Racial Differences

Rushton Vindicated: Intelligent People Learn to Walk Later, Just as He Predicted

For those who are fascinated by what is sometimes called “Based Science” — science which fearlessly examines the empirical evidence no matter how “controversial” the findings might be — a breakthrough took place recently: “Rushton’s Paradox” was solved at last, using genomic data. To those who are not initiated, this may sound rather abstruse and academic, but it is massively important: It is a breakthrough.

The theory of one of the most “controversial” scientists ever to live has finally been proven correct: At the individual level, intelligence — the ability to solve cognitive problems — is associated with a slow Life History Strategy, i.e., developing more slowly because you are evolved to a more difficult and highly specific environment, in which you need a long “learning period” — a long childhood — to be taught how to navigate. The implications of this are enormous, but, before we explore them, let’s have a look at the broader theory.

Even though he’s been dead for 12 years, there are few social scientists more loathed by the Woke than J. Philippe Rushton (1943-2012). As I have discussed in my biography of him, J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective, the Canadian government tried to prosecute this British-born Canadian when, back in 1989, he presented his Differential-K model of racial differences at a conference. This model placed Blacks at one end of a spectrum and East Asians at the other, with Whites intermediate in terms of intelligence, psychopathic personality, age at puberty, interest in promiscuous sex over investment and nurture, and much else, but closer to East Asians.

In the resulting furore, students invaded Rushton’s department at the University of Western Ontario and scrawled “Racist Pig Lives Here” on his office door, the premier of Ontario declared that Rushton’s views were “morally offensive” to how people of his state think, newspaper cartoons portrayed Rushton in Ku Klux Klan robes, his lectures were invaded by protestors, his faculty dean tried to wreck his career with a politically-motivated “unsatisfactory” rating and he required a security escort while on campus. Even so, there was no legal case against him and, in 1995, he doubled-down, publishing Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective which set out his theory in depth.

According to Rushton, an r-strategy develops in an unstable yet easy environment. In such a situation, you could be wiped out at any moment, so you evolve to “live fast and die young.” You invest all your energy in mating—in order to have as many offspring as possible with as many partners as possible in the hope that some will survive. You invest very little energy in nurture, because such energy could easily go to waste. Any individual child could be killed at any moment.

This r-strategy is reflected in every aspect of your “life history”—you’re born younger (less developed), you reach developmental milestones younger, you go through puberty younger, lose your virginity younger, you age more quickly, you go through the menopause younger and you die younger. You also advertise your genetic quality as conspicuously as you can—as the end is always nigh—leading to large sexual characteristics, strong body odor, and so on. Rushton presented some of these data in Race, Evolution and Behavior and I added to them in my biography of him.

As the environment becomes more stable and also harsher, the carrying capacity for the species is reached. So, its members start competing more against each other to survive, moving towards a K-strategy. In such a harsh but predictable context, if you invest all your energy in mating then you may find that all of your offspring die. Hence, you have fewer offspring and fewer sexual partners but you invest more in them; you “nurture” them. There develops an arms-race where the species becomes increasingly adapted to the (predictable) ecology.

It does this by learning about the ecology and learning how to cooperate (bonding) and thus becoming higher in altruism, empathy and impulse control — and, perhaps most importantly, by becoming more intelligent. The result is that the offspring can learn about the environment and how to cooperate—and “life history speed” begins to slow down. Parents invest more energy in nurture of a (smaller number of) offspring and less energy in mating. They go for “quality over quantity.” With limited bio-energetic resources, secondary sexual characteristics also become smaller.

As they become more K-strategy, in a stable environment where they can trust that tomorrow will come, litters become smaller, offspring are born later, they develop more slowly, they go through puberty later (learning a great deal in their long childhood), they lose their virginity later, they age more slowly and, for genetic reasons, they die older, giving them more time to pass on their genes. Rushton showed that what he called the “three Big Races” occupy different positions on the r-spectrum. Northeast Asians are the most K-evolved, Caucasians (a combination of Europeans, South Asians, Arabs and North Africans) are intermediate and Blacks are the most r-evolved.

Rushton’s Paradox was always that evidence could not be found that intelligence correlated with Life History Speed at the individual level, even though it did at the group level. This was so puzzling — and such a problem for the cleanness of Rushton’s model, that he may even have falsified data or otherwise manipulated his results to prove that such a relationship did exist, as I explored in J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective.

