NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism » The Physical Reality of Race

The Physical Reality of Race

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

Join 175 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

Advertisements

1600 words

Rational people can just look at people of different ancestries and see that there is something to what we call “race.” We notice that others look different based on where their ancestors came from and we classify people into different races on the basis of their physical appearance. Anti-biological racial realists may point to the fact that there is more variation within races than between them (Lewontin, 1972; Rosenberg et al, 2002; Witherspoon et al, 2007; Hunley, Cabana, and Long, 2016; Hardimon, 2017). While this is true, this does not mean that race is “just a social construct” (a phrase used to deflate the meaning of “race”); it is both a social construct and a biological reality.

The definition of race is simple—a group of populations which genetically transmit heritable characteristics which correspond to that group’s geographic ancestry who also belong to a biological line of descent which was initiated by a geographically isolated and reproductively isolated founding populations (Hardimon, 2017). Note how this definition says nothing about differences in allele frequencies between populations between populations—because, for these purposes, they’re irrelevant for the argument being made. The fact of the matter is, the reality of race hinges on two things: (1) the heritable differences between population groups which were geographically/reproductively isolated and (2) our ability to discern these population groups by their phenotype.

A great book on the history of race, its meaning and how the term was used over the ages is Race: The Reality of Human Differences by Sarich and Miele (2004). For the purposes of this piece, the first two chapters are the most important, since they touch on aspects of race that I have in the past—mainly the fact that we only need phenotype to discern one’s race. People from Europe look phenotypically different from people from Africa who look phenotypically different from people from Asia etc. These differences between these groups are evidence that race exists—these racial differences in phenotype are due, in part, to the climate they evolved in while geographically and reproductively isolated (two conditions for racehood).

Sarich and Miele (2004: 29) write:

Vince [Sarich; one of the authors of the book] naively asked for the legal definition of “race” and was told there wasn’t one.

[…]

As we began working on this book, we discussed the issue of the legal definition of “race” … He informed us that there is still no legal definition of “race”; nor, as far as we know, does it appear that the legal system feels the need for one. Thus, it appears that the most adversarial part of our complex society, the legal system, not only continues to accept the existence of “race” but also relies on the ability of the average individual to sort people into races. Our legal system treats “racial identification” as self-evident …

[…]

The courts have come to accept the commonsense definition of race, and it is this commonsense view that, as we show, best conforms to reality. A look at two recent (2000) cases is illustrative. In both Rice v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs and in Hank v. Rochester School District, neither side raised any questions about the existence of human races or the ability of the average citizen to make valid judgements as to who belongs to which race (even if the racial categories are euphemistically termed “peoples” or “populations”). No special expertise was assumed or granted in defining or recognizing race other than the everyday commonsense usage, as given in the Oxford English Dictionary, that a race is “a group of persons connected by common descent” or “a tribe, nation, or people, regarded as common stock.” The courts and the contending parties, in effect, accepted the existence of race and the ability of the ordinary person to distinguish between races based on a set of physical features.

In Rice v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Rice challenged the state of Hawaii since they did not allow him to vote—on the basis that he was not a native Hawaiian, and that the electoral system of Hawaii is for the benefit of Hawaiians and Hawaiians only. Everyone agreed that Rice was a Hawaiian citizen—but he did not have Hawaiian ancestry, so he could not be recognized as “Hawaiian” under state law. However, the SCOTUS overturned the ruling (that Rice should not be allowed to vote on the basis of not having Hawaiian ancestry) 7-2, citing the 15th amendment: “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Sarich and Miele (2004: 31) write “The 15th amendment is explicit—race means what the average person thinks it means—and the majority of the Supreme Court read it that way.” (Also see Hong, 2008 for an overview of the case.)

On the other hand, in Haak v. Rochester School District, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a white fourth-grade student named Jessica Haak could transfer from her current district to another district (full of whites) since the transfer program was initiated with the idea of lessening the racial isolation of the adjoining districts. Jessica’s mother cited the 14th amendement, and a district court ruled in their favor but the Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. “A “minority pupil” was defined as “a pupil who is of Black or Hispanic origin or is a member of another minority group that historically has been the subject of discrimination” (Sarich and Miele, 2004: 31).

