1. What is Race? What is Race Realism?
Race Realism is a subcategory of Biological Realism. Being a race realist means acknowledging that:
- Race is defined as “a statistical cluster of genetic variation characterized by phenotypic similarity and shared ancestry”.
- All the genes of the various races in the world occur at different statistical frequencies for each race due to all the different evolutionary and selectionary pressures that persisted in their ancestral environments for many thousands of years.
- Race is a categorization scheme for human beings based on phenotypic similarity. Racial categories are useful because they tend to have predictive and explanatory power, barring exceptions.
- A race is a descriptive category of things, not a subject (more on that below).
That’s it. But you have to understand what a “statistical cluster” is and what that means with regards to race and genetics, and that racial differences are often continuous. Race realism is a rational inquiry into the nature of race. Race Realism ≠ Racism.
A race is a descriptive category of things. Just because I can assign people into descriptive categories, it does not follow that those categories will interact with the world as units. In general, they won’t. It would be very difficult to act on Europeans as a class, just as it would be very difficult to act on all left-handed men over 6 feet tall. Neither class meets the criteria for an object. A rock is an object that can be acted upon as a unit. It has internal coherence by its nature. A race is not an object; it has no internal coherence.
Likewise a race is not a subject. It has no will or awareness. It does not act in the world. The white race doesn’t have agency any more than the set of all left-handed men over 6 feet tall has agency. Both are merely descriptive categories to which individuals can be assigned. That’s why it is stupid to blame whites as a class for such things as slavery and colonialism. White people never did anything as a unit. There were various individuals and social groups doing various things, the net result of which included such outcomes as slavery, colonialism and the expansion of European populations into the Western Hemisphere.
- The change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolution is a three-step process consisting of: 1. Reproduction (to excess), 2. Variation (caused by mutations) in offspring, 3. Selection.
- Biological Realism
- The unbiased application of the implications of evolutionary reasoning onto human beings, regarding race, sex, selfishness, eugenics/dysgenics, and intrinsic violence.
- Biological Determinism
- Race Realism
- See the previous section.
- Scientific Racism
- A pejorative term for “race realism” that misrepresents what it actually is. This term is intended to suggest that the belief is motivated by racism and justified by “pseudo-science”. Race Realism does not imply racism.
- “Human Bio-Diversity” (HBD)
- Another term that generally means “race realism”, but can be extended to also talk about other things like sexual differences and such. It seems that HBD may have fewer stigmas or negative connotations than either “Race Realism” or “Scientific Racism”.
- A statistical cluster of genetic variation characterized by phenotypic similarity. Races are both social constructs and useful categories for describing biological realities.
- Statistical Cluster
- A grouping of a set of objects in such a way that objects in the same group (called a cluster) are more similar (in some sense) to each other than to those in other groups (clusters). For more info, see: Wikipedia: Cluster Analysis.
- Having genes and ancestry from multiple different races. Note that being Mixed-Race cannot be well-defined unless two or more races are defined beforehand.
- Ethnicity / Ethnic Group
- A grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area.
- Irrational prejudice or discrimination based upon race or ethnicity.
- The West
- Countries that have majority European populations and/or have been influenced by Western Culture, including Europe, the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. Sometimes I use this term more generally to also include Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore since those countries have also been influenced by Western culture, and have decent genetics for modernity, as far as our policy objectives are concerned.
- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and other countries that have been significantly influenced by Western culture. These countries also have similar values to Western countries and decent genetics for modernity, as far as our policy objectives are concerned.
- The Great Replacement (of White People)
- The phenomenon where white people are being replaced by foreign ethnicities within Western countries. It is very real and in several decades, it is projected to be finished by the end of the 21st century.
- White Preservationism
- A movement to counter the Great Replacement by increasing white fertility rates in the Western World. From a eugenics standpoint, the goal of white preservationism is to preserve (most of) the (good) genes of Europeans, not necessarily to preserve white people as a distinctive race.
- White Nationalism
- An ideology that promotes ethnostates for white people, perhaps as a way to support white preservationism.
- White Supremacy
- A form of race idealism that values white people.
- Race Idealism
- An ideology that espouses racial superiority, preserving racial composition, and racial solidarity (v1) as its core values. Race idealism is accompanied with racism and selective data and interpretations to affirm its values.
- Ethnostate (v1)
- A country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group.
- Ethnostate (v2)
- A sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.
- Ethnostate (v3)
- An ethnonationalist state that enforces racial or ethnic homogeneity.
- The same thing as an ethnostate, except there doesn’t necessarily have to be a single ethnic group that populates the majority of the country.
- A state that enforces Eugenic Population Control, Laissez-Faire Eugenics, and Immigration restrictions, regardless of race or ethnicity.
- Race Denialism
- The denial of Race Realism, either with fallacies and/or a refusal to extend the implications of evolutionary reasoning onto human beings.
- Race Creationism
- The same thing as Race Denialism, with the connotation that the belief is similar to religious dogma.
- Racial Solidarity (v1)
- Solidarity between all the members of a race with each other. Proponents of racial solidarity tend to believe in kin altruism.
- Racial Solidarity (v2)
- Solidarity between people from different races with each other.
Read More: Race 101 Genetics Glossary - Thuletide.
4. Race Taxonomy
Race realists will generally contend that human races are different enough to be categorized into separate subspecies, while race denialists contend that races are too similar to be considered different subspecies. Regardless of people’s opinions, chosen taxonomy, and their criteria for racial/taxonomic classification, this contention is a distraction from the bottom line that human races are different from each other to have their own names as well as noticeable and distinguishable physiological features.
But all humans are different from each other.
This is tactical nihilism. Races are different from each other in the sense that setting a parameter to the right level could classify entire groups of millions of people into distinct taxa. Every algorithm for classifying taxa and taxonomy has to have parameters plugged into it. You have a parameter, and you say “I only classify these as different taxa if it crosses this parameter”. In essence, this means that anybody can come up with whatever algorithm they want for classifying races as distinct taxa, or not.
Regardless, when you tell a clustering algorithm to group people based on genetic data (and the parameter for separating humans into distinct groups is set to the right level), you get the socially defined races with practically perfect accuracy. This is exemplified by a genetic cluster analysis of 3636 people grouping people into 4 categories who identified as white, Asian, black, or Hispanic. Only 5 of those people fit into a category different to that of their self-identified race (Tang, 2004). The algorithm GRAF-pop is able to predict individual ancestry with high accuracy (Yumi, 2019)
See Also: Race 101: Genetics Glossary.
4.1. K-Cluster Analysis
The existence of an “ideal” number of clusters is not required for there to be validity to the structure we find in the clusters. When one chooses n+1 clusters instead of choosing n clusters, the effect is splitting a cluster rather than reshuffling all the clusters. Then what you usually see is individuals staying in their current cluster and also being assigned to a sub-cluster. There isn’t any “moving from one cluster to another cluster”, except perhaps some fuzziness on the edges, which does not destroy the validity of the concept. If you look closely at this chart showing the genetic similarities and differences of modern humans, what we find is that:
- When K=1, the cluster is all of humanity.
- When K=2, the clusters are Sub-Saharan Africans (which are still in the “humanity” cluster) and Non-Sub-Saharan Africans (which are still in the “humanity” cluster).
- When K=3, the clusters are Sub-Saharan Africans, West Eurasians (which are still in the “Non-Sub-Saharan African cluster) and East-Eurasian+Amerindians (which are still in the ”Non-Sub-Saharan African“ cluster)
- When K=4, the clusters roughly correspond to Sub-Saharan Africans, West Eurasians, East Eurasians (which are still in the East-Eurasian+Amerindians cluster) and Amerindians (which are still in the East-Eurasian+Amerindians cluster)
- When K=5, the clusters roughly correspond to Khoisan (which are still in the Sub-Saharan African cluster), non-Khoisan Sub-Saharan-Africans (which are still in the Sub-Saharan African cluster), West Eurasians, East Eurasians, and Amerindians.
- When K=6, the South Eurasian cluster splits from East Asians. This ancestry is found at high levels in Oceania and South India, and low levels throughout East and Southeast Asia.
- When K=7, Siberians appear as a separate group, distinct from East Asians. Even at this level of analysis, Siberia is relatively heterogeneous. The vast region is accessible to a diverse range of racial and ethnic groups and historical migrations. As a result, the Siberian population carries East Asian, West Eurasian, and Amerindian ancestry.
- When K=8, South Asians appear as a distinct group. Ancestry components previously classified as West Eurasian and South Eurasian (blue and purple) are now almost entirely South Asian (green). This green component most likely represents a prehistoric population descended from both West and South Eurasian peoples.
- When K=9, the West Eurasian splits into European and West Asian. The latter is labeled as such (rather than the usual Middle-Eastern-North-African) because this ancestry component likely originated in West Asia before spreading to North Africa via an ‘into Africa’ return migration.
- And so on and so forth.
The “race exists” position is “there is some inherent structure in all this”.
The “race doesn’t exist” position is “there is no inherent structure in all this and/or there are no phenotypical implications of any of this”
5. Why does it matter that people accept that race is biological?
Because race realism is the best scientific explanation for differences in crime rates, academic achievement, and success between different races in the modern world. If we completely rule out the best explanation, we deny the influence of biology on human outcomes, and we make it evil to challenge the Left’s denial of biology, then the Left has free reign to come up with all sorts of insane, ridiculous, and racist anti-white conspiracy theories and explanations to account for the achievement gaps between races. These mistaken beliefs motivate the Left to pursue “solutions” to the achievement gaps that involve dismantling meritocracy and thwarting criminal justice at every opportunity with extreme zeal and steady progress. This is really bad if civilization is to have a decent future.
On the other hand, if people can be convinced that the racial outcome gaps are caused by genetic differences instead of environment factors, then people will stop believing in hidden forces and conspiracies. The result is that meritocracy and criminal justice will be preserved, instead of dismantled in the name of “racial equality”. If we want to preserve civilization, then we need millions of people to come to terms with biological realism. It’s the truth.
TL;DR: Accepting race realism eliminates the justification for many of the detrimental social policies in the West, from “anti-racism” to mass immigration.
5.1. To argue race is real is to argue genes are real, which is to argue for Gattaca.
That could be true if our society isn’t rational enough to fully understand the implications of biology, statistics, and probabilistic inference. But to argue that race isn’t real is to reinforce the assumption that racial achievement gaps are completely environmental and must be caused by some sort of historical “social injustice”, which leads to support for affirmative action and anti-white and anti-Asian racism in order to make up for those gaps. We don’t see how that’s any better. If it is indeed the case that different races are genetically predisposed to have different behaviors, then we ought to accept the reality. Recent research also suggests that humans have essentially lived in a caste-based society with low, stable social mobility for nearly all of human history.
In the 2004 democratic transhumanist book Citizen Cyborg, bioethicist James Hughes criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca as fear-mongering, arguing:
- Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons.
- In the United States, people are already screened by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease, for actuarial purposes.
- Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society should develop genetic information privacy laws such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act signed into law on May 21, 2008 that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination. Citizens should then be able to make a complaint to the appropriate authority if they believe they have been discriminated against because of their genotype.
The numbered list above was copied from the Gattaca Wikipedia Article, under CC-BY-SA 4.0.
But race realism has been used as an excuse to justify slavery, segregation, and racism during the Age of Colonization.
That is true, but that’s not an argument against race realism. If people are dedicated to being racist, they’ll think of anything to rationalize their beliefs. Regardless, recognizing differences between humans does not imply hatred of humans. People who believe “we ought to treat people the same regardless of race” aren’t going to start suddenly hating other humans if it’s revealed that IQ distributions and other behavioral and physiological characteristics vary by race. If anything, recognizing differences between humans is important for forming a functional society.
