Race is a subject that has been talked about to the point of weariness, if not nausea. Yet most discussions consists of little more than wishful thinking, contradiction, and, sometimes, outright malice.
You know the refrain:
All the races are equal, but Whites oppress everyone else . . . then again, race doesn’t really exist, which is why we must strive for greater racial diversity!
It is understandable that so many are confused by and sick of the entire subject—especially White people, the targets of so much blame and hostility.
It need not be this way.
The Origin of the Races
The basic facts about the races of mankind can be stated briefly and clearly.
According to our best current information, human beings (i.e., the biological genus Homo) originated in Africa between two and three million years ago. From there, beginning about 1.8 million years ago, they spread out across Asia and Europe. The present races of mankind are the result of interbreeding between earlier and later arrivals in the various regions of the world.
When an animal species inhabits a large geographic area, it encounters new environments that present different challenges to its survival. Individuals that might have done well in the original home environment may not do so well in the new one, and may die or fail to reproduce. A few individuals may be better suited to the new environment than the old, and thus produce more offspring. New genetic mutations may multiply and spread in one area, while they disappear in the other. Over time, the animals in the new region are differentiated genetically, both from their ancestors and from their cousins in other regions. In essence, the gene pool is plastic to its environment.
This process occurs in all sexually reproducing species and is the driving force behind evolution. And it occurred with early human beings when they left Africa for Europe and Asia.
Light skin, for example, is a harmful trait in tropical Africa, as it is easily burned by the sun, but is useful in northern latitudes, which get less much sunlight. Races living near the equator are bathed year round in UVB light (essential for the production of Vitamin D); fair-skinned northern races receive very little UVB light during the winter months, and thus have become many times more efficient in producing Vitamin D. Hence, light skin remains a rare anomaly in Africa (mostly limited to albinos), whereas it became the norm in Europe.1
Group differences exist as consequences of evolution by natural selection. Yet some, who accept this premise, will deny the importance of race by, in effect, appealing to genetic similarity. This argument usually takes two forms:
- The human genome project proved that every individual is 99.5 percent identical to every other.
- The genetic differences within groups are greater than those between groups.
The meme of “99%” similarity was announced by the Human Genome Project in 1999.2 The second arguments originated with the Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin in the early 1970s.3 While both of these statements contain kernels of truth, to conclude that race, therefore, does not exist or is unimportant is simply fallacious.
Humans share a remarkable amount of genetic similarity (upwards of 98 percent) with our closet evolutionary relative, chimpanzees. We even share much in common with other animal species, like pigs and dogs. Clearly, small genetic differences can lead to dramatic physical, psychological, and behavioral differences. Lewontin failed to grasp—or denied something he readily accepted in other contexts—that the differences within groups are qualitatively different than those between groups. 4 As Peter Frost wrote on the matter,
when genes vary between populations, it’s usually because these populations inhabit different environments with different sets of selection pressures. Genes that differ across this environmental boundary are necessarily genes that make a difference, i.e., that have selective value. In contrast, when genes vary within a population, despite similar selection pressures, it’s usually because they have little or no selective value.
Not only are the “99%” and “between/within” memes logically fallacious, they go against what we see before our eyes everyday. Everyone knows that race is real, even if we’re not willing to talk about it rationally. And we know it’s real especially in those situations, in which race isn’t supposed to matter.
Athletics is an arena in which race differences are vivid and instructive. Ordinary sports fans cannot help notice that certain sports, as well as specialties within sports, are dominated by persons of a particular race. African-Americans, for instance, comprise 75 percent of the National Basket Ball Association and upwards of 90 percent of NBA “All Stars.” Sprinting championships have come to be dominated by athletes of West African descent from a variety of nations, while Whites continue to succeed in field events, such as the shot put and the hammer throw. Olympic table-tennis gold medalists, on the other hand, are almost entirely from East Asia. In American football, Whites are likely to be quarterbacks and linemen, but very unlikely to be running backs, wide receivers, and defensive backs. (Sports fans can, no doubt, come up with countless more examples of this kind.)
