Philosophy of Race FAQs

It’s not clear what people mean when they claim that “race is a social construct”. Do they mean that the concept of race is socially influenced, and thus suspect? Or do they mean that races are purely social categories, with no relation to objective reality? If they have no relation to objective reality, then how do we recognize instances of them? A charitable interpretation is that there is a biological basis for the categories, and the discrete nature of these categories is imposed on a more complex reality.

– Blithering Genius, Theories of Knowledge

---

We can break down the argument that “race is not real” as follows:

1. Racial categories change over time as a result of social and historical influences.
2. Race is thus a social construct, and thus not objectively or biologically real.
3. Social constructs are things we consciously and deliberately invent.
4. We have the power to change or reject social constructs.
5. If we reject and abolish race, then race isn’t real.

---

There are multiple problems with this argument:

• It doesn’t explain why there are biological differences between races. It doesn’t cite any references or studies on human biology, which form the basis of race in the first place.¹ It ignores empirical evidence.
• If race is a “social construct”, then that raises the question why racial diversity is important.
• If race is only a “social construct”, then why do some people (e.g. Linda Ewack) feel special connections to their relatives, races, and the cultures created by those races?
• If races don’t exist at all, then that raises the question why racism exists at all.

In summary, the “race is not real” claim is fallacious because it uses tactical nihilism.

---

Framing race as a social construct ignores that race is a statistical cluster of genetic variation. There are countless examples showing that race does have a clear biological basis. While clusters can be arbitrary, there’s also reasonable mathematical methods for categorizing human populations into different racial groups via Cluster Analysis, such as Principal Component Analysis and k-Means Clustering. This works at the level of continental groups or even ethnic groups within a continent (or even groups within an ethnicity). At times the progression is smooth, with each group gradually giving way to the next, and at other times, the transition is abrupt.

The Genetic Validity of “Race” - Thuletide: This page has great infographics for explaining race.

---

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. There is far more human genetic variation in mental traits than skin colors.

The difference is that “race” only focuses on genetics and characteristics that depend on or affect genetics, like appearance, behaviors, ancestral environment(s), diet, etc. Ethnicities are determined by “race” to a great extent, but ethnic groups also take into account common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. Hence, “ethnic groups” and “races” are not the same thing.

In some contexts, the word “ethnicity” cannot replace the word “race”. Some examples:

• Arabs are an ethnic group that is defined as containing anybody who can natively speak a language that’s descended from Classical Arabic, of which there’s over 30 different languages/varieties. Sudanese Arabic speakers and Iraqi Arabic speakers are thus from the same ethnic group (Arabs) because they both speak Arabic, but they’re clearly not from the same race.
• Hispanics are defined as anybody who is from or has ancestors from a Spanish speaking country. However, the Hispanics living in Spain and the Hispanics living in Mexico are still not from the same race. Most Mexican Hispanics are mestizos, whereas most Spanish Hispanics are purely European.
• The Cantonese people and Jiao-Liao people are both from the same ethnic group (Han Chinese), but they have very different genetics. So much so that Cantonese people are sometimes grouped in with Southeast Asians instead of East Asians, depending on the context and algorithmic parameters.

In each of these example, a cursory look at Google Images verifies that these different peoples are not of the same race. They each have noticeably different appearances from each other, even though they’re grouped into the same ethnic group.

At least two fallacies are made in this argument, including the Continuum Fallacy:

X and Y are two extremes on a spectrum. There is no clear point at which X becomes Y, therefore, X and Y do not exist.

If races don’t exist because they exist on a continuum, then colors don’t exist either because colors also exist on a continuum. But it’s clearly useful to distinguish colors by name, so this is a contradiction.

Race denialists also use words like “White people”, “Black people”, or “Asians” to refer to people and talk about racial disparities, so they implicitly believe that people can be categorized into different races. It’s thus hypocritical of them to insist that race doesn’t exist just because it’s on a continuum. Using words to refer to races or specific colors while continuing to deny that they exist is tactical nihilism.

Genetic analysis can separate humanity into reasonably distinct taxons. There are multiple different racial taxonomies, and they each vary depending on the context and how the threshold parameters for dividing taxons are set. Hence, racial groups can be lumped into vast continental-scale agglomerations or split as finely as you like. For example, Siberians could considered a separate race in one taxonomy model, while being considered a subset of East Asians in another model. Every system of categorization runs into disputes between “lumpers” and “splitters”. Whether lumping or splitting is more appropriate depends on the situation.

Subspecies or races are not branches on a tree, although sometimes they are depicted that way for convenience. They are more like waves on a choppy sea. The bumpy surface represents the distribution of genetic variants. Each bump is a cluster of similar individuals – a race – but the area between those waves is not empty. There are intermediate forms, genes flow between the bumps, and the bumps change over time. This metaphor is called “adaptive topography”.

– Blithering Genius, Killing the Unicorns

Even if the distribution of human groups is continuous with no distinct genetic or phenotypic breaks (and it often is), that wouldn’t render each group along the distribution non-existent, nor would it render the differences between each group insignificant. That would be tantamount to saying yellow is equivalent to orange. Sometimes racial groups are even separated by geographic landmarks, such as deserts and mountains, which enable us to clearly identify definitive regions and groups.

---

The genetic definitions of various races are defined by clusters of multiple characteristics. So, rejecting the validity of defining racial categories also requires rejecting the validity of all the other general variables in this list since their validity is justified by similar logic, lest there be contradicting beliefs. Most people wouldn’t reject those variables though, which suggests that it’s valid to define racial categories since they have predictive and explanatory power.

A cline is defined as a gradation in one measurable physical or genetic characteristic, within or between biological groups. Some race-denialists try to replace the word ’race’ with ’cline’, but this doesn’t clarify anything. The stress on the “clinial” nature of human population and genetic distribution is just motivated obfuscation, as is much of the discussion on inherited human differences.

If the word “cline” wasn’t abused to deny the validity of racial categories (and biological differences by extension), it could potentially be a useful term, similar to how dialect continuum can be a useful term in linguistics for emphasizing gradual variations across geographical distances. Races are to languages as clines are to dialect continuums. But even then, linguists still find it useful to divide dialect continuums into zones or subdivisions (e.g. the Guthrie classification of Bantu languages). So even when we replace the word “language” with “dialect continuum”, we still kind of end up back where we started in order to talk about the linguistic differences across the dialect continuum. The same goes for “race” versus “cline”. Most linguists wouldn’t have any problems with dividing a dialect continuum up into zones to understand it better. They might debate where the exact boundaries of the zones are, but that’s about it. This highlights their hypocrisy when they take issue with defining racial categories, which also exist on a continuum.

• Populations that cultivate rice, wheat, and other grains tend to have more copies of the amylase gene in their DNA. This controls for the ability to produce an enzyme in their saliva called amylase, which enhances the ability to digest starch. Source
• Europeans tend to be more lactose-tolerant since being able to drink cow’s milk provided their ancestors with another food source during times of food scarcity and famine. This natural selection favored lactose tolerant genes. Source
• The Alcohol Flush Reaction is common in East Asians, but not among other races. Source
• There is a strong relationship between gene variants and yearly alcohol consumption that is related to how pleasant alcohol tastes. Source
• The species of bacteria that live in a person’s mouth depends on the person’s race, regardless of the environment that they live in (Source). Such differences may have practical significance. For example, a bacterium only found in Japanese individuals is thought to be important for digesting seaweed, which has been an important food source in Japan. Source
• The Inuit, Yu’pik, and nearly all arctic populations have the L479 allele of the CPT-1a gene which prevents them from going into ketosis. It’s likely that this was an adaptation to the low-carb, high-fat, high-protein diets that those peoples have had for thousands of years. Source
• Certain variants of the TAS2R16 and TAS2R38 genes make individuals highly sensitive to bitter flavors, and are only found in Africa. This may be related to differences regarding available food sources. Non-dietary proposed explanations include the roles of bitter taste receptors in the gastrointestinal tract and the lungs. Source
• The people of the northern Argentinean Andes, an arid region where elevated arsenic concentrations in available drinking water is common, evolved to have high arsenic tolerance. They can drink water containing arsenic beyond a few hundred times the recommended world safety limit without falling ill. Source

• Blood type distributions strongly vary depending on one’s race. This is still being researched, but the most likely reason for this is that different blood types offered different levels of immunity against certain diseases. Source
• Human populations that live in areas that at high risk of malaria inherited genes that provide immunity against malaria when heterozygous, even though this causes sickle-cell anemia when both copies of the sickle cell gene are inherited. Source
• Single-cell anemia and resistance to malaria tends to be more prevalent in Africans and other tropical populations. Source
  • The comparatively lower prevalence of single-cell anemia in African Americans compared to other Africans due to genetic selection against malaria due to labor-intensive slavery and race-mixing in North America.
• West Africans have less red blood cells and lower hemoglobin, due to the prevalence of malaria. Since slow twitch muscle fibers use aerobic respiration, West Africans have less slow twitch muscle fibers to compensate for having less hemoglobin. West Africans thus have more fast twitch muscle fibers, which use anaerobic respiration and thus don’t need red blood cells. Source
• Cystic fibrosis, Tay Sachs disease, and other forms of genetic resistance to tuberculosis tend to be more prevalent in Europeans. Source
• Humans in urban population centers evolved resistance to leprosy and tuberculosis. Source
• American Indians did not have immune systems that were adapted to Old World diseases, thus causing ~90% of them to die out when coming in contact with those diseases.
  • The descendants of the American Indians who survived the Old World diseases were more adapted to surviving those diseases than the American Indian populations had been historically. This is an example of natural selection changing a human race to become more adapted to its environment.
  • Even still, American Indians had higher Covid death rates compared to other ethnic groups on average, hence why Peru was one of the most devastated countries in the world by the COVID-19 pandemic, since Peruvians have a lot of American Indian DNA. Compared to other ethnic groups, American Indians are the least well adapted to COVID-19, due to their genetics.
• A genetic mutation known as CCR5-delta 32 is responsible for the two types of HIV resistance that exist. The gene believed to have mutated about 700 years ago and is linked to the resistance to the Black Death in the 14th century. This mutation makes about 1-2% of people descended from Northern Europeans, particularly Swedes, immune to HIV infection. For about 20% of the population, it takes longer time to get sick and the symptoms of the infection is milder. This mutation is not found among Africans, Asians or Amerindians. Source 1, Source 2
• A population in Papua New Guinea evolved to have resistance against prion-caused brain disease in populations practicing mortuary cannibalism. Source
• The Bajau in Indonesia have genetically enlarged spleens, argued to be related to their diving ability, since they have traditionally traveled the Southeast Asian seas in houseboats and collected food by free diving up to 70 meters with spears. Source

