it, and it could go the other way in that interracial couples could be more educated and earn higher incomes than monoracial coupled on average.
Douglas Browridge’s paper “Intimate Partner Violence in Interracial Relationships” showed that, in at least the sample of 19,000 Canadians, mixed-race couples were actually more educated and earned higher incomes than monoracial couples.
Now that’s just one sample population, that doesn’t mean that interracial couples are, in general, more educated and earn more income than monoracial couples. I’m just saying it’s not obvious one way or the other. It’s not something to just assume is going to explain why interracial marriages fail more often.
But there it is again. The simplest interpretation of the evidence is that race-mixing is bad. Now there could be other things going on, and thus it’s not an incompatibility of the races but some other effects that happen to correlate with race-mixing. It could, that’s a possibility, but there’s always an infinite number of whatabouts your can think up, and it’s certainly not stupid or crazy to just go with the simplest interpretation that has the fewest assumptions.
White Separatism / White Nationalism
The topic in this vein is white separatism, or white nationalism, which is, in a historical sense, a very normal idea; and that is the idea that certain countries are white only or mostly white-only. Up until the end of WW2, Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States had white-only immigration policies.
The United States had a special case in the black population, who they believed they owed mere citizenship because they were slaves in the past. But nothing more.
Moreover, as well-elucidated by Jared Taylor, the founders clearly intended a white-only country.
Citizenship was initially limited to “Free White Men of Good Character”. In addition, one of the writers of the constitution, Charles Pickney, when hearing of the Missouri Crisis of 1821, said:
“I perfectly knew that there did not then exist such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor could I then have conceived it possible such a thing could have ever existed in it.”
In addition, whites today generally leave areas once they reach a certain proportion non-white. This is known as “white flight”. In addition, the United States is actually becoming MORE racially segregated at the residential level using more modern methods. Older methods looked at the racial percentages in a city, what percentage the city was black. But newer methods that measure the likelihood of having a neighbor of another race show that the United States is actually getting MORE residentially segregated, and of course it is well established that schools are becoming more racially segregated as well.
My personal theory is that this is related to “conservatives” having more kids than “liberals”, and that part of being a “conservative” is an innate ethnocentrism, and since it is innate, whites today are actually more genetically xenophobic today than they were in say 1970, even though in 1970 it was more politically permissible to be openly xenophobic.
In addition, 3/4 of whites will say they don’t have a single non-white friend. And I’m personally skeptical about the 1/4 that say they do; “my black friend”. So in terms of how whites actually behave, why is white nationalism so offensive?
And there are several benefits to a white country. For example, the budget deficit would be gone, even if the US maintained current military spending levels, if the US merely had its white population.
And no, all the studies on immigration, and the regional comparisons of the US show that there is no evidence that the presence of non-whites increases the wages of whites.
The academic consensus on the existence of biological races in humans is mixed and is tending toward race recognition. To say that biological races exist in humans is not wild or out of the mainstream or particularly heterodox.
On the academic consensus of the black-white IQ gap, the mean heritaiblity estimate of intelligence researchers is about 47%. Now my opinion is that the heritability is about 80%, which is higher than the consensus, but it’s roughly the same as the consensus of the general heritability of IQ, and experts thinking the heritability is that high is not unheard of.
For racial diversity, every study that looks at it shows that racial diversity has negative associations with social engagement, trust of neighbors and general trust. Now typically sociologists will argue that the effect goes away when you control for various things, but of course these “controls” are for things which are associated with racial diversity itself.
And so the simplest interpretation based on raw association, that racial diversity is causing these problems, should not be taken as silly, especially since experts agree on a raw negative association between diversity and social trust.
For race-mixing, mixed-race marriages are over twice as likely to have spousal abuse and divorce, and there’s no reason to believe that interracial couples are less educated or have lower income. And so saying that race-mixing is bad and you should probably just avoid it, again, there’s nothing crazy about this position. Maybe you want to introduce new things to try to explain the negative association, okay, and perhaps there are things that about mixed marriages that actually dampen the negative impact of racial incompatibility and the true racial incompatibility is actually masked by the unique characteristics of race mixers. Both are possible, no reason to assume one or the other, and so there’s nothing wrong with just going with the simplest interpretation of the data and saying race-mixing is bad.
And on white separatism, well that’s how most whites actually behave today. Of course whites in theory say otherwise, but their behavior is mostly white nationalist. 3/4 of whites will openly say they have no non-white friends, whites leave non-white areas in a phenomenon known as “white flight”, whites are the least likely to race-mix of any race in the US. And throughout most of white countries’ history, they had white-only immigration policies and anti-race mixing policies. And there are many practical reasons today for whites to have their own country, one of which is it would eliminate the budget deficit, and you would have functional cities like you have in white countries like Denmark and Norway.
When all these Huffpost / DailyKos / YoungTurks people point to other countries that are better than the United States by various metrics, they’re always pointing to countries that are WHITER than the United States, inadvertently supporting the white nationalist outlook. Or when they point to how dumb Alabama and Mississippi are compared to Connecticut on standardized tests, they ignore that that Mississippi is nearly 50% black and Alabama is roughly a third black.
They make a case for white nationalism without even trying, that’s how overwhelming it is.