King Felipe VI of Spain

Source: Quirinale.it

As floods of genomic data pour in on ancestral variations among humans, the Establishment increasingly double dumbs down on the question of whether or not race even exists.

For example, last year The New York Times’ genetics reporter Carl Zimmer asserted:

In the 18th century, European naturalists began claiming that humans belonged to clearly separate biological groups living on different continents…. When the science of genetics emerged in the early 1900s, some early geneticists tried to validate the old notions of race by looking for genetic markers in groups of people. But now a century later, after sequencing millions of human genomes, scientists say it is abundantly clear that those notions do not hold up.

This is a popular view, but whenever liberals get in power, do they act upon it? If you believed this, you might assume that the current Democratic administration would therefore phase out the benighted federal racial categories.

Yet last week the Biden administration’s Office of Management & Budget announced a new set of even more precise racial categories that pleased white nationalists by announcing that Middle Eastern and North African Caucasians were no longer officially white. Nationalities like Iranian, Egyptian, and Israeli now have been lumped and split into their own separate Not White race.

Of course, this was due to Arab lobbyists demanding to be included in the Flight From White so they can qualify for affirmative action. Unlike delusional white nationalists, they understand that it doesn’t pay to be white anymore.

Nobody seems to know whether Ashkenazis are still officially white or not. But, nobody seems to care. After all, how world-historically important could Jews be?

To me, that sounds like a rather important question, but most Americans, much less Biden administration officials, seem to find it in poor taste to wonder about the implications. So we’ll just have to wait and find out what happens.

Also gratifying to white supremacists (other than Nick Fuentes) is that Hispanics are no longer considered by the government to be a socially constructed ethnicity that can be of any race, a characteristically brilliant but overly subtle distinction that Richard Nixon endorsed in 1969 to allow his best friend forever Bebe Rebozo to qualify for quotas while still being a 100 percent blue-blooded Conquistador-American.

Back then, Latin Americans wanted to be viewed as white. As Hakan Rotmwrt explained:

White supremacy is the normative ideology and dominant ethos of dozens of nations, particularly in Latin America. It will dominate public opinion, popular culture, domestic policy, & foreign interventions of the coming Hispanicized USA.

Perhaps. But as I wrote in 2022:

This Nixonian distinction between race and ethnicity is actually insightful. If you define a racial group as a partly inbred biological extended family, and an ethnic group as a collection of people united by traits, such as language, accent, cuisine, surnames, and so forth, that are usually (but not necessarily) passed down within biological families, then the subtle difference between race and ethnicity makes sense.

But like a lot of Nixon’s stratagems, it was too brilliant. Almost nobody got it. Instead, they just started thinking of everybody from south of the border as being of the Latino race. Due to Nixon’s brainstorm, we’ve now managed to socially construct a population that has a hard time seeing with their own eyes that Fidel Castro was white.

And white guilt is still riding high. So, after 55 years of the U.S. government awarding money and jobs to nonwhites for being nonwhite, the Flight From White is in full flood tide. Hence, Cubans and the like are no longer, according to the Biden administration, a socially constructed ethnicity, but are now a “race and/or ethnicity,” same as blacks or American Indians.

What about the 215 million Brazilians? Are they now Hispanic/Latino?

Eh, nobody seems sure. Last I checked, the Department of Transportation, but not other federal agencies, viewed Brazilians as qualifying for Latino quotas for government contractors. But, surely, Brazilian-American lobbyists will attempt to rectify this.

What about Spaniards, such as the King of Spain, Felipe VI? If the King went into exile in America, would he qualify for racial/ethnic preferences?

Probably.

You might think those of us who’d lose out from the expansion of quotas would ask about topics like this. But most unprivileged white Americans find whether or not the King of Spain should be more racially privileged than you or me to be rather in bad taste to contemplate. For white Americans to doubt the King of Spain’s hereditary preference seems rather…racist.

Also, the 120 million natives of the Central Asian Stan countries have now been switched from white to Asian, making them eligible, as soon as they get off the airliner at JFK, for low-interest minority business development loans from the Small Business Administration and government contracting preferences (the reason South Asians bailed out of being white in 1980).

All this Flight From White will more quickly reduce whites to minority status. Will this hasten the day in which whites are granted minority privileges?

Yeah, right.

See California and Texas for a preview of how whites will be the disprivileged legacy majority for, roughly, ever.

Meanwhile, to the horror of more highbrow intellectuals, the term “scientific racism” is increasingly coming to be applied by midwits to all non-ignorance of the human sciences.

For example, the fine journalist Jesse Singal was shocked that the famous New Yorker fact-checkers allowed a New Yorker editor, Jessica Winter, to slur highbrow NYU professor Jonathan Haidt, author of the new book The Anxious Generation, with the growingly popular term “scientific racism.” The New Yorker claimed:

He has been beset by a troubling fixation on the heritability of I.Q.—a contention widely dismissed as scientific racism.

Increasingly, everybody who is not wholly ignorant of the human sciences is tarred as a “scientific racist.”

Singal complained that:

This is completely false. The heritability of intelligence is accepted by mainstream researchers. The debate is over *race*.

Well, sure. Haidt couldn’t possibly be one of those horrible persons like Charles Murray or Steve Sailer who is known to suspect that racial differences in IQ might possibly be partly genetic.

After all, back in 2015, Haidt had publicly scoffed at:

IQ deniers
Heritability deniers
Sex difference deniers
Evolution deniers
Stereotype accuracy deniers

But of course, anybody who is non-ignorant about the human sciences is increasingly denounced as a “scientific racist.”

Yet then the midwit’s midwit, Will Stancil, who has made a name for himself by being the truest true believer in the left-of-center conventional wisdom, rudely intruded:

Singal well-actuallying this is so irritating. Everyone knows what that sentence meant. Everyone understands what “the heritability of IQ” means. No pundit talking about “the heritability of IQ” is talking about anything but race.

Numerous highbrows then barged in to claim that Professor Haidt never, ever said anything about race and IQ.

But Stancil was onto something. Way back in 2009, Haidt wrote for John Brockman’s Edge that:

Faster Evolution Means More Ethnic Differences:

The most offensive idea in all of science for the last 40 years is the possibility that behavioral differences between racial and ethnic groups have some genetic basis….

A wall has long protected respectable evolutionary inquiry from accusations of aiding and abetting racism. That wall is the belief that genetic change happens at such a glacial pace that there simply was not time, in the 50,000 years since humans spread out from Africa, for selection pressures to have altered the genome in anything but the most trivial way (e.g., changes in skin color and nose shape were adaptive responses to cold climates)….

But the writing is on the wall. Russian scientists showed in the 1990s that a strong selection pressure (picking out and breeding only the tamest fox pups in each generation) created what was—in behavior as well as body—essentially a new species in just 30 generations. That would correspond to about 750 years for humans. Humans may never have experienced such a strong selection pressure for such a long period, but they surely experienced many weaker selection pressures that lasted far longer, and for which some heritable personality traits were more adaptive than others. It stands to reason that local populations (not continent-wide “races”) adapted to local circumstances by a process known as “co-evolution” in which genes and cultural elements change over time and mutually influence each other. The best documented example of this process is the co-evolution of genetic mutations that maintain the ability to fully digest lactose in adulthood with the cultural innovation of keeping cattle and drinking their milk. This process has happened several times in the last 10,000 years, not to whole “races” but to tribes or larger groups that domesticated cattle.

For example, the high-altitude adaptations of Tibetans vs. Andeans have been nailed down.

Similarly, the Bajau of Southeast Asia have evolved enlarged spleens that allow them to dive underwater longer than other humans.

Since 2009, however, the era of the “candidate gene” has mostly faded. The current trend is toward “genome-wide association studies,” or GWAS, which require such vast sample sizes that Haidt’s 2009 prediction seldom quite bears out. It’s not that small racial groups like the mountain-climbing Sherpa of Tibet or the distance-running Kalenjin of Kenya have failed to live up to Haidt’s forecast, but that the latest tech requires such samples that nobody other than Europeans has volunteered in vast enough numbers.

The funny thing was that Brockman, an ambitious literary agent, was funded by an ambitious philanthropist named Jeffrey Epstein.