• Blue-eyes enable people who live away from the Equator to see better during twilight and night-time when there’s little light available. Blue-eyed people were more productive in these environments and had more offspring since they could do more labor on days with very little sunlight. Genes associated with blue eyes are also associated with causing slightly lighter skin tones. Source
• Races that live within the Arctic circle evolved to have eyeballs that are 20% bigger than races who live near the equator. Their brains also have larger visual cortexes, which previous studies have shown correlates with the size of the eyeball. Source
• Having darker skin near the equator makes populations less prone to skin cancer from the sun’s higher radiation near the equator.
• Populations with epicanthic eyelids developed them as an adaptation due to either hash winters or as a protection against overexposure to ultraviolet radiation. Source
• Some gene variants that are more frequent in populations living in cold area may be involved in adaptations to the cold climate and the food sources found in this environment. One such adaptation involves helping the body’s fat stores to directly produce heat rather than producing chemical energy for muscle movements or brain functions, a process called “nonshivering thermogenesis”. Another involves the contraction of smooth muscle, key to shivering and the constriction of blood vessels to avoid heat loss. Still another involves the metabolism of fats, especially those in meat and dairy products—a staple of the fat-laden diets of Arctic peoples. Source
• Australian Aboriginals living in the Central Desert, where the temperature can drop below freezing at night, have evolved the ability to reduce their core temperatures without shivering. Source
• The Inuit are adapted to a high-fat diet and cold climate due to a mutation that has been dated to the Last Glacial Maximum (20,000 years ago). Source
• Human populations in the Andean mountains and the Tibetan plateau evolved to have somewhat larger lung volumes, narrower alveolar to arterial O₂ gradients, slightly less hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstrictor response, greater uterine artery blood flow during pregnancy, increased cardiac O₂ utilization, higher red blood cell production, and denser blood, which all enhance the efficiency of O₂ transfer and utilization. These traits and the genes that associated with them all make it easier for for these populations to survive in high altitude, low oxygen climates. Source
• Some gene variants involved in body oxygenation are common in Tibetans, Ethiopians, and Amerindians populations living in the Andes. It’s proposed that they are genetic adaptations to the high altitude in the regions where those populations live. Source 1, Source 2
• The Sherpa people in Nepal have a gene of homo denisovan origin, which makes it easier to breathe at higher altitudes. Source
• The “thrifty gene hypothesis” suggests that the genetic factors that predispose to weight gain might have been selectively advantageous in ancient environments, where food was scarce, but might have become deleterious in modern environments, where food is plentiful and lifestyles are generally sedentary. Based on epidemiologic evidence, specific racial/ethnic groups seem to be particularly susceptible to obesity due to genetic differences. Source 1, Source 2
• Caucasians are the hairiest ethnic group (they have the higher number of hairs on the body as a whole), with Semitic and Mediterranean people being the hairiest out of all Caucasians. Meanwhile, American Indians and Asians have the least hair on their bodies out of all ethnicities. All of the other races fall somewhere in between. Source
• East Asians have the thickest, strongest individual hair fibers out of all races. The EDAR gene is a strong determinant of hair thickness in Asians. Source
• Sub-Saharan Africans often have a head hair structure that has been described as “wooly” and that provides protection against strong sunlight. Pygmies, and some other groups who live or lived in hot and damp rainforests, instead have head hair that has been described as “peppercorn” and that grows in spirals with open spaces between tufts. This allows sweat to evaporate, while at the same time providing some protection against sunlight. Source
• Hair structure can affect behavior and health risk. A 2013 study found that 40% of African American women surveyed avoided exercise at times since hair care and hairstyle maintenance can be a costly and time-consuming process. Source

• A comprehensive 2024 study and database analyzed genetic data from over 8,000 ancient and 6,000 modern human samples from Western Eurasia, covering over 10,000 years. The findings verify that increased intelligence, lower body fat disposition, fewer psychotic disorders, and paler skin color were naturally selected in Western Eurasian populations over the past 10,000 years. Source, Database
• For the serotonin transporter gene, East Asians are significantly more likely to have the short “S” allele (5-HTTLPR) compared to Europeans who are relatively more likely to have the longer “L” allele, which may be a contributing factor to the more collectivist culture in East Asia versus the more individualist culture in Europe. Source
• The dopamine transporter (DAT1) gene, the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) gene, and the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene have small but reliable effects on educational attainment. Blacks tend to have higher dopamine indices than white people. Source

• The 7R gene exists at ~0 percent in East Asian rice farming societies, ~24% in Europeans, and 70% in some American Indian tribes. It’s associated with impulse seeking, extroversion, and novelty. Rice farming requires a remarkable degree of cooperation and so those people with the 7R gene probably didn’t breed or got kicked out (Source). From The 10,000 Year Explosion, page 112:

  The 7R (for 7-repeat) allele of the DRD4 (dopamine receptor D4) gene. It is associated with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a behavioral syndrome best characterized by actions that annoy elementary school teachers: restless-impulsive behavior, inattention, distractibility, and the like. The polymorphism is found at varying but significant levels in many parts of the world, but is almost totally absent from East Asia. Interestingly, alleles derived from the 7R allele are fairly common in China, even though the 7R alleles themselves are extremely rare there. It is possible that individuals bearing these alleles were selected against because of cultural patterns in China. The Japanese say that the nail that sticks out is hammered down, but in China it may have been pulled out and thrown away.

• Monoamine Oxidase A (MAO-A), the “Warrior Gene”, is known to be associated with a host of anti-social behaviors, and varies considerably around the word. Certain variants of this gene are prevalent among the Maori of New Zealand, a people with a reputation for fierceness and who today have significantly higher rates of violence than White New Zealanders. Source
• The 2-repeat version of the MAO-A gene is significantly associated with antisocial behavior and the likelihood of criminality in Black males. This allele is found in 5% of Black males, but is very rare (0.1%) in White males. Source
• Genes can influence a person’s ability to perceive tones, which in turn influences whether a language is tonal or not. Conversely, it may be the case that tonal languages can exert some selection pressure in favor of genes that enable people to distinguish the tones. Source
• Several studies suggest that cortisol patterns during the day differ between blacks and whites. For instance, cortisol levels upon waking have been shown to be higher among higher educated whites compared with blacks and lower educated whites. Source
• Black people are significantly less likely to hear the chirps made by smoke detectors when it’s time to replace the batteries. It’s probably genetic. Source
• Ashkenazi Jews are more likely to carry the PCDHA3 gene and other genes that are associated with schizophrenia and related illnesses. Source 1, Source 2
• The gene ASPM is implicated in the regulation of primate brain growth. Alleles of this gene vary in different human populations, a new variant being more common in the Middle East (37%-52% incidence) and Europe (38-50%) than in East Asia (0-25%). This genetic prevalence resembles the prevalence of alphabetical writing systems. Source
• The Piraha people don’t have words for counting multiple objects in their language, nor were most Pirahã children able to learn how to count objects in Brazilian numbers after being taught one hour every night for eight months. Source
• By 24 months of age, a majority of predominantly urban Western middle-class children (more than 70%) were reported to pass the mirror self-recognition (MSR) test, according to a 1972 study. By contrast, only 2 out of 82 Kenyan children ranging from 18 to 72 months old exhibited self-oriented behaviors demonstrating MSR, from the same study. Source
• Racial differences in responsive behavior are evident right after birth. This movie documents experiments done by Dan Freedman on newborn babies of different races. Source

There’s definitely many, many more genetic differences and examples of biological racial differences than what are shown on this inexhaustive list. With so many examples showing how different human populations evolved different physical and internal adaptations to become more physically fit in their environments, how could anyone reasonably deny that different populations didn’t also evolve to have different mental and behavioral traits?

Video: The Role Race Plays In Sport - B4 FleX.

Most of the text in this section was transcribed from B4 FleX’s video, The Role Race Plays In Sport. However, we must first note the following disclaimers, which make it difficult to discern how genetics affects athletic performance:

• Western Privileges: Access to better nutrition, facilities, and financial opportunities in Western countries often boost athletic success, which makes it difficult to discern genetic factors.
• Inherent Advantages: Different groups may have anatomical or genetic predispositions to certain sports, but these can be outweighed by other factors like culture, training, and opportunity.
• Genetics Isn’t Everything: While genetics can provide certain advantages or disadvantages in sports, hard work and training are crucial.
• Limited Data: There is limited research on the athletic capabilities of underrepresented groups like Native Americans, Southern Africans, Indians, and Aboriginal Australians.

---

The Known Factors That Can Affect Athletic Performance

• Anatomy & Somatotypes: Height, limb/torso ratios, body mass, etc. Source
  • Ectomorph: Slim, struggle to gain weight/muscle.
  • Mesomorph: Muscular, athletic.
  • Endomorph: Stockier, easily gains fat/muscle.
• Muscle Fiber Types
  • Type 1 (slow-twitch): High endurance, aerobic, useful in long-distance sports. Source
  • Type 2 (fast-twitch): Explosive power, anaerobic, useful in sprinting, jumping, bodybuilding. Source
  • West Africans have less red blood cells and lower hemoglobin, due to the prevalence of malaria. Since slow twitch muscle fibers use aerobic respiration, West Africans have less slow twitch muscle fibers to compensate for having less hemoglobin. West Africans thus have more fast twitch muscle fibers, which use anaerobic respiration and thus don’t need red blood cells. Source
• VO₂ Max: Maximum oxygen intake during exercise, important for endurance.
• ACTN3 Gene: Known as the “speed gene”; contributes to muscle power in fast-twitch fibers.
  • The R allele produces more power, whereas the X allele helps with recovery and injury prevention.
  • The RR, RX, XX genotypes vary among races. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5
• Myostatin: GDF8 gene controls muscle growth; Myostatin deficiencies increase muscle growth. Source
• Grip Strength: Varies by race. Source
• Androgens: Hormones (e.g. testosterone) that influence muscle and bone growth. Source
• Culture & Money: Cultural emphasis and wealth can shape athletic participation and opportunities.

---

The Known Athletic Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Racial Groups

• West & Central Africans
  • Dominance in Power Sports: Sprinting, basketball, football, boxing.
  • Anatomy: Most mesomorphic people in the world. Narrow builds, longer limbs, high calf insertions, longer Achilles tendons, shorter torsos (advantage in sprinting, jumping).
  • Genetic Advantages: High prevalence of ACTN3 RR genotypes, low myostatin (allows greater muscle growth), and high testosterone.
  • Africans are not well-suited to swimming since they have a narrow build, as well as denser bones and less body fat, which make it easier to float in water.
  • The center of gravity for Western Africans is 3% higher above the ground than Europeans. This gives sub-Saharan Africans an advantage in running, and Europeans an advantage in swimming.
  • Although Africans have the muscles necessary for performing in strongman competitions, they are at a disadvantage due to their narrow structure, shorter torso, and shorter heights. Another factor is that there aren’t a lot of Africans competing in those sports to begin with.
• East Africans
  • Dominance in Endurance Running.
  • Anatomy: Most ectomorphic people in the world. Long legs, thin ankles, thin calves, long Achilles tendons, low overall body fat, low body weight, high VO₂ max due to high-altitude living. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3
  • Muscle Fibers: High percentage of Type 1 muscle fibers, suited for endurance.
    Best ACTN3 genotype profile after West Africans.
• Europeans
  • Dominance in Swimming, Strongman, Powerlifting, Weightlifting.
  • Anatomical Advantages: Endomorphic, wider shoulders and chest clavicles, longer torso, shorter limbs (good for levers in strength sports), lower bone density (good for swimming). Source
  • Cultural and Financial Influence: Western countries host more sporting events, leading to greater participation and success.
• Pacific Islanders
  • Warrior Heritage: Origins in voyaging and close combat warfare.
  • Physique: Stocky builds, strong muscles, high fat retention (useful for strength and power sports).
  • Sports Focus: Excel in rugby and American football. Underrepresented in strongman competitions.
• East Asians
  • Dominance in Weightlifting: Particularly in lighter weight classes.
  • Anatomical Advantages: Most endomorphic people in the world. Shorter limbs with lower centers of gravity, which both benefit strength-based sports.
  • Cultural Influence: Early training and professional coaching for weightlifting is culturally prioritized.
• South Asians
  • Genetic Limitations: Shorter and more endomorphic, highest prevalence of ACTN3 XX genotype.
  • Cultural Factors: Sports not as prioritized as academics; common vegetarian diets may limit creatine intake, which is important for muscle building.
  • South Asia had 10-15 major famines within 200 years in the 1700-1900s (Link 2, Link 3). As a consequence, South Asians evolved traits that are adaptive to surviving famines, including: smaller frames, low lean muscle mass, insulin resistance, and higher body fat percentages.
• Mixed-Race and Other Groups
  • Mixed-Race Individuals: May inherit favorable or unfavorable traits from multiple ethnic backgrounds, giving them advantages and disadvantages in different sports.
  • Middle Eastern and North African: Diverse genetic backgrounds, often mixed with European, African, and Asian ancestry.

