To be a respectable American, you must at least pretend to believe preposterous things: Diversity is our strength, men can become women and vice versa, all races are precisely equal, the United States is a wonderful force for good all around the world. But the most preposterous thing you have to believe may be about the biology of race.
The American Medical Association wants you to “recognize race as a social, not biological, construct.”
The Smithsonian Museum says, “Race, while not a valid biological concept, is a real social construction that gives or denies benefits and privileges.
White people invented race so we could oppress people. This rubbish is everywhere.
The American Psychological Association has a glossy brochure that tells you what to think, with pictures of social constructs on the cover.
Six PhDs explain that “race is a social construction rather than a biological reality” and that “The ‘racial’ worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth.”
If race is a social construction, the Arabs beat us to it by nearly 1,000 years. The scholar Al Jahiz, who died in 868 AD, wrote that East Africans were “like the crow among mankind . . . for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament.”
A century later, Ibn Tahir-al-Maqdisi wrote, “They are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence.”
It’s beyond me how anyone can claim that the differences between Europeans and, say, Australian aborigines are a socially agreed upon convention rather than a biological fact.
There is so much evidence for the biological basis of race that I’ll just skim the surface. Even the most intellectually sleepy people notice that East Africans win long-distance races.
People of West African origins dominate sprints and are not competitive in swimming.
Babies can tell races apart. This instinctive ability is called “the other race effect,” and as this article explains, “at least by 3.5 months of age, infants have attained enough face processing expertise to process familiar-race faces in a different manner than unfamiliar-race faces.”
They can’t even walk or talk but they’ve already mastered a social construct.
And even Smithsonian magazine concedes that “Your Ethnicity Determines the Species of Bacteria That Live in Your Mouth.”
Except that it really means your race. Just by looking at patterns of bacteria in the mouth, you can distinguish blacks from everyone else 100 percent of the time. Microorganisms are tricked by social constructs, too.
Today’s fanatics are so desperate to do away with race that they want to suppress facts. Last October, the New York Times published an article called “Can Skeletons Have a Racial Identity?” which pointed out that forensic anthropologists routinely determine the race of a skeleton.
But the profession is terrified that this might make people think race is biological. As one said, “When I say to the police, ‘OK, I took these measurements, I looked at these things on the skull and this person is African-American,’ of course they’re going to think it’s biological.”
Heresy! Can’t have the police thinking that. And so, as two boneheads with PhDs write in an article called “Decolonizing ancestry estimation in the United States,” “we assert that the practice of ancestry estimation contributes to white supremacy,” and “we urge all forensic anthropologists to abolish the practice of ancestry estimation.”
It’s best just not to know. Ignorance is bliss — or at least it’s woke.
But it’s too late for that. “Artificial intelligence predicts patients’ race from their medical images.”
And the people who program computers to look at X-rays have no idea how the AI does it. Anthropologists figure out race mostly by looking at skulls, because they can’t tell from other parts of the body, but all the AI needs is a hand or a chest X-ray. It can even determine race when the images are so blurred, people can hardly tell they are of a human body!
This same article notes that computer “models can also identify patient self-reported race from clinical notes even when those notes are stripped of explicit indicators of race. Just as in this work — they’re talking about the X-rays — human experts are not able to accurately predict patient race from the same redacted clinical notes.”
Instead of being pleased that AI can do things we can’t, the scientists are terrified because computers can detect something that isn’t supposed to exist. This means the computers are racist and might be mean to blacks. Really.
Even if we never talked about the taboo stuff — race differences in IQ or ability to plan ahead or levels of social trust or criminal propensities — you’d think people who claim to care about blacks would at least understand the importance of race differences in medicine.
This article about a blood-bank shortage of rare blood types explains why it is important to screen donated blood by race.
For example, only blacks have U negative blood. As one expert explains, “It makes no sense to screen 100,000 whites for U negative when no U negative white person has ever been found.” People with sickle-cell disease — almost exclusively black — get the best blood matches from other blacks. That’s why this Red Cross page pleads with blacks to give blood.
It explains that blacks are 13 percent of the population but only 3 percent of the donors. But why should they care? If race is a social construct, the blood of white people should be just as good. Why bother to donate?
Gift of Life, is a group that matches organ donors with people who need them, and it has a whole section on Race and Organ Donation.
This is because matches are much more likely when donor and recipient are the same race. The need for black kidney donors is especially high because “In the 25-44 year-old age group, the rate of African Americans who have kidney failure caused by high blood pressure is 20 times higher than Caucasians.”
Overall, as this article explains, blacks are 4.25 times more likely than whites to need a kidney, but only about half as willing to donate one.
Here are total US organ donations, by race, for last year.
Whites, as you can see from the bar on the left, are the great majority.
You get the same problems with bone-marrow transplants. There are constant appeals for “more diverse donors” because, again, race is often the crucial factor in a successful match.
The big problem is human antigen leucocyte or HLA markers. Cancer.net tries to be delicate about race, but notes: “African Americans have more diverse HLA markers than other people, which makes finding a match more challenging. People who are of mixed-race descent may also have HLA markers that are relatively unique and therefore more difficult to match.”
Mixed-race people need to look for donors of the same mix, but non-whites are less likely to register as donors. This article reports that only 4 percent of the people who register are black.
Non-whites are also more likely to back out of a donation even if they are a match. This Washington Post article notes, “About 60 percent of whites go forward with the donation but only about 40 percent of racial minorities.” Blacks are the group least likely to follow through.
There was a flurry of non-white interest in marrow donation in 1996, when baseball hall-of-famer Rod Carew made a high-profile appeal for donors for his daughter Michelle, who had leukemia. He is a mix of black, Panamanian, and West Indian. His wife was a Russian Jew.
Baseball player Rod Carew poses for a photo with his wife Marilynn Levy on September 27, 1997 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by Michael Grecco)
That made for a very unusual genetic mix, and despite a rush of thousands of inquiries, no one was the right match. Michelle died at age 18.
Race is a biological reality that can make a life-or-death difference. You would think people who shout “Black lives matter” should take race seriously, but they are the most fanatical race deniers.
Just this month, Science magazine reported that “Cancer treatment predictor may not work in patients with African and Asian ancestries.”
You can now sequence the DNA of cancer tumors to determine their type, and the FDA approved a drug called pembrolizumab to fight tumors of a particular kind. Except that it works on whites, not on blacks, and seems to make Asians worse. The subheading of the article was “Findings underscore need for more diverse study populations, experts say.” Really? Why would you have to test drugs on different populations if race is an illusion?
Human races are like dog breeds, just not as extreme. Dogs were deliberately bred — and inbred — for specific purposes, while human variation evolved naturally and over a much longer period of time. No one suggests that the differences between poodles and beagles are a social construction.
This month, in Millington, Tennessee, the two children in this photo, were bitten to death by two family pets. The dogs also nearly killed the mother, leaving her with deep bites all over her body.
This was a normal, loving family with pets, not breeders of vicious dogs. Can you guess what breed the dogs were? Yes. Pit bulls. They are a tiny percentage of all dogs but they killed 34 of 47 US victims of fatal dog attacks in 2019.
Pit bulls are a violent subspecies of dog, just as human races are subspecies of homo sapiens.
Let us draw a speculative parallel. There is a human gene called MAOA, sometimes called “the warrior gene,” because men who carry a variant of it are likely to be violent. This article, “The Warrior Gene: Genetics and Criminology,” cites a strong correlation between violence and carrying the variant.
This study found that blacks who had the variant were “significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated” than blacks who did not.
This survey of the literature found that blacks are about 10 times more likely than whites to have the most dangerous variant, with some studies finding it in as many as 6 percent of blacks.
Could the high rate of violence in blacks be a genetically correlated trait, like the behavior of pit bulls? Maybe, but there won’t be grant money to find out.
All this leads to a question: Why are our rulers so determined to have us believe something obviously untrue? Mainly, it has to do with the American obsession with “racism” — whatever that is. A murderer or bank robber has a higher moral status than a “racist.” Could you end “racism” by persuading everyone there’s no such thing as race? No chance. People of different races look and act differently, and torturing the language — and hiding the truth — won’t change that.
A more subtle reason may be to soften white people up for The Great Replacement. “Don’t worry! Europeans aren’t being replaced by blacks and Asians. They’re being replaced by themselves!”
Another goal may be to derail any discussion of race. “What do you mean blacks commit homicide at more than 12 times the white rate? There’s no such thing as race.”
Finally, there is humiliation. Every time you force someone to profess something ridiculous, you sabotage him psychologically.
A neutered herd will never threaten the regime or its doctrines. And a neutered herd is clearly what our rulers want.