Race

Human Pre-History and the Making of the Races, Part 2: Genetic Distances

Confirmation by modern genetic studies of the traditional racial classification categories

What are the percentages of genetic differences between the human races, indicating their relationships? Perhaps the best global scale study to date on this subject is still that of Masatoshi Nei and Arun K. Roychoudhury from Evolutionary Relationships of Human Populations on a Global Scale (1993). Subsequent studies, which have included increasing numbers of alleles but have usually been regional rather than global in scale, have been consistent with Nei and Roychoudhury’s results. The following table (Fig. 1 below) of estimates of genetic differences between human populations is from their study.

Read more

Human Pre-History and the Making of the Races, Part 1

Since the 1950 UNESCO Statement on Race there has been an increasing tendency to claim, based on Boasian anthropology and in promotion of a multiracialist agenda, that the human races are “socially constructed” and their existence is not supported by science, meaning not biologically and genetically real. This essay is an account, consistent with current scientific knowledge, of how the human races we know historically and today were really constructed.

The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence — the process of divergent evolution — to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.

Divergent evolution is the process by which new life forms are created by the division and separation of life into different branches. Human evolution has seen its share of divergent branching. The generic name commonly used to refer to the genetically different populations—that share a common biological ancestry that distinguishes them from other populations — is race. But in the human species, as in any species enjoying a great degree of variety, the constant branching and dividing that characterize the process of divergent evolution have created many different divisions, each of which possesses a genetic signature which distinguishes it from other divisions at the same level. For purposes of taxonomic accuracy each of these levels should have its own specific name and definition. The first or highest level is the species, and it is simply and objectively defined as including all those populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fully fertile offspring. The term race is commonly used to refer to a branch or division of the species possessing genetically transmitted physical traits (e.g., skin color) which distinguish it from other branches or divisions of the same level. Adding to this definition, it will here also be defined as including only those persons who are capable of reproduction with each other without alteration of the racially-distinctive genetic traits of either parent stock; that is, the genetically transmitted traits which distinguish a race from other divisions at the same level (i.e., other races) should not be diminished or lost by reproduction within the race. If racially-distinctive traits are lost or diminished by within-group reproduction then the population group is at a level of division too broad and inclusive to be accurately defined as a race. If it is too narrow to be defined as a species, as it does not include all those populations capable of interbreeding, then it is at a level between race and species, which will here be referred to as a subspecies. Read more

The Supremacy of Stupid: How Dumb Ideas about Race Flourish on the Left

An ant is an amazing creature, a marvel of miniaturization and compressed complexity. With only a tiny brain, it absorbs and interprets a flood of data from its myriad sense-organs, navigating a complex and constantly changing world, co-operating and communicating with its nest-mates, collaborating in prodigies of architecture, engineering and logistics. No human robot can even come close to matching the abilities of an ant, let alone at such a minute size and on such a small budget of energy.

Dumb beats clever

But the highly sophisticated ant meets its master in the form of a mindless organism far lower in the evolutionary scale. As I described in “How to Cure a White Zombie,” the fungus Ophiocordyceps unilateralis can subvert the complex nervous system of an ant, turning the ant into a zombified spore-spreader. You can sum up the behaviour of the fungus in two words: sitting and floating. It sits in its victims and then, in the form of spores, floats off to new victims. The behaviour of ants, by contrast, is endlessly subtle and varied. Ant-behaviour has filled entire libraries and fuelled long scientific careers. But the simple fungus beats the complex ant.

The complexity of an ant

Another parasite, the microscopic protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, overcomes an even bigger evolutionary gulf and subverts the even more complex brains of rats and human beings. The fungus and the protozoan have no minds, no consciousness and no purpose but self-propagation. They’re dumb, but they’ve been beating clever for millions of years. That’s why we shouldn’t be surprised at the success of stupid ideologies in the world of politics. In competition and warfare, it doesn’t matter how you win: the only criterion of success is, well, success. The fungus and the protozoan are unconscious experts at chemical warfare, because they interfere with the brain-chemistry of their victims. In the world of human politics, parasites and predators interfere with brains by using words and ideas instead. Read more

On the Rise of Mixed-Race Britain

“The intermarriage of nations gradually extinguishes the characters, and is, despite any pretended philanthropy, not beneficial to mankind.”
          Immanuel Kant

The recent engagement of Britain’s Prince Harry to a mixed-race actress of Black and Jewish origins has delivered something of a propaganda coup to the promoters of miscegenation. It’s been hailed as a “great day for interracial relationships and mixed race girls everywhere.” It’s been claimed that it will “change Britain’s relationship with race forever.” The New York Times has even suggested it will “save the monarchy.”

While hyperbole saturates each one of these statements, they all betray the truism that, in a ‘celebrity culture,’ such events can spark ill-informed attempts at imitation among the dedicated and dim-witted followers of fashion.

The excitement over the racial status of Meghan Markle is all very reminiscent of similar propaganda in the wake of London’s 2012 Olympic Games, when a number of mixed-race athletes, Jessica Ennis in particular, were singled out and promoted as the ‘new face of Britain.’ According to a celebratory report published shortly after the Olympics by British Future, a ‘think-tank’ funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, Ennis and other mixed-race celebrities had “helped to change perceptions about interracial relationships.” This seemed to have been largely borne out by the 2011 census, which revealed “the mixed race population is the fastest growing in Britain with more than one million people born of interracial parentage.” British Future point out, probably with good justification, that this figure “is only half the story of the rapid growth of mixed Britain. Twice as many people have ethnically mixed parentage – but over half of them choose other census categories, such as black or white.” Ennis, in some senses the precursor to Markle as the darling of miscegenation propagandists, was chosen by British Future to grace the front page of its report, The Melting Pot Generation: How Britain Became More Relaxed About Race, and opened it with the line: “Jessica Ennis was not just the face of the Olympics this summer; she could stake a fair claim to be ‘the face of the census’ too.”

One of those most concerning aspects of the report, if accurate, concerns the statement that “it is Britain, not America, which has the stronger claim to be a “melting pot” on race.” The rationale here is that those of mixed racial parentage tend not to marry or reproduce with American Whites — those of mixed race normally become absorbed into the minority ethnic group. By contrast, those of mixed race in Britain marry heavily into the White majority. We might therefore state that while America currently has the more pressing demographic concern in terms of the White share of the population, miscegenation may be considered a greater concern in Britain. The report explains:

“On no other country on earth is my story even possible,” said Barack Obama, a product of Kenya and Kansas, as he burst onto the US political scene in 2004. His is a great story, but he was wrong about that. Mixed marriages are more likely in Britain, where the dynamics of mixing are different too, and accelerate faster in Britain. That is because most Americans from mixed parentage marry somebody from a minority group, as Obama himself did. By contrast, three-quarters of Britons from mixed parentage marry somebody from the majority white group (it does contain over three-quarters of the population, after all)…10% of African Americans are in mixed marriages [with Whites]…compared to over 40% for British born black Caribbeans.

It is difficult to make a full assessment of the true scale of the problem because the Black population of Britain (including those described as “African/Caribbean/Black British”) is roughly 3% of the overall population of England and Wales. One might be tempted to conclude that, while the number of Black men marrying or reproducing with White women is very high, their relatively small percentage of the overall population means that the number of White women entering relationships with Black men is also relatively small. However, these relationships are almost exclusively forming at the lower end of the socio-economic scale, and often at the very bottom. Read more

Richard Spencer interviews Kevin MacDonald on the European origins