1000 words

NOTE: This article was once part of one excessively long unpublished article that has since been divided into multiple small articles. Check the “Debunking Race Denialism” post tag for the other articles in this series.

This fallacy doesn’t have a name, so I’m dubbing it the “Transracial Fallacy.” Unlike Lewontin’s actual argument, which at least references scientific reality (to a degree), the claim that “two people of different races can be more genetically similar to each other than they are to people of their own race” is complete nonsense. As far as I know, Lewontin didn’t make this claim. I have no idea where it originated. Probably an insane asylum.

Anyway, the people parroting this argument have absolutely no grasp on even the most basic of genetic principles — which is a fair excuse for the average layman, but not for the so-called “academics” who constantly make this argument (especially those in fake scientific fields, like “Sociology”).

Using basic common sense and ignoring the pseudoscientific claim in question, does it look possible for an individual of one race to be more genetically related to another race than they are to any member of their own race? No, of course not. And that’s because it isn’t.

An individual’s physical characteristics (phenotype) is determined by their genes (genotype). In other words, how you look is a direct expression of your DNA. This is why Chinese babies don’t randomly pop out of Australian Aboriginal parents, Estonian babies don’t randomly pop out of Ugandan parents, and so on.

It is a biological impossibility for a random East Asian, for example, to be more genetically similar to a random European than they are to any other random East Asian. If an “East Asian” was more genetically similar to a European than other East Asians, they wouldn’t be an East Asian, they would be a European. It’s completely paradoxical to suggest otherwise.

Any studies that supposedly prove this claim to be correct have either been performed with incorrect methodology or are being lied about and deliberately misrepresented by whoever is citing them.

Consider the (Un)Scientific American article below: It claims that the nasty racist White scientist James Watson was actually more genetically similar to a Korean scientist than he was to another White scientist. Not so White after all, huh? Mr. stinky poopoo head racist.

The study that they cite literally states the exact opposite of their claim — both of the European scientists were more similar to each other than they were to the Korean. That these people have the audacity to lie about a study while linking directly to the study itself shows the complete and utter contempt they have for their audience. Either that or their own intense idiocy. The results of the study are below.

SJK (Korean)VenterWatson
53% Watson56% Watson56% Venter
50% Venter50% SJK (Korean)53% SJK (Korean)

It isn’t just stupid, ignorant journalists who are to blame for this insanity. As with Lewontin’s nonsense, this isn’t something that has been conjured up by the average clueless normie. Those at the highest levels of academia are responsible.

On the Harvard University website, an article written by Vivian Chou, a Ph.D. candidate in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School (LMFAO), states that:

“Ultimately, there is so much ambiguity between the races, and so much variation within them, that two people of European descent may be more genetically similar to an Asian person than they are to each other.”

Obviously, these students are getting this bullshit from somewhere, but where, is the question? (I don’t know). The article ends with a few paragraphs on “fighting racism with understanding.” What a coincidence.

Another important question is how did “scientists” (Leftoid ideologues) come to this conclusion if it’s so obviously wrong? Pretty simple: By completely ignoring cumulative probability.

This is best explained via an analogy:

Imagine being asked to guess whether a person is male or female based on the following five factors: Height, vocal pitch, hairiness, and hand size. You would have a decent chance of guessing correctly. However, if you had to guess based on one factor alone — hand size, for example — your chance of guessing correctly would decrease significantly. Conversely, if you were provided with 20 factors, your chance of guessing incorrectly would decrease significantly. Your chance of guessing correctly is proportional to the number of factors used. Eventually, with enough factors, your chance of guessing correctly would rise to 100% (or >99%, at least).

The same principles apply to genetics. The probability of accurately guessing an individual’s race based on one single gene alone isn’t that great (mostly around 70%, but can be higher or lower depending on the gene). However, the combined data of multiple genes paints a much more accurate picture. Once a sufficient quantity of grouped genes are used, the probability of inaccurately detecting an individual’s race drops to <1%.

So, if you were to judge based on one single gene alone, ~30% of the time it would be possible for a European to be more genetically similar to an Asian than another European, but only at that specific gene location. Humans have a total of around 30,000 genes, so that methodology is obviously insane and ret*rded.

We don’t identify anything — alive or inanimate — based on one single feature alone. But that’s precisely what “scientists” and “academics” are doing when they claim that two Africans can be more related to an Asian than they are to each other. They literally pretend that cumulative probability doesn’t exist. I’m not kidding. They just bury their heads in the sand like ostriches.

The state of academia is completely abominable. These are the people who teach your kids in university, who advise politicians, who make decisions about which depth of hell they want to drag our society to next. And they aren’t stupid either. They know exactly what they’re doing. They’re criminals and they belong in jail.

Everyone would have a much better understanding of the world around us if we acted on pure animalistic instinct than if we listened to the complete poison spewed by so-called “academics” and “intellectuals.”