Article: Are Africans better runners? - Aporia Magazine.

Article: The Great Race: Why is the 1500 meters so diverse? - Steve Sailer.

Race matters in transplant surgeries. Simply put, you can’t mix-and-match body parts from different races. If you put a white organ in a black body, it will almost certainly be rejected, and vise versa. To successfully transplant an organ onto or into another person, the donor needs to be a genetic match, i.e. of the same race. As a result, mixed-race people have an incredibly difficult time finding suitable transplant donors.

Every race denialist says that race is not real (i.e. race is not biological) until someone needs an organ transplant. But don’t take my word for it, listen to the medical professionals.

First, opponents should also clarify what they mean by “racism”. Most people can’t agree on what “racism” is or should be, because it’s a loaded term. If “racism” is defined as some sort of negative value judgment towards a race(s), then truth judgments don’t imply value judgments. Race realism (a collection of truth claims) doesn’t imply racism (value judgments). Alternatively, if truth judgments can be considered “racist”, then racism is little more than a dismissive label for shutting discussions, an attempt to move the goalpost, and an incoherent concept.

This is essentially a Pascal’s Mugging Argument. Promoting race realism is supposedly an information hazard. The implicit assumption is that society won’t be rational enough to fully understand the implications of biology, statistics, probabilistic inference, and the truth | value gap. It’s also presumably worth denying reality because denial will somehow help underperforming races. This is fallacious.

To be ignorant of racial differences is equivalent to denying racial differences, which is equivalent to denying reality. We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Even if we wanted to ignore racial differences, we could never completely ignore them in practice. The biological reality of race is still evident when people need organ transplants, when some people are at risk of disease but not others, why racial disparities continue to exist despite social intervention, who tends to wins Olympic sports, and much more.

To argue that race isn’t real is to also 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 “Critical Race Theory”, demographic quotas, 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.

Furthermore, knowledge highlighting racial and genetic diversity doesn’t always have to be negative, nor should it be. If different races (and different people) tend to have different strengths and weaknesses, then it makes sense for a rational society to figure out how to leverage every person’s strengths, while brainstorming how to mitigate or cover every person’s weaknesses. This cannot be done if we ignore racial and genetic differences. Diversity and specialization should go hand in hand.

Lastly, we’ve clarified that averages and outliers exist for all races, which makes it irrational to discriminate against people by race, instead of by individual characteristics.

---

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.

Even if this is true, who cares? The Standpoint Theory of Truth is not a valid theory of truth. It’s meaningless and it has no predictive or explanatory power.

The short answer is: No. There is nothing contradictory about being a race realist and non-racist. Even when I first heard of race realism, I mistakenly thought that it was a racist ideology, since I didn’t know or understand what it is, and since this is a common misconception.

While discriminating is a necessary part of life, racism is a form of irrational discrimination. White supremacy and all other race supremacist beliefs are better categorized as race idealism, not race realism. “Race Idealism” is equivalent to “Scientific Racism” on the Venn diagram below.²

Sometimes, race realists are also labeled “Nazis” or “fascists”, but these terms are meaningless epithets. Nowadays, “Nazi” and “Fascist” are typically used for describing any ideas that people merely don’t like, so they’ve lost their original meanings.

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. If race realism was just pseudoscience that’s intended 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. Likewise, JayMan (who made multiple contributions to these FAQs), Lipton Matthews, and B4FleX are examples of black race realists. Clearly, race realists can be of any race, which contradicts the belief that race realism is motivated by racism, rather than rationality.

Read More: The Difference Between Race Realism And Race Idealism.

Read More: Race Denial vs Racism: A False Dichotomy - Anatoly Karlin.²

This depends on what is meant by “better”, and in what context. No respectable race realist would say that there is a “master race” or a “racial hierarchy”, 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.

Meritocracy is a hill that I am willing to die on. Unfortunately, race denialists don’t believe meritocracy, because they believe in holding back relatively successful demographics, like Whites and East Asians. Also unfortunately, racist race realists (and especially racists in general) don’t believe in meritocracy either, because they believe in holding back exceptional people who come from underperforming races. Non-racist race realists are the only ones who fully embrace meritocracy.

Even if it were the case that one race was often “better” than the others on average, there are still statistical outliers for every race. Hence, it’s not reasonable to treat people differently based on nothing but their race.

Read More: Are Smart People Superior? A Reply to Noah Carl and Charles Murray - Nathan Cofnas.

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.

In the 2004 democratic transhumanist book Citizen Cyborg, bioethicist James Hughes criticized the premise and influence of the film Gattaca as fear-mongering, arguing:

1. Astronaut-training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons.
2. In the United States, people are already screened by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease, for actuarial purposes.
3. 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.

More to the point, most people underestimate how much social status is determined by genetics. Humans have essentially lived under social caste-based societies with low, stable social mobility for nearly all of human history. We already live in a world where intelligence, fitness, social status, socio-economic mobility, etc are all mainly determined by inheritance. Hence, there is no reason to fear or believe that accepting eugenics and race realism would lead to a Gattaca-like world that’s much different from the one that we currently live in.

Read More:

• Gregory Clark’s Body of Research.
• Manifold Podcast Episode: Genetics and Social Mobility - Gregory Clark.
• Social Mobility Hasn’t Really Changed In 400 Years - Gregory Clark.
• The Grandchildren Of China’s Pre-Revolutionary Elite Are Unusually Rich - The Economist.
• The Wealthy in Florence Today Are the Same Families as 600 Years Ago - The Wallstreet Journal.

• Quote from But knowledge about racial differences could be used to justify racism - Race FAQs:

  To be ignorant of racial differences is equivalent to denying racial differences, which is equivalent to denying reality. We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. Even if we wanted to ignore racial differences, we could never completely ignore them in practice. The biological reality of race is still evident when people need organ transplants, when some people are at risk of disease but not others, why racial disparities continue to exist despite social intervention, who tends to wins Olympic sports, and much more.

  Furthermore, knowledge highlighting racial and genetic diversity doesn’t always have to be negative, nor should it be. If different races (and different people) tend to have different strengths and weaknesses, then it makes sense for a rational society to figure out how to leverage every person’s strengths, while brainstorming how to mitigate or cover every person’s weaknesses. This cannot be done if we ignore racial and genetic differences. Diversity and specialization should go hand in hand.

• Meritocracy ultimately benefits a far greater number of people. The only people who wouldn’t benefit from meritocracy are those who would gain power by preventing meritocracy.
• Eliminating racial disparities won’t eliminate disparities in general. Eliminating one type of inequality will only make other types of inequalities matter more. Nevertheless, a true meritocracy should eliminate disparities that are caused by environmental factors, in order to function properly.
• If people from underperforming demographics are chosen in a system with no demographic quotas, then they won’t have to worry about if they were merely diversity hires. They will know that they were chosen because they were the best person society had to offer for filling the position at that time.
• Societal improvements that help everybody will help underperforming demographics as well. This website proposes many ideas for improving society as a whole. For example, we theorize that Georgism would boost economic prosperity, which would collectively benefit everybody, regardless of how disadvantaged a person may be. Even if some amount of inequality between people is inevitable, it may not matter if everybody is able to achieve and afford a decent standard of living.
• See: Why Does It Matter That People Accept That Race Is Biological? - Race FAQs.
• By understanding the true causes of racial disparities, we can figure out how to address them and eliminate them more efficiently. Finding the truth is instrumental to achieving values.
• If some races have stereotypes that negatively affect how other people perceive them, then we need to ask why those negative stereotypes persist:
  • If a minority of Black people are criminals or have been criminals, then that minority of people is creating a bad perception of the entire demographic as a whole. The actions associated with the criminal minority are partially holding the majority back. So, if we can imprison or eliminate that criminal minority, then the rest of the people in that demographic will benefit from a naturally more positive public perception and stereotype.
  • It only takes a few people from a demographic to create a negative stereotype that ruins the public perception of the demographic as a whole. Just a few people ruin things for everyone else.
  • More succinctly, if we want to improve the public perception of some demographics, then we need to eliminate the people who are creating negative perceptions of the demographic, and thus ruining the public perception of the demographic as a whole.
  • As the collective performance of their demographics improve, the negative perception of those demographics having higher crime and lower intelligence will disappear, which will benefit people from those demographics more and more as they get better and better.
  • Instead of pretending that the stereotype and what causes the stereotype doesn’t exist, the biological realists acknowledge it and address it directly.
• Increasing policing and locking up criminals in neighborhoods that have high crime rates would reduce the amount of crime in those neighborhoods. This would benefit all the people living within those neighborhoods, and make them safer places to live, which could help eliminate the main environmental factors that are holding back the demographics who live in those neighborhoods.
• Reproduction licenses would make it harder to have children, which would make having and raising children higher status. This would probably reduce the population of single parent households and fatherless black children. Currently, many black men choose to seek status by being violent thugs and getting reproductive free rides.
• If we can acquire the necessary political will for enforcing reproduction licenses, it would help reduce or eliminate racial disparities over time. Eugenics would help select for better people from those races, which would put people from those races on more equal footing with everybody else.
• Legalizing all victimless crimes would help reduce the police force’s supposed racial bias towards Blacks and Hispanics. The drug war is unwinnable, and a methodical approach to decriminalizing drugs would be best for addressing and reducing the abuse of harmful drugs.
• Increasing gene flow with other races could help reduce the disparity gaps between high-performing and underperforming groups.
• It’s likely that the human race will probably mix into some sort of global race in the distant future, as race mix continues, if modern civilization manages to persist.
• If underperforming groups increase their performance, that will encourage more race-mixing, which will increase gene flow, which will cause some positive feedback loops for making those groups on a more equal level with the higher performing groups.
• Fortunately, all of these proposed ideas have positive feedback loops with each other.

• Underperforming races would benefit enormously from race realism. They would stop going through life convinced they were cheated. They would lose much of their resentment of whites. They would learn the invaluable lesson that success or failure depends overwhelmingly on their own talents, not what whites think of them.
• Black/white relations – and no one claims they are good – would benefit enormously from race realism. If many blacks did not obviously resent whites, race relations would be much less fraught with tension. If whites didn’t have to worry constantly about “privilege” and “microaggressions” and “unconscious bias”, they would have less reason to avoid blacks and better relations with the ones they know.
• Finally, if society were honest about race, the forces that created Dylann Roof, Patrick Crusius, and Payton Gendron would be much weaker. Is it surprising that some young whites get angry when they are taught that they are oppressors, have no history to be proud of, and that their eventual replacement by non-whites will be a triumph of diversity? Violent, sickening acts are even more likely when dissident views are suppressed and called “hate” or “white supremacy”.
• People who have a voice speak; people who are silenced express themselves in other ways. Brenton Tarrant is an Australian who shot up two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. He was opposed to mass, non-white immigration, which he thought threatened the white majority. I feel certain that if there had been a full, public debate on the pros and cons of Muslim immigration, and on the pros and cons of reducing the white percentage of the population through immigration, he would not have killed anyone. – Jared Taylor, America Must Have Race Realism

---

What Needs To Be Done To Reduce Crime Rates

In order for a police force to be truly effective, it’s necessary for it to monitor areas with higher crime rates. Effectiveness is measured by the police’s ability to stop and deter crime. Areas with higher crime rates may happen to have higher Sub-Saharan African, Amerindian, or Hispanic populations, but that doesn’t make it “racist” for police departments to monitor those more closely and more often. The problem with ghettos is the people who live in those places.