The critical points here are that in both Rice and Haak, neither side raised any questions about the existence of human races or the ability of the average citizen to make valid judgements as to who belongs to which race. No special expertise was assumed or granted in defining or recognizing race other than the everyday usage of the term. In Rice, the court, in effect, took judicial notice of the commonsense definition of race. In Haak, the court accepted physical appearance as a valid means by which the average citizen can recognize races and distinguish among them.

In short, the courts accepted the existence of race, even if the legislature was afraid to use the offending word.

Despite the fact that Sarich and Miele (2004) claim that there is no legal definition of race, Cornell Law School has one definition stating thatthe term “racial group” means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent.” While the Law Dictionary, citing the 15th amendment writes that race is “A tribe, people, or nation, belonging or supposed to belong to the same stock or lineage. “Race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Const U. S., Am. XV.” (Also see Hoffman, 2004 who argues that “race” should not be used in the legal system.)

Notice how Sarich and Miele’s (2004) description of “race” and what “race” is almost—word-for-word—like Spencer’s Blumenbachian partitions (Spencer, 2014). Americans defer to the US Census Bureau on matters of race; the US Census Bureau defers to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) who speak of sets of populations; these sets of populations correspond to geographic clusters who have distinct phenotypes based on their geographic ancestry, which the average American can discern; therefore race exists. Spencer states that when Americans refer to “race” that Americans refer to both a social construct and a biological reality—that is, Americans socially construct race (think of how Hardimon’s minimalist concept of race is related to the concept of socialrace) but these social constructs do have biological underpinnings which can be discerned in two ways: (1) just observation of phenotypes and (2) looking into the genomes of genetically related individuals who make up these population groups.

Even the ancients distinguished races and sorted them on the basis of hair color/type, skin color, physiognomy etc. “[The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Indians, and Chinese] sorted [broad racial groups] based upon the same set of characteristics—skin color, hair form, and head shape” while “it is evident that they relied upon a set of observable features (skin color and form, body build, facial features) quite similar to those used in the commonsense notion of race and the racial classifications of nineteenth-century anthropology to sort the many diverse groups they encountered into a smaller number of categories” (Sarcih and Miele, 2004: 42).

It is very clear that, ever since antiquity at the very least, we have been classifying racial groups on the basis of phenotype—and, come to find out, this is one of the best ways to sort people—and you don’t even need to look at genetic differences between groups. Phenotype is clearly enough to delineate racial groupings, you don’t need genes to delineate race. We only need to recognize that (1) people look different on the basis of where they (or their ancestors) came from; (2) observe that these physical differences between people who come from different places are between real and existing groups; (3) people have common ancestry with others; (4) people derive from distinct geographic locations; so (5) we can infer that race exists.

Race is very clearly a reality—both biologically and socially. At least three sound arguments exist for the existence of race (Sarich and Miele, 2004; Spencer, 2014; Hardimon, 2017; see Hardimon’s and Spencer’s arguments at length). Even those in antiquity delineated races on the basis of physical features—exactly what has been argued by Spencer and Hardimon. Race is physically real—people look different from each other individually, ethnically, and racially.

Biological racial realism is true, and if biological racial realism is true then race exists.

(1) If groups of people look different from each other depending on where their ancestors evolved, then race exists.

(2) Groups of people look different from each other depending on where their ancestors evolved.

(3) Therefore, race exists since people look different depending on where their ancestors evolved.

Advertisements

55 Comments

  1. why do you care about this shit anymore?

    the EU was and is just another german attempt at world domination.

    italy will say

    NEIN!

    NEIN MEIN HERR!

    because italians can’t be cucked.

    italians are cuck-proof!

    Like

  2. so peepee has banned me. that’s 100% of all HBD blogs who’ve banned me.

    i am an actual BGI volunteer…says so much about HBDers.

    the point is italexit is inevitable…

    because italy is a big and important country and…

    italians are un-cuck-able.

    FUCK YOU MEIN HERR!

    Like

    • The Philosopher says:

      Funnily enough the only blogs that posted my comments were Puppy and Chateau Heartiste. CH because hes not a fuckin retard and/or is minded about retards/JIDF people who will use salacious comments as an excuse to shut down their blog…..actually I think thats what happened to robert lindsay.

