Nature of Race (Published)

Below is an expanded and much improved rewrite of a draft which I had posted last year — improved thanks to the helpful commentary of Davide Piffer, Emil Kirkegaard, Kevin MacDonald, Peter Frost, Meng Hu, and others. As for the work, the intent was to  clarify the concept of race, understood from the perspective of natural history, so to render the term which describes it inessential. It is hoped that the piece will also clarify the purpose of this blog, the focus of which is human varieties, of which races as constant varieties and natural divisions are but a subtype.

Fuerst, J. (2015). The Nature of Race. Open Behavioral Genetics.

Abstract: Racial constructionists, anti-naturalists, and anti-realists have challenged users of the biological race concept to provide and defend, from the perspective of biology, biological philosophy, and ethics, a biologically informed concept of race. In this paper, an onto-epistemology of biology is developed. What it is, by this, to be “biological real” and “biologically meaningful” and to represent a “biological natural division” is explained. Early 18th century race concepts are discussed in detail and are shown to be both sensible and not greatly dissimilar to modern concepts. A general biological race concept (GBRC) is developed. It is explained what the GBRC does and does not entail and how this concept unifies the plethora of specific ones, past and present. Other race concepts as developed in the philosophical literature are discussed in relation to the GBRC. The sense in which races are both real and natural is explained. Racial essentialism of the relational sort is shown to be coherent. Next, the GBRC is discussed in relation to anthropological discourse. Traditional human racial classifications are defended from common criticisms: historical incoherence, arbitrariness, cluster discordance, etc. Whether or not these traditional human races could qualify as taxa subspecies — or even species — is considered. It is argued that they could qualify as taxa subspecies by liberal readings of conventional standards. Further, it is pointed out that some species concepts potentially allow certain human populations to be designated as species. It is explained why, by conventional population genetic and statistical standards, genetic differences between major human racial groups are at least moderate. Behavioral genetic differences associated with human races are discussed in general and in specific. The matter of race differences in cognitive ability is briefly considered. Finally, the race concept is defended from various criticisms. First, logical and empirical critiques are dissected. These include: biological scientific, sociological, ontological, onto-epistemological, semantic, and teleological arguments. None are found to have any merit. Second, moral-based arguments are investigated in context to a general ethical frame and are counter-critiqued. Racial inequality, racial nepotism, and the “Racial Worldview” are discussed. What is dubbed the Anti-Racial Worldview is rejected on both empirical and moral grounds. Finally, an area of future investigation – the politics of the destruction of the race concept – is pointed to.

Keywords: natural division, race, biology



I. Biology – A Philosophical Clarification…………………………………………..………………………………..……..5
I-A. Existing Views: Confusions Abound
I-B. Biological Concepts in General
I-C. The Validity of Biological Concepts
I-D. Biological Kinds
I-E. Natural Biological Divisions
I-F. Races as Natural Biological Divisions
I-G. The Intraspecific Natural Division as Type of Biological Variation
I-H. The Natural Division as a Taxonomic Unit
I-I. Natural Divisions and Intraspecific Variation with Regards to the Subspecies Category
I-J. Biologically Meaningful Race Concepts
I-K. Biological Reality
I-L. Biologically Important Differences
I-M. Concepts of Biological Race

II. The General Biological Race Concept………………………………………………………..………………..……..25
II-A. The Genealogy of the Concept
II-B. Semantic Complexities and the Evolution of the Race Concept
II-C. Biological Race
II-D. What the Core Biological Race Concept Does Not represent
II-E. Races, Clines, Clusters?
II-F. Clarification on the Meaning of “Arbitrary” and “Objective” in Context to Natural Divisions
II-G. Regarding Different Definitions of Biological Race: What Races Need Not Be
II-H. Genomic-Genealogical Complications
II-I. Estimated Genomic Similarity: Some Ambiguity
II-J. Race: Mixed and Undifferentiated
II-K. Essential and Cluster classes; Fuzzy and Discrete Sets
II-L. Sociological Clarifications

III. The Ontology of Biological Race……………………………………………….……………………………………..……62
III-A. Other Defenses of Biological Race
III-B. Biological Races and Biological Reality
III-C. Thin Biological Racial Essentialism

IV. The Races of Man……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………81
IV-A. A Very Brief Historical Review
IV-B. Human Biological Races and Scientific Consensus
IV-C. Racial Classifications and Biological Race Concepts
IV-D. Traditional human Races
IV-E. THRs and Biologically Objective Races
IV-F. THRs and Migration, Intermixing, and Ancient Admixture
IV-G. THRs and Cluster Discordance
IV-H. THRs and Taxonomy
IV-I. THRs and Subspecies
IV-J. Are There Human Species?
IV-K. “Significant” Racial Differences
IV-L. Human Biodiversity (HBD) and Society
IV-M. Race and Intelligence

V. Critique of Anti-Biological Race Arguments………………………………….…………………………………….126
V-A. Anti-Biological Arguments
V-B. Biological Scientific Arguments
V-C. Sociological Arguments
V-D. Unnaturalistic Arguments and the Numbers Game
V-E. Onto-epistemology Arguments
V-F. Semantic Arguments
V-G. No-True-Race Arguments
V-H. Teleological Argument: The Future of Race
V.I. Can a Good Argument be Made Against (the) Race (concept)?

VI. A Troublesome Inheritance?…………………………………………………………………………………………………148
VI-A. The Social Destruction of a Biological Reality
VI-B. A Not So New Morality for Race
VI-C. The Moral Critiques: Arguments based on Outcome Differences
VI-D. The Moral Critiques: Arguments based on Racial Classification and Identity
VI-E. The Moral Critiques: Arguments based on Racial Favoritism
VI-F. The Moral Critiques: Arguments based on the “Racial Worldview”






82 thoughts on “Nature of Race (Published)

  1. This is a book worthy of formal print-publication. If political incorrectness precludes an academic press, I’d think Washington Summit or Nine-Banded Books would be willing to publish it. The 9BB twitter account actually tweeted a link to this article, so I’m confident Chip Smith would be willing.

    • The uncertainty surrounding the race-IQ debate will be significantly narrowed before the end of the year because (1) more cognitive alleles have been found:, because (2) the results from Emil and my regional admixture project will be published, and because — if I can find someone to work on it — (3) a paper on individual level genomic admixture and cognitive outcomes in the U.S. will be published (I finally procured a data set). So, I was thinking of waiting. In the meantime, the paper could still use some editing. If you know of anyone, I could pay them maybe $300.

      • Half of the reason it looked like shit was because I used word 2003 to make the PDF. I did not really notice the mentioned problems as I edited and read the work primarily as a doc file. I changed it to a word 2013 PDF file. See if it looks better.

    • Too busy these days. But for what I can see, I know that Chuck won’t be impressed. Personally, I would like to see a real IQ test (not GCSE stuff) that measures cognitive ability and nothing else (e.g., culture, school-knowledge, …) such as reaction times. If in such a test, you see a sizeable black-white narrowing, larger than predicted by HH, I would start to believe that the HH is considerably weakened.

      When your article talks about culture/knowledge as a cause of the narrowing, I think the author needs to reveal it in a statistical way. For instance, by using MGCFA or IRT. I have conducted MGCFA on the Woodcock Johnson’s data, used in Charles Murray’s (2007) paper. The data have 3 waves, and all were (more or less) measurement invariant, which means there is no (or little) cultural bias. If the narrowing in the WJ was due to cultural bias, I would have expected the model fitting to be more MI in recent waves than in early waves (and the cultural bias to be one-sided, i.e., against blacks); I don’t see that. So, the narrowing in that data has (almost) nothing to do with culture. Of course, it could be that MGCFA was not really able of detecting cultural bias. Who knows; maybe MGCFA is a silly technique.

      That being said, I want to remind you that your question is a little bit off-topic considering the blog article here “The Nature of Race” (you should repost it on a different blog article, for instance, this one). If you are interested, you can read and leave a comment regarding the conversation we have in the submission thread of that paper, right here.

    • After looking through the data, I responded:

      “@Chanda Chisala

      I went through the math and found similar results. Using Barro-Lee’s Data set, 1990 and 2000 Nigerian/African emigrants to the OECD were ~ 2.2 SD selected in educational attainment (years of schooling).

      Pumpkinperson makes a mistake when it comes to estimating offspring IQ, though. The kind of random variance that doesn’t pass along across generations also happens to be the kind of variance that doesn’t predict outcomes (references on request). Thus if you select for IQ by a proxy variable like EA, IQ differences will almost fully be passed on since you already mostly eliminated the noise component. Thus, given an IQ x EA correlation, the kids should be only a little less than 1.4 SD selected.

      I’m not sure that we can assume a Nigerian/African IQ x EA correlation of 0.7. But I think that it’s reasonable to posit that Black Africans are at least 1 SD selected in IQ. I just looked through the PIAAC and other assessment scores. Black African adults age 16 to 65 score not more that 1 SD below the UK white mean. It’s more like 0.8 — and this is on (cultural loaded) reading and math tests. (Wide confidence intervals, though.)

      If we assume that most of these adults are African born and if we grant that Black Africans have measured IQs ~ 1.66 to 2 SD below the white adult UK mean, there must be significant selection. Further, Rindermann et al.’s paper, “Cognitive ability and epistemic rationality”, put the educated Nigerian IQ at about 15 points above the national average. Granted the sample size was tiny. These educated Nigerians would be the type that migrated to the UK. Anyways, these three points taken together suggest that Nigerian/African emigrants fall around at least the 84% percentile in cognitive ability relative to the Nigerian/African mean.

      Of course, we don’t have Nigerian/African biometric variance component estimates, so we are kind of stuck, unless we are willing to make strong inferences.

      Now, Chanda, I looked through your data. The “Raising the Achievement of Black African Pupils: Good Practice in Schools” paper was rubbish. The Black African sample size appears to be 411. And the schools were selective. Whites at those very schools performed 13 “percent points” above the national average — and Black Caribbeans 16. Indeed, discussing the sample, the authors note:

      “Six secondary schools with a high number of Black African students that serve disadvantaged communities were selected for case studies. The case study schools’ GCSE results were exceptionally good.. Key criteria for the selection of schools were as follow:
      –an above‐average proportion of students who are eligible for free school meals
      –‘outstanding’ or ‘good with outstanding features’ grades overall in the most recent Ofsted inspection
      –exceptionally good results, high standards
      –sustained GCSE improvement over the last 10 years”

      Hmmm… When I made the appropriate adjustments only Igbo (N= 16?, d = 0.68), Ga (N= 8?, d = 0.10), and TwiFante (N=37?, d= 0.15) performed above UK Whites at the same (select) schools (where d = the standardized difference). Your whole case, in that regards, ends up resting on the performance of a tiny group of Igbo speaking kids at an unrepresentative set of schools. (Note: I computed sample sizes by multiplying 411 by the reported % who spoke the language– it’s not clear if the 411 is for each year or for all year or what; the authors just note:
      “Of the 411 Black African students who took GCSE, 21% spoke English at home, 22% Yoruba, 13% Somali, 9% Twi‐Fante, 5% French, 4% Igbo, 4% Krio…”

      To be fair, you do cited other results. You note “A 2007 report on “case study” model schools in Lambeth…” and then mention again the amazing results of Ibo. But this is by the same author as above using the same sample, one which ran from 2007 to 2011. The same problems for this subsample exist as they do for the full case study sample!

      Now the Nigerians scores are more interested. Scores by immigrant nations are problematic, in general, since many African immigrants are White European or Asian. See, for example, Table 5 in Easterly and Nyarko’s (2008) “Is the brain drain good for Africa?”. However the vast majority of Nigerian emigrants happen to be Black, so in this case the scores can be in this respect unproblematically used.

      The Nigerian scores are though problematic on other accounts. Firstly, the paper you cited along with others noted that only select schools adopted extended ethnic codes, thus nationally representative samples and scores are unavailable. Second, I was able to find papers which reported multi-school Nigerian GCSE scores for three years: 2003, 2005, 2010/2011. (The one you reported plus one with 2005 data.) The standardized differences relative to UK Whites (transforming percent into d-value based on some questionable assumptions which the GCSE reporting method forces us to make) were 0, 0, and 0.6.

      I appreciate that you feel that the 2010/2011 value is the “true” one, but it’s impossible to tell. All of the papers which discuss these extended ethnicity codes noted that across time scores are not comparable since at different times different schools adopt different extended codes.
      So where does this leave us? It leaves us with what I already wrote 3 1/2 years ago and some suggestive evidence that Nigerians may perform between 0 and 0.6 SD above the Black African ~
      White UK mean. So basically, no progression from the mean I set; you are not even close to a reasonably sound argument!

      To constructs a dispositive one, you would need:
      (a) the latent ability differences between the natives of the UK and of West Africa
      (b) the latent ability differences between natives and Black emigrants from West Africa
      (c) the latent ability differences between White natives and the children of Black emigrants from West Africa
      (d) the environmental and genetic variance components for all four groups.

      Of course, we can only hold you to Lynn’s standards — which aren’t particularly high. So we can’t expect you to move beyond manifest values.

      As for those I just checked the 2013 GCSE scores and they were roughly the same as in 2010. And in 2010 the Black African CAT3 FSIQ score would have been around 0.6 SD below the UK white mean. (The average subtlest score d-value was around 0.5 SD.) So Black African parity with UK Whites in GCSE seems to be consistent with a Black African – White cognitive d-value of around 0.6.

      Generally, assuming that emigrant Black Africans are at least 1 SD selected relative to the mean and assuming that the h2 (narrow heritability) + c2 (shared environment) in Africa is ~0.6, the data is consistent with a proposed African “genotypic IQ” — a confused concept, but one everyone seems to employ — of 85.

      This is precisely what I deduced 3.5 years ago! All you managed to do is show that for Nigerians the calculations might possibly be more complex.

      And this: “…even if hereditarians can somehow manage to convincingly argue that the Nigerian (or Igbo) children in the UK do in fact have a lower IQ than average white children, as their biological model predicts (despite our evidence), they also have to show that these West African children even have a lower IQ than average black American children”

      Get out of here. I came across this on Wikipedia:

      “Most Igbo slaves were not victims of slave-raiding wars or expeditions, but were sometimes debtors and people who committed what their communities considered to be abominations or crimes”

      Probably not the educational elite being sold off.”

  2. I have a question:

    When you create your national, racial or other IQ averages, why do you rely on values that were collected in studies that are sometimes more than 40 years old ?

    I mean, if I’m a cloth manufacturer who needs to sell merchandise to Nigeria now in 2015, I need the average height of Nigerians now and not their height in 70’s with vague estimations of what it could be now in 2015.

    Because if you are familiar with Wicherts et al. you get confused with the figures.

    Values from 2006 and 2007 based on international standardized tests of scholastic achievement indicate an IQ of 88.1 .

    Values from various studies and from various years between the 1960’s and now gave an average of 83.5 according to their authors and 69 according to Richard Lynn.