If anything, the best thing that whites could do for blacks is to police the hell out of those neighborhoods. Increased policing imprisons people who would otherwise be repeat offenders and/or make more offspring who are genetically predisposed to become future criminals. It also increases the game-theoretic pressure to avoid committing crimes, Increased policing will lead to less crime. Less crime thus leads to increased safety and greater prosperity for all.

---

In order to end wokism, it is important that underperforming demographics understand how accepting biological realism could benefit them. One of the biggest reasons why such demographics support wokism is because they believe that they will benefit from woke policies. If people don’t understand how the world would benefit from accepting biological realism, then they are unlikely to support it. They need to understand that it is disadvantageous to let wokism continue.

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. It would be 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. In order to ensure a meritocracy, individuals must always be treated based on merit, not congenital demographic properties.

It’s true that Amerindians and Sub-Saharan Africans commit disproportionately more crimes than Europeans, East Asians, East Indians, etc. But it is simultaneously true 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.

The percentage of murderers who are Black is not the same as the percentage of Blacks who are murderers. To describe this mathematically with Bayesian notation, we could write:

• P(Black | Murderer) > 50%
• P(Murderer | Black) < 5%

Read More: Understanding Regression to the Mean.

No, it hasn’t. In summary:

1. 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.
2. Biologists are less likely to deny race than anthropologists.
3. People who study animals are less likely to deny race than people who study humans.
4. Since the 1600s, scientists have divided humanity into around five major biological or ’racial’ groups.
5. Denying the biological validity of race and the existence of these five major racial groups was popularized after the 1960s, spiking around the 1980s.
6. Present-day Western scientists, who are located in the epicenter of race-denialism, are split around 50/50 on the issue of race.
7. 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. Hereditarianism is the majority opinion within the experts in intelligence research. Source
8. 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.

It’s also worth pointing out how RatWiki’s Racialism article has a misleading section, “Scientific consensus: Races aren’t useful”. The quotes in that section each repeat that racial categories are not discrete, even though all race realists already acknowledge this. Furthermore, most of the quotes were cherry-picked from anthropologists, not biologists. RatWiki doesn’t want to show what the biologists’ consensus on race is, because it would expose how they’re misrepresenting the academic consensus on race. RatWiki’s editors are interested in confirming their biases, not intellectual honesty.

Read More: Is there a “Scientific Consensus” on the Existence of Human Races? - Thuletide.

---

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 fake, redundant, plagiarized, out-dated, and/or useless.

Read More: A Rational Critique Of Academic Research.

---

That has been true historically, but recognizing the invalidity of those arguments does not disprove race realism. To say otherwise is an Argument from Fallacy. Just because the reasoning for an argument is wrong, that does not imply that the conclusion is wrong too.

Saying “there’s no objective way to define intelligence” is not an argument against one definition or for another. We could just as easily say there’s no objective way to define “chair”. It’s technically true, but it’s tactical nihilism. Everybody still has general consensus on what a ’chair’ is. Likewise for intelligence.

So, we certainly can define intelligence, and IQ tests have been the best way to estimate it. IQ is a useful metric as long as you understand what it is and what it isn’t. 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 measure of cognitive abilities would also have to reject the validity of all the other concepts in this list, lest they would have contradicting beliefs. Like many things, it is impossible to directly measure intelligence, so indirect measurements of intelligence are the next best information that we can collect and analyze.

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 depiction below 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.

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.

Read More: Wikipedia: g factor (psychometrics).

If this claim were true, then the difference in intelligence between a human and a chimpanzee (or any other animal) would have to be purely environmental. Only a modicum of common sense is needed to realize that this simply isn’t true. Intelligence is obviously affected by genetics. A more charitable interpretation of this claim is that there is no consensus on the extent to which intelligence is determined by genetics. In the rest of this essay, we can confidently say and explain why intelligence is mostly determined by genetics.

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.

Additionally, 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). Also see: Information Processing: IQ prediction from structural MRI (Steve Hsu, 2015).

Lastly, while we acknowledge that IQ is a valid measure of multiple cognitive abilities with strong predictive power for life outcomes, we caution against anybody who wants to extrapolate beyond IQ. There are many mental abilities that IQ doesn’t measure, such as the ability to learn or the ability to explain things. IQ also doesn’t measure psychological or personality traits within populations, such as psychopathy, aggression, extroversion vs introversion, etc. IQ isn’t everything, but it does accurately foreshadow many things, when it’s understood and used correctly.

Read More: The IQ Question.

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. Physical traits only emerge through the complex interaction of all the genes in the genome. As such, most traits (especially behavioral ones) 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).

Moreover, some genes that cause different behavioral traits have been identified in humans, including for intelligence. However, many of the genes and traits listed in that section were relatively easy to identify since they tend to follow Mendelian inheritance. Since non-Mendelian inheritance is actually more common for traits than Mendelian inheritance, some researchers have proposed emergenesis as a new theory for addressing the difficulty in identifying the relationships between genes and polygenic traits.

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.

No, that’s an assumption. More advanced mental abilities are not always the best evolutionary strategy because intelligence has costs and benefits.

1. Brain tissue is very energy-demanding, so that’s a major disadvantage to having a larger brain.
   • It’s well-documented that greater brain size strongly correlates with higher IQ, and vice versa (Pietschnig et al 2014, Shaw et al 2006, Menary et al 2013, Karama, Deary, et al 2011).
   • We know that brain size correlates with intelligence in animals because smarter animals tend to have bigger brains. So it doesn’t make intuitive sense to posit that there’s no correlation between brain size and IQ in humans. As an example, giant pandas have relatively smaller brains compared to other bears, which was probably an adaptation to their low energy density diet.
   • It’s also well-documented that some races have larger brain sizes than others, and that brain size is mainly determined by genetics (Rushton 2004, McDaniel, M. A. 2005).
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 more advantageous than extroversion in all scenarios.
5. IQ and myopia both tend to positively correlate with each other. The usual environmental explanation is that higher IQ people spend more time reading and studying, which worsens eyesight. However, a possible genetic explanation is that greater brain matter (and thus higher IQ) creates more pressure on the eyes, which worsens eyesight. Source
6. There are numerous successful animal species with small or nonexistent brains.
7. It’s well-known that higher IQ negatively correlates with fertility in the world’s modern environment.
8. Even between members of the same race (for any race), individual intelligence tends to vary from person to person. If higher intelligence was universally adaptive in all environments, then we should expect everybody to be equally intelligent and expect every person on Earth to be a brilliant genius. This does not match what we observe in reality. We also observe that intelligence is mainly determined by genetics.

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.

Related Reading: Recent evolution of the ability to read and write - Peter Frost.

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. The 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.

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.

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.

The way how parents raise their children is genetic too, not just the way how children behave. It might be true in some cases that bad people would’ve grown up to be better people if they had better parents. But it’s more likely in most cases that “bad” behaviors are caused by genetics, and that bad parents naturally pass on bad mannerisms when they raise their children. The children are also more likely to become “bad” if they inherited their parents’ genes.

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.³ 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 (malnutrition, lead exposure, 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.

Lastly, if one labels the idea that some races are innately predisposed to commit more crimes than others as “racist”, then it’s contradictory to not also label the idea that men have an innate disposition to commit more crimes than women as “sexist”.

Other authors have written longer and more detailed works on this topic, but this is a short summary:

1. “Oppressed” racial minorities aren’t leaving the West. If anything, they’re immigrating to the West.
2. The average black or Hispanic person in the West lives a far better life than someone of the same ethnic group who lives in a third-world country.
3. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, black people have had equal legal rights to whites for 60+ years of time (two generations) to recover socially and economically. There are no legal rights or privileges that white people have that black people don’t have. Black people also had a variety of ethnomarxist policies and propaganda, and yet they still don’t have the same prosperity as whites.
4. Racism and discrimination aren’t unique to black people. Virtually all immigrants to the New World had to deal with discrimination and fight for their rights, at one point or another. Asian people used to be oppressed in the West, but now they’re among the most successful and well-off per capita. If Asians and poor immigrants can rise from the bottom to the top, then this is evidence that nothing prevents other minorities from doing the same (if we assume that genetic differences don’t matter).
5. Poverty isn’t unique to blacks, Hispanics, or American Indians. As of 2010, approximately half of the people living below the poverty line in the US are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million).
6. Police brutality isn’t unique to black people, and neither is race-on-race violence. However, we do see that white people are attacked by other races more often than white people attack other races.
7. Over 50% of black children in the US live in a single parent household, compared to just ~17% of white children (as of 2017). Obviously, this has a huge impact on how most blacks live their adult lives. However, there is no logical connection between racism and single parent households that doesn’t involve mental gymnastics. It fits Occam’s Razor better to suppose that single parent households are caused by genetic factors, or even cultural factors.
8. All public schools teach their students to believe that discrimination against other races is wrong. If anything, anti-white racism is the most type of racism in the Modern West. Despite that, it’s not uncommon to hear people say that the United States is one of the least “racist” countries in the world.
9. Black popular culture is fairly popular among mainstream culture these days. How would it be popular if black people are still oppressed by whites? (Of course though, white culture is still the most dominant because whites are a majority of the American population).
10. Historically, American Indians, Native Hawaiians, and others fought lots of wars with each other. So why was it any different when white Europeans arrived to the New World and did the same thing?
11. The population of Africa skyrocketed after the Europeans colonized the continent, which implies that European colonization was largely a good thing since it largely ended war, disease, and famine in Africa for the time being.
12. The best explanation for different crime rates between different races is different genetics. Races are defined by different genetics, and this is the default conclusion by Occam’s Razor.

To a large extent, the perception on how much racism/“racism” exists in the United States depends on what people consider to be racism, which depends on a person’s ideology and what they believe. Nevertheless, I’d argue that the more reasonable position is that the United States has really low levels of racism, with anti-white racism being the main exception.

Also see: How Bad Was Racial Economic Discrimination in post-Civil War America? - Heretical Insights.

---

This is a Pascal’s Mugging Argument, and it’s false:

• Races are defined by having different genetics, so Occam’s Razor favors genetics as the simplest explanation for racial disparities.
• If racial disparities are caused by cultural differences, then this raises the question of where cultures come from. The simplest explanation is that culture is largely determined by genetics.
• The cultural explanation has been assumed for several decades, and the cultural belief in agency still hasn’t erased disparities.
• There are plenty of well-documented genetic behavioral differences between races.
• There’s many reasons to believe that selection for higher intelligence varies by ancestral environment.

At some point, a rational-minded person will have to ask: Are racial disparities really an issue that can be fixed by “improving” (supposed) environmental circumstances? Or will blacks never achieve the same prosperity as whites without intervention since race is real?

Read More: Thomas Sowell’s Wishful Thinking about Race - Nathan Cofnas.

For the record, an adverse environment with severe poverty (e.g. modern-day sub-Saharan Africa) does have a negative effect on IQ. Hence, the average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is somewhat lower than what it could be under optimum conditions. However, we can’t reduce all racial IQ differences to environmental deprivation. Environmental differences may contribute to IQ differences, but they’re not the main factor.

