Ruy Teixeira: Working Class and Hispanic Voters Are Losing Interest in the Party of Abortion, Gun Control and the January 6th Hearings

Ruy Teixeira, the political scientist who wrote The Emerging Democratic Majority in 2002, which eventually deteriorated into the conventional wisdom among White liberals that “demographics is destiny” and that they could get away with anything in the culture war, chimes in on the unanticipated rise of the East Coast AWFLs and how their values and priorities are scrambling our politics.

Ruy Teixeira:

Democrats are betting on a small set of issues to mitigate their losses this November. Inflation may have just hit a 40 year high (9.1 percent) with concomitant recession risk but Democrats believe that campaigning against the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, arguing for more gun control in the wake of recent mass shootings and highlighting Trump’s anti-democratic malfeasance through the January 6th hearings can turn the tide in their favor. ..

More broadly, the lack of Democratic support among working class (noncollege) voters is striking. Democrats lose among all working class voters by 11 points, but carry the college-educated by 23 points. This is less a class gap than a yawning chasm.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Democrats’ emphasis on social and democracy issues, while catnip to some socially liberal, educated voters, leaves many working class and Hispanic voters cold. Their concerns are more mundane and economically-driven …

Recent data from Echelon Insights provide an interesting window on this contrast. Their analysis breaks down the electorate into four quadrants (conservative, populist, libertarian and liberal) and further breaks out a “strong progressive” subset of the liberals who are highly liberal on most issues and also happen to be very highly-educated (and more likely to be white). They are about 10 percent of voters and bear some similarity in size, demographics and inclinations to the “progressive activists” group broken out in the More in Common study—a group with tremendous weight in current Democratic party politics who are described as “deeply concerned with issues concerning equity, fairness, and America’s direction today. They tend to be more secular, cosmopolitan, and highly engaged with social media …”

These people are always claiming to represent the working class. Their latest masterstroke is calling for setting up abortion clinics on federal land in Red States and parking a flotilla of abortion ships like casinos off the South Atlantic and Gulf Coast. This will be an enormous success like Bernie Sanders’ losing presidential campaigns. Bernie couldn’t even beat Hillary or Biden.

“The crosstabs provided by Echelon allow for a comparison of strong progressives’ basic political views with those of Hispanic and working class voters. Here are some examples …”

They don’t realize this.

“Strong progressives clearly live in a different world than Hispanic and working class voters. In strong progressive world, views on abortion, gun control and January 6th fit neatly into an overarching set of sociocultural beliefs that are highly salient to them and increasingly drive the Democratic party’s priorities and rhetoric …”

Democrat margins with non-White working class voters have been shrinking for a decade now.

“Exaggerated? Maybe. But consider this: between the 2012 and 2020 elections—which Democrats won by similar popular vote margins—Democrats’ advantage among nonwhite working class voters decreased by 19 margin points (Catalist data). Over the same period, Democrats’ performance among white college-educated voters improved by 16 margin points. So perhaps we’re just on trend.”

Where do you see these yard signs?

These are shitlib yard signs. You know that a peculiar type of Democrat lives in homes with these yard signs. They also like Ukraine flags. American politics is becoming a referendum on these people.


  1. Ah, the mysterious and raceless “working class voter”. Must have gotten a twitch downstairs when you read that, Brad.

    • I know where those signs are as prevalent as crabgrass- in the rich Bi*ch environs of Asheville, NC.
      Wife and I took a trip through the area last Spring, to see what all the fuss is. My God, every single home over $400k had them on their lawns. It was the greatest case of White AWFUL traitorism, I’ve seen since I was a child watching the hippies on TV, and listening to the Beatles sing ‘Hey Jude’ on Ed Sullivan.

      I wanted to go and torch every single one of those signs. BLM and ANTIFA(g) could do that, of course. But were I (a white male) to do it, I’d be arrested… until we take back EVERYTHING. Then, ‘burn, baby, burn’!!! Like Sodom and Gomorrah.

  2. “demographics is destiny,”

    Yes, it is. But the problem is that obese lesbians will be never Danaerys style war princesses. In the real life, demographics prefer Kadyrov and Assad and Putin and Trump style warlords.

    Donald made very wise move to let some black thugs out of prison. In the future, immigrants must do the jobs what white people don’t do. Like in Ukraine, where Chechen and Syrian highly qualified labour does what poor ukros couldn’t do in 8 long years.

    • Juri,

      Trump never served in the military. Like fellow boomertards Jorge Busheron and Bill Clinton, he dodged the draft back in the Vietnam era when he was of age – via college deferment as I recall. Kadyrov, Assad and Putin are serious leaders. Trump is just a clown who pretends. Yet another grifter for jews.

      • Also that miserable, fat, blowhard, hypocrite-warmonger Rush Limbaugh, he was the worst of the bunch. He got out of Vietnam service through some trivial medical exemption while later being one of the biggest cheerleaders for both illegitimate Iraq wars. Rush vilified opponents of the Gulf Wars while supporting the horrible GWB II whose presidency eventually imploded.

      • Stalin also never served in the military and pandered to the Jews. Jews laughed and humiliated Stalin Trotsky called Stalin “most eminent mediocrity'”

        Then The Purge came.

        Now ZOG is also in the ropes. Does anyone remember those good old times 7 years ago when opposition was so irrelevant that they did not even bothered to ban block censor deplatform us ? This infamous Obama quote about white males dying out and nothing can stop this. Before Trump, opposition was like sheep’s in the butchery. Let them scream, this does not change anything.

        Lenin Trotsky and the rest of the Soviet Jewry also never served the military. But they arranged revolution what wiped away old order. Now Donald doing the same. Lenin brats were also considered irrelevant buffoons until it was too late.

        Btw, all wars are lost by men with long military service. Usually those loser are called generals. .

        • Fair points all wrt Stalin and Trotsky. Regardless, Zion-Don was a total failure. No wall, swamp expanded and grew instead of being drained, tossed all his supporters under the Church of Woke bus. At best completely failed to grasp that one doesn’t ‘make deals’ with ZOG. It has to be utterly destroyed and the ground beneath it salted – like the Romans did to Carthage. Trump caved to the enemy on every issue in a pitiful attempt to gain their approval. They hate him regardless. Ironically, even his own daughter – the convert to Talmudic Satanism – betrayed him to the Jan. 6 kangaroo court (not doubt under Jared’s orders). Time to move on.

  3. NYT:

    “The Housing Shortage Isn’t Just a Coastal Crisis Anymore
    An increasingly national problem has consequences for the quality of American family life, the economy and the future of housing politics.”

    Well duh, bring in 3 million immigrants per year for 50 years and there’s a housing shortage, how can that be ?

    Perhaps not being able to find affordable shelter accounts for the disaffection to the demoncrat party.

  4. Why does everyone assume that the racial dynamics between blacks and everyone else are the as between whites and everyone else? Besides ‘hispanic’ is a linguistic not even an ethnic category much less racial.

    • >Besides ‘hispanic’ is a linguistic not even an ethnic category much less racial.

      As commonly used and understood, Hispanic is both a label applied to some people by others, largely based on a phenotype (appearance), as well as a form of self-identification — people of various national origins would be both labeled Hispanic by others, as well as self-identify as Hispanic.

      As such, modern genome-wide association studies (GWAS) can not only differentiate between groups of self-identified Hispanics of various national origins, and sort them into respective genetic cohorts, but also identify how Hispanics differ genetically from other groups normally considered ‘white’, e.g. northern or central Europeans.

      Genetic Diversity and Association Studies in US Hispanic/Latino Populations: Applications in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos

      Population Structure of Hispanics in the United States: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

      I think there is more than enough evidence to justify thinking of Hispanics as a racial or ethnic category distinct from Whites.

      • There are significant cultural commonalities between different hispanic groups to make them a coherent ethnic group as well as being different from Whites.

      • Labeling a Mesoamerican “Indio” or mestizo a “Hispanic” makes about as much sense as calling a contemporary Creek Indian an “Anglo”. He/she would be highly offended at such a label, notwithstanding college level English speaking and literacy proficiencies.

        • It’s not clear what your point is — ?

          >He/she would be highly offended at such a label, …

          How would you know? — and as I said, it is both a label and a term of self-identification.

          But it is true that as both a common designation (label), which is generally based on phenotype (appearance), as well as a term of self-identification, Hispanic is a little problematic.

          I mentioned national origin because this is one way the term is actually defined, e.g. by the US Census (link) — per the national origin definition, a ‘Latino’ or person of ‘Hispanic origin’ can be of any race.


          Hispanics or Latino refers to a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.

          So per this definition, a direct descendant of Spanish settlers in Mexico who has light skin and hair, as well as blue or gray eyes, meaning a European phenotype, is Hispanic, as is someone who clearly has significant indigenous admixture (mestizo).

          More colloquially, there is usually a racial/ethnic allusion, meaning Hispanic (or Latino) usually refers to someone who does not really look European (northern or central), i.e. someone who has indigenous (Amerindian) admixture.

          That’s just the way it is.

          • I have met many Mesoamericans and you would be surprised at how many self-identify as “indigenous” or mestizo etc. One group self-identified as straight up Aztec. You need to head up to South Dakota and hang around some areas with Creek Indians and try calling some of them “Anglos”. Or go to Oklahoma, Alaska, Arizona, etc. and try same experiment with other Native Americans.

          • By the way, the US Census Bureau is about as smart and well informed as Jill Biden is in terms of this discussion.

          • @Belligerent Flaxen-headed Dummkopf

            I’m not interested in your anecdotal experience, nor in doing any ‘experiments’ — as I already suggested, people do self-identify, but considering/depending on national origin, those who self-identify as ‘mestizo’, or even ‘indigenous’, would be, in most cases today, subsumed in the broader category of Hispanic, which as I noted is formally race neutral, usually emphasizing national origin instead — national origin is emphasized largely due to the significant variance in the amount of indigenous admixture.

            I just pointed out that, despite the ambiguity and problems defining this classification, there is enough evidence from GWAS studies to say that, in most respects, Hispanic (or Latino if you prefer) should be seen as a distinct racial/ethnic group; certainly they are, as a group, distinct from central and northern Europeans (‘white people’).

            Your characterization of census bureaucrats aside, their attempt to define Hispanic seems fairly reasonable to me, and its basic principles, including national origin, seem to be fairly widely used (e.g. in the GWAS studies linked above).

            You are yet more proof that no matter how reasonable or accurate a statement, some crank
            on the internet will show up to gainsay it, often aggressively — it is a bizarre phenomenon I see over and over again.

  5. I desperately hope to see the wreckage of the demoncratic party and RINO retardicans replaced by a hyper nationalistic breed.

