Jew Scientist on ‘Race’: The goyim know — Oy vey! We must revise the Narrative!
by Dissident Millennial
IN A VERY TELLING piece for the New York Times, Jewish scientist David Reich makes some remarkable concessions about the biology of race due to his concern that lib-tard orthodoxy has gone so overboard in its genetics-of-race denialism that it will lose all credibility in light of further scientific developments.
Of course Reich doesn’t put the matter in such blunt, honest terms, however — a Jew’s still gotta Jew, you see. So instead of offering up a mea culpa regarding his tribe’s pathological distortions about race in service of White dispossession, Reich attempts to craft a new Party Line which softens the edges of politically correct orthodoxy so as to prevent Whites from questioning the entire controlled narrative leading to their replacement.
How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race’
David Reich | New York Times
In 1942, the anthropologist Ashley Montagu published “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” an influential book that argued that race is a social concept with no genetic basis. A classic example often cited is the inconsistent definition of “black.” In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?
Beginning in 1972, genetic findings began to be incorporated into this argument. That year, the geneticist Richard Lewontin published an important study of variation in protein types in blood. He grouped the human populations he analyzed into seven “races” — West Eurasians, Africans, East Asians, South Asians, Native Americans, Oceanians and Australians — and found that around 85 percent of variation in the protein types could be accounted for by variation within populations and “races,” and only 15 percent by variation across them. To the extent that there was variation among humans, he concluded, most of it was because of “differences between individuals.” [This has long been debunked as Lewontin’s Fallacy — Ed.]
Note that ((Ashley Montagu)) was born Israel Ehrenberg while Richard Lewontin was a New Yorker descended from Easter European Jewish immigrants to the U.S. Big surprise there!
In this way, a consensus was established that among human populations there are no differences large enough to support the concept of “biological race.” Instead, it was argued, race is a “social construct,” a way of categorizing people that changes over time and across countries.
In other words, the Jewish Culture of Critique was institutionalized from the top down at the expense of Aryan science.
Reich goes on:
It is true that race is a social construct. It is also true, as Dr. Lewontin wrote, that human populations “are remarkably similar to each other” from a genetic point of view.
This is a misleading statement meant to buttress the idea that we are all part of some “universal humanity” as opposed to distinct population groups with conflicting ethnic-genetic interests, while the truth is that, as William Pierce put it:
Only a tiny fraction of the mammalian genome is different for each species. But that tiny fraction of the mammalian genome that specifies whether the hair and skin and bone and other tissues will become a White person or a rat or a Negro or a dog is important. The differences, small though they may seem compared to the similarities, are significant. Except to lemmings, of course, who really don’t get it.
Because of this inconvenient reality, Reich attempts to soften the artificial, Jewish-mandated “consensus” about race lest the lemmings start to question the entire Jewish canon of crackpot ideas.
But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored.
The orthodoxy goes further, holding that we should be anxious about any research into genetic differences among populations. The concern is that such research, no matter how well-intentioned, is located on a slippery slope that leads to the kinds of pseudoscientific arguments about biological difference that were used in the past to try to justify the slave trade, the eugenics movement and the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews.
lol. The Jew continues:
I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”
The truth, Dr. Jew-bag, is that it was never possible to honestly ignore genetic differences amongst the races in the first place, and if you’re really concerned about honesty now, you ought to re-write that first sentence as follows: “I am deeply worried that the facts will be used to undermine Jewish hegemony over the West.”
Reich goes on:
Recent genetic studies have demonstrated differences across populations not just in the genetic determinants of simple traits such as skin color, but also in more complex traits like bodily dimensions and susceptibility to diseases. . .
Such studies have only confirmed what men attuned to reality have always said, but it’s nice of Reich to catch up over one-and-a-half centuries after Darwin!
I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims. . .
While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.
But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed.
What’s that sound? Hear that people? That’s the foundation of the Jew’s New World Order of universal equality and sameness cracking. . .
Is performance on an intelligence test or the number of years of school a person attends shaped by the way a person is brought up? Of course. But does it measure something having to do with some aspect of behavior or cognition? Almost certainly. And since all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations (because the frequencies of genetic variations are rarely exactly the same across populations), the genetic influences on behavior and cognition will differ across populations, too.
Is this not exactly what those evil “Nazis” and supporters of eugenics claimed from the start? Again, so nice of this Jew to finally catch up. I mean it’s not as if he’s a Harvard professor or anything, right?
You will sometimes hear that any biological differences among populations are likely to be small, because humans have diverged too recently from common ancestors for substantial differences to have arisen under the pressure of natural selection. This is not true. The ancestors of East Asians, Europeans, West Africans and Australians were, until recently, almost completely isolated from one another for 40,000 years or longer, which is more than sufficient time for the forces of evolution to work.
Ya think, dips**t?
To understand why it is so dangerous for geneticists and anthropologists to simply repeat the old consensus about human population differences, consider what kinds of voices are filling the void that our silence is creating. Nicholas Wade, a longtime science journalist for The New York Times, rightly notes in his 2014 book, “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” that modern research is challenging our thinking about the nature of human population differences. But he goes on to make the unfounded and irresponsible claim that this research is suggesting that genetic factors explain traditional stereotypes. . .
Another high-profile example is James Watson, the scientist who in 1953 co-discovered the structure of DNA, and who was forced to retire as head of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories in 2007 after he stated in an interview — without any scientific evidence — that research has suggested that genetic factors contribute to lower intelligence in Africans than in Europeans.
(1) Interesting that Nicholas Wade and James Watson are both non-Jewish White men. How dare they draw their own conclusions without the tribe’s permission? Can you believe those Nazis!
(2) The idea that Watson’s claim regarding Negro intelligence is “without any scientific evidence” is patently absurd, as anyone even remotely familiar with the studies on the psychometrics of race differences can attest, and the fact that Mr. Reich approves of the silencing of Dr. James Watson — a living legend, mind you — over speaking the truth on this matter tells you all you need to know about this kike’s agenda.
An abiding challenge for our civilization is to treat each human being as an individual and to empower all people, regardless of what hand they are dealt from the deck of life. Compared with the enormous differences that exist among individuals, differences among populations are on average many times smaller, so it should be only a modest challenge to accommodate a reality in which the average genetic contributions to human traits differ.
This is insidious, nation-wrecking nonsense — but exactly what one would expect based on the racial heritage of the tribe Mr. Reich belongs to.
So no, Dr. Reich, it is not imperative that Aryan peoples allow the destruction of our civilization based upon your lunatic Jewish demands. Take that nonsense to Israel, you Jewish piece-of-filth.
* * *
(H/T Hunter Wallace at Occidental Dissent)