64 Comments

  1. I guess with LibsofTikTok currently on a weeklong Twitter suspension (link) he has a bit of time on his hands for stunts like this.

    Suggestion: next he should take a seat on one of the buses full of migrants Texas governor Abbott is sending to NYC — it would be interesting to know e.g. how often it stops for bathroom breaks.

  2. I’ve been trying to tell you there isn’t a superior “race”, and you all wouldn’t listen. African blacks are clearly superior to Western White liberals. If you can’t see that then you are the inferior people.

    • I want my race to exist. I don’t love my kinsmen because they are “superior.” I love them because they are my kinsmen with their own God-given talents and destiny.

      • Who invented the computer and keyboard you typed on? Who invented the silicon chip, who figured out what coding is, who invented the chair you sit on, the metals and plastics that compose it? Who invented algorithms and all of the chemistry and physics involved in the every day things in your life? Who invented the alternating current? Who invented the air conditioning in your home? Who invented the electric stove and microwave you use? The list is nearly endless. Whites are clearly superior intelligence wise, and this is history since the beginning of time.
        It really pisses me off when whites act like we are just another flavor. I don’t advocate
        “White Supremacy” ad nauseum, but I do think when whites try to make it like we are not better than the other groups, they want approval and to be accepted by nonwhites and liberal whites, the same people who use the things we have invented, live in our countries, yet continually tell us we are not better.

        • Technology doesn’t =superior. The top 10 most traditional conservative countries in the World are ALL completely non-White countries. White countries are the most anti-traditional most liberal and degenerate in the whole world. So collectively it’s “Whites” who have fucked up the world NOT non-Whites. That is a 100%fact and I’m white myself. So the evidence actually proves the opposite from what y’all say. If the World was all White it would be almost completely LIBERAL and degenerate. So we actually need non Whites as a balance. Until you are willing to admit that then you’ll just remain in your foolish prideful state.

          https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-conservative-countries

          • @Unorthodox Slumlord You wrote:”Technology doesn’t =superior. ”

            Oh yes it does. It’s why third worlders flock to first world nations. They can’t create technology for themselves.
            No one is flocking to third world nations.

        • These whites who do the “we aren’t really superior” and we just want to exist crap, just want approval and to be liked. It’s so bad. The dark races haven’t even invented one part on an airliner. They never invented any mathematics or science at all. Never invented one coating for metals. Nothing. But they can dance and throw a ball…the whites who think this stuff is the same, and our achievements don’t matter, probably go nuts when their IP is down and they can’t watch Netflix.

    • “African blacks are clearly superior to Western White liberals.”

      Yeah no shit, just about everyone is better than a western White liberal.

      • @Pilot, those are not exceptions, but rather are a growing trend of high IQ highly successful blacks throughout the World. Also the difference in IQ is environmental not genetic.
        There is a black-white gap in IQ scores. The gap really does exist. The only question is: what causes it? Is it possible that it’s due entirely to genetic differences between blacks of African ancestry and whites of European ancestry? I doubt it for these reasons:

        Modern humans migrated into Europe about 40,000 years ago. That’s a very short time for selection pressures to produce a significant increase in a complex trait like intelligence, which we know to be controlled by hundreds of different genes. Even 100,000 years is a short time. It’s not impossible to see substantial genetic changes that fast, but it’s unlikely.
        Speaking very generally, recent research suggests that the heritability of intelligence is about two-thirds biological and one-third environmental. That amount of environmental influence is more than enough to account for the black-white IQ gap.
        There’s a famous result in intelligence studies called the Flynn Effect. What it tells us is that average IQs rose about 3 points per decade throughout the 20th century. That’s roughly 20 points of IQ throughout the entire period, and it’s obvious that this couldn’t have been caused by genes. It’s 100 percent environmental. This is clear evidence that environmental factors are quite powerful and can easily account for very large IQ differences over a very short period of time.
        The difference in average IQ recorded in different European countries is large: on the order of 10 points or more. The genetic background of all these countries is nearly identical, which means, again, that something related to culture, environment, and education is having a large effect.
        It is very common for marginalized groups to have low scores on IQ tests. In the early years of the 20th century, for example, the recorded IQs of Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Polish-Americans and so forth were very low. This was the case even for IQ scores recorded from the children of immigrants, all of whom were born and educated in the US and were fluent English speakers. These IQ scores weren’t low because of test discrimination (at least not primarily because of that), they were low because marginalized groups often internalize the idea that they aren’t intelligent. However, over the decades, as these groups became accepted as “white,” their IQ scores rose to the average for white Americans.
        The same thing has happened elsewhere. In the middle part of the 20th century, the Irish famously had average IQ scores that were similar to those of American blacks—despite the fact that they’re genetically barely distinguishable from the British. However, as Ireland became richer and the Irish themselves became less marginalized, their IQ scores rose. Today their scores are pretty average.
        In 1959, Klaus Eyferth performed a study of children in Germany whose fathers had been part of the occupation forces. Some had white fathers and some had black fathers. The IQ scores of the white children and the racially mixed children was virtually identical.
        Over the past few decades, the black-white IQ gap has narrowed. Roughly speaking, it was about 15 points in 1970 and it’s about 10 points now. This obviously has nothing to do with genes.
        I hope this makes sense. You can draw your own conclusions, but my take from all this is that (a) the short time since humans migrated to Europe doesn’t allow much scope for big genetic changes between Africans and Europeans, (b) it’s clear that environment can have a very large effect on IQ scores, and (c) anyone who thinks the marginalization of African Americans isn’t a big enough effect to account for 10 points of IQ is crazy. White IQ is actually going down, and Black IQ is going up with Blacks closing the gap. Eventually Blacks will far surpass us in collective IQ.

  3. There are however superior and inferior individuals. That I do agree with. With all of our advantages and advancements we’ve just produced more problems, liberalism, and degenerate societies. So who can really claim superiority?

  4. I have always said this without fear or hypocrisy: i’m not against black people, i’m against woke and whim black people who are in our countries. Black people in our countries are usually woke today (even if there are some exceptions of black people who are conservative, who believe in family and are against gender theory). I’ve always appreciated tribal people in Africa, Asia, South America or Eskimos, because they live poorer than us, but in the end they live in real life with the true nature of things: in these tribes there are no vegans, gender fluids or fags, traitors to their culture and not even young people (like our antifa) who question their ancestors or their fathers. I know that i’m gonna saying something that it could make everyone on this site hate me but i think that these tribal people, even if black and in a poor society, are superior than our white leftists (only leftists), faggots, antifa, vegan, gender fluid, monument destroyer people.

    • African Americans aren’t woke, they’re just opportunistic.
      They support woke on race, but not on sex, gender, immigration and so on.
      Blacks tend to lean left on race and the economy and right on most other things.
      Blacks are populist, not progressive.
      By contrast whites are either progressive or conservative, rarely populist.
      Blacks are more pragmatic, they pick and choose what works for them, they ignore the left’s ‘experts’ and the right’s ‘experts’ when convenient, whites are more idealistic.

      • Your reasonment is good, i agree, but i’ve heard many times blacks black lives matter activists or simply black leftists that endorse and share LGBTQ theories or free drugs and other woke stuffs.

      • African Americans support that leftist shite because there’s something in it for them, i.e. handouts and/or get out of jail free card, chance to blame Whitey for their own shortcomings.

    • There is a clear distinction between intelligence and being educated ..they are not exclusive..

      When white western liberals become ‘educated’ they seem to denounce their common sense intelligence.

      It’s not necessarily that these tribal black people are smarter than white leftists , its more along the lines of them not totally being brainwashed with kosher enforced self hatred and perverted with kosher degeneracy …
      They’re not subjected to the types of psychological manipulation via these social engineering ideas created by (((think tanks))) like whites are in all of our countries worldwide.

      The way whites in western society are constantly demoralized is quite sickening.

    • @Marcel – That you can find those low-IQ savages, who wipes their ass with their bare hands, “superior” is the perfect example of how ridiculous White people are. For all intents and purposes, that “tribesman” is wearing your balls on an amulet around his neck.