  6. Hispanics are smarter than blacks. At least they have the intelligence to see through what the democrats are doing, at least some of them. The blacks on the other hand keep falling for their con.

      • I’m going to say it, because it needs to be said. White women outnumber most White Men 2 to 1.
        So, if you want a wife (Because lusting after some mestizo ho, is not decent nor advised- stop thinking with your Dick, in other words) find a Spaniard IN SPAIN, and marry her, and STILL make lots of white Babies. Which is what a woman is for. Feeding your porn obsession, guys, is why we have the mess we have….. Never forget. Weimar Germany’s Jews merely catered to White Yuppie degeneracy to get where they got….

        • I’m not talking about a mestizo “ho” as you say but a godly Christian traditional Latino woman. Nothing wrong with that as long as she is an Orthodox Christian and shares my traditional values that’s all that matters, and the Priest will gladly marry us.

          • ACTUALLY…. In reading some of the other commenters on this post, and seeing your rationales, I would say you are as fully a Modernist as the most rabid Novus Ordo RCC- and only think yourself ‘saved’ because you have imbibed the GOA/AOC/OCA BS that race and nationality do not matter. In fact, they do. Traditional Greek Orthodox (and even the most liberal GOA folk) marry other GREEKS. “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” paradigm. And then, EVEN HE converted and became ‘Greek.’ OPA!

            That is not how the True Orthodox view it. The Holy writers of all traditions (Justin Popovich among the Serbs, Fr. Raphael Johnson in the USA, the Old Calendarists in Greece) etc., are much like an Orthodox Bishop friend of mine, who, when asked if he believed in interracial marriage, said he counseled couples this way: “If I can say, “same face, same race’ then I’ll marry them.’ In other words, an Italian and a Greek are pretty much the same. But a Negro and a Nordic? Sorry, NYET.

            Fr. Seraphim Roses’ prophecy applies in the realm of miscegenation: “In the end, all the Churches will serve Antichrist.” And what is the most antichristian thing you can do? ERASE THE IMAGO DEI of Adamkind, with the lesser races, as all Europe once knew them to be.
            I don’t consider you to be VRAI ORTHODOXE. Merely a Novus Ordo poseur.

        • I get what you are saying Fr. but I can tell you I worked for a Spanish company before and had to travel to Madrid. The women there were, to put it kindly, not attractive.

          Also they have a temper problem, but then again so do most Spanish men.

          The bottom line is that there are fewer and fewer good white women out there, period. If I didnt hit the lotto with my wife, I would have just stayed single.

          • I hear ya. But, God can work miracles. That my wife would have married me, is miracle enough! LOL

          • I have a Spanish friend (actually of Basque extraction) who lives in Madrid. He wound up marrying a Chinese woman there.

          • “Travel to Madrid. The women there were, to put it kindly, not attractive.”

            What’s to be expected, after centuries of race mixing ?

      • Hey remember how Orthodox Slumlord says white people are a social construct and he would rather live with Christian Africans than liberal whites?

        He is a Mestizo Supremacist. He likes the women. He hates us whites because we are not ‘mixed’ the way he prefers people.

        Hey to each their own but some of us like pale skinned blondes and don’t mind liberal whites that much.

        • As retarded as Orthodox Slumlord is, liberal whites are genuinely worse than every other group save for one and I’d rather live around just about anyone else than liberal whites.

          • The large percentage of White Liberals is why I don’t identify as “Pro-White” or “White” Separatist, or anything “White” the majority of my bad experiences in life have been with other whites. I’m more of a people separatist I don’t like people in general. I could care less if people look like me or not. So preserving “Whiteness” simply is not a motivation for me. I love the South, my church, my kith and kin. That’s it.

        • There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by Non-Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to Non-Whites. One’s “race” is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle cell anemia. Nor are “races” marked by important differences in gene frequencies, the rates of appearance of certain gene types. The data compiled by various biologists, anthropologists, scientists demonstrate, contrary to popular opinion, that intra-group differences far exceed inter-group differences. That is, greater genetic variation exists within the populations typically labeled as “Black” (a social construct), and “White” (a social construct) than between these populations. This finding refutes the supposition that “racial” divisions fundamental genetic differences. Instead what the finding concludes is that “races” as commonly defined are culturally created phenomenon that have no biological foundation.

          • The clear and constant evidence of human cultures and societies across the globe lays waste to your “social construct” bullshit.

          • If you don’t understand things like basic math, you should refrain from making uneducated comments on population genetics. It only betrays your stupidity.

        • @Fr. John, it is you sir who misrepresents Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox teachings. The Orthodox churches DO NOT teach that only “White” people descended from Adam. The Orthodox Church does NOT teach the idea of lesser “races” nor is there a teaching against people from different ethnicities or “races” getting married. If you say otherwise then you are I LIAR from Satan. Just because you found a rogue priest that refuses to marry people doesn’t mean that is official Orthodox church dogma. It is not. I suggest you repent and denounce your heresy. PS show me where Father Seraphim Rose spoke specifically against intermarriage between different peoples.

          • @Orthodox Slumlord

            For some reason I can’t reply under your post directly so I’ll just respond here.

            “The large percentage of White Liberals is why I don’t identify as “Pro-White” or “White” Separatist, or anything “White” the majority of my bad experiences in life have been with other whites.”

            Whites are the most conservative leaning group out of any race and make up the overwhelming majority of the conservative base in this country. Without White people, there is no mainstream right-wing party or movement. Every other race in this country leans more liberal than we do and if there were none of us here then this country’s political landscape would be far more left-wing.

            Don’t believe me? Look up “the 2016 election if only X voted” and see for yourself.

  7. ” Their concerns are more mundane ”

    Hahahaha, just too funny.
    ‘Mundane’, like food, shelter and the ability to survive.

    “Oh, get an EV and live in a tent.”

    • @Tikkun Olam and Dart,

      A friend of mine with Central American, Southern European, and West African ancestry is lactose intolerant. Drinking milk products upsets her stomach, and so she avoids them. About a decade ago, because of her low dairy intake, she feared that she might not be getting enough calcium, so she asked her doctor for a bone density test. He responded that she didn’t need one because “blacks do not get osteoporosis.”

      My friend is not alone. The view that black people don’t need a bone density test is a longstanding and common myth. A 2006 study in North Carolina found that out of 531 African American and Euro-American women screened for bone mineral density, only 15 percent were African American women—despite the fact that African American women made up almost half of that clinical population. A health fair in Albany, New York, in 2000, turned into a ruckus when black women were refused free osteoporosis screening. The situation hasn’t changed much in more recent years.

      Meanwhile, FRAX, a widely used calculator that estimates one’s risk of osteoporotic fractures, is based on bone density combined with age, sex, and, yes, “race.” Race, even though it is never defined or demarcated, is baked into the fracture risk algorithms.

      Let’s break down the problem.

      First, presumably based on appearances, doctors placed my friend and others into a socially defined race box called “black,” which is a tenuous way to classify anyone.

      Race is a highly flexible way in which societies lump people into groups based on appearance that is assumed to be indicative of deeper biological or cultural connections. As a cultural category, the definitions and descriptions of races vary. “Color” lines based on skin tone can shift, which makes sense, but the categories are problematic for making any sort of scientific pronouncements.

      Second, these medical professionals assumed that there was a firm genetic basis behind this racial classification, which there isn’t.

      Third, they assumed that this purported racially defined genetic difference would protect these women from osteoporosis and fractures.

      The view that black people don’t need a bone density test is a longstanding and common myth.
      Some studies suggest that African American women—meaning women whose ancestry ties back to Africa—may indeed reach greater bone density than other women, which could be protective against osteoporosis. But that does not mean “being black”—that is, possessing an outward appearance that is socially defined as “black”—prevents someone from getting osteoporosis or bone fractures. Indeed, this same research also reports that African American women are more likely to die after a hip fracture. The link between osteoporosis risk and certain racial populations may be due to lived differences such as nutrition and activity levels, both of which affect bone density.

      But more important: Geographic ancestry is not the same thing as race. African ancestry, for instance, does not tidily map onto being “black” (or vice versa). In fact, a 2016 study found wide variation in osteoporosis risk among women living in different regions within Africa. Their genetic risks have nothing to do with their socially defined race.

      When medical professionals or researchers look for a genetic correlate to “race,” they are falling into a trap: They assume that geographic ancestry, which does indeed matter to genetics, can be conflated with race, which does not. Sure, different human populations living in distinct places may statistically have different genetic traits—such as sickle cell trait (discussed below)—but such variation is about local populations (people in a specific region), not race.

      Like a fish in water, we’ve all been engulfed by “the smog” of thinking that “race” is biologically real. Thus, it is easy to incorrectly conclude that “racial” differences in health, wealth, and all manner of other outcomes are the inescapable result of genetic differences.

      The reality is that socially defined racial groups in the U.S. and most everywhere else do differ in outcomes. But that’s not due to genes. Rather, it is due to systemic differences in lived experience and institutional racism.

      Communities of color in the United States, for example, often have reduced access to medical care, well-balanced diets, and healthy environments. They are often treated more harshly in their interactions with law enforcement and the legal system. Studies show that they experience greater social stress, including endemic racism, that adversely affects all aspects of health. For example, babies born to African American women are more than twice as likely to die in their first year than babies born to non-Hispanic Euro-American women.

      Systemic racism leads to different health outcomes for various populations. The infant mortality rate, for example, for African American infants is double that for European Americans.
      Systemic racism leads to different health outcomes for various populations. The infant mortality rate, for example, for African American infants is double that for European Americans. Kelly Lacy/Pexels
      As a professor of biological anthropology, I teach and advise college undergraduates. While my students are aware of inequalities in the life experiences of different socially delineated racial groups, most of them also think that biological “races” are real things. Indeed, more than half of Americans still believe that their racial identity is “determined by information contained in their DNA.”

      For the longest time, Europeans thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. Their culturally attuned eyes saw this as obvious and unquestionably true. Just as astronomers now know that’s not true, nearly all population geneticists know that dividing people into races neither explains nor describes human genetic variation.

      Yet this idea of race-as-genetics will not die. For decades, it has been exposed to the sunlight of facts, but, like a vampire, it continues to suck blood—not only surviving but causing harm in how it can twist science to support racist ideologies. With apologies for the grisly metaphor, it is time to put a wooden stake through the heart of race-as-genetics. Doing so will make for better science and a fairer society.

      In 1619, the first people from Africa arrived in Virginia and became integrated into society. Only after African and European bond laborers unified in various rebellions did colony leaders recognize the “need” to separate laborers. “Race” divided indentured Irish and other Europeans from enslaved Africans, and reduced opposition by those of European descent to the intolerable conditions of enslavement. What made race different from other prejudices, including ethnocentrism (the idea that a given culture is superior), is that it claimed that differences were natural, unchanging, and God-given. Eventually, race also received the stamp of science.

      Swedish taxonomist Carl Linnaeus divided humanity up into racial categories according to his notion of shared essences among populations, a concept researchers now recognize has no scientific basis. Wikimedia Commons
      Over the next decades, Euro-American natural scientists debated the details of race, asking questions such as how often the races were created (once, as stated in the Bible, or many separate times), the number of races, and their defining, essential characteristics. But they did not question whether races were natural things. They reified race, making the idea of race real by unquestioning, constant use.

      In the 1700s, Carl Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy and someone not without ego, liked to imagine himself as organizing what God created. Linnaeus famously classified our own species into races based on reports from explorers and conquerors.

      The race categories he created included Americanus, Africanus, and even Monstrosus (for wild and feral individuals and those with birth defects), and their essential defining traits included a biocultural mélange of color, personality, and modes of governance. Linnaeus described Europeaus as white, sanguine, and governed by law, and Asiaticus as yellow, melancholic, and ruled by opinion. These descriptions highlight just how much ideas of race are formulated by social ideas of the time.

      In line with early Christian notions, these “racial types” were arranged in a hierarchy: a great chain of being, from lower forms to higher forms that are closer to God. Europeans occupied the highest rungs, and other races were below, just above apes and monkeys.

      How Scientific Taxonomy Constructed the Myth of Race
      The Anthropologists Who Undid Sex, Race, and Gender
      What Dog Breeds Say About Race
      When Colorblind Parenting Meets Anti-racism
      Why Do We Keep Using the Word “Caucasian”?

      So, the first big problems with the idea of race are that members of a racial group do not share “essences,” Linnaeus’ idea of some underlying spirit that unified groups, nor are races hierarchically arranged. A related fundamental flaw is that races were seen to be static and unchanging. There is no allowance for a process of change or what we now call evolution.

      There have been lots of efforts since Charles Darwin’s time to fashion the typological and static concept of race into an evolutionary concept. For example, Carleton Coon, a former president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, argued in The Origin of Races (1962) that five races evolved separately and became modern humans at different times.

      One nontrivial problem with Coon’s theory, and all attempts to make race into an evolutionary unit, is that there is no evidence. Rather, all the archaeological and genetic data point to abundant flows of individuals, ideas, and genes across continents, with modern humans evolving at the same time, together.

      In this map, darker colors correspond to regions in which people tend to have darker skin pigmentation.
      In this map, darker colors correspond to regions in which people tend to have darker skin pigmentation. Reproduced with permission from Dennis O’Neil.
      A few pundits such as Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute and science writers such as Nicholas Wade, formerly of The New York Times, still argue that even though humans don’t come in fixed, color-coded races, dividing us into races still does a decent job of describing human genetic variation. Their position is shockingly wrong. We’ve known for almost 50 years that race does not describe human genetic variation.

      In 1972, Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin had the idea to test how much human genetic variation could be attributed to “racial” groupings. He famously assembled genetic data from around the globe and calculated how much variation was statistically apportioned within versus among races. Lewontin found that only about 6 percent of genetic variation in humans could be statistically attributed to race categorizations. Lewontin showed that the social category of race explains very little of the genetic diversity among us.

      Furthermore, recent studies reveal that the variation between any two individuals is very small, on the order of one single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), or single letter change in our DNA, per 1,000. That means that racial categorization could, at most, relate to 6 percent of the variation found in 1 in 1,000 SNPs. Put simply, race fails to explain much.

      In addition, genetic variation can be greater within groups that societies lump together as one “race” than it is between “races.” To understand how that can be true, first imagine six individuals: two each from the continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe. Again, all of these individuals will be remarkably the same: On average, only about 1 out of 1,000 of their DNA letters will be different. A study by Ning Yu and colleagues places the overall difference more precisely at 0.88 per 1,000.

      The circles in this diagram represent the relative size and overlap in genetic variation in three human populations. The African population circle (blue) is largest because it contains the most genetic diversity. Genetic diversity in European (orange) and Asian (green) populations is a subset of the variation in Africa. Reproduced by permission of the American Anthropological Association. Adapted from the original, which appeared in the book RACE. Not for sale or further reproduction.
      The researchers further found that people in Africa had less in common with one another than they did with people in Asia or Europe. Let’s repeat that: On average, two individuals in Africa are more genetically dissimilar from each other than either one of them is from an individual in Europe or Asia.

      Homo sapiens evolved in Africa; the groups that migrated out likely did not include all of the genetic variation that built up in Africa. That’s an example of what evolutionary biologists call the founder effect, where migrant populations who settle in a new region have less variation than the population where they came from.

      Genetic variation across Europe and Asia, and the Americas and Australia, is essentially a subset of the genetic variation in Africa. If genetic variation were a set of Russian nesting dolls, all of the other continental dolls pretty much fit into the African doll.

      What all these data show is that the variation that scientists—from Linnaeus to Coon to the contemporary osteoporosis researcher—think is “race” is actually much better explained by a population’s location. Genetic variation is highly correlated to geographic distance. Ultimately, the farther apart groups of people are from one another geographically, and, secondly, the longer they have been apart, can together explain groups’ genetic distinctions from one another. Compared to “race,” those factors not only better describe human variation, they invoke evolutionary processes to explain variation.

      Those osteoporosis doctors might argue that even though socially defined race poorly describes human variation, it still could be a useful classification tool in medicine and other endeavors. When the rubber of actual practice hits the road, is race a useful way to make approximations about human variation?

      When I’ve lectured at medical schools, my most commonly asked question concerns sickle cell trait. Writer Sherman Alexie, a member of the Spokane-Coeur d’Alene tribes, put the question this way in a 1998 interview: “If race is not real, explain sickle cell anemia to me.”

      is race real
      In sickle cell anemia, red blood cells take on an unusual crescent shape that makes it harder for the cells to pass through small blood vessels. Mark Garlick/Science Photo Library/AP Images
      OK! Sickle cell is a genetic trait: It is the result of an SNP that changes the amino acid sequence of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in red blood cells. When someone carries two copies of the sickle cell variant, they will have the disease. In the United States, sickle cell disease is most prevalent in people who identify as African American, creating the impression that it is a “black” disease.

      Yet scientists have known about the much more complex geographic distribution of sickle cell mutation since the 1950s. It is almost nonexistent in the Americas, most parts of Europe and Asia—and also in large swaths of Northern and Southern Africa. On the other hand, it is common in West-Central Africa and also parts of the Mediterranean, Arabian Peninsula, and India. Globally, it does not correlate with continents or socially defined races.

      In one of the most widely cited papers in anthropology, American biological anthropologist Frank Livingstone helped to explain the evolution of sickle cell. He showed that places with a long history of agriculture and endemic malaria have a high prevalence of sickle cell trait (a single copy of the allele). He put this information together with experimental and clinical studies that showed how sickle cell trait helped people resist malaria, and made a compelling case for sickle cell trait being selected for in those areas. Evolution and geography, not race, explain sickle cell anemia.

      What about forensic scientists: Are they good at identifying race? In the U.S., forensic anthropologists are typically employed by law enforcement agencies to help identify skeletons, including inferences about sex, age, height, and “race.” The methodological gold standards for estimating race are algorithms based on a series of skull measurements, such as widest breadth and facial height. Forensic anthropologists assume these algorithms work.

      Skull measurements are a longstanding tool in forensic anthropology. Internet Archive Book Images/Flickr
      The origin of the claim that forensic scientists are good at ascertaining race comes from a 1962 study of “black,” “white,” and “Native American” skulls, which claimed an 80–90 percent success rate. That forensic scientists are good at telling “race” from a skull is a standard trope of both the scientific literature and popular portrayals. But my analysis of four later tests showed that the correct classification of Native American skulls from other contexts and locations averaged about two incorrect for every correct identification. The results are no better than a random assignment of race.

      That’s because humans are not divisible into biological races. On top of that, human variation does not stand still. “Race groups” are impossible to define in any stable or universal way. It cannot be done based on biology—not by skin color, bone measurements, or genetics. It cannot be done culturally: Race groupings have changed over time and place throughout history.

      Science 101: If you cannot define groups consistently, then you cannot make scientific generalizations about them.

      Wherever one looks, race-as-genetics is bad science. Moreover, when society continues to chase genetic explanations, it misses the larger societal causes underlying “racial” inequalities in health, wealth, and opportunity.

      To be clear, what I am saying is that human biogenetic variation is real. Let’s just continue to study human genetic variation free of the utterly constraining idea of race. When researchers want to discuss genetic ancestry or biological risks experienced by people in certain locations, they can do so without conflating these human groupings with racial categories. Let’s be clear that genetic variation is an amazingly complex result of evolution and mustn’t ever be reduced to race.

      Similarly, race is real, it just isn’t genetic. It’s a culturally created phenomenon. We ought to know much more about the process of assigning individuals to a race group, including the category “white.” And we especially need to know more about the effects of living in a racialized world: for example, how a society’s categories Race is real, it just isn’t genetic. It’s a culturally created phenomenon.and prejudices lead to health inequalities. Let’s be clear that race is a purely sociopolitical construction with powerful consequences.

      It is hard to convince people of the dangers of thinking race is based on genetic differences. Like climate change, the structure of human genetic variation isn’t something we can see and touch, so it is hard to comprehend. And our culturally trained eyes play a trick on us by seeming to see race as obviously real. Race-as-genetics is even more deeply ideologically embedded than humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels and consumerism. For these reasons, racial ideas will prove hard to shift, but it is possible.

      Over 13,000 scientists have come together to form—and publicize—a consensus statement about the climate crisis, and that has surely moved public opinion to align with science. Geneticists and anthropologists need to do the same for race-as-genetics. The recent American Association of Physical Anthropologists’ Statement on Race & Racism is a fantastic start.

      In the U.S., slavery ended over 150 years ago and the Civil Rights Law of 1964 passed half a century ago, but the ideology of race-as-genetics remains. It is time to throw race-as-genetics on the scrapheap of ideas that are no longer useful.

      We can start by getting my friend—and anyone else who has been denied—that long-overdue bone density test.

      This article was republished on

      • Again, dumbasses who don’t understand basic mathematics, like you and the author of this article, should not try their hand at population genetics.

        Learn the limits of your intellect and stay in your lane (the slow lane).