I also note there that, as appears to be the case with many genius or semi-genius (highly original) scientists, Rushton’s life evidenced a combination of a very high intelligence and fast Life History traits such as sub-clinical psychopathology [see F. Post, Creativity and Psychopathology: A Study of 291 World Famous Men, British Journal of Psychiatry, 1994]. This meant he didn’t care about offending people (which new ideas always do, as they challenge vested interests), and he was low in rule-following (so could think the unthinkable). Consistent with this, he was divorced three times, had extra-marital affairs, knocked his third wife about, had an illegitimate child by a relationship with a Black woman, dropped out of school and got a girl of about 15, and possibly younger, pregnant.

But if Rushton did falsify data, he needn’t have done so. A new study has proved him correct. The preprint “Genome-wide association meta-analysis of age at onset of walking” by Anna Gui and colleagues has presented a meta-analysis of age at onset of walking, using data on 70,560 European infants. It looked at the relationship between age of onset of walking and alleles that are associated, via very high educational attainment, with intelligence. It found that the age at which you start walking is positively correlated with polygenic scores for intelligence: Kids who are eventually more intelligent learn to walk later; their childhood is longer.

And as if Rushton — with his penchant for “controversy” — laughing from beyond the grave, even this has stirred things up. Researcher Emil Kirkegaard has noted that this new study was originally tweeted out by a mainstream academic. He then deleted the tweet stating: “Unfortunately, it has attracted many racist responses that abused the study to make ugly, racist claims.” There were no racist claims, but it did vindicate Rushton’s theory.

It also adds credence to an idea I have been toying with for quite a while. Why is it that, in advanced societies, intelligent people desire fewer children and why are they less religious than the less intelligent?

One possibility is that these are in-built instincts that are induced in our “evolutionary match” of high mortality salience and the desire to have children. As I explored in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, we’ve been surrounded by high child mortality for most of our history. This is our “evolutionary match”: We desired many children because it was quite probably that many would die before adulthood. You would expect the more intelligent to be lower in “instinct” because solving problems involves rising above instinctive reactions and calmly and logically reasoning. It would follow that intelligent people would be more environmentally sensitive; they would be K-strategists, needing to be put on the correct road-map of life to adapt to a specific niche. If this didn’t happen — if they were in a mismatch — they’d become maladaptive, such as by not desiring children. So, the new finding is in line with this theory.

There may have been much to dislike about Rushton personally, but this is part of why he was a highly original thinker. With this new research, his grand theory has been vindicated.


Recent Research on Race Realism

Race and Evolution: The Causes and Consequences of Race Differences
Stephen K. Sanderson
Self-published, 2022

Stephen Sanderson is the author, coauthor, or editor of sixteen books in twenty-two editions and some seventy-five articles in journals, edited collections, and handbooks. He is a retired professor of sociology and is quite unusual within his discipline for applying evolutionary principles to the study of society. His latest offering, dedicated to J. Phillippe Rushton, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, combines a useful summary of the best in recent research and theory regarding human racial differences (seven chapters) with applications to such topics as the history of slavery, liberal stereotype theory, social stratification by color, the history of human accomplishment, the rise of Northeast Asia, and the decline of Africa (six chapters); a final chapter discusses policy options. Being an American, the author devotes special attention to Whites and Blacks, but includes information on other races wherever helpful.

Sanderson begins his book with several epigraphs that indicate his awareness that he is stepping into a very politically incorrect minefield. These two are well worth pondering in the present context where woke ideology—an ideology based on moral judgments and equitable outcomes rather than science and facts—reigns supreme in universities, the media, and corporate culture:

A good society is one that permits a maximum amount of objective pursuit of truth and beauty, and this pursuit should be undertaken “irrespective of the consequences.” Such inquiry may lead to the discovery of “inconvenient facts,” but it must be undertaken nonetheless. We cannot know in advance whether the knowledge we create or discover will support or contradict certain moral positions already held. And “philosophies incongruent with the pursuit of a reduction in misery should be permitted since the basis of rationality is strengthened through argument,” and “all opinions, however obnoxious or however passionately held, [should] be heard and subjected to the test of rational criticism.” Barrington Moore, Jr.