      Like

  3. I debunked this argument in my older response to you, citing various sources…

    “Forensic anthropologists who study osteology are able to determine the biogeographical ancestry of human remains at “relatively high-allocation accuracies (often more than 80%, but rarely more than 90%)” (Albanese & Sanders, 2006: 309). However, these relatively high accuracy rates are restricted to local populations. As an example Giles & Elliot (1962) took 8 measurements from skulls at the archaeological site Indian Knoll, Kentucky to construct a reference sample to identify an “American Indian” race based on discriminant function analysis (based on multivariate distances to the reference sample centroid). When tested on crania from Inuit/Eskimo people (Labrador, Canada): only 64.4% were correctly identified (Birkby, 1966), while Fisher & Gill (1990: 59) accurately classified as low as 25.9% (m) and 37.5% (f) skulls (= 31.7%) from north-west US Plains Indian tribes (Goodman, 1997). In a separate test on skulls from the same site of the reference sample (Indian Knoll): 92% of crania were correctly identified (Birkby, 1966) meaning while it is possible at relatively high (but not total) accuracy to determine biogeographical ancestry of human remains from local populations that form reference samples: “the method performed very poorly when it was applied to samples outside [of] the reference sample used to develop the original method” (Albanese & Sanders, 2006: 285).”

    In other words, we can physically distinguish local populations (e.g. Indian Knoll) at a high accuracy rate, but not broad/continental groups of populations that are too heterogenous and look too physically dissimilar i.e. Indian Knoll crania don’t look much like north-west US Plains Indian tribes. So there’s no “American Indian” race. The same applies to Europeans and Africans; we may for example distinguish Swedes to Greeks and the latter to Yoruba, but it makes no sense to group any of these together. Thus William W. Howells amended Livingstone’s (1962) aphorism “there are no races, there are only clines” to “there are no races, there are only [local] populations” (Ousley et al. 2009).

    Like

    • let’s take the case of the red sea. if 10 yemenis and 10 eritreans, somalis, ethiopians, or djiboutians were selected at random, i would wager a lot that i’d be able to assign each one to his side of the red sea.

      Like

  4. I suggest you read Howells, W. W. (1995). “Who’s Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements”. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. 82: 1-118.

    This was one of the books that converted me from a ‘race realist’ to anti-racial realist about 6 years ago. Howells himself changed his position from arguing for races (“Caucasoid”, “Mongoloid”, “Negroid” etc) to instead realise these broad continental groups have no utility and aren’t biologically real; using 57 cranial measurements from 2500+ skulls across the globe – Howell’s discovered “individuals assign themselves to specific populations better than to ‘races’ or regional samples” (Howells, 1995: 103-104), so for example, we can identify local populations e.g. Moriori, Ainu or Norse from their skulls but grouping populations into broad categories is a waste of time and decreases accuracy at skeletal identification.

    Like

  5. As though I told you in my older response, I’m glad you abandoned the hereditarianism junk for Hardimon’s ‘minimalist races’, but to progress to the next stage you should give up the latter. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hereditarianism#Racialism

    Like

    • ^^^virtue signalling^^^

      if i can look at you and tell where your ancestors lived 3000 years ago. i can usually tell what type of language their ancient ancestors spoke too, just by looking at them. must be a magical power, because it’s “scientifically impossible”.

      the races of man are only a smidgen arbitrary or whatever you like as a result of barriers to gene flow in the form of uninhabitable areas between populations…or nearly uninhabitable.

      the sahara
      the kalahari
      the red sea
      the mediterranean
      the bosporus
      the himalaya
      the tasman sea
      the pacific ocean
      the bering strait
      the north american arctic
      siberia
      the gobi
      etc.

      just look where people don’t live on a map. these are the barrier zones which CAUSE the OBVIOUS races of man.

      Like

    • of course by “the tasman sea” i meant the torres strait. so embarrassing.

      the point is…

      your instincts should always be trusted unless and until proven wrong.