        • Are you a scientist or an anthropologist? If not you need to check your IQ dumbass. Race is a sociopolitical construction nothing more nothing less.

      • “Science 101: If you cannot define groups consistently, then you cannot make scientific generalizations about them.”– He’s a dumbass for sure, notwithstanding his excruciating long screed.

        If we accept his version of Science 101, animals and fauna cannot be subjected to taxonomies because they too undergo timeline evolutionary changes in characteristics.

  8. Blacks and Browns like communism, free gibs paid by whitey. Both parties are the same concerning the Great Replacement now, and since Trump the same on faggotry, and GloboHomo. A lot of breakfast tacos really despise the millions of gutter level Indios flooding across the border from Central America. That’s their beef with Biden. They want more Mexican Mafia and less MS-13.

    These polls never get it right, except they do pinpoint the Red/Edomite weakness among white suburban heathens. How does the Red/Bolshevik Party overcome that?

    They could try immigration restriction, which is popular across the board. But at this point would anyone believe it?

    Ron Johnson comes across well. As does Youngkin. Youngkin is appealing to the white suburban heathens. DeSantis has problems. Trump would be a sure loser. His ex wife just died bigly, another victory for Warp Speed.

    Like most of politics, the problem is largely style, a presidential demeanor. I believe either one, Johnson or Youngkin, would win.

    • Actually the majority of people I’ve encountered who embrace communism are White college educated. Percentage wise there are far more of them than the Blacks and browns. I never met a Communist Hispanic, and the average Asian isn’t one either.

      • The difference between a european communist or marxist and an asian communist is that the european communist believe and stand for faggots, cancel culture, transgender, drugs and illegal immigration. The asian communist don’t give a fuck about faggot, cancel culture and drugs. I hate all kind of communists because that is an illness ideology but here in Western world is worst because we add woke LGBTQ and political correct stuff to that ideology.

      • Every other feminist pundit on tv upset at the notion that women should not be allowed to kill their unborn, is Latina. So, the media ‘s latest propaganda campaign meme that Hispanics are really conservative and becoming Republicans sounds like a case of wishful thinking and protesting too much; if we say it often enough it will come true!

        Hispanics are coming from countries who believe the role of government IS to provide for the welfare of tis citizens from cradle to grave; good ole European style social democrat values. You’re kidding yourself if you believe otherwise. They know they are already privileged by the media and the politicians, and they demanding what all progressives demand; more government benefits for all. And special treatment for themselves as a victimized minority. They know how to play that game. Even though they are the most privileged of all groups today.

  9. The Democrats have forgot about the Union and Working Class voters. The focus of the Dems has been on those issues like Abortion, Gun Control, Political Correctness, Illegal Immigration, and so on. However the average Working Class voter isn’t hip on those issues like the far left wing of the party. Only problem for the Working Class is voting for Republicans who are dominated by those who the working class works for. Aka the super rich who pay them low wages, no benefits, and like the idea of Illegal Immigrants making the White Working Class unemployed. Don’t vote for either one of them….look at legit Third Parties who represent our White interests. Deo Vindice !

  10. What does it say about the modern liberal woman that 1) they are threatening to never go to college because abortion is banned in certain states that they may not even reside in and 2) having a child and then forming a family is so terrible that they want to fly off into an ocean to have an abortion on an abortion ship? What does it say about college for that matter?

    Oh, wait, silly me, that is their 6th “eugenic” sense indirectly telling them to reproduce only with the finest specimens….which doesn’t really happen these days and then only does so sporadically into their 30s outside their sexual prime, a dysgenic situation, but these are petty concerns. The reason why conservative women don’t feel the same is because they are “low IQ.” Liberals are high IQ because reasons and accordingly have a finer eugenic sense. That’s why liberals dominate the university today. Never mind that far more militant conservatives by any measure dominated academia throughout the entire 19th century and beyond. Actually never mind history at all. I am a serious intellectual. In fact I am so serious about my intellectual pursuits that I am going to sell a never-to-be-credited Nietzsche “college” course to disgruntled 20 year olds on Twitter [sarcasm end].

    We should probably bury the racial hatchet with the Latinos and Latinas. “Immigration” is meaningless at this point with all the border flooding over the years. The liberal camp of whites simply have to go down, and go down hard. The real issue for everyone is the blacks, and it is the liberal whites who always have been and always will run cover for the blacks at the expense of all whites including especially themselves. Liberals will do it at the expense of everything. Notice how Spencer chides Fuentes as a “spic” but supports reparations on Tariq Nasheed’s show. No doubt he is doing yet another dialectically irony poisoned reading there. BLM is out of the news cycle at the moment but there is no going back after Floyd.

    • So after asking ‘what does it say about the modern liberal woman’, you then effeminately suggest ‘we should probably bury the racial hatchet with the Latinos and Latinas’ — as another comment in this thread says, ‘you just can’t make this stuff up’.

      The racial/ethnic designation ‘Latinos and Latinas’ is equivalent to Hispanic, which as I say above is a legitimate racial/ethnic category — as such, it includes people with varying degrees of indigenous genetic admixture — people who, phenotypically, obviously have a significant degree of indigenous admixture are often referred to as mestizos, and it is mestizos who, along with the indigenous peoples (sometimes called Amerindians), form a huge fraction of the populations of countries in Central and South America — and they are the reasons those countries are, at best, second world, i.e. economically underdeveloped, meaning they have HDI (human development index) scores significantly lower than the US and Canada in North America (Human Development Index).

      The following article was published on AmRen a few years ago:

      Argentina: A Mirror of Your Future

      In the section headed ‘The decline’:

      Very little is left today of that Argentina. It began to fade during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Many historians blame the closing of international markets after the Wall Street Crash — that was certainly a factor — but there was another cause: European immigration stopped. Instead, there was migration of Mestizos and Amerindians, both from the country to the city and from neighboring Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, and Chile. These new arrivals were prolific and ringed the main cities — Buenos Aires, Rosario, Cordoba, Mendoza — with belts of poverty. Unlike the Europeans, whose arrival was planned and encouraged, Amerindian migration was uncontrolled. White Argentina looked the other way.

      All of the above ought to ring familiar: it is the same phenomenon as the mass migration of Mexicans, primarily mestizos and Amerindians, to the US (there is a sizable white elite in Mexico, which helps explain the fact its HDI is somewhat higher than Central America generally).

    • Conservatives have never dominated academia. Academics have always been relatively more liberal than the contemporary general population of their era. At least in Whites, high IQ is correlated with genetic personality traits that predispose one to liberalism. White liberalism is a genetic disease that requires a genetic solution.

    • Most opposition to abortion is moral and therefore principled, so if someone who opposes abortion generally, especially government funding of, support for, or involvement in abortion, also opposes abortion for ‘illegal aliens’, even if it results in ‘anchor babies’, at least they are being consistent.

      The most interesting aspect of the story is that the ORR (Office of Refugee Resettlement) is involved — one could say that’s only logical, given these people are migrants — but it could also be seen as an indication a decision has been made to grant them asylum (people accepted as refugees are formally granted asylum) — if so, that is a very bad sign, as it basically means any peasant from a country in Central America that has an excess of poverty and ordinary criminal violence could stand a good chance of being given asylum in the US — which is absurd.

  11. Ahahahahahahaah, really??!!! On that sign it’s written that “Science is real”, from the people who believe that sex is only a social construct or a cultural factor and that anyone can change gender. No they don’t know science or biology because in science there are male and female, people born from a male and female, people born biologically male or female and they cannot change sex or gender because of their whims. They dare to write that they believe in science??……. please leftists go fck over.

    • The groypers and daily stormer crew seem to be in love with this weird Jew. I guess that’s what comes next for America First after based Black conservatives and based Hispanics in MAGA hats. Based Jewish Patriot comedians.

  12. It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No, it’s a flying car…

    Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster? Well, probably not…

    — The Roadster is permanently attached to the upper stage of a Falcon Heavy rocket. (* Of course the Tesla could have been commandeered (carjacked) by “Martian space warriors” and “souped” it up to allow them to buzz the Earth with it. (Maybe Russia should capture it and own the West.))

    — Starman, the human mannequin “driver” (or at least his space suit), seems to be missing. (see * note above)

    — Shouldn’t be near the earth ( unless see * note above). The Roadster is in an elliptical heliocentric orbit crossing the orbit of Mars.

    The Roadster is in a heliocentric orbit that crosses the orbit of Mars and reaches a distance of 1.66 au from the Sun. With an inclination of roughly 1 degree to the ecliptic plane, compared to Mars’ 1.85° inclination, this trajectory by design cannot intercept Mars, so the car will neither fly by Mars nor enter an orbit around Mars. This was the second object launched by SpaceX to leave Earth orbit, after the DSCOVR mission to the Earth–Sun L1 Lagrangian point. Nine months after launch, the Tesla had travelled beyond the orbit of Mars, reaching aphelion at 12:48 UTC on November 9, 2018, at a distance of 248,892,559 km (1.664 au) from the Sun. The maximum speed of the car relative to the Sun will be approximately 121,000 km/h (75,000 mph) at perihelion.
    — Wikipedia: Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster

    75,000 mph? Musk “might” get some “tickets” over this. Western Australia Police distributed a picture of a radar gun aimed at the Roadster whilst above Australia.(Wikipedia article)

    — the car in the picture does not appear to be red. (unless it was stolen and given a new paint job see * note above). December 2017 he [Elon Musk] announced that the payload would be his personal “midnight cherry Tesla Roadster”.(Wikipedia article)

    — Maybe that flying car is owned by the driver who slammed into the rear of that Robert E. Lee hater who wrote a book where she attacked Lee after she had been given access by the Lee family to some of Lee’s never before published letters. A driver slammed into the rear of her car and killed her in Richmond, VA while hallucinating that his car was flying. (Maybe he finally did get a car that could fly, maybe not.)

    In 2008, Pryor was awarded the Lincoln Prize for Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee through his Private Letters… Pryor’s book is notable for using hundreds of Lee’s previously unpublished private letters to create a fresh biography of the Confederate general… Pryor was killed in a rear end vehicle accident caused by a speeding car driven by Robert Stevens Gentil in Richmond, Virginia on April 13, 2015. Gentil’s long-term mental health issues led to episodes of manic delusions, including the belief on this occasion that his car was flying.
    — Wikipedia, “Elizabeth Brown Pryor”.

    Bad things can happen to you when you try to attack Robert E. Lee. Thousands of Union soldiers and this back stabbing author found out the hard way…

    Secede now!

    May God Save the South!

1 Trackback / Pingback

  1. Poll Watch: Most Red State Voters Support Dissolving The Union – Occidental Dissent

Comments are closed.