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 heritability 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 be heavily genetic.³

Read More:

• Race, Genes, & Intelligence: An Empirical Test of the Hereditarian Hypothesis.
• Race And Intelligence (Explanations) - Psychology Fandom Wiki.
• Thomas Sowell’s Wishful Thinking about Race - Nathan Cofnas.
• Most Accurate National IQs Possible - Sebastian Jensen.
• The Global Bell Curve - Sebastian Jensen.
• Gwern’s Links on IQ and Socio-Economic Status.
• World Map: Birthplaces of Nobel Prize Winners.
• Test Anxiety? Maybe You’re Just Not Smart - Cremieux.
  Test anxiety is more about low IQs than anxiety interfering with performance.

---

Income and educational attainment is correlated with IQ for all races. We could interpret this environmentally as income boosting IQ and educational attainment, but we could also interpret this genetically as IQ boosting income and educational attainment. The former is true to some extent, but the causal relationship in the latter is much stronger. The average African American has a higher standard of living today than Issac Newton and all the other Enlightenment thinkers who lived in the 1600s, or even the standard of living for European Americans in the early 1900s. And yet, African-Americans have still failed to achieve the intellectual, educational, or economic achievement of Europeans and East Asians.

Racial gaps in IQ and achievement persist in developed countries just as much as they persist in developing countries. The racial IQ and achievement hierarchy that is visible in the United States is found all over the world. In every country on Earth, Blacks statistically do poorly in comparison to Europeans. Likewise, East Asians and Ashkenazi Jews collectively do well all around the world, better than 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.

This is untenable upon close examination. When looking at the outliers from this pattern, one can see that average wealth does not affect national outcomes in IQ. For example, people from impoverished interior China tend to perform better on IQ tests than people from wealthy yet not particularly intelligent Middle Eastern oil-exporting nations.

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.

To some extent, it’s difficult to define what a single-parent family or household is. Do children living with married step-parents count? Do cohabiting parents count if they’re unmarried? What about children raised by other relatives (e.g. grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc) or children who live in group quarters (institutions, dormitories, orphanages, or group homes)?

Regardless of however it’s defined, there are huge disparities in the rate of single-parent households between races.

• According to Pew Research in 2017, over 50% of black children live in single parent families, compared to just ~17% of white children.
• According to the AECF, 67% of black children live in single parent families, compared to 25% of white children. The AECF considers cohabiting unmarried parents to be “single”, but not married step-parents.
• According to the US Census Bureau in 2022, 70% of white children lived with married birth parents, compared to only 33% of black children.

---

This does not fit the evidence. We already mentioned before that identical twin studies and adoption studies disprove the hypothesis that environments are the main cause of differences in intelligence.

And even if single-parent households do cause higher crime rates, this fails to consider possible genetic causes. It could also be the case that parents who don’t take care of their children have genetics that make them less responsible, less intelligent, and more likely to commit crimes to begin with. Likewise, people who grew up in fatherless single-parent households may be less responsible and more likely to commit crimes because both they and their parents have genes that make them 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 genetics 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.

There is no such thing as “white privilege” in the US today, but there is “father privilege”.

Over 50% of black children live in single parent families, compared to just ~17% of white children. This has a big impact on parental investment and household income. It also has a big psychological effect. Children need fathers as well as mothers. Boys need male role models. Also, fathers are male authority figures, and father-son interaction teaches boys how to deal with male authority.

Sexual promiscuity is often associated with violent behavior. Love and marriage go together, and so do violence and promiscuity. It’s a basic biological principle. When paternity cannot be established, males will not invest energy in caring for offspring. Instead, they will compete for access to females.

Having a father is not a privilege, but it is a huge advantage in life. This advantage is not being denied to black people by white people. It is being denied to black children by their parents.

– Blithering Genius, Ferguson: Race and Violence

Furthermore, the rates of violent crime have been falling since the mid-1990s, in spite of a surge in single parenthood during the 1970s and 1980s. 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. That is the exact opposite of what happened in the 1990s and 2000s. While this doesn’t prove that single parenthood has no effect on crime rates, it’s still counter-evidence that needs to be considered. Other explanations for why crime rates fell during the 1990s and onward include: the legalization of abortion, better policing tactics, higher incarcerations rates, improvements in medical care lower the fatality of assaults and injuries, etc.

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.

That’s true, but many of the problems in the African-American family were present at the time of slavery.

See: Conservatives Are Wrong About The Black Family - Aporia Magazine.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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. And while theft, murder, rape are the most archetypical types of crime (which blacks happen to do more of), we’ve explained and addressed that there are some specific types of crimes that whites do more than blacks per capita (e.g. hacking, pedophilia, deadlier mass shootings, etc).

---

• Racial Crime Statistics: A Series of Infographics on Globally Consistent Trends (Downloadable PDF).
• US Mass Shootings, 2018-2020: Who’s responsible? - Thuletide.
• Western Europe, State Formation, and Genetic Pacification - Frost & Harpending 2015.
• Violence Around The World - HBD Chick.
• In 2020, over 56% of known murder offenders in the US were black, while blacks make up only 13.6% of the US population. Source 1, Source 2
• In 2019, over 91% of murder suspects and arrestees in NYC were black or Hispanic, while blacks and Hispanics make up only 53% of NYC’s population. Source
• The sons of black families from the top 1 percent of household income have about the same chance of being incarcerated as the sons of white families earning $36,000 (~34th percentile). Source
• Immigrants constitute 73% of murder suspects, 70% of robbery suspects, and 58% of suspects for all crimes in Sweden. Source

---

Responses To Objections About Racial Disparities In Crime Rates

The crime rates are not lying, nor are they unfairly biased against races. That’s mental gymnastics. Blacks would face fewer encounters, killings, or police brutality if they committed fewer crimes.

---

These things may have been true before the mid-1900s, but none of them have been true for the past 60 years. There’s also no clear connection between poverty and crime rates (see next paragraphs).

Also See: Racial Disparities In Racism And Systemic Oppression.

This is a good example of one-sided reasoning, which simply ignores other explanations. While poverty does correlate with higher crime rates, correlation does not imply causation. The available evidence does not support a causation relationship between poverty and crime rates.

Furthermore, 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. The same goes for rapes, which are more likely to be committed by blacks than whites per capita.

There are also many natural experiments that support the genetic hypothesis over the wealth inheritance hypothesis. For example, some minorities quickly rose in social status after immigrating to Western societies with little or no wealth: Irish peasants, the Chinese, Ashkenazi Jews, 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.

---

To the contrary, scientists have identified genes that strongly correlate with higher crimes, as well as other genes that affect behavior in general. Moreover, this argument has a major conception. “crime-causing alleles” is not like a binary thing you either have or you don’t. There are probably thousands of different places in the human genome that each have small contributions to criminal behavior. All these alleles vary by frequency for every race.

There’s a lot of alleles that, say 80% black people have that only 20% of white people have. Many places in the genome are like that, which is what causes racial differences in appearance and behavior. Black people probably have more alleles related to aggressive behavior, lower foresight, and worse impulse control on average, which accounts for that group’s 5-8x higher chance of committing a homicide. And of course, criminal behavior also isn’t purely genetic. It’s also a result of random factors and circumstances, but these aren’t the main factors regarding people’s behavior, in the grand scheme of things.

Read More: No one has found a gene for intelligence, criminality, or any behavioral trait, so behavioral traits can’t be inherited.

---

Of course there are things that whites do more than other races. The bottom line is that different races will have different behaviors and different rates for different kinds of crimes. White people may be more likely to do pedophilia or hacking, whereas black people are more likely to kill, rape, steal, cheat, etc.

This is a red herring fallacy, not an argument against race realism. From the same data set, blacks make up a somewhat disproportionately higher percentage of mass shootings. Also, race realism isn’t “white people good, black people bad”. It’s “races are real and races differ in average mental traits”. If you look at patterns of murder, there are probably racial differences that go beyond the incidence level.

For example, one stereotype is “black men can’t shoot”, because there’s a lot of mass shootings with few deaths where the perpetrator is almost always black. The carefully planned and executed mass murders take a lot more victims, and they tend to be done by autistic Asians and Europeans. There’s also Muslims who have impressive group agency and suicide attacks. The bottom line is that different people have (statistically) different behaviors.

---

There seems to be ideological bias regarding what gets labeled as “terrorism”, so this is a questionable claim. 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.

I don’t know if there’s any non-partisan statistical analysis on terrorism that clearly defines how it categorizes the motivations of every terrorist act, but people can contact me if there is one. Regardless, terrorism is relatively uncommon compared to other types of crime, so the prevalence of terrorism motivated by racial supremacy does not disprove how some races are innately more likely to commit crimes than others.

Statistics are often cited for that claim, but they tend to make the error of not examining crime rates by race. We know that some races commit more crimes than other (Blacks and American Indians), so that’s a major reason why native-born crime are higher than the crime rates of immigrants.

When trying to make an honest judgment on whether immigrants commit more crimes than the native-born population, it thus makes sense to divide crime rates by race. Most immigrants to the United States are usually Latin American, Middle Eastern, or Asian (South, Southeast, East, or Pacific Islander). The immigrant crime is higher than the native-born white crime rates. Hispanic crime also tends to get worse in the second generations.

Wikipedia: k-Means Clustering.

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”.

This is tactical nihilism. Every algorithm for classifying taxa and taxonomy has to have parameters plugged into it. In particular, the threshold parameter is important for determining whether two groups are classified as different taxa or not. In essence, this means that anybody can come up with whatever algorithm they want for classifying races as distinct taxa, or not.

Any cutoff point that you choose is going to arbitrary. And even if that’s true, this Wikipedia chart implies that humans have basically two subspecies. If you apply max-linkage agglomerative clustering to the ancestry groups in this chart, and there’s a subspecies cutoff of 0.25, then the two subspecies of humanity are “black” and “non-black”. This is consistent with how K=2 in K-Cluster Analysis divides all of humanity into Sub-Saharan Africans and Non-Sub-Saharan Africans.

Regardless, if you tell a clustering algorithm to group people based on genetic data (and the threshold parameter for separating humans into distinct groups is set to the right level), you will get the socially defined races with practically perfect accuracy. In one example, a genetic cluster analysis of 3636 people grouped 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: “All humans are 99.9% genetically identical, therefore race isn’t real” - Thuletide.

See: What Is The Difference Between Genetic Similarity And Relatedness?

This is a red herring fallacy.

1. It will always be inevitable than some set of subspecies with have the lowest genetic variation between them of any subspecies set.
2. The criteria for categorizing a set of organisms into different species or sub-species cannot be set by what organisms are already considered separate subspecies. That would only raise the question of what criteria were used to classify of the previous set of organisms in the first place.
3. Race / subspecies classification is based on observed characteristics (phenotypes), not genotypes.
4. Humans have more genetic variation than many animal species that are indisputably categorized into different races. For example, there is less shared DNA between some human races than between bonobos and chimpanzees.