In most cases, these disparities and specializations can be explained from an evolutionary perspective. For example, the dominance of international sprinting competitions by West Africans is due to at least six traits they share. As compared to Whites and Asians, they have, on average,
- longer legs
- narrower hips
- lower centers of gravity
- lower body fat
- higher quantities of fast-twitch muscle tissue (useful for short bursts of speed)
- higher testosterone levels.
With all these advantages, how could West Africans not excel at the 100 meters?
Of course, geographic and social causes account for many disparities; athletes from South America, for example, are not likely to take up ice hockey. Nevertheless, sport—which is increasingly globalized—makes the reality of race increasingly difficult to deny.5
Race and Intelligence
One of the more sensitive traits for which racial disparities have been found is general intelligence, or IQ. In 1995, many on both the Left and Right were scandalized by the publication of The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. The authors observed that in America average Black IQ lags about 15 points behind the average White IQ (85 vs. 100). In fact, this difference had been known to exist since the First World War, when the first IQ tests were administered to American soldiers. The Bell Curve merely popularized information that had long been familiar to specialists.
And much larger differences can be found around the world. Black Africans have an average IQ of around 70. Australian Aborigines are even lower at 62. Northeast Asians, including Chinese, Japanese and Koreans, average 105, slightly higher than Europeans. Ashkenazi Jews average as high as 112 (or even higher according to some estimates).6
Astronomers before Copernicus would diagram epicycles within epicycles to account for the movement of the stars in an geocentric universe. Similarly, scholars committed to the idea of natural racial equality have gone to great lengths developing complicated theories to account for mysteries such as persistent African poverty and widespread Jewish success.
But such observed facts are no mystery at all for those who understand that racial differences are a natural and normal consequence of human evolution.
Some people perceive differences in intelligence and the ability to achieve economic success as unfair. It would be more accurate to say they are neither fair nor unfair, since no one is responsible for them; they are a natural product of different evolutionary histories. Is it “unfair” that Chimpanzees are more intelligent than sheep? If so, who exactly is guilty?
In one respect, it is actually heartening that differences in economic success can be explained by intelligence. Egalitarians usually teach that White/Black disparities in America, for instance, are due to injustices committed by Whites toward Blacks (in other words, “racism”). In the absence of any evidence of a White conspiracy to harm Blacks, social scientists have developed elaborate theories of “institutional” or “structural” racism for which they are not able to present much evidence. If it were generally understood that Whites are not responsible for the inability of most Blacks to match average White levels of academic and professional achievement, racial tensions in America might be greatly eased.
Moreover, for the past half century—in the wake of the Brown v Board of Education decision—politicians and social scientists have been lamenting America’s decline in educational achievement and warning that American schools are failing. In fact, American schools are only failing to negate million of years of human evolution. According to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), White Americans score at levels at or above most Western and Central European nations. And Black Americans score significantly higher than their cousins in Africa. Even Asian Americans outpace students in Korea and Japan.7
Some might admit that racial differences in intelligence exist, but deny that they are natural or genetic. In their view, such differences are caused by the conditions under which people are raised. Black Americans, for example, typically grow up in poorer families and less desirable neighborhoods than Whites. But this cliché also breaks down under scrutiny. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education observed that wealth cannot account for gaps in SAT scores (an intelligence test taken by most American students who intend to attend college and which generally tracks with IQ). Indeed, Whites from poor families score at levels at or above Blacks from families of great wealth8:
For black and white students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 in 2008, there still remains a huge 149-point gap in SAT scores. Even more startling is the fact that in 2008 black students from families with incomes of more than $200,000 scored lower on the SAT test than did students from white families with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000.
Studies of identical twins reared apart and trans-racial adoptions make clear that intelligence correlates with genetic relatedness rather than early childhood environment. Twins who grew up in different environments have similar life outcomes. Moreover, children adopted by parents of a different race have life outcomes that correlate with their own race, and not that of their parents.9
In the face of all this, some of have argued that intelligence tests are “culturally biased” against Blacks because they were developed by Whites. But this “cultural biased” cliché is undermined by the fact that East Asians generally score higher than Whites on standardized tests. And the more recent intelligence tests avoid culturally specific references; they are based on pattern recognition involving geometrical shapes and numbers.10
Two Fallacies That Hinder Clear Thinking About Race
The reluctance to discuss—or even to admit to—the existence of racial differences is commonly motivated by fear of possible invidious distinctions between “superior” and “inferior” races.
But claims of superiority beg many questions. First, racial differences must relate to some particular trait. West Africans may, indeed, be a “superior” race when it comes to sprinting. In reference to other traits, other races may be more gifted. No race is best in everything, and it is meaningless to speak of any race being superior per se. Moreover, there is no unequivocal reason to hold that longer legs or lighter skin are more desirable than their opposites. It all depends on context. Ultimately, there is no unequivocal reason to think that the recognition of racial differences in particular traits implies any overall “superiority.”
Second, the existence of racial differences does not logically imply that one race should rule over others or benefit at their expense. No one has ever claimed that the superiority of West Africans at sprinting entitles them to preferential treatment over Whites and Asians. The same goes for all other races and all other traits. This may sound like an elementary point, but much opposition to the open discussion of racial differences is based upon a tacit assumption that recognizing such differences would ipso facto justify the mistreatment of one or more races. But this is simply a fallacy.
This said, we would be remiss not to mention that the history of racial confrontation throughout the centuries is rarely characterized by multiculturalism, individualism, or a “friendship of the peoples.” More often, it is characterized by conflict and domination, even enslavement and genocide. In such conflicts, races of higher average intelligence—with greater abilities to strategize, plan, and develop technology—have predominated over races with lower average intelligence. In recent history, Africans and Amerindians, despite their great numbers, had little chance of resisting European colonialists, who possessed the “guns and steel” of an advanced society.
No doubt, many scientists, historians, and sociologists have attempted to cancel or redeem this bloody and painful history by denying the existence of race or imaging a kind of “psychic unity of manhood.” But this is to adopt an entirely unscientific and unserious perspective on history and mankind. A more realistic attitude is to conclude that racial competition will end in unhappiness and tragedy. And simply pretending that race does not exist will do nothing to change this.
Race and Crime
Another sensitive area in which races may be compared is crime rates. Although it may be thought impolite to mention in mixed company, every American understands that Black neighborhoods are more dangerous than White ones.
Detailed statistics on race and crime in America are kept by the FBI. Here are some highlights from these data:11
In 2013, Black Americans were six times more likely to commit murder than non-Blacks.
In 2014, in New York City, Blacks were 31 times more likely than Whites to be arrested for murder, and Hispanics over 12 times more likely. Blacks were over 98 times more likely to be arrested for shooting (i.e., firing a bullet that hits someone) than Whites, and Hispanics 23 times more likely. If New York were all White, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent and the shooting rate by 97 percent.
Blacks are about 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a White person than vice-versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
Hispanics commit violent crimes at about three times the White rate, while Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the White rate.
Hispanics are 19 times more likely than Whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 time more likely, and Asians, nine times more likely.
Despite recent claims by the Black Lives Matter movement and others, evidence suggests that police shootings of Blacks are no more common than would be predicted by Black crime rates and likelihood to resist arrest.
2015 saw a disturbing rise in murder in major American cities, which may be related to “de-policing” in response to intense media and public scrutiny of police activity.
Race and crime are related in the sense that a propensity to crime is strongly correlated to lower intelligence, shorter “time horizons” and ability to plan for the future, as well as other factors such as higher testosterone levels and lower impulse control.
The Preference for One’s Own
Much of today’s confused thinking about race stems from America’s unsuccessful effort of the past several decades to eliminate “racial discrimination,” that is, people’s tendency to prefer those of their own race.
Martin Luther King Jr. reportedly said that “At 11 a.m. Sunday morning . . . we stand at the most segregated hour in this nation.” He of course meant that church services, one of the most basic components of community, are racially homogenous and divided.
Egalitarians often speak as if bias in favor of one’s own race were a failing of which Whites in particular stand guilty, but careful psychological research indicates that such bias is a human universal. People of all races discriminate constantly in favor of their own race, often unconsciously and ineluctably:
Three-month-old infants look longer at faces of their own race than those of other races.12
When Whites are shown short film clips of needles pricking White and Black hands, the sympathetic pain reaction is greater and pulse increases more noticeably when the White hand is pricked. When Blacks view the same clips, their reaction is greater for the Black hands.13
When White and Black people are shown pictures of strangers, the amygdala region in their brains displays heightened activity, indicating vigilance or wariness toward unfamiliar faces. But when the pictures are shown a second time, only the other-race faces provoke high amygdala activity: the brain perceives the same-race faces as “familiar” after only one viewing.
Various studies have shown that people are more likely to perceive those of their own race as trustworthy and to associate positive qualities with them.
People also find it easier to distinguish between faces of their own races than those of other races. This difference has been observed in children as young as three and a half months.14
In fact, the only people who do not seem to have any preference for their own race are those who suffer from a condition called Williams Syndrome. They have no fear of strangers or the unknown, and are sometimes described as “hypersocial.” They are also usually mentally retarded and suffer from other problems.15
The preference for one’s own race is a product of our evolutionary history. For most of the time, humans have lived upon the earth, we have lived in kinship-based hunter-gatherer bands of between roughly 50 and 100 individuals. Survival depended on cooperation within the group, even extending to a willingness of individuals to sacrifice themselves for their fellows. On the other hand, such groups were surrounded by similar, rival human bands. Survival also depended on an ability to compete successfully with these rivals. Relations between such bands, therefore, fluctuated between deep suspicion and murderous hatred. Humans became adapted to this state of affairs by developing a dual pattern of behavior: cooperation and altruism within the kin group, suspicion or hostility towards those outside.16
This evolutionary adaptation is still visible in its rawest form among man’s nearest evolutionary relatives, African chimpanzees, which unhesitatingly kill intruders found within the territory of their troop. Any chimp suffering from Williams Syndrome, and hence unable to distinguish between his own and rival troops, would not be likely to last long in the jungle.
Kin preference can also be observed much farther down the evolutionary scale. Beehives are kin groups, and bees are very good at perceiving degrees of relatedness when they must decide whether to admit other bees to their hive or block them as intruders.17
Even some plants that normally try to spread their root systems as widely as possible have been observed to accommodate the nearby root systems of closely related plants rather than competing against them for space.18
What this means is that efforts to eliminate “racial discrimination” are fighting against a deeply rooted fact of our human nature, even of our biological nature. Exhorting normal people not to prefer their own race is, therefore, about as likely to succeed as exhorting them never to get hungry or sleepy.
Moreover, it is almost exclusively White people who are being asked today not to prefer their own race to others. Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, and others are allowed—indeed, encouraged—to form exclusive organizations and pursue their particular interests. Only Whites are denounced as “racist” if they do this. In effect, Whites are being told to unilaterally disarm themselves in a competitive and often hostile world.
r vs. K, High Fertility vs. High Investment
As mentioned above, the various human races emerged when early humans migrated out of Africa. Perhaps the most important single environmental difference faced by these early humans was that much of the Eurasian landmass turns cold for several months of the year, and food is scarce during this time. It required intelligence, resourcefulness, foresight, and an ability to delay gratification (that is, impulse control), for ancient hunter-gatherers to survive cold winters. People with these qualities were more successful raising children than those who lacked them, so humans in more northerly areas gradually became more intelligent and future-oriented than those who remained in the tropics. The higher intelligence and lower crime rates of Whites and East Asians as compared with Africans may be due in large part to the selective pressure of cold winters.
Another important environmental change experienced by early humans migrating out of Africa was that many diseases common to tropical Africa (Malaria, Dengue, Chagas and others) are non-existent farther north. Such diseases were and still are a very common cause of death among Black Africans. Since for most of the continent’s history, the causes of such diseases were not understood, it was a matter of chance whether one caught them or not; there was nothing much one could do to avoid them. So northward migration meant a change from an environment filled with unpredictable dangers to one in which challenges could be overcome by thinking ahead.
Biologists distinguish two strategies that living organisms may employ in reproducing:
- one strategy (labeled “r”) involves high fertility with little or no parental investment in offspring once they are born;
- the other strategy (labeled “K”) involves lower fertility but higher investment in protecting and nurturing offspring.
Organisms may be arranged along an r–K scale according to their fertility and level of parental investment. Oysters, for instance, have half a billion offspring in a typical year and take no notice of them at all; in other words, they are extreme r strategists.
Mammals and birds generally have fewer offspring, but feed and care for them in early life. (Rabbits are a popular byword for fertility, but the 12 offspring they average per year come nowhere near the fertility of fish or amphibians.)
Humans are the most extreme K strategizers in all of nature: they seldom have more than one child per year and several over a lifetime, but typically devote much time and effort to raising them. Not all human groups, however, are equal as K strategizers. Compared to White and Asian populations, Black Africans are more fertile and tend to devote less time and effort to their offspring. The highest fertility rates in the world today are found in sub-Saharan Africa, where women have averaged as many as seven or eight children in recent years. African women begin having children early, but the fussy parenting style common to Europeans and Asians is not usually found among them; African children are often sent out to foster parents (commonly more distant relatives) so that the mother can turn her attention to producing more babies.
This relatively r reproductive strategy of Black Africans is a natural response to an environment in which diseases that seem to strike randomly are a leading cause of death. By having a lot of children, Africans increase the likelihood that some will live long enough to have children of their own.
At northern latitudes, on the other hand, the biggest threat to survival is the regular annual recurrence of winter, a threat which may be overcome by intelligence and forethought. These conditions favor a K strategy of devoting more effort to preparing their children for the challenges they will face, rather than simply having more of them.
A whole host of measurable differences between the races can be explained in terms of r/K selection theory. Psychologist J. Philippe Rushton found that East Asians average a larger brain size, greater intelligence, greater sexual restraint, slower rates of maturation, and greater law-abidingness and social organization than those of other races. Black Africans are at the other extreme, while Whites score in between (usually closer to East Asians than to Africans). He found that this same pattern prevailed for the racial averages of more than 70 traits. The consistency of this pattern across dozens of seemingly unrelated traits provides important evidence that racial differences are objectively real, not a mere matter of “the color of one’s skin” or socially instilled prejudice.19
Race and High Achievement
A small fraction of the human race—inventors, explorers, scientists and artists—have made particularly large contributions to history and the development of the modern world. It is more difficult to define and quantify high achievement than intelligence or crime rates, but The Bell Curve’s co-author, Charles Murray, has made one of the more rigorous attempts in his 2003 book Human Accomplishment.
Unsurprisingly, the overwhelming majority of great accomplishments in history have been the work of White men living in Europe or, more recently, North America. Between 1450 and 1950 AD, 80 percent of superior accomplishment in the arts and sciences was the work of people (mostly men) born in Western and Central Europe and the British Isles.20
As mentioned above, White Europeans are not, on average, the most intelligent people in the world. So clearly something more than mere intelligence is needed for great accomplishment. There is considerable evidence that East Asians are more conformist than Europeans, making them less likely to venture into the uncharted waters where new discoveries may be found. Recent research has found a possible genetic cause for this.21
Since Jewish emancipation in the 19th Century, Jews have contributed mightily to the arts and sciences, but for centuries before that, the most gifted Jews had their attention engrossed in trade or the study of the Talmud, and thus contributed little to the march of discovery and invention. Clearly, there are cultural conditions for great accomplishment, as well as genetic preconditions.
Desperate efforts are being made today by fashionable academics to deny the obvious fact of Western achievement. Some attribute it to a multi-millennial run of dumb luck; others try to make out Chinese accomplishment to have been more impressive; still others claim Western superiority did not begin until the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century.22
All of these, in final analysis, amount to post hoc rationalizations for the detail of the reality of race.
A decade ago, the journalist and activist Samuel T. Francis wrote that race has become not only the ultimate unmentionable subject in polite conversation but the site of the most intense fear and anxiety. In other words, race is our era’s great taboo:
In the Victorian era, the Great Taboo was sex. Today, whatever the label we attach to our own age, the Great Taboo is race. The Victorians virtually denied that sex existed. Today, race is confidently said to be “merely a social construct,” a product of the imagination, and of none too healthy imaginations at that, rather than a reality of nature. The Victorians severely punished people who talked about sex, made jokes about sex, or wrote too openly and frankly about sex. Today, journalists, disc jockeys, leading sports figures, public officials, distinguished academics, and major political leaders who violate the racial taboos of our age are fired from their newspapers, networks, or radio stations, forced to resign their positions, condemned by their own colleagues, and subjected to “investigations” of their “backgrounds” and their “links” to other individuals and groups that have also violated the race taboo.23
The subject of race is avoided precisely because it is so powerful. Race is an indispensable source of identity for individuals around the world and one of the most consistent and revealing predictive mechanisms in the social sciences. Race’s impact on history, culture, science, technology, war, achievement, and the arts is only now coming to be fully understood. The mapping of the human genome will be remembered as but the first step in understanding the components of the human personality.
Put simply, we avoid thinking seriously about race at the cost of our future.
Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press, 1994).
Michael Levin, Why Race Matters (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2016 ).
Richard Lynn, Racial Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, 2nd edition (2016).
Richard Lynn and Edward Dutton’s Race and Sport: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability (2015).
Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences 800 B.C. to 1950, HarperCollins, 2003
J. Philippe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behavior, 2nd abridged edition, (2000).
Jared Taylor, White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (Oakton, Virginia: New Century Foundation, 2011).
Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History (New York: Penguin Press, 2014).
The Color of Crime, New Century Foundation, 3rd edition (2016) and 2nd edition (2005).
- See Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race, and Human History (New York: Penguin Press, 2014), 80-91. ↩
- Eric S. Lander et al., “Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome,” Nature 409, (15 February 2001). ↩
- Richard C. Lewontin, “The Apportionment of Human Diversity,” Evolutionary Biology, vol. 6, 1995, accessed June 1, 2016, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-314#page-1. ↩
- See Charles Murray, “The Inequality Taboo,” Commentary, September 1, 2005, accessed June 1, 2016, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-inequality-taboo/; Peter Frost, “Lewontin’s Fallacy?,” Evo and Proud, July 31, 2008, accessed June 1, 2016, http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/06/lewontins-fallacy.html. ↩
- See Richard Lynn and Edward Dutton, Race and Sport: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability: Evolution and Racial Differences in Sporting Ability (Ulster Institute, 2015). Reviewed by F. Roger Devlin, The Occidental Quarterly, Spring 2016, “White Men Can’t Jump, Black Men Can’t Shot Put.” ↩
- See Richard Lynn, “Racial Differences in Intelligence, Personality, and Behavior,” The National Policy Institute, June 7, 2006, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/racial-differences-in-intelligence-personality-and-behavior. ↩
- Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), “PISA 2012 Results,” http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm, accessed June 1, 2016. See also Steve Sailer, “Overall PISA rankings, including America by race,” http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html, accessed June 1, 2016. ↩
- Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, “Family Income Differences Explain Only a Small Part of the SAT Racial Scoring Gap,” http://www.jbhe.com/latest/index012209p.html, accessed June 1, 2016. ↩
- See T.J. Bouchard Jr., D.T. Lykken, M. McGue, N.L. Segal, A. Tellegen, “Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart,” Science, 12, October 1990: Vol. 250, Issue 4978, 223-228. ↩
- While IQ tends to be hereditary, it is not completely so. Other factors, like sub-optimal nutrition, illness, and injury, may have a negative influence on intelligence. Poor nutrition may explain why Africans have a lower average IQ than American Blacks. Recent research seems to indicate that what is hereditary is the highest IQ one may attain under optimal environmental conditions. Circumstances may intervene to lower a particular person’s IQ, but there don’t seem to be circumstances that can raise it above the individual’s genetically determined potential. ↩
- See The Color of Crime: Race, Crime, and Justice in America New Century Foundation, 3rd edition (2016) and 2nd edition (2005). ↩
- David J. Kelly, Paul C. Quinn, Alan M. Slater, Kang Lee, Alan Gibson, Michael Smith, Liezhong Ge, and Olivier Pascalis, “Three-month-olds, but not newborns, prefer own-race faces,” Developmental Science Vol. 8, No. 6, F31–F36, November 2005, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/. ↩
- Alessio Avenanti, Angela Sirigu, Salvatore M. Aglioti, “Racial Bias Reduces Empathic Sensorimotor Resonance with Other-Race Pain,” Current Biology, Vol. 20, No. 11, 1018–1022, 8 June 2010 ↩
- Adam M. Chekroud, Jim A. C. Everett, Holly Bridge, and Miles Hewstone, “A review of neuroimaging studies of race-related prejudice: does amygdala response reflect threat?” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014; 8: 179, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3973920/. ↩
- Ed Yong, “Williams syndrome children show no racial stereotypes or social fear,” Discover, April 12, 2010, accessed June 1, 2016, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/04/12/williams-syndrome-children-show-no-racial-stereotypes-or-social-fear/#.V1HTMlePv8s. ↩
- See Jared Taylor, White Consciousness: Racial Identity in the 21st Century, Chapter 4, (Oakton, Virginia: The New Century Foundation, 2011). ↩
- Rushton Race, Evolution and Behavior, 73 ↩
- James Owen, “Plants Can Recognize, Communicate with Relatives, Studies Find,” National Geographic News, June 14, 2007, accessed June 1, 2016, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070614-plants.html. ↩
- Cold winters are not by themselves a sufficient cause of high intelligence or the other “K” traits. If they were, Eskimos ought to be the most intelligent people on earth. They are, in fact, the world’s most intelligent hunter-gatherers, but on average they are not as smart as Europeans or East Asians. What’s holding the Eskimos back is that they are a very small population—not more than several thousand in pre-modern times—and spread over a very wide area. Helpful genetic mutations occur more often in larger populations, and they spread more easily in dense populations. For this reason, the world’s smartest people live in moderately cold climates, but not so cold as to make large, dense populations unsustainable. Thus, in Europe, we find the highest intelligence in Finland and the Germanic countries (German, Dutch, Anglo-Saxon, and Scandinavian) rather than in Lappland; in Asia, we find that Chinese and Japanese are more intelligent that the tiny native tribes of Siberia. ↩
- For the geography of genius, see http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us/Images/Figure%2015-7.GIF, accessed June 1, 2016. See also Samuel T. Francis’s review of Human Accomplishment, “Very Important People: An account of European genius,” American Renaissance, Vol. 15, no. 5, May 2004. ↩
- Joan Y. Chiao and Katherine D. Blizinsky, “Culture–gene coevolution of individualism–collectivism and the serotonin transporter gene,” Proceedings of the Royal Society (Biological Sciences), doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1650, accessed June 1, 2016, http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/10/27/rspb.2009.1650.full. ↩
- A good account of such attempts to rewrite history in an anti-Western direction is Ricardo Duchesne, “Multicultural Historians: The Assault on Western Civilization and Defilement of the Historical Profession,” The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, Fall 2013, accessed June 1, 2016, http://www.unb.ca/saintjohn/arts/resources/pdf/duchesnemulticulturalparti.pdf. ↩
- Francis, “The Return of the Repressed,” Race and the American Prospect (Mt. Airy, Maryland: The Occidental Press, 2006), http://www.npiamerica.org/research/category/the-return-of-the-repressed. ↩