      Like

    • there are “clines” on the india/burma border (NARROW BORDER) and on the india and nepal/china border..

      but the in-between people are like an extra inch on a vinatieri kick.

      irrelevant and stupid.

      the european walks on the moon.

      Like

  6. if i can look at you and tell where your ancestors lived 3000 years ago. i can usually tell what type of language your ancient ancestors spoke too, just by looking at you.

    Like

    • Those geographical barriers once existed millennia ago, but they don’t today. I already covered this in my old response to RaceRealist:

      “A genetic study on the Sherpa has shown that contrary to the Himalayan mountains being a geographical barrier: “the Himalayas have been permeable to bidirectional gene flow” (Kang et al. 2016). Similarly Frank Livingstone ([1964], 1967: 76) doubted the existence of the Sahara desert as an obstacle to mobility and gene flow. His scepticism was confirmed by Tishkoff et al. (2009) who found no genetic discontinuity between populations in the Sahara and adjacent Sahel, but a genetic continuum that can be seen in principal component analysis: “another geographically contiguous cluster extends across northern Africa into Mali (the Dogon)”. Tishkoff and colleagues used STRUCTURE and with a global data set produced numerous more clusters of populations (K = 14) than Rosenberg et al., revealing clustering is a computational artefact. Furthermore, within Africa alone, Tishkoff et al. created K = 6; the number of clusters thus doesn’t mirror reality in the sense of carving nature at its joints.”

      For this reason there are no discontinuous genetic clusters and any clustering is a computational artefact by arbitrarily slicing the genetic continua, so for example Tishkoff et al. and Rosenberg et al. (two different studies using STRUCTURE) produced completely different group clustering of populations. Now what? This shows genetic clusters don’t have an objective reality.

      Like

  7. Unfortunately it seems the anti-race realist view is being straw manned and misrepresented. We don’t deny population structure and the ability to determine someone’s biogeographical ancestry at a high success rate (80-90% in forensic anthropology using the skull, up to 99% in population genetics), what we are merely saying is that biogeographical ancestry is restricted to local rather than continental regions –

    “Application of much of population genetics works best when considering variation between local populations and not between aggregates. The fine detail of our species’ evolutionary history and its impact on patterns of genetic variation are lost when trying to categorize and classify into races.” (Relethford, 2017)

    Like

    • The reason the pseudoscience of race won’t die is because of Americans who created racial social constructs e.g. “white American” “black American” etc. because they’re primarily a mixture of different ethnicities e.g. Trump has German and Irish ancestry.

      In contrast across Europe and Africa, most people don’t identify as “white” or “black” but by their local ethnicity.

      Like

    • The Philosopher says:

      ^^^^^

      This person has alzheimers.

      Alzheimer’s disease (AD), also referred to simply as Alzheimer’s, is a chronic neurodegenerative disease that usually starts slowly and worsens over time.[1][2] It is the cause of 60–70% of cases of dementia.[1][2] The most common early symptom is difficulty in remembering recent events (short-term memory loss).[1] As the disease advances, symptoms can include problems with language, disorientation (including easily getting lost), mood swings, loss of motivation, not managing self care, and behavioural issues.[1][2] As a person’s condition declines, they often withdraw from family and society

      Like

  8. the point is the supposedly “naive”/intuitive/obvious categorization prior to genomics corresponds to the most “natural”/least artificial categorization of genomes, skulls/facial skeletons, and geography.

    saying “there are no races only clines” is like saying “there are no rich people only people with a lot of pennies.”

    it’s dumb and pc/pathological altruism/virtue signalling/soy boy/german/french/ etc.

    Like

  9. there are no colors only wavelengths…he laughed hysterically.

    except the races of man are much more distinct than colors, because the intermediate colors are more frequently observed than the intermediate populations, and this because the intermediate populations are small in number.

    Like

  10. btw…

    that jew shenk’s book should be mandatory reading for all HBDers. checked it out from my local public lib. it was like my comments…except by a jew.

    it coulda been better. he never named “norms of reaction”. and i’m pretty sure he never grokked that concept.

    and the text, apart from the notes, is only 135 pages. it’s not a time suck.

    would be interesting to ask shenk…

    “what are the political consequences of GxEism?”

    my POV is…

    it seems to be so “far right” that the globalists don’t even have a name for it.

    and at the same time “far left” of corbyn and bernie.

    iceland is the ideal polity/sovereign state.

    all others are gay.

    Like

  11. btw, you may have seen these polygenic risk score plots where the 99th percentile in score corresponds to an 8 fold increase in risk over an average score or something like that.

    such a plot corresponds to a heritability of about 15% by my calculations. so the missing heritability is still missing…bigly!

    Like

    • never forget!

      if rr is still on EST it’ll be at 5am tomorrow…

      100 trips round the sun since the end of the war to end all wars.

      for italy ww i was the big one, not ww ii.

      never forget!

      Like

  12. The Philosopher says:

    A very sad day indeed when Puppy decides the only people allowed comment are people that also have severe and unrestrained aspergers. Which is dumb because everyone knows robots cant talk to each other. I always wondered what the Google AI people do for the Turing Test. Do they hire someone without aspergers to come in to talk to the machines, because it doesn’t make sense to have someone who has worn the same shirt for 60 days straight asking a robot calculation questions as if that was an everyday convo topic. Very sad. Very sad. First Jimmy, a great soldier. A great intellect, dashed into the rocks like a tumbleweed doll. Of course RR will never get banned by Puppy because RR literally copies and pastes CNN editorials for his comments on topics. Very sad. But thats life.

    Like

  13. The Philosopher says:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics/donald-trump-armistice-day-paris/index.html

    Jew puppet warning everyone gentile about being tribal. Very sad. He even looks homosexual.

    Like

  14. The Philosopher says:

    Some of the comments on puppys blog are ridiculous. As we all know, if Animekitty posts porn in the thread, that gets a thumbs up. If I make a comment that in any way questions the veracity of certain ‘historical events’ that are alleged to have happened mid century, anything I say on WW2 is banned even if it has nothing to do with aforesaid ALLEGED event. Puppy should also ban anyone that remembers WW2 now in case anyone questions the veracity of the idea Hitler was the bad guy.

    Like

  15. The Philosopher says:

    https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10499.html

    Suprised the author isn’t jewish. Usually they assign one of their own to ‘contextualise’ concepts like this. If I recall, every single source someone used to ‘debunk’ what I was saying was always authored or circular referenced by a jew. RR in particular for whatever reason seems only to read Jewish story books. So it was a mild surprise seeing this on ur twitter.

    Like

  16. yeah!

    that was the ultimate orwellian moment!

    a gay puppet of the jews saying “nationalism is unpatriotic.”

    french people are so fucking retarded.

    freedom is slavery.

    war is peace.

    ignorance is strength.

    diversity is our strength.

    nationalism is unpatriotic.

    Like

  17. Puppy Person says:

    Downloading latest opinions from CNN servers. Please do not switch off this machine while updates are being installed.

    Like

  18. Puppy Person says:

    The following TV programmes and films are deemed ‘necessary, by force’ for viewers:

    Dear White People
    Hidden Figures
    The Passion of Trayvon Martin
    Undercover at the KKK (FBI series)
    Undercover at 4Chan (FBI series)
    Undercover at Pumpkinperson.com (JIDF series)
    The Birth of a Nation and all Harvey Weinstein films
    Why OJ Simpson is INNOCENT
    10 hour lecture by Stephen Jay Gould on why race is an optical illusion
    Get Out
    To Kill a Mockingbird
    Precious
    The Sermons of Rabbi Stephen Wise

    Like

  19. Puppy Person says:

    Status

    Currently expressing anger at western illegal immigration enforcement.

    Currently expressing pride in Israeli illegal immigration enforcement.

    Like

  20. Puppy Person says:

    Today I discovered an interesting fact from my web crawling sub routine.

    The 9-11 terrorist attacks took place on September 11, 2001.

    The square root of 6 is 2.449.

    Oprahs head size is exactly 34 cm3

    If you divide 2.449 by 34 user will receive an answer of 72.

    Like

  21. Puppy Person says:

    User Query: What is race?

    ‘Race’ is an optical illusion made up by anti-Semites to discredit and disrupt the harmony of a diverse population.

    Like

    • if rr has any spare change he might try selling the march april spread in nat gas. in percentage terms it’s at an all time high of 35%. since 1990 the highest ever recorded was 28%. and futures spreads are mean reverting.

      i watched Bigger, Stronger,… last night. i guess because the guys are from nj and they interview that synthol freak valentino this is a movie rr loves. but valentino seemed like a cool guy. mark’s wife was pretty hot.

      but one issue the movie never addressed and which i’ve never heard addresses is: suppose you juice for a while then stop but maintain your lifting routine…do you lose strength? if not, then juicing is cool…except huge muscles may tax the body as much as lots of fat. these yuge guys need to run a sub 6m mile to be truly impressive.

      Like

    • and as his father predicted mike bell did die prematurely.

      i blame ‘roids for his heart attack.

      It was ruled that he died of an inhalation-induced heart attack brought on by an accidental inhalation of difluoroethane in Dust-Off.

      no. that’s NOT what happened. “ruled” by whom? the page is likely curated by his family.

      Like

    • the most interesting thing was that gay guy who claimed steroids had basically cured his AIDS. i wonder. if he was actually telling the truth that would be fascinating.

      for health the ideal is gain a lot of muscle, especially in the lower body, then become a vegan/intermittent faster/etc.

      Like

    • Puppy Person says:

      I think theyve noticed steroids makes chickens die quicker when they do those factory farm studies. You also get a lot of bone problems. Steroids making people fight off AIDS is already done is it not? One of the first things some doctors prescribe to beef up someone with a weak immune system is pharmaceutical/medicinal steroids.

      I used to watch a lot of pro wrestling.

      I would say steroids is a bad idea for your health in the long term. But might be a good idea if you were recovering from a serious injury or had some chronic immune system issue.

      Like

    • Puppy Person says:

      Basically the number 1 reason men juice is to get laid more.

      And the reasoning is very sound. Women do care a lot about a guys body. Even more than a guy does about a womans body.

      Like

    • yes. what makes and what made america great was its diversity. the bill of rights was written by black lesbians, puerto rican faggots, and benjamin franklin.

      Like

    • yeah. obviously for all “wasting diseases” steroids are an established part of the treatment some of the time, but this guy claimed steroids had basically CURED him.

      he claimed he’d come down with PCP in 1992. effective drugs only came along in 1996 iirc. and he claimed his t-cell count went from 2 to 300 just from the ‘roids. that is, without ‘roids he’d’ve died before 1996 for sure. he went from basically no immune system to a good enough immune system just from the ‘roids.

      but gays tend to exaggerate.

      Like

  22. Puppy Person says:

    This guy died in his early 50s.

    They should just survey pro wrestlers and pro bodybuilders and see at what point any health benefit is superseded by the problems steroids give you.

    There was another wrestler Chris Benoit who basically butchered his whole family. Some people say that may have been roid rage.

    Like

    • yep! if you juice i’d be sure to check your blood pressure and cholesterol/lipids frequently. liver cancer may be a myth, but accelerated atherosclerosis is a fact for some juicers.

      Like

  23. Puppy Person says:

    One of the well known negative side effects of juicing is pre mature baldness. But Arny held up well.

    The rock Dwayne Johnson is a good example of steroids causing baldness.

    Like

  24. “We are going to continue to support the [Department of Defense],” Bezos said. “If big tech companies are going to turn their back on the U.S. Department of Defense, this country is going to be in trouble.”

    bezos is mentally retarded. yet peepee still worships rich people. what a loser.

    Like

  25. eric striker (not his real name) is an italian american from the tri-state area, but he doesn’t have an nyc accent afaict.

    his politics are mine.

    strike and mike is the best politics show available.

    Like

  26. of all developed countries italy and israel have the highest approval ratings for trump. even though trump is a cuck, this shows italians are un-cuck-able. remember james traficant?

    Like

  27. but those tri state people are the worst!

    so unbelievably RUDE!

    for them, “customer service” means the customer does service.

    Like

  28. the older i get the more i appreciate genuine “social intelligence”.

    not because it will make you rich, but because it will make you happy.

    and you’ll see that those who don’t have it make everyone else miserable.

    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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 476,501 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: