Revisiting "vintage" Race Realism

Meng Hu's revival of a 2008 classic

It is reasonable to say that “populations differ in intelligence.” This is true whether we are comparing rural whites and urban whites; Japanese and Vietnamese; Indian Muslims from Bihar, Keralese communists, and Punjabi programmers.

Due to assortative mating, populations can be defined geographically, economically, socially, phenotypically, or by shared ancestry. We can distinguish “all blue eyed people” from “all brown eyed people.” We can compare “all straight haired people” to “all non-straight haired people.”¹

Attacks on intelligence as a measurement of cognitive performance are not scientific, but dogmatic and religious. Measurements of intelligence vary in accuracy, but even inaccurate measures can be useful. In the same way, a push-up contest is less accurate as a measurement of athleticism than a decathlon, but it could still be useful data.

There are multiple forms of intelligence, just as there are multiple forms of athleticism. Just as we can measure “holistic athleticism,” we can also measure holistic intelligence. The brain, like the body, has multiple parts, but because these parts function together to perform tasks, is it reasonable to view the sum of their functioning as a holistic trait. There is no contradiction between the existence of multiple intelligences and the usefulness of general intelligence as a concept.

When academics make superficial arguments claiming that “IQ is meaningless,” they expose themselves as partisans rather than scientists. When I was a 14 year old reading Erectus Walk Among Us (Richard Fuerle, 2008), I assumed that the book was accurate because it was willing to confront political correctness. As it turns out, the willingness to offend does not necessitate scientific accuracy, and I was not skeptical enough of whatever I read in a free online PDF.

The claim that blacks have a higher percentage of Homo Erectus DNA, and that this DNA makes them far less intelligent than any Eurasian group, can be easily disproven with data. There are far too many Indians and Pakistanis with IQs in the 70-80 range to make the argument that African intelligence is outside the range of “Caucasian” or “Eurasian” limits. Sub-Saharan Africans are not especially unique in their biological fertility, intelligence, testosterone levels, or tendency for violence, when compared with other populations alive today.

The argument that Sub-Saharan Africans are an entirely different species on the basis of behavior differences becomes especially ridiculous when we examine the behavior of Europeans and Asians from several centuries or even millennia prior. The claim that Sub-Saharan Africans and Eurasians have hundreds of thousands of evolution dividing them cannot be supported by the archaeological record prior to 30,000 BC.

Prior to the rise of pastoralism and agriculture, there is no evidence of a vast behavioral gap between Eurasians and Africans. If there is a genetic divergence which arose, it cannot be dated back to Homo Erectus; it must be much more recent, consubstantial with the period of Würm glaciation. Homo Erectus DNA has nothing to do with it - - the timescale doesn’t match up.

Meng Hu claims that he “will complete and correct the arguments put forth by Fuerle.” I want to critically examine his assertions and point out some areas of agreement. I also simply want to riff off various ideas and expand on concepts that I feel could be explored further.

What Fuerle Gets Right

The area where I am most in agreement with Fuerle is the area where Hu is the most skeptical: it is not accurate to claim that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa.

There are three possible candidates for the Urheimat of Homo Sapiens: Africa, Europe, and Asia. Within these continents, there are five areas where there is old enough fossil or tool evidence to qualify for a potential Urheimat:

• Spain, as the home of Brevirostris (first evidence of modern cranio-facial angle)

• Greece, as the home of Graecopithecus (first evidence of bipedalism)

• Kenya, as the home of Acheulian tools

• Georgia, as a potentially older site of Acheulian tools²

• Morocco, the site of the oldest Homo Sapiens fossils

Only one of these five locations is in Sub-Saharan Africa; three are in Europe. The majority of human evolution occurred outside of Africa, while the finishing touches occurred in Morocco. Kenyans are in no sense “the original humans,” autochthonous, or “native humans.” Instead, Moroccan Homo Sapiens migrated down into Kenya and replaced the original inhabitants (another species of Homo). The humans of Africa are no more “native” to their respective countries than the natives of Europe, Asia, or America.

There is a political and mythological incentive to portray Africans as “native” in the context of anti-colonialism. Following the 19th century volkisch ideology of “blood and soil,” combined with the liberal internationalist idea of “self-determination,” the longer a people could claim to have existed in a single area, the more morally righteous it was for that people to gain political independence.

In this inverted form of racial essentialism, the Europeans were the least moral because they were the most migratory, while Africans were the most moral because they inhabited the same countries continuously for 80,000 years or more. In this view, history, archaeology, and science itself are all reduced to fetish objects to be employed in political propaganda.

How destructive is Civil Rights?

Egalitarianism mostly infected the West, destroying careers, bankrupting companies, wasting trillions of dollars.

It is true that Civil Rights is equivalent to a tax which costs trillions of dollars. This tax is paid in the form of increased transportation costs (white flight / commuting from the suburbs), increased real estate costs (zoning laws to prevent racial integration), and increased costs from crime (restrictions on policing or relaxation of law enforcement to compensate for disparate impact).

Most people’s careers have not been eliminated by Civil Rights, and to my knowledge, no major company has gone bankrupt as a result of Civil Rights. More companies have gone bankrupt for gay sex scandals than for racial discrimination.

When communists took over Russia, they purged the government of Christians and monarchists — everyone lost their jobs. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, there was no mass purging of racists from the government. To the extent that racialists were purged, it must have occurred earlier, prior to 1954.

More recently, Papa John was fired from his own company using the excuse that he said the n-word, but this was a mere pretext had more to do with the fact that the board wanted to push him out in favor of a new strategy.³

Do people get fired for being racist? Ostensibly, but placing this statement next to “trillions of dollars” implies that millions of workers are being driven to poverty as a result of their views on race, which is not true. Conformity to racial equality isn’t a result of purging dissenters, but positively indoctrinating children. This is how all religious societies operate: it is not necessary to purge many dissenters when everyone has been raised with the same uniform ideas.

Rather than viewing Civil Rights and egalitarianism in a vacuum, and comparing it to a perfect society where anyone can say anything (no matter how offensive) and still become President of Harvard, we should be comparing the religion of equality to the religion of Christianity. In comparison, heretics against egalitarianism have much more economic success in 2025 than heretics against Christianity did in 1600.

Elon Musk can publicly follow Cremieux on Twitter and remain the richest man in America; if some London merchant was known to read Hindu or Islamic texts in 1600, I do not think he could have maintained his wealth. England did not re-admit its Jewish population until after 1652.

Clearly, the period between 1652 and 1924 was an almost unparalleled period of freedom of thought in human history. The doctrine of racial egalitarianism, in contrast, is a marginal throwback to a more traditional ordering of society, where heretics against the mainstream ideology are excluded from the most prestigious positions, and forced to write racist comments under anonymous usernames while working their jobs.

Still, I think the examples of Musk, Thiel, Charles Murray, Steven Pinker and others proves that the egalitarian ideology of the current year is much less doctrinaire than the traditional theocratic model. This doesn’t negate its potential wastefulness, but it is useful to put civilizational systems in historical context. We can afford to spend trillions of dollars on Civil Rights because our system is the most prosperous system in history. Removing Civil Rights without understanding its origins is just as dangerous as eliminating Christianity without offering a replacement. Every society needs a system of morality; none before ours was ever perfectly efficient.

Are scientists disappearing?

Scientists “disappear” if they do not reach the “right” conclusions.

In the field of genetic science, successful academics have published thousands of peer reviewed papers describing population-level biological heredity. No geneticist hesitates to talk about African or European populations with respect to some allele out of fear of being fired. No geneticist is afraid to talk about Steppe ancestry out of fear of being outed as a Nazi racist. Researchers may append their studies with irrelevant disclaimers about egalitarianism, but this does not affect their scientific conclusions.

Non-scientists and non-academic journalists constantly churn out scathing, scary-sounding articles about the dangers of genetics, playing a game of guilt by association. Steven Pinker has been a target of these rumors and smear campaigns; Steven Pinker is still around. Robert Reich hasn’t “disappeared.” No one is being “disappeared.” As much as the egalitarian crowd is hysterical and sees a Nazi under every rock, the “race realist” crowd pretends that the study of population-level heritability has been Stalinistically banned from academia, which is not true.

What is true is that those who venture outside of academic research, and engage in political rhetoric, are subject to academic censure. Amy Wax, for example, is not a researcher in biology or genetics, but her association with white nationalism has resulted in her university doing everything possible to remove her from the faculty. The case of Professor Wax shows that there are limits to freedom of speech within academia, but these limits are not actually impeding scientific research as pertains to heritability itself. Genetic researchers continue to examine distinctions between human populations.

Does race-blindness require culture-blindness?

Given the assumption that all the races are genetically equal, they could not have diverged long ago and therefore the origin of modern man must be recent and all living human beings are fully modern.

Neanderthals are not considered modern humans, but it is accepted in the mainstream that Neanderthal admixture varies between continental populations.

An interesting observation is that if everyone is genetically equal, then the cultures they create should also be equal.

It is entirely possible to say that “the Amish have an inferior culture” while maintaining that their culture is not genetically determined.

This implies that cultures should be equally respected and people of all cultures should not only be able to live peacefully together in the same territory.

One can be a genetic egalitarian and still realize that political, ethnic, and religious conflicts can lead to violence. It’s also possible to be a hereditarian and still believe that all humans deserve rights, just as one can believe that all animals deserve rights.⁴

Cold Winters Theory

Then, competition in the tropics pushed some groups northward into colder, seasonal climates, which required northern adaptation, which in turn selected for greater intelligence due to limited food availability.

Cold Winters Theory does not explain why the Inuit, Greenlanders, Siberians, and Tibetans are less intelligent than their cousins in warmer climates. There is nothing about living in a colder environment which necessitates higher intelligence. Ancient Greece was a hot place with no snow and it had a very intelligent population. Same for the middle east and Southern China and ancient India and Pakistan. The ancient Egyptians were evidently quite advanced, and had no snow or frost.

There are two environments where a stronger case can be made for selection effects: the steppe and agricultural river valleys. The steppe provides opportunities for travel without natural borders or barriers, and the abundance of grassland provides fuel for horses. In the absence of early state formation, maximizing migration creates positive selection for the populations with the greatest intelligence, who are best able to expand their breeding territory.

In the case of river valleys, early state formation involved the establishment of a caste system in which bureaucrats and priests were bred for intelligence and given additional reproductive resources (polygamy).

The Human Urheimat

Women could no longer gather food and had to rely on men, and those men who committed to a single woman passed on their pair-bonding genes.

There has never been a point in history where “women could no longer gather food,” but here is my charitable interpretation of the claim: it is true that longer gestation periods made women more dependent on males.

In East Asia, erectus adapted to the cold climate, developed fire, and evolved into Homo sapiens 200,000 years ago.

This resembles Chinese propaganda. Jebel Irhoud is in Morocco, not East Asia. Florisbad is in South Africa, not East Asia. There is evidence for earlier Homo Erectus and Denisovan activity in East Asia, but not Homo Sapiens. Hu makes it sound as if the earliest evidence for Homo Sapiens comes from East Asia — he ignores evidence dating back 60-100kya earlier.

The number of alleles in a population doesn’t necessarily indicate its age, since many alleles may have been acquired through interbreeding with other populations rather than through mutations, as is the case with archaic alleles conferring an evolutionary advantage (known as adaptive introgression) on the recipient population due to faster rate of adaptation. Thus, ancient alleles in one population may not imply ancestry over another because environmental stability or interbreeding can preserve these alleles.

This might help challenge Out of Africa. Ethiopia and Kenya might be the most genetically diverse areas in the world, but does this necessitate that these areas are the human Urheimat? It is also possible that humans originated in Europe, but that Europeans have undergone more thorough genetic replacement due to competition, while Africans have had less inter-group competition and replacement.

For example, if humans evolved in Europe 300,000 years ago, but more recent waves of immigrants completely exterminated the previous population, then it would appear that Europeans today are less genetically diverse. Meanwhile, if humans migrated to Africa 260,000 years ago, but there have been no genocidal population replacements since that time, then diversity would be preserved, creating the illusion of being an “older” population.

Why would there be more opportunity for genocide in Europe as opposed to Africa? The answer lies in early state formation, which is attested in Europe to 6,000 BC. Later states, when they spread to new locations, were not nearly as genocidal as early states. For example, the Bell Beaker invasion of Britain wiped out 90% of the existing population, but the Spanish colonization of Bolivia largely preserved the indigenous population. As state religions have become more ideological (able to convert natives to a foreign religion), they have become less genocidal.

Dysgenics

Traits are lost only if they become disadvantageous, as seen in cave fish losing their eyes; the fish that become trapped in a cave can no longer exploit a sunlit niche, so eyes become an unnecessary cost, and fish that invest fewer resources in their eyes gain an advantage. Evolution by gene loss has been traditionally underestimated however.

The term “dysgenics” often refers to the genetic decline of intelligence. But it might be more accurate to refer to it as “cave fish syndrome.” In the past, intelligence was strongly selected for as a result of two processes:

1. Competition between steppe pastoralists for territorial domination, in which the most intelligent war band had a competitive advantage in monopolizing resources;

2. Caste-based systems which castrated slaves while granting bureaucrats and priests additional reproductive resources (polygamy).

With the Indo-European invasion of Europe, India, and Iran, these two distinct systems of selection for intelligence were syncretized into a hybridized system, containing both a warrior class (descended from steppe traditions of competition) and a priest class (descended from caste-based bureaucrats). These hybridized societies, which formed between 3000 BC and 1600 BC, were not as strongly selective in favor of intelligence as what came before. However, hybridized societies did not select against intelligence either. Human intelligence did not decrease after hybridization, but it didn’t increase much either.

Selection against intelligence seems to have occurred several times in history due to the mass importation and breeding of slaves (manual laborers). This occurred in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia; ancient India and Iran; ancient Greece, and ancient Rome. It is presently occurring in America and Europe today. The question is whether or not it is possible to halt this process, or whether it is better to attempt to reinforce assortative mating to create internal borders between populations.

The Greeks and Romans, who were “beyond based,” were not able to resist the process of demographic decline and replacement, so it seems highly doubtful that the “fake and gay” conservatives of the present moment stand any chance. Rather, the liberal culture of educational segregation and privilege (the worship of the PhD) seems to provide a stronger and more immediate limitation on the dysgenic process.

To be clear, education after the 10th grade has no appreciable impact on fertility. Please check out Emil K. on this. If anything, education after 10th grade correlates with increased fertility.

My theory on this is that feminism is mostly inculcated from ages 5 to 16. After age 16, women are already maxed out on feminism and it is not possible to make them more feminist than they already are. Those who go on to get PhDs (20 years of schooling) are no more feminist than the girl who only got a Bachelor’s degree (16 years of schooling). However, a PhD allows for women greater access to high-income men. The benefit here is that women are more likely to have children when they are in a stable, happy relationship.

Back to Cold Winters

4. Environment drives specialization. Stable environments favor a population that specializes to exploit a niche in this environment, while changing environments favor generalized ones. Tropical and polar regions, being stable, host more specialized species.

Selection for intelligence is selection for generalization. This sounds contradictory, because when we call someone a “specialist,” we think of a highly intelligent person. In reality, the most highly specialized species are those who can only eat one type of food, live in one type of environment, and are not very intelligent. By contrast, intelligence helps species navigate a wider array of environments.

Which environment exposes humans to the greatest variety of environments, and thus the most pressure for generalization over specialization? Not polar regions (Inuit, Siberia, Greenland), and not tropical regions (Polynesia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil). Because of the distribution of land on the planet, most of the “neither polar nor tropical” land is located in Canada and Eurasia.

Due to the inaccessibility of America, there is less genetic diversity to work with in the first place. In Eurasia, the band of green (temperate) stretches from Britain to Japan.

However, historically, Earth was much colder than it is today, meaning that we need to shift this green band downward, more toward North Africa, the Middle East, the Himalayas, and China.

The Myth of African R-Selectivity

In K-strategy populations (fewer offspring, more care), individuals are more selective about mates, strengthening pair bonds and monogamy.

There is no evidence that Europeans, historically, had “fewer offspring” than Africans. That K-selective behavior has arisen in the last 300 years is a result of literacy and reduced mortality, not a result of biologically-determined behavior. When controlling for wealth, Africans have much lower fertility today than any European population. This contradicts the idea that Africans are R-Selective because of genetic factors.

Are Africans less monogamous than Europeans? This is probably true historically, but this doesn’t make Africans unique - - it makes Europeans unique! The European commitment to monogamous norms among elites is unique. Among the Israelites, the narrative of the Bible does seem to indicate a transition from a Middle Eastern polygamous society (multiple wives) to a monogamous one (the shaming of David over Bathsheeba). If the David story is chronologically accurate, then around 1200 BC ancient Israel underwent some form of “Europeanization” in its marital norms, possibly during the Bronze Age Collapse.

It might be possible that the difference between ancient Greek and ancient Syrian monogamy norms could be genetic - - would we then say that ancient Syrians are genetic R-selectors? If so, the supposed “uniqueness” of the African disappears.

Do Africans care less for their children? There is some reason to dispute this. Firstly, African societies practice communal and collective child rearing, while north-west European societies practice an absolute nuclear family. From the perspective of the parent, this involves more care, but from the perspective of the species or tribe, African investment in children might exceed that of European investment.

The total investment as a quantity is not so important here. What is important is that in NW European family structures, the costs of child rearing and the benefits are concentrated, as opposed to being distributed throughout a “commons.” The African investment model is socialist, while the European investment model is individualist. Biologically, both models are “K-Selective” - - they involve massive amounts of care for young via feeding and protection from predators. They are qualitatively distinct types of K-selection, but neither model produces more offspring than the other, historically. Calling Amish “R-selective” (TFR of 8) and Haitians “K-Selective” (2.8) is not biologically rigorous.

Selection for Beauty

In Africa, women had greater selection influence because they gathered food. In colder climates, men had greater selection influence because they provided more food through hunting. This led to Eurasian women becoming more beautiful due to male selection, while Eurasian men became harder workers and slightly more intelligent due to female selection. In contrast, African women may have become somewhat more intelligent than African men, who evolved to be more sexually attractive. African societies often prioritize a woman’s ability to work outdoors over physical beauty, leading to the evolution of traits that are less tied to survival.

African American women do achieve higher levels of educational attainment than African American men, however, this is not due to higher levels of intelligence. It may be due to higher levels of conscientiousness. It’s also possible that this is a uniquely American phenomenon, since Africans in Africa do not show a female advantage in educational attainment.

Regarding beauty standards, African women have the greatest proportionate quantity of gluteal adipose tissue of any population in the world, far more than European or Asian populations. This is evidence of strong sexual selection. The idea that African women are not sexually selected for is ridiculous and unscientific. African women are the most sexually selected population on the planet.

What distinguishes African from Eurasian populations is selection for neoteny, which is relatively recent and can be traced to the bureaucratic selection pattern, where priests were granted a reproductive advantage within religious caste systems. This process of self-domestication is a type of sexual selection, but the lack of neoteny in African populations is not evidence of a “lack of sexual selection,” biologically speaking. Robustness is not the inverse of sexual signaling.

Neoteny

East Asians are the most neotenous humans, with round heads, flat faces, and evenly distributed fat.

This is not true. Indians, not East Asians, are the most neotenous. Neoteny can be measured by jaw development and fat distribution. East Asians have a more prominent jaw structure and a lower bodyfat percentage than South Asians. In fact, it is this neoteny among South Asians which causes Indian men to be rated lower in global ratings of physical attractiveness, while East Asian men are rated relatively higher.

see Cambodian and Burmese men as compared with the Asian faces above

Asserting that “East Asians are the most neotenous” does not accord with the fact that East Asians have stronger grip strength and a lower body fat percentage than South Asians. Additionally, the fact that Europeans and Middle Easterners have more body hair than any other group indicates that these measures of neoteny are not as linear as suggested by a bimodal model of “Africans vs Eurasians.”

Nationalist fantasies

Historically, nations were built on genetic similarity to minimize conflict and promote shared interests.

This is an ahistorical assertion. Early states were not built on genetic similarity, but on caste systems which explicitly restricted breeding between distinct populations. Early states were not built to “minimize conflict,” but to maximize it via wars for enslavement of neighboring tribes.

The slave and the slave master have no “shared interests.” Early states were much more similar to the antebellum South than to an ethno-state.

The first states were not “nation states.” They were multi-cultural theocracies which marginalized low-caste groups in favor of high-caste groups.

When Hu claims that “nations are naturally mono-ethnic,” he is engaging in an “appeal to nature” to justify nationalism. It is true that mono-ethnic states have less ethnic conflict, but it also true that every powerful empire in history had multiple ethnicities existing within it. Claiming that the mitigation of ethnic conflict takes precedence over power is moralistic, not biological or scientific.

What’s in a nose?

Narrow noses, common in colder climates, warm and moisten air, while wide noses are adaptive in warm, humid environments. Neanderthals had large nasal openings, possibly for sudden energy needs. Nasal indices (width/length ratio) reflect evolutionary adaptations, with early hominids having wide noses near the equator.

This is not a good account for how the Eurasian nose developed. The flat nose of Africa is also seen in the populations of Asia. If Asians are supposedly smarter because of their Cold Winters, and narrow noses develop from Cold Winters, then East Asians should have narrow noses, which they do not.

European hunter gatherers also likely had the wide flat nose which is seen in Africa and Asia. So, how did the narrow nose develop?

It would be helpful to look at the area where the most extreme nasal development has occurred, which is the Anatolian plateau and Arabia. This is where we see the emergence of the Semitic, Aquiline, Roman, or Armenian nose. This phenotype is also seen among native Americans.

Since Native Americans crossed the Bering Strait around 22,000 BC, the Aquiline nose must have emerged as a phenotype prior to that period, or else it would have arise by convergent evolution.

The large noses of Native Americans, similar to the Semitic nose, led some early Catholic priests to suggest that the Native Americans might be descended from one of the lost 12 tribes of Israel.

It is not reasonable to associate this nasal type with Cold Winters, since it occurs in Bolivia, and is not prominent among the Inuit.

Rather than seeing the Armenian nose as a product of environmental selection, it might be more appropriate to see it as a result of sexual selection. Why were big noses sexually selected for? Generally speaking, men have larger noses than women. Hence, intense selection for masculinity might result in larger noses.

For example, on the Eurasian steppe, men with larger noses might be regarded more highly by other men. This is a similar effect to the way in which men regard those with beards to be more intimidating. Men who were able to intimidate better and command respect then were able to better lead war bands, which resulted in fitness payoffs. In other words, having a big nose helped men assert their dominance in military hierarchies, and their resulting success in war conferred reproductive success. These Eurasian steppe warriors (Ancient North Eurasians) then migrated to North America via the Bering Strait.

However, in China, the model of reproductive success was dominated by agricultural bureaucrats rather than steppe warriors. Hence, large noses were not provided the same level of fitness payoff. It should be noted that Tibetan men have more prominent noses than other East Asian men.

Chapter 11 - Athletic Ability

Eurasians, with fewer fast-twitch fibers, likely evolved greater intelligence at the expense of athletic ability, relying more on tools and weapons.

This is nonsense. We are not playing Dungeons and Dragons. Evolution for intelligence does not come “at the expense” of athletic ability. In fact, the utilization of spears, swords, and armor creates increased demand for strength, rather than the opposite. European knights were incredibly strong men.

In biological reality, dolphins and elephants have sacrificed none of their strength as they have evolved intelligence. Among apes and monkeys, the stronger ones are also more intelligent. In general, larger, stronger, faster, and more robust species are also more intelligent. Smaller, weaker, slower species are less intelligent.

Claiming that “intelligence comes at the cost of athleticism” is nerdy cape-shit logic. Strongman competitions in Iceland prove that there is no contradiction between Nobel Prizes per capita and strength.

It is a mistake to claim that fast-twitch muscle fibers are equivalent to “athleticism,” holistically. The ability to move quickly and suddenly has less to do with predators and more to do with prey.

Who has more fast-twitch muscle fibers - - a grizzly bear or a rabbit? Prey animals have to be ready to escape danger at a moment’s notice; predator animals engage in bursts of strength. Fast-twitch fibers are not an indication of selection for athleticism, but selection for escaping from predators.

To give another example: would you rather command a platoon of Roman soldiers who could carry 100lbs of armor, and march slowly and deliberately toward an enemy, throwing their spears far distances with their powerful arms? Or would you rather have a platoon of Roman soldiers who could very quickly run and hide at the sight of danger? To call the latter more “athletic” than the former is deeply deceptive.

Chapter 29 – Miscegenation

Miscegenation, once prohibited and likened to bestiality, is now promoted in media, though it faces resistance in some cultures, particularly among Asians.

In the Bible, mixing between Jews and non-Jews is regarded harshly. Unless we are to imagine that ancient Israel was a small colony of whites in a sea of Africans, this prohibition was socially and religiously determined, rather than being “racial.” Ethno-religious endogamy creates genetic distinctions over time (as the Amish today have some genetic distinctions), but to say that “racial miscegenation only happens because it’s pushed by the Jewish media” is a bit naive.

