What We Know, Don’t Know, & Aren’t Supposed to Ask About Race

SweatyK wrote: “For me, instinctively, the difference between races is deeper than merely cultural.” My instinct is to disagree with this so I would ask for clarification.

egypt races

One result of the dialogue with EOS for me was recognizing, with some delight, that I wasn’t as “racist” as I’d thought. It brought home how much affinity I feel with him, a black man, as compared to (I imagine) 99% of the white men out there. Ergo, race is no obstacle. On the other hand, I still feel less affinity with EOS than some white men, because of cultural differences, and I don’t think you can separate the antagonistic/oppositional relationship we’ve had over the years from our racial differences, especially since that’s the subject we’ve most often disagreed on.

As EOS made no bones about pointing out, my feelings about other races (especially the black race) are heavily filtered through my childhood conditioning, most specifically my father, a liberal and staunch anti-racist who nonetheless ended up in his last couple of decades living in a mansion in Barbados with black servants.  He wasn’t a bad guy, at all, and he wouldn’t have been able to see anything wrong with what he was doing. He never considered (I never did, until this week) how choosing to retire to Barbados (never mind hiring black people to take care of things, which would have seemed simply “logical”) was actually a “racist” move: he took refuge in the last bastion of the British Empire. My father’s liberalism and racial tolerance only went skin deep. It didn’t extend to a soul level. He preached tolerance, but really, who the hell wants to be tolerated?

My approach has been the reverse: to acknowledge that I must be “racist” because we live in a culture that discriminates against people for their race, that having an “other” to exploit and scapegoat is essential to the maintaining of civilization, to discharge internal tensions within the group. Racism is both biologically hard-wired into us and culturally conditioned. Getting free of that is no picnic.

I realized yesterday that, because of my liberal background, although there were hardly any black people (or any other color beside white) in Yorkshire when I grew up, I had two (adopted) cousins and a friend who were black, and was even quite close to two of them (girls). So there’s a positive to balance out the above view, because I am sure it gave me an early foundation of “OK-ness” with that particular kind of otherness. Even so, I have never been one to preach togetherness, because it seems to me that those who do preach it don’t really know how to practice it, and that they preach instead of practicing. I’d much rather let my actions speak louder than my words (as I think it has in this recent discussion).

Another reason I am skeptical about the “togetherness” line is that it usually stems from an assumption of sameness, or at least the desirability of sameness, of homogeneity. This assumption I wholeheartedly challenge. It’s unfortunate that, because of the social lowest-common-denominator mentioned above which demonizes otherness, any suggestion that blacks are inherently different from whites is almost always seen as claiming that they are inferior to them.

Long preamble.

The statement I made which you question: superficially the statement is self-evident, and so it’s telling that you question it. Obviously the difference between races is more than merely cultural, since it’s also physical. (This wasn’t a deliberate trap, but it does reveal something about how taboo this subject is that you walked into it.) In the past, my view has been quite staunch, narrow even, that what we are is largely determined by DNA, that DNA is like the implicate engine of our existence, the god within that makes us in its image. Insofar as we have any individual existence, my view has been that it begins, and possibly ends, with the body.

EOS expressed his disdain for the Native shaman’s description of black people being more physical, etc. I have no problem with this sort of thing, even though white people often end up being lumped as “intellectual” beings (to me, far more denigrating than being called physical).  The point can be made that this sort of categorization isn’t especially useful and can be horrifically abused, in which case I’d agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s not accurate or doesn’t have some merit. The Native’s idea is a fairly common one, that each of the races has a particular “gift”—a piece in the puzzle—to bring and that only through the co-operation of all the “tribes” can some sort of harmony be established.

MedicineWheel-1

Maybe EOS is right when he says it has to do with instincts—genetic (racial) programming, which goes a lot deeper than culture. Human aren’t the product of culture, but the reverse. We are becoming the product of our culture, however, and that culture is a homogenized, one-size-fits-all culture that, in my view, is fit only for machines (or aliens) to rule over, not for organic human beings to exist inside. But maybe I am just old-fashioned.

The difference between races could be the result of “root-races” as occult teachings (now forever associated with Nazism, so to be cited with extreme caution) mostly say they are. Or they could simply have to do with different areas of the Earth, shaping the human biological form in different ways. Different biological forms could create different temperaments (as in the animal kingdom), and this in turn would lead to different cultures. It’s still one genus, hence the possibility of interbreeding, but then horses and zebras are one genus too (and can breed. Not sure about canines, which include bears!).

My view on interbreeding (and I know this is super personal for you so I will try and be delicate) is that, just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should be. We can splice all sorts of plant organisms together but we don’t know what the results will be in the long run. By “should” I don’t mean ethically, I just mean that we don’t know exactly what is gained and what is lost by mixing races and cultures together, so, as with all experiments, it pays to proceed with caution. For example, what about the ancestors? Aren’t the ancestors meant to make up a sort of energetic (soul) community? Can we belong to more than one community? Does that make mixed race people ambassadors between soul tribes, potentially?

Point is I guess that there’s a whole lot we don’t know about all this; but one thing we do know is that there is a “party line” about race, a “right way” to think and talk about it, and that it generally lumps together any sort of alternate viewpoints, and even questions, with one group or another that’s already been marginalized as “wrong.” A recent example of this is when EOS responded to some of my points by comparing me to an American republican, even though he knows I have far less in common with those guys than I do with Mayans living in stone shacks in the jungle.

This is a long-winded answer, I know. I had a few things I still wanted to say to EOS, but I didn’t want to keep him inside the ring if he had to go back to work. Your question gave me an opening to make a new post. In summation, what I’m suggesting is that, since race is a physical, not just a cultural, difference, then there may be aspects to it that are being ignored, or even deliberately obscured. Consciousness may not be restricted to the physical (we are more than our bodies), but it is, to an unknown extent, shaped and flavored (“qualified”) by it. The soul can only express itself by being fully embodied, and embodied means in-body. If you think of the body as a kind of ultimate technology by which undifferentiated (eternal) consciousness (soul) enters the material realm, then black, white, red, yellow, etc., bodies are all designed with specific differences, some subtle some not so, and understanding those differences is essential to using the technology right. This might sound a bit New Agey, or overly mechanistic, but it’s the best description I can come up with for now.

And yes, some of these views may just be old baggage which I am going through before tossing out. I don’t know. It’s a good reason to air them, anyway.

Thanks!

47 thoughts on “What We Know, Don’t Know, & Aren’t Supposed to Ask About Race

  1. Honest post, thanks!

    “As EOS made no bones about pointing out”

    Sorry if that was an over-share, or intrusive.

    “Racism is both biologically hard-wired into us and culturally conditioned. Getting free of that is no picnic.”

    I have to disagree with that. Infants don’t care about race. Racism is specifically cultural. If you are raised in a culture, with its associated mores and trappings, and you suddenly see someone who does not fit in with those cultural trappings, then your reaction will be far more culturally determined than racially. Even the studies that show that infants react differently to faces of different races after habituating to faces from their own race posit a social influence rather than an inherent genetic bias. And when they do react differently it is by looking longer, not turning away, and by reaching out to touch, not rejecting. And “researchers also found that babies raised with frequent exposure to people of other races don’t develop this early bias.” -http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060212_racefrm2.htm

    “I have never been one to preach togetherness, because it seems to me that those who do preach it don’t really know how to practice it, and that they preach instead of practicing.”

    Those exceptions to the rule, even when they may seem to be in the majority, and indeed even if they ARE in the majority, shouldn’t affect how an unbiased mind approaches the situation.

    “Another reason I am skeptical about the “togetherness” line is that it usually stems from an assumption of sameness, or at least the desirability of sameness, of homogeneity.”

    While this might be true to the superficially-minded among us it is definitely not so to the people that delve a little deeper. Identity is important, and identity is strongly affected by heritage, so heritage is also important. Togetherness does not necessitate homogeneity, or a loss of individual identity. A painting with complexity, or a musical piece that utilizes a wide array of tones, timbres and moods, is often more rewarding and challenging to ponder than a bland swirl of diluted colors that all run together, or one long sustained major chord, or a machine-like grid of primary colors, or a mechanical recitation of a scale, etc. It is the closeness of the elements together with the distribution and contrast, that makes for an appealing image or composition. Ebb and flow, push and pull, expansion and contraction.

    “any suggestion that blacks are inherently different from whites is almost always seen as claiming that they are inferior to them.”

    That is almost always what IS being suggested.

    The French are “inherently” different from the Russians, and the Irish are “inherently” different from the Italians, but these differences are recognized as cultural in these instances, even when the exact types of white people these cultures are populated by are often quite different from one another. There is obvious genetic variation occurring, from these populations being largely isolated in particular regions for extended periods of time, but it is mostly culture, and in these cases Empire, that has imposed this isolation. I have seen it many times that a black person is raised around all white people and is functionally identical to the people he or she was raised around, and vice versa. However, when you consider African and, say, Native North and South American groups, you will find many striking similarities, even though oceans of time and water separated these groups from one another for many thousands of years. You can also see the genetic variation in action. The Native Americans in the Southern Hemisphere have many similar features to a lot of African groups, from darker skin to wider noses, etc.

    “superficially the statement is self-evident, and so it’s telling that you question it”

    I don’t think it is self-evident. In fact, I think it is only culture that affirms it. It’s also telling that you think this. Historically, British culture has been known (and felt) throughout the world, and perhaps more than any other culture (even the Germans), for having these views.

    “Obviously the difference between races is more than merely cultural, since it’s also physical.”

    Scientifically speaking, the physical differences displayed have nothing to do with race, but with environmental adaptation. The vast majority of the scientific community thinks race is a social construct, and (unlike some topics, like UFOs) they’ve spent a lot of time looking into this subject. The method through which the adaptation occurs between the different groups of humans is identical, thus, we are all of the same race. Further, Africa has more genetic diversity than all other continents combined. By more I mean both more variation and a wider range of variation. Meaning there are groups of (black) Africans that have more in common with Europeans or Asians genetically than they do with some other (black) Africans.

    “what we are is largely determined by DNA”

    And that’s exactly how we know we’re the same species and that race is a myth, and one of the biggest red herrings in human history.

    “even though white people often end up being lumped as “intellectual” beings (to me, far more denigrating than being called physical).”

    This might be more of insult to you, but being labeled as a beast fit only for the field and subjugation is pretty insulting. This is exactly where these kinds of views tend to lead.

    “But that doesn’t mean it’s not accurate or doesn’t have some merit. The Native’s idea is a fairly common one, that each of the races has a particular “gift”—a piece in the puzzle—to bring and that only through the co-operation of all the “tribes” can some sort of harmony be established.”

    It has about as much merit as a daily horoscope. While that might not be absolute zero, 0.000000963% accuracy doesn’t warrant very much consideration in most circumstances.

    “Maybe EOS is right when he says it has to do with instincts—genetic (racial) programming, which goes a lot deeper than culture.”

    Again, I don’t think it “goes deeper” than culture, I think that IS culture.

    “Human aren’t the product of culture, but the reverse.”

    It has always been both. How can we not be a product of our culture? How can culture not be a product of us? It has to be both.

    “We are becoming the product of our culture, however, and that culture is a homogenized, one-size-fits-all culture that, in my view, is fit only for machines (or aliens) to rule over, not for organic human beings to exist inside.”

    I see a highly polarized mainstream with eddies and whirl pools, lined with a pretty vast array of streams that break off into lakes and ponds that are fed by springs from the depths below that generate tributaries that flow back into the mainstream and so forth and so on, all the way to the inevitable ocean. What the media says is not what is actually occurring. Sure, there is a general normalization trend, but that’s because our media is largely controlled by a small amount of people. Everything that is being normalized in the mainstream is not incorrect, however. Also, some things we can all simply accept, while it might take others a bit longer to get on board. Dinosaurs, for instance. Most of us can accept that dinosaurs existed, in some form, a very, very long time ago. Fundamental Christians, creationists, however, often refuse to accept this fact. To them, this widespread acceptance of dinosaurs is another sign that the whole world is marching to a Satanic tune, straight to hell. The fact that someone feels that way does not make it true, not even to them, ultimately.

    “The difference between races could be the result of “root-races” as occult teachings (now forever associated with Nazism, so to be cited with extreme caution) mostly say they are. Or they could simply have to do with different areas of the Earth, shaping the human biological form in different ways. Different biological forms could create different temperaments (as in the animal kingdom), and this in turn would lead to different cultures. It’s still one genus, hence the possibility of interbreeding, but then horses and zebras are one genus too”

    When different species or races breed the resulting offspring is almost always infertile. I should have added that yes, we can breed AND our offspring can also continue to breed, indefinitely. And yes, those occult teachings were very racist, and did nothing but prop up the worldview of the cultures espousing them, namely Europeans, and their Asiatic ascended masters. Blavatsky even mentions in the Secret Doctrine that Africans are, in her opinion, the lowest among the races. How can this be true when Africans, as a group, have the most robust biological diversity on the planet? What makes a group “low” and how do you measure this definitively? Who decides what is low and what is high? When I read that passage I knew the rest of her work would also be riddled with nonsense and inaccuracies. This was very early on in my occult days. There is no better cure for bias than to live on both sides of an issue. Further, to address this issue of hierarchies, which the occultists of old were (are?) so fond of. People often confuse evolution with some unspoken hierarchy, as if we are heading toward some final goal of perfection. This is not the case. Evolution is adaptation, not ascension. Survival of the Fittest does not mean survival of the Objectively Superior. It means those who adapt fastest to any given environment will likely be more successful in that environment than those who do not. Think about high school, if you attended. So, any hierarchy that may seem to arise will, when turned on its side, or introduced to a different and unfamiliar environment, almost immediately become invalid. Even the idea of the food chain is ultimately invalid. Cyclical, and/or fractal organization is natures way.

    “We can splice all sorts of plant organisms together but we don’t know what the results will be in the long run.”

    Well, with humanity, we do know what those results will be. What we have now. All of the races that exist today are the result of people from different groups of humans mating with one another. I have no issue whatsoever with different groups of people breeding. Humans and plants are very different, and two humans mating is not exactly “splicing” human beings together in a lab. Humans are finding other members of their species attractive and fit to breed with and they are creating babies together. No lab needed. No intervention required. We also don’t know if we should go outside today, and what might happen if we do, in the long run, but this sort of thinking, if adopted widely, would be certain to paralyze humanity. One thing we DO know is what happens when the genetic pool we draw from during mating grows smaller and smaller. Inbreeding depression.

    “By “should” I don’t mean ethically, I just mean that we don’t know exactly what is gained and what is lost by mixing races and cultures together, so, as with all experiments, it pays to proceed with caution.”

    Since we have almost never been in the habit of only mating with people from our direct group, and since most of human history is the account of different people from different places meeting and greeting, fighting and fucking, it would seem that NOT mixing the so-called races would be the experiment that we should proceed with cautiously. Mixing races is not an experiment any longer, nor has it been for some time. It is a method.

    “For example, what about the ancestors? Aren’t the ancestors meant to make up a sort of energetic (soul) community? Can we belong to more than one community?”

    Physically speaking, it all blends together, and forms crude oil, or black gold, among other things. Spiritually speaking? How do the ancestors know exactly which groups to go into? How do they organize themselves? How long must a group be active in order for it to be considered for status as an oversoul? How far back does this occur? Aren’t all groups nested in other groups anyway? If so, wouldn’t it follow that there was one ultimate group that nested us all? Shouldn’t we be aiming for that, if we can aim for anything? I don’t know.