Political thinking, especially on the left, is a sort of masturbation fantasy in which the world of fact hardly matters. George Orwell

The first section of the book, entitled “Foundations of Race Realism,” will be well-trodden ground for regular readers of The Occidental Observer, so I shall be brief. The first chapter defends the biological reality of races by providing a point-by-point refutation of two high-profile formal statements of social constructivism, one issued by the American Anthropological Association (AAA) in 1998 and the other by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) in 1999. The author explains what is wrong with “Lewontin’s fallacy,” i.e., the inference of the unreality of race from the fact of greater genetic variation within than between racial groups. He quotes some older texts to show that the concept of race was not invented by eighteenth century European colonialists, as the AAA and many antiracists maintain. A good example of the lengths to which some people will go to deny reality is the AAPA’s declaration that “human traits known to be biologically adaptive do not occur with greater frequency in one population than in others.” Sanderson marvels that this is “obviously false and a rather astonishing statement for a biological anthropologist to make,” giving a few simple examples. The chapter closes with an account of how cluster analysis of population genetic data can reliably identify “four to six major racial groups.”

Chapter Two explains the inadequacy of non-biological explanations for differences in racial outcomes, including discrimination, the lingering effects of slavery, and systemic racism. The best of these theories focuses on the higher rates of fatherless households among Blacks than Whites, but the explanation for this difference lies ultimately in racial biology after all.

Chapter Three summarizes evidence for genetically based racial differences in average intelligences. American psychometric data showing an average White IQ of about 100 and an average Black IQ of 85 has now accumulated for over a hundred years. In the course of childhood, the degree to which environment can explain such differences steadily declines, disappearing entirely by around age fourteen. Most damning for the social constructivist position, however, is that Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) now make it possible to identify specific genes that contribute to intelligence, meaning that intelligence can be reliably (albeit not perfectly) predicted from biological data alone. One particularly telling statistic Sanderson cites is the correlation between the average IQ of the nations of the world and the percentage of their population that is Black: .808.

Many Black-White socioeconomic gaps disappear once IQ is controlled for, but one difference that does not is out-of-wedlock births. In his fourth chapter, Sanderson explains race differences in sex, reproduction and family patterns, summarizing Rushton’s evidence for high mating effort/low nurturance among Blacks and low mating effort/high nurturance among Northeast Asians, with Whites intermediate. He demonstrates that fatherless homes are common in Africa and among Blacks worldwide, not something unique to post-World War II America.

Chapter Five discusses race differences in personality and temperament. In the American context, the most important are that Blacks have significantly higher levels of antisocial personality as well as higher time preference than Whites (i.e., Blacks are more likely to place less value on returns receivable or costs payable in the future and hence more likely to accept immediate rewards rather than wait for larger returns at a later date and more likely to take out disadvantageous long-term loans with immediate up-front payouts). Confusingly, the author systematically switches the terms “high” and “low” time preference; one hopes this mistake can soon be corrected through the print-on-demand system.

Chapter Six explains racial differences in law-abidingness, including violent crime, civil disorder (mob violence), and political corruption. Such differences are in large part a consequence of differences in intelligence and time-preference.

Chapter Seven outlines the historical development of racial differences following the migration of early humans out of Africa and into colder climates where getting through the winter required planning ahead. There is also a discussion of Life History Theory and the r-K continuum (basically the continuum from high mating effort/low nurturance to low mating effort/high nurturance).

The six chapters which make up Part 2 of Race and Evolution apply the race realist perspective to particular issues. Chapter Eight provides a brief history of New World slavery, including regional comparisons, arguing it was fundamentally an economic rather than a racial institution: “Europeans did not choose Africans as slaves because they considered them biologically inferior, but because Africa provided a huge supply of labor that could be transported to the New World more cheaply than slaves drawn from, say, India or China.”

Chapter Nine discusses racial stratification around the world, showing that Blacks have the lowest average socio-economic status in multiracial societies everywhere. The author explains that the phenomenon of “pigmentocracy”—where increasingly light skin is found the higher one goes up the socio-economic scale—results from a hierarchy of ability: “Lighter skinned people are regarded more highly because they are more talented.”