    Other values, also reported the 5 last decades were selected on systematic criteria by Wicherts et al. and gave me an average of 83.8

    So tell me, what is Nigeria’s average brain cloth size ? Who should I trust ? It’s important for me to know because I won’t sell if the merchandise does not fit their brains. I’m talking serious business, not about shaming Nigerians on the size they need…

    • Firstly, I do not care for snide moral shaming. Persist and you will find yourself banned.

      Secondly, national variance in measured cognitive ability causally explains some national variance in socioeconomic outcomes. Since many are concerned about the latter, it is reasonable for them and others to be interested in the former. Concern about differences entails concern about the cause thereof. Genetic factors are plausible causal ones; moreover, deleterious congenital influences are potentially ameliorable. No further — and much less — justification is needed for this line of inquiry.

      Thirdly, the “NofR” paper was not primarily about racial differences in behavioral traits. I discussed the issue only because some contend that the race concept is harmful — and so should go unrecognized — because it conditions racial discrimination as evidenced by outcome differences. I noted that the precise cause of outcome differences is yet undetermined and I articulated an alternative (non-racial discrimination, hereditarian) model. I had imagined that I was fairly clear regarding my intent: “Our point here, though, is not to argue the case for average congenital biological racial differences in intelligence or other behavioral traits. It is simply to note that the issue is presently undetermined. This has bearing on some of the argument leveled against the biological race concept.”

      That said, I did present “racial or other IQ averages” (table 4.13). These specific scores were taken from Christainsen (2013) and were presented (1) because scores were decomposed by genetically defined racial clusters and (2) because the statistical effects of a numbers of socioeconomic factors — the types of factors that you yourself had pointed to as confounds — were controlled for. I was unable to locate a paper which both reported adjusted scores by genetic cluster and which used only very recent data. As such, my options were limited. I did refer readers to other compilations. I also noted a number of reasons on account of which “to be skeptical about the existence of a genetic basis for such differences”. Overall, I feel that my treatment of the topic was unusually even-handed. I recognize, though, that one can not please everyone.

      This all said, your concern seems to be more with various African estimates. On that matter, I would refer you to: Rindermann’s (2013) “African cognitive ability: Research, results, divergences and recommendations.” As noted by the author, an unadjusted measured regional African IQ of around 75 fits the data. More recent IQ data — e.g., from Lynn’s 2015/2016 compilation in progress –agrees with this.

  3. I am confused about this item, and I wonder if somebody here could help:

    Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples around 3000 years B.C

    Jelte M. Wicherts, , Denny Borsboom, Conor V. Dolan

    “In this rejoinder, we respond to comments by Lynn, Rushton, and Templer on our previous paper in which we criticized the use of national IQs in studies of evolutionary theories of race differences in intelligence. We reiterate that because of the Flynn Effect and psychometric issues, national IQs cannot be taken to reflect populations’ levels of g as fixed since the last ice age. We argue that the socio-cultural achievements of peoples of Mesopotamia and Egypt in 3000 B.C. stand in stark contrast to the current low level of national IQ of peoples of Iraq and Egypt and that these ancient achievements appear to contradict evolutionary accounts of differences in national IQ. We argue that race differences in brain size, even if these were entirely of genetic origin, leave unexplained 91–95% of the black-white IQ gap. We highlight additional problems with hypotheses raised by Rushton and Templer. National IQs cannot be viewed solely in evolutionary terms but should be considered in light of global differences in socio-economic development, the causes of which are unknown.”

    • Can anybody possibly reply? The above item pertains directly to items of interest on this comments thread, and the overall wok of the site in general.

    • We currently are suffering through the same fate. See McDermott, Nick. “Were the Victorians cleverer than us? Research indicates a decline in brainpower and reflex speed thanks to ‘reverse’ natural selection.” Daily Mail, May 13, 2013:

      The bullet points are interesting:
      “Study claims we have 14 IQ points LESS than our 19th Century ancestors
      Findings contradict the Flynn effect, which claims IQ has risen three points every decade since the Second World War”

      • As regards a popular attitude facilitating dysgenics, “Anti-racist standards only apply to European peoples because only European peoples have enforced such standards upon themselves. Lately, in the United States, not a month goes by without some notable media personality or sports celebrity being coerced to recant in public for some “racist” remark even if such remark was made twenty or thirty years ago. Despite the endless education programs, the imposition of diversity school curriculums, the portrayal of blacks in the most sympathetic fashion, the constant celebration of immigration and interracial mixing, despite all this, and the election of Obama, the anti-racist hysteria against Whites (by liberal Whites) has intensified. The whole thing is a struggle within the White community, between the “good” upper class liberal Whites, who are tolerant and, apparently, love all races (while living in their segregated White communities), and the “bad” racist working class or conservative Whites, who cannot accept “progressive” changes. In almost one hundred percent of “racist” incidents presented in the media, the perpetrator is a White person against a non-White person; hardly ever in reverse, and less so within non-Whites, say, a Mestizo against an Asian, or a Moslem against a Chinese.

        Meanwhile, in Asian countries, where there is never any talk about racism, we learn from Frank Dikötter, for example, how traditional Chinese notions about inferior “barbarians” intermingled with Nazi forms of “scientific” racism to form a distinctively Chinese racial consciousness in our current times. In Imperfect Conceptions: Medical Knowledge, Birth Defects, and Eugenics in China (1998), Dikötter references government publications calling for eugenics as a vital tool in the enhancement of the “biological fitness” of the nation, and heralding the twenty-first century as an era to be dominated by “biological competition” between the “white race” and the “yellow race”. Can you imagine a Canadian government publication speaking in these terms?

        Ethnic minorities in China are treated as second-class citizens. Tibetans are routinely described as lazy, ignorant, and dirty. Han migration to Tibet is destroying their heritage; Han companies dominate the main industries, and the Chinese get the best jobs. The province of Xinjiang, nominally an autonomous region, is likewise being flooded with Han migrants. In 1949, Han Chinese amounted to only 5 per cent of Xinjiang’s population; today they are up to 41 per cent. Urumqi, the capital city, consists of 75 per cent Han Chinese. The average Chinese views the natives from Xinjiang as backward and as ungrateful for not appreciating the modern infrastructure bestowed upon them by the Han. Yet, there is never any talk of racism, and the Western media hardly ever approaches non-White countries from this perspective; instead we are made to believe that Asians are sufferers of White imperialism and racism, and that Canadians can only benefit from Asian immigrants and their naturally non-racist attitudes.

        Canadians are so obsessed with anti-racist standards that they have actually handed over Vancouver to Asians to show that they are not racist. Toronto, our major universities, the University of British Columbia and the University of Toronto, have now been thoroughly colonized by Chinese immigrants, immigrants generally, as well as international students.

        Only European peoples have been made to feel that they must transform their nations into multi-racial places and thereby eliminate themselves from their historic position as rulers of their own homelands. Anti-racism is a war against Whites in their own countries. Those who opposed this war are called “White Supremacists”. “:

      • As to the cultural criteria for the opposite, Duchesne notes that “The very notion that Western Civilization was uniquely more creative than the Rest belies the everyday plainness and egalitarianism academics lecture about. Ever since the eighteenth century, Europeans thinkers, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume, and Adam Smith, have noted certain crucial differences between the West and the East. One of the most salient contrasts they noted was Europe’s “genius for liberty” and Asia’s “despotic” character. Increasingly, or in recent decades, the so-called “rise of the West” debate has been reduced to the question why Europe industrialized first, or, more broadly, why modern science and industry first emerged in Europe. Historians have gone back in time to ancient Greece or medieval times to answer this question, but essentially the exceptionality of the West has been reduced to why the West rose to industrial and scientific dominance in modern times.