    “Does that make mixed race people ambassadors between soul tribes, potentially?”

    Possibly, possibly not, I’d say it depended on the orientation of the individual in question if they wanted to adopt that role. I know I, for one, end up doing exactly that a lot, but I like addressing and unraveling conflict, so is it happenstance that my skin is lighter but I identify as black? Which one came first, my race or my orientation? I’d say orientation. I have not always held these opinions, and they may change again. I don’t know.

    “there is a “party line” about race, a “right way” to think and talk about it”

    Just because this is the case does not make it incorrect. The right way you mention is just one that takes the other so-called races into account. It’s the one that is trying to be more free from bigoted opinions, because it has realized that a bigoted worldview prevents more than it fosters, and that’s not the way of life.

    “it generally lumps together any sort of alternate viewpoints, and even questions, with one group or another that’s already been marginalized as ‘wrong.'”

    I have to admit, this is amusing. If I understand the reference, the group that has “already been marginalized as ‘wrong'” is the group that has done the most marginalization in the first place, and they’re the group that is known for being bigoted and racist and for supporting slavery and eugenics, etc. Now they cry about being marginalized. It’s too funny. Like that white power slogan you may have seen on the internet, something like “Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, European countries for everyone.” They’re genuinely mad about that, and have somehow managed to ignore all the glaring irony and it’s just hilarious to me. Oftentimes this will be coming from Americans. It’s just too much. Here’s the thing. If your position is “Other races aren’t as good as ours, ours is the best, and they should get out of our country, and we should not mix with them as they will taint our pure blood” and you’re saying this in a country that your ancestors invaded and conquered, and/or your country is one that spread out across the globe and invaded and conquered, then you don’t get to cry about it when a tiny fraction of a vaguely similar thing starts happening to you. You’re supposed to be better than that. The thing is, you can be wrong. A group can be wrong. But I don’t think a “race” can be wrong. You’re gonna be seen as wrong to most people these days if you think a skin color is wrong. You look stupid. Stupidity should be marginalized. Things that LOOK like stupidity should be approached with caution, lest stupid ideas infect your mind. It happens to the best of us, myself included. (I’m obviously not saying this in reference to you, but to the group you mentioned as marginalized).

    “A recent example of this is when EOS responded to some of my points by comparing me to an American republican, even though he knows I have far less in common with those guys than I do with Mayans living in stone shacks in the jungle.”

    As I said, that may very well have been an unfair comparison, because I know you a little better than that, but the specific thing you were saying sounded an awful lot like things they say. And they’re often wrong. But I still engaged in dialogue. To marginalize you I would have had to ignore you. If you have questions about race, in my mind, that’s fine. When people pose a lot of these questions, however, they often do so with one foot firmly planted in the realm of pseudoscience, and with the funding or association of known racist organizations, etc. This is why people who ask a lot of these kinds of questions like this get marginalized. They like to phrase it as if they are asking questions, but they’re really trying to forward a hopefully dying worldview.

    “The soul can only express itself by being fully embodied, and embodied means in-body. If you think of the body as a kind of ultimate technology by which undifferentiated (eternal) consciousness (soul) enters the material realm, then black, white, red, yellow, etc., bodies are all designed with specific differences, some subtle some not so, and understanding those differences is essential to using the technology right.”

    These differences are frequently more pronounced within the same race than they are between races, frequently enough that this observation led to our current theories about race as a social construct. This kind of racial theorizing, for me, is not necessary, and is not backed up as necessary by my experience. There is no one thing, that I am aware of, that one “race” can collectively do that another cannot do.

    • Phew. Think I just got “owned.”

      There’s a couple of things I could question here, but not much, and maybe later. I appreciate your taking the time, brother Dva, & I hope some of my Aryan readers do too. ; )

      [edit: did I say “not much” – guess I underestimated my oppositional tendencies.]

    • OK, once more into the fray, dear friends. Afore I enter, lemme just say that I don’t really KNOW anything about this subject, or about any other, it’s based mostly on stuff I’ve read that’s unverified, and on my own experience which, as we know, proves nothing when it comes to generalities. So what’s being discussed here, in my view, isn’t facts but perceptions, beliefs, and assumptions.

      I have to disagree with that. Infants don’t care about race. Racism is specifically cultural.

      I have to disagree with that. Or at least question it. Are infants a good gauge here when infants don’t care about pretty much anything except being fed, changed, and kept warm (they aren’t territorial either)? It takes a short while for babies even to recognize a face, never mind skin color, and AFAIK, infants don’t have survival instincts, which is why they need to be taken care of (they even stick their hands in the fire). Yes, infants raised amidst racial variety would accept other races, but all that says to me is that conditioning can influence, and even trump, instinct. So EOS’s point is self-proving and to my mind invalid. It needs to be counterpointed with the possibility (I’m not that up on the latest biology so someone may set me straight) that animals are programmed to recognize difference and fear it.

      Those exceptions to the rule, even when they may seem to be in the majority, and indeed even if they ARE in the majority, shouldn’t affect how an unbiased mind approaches the situation.

      Is there such a thing as an unbiased mind? I don’t believe it for a minute, and least of all of the mind that thinks it’s unbiased.

      I’d even say that “bias” is built into the nature of “mind” (and of biology too).

      While this might be true to the superficially-minded among us

      Again, whose mind isn’t superficial? These sorts of phrases smack of passive-aggression, to my (superficial) mind.

      Togetherness does not necessitate homogeneity, or a loss of individual identity.

      Agreed, but people who preach it do tend to want to see this happen, such as by suggesting that there’s a right way to think about certain things.

      “any suggestion that blacks are inherently different from whites is almost always seen as claiming that they are inferior to them.”

      That is almost always what IS being suggested.

      Yes but how is that relevant? Isn’t the point to determine what’s being suggested here and now (by me, in this case)? Otherwise aren’t you letting past experience shape present perceptions – i.e., giving in to the mind’s (natural) bias?

      There is obvious genetic variation occurring, from these populations being largely isolated in particular regions for extended periods of time, but it is mostly culture,

      According to you. In my view this is completely unknown and probably unknowable, at least via the “scientific” method (mind).

      I have seen it many times that a black person is raised around all white people and is functionally identical to the people he or she was raised around, and vice versa.

      Again, all this proves to me is that conditioning can completely suppress our nature, a fact I learned from painful experience, as an “autisitc” type who was conditioned to “be” neurotypical. Autists are being trained every day to act like NTs. Does that prove there’s no such thing as autism?

      Scientifically speaking, the physical differences displayed have nothing to do with race, but with environmental adaptation. The vast majority of the scientific community thinks race is a social construct…

      This is very interesting, and new to me. Are you saying that if white people lived in Africa long enough, then future generations would look like black people? And if so, would their genetics change?

      As for citing “The vast majority of the scientific community” to bolster your argument, here’s perhaps where our viewpoints most fully and catastrophically collide. To me, that is at least as persuasive an argument agaisnt something being true as an argument for it. I might as well come back at you at say “Hey EOS, ten thousand years of racism can’t be wrong!”

      Africa has more genetic diversity than all other continents combined.

      Interesting fact (if it is) that shouldn’t be overlooked here, even tho I’ve nothing particular to add to it.

      “what we are is largely determined by DNA”

      And that’s exactly how we know we’re the same species and that race is a myth, and one of the biggest red herrings in human history.

      How so? there’s only 2% difference in DNA between humans and monkeys, or so I heard. If there’s ANY genetic difference between races, doesn’t that indicate that race is anything but “a myth”?

      This might be more of insult to you, but being labeled as a beast fit only for the field and subjugation is pretty insulting. This is exactly where these kinds of views tend to lead.

      So best to just cut them off at the pass? Kill that thought – it leads to harder stuff!?

      It has about as much merit as a daily horoscope. While that might not be absolute zero, 0.000000963% accuracy doesn’t warrant very much consideration in most circumstances.

      You make a pretty convincing case, in this last post, for yourself as the master astrologer and me as the rube reading the dailies. I’m convinced that you’ve done a lot more research than I have anyway. But don’t forget there are hard-headed astronomers who would poo-poo serious astrology as contemptuously as you do the dailies. And those guys are often dumber, in their way, than the peasant with his horoscope.

      Again, I don’t think it “goes deeper” than culture, I think that IS culture.

      If instincts and culture are synonymous, where does nature fit in?

      How can we not be a product of our culture?

      You make some pretty bold claims for transcending even our biology, but culture is inescapable?

      What the media says is not what is actually occurring.

      Good point, but then what IS actually occurring? No one knows because no one has a collective eye view. I don’t watch mainstream media, all my factoids come via social media, individuals, and books. EVERYTHING we get from outside of us is suspect; in the end, short of wisdom transmission (the solar uplink), informed intuition and gut sense is all we have to go on.

      Everything that is being normalized in the mainstream is not incorrect, however. Also, some things we can all simply accept,

      And who decides which things are acceptable?

      For example, you seem to accept that, if a movie star donates millions of dollars to a charitable cause, he must be a good humanitarian guy, not money laundering, maintaining his public image, or into some really dark shit I won’t even mention. For me that’s completely unacceptable and even pretty silly. You see what I mean?

      There is no better cure for bias than to live on both sides of an issue.

      Yep.

      People often confuse evolution with some unspoken hierarchy, as if we are heading toward some final goal of perfection. This is not the case.

      I agree with this intuitively, even if it does sort of cancel out the accepted meaning of the word “evolution.” That’s all right with me.

      Cyclical, and/or fractal organization is natures way.

      I think your point is, if I read it right, that there is one thing that’s evolving, not many. It’s a systems view, and yes, that invalidates the notion of a hierarchy. As long as we identify with our bodies and minds as a discreet self, however, this is all kinda “academic.”

      “We can splice all sorts of plant organisms together but we don’t know what the results will be in the long run.”

      Well, with humanity, we do know what those results will be. What we have now.

      Yeah, and here again might be where we part company. I get an implicit sense from your arguments that you have “accepted” (chosen to believe) that what we have now is part of “progress” and better than what we had before – in this case, interbreeding is obviously right and good because hey, look how much things have improved! But have they really? Flashback to black people living in Africa, doing their thing. White man comes along, abducts them wholesale and ships them over to the New World and turns them into slaves. Flashforward a bit, the slaves are freed and now the black man, no longer African but “African-American,” has his piece of the New World. Flashforwad a few more years and lo, half of those black people are either in prisons or doing crack and gangbanging in the ghettos. Is that better than it was when they were back in Africa? Or even when they were slaves? Or is it just different? If you question evolution, I question progress twice over.

      this sort of thinking, if adopted widely, would be certain to paralyze humanity

      Again there’s the assumption that this would be a “bad thing.” But it could easily be argued that a paralyzed humanity is exactly what’s needed for the good of everything (system freeze = reboot).

      it would seem that NOT mixing the so-called races would be the experiment that we should proceed with cautiously.

      I’m all for it. However, if someone suggested it, they would probably be called a Nazi. : D

      Physically speaking, it all blends together, and forms crude oil, or black gold, among other things.

      That‘s your positive outcome? : /

      Aren’t all groups nested in other groups anyway? If so, wouldn’t it follow that there was one ultimate group that nested us all?

      Of course, but that doesn’t mean that the subgroups aren’t necessary for the functioning of the whole. The heart is part of the body, but it still has to work independently of the lungs. Mash all the organs together and what do you get? A corpse.

      “there is a “party line” about race, a “right way” to think and talk about it”

      Just because this is the case does not make it incorrect.

      In my view, any opinion that’s influenced by outer pressure is incorrect, even if it happens to square with the facts. I’d rather follow my gut and be wrong than toe the line and turn out to be right by fluke. What counts isn’t being right, to my mind, but getting in touch with the part that KNOWS.

      The right way you mention is just one that takes the other so-called races into account. It’s the one that is trying to be more free from bigoted opinions, because it has realized that a bigoted worldview prevents more than it fosters, and that’s not the way of life.

      As you know, I have found liberals to be as bigoted as conservatives, and smugly self-righteous to boot. Again, who cares if they are right if they don’t know what they are talking about? Hollow men can only hold hollow views and perform hollow deeds.

      I have to admit, this is amusing. If I understand the reference, the group that has “already been marginalized as ‘wrong’” is the group that has done the most marginalization in the first place, and they’re the group that is known for being bigoted and racist and for supporting slavery and eugenics, etc. Now they cry about being marginalized. It’s too funny.

      I don’t see your justification for this rant. I’m expressing my “own” views, even if some or even most of them are old outworn ones passed down from dubious sources that are changing; I don’t actually represent this bigoted racist elite you’re talking about and never have. I am as opposed to it as you are. These groups exist in our own minds, first and foremost. I’m just a guy you like to bash ideas and viewpoints out with. Did you forget, or is this what you are getting at: that I am spouting views that belong to someone else?

      But I don’t think a “race” can be wrong.

      What about racethink? The jews thought they were the chosen people (I shouldn’t use past tense): does that mean they are?

      You’re gonna be seen as wrong to most people these days if you think a skin color is wrong. You look stupid.

      Did I ever say a skin color was “wrong”? If not, what’s your point?

      Stupidity should be marginalized.

      [Deleted comment]

      Things that LOOK like stupidity should be approached with caution, lest stupid ideas infect your mind.

      The mind that thinks it’s not stupid is the stupidest mind of all.

      It happens to the best of us, myself included. (I’m obviously not saying this in reference to you, but to the group you mentioned as marginalized).

      I didn’t mention any particular group; you assumed, because you consider the views stupid, that the group must be too, and vice versa. You are locked into a defensive position (or so it looks from over here).

      When people pose a lot of these questions, however, they often do so with one foot firmly planted in the realm of pseudoscience, and with the funding or association of known racist organizations, etc.

      As compared to non-racist associations like, say, the CIA, NASA, the UN? : D Isn’t all mainstream science funded by the same elite factions?

      This kind of racial theorizing, for me, is not necessary, and is not backed up as necessary by my experience. There is no one thing, that I am aware of, that one “race” can collectively do that another cannot do.

      But there are things that some races can do better. Just don’t get me started on the Jews. ; ) As for unnecessary theorizing – is there any other kind? But point taken. I think the fruit of this sort of discussion is less to tear down half-baked beliefs (theories) about race by offering competing ones, than to look at how much we are influenced by presumptions that are sourced outside of us and fueled by the desire to fit in with the group, to keep to the “form.” Of course, rebelling against that can be just as much a trap. The only way to think for oneself is to let go of thinking at all….?

      Thanks again, ShivaMan. Maybe SweatyK has something to add?

  2. Boy am I glad circumstance prevented me from responding before EOS did. He did all the work for me and I’m not sure if there’s any meat left to pick on the bone. 🙂 However, I still want to express myself since the post was primarily directed to my question.

    I shared the article with my wife and we had a very fruitful discussion. As you know she’s Dominican so she’s a mix of African and Native Taino (tho clearly more the former) and possibly Spanish, whereas I’m a northern-Euro mutt (Irish, English, French, German, Pole). I can tell you that the experiment of splicing our genes together has produced two stunningly beautiful children (this according to multiple strangers on the street) with exceptional IQs (if you put any stock into that kind of thing) as well as gifted both physically, musically, artistically and otherwise. So they are “multiracial” and bilingual which is actually quite commonplace here in South Florida. My hope is that one of them marries someone of the “Yellow” “race” so their children can hold all four race suits.

    Which brings me to my first point. The medicine wheel model of race is interesting and I enjoy pondering the possible truth of it. But it is a poetic/symbolic truth. I would place it in the same category as astrology, tho not denigrating it to the daily horoscope as EOS described. These sorts of models when used properly CAN be very useful. When taken too literally they can be limiting and even counterproductive.

    One of the things my wife pointed out regarding your fathers retirement to Barbados was the possibility that you may be projecting onto him. Using him as a scapegoat. Perhaps there is more to the story (there always is) but from what you shared she saw no reason to make such assumptions about his motivations (conscious or otherwise).

    “Racism is… biologically hard-wired”

    I think EOS already addressed this but I would just urge caution when making such claims. I would need to see clear and convincing evidence before I would even tentatively hold such a view. I find it that distasteful and defeatist.

    I do agree with you that race is one of those topics that is so highly emotionally charged that’s it’s extremely difficult to speak on or question. And most people avoid it altogether in the hopes that it will just go away. So I appreciate you bringing it up with the honesty we have all come to expect from you. I think it’s vital to our healing both individually and as a species to have these sorts of conversations as uncomfortable as they may be. The concept of race has a past that should be acknowledged but I’m not sure it has a future.

  3. Is the argument that interbreeding is good because, over here, we have some wonderful mixed race kids, any different than the argument against interbreeding because, over here, we have some wonderful one-race kids? The only difference I can see is that, if you speak up for preserving the integrity of your race, you are seen as racist.

    I’m not against interbreeding, but I am very suspicious of the idea of eradicating race both as an idea and a reality (through crossbreeding), especially when it’s seen as a) self-evidently right; and b) the best and possibly only way to eradicate racism. My view is comparatively mild compared to other people, who number in the thousands, possibly millions. Are they all to be “corrected”? Or simply bred out of existence?

    Put bluntly, I freely empathize with people who find the idea of a universally brown future humanity appalling. I don’t mean I am one of them (I find the idea of any sort of future humanity fairly appalling, based on our current trajectory), only that their perspective is as valid as anyone’s and that it’s deeply wrong to lump them with racists, Neo Nazis, or stupid American republics. You can of course just call them old-fashioned, but keep in mind that all your heartfelt views will seem that way some day, and probably to your own kids (if they don’t already). 🙂

  4. “preserving the integrity of your race”

    Well, maybe if I was pure blood myself I could entertain that thought but when your genetic lineage (in just the last century) cuts a line clear across western Europe it stretches the bounds of credulity. But they’re all white so that’s OK. As you pointed out the concept of race goes back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians.

    But the term “white race” or “white people” entered the European languages in the later 17th century, originating with the racialization of slavery at the time, in the context of the Atlantic slave trade and enslavement of native peoples in the Spanish Empire.

    According to Gregory Jay, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, “Before the age of exploration, group differences were largely based on language, religion, and geography. … the European had always reacted a bit hysterically to the differences of skin color and facial structure between themselves and the populations encountered in Africa, Asia, and the Americas”

    “Race thinking … made social categories into racial truths.” “Race thinking” in South America can be traced to the social categories of colonialism and state formation: “White, black, and brown are abridged, abstracted versions of colonizer, slave, and colonized.”

    Race is the mind-virus of Empire

  5. Perhaps. I’m unconvinced, and a bit disappointed you obscured all of (what I felt were) my more heartfelt points by throwing this blanket denial over everything.

    I am at least as inclined to think that the idea that “race is the mind-virus of Empire” is the second matrix you, along with almost every other “forward-thinker” have wandered into, and the evidence for me is the shakiness of these apparently (superficially) powerful arguments that start to show massive cracks as soon as any real scrutiny is applied.

    Or, it could be that I am so stuck in my ways and possessed by the mind-virus of Empire that I can’t see what’s obvious to all you enlightened liberals . . .

    My own experience says otherwise, that races exist, are enormously different, and that all this scientific evidence is just the latest Empire-smoke to obscure the great big fire under its foundations.

    • [addition to my previous post:]

      Probably the main obstacle here is that we want our views to be extended to others; it’s a species question so we think we need to have views that can apply to the species. But they can’t. At base, my main truck is this: if I express how i feel, personally, I will be called by most free-thinking liberals a racist. But I know that I’m not a racist, no more than the next guy anyway (inc the liberal). This leads me to think that there is something fundamentally “off’ about the supposedly more enlightened and currently accepted views on race, including those put forward by the two commenters at this blog. If thoughts, words, and feelings, have to be policed to maintain a line of argument, then something does’t add up.

      My point above, which sweatyk ignored, was that, if racial tolerance includes intolerance of people whose views are seen as “stupid” or “backward” (when I know from experience that some of the people who hold these views are anything but), then the mind-virus of race isn’t being removed but only changing its form, mutating in order to survive.

  6. “infants don’t have survival instincts”

    what about the suckling instinct? it’s the first thing they do when they come out of the womb is search desperately for the mother’s breast. and to use the example that an infant will stick it’s hand into the fire misses the point. that flame burns is not an instinct but learned knowledge. the instinct is to avoid the pain signals being sent to the brain and the infant will remove it’s hand if it’s burning.

    • My phrasing was bit sloppy, since instincts by definition are innate and have to do with survival. What I meant, maybe, is that human infants seem different from animal young in that they are neotonous and remain in a state of play for a very long period, during which time they have to be watched over by adults or older children or they wouldn’t survive. I read about a tribe a while ago that lets its children stick hands in the fire, play with knives, etc, to speed up the learning process. Probably my confusion around this has to do with humans now being so thoroughly conditioned, from birth, that we don’t really know what’s instinct and what isn’t.

  7. To be clear I know you’re not a racist (at least anymore than I am, in spite of your doubts and in spite of my black wife). It just seems to me that you’re entertaining ideas that are racist in origin so you should be aware of that and tread carefully. The idea that “the concept of race as mind virus of empire” is itself a “mind virus of empire” is a theory that fails to take into account the historical origins of the concept of race. now you might say that history as I have laid it out above is phony baloney but it seems to make sense to me at a narrative level and if you have a better story to tell then I’d love to hear it.

  8. What if we drop concepts altogether and stick to experience?

    “Ideas that are racist in origin” – as compared to ideas that are what – liberal in origin? If we judge an idea by its source, then everything is pretty dodgy, and in most cases we can’t even really know much about the source, except by referring to other sources. Are the ideas I am entertaining racist in origin? If you accept, ipso facto, as you have, that the idea of race is bogus – and racist in origin! – then they are. But not if you don’t take that as proven. We cans ay, perhaps, that reports about race have been exaggerated and distorted; and that they have been misused and misapplied to further racist agendas. But does this make them racist ideas? Was Darwin propagating racist ideology? Or was he just inadvertently propping it up?

    In the future we may look back at the idea of a human species, or of individual people existing discreetly in any sense at all, as laughable, and as a demented form of prejudice behind millennia of unnecessary suffering. Recognizing the relative unimportance of race may be a step towards recognizing the unimportance of identity, period; or it could be a step backward. Who knows?

    If I had never heard the idea of race, would I still have experienced it as a tangibel reality while traveling in Northern Africa and Central America? Would I have attributed the extreme differences in appearance and behavior to some difference that was more than just cultural? Who knows? My sense is that I would have, and that there’s a great mystery in the idea of race beyond it being simply a “mind-virus.”

  9. [Jasun’s note: before approving this comment, I did ask Sindre (who is an intelligent chap who I have met personally) to leaven his remark and post something that was more likely to be received by other people following this thread. I pointed out that his comment doesn’t really represent him as the thoughtful, respectful person he is, and would probably rub people (esp EOS) the wrong way. He chose not to follow my suggestion so I’m approving the post anyway, as I don’t feel right about censoring it.]

    I encourage people to read more about genetics and biology there are different races with different innate qualities. Ask any respectable biologist today. And babies show different behaviour among different races(there was an experiment done on this showing different babies response to stimuli, but can’t find link). The blank slate theory is simply outdated, if you look at real science one can see that intelligence for example is at least 60% inherited(from twin studies). It is a nice idea that we are all equal, our multicultural societies are actually built on this fact. That different ethnic groups vary in intelligence is an inconvenient truth to say the least. anyway look at these links if you want to learn more, I can’t be bothered with all the fallacies. We have had the flynn effect the latest decades but that is wearying off.

    Frankly I would hope the world moved on and recognized reality for what it is. But it seems like for new ideas to take hold the people holding the old ideas must die first. This blank slatism came in the 1960s, so hopefully this nonsense will go away soon, it has had its time. In the political sciences of today they refuse to learn lessons from sociobiology, evolutionary psychology and so forth, this is sad because this is my opinion is superior to explaining human behaviour. I am Norwegian, there was a documentary about this subject that aired a couple of years ago people should check it out.

    Ancient wisdom as far as I know agree with my that the races are different. It is only in modern times we get this absurd notion that everyone are equal, just go to africa and find a pigmy baby, raise him in a western society and there is an equal chance of him becoming an astrophysicist compared to for example a 130 iq european or asian. Low class people today basically agree with me, it is just the clever sillies of the upper class who almost religiously agree on this suicidal equalism. I think this is because of their high intelligence they can easily be enthralled by intellectual ideas that are so distant from reality. This universalism which europeans in particular like to believe is dangerous in many cases like for example americans need to democratize the world because they believe everyone is essentially the same and therefore all peoples should have democracy, instead of different peoples choosing their own destinies. America had the capability of landing on the moon, I do not think any society in Africa have the intellectual capacity to come to these technological heights.

    http://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/

    check hbd section:
    http://www.aimlessgromar.com/reading-list/

    Generally I find that this belief in blank slatism is more about keeping the right image for society. People who actually interact with people of different ethnicities and are not ideologically blinded by cultural marxism understand this. I realise using the term cultural marxism puts me in the right wing camp, i much rather see myself beyond left and right politics, I much rather be labeled a guy who strives for a new culture.

    and here is some egyptian stuff:

    «A]lthough nothing even hints at the existence of a code of ethics attached to the Religion of the Disk, in the amount of evidence yet unearthed, there are, in his Longer Hymn to the Sun, three remarkable lines which express, more eloquently perhaps than any others, the young king’s idea of man—three lines which have not attracted, as far as I know, the special attention of any archaeologists: “Thou hast put every manin his place. Thou framest their lives. Thou givest everyone his belongings, reckoning his length of days. Thou hast made them different in form, in the colour of their skins, and in speech. As a Divider, Thou dividest the foreign people [from one another].”

    Oh and Jason can you email me you entire essay from the movie review blog post?

    «These words clearly show that, far from putting “all men” on the same level, Akhnaton stressed the differences between one human race and another as an expression of that Will of the Sun that has moulded the world or, in modern speech, as a result of the fact that man, like the rest of creatures of this earth, is a “solar product,” owing his very being to a combination of definite bio-physical conditions. He states here without ambiguity that all features that differentiate one people from another—features among which the racial ones: form and colour, are not only all-important but fundamental the first ones mentioned—are the Sun’s work:—“As a Divider, Thou hast divided the foreign people . . .”—which logically implies that those differentiating qualities should be taken into account in human legislation, if one is to have a world in which men “live in Truth.” The existence of different—unequal—human races comes within the pattern of the eternal order;has to be according to the finality which lies, as a guiding principle, within the play of the immanent Creative Power: the “Heat-and-Light-within-the-Disk.” One is not to mix or to forward the mixture of that which the Creative Power has divided—nor, in any way, to hide or suppress the signs of division.»

    http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/07/akhnaton-on-racial-diversity/

    And just so we can get it over with:
    racist bigoted nazi

    And I have immigrant friends and went to a heavily immigrant high school.

  10. Whew! This is enjoyable. Hey K.!

    First, I want to address some of the more personal incorrect perceptions responded to in my last post, and put them all in one area for clarity’s sake.

    “Is there such a thing as an unbiased mind? ”

    I do need to start clarifying a bit more. I fought the urge to do so for the sake of brevity (?!) but I should not have resisted. I forgot I’m talking to people at least as analytical as myself!

    I do not believe in a fully unbiased mind. What I mean by this is a more or less unbiased mind, or, to be precise, a less biased mind. One that is perhaps less fueld by a desire to “preserve the race” or one that is more interested in confronting things “as they are” rather than as one would want them to be, or rather than as one fears them to be (not saying that these are your motivations). I will accept any evidence that demonstrably goes against the theories and ideas I currently hold, as I am (somewhat) firm in my awareness of my own self, which has the effect of making me (somewhat) flexible when it comes to the real of ideas. It will make no difference to me. I am already the product of “racial” mixing, and that cannot be changed, nor do I want it to (any longer, and only after fighting off years of cultural programming, which makes me think that any cultural shift towards accepting racial mixing is a byproduct of the adapting power structure shifting and attempting to insinuate itself into the changing times in a bid for relevance, not necessarily as part of a core agenda [from divide and conquer to unite and conquer?, or the death throes a dying limb in the body of control?]). I just have not seen that evidence yet.

    “Again, whose mind isn’t superficial? These sorts of phrases smack of passive-aggression, to my (superficial) mind.”

    I hope it’s clear that I wasn’t calling your mind superficial at all. Whose mind is superficial? Those whose minds continue to go along with what they were raised with, that do not question or go against the beliefs laid at their feet from birth. Or the mind that does not delve deeper into difficult issues out of fear, or hesitancy, or desire.

    “You make a pretty convincing case, in this last post, for yourself as the master astrologer and me as the rube reading the dailies.”

    That wasn’t what I was trying to communicate at all. That was directed towards the shaman that created the wheel, and I’m fully aware he has access to a whole host of knowledge I do not possess. That doesn’t make him right in everything, however. As SweatyK mentioned, there may be some merit to it, but I was simply saying that I do not find there to be much merit to it all when considering the research I’ve put into the subject. There is far more variety than that wheel indicates. Oddly, that view is far more homogenous than the one I’m putting forth.

    “I don’t actually represent this bigoted racist elite you’re talking about and never have….Did you forget, or is this what you are getting at: that I am spouting views that belong to someone else?”

    That’s exactly what I was saying. Or, even more to the point, I was simply commenting on what I perceived to be the marginalized group you mentioned.

    “Did I ever say a skin color was “wrong”? If not, what’s your point?”

    Again, not meant for you.

    “The mind that thinks it’s not stupid is the stupidest mind of all.”

    I disagree. I think there’s a difference between stupidity and ignorance. We can be intelligent, and we can be aware that we are intelligent, and that awareness of our own intelligence can inform us of the crushing limits on our own intelligence. I don’t think that’s stupid at all.

    “I didn’t mention any particular group; you assumed…”

    You said: “it generally lumps together any sort of alternate viewpoints, and even questions, with one group or another that’s already been marginalized as ‘wrong.’” I did assume that the marginalized group you mentioned would thus be, for lack of a more nuanced term, Racists. I do not see another way to read this at the moment. What was this in reference to?

    In other words, I don’t think you’re a racist, and I don’t think I’m an unbiased genius.

    It’s already getting kind of long if those were only the personal issues I wanted to clear up!

    But now to the other issues:

    “Infants…”

    There is something to be said for the reaction of infants to sameness/difference as NOT hostile, and instead curious. As SweatyK pointed out, the first instinct of a human infant is to suckle. It will suckle on whatever teat is offered, black, white, flesh, rubber. It will suckle and it will bond. These are extremely formative moments, and clearly bonding is of more importance and predominance in our genetic programming than any subtle inclination towards xenophobia. Genetically speaking, genes seek variation. They wish to add as much to themselves as possible. They wish to be as robust as possible, and blending gene pools is the best way to do this. It’s far more arguable that we are programmed to find other races attractive than the opposite. Consider the history of war, which is the history of humanity.We would capture the women and bring them back. Procuring new and exotic women to blend with is one of (if not the single most) dominant genetic urges in human males. This is often interfered with culturally (as are many of our genetic urges), but even so, the urge of our genes to diversify has clearly prevailed.

    Which brings us to (fast-forward):

    “I get an implicit sense from your arguments that you have “accepted” (chosen to believe) that what we have now is part of “progress” and better than what we had before”

    That’s a pretty big misconception I need to clear up here. I don’t believe in Progress, as mentioned before in not-so-many words (ebb and flow, cyclical, and/or fractal organization etc). The “What” I was referring to was the so-called races “we have now” and not at all the current arrangement of the world we live in. All of the “races” that currently exist are already the result of “racial” mixing. My opinion of the state of the world would be another conversation entirely (but rest assured, it is not a rosy one by any means).

    “Flashforwad a few more years and lo, half of those black people are either in prisons or doing crack and gangbanging in the ghettos.”

    That’s one of those things that irks me a little. I assume you don’t mean literally half, but the actual percentage of black people involved in doing that kind of thing is so much smaller than half that you have to wonder why it’s almost always assumed that half, or even most of us have been to jail, sold coke, etc. Even when you only consider black males, it’s still considerably less than half (currently). Personally, I have been involved in some similar activities, so it’s not on personal grounds that I object. It’s for all the black people who have never cooked crack or smoked rocks or been involved with cocaine, gangs or prison. I’m not saying these things aren’t epidemics in the black community, they are. AIDS is an epidemic as well. But if people started saying half of all black people had AIDS…

    Still, it is a pretty bad situation, regardless of the exact numbers. I have never lost sight of that. But it’s another conversation.

    (Rewind)

    Re: “That is almost always what IS being suggested” you responded “Yes but how is that relevant?”

    Because it shows the culturally biased roots and xenophobic intentions of most people who forward these ideas.

    “Isn’t the point to determine what’s being suggested here and now (by me, in this case)?”

    Yes, but your points can’t be addressed without referring to these other people. They are influenced by these other people, as you mentioned, and so they have to be acknowledged in context.

    “Otherwise aren’t you letting past experience shape present perceptions – i.e., giving in to the mind’s (natural) bias?”

    Always, we both are. I misspoke when I said unbiased, but I already addressed that.

    “According to you. In my view this is completely unknown and probably unknowable, at least via the “scientific” method (mind).”

    I’m not sure I understand. Genetic differences count for differences in facial structure, skin color, hair color and thickness, etc. If you take a representative sample from France, Germany, Spain, England, Hungary and Romania you’ll find a pretty wide variety of different tendencies. You will also find many similarities (far more similarities than differences, as with all humanity) but the differences are the key to spotting the genetic variations, as is the susceptibility to various diseases and maladies. The thing is, however, these are not “racial” differences, and no one really suggests that. They are all white, and so part of the “White” race. The existence of The White Race is a myth, as SweatyK pointed out, created largely for economical purposes. According to findings made and published by Alan R. Templeton, a biologist from Washington University, “85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA [is] due to individual variation.” He goes on to say “Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There’s lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it’s basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor.” He uses the example I mentioned earlier, in a different post, but he’s obviously more specific. According to Templeton, among Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians, you will find more genetic similarities between the Europeans and the sub-Saharan Africans than you will between the sub-Saharan Africans and the Melanesians even though “sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races.” He concludes “The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another, and thus historically don’t show any distinct evolutionary lineages within humanity…Rather, all of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage.”

    “Does that prove there’s no such thing as autism?”

    No, but neither does your assertion “prove” that conditioning can completely suppress nature, or that there is an inherent nature that is so rigidly defined as to make certain traits the sole providence of certain “races” (or that races exist), etc.

    ” Are you saying that if white people lived in Africa long enough, then future generations would look like black people? And if so, would their genetics change?”

    You’re basically asking if random mutation and adaptation will repeat itself. I don’t know, but it seems doubtful.

    “As for citing “The vast majority of the scientific community” to bolster your argument, here’s perhaps where our viewpoints most fully and catastrophically collide. To me, that is at least as persuasive an argument agaisnt something being true as an argument for it. I might as well come back at you at say “Hey EOS, ten thousand years of racism can’t be wrong!””

    Well, I do consider that unfortunate. How can we discuss scientific things if you have absolutely no trust in science? The thing is, work has been put in, by a lot intellectual and analytical people. They publish their findings and they publish the methodology they employ to come to those findings and they submit everything to peer review. This is not philosophy. Your 10,000 years of racism, on the other hand, can actually be proven to be yet another myth, as mentioned earlier. Racism, as we know it, has simply not existed for 10,000 years. It was created by slave traders. Prior to the slave trade, all men were considered men. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not hold slaves based on race. They even had African Emperors. Even in it inception modern slavery was not based on race. “Initially, the colonists attempted to enslave Native Americans. They also imported thousands of white indentured servants. White servants were treated like slaves. They were bought, sold, put up as stakes in card games and raped, beaten and killed with impunity.” The slaveholders, confronted with their own hypocrisy in proclaiming to be Christians while enslaving other men, and confronted by political “necessity” invented racism as a justification to continue holding the most alien among the slaves as inhuman beasts of burden. Too many times it happened that white, black and native rose together against the ruling institutions of the day. Massa needed to squash that.

    “How so? there’s only 2% difference in DNA between humans and monkeys, or so I heard. If there’s ANY genetic difference between races, doesn’t that indicate that race is anything but “a myth”?”

    I think you’re referring to the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. They are our closest relatives, along with Bonobos, but there is more genetic variation distributed amongst chimps than amongst ALL human beings. The difference is probably closer to 4%, and either way “each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences.” So even if chimps were 98.8% identical there is room for a huge amount of different expressions, as is evidenced by the existence of chimps and humans. “And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently–they can be “turned on” in different amounts, in different places or at different times.” So actually it supports the stance that race is a myth.

    “So best to just cut them off at the pass? Kill that thought – it leads to harder stuff!?”

    No, it is simply demonstrably not true, and entertaining false ideas as hard fact does often lead to all kinds of fuckery, so yes, cutting it off at the head is a good idea. Or, in this case, at the tail, as the fuckery has already transpired.

    “don’t forget there are hard-headed astronomers who would poo-poo serious astrology as contemptuously as you do the dailies”

    Well, what scientists say in private and in public are often different things, but you’re right. The difference is, they don’t usually look into things like astrology. When they do, and when the experiments show a tendency for some astrological predictions to be correct, they change their minds. See Michel Gauquelin, however right or wrong he may have been, he was a skeptic and he did the knowledge, his data showed him something other than what he expected and he had to accept that.

    “And those guys are often dumber, in their way, than the peasant with his horoscope.”

    So are the really intelligent yet racially intolerant people you know. 🙂

    “If instincts and culture are synonymous, where does nature fit in?”

    By nature do you mean temperament? If so, it fits in right at the beginning. How we handle our culturally developed instincts depends on our general temperament, a thing which (even genetically speaking) can be modified. The same holds true for how we handle our biological instincts.

    “but culture is inescapable?”

    Inescapable is not the right word. We can change, but the imprint is always there. This is probably also true of biology. We may be able to migrate our consciousness into nano-processors and drift through space (this may have already happened) but we will probably always have some slight urge to return to biology (this may have already happened).

    “but then what IS actually occurring?”

    Humanity? Is that too simple?

    “in the end, short of wisdom transmission (the solar uplink), informed intuition and gut sense is all we have to go on.”

    And when informed intuitions and gut senses suggest methods for establishing (at least relative) facts in the chaos do we ignore that? How else will we know what food poisons us, and what food sustains us? I think everything is essentially as basic as that, at the core. When extrapolating there is room for error, but there is room for error anyway. That does not convince me we should stop extrapolating. We would never know what food to eat, or which plants heal, or when to plant, or when to leave or when to stay.

    “And who decides which things are acceptable?”

    Things like “There is a sun. Water sustains us. Cobras are often venomous. Monkeys are not horses. Removing a persons head is always detrimental to that persons continued existence.” These are acceptable, in the sense that I meant, because they are demonstrable and we can make predictions based off of them and get consistent results.

    “For example, you seem to accept that, if a movie star donates millions of dollars to a charitable cause, he must be a good humanitarian guy, not money laundering, maintaining his public image, or into some really dark shit I won’t even mention. For me that’s completely unacceptable and even pretty silly. You see what I mean?”

    Well, you’re making far more assumptions than I am, both about me and about Brad Pitt. I have never seen any evidence that Brad Pitt needed to launder money, nor have I ever seen any evidence that he’s into some “really dark shit.” I haven’t even heard any totally unverifiable and probably unreliable, considering the level of celebrity Brad Pitt has attained (or been cursed with), witness testimony that said Brad Pitt was horrible human being, or anything of the sort. All I know is he has founded humanitarian organizations and has donated to other humanitarian organizations and has publicly supported many humanitarian efforts. I never said that made him good, and I readily acknowledged that a lot of his public persona is image building and good guy posturing. I know almost nothing about Brad Pitt. In fact, the most private detail I know about Brad Pitts life comes from Mike Tyson’s (hilarious and recommended, especially in the context, actually) one man show “Mike Tyson: Undisputed Truth” where Mike relates the story of the time he caught Brad Pitt with his then soon-to-be ex-wife. So yeah, as far as I know, Brad Pitt is a humanitarian in the sense that he gives money and exposure to humanitarian issues. If I am exposed to evidence to the contrary, that I am capable of finding reliable and compelling, that’s a different story. We have to go with what we know though, right?

    “Again there’s the assumption that this would be a “bad thing.””

    Well, paralysis is almost always bad for an organism, much less billions of organisms. I don’t see how mental stagnation can help us. A system freeze is not a system reboot. Rebooting is an active process, a freeze is a symptom that lets you know something is wrong.

    “That‘s your positive outcome?’

    No, that’s just what happens!

    “Mash all the organs together and what do you get? A corpse.”

    Yes, but if you connect them with pathways that allow them to enrich one another you get a healthy living body. If you rip the legs off and throw the arms in the ocean and tear the heart out and cut the brain into a thousand pieces you also get a corpse, though it might be a little less apparent that that’s what you have.

    “As you know, I have found liberals to be as bigoted as conservatives, and smugly self-righteous to boot. Again, who cares if they are right if they don’t know what they are talking about? Hollow men can only hold hollow views and perform hollow deeds.”

    Again, the men are not the ideas.

    “What about racethink? The jews thought they were the chosen people (I shouldn’t use past tense): does that mean they are?”

    Again, that’s not a racial issue. What race is Jewish? That’s a cultural issue, still. There are many different Semitic types, which of these that follow the Jewish faith are of a specifically Jewish race? There are Ethiopian Semites that are Jewish. Didn’t the Jews mix with the Germans and other European groups for hundreds of years?

    “As compared to non-racist associations like, say, the CIA, NASA, the UN? : D Isn’t all mainstream science funded by the same elite factions?”

    No, not really, There are also wealthy patrons to the sciences. Either way, not all of the funding is given with a specific agenda in mind. A lot of money comes from tax payers as well and is allocated into a general pool. There is a general grant amount that individual researchers can pull from, and they have to go through the whole grant application process and present a proposal which is then reviewed, etc, and then funds are granted. Funds have been granted to all kinds of research, not just research that promotes the elite agenda, if such a monolithic thing can even be said to exist at this level (more like various elites and various agendas). There are problems with the model, but it’s not so bad as you imply.

    “But there are things that some races can do better.”

    Like what? You can name things that some races HAVE DONE better, perhaps (and that’s a very conditional perhaps) but “can do?” And how have you determined that cultural bias isn’t both interfering with and muddying the data? If you mean white people can blend into snow banks better and black people can blend into the night better…well… 🙂

    “The only way to think for oneself is to let go of thinking at all….?”

    Yep. If you love yourself, let it go.

    “Is the argument that interbreeding is good because, over here, we have some wonderful mixed race kids, any different than the argument against interbreeding because, over here, we have some wonderful one-race kids?”

    Yes. The burden of proof, that race mixing degrades the organism, then falls back on the racists, (it never actually left, but for the sake of discussion). A bunch of mixed race kids that shine and are intelligent and happy and not deformed, and can keep up with or even surpass their peers etc, proves that there is no problem mixing races. A bunch of so-called pure race kids doing the same just proves that kids can do well. We knew that, no one challenged that. There are no pure races anyway. And when you take this to it’s logical conclusion, as many empires have found out in the past, keeping the blood too pure WILL result in mutation and degradation, including deformities and mental retardation, etc.

    “I am very suspicious of the idea of eradicating race both as an idea and a reality”

    And I am very suspicious of the idea of race being promoted as a reality. I am not suspicious of crossbreeding, because I do not believe that humans mating qualifies as crossbreeding. I don’t think it’s the only way to eradicate racism either. I think education and art is the best way. Why is it that more and more science and art funding is being pulled from schools on a daily basis, and why are more and more schools closing, especially in inner city and poor rural areas?

    “Are they all to be “corrected”? Or simply bred out of existence?’

    All people and ideas will probably eventually be bred out of existence, so yes. they are. Is that what I’m advocating? Not at all. I’m not a eugenicist. Education and art.

    “Put bluntly, I freely empathize with people who find the idea of a universally brown future humanity appalling. I don’t mean I am one of them (I find the idea of any sort of future humanity fairly appalling, based on our current trajectory), only that their perspective is as valid as anyone’s and that it’s deeply wrong to lump them with racists, Neo Nazis, or stupid American republics.”

    Why would they find it appalling? And would a universally white humanity be better for them? And we’d probably be more golden, anyway, if such a thing can even happen. We might start developing new colors, like in the Vedas, such as blue and green. I’d like that…

    • any cultural shift towards accepting racial mixing is a byproduct of the adapting power structure shifting and attempting to insinuate itself into the changing times in a bid for relevance, not necessarily as part of a core agenda [from divide and conquer to unite and conquer?, or the death throes a dying limb in the body of control?]). I just have not seen that evidence yet.

      You may have seen evidence but not recognized it as such; that’s the problem with the mind and its bias. But either way, this comes close to what I’m feeling, have always felt, around the subject, that Culture/Empire adapts to survive, which entails co-opting (or creating) whatever latest “progressive” science or philosophy you care to cite. You’ve done a lot of research and come away convinced that race doesn’t exist. It’s possible that if I did the same research I might feel as convinced (though I doubt it), but even if I did, I’d also try to remember that convictions don’t equal truth.

      SweatyK posted this thread at his FB page and someone responded with this comment: “For his own sake, and for the sake of anyone he has influence over, I hope Thomas Anderson [that’s me] can burn off this anachronistic bullshit. He’s pushing 46 and this is where he is? We’ve already had at least a few hundred years of fashionably racist intellectualism out of Europe, so if he’s such an intellectual, maybe it’s time for Jason to accept his personal mortality and stop acting like the world will fall apart if he stops thinking about it?” What the comment confirms is that, for me to openly question assumptions and de rigeur beliefs about race (eg), for me not to get with the current consensus of what “right thinking” (or as you call them, “the facts”) is, makes me anachronistic. Positions like this send the race debate into a new Dark Ages – or is it the same old dark ages in a new form? And this person is not unintelligent, either (present evidence to the contrary).

      (Brief detour) My point about the mind being invariably stupid is a semantic one, and/or a whole other topic: I don’t see the mind as existing outside of thoughts and memories, I don’t think the mind CAN think at all, but rather IS thought. The mind can be in service to ego, as it is in 99.999999999% of the time, in which case it is ALWAYS stupid, no matter how well informed; or it can be in service to the Soul, in which case it has no need of facts to be lucid and bright. (End detour)

      My wife’s been commenting behind the scenes that one of the difficulties of this discussion is that I am trying to talk about race separate from the question of power dynamics; I think she’s right, I am, and it may simply not be possible. The playing field isn’t level and hasn’t been for a long time. As a white person I have the luxury of detaching somewhat from these questions (more than SweatyK who has a black wife), but at the same time, I have the disadvantage of being an easy target for group-thinkers like the above FB malingerer, who want to keep the discussion inside the safe parameters laid down by Culture/Empire.

      Why is it that groups that today spout “racist” ideas which were once used, and maybe even seeded, by the Empire (dominant ideology) are now being marginalized and demonized by that same Culture? Is it because the Culture has adapted to meet the changing realities, as you mention above, without changing its core agenda? Now these groups that are tasteless enough to keep those “anachronistic” ideas alive – fueled by their resistance to the New Liberal Ideology of Empire – are demonized and scapegoated by “progressives” unwittingly serving the new face of Empire?

      Consider the history of war, which is the history of humanity.We would capture the women and bring them back. Procuring new and exotic women to blend with is one of (if not the single most) dominant genetic urges in human males.

      Interesting argument for the naturalness (rightness) of crossbreeding :/

      “Flashforwad a few more years and lo, half of those black people are either in prisons or doing crack and gangbanging in the ghettos.”
      That’s one of those things that irks me a little. I assume you don’t mean literally half…

      That was lazy and insensitive, & I apologize – especially since anyone so inclined could read it as suggesting that this was a result of black (lack of) character, rather than blacks being forced to adapt to a culture that was antithetical to/hostile towards them in the first place.

      “The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another, and thus historically don’t show any distinct evolutionary lineages within humanity…Rather, all of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage.”

      Interesting but what’s it prove besides that one guy’s, or one group’s, research has led them him/them to this opinion? How do we know that five or fifty years from now there won’t be a whole new slew of evidence/opinion that reverse this? We don’t, never can, and never will. Yes observational science for knowing what fruit to eat and which snakes are poisonous is valid; but I don’t see how the racial discussion even approaches that kind of observable, verifiable, experiential level. Nor do I see how you expect people to deny the evidence of their senses because of words on a page or screen – or more to the point, why you think they SHOULD. Well, I guess I do understand the second, because you think that this will help people get past racial prejudice/persecution. But will it? Isn’t it as likely to only increase the divide, not just between races (even while they are getting mashed together) but between groups within a given race?

      Variation is a part of evolution; saying that it’s all one race at its “root” doesn’t change the apparent fact that we have now split into several VISIBLY DISTINCT races and the clear suggestion that there is a purpose to this diversification. Most people would find it silly to argue that the Dalai Lama, Mike Tyson, and Crispin Glover are all the same race. For once, I am with the majority. & don’t forget that science (maths) can still prove that an elephant can hang off a cliff by a daisy.

      How can we discuss scientific things if you have absolutely no trust in science?

      I cite scientific research too, but I wouldn’t ever use consensus as proof that something was accurate. If I can use scientific research to develop my own theories or narratives, then it’s useful, that’s all. I try not to ever use it to prove a point. This is ALL hearsay. Man to man, what do we know? Only what we have experienced directly for ourselves, and even that’s touch and go.

      Christians while enslaving other men, and confronted by political “necessity” invented racism as a justification to continue holding the most alien among the slaves as inhuman beasts of burden

      My sense is that this is accurate, and an important point. So it’s not that racism is hard-wired into us biologically, but that the need for an “other” to exploit and demonize is fundamental to all social groupings (see Girard), and racism is a recent expression/rationalization of that need. Hence my comment, which no one took up, that intolerance of “racism” is the same mind-virus as racial intolerance – only after a sneaky costume change behind the scenes.

      I think you’re referring to the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. They are our closest relatives, along with Bonobos, but there is more genetic variation distributed amongst chimps than amongst ALL human beings. The difference is probably closer to 4%, and either way “each human cell contains roughly three billion base pairs, or bits of information. Just 1.2 percent of that equals about 35 million differences.” So even if chimps were 98.8% identical there is room for a huge amount of different expressions, as is evidenced by the existence of chimps and humans. “And even two identical stretches of DNA can work differently–they can be “turned on” in different amounts, in different places or at different times.” So actually it supports the stance that race is a myth.

      I read that twice and I still couldn’t follow your reasoning. But it seems that you could also argue that sex and any other sort of identity is a myth. Humanity is a myth too; are we ready to practice that theory?

      No, it is simply demonstrably not true, and entertaining false ideas as hard fact does often lead to all kinds of fuckery, so yes, cutting it off at the head is a good idea. Or, in this case, at the tail, as the fuckery has already transpired.

      You haven’t demonstrated it to me. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you and SweatyK have demonstrated that it’s impossible to find a real dividing line between races (I don’t think you have, but I’m willing to go along with it, it seems logical enough): does that prove that races don’t exist? Well what does exist? Night and day don’t really exist either except as a continuum, but we still need to treat them as “real,” unless we live in a biosphere and cut ourselves off from Nature entirely.

      I think there’s a subtle but key difference not been recognized here, which is the difference between not identifying with the body (good), and not listening to the body (allowing it to tell us what it wants, likes, and experiences – bad). Accepting that my consciousness exists within and perceives through a white-race body is not the same, at all, as self-identifying as white and all the cultural baggage and power dynamics of that identification. A non-black can verbally abuse a black person simply by using a racial slur (the word we all know but which only blacks can safely use now); no black man could ever abuse a white man this way (cracker just ain’t gonna do it). Isn’t this because black people have been identified by white people for hundreds of years, partly by using that word, as inferior, as a slave and now (by US cops at least) criminal class? To “attack” a black person, all you have to do is remind them of their race and all the history that comes with it. Isn’t that’s the power dynamic in a nutshell: if you’re black, it means you are (in danger of being) identified among the exploited class, and with a single word?

      As you point out, this sort of racial-based exploitation was created as a pretext to justify exploitation that was going to happen anyway, one way or another, to one class of people or another. You argue that this implies race was invented to justify the abuse. I would suggest rather that, when race became used as a justification for exploitation, it became almost impossible for said race to “own” their own bodies, their own genetic heritage, and that this was what really stripped blacks of their “power,” their imperative to be fully embodied as people of Earth.

      All these are new thoughts for me, so give it some distance if it comes out “off” or skewed in any way; but it also occurs to me that this relates to how there’s been a sort of reverse colonization by blacks in the Western world, as white kids emulate the black rap-gangsta culture, which (my guess) was adopted by “niggas” (I use quotes to reduce shock potential) as a way to find SOME identity within white culture that wasn’t just whitey’s bitch. And now, with some kind of irony that you have to admit is poetic, that nigga-negative-identity has been picked up by all these white kids in search of THEIR lost racial-social identity. There’s something happening here…

      We may be able to migrate our consciousness into nano-processors and drift through space (this may have already happened)

      Please tell me you aren’t one of those transhumanists! Say it isn’t so. Did you see the piece I did here?

      “but then what IS actually occurring?”
      Humanity? Is that too simple?

      The myth to end all myths.

      I have never seen any evidence that Brad Pitt needed to launder money, nor have I ever seen any evidence that he’s into some “really dark shit.”

      Me either, tho there’s quite a bit of evidence that Hollywood is a pit of pestilence run by mafia cartels & scientologists and maybe even worse, and that, as in any other mafia, you don’t rise in the ranks without a confirmed kill; so I think it’s fair to allow that Brad isn’t an exception. But my point as ever is more to do with what we don’t know, and need not assume, than what we do know or need to assume.

      A system freeze is not a system reboot. Rebooting is an active process, a freeze is a symptom that lets you know something is wrong.

      Yeah, my point was a freeze can lead to a reboot.

      Yes, but if you connect them with pathways that allow them to enrich one another you get a healthy living body. If you rip the legs off and throw the arms in the ocean and tear the heart out and cut the brain into a thousand pieces you also get a corpse, though it might be a little less apparent that that’s what you have.

      Weren’t the races already connected? What if the body in question is the Earth, and not humanity? Can you say for a fact that the apparent races are better off being all mixed together? Or is it only that, since this is the way its going, we may as well accept it? I’m certainly not arguing against the latter point of view.

      Again, the men are not the ideas.

      An idea is only as good as its source; which I think you’ve been arguing also. By the tree, judge the fruit.

      Again, that’s not a racial issue. What race is Jewish? That’s a cultural issue, still. There are many different Semitic types, which of these that follow the Jewish faith are of a specifically Jewish race?

      Try telling this to the Jews! It’s a matriarchal lineage, so I guess they can mix with any race they choose, as long as that lineage remains intact?

      No, not really, There are also wealthy patrons to the sciences. Either way, not all of the funding is given with a specific agenda in mind.

      That’s an assumption, tho not unreasonable. I take a more paranoid position, myself. I don’t think that everything is being directed by consciously malevolent groups and individuals; but I do think the “mind-virus” is everywhere.

      If you mean white people can blend into snow banks better and black people can blend into the night better…well… 🙂

      Funny, but also valid. Could there be other, less frivolous functions that are hooked up to physical characteristics but which it’s less and less permissible to talk about, and which will be become less and less active for being de-emphasized? Just sayin’.

      Why would they find it appalling? And would a universally white humanity be better for them?

      They want their own tribes, nations, whatever. I don’t see why that has to be ipso facto “racist.” In fact, racial intolerance tends to increase with a larger influx of immigrants, not decrease, for obvious reasons. Again, the assumption that these people are just anachronisms who have to be tolerated (or not) and eventually bred out of existence is liberal totalitarianism and I’m not buying it. How is it different from Americanism that wants to spread democracy across the planet by whatever means necessary?

      Did you look into Girard? Creating a monoculture could spell the end of humanity, myth and reality both. Not saying that’d be a BAD thing, just saying.

      We might start developing new colors, like in the Vedas, such as blue and green. I’d like that…

      Pre-order your rainbow body here.

  11. I’ve been avoiding asking this question but I can’t resist any longer. What are the races that compose humanity? Is it the four in the medicine wheel and everyone who isn’t pure white, red, black or yellow is some kind of hybrid of those four elements?Or is it rather like a spectrum of the rainbow and the number of colors (most often the 7 of ROYGBIV) is arbitrary? Or perhaps it appeals to us because 7 relates to other things like the chakras (which is also commonly seven) just as the four in the medicine wheel relate to the cardinal directions, seasons, etc. These are fun to things to think about and there can be a symbolic/poetic beauty to it but ultimately it’s completely arbitrary and there is a danger in taking it too literally.

  12. I’m not really interested in sources I’m just curious what your current model looks like- the number and names that you assign. Is it simply the four in the medicine wheel?

  13. Okay.

    Well, I was going to respond to J. but this guy flew in with his ideas.

    “I encourage people to read more about genetics and biology there are different races with different innate qualities.”

    I do. Who are you reading? Oh, only the respectable ones? My girlfriends sister happens to be a respectable biologist, and she would be amused to find out that she believes in the things you ascribe to her. Unless, of course, she does not fit your criteria of respectability. Which is what, exactly?

    “And babies show different behaviour among different races(there was an experiment done on this showing different babies response to stimuli, but can’t find link).”

    Then isn’t this inadmissible? There’s not much in the way of evidence here. Either way, I don’t recall anyone arguing that there were no differences among babies, or even the apparent races. There are also differences between Canadians and Norwegians, no? What does this prove, biologically? That babies inherit behavioral traits from their parents, and parents inherit traits from their surrounding culture?

    “if you look at real science”

    I wasn’t aware that all of the science I was looking at was fake. Thanks for pointing that out.

    “That different ethnic groups vary in intelligence is an inconvenient truth to say the least.”

    What is the criteria for intelligence? You know, I’ll quote a story I heard (I can find a link, too: http://akarlin.com/2010/06/iq-and-industrialism/): “one must also keep in mind that culture plays an indelible role on the formation and very definition of IQ. One striking demonstration of this is a “similarities test” administered by Michael Cole on members of the Kpelle tribe in Liberia, in which they were asked to group objects into categories such as food, tools, etc. They chose functional pairings – e.g. knife and potato, because a knife could not not cut a spoon – because a “Wise man could do such-and-such”. It was only when the researchers asked “How would a fool do it” that the tribesmen rearranged the items into their “correct” categories. So can the Kpelle really be called dumb? Isn’t their form of intelligence, though demented in the eyes of industrial man, actually eminently suited for their natural environment?”

    Again, what is the criteria for intelligence? Explain to me its parameters, from inception, to foundations, to application. What inherent biases might be found in this formulation? Any?

    “I can’t be bothered with all the fallacies.”

    I can.

    “We have had the flynn effect the latest decades but that is wearying off.”

    Not that this is entirely relevant, but, again, according to what criteria? And further, what other possible explanations might there be, if such a thing were found to definitively be the case, that might account for the findings? Any ideas?

    “Frankly I would hope the world moved on and recognized reality for what it is. But it seems like for new ideas to take hold the people holding the old ideas must die first.”

    Amen, brother.

    “Ancient wisdom as far as I know agree with my that the races are different. It is only in modern times we get this absurd notion that everyone are equal, just go to africa and find a pigmy baby, raise him in a western society and there is an equal chance of him becoming an astrophysicist compared to for example a 130 iq european or asian.”

    I can just as easily say go to Norway, find a Norwegian baby and raise him in Pygmy society and see how successful he is. How is this supposed to be an argument? I can also just as easily say, go to Africa, select a large number of Pygmy babies, male and female, from different families, bring them to the US, or Europe or Asia, raise them in those cultures, fully educate them in western ways, DO NOT LET THEM BE EXPOSED TO ANY RACISM AT ALL, then ensure that they mate with one another, have more babies, raise those babies in great schools and repeat 10-20 times and THEN see if you have any Pygmy physicists.

    Either way, that’s beside the point. Who gets to decide what intelligence is? Does intelligence drive people to destroy their environments and divorce themselves from nature (and your ancient wisdom) in favor of hedonism, nihilism and neuroticism? Is that intelligence? Is there only ONE kind of intelligence? Says who? Why should we believe them? What are their criteria? If other with similar criteria come along with differing opinions, which they will, and have, then who should we believe? The one that makes us feel better about ourselves for accomplishments we had nothing to do with?

    “America had the capability of landing on the moon, I do not think any society in Africa have the intellectual capacity to come to these technological heights.”

    Think away, your opinion is hardly significant on this issue. You can’t even be bothered to take history into account when making your pronouncements.

    “People who actually interact with people of different ethnicities and are not ideologically blinded by cultural marxism understand this.”

    I laughed out loud at this. I do this all the time, every day in fact. I live in Los Angeles. I don’t know what you’re talking about. Perhaps if your weren’t blinded by National Socialism you’d see things differently as well.

    “I realise using the term cultural marxism puts me in the right wing camp, i much rather see myself beyond left and right politics, I much rather be labeled a guy who strives for a new culture.”

    You sound like old news though.

    “This universalism which europeans in particular like to believe is dangerous”

    Yeah, and the racialism you believe in is as safe as a bucket of kittens. Where do you live? Norway, still? Have you left Norway? Have you left Europe? Not that this would automatically change your opinion, as clearly it would not, but I’m just curious. Do you have a moment to talk down to an intellectually inferior being?

    p.s. I have white friends and live in a heavily white society.

  14. I don’t really see the point in arguing on the internet. And I know I won’t change anyone’s opinion. I think I will focus just on one area race and intelligence. And by the way that jayman guy I posted a link to earlier is a liberal and is of mixed race( black,White (English), and Chinese descent).

    Definition

    ‘Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—“catching on,” “making sense” of things, or “figuring out” what to do.’
    Gottfredson (1997)
    IQ

    IQ is not simply a measure of intelligence, it is the most accurate (i.e. reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments at predicting the performance of simple tasks, academic success, job performance, health, longevity, functional literacy, socioeconomic advancement, ‘social pathologies’ and is correlated with brain size. If we conduct various different cognitive tests that measure seemingly unrelated skills, the results will be positively correlated. The application of factor analysis shows us that there is one primary dominant factor: we call this intelligence (and it coincides with our ‘common sense’ interpretation of intelligence). See Spearman (1904), Carroll (1994), Neisser, et al. (1996), Gottfredson (1997), Jensen (1998), Mackintosh (1998), Deary (2001).

    CARROLL, John B., 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    DEARY, Ian J., 2001. Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    SPEARMAN, C., 1904. “General intelligence,” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–292.
    NEISSER, Ulric, et al., 1996. Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77–101.
    GOTTFREDSON, Linda S., 1997. Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23.
    MACKINTOSH, N. J., 1998. IQ and Human Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    From Carroll (1993, p. 16):
    aptitude is a cognitive ability that is possibly predictive of certain kinds of future learning success.
    achievement is the extent that certain behaviors have been learned.
    “…an ability is clearly a measurement of aptitude for some particular future learning success if, in a sample of individuals tested both in aptitude and in achievement in some specified learning or training activity at two points of times, once before training (time A) and once after training (time B):

    1. There is reliable variance in the measure of aptitude at time A.
    2. There is no reliable variance in achievement tested at time A, because no learning has occurred.
    3. As a consequence of condition 2, above, there is no significant correlation of aptitude and achievement at time A,
    4. No significant change in aptitude is observed from time A to time B.
    5. Significant change in achievement is observed from time A to time B, with reliable variance in achievement at time B.
    6. There is a significant correlation between aptitude measured at time A with achievement at time B (trivially, this will be the same as the correlation between aptitude and achievement both measured at time B).”

    On that basis, my own definition:
    intelligence is the ability of an individual to perform a novel cognitive task.
    Heritability of Intelligence

    Heritability is the proportion of total phenotype variance attributable to genetic variance.

    G = variance of the genetically diverse population in a uniform environment
    E = variance of genetically identical subjects in different environments
    heritability = G/(G+E)

    Sources of evidence:

    Studies of identical twins reared apart;
    a comparison of identical and non-identical twins reared in the same families; and
    a comparison of unrelated adopted children reared in the same values.

    Age Broad heritability Narrow heritability
    4–6 0.42
    7–20 0.55
    late adolescence 0.75
    adults 0.80 0.71

    Academics who subscribe to the above notions listed here:
    http://intelligence.martinsewell.com/people.html

    Are between-group IQ differences genetic?

    Yes, Lynn (2006, p. 66–68) gives six reasons.

    [link removed]

    Are IQ tests culturally biased?

    No.
    Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p. 280–286, 649–661), Jensen (1998, p. 360–369), Levin (2005, p. 62–73).
    hernstein:http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/4638449/The_Bell_Curve.pdf
    jensen:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4NGOBcoYImfVmRWTWJIRzlsems/edit
    LEVIN, Michael, 2005. Why Race Matters

    Flynn Effect

    Herrnstein and Murray (1994, p. 307–309)
    Jensen (1998, p. 318–333)
    Levin (2005, p. 128–130)
    Lynn (2006, p. 5–6)

    youtube video:

    More on the predictive validity of IQ, see this essay:

    Murray, Charles (1997). IQ and economic success. The Public Interest, Summer 1997, 21-35
    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080709_19971282iqandeconomicsuccesscharlesmurray.pdf

    On the central importance of g to many aspects of life:

    Gottfredson, Linda S. (1997). “Why g matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life.” Intelligence 24
    http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf

    Geoffrey miller on IQ
    http://www.amazon.com/Spent-Sex-Evolution-Consumer-Behavior/dp/0670020621/vdare
    The irony about general intelligence is that ordinary folks of average intelligence recognize its variance across people, its generality across domains, and its importance in life. Yet educated elites meanwhile often remain implacably opposed to the very concept of general intelligence, and deny its variance, generality, and importance. Professors and students at elite universities are especially prone to this pseudohumility. They socialize only with other people of extraordinarily high intelligence, so the width of the whole bell curve lies outside their frame of reference. I have met theoretical physicists who claimed that any human could understand superstring theory and quantum mechanics if only he or she was given the right educational opportunities. Of course, such scientists talk only with other physicists with IQs above 140, and seem to forget that their janitors, barbers, and car mechanics are in fact real humans too, so they can rest comfortably in the envy-deflecting delusion that there are no significant differences in general intelligence.

    Even within my own field, evolutionary psychologists tend to misunderstand general intelligence as a psychological adaptation in its own right, often misconstruing it as a specific mental organ, module, brain area, or faculty. However, it is not viewed that way by most intelligence researchers who, instead, regard general intelligence as an individual-differences construct—like the constructs “health,” “beauty,” or “status.” Health is not a bodily organ; it is an abstract construct or “latent variable” that emerges when one statistically analyzes the functional efficiencies of many different organs. Because good genes, diet, and exercise tend to produce good hearts, lungs, and antibodies, the vital efficiencies of circulatory, pulmonary, and immune systems tend to positively correlate, yielding a general “health” factor. Likewise, beauty is not a single sexual ornament like a peacock’s tail; it is a latent variable that emerges when one analyzes the attractiveness of many different sexual ornaments throughout the face and body (such as eyes, lips, skin, hair, chest, buttocks, and legs, plus general skin quality, hair condition, muscle tone, and optimal amount and distribution of fat). Similarly, general intelligence is not a mental organ, but a latent variable that emerges when one analyzes the functional efficiencies of many different mental organs (such as memory, language ability, social perceptiveness, speed at learning practical skills, and musical aptitude). …

    In the 1970s, critics of intelligence research such as Leon Kamin and Stephen Jay Gould wrote many diatribes insisting that general intelligence had none of these correlations with other biological traits such as height, physical health, mental health, brain size, or nerve conduction speed. Mountains of research since then have shown that they were wrong, and today general intelligence dwells comfortably at the center of a whole web of empirical associations stretching from genetics through neuroscience to creativity research. Still, the anti-intelligence dogma continues unabated, and a conspicuous contempt for IQ remains, among the liberal elite, a fashionable indicator of one’s agreeableness and openness.

    Yet this overt contempt for the concept of intelligence has never undermined our universal worship of the intelligence-based meritocracy that drives capitalist educational and occupational aspirations. All parents glow with pride when their children score well on standardized tests, get into elite universities that require high test scores, and pursue careers that require elite university degrees. The anti-intelligence dogma has not deterred liberal elites from sulking and ranting about the embarrassing stupidity of certain politicians, the inhumanity of inflicting capital punishment on murderers with subnormal IQs, or the IQ-harming effects of lead paint or prenatal alcoholism. Whenever policy issues are important enough, we turn to the concept of general intelligence as a crucial explanatory variable or measure of cognitive health, despite our Gould-tutored discomfort with the idea.

    You’ve probably heard that IQ tests are now widely considered outdated, biased, and useless, and that there’s more to cognitive ability than general intelligence—there are also traits like social intelligence, practical intelligence, emotional intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Strikingly, these claims originate mostly from psychology professors at Harvard and Yale. Harvard is home to Howard Gardner, advocate of eight “multiple intelligences” (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist). Yale is home to Peter Salovey, advocate of emotional intelligence, and was, until recently, home to Robert Sternberg, advocate of three intelligences (academic, social, and practical). (To be fair, I think the notions of interpersonal, social, and emotional intelligence do have some merit, but they seem more like socially desired combinations of general intelligence, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and/or extraversion, than distinctive dimensions that extend beyond the Central Six.)

    Is it an accident that researchers at the most expensive, elite, IQ-screening universities tend to be most skeptical of IQ tests? I think not. Universities offer a costly, slow, unreliable intelligence-indicating product that competes directly with cheap, fast, more-reliable IQ tests. They are now in the business of educational credentialism. Harvard and Yale sell nicely printed sheets of paper called degrees that cost about $160,000 ($40,000 for tuition, room, board, and books per year for four years). To obtain the degree, one must demonstrate a decent level of conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness in one’s coursework, but above all, one must have the intelligence to get admitted, based on SAT scores and high school grades. Thus, the Harvard degree is basically an IQ guarantee.

    Elite universities do not want to be undercut by competitors. They do not want their expensive IQ-warranties to suffer competition from cheap, fast IQ tests, which would commodify the intelligence-display market and drive down costs. Therefore, elite universities have a hypocritical, love-hate relationship with intelligence tests. They use the IQ-type tests (such as the SAT) to select students, to ensure that their IQ-warranties have validity and credibility. Yet, they seem to agree with the claim by Educational Testing Service that the SAT is not an IQ test, and they vehemently deny that their degrees could be replaced by IQ tests in the competition for social status, sexual attractiveness, and employment. Alumni of such schools also work very hard to maintain the social norm that, in casual conversation, it is acceptable to mention where one went to college, but not to mention one’s SAT or IQ scores. If I say on a second date that “the sugar maples in Harvard Yard were so beautiful every fall term,” I am basically saying “my SAT scores were sufficiently high (roughly 720 out of 800) that I could get admitted, so my IQ is above 135, and I had sufficient conscientiousness, emotional stability, and intellectual openness to pass my classes. Plus, I can recognize a tree.” The information content is the same, but while the former sounds poetic, the latter sounds boorish.

    There are vested interests at work here, including not just the universities but the testing services. The most important U.S. intelligence-testing institution is the Educational Testing Service (ETS), which administers the SAT, LSAT, MCAT, and GRE tests. ETS is a private organization with about 2,500 employees, including 250 Ph.D.s. It apparently functions as an unregulated monopoly, accountable only to its Board of Trustees. Although nominally dedicated to the highest standards of test validity, ETS is also under intense legal pressure to create tests that “are free of racial, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic, and other forms of bias.” This means, in practice, that ETS must attempt the impossible. It must develop tests that accurately predict university performance by assessing general intelligence, since general intelligence remains by far the best predictor of academic achievement. Yet, since intelligence testing remains such a politically incendiary topic in the United States, it is crucial for ETS to take the position that its “aptitude” and “achievement” tests are not tests of general intelligence. Further, its tests must avoid charges of bias by yielding precisely equal distributions of scores across different ethnic groups, sexes, and classes—even when those groups do have somewhat different distributions of general intelligence. So, the more accurate the tests are as indexes of general intelligence, the more biased they look across groups, and the more flack ETS gets from political activists. On the other hand, the more equal the test outcomes are across groups, the less accurate the tests are as indexes of general intelligence, the less well they predict university performance, and the more flack ETS gets from universities trying to select the best students. ETS may be doing the best it can, given the hypocrisies, taboos, and legal constraints of the American cognitive meritocracy. However, it may be useful for outsiders to understand its role in higher education not just as a gate keeper but as a flack absorber [should be “flak catcher”]. ETS throws itself on the hand grenade of the IQ test controversy to protect its platoon mates (elite universities) from the shrapnel.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

    The evidence is overwhelming, but I doubt any of this will change peoples minds. It seems like most folks opinions solidify in their early twenties.

    • Hi Sindre,

      I ended up skimming your post as I didn’t find much in there to connect to; EOS, sweatyK and I have been discussing certain ideas, including what you called (in private email) “dead knowledge,” with the end not of arguing to find out who is right but of getting a better look at our beliefs, assumptions, and responses, and thereby getting closer to understanding each other as fellow sentient beings. Piling on the statistical data, or whatever you’d call it, doesn’t really open up the debate but shuts it down by throwing a blanket over it, one we then have to crawl under to get back to what’s really being shared. I hope EOS won’t address all this because if he does then, IMO, you’ve only successfully brought out the worst in him (the didactic fact-horder).

      In my own view, the whole idea that intelligence can be measured by tests, on a scale, is really an insult to intelligence. How about cats – are they not intelligent because they don’t speak IQ language? It’s idiotic, if for no other reason than it factors in CO-OPERATION with tests as an element of intelligence when, in actual fact, the reverse is probably the case – the higher the intelligence, the less co-operative the individual is likely to be with any of these idiotic attempts to measure and define it – especially when one of the motives is to prove that one race or type (invariably the type doing the tests) is more intelligent than another.

      As you know, low-functioning autistics have been seen for decades not only as low intelligence but as lacking any intelligence (awareness) at all; but it turns out that what they lack is an ability (in some cases possibly a willingness) to communicate verbally or in other, socially accepted ways. What if a super-intelligent species came to our planet that was so advanced in its ways that it couldn’t understand ours because they made no sense to it? Is it possible that high intelligence would be as hard-pressed to fathom low intelligence as vice versa, that the gulf between them would go both ways?

      In most cases, when it comes to interspecies communication, we are talking about different sorts of intelligence. Fish don’t understand cats don’t understand bees. With humans, which I realize you are focusing on, there’s an added factor and that’s the possibility of psychosis leading to a sort of surrogate intelligence that can pass for real intelligence within its own falsely created context, but not in the wider context of Nature. Psychopaths like Ted Bundy are said to be highly intelligent, by your terms, and no doubt would get a high IQ score. But since they are also insane, how exactly does this qualify as intelligence? The same can and needs to be extended to the institute of science and society as a whole (ie, that it is insane, and can’t begin to define or identify real intelligence).

      I think it’s curious that you attend Dave O***** retreats and are receptive to his teachings about how the ego is a form of insanity, inherently blind, insensible, and lacking in any real intelligence (otherwise why try and get free of it?), while putting such stock in tests and measures of intelligence created by men and women in thrall to their egos. Admittedly, I didn’t read all of the above, and I’m not saying there’s no merit in it at all, only that the basic premise is unsound, so it doesn’t really matter how solid the research appears to be: only intelligence can measure intelligence, and most humans don’t have it.

      Is there a measure for knowing by looking at the sky when a storm will come? Or sensing by the soil if an earthquake is due? Or looking at a landscape to recognize where gold is likely to be found? Or any other number of things that “primitive” people (including Norwegian farmers, I’m sure), as well as animals, can do, but that these IQ wizards have no clue is even possible? Or, for that matter, for sensing and communicating with animals, autists, or ancestors? Or engaging in a discussion in an open-minded fashion as a way to learn about oneself, rather than to assert ideas that have been indoctrinated into one by some dubious sources? 😉

  15. I don’t even know how to respond to that avalanche of links to other people’s research. It seems to be way off-topic, and hardly a word came from you. I’m not saying I can’t refute anything you’re saying, just that I’m not that interested in doing so. Why? Well, a few reasons. First, most of your links refer to work usually involving 6-8 names (Jensen, Rushton, Murray, Lynn, etc), and many of these names have already been thoroughly taken to task, by people far more qualified than myself, for biased research methods, and donating to and accepting contributions and funding from known racist organizations (just mentioning that to show a clear bias). Second, for every one link you provided I could provide dozens of links from professional scientists refuting those findings. That’s the nature of science. But I don’t see the point. I’ve read a lot of that stuff before, watched some of these guys on youtube, and I was clearly not persuaded. I know I’m not going to re-read and watch all of that and I know you wouldn’t read and watch all of things I could send in response. Lastly, that seems like an incredibly boring way to spend my afternoon, and I doubt I’d be enriching myself, or anyone else, for that matter) by doing so.

    There are a lot of assumptions made by these kinds of people, about the nature of intelligence, and more specifically, about the nature of intelligence measuring tests. I think that it has been shown that there is enough reason to doubt those claims. You provided 8 paragraphs from one author (yes, I can count) that produced not one shred of anything aside from vaguely circumstantial evidence that his position was correct. We all know (at least, this is how I feel) that the universities are reliant on outdated models, and that people take time to adapt to new models, so there will be some gradation involved (hey, just like in genetics, wow!), so what does pointing that out prove? What does he even think it proves? Seems myopic to me.

    If you’re convinced that the parameters you provided are the most relevant to defining intelligence, and that no other parameters might be or have been discovered, well, then you’re convinced. I assume you’re well out of your twenties? I just left mine. Relevant?

    Speaking of relevance, how is this Jayman persons political affiliation, race, or racial mixture relevant? I’ve known half black neo-nazis. Human variety knows no limits. There are Russian neo-nazis, like that makes sense.

    “intelligence is the ability of an individual to perform a novel cognitive task.”

    That’s a very narrow definition of intelligence, and one that I don’t accept as complete in the least. I wouldn’t argue that this is not a factor in overall intelligence, just that it does not account for the full spectrum, which, to my mind, any theory of intelligence would have to do. What if the “novel cognitive tasks” you perform all have nothing but detrimental effects on the world around you, the human population and the plants, the animals, the earth itself? Is it still intelligent to perform them? I would imagine not.

    I’ve had this window open for a while, while at work, and I keep coming back to it, but I really can’t think of much else to add. Perhaps I’m just not inspired.

  16. Jasun, just read your response, and you said the things I was feeling but unable to articulate, and I think that’s why I hesitated. Plus, I don’t know this guy, and the first time we ever interacted he informed me that I was racially inferior to him, at least as far as my capacity for intelligence is concerned, and that this was just a fact I should accept. Not exactly likely to inspire me to relate to him further (message!), or share my true thoughts on a given subject (message!). I also have no desire to impress him, because why should I (message!)? I already know what he thinks, and I couldn’t care less if I made it into his group of (presumably) exceptions to the rule, like Jayman apparently has (message!). I’d only add that among humans there are further factors to consider, such as, as your Other mentioned, power structure and societal pressures/advantages/disadvantages and cultural identification; these things all have a very sizable impact on this kind of research. They always claim they’ve controlled for that, but they haven’t and it’s obvious. Societal power dynamics have not been reversed, history hasn’t been reversed or undone, so how can you control for that? It’s all just ego-driven speculation in the end. The thinker thinks and the prover proves.

  17. If Dave O***** is enlightened then yes these statistics don’t really matter. Although most of the stuff that you guys have been talking about race in the comments have been wrong in my unenlightened opinion and have also come out from the ego mind(most of it are well known arguments), and I am countering this with my superior ego mind stuff.

    Yes intelligence is an immensely complex subject. I am saying that intelligence has something to do with IQ, not that intelligence=IQ. Highly successful and educated people tend to have a high IQ, we tend to view these type of people as intelligent . So there is a certain correlation, but yes I agree with you that we don’t know what intelligence is. Your critique of my view on intelligence is really good, I have no good answer to any of your arguments. I like your argument that insane people with a high IQ, are they intelligent?

    This view that there is a difference in intelligence is an assumption yes, I don’t really know anything at all in fact. The only thing I am sure of is that I exist. I am guessing that you go through a process of elimination of assumptions and in this way find the truth about reality. If I could magically tune into my higher self and ask about this topic of intelligence I would, but since that is not an option then I have to find the answer in the world around me.

    The belief that there is no difference in intelligence between different groups is also an assumption, and one with no proof in my opinion. Up until 1945 most people in polite society believed in the differences between different ethnic groups.

    Frankly this stuff is not that shocking. This IQ stuff doesn’t mean that all black people are more stupid than white people, a substantial part of black people are smarter than the average white person, people miss this that we are talking about averages here. If we looked at this data from the vantage point of dave o***** teachings then this wouldn’t matter at all. If I were black I would know that this doesn’t apply to me, I am a soul traveling through time momentarily inhabiting this body. I wouldn’t identify with being black that would just be another layer of the false identity.

    All your arguments are well known so I fail to see how you are in some way more personal and real than me. I am well aware that this is just an assumption, just like your equal intelligence thing is another assumption. Since we both are not enlightened we can agree on that we know nothing, well what is there to discuss then? This will probably be my last post on this topic.

    There has been criticism of the authors books. But most of it like the criticism of the bell curve haven’t been that good and over time sample sizes and so forth has gotten better. The book has held up quite well.

    Isn’t all the so-called race-IQ research funded by outfits like the Pioneer Fund, which have racist agendas?

    A: Some of it is, but so what? This is a free society we live in here. Anyone can get rich and endow research. If George Soros or Bill Gates or Teddy Kennedy or Oprah Winfrey or John Kerry or Tiger Woods, or you, want to fund some serious, peer-reviewed psychometry research, nobody is stopping them, or you. Perhaps their-/your-funded research will show a black-white gap going the other way, with black Americans 15 IQ points above whites. Perhaps this work has already been done on Oprah Winfrey’s dollar, and I am ignorant of the results. In this case, I should be very much obliged to anyone who can point me to them.

    Look: The controversy here is not between research group A, resourced by fund X with bias M, saying this is so; while research group B, resourced by fund Y with bias N, insists no, that is not so — THIS is so!

    That’s not the structure of the controversy. The structure of the controversy is: research group A, resourced by fund X with bias M, saying this is so, while a mighty host of journo-school grads, law-school grads, and liberal-arts department heads — yes, and even a few careerist, tenure- or office-seeking biologists and money-seeking, PC-compliant pop-science authors — shriek YOU MUSTN’T TALK ABOUT THAT! YOU ARE BAD PEOPLE! That’s the structure of the controversy.

    It’s not as if the underlying data here, which now goes back for decades, was all assembled by twitching clubfooted racists with collections of SS memorabilia and slave manacles in their closets. The biggest single lumps of it were collected by sober establishment outfits like, for example, the U.S. armed forces. http://en.copian.ca/library/research/adlitus/page27.htm

    • Sindre wrote: It’s not as if the underlying data here, which now goes back for decades, was all assembled by twitching clubfooted racists with collections of SS memorabilia and slave manacles in their closets. The biggest single lumps of it were collected by sober establishment outfits like, for example, the U.S. armed forces.

      😀

  18. The US Armed Forces as sober? I don’t know.

    None of this changes the fact that since one ‘culture’ (western) developed these tests, and these testing methods, there is bound to be an inherent cultural bias embedded. And then why are we so insistent that these parameters be defined as “intelligence”?

    And it’s no surprise that the majority of people who are successful in school and work in white societies are also white.

    I know we’re talking about averages, and that there will be exceptions in your ideas (I even addressed this). You frame the issue as sober, reliable scientists reporting reliable data and liberals responding by shrieking and flinging poo. I see it as puffed up egotistical racists, remnants of the old guard who often romanticize the classical world and inflate the significance of “european” developments, hiding behind juked stats, forwarding age old racist european assumptions that they are the best race. Business as usual.

    As far as not identifying with being black/white/whatever, are you sure? So do you not identify as Norwegian? I do believe these are basically irrelevant distinctions

  19. “It’s still one genus…..”

    I see this has already been addressed, but still – human beings of all sorts can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This means we’re all of the same species, full stop.

    Anyone with an interest in race will find the history of anthropology quite interesting. Much energy and many resources went towards attempts at defining, quantifying, ranking, and categorizing the ‘races’. A good century and a half later, it’s still a confused muddle, which leaves me to believe that’s because there’s no there there.

    But i lived in Oakland for years, so who knows. steph

  20. Always thought the idea of race was fascinating. Just another form of being grounded in your outward identity.
    I never got to choose what body I ended up in. Or where I was born. Whats the point of defending being a White Canadian? Or having Germanic roots, beyond that. Stories of division and separation serve to perpetuate this. Every race has been used and abused at one point or another. Lets be Humans.

  21. Or not?

    Reposting these two comment as they may have got overlooked on the other page:

    EOS: All these instances of successful interbreeding go further to support the theory that humanity, in all its forms (neanderthal, erectus, denisovan, etc.) is still just one biological species. The most common and sensible (to my uneducated mind) definition of ‘species’ is, according to Wikipedia “the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.” There is a continuing debate on the topic, much of which is pretty dense (there are lots of different theories) but the most commonly accepted, and arguably the most useful (particularly from the perspective of evolutionary biology) is the BSC, or Biological Species Concept. “It has also been argued that the BSC, based on reproductive isolation, is not only a useful preferred description of species, but is also a natural consequence of the effect of sexual reproduction on the dynamics of natural selection.” A lot of the debate is philosophical in nature, and there are indeed those who, in this context, question or deny the existence of species at all. To me, it seems that the whole thing is largely a case of Humanity Occurring, and that while certain divisions might clearly exist to human beings, these divisions may not “actually” exist in “reality,” or at least, the reality of human interpretation needs to be taken into consideration when attempting to classify species, and more than one simultaneously applied model may be necessary. Either that, or allow for some deviation from a particular model under special circumstances. For instance, lions and tigers have been known to mate in captivity, and to produce offspring, and “at least some” of their offspring were fertile and could reproduce. However, when different human beings mate, nearly all of their offspring is fertile and can reproduce freely, with any other branch of humanity. There is no trend towards infertility when pairing different “races” of human beings, only a trend towards heterosis, or hybrid vigor. Philosophical considerations aside (i.e. biologically speaking) mixing “races” is preferable. This is why groups of unrelated humans exchange daughters, and why sons are often encouraged to travel far, and sow oats. I don’t see some elitist hidden hand behind this at all. It is far more a natural response that has been occurring throughout the ages than the other way around. A small amount of so-called elites have, in various nations (such as China, Japan, many European nations) attempted to block the flow of genes with laws, but all of these efforts were largely circumvented when the laws were later amended or altered due to popular demand, and all of these attempts have been ultimately unsuccessful. There is no barrier between “races” other than those placed between them by empires and laws. Perhaps this has something to do with the (perceived) “normalization” of human types in geological regions in the first place. The hidden hand, I believe, is our genetic makeup, and it apparently longs to be perpetually reunited with itself.

    Why rule out the other animals then? Not sure what your point is about a hidden hand. My main objection on this subject is to the increasingly fashionable idea that people, races, sexes, species, are all the same (equal) and that even if they’re not they can be made to be and that this is a desirable way to fashion a democratic/utopian society. That said, I’m not interested particularly in fashioning any sort of society, only in recognizing what’s wrong with the present one, since I favor awareness over lack of it.

    I suspect, tho it’s more an intuition than anything, that the view that race doesn’t exist – similar to the view that a person’s sex doesn’t in any way limit or define them – is an example of the “transhumanist” error; not literally, but in that it’s heading in the same direction as the TH folly, that we are not only more than our physical being – with which I can agree – but that we can, and should aspire to, exist somehow independently of it (while still being immersed in matter).

    The point about the hominids (besides the one you picked up, I guess because you’re more interested in whatever supports your opinion) was that if humanity today comes from several distinct species, then there’s a clear basis for the different races. The fact that they can all be traced back to one source eventually, and that in future they might mingle together and eventually become one thing again (albeit not the same thing) in no way suggests (to me) that this is the optimal way to proceed. It’s probably just the line of least resistance.

    After all, we can all be traced back to the same protoplasm. Does that mean that’s what we want to get back to?

    I am in favor of increased diversification, not the reverse. I think you make an error in thinking that, by asserting our physical equality or compatibility, this will somehow facilitate a social, spiritual, or philosophical harmony on Earth (or for “humanity” – which by the way is a concept I don’t adhere to).

    In other words, I suspect that the ideas [EOS is] advocating may some day be seen as just as dangerous and backward as the racist ones we all now “know” to reject.

    This is an intuitive thing, and I may be wrong. But I feel it’s better to say it outright.

  22. I forgot about those…

    “Why rule out the other animals then?”

    I don’t, personally, but I’m just speaking about humans. I think all life is fundamentally entwined. But humans have a need to classify things. I think that our classifications can be helpful and harmful. The classification of race (as separate species) has obviously led to more harm than help. Humans existed without such classifications for far longer than they existed with them, and far fewer lives were lost as a result of NOT having these classifications than were lost WITH them. We still kill each other, but that is to be expected.

    Cosmetic and cultural differences aside, we can mate and produce fertile offspring. We do this “in the wild” as well as “in captivity.” You can find some examples of different species mating, and some of the offspring has even been fertile, but the frequency of this is extremely rare. Further, the species are still similar enough, on the surface, that it’s not a giant surprise. If a dolphin mated with an eagle and they produced some kind of offspring that would be incredibly surprising (even more so if that offspring could then mate with another dolphin or eagle). When a lion mates with a tiger, it’s far less of a shock, though it is still somewhat shocking to ‘educated’ minds (as it defies their classifications). Further still, they almost never mate in the wild, as their behavioral patterns are too different from one another, and they prefer different regions, have different schedules, etc. Humans, on the other hand, are similar enough, and do similar enough things (despite the evidence observed with our lying eyes) that it comes as no surprise that we mate and produce offspring, and that offspring can produce offspring, etc.

    “Not sure what your point is about a hidden hand.”

    I felt that an Elite Agenda was being proposed as an explanation for why racial mixing is “being promoted.” I don’t currently agree with that. If you’re talking about a larger agenda than that, well, I have no real way of addressing that at the moment. I could have misinterpreted what was being said. A lot has been said!

    “My main objection on this subject is to the increasingly fashionable idea that people, races, sexes, species, are all the same (equal) and that even if they’re not they can be made to be and that this is a desirable way to fashion a democratic/utopian society.”

    “I think you make an error in thinking that, by asserting our physical equality or compatibility, this will somehow facilitate a social, spiritual, or philosophical harmony on Earth”

    I don’t think I’ve ever asserted that, as I don’t believe it at all. It would be pretty contrary to my normal opinions on the matter. I do think it will go a long way towards solving many of the current problems we face, particularly as individuals, and I recognize that often it is the individual problems that fuel larger problems that affect society. I do think a deeper understanding of the origins of our current concepts of race, their flaws, and their motivations, can help solve some of these personal problems. But I do not believe in any Utopian future, as much as I might like the idea on paper.

    “I suspect, tho it’s more an intuition than anything, that the view that race doesn’t exist – similar to the view that a person’s sex doesn’t in any way limit or define them – is an example of the “transhumanist” error; not literally, but in that it’s heading in the same direction as the TH folly, that we are not only more than our physical being – with which I can agree – but that we can, and should aspire to, exist somehow independently of it (while still being immersed in matter).”

    I think ideas like “your sex limits you” or “your race limits you” are not the whole truth. Any limitation is an invitation to something else, or even to the same or similar things from a different perspective. Also, this is clearly not something you can define with ease, exactly what those limitations are. There are some things women can do that men can’t, and vice versa, but gender and race are different things. Each race has both genders. Further, aside from the obvious physical limitations of gender (men cannot bear or breastfeed children, and women cannot inseminate themselves, etc) there are many women who excel in typically masculine occupations (and vice versa). Attempting to create rigid categories always leads to noise because you can divide to infinity.

    For me, none of what I’m saying leads logically to “we should shed our bodies and live in computers” but that may not matter. I think that the desire for immortality is a much stronger motivator for TH theories than any desire for a better understanding of race. I think a desire for immortalizing a certain race, and clinging to a particular genetic expression, feeds more into TH theories and the motivations that generate them than what I’m saying. I think transhumanist technology, if and as it becomes available, will be distributed pretty clearly along “class” lines which are also distributed pretty clearly along “race” lines. There will be overlap, as there is now, but the per capita distribution will probably be very similar to where it is now.

    “The point about the hominids (besides the one you picked up, I guess because you’re more interested in whatever supports your opinion) was that if humanity today comes from several distinct species, then there’s a clear basis for the different races.”

    Well, I can’t exactly pick up your opinion when the evidence you present verifies my opinion! My opinion is that the different “species” of humans in the distant past, the ones that mated, were all still human, and it’s not just my opinion. I may have thought it up initially, but I’ve also recently discovered that there are current theories that set forth the same idea. I’m not just trying to use the fact that “many scientists agree” to win an argument, but it is the case, and is worthy of mention, so you understand my context. I’m not a biologist, I didn’t even graduate high school, but my intuition is gaining growing support in the scientific community, so I’m not just ignoring what you’re trying to say, just pointing out the fact that what you are saying happens to support what I am saying, in my view. There’s no clear basis for different races, for me, because the fact that what we currently think of as “different species” were able to constantly mate and reproduce fertile offspring, and that they did this “in the wild” and for thousands of years in numerous different environments, indicates that they very well may have been part of the same species. Further, even though this is the case, we don’t have all of the details regarding all of those supposed species, we’re still piecing that together, and we don’t know exactly which branches of the current human species were created by which pairings, etc. There very well may be undiscovered human types that we would also have to take into account, etc.

    “After all, we can all be traced back to the same protoplasm. Does that mean that’s what we want to get back to?”

    We may not have a choice!

    “In other words, I suspect that the ideas [EOS is] advocating may some day be seen as just as dangerous and backward as the racist ones we all now “know” to reject.”

    Well, I don’t see it that way, obviously. I think saying that “all humans are part of the same species, and that the species expresses itself in a variety of ways, the boundaries of which are not always as clear as it may seem on the surface, and that the distribution of these expressions may shift from region to region and from group to group over time and are not hard wired into any one group or region, but are related instead to circumstantial situations, which may also shift from region to region and group to group”, is one of the least dangerous statements I’ve ever read on the topic of race. At least if one is not concerned with maintaining some kind of racial hierarchy. If one is then it’s clearly a dangerous idea.

  23. “all humans are part of the same species, and that the species expresses itself in a variety of ways, the boundaries of which are not always as clear as it may seem on the surface, and that the distribution of these expressions may shift from region to region and from group to group over time and are not hard wired into any one group or region, but are related instead to circumstantial situations, which may also shift from region to region and group to group”

    Quite different from “There is no such thing as race,” though, isn’t it? 🙂

    An allegedly enlightened dude I know has been known to say, “There’s no such thing as people.” I can get with that point of view too. But in terms of it being a practical, realized condition for social existence, brother, that be a whole other matter.

    This discussion has been fruitful for me in that it’s allowed me to try out my old opinions (I was going to write prejudices, coz after all, “to have an opinion, any opinion, is to overlook something,” ie, a prejudice – Charles Fort), and to get a sense of how much emotional investment I have in them. Convictions make convicts, and all that.

    I really no longer care much about the race issue per se, or rather, no longer feel committed to any particular point of view, and certainly EOS has added enough weight to his position to make it clear that it’s not simply – what I used to think of as -liberal brainwash (even if I think it overlaps with it here & there).

    I’m curious to hear what you think, Dva, if anything, about my description of blacks & whites looking for a social identity and how the lack of racial identity can negatively impact one’s connection to the body/earth. That’s probably the bottom line on this debate for me, tho it’s still not a position I’m gonna fight to defend, as I don’t think being *in* one’s body necessarily means connecting to one’s racial body, at all (I don’t feel like a whiteman, an Englishman, or even, frankly, much like a (hu)man, so there you go). But i do think it entails connecting to one’s trauma, and that may well extend to a race memory (like those images you posted at the forum all those aeons ago).

    The thing about transhumanism is this: I don’t think it has to do with a bid for immortality really (tho it does relate to fear of death) but with a desire to be disembodied. If we aren’t fully anchored in our bodies, we won’t have to fully experience death, so the theory goes, tho it’s not a theory but (I think) a dissociative mechanism which we learn early on, in infancy. We use sex, we use drugs (nudge nudge), we use art, religion, psychism, UFOS, whatever the fuck we can, to prevent the psyche from becoming fully embodied, and I do think I “smell” something of that same unconscious, sublimating impulse in some of these theories about race just being a concept being tossed around. Not because it’s untrue (it’s all just a concept in the end), but because most of us aren’t at a stage in our own “evolution” (individuation process) where we can honestly embody such an idea – so talking about it may not be such a good idea.

    If I enter a room full of black people, I know beyond all doubt that it’s not just my mind (conditioning) that feels the strangeness, the tension, of being surrounded by otherness: my body feels it too. I’m willing to bet the bank on that one, and any liberal-minded whitey who says it ain’t so, to my view, is livin’ in a dream world.

    However, I don’t see that tension as a bad thing, at all (it’s there between the sexes), but, on the contrary, as a very real creative potential, like friction can create electricity. And I think we’ve demonstrated how creative it can be, here, in this discussion. The affection and camaraderie I feel for EOS as a result of it is neither because he be black (self-identified) nor despite it; but it IS inseparable from it. I love your blackness as well as the other stuff – you dig, homeboy? 😉

    That’s all; I did wanna mention the Starship Enterprise with its “Prime Directive” that gets broken every damn episode due to the blindness of (American) ideology as a pop meta-vision of the *wrong* way for racial integration to go (culminating in the Borg, the SE’s shadow). But I guess that will have to wait . . . .

    J-man

  24. re intelligence…….I was thinking the eye of the beholder……and somehow I came up a type of intelligence that I would call/name re-active intelligence……I could give many examples but out of my working merchant marine career and other careers I`ve seen how some react when under the gun….and this is an intelligence/intuiton that could put one into their next incarnation |if there be one} or save many from going into their next incarnation…….of course if you have iq intelligence along with reactive intelligence all the better just my musings Namaste` dermott I`ve been enjoying most of this dialogue..

  25. “Quite different from “There is no such thing as race,” though, isn’t it? ”

    Well, that’s what I’ve been saying, that the races are not representative of separate species, but just different groupings of the same species that have adapted differently to their environments and cultures. Perhaps that’s where the initial misunderstanding comes from? Most people who are arguing for different races are arguing for racial reasons, chiefly to prove a split that defines a difference between the races and organizes them in a hierarchy, based on one specific race/cultures definition of intelligence, etc, and then to attribute these hierarchies to their idea that we’re all different species. I say that all human “races” are just part of one race (species) and each have inherent within them the same potentials, for better or for worse and provided that similar situations exist, as any other.

    “An allegedly enlightened dude I know has been known to say, “There’s no such thing as people.””

    Not entirely sure what that means, as I take people to mean jivas, or living entities, and in this specific context, human beings, which is little more than a functional descriptor for things that look like more like us than other things. I don’t take issue with this, but maybe I’m missing something!

    I also don’t think having an opinion means you’re overlooking something, you may just be resonating more strongly with an idea, though you have thoroughly considered the alternatives.

    “This discussion has been fruitful for me”

    Same here.

    “I really no longer care much about the race issue”

    I really wouldn’t care about it very much either, but it happens that I’m embodied in a particular racial framework, and in the context of where I live and the world around me, I have to care and be aware of these issues. One may not care about predators, but if you live in the jungle you will have to modify that position somewhat.

    “it’s not simply – what I used to think of as -liberal brainwash (even if I think it overlaps with it here & there).”

    Maybe, maybe not. I don’t feel brainwashed in the slightest, but then I wouldn’t know if I were. I always question myself, and I’ve had some dark moments in the process, but I see at least as much, and likely far more, “brainwashing” occurring on the other side of the fence, and none of it adds up to anything when I dissect it. I don’t consider myself a “liberal” but that’s not because I prefer to think of myself as a “conservative,” or identify more with “them”. I definitely identify more with liberals on most issues than conservatives, but that similarity is often as cosmetic as can be, because a lot of my core motivations are not the same. There’s plenty I disagree with both liberals and conservatives on, and I don’t vote either way. I don’t currently have an ism I define myself by.

    “I’m curious to hear what you think, Dva, if anything, about my description of blacks & whites looking for a social identity and how the lack of racial identity can negatively impact one’s connection to the body/earth.”

    I do think this is an important thing, but chiefly due to malicious ‘external’ influences. I think any human can be adopted by any tribe and function healthily within that context if that’s what all (or most) parties involved want. There was and still is a lot of that between Africans and Natives and Europeans and Asians as well as other tribes/races. It may have importance even without the malicious influences I mentioned earlier, but I think its significance decreases drastically, as humans are pretty adaptable creatures, and I also “don’t think being *in* one’s body necessarily means connecting to one’s racial body, at all (I don’t (always) feel like a blackman, an American, or even, frankly, much like a (hu)man)…” but I agree that “it entails connecting to one’s trauma, and that may well extend to a race memory (like those images I posted at the forum all those aeons ago).” That’s what I was trying to say back then. I’d do it differently now, if at all, but it had to be done then to get to where I am now, so…

    As far as the specific forms, it’s pretty amazing to me that more people don’t see how a lot of these identities mirror the form in which the contact was initiated and then perpetuated, while incorporating many of the negative stereotypical elements assigned by the initiating culture as positives in rebellion against and rejection of the mentality of the judging culture. They instead prefer to dig their heels in and repeat the same nonsense louder, and when the constantly projected behaviors are absorbed and adapted and handed back to them they get even louder and scream “SEE!?! WE TOLD YOU!!!!” and go into an Alex Jones-style rage. By the way, Alex Jones and his brand of righteous indignation is way more extreme and grating than anything I saw in 12 Years A Slave. I recently watched him bloviating on a clip from his show, screaming that the democrats created a new KKK with black people instead of white people. I have no idea where he gets his shit from. The only thing I can say about all that is a lack of historical context is capable of distorting things far more thoroughly than I was previously aware.

    “If I enter a room full of black people, I know beyond all doubt that it’s not just my mind (conditioning) that feels the strangeness, the tension, of being surrounded by otherness: my body feels it too. I’m willing to bet the bank on that one, and any liberal-minded whitey who says it ain’t so, to my view, is livin’ in a dream world.”

    Well, I do think a lot of that is in your mind, and your mind sends signals to your body to tense up in anticipation of the unknown getting in your face. I don’t feel that tension for any racial reasons (unless I’m in a place where it’s obvious there is racial tension), and I know plenty of white people who don’t feel that way either. They’re not all “liberals” (cuz I doubt they’d define themselves politically one way or the other in a lot of instances), but they definitely know something about what life on the other side of the tracks is like, so perhaps that’s a big part of it, which speaks again to culture rather than race as the cause. I have felt very different in rooms full of all kinds of people, but I know, in my body and mind, that it’s cultural rather than racial. If I’m in a highbrow place and everyone is black I feel at least as strange as I would if everyone were white. I’ve been in these situations. It’s very tempting to attribute it to race when the racial lines are so clear, but, as with a lot of things, I think the truth is a little more counter-intuitive than that, as our intuition has been so screwed up by so much misinformation.

    I’ve met a few white dudes I clicked with immediately, and we still have relationships and can talk on all topics freely with no racial tension at all. I mentioned one to you before, who used to hold extremist views until he joined the military and actually got around some black and brown people, and all that went out the window. When I look back I’ve actually known a fairly large cross section of people, and a lot of the instant connections I made were with people from a lot of different races, as well as my own. From African, to “African American”, to “Native American”, to Syrian, to Iraqi, to Filipino, to Trinidadian, to Persian, to Japanese, to Puerto Rican, to WASP, to Mixed and etc, I’ve known people from all these groups (I’ve even left some out, but each one represents at least one person I’m thinking of) that I instantly clicked with and we know we each have different cultural backgrounds but we see right through that and are able to bridge any gaps just due to a resonance we’re open to, I guess. The tension that exists, if you want to call it that, is cultural, relating to ideas and misconceptions, assumptions and etc. I don’t personally feel much body tension at all, unless there is a physical threat or I don’t know the people around me.

    I definitely understand when you say “However, I don’t see that tension as a bad thing, at all (it’s there between the sexes), but, on the contrary, as a very real creative potential, like friction can create electricity. And I think we’ve demonstrated how creative it can be, here, in this discussion. The affection and camaraderie I feel for EOS as a result of it is neither because he be black (self-identified) nor despite it; but it IS inseparable from it. I love your blackness as well as the other stuff – you dig, homeboy?” even though I think it’s more cultural than racial, as I feel the same way about you Guv’nah!

    Cheerio, mate!

  26. Would Stevie Wonder agree with any of this? If so, then color doesn’t matter as much as you think it does. If he wouldn’t agree with it, what does that say? That you and a black man disagree on your racism? Either way, who is to say whose right? I would submit that the natural aversion to getting shocked from wool socks on the carpet, doesn’t make me an electricity hater. I jump when the spark hits my fingers as a natural reaction, and has nothing to do with whether or not I like electricity or even if I think that electricity should do all the work for free and be whipped until it calls itself Toby. I also cross the street when I see eyes and teeth coming at me in the dark. Does that make me racist?

    • “Does that make me racist?”

      Short answer: That, and the context of the rest of your comment would lead me to say…probably.

      Long answer: Your analogy was horrible…and I’m pretty forgiving when it comes to horrible analogies. Just because it sounds deep when you say it to yourself does not mean it makes any sense. The fact that you have a natural aversion to static electricity shocks only shows that electricity, in the certain amounts, can be harmful to your body and that you prefer to avoid bodily harm. This has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were talking about.

      Black people, or “eyes and teeth” as you apparently prefer (not racist at all), are not compelled to shock you due to physics, and vice versa.

      And that’s all the time I have for that.

      As you were, perpetually.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s