Lewontin knew a lot about genetics, whereas I don't know even one percent of what he knew. But the problem does not lie in this, but in drawing wrong conclusions. It is a problem of logic, not of genetics.
Lewontin was correct that the genetic variation between human populations was less than the genetic variation between individuals in each human group. His mistake was thinking that he had discovered the squaring of the circle. We must be very careful with the conclusions we draw, especially when a discovery appears to deny the obvious. What should Lewontin have made of his discovery? Well, he should have thought about how it was possible that, despite the fact that these differences were greater within than between groups, nevertheless those groups were still such; that is to say, that we could still more or less easily distinguish people as belonging to one or another group. This fact clearly demonstrated that his discovery, in reality, did little to explain what he wanted to explain.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. Lewontin wanted to reach certain conclusions pre-established by his ideology. Lewontin resented racism, but instead of explaining it, he ruled it non-existent. But the best way to deal with the problem of racism is to understand its bases, not hide them. And the basis of racism is probably as trivial as other psychological traits that emerged during our evolution as a species. Racial differences are nothing more than differences that arise in different settings. The way to handle the problem of racism is more similar to how we handle our sexual impulses than to the pretense of decreeing that, since it has no genetic basis, therefore, human races do not exist. Human races exist as long as different animal species exist. And none of those facts imply that we have the right to kill members of other species or to subdue, belittle, or humiliate people of other races.
"a Swiss person has no more in common with another Swiss than with a Peruvian"
How do we reconcile this with the results of Witherspoon (2007), which found that:
"we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population ... with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero."
“Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves”
This may be true for Mitochondrial DNA, but does it generalize to the canine genome as a whole? I ask this because Elaine Ostrander, an expert on the genetics of domestic dogs, reports:
“Genetic variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation within breeds. Between-breed variation is estimated at 27.5 percent. By comparison, genetic variation between human populations is only 5.4 percent” (Ostrander 2007).
Ostrander (2007) Genetics and the Shape of Dogs, American Scientist 95(5): 406.
I put very little stock in what Jewish "geneticists" like Lewontin say about race because they have an agenda to downplay racial differences between blacks, whites and orientals primarily so that they will mix and produce a dull, docile brown race that Jews can use to do their bidding. Jews fear most, smart, independent minded whites, who have been standing up against them for over 2000 years and will eventually defeat them. Any person who denies racial differences should be dropped in the blackest area of Detroit where the natives will show them the realities of race first hand.
Please allow voiceover file to be downloaded--sometimes you allow this and sometimes you don't--is there a reason for this, or is it just an oversight?
Lewontin knew a lot about genetics, whereas I don't know even one percent of what he knew. But the problem does not lie in this, but in drawing wrong conclusions. It is a problem of logic, not of genetics.
Lewontin was correct that the genetic variation between human populations was less than the genetic variation between individuals in each human group. His mistake was thinking that he had discovered the squaring of the circle. We must be very careful with the conclusions we draw, especially when a discovery appears to deny the obvious. What should Lewontin have made of his discovery? Well, he should have thought about how it was possible that, despite the fact that these differences were greater within than between groups, nevertheless those groups were still such; that is to say, that we could still more or less easily distinguish people as belonging to one or another group. This fact clearly demonstrated that his discovery, in reality, did little to explain what he wanted to explain.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. Lewontin wanted to reach certain conclusions pre-established by his ideology. Lewontin resented racism, but instead of explaining it, he ruled it non-existent. But the best way to deal with the problem of racism is to understand its bases, not hide them. And the basis of racism is probably as trivial as other psychological traits that emerged during our evolution as a species. Racial differences are nothing more than differences that arise in different settings. The way to handle the problem of racism is more similar to how we handle our sexual impulses than to the pretense of decreeing that, since it has no genetic basis, therefore, human races do not exist. Human races exist as long as different animal species exist. And none of those facts imply that we have the right to kill members of other species or to subdue, belittle, or humiliate people of other races.
"a Swiss person has no more in common with another Swiss than with a Peruvian"
How do we reconcile this with the results of Witherspoon (2007), which found that:
"we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population ... with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero."
“Greater mtDNA differences appeared within the single breeds of Doberman pinscher or poodle than between dogs and wolves”
This may be true for Mitochondrial DNA, but does it generalize to the canine genome as a whole? I ask this because Elaine Ostrander, an expert on the genetics of domestic dogs, reports:
“Genetic variation between dog breeds is much greater than the variation within breeds. Between-breed variation is estimated at 27.5 percent. By comparison, genetic variation between human populations is only 5.4 percent” (Ostrander 2007).
Ostrander (2007) Genetics and the Shape of Dogs, American Scientist 95(5): 406.
Diversity is our strength...but...not *real* diversity...only made-up diversity.
The idea that there is *real* diversity is racist.
Pretend diversity is our strength.
I put very little stock in what Jewish "geneticists" like Lewontin say about race because they have an agenda to downplay racial differences between blacks, whites and orientals primarily so that they will mix and produce a dull, docile brown race that Jews can use to do their bidding. Jews fear most, smart, independent minded whites, who have been standing up against them for over 2000 years and will eventually defeat them. Any person who denies racial differences should be dropped in the blackest area of Detroit where the natives will show them the realities of race first hand.
thx--I was doing something similar to get the download files before but it didn't work last time--but I tried it later and it did work.
Great article.
Please allow voiceover file to be downloaded--sometimes you allow this and sometimes you don't--is there a reason for this, or is it just an oversight?