NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Black-White IQ » White People Not 100 Percent Human? Afrocentrist Debunked

White People Not 100 Percent Human? Afrocentrist Debunked

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 90 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

850 words

I just came across this video on YouTube published yesterday called “White people are not 100% human (Race differences) (I.Q debunked)“, with, of course, outrageous claims (the usual from Afrocentrists). I already left a comment proving his nonsense incorrect, but I thought I’d further expound on it here.

His first ‘evidence’ that whites aren’t 100 percent human is showing some individuals who are born with tails. Outliers are meaningless, of course. The cause of the human tail is due to the unsuccessful inhibition of the Wnt3-a gene. When this gene isn’t successful in signaling the cell death of the tail in early embryonic development, a person is then born with a small vestigial tail. This doesn’t prove anything.

His next assertion is that since “94 percent of whites test positive for Rh blood type” and that “as a result, they are born with a tail”, then whites must have interbred with rhesus monkeys in the past. This is ridiculous. This blood type was named in error. The book Blood Groups and Red Cell Antigens sums it up nicely:

The Rh blood group is one of the most complex blood groups known in humans. From its discovery 60 years ago where it was named (in error) after the Rhesus monkey, it has become second in importance only to the ABO blood group in the field of transfusion medicine. It has remained of primary importance in obstetrics, being the main cause of hemolytic disease of the newborn (HDN).

It was wrongly thought that the agglutinating antibodies produced in the mother’s serum in response to her husbands RBCs were the same specificity as antibodies produced in various animals’ serum in response to RBCs from the Rhesus monkey. In error, the paternal antigen was named the Rhesus factor. By the time it was discovered that the mother’s antibodies were produced against a different antigen, the rhesus blood group terminology was being widely used. Therefore, instead of changing the name, it was abbreviated to the Rh blood group.

As you can see, this is another ridiculous and easily debunked claim. One only needs to do a bit of non-biased reading into something to get the truth, which some people are not capable of.

What he says next, I don’t really have a problem with. He just shows articles stating that Neanderthals had big brains to control their bodies and that they had a larger, elongated visual cortex. However, there is archeological evidence that our cognitive superiority over Neanderthals is a myth (Villa and Roebroeks, 2014). What he shows in this section is the truest thing he’ll say, though.

Then he shows how African immigrants to America have a higher educational achievement than whites and immigrant East Asians. However, it’s clear he’s not heard of super-selection. The people with the means to leave will, and, most likely, those with the means are the more intelligent ones in the group. We also can’t forget about ‘preferential treatment’, AKA Affirmative Action.

The concept of ‘multiple intelligences’ is then brought up. The originator of the theory, Howard Gardner, rejects general intelligence, dismisses factor analysis, doesn’t defend his theory with quantitative data, instead, drawing on anthropology to zoology findings for his claims, being completely devoid of any psychometric or quantitative data (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994: 18). The Alternative Hypothesis also has a thorough debunking of this claim.

He then makes the claim that hereditarians assume that environment/experience play no factor in performance on IQ tests/life success. We know that both the individual heritability is 80/20 genetics and environment, with the black-white gap being the same (Rushton and Jensen 2005: 279). Another easily refuted claim.

The term ‘inferior’ is brought up due to whites’ supposed ‘inferiority’, though we know that terms such as those have no basis in evolutionary biology.

He claims that a black man named Jesse Russel invented the cell phone, when in reality a white man named Martin Cooper did. He claims that Lewis Latimer invented the filament lightbulb, when a man named Joseph Swan obtained the patent in the UK in 1860. Of course, individual outliers are meaningless to group success, as they don’t reflect the group average as a whole, so these discussions are meaningless.

He finally claims that the “black Moors civilized Europe”. Europeans didn’t need to “be civilized”, I guess people don’t understand that empires/kingdoms rise and fall and go through highs and lows. That doesn’t stop people from pushing a narrative, though. Further, the Moors were not black. People love attempting to create their own fantasy history in which their biases are a reality.

I don’t know why people have to make these idiotic and easily refuted videos. Lies that push people further from the truth of racial differences, genetics, and history as a whole. Biases such as these just cloud people’s minds to the truth, and when the truth is shown to  them, refuting their biases and twisting of history, genetics, and IQ, they then look at it as an attack on what they deem to be true despite all of the conflicting, non-biased evidence shown to them. Afrocentric loons need to be refuted, lest people believe their lies, misconceptions and twistings of history.

Advertisements

19 Comments

  1. Salmed says:

    Did you ask how Blacks were repeatedly conquered and/or enslaved by non-Blacks like the Arabs and are so dependent on foreign aid if Whites are inferior to them? And point out the utter lack of pure Black billionares as shown by Forbes?

    Like

  2. Salmed says:

    Whites and other non-Jiggaboo populations like East Asians have significant Neanderthal admixture. Considering how it’s possible for seperate species to produce fertile if dysfunctional offspring , one could certainly say blacks are a seperate species from populations in North Africa and beyond.

    Like

  3. Salmed says:

    I wonder if whoever’s behind that video trolled you and others.

    Like

  4. Denny says:

    Whoever or whatever we are……it’s great. I am not ashamed of us either way.

    Like

  5. Neanderthal genomes are currently present the most in the Eurasian immune system giving us a jump of 100’s and 1000’s of yrs on African man.

    The current belief that Neanderthal were hunched and not entirely upright were ludicrous as many younger specimen fossils have been found, the current misconception was based on the first findings of an elderly being. More findings suggest that they were the first species to have music as bone flutes were found at a site. Music is arguably the most mental stimulating activity therefore providing him with a complex way of thinking (not just banging two sticks together).

    As for African man being genetically fit compared to Eurasians is completely subjective. What are we basing as being human? an admixture? or a group that lacks admixture?

    I have a theory that may explain why African DNA is more diverse than ours so please bear with me on this.
    We currently know that we inherit 50% of each of our parentage line. And through our life time our individual body’s will alter that DNA that becomes unique to us.
    The African lifespan we know is not quite as long as Eurasians and their ability to breed at a younger age trumps ours. In some extreme cases they have mothered children at the age of 6yrs. Due to their lack of clotting and immune systems they have also had the added stress of death by superficial wounds, disease and illnesses that have decimated them throughout history (and yet their ability to adapt to these diseases or illnesses still lacks, unlike the Europeans ability to survive and adapt to many diseases within our community i.e. syphilis, small pox, various strains of influenza). What i’m getting at is quite simple, if you can squeeze more generations and more population into the lifespan of one Eurasian than it stands possible that more DNA will be altered over a longer period of time.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      “I have a theory that may explain why African DNA is more diverse than ours so please bear with me on this.
      We currently know that we inherit 50% of each of our parentage line. And through our life time our individual body’s will alter that DNA that becomes unique to us.
      The African lifespan we know is not quite as long as Eurasians and their ability to breed at a younger age trumps ours. In some extreme cases they have mothered children at the age of 6yrs. Due to their lack of clotting and immune systems they have also had the added stress of death by superficial wounds, disease and illnesses that have decimated them throughout history (and yet their ability to adapt to these diseases or illnesses still lacks, unlike the Europeans ability to survive and adapt to many diseases within our community i.e. syphilis, small pox, various strains of influenza). What i’m getting at is quite simple, if you can squeeze more generations and more population into the lifespan of one Eurasian than it stands possible that more DNA will be altered over a longer period of time.”

      That would affect the rate of change through time, not necessarily the overall diversity of a genepool. For instance, you have that many offspring and generations BECAUSE many/most would like die so this doesn’t mean that you would result in many unique DNA mutations.

      Also, crossing over (process making of unique genes) is only occasional on certain genes, not all of them.

      I’ve written an article here explain that it is likely due to their smaller state formation and lack of widespread outbreeding.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      To Jared:

      “The African lifespan we know is not quite as long as Eurasians and their ability to breed at a younger age trumps ours. In some extreme cases they have mothered children at the age of 6yrs.

      I do not believe that is in evidence. The youngest recorded mother was a Peruvian woman (of Amerindian descent)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina

      Other youngest ones appear mostly Eurasian: (that is : Latin Americans of likley Mestizo, White or Indian origin; Europeans—esp. Russians seemingly—;and Asians

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

      Some (many) of the oldest recorded people (centinarians and supercentinarians) in America are blacks (even a bit disporportionaltely it seems). The shorter average life expectancy is likely not genetic, but (at least largely) related to living conditions—ofr instance in the US more die young (there and in the poor countries where most blacks live).

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Sorry, I meant to Jarrard (mispelled the name).

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit: “…Some (many) of the oldest recorded people (centinarians, supercentinarians, and near-centenarians) in America are blacks…”

      “…related to living conditions—for instance in the US more die young (there and in the poor countries where most blacks live—which for example have higher infant/childhood mortality, and disease. etc.).”

      Like

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

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 161,737 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: