Pseudo-Scientists Scramble to Explain Away the Reality of Race

Clement Pulaski
Daily Stormer

March 29, 2014

The differences you see are an illusion, an illusion created by Whites, the people in the middle of the picture.
The differences you see are an illusion, an illusion created by Whites, the people in the middle of the picture.

We recently reported on the growing frustration amongst liberals, as advances in genetic science continue to confirm the reality of race.

Now, a recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education has put together an (unintentionally) hilarious list of different approaches taken by liberals in an attempt to bury the obvious truth that race does indeed exist.

The first approach is to acknowledge that racial differences exist, but only in the context of improving the health of “disadvantaged” minorities:

Genome scientists began to see that, while humanity’s genome is deeply shared, it is possible to group some DNA segments by their continental origin—African, European, Asian, Native American. Such DNA biomarkers seemed useful in the hunt for the genetic basis of disease. It made little sense for scientists, typically acting out of concern for health disparities, not to take those differences into account to increase their studies’ statistical power.

This awareness that DNA can be so sorted has prompted a crisis in the social sciences, however, where it’s a truism that race is entirely a social construct. The response has been mixed, only just beginning, and is documented in Catherine Bliss’s book Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice (Stanford University Press, 2012).

“The big irony here is that in trying to improve U.S. race relations and minority health, we’ve come full circle,” Bliss, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California at San Francisco, said at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in February. By using race-aware policies in the hope of ending health disparities in the country, she said, scientists were unwittingly causing a “new racism.” The upshot, she contended, is that research on social and economic causes of health disparities was not receiving enough attention.

Those promoting this approach, while certainly holding “anti-racist” views, would rather provide better medical treatment to non-whites than deny genetic reality altogether. But of course their approach is completely illogical. Once a fact is acknowledged, one cannot simply declare that this fact is only to be taken into consideration in certain circumstances.  If, statistically speaking, black life expectancy is improved through the use of race-specific medicine, then White life expectancy can be improved by living far away from criminal blacks.

Another approach is simply to double down on name calling, and declare that any evidence of racial differences is due to conscious or unconscious bias in the evil White researchers. Even the Chronicle, a very mainstream publication, dismisses this approach and criticizes its reliance on “mind reading”:

Kathleen J. Fitzgerald, a sociologist at Loyola University New Orleans, argues in a recent paper, published in Humanity & Society, that the “resurgence of biological notions of race” is fueled by a “white perception of a threat to their social dominance.” Her case, however, is painted in broad strokes and engages in a fair amount of mind reading when it comes to motives.

Those promoting this approach would rather have non-whites die through lack of race-specific medicine than admit the reality of race.  But this attitude, of course, is not unusual, since insistence on universal racial equality has already resulted in massive loss of life through out of control non-white crime. No amount of death or destruction is too great to turn us away from the road to the multi-racial utopia.

The most fanciful of the approaches is proposed by Jiannbin L. Shiao, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, in Sociological Theory, who argues that:

The social sciences should replace their biology-based rejection of race “with a version of the feminist distinction between biological sex and socially constructed gender,” he writes. With several co-authors, he has developed a concept called “clines,” adapted from how economists talk about social class, which reflects the continuous nature of human variation while allowing loose clusters to develop, depending on how you zoom into the data.

Recognizing any biological notion of race is a risk, he adds, because it could present a back door to biological racism. But it’s one worth taking to explore the “thoroughly entangled” nature of culture and biology.

That is, he proposes that we acknowledge that biological differences exist, just deny that they have any significance or influence on behavior. You know, just like feminists (insanely) claim that biological differences in gender do not affect behavior or ability in any way. Even though men and women have different hormones, which affect our emotional experiences, it’s “sexist” to say that men and women process emotions differently. According to Shiao, racial differences should be similarly ignored.

And then of course there is the old tired standby, that all races are slightly mixed, and all originate from Africa, so we’re really just all the same:

Several researchers have taken up the challenge of more accurately describing what this genomic information conveys. In the journal Race and Social Problems, Rick A. Kittles, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, points out that race continues to lack “biological integrity” in light of these discoveries, as most human genomes are made up of DNA segments that traveled across several continents, not just one…

Richard S. Cooper, a professor of community and family medicine at Loyola University Medical School, (details) how the narrative of race has wandered “the border territory between what we call science and what we recognize as history and politics.” Africa, he reminds the reader, is the source of all human genetic diversity; it is the reference population. All of humanity is a subset.

“Variation among geographic populations is real, and study of its origins can yield important biological insights,” he writes. “But there are no categories of race that segment human populations, and there are no mysterious qualities ‘in the blood’ that justify the belief in racial superiority.”

Somehow this argument that “we’re all mixed and originally from Africa” has been incredibly successful at silencing debate on racial reality. This is puzzling, given how weak the argument is. Consider the analogous case of dog breeds. Certain dog breeds might have a common ancestor, but it does not follow that the breeds are exactly the same. Similarly, just because two dogs are mutts, it does not follow that the two mutts are the same. A mutt that is 3/4 Golden Retriever is going to look and act a lot more like a Golden Retriever than a dog that is only 1/16 Golden Retriever. Even if we conceded that we are all slightly mixed, and that we are all descended from Africans, this would prove absolutely nothing about racial equality.

These dogs have a common ancestor and can breed with each other. Therefore they are all exactly the same.
These dogs have a common ancestor and can breed with each other. Therefore they are all exactly the same.

The arguments used by race-deniers are completely illogical and founded on lies. Genetic science, the study of history, and our own personal experiences all point towards the obvious truth that race exists and is a major factor in human affairs. Unnecessary death and suffering will continue as long as we continue to affirm the Jewish lie that racial equality can be achieved.