6. Hasn’t Academia Debunked Race Realism As Anti-Scientific Pseudoscience?
No, it hasn’t. In summary:
- The more politically and geographically distant a country is from the West, the less likely its scientists are to deny the biological validity of race.
- Biologists are less likely to deny race than anthropologists.
- People who study animals are less likely to deny race than people who study humans.
- Since the 1600s, scientists have divided humanity into around five major biological or ’racial’ groups.
- Denying the biological validity of race and the existence of these five major racial groups was popularized after the 1960s, spiking around the 1980s.
- Present-day Western scientists, who are located in the epicenter of race-denialism, are split around 50/50 on the issue of race.
- The global scientific consensus is overwhelmingly opposed to race-denialism. Half of the scientists of a handful of Western countries deny race, while the rest of the world unquestioningly accepts race as a basic fact of nature.
- Human “races” were historically viewed as distinct subspecies.
While we don’t endorse dividing humanity into the same five traditional racial groups, we do acknowledge that it reflected reality reasonably well, given the lack of further knowledge and the technological limitations of past times.
This question also assumes that Academia can generally be trusted, even though there are multiple reasons why Academia often cannot be trusted:
- Ideological Bias
- Perverse Incentives
- Social Circularity
- Naive/Fake Empiricism
- Statistical Manipulation (e.g. p-Hacking)
For the record, there is still a lot of valid, good-faith scientific research out there, but most of the academic “research” these days is either fabricated or dishonest, due to the reasons discussed in the links below. The following essays and videos explain in more detail why most modern Academic Research is fake, with sound reasoning and data:
- Blithering Genius: Why Most Academic Research is Fake
- Ideas and Data Blog: Why Most Academic Research is Fake
- Veritasium: Why Most Academic Research is Wrong
- Wikipedia: The Replicability Crisis
- Research Less Likely to Be True is Cited More
- The Negative Effects Academia has had on Society
- The Conflict Between College Rankings and Intellectually-Honest Research
- Mason Gaffney: Neo-Classical Strategem As A Strategy Against Henry George
- Veritasium: Regression to the Mean
- Why we have Passed Peak Idea Production
But race realism has been justified by religious, moral, and pseudo-scientific claims.
That has been true historically, but recognizing the invalidity of those arguments does not disprove race realism. To say otherwise is a Argument from Fallacy. Just because the reasoning for an argument is wrong, that does not imply that the conclusion is wrong too.
7. But there’s no objective way to define “intelligence” or quantify it with IQ scores.
This is not true. We certainly can define intelligence, and it is measured very well by IQ tests. The misconceptions about IQ revolve around misunderstanding what it measures, what affects it, and how it is calculated. Anybody who denies that it’s possible for IQ scores to be a valid general measure for multiple cognitive abilities would also have to reject the validity of all the other general variables in this list, lest they would have contradicting beliefs.
This is a schematic layout of the findings of one particular investigation to the genetic architecture of IQ (Panizzon et al, 2014), and captures our basic findings on the matter. At the top, and behind all cognitive ability is a central “g” factor (initially for “general intelligence”), which is behind the various major mental domains, which themselves have an impact on specific tested abilities, as seen here. The effectiveness of any mental endeavor, especially the more cognitively demanding ones (i.e., the ones that require you to “think”) will depend on an underlying mental “horsepower” so to speak. g is that horsepower.
IQ is a useful metric because it has predictive power for measuring things beyond “intelligence”, such as educational attainment, income, health, longevity, criminality, getting and staying married, etc. Indeed, the g hierarchy in the above depiction works for a host of other things past intellectual abilities. People who are good at IQ tests are hardly only good at taking IQ tests.
An individual’s IQ score will tend to be stable – that is, repeat testing will tend to give roughly similar results. We all know of occasions where we have freak results from tests, but if you tended to test significantly above average in one instance, you are likely to keep getting scores on the high side. IQ can be influenced by environmental manipulation, but there are also effective ways to eliminate that.
IQ tests are culturally biased against Blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups.
If this claim were true, then Blacks and other ethnic groups should perform worse on IQ tests relative to their “true” intelligence. If so, then IQ tests would under-predict their real-world performance relative to Whites. But we see exactly the reverse. IQ tests over-predict the performance of individuals from lower-scoring groups, and Blacks do worse in real-life than we would expect from their IQ scores alone. Cultural bias cannot be an explanation, especially when we notice that each racial/ethnic population performs roughly equally well regardless of what country they live in. It’s hard to reconcile a “cultural” bias that seems to be consistent across different cultures. The simpler explanation is that Blacks have lower IQs due to genetic factors.
Lastly, we know that there are visible physiological correlates with IQ, such as head and brain size, as well various anatomical features of the brain, such as cortical thickness (Pietschnig et al 2014, Shaw et al 2006, Menary et al 2013, Karama, Deary, et al 2011). A recent research team found that they were able to accurately gauge IQ from brain MRI imagery alone (correlation of 0.72 between prediction based on imagery and test-measured IQ – Wang et al 2015 – see also Steve Hsu, Information Processing: IQ prediction from structural MRI).
Read More: The IQ Question.
8. No one has found a “gene for intelligence” or any behavioral trait, so intelligence and behavioral traits can’t be inherited.
This claim reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics and how genes work. Firstly, the genome is not like a shopping list, where there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between each “gene” and some phenotypic feature. Rather, genes are like a recipe. Physical1 traits only emerge through the complex interaction of all the genes in the genome. As such, most traits (especially behavioral ones1) are polygenic. They depend on the action of many genes, so the whole idea that there is a (single) “gene for” X trait is generally misleading. In fact, research shows that at least 84% of all genes are expressed primarily or exclusively in the brain. This creates a multitude of different potential behavioral phenotypes that people could have (Ball, Gilbert, & Overly, 2012; Hawrylycz et al, 2012).
The other fallacy here is that it’s not necessary to know which genetic variants lead to variation in a trait to know that trait variation is affected by genetic variation. It’s true that there’s been little success in pinpointing the relevant genetic variants that produce variation in intelligence or behavioral traits (so far). But that’s also true for human height. As of 2017, only 27.4% of the genes responsible for height have been identified. No one would deny that how tall you are is heavily dependent on your genes, yet we have a hard time finding which genes make the difference. The same is true for most behavioral traits.
Classic behavioral genetic methods, such as twin and adoption studies, are enough to establish the high heritability of intelligence and behavioral traits by themselves. Likewise, Genome-wide Complex Trait Analyses (GCTA) provide direct verification by showing that genetic similarity across large populations is related to variation in intelligence and many physical and behavioral traits. These unambiguously demonstrate that the genes under examination are related to trait variation. Differences between groups and individuals can therefore be pinned to genes that differ between groups and individuals, even if we don’t know which genes are responsible for the variation or how they interact with each other.
9. Wouldn’t high intelligence be evolutionarily advantageous in all environments?
No, that’s an assumption. More advanced mental abilities are not always the best evolutionary strategy because intelligence has costs and benefits.
- Brain tissue is very energy-demanding, so that’s a major disadvantage to having a larger brain.
- Many genes have to interact to create neural tissue. The bigger and more complex the brain, the more it is vulnerable to accidents at the gene level, like random mutations.
- Mutations happen more often at warmer temperatures. In Drosophila, an increase of 10℃ will double or triple the mutation rate. Tight underwear has probably done more to harm the human genome than fallout from nuclear testing (Sutton, 1975, p. 318).
- However strong the natural selection may be for a bigger brain, the mutation rate is pushing back in the opposite direction. Beyond a certain size, big brains are possible only where the mutation rate is relatively low—in cooler regions at higher latitudes.
- There are numerous successful animal species with small or nonexistent brains.
- Larger cranial/brain sizes make human childbirth more difficult and more dangerous. They also require larger pelvis structures and longer pregnancies. The former makes the body less efficient at running.
- If the brain requires further growth during infancy and childhood (during which an individual is dependent on others for survival), then there is a longer period until the brain reaches maturity, which is another disadvantage.
- IQ and giftedness tend to positively correlate with higher introversion (Source), while extroversion tends to positively correlate with EQ and higher social intelligence. There are benefits to introversion, but there’s no reason to assume that introversion is always advantageous in all scenarios.
- IQ and myopia both tend to positively correlate with each other. A possible genetic explanation is that greater brain matter (and thus higher IQ) creates more pressure on the eyes, which worsens eyesight.
- It’s well-known that higher IQ negatively correlates with fertility in the world’s modern environment.
It clearly doesn’t follow that increased intelligence always improves reproductive success.
However, we can observe that increases in IQ seem to be linked to the growth of civilization: laws, money, writing, math, etc, or things that require abstract reasoning. It’s likely that some environmental circumstances are more likely to produce more complex civilizations (and hence higher IQs) than others.
- If a human population has a high rate of disease, that can prevent overpopulation, and thus prevent any wars that would otherwise be caused by said overpopulation.
- The existence of seasons creates environmental and seasonal conditions requires that humans must plan ahead by months if they are to survive and reproduce.
- They must prepare so that they don’t starve or freeze during winter.
- They must also prepare and deduce efficient agricultural practices according to seasonal changes.
And of course, the effects of all these factors are magnified when complex civilizations are sustained for long periods of time.
10. Addressing Other Race Fallacies
10.1. But race is only skin color.
Anyone with working eyes can see that race is not merely “skin color”, “just a melanin level”, etc. If race was only about skin color, then it wouldn’t be possible to identify the races of albino people… but it is.
Moreover, this page features dozens of examples of how race is far more than just skin color.
10.2. Pancake Fallacy: “All races are mixed therefore race does not exist”
Human populations can’t be kept separate enough for long enough to develop highly distinct races in the modern world anymore.
That’s irrelevant. Mixed races inherit qualities from both of their ancestral races, so interbreeding merely changes the statistical genetic frequencies that define the world’s races. And when races do mix, the resulting race inherits the respective percentages of its ancestral races. Races may be mixing all over the world, but mestizos, mulattoes, and hapas are all still different from each other. Each of them may be half-white, but they’re still half Amerindian, half sub-Saharan African, and half East Asian respectively. Thus, they all behave, think, and act differently from each other. Same with mulattoes, zambos, and blasians (all half black).
10.3. Lewontin’s Fallacy Explained and Debunked
10.4. “All humans 99.9% genetically identical, therefore race isn’t real”
10.5. Transracial Fallacy: “Two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other”
10.6. There can’t be racial differences because human evolution stopped 50000+ years ago.
This is not true. To the contrary, human evolution has accelerated during that time. Since the advent of agriculture over the last 10,000 years, the human genome has been changing 100 times faster. In short, agriculture led to greatly increased population size. Increased population meant more individuals in which mutations could appear. More mutations meant that natural selection had more to work with. Additionally, the rise of states and the more varied environments created by humans meant stronger and more geographically and temporally variable selective pressures, which further sped up human evolution. The age estimate of several human alleles (genetic variants) from Hawks et al. can be graphically demonstrated.
Read More: The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending (2009).
Read More: Wikipedia: Recent Human Evolution.
11. Aren’t most / all racial disparities better explained by environmental factors?
We can note the following tendencies about differences between people:
- For differences between individuals within a group, we can quantify the extent that genes are involved on a statistical level.
- For differences in the same group at different times, the answer depends on the length of time under consideration and the degree of difference in question.