Ever since psychologist Gordon Alport published The Nature of Prejudice in 1954, “stereotypes” have been a staple of social constructivist discourse, the assumption being that they are unreliable. But this has never been demonstrated. In Chapter Ten, Sanderson summarizes the findings of a series of studies published since 2012 by social psychologist Lee Jussim and colleagues. They found a high positive correlation between racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes and empirical reality. For instance, in one study comparing stereotypes with US Census data, correlations ranged from .27 (already moderately significant) to .96, with a mean as high as .83. Jussim et al. write that “stereotype accuracy correlations are among the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology.” This is no doubt because, over human evolutionary history, accurate knowledge of behavior patterns of social groups within one’s environment must have had considerable survival value, and thus been favored by natural selection.

Chapter Eleven demonstrates that the bulk of scientific discovery and other advances in human knowledge have been the work of European and European-descended men. Northeast Asians may have somewhat higher average intelligence, but they tend to produce highly conformist cultures where copying from accepted “masters” is inculcated and originality is frowned upon. Africa, of course, has produced nothing notable in scientific discovery.

Chapter Twelve discusses the recent rapid economic development of Northeast Asia and the dominance of Southeast Asian economies by the overseas Chinese.

Chapter thirteen contrasts this with the catastrophic fate of sub-Saharan Africa since decolonization and demonstrates the inadequacy of anti-colonial theories to explain it. The late Ghanaian economist George B. N. Ayittey has described the typical African post-colonial regime as a “vampire state.” Sanderson summarizes:

A vampire state is one run by crooks and gangsters who come to power either through rigged elections or coups d’état. Their leaders are functional illiterates who debauch all major government institutions: civil service, military, judiciary and banking system. They transform their countries into personal fiefdoms for the benefit of themselves, their cronies and tribesmen.

The author offers a brief tour of the continent filled with collapsing public services, universal corruption and bribery, civil wars, cannibalism, torture, a five hextillion percent rate of inflation (in Zimbabwe a few years ago) and outright genocide (in Rwanda). As he explains:

Before colonialism Africans had indigenous political institutions that were much simpler and more easily used to maintain order than those established by the colonists. The new colonial institutions were not natural to Africans and proved beyond their ability to manage effectively. Indeed, it took Europeans thousands of years to develop such institutions, . . . so it is no wonder that Africans did not understand them.

To this must be added that many who succeed in the ruthless world of African power politics have extremely antisocial personalities and are not really interested in economic development or the general welfare. They concentrate their efforts on enriching themselves at the expense of the countries they govern, displaying “a massive failure to adhere to social norms, no regard for truth, a lack of remorse or feelings of guilt, extreme aggressiveness, impulsiveness and recklessness, and an unusually weak moral sense.”

The final chapter of Race and Evolution is devoted to policy, explaining the failure of racial preferences, the lack of any evidence for the alleged benefits of “diversity,” and the many powerful objections to slavery reparations. Sanderson agrees with law professor Amy Wax’s position that “outsiders’ power to change existing [dysfunctional Black family] patterns is severely limited; the future of Black America is now in its own hands.” Yet he notes that the choices Blacks have to make are constrained by their own biological nature. Some Blacks do make good choices and prosper as a result, but these are generally those with above-average intelligence and an absence of antisocial character traits. Many others are unlikely ever to make better choices than they are making now.

Sanderson agrees that America needs a “national conversation on race,” as advocated, e.g., by Bill Clinton and Howard Schultz (the CEO of Starbucks), but unlike them he understands that it will do no good as long as knowledgeable race realists are banned from participation. As Arthur Jensen and J. Phillippe Rushton have written:

There is a need to educate the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics, and evolutionary biology. Ultimately, the public must accept the pragmatic reality that some groups will be overrepresented and others groups underrepresented in various socially valued outcomes. The view that one segment of the population is largely to blame for the problems of another segment can be harmful to racial harmony. Equating group disparities in success with racism on the part of the more successful group guarantees mutual resentment.

Racial equality of outcome is not achievable, but race relations could be greatly improved if the biological reality of racial differences were understood by more people.

There is not a lot of original material in Sanderson’s Race and Evolution, but I am not aware of any other single volume which summarizes so much useful information about race between two covers. It could do a great deal of good if made widely available. Is there any chance it will be? The author is currently trying to get an e-book version published on Amazon. For the time being, you can order the book directly from him for $12 US plus $4 US shipping (domestic) or 10 EUR plus 7 EUR shipping (outside the United States). Write to:

Stephen Sanderson
460 Washington Road, Apt. G-3
Pittsburgh, PA 15228

E-mail: sksander999@gmail.com

The author also maintains a website at www.stephenksanderson.com.