We have evidence for race mixing in every case where different races have cohabitated. In East Africa, in India, in the antebellum South, and in South Africa, there is ample evidence that phenotypically distinct populations produced offspring. One of the first things that whites did when they arrived in America was to take native wives and to begin breeding them. No Jewish media required.

Conclusion

Fuerle’s biggest concern is the displacement of white people through declining birthrates, immigration, interracial relationships. Fuerle singles out the European Jews, noticing that they preserved themselves by prioritizing in-group cohesion and exclusivity.

Fuerle and Meng Hu make some interesting points about human biological variation. Some of this is clearly genetic - - ear wax type, facial structure, skull variations. Some of these variations are inconsequential, and others have an impact on sociological outcomes. The ability to judge these claims objectively without hysteria is rare, and a commitment to the truth above dogma is valuable.

Unfortunately, race realism is not usually a pure commitment to the truth. It is largely motivated by a moralizing tendency to overstate the harm that proceeds from ethnic conflict. In the context of an economy of trillions of dollars, a few billion in welfare and riotous damage isn’t very important.

The costs of housing and crime are extraordinarily high, and deserve much more attention than “welfare.” Young Americans, and the economy as a whole, would benefit enormously from stronger protections for freedom of association. Housing legislation disproportionately benefits the elderly (who hoard a limited supply of housing in valuable and desirable areas), while punishing the working youth.

While housing legislation was initially justified by an appeal to racial equality, the fiercest defenders of zoning legislation today are not woke activists, but AARP. Through the apparatus of Social Security and zoning law, gerontocracy is a much greater threat and waste than Civil Rights in this regard.

As regards crime, this is an area where Civil Rights imposes more serious costs by preventing the police from controlling violent and destructive behavior. Still, in relative terms, the situation is much better today than it was in 1990. There are certainly improvements to be made.

While it is tragic that areas of Baltimore, Detroit, and St. Louis are some of the most violent neighborhoods in the western hemisphere, this violence mostly affects black people and does not affect whites.

Here is a truly racist take for you: black crime against blacks has very little impact on the total economy. Pretending that all crime is equal, and then making black crime into an issue of civilizational importance, is slightly hysterical and egalitarian.

The emotional force behind race realism is a paranoia about the exclusion of truth from polite society. I will apologize for overusing the term “autistic,” but it is true that intelligent men with poor society skills are the most likely to identify with this narrative: “they hate me because I tell the truth.” What these men fail to recognize is that every society throughout history has had social rules, and if you break them, you will always be excluded. Your failure to follow the rules is not the result of a Jewish conspiracy, but of your own incompetence, which is possibly genetic in origin.

In cases where society has truly gone woke and made the truth taboo, there is an advantage to being socially inept, rude, and disagreeable. Isaac Newton was a very strange celibate man, but he also made many great discoveries.

Ideally, those who are low in agreeableness will use their powers for good rather than evil. Questioning the mainstream and holding received wisdom to the fire of skepticism is a useful exercise which places a check on run-away dogmatic conformism. However, these traits can have a run-away effect of their own, which ends in the hatred of “elites” and predictable antisemitism.

As society becomes more narcissistic, the paranoia of the average person and the crisis of authority amplify the sense that “I am being lied to, we are ruled by pedophile elites.” When it comes to advanced race realism studies, the material involved is a bit too intellectual to appeal to the common man. This explains how someone like Candace Owens can believe in every conspiracy theory under the sun, and yet continues to promote the idea that the ancient Egyptians were black.

Race realism is dangerous insofar as it provides a link between the intellectual capital of disagreeable autists and the populist audience of the narcissistic proletariat. Both are united against “the elites.”

This psychoanalysis is only helpful to a point. Disagreeable autists will not be dissuaded by name calling and ad hominem - - this will only confirm their sense that their ideas are being attacked on the basis of impoliteness rather than on the basis of incorrectness. My intention here is to reveal how many implicit assumptions and moralizations go into classical or “vintage” race realism, and introduce some subtlety and nuance.

1. The first population would include many Europeans and Asians, while the second population would include humans from every country.

2. The midpoint between Georgia and Kenya is in Saudi Arabia, which seems plausible as an origin point for this tool culture.

3. He was opposed to partnering with the NFL; you could call this a result of egalitarianism, but it has more to do with cosmopolitanism and patriotism.

4. (protection from cruelty, bans on factory farming, regulation against genetic modification, protection from endangerment and extinction / laws against genocide)