Washington Summit Publishers is saddened to learn of the death of Tatu Vanhanen, the Finnish researcher and writer, who made tremendous contributions to the application of Darwinian theory to the study of society and politics.
Washington Summit Publishers’s first monograph was, in fact, Understanding Jewish Influence (2004) by Kevin MacDonald. This text is worthy of a new expanded edition. . . In the meantime, the entire 2004 edition is available online.Read More
Writing in The Times of Israel, Hila Hershkoviz takes on a prickly question—Are Jews White?
In response to Haaretz article “Jews, white privilege and the fight against racism in America” (by Benjy Cannon 4/12/14) I would like to say loud and clear: Ashkenazi Jews are not white.
Every time I read about a Jew somewhere identifying as a white person, I cringe. As an Israeli Jew, who like most other Israeli Jews, is completely foreign to the concept of Jews being “white” I would like to address this article to my Jewish brothers and sisters in America.
Ashkenazi Jews who identify as “white”, please understand the following:
1. History and identity – As late as 1987 the US legally defined Jews as non-white. To the best of my knowledge, 50 years ago Jews had the same skin color as they do today. I deduce that white is not skin color, it is first and foremost an issue history and identity. The “white people world” is represented by its European (often colonial) history, it’s culture, heroes, it’s Kings, ethos, faith etc. – and Ashkenazi Jews are not part of that world. Their heroes are the Maccabees and not the Vikings or Joan of Arc, their Kings are David King of Israel and Hezekiah King of Judah (both archeologically confirmed historical figures) and not Kings Edward and George.
Secondly, Jews are not a “religion”. While in the Western world identities fall under the categories of religion or race, Middle Eastern people have tribal identities that are based neither the former nor the latter. Jews, similar to Pashtuns (who also often have pale skin and yet would not identify as white people) and other Middle Eastern Tribes, are neither religion nor race but a tribe. Jewish identity since the days of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel had always been a tribal/national peoplehood. While tribal practices and customs (which is often incorrectly referred to as “Judaism”) and a strong biological link between many of the members are certainly present, Israelite identity was never based on either of these. Israelite identity has always been a tribal membership that goes by lineage (being born into the Tribes of Israel) or tribal acceptance (which is incorrectly translated as “conversion”). The identity Ashkenazi Jews have today is identical to that of King David whose great grandmother was a Moabite convert, but was nonetheless a Jew by virtue of being born into the Tribes of Israel by lineage.
You are Jews not because of your “religion” (are you even religious?), but because you were born into a tribe/people called the Nation of Israel. You are not “white people” with a “Jewish religion”, you are Jews – members of a people who origniated in Judea, whether you adhere to the laws of the tribe or not.
Thirdly, Ashkenazi Jews have been the victims of Europeans and Western imperialism for centuries precisely because they were not perceived as part of the “white people world”, beginning with the Roman colonialism of their nation state and ending with 6 million of them being killed precisely because they were non-whites.
2. Culture – Whether it’s the Hebrew calendar, the tefillin they put on at their Bar Mitzvah identical to the ancient second Temple tefillin found in Qumran and across Israel or celebrating the Judean revolt for independence in our historic homeland on Hanukkah – Ashkenazi Jews have kept the entire indigenous culture, customs, traditions, books, and to a high extant language and of their ancestors – Judeans and other Israelites.
3. Biology – Although biology is not the main part of the issue, Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically white either. An extensive number of genetic studies show they originated in the Middle East, that despite European admixture they are genetic brothers of other Jews, Palestinians, Druze and Lebanese Arabs and share a highly significant amount of ancestry with Sephardi Jews to whom they are genetically almost identical. Tests also show Ahskenazi Levites are descendants of Hebrews, and Ashkenazi Cohanim share lineage with Sephardi Cohanim.
Lastly, Ashkenazi Jews, whether the world likes it or not (and apparently it does not), are direct descendants of the Tribes of Israel, as we know from history, culture, science and a little something I like to call reality. Those who wish to deny it for political or theological reasons, should try forming an alliance with holocaust deniers because the two are no different.
Jews are not white. People who try to argue otherwise are not only abrogating history and denying our people’s authentic identity, they are in fact (even if unintentionally) also practicing a form of Western imperialism, as nobody has the right to superimpose an artificial Western identity on a people with an ancient Middle Eastern-tribal identity. Nobody has the right to try and make Jews, or any other Middle Eastern people, feel they “need” to fit into the “neat” Western categories of religion and race. Nobody has the right to force Jews into identifying as white people when they are clearly not. As for Jews who identify as white without being forced to do so – please decolonize your identities and understand that the identity your claim to express is a falsification of who you really are.
Ashkenazi Jews have influenced European culture—and been influenced by European culture (perhaps more than this author would like). There has also been a large amount of intermarriage between Ashkenazi (and Sephardic) Jews and Europeans, resulting in a genetic similarity.
That said, as Hershkoviz writes, Ashkenazi Jews have been in Europe, without quite being of Europe.
Pigmentation really is "just skin deep." it's a significant, but by no means definitive element of race. Identity is formed by a combination of race, culture, spirituality, and history. And Ashkenazi Jews have an identity apart from Europeans.
In thinking about this issue, a good place to start is Richard Lynn's The Chosen People: A Stidy of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement.
i thought i’d compile a festival of links to reviews/commentaries/blogposts/tweets/etc. related to nicholas wade‘s new book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History. i’ll keep adding to this list as the week goes forward. (keep in mind, though, that’s there’s more to human biodiversity than just racial differences…):Read More
“In The Newton Awards, Hart and Parkinson have achieved a global insight into the 400 years of science and technology that have revolutionized human existence. Particularly riveting is the authors’ “List of Newton Awards” that succinctly chronicles the entirety of science and technology. Commencing from the birth of the scientific experiment 400 years ago, together with the mathematical innovations that created the universality of those experiments, The Newton Awards achieves an appreciation of the contribution that science and technology have made to mankind’s endurance that is not available elsewhere.
The resulting 140 Newton Awards, together with their technological analysis of each breakthrough achievement and of the personal forces driving the individuals responsible for them, provide a concise yet comprehensive summation of the whole of scientific history since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans.
Exemplary, for instance, was Hart and Parkinson’s scientific conclusion that a single invention, namely Robert Watson-Watt’s radar, was the pivotal innovation that altered the outcome of the aerial “Battle of Britain”, changed the final outcome of the Second World War and altered the course of human history.
Enabled by the “cosmic” insights of Professor Michael Hart (PhD, Astronomy, Princeton, 1972) and Claire Parkinson (research scientist, NASA, Greenbelt), The Newton Awards produce a unique understanding of the most stunning scientific and technological achievements of mankind’s history, as well as promising inspiration to the upcoming future generation of young scientists that can see firsthand the thrill of discovery the The Newton Awards make explicit.”
Inventor of the first Magnetic Resonance Scanning Machine; Recipient of the National Medal of Technology (1988) and the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award (2001)
“This book consists of a series of 140 awards honoring major achievements in the natural sciences, mathematics, or technology across the period A.D. 1600-2000. For the century 1876-1976, there is one award per year; in other periods there is one award per decade or half-decade. Each award is given to the one person who made the greatest contribution in that year (or decade, etc.). Each article describes the advance made and gives a brief biography of the award winner.
The chronological format gives readers a concise history of modern science, while the details humanize the topics, supplying many interesting anecdotes and striking quotations. The whole project is very well thought out and skillfully executed. Hart and Parkinson give clear and straightforward explanations for difficult points of theory.
Both authors have backgrounds as researchers in the physical sciences, but their book does not ignore advances in biology and medicine. Technology is covered, as well as pure science: Many of the awards go to inventors who have used science to create the practical devices that have revolutionized the modern world. The book’s selections range from the introduction of anesthesia to the development of the internet.
The book is designed for intelligent laymen with very little knowledge of mathematics, but working scientists will also enjoy it. It will find a place, I am sure, in the reference section of libraries, where it would be a worthy successor to Isaac Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, a fine book which unfortunately is now becoming dated.”
Former Contributing Editor and columnist for National Review; Author of We Are Doomed, Prime Obsession, Unknown Quantity, and the novel Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream
Gregory Cochran on liberals desire to ban research they don't like:
John Horgan believes that research on race and IQ should be banned, and that having university IRBs veto such research would be a reasonable way of doing so. There are problems with this idea. Not just that freedom of enquiry is a thing of value, and that John, if given the chance, would exchange his soul for a pile of dung – and be right to do so. No, enforcement of this policy entails technical difficulties. For one thing, essentially all IRBs already try to ban such research, but they don’t do a very good job, because they don’t know enough about the subject. Probably nobody does. For example, not so long ago people felt free to speculate that modern humans might have picked a few useful alleles from Neanderthals – including ones that increased intelligence. That was before it was found that there is substantial Neanderthal admixture only in non-Africans. In much the same way, it was ok to talk about male-driven mutation that increases with paternal age, but if you couple that with the actual populations that have high average paternal age, the topic becomes sensitive. Sometimes the clues aren’t there yet, sometimes no-one has put them together – but ignorance is a minefield, not least because of the nasty way in which one thing leads to another. You start out trying to breed a pig with more bacon and before you know it you’re arguing that medieval evolution made the Jews smarter.
I can see two possible ways of addressing the problem. One is to end all science. Horgan might like that: he thinks that there isn’t much more to find out anyhow. The other solution is to find out exactly what it is that we don’t want anyone to know: find the true causes of ethnic differences in cognition and personality. Find the exact number and position of the mines in the minefield, all the Bouncing Bettys and Claymores, so that we can tell people exactly what topics to avoid or ignore. The current system is particularly unfair to immigrant scholars who have been raised on a different brand of nonsense (for example, thinking that the Tibetans are resistant to hypoxia = racism) and aren’t familiar with our Index. We don’t have to worry about the minefield being empty: people like Horgan know damn well what they expect research to find – if they thought there was nothing there, they wouldn’t worry about it.
Of course, once you had the complete story, there are only a few billion obvious ways in which the information could leak out. But that’s the subject for another post!
The short answer is no.
The New York Times thinks it’s on to something in promoting a Pew study that, at first glance, demonstrates that the “economic differences among the country’s various religions are strikingly large, much larger than the differences among states and even larger than those among racial groups.”
The reality is that “religious” differences largely track the racial-and-IQ spectrum that organs like the New York Times don’t like to talk about.
First off, the “Hindu” sample is so selective it should probably be thrown out. In Race Differences in Intelligence, Richard Lynn demonstrates that IQ on the Indian subcontinent covers a very wide bell curve; this results mostly from the great racial heterogeneity of the Indian people (or rather peoples), whose elite displays the characteristics—and intelligence—of their Aryan ancestors. Those who make it all the way to America on a H-1B visas are, no doubt, the crème de la crème.
Going down the list, we see that Ashkenazi Jews are wealthy. No surprise here.
The Times also wants to believe that Max Weber’s famous thesis in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1904) has been disproved by the Pew center’s data:
Overall, Protestants, who together are the country’s largest religious group, are poorer than average and poorer than Catholics. That stands in contrast to the long history, made famous by Max Weber, of Protestant nations generally being richer than Catholic nations.
Again, no. The mainline Protestant denominations that once composed the WASP elite, and are still overwhelmingly Northern European in makeup, are wealthier than Catholics. Episcopalians are just below Jews (and Hindus). The Protestant denominations that fall below the poverty line are the Baptists and Pentecostals, which attract rural Whites and Blacks; the latter, no doubt, has a great effect in bringing down the average.
Moreover, as the Pew Center’s 2010 report showed, as Hispanics remain in America, they generally lose their Catholic faith and become either more secular or evangelical. This coincides with the much-noted tendency of generations of Hispanics to become more socially dysfunctional as they spend more time in America (“downward assimilation”). This trend certainly puts downward pressure on the less WASPy Protestant denominations.
Overall, it’s difficult to get a read on the socioeconomic status of White Catholics, since somewhere on the order of a quarter to a third of Catholics in America are Hispanic
This article was originally published at AlternativeRight.com.
From John Hogan:
But another part of me wonders whether research on race and intelligence—given the persistence of racism in the U.S. and elsewhere–should simply be banned. I don’t say this lightly. For the most part, I am a hard-core defender of freedom of speech and science.
Using Hogan's standards, I guess I could say I'm a hard-core teetotaler and feminist.
But research on race and intelligence—no matter what its conclusions are—seems to me to have no redeeming value. Far from it. The claims of researchers like Murray, Herrnstein and Richwine could easily become self-fulfilling, by bolstering the confirmation bias of racists and by convincing minority children, their parents and teachers that the children are innately, immutably inferior.
Why, given all the world’s problems and needs, would someone choose to investigate this thesis? What good could come of it? Are we really going to base policies on immigration, education and other social programs on allegedly innate racial differences? Not even the Heritage Foundation advocates a return to such eugenicist policies.
Tobias Langdon, writing at Kevin MacDonald's Occidental Observer:
Men and Miracles
Here are four highly important Western thinkers. Please pick the odd one out:
1. St Thomas Aquinas (theologian).
2. Charles Darwin (biologist).
3. Stephen Jay Gould (biologist).
4. Richard Dawkins (biologist).
The odd one out is of course No. 2, Charles Darwin, because he didn’t believe in miracles. By contrast, supernatural intervention in mindless nature is central to the thinking of the other three. For example, Aquinas believed that a single conception in Palestine about two thousand years ago involved a miraculous suspension of natural law. The militant atheist Richard Dawkins scornfully rejects the miracle of the Virgin Birth. So, less scornfully, did the bio-Marxist Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002). Instead, their version of atheism mandates belief in a much bigger supernatural intervention involving billions of conceptions for thousands of years over most of the earth’s surface. By the standards of Dawkins and Gould, Christians like Aquinas are woefully lacking in metaphysical ambition.
This is because Dawkins, Gould and other liberal atheists believe in the Miracle of Human Equality: namely, that all human groups, despite their superficial physical differences, are equal in average cognitive ability – equal, in fact, on all psychological variables. In short, there is only one brain: the Human Brain. And all groups have an equal share in it. Okay, the actual physical brain of different groups varies in size and structure, but that doesn’t make any difference to brain function. Metaphysics trumps mere matter, for heaven’s sake. Or rather: not for heaven’s sake. Liberal atheists don’t believe in heaven, but they do believe that Black women are capable of the same high intellectual achievement as Chinese men. It’s true that no Black woman has ever won a Nobel Prize for Physics or made fundamental contributions to mathematics, but that’s because racism and sexism have held the soul-sisters back. How do we know that? Because the undoubted genetic differences between those two groups have no effect on the brain. That is the central dogma of Neuro-Miraculism, the super-scientific creed of liberal atheists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould.
Tiny means Titanic
I call it “Miraculism” because there is no way to account for human equality within standard evolutionary biology. First, consider the fact that human beings and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Once, the two species were the same; then, slowly, we began to diverge. The cognitive and psychological differences between us widened gradually to a chasm, but those differences are based on very small genetic changes. Human and chimp DNA is almost identical, but that doesn’t mean chimps are almost as intelligent as humans or use language almost as well. They don’t use language at all and they are much less capable of understanding and controlling their environment than even the most primitive human beings. Tiny changes in genes have had titanic effects on brains.
However, brain evolution in Homo sapiens took a very unusual course after it had created those huge differences between humans and chimps. Uniquely in the animal kingdom, the two sexes of humans have evolved to become psychologically equal, despite experiencing quite different evolutionary pressures even in the same environment. This equality cannot be explained within standard biology: it has to be described as supernatural. Next, human brain evolution as a whole either stopped in Africa many millennia ago or carried on in an identical way when humans migrated from Africa to quite different environments in Europe, Asia, America and Australasia.
One Race, One Brain, One Humanity
Again, this equality can only be described as supernatural: there is no way to account for it within standard evolutionary biology. Thousands of genes influence the brain in one way or another and these genes exist at different frequencies and in different forms in different populations. But the average effect of these constantly varying genes has remained the same for millennia – according to Neuro-Miraculism. For example, there are clear and easily distinguishable genetic differences between, say, pygmies in the jungles of Africa, aborigines in the deserts of Australia and Inuit in the ice and snow of Greenland. Neuro-miraculists like Dawkins and Gould accept that these genetic differences result partly from natural selection: these three groups have adapted physically to their quite different physical environments. And of course, there may be other reasons for genetic differences between groups, such as genetic drift, founder effects and so on.
But none of these genetic changes has influenced the brain. Pygmies, aborigines and Inuit are all part of one race, the human race, and have equal shares in one brain, the human brain. This is true of all other human groups, no matter how widely separated in space and environment. Cognitively, We Are One Under The Skin. For thousands of years over most of the earth’s surface, countless human genes have mutated, split and re-combined in just such a way as to leave their average effect on the brain unaltered. Either the average effect has remained the same since Homo sapiens evolved in Africa or it has changed in precisely the same way in Greenland and Gabon as in Tonga and Thailand.
Read the full thing here.