        In The Uniqueness of Western Civilization I argue that multiple divergences, successive revolutions, and continuous creativity are the basic peculiarities of the West since ancient times. Within every generation one finds individuals searching for new worlds, new religious visions, and new styles of painting, architecture, music, science, philosophy, and literature — in comparative contrast to the non-Western world where cultural outlooks persisted for long periods with only slight variations and revisions.

        Among the numerous sources I employ is Charles Murray’s, Human Accomplishment. Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, where we are informed, through meticulous statistical analysis, that ninety-seven percent of accomplishment in the sciences occurred in Europe and North America from 800 BC to 1950. We are also informed that in the Arts Europe alone produced a far higher number of great works than the rest of the world combined. More recently, I observed that around ninety-five percent of all explorers in history were European. It is my claim that the ultimate roots of this creativity should be traced back to the aristocratic warlike culture of the Indo-Europeans.

        Well, everything about this interpretation runs counter to the multicultural obsession with egalitarian diversity; how could it be that the highest achievements of mankind were rooted in the culture of aristocratic warlike Indo-European (aka Aryan) males! Don’t expect any funding for such a project. Fortunately, humans tend to appreciate, or, at the least, respect greatness even if they don’t understand it, and so my students (mind you I teach in a mostly Anglo-ethnic university) have been quite welcoming of these ideas.”:

      • “On the possibility of monarchy and aristocracy today

        A few thoughts on monarchy regarding the recent discussion, started by John Médaille’s two articles.

        First, one must distinguish between monarchy and aristocracy, as the two were often in conflict. Lords and nobles often saw it in their interest to have a weak king. And while Aquinas may prescribe monarchy as the best form of government, Aristotle was more sober in his assessment of best forms of government. While some people (esp. those in the Middle East) might have temperaments more conducive to monarchy, other people, he felt, were better served by aristocracy / oligarchy or politeia / democracy. The best form of government was relative to various ethnicities and their ancestral and tribal histories.

        Second, Red is correct that a people cannot select a new aristocracy de novo. The European aristocracy, as it evolved out of the Middle Ages, was a product of the warrior caste. The early aristocracy ruled because they were able to rule. This authority in time became reflected in law. To bring about conditions for an aristocracy in the U.S. today, the U.S. would have to descend into complete chaos.

        Third, regarding meritocracy, the ancient aristocracy was not opposed to meritocracy, but thought it was the epitome of merit. Echoing Nietzsche, bonus not only meant good, but also noble with its martial implications. Aristotle combined all these qualities, arguing that the moral were typically noble and even good looking. Both Plato and Aristotle were concerned with good breeding (eugenics), something which continues into the Middle Ages with gentilesse (refinement and courtesy resulting from good breeding).

        There is some evidence that the nobles were the fittest. For instance, Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, in The 10,000 Year Explosion (pg. 104), write:

        “Gregory Clark, in A Farewell to Alms, shows that in medieval England the richest members of society had approximately twice the number of surviving offspring as the poorest. The bottom of society did not reproduce itself, with the result that, after a millennium or so, nearly everyone was descended from the wealthy classes.”

        Interestingly, although we are nearly all thus descendants of the Medieval upper classes, nearly the exact oppose [sic] phenomenon is occurring today: Dysgenics / Idiocracy.

        Finally, let’s not forget that there was a racial element to aristocracy in Europe. “Blue bloods,” as they were called in Southern Europe, were supposed to be fair skinned (of Germanic, or maybe Celtic, ancestry) so that one could see the blue veins through their pale skin (unlike the dusky skin of the Moors, etc.). Throughout Europe the aristocracy seems to have been fairer skinned than the lower classes, as noted by the “fair princess” of fairy tales. In other words, fair looks denoted an aristocratic or upper-class background. Swarthy looks denoted a lower-class background.”:

      • As to the above, of relevance is Frost, Peter. “Blonde jokes aren’t funny.” Evo and Proud, June 25, 2010.:

        Also, “Literary portraits of the beautiful woman in medieval Iberia tend to emphasize several physical features, such as long, blond hair, or light-colored and hairless skin. This study examines the specific features of the beautiful woman in several major works and genres from medieval Iberia. It also traces the rhetorical sources of these portraits to the Classical and medieval Latin traditions, whose influence is evident in other early vernacular literatures of Europe. It then analyzes several medieval cosmetic treatises in Latin and in vernacular languages that attest to medieval women’s beautifying practices, such as the use of hair-dyes, depilatories, and skin-whitening creams.

        The comparison of the literary and cosmetic evidence shows a canonical view of feminine beauty that encompasses different cultural areas in medieval Iberia. This view is also consistent with ancient as well as with twenty-first century conceptions of beauty. The findings suggest that the ideal of feminine beauty in medieval Iberia is not unique, but rather a manifestation of near-universal male preferences shaped by sexual selection in the course of human evolution. […]

        Most cosmetic treatises devote considerable space to the maintenance of well-groomed, long, and healthy hair. They also include many recipes for hair-dyes (blond and black). In Spanish literature, blond hair appears to be more typical of learned poetry and appears to be associated with nobility: “rruvios, largos cabellos / segund doncellas d’estado” (Marqués de Santillana 11-12). In the cantigas it is not mentioned, and in the Andalusian and Arabic tradition hair is black, not without exceptions (see Chapter Three).”

        [Claudio Da Soller. The beautiful woman in medieval Iberia: Rhetoric, cosmetics, and evolution. University of Missouri – Columbia, 2005.]

  4. And also “The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy” by Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman, which notes as a result of important survey data, on p. 250, that
    “On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy. An overwhelming majority also believe that individual genetic inheritance contributes to variations in IQ within the white community, and a smaller majority express the same view about the black-white and SES differences in IQ.”

    On that, see also Gottfredson, L. S. (1994). Egalitarian fiction and collective fraud. Society, 31(3), 53-59.:

  5. However, there is still much that remains uncovered there, and I would greatly appreciate it if one of you could help me in providing a broader offering of information, beyond the tendentiousness of the critic.

  6. Bolton, Kerry. “The New Inquisitors: Heretical Scientists Purged from Academia” Counter Currents, December 3, 2012.:

    is of relevance to the “Rational Wiki” attack on this site. It quotes the academic Clyde Wilson, “I fear that the academic situation is here the same as you describe it there–corrupt and substandard. It is normal to complain about the reign of Political Correctness, but not enough attention has been given to the sheer incompetence and lack of genuine scholarly vocation among the professoriate today. I see no remedy for the universities except unlikely revolution. The fact is that all genuine intellectual life for the foreseeable future will have to take place outside the formal institutions.”

    • A notable article is “Political diversity will improve social psychological science.” (Behavioral and Brain Sciences / Volume 38 / January 2015, e130 (13 pages)).:

      This states in the abstract that “Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.”

    • A very interesting supplemental item in this regard is “Foundations: Their Power and Influence” by Rene Wormser, which summarized and defended the conclusions of a congressional committee regarding the deliberate push towards the cultural left by big Tax-Exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie endowment, and the Rockefeller foundation:

      At the same time, neo-liberalism is very predominantly pushed by the major institutions. Sir James Goldsmith, a major figure in the business world argued against its premises in his books “The Trap” and “The Response”. A very interesting text also is “Lost Prophets: An Insider’s History of the Modern Economists” by Alfred L. Malabre Jr., which looked at the major economic talking heads from 1944-1992 (the period coinciding with the rise of neo-liberalism), and showed how their ideological blinders consistently divorced them from economic reality.

      People use the term “Cultural Marxism”, but really, a more appropriate term is “capitalist Trotskyism”, given that capitalists adopted the praxis of Trotskyism, permanent, international revolution against any social norm or tradition, in order to further atomize society into a collection of totally unbound consumers. By the 1950s the CIA had formed connections with Trotskyites through the Congress of Cultural Freedom to spread modern art and other forms of Western liberalism. A military paper showing this at work in detail is Ralph Peters, “Constant Conflict”, Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College.

      Raciology is an explicit obstacle to such ambitions, and thus it, given its very nature, has to be obfuscated.

    • In “Race And Reality” by Carleton Putnam, in ch. II, “The Fantasy,” Putnam documented the affiliation of those affiliated with the UNESCO Statement on Race like Ashley Montagu with Communist organizations declared “subversive” by investigating organizations (Franz Boas had similar affiliations, and Leon Kamin’s relationship to this is also somewhat well known). He noted misleading statements by Montagu, and how the “UNESCO Statement on Race”, being repudiated by eminent biologists, was modified to form a much less publicized document that partially retracted some of the denial of Race that the initial statement put forth. He then listed some of the scathing criticisms of the UNESCO perspective offered by eminent biologists.

      In light of this, it is relevant to point out other evidence of dedicated efforts by UNESCO towards Globalism in order to gain an overarching perspective. The best documented source I have come across that does this is “The Turning of the Tides” by Paul W. Shafer and John Howland Snow :

      • An overview of observations before the era of political correctness, by James L. Hunt of the Royal Anthropological Institute, gives evidence for a view consistent with some of this in his monograph “On the Negro’s Place in Nature”, and that, finally, I offer to you as an item that might be of relevance in assessing the overall issues:

        I look forward to future writing from you assessing the validity of the OOA model in light of the information cited above, and your own investigations of relevant source literature.

      • BenSteigmann are you trolling the Human Varieties talk page on Rationalwiki with socks?

        Btw, “UnrealName” is a sockpuppet of Ben Steigmann (a supporter of MacDonald), [1]and an internet troll known for supporting all sorts of woo and crackpottery such as parapsychology, ghosts, spirits, alternative medicine etc. “ “is interesting to note that a psychic believer is all over it called Ben Steigmann (he is a banned Wikipedia user) who has been banned on over six sock puppets for being disruptive on Wikipedia and he is now telling Targ to take legal action!” Note how Steigmann trolls the web talking about “legal action” or defamation.OldWatch (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

      • I have no business with rational wiki, I do not consider engaging with people there a productive use of my time.

      • As to your other point, I hold the view that science and academia are political, and that academia can function as a series of justifications for politically pre-determined biases and prejudices, or to create narratives that reenforce the power of those who wield it in a manner that might be seen, if all the facts were freely discussed, as illegitimate. This puts me permanently at odds with the perspective of those at rational wiki, who like to imagine academic consensus as a kind of guide to our salvation. Please note however that it takes just one primary source that might falsify major narratives in one field for academic consensus to be questioned in all fields. You mentioned Kevin MacDonald, but this archival source goes beyond Kevin MacDonald, and suggests that contemporary views on history and political science are fundamentally false, that they do not capture the manner in which power operates: tp://

      • For the alt med stuff, my primary interest was in Pauling, orthomolecular stuff, etc., which I think is the most viable of CAM, and the most likely to be obfuscated because of the nature of how medicine works in this country. There is a book called “selling sickness” which is useful which cites the executive of Merck to the effect that he wanted his company to be like Wrigley’s, to “sell to everybody”. When you realize that we have a system where there is as much incentive from big medicine to find cures as there is for a crack cocaine dealer to have a non-addictive version of his product, then you will realize that the entire narrative of the “skeptic” movement on alt med is fundamentally flawed. So what I did is read some of the original sources from the orthomolecular medicine proponents, the reply of proponents to the APA attack on them (which puts forth the case that the protocols of the proponents were not being tested, and that sham protocols were being tested), etc., and found support for the view that this is “debunked” because the critics never actually tested it according to the dosage amount and rate as put forth by proponents. I had done earlier reading on the relationship between nutrition and physical degeneration, found corroboration for this elsewhere, etc., and this fueled my interest. I really like the idea that “optimum nutrition is the medicine of the future”, but I do not think that this can take place in the current political and economic system.

        Things get even more interesting when you juxtapose the work of noteable critics of the modern education system like John Taylor Gatto with the aforementioned arguments, books like “Rockefeller Medicine Men”, etc., and look at the interlock of monopoly capitalists in that field with the foundations behind modern education. Essentially, and you can corroborate this yourself if you take the time, what this shows is that the product of modern education is envisioned to be a good “human resource”, someone who is not fully human.

        I think that the more one looks, the more one can support the thesis that modern society is a type of aggregate violence where those at the top, having acquired power illegitimately, put structures in place to so that those below them, as they grow into adulthood, become weak degenerates – in a way, the culture is a kind of applied dysgenics. You cannot have fully developed human beings at the lower levels, as these people would be able to counter the hegemony of parasitism. I do not present the following document as evidence, more as a metaphor, but I believe that a convergence of evidence can show that it is a meaningful metaphor, aptly reflecting modern social dynamics:

      • As for “legal action” from parapsychologists, I have come to have a low level of respect for current parapsychologists even though I believe the field as a whole is legitimate and marginalized for a priori ideological reasons. I am much less interested in them taking legal action and much more interested in them getting out of their personal bubble and acknowledging the existence of their critics. It is true that there is heavy unfair bias from skeptics, but the way out is for them to continually engage the critical literature and demonstrate its misrepresentations. A beginning glimpse of this bias, by the way, comes from the exchange between James Alcock and John Palmer concerning the text “Parapsychology: Science or Magic”. Irvin Child, in “Psychology and Anomalous Observations: The Question of ESP in Dreams”, published in a regular peer-reviewed journal, demonstrated obfuscation tactics and misrepresentation on this from critics like Alcock, CEM Hansel, etc. Having considered Child’s text for background information, we can note that Stanley Krippner is to be commended by breaking from the typical pattern of parapsychologists in a Festschrift to K. Ramakrishna Rao, systematically countering his antagonists, in a relevant chapter of that text. Evidence for the non-scientific a priori bias fueling the rhetoric of antagonists can be found in Sommer, A. (2014). Psychical research in the history and philosophy of science. An introduction and review. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 48, 38-45. An example I like is from Alfred Russell Wallace, who noted the omissions and distortions of his opponent WB Carpenter, in a paper that serves as a very useful introduction to the other side of controversies in this area:

        If psi is true, or if it is very weak but could be amplified, or if it is uncontrolled (at a larger scale if the relevant data could be defended, it would seem that people don’t have any kind of control over it), but could be brought under the control of a person dealing with this, then it has direct implications for a kind of immense power that people might be able to acquire, thus people who don’t want that to happen might have an interest in discrediting it. Or, it is possible that they might use it for their own benefit but discredit it for others (the discrepancy between a revelation of Jimmy Carter concerning a success from remote viewing results vs. the public dismissal is suggestive), “skeptics” would then be dupes for people wanting to prevent the realization of processes that could lead to the development of magic powers within the population, but at present there seems to be inadequate evidence to support such a hypothesis.

        But returning to the previous issue – too often, it seems, the antagonists are engaged in a fraudulent enterprise. But parapsychologists woe about the attack on them on Wikipedia is sort of beside the point when you realize that if they had engaged the critical literature on them regularly they would have been able to counter the attacks with ease coming out with a document demonstrating the difference between primary source literature and the antagonists’ renditions of it. Their failure to do this demonstrates a complete ignorance of politics.

        My personal interest in this began when I had persistent negative experiences of what were subjectively perceived of as spirits on high dose psychedelic trips – something that created a crisis that persisted a long while after the trips. The first was an experience of being infected by something, after which a crush I had on a girl who was with a group of friends I was with turned into a bizarre pathological self-destructive obsession that I struggled to liberate myself from, finally with success. The second was a subjective experience of being assaulted by demons after which, for a while, my psychological state could best have been described as a mix of hostility, fear, and depression. Carlos Castaneda is not a serious anthropological source because of the fact that his alleged explorations were later found to be fictions created by a synthesis of esoteric religious sources. However, he does provide a good reflection of the dogmas of various esoteric religions like the Gnostics, and in his book “The Active Side of Infinity”, there is a chapter called “mud shadows” dealing with interdimensional predators feeding subtly off of human beings, those passages would later to some extent correlate to subjective internal experience arising from this extremely unpleasant drug trip.

        There were several items leading me to abandon the hypothesis that this was just subjective. The first was that while, for a few years, I had as a reaction to some of the trauma from this lived on what might be called a psychological periphery, I then worked to heal various traumas I had accumulated with energy medicine, which I had been exposed to by another, but had never implemented in any kind of persistent fashion. During the time I was doing this, my feedback from others would be along the lines of, “he gets better every time you see him” as I gradually entered the depths and came upon greater and greater psychological health. As this was going on, one might say that I had begun to penetrate layers and layers within my psyche that I had previously isolated myself from. The aspect related to the girl even was one of these, but as I went away from superficiality to deeper levels, this began to open up, and I would later experience “synchronistic” chance meetings with her in accordance with my intuition to be at a certain place at a certain time. I also with a friend had begun to investigate the dialogues between David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti investigating consciousness that could ultimately be seen as dealing with the same material that is dealt with universally in apophatic mysticism, we can look to Meister Eckhart for an example, another example I like is from the view of Plotinus that “Knowledge has three degrees—opinion, science, illumination.* The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second dialectic; of the third intuition. To the last I subordinate reason. It is absolute knowledge founded on the identity of the mind knowing with the object known.” Delving into this I had a brief period of immense internal ecstasy, and then the process of internal detritus coming out and a release of repressions continued. Pathologies related to my obsession with the girl also were also released from the depths of consciousness, I would just express these without filter in these gushing emails, completely disregarding social norms and valuing my internal process above all else (a retrospectively narcissistic action), as would happen when I “released repressions” with others, and in 2012, there was another example of these “synchronicities” where I had the intuition that I would read a book called “On Love and Loneliness” and then see her seemingly by chance but not at all by chance (rather, with external reality reflecting will, being molded by it as a sculptor would mold a sculpture, or being anticipated by intuition) and then have dinner with her and a friend in a restaurant I had wanted to take her to. I ended up finishing the text on a bus – I believed that immediately as this happened she would enter the bus and I would see her, however, I finished the book and the on got off the bus and then saw her as I walked down a sidewalk in a downtown area from there, but she decided to not go to the restaurant. However, I met my friend who I had wanted to have dinner with.

        After this, it was as if I had hit a mine in my internal consciousness, and a creeping incoherence emerged, it was as if a computer virus had unleashed itself within my consciousness. The aforementioned friend also had at a previous time the experience of being attacked by demons while on psychedelics, he overcame this with prayer, and he inter-subjectively detected a change in my state during the time I had dinner with him, so a couple of days later he messaged for me to meet with him, and discussed issues related to this and suggested that I pray to resolve the problem. I prayed then, and, although having previously felt this was ridiculous, I felt a “lightening up” of my internal environment. Some days later I decided to really take the plunge, and I made another prayer – “I will do anything to get rid of this disease, and surrender my life to God, so that love can act of its own accord through this body.”

        What happened after that could best be described as a transmutation of pain as all masks I had with others in relationships fell and aspects of myself that might have been seen as socially unacceptable were exposed to people, progressively destroying the bourgeois obsession with the persona and competitive conformity. Within hours after some of my intentions for this girl were misinterpreted by her, I had received an email from her saying that she never wanted me to contact her again, and this sort of just occurred within a greater field of awareness, dissolving, with the pain associated with the transmutation of this leading to feelings . This obsession with the girl was finally cured by reading Schopenhauer’s essay “On Women”, and realizing how much of her behavior was reflected by that generalization. My mistake was in giving her valuation that did not match her behavior, projecting an ideal and correlating her to it where she did not actually correlate to this ideal. I also believe that most men are degenerates, and hence invite upon themselves abuse from women, but if they could overcome their degeneracy, they might begin to experience, as a completely natural and spontaneous occurrence, an opposite situation with them.

        In all kinds of other situations this occurred as I either precipitated hostile interactions with others, or found these occurring without my action – there is a summary of the text by Ernst Junger, “On Pain”, which in someway correlates to an aspect of this process: “Mindless progress attempts to alleviate pain but in the end acculturates weakness. The heroic is where the body is seen as an object and is used according to the will. It is the desire to overcome pain personally or in battle. The modern age of sensitivity gives the body primacy and hence lacks any true discipline or control. Pain transforms the physical look of the individual and the formations such as architecture they are expressed through, pain creates Nietzsche’s New Man, the Worker who becomes one with the technology he uses. Junger celebrates the machinery of war as an extension of the Worker and their role within the state. “Technology is our uniform” is how Junger describes it. As we move towards the development of the New Man, the Worker, we evolve a second consciousness where we see our bodies as an object, disciplined, ready for sacrifice as required.” The passage regarding “The Parable of the Coach” in the text “Gnosis I” by the esoteric religionist Boris Mouravieff that also reflects this process, as does the text accompanying the visionary artist Alex Grey’s painting “The Journey of the Wounded Healer”.

        Later, as my releasing of repressions with others became an obvious source of hurt with them, I abandoned that course of action and progressively focused on internal release, with the hatreds and hostilities that colored my interactions gradually dissolving.

      • “The aforementioned friend also had at a previous time the experience of being attacked by demons while on psychedelics…This obsession with the girl was finally cured by reading Schopenhauer’s essay “On Women”, and realizing how much of her behavior was reflected by that generalization.”

        Sounds like my 20s.

  7. According to the poster, this book was informally reviewed by the undergraduate (who has nevertheless published in regular peer-reviewed journals) Emil Kirkegaard, a co-blogger Meng Hu (whose academic credentials are unspecified), Davide Piffer (who has an MSc in Evolutionary anthropology and who has published in regular peer-reviewed journals), Peter Frost, who has a PhD in anthropology, Kevin MacDonald, a well known PhD in evolutionary psychology, whose CV (particularly p. 2) reveals him to be well qualified in reviewing this work:

    • Ludovici was a serious Right Wing intellectual, who along with the Jewish dissident Dr. Oscar Levy, a proselytizer of Nietzsche, co-translated Nietzsche’s collected works into English. In spite of his critical perspective, he was evidently respected enough that he was invited to give an address “Transform society’s values”, that was published in in “Gentile and Jew: A Symposium on the Future of the Jewish People”, edited by Chaim Newman. London: Alliance Press, 1945, pp. 165–185:

    • And Kevin MacDonald’s arguments in favor of Ethnic Nationalism from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology have an in depth precedent in the book “A New Theory of Human Evolution” by Sir Arthur Keit FRS[1 (5 February 1866 – 7 January 1955), who was a Scottish anatomist and anthropologist, who became a fellow and later Hunterian Professor and conservator of the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England:

      • I’m not interested in engaging those folks on RW. They have a lot of intellectual fever, and seem to be more interested in cathartically writing attacks in order to “destroy” “cranks” (people outside their religion of *perceived* consensus), then they are in inquiry. They are a religious movement with non-transcendental objects of worship. Plus, dealing with this kind of intellectual fever in general is very energy consuming.

        I am however interested in fleshing out the issues further in the comments on this site – perhaps any remaining issues will eventually get addressed in these exchanges.

        I will note that Rushton and Lynn, while not essential to the arguments, do get mentioned a lot in discussions on this issue – Wikipedia lists attacks on them, but they can be defended by referencing regular peer-reviewed literature. I may attempt to accumulate this information, but I won’t have the time until November, if you have any offerings of your own on these folks, it might be useful.

    • Ludovici, in his article “The Importance of Racial Integrity” (The South African Observer 3.12, 1958, pp. 12–13; 4.1, 1958, pp. 12–13; 4.2, 1958, pp. 12–13; 4.3, 1958, pp. 11–12; 4.4, 1958, pp. 12–13; 4.5, 1958, pp. 12–13; 4.6, 1958, pp. 10–12; 4.7, 1958, pp. 10–11; 4.8, 1958, pp. 12–13; 4.9, 1959, pp. 11–12; 4.10, 1959, pp. 12–13; 4.11, 1959, pp. 10–11; 4.12, 1959, pp. 12–13; 5.1, 1959, pp. 12–13; 5.2, 1959, pp. 12–13; 5.3, 1959, pp. 10–11; 5.4, 1959, pp. 12–13; 5.5, 1959, pp. 12–13), defends the following perspective with further evidence:

      “Of the two major consequences of race mixture, which I said would be discussed in my second article, the first is reversion; that is, the recession towards a stage of development which each of a mongrel’s parents has already surpassed and left far behind. Only people engaged in keeping and breeding animals, or in cultivating trees and plants, are aware of this phenomenon and of its importance as a factor in impairing and ultimately totally obliterating painfully acquired, or cultivated, animal and vegetable characteristics.
      For, as I pointed out in my first article, a race is a variant of a species, which has acquired its peculiar features and qualities by becoming differentiated from its primitive ancestral stem through isolation and all that this means in the matter of selection operating as a preserver and eliminator of the genetic and other changes incidental to a segregated existence in a more or less stable environment.
      Now, it was very soon discovered that, if there is one thing that Nature abhors, besides a vacuum, it is the confusion of the traits separately acquired by different variants of a species during their isolation; and since race-miscegenation, or the mixing of races, has precisely this effect and causes a hopeless jumble of the characteristics distinguishing one race from another, the result of the indiscriminate crossing of races is that Nature, as it were, throws up her hands in desperation and, refusing to have anything more to do with the muddle, prefers to start afresh from scratch. The half-breeds, quater-breeds and octoroons thus tend insensibly to regress to the primitive and ancestral stock.
      This is the scientific truth in a simplified form; but it states all the essentials of the process known as “Degeneration” following miscegenation. For what is Degeneration? At bottom, it is the loss by an individual organism or plant, or by a whole breed of organisms or plants, of some of the painfully acquired qualities or features that have been evolved by a particular race. It means stepping back along the line of development to a stage or even a starting point, long abandoned.”

    • Sorry, I have been away. Was there something specific which you would like me to comment on? If you would like to discuss the topic in depth you can always email me at: j122177(at)

      • Ben, I will look into the matter and get back to you on it. The issue is not particularly relevant to debates about the race concept: as such, I did not investigate and critically evaluate critiques of the OOA model.

      • My particular interest is if the data integrating itself into the OOA model, which people like Rushton support, can also integrate itself into models rejecting OOA.

        Klyosov is a recent rejector of this – the following Russian site will likely contain information of relevance to you:

      • Aside from Klyosov’s work, one interesting item is “Unanswered Questions and Misguided Answers: An Overview of Current Problems with Late Pleistocene Contacts Between the Old World and the New World, with the Sketch of an Alternative Paradigm”, p. 22, which noted that “The vast majority of African nuclear and mitochondrial haplotypes is not present outside of Africa, which contradicts the definition of a founding haplotype (Torroni et al. 1993a) applied by several research teams to the relationship between New World and Asian genomes (see above). This circumstance constitutes an additional evidence against the “Out-of-Africa” evolutionary model (comp.: Hicks, 1996: 33).”:

      • Aside from this, we have the article “African Eve: Hoax or Hypothesis?” by Robert G. Bednarik, the abstract of which reads: “The replacement hypothesis proposes that “modern humans” evolved only in sub-Saharan Africa, through a speciation event rendering them unable to breed with other hominins. They then spread throughout Africa, then to Asia, Australia and finally to Europe, replacing all other humans by exterminating or outcompeting them. In this critical analysis of the replacement hypothesis it is shown that it began as a hoax, later reinforced by false paleoanthropological claims and a series of flawed genetic propositions, yet it became almost universally accepted during the 1990s and has since dominated the discipline. The numerous shortcomings of the hypothesis are appraised from genetic, anthropological, and archaeological perspectives and it is refuted. The resulting hiatus in the history of the human genus is then filled with an outline of a comprehensive alternative theory presented recently, which not only explains the origins of “modern humans” but also numerous so far unexplained aspects of being human.”:

      • Prior to this, Coon rejected the out-of-Africa theory:

        Of Coon, Putnam noted in “Race and Reality: A Search for Solutions”, “Scientific criticism of the Origin of Races (there was the usual irrelevant deluge of political criticism) fell into five general categories: (1) Objections that a polytypic species could not evolve into a new polytypic species while keeping the same subspecies. But even Dobzhansky, Coon’s best known critic in the field of genetics, admitted that on this point Coon was correct. Dobzhansky, in fact, conceded the point in his Mankind Evolving (1962, New Haven), published before The Origin of Races. Ernst Mayr, the Harvard zoologist and author of Animal Species and Evolution, 1963, Cambridge, was in agreement with Coon; (2) Coon was widely quoted, among others by Dobzhansky, as claiming that mankind evolved five times from Home erectus into Homo sapiens through five separate mutations. Coon, however, made no such claim. He advanced the possibility of threshold crossing in the five subspecies through peripheral gene flow; (3) This raised the question, if peripheral gene flow was in part responsible for the eventual spread of the sapiens mutation to other sub. species, why did it take so long? To which Coon answered, because man alone has culture and culture imposes barriers to gene flow absent in other species; (4) There were a few claims that a parental species cannot breed with its filial species and produce fertile offspring. That this was untrue was clearly demonstrated by J. W. Crenshaw, Jr., in Human Biology, 1963, Vol. 35, No. 3; (5) Why exactly five subspecies? Because man is a large carniverous animal and needs a large living space for each subspecies. Five is the number of faunal regions inhabited by man at that time, and his range was the same as comparable animals. For a cross section of the debate see Current Anthropology, October 1963; also Science, Feb. 15, 1963, p. 638, and April 12, 1963, p. 208”

      • Also,“Wikipedia bias attempts to portray Coon’s book as having had no impact, or favourable reviews. In reality, The Origin of Races (1962) recieved many positive reviews by notable authorities such as Mayr, Simpson, Krogman, Garn and Howells: “…two of the three ‘leading evolutionists throughout the world’ wrote glowing reviews in prominent forums” (Marks, 2000). Origins was listed as a “Reviewers’ Choice” in 1962 in the Chicago Daily Tribune. Writing for the Tribune, Wilton M. Krogman wrote that Coon’s work “is an important book about our own kind” that has “scientific validity; more, it has human dignity.” Hulse criticised Coon’s theory on racial origins but applauded the work for its content on fossils: “no better text for a course in Fossil Man has yet been published”.[7] Anthropologist Donald A. Swan defended Coon’s theory of races in a 1973 article published in the Mankind Quarterly.
        Other positive reviewers of Coon’s theory on racial origins included Robert Gayre, David C. Rife, Alice M. Brues and Nathaniel Weyl.
        Julian Huxley also gave a positive review, asserting: “a valuable contribution to the evolutionary biology of man”.
        Coon’s hypothesis on race origins differs to mainstream Multiregionalism in the sense it argues sapien races have evolved directly out of “archaic” human forms in different continental areas at different times, while Wolpoff’s Multiregionalism model today argues that sapiens evolved together as a single species (rejecting Coon’s independent Erectus-sapienization grade transition of the races). Both model’s however argue for regional continuity. Multiregionalism however stresses trait continuity, not racial (lineage) like Coon’s model.[8][9]”:

      • Of Coon, the following was written: “An enormous intellectual vigor allowed him to follow up hypotheses without becoming wedded to them. Never a writer of small papers, he looked for the larger significance. It may be said that Coon’s major contributions to science were the fruitful formulations that followed from his assimilation and organization of massive amounts of information. […] Carleton Coon’s The Races of Europe (1939) began as a revision of W. Z. Ripley’s 1900 work but ended as a new opus that used every scrap of published information on living populations and prehistoric human remains — and much recorded history besides. Though some of Coon’s hypotheses seem dubious today, they allowed him to structure a mass of material in a way that remains impressive. This book was reprinted some years later and is still regarded as a valuable source of data. […] Coon’s desire was to use Darwinian adaptation to explain the physical characteristics of race. He defined these as the physical features that distinguish modern populations and in 1950 published, with S. M. Garn and J. B. Birdsell, Races: A Study of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. He was exasperated by what he called the “hide-race” attitude of people who, from social or philosophical motives, seemed to deny the existence of obvious biological differences. He became indignant at any suggestion that his interest in race derived from racist motives. Although a good many articles had been written about environmental adaptation of such traits, this book was the first to address the problem as a whole. […] After holding several serious ailments at bay for some years, Carl died on June 3, 1981, at his West Gloucester home, shortly before his seventy-seventh birthday. His brilliance left a lasting mark on a generation of anthropologists.” (W. W. Howells. “Biographical Memoirs V.58”. National Academy of Sciences, 1989.:

      • It may be relevant for a thorough analysis to include academic sources that posit an interesting and potentially highly important thesis pertaining to human origins like the paleontologist Bjorn Kurten’s book “Not from the Apes” (N.Y.: Pantheon Books, 1971), which posits that rather than man being descended from apes, the latter are, in fact, the first, unsuccessful attempts on the part of nature to form man. Seeing what, if any, data from that is valid or remains valid, what data from Coon remains valid, what modern data tell us if we posit a synthesis of all these sources, might be very enlightening.

      • It may be a source of insight to juxtapose data from that with the following Nature article showing that most of the deleterious mutations in the human population arose in the last 5,000 to 10,000 years, entitled “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”:

        “We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.”:

      • Some more articles of relevance to this issue follow:
        Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa.
        Hammer MF1, Woerner AE, Mendez FL, Watkins JC, Wall JD.
        Author information

        “A long-debated question concerns the fate of archaic forms of the genus Homo: did they go extinct without interbreeding with anatomically modern humans, or are their genes present in contemporary populations? This question is typically focused on the genetic contribution of archaic forms outside of Africa. Here we use DNA sequence data gathered from 61 noncoding autosomal regions in a sample of three sub-Saharan African populations (Mandenka, Biaka, and San) to test models of African archaic admixture. We use two complementary approximate-likelihood approaches and a model of human evolution that involves recent population structure, with and without gene flow from an archaic population. Extensive simulation results reject the null model of no admixture and allow us to infer that contemporary African populations contain a small proportion of genetic material (≈ 2%) that introgressed ≈ 35 kya from an archaic population that split from the ancestors of anatomically modern humans ≈ 700 kya. Three candidate regions showing deep haplotype divergence, unusual patterns of linkage disequilibrium, and small basal clade size are identified and the distributions of introgressive haplotypes surveyed in a sample of populations from across sub-Saharan Africa. One candidate locus with an unusual segment of DNA that extends for >31 kb on chromosome 4 seems to have introgressed into modern Africans from a now-extinct taxon that may have lived in central Africa. Taken together our results suggest that polymorphisms present in extant populations introgressed via relatively recent interbreeding with hominin forms that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans in the Lower-Middle Pleistocene.”:

      • Also, “WHEN the first modern humans left Africa they were ill-equipped to cope with unfamiliar diseases. But by interbreeding with the local hominins, it seems they picked up genes that protected them and helped them eventually spread across the planet.

        The publication of the Neanderthal genome last year offered proof that Homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals after leaving Africa. There is also evidence that suggests they enjoyed intimate relations with other hominins including the Denisovans, a species identified last year from a Siberian fossil.


        The humans that left Africa probably carried only a limited number of HLA alleles as they likely travelled in small groups. Worse, their HLAs would have been adapted to African diseases.

        When Parham compared the HLA genes of people from different regions of the world with the Neanderthal and Denisovan HLAs, he found evidence that non-African humans picked up new alleles from the hominins they interbred with.

        One allele, HLA-C*0702, is common in modern Europeans and Asians but never seen in Africans; Parham found it in the Neanderthal genome, suggesting it made its way into H. sapiens of non-African descent through interbreeding. HLA-A*11 had a similar story: it is mostly found in Asians and never in Africans, and Parham found it in the Denisovan genome, again suggesting its source was interbreeding outside of Africa.

        Parham points out that because Neanderthals and Denisovans had lived outside Africa for over 200,000 years by the time they encountered H. sapiens, their HLAs would have been well suited to local diseases, helping to protect migrating H. sapiens too.

        While only 6 per cent of the non-African modern human genome comes from other hominins, the share of HLAs acquired during interbreeding is much higher. Half of European HLA-A alleles come from other hominins, says Parham, and that figure rises to 72 per cent for people in China, and over 90 per cent for those in Papua New Guinea.

        This suggests they were increasingly selected for as H. sapiens moved east. That could be because humans migrating north would have faced fewer diseases than those heading towards the tropics of south-east Asia, says Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London.”:

      • More insight can be found in the article “Ancient Humans Had Sex With Mystery Species, New DNA Study Shows”, which deals with East Asians:
        “The new Denisovan genome indicates that this enigmatic population got around: Reich said at the meeting that they interbred with Neanderthals and with the ancestors of human populations that now live in China and other parts of East Asia, in addition to Oceanic populations, as his team previously reported. Most surprisingly, Reich said, the new genomes indicate that Denisovans interbred with another extinct population of archaic humans that lived in Asia more than 30,000 years ago, which is neither human nor Neanderthal.

        The meeting was abuzz with conjecture about the identity of this potentially new population of humans. “We don’t have the faintest idea,” says Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the work. He speculates that the population could be related to Homo heidelbergensis, a species that left Africa around half a million years ago and later gave rise to Neanderthals in Europe. “Perhaps it lived on in Asia as well,” Stringer says.”:

  8. The fake/impersonator accounts of Ben Steigmann and John Fuerst are by Mikemikev. @ Steigmann you should just google “Mikemikev” to see he is blacklisted and banned across the web for this sort of crazy internet behaviour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s