- For big changes that occurred over a short period of time (e.g. the rise in obesity rates, the decline in marriage rates, etc), we know that environmental differences are almost entirely responsible, mainly due to evolutionary mismatch.
- For differences over a long period time, genetic change (either through demographic change or evolutionary changes) can and does have an effect.
- For differences between groups, these can be caused by a combination of genetic differences and/or environmental differences.
Many other authors have addressed this topic too:
11.1. Occam’s Razor on Racial Disparities
Aren’t most / all racial disparities better explained by environmental factors?
No. If there exist racial disparities and achievement gaps between races, and different races are defined by having different genetics, then Occam’s Razor concludes that genetic differences should be the default hypothesis for explaining why racial disparities exist. That doesn’t mean we assume that every difference is genetic, but that is the default explanation. We should only consider other explanations if there is data that cannot be explained by the simplest explanation (i.e. genetic differences).
The causal connection between environment and social outcomes is no more straight-forward than the causal connection between genes and social outcomes. We know that genes affect brain development. We also know that social outcomes are affected by individual actions, and individual actions are generated by brains. So, there is no mystery about the causal pathway between genetics and social outcomes.
Evolved differences in mental traits are no less likely than evolved differences in skin color, hair type, bone structure, disease immunity, metabolism, etc. Belief in the equality of mental traits between races is a religious assumption. It has no rational/scientific basis. On the other hand, there’s many reasons to believe that average intelligence varies between populations.
Arguing that genetic differences should be the default hypothesis for racial disparities is a correlation-causation fallacy.
Occam’s Razor is a necessary principle for logical induction, not a correlation-causation fallacy. A correlation-causation fallacy is when one leaps from “A is correlated with B” to “A causes B” without considering other possible explanations. For example, it would be a fallacy to leap from “Poverty is correlated with crime” to “Poverty causes crime” without considering other possible explanations, such as “Poverty and crime are both affected by genes”. In most cases, correlation does imply some causal relationship. You can find spurious correlations, if you go looking for them, but obvious correlations usually have a causal explanation. The point of the correlation-causation fallacy is that we can’t assume a direction of causation from a correlation.
“I’m rich because mom and dad left me money and a house” fits Occam’s Razor better than “I’m rich because mom and dad left me good genes that enhanced my earning potential”.
This hypothetical example fails from the get-go to eliminate the influence of genetic differences when it’s trying to argue for environmental differences. Perhaps white parents are more likely to become richer and wealthier than black parents because European genes are better suited towards achieving higher SES on average. If so, then of course white parents would have more money and wealth to pass onto their children, compared to black parents. If the white children also had better genes for enhancing their earning potential compared to the black children, then that would further compound the effects for the hereditarian hypothesis.
Since neighborhoods are composed of people, it also fits Occam’s Razor better to conclude that good people make good neighborhoods and bad people make bad neighborhoods rather than the other way around, generally speaking. Bad neighborhoods can have negative effects on the people who live in them, but it doesn’t fit Occam’s Razor as well to suppose the opposite conclusion is stronger, i.e. good neighborhoods make good people, and bad neighborhoods make bad people.
Note that we are not denying that environmental factors at least partially contribute to racial disparities. We’re just saying that environmental factors aren’t the main cause. Most race realists would generally estimate that racial disparities are ~80-88% genetic and ~12-20% environmental. By contrast, many (most?) race denialists would say that racial disparities are 0% genetic and 100% environmental, so this suggests that the race realist position is more nuanced than the position presented by most race denialists.
We can investigate what proportion of the variance in a given sample is explained by environmental factors, and what proportion is explained by genetics. If we eliminate the environmental factors one after another (iodine, malnutrition etc), the proportion of the variance that is explained by genetics + random noise will definitionally approach 100%. Of course if we ignore that, it can be said that any trait is both 100% genetic and 100% environmental in an absolute sense, a phenotype being the expression of genes in an environment.
11.2. Racial Disparities in Intelligence
Identical twin studies and adoption studies make it easy to separate the genetic factors from environmental factors regarding the variance among individuals. When we examine identical twins who were raised apart (thus isolating genetics as a control variable), we see that they are still similar in IQ. The inheritability of IQ and behavioral traits is very stable throughout life, reaching into the 0.8-0.9+ range during adulthood when genes have been given the chance to fully express themselves. This means, out of a group of people, at least 80-90% of the variance between them can be attributed to genetic differences.
Likewise, we could compare adoptive siblings who live under a “shared environment” (thus isolating environment as a control variable). The impact of environmental factors is consistently 0. Adoptive siblings might as well be random strangers for the degree of similarity between them in intelligence, behavioral traits, or outcomes. The research conclusively tells us that there aren’t any such lasting potential effects from parenting or upbringing. For differences between groups, it follows that the provably high heritability of behavioral traits and the reality of genetic racial differences that differences in intelligence between races must also heavily genetic.
11.2.1. The Black-White IQ Gap in the United States
But research has shown that the black-white IQ gap has decreased from 1972 to 2002.
Yes, it has. IQ is estimated to be ~20% environmental (like height and many other hereditary traits), and the black-white IQ gap in the United States has certainly shrank since the 1960s due to the improving environmental circumstances and living standards of African-Americans since then. This is a good thing because all races deserve equal rights and equal treatment in our political and economic systems. However, the black-white IQ gap is no longer narrowing.
The IQ gap between African-Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans is currently estimated to be ~15 points (~85 vs ~70), but this is also probably genetic to a great degree as well. One source estimates the African-American genome to be nearly ~25% European, and almost ~4% of European Americans carry African ancestry. Other sources and analyses return somewhat different numbers, but the main reason why most African Americans have inherited so much European ancestry is because white slaveowners had a history of raping their black female slaves and creating mixed-race offspring. It’s no coincidence that the amount of European ancestry in African Americans tends to correlate with how high their IQs are. The rest of the 15 point IQ gap between African-Americans and Sub-Saharan Africans must be caused by the differing environmental standards between the United States and Sub-Saharan Africa, like the factors mentioned in the paper by James Flynn.
Besides environmental factors, the abolition of miscegenation laws and increased race-mixing between blacks and whites (and other races) since the 1960s has likely decreased the black-white IQ gap as well to some extent. Race-mixing will probably continue to increase in the future, which may further reduce the gap. Consider the stats on interracial marriages from the 2010 US Census for example.
If North America can eliminate
affirmative action racism against whites and Asians and implement better economic policies like Georgism, we can isolate nearly all environmental factors and show that the racial disparities between whites and blacks would still largely persist due to genetics.
11.3. Racial Disparities in Economic Status and Academic Achievement
For the record, an adverse environment with severe poverty (e.g. modern-day sub-Saharan Africa) does have a negative effect on IQ. Hence, average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is somewhat lower than it would be under optimum conditions. However, we can’t reduce all racial IQ differences to environmental deprivation. It’s not the main factor.
Racial gaps in IQ and achievement persist even in developed countries. Interventions, like Head Start, meant to ameliorate any educational deficits do nothing for the gap, as a comprehensive study by the U.S. government showed. Income is correlated with IQ and educational attainment for all races. The average African American has a higher standard of living today than Issac Newton and the other Enlightenment thinkers lived in the 1600s, or even than that of what European Americans lived in the early 1900s, and yet they have still failed to achieve the intellectual, educational, or economic achievement of either of those groups.
Moreover, the group IQ and achievement hierarchy visible in the U.S. is found all over the world. All across the world, Blacks statistically do poorly in comparison to Europeans. Likewise, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews collectively do well all around the world, better than Northern Europeans do. Across the globe and across very different societies and economic systems, we see roughly the same pattern as we see in the United States. This is true with populations who have been in these respective countries for many generations (e.g. Brazil). Even if someone came up with some cultural explanation for any particular society, it wouldn’t explain the consistency in global racial disparities.
Average IQ positively correlates very strongly with national development, in measures such as GDP per capita. Some countries lag behind despite receiving decades of foreign aid and assistance, while others have done well despite having few natural resources.
Wealth disparities are responsible for observed national IQs.
This is untenable upon close examination. When looking at the outliers from this pattern, one can see that it is average IQ, and not average wealth, that predicts national outcomes. For example, people from impoverished interior China, perform better on IQ tests than people from wealthy yet not particularly intelligent Middle Eastern oil-exporting nations.
11.4. Racial Disparities in Single-Parent Households
The rates of violent crime have been falling since the mid-1990s, in spite of a surge in single parenthood during the 70’s and 80’s. However, the theory that single parenthood causes criminality would predict an increase in violent crime that follows the increase in single parenthood by about 20 years, which is the exact opposite of what happened in the 90s and 2000s. While this doesn’t prove that single parenthood has no effect on crime rates, it’s counter-evidence that needs to be considered, along with all the other explanations why crime rates fell during the 90s and onward (the legalization of abortion, better policing tactics, higher incarcerations rates, etc).
Instead of single-parent households causing higher crime rates, it could also be the case that people who grew up in single-parent / fatherless households are simply more likely to be less responsible and commit more crime because their parents’ genes were less responsible in the first place. Correlation does not imply causation, but genetic factors shouldn’t be ruled out in favor of environmental factors just because the former is a more taboo explanation. A child with good genes would probably perform decently well even without a father present, although they would obviously be better with a father in all cases.
Other proposed factors include how welfare states and other leftist policies have subsidized the reproduction of genes linked to social and sexual irresponsibility, the breakdown of the Church, and the movement of blacks into urban environments (which makes them even more distant from their ancestral social environment). Some would even argue that Jim Crow laws helped to maintain the black community, because blacks would have separate black-owned enterprises, and thus there used to be a stronger pathway to financial success and social status. But even then, whites did not respond to the welfare state in the same way as blacks (on average), so there are racial (and genetic) differences that have a clear effect here. Genes cannot be rationally dismissed as affecting the racial disparity.
11.5. Racial Disparities in Crime Rates
It’s a contradiction to insist that the high incarceration of black people (relative to their proportion of the population) is caused by environmental factors, while also insisting that the fact that males make up >90% of the prison population is not caused by environmental factors. To resolve this contradiction, one would have to pick between one of two options:
- There’s no such thing as people having innate dispositions to commit more crimes and violence than others. Note that this would imply that the high incarceration rates for men are completely caused by environmental factors, which virtually everybody would disagree with.
- Some races have innate dispositions to commit more crimes. (the more reasonable position)
For the most part, good people make good neighborhoods, and bad people make bad neighborhoods. It’s not the other way around.
The crime gap can easily be explained by blacks more often being in an economic situation that would encourage theft (being poor), and having worse life prospects. People are less likely to risk committing crimes if they have better life prospects.
This is a good example of one-sided reasoning, which simply ignores other explanations. The crime gap between races is bigger for murder than for theft, and it is not explained by economics. Most murders have little or no economic benefit. Also, there are many natural experiments that support the genetic explanation over the wealth inheritance explanation. For example, some minorities quickly rose in social status after immigrating to Western societies with little or no wealth: Ashkenazi Jews, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. Countries that were extremely poor, such as Japan after WWII or China in the 1980s, have had huge increases in prosperity. Their poverty did not hold them back.
White supremacy is the most common motivation for domestic terrorism in the United States.
I don’t know the statistics on terrorism and its motivations, but there seems to be ideological bias in what is labeled “terrorism”. For example, the Waukesha Christmas parade attack was not labeled “terrorism”. Neither was the 2023 Nashville school shooting, although it seems to have been inspired by social/political views. Amren has a decent article comparing the Waukesha incident to the Charlottesville incident.
Read More: Violence Around The World - HBD Chick
11.5.1. Wikipedia Articles Citing Tribal Warfare Between American Indians
Pre-Reading: The Peopling of the Americas - T. K. Van Allen
Most people are vastly unaware of just how much tribal warfare the American Indians engaged against each since most public schools only teach the wars and conflicts between European settlers and American Indians, so this list aims to debunk the myth that American Indians had peaceful societies that lived off the land before the Europeans came. As always, refer to the sources cited in the Wikipedia articles for more information. Wikipedia may not be a valid source of information by itself, but the sources that it cites definitely are.
- “The Hurons as well as other Iroquoian peoples were known for the fierce ways in which they waged war against one another. Warfare between the Hurons and the Iroquois became so intense that women could not work in the fields to till their corn outside the defence of their palisades without fear of being clubbed to death on the spot and their scalps taken…” Source
- “At the time of the European arrival, the hegemonic Iroquois Confederacy, based in present-day New York and Pennsylvania, was regularly at war with Algonquian neighbors.” Source
- The Iroquois engaged in wars, cannibalism, slavery, and torture with other American Indians. Source
- “A war party was considered successful if it took many prisoners without suffering losses in return; killing enemies was considered acceptable if necessary, but disapproved of as it reduced the number of potential captives. Taking captives were considered far more important than scalps. Additionally, war served as a way for young men to demonstrate their valor and courage. This was a prerequisite for a man to be made a chief, and it was also essential for men who wanted to marry. Haudenosaunee women admired warriors who were brave in war.” Source
- “The neighbors of the western Cree were Athapascans on the north and northwest, Blackfeet on the west, and Assiniboine on the south. With the Assiniboine they were closely associated from the time of the separation of that tribe from the parent Sioux prior to the opening of the country by exploration in the early years of the seventeenth century; nevertheless, there were rather frequent drunken brawls, with consequent murders, between the two tribes in the boisterous era of the fur-trade. They joined forces in pushing the Blackfeet, Bloods, and Piegan southwestward out of the plains bordering Saskatchewan river, and up to the termination of inter-tribal warfare remained constant enemies of these other Algonquians. The Cree inheritance of the historic Sioux hostility toward the Chippewa was not lessened by the friendly reception they accorded the renegade Assiniboine, for whom the Sioux entertained bitter hatred mixed with professed contempt. The Woods Cree had little, if any, part in this warfare with the Blackfeet and the Sioux; their operations were limited to dispossessing the Athapascans of their territory between the Saskatchewan and Athabasca lake. Peace river, according to Henry, received its name from the circumstance that the Cree and the Beavers settled their hostilities at Peace point. —The North American Indian, Volume 18 (1907)” Source
- “Inuit had trade relations with more southern cultures; boundary disputes were common and gave rise to aggressive actions. Warfare was not uncommon among those Inuit groups with sufficient population density. Inuit such as the Nunamiut (Uummarmiut), who inhabited the Mackenzie River delta area, often engaged in warfare. The more sparsely settled Inuit in the Central Arctic, however, did so less often.” Source
- “Virtually all Inuit cultures have oral traditions of raids by other indigenous peoples, including fellow Inuit, and of taking vengeance on them in return, such as the Bloody Falls massacre. Western observers often regarded these tales as generally not entirely accurate historical accounts, but more as self-serving myths. However, evidence shows that Inuit cultures had quite accurate methods of teaching historical accounts to each new generation. In northern Canada, historically there were ethnic feuds between the Dene and the Inuit, as witnessed by Samuel Hearne in 1771. In 1996, Dene and Inuit representatives participated in a healing ceremony to reconcile the centuries-old grievances.” Source
- The historic accounts of violence against outsiders make it clear that there was a history of hostile contact within the Inuit cultures and with other cultures. It also makes it clear that Inuit nations existed through history, as well as confederations of such nations. The known confederations were usually formed to defend against a more prosperous, and thus stronger, nation. Alternately, people who lived in less productive geographical areas tended to be less warlike, as they had to spend more time producing food. Source
- “The Comanche bands regularly waged war on neighboring tribes.” Source
- “The Kalinago (Island Caribs) had a reputation as warriors who raided neighboring islands. According to the tales of Spanish conquistadors, the Kalinago were cannibals who regularly ate roasted human flesh. Source
- “Up to half of all Yanomami males die violent deaths in the constant conflict between neighboring communities over local resources.” Source
- “Blackfoot war parties would ride hundreds of miles on raids… Warriors would strive to perform various acts of bravery called counting coup, in order to move up in social rank. The coups in order of importance were: taking a gun from a living enemy and or touching him directly; capturing lances, and bows; scalping an enemy; killing an enemy; freeing a tied horse from in front of an enemy lodge; leading a war party; scouting for a war party; stealing headdresses, shields, pipes (sacred ceremonial pipes); and driving a herd of stolen horses back to camp” Source
- “Both the Salish-Tunaxe and the Semteuse were almost ”killed off in wars“ with the Blackfoot and further reduced by smallpox. Some of the survivors took refuge among the Salish. With the near extinction of the Salish-Tunaxe, the Salish extended their hunting grounds northward to Sun River. Between 1700 and 1750, they were driven back by pedestrian Blackfoot warriors armed with fire weapons. Finally, they were forced out of the bison range and west of the divide along with the Kutenai-Tunaxe.” Source
- “After 1750, warfare and pressure from the Blackfoot, Crow, Lakota, Cheyenne, and Arapaho pushed Eastern Shoshone south and westward.” Source
- “The Paiutes, for example, were almost ‘continually at war’ with the Klamath south and west of them.” Source
- “Warfare was prevalent in the Maya world. Military campaigns were launched for a variety of reasons, including the control of trade routes and tribute, raids to take captives, scaling up to the complete destruction of an enemy state.” Source
- “The Aztec state was in the center on political expansion and dominance of and exaction of tribute from other city states, and warfare was the basic dynamic force in Aztec politics. Aztec society was also centered on warfare: every Aztec male received basic military training from an early age and the only possibility of upwards social mobility for commoners was through military achievement — especially the taking of captives. Thus, only specifically chosen men served in the military.” Source
- Dozens civilizations rose and fell in Peru since tribal warfare caused so many civilizations to fall. Periodization of Pre-Columbian Peru
- Cherokee Military History
- Plains Indian Warfare
- The Crow Creek Massacre
- Scalping in the Americas
There’s not a single historical account of American Indian tribes that doesn’t involve warfare with other tribes. Once humans are the apex predator, unless there is a very high rate of disease, the majority of deaths will be from warfare because people who let their children die of starvation rather than going to war, be eliminated by those who fight for their children’s survival. There’s no way to precisely calculate the actual percentages regarding the historical causes of death since we don’t have unbiased samples of the deaths, but we can infer most deaths were from war based on these historical accounts and the biological reasoning given here. We should also recognize that most of the academic estimates for the number of humans who have historically died from warfare are probably great underestimates because 1. war victims don’t get nice noticeable burials, 2. less than 1% of living remains ever get fossilized, and 3. there is an ideological bias in Academia.
Some estimates of the pre-Columbian population of the Americas are between 7-10 million, and others estimate ~50 million, but whatever it was, it’s likely that it fluctuated a lot with population booms/explosions and war busts.
Recommended Reading: The Essays in the War Section of this blog.
11.5.2. Wikipedia Articles Citing Agriculture Practices Among American Indians
There are several Wikipedia articles documenting agriculture among the American Indians for thousands of years:
- Wikipedia: Agriculture Among Indigenous peoples of the Americas
- Wikipedia: Agriculture in Meso-America
- Wikipedia: Prehistoric Agriculture on the Great Plains
- Wikipedia: The Eastern Agriculture Complex
- Wikipedia: Prehistoric Agriculture in the Southwestern United States
- Wikipedia: Incan Agriculture
- Wikipedia: Amerindian Use of Fire in Ecosystems
Note that we’re not claiming that agriculture had anything to do with American Indians evolving to be more violent and have higher crime rates. This section is only included here because many people are unaware that Amerindians historically had extensive agriculture, and this section is meant to disprove that myth.
12. Aren’t there exceptionally smart people from all races?
Evolved differences in mental traits are no less likely than evolved differences in skin color, hair type, bone structure, disease immunity, metabolism, etc. Belief in the equality of mental traits between races is a religious assumption. It has no rational/scientific basis. On the other hand, there’s many reasons to believe that average intelligence varies between populations.
So to answer the question: Yes for the most part, but this does not debunk race realism. Once again, a race is a statistical cluster of genes. That means that there can be statistical outliers to any generalized claim made about a race(s). Relatively high-IQ people can come from low-IQ races, and relatively low-IQ people can come from high-IQ races, but when this happens, those people are the statistical outliers of their respective races. Race realism is the recognition of statistical tendencies that are caused by historical evolutionary patterns, not dogmatic judgments.
Read More: Averages and Exceptions.
12.1. But aren’t all individuals are born with the same amount of knowledge?
Yes, it’s true that every person is born knowing virtually nothing, and that every expert was a beginner at some point. However, this ignores that some people (and hence some races) are better at becoming experts and intellectuals than others (on average), so differences in intellectual abilities still persist.
13. Do Race Realists believe that some races are better than others?
This depends on what is meant by “better”, and in what context. No respectable race realist would say that there is a master race, because the whole reason why races are different from each other in the first place is because they each evolved genes and traits that enhanced their ancestors’ ability to reproduce in their respective environments. For example, it is easier for Sub-Saharan Africans to live near the equator than Europeans because they have genetic resistance against diseases like skin cancer and malaria. On the other hand, it’s harder for black people to live in a place like pre-Industrial Europe (compared to white people) since they would be more prone to Vitamin D deficiency, would probably have lactose intolerance, and other factors. Race Realism is about understanding that every race has genes that made them more reproductively successful in their ancestral environments, hence why different races tend to excel at different things.
Lastly, even if it were the case that one race was always “better” than the others, that still would not be good grounds to treat people differently based on nothing but their race because we’ve explained that there are statistical outliers for every race.
13.1. Averages and Exceptions
The possibility that statistical outliers may exist within a data set is precisely the reason why racism is irrational. Even if race A has consistently lower crime rates and consistently higher average IQs than race B, it would be dangerous to assume that that would be the case for every single person belonging to race A, and equally wrong to assume that every single person belonging to race B is going to be less intelligent or more likely to commit crimes that every single person from race A. The way how individuals should be treated should always be based on merit, not congenital demographic properties.
Additionally, even if it is the case that Amerindians and Sub-Saharan Africans commit disproportionately more crimes than Europeans, East Asians, East Indians, etc, it can simultaneously be the case that most people from those races are law-abiding and don’t commit any crimes. Similarly, the smartest people who ever lived may have been European or East Asian, but that does not conclude that every European or East Asian is going to be a genius. Generally speaking, the people who commit crimes and the people who have built humanity’s greatest inventions tend to be on the extreme tail ends of the normal curve(s). For further explanation of these statistics, see: Contra Jared Taylor - Eternal Anglo.
13.2. Are all race realists racists, Nazis, and/or white supremacists?
The short answer is: No. There is nothing contradictory about being a race realist and non-racist. While discriminating is a necessary part of life, racism is a form of irrational discrimination. Nazism and white supremacy are better described as race idealism, not race realism.
We do not advocate that some race(s) be given greater legal privileges than other races. We believe that all people from any race should be entitled to the same legal rights as anyone else. We advocate for a eugenostate that would treat all races equally under the law, but there would be competition regarding who is authorized to reproduce who is forbidden. It is likely that some races would be more reproductively successful than others under a eugenostate since some races are better adapted to modernity than others (on average), but there would be absolutely no legal limitations preventing people from any race from being able to have children. Eugenostates value equal opportunities, not equality of outcomes.
Over time, eugenics could even erase the achievement gaps and discrimination between races, if enough natural selection occurs. This would maximize true racial equality because all the world’s races would be as intelligent, low-crime, and productive as any other.
All race realists acknowledge that Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians have the highest average IQs (and lowest crime rates) of any race on Earth. This is verified by the consistent results on culture-free IQ tests like Raven’s Progressive Matrices. If race realism was really just pseudoscience aimed to justify white supremacy, then whites would be shown at the top of the IQ tests, but that’s not what the data shows.
Lastly, I (Zero Contradictions, the author of this blog) am half European (mostly German) and half Japanese and Cantonese. I am certainly not a white supremacist since I am mixed-race, as is most of my entire family since both of my parents, all my siblings, and all of my aunts and uncles are also hapas.
13.3. If race realists don’t necessarily have to be racist, why are so many of them racist?
Part of this has to do with memetics and how ideologies evolve over time. As explained in “The Rise and Fall of the Alt-Right”, the Alt-Right started out as an intellectual movement, until it degenerated into a Utopian Ideology that got dumber and dumber since ideologies need to tap into human emotions in order to propagate most effectively. When the ideology started spreading via emotions instead of reason, this caused all sorts of purity spiraling where the leaders and members of the movement started promoting less rational and more extremist ideas in an attempt to claim status over other members of the movement. “Status Pyramid Schemes” talks more about how memetic ideologies propagate and evolve in general.
The second reason why some race realists tend to be racist is that racist people are more likely to likely to believe that there are innate genetic differences between races in general. But they don’t necessarily have the intellectual or the bio-evolutionary knowledge for fully understanding race from a scientific perspective.
Nevertheless, the promotion of race realism doesn’t need to be driven by racism, emotions, or deplorable claims to social status, nor does it need to conclude that different races should have unequal rights or be treated unequally. Race realism is ultimately supported by reason and scientific evidence. There are some racist people who promote race realism, but that doesn’t invalidate the facts. To insist otherwise is a guilt by association fallacy.
14. Does race realism promote collectivism?
This depends on the definition of “collectivism”. In this case, I define Collectivism as: when individuals place the collective above the individual for the sake of the collective, or in other words, when individuals sacrifice their individuality and personal benefit for the collective.
To answer the question with respect to this definition, the answer is “no” because biological realism (a more general concept than race realism) entails recognizing that all life (including humans) is intrinsically selfish and figuring out ways to make selfishness work within a society. Since race realists have a more realistic understanding of race than racial denialists, they’re probably more likely to acknowledge that racially homogenous societies tend to be more preferable, and they may be in favor of ethnostates for that reason, but that does not count as collectivism.
Race Idealists tend to be collectivists, but biological realists are not collectivists because we understand that altruism is self-defeating and cannot exist in human nature:
14.1. But don’t the members of each race evolve together (group selection theory)?
No, they don’t. The group selection theory of evolution is incorrect. There is no identified mechanism for how such it would actually work in the real world, and group selection theory doesn’t explain anything any better than the phenocentric theory of evolution does. Selfishness occurs on the individual level, so life isn’t just a competition between groups, but also between organisms that compete for resources among the other organisms in their respective groups.
Humans do often help each other in nature, but this isn’t altruism towards one’s race or even altruism in general because altruism doesn’t exist in nature:
- Parents care for their children because they have strong selfish incentives to do so for their own reproductive success,
- Kin altruism between siblings is best explained as the parents’ selfish behavior being expressed in the children as part of their extended phenotype (cooperative children are easier to raise than non-cooperative children),
- Stotting/pronking is a demonstration to predators to try catching someone else in the herd that is obviously less physically fit than the pronker, and
- Friends helping friends is cooperation motivated by selfish interest and the moral accounting system, not “reciprocal altruism” (which is oxymoronic since altruism is selfless).
- Other purported examples of kin altruism can be further debunked on a case-by-case basis.
Shorter Essay 1: Why Evolutionary Theory Does Not Imply Genetic Tribalism?
Shorter Essay 2: The Cuck Metaphor and the Alt-Right
15. What do race realists think about race-mixing?
Race-mixing is a natural phenomenon that can have both good and/or bad consequences for any biological species. Unlike species, which almost always go their separate ways after diverging, races split and merge in the same way that waves on a choppy sea split and merge. A racial category is just a statistical cluster of correlations among genetic variants. The distributions of variants, and their correlations, change over time. Races mix, merge, split, appear or disappear for all kinds of complicated historical and geographical reasons.
I have mentioned on this page that I am mixed-race, so I wouldn’t exist without race-mixing, and neither would most humans. If you go back far enough in history, virtually everybody living today is “mixed-race” in a sense, and race-mixing was an important part of human evolution. Modern humans were formed from interbreeding between homo sapiens, neanderthals, denisovans, and other hominins, to varying degrees for all the races of the world. And that doesn’t even include all the races that have mixed, merged, split, appeared, or disappeared since then. For instance, Virtually all modern white people are a mix of Western European Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Proto-Indo-Europeans. There are both good and bad reasons to support or oppose race-mixing between modern humans, which will covered in the following subsections.
Whether race-mixing is “good” or “bad” is a normative question — a question of value. Hence, we cannot evaluate race-mixing without defining the perspective that we’re viewing it from or without analyzing its effects. There are three main effects that race-mixing has on society that I’ve observed:
- Decreased Fitness, versus Increased Fitness. This falls under biological value. (the most obvious one to biological realists)
- Racial Discrimination, Conflict, Culture, etc. This falls under psychological and social value. (the most obvious one to basically everyone)
- The Sexual Market(s) for different ethnicities and sexes. This falls under psychological and social value. (the most obvious one to incels, and people in interracial relationships)
I elaborate on each of these in the next few subsections.
Although East Asians tend to have higher IQs than white people, South Asians and Southeast Asians tend have lower IQs than white people on average. The IQs of the diasporas for these people in Western countries can often differ significantly from the IQs of the people in their ancestral countries due to how the immigration policies of Western countries may have selected for people of higher IQ or lower IQ from various different countries. Since the US and other Western countries don’t really have optimal racial categories for collecting statistics about race (e.g. distinguishing between East Asians and Southeast Asians in the statistics that they collect), this makes it harder for people to realize the effects and implications that race realism has had for humans of different ethnicities. In this essay, I use the terms South Asians to refer to people from the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asians to refer to people from Southeast Asia, and East Asians to refer to people from East Asia. If I use the term “Asians” without any other descriptors, I am using it as a shorthand for referring to East Asians specifically.
15.1. The Effects Of Race-Mixing On Biology
Biological value is what is good or bad for an organism. Fitness is the quantitative representation of individual reproductive success. Race-mixing is good for an organism if it increases its fitness, and bad if it decreases its fitness.
A potential disadvantage to race mixing on a global scale could be that populations around the world would become less adapted to their environments, which could cause some concern in some areas, but most of these possible concerns won’t matter much in the modern world. Some examples:
- Adaptive Coherence: Race-mixing could also potentially interfere with a community’s adaptive coherence by causing more people to have genes that don’t work as well with the memes or culture of a given community, thus reducing fitness and disrupting the cultural character of the community.
- Disease Immunity: Immune systems tend to be adapted to local conditions, parasites, and diet. However, conditions in the modern world conditions are completely different than they are from the past: parasites are either gone or global, and diet is totally different and globalized. So this doesn’t matter much, as far as race-mixing is concerned.
- Organ Donation: Organ transplants tend to have greater compatibility and higher success rates with recipients who are of the same race as the donor. But as the world continues to race-mix more and more, this will become less of a problem over time, if it’s a problem at all.
- Giving Birth & Congenital Malformations: Mixed-race births face different risks for congenital malformations and babies born to WMAF couples have some of the highest rates of caesarean deliveries (33.2 percent). But this doesn’t matter much either. It’s a known fact that babies with genes that cause them to require C-sections to be delivered are becoming more and more common in the modern world, so even if race-mixing causes this to be a slight problem, it’s as much of a problem as how the prevalence of C-sections have been increasing. There’s much more critical problems to worry about in the modern world.
- Et Cetera
For most traits, race won’t matter when you take the parent’s traits into account. Good looking parents have good looking children, smart parents have smart children, and tall parents have tall children.
Since races tend to already be well-adapted to the respective territories that they inhabit, most of the genes from a race that evolved in a foreign environment are unlikely to improve the fitness of the race living in its local, ancestral environment. Nevertheless, race-mixing still has the potential to introduce genes that could increase the biological fitness of a population. For example, the Sherpa people in Nepal have a gene of homo denisovan origin, which makes it easier for them to breathe at higher altitudes and thus makes them more fit for their respective environment. The Sherpa wouldn’t have that gene if homo sapiens never interbred with homo denisovans.
As mentioned in Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism?, race-mixing between European men and native women proved to be a great reproductive strategy for both sides where both races were able to exchange positive contributions for raising their children together. From the perspective of the Mestizos and their ancestors, this race-mixing was a good thing. From the perspective of white nationalists, it was a bad thing.
More Information: Effects of Race Mixing - Metapedia
15.2. The Effects of Race-Mixing On Individuals
Race-mixing can sometimes lead to identity problems among the offspring of interracial couples. However, most mixed-race people say that it hasn’t made a difference for them, or that’s even been an advantage. Even if someone argues that the mixed-race respondents to the Pew poll have no idea what it would be like if they were born to only one race, it’s still natural for humans to be proud of their race and ancestry, regardless of whatever they are since humans are naturally selfish and racial pride in one’s ancestry and oneself is useful for justifying one’s existence and continued survival. So while this poll and similar ones rely on self-reported data, and while they could have larger sample sizes (n = 1000), it’s likely that they’re closely aligned with reality.
If you can reasonably expect your children to face significant discrimination or outbreeding depression for being mixed-race in the future, it could be better for your future children if you can avoid breeding with other races. However, this problem will gradually disappear as tolerance for other races continues to increase, and as race-mixing further blurs racial differences.
Supposedly, mixed-race children are more likely to have physical and mental health problems. There’s conceivably some truth to this, but the only study that I could find to support this claim had a low sample size (its chart is shown below). More studies and greater sampling should be made on this topic before reaching a more definitive conclusion.
15.3. The Effects of Ethnic Diversity and Race-Mixing On Society
Social value judgments are social judgments of value, and they are used to generate social action. Social values are intersubjective, meaning that they consist of agreements between multiple minds. This section talks about race-mixing from the society’s perspective.
In most ways and most cases, racially homogenous societies are more prosperous and have fewer social problems than racially diverse societies, all other factors being equal. It’s not hard to see why. Racial homogeneity leads to less racism and inter-racial violence and conflicts between the members of society, and lends well for greater cultural and linguistic unity. These traits make it easier for all the members to form a collective national identity that redirects the natural competitiveness of life outwards from the group, which improves the group’s odds at survival and prosperity. Having a preference to be around people of one’s own race is normal and natural.
By contrast, we see that racially diverse countries tend to have many more social problems and less national unity. Sometimes, minority ethnic groups may just be marginalized by the majority (e.g. Catalonians in Spain, Canada and Cameroon (Anglophones vs Francophones), etc). Other times, conflicts and civil wars where races try to win independence from the larger society are not uncommon (e.g. Yugoslavia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Russians in Ukraine, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Bangladesh vs Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, etc). Many of these minority groups would be better off if they had independence (or at least more autonomy) from the larger society. However, given that Africa has the most ethnic groups of any continent and that most of those ethnic groups have very small populations, it wouldn’t be possible for these ethnic groups to have economies of scale on their own, unless many smaller ethnic groups were placed into the same country. In such cases, racially diverse societies may be undesirable, but they’re still preferable overall among the various ethnicities for economic and geopolitical reasons.
In the 90s and 2000s, the US had a pretty low level of inter-racial violence and discrimination compared to other multi-racial countries, but unfortunately the mainstream media and leftist ideology have been greatly exaggerating racial conflicts in the country, thus making something that otherwise wouldn’t have been much of an issue into one of the country’s leading social problems and causing a growing proliferation of anti-white racism. Much of the racial conflict is motivated by wanting the country’s races to be equally represented in the media and in positions of power. The United States is becoming more racially diverse every day, and while it still performs better than most other countries, it’s safe to say that the US would be an even more prosperous society if it were a white ethnostate where whites make up a larger percentage of the population, compared to the modern US.
Singapore is perhaps the best example there is of a multiracial society that works very smoothly, much of which can be attributed to its specific racial admixture and governmental policies. But even among racially diverse societies that don’t have much interracial violence or discrimination, we can observe that racial diversity still leads to societal problems. For such countries, it is more common for people to form their identities based on race, since race is one of the main characteristics in how people differ from one another. Some of these identities cause undesirable discussions in the public discourse that aren’t very conducive to a prosperous civilization, but they are otherwise negligible.
To an extent, a multiracial society may also be a multicultural society that gains cultural enrichment from the collection of all the various different races cohabiting the same space. For example, the United States has managed to blend a lot of different European races and traditions together, and while there are clear examples of how this diversity has created a rich and varied culture in the United States, there’s also examples of how it has created division instead (e.g. Anti-Catholicism, anti-German sentiment during and after WWI, anti-immigrant sentiment, etc). The extent to which European races and cultures have been successfully mixed together can be attributed to the comparatively lower genetic differences and not-as-drastic culture shocks of all the various European immigrants, in comparison to say mixing white culture with black culture. Generally speaking though, it really isn’t necessary to mix races together in order to spread cultural traditions to spread nowadays, especially during the Internet age, international commerce, and mass media.
Race-mixing tends to have better outcomes when the races that are being mixed are closely related to each other. One example include how Western Hunter Gatherers interbred with Early European Farmers and how their offspring later mated with Proto-Indo-European descendants. The WHG, EEF, and PIE peoples were closely related, and separated by a few thousand years of evolution each. Another example is how all the various white immigrants mixed with each other in the United States during the 1800s and 1900s to create mixed-race white offspring. After the ethnic tensions passed, pretty much all the white immigrants who arrived to the US were well-assimilated, and it created the perfect individualist and hard-working population for creating the most powerful and most prosperous country on Earth.
Multi-ethnic countries are more likely to be multilingual. Being multilingual in each of the country’s national languages can have economic advantages if the languages spoken in the country can be used to communicate with other countries (e.g. Switzerland), but it can also hinder a country’s economic progress if the languages aren’t widely spoken outside the country (e.g. India, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, DRC, etc) since it increases social and communication barriers and can require more education and time to learn other languages that are spoken inside and outside the country.
Dysgenics is another consideration regarding race-mixing within a society. Not all humans are created equally because genes and traits vary from population to population (e.g. IQ, impulse control, psychopathy, etc). For Western countries, the average IQ for white people is approximately ~100 and since whites have the highest IQs in the world besides Ashkenazi Jews and East Asians, if whites were to race-mix with other races, then the resulting offspring would probably have lower IQs on average when compared with the rest of the whites in the society. Of course, IQ is only one polygenic trait to be considered, and we’ve already mentioned from a biological perspective how race-mixing can have many negative effects on organisms and populations that could make them less biologically fit for the environments that they inhabit.
For ethnostates, a major contention is how likely people with mixed-race ancestry are to have political allegiance to the state’s interests. As a mixed-race person myself, my take is that mixed-race people will always distinguish themselves by how they are different from the ethnostate’s most dominant group because people naturally distinguish themselves and form their personal identities by how they are different from others. Every mixed-race person is different. For example, quadroons (25% black, 75% white) are less likely to be loyal a white ethnostate than quapas (25% Asian, 75% white). This is not a problem as long as mixed-race people continue to support their ethnostates, and they are likely to do so as long as 1. they would rather side with the ethnostate’s dominant ethnicity and political authority over their other ethnicity(ies), and 2. they don’t perceive that they’re being discriminated against. Even though I support turning the United States into a white ethnostate, I would still always distinguish myself by being different from purely White Americans, and I would respect the country’s interests as long as they accept me and treat me equally.
Links For Reading More:
- The Negative Impact of Racial and Ethnic Diversity Upon Societies and Individuals
- [Study] How Races Rate Each Other
- In-Group Preference (aka “Racism”) by Race and Political Alignment
- We are biologically programmed to be attracted to people who are genetically, physically, and psychologically similar to ourselves
Ethnic diversity can also have major effects on the sexual market within a society, and there is so much to say on this topic that it deserves a separate subsection in its own right.
15.4. The Effects Of Race-Mixing On The Sexual Market
White Male Asian Female (WMAF) couples are popular in the West when considering how many Asian women marry outside their ethnicity. Likewise, Asian men and black women are statistically the least desirable races of their sexes when it comes to dating preferences. The 2010 US Census confirms that these trends extend from dating to interracial marriages too, with 8.2% of Asian men marrying outside of their race while 17.5% of Asian women did the same, and that 10.8% of black men married outside of their race compared to 4.6% of black women.2 This has caused many Asian men and black women to be unable to find other people to date and marry since they are not able to marry outside their race at the same rates. Meanwhile, the sexual market for white people is nearly balanced since the number of white men who are marrying Asian women is compensated by the number of white women who are marrying black men. These multi-racial dynamics have lead to Asian men and black women being unlikely to get sex, love, and children.
From a societal perspective, the main problem with race-mixing between Asians and whites is that it deprives millions of Asian men of love, sex, and children. This wouldn’t be a problem if fewer Asian women dated outside their ethnicity, or even if as many white women dated Asian men as there are white men dating Asian women. But this is not the reality. Aside from that, East Asians have favorable genetics for maintaining modern civilization due to their higher IQs, lower crime rates, and greater propensities for hard work compared to white people, and White-Asian multiracial adults are also the most likely to say that their racial background has been an advantage. These facts affirm that the sexual market imbalance created for East Asian men is the primary disadvantage to race-mixing between Asians and whites, from a societal perspective centered in the Western world.
Some people have suggested that black women and Asian men could pair together since they are both the least desired ethnicities of their respected sexes, but I predict that this is unlikely to be a good matching in most situations, otherwise they would’ve already done so. They’re too genetically different from each other, not attracted to each other enough, and the average intelligence between the two may be too different for them to be compatible together (although IQ differs a lot between East Asians, Southeast Asians, and South Asians). Another thing to consider is that black women have the highest testosterone levels of all women, whereas Asian men have the lowest testosterone levels of all men, which helps explain why Asian men and black women both have relatively low desirability. The difficulty of Asian men and black women trying to find a partner will probably decrease fertility rates slightly, which can be a good thing if the country is on the verge of overpopulation, or a bad thing if the country wishes to boost its population.
Why does it matter if white men and Asian girls date? If they both love each other, why should it matter who dates who?
The fact that so many people think this way demonstrates that most people don’t consciously or attentively realize the nature of how value judgments for objects are both positive and negative:
Unlike truth, value is not convergent for similar brains. Tom and Joe could have identical brains, but make very different value judgments from their perspectives. For example, suppose that Joe and Tom both want to date Sally. Their value judgments are identical in one way, but opposite in another way. Joe positively values Joe dating Sally, and negatively values Tom dating Sally. Tom positively values Tom dating Sally, and negatively values Joe dating Sally. – Blithering Genius, from What is Subjectivity?
In the context of the sexual market between the country’s ethnicities, we can state the following:
- The Asian male positively values being with the Asian woman and negatively values the white male being with the Asian woman.
- The white male positively values being with the Asian woman and negatively values the Asian male being with the Asian woman.
From the individual-centric perspective of the partners in a WMAF relationship, they both positively value race-mixing, since it allows them to be together and procreate together. From the ricecel’s perspective on WMAF relationships, they negatively value that race-mixing since it deprives them of partners to procreate with. The high rates of inceldom among Asian men is a good example of how race-mixing has noticeably unfavorable consequences on society (especially for incels in particularly), although we should acknowledge that it’s also had favorable consequences between WMAF couples as well.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters (as far as reality is concerned) is who has the power to get what they want and make it happen. Preventing the race-mixing from ever happening in the first place can only be achieved by segregation or preventing the mass immigration of Asians into Western countries. But that has already happened. Besides pop-cultural movements that could portray Asian men and black women in a more positive light (e.g. K-Pop has recently given Korean men somewhat higher social status), or shaming Asian women and white men for marrying outside their races, there isn’t much else that can be done to prevent a sexual market imbalance for Asian men. It will suck for the Asian men, black women, and everybody else who ends up being unable to find loving partners, sex, and children for life, but countless people throughout history also lived that way until the day they died. Their lineages died off, and they were forgotten about forever. Such is the nature of life.
Ethnonationalists tend to argue that interracial marriages have higher divorce rates, but it would be more accurate to say that divorce rates generally depend more on race than race-mixing. For instance, Black + Black marriages have the highest divorce rates, Asian + Asian have the lowest, and WMAF divorce rates are lower than WMWF divorce rates. The table below is pretty much what we would expect to see, based on theory and observation.
- The rise of multiracial and multiethnic babies in the U.S. - Pew Research
- From multiracial children to gender identity, what some demographers are studying now - Pew Research
- Interracial marriage: Who is ’marrying out’? - Pew Research
- Other Pew Research Intermarriage Articles
- Pew Research Statistics: Key facts about Asian origin groups in the U.S.
- Study finds bias, disgust toward mixed-race couples (2016)
- Demographics of Inceldom - Incels Wiki
15.5. Misconceptions About Race-Mixing
This section was written in response to some criticisms by white nationalists. I believe they have a flawed understanding of evolution, biological purpose, genes, and race-mixing. Most of this can be attributed to their belief in the genocentric or group selection theory(ies) of biological purpose instead of the phenocentric theory of biological purpose.
Society is based on shared genetic interests.
This is false. Society is not based on altruism at any level: global, racial, national, or even tribal. It is based on cooperation between selfish individuals. A society can act in the world as a unit because it has an internal power structure. That structure also gives it internal coherence. A society is a kind of object and a kind of subject. A race is neither.
And that is why you don’t see racial solidarity (v1). You didn’t see it in the colonization of the Americas, when European societies fought each other alongside native allies. You didn’t see it in the American Civil War. You didn’t see it in WWI. You didn’t see it in WWII. You don’t see it today in the Congo. You don’t see it in Detroit. It doesn’t exist. It never has. It never will.
People who breed with other races are “throwing away their blood lines”. They are not preserving their genes.
They are still preserving their genes. No matter who a person mates with, the child can only inherit ~50% of his/her genes at most. That doesn’t become false just because she/he is breeding with someone of a different race. To conclude otherwise is a fallacy. Did the homo sapiens throw away their bloodline when they bred with neanderthals, denisovans, and other hominids? Or the ancestors of modern people? Again, it’s the genes that get passed on that matters, not the race.
Also, race-mixing doesn’t always negatively affect a person’s reproductive fitness. People don’t necessarily value genes just because they have them encoded into their own DNA. People value genes that make them and their children more adapted to their respective environments. For example, a person with sickle cell anemia is not going to value having a child who also has sickle cell anemia if they also value their reproductive success. If procreating with someone of a different race would improve the fitness and other desired qualities of one’s prospective children, then race-mixing is warranted and preferred according to the subject’s psychological values. Aside from valuing adaptive genes, in most cases humans would tend to value that their offspring have genes that are the same as their own, if and only if those genes are not maladaptive.
But insisting that only a maximum of 50% of genes are passed on disregards the shared or non-shared genetics in one’s mate.
By this logic, group selection theory concludes that it was a mistake for the ancestors of modern white people (Western European Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Proto-Indo-Europeans) to interbred with each other to create mixed-race offspring. But given that most white supremacists are supportive of the historical race-mixing that lead to their creation, this implies that it’s contradictory for them to unilaterally oppose all race-mixing. It also suggests that they should re-evaluate their opposition to race-mixing.
Moreover, virtually nobody (except maybe for the most fervent believers in the genocentric theory of evolution) actually calculates with mathematics how closely genetically related they are to the person that they are mating with just to make sure that the offspring will have as many of their genes as possible. It’s simply ridiculous that anyone would actually prioritize genetic similarity with their partner over other traits that are much more likely to be desirable instead. The fact that basically nobody thinks that way is further evidence in favor of the phenocentric theory of biological purpose, instead of the genocentric theory.
Furthermore, the genocentric theory of evolution ignores the mutations that every organism inherits, which is an important reason why anyone would be motivated to care for their children instead of other people’s children in the first place. Currently, every human is born on average with ~60 or so new, random mutations, although most are situated in non-coding DNA and are neutral. So even if someone breeds with someone of a different race, their child will inherit approximately half of their mutations (~30), as well as many of the mutations of that parent’s ancestors. That’s 30+ genes that the parent and child uniquely share, that almost no one else has. This is a big deal because evolution wouldn’t be possible in the first place without the genetic variation that mutations provide. If someone cares for someone else’s children instead of their own, those children are probably not going to have any of the mutations that are present in the parent, which is a good reason to favor raising biological children instead of adopted children if the mutations are adaptive, even if the other parent is of a different race.
This next quote was written by a white nationalist in response to Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism? by Blithering Genius:
We see the difference in success between North America and South America. The shipping of brides to North America seemed to produce a radically different society than the one win which the brides were found among the native population of South America. Does this not contradict this theory a bit?
From the perspective of white nationalists, the race-mixing that happened largely between American Indian women and white European male colonizers was a bad thing when considering the modern societies that that genetic admixture produced, in comparison to the largely white descended population of the United States and Canada. But we still have to remember that from the biological perspective of the Amerindian women, the race-mixing was a good thing because it enabled them to reproduce and replicate their genes to re-populate the Americas after ~90% the American Indians died of disease.
We also have to keep in mind is that the American Indian women had knowledge of how to live off the land, whereas the white colonizers did not. As Blithering Genius mentions in his essay titled “Space Colonization and Industrialization” from his book Futurist Fantasies, advanced technology alone would not’ve been sufficient for colonizing the Americas in the 1500-1700s because technology depends on the scale of civilization, and more complex levels of technology cannot develop unless the more primitive technologies that created their existence were invented and used beforehand.
Perhaps the white colonizers could’ve eventually colonized the Americas by breeding with white women to create a purely genetic admixture if they had waited longer to build technology that could help colonize the rest of the Americas, but this undoubtedly would’ve taken longer. And if the colonizers who were there in the American colonies wanted to colonize the Americas as soon as possible, it simply would’ve made more sense to breed with an American Indian woman due to their knowledge of how to live off the land. They would have to have children with the American Indian women in order to incentivize them to care for the descendants of the white colonizers, since those children would be theirs too. If the European colonizers in the Americas during the 1500s didn’t interbreed during that century, then other European men from later centuries would’ve populated the continent instead, and that would’ve been a loss for their selfish reproductive biological interests.
In terms of psychological and social value, most people today who value modern civilization may prefer that the Americas had been populated exclusively or near exclusively by white people instead, but this ignores how the ancestors of the modern inhabitants of Latin America (both the white colonizers and Amerindian women) valued the procreation that created all of their descendants. Might makes right, and power is self-justifying.
Ultimately, if white nationalists really want to promote white preservation and stop the great replacement (both of which I support), then they should encourage white people to have more kids. The more kids white people have (irregardless of who they breed with), the greater the white proportion of the gene pool will be.
15.5.1. Other Errors With White Nationalist / Race Idealist Ideology
I could be considered a white nationalist depending on how it’s defined, however I would prefer not to be associated with that label since most white nationalists believe in multiple things that I disagree with:
- Most WNs believe in Group Selection Theory, instead of the Phenocentric Selection Theory.
- Most WNs believe in r/K Selection Theory, even though it’s based on fallacious reasoning.
- Most WNs believe in kin altruism and Kin Selection Theory, but it’s based on fallacious reasoning.
- Most WNs believe in the Jewish Conspiracy Theory. I don’t believe it’s real, and most of the evidence for it falls apart once Group Selection Theory is rejected. I’ve never seen anyone convincingly argue for either position without doing a lot of hand-waving.
- White nationalists believe that race differences in crime and IQ are due to genes (genetic determinism), but they also believe that white people are completely controlled by Jewish propaganda. So they also believe in a very strong form of cultural determinism too, which is a contradiction.
- Many WNs deny the Holocaust. My position is that the Holocaust was real, it did happen, and was a crime against humanity by definition. I strongly condemn the Holocaust. However, it’s reasonable to be skeptical of the 6 million deaths figure, and we should acknowledge that the Holocaust has become a sacred narrative for justifying arbitrary morals.
- WNs tend to be racist and anti-Semitic, whereas I condemn such discrimination.
- Many WNs are white supremacists who support a form of race idealism. I oppose racial supremacy on a philosophical basis, and am better described as a race realist, not a race idealist.
- Some white nationalists are not willing to live with other people of other races, even if they conform well to the society’s goals. This is irrational.
- Race-mixing can be okay under some conditions. I also don’t get along with white nationalists who won’t accept me, just because I’m mixed-race. I’m one-fourth Japanese and one-fourth Cantonese.
- White nationalists tend to oppose having a globalist government, whereas I’ve never seen a principled argument against global governments that doesn’t also apply to lower levels of government. If one is willing to support one level of government, it’s contradictory to not support other levels as well.
- Generally speaking, most white nationalists aren’t philosophical enough for my tastes. Besides topics that relate to race and politics, most of them wouldn’t be very interested in the other topics on this website’s homepage.
15.6. Final Thoughts On Race-Mixing
Whether race-mixing is “good” or “bad” depends on one’s values, the races being mixed, and the perspective that it is viewed from. In my case, I positively value the race-mixing that eventually lead to my creation, and I negatively value race-mixing if it leads to me being deprived of any potential partners to date, marry, and procreate with. Alternatively, it makes sense to positively value race-mixing when it enables the subject to find a more suitable partner to procreate with.
If I had to make a choice from a societal perspective, I would generally oppose race-mixing in most cases. There’s no evidence that racial diversity confers any major advantages to a society in any real way. Racially homogenous society are more optimal for creating more stable civilizations. However, creating ethnostates may not be viable in multiracial countries, or even in Modern Western countries where minorities now make up too high of a portion of the population. Race-mixing is only likely to continue and speed up in the modern world as time passes. Whites in the West could hypothetically race-mix with East Asians to result in offspring with slightly higher IQs, but race-mixing between whites and East Asians would still cause somewhat negative consequences for society. Asian men in particular would be the most affected, unless AMWF relationships were to become as common as WMAF relationships. Until then, this will be the main downside to whites and East Asians cohabiting the same society.
Preventing overpopulation, mass immigration, and environmental degradation are much more important problems than miscegenation will ever be. Modern healthcare and technology eliminate most of the biological concern against race-mixing, assuming that modern civilization won’t collapse in the future. And racial conflicts, discrimination, and imbalances in the sexual market will be gradually reduced over time to an extent if race-mixing and tolerance of other races continues to become more common. There are also some cases where race-mixing can be a “good” thing (depending on the perspective). In the long run, race-mixing won’t be a major problem for modern societies that restrict mass immigration and practice population control and laissez-faire eugenics.
16. What are Ethnostates, and how practical are they?
Perhaps the most common misconception about ethnostates is that they require killing every non-White person, gassing Jews, and/or requiring 100% of the population to be descended from the ethnostates’ ethnicities. This is not true at all. Even the most practical white nationalists recognize that the one-drop rule is not a useful guideline for ethnostates.
The Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “ethnostate” is as follows:
A sovereign state of which citizenship is restricted to members of a particular racial or ethnic group.
A country populated by, or dominated by the interests of, a single racial or ethnic group.
A political unit that is populated by and run in the interest of an ethnic group.
As we can see from these definitions, an ethnostate is just a state that exists for the interests of one group. For example, >98% of the people in Japan belong to the Yamato ethnic group, and the state serves the interests of the Yamato people. So Japan is an “ethnostate”, but the state doesn’t harm every non-Japanese person. White nationalists just want ethnostates for White people.
It really is that simple. And many ethnostates already exist all over the world for other ethnic groups (China, Korea, Cambodia, Israel, Somalia, etc), so what’s wrong with having some white ethnostates too? Every other major ethnic group already has their own ethnostates, so it’s only fair.
Another common misconception is that white preservationism, white nationalism and white supremacism are all the same thing, but they are not. Personally, I hate white supremacists, as well as everybody else who is absolutely obsessed with thinking that race is everything. Racial homogeneity would be helpful to any society that has it, but it’s not worth obsessing over. As for White Preservationism, I define it as: A movement to counter the Great Replacement by increasing white fertility rates in the Western World. To me, the goal of white preservationism should be to preserve (most of) the (good) genes of Europeans, not necessarily to preserve distinctively European appearances or to preserve white people as a distinctive race, although I’m not against that.
16.1. The Limitations of Ethnostates
In the West, white nationalists and eugenicists both agree that deporting illegal aliens is an important priority. It could be done strategically if there’s enough political will and power to make it happen. There is no debate that racially homogenous societies perform better than that multiracial societies. The main disagreements between WNs and race-blind eugenicists are 1. how practical it would be for Western governments to prioritize benefiting the dominant ethnic group over the minority ethnic groups, 2. whether or not that’s feasible according to the size of the minority population, and 3. race-mixing should be forbidden. The white nationalists’ main justifications are that: 1. it would take too long for minorities to assimilate into the society, 2. it can happen if there’s enough political will to do it, and 3. race-mixing would be dysgenic and culturally unstable in most cases.
The US, the UK, Canada, France, and other Western countries all should’ve became ethnostates that greatly curtailed foreign immigration in the 90s, but I am skeptical that it will be possible to reverse the mass immigration from previous decades in the 2020s and beyond. Non-white people make up too much of the US and Canadian populations3 (they might have too much leverage), there isn’t enough mass public support and political authority to greatly curtail mass immigration from foreign countries, and there’s not even enough support among white people for turning those countries into ethnostates. Bringing up the proposal to turn Western countries into white ethnostates would ignite strong opposition and accusations of racism, and it is difficult to substantially change any person’s worldview on just about anything. For the United States, a more likely scenario is that some region of the US becomes a de facto ethnostate for white people. Assimilating minorities into the society may take generations, but it’s not impossible, especially if EPC limits their population growth. Whether race-mixing is dysgenic and harmful to the civilization is a more complicated issue.