That’s true, but there’s a few points that we want to make clear:

1. We do not advocate for phenotype being the primary or only way to determine taxonomy and genetic variation. Regardless, basing taxonomy on phenotypic traits and habitats has been the historically preferred method of taxonomical classification, and that’s still true when biologists are classifying non-human plants and animal species. It was also more accurate in the past before modernity enabled historically unprecedented race mixing.
2. While taxonomy based on phenotypic traits is now somewhat outdated due to the advancement of new methods and information, as well as increased race-mixing, it’s not necessarily too inaccurate in many cases, even in today’s world. Nevertheless, we are absolutely in favor of using other factors besides appearance to determine racial admixture and classification.
3. Even if it is difficult to tell what race someone is from, it’s easier to identify a person’s race the more and more people expose and familiarize themselves with what different people from different races look like.
4. These points matter because:
   1. This is a point of contention that’s often brought up. We want to clarify our position on how taxonomy should be determined and what criteria have traditionally been used for taxonomy.
   2. Appearance does correlate with races and genetic traits. That’s part of the nature of race.
   3. Inaccurate guesses are often due to unfamiliarity with the physical characteristics of races.
   4. Being unable to guess a person’s race does not invalidate the truth claims of race realism.
   5. None of these contentions change our preferences for race-blind government policies.
   6. None of these contentions imply that we propose that appearance or race should be used in medical diagnoses, when more precise information is available.

And for the record, I can testify from personal experience that it is indeed difficult to correctly guess a person’s race. Most people can discern that I have European ancestry, but few people have guessed that I also have East Asian ancestry (~50%). The same is true for many people.

See: Pancake Fallacy: “All races are mixed, therefore race does not exist” - Thuletide.

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 modern world, but mestizos, mulattoes, and hapas are all still different from each other. Each of them may be half European, 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 sub-Saharan African).

The Pancake Fallacy uses similar tactical nihilism to the Continuum Fallacy.

RatWiki has stated the following question in their fallacious and bad-faith “Racialism” article:

Almost nobody classifies humans mainly based on traits, rather than race. That’s true whether someone is a race realist, a race denialist, or simply doesn’t care. When people talk about groups of people based on their genetics, their appearance, and/or their ancestry, it is very common and very accepted to describe and refer to people based on their race. In practice, the people who ask these kinds of questions still tend to talk about races as a way to refer to groups of peoples (e.g. complaining about how white people have more money than black people). So if it’s implicit that it’s okay for race denialists to talk about race, but not okay for race realists to talk about race, then this is tactical nihilism and it’s a bad-faith question.

More to the point, the answer is that classifying humans based on traits has less predictive power than classifying humans based on race. As stated before, the definition of race is “a statistical cluster of genetic variation which is characterized by phenotypic similarities and shared ancestry”. Hence, if we know a person’s race, but not their individual traits, then we can make predictions about a high number of their traits, and the predictions will have a high tendency to be correct. The same goes for IQ scores.

Obviously though, the best method for classifying humans depends on the context. If you can judge a person based on their personal traits than their racial background, that’s always more preferable. For example, medical diagnoses and treatment should always be conducted on an individual-by-individual basis.

Nevertheless, the main reason why it’s so taboo to acknowledge these facts is that it would strengthen the argument that most racial disparities are caused by genetic, rather than environmental factors. The argument that we can classify humans based on traits instead of race is a tactical nihilism argument. It’s not intended to be good-faith. The real intent of making such an argument is to hide the reality that some people (and some races) are naturally destined to be smarter, to commit more crimes, etc than others, due to their genetics.

In 1972, a scientist named Richard Lewontin claimed that dividing humans into races or subspecies is biologically invalid because “there is more genetic variation within races than between them”. Supposedly, this means that the concept of race is meaningless.

However, the following would hold if we took this argument to its logical conclusion:

• There is more genetic variation within dog breeds than between dog breeds (Source). Therefore, different dog breeds don’t have meaningfully different mental or behavioral characteristics.
• The variation in height within males is larger than the variation in height between males and females. Therefore, women aren’t shorter than men.
• Schools don’t matter. School-level data for student outcomes is not worth considering because schools only account for 10 to 15% of variation in students’ academic achievement.
• The income difference between blacks and whites in the US is smaller than the income variation found among blacks and among whites. Thus, the income disparity between blacks and whites is insignificant and not to be discussed.

Obviously, these examples are all ridiculous and illogical.

Furthermore, an FST of 0.12 between human races represents the average increased probability of a single gene being different. Analyzing a single gene in isolation is unlikely to tell you the race of an individual, but analyzing multiple genes together can predict someone’s race to a high degree of accuracy.

As an example, suppose that you are asked to guess whether a person was a male or female, based on whether they were taller or shorter than average, or hairier or less hairy than average, or whether their voice was higher or lower pitched than average. If only one of these facts were told to you, you could make an educated guess, but there would be a decent chance that you would be wrong. If you combined data on say 20 such sex differences, your chances of correctly guessing the person’s sex would be very high. And as we all know, males and females are clearly distinct from one another. By the same principle, a single gene might not be a very good predictor of someone’s race, but that doesn’t mean that the combined data on many genes won’t be.

Read More:

• Do human races exist?: Explaining Lewontin’s Fallacy - Peter Frost.
• Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin’s Fallacy - Wikipedia.
• Lewontin’s Fallacy - Metapedia.
• Lewontin’s Fallacy Explained and Debunked: - Thuletide.

See: Transracial Fallacy: “Two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other” - Thuletide.

As more and more loci are considered, the probability that two random people from two geographically distant populations (Europeans, Africans, Asians) will be more genetically similar than two random people from the same population becomes virtually zero. Source

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).
• Wikipedia: Recent Human Evolution.
• We Cannot Transcend Evolution by Blithering Genius.

There are multiple reasons:

• The media is not representative of the average person from each demographic.
  • For example, the black people shown on TV, in movies, advertisements, and high-social-status positions are not representative of the average black person.
  • The Quillette argues that casting for African Americans unfairly favors “lightskins” for conforming to a more white beauty standard, being prettier, etc. While this is about appearance, rather than mental traits, it’s still good evidence that the media isn’t representative of the average black person.
  • Parasocial relationships have increased during modernity, and they tend to distort people’s perceptions of other races to be more positive.
• Woke propaganda is strong. Often time, it even discourages people from sharing anecdotes that portray some races in a bad light. This hides the truth.
  • Fake news tactics make it difficult for people to discern the truth.
  • Wokists and the establishment deliberately portray underperforming demographics more positively than they actually are. Under the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis, the justification is that these portrayals will help reduce racial disparities.
  • The problem is that this doesn’t tend to work. It also denies reality, which harms society.
• The mainstream journalists, academics, and other establishmentarians who promote race denialism propaganda tend to be upper-class people who live in nice neighborhoods and sheltered ivory towers.
  • Wokism is largely a luxury belief. The people that the establishmentarians interact with are not representative the average person, and they tend to project their experiences into their works, and thus onto everyone else.
  • People who are privileged enough to hold luxury beliefs aren’t altruistic/empathetic. They promote their luxury beliefs to conceal their wealth/gain status. They make it seem as if they hate white people, because it makes them appear weak/self-criticizing, when the motivation is optics only… not to actually be weak.
  • The Contact Hypothesis proposes that “intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members”. However, reality is more complicated than this. There is some truth to the Contact Hypothesis, but it’s mostly false.
  • If wokists had to interact with different and more representative demographics (e.g. facing reality essentially), then they’d be more likely to reconsider their views.
• Selective immigration policies make it difficult to discern the average intelligence of different races.
• Leftists are more likely to live in big cities. The blacks who live in big cities tend to have either migrated to the West through selective immigration policies, and/or they tend to have higher intelligence and more European DNA than the average African American.
• Most developed countries are low-fertility societies where people don’t have much experience with children. Leftists and race denialists are especially less likely to raise children or be around children because they have lower fertility rates than right-wingers.
  • The lack of child rearing experience in society thus makes it more difficult for people to understand how difficult it can be to make some people behave properly or get good grades in school.
  • If people were raising more children, then it’d be easier for people to recognize how environmentalist interventions in children’s upbringings can’t always equalize the performance of different children and different races. This would make people more likely to consider that genetics has strong impacts on how people act and behave.

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 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. More generally, allowing genetic recombination is important for allowing complex life on Earth:

There is another mixing process that could be relevant to questions of race, race-mixing and human genetics in general. There could be co-adapted alleles of different genes that occupy the same region on a chromosome, that tend to be passed together to offspring as a package. Recombination could break up those packages, not only in the first generation, but in subsequent generations. Let me explain.

DNA is packaged into chromosomes. You inherit one chromosome from each parent, but the chromosome you inherit is not a copy of one of your parent’s chromosomes. Instead, it is a combination of both of your parent’s copies of that chromosome. During meiosis, crossover mixes the DNA of the parent’s chromosomes. In a sense, sex takes place not only between organisms, but also between paired chromosomes. Chromosomes “mate” by mixing their DNA to produce a new chromosome. As an aside, I believe that recombination is a mechanism to prevent chromosomal competition. If chromosomes were replicated as units, then there would be the potential for competition between the two copies of a chromosome. In fact, there can be chromosomal competition between sex chromosomes, which do not recombine. (See here for example.)

Recombination would eventually break up these genetic packages, recombining them with the genes on a different strand. It could be that mixing races, or mixing genetically distant subpopulations (whether we consider them to be races or not) could break up co-adapted gene complexes not only in the first generation, but in subsequent generations. Crossover could cause a kind of multi-generational “regression to the mean” that is not true regression to the mean. If your chromosomes are different, then combining material from them to produce a new chromosome could break up gene complexes.

I raise this issue because it is an interesting possibility to consider, but I don’t think it is something to worry about in humans. It is theoretically possible that “out-breeding” (mating with a more genetically distant person) could cause problems by breaking up co-adapted gene complexes. On the other hand, in-breeding can also cause problems, such as genetic diseases caused by recessive genes.

Nature doesn’t have any rules about who breeds with whom. Organisms mate, produce offspring, and then selection operates on them. Gene flow is not intrinsically harmful, and it is necessary to bring together beneficial mutations that occur in different populations. Also, the repeated mixing of DNA forces genes to work well with other genes, and makes the genome more “modular”. The constant mixing of DNA by sex might be really important in creating complex life, not only because it allows beneficial mutations to become associated, but also because it prevents DNA from becoming ad hoc, tightly coupled “spaghetti code”. Just as reuse in different contexts forces programmers to create cleaner code, the reuse of genetic code in different contexts forces evolution to create cleaner genetic code.

– Blithering Genius, Regression to the Mean

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.

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. In the latter case, this is likely because they’re proud of their ancestry. 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. 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. More studies and greater sampling should be made on this topic before reaching a more definitive conclusion.

Related: Racial Pride is Reasonable - Gnew.

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. The United Nations and other leftist institutions will probably never admit that multicultural societies tend to be less successful, because it would undermine their agenda. Nor will the UN admit that realpolitik decisions are more important than “international recognition” and “state sovereignty”, because that is what it prides itself on.

For some countries, it’s simply impossible for them to be racially and culturally homogenous. For example, Africa has the most ethnic groups of any continent, and most of those ethnic groups have very small populations. It’s not possible for those ethnic groups to each have economies of scale on their own, unless many smaller ethnic groups are placed into the same country. In such cases, a racially diverse society may be undesirable, but it’s still more preferable overall among the various ethnicities for practical economic and geopolitical reasons.

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. In fact, 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.

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, though much of this 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 minor societal problems or inconveniences. 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 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 includes 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 each separated by a few thousand years of evolution. 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). An overwhelming amount of diversity in indigenous languages creates social and communication barriers. It also requires more time and education 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.

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

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.⁵ 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 dating 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 dating 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.

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 pairing table shown here is pretty much what we would expect to see, based on theory and observation.

Read More:

• The rise of multiracial and multiethnic babies in the U.S. - Pew Research
• Demography from multiracial children to gender identity - 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

The Contact Hypothesis proposes that “intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members”. The Wikipedia article mostly cites evidence in favor of the Contact Hypothesis, whereas race idealists tend to cite evidence suggesting that the Contact Hypothesis is false (i.e. interracial contact increases discrimination). My beliefs on the Contact Hypothesis are more nuanced than a simple “true” or “false”.