Lipton Matthews Interviews Richard Lynn

Richard Lynn is a distinguished academic and prolific researcher whose interests span a fascinating array of topics. Professor Lynn is a pioneer in the field of intelligence research and is well regarded for his numerous books documenting the association between intelligence and social outcomes.
1.Professor Lynn, you have written extensively on the predictive power of IQ, so could you explain why intelligence is such an important predictor of success?
Intelligent people learn faster and more effectively, and can solve problems that unintelligent people are unable to solve.
2. Contemporary economists infrequently examine the role of IQ in explaining disparities across countries, but you denounce this stance. Can you explain the mechanisms by which intelligence affects development?
Intelligent people are able to create more efficient institutions including government and industry.
3. Disparities in development between Northern and Southern Italy are usually ascribed to environmental factors, but should we assign a role to IQ?
There is about a 10-point IQ difference between North and South Italy which cannot be explained by environmental factors. The issue is examined in my paper “IQs in Italy are higher in the North: A reply to Felice and Giugliano.” These critics have contended that school quality could be responsible for the North-South differences. The first problem with this is that it does not account for the effect of intelligence in creating better schools. Secondly, the lower IQs in the south are attributable to the admixture of North African and Middle Eastern ancestry shown by the frequency of the haplogroup E1b1b.
4. James Flynn observed that throughout the twentieth century, IQ scores increased, but is the Flynn effect measuring g or specific cognitive skills that are environmentally determined?
Flynn attributed the secular increase in intelligence to a number of factors including improved nutrition, better schooling and a more stimulating environment. But many contend that these are a consequence of adaptations to changes in the cultural environment. Michael Woodley of Menie has shown that the Flynn effect is weakly related to g.
5. Researchers are documenting a reversal of the Flynn Effect. What is the cause of this occurrence?
My own research has shown that the decline in genotypic intelligence is caused by the negative association between intelligence and fertility, since highly intelligent people have fewer children. This subject is covered in my 2004 paper “New evidence of dysgenic fertility for intelligence in the United States.” In a more recent study “The Negative Flynn Effect: A Systematic Review,” co-written with Edward Dutton and Dimitri Van der Linder we list immigration and dysgenic fertility as explanations for the reversal.
Ole Rogeburd and his co-authors argue: “Our results remain consistent with a number of proposed hypotheses of IQ decline: changes in educational exposure or quality, changing media exposure, worsening nutrition, and social spillovers from increased immigration.” For this assertion to be sound the authors must provide evidence that schooling and nutrition are getting worse.
6. Sex differences in intelligence are observable and you argue that they become demonstrable during adolescence. Why is this the case?
In the evolutionary past men were responsible for hunting and warfare and this would have selected for greater intelligence and spatial abilities. In addition, intelligent men would have been more successful in competing for women. The sex difference in intelligence appears at the age of 16 years because the development of girls ceases at this age, whereas it continues for boys. Becker and Rindermann (2017) have confirmed that sex differences in intelligence appear during later adolescence.
7. Intelligence is unequally distributed across societies; therefore, could you provide an evolutionary account for the unequal distribution of intelligence.
The intelligence of societies increases in colder environments as an adaptation to the greater cognitive demands. I have called this the Cold Winters Theory. Peoples in cold environments needed a greater variety of complex tools than peoples in tropical and sub-tropical environments. Torrance (1983) has documented a link between latitude and the number and complexity of tools used by contemporary hunter-gatherers. He has shown that hunter-gatherers in tropical and subtropical latitudes like the Amazon Basin and New Guinea typically have been 10 and 20 different tools, while those in the colder northern latitudes of Siberia, Alaska and Greenland have been 25 and 60 different tools. The studies of Donald Templer, Satoshi Kanazawa, Bryan Pesta and Joseph Ryan have confirmed the link between cold climates and intelligence.
8. Some invoke the average intelligence of people living in the Arctic as a refutation of the Cold Winters Theory. Are they misinterpreting the theory?
This is explained in my book Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis (2015). The explanation lies in the small numbers of the Arctic Peoples whose population at the end of the twentieth century was only approximately 56,000 as compared with approximately 1.4 billion North East Asians. While it is impossible to make precise estimates of population sizes during the main Würm glaciation, there can be no doubt that the North East Asians were many times more numerous than the Arctic Peoples. The effect of the difference in population size will have been that mutations for higher intelligence occurred and spread in the North East Asians that never appeared in the Arctic Peoples. The North East Asians consisting of the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese would have formed a single extended breeding population of demes in which mutant alleles for high intelligence would have spread but would not have been transmitted to the Arctic peoples isolated by high mountain ranges and long distance. The Arctic peoples did, however, evolve a large brain size, approximately the same as that of the North East Asians, so it is curious that they do not have the same intelligence. A possible explanation for this is that the Arctic peoples have evolved a strong visual memory that would have been needed when they went out on long hunting expeditions and needed to remember landmarks in order to get home in largely featureless environments of snow and ice. An increase of this ability would have required an increase in brain size but is not measured in intelligence tests. A further possibility is that one or more new mutant alleles for more efficient neurophysiological processes underlying intelligence may have appeared in the North East Asians but not in the Arctic Peoples.
9. Although it is one of the most replicated findings in psychological research, many still doubt the validity of the Black-White IQ gap. Could you shed light on its genetic component?
Based on numerous sources which I discuss in Race Differences in Intelligence, Blacks consistently obtain lower IQs than Whites. This gap is present even when compared to Whites of a similar socio-economic status and in all countries. Furthermore, the study by Sandra Scarr [see S. Scarr, R. Weinberg, 1976; R. Weinberg, S. Scarr & I. D. Waldman, 1992; summarized by Lynn, 1994], showed that Black infants adopted by middle class whites do not gain an IQ advantage, showing that genetics must be responsible for the lower black IQ.
10. Exploring racial differences in personality traits like psychopathy and self-control is the next frontier in psychological research. How do you suggest researchers articulate their findings to a mainstream audience?
By publishing their findings. These will no doubt be ignored by mainstream media but eventually, the facts will be accepted.

Biology Is Blasphemy: Racist Reality Meets Anti-Racist Inanity

“Shocked, confused, and frankly horrified!” As Steve Sailer has reported, that’s how an anti-racist radiologist called Luke Oakden-Rayner sums up the reaction of himself and other medical researchers to a dark, dangerous, and deeply disturbing discovery in artificial intelligence (AI). What have they found? That AI has what Oakden-Rayner calls the “worst superpower.” It’s guilty of “medical racism,” because it can identify racial identity in X-rays and other medical images that, to human eyes, contain absolutely no clue as to race.

Emotion vs intellect

Is this a White lung or a Black lung or a Chinese lung? Humans can’t tell. But AI can. And ditto for the heart, the liver, the pancreas, the spleen, and, it appears, everything else in the human body. As that medical researcher despairingly concludes: “[T]here is no easy way to remove racial information from images. It is everywhere and it is in everything.”

Can I sympathize with his shock and horror? In fact, I can. As a kid, I once turned over a piece of old carpet in a shed and was startled and disgusted to see a host of plump and pale larvae chewing away at the underside. Ugh! But that was an instinctive reaction, not a scientific one. Today I hope I’d quickly overcome my disgust at a similar discovery with some amateur science: What species do the larvae belong to? How can they nourish themselves on carpet? How do they get water? And so on.

The blasphemous brain

Scientists quâ scientists shouldn’t be “shocked, confused and horrified” by an unexpected discovery. No, they should be pleased and interested. Unexpected discoveries, like the presence of microscopic life in tooth-scrapings or anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, are often gateways to greater things, to an expansion or overturning of previous scientific understanding. And the anti-racist radiologist Luke Oakden-Rayner and his colleagues were certainly not expecting what they have discovered:

Firstly, the performance of these [AI] models ranges from high to absurd. An AUC [Area Under the Curve, or correct identification] of 0.99 for recognising the self-reported race of a patient, which has no recognised medical imaging correlate? This is flat out nonsense.