The greatest problem facing the West is mass immigration from other countries. Reducing foreign immigration would greatly curtail social justice, anti-Western hatred, and the cost of rent, while boosting wages, fertility rates, and eugenics. This is a smaller goal than achieving a white ethnostate with wider public appeal, so it’s more feasible. We will have greater success at reducing immigration if we focus on emphasizing all the problems that it’s causing. Ethnostates would help achieve white preservationism, but the most important thing is that the fertility rates of white people are increased in general. Reducing foreign immigration will help with this.
The biggest problem that ethnonationalist policies won’t solve by themselves is preventing overpopulation. Overpopulation is a free-rider problem, so population control is the only way to conceivably prevent overpopulation without war, disease, or famine. Ethnostates don’t prevent dysgenics by themselves either since they don’t regulate reproduction. Every successful ethnostate would have to enforce EPC in order for it to be sustainable for the long-term future. Over time, eugenic policies could cause the average black or white person to be as intelligent as East Asians are today, with even lower crime rates too.
Related: Racial Pride is Okay - Gnew
16.2. The Logistics For Creating Ethnostates
In this section, I detail the theoretical steps and most likely way for converting Western countries into white ethnostates:
- White identity and support for pro-white policies gradually increase over the years as white people continue to be marginalized and discriminated against.
- Americans (especially White Americans) start to vote more conservatively than they already do.
- Western countries eliminate their welfare for immigrants. In the US, eliminating welfare could disincentivize over 50% of immigrants from staying.
- Some immigrants leave Western countries once the welfare stops. If they riot in response to the elimination of welfare, then they are deported. Political support for deporting them would be in response to their rioting and violence. Hard-working immigrants who support the country can (and should) stay.
- The public gains enough support for stopping mass immigration, since it increases the cost of rent, and reduces wages, fertility rates, and eugenics.
- The Conservatives amass enough popular support for deporting the rest of the illegal aliens from Western countries (there are over 10 million illegal aliens in the United States alone).
- As wages rise, white fertility rates increase. The West implements other measures for boosting white fertility rates.
- Western countries reach the critical demographics and political thresholds for becoming white ethnostates.
- The public gains enough support for EPC to turn the country into a eugenostate.
Note that this is an (overly) optimistic timeline. I’m not convinced that the West could achieve even half of the objectives on this list in the future, but we should try to accomplish whatever we can.
17. Isn’t The Great Replacement Of White People Just A Conspiracy Theory?
No, not at all. Anybody who claims the Great Replacement is a myth is a liar, and I say that as someone who is less European than the average American (as of 2023).
Statistics consistently show that countries with indigenous and/or historically European populations are gradually being replaced by non-European people. This trend has been happening for decades. People can pretend that this isn’t a problem or that it won’t lead to the perishing of white people all they want, but it is undeniable that if the trend continues for several decades, white people will be replaced by other races by and large, unless something happens to reverse the trend and increase the fertility levels of white people within their own indigenous and historical countries.
“A report by the U.S. Census Bureau projects a decrease in the ratio of Whites between 2010 and 2050, from 79.5% to 74.0%. At the same time, Non-Hispanic Whites are projected to no longer make up a majority of the population by 2045, but will remain the largest single ethnic group. In 2050 they will compose 46.3% of the population. Non-Hispanic whites made up 85% of the population in 1960. However, white Americans overall are still projected to make up over 70% of the population in 2050.” Source
The evidence clearly shows that white people have relatively low fertility compared to other races in Western countries (mass immigration doesn’t help with that either), that the population of mixed-race people is on the rise in the West, and if the fertility rates of white people don’t increase, then they will get replaced by humans with different genetics. If the United States does not enforce stricter immigration policies soon, it is on course to become akin to Brazil racially and like South Africa politically.
There are no other countries in the world, besides Western ones that import foreigners in great numbers and then indoctrinates them to hate and resent the host population. People who deny the Great Replacement Theory are following the typical leftist tactic of denying that something bad is happening, but if it is happening, then it’s actually a “good” thing.
The percentage of white people in the US and other Western countries may have gone down, but the raw number of white people has gone up. Whites made up 75.1% of the total US population in 2000, and 72.4% in 2010. This is not a decrease in population because the overall number of whites actually rose from 211,460,626 to 223,553,265.
First, that statistic doesn’t specify who gets counted as being “white”.
- Do Arabs count as white? Many Arabs and other Americans consider them to be separate from White Europeans.
- Do Jewish people count as white?
- Do Middle Easterners and Central Asians count as white?
- If the average black American has ~24% of their genes originating from white people and they make up ~13% of the population, should that fraction of the 13% count as white?
- Do mixed-race people count as white, or only the percentage of their genetics that can count as white?
- Do white Hispanics count as white? In a 2015 study, the average European admixture among self-identified White Hispanic and Latino Americans is 73%.
Most censuses would classify Arabs, Jews, Middle Easterners, white Hispanics, and people who identify as being white as “white”. Given that Hispanics were/are one of the fastest growing ethnic groups in the US during the early 21st century, it’s doubtful that the number of wholly European-descended Americans has increased.
Additionally, older generations are more white than younger generations. It may take a few decades or so, but once the West’s older and more white population eventually dies off, we’ll see that the raw number of white people in the West will go down, not just the percentage of white people. This is inevitable when the youngest generations are the most racially diverse generations in history, and when future generations are only projected to become less and less white. White people have lower fertility rates than non-whites.
Furthermore, even if it’s true that non-mixed race European Americans went up in overall numbers, the decline in the percentage of the white population still matters for multiple reasons:
- It reflects a changing balance of power between whites and minorities, who tend to lean conservative and leftist respectively.
- Even if the number of white people in the US and West increases, white people would still become a minority within a historically white country, a phenomenon that isn’t and hasn’t occurred for any other non-white countries.
- The increase in the non-white population is related to the increase in foreign immigration, which should be opposed for multiple reasons.
- Purely white people may continue to exist in the future, but if they do, it’s quite possible that they could eventually become as rare as whites in South Africa, or as uncommon as American Indians are in the United States.
Many countries in Europe, especially Eastern Europe, remain ethnically and culturally homogeneous.
We’re not arguing that white people are disappearing in every country. The point is that both the numbers and percentages of white people are projected to decrease in historically white countries like the US, Canada, Australia, and most of Western Europe.
Since you’re a mixed-race person, why do you care about stopping the Great Replacement? Shouldn’t you live by your words and migrate out of the Americas?
I’m still half-white (technically I’m slightly more than 50% white due to my Y-chromosome and mtDNA). The immigration policies set by Western governments are not aligned with the people of the West. I care about stopping the Great Replacement because white people were the ones who built the modern world, and I don’t want them to die out. I support turning Western countries into white ethnostates because I’ve concluded that ethnostates are more stable societies and I want modern civilization to continue prospering. Obviously, I’m not opposed to minorities living in Western countries and having citizenship, as long as they make positive contributions towards the preservation of the developed world and modern civilization, which is what I care about above all.
Links For Reading More About The Great Replacement:
- The Great Replacement is a top-down project: The role of the United Nations and other transnational Globalist organizations
- The United Nations’ leading role in criminalizing racial and ethnic homogeneity: Legally binding “refugee” conventions and more
- Globalist Agenda Summary: Where are elites taking us, and why?
- Timeline of the Replacement Migration Agenda
- Eternal Anglo: A data analytics blog that covers the fertility rates of different races by country
- More Statistics On White Demographics
17.1. Anti-White Ideology And Propaganda In The West
The only way people could overlook the current anti-white propaganda and policies in the West is if they had an ideology that blinded them to it. When “It’s okay to be white” is labeled a hate slogan, we have a problem.
Links Regarding Anti-White Ideology And Propaganda In The West:
- Systemic Anti-White Bias in Western Media: A Ton of Evidence (Available as PDF)
- The Rise of Anti-White Bias in Media (with Statistical evidence)
- “Indigenous” Peoples of the World: Everyone Except Europeans
- The Intentional Destruction of White Birth Rates: Leaked reports from Planned Parenthood, the Rockefeller Foundation, World Bank, US NSC (including CIA, military etc.)
- Imperialism and Colonialism: White Guilt and Historic Non-White Conquests of European Territories
- Stochastic Terrorism: Non-White academics promote violence against Whites with real-world consequences
17.2. Ideas For Boosting Western Fertility
The key to increasing fertility rates is to remove the barriers to having children. The biggest factor in the Western World and East Asia4 that is preventing people from having children is the difficulty of balancing education, work, and raising a child all within a single lifetime. People who pursue higher education face the opportunity cost of having children since they enter the work force later and are more career-oriented. That said, a few things I would suggest to increase the fertility rates are:
- Reducing immigration into Western Countries. This is the first and most important thing that we should do to stop the Great Replacement. We already have limited resources, so there is no reason to allow more than a trickle of useful immigrants into the West. Additionally, it would also boost wages by decreasing the supply of labor, which would increase fertility rates.
A standard education could require 9 or 10 years of mandatory education instead of 12 years so that people would graduate 2 years earlier.
- If people graduate high school at 16 years old instead of 18 years old, then people could then have more time in their lives to pursue post-secondary education, get a job, and have more children.
- Colleges could remove the general education requirements since people should have already learned that stuff in secondary school, which would remove one more year of schooling for those pursuing higher education.
- Reduce the cultural tendency to go to college. College degrees are over-saturated in supply, and about half or more of college graduates don’t even use the knowledge from their degrees in their jobs. This would also give people more time to raise a family. Some things that could be done to discourage people from going to college include:
- Implement reforms to gradually tax property values less and less, while gradually increasing land value taxes more and more until 100% of the land value is taxed. Land value taxes incentivize landlords to build more housing, whereas property taxes incentivize them to build less housing. Land value tax is thus the best way to lower the cost of housing. This is a huge deal because paying rent can take up to one-third of a person’s income, thus reducing their capacity to raise children.
- Workers could petition their employers for more parental-leave opportunities.
- Remove unnecessary licensing requirements for people to babysit children or work at a day-care so that it’s easier for people to get a job and raise children at the same time. A high school diploma / school certificate should be sufficient for this task. It is ridiculous that some jurisdictions are requiring college degrees just to babysit children.
- Stop giving welfare to parents who can’t afford to take care of their children. This is dysgenic, as it taxes productive people and subsidizes unproductive people. The human race will gradually get less intelligent if this continues for years to decades to come.
- A reproduction tax and other reasonable requirements for prospective parents would make having children higher status, and could help boost fertility rates among people with favorable genes, while decreasing fertility rates of people with undesirable genes.
- Let evolution take care of the rest. Over time, people who have more children will out-breed those who don’t, so the problem will fix itself eventually over several generations, but we will still need mandatory population control at some point since unlimited population growth is unsustainable.
None of these actions would increasing government spending. Basically, the goal should be to implement anything that makes it easier to have a job and have children.
Note that if fertility increases, it’s equally important that society makes efforts to reduce resource consumption and take measures for more sustainable lifestyles are enforced, especially for developed countries that have high resource consumption. Population collapse is a problem, but so is overpopulation.
Behavioral traits are just as “physical” as any other trait since they depend on the physical structure of the brain.
Note that the number and percentage of interracial marriages has increased by an unknown amount since 2010.
It’s unclear what percentage of the American and Canadian populations are European, since Arabs, Jews, Middle-Easterners, mixed-raced people, and white Hispanics are often categorized as “white”, but regardless,
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are also considered to be “Western” too (or at least ’Westernized’) since they are Western allies, have been influenced by Western culture, and have decent genetics for modernity, as far as our policy objectives are concerned.