---

Evidence Against The Contact Hypothesis

The way how inter-racial contact affects people’s perceptions about race probably depends on many different factors. We can identify multiple reasons why races may want to avoid each other, including linguistic, cultural, religious, and appearance differences, as well as different propensities for violence. Exposure to such strong contrasting differences likely increases hostility to other races for most people, since these differences reduce social stability.

When whites and blacks live next to each other, white flight tends to increase. The higher crime rates and greater violence among black people is probably the main cause of white flight, and a leading cause of social instability and inter-racial tensions in cities. Wokists usually attribute white flight to anti-black racism, but this ignores that blacks have higher crime rates than whites. Crime is well-documented to worsen urban sprawl. The poorer academic performance of blacks probably also contributes to white flight. Increasing the black populations of public schools likely decreases the quality of public education provided to white students, since accommodating lower performing students often comes at the expense of providing optimal resources for higher performing students. It’s also conceivable that anti-white racism (e.g. demographic quotas) exacerbate white flight.

The Wikipedia statement of the Contact Hypothesis also specifies “under appropriate conditions”. This prepositional phrase does a lot of heavily lifting. For academics (the people who conceived the Contact Hypothesis), “appropriate conditions” is likely white graduate students interacting with black graduate students for hours about sociology studies and other academic stuff. Ergo, “appropriate conditions” has a selection bias, since white and black graduate students aren’t representative of average everyday people.

It is delusional to believe that a few positive interactions can wash away all discrimination. Research on the Contact Hypothesis should focus on repeated and strong interactions with outside groups, not brief single interactions. It should also design a reliable metric for quantifying the “prejudice” that people might have. Prejudice can range anywhere from a minimal bias that barely impacts a person’s personality, to alt-right racism that makes up a person’s main obsession and personality.

It’s also worth pointing out that alt-right racism usually has no correlation with behavior. Most racists don’t usually treat black strangers much (if any) differently than white strangers. Even if they hate other races for whatever reason(s) that might be, it’s usually foolish to behave without a mask in public, since that tends to have undesirable social repercussions.

Lastly, Werkat cites other evidence against the Contact Hypothesis:

• When whites and blacks live next to each other, support for slave reparations and wokism decline.
• Exposure to immigrants doesn’t moderate the relationship between disgust sensitivity and opposition to immigration.
• There’s a high publication bias in favor of affirming the Contact Hypothesis, since academia has widespread woke biases.

---

Evidence In Favor Of The Contact Hypothesis
The Contact Hypothesis isn’t totally devoid of evidence, especially when it was first proposed in the mid-1900s, when data on multi-racial and multi-group environments in Western countries was rather scarce. There is at least some evidence and valid reasoning to suggest that it sometimes true, especially when multiple conditions are satisfied.

The Wikipedia article suggests that equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and liberal laws are four conditions that are critical to reducing prejudice under intergroup contact. I agree that satisfying these conditions can lead to more mutually positive inter-group relations, however I’m skeptical that having common goals necessarily improves inter-group relations. Often times, having common goals (e.g. obtaining money, obtaining prestigious positions, etc) actually increases competition, rather than cooperation between groups.

As mentioned before, the Contact Hypothesis doesn’t consider that groups that are already more similar to each other tend to get along with each other better. The thesis and evidence for the Contact Hypothesis are stronger when outgroups have fewer differences between each other. It also makes sense to postulate that hostility immigrant groups tends to decrease if or when immigrants assimilate into the main society, culturally, linguistically, religiously, political allegiance, etc.

We know that some animals fear humans since they don’t know whether humans pose a threat to them or not. When many animals are exposed to humans, they may judge that humans are harmless. Similar patterns sometimes apply when outgroups interact with each other. Exposure to other groups may thus theoretically reduce stranger danger attitudes towards outgroups. Intergroup contact may also increase people’s ability to do perspective-taking for people from outgroups, which may reveal that outsiders have commonalities and are capable of inter-group cooperation.

It’s not unreasonable to conclude that the rise of humanism has probably caused many people to view out-groups more positively, when they otherwise wouldn’t have. Research has shown that there is a positive correlation between heterosexual people who personally know LGBTQ+ people and less discriminatory attitudes towards such people. Of course though, there may be a selection bias present here. LGBTQ+ people are probably more likely to come out to more tolerant people.

Homosexuals and bisexuals are also more likely to have only a single difference (i.e. sexual orientation) against heterosexuals, whereas there tends to be multiple differences between people from different races, besides just race. Unsurprisingly, tensions against transgender people increases when they are granted greater rights in society at the cost of the freedoms of normal cisgender people.

---

Conclusion
Overall, I judge the Contact Hypothesis to be mostly false, when considering a wider range of characteristics and explanations. Most evidence suggests that ethnic and demographic diversity tends to destabilize societies, unless the minority demographics assimilate and conform to the majority. Although the Contact Hypothesis Wikipedia article cites many reasons and studies in favor of it, the criticisms section actually affirms that most evidence contradicts the Contact Hypothesis.

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. Regardless, most race-mixing won’t matter much for societies in the long-term.

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.

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.

There are better explanations than altruism to explain why organisms might help each other in nature:

1. Parents care for their children because they have strong selfish incentives to do so for their own reproductive success.
2. 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). Hypothetically, this could also extend to cousins, as part of the extended phenotype of their grandparents, but the selective pressure would be much weaker.
   Even sibling altruism is not a general rule. It tends to occur in species that have nests, where sibling competition could be very harmful to the reproduction of the parents. Even in nesting species, sibling competition is very common.
3. Most people would never “self-sacrifice” themselves to benefit their societies. The incentives for why people may fight (and die) for their societies are better explained by selfishness:
   • Soldiers/warriors may expect to win the war. Perhaps he believes that he can and will rape or marry the other tribe or society’s surviving women, if his side wins. Winning the war provides him with a potential opportunity to become reproductively successful.
   • Their societies brainwashed their minds with propaganda to sacrifice themselves for the “greater good” and that supporting this greater good is somehow in their best interests.
   • They were forced or conscripted by their own societies to fight in said wars.
   • A person might fight in a war for social status. If their side wins and they didn’t do their part, then their side might exile them from the society for being a free rider who did not contribute his share part of the war effort.
4. Stotting/pronking is a demonstration to predators to try catching someone else in the herd that is obviously less physically fit than the pronker.
5. Friends helping friends is cooperation motivated by selfish interest and the emotional accounting system, not “reciprocal altruism” (which is oxymoronic since altruism is selfless).
6. Other purported examples of kin altruism can be further disproved on a case-by-case basis.

---

It is wrong to assume that childless people who do things that help other people in their society or tribe are doing so to benefit their tribe or their tribe’s shared genes. We have desires that are instrumental to reproduction, not automatic desires to reproduce. So of course it’s possible for people to do actions that help others. It’s possible even if those actions don’t benefit their own reproduction, and are hence maladaptive. That remains true regardless of whichever evolutionary selection theory is true. So, it’s not necessary for the phenocentric theory to explain why that happens. That is not an argument against the phenocentric theory.

Read More: Book Summary of the Phenocentric Theory of Biological Purpose.

Read More: Debunking the Selfish Gene by T. K. Van Allen (the complete book).

Shorter Essay 1: Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism?.

Shorter Essay 2: The Cuck Metaphor and the Alt-Right.

This is simply false. Societies are based on collective interests, not genetic interests.

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. – Blithering Genius, Killing the Unicorns

Read More: Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism?

Yes, there are multiple reasons for that:

1. Different races are less likely to share a common territory. Geographic barriers prevent race-mixing.
2. Different races are less likely to share a common language.
3. Different races are less likely to share a common religion, culture, and/or values.
4. Some races are more likely to commit crimes and are less cooperative. Higher crime rates lead to lower social cohesion and lower trust, even among races that are less likely to commit crimes.
5. Most people favor people who look like themselves.

The first three factors (geographic barriers, language, and religion) aren’t even related to genetics. The tendency towards ethnocentrism and the lack of social cohesion in multiracial societies is clearly much weaker when controlling for the first four factors. It’s easy for selective immigration to control for the first four factors, and the last factor isn’t really a big deal.

Ethnocentrism is common among humans, but it should be stressed that it is mostly a learned behavior, rather than innate. Ethnocentrism doesn’t strictly depend on race. It can depend on other factors like sharing a common language or a common religion. To some extent, the preference to be around people who look similar to oneself or to one’s family can be explained at least partially by the mere-exposure effect.

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 or adaptivity to the environment. 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.

More generally, most animals in nature try to mate with as many other animals as possible. Mating with multiple partners instead of just one increases the genetic diversity of their offspring, which increases the probability that some of their offspring will be successful. Humans have this natural instinct too, which is why humans have adaptations like the Coolidge Effect that motivate us to mate with multiple different partners, rather than just one or someone is the most genetically similar to us. This is further evidence that the reproduction of successful offspring is the true biological purpose of life.

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.

The genocentric theory of evolution also 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.

Furthermore, the whole reason why sexual reproduction evolved in the first place as an alternative to asexual reproduction is because it increased the genetic diversity of the descendant organisms, which increased their fitness. This allowed all sorts of adaptive, interesting, and creative organisms to arise during the Cambrian Explosion and its aftermath that otherwise never would’ve spawned into existence. Organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction only pass on ~50% of their genes, whereas organisms that reproduce via sexual reproduction tend to pass on ~100% of their genes. It doesn’t matter that sexually reproducing organisms pass on a smaller percentage of their genes because the objective goal and meaning of life is to reproduce, not for an organism to spread genes by producing exact copies of oneself. Modern humans would not exist today if organisms were supposed to care about having offspring that have as close to ~100% of their genes as possible, instead of caring about reproduction. Race idealists don’t understand this because they don’t fully understand evolution.

Lastly, if we think about evolution on much longer timescales, then it’s inevitable that you may not share any genes with some of your ancestors, even if you are a direct descendant of them. Conversely, your descendants in the far future may not directly inherit any genes from you, regardless of what races you reproduce with. Humans have around three billion base pairs, but the number of ancestors doubles for every generation. That implies that it’s not possible to share genes by ancestry or descent between you and all of your ancestors. This is another reason why it doesn’t make sense for parents to obsess about the genetic similarity between them and their children. It reaffirms that the biological purpose of an organism is to reproduce. Reproduction is the only link that a person is guaranteed to have between themselves and all of their ancestors. Reproduction is why life exists at all in the first place.

This next quote was written by a white nationalist in response to Does Evolutionary Theory Imply Genetic Tribalism? by Blithering Genius:

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.

When talking about genetic similarity and relatedness, there are multiple names and multiple definitions for these concepts. These two concepts are not interchangeable with each other, despite being frequently misunderstood and confused as so. We need to define and distinguish these concepts:

1. Genetic Similarity, or Genetic Distance.
2. Relatedness, or Coefficient of Relationship, or the Degree of Consanguinity.