Every radiologist I have told about these results is absolutely flabbergasted, because despite all of our expertise, none of us would have believed in a million years that x-rays and CT scans contain such strong information about racial identity. Honestly we are talking jaws dropped — we see these scans everyday and we have never noticed. (AI has the worst superpower… medical racism, Luke Oakden-Rayner, 2nd August 2021)

But in fact this discovery about racial information in “x-rays and CT scans” shouldn’t have been unexpected, let alone “shocking, confusing and frankly horrifying.” Anatomists have known for centuries that race can be identified from the skeleton — indeed, from the skull alone. If bones carry “racial information,” why not organs? And in fact, just as the skull commits blasphemy and betrays the reality of race, so does the brain inside the skull:

Modeling the 3D Geometry of the Cortical Surface with Genetic Ancestry

  • Geometry of the human cortical surface contains rich ancestral information
  • The most informative features are regional patterns of cortical folding and gyrification
  • This study provides insight on the influence of population structure on brain shape

… Here, we demonstrate that the three-dimensional geometry of cortical surface is highly predictive of individuals’ genetic ancestry in West Africa, Europe, East Asia, and America, even though their genetic background has been shaped by multiple waves of migratory and admixture events. The geometry of the cortical surface contains richer information about ancestry than the areal variability of the cortical surface, independent of total brain volumes. Besides explaining more ancestry variance than other brain imaging measurements, the 3D geometry of the cortical surface further characterizes distinct regional patterns in the folding and gyrification of the human brain associated with each ancestral lineage. (Modeling the 3D Geometry of the Cortical Surface with Genetic Ancestry, Current Biology, Volume 25, Issue 15, 3rd August 2015)

Leftist lies about the human brain: an anti-racist propaganda poster

That brain-study was published six years ago, which is a long time by the standards of rapidly advancing modern science. But at the same time as science is advancing, leftists are doing their best to obscure, distort, and deny any of its findings that contradict leftism. If the structure and size of the brain differ by race, an obvious conclusion follows: so do the functioning of the brain and the cognitive performance of different races. How could they not? The human intellect isn’t a ghost in the machine, but a product of the machine, that is, of the immensely complex electro-chemical mechanisms of the brain. Even if all humans were running the same neurological software, we wouldn’t be running it on the same systems. Some brains are faster and more efficient, some are slower and less efficient.

“Race is everywhere and in everything”

And those differences in the brain arise in decisive part from genetic differences, both within races and between them. The same applies to every other part of the human body. As the anti-racist doctor said: “[Race] is everywhere and it is in everything.” This isn’t surprising, because “everything” — every organ and aspect of physiology — is under different selective pressures in different physical and cultural environments. For example, lungs and red blood-cells that work well in low-lying Tahiti won’t work so well in elevated Tibet. As the racist Charles Darwin taught us, it’s a basic rule of biology that living organisms become adapted to their environments. Modern humans evolved in Africa, then migrated across the world, entering new environments and acquiring new adaptations, both directly, by natural selection, and indirectly, by inter-breeding with previous human migrants like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other now-extinct members of the Homo genus.

Leftists like to pride themselves on their intellectual sophistication and their ability to cope with “complexity.” But when it comes to human biology and evolution, they become as hungry for simplicity and comforting falsehoods as any fundamentalist Christian. Rather than accept our rich and fascinating racial differences, leftists cling to the nonsensical slogan of “There’s only one race — the human race!” What could be simpler than that? And what could be falser? Reality says that racial differences are much more than skin-deep. They’re brain-deep, lung-deep, liver-deep, kidney-deep, and everything-else-deep. Luke Oakden-Rayner, the anti-racist doctor, claims that “There is no causal pathway linking racial identity and the appearance of, for example, pneumonia on a chest x-ray. By definition these features are spurious.”

GIF from Luke Oakden-Rayner’s blog: “Is this the darkest timeline? Are we the baddies?”

The soothing simplicity of falsehood

In fact they’re “spurious” only “by definition” within the dogmas of leftism. But reality is racist and doesn’t care about leftist dogma. Disease affects different races in different ways. Leftists want to ignore this complexity and insist on the soothing simplicity of “No race but the human race!” They don’t recognize the crypto-religious nature of their own behaviour. For example, leftists jeer at and mock fundamentalist Christians for their rejection of Darwinism. The fundamentalists are disturbed by the idea of humans descending from ape-like ancestors and have sought refuge in the soothing simplicity of a God-created Adam and Eve from whom we all descend. But leftist denial of race serves the same psychological function. Indeed, its simplicity doesn’t just shield leftists from disturbing reality, but also allows them to indulge in an ancient religious custom: hunting for scapegoats.

If humans are all the same under the skin, then only one thing can explain why Blacks, for example, fail so badly and behave so badly. It can’t be anything innate or intrinsic to Blacks, so it must be an external force of evil: White racism! Whites are responsible for Black failure. Whites are oppressing and exploiting Blacks. What else could explain White success and Black failure? Well, it could be (and is) innate racial differences in cognition and psychology. That’s why the medical researchers described above are “shocked, confused, and frankly horrified” by what AI is telling them about biological reality. Their findings contradict their ideology and, like good leftists but unlike good scientists, they value ideology far above reality. In fact, they don’t seem to value reality at all, as you can see from one very telling reference in the anti-racist doctor’s blog-post. He lists examples of unacceptable racial discrimination, including the horrific fact that “Black newborns are substantially more likely to survive if they are treated by a Black doctor.”

Grinding non-Whites into the dirt

There you have it: White racism is killing Black babies! Or is it? In fact, no. Consider that patients with ingrowing toenails “are substantially more likely to survive” than patients with brain-cancer. Does this prove that chiropodists are better and more caring doctors than brain-surgeons and radiologists? Obviously not. As Greg Cochran pointed out at West Hunter, Black newborns with dangerous medical problems are more likely to be treated by White doctors than by Black doctors, who are “a much smaller percentage of specialists.” That explains the difference in survival rates. Meanwhile, Hispanic newborns in America have lower mortality and higher life-expectancy than White newborns. How can this be, when White racism and White supremacy are at work non-stop in America, remorselessly grinding Hispanics and other non-Whites into the dirt?

Anti-racism is the Church of the Damned: Whites are racist “no matter what” (see rule 10)

Well, leftists don’t ask how that can be, because they’re not interested in the truth. For leftists, ideology trumps reality, which is why they believe in censorship and suppression, not free speech and open debate. And what they can’t censor or suppress, they will distort and deny. At American Renaissance Gregory Hood has reported these highly revealing words by the leftist philosopher Daniel Dennett: “[I]f I encountered people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it for the public good. I’d want to make up some good epithets, such as genetic determinist or reductionist or Darwinian Fundamentalist, and then flail those straw men as hard as I could. As the saying goes, it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”

The innate evil of Whites

Countless other leftists think in the same way, because truth does not matter to them. The message of racial difference cannot be given a “fair hearing,” because it’s too “dangerous.” So instead of the truth about race, leftists insist on a lie about race: that it doesn’t exist and that all non-White failure is due to the greed, selfishness, and malevolence of Whites. This lie incites non-White violence against Whites and justifies systemic discrimination against Whites in education and employment. But underneath that leftist insistence on the non-existence of race is a contradictory belief in the innate evil of Whites and the immaculate conception of non-Whites, who are born without hereditary stain or spot. As Gregory Hood has said at AmRen: for Whites, anti-racism is a Church of the Damned, offering no hope of salvation or redemption. Whites are racist whatever they do, say or think. The only solution is dissolution. In the words of the late, great anti-racist Dr Noel Ignatiev (1940-2019), we have to “Abolish the white race.”

The late, great Jewish anti-racist Dr Noel Ignatiev

Ignatiev edited a magazine called Race Traitor, whose catchy strap-line was “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” But during what New Yorker magazine called his “Long Fight against Whiteness,” he always said that “abolition” of “the white race” meant merely abolition of the concept and privileges of “whiteness,” not the physical subjugation or extermination of Whites. I don’t believe his disclaimers. Ignatiev was a White-hating extremist, which is why it should come as no surprise that he was also Jewish — a Jew pretending to be a “fellow-white” representing himself as a traitor to his race. You’ve seen above how we can read race reliably from the human body. But I think we can also read race reliably in a more literal way: from the words people use and the ideas they promote.

It is no surprise, for example, that a Jew was the inventor of the slogan “Abolish the white race” and the editor of an anti-White magazine called Race Traitor. Nor is it a surprise that Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and Steven Rose have led the fight to deny the existence of race. You can read their Jewish psychology in their words and I think you can also read their Jewish genetics. Psychology is under decisive genetic influence, after all. I predict that artificial intelligence could also be trained to identify race from samples of written or spoken language. Language is another aspect of human biology and that anti-racist doctor captured a central truth of human biology when he said: “Race is everywhere and in everything.” To put it another way: Biology is blasphemy because reality is racist.