      • @ AW/James Bell/Mainz Mothmann

        I would like to answer all three at once because giving three answers would be long. I knew my comment would upset someone (and in fact I even wrote it down). To clarify my position, although I think it is quite clear: I repeat that these savages are, in their way of life, somewhat wiser than us ON CERTAIN ISSUES, and sex, gender are some examples. I NEVER SAID (READ MY COMMENT PREVIOUSLY) that these tribes are superior to all of us, I said they are superior (AND I’M SORRY BUT THEY ARE) to all whites and blacks LEFT-WING AND WOKE not to those right-wing like us. I don’t give a fuck if an indiviuo is white but doesn’t even know what a man or woman is, or cuts his dick off because he wants to be a woman, or says he has no sex or gender and is non-binary. I’m sorry but on these issues Western conservatives and these tribes have something in common, they both recognise that there is a male and female distinction. As for the rest, the left really believes the transgender bullshit and so do the blacks. Part of the blacks in our societies believe it out of opportunism but another part believes it because they are influenced by these stupid theories along with the white leftists, since these bullshit theories were invented by the black and white Marxists in our societies. Finally, I have much more respect for the ‘nigger’ who knows what male and female are than I do for the antifa, faggot, monument destroyer (black or white) who destroys our West.

        I HOPE I HAVE CLARIFIED.

        • “Conservative” doesn’t mean anything anymore. Most conservatives in America are left of center, meaning they are pro-immigration, adopt nonwhite babies, and embrace globalism.

    • >I have always said this without fear or hypocrisy: i’m not against black people, …

      How do you expect people to see this? — it appears roughly equivalent to the all-time classic ‘I’m not a racist, but …’

      >Black people in our countries are usually woke today …

      I’m not sure you understand the common/colloquial definition of ‘woke’ — from what I see, a smaller fraction of Blacks are ‘woke’ than in any other racial/ethnic group — ‘wokeness’, which is primarily the product of a kind of dilettante intellectualism, definitely isn’t the problem with Blacks; it’s their aggregate social dysfunction (e.g. high criminality), as well as their general unsuitability for life in a first world technocratic society (due to e.g. low average IQ) — this is rhetorically exploited by the ‘woke’ of all races (perhaps especially Whites) in order to scapegoat Whites for the problems of Blacks.

      One could say that in general Blacks have become accustomed (at least subliminally) to their status as victims; their status as victims rivals that of Jews — in this sense, the advent of victim culture, with its ever-expanding hierarchy of victim groups (‘protected classes’), can be seen as an early manifestation of ‘wokeness’, maybe even as a prerequisite — this victimhood culture (oppressor/oppressed) has been developing since approx the early beginning of the Civil Rights era — but being a member of a victim group is not the same as being ‘woke’.

      • @eah Man why i should be against black people who are still in their countries?? Black people who are still in Africa states or India, etc. Be against all black people in the world make not sense, i’m against black people who come in western society and destroy it. I’m not interest in black people that live in Africa or other states. Regarding wokism, obviously it’s pushed by white but also by black activists. People who teach in universities critical race theory are often blacks, people who purpose to destroy monuments also, etc. Wokism is not only a white problem, even blacks are woke. I don’t understand what is wrong if i say that i’ve more respect of black tribal Masai who stay in his Africa and recognize difference between man and woman, rathern than a black or white leftists that broken ball in our countries with their degeneration? Ultimately the Masai boss stay in his country and doesn’t try to ruin our country instead black and white leftists are in our countries, ruin our countries and act like parasite.

        • I didn’t say you should be ‘against’ Blacks ‘who are still in their countries’; but given their demographic profile (as I outlined), I would recommend you oppose a lot more of them coming to your country (Italy, I believe — ?).

          All the other stuff about the Masai etc: I don’t really care, you can respect the Masai if you want, I didn’t say there was anything wrong with respecting the Masai.

          link

          Chiefly US slang — Aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice

          Above is a definition of ‘woke’, but I would point out that ‘social justice’ must be seen as including things related to sexuality (LGBT) for this to be a good definition.

          >People who teach in universities critical race theory are often blacks

          For decades now, African-American or Ethnic Studies Departments have been in many American universities, and ‘racial justice’ was part of the curriculum; that is nothing new — CRT may also now be part of the curriculum, and Blacks probably teach such classes.

          But the vanguard of CRT has been primarily Whites and Jews, especially white women — as I said, it is a product of dilettante intellectualism, and Blacks are not known for being intellectuals.

          So I still think Blacks are not really all that ‘woke’ — as I suggested, black activists are primarily grifters operating within the long-standing and mostly financial racial grievance industry, BLM being a prime example.

          I think you should carefully read my comment again.

          • I tried to oppose them, obviously by vote for political parties that are against immigration: i voted for Salvini League in 2013/2018 and in the elections of september 2022 i will vote for Brother of Italy. I try but then politicians must fulfil the promises they make in the election campaign.

            Anyway i wanted simply say that i appreciate the answer of Masai to the gender question, rather than the answers of our leftists “intellectuals”.

          • @Eah I agree on this, i never said that BLM help black people (even if they think to do), just think about this: destroying monuments of the host society and culture, i.e. Western culture, and saying that the members of that community, society and culture are all racist along with their ancestors does not help the cause of black people very much, because it makes them perceived as enemies (as they are until they endorse cancel culture, blaming of white western society and all its heritage). But leftists and BLM don’t care about this, they’re simply interested to take power and destroy our society.

    • @Marcel,
      Your take on blacks is logical and reasonable.
      I would, however, argue that black American circumstances are unique in all of world history. They were brought over against their will, and were treated pretty shabbily. They have mixed black/white portions in their ancestry makeup. Their history in America goes back so far that expecting them to return to Africa after 400 years because they’re merely partially black in race, is just rediculous.
      Black Africans, who are so black you can’t see their faces in bad light, are a different story, as is all the other third world groups inviting themselves in:- we owe them nothing.
      We’ve all met great non white individuals, but as a collective, they’re changing our countries in ways we never wanted or asked for.

  6. O/T, Hunter, what happened to Irish Savant in your blog roll? Did he get banned again or does his presence offend the resident Irish hater?

  7. A woman is an adult female human. Also typical conservative loser thinks it makes some point to interview the Noble Savages on the topic.

    Boys have a penis girls have a vagina. I don’t need an African tribesman to tell me that, I learned it from Kindergarden Cop.

    • @BH You have to admit, though, that the African savage tribe is right, correct or reasonable compared to the average blue-haired activist who votes for American and European democrats, who cannot define what is a man or a woman, or who claims that there are people without sex and gender. I am of course talking about white or black left-wing men living in our western societies, not those (conservatives or dissidents) who like us know how to distinguish what is male or female. ???

      • @Marcel

        It takes a lot of “education” i.e. indoctrination to believe men can have babies.

        Secretly, not even the SJW nutjobs believe this crap, they just pretend to for virtue signaling purposes. I’m sure traditional peoples, like the African tribesmen, probably just think it is the white man’s voodoo which it kind of is.

  8. African blacks in their natural environment might be less corrupted than American blacks in modern “society.”

    It doesn’t require a high IQ to understand the unalterable difference between male and female. Scientific education about genetics, including the x and y chromosomes that cannot be changed, would only reinforce the common sense. The modern problem with understanding maleness and femaleness is not due to insufficient intelligence, but to the choice to indulge the evil inclination that always exists in man along with the good. A high IQ is also not needed to understand politics, and how the plutocratic, imperialist system works, and why socialism is needed.

    • We can only blame ourselves for that. It’s modern Western societies that produces all the unhealthy degenerate shit. So on one hand you wanna say we are superior, but you all don’t wanna admit that it’s because of Whites that our Western societies are fucked up the way they are. You can’t blame the shit on minorities with no power. It’s the fault of the White man. The most liberal /woke/ pc/ progressive nations in the world are ALL White Western nations. Every single one. The most traditional, anti pc, most conservative nations are all non White nations. Just Google it if you don’t believe me. Even if you blame Jews it still falls back on us Whites because there had to be cooperation. So anybody who says “Whites” are the superior race clearly is mentally ill.

      • @Orthodox,
        We can all agree there are lovely non whites out there, and some pretty awful whites. Non whites have a logic that we in the West used to possess. Some minority groups have something to offer, including great food, music and fashion, etc. But……….do we just allow them to become the majority in every white country based on that? Do we allow them to be the majority because of outliers who may contribute something? Any talents they have should instead be used to benefit their own nations.
        Black Americans were brought to America unwillingly, and are now largely mixed(about 8% British or other European on average). They’ve been in America since centuries before any of us were born. You’re stuck with them. But all these Asians, Muslims, Jews, Africans, Latin Americans, etc……..are invaders, and you owe them nothing.
        It doesn’t matter if some are intelligent or whatever. We DON’T want to be replaced.

      • ….and yet for some strange reason, the rest of the world wants to escape to these “inferior” White societies.

    • I’ve been thinking the same thing since he was first mentioned. Who the hell is Matt Walsh? Don’t answer. I don’t care.

      • I don’t know who he is either. This site seems to come up with a LOT of alleged pro-whites, that I never heard of, and don’t seem to make a difference.

  10. But everyone in the world is exactly the same and completely, totally equal! Surely a white liberal living in the DC suburbs in Virginia wouldn’t believe these people and their outdated opinions to be inferior or anything. Surely not.

  11. If anyone thinks all the races are the same when it comes to strength, intelligence and wisdom clearly don’t live in reality. Modern day Africa not influenced by Whites is the same today as it was 200 years ago.

  12. Some reading and commenting here may be familiar with Godwin’s law; simply stated, it says that the likelihood of a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis appearing in an online discussion is proportional to the length of the discussion, meaning the longer a discussion continues, the more likely it is that someone is going to mention Hitler.

    Perhaps an offshoot is that trolls are like black holes: discussions seem to collapse around their comments, regardless of how valueless they are — you see an example of that here in all the replies to the ludicrous (and blatantly false) assertion that ‘there is no such thing as race’.

  13. Orthodox Slumlord does have a point but he is exaggerating. A decent fraction of whites are to blame, but certainly not all of them. But this does need to be recognized and accepted by whites if whites want to come up with a solution. Politics won’t work because whites with the right mindsets are outnumbered in their lands

    • >A decent fraction of whites are to blame

      I think people who read and comment here know and agree with this — link

      >Politics won’t work because whites with the right mindsets are outnumbered

      Yes, it’s a huge problem.

      The issue with his comments is the aggressive race flat-earthism — it’s ridiculous.

  14. And I’d like to add: Whether whites are superior or not, why do non-whites not want whites in general having their own homelands??

  15. @Brad Griffin, Here’s something for you all to read and take into consideration.

    Racial naturalism is the view that racial classifications are grounded in objective patterns of genetic similarities and differences. Proponents of this view have justified it using the scientific evidence described above. However, this view is controversial and philosophers[99] of race have put forward four main objections to it.

    Semantic objections, such as the discreteness objection, argue that the human populations picked out in population-genetic research are not races and do not correspond to what “race” means in the United States. “The discreteness objection does not require there to be no genetic admixture in the human species in order for there to be US ‘racial groups’ … rather … what the objection claims is that membership in US racial groups is different from membership in continental populations. … Thus, strictly speaking, Blacks are not identical to Africans, Whites are not identical to Eurasians, Asians are not identical to East Asians and so forth.”[100] Therefore, it could be argued that scientific research is not really about race.

    The next two objections, are metaphysical objections which argue that even if the semantic objections fail, human genetic clustering results do not support the biological reality of race. The ‘very important objection’ stipulates that races in the US definition fail to be important to biology, in the sense that continental populations do not form biological subspecies. The ‘objectively real objection’ states that “US racial groups are not biologically real because they are not objectively real in the sense of existing independently of human interest, belief, or some other mental state of humans.”[101] Racial naturalists, such as Quayshawn Spencer, have responded to each of these objections with counter-arguments. There are also methodological critics who reject racial naturalism because of concerns relating to the experimental design, execution, or interpretation of the relevant population-genetic research.[102]

    Another semantic objection is the visibility objection which refutes the claim that there are US racial groups in human population structures. Philosophers such as Joshua Glasgow and Naomi Zack believe that US racial groups cannot be defined by visible traits, such as skin colour and physical attributes: “The ancestral genetic tracking material has no effect on phenotypes, or biological traits of organisms, which would include the traits deemed racial, because the ancestral tracking genetic material plays no role in the production of proteins it is not the kind of material that ‘codes’ for protein production.”[103][page needed] Spencer contends that certain racial discourses require visible groups, but disagrees that this is a requirement in all US racial discourse.[citation needed][undue weight? – discuss]

    A different objection states that US racial groups are not biologically real because they are not objectively real in the sense of existing independently of some mental state of humans. Proponents of this second metaphysical objection include Naomi Zack and Ron Sundstrom.[103][104] Spencer argues that an entity can be both biologically real and socially constructed. Spencer states that in order to accurately capture real biological entities, social factors must also be considered.[citation needed][undue weight? – discuss]

    It has been argued that knowledge of a person’s race is limited in value, since people of the same race vary from one another.[76] David J. Witherspoon and colleagues have argued that when individuals are assigned to population groups, two randomly chosen individuals from different populations can resemble each other more than a randomly chosen member of their own group. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used for the answer to “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” to be “Never”. This assumed three population groups, separated by large geographic distances (European, African and East Asian). The global human population is more complex, and studying a large number of groups would require an increased number of markers for the same answer. They conclude that “caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes”,[105] and “The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population”.[106]

    This is similar to the conclusion reached by anthropologist Norman Sauer in a 1992 article on the ability of forensic anthropologists to assign “race” to a skeleton, based on craniofacial features and limb morphology. Sauer said, “the successful assignment of race to a skeletal specimen is not a vindication of the race concept, but rather a prediction that an individual, while alive was assigned to a particular socially constructed ‘racial’ category. A specimen may display features that point to African ancestry. In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature”.[107]

    Criticism of race-based medicines

    Troy Duster points out that genetics is often not the predominant determinant of disease susceptibilities, even though they might correlate with specific socially defined categories. This is because this research oftentimes lacks control for a multiplicity of socio-economic factors. He cites data collected by King and Rewers that indicates how dietary differences play a significant role in explaining variations of diabetes prevalence between populations.

    Duster elaborates by putting forward the example of the Pima of Arizona, a population suffering from disproportionately high rates of diabetes. The reason for such, he argues, was not necessarily a result of the prevalence of the FABP2 gene, which is associated with insulin resistance. Rather he argues that scientists often discount the lifestyle implications under specific socio-historical contexts. For instance, near the end of the 19th century, the Pima economy was predominantly agriculture-based. However, as the European American population settles into traditionally Pima territory, the Pima lifestyles became heavily Westernised. Within three decades, the incidence of diabetes increased multiple folds. Governmental provision of free relatively high-fat food to alleviate the prevalence of poverty in the population is noted as an explanation of this phenomenon.[108]

    Lorusso and Bacchini argue against the assumption that “self-identified race is a good proxy for a specific genetic ancestry”[98] on the basis that self-identified race is complex: it depends on a range of psychological, cultural and social factors, and is therefore “not a robust proxy for genetic ancestry”.[109] Furthermore, they explain that an individual’s self-identified race is made up of further, collectively arbitrary factors: personal opinions about what race is and the extent to which it should be taken into consideration in everyday life. Furthermore, individuals who share a genetic ancestry may differ in their racial self-identification across historical or socioeconomic contexts. From this, Lorusso and Bacchini conclude that the accuracy in the prediction of genetic ancestry on the basis of self-identification is low, specifically in racially admixed populations born out of complex ancestral histories.

    Much scientific research has been organized around the question of whether or not there is genetic basis for race. In Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s book (circa 1994) “The History and Geography of Human Genes”[32] he writes, “From a scientific point of view, the concept of race has failed to obtain any consensus; none is likely, given the gradual variation in existence. It may be objected that the racial stereotypes have a consistency that allows even the layman to classify individuals. However, the major stereotypes, all based on skin color, hair color and form, and facial traits, reflect superficial differences that are not confirmed by deeper analysis with more reliable genetic traits and whose origin dates from recent evolution mostly under the effect of climate and perhaps sexual selection”.

    A more up-to-date and comprehensive book authored by geneticist David Reich (2018) reaffirms the conclusion that the traditional views which assert a biological basis for race are wrong:

    Today, many people assume that humans can be grouped biologically into “primeval” groups, corresponding to our notion of “races”… But this long-held view about “race” has just in the last years been proven wrong.

    —?David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here, (Introduction, pg. xxii).

Comments are closed.