One way to formally define and calculate “relatedness” between individuals is to use the mathematical formula: 1/(2^c) or equivalently 2^(-c), where c is the degree of consanguinity between two organisms. When thinking about genetic relationships, “relatedness” usually seems like a clear concept because most people only think about the closest relationship that any two organisms share together, rather than all the relationships that two organisms may share between each other via all their common ancestors. Regardless of however “relatedness” is defined, it becomes clear that using “relatedness” to talk about anything is meaningless when we consider that there’s usually more than one way how two organisms may be related to each other. Relatedness is thus not a well-defined concept, as the following text shows:

“Relatedness” is not easy to define. Wikipedia says it is “the probability that at a random locus, the alleles there will be identical by descent”. But what does “identical by descent” mean? If we only look back one generation, it seems pretty simple. You inherit half your DNA from each parent, so for any given allele of a parent, there is a 50% chance that you have inherited a direct copy of that allele. For any given allele of yours, there is a 50% chance that your sibling inherited a direct copy of the same allele from your parents. So, by one definition of “relatedness”, you are 0.5 related to your parents and siblings.

However, if we look further back in time, it is not that simple. You had two distinct parents, and probably 4 distinct grandparents and 8 distinct great-grandparents. It seems that N generations back, you had 2^N ancestors. But the branches of your ancestor tree start to merge as we look further back in time. Ten generations back, you probably didn’t have 2¹⁰ distinct ancestors. One hundred generations back, you certainly didn’t have 2¹⁰⁰ distinct ancestors, because that is vastly more people than have ever existed. Two people can inherit the same allele from a common ancestor down different pathways of descent.

For example, suppose that you and your sister both inherited one copy of the sickle-cell allele of the β-globin gene, but your sister inherited her copy from your father, while you inherited your copy from your mother. Your mother and father both inherited that allele from a common ancestor six generations back. The information of both copies came from the same mutation thousands of years ago, and it came from a common ancestor who lived about 200 years ago, but it arrived in you and your sister by different pathways. Are those instances of the allele “identical by descent” or not?

So, it’s not really clear what “relatedness” means. However it is defined, it is not the probability that alleles are identical. It could approximate that in special cases, such as a recent mutation. It could also be an approximate lower bound on the probability that alleles are shared. – T. K. Van Allen, Selected to be Numerous?, Debunking the Selfish Gene

Genetic similarity is a more meaningful concept than “relatedness”, but there’s multiple ways to measure it:

Genetic similarity is some metric of shared genetic information. There are various ways it could be measured. One is the percentage of identical alleles. Another is the percentage of coding DNA that is identical. It could even be the Hamming distance between nucleotide sequences. Regardless of how it is defined, it should not be confused with relatedness. You are 0.5 related to your brother or sister by the simple definition of “relatedness”, but you share more than 50% of your genetic information with them. You share most of it with any other human being, and a significant percentage of it with an oyster or an oak tree. – T. K. Van Allen, Selected to be Numerous?, Debunking the Selfish Gene

When comparing strands of DNA, biologists have to choose the size of the strand, which influences the measure of genetic similarity. Compare two random, unrelated people: if we consider strands the size of whole chromosomes, the genetic similarity will be 0% (because no strand is fully identical to another). The smaller the snippets, the higher the likelihood of two strands being identical, and so the measure of genetic similarity will go up. Hypothetically, you could compare the base pairs between two organisms one-to-one. But then you’d run into problems because people don’t have the exact same amount of base pairs either. Bits get added, deleted, duplicated, recombined etc. It’s even more of a problem when comparing between species, because different species typically don’t even have the same number of chromosomes. That’s why measuring genetic similarity is difficult and involves some assumptions. As far as I know, biologists use genes as a base for the size of the strands, but they are very variable in size. Regardless, the resulting measures of genetic similarity give a fairly good idea of how differentiated two populations are.

By most metrics, genetic similarity is >99% for all humans, and genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees (or bonobos) is ~98.8%. People who are from the same race will be more genetically similar to each other than to people from other races. And that is true regardless of whichever (reliable) metric we use for measuring genetic similarity. Since humans and other animals have millions of genes, small changes in the percentage of genetic similarity can lead to big changes, even if the organisms or species share a huge amount of genetic information between each other.

Video: Are We Really 99% Chimp? - Minute Earth.

Video: Why You Don’t Descend From All Your Ancestors - Marcus Gallo.

I support ethnostates (or I’m at least not opposed to them), so I could technically be considered a white nationalist depending on how it’s defined. However, I don’t associate myself with that label since most white nationalists believe in multiple things that I strongly disagree with and condemn:

• 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 and the forced labor camps certainly existed, but it’s reasonable to be skeptical of the 6 million deaths figure and some other aspects. Regardless, I very strongly condemn the Holocaust.⁶ We should also acknowledge that the Holocaust has become a sacred narrative for justifying arbitrary morals. No historical event should ever be off-limits from questioning.
• 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 is okay under some conditions. Whether it’s “good” or “bad” depends on values.
• 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.
• Some WNs argue that the United States and other Western countries don’t need high-IQ non-white immigrants. For example, Thuletide stated that the US alone contains ~4.5 million Whites with an IQ over 130, which he probably computed using a normal IQ distribution for European Americans.
  • I believe that it would be a huge mistake to not accept any high-IQ immigrants from other races. Immigrants from foreign countries make up the majority of the US STEM workforce.
  • The labor supply of European Americans with IQs over 130 would also be smaller if women are excluded from working in occupations that require high intelligence. I’m noting this because many WNs believe in strict gender roles.
  • While I believe that a lot of technology is overused these days, it’s clear that the US would probably become economically poorer and less intelligent without selective foreign immigration.
  • I believe that Thuletide and other WNs might reconsider their position if they understood this.

• First Image: White nationalists are divided between those who think that Christianity is a Jewish psyop, and those who proudly value their Christian religion with pride.
• Second Image: Immigrants from foreign countries make up the majority of the US STEM workforce.

In the West, white nationalists and eugenicists both agree that reducing mass immigration, deporting illegal aliens, and removing welfare benefits are important priorities. 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 tend to perform better than 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 populations⁷ (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 wokism, 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.

There’s not much that an ethnostate can do that can’t already be solved by a eugenostate. 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.

Read More: How Practical Are Ethnostates For Promoting Eugenics?

Theoretically, these are the most likely steps for converting Western countries into white ethnostates:

1. White identity and support for pro-white policies gradually increase over the years as white people continue to be marginalized and discriminated against.
2. Westerners (especially White Westerners) start to vote more conservatively than they already do.
3. Western countries eliminate their welfare for immigrants. In the US, eliminating welfare could disincentivize over 50% of immigrants from staying.
4. 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.
5. The public gains enough support for stopping mass immigration, since it increases the cost of rent, and reduces wages, fertility rates, and eugenics.
6. 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).
7. As wages rise, white fertility rates increase. The West takes measures to boost white fertility rates.
8. Western countries reach critical demographic and political thresholds for becoming white ethnostates.
9. The public gains enough support for EPC to turn the country into a eugenostate.

Note that this is an (overly) optimistic event sequence. It’s not clear whether the West will achieve even half of the objectives on this list in the future, but we should try to accomplish whatever we can. All Western countries used to be white ethnostates, and it may be possible to restore that.

Read More: Mass deportation is economically sound, logistically feasible, and could be accomplished in a matter of years - Thuletide.

Read More: Population Dynamics FAQs: Ideas For Boosting Western Fertility.

To an extent, the notion of “mixing” is somewhat misleading, because there aren’t separate discrete types that are being “mixed” together. Rather, existing racial clusters can disappear and/or change, due to different selective pressures and global migration. In that sense, some level of “mixing” is always inevitable, since genes are always mixed when a male and female mate and conceive a child.

Globalization and race-mixing are causing many distinctive racial differences to disappear. If countries decide to enforce very strict immigration/miscegnation/etc laws, then many distinct races will be mostly preserved as the original genetic clusters that they were historically. If there’s enough political will to prevent race-mixing, then it could theoretically be prevented. Until then, global immigration, and interracial relationships will continue to blur the boundaries between genetic clusters. But this doesn’t imply that racial categories won’t still be useful for having predictive power.

There are multiple problems with this argument:

• Would anyone say that to American Indians when they became minorities on their native continents? “What’s the matter? You don’t like becoming a minority within your homeland? Just deal with it!”
• This argument implicitly suggests that it’s okay for whites to become minorities within former white-majority countries. Since it also assumes that minorities are discriminated against, it implicitly admits that it’s okay to normalize discrimination against whites.
• This argument has a contradiction. Either:
  1. Minorities are discriminated against, in which case it’s perfectly reasonable for white people to be averse to themselves becoming a minority within their own countries.
  2. Minorities aren’t discriminated against. Hence, we can end all the DEI and anti-racism nonsense.
• If minorities are discriminated against, and we have an obligation to end all discrimination, then the most logical conclusion is for everyone to return to their ancestral homelands where they are the majority demographic. If there’s no benefit to being a minority within a society, then it makes more sense for everyone to migrate somewhere where their demographic constitutes a majority.

---

First, that statistic doesn’t specify who gets counted as being “white”.

• Do Arabs count as white? Most Arabs consider themselves to be separate from White Europeans.
• Do Jewish people count as white? What about Ashkenazi Jews specifically?
• 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.

---

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 the West increases, white people are still projected to become minorities within historically white countries, an unprecedented phenomenon.
• The increase in the non-white population is related to the increase in foreign immigration, which should be opposed for multiple reasons.
• White people have lower fertility rates than non-whites.
• 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.
• Purely white people may continue to exist in the future, but if they do, it’s plausible that they’ll eventually become as rare as whites in South Africa, or as uncommon as American Indians are in the US.

---

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. So much so, that white people will no longer be the majority demographic within their own countries.

---

1. Political conservatives still have below-replacement fertility.
2. Mass immigration will cause their numbers to continue declining.
3. White populations are still declining, in spite of conservatives having higher fertility rates than leftists.

Japan and South Korea might have even worse birthrates than Europe, but they do not have the same levels of foreign immigration. In a hundred years, Japan and South Korea might have only 10% their current populations, but they will still be populated mostly by Japanese and Koreans. This is not the case in Europe. In a hundred years, Europe will be mostly Muslim, and a large percentage will not have European ancestry.

---

I’m still half-white (technically I’m slightly more than 50% white due to my Y-chromosome and mtDNA). More importantly, 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 human civilization, which is what I care about above all.

The only way anyone could overlook the current anti-white propaganda and policies in the West is if they have an ideology that blinds them to it. When “It’s okay to be white” is labeled as a hate slogan, we clearly have a problem. When Westerners think about racism or racial oppression, the first things that usually come to mind are moral narratives, like the history of slavery, the Jim Crow laws, European colonialism, Nazism, or the Holocaust. For this reason, it’s harder for people to notice anti-white racism, even though it’s the most common type of racism in the Modern West.

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).
• 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.
• Woke, Anti-White Wikipedia:
  • Wikipedia: Black Pride.
  • Wikipedia: Asian Pride.
  • Wikipedia: Gay Pride.
  • Wikipedia: Straight Pride.
  • Wikipedia: Disability Pride.
  • Wikipedia: White Pride – Note how this is the only article that portrays racial pride negatively.
• The “Right” Amount of Concern about Racism - Noah Carl, Aporia Magazine: This article presents eight examples of how the West’s concern with anti-racism has gone too far, to the point of being counter-productive: cancel culture, self-censorship, the media’s Great Awokening, responses to police shootings, hiding the race of suspects, hugging people during a pandemic, not profiling terrorists, and ignoring grooming gangs.

---

---

Links For Reading More About The Great Replacement:

• Whiteness and the West - Aporia Magazine
• Documenting The Great Replacement, Master Post - Charles Angelson
• Documenting The Great Replacement, Part I - Charles Angelson
• 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?
• US Census shows America’s post-2020 population is driven by diversity especially among the young
• 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

See: Population Dynamics FAQs: Ideas For Boosting Western Fertility.