Part 1: 2800 words, 12 min read
Part 2: Coming soon
I’m releasing Part 2 as a series of individual articles, because it’s taking a while to write some of them. You can find them under the “Debunking Race Denialism” category tag.
|Part 1: The Scientific Basics|
|B. What is taxonomy?|
|C. The biological taxonomic system|
|D. Classifying taxa|
|E. An introduction to genetics|
|F. Defining race-denialism|
|G. The “Human Race”|
|Part 2: Debunking Race-Denialism|
[Planned content, coming soon]
|A. Is there a scientific consensus on race?|
|B. Is “race” (as applied to humanity) a biologically valid category?|
|C. Can we detect “race” on a genetic level?|
|D. Do human genetic groups correspond to classic racial groups?|
– D1. Genetic cluster analysis and ethnographic maps
– D2. Principal component analysis
– D3. Haplogroups
|E. Is humanity genetically diverse enough to be divided into distinct racial groups?|
– E1. Heterozygosity
– E2. Fixation Index (Fst)
– E3. Subspeciation timescale
– E4. Summary
|F. “Race is only skin deep”|
|G. “All humans 99.9% genetically identical, therefore race isn’t real”|
|H. “There is more genetic variation within races than between them, therefore race does not exist” (Lewontin’s Fallacy)|
– H1. “Fst too low, race doesn’t real”
– H2. “Micro-level variations disprove macro-level distinctions”
– H3. Ignorance of cumulative probability
|I. “Human ethnicity is a spectrum, therefore race does not exist” (Continuum Fallacy)|
|J. “Race does not exist, but ancestral geographic populations do”|
|K. Final summary|
|L. Race or subspecies?|
The subject of race is not an easy one to broach these days. As things currently stand, almost all mainstream material produced on the topic seems to be designed to intentionally bamboozle the audience. The public is constantly bombarded with masses of confusing and conflicting information, from every source imaginable. We are simultaneously told that race is an “invalid social construct,” that all of humanity belongs to “one race,” and that race simply does not exist at all.
The vast quantity of pseudoscientific gobbledygook that has been foisted upon us over the past several decades has inflicted some serious damage on the collective consciousness. However, the heated politicization of race has been equally, if not more damaging, in the long run. Severe sociopolitical taboo has completely isolated the subject from free and open discussion. While the dominant sociopolitical institutions, bureaucrats, and oligarchs of the West seem to talk of nothing but racial issues, it’s often seen as an unspeakable act of evil and bigotry for the average person to even so much as mention the topic. To say that the political establishment is “giving out mixed signals” on this issue is the understatement of the century.
Most people are, understandably, completely mind-boggled by the establishment’s nonsensical, politicized doublespeak. Unfortunately, almost everything that the public has been led to believe about race is factually incorrect, to the point of being a total polar inversion of reality. The widespread misunderstanding of this fundamental aspect of humanity has had chaotic repercussions for the entirety of the West.
This series of articles is written for those who are either new to the subjects of race and human biodiversity, or those who have, regrettably, been bamboozled by the propaganda churned out by the West’s dominant sociopolitical institutions. These articles aim to cover everything required to understand the science of race in this age of flagrant lies and disinformation. All content will be kept as layman-friendly and jargon-free as possible.
To kick things off, here’s a quote from everyone’s favorite biologist; author of the world-renowned 1859 book, ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,’ Charles Darwin.
“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,—as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of structural difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation, and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual, faculties.”Charles Darwin, ‘The Descent of Man’ (1871)
B. What is taxonomy?
The first step to understanding race is to understand the basic building blocks of biological classification: taxonomy. Biology Online defines taxonomy as “the science of finding, describing, classifying, and naming organisms, including the studying of the relationships between taxa and the principles underlying such a classification.”
Taxonomic systems are “social constructs” that allow us to build a cohesive view of the world by placing ‘things’ into predefined categorical groups, known as ‘taxa’ (singular: ‘taxon’), within a wider hierarchical order, according to how related those ‘things’ are to one another.
This process of categorization and hierarchical ordering is something that we all do instinctively, day-by-day. Consider how you classify items around your home: A bowl and mug are crockery; a knife and fork are cutlery; crockery and cutlery are kitchenware; kitchenware and furniture are homeware. You get the picture.
Specialized biologists, known as taxonomists, are responsible for sorting organisms into taxa (groups/categories). The validity of a classification is agreed upon by scientific consensus, presided over by official taxonomic organizations. “Race” is just one step on the pyramid of biological taxonomy. Every living creature on earth theoretically has a taxonomic classification, from blue whales to single-celled organisms.
Some people argue that taxonomy is merely “fiddling around with semantics.” Those people are chumps; taxonomy is a central pillar of biology. How we categorize our world is extremely important (especially in our current political climate) as it dramatically affects how we perceive our world and our relationship with it, as well as how we perceive ourselves.
It is vital to note that something being a “social construct” does not mean that it is invalid or useless. Language, math, color, etc., are also “social constructs.” Fundamentally, your entire perception of reality is based on so-called “social constructs.” Thus, the argument that “social construct = invalid” logically concludes to “nothing in life is valid,” which may well be the nihilistic attitude that people who promote this nonsense intend to spread. Regardless, such idiocy should be completely ignored.
C. The biological taxonomic system
As covered in Section B, a taxonomic system is an ordered hierarchy that groups ‘things’ according to how related they are to one another. The ranks, or ‘taxa,’ within a taxonomic system nest together like a Russian matryoshka doll. Within the biological taxonomic system, multiple species fit into one genus, multiple genera fit into one family, multiple families fit into one order, and so on.
The full list of biological taxa/ranks is as follows, from lowest to highest:
|Subspecies||e.g., Mountain gorilla|
|Species||e.g., Eastern gorilla|
Strain, the lowest taxonomic rank, is applied to creatures that are ostensibly identical to others within their race ranking. For example, scientists may classify inbred lab rats as a separate strain to non-inbred lab rats; a minor difference but a difference nonetheless.
Race — as per its current definition — is the second-lowest taxonomic rank. Races are not quite subspecies, but distinct enough to be recognized as separate biological groups within a subspecies. However, historically, “race” has been used as an informal shorthand term to refer to any level of the taxonomic hierarchy. For example, biologists of yore talked of the “Canine race,” despite the fact that canines (or Canidae) constitute a family. This usage was phased out after the Second World War, between 1960 and 1980.
Both race and strain are, generally speaking, regarded as “informal” taxonomic ranks. (Remember: every taxonomic rank is a “social construct,” regardless of whether they are formal or informal).
Species and subspecies are the next highest and first “formal” rankings. Since they are the ‘fundamental units’ of taxonomy, they’re often mistakenly regarded as the smallest distinct biological groups that either exist or are scientifically meaningful. This is not true by any means; biological groups can always be divided and subdivided, right down to the level of the individual. This will be elaborated upon in Part 2 of this article, so don’t worry if you don’t understand what that means at this point.
Genus ranks above species in the taxonomic hierarchy. The first half of an animal’s scientific (Latin) name is its genus. For example, the gray wolf, Canis lupus, and North American coyote, Canis latrans, both belong to the ‘Canis’ genus (canines). The genus of humanity is ‘Homo.’
D. Classifying taxa
Generally speaking, there is much confusion among the public as to what criteria separates one taxon group from the next. The typical example is what distinguishes a species from a subspecies. Below is the definition that most people are familiar with.
This mode of classifying species can serve as a rough guide, but it is slightly outdated and should not be regarded as absolute for several reasons. For example, some species reproduce asexually (self-cloning), and multiple species (not sub-species) are capable of interbreeding (‘hybridizing’) to produce viable, fertile offspring.
Thanks to the rise of recently discovered hybrid species, such as the coywolf, the fact that some separate species can successfully interbreed with one another has been somewhat accepted by the mainstream. However, you should regard everything that the mainstream media publishes with the utmost skepticism. Rags like the Washington Post and The Economist rarely publish an article that is 50% honest, let alone 100% honest.
Taxonomists do take breeding compatibility into account while classifying species and subspecies. However, a variety of other factors are also considered. These include morphology, physiology, ethology, ecology, evolutionary history, genetics, and so on.
In other words, an organism is classified based upon its appearance, its physical construction, what it does, how it acts, where it lives, and which organisms it is genetically descended from, related to, or distinct from. Reproduction is just one piece of a much wider puzzle. Taxonomists generally regard an organisms’ morphology — its external physical appearance (eidonomy) and internal structure (anatomy) — as the most important piece of the puzzle. Additionally, an organisms’ phenotype, the sum total of its observable characteristics (build, behavior, etc.), generally takes precedent over genetic data.
All of the aforementioned factors tend to be strongly correlated. Two animals that exhibit major genetic differences will also exhibit major behavioral and physical differences. Similarly, two animals that exhibit major behavioral differences will also exhibit major physical and genetic differences, and so on. A sea cucumber, for example, is very genetically different from a wolf, but not quite as genetically different from a starfish; this is reflected in both their behaviors and morphologies.
There is no absolute formula for defining an organisms’ taxonomic classification, and some problem cases can lead to heated arguments between taxonomists, but, generally speaking, the taxonomic system is quite reliable and accurate. Until humanity comes into the picture, that is. In our case, taxonomy is applied horrendously badly. The causes of this are almost entirely political and will be elaborated upon in a separate article, as there is far too much information to include in this series.
E. An introduction to genetics
Part 2 of this article may get confusing due to the unavoidable use of genetics jargon. Below is a glossary of a few key terms that will feature throughout subsequent sections. If you aren’t familiar with the basics of genetics, you may wish to keep this section at hand as you read Part 2.
1. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
DNA is the molecule that contains an organism’s genetic code, the information necessary to build and maintain said organism.
The genome of an organism is the sum total of its DNA, the entirety of its genetic code.
A nucleotide is the smallest component that makes up DNA. Think of it as a DNA building block.
4. Base Pairs
Base pairs consist of two nucleotides joined together, to form the “rungs” on the “ladder” of DNA. A nucleotide is labeled ‘nucleic acid’ in the diagram below.
5. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP, “snips”)
A SNP is a genetic variation in one single nucleotide (DNA building block). SNPs are the most common form of genetic variation among humans, occurring approximately once every 1000 nucleotides.
A gene is a section of DNA that determines the characteristics of an organism. A sexually reproducing organism inherits genes from two parents (male and female) while an organism that reproduces asexually is genetically identical to its singular parent. Asexual organisms only “evolve” if a random gene mutation is passed onto offspring. Genes are often encoded by many base pairs, though one single base pair difference can dramatically alter the functions of a gene. Since some genes control the functions of multiple other genes, one tiny SNP variation can theoretically have a large knock-on effect.
A chromosome is essentially a package of DNA. They are found in the nucleus (center) of every single cell in the human body. Each cell contains 23 pairs of chromosomes (or 46 chromosomes in total), except sex cells (‘gametes’) which contain 23 single chromosomes. Of the 23 pairs of human chromosomes, men and women share 22. The 23rd pair, which is the sex chromosome, differs between men and women. Women have two X chromosomes, while men have one X and one Y chromosome (as shown below).
8. Sex cells
Human sperm and egg cells have only 23 individual chromosomes each, which results in the regular 46 chromosomes when the cells combine to form a child. Sperm cells also carry either the X or Y sex chromosomes that determine the sex of the child. Human sex chromosomes can occasionally align differently to XX (female) and XY (male). However, these chromosomal mutations are medically and scientifically classified as ‘disorders’ or ‘syndromes.’ This is due to their adverse effects on health. Chromosome disorders are a common cause of stillbirth, and can cause sterility or even death in adulthood. TL;DR: A chromosome disorder is not a ‘gender.’
An allele is one of two or more variations of a gene that is found at a specific location on a chromosome. Alleles are either recessive or dominant, meaning that if each parent has a different allele (variant) for the same gene, the dominant allele will be expressed, while the recessive is hidden.
10. Locus (plural: Loci)
A locus is a specific fixed location on a chromosome where a particular gene or genetic marker is located.
11. Genetic marker
Genetic markers are specific genes or sequences of DNA that can be used to identify individuals, species, etc.
Heterozygosity is the probability that two members of the same species will have a different allele (gene variation) at a specific locus (location on a chromosome). To discover an organism’s overall heterozygosity, scientists use multiple genetic markers and multiple loci.
13. Fixation index (Fst)
Fst is the proportion of the total genetic variance of a subpopulation (s) relative to the total genetic variance of the total population (t). In other words, Fst is a way to measure how much genetic material is shared by population groups. An Fst rating of zero means total sharing of genetic material (e.g., identical twins or clones), while an Fst rating of one means that there is no sharing whatsoever. Higher Fst = more differentiation between two populations. See below diagram:
F. Defining race-denialism
The term ‘race-denialism,’ defined as follows, will appear throughout Part 2 of this article:
“The denial of the existence of human races, in part or in whole, as they have historically been perceived and as they are commonly perceived today.”
Race-denialists generally fall into three categories:
- Those who do not deny the existence of biological races, but claim that biological race only affects superficial characteristics, such as skin color.
The “smile and nod” stance on race. Generally speaking, this is the stance of the average politically-disengaged individual who believes that “racism is mean” but has no interest in getting involved with heated racial politics.
- Those who deny the existence of biological races, but claim that “socially constructed” races do exist.
The “social constructionist” school of race-denialism stems from Western Marxist ‘Critical Theory,’ and is linked to concepts such as “institutional racism.” They deny the biological reality of race for political reasons. However, much of their rhetoric on “systemic oppression” (and so on) is entirely reliant upon the existence of race. Thus, they claim that while the “social construct” of race is real, the biological reality of race is not. As explained in Section B of this article, this is complete gibberish.
- Those who deny the existence of race in its entirety.
These people are rare, but they do exist. Often includes hippies, New Agers, or those who have highly universalized religious beliefs.
Every form of race-denialism will be thoroughly debunked in Part 2 of this article. The history and origin of race-denialism is somewhat complex and will require an entire article to cover in detail, so won’t be featured in Part 2.
G. The “Human Race”
With most of the basic background information covered, we can finally move on to the topic at hand, where the controversy begins.
Modern conceptions of race are so disconnected from reality that it’s almost difficult to know where to begin. As outlined in the introduction, this is no fault of the general populace, who have been subjected to several decades of conflicting, garbled disinformation, spewed at them by every source of information imaginable. Education institutions, the media, the state, the UN, the EU, NGOs, even corporations and banks have chimed in to add to the bamboozlement.
Is race an “invalid social construct?”
Is humanity “one race?”
Do human races exist at all?
Part 2 of this article will prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the politically-motivated racial “science” that has been imposed on the populace for the past several decades is criminally biased, fraudulent, and fundamentally invalid.
Three main questions will be addressed:
- Is there a “scientific consensus” on race?
- Is “race” (as applied to humanity) a biologically valid category?
- Is humanity genetically, behaviorally, and morphologically diverse enough to be divided into multiple distinct and scientifically significant subgroups?
As far as official/mainstream taxonomy goes, the “Human Race,” aka Homo sapiens sapiens, is regarded to be the sole surviving sub-species of our parent species ‘Homo sapiens’ (one sapiens). The problems of this taxonomic misclassification will be covered in depth in Part 2 of this article.
To summarize, as far as mainstream Western science is concerned, mankind’s taxonomic classification is as follows…
Subspecies: Sapiens sapiens (“The Human Race”)
Note: From this point onward, ‘race’ will be used in reference to human ‘races’ specifically, unless specified otherwise.
I know I said we can finally move onto the topic at hand, but I lied. Part 2 is coming soon. Hopefully next week. Stay tuned.