*Who We Are and How We Got Here*, by David Reich

This is a truly excellent work, readable and informative at A to A+ quality, and the subtitle is Ancient DNA and the new Science of the Human Past.  It has occasioned some public controversy for its discussion of race and genetics, but most of all this is a book about how science is done.  For instance, the page and a half discussion of how researchers try to ensure that human DNA does not contaminate Neanderthal DNA is just beautiful.

Here is one good summary passage:

The case of the Ancient North Eurasians showed that while a tree is a good analogy for the relationships among species — because species rarely interbreed and so like real tree limbs are not expected to grow back together after they branch — it is a dangerous analogy for human populations.  The genome revolution has taught us that great mixtures of highly divergent populations have occurred repeatedly.  Instead of a tree, a better metaphor may be a trellis, branching and remixing far back into the past.

Here is another excerpt of note:

Analyzing our data, he [Iosif Lazaridis] found that about ten thousand years ago there were at least four major populations in West Eurasia — the farmers of the Fertile Crescent, the farmers of Iran, the hunter-gatherers of central and western Europe, and the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe.  All these populations differed from one another as much as Europeans differ from East Asians today.

The concept of “ghost populations” will enter your mental conceptual vocabulary.  And:

The extraordinary fact that emerges from ancient DNA is that just five thousand years ago, the people who are now the primary ancestors of all extant northern Europeans had not yet arrived.

Most of all, this is a science book, not a “race book.”  (“Having been immersed in the ancient DNA revolution for the past 10 years, I am confident that anyone who pays attention to what it is finding cannot come away feeling affirmed in racist beliefs.”)  You may know that Reich is a Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School.

Here is his earlier NYT essay (though I think the very first link in this post is the best place to start, do read that carefully), well done but not quite representative of the book either.  You can buy it here, this is definitely one of the books of the year and one of the best popular science books of any year.


"feeling affirmed in racist beliefs": does he ever explain what he means by racist, and by racist beliefs? Because if he doesn't, what is the comment worth?

Signalling. The reception of most of the ancient DNA results among actual racists (such as the people at Stormfront) has been positive.

Here's my lengthy review of Reich's book in Taki's Magazine:


Steve : Your thoughts on Aryan Invasion theory and modern Hindu culture are a little too simplistic.

While Aryan migration has its supporters and is backed by genetic admixture evidence, the degree of migration is a major point of contention. Also your idea that caste is something linked to those original Aryan invasions is rather tenuous and simplistic.

Modern Indian notions of endogamy and Jaati did not arise till the beginning of the Christian era, which is some 1500 years after the supposed Aryan migrations (circa 2000-1500BCE).

Also caste as an institution is exceptionally strong even in Dravidian South - something that you wouldn't expect if caste is something linked to the Aryan - Dravidian divide.

Your wonder at the curious mix of skin color has little to do with caste. There are many very fair dalits and very dark brahmins in India. The relationship of color with caste is rather weak ( though not non-existent).

My own view is that migrations were very minimal.

Most Indians are indigenous to India including the so-called upper castes. This is evident in genetic studies which have shown a very high "Ancestral Southern Indian" component (close to 50%) even among most brahmin castes across north and south. This component varies from roughly 40% for brahmins to 60-70% for several dalit castes in South. So it is not a very wide range.

Caste should not be linked to this migration hypothesis as it emerged much later during the classical age (0 to 500AD).

"Most Indians are indigenous to India": what does that mean? When do you think their ancestors arrived in India? Did they arrive only by one process across only one period?

The only significant wave of migration is the one presented as the "Aryan migration" in the course of the 2nd millennium BC. Sure, there would have been migrations of other tribes speaking non IE languages prior to 2000 BCE, but those are pre-historical and not that significant.

I am contending that this wave of "Aryan migration" was not as massive as is often supposed. Later migrations in the historical period (i.e past 2500 years), were too miniscule to count, with little impact on the gene pool of the country.

I don't know if this is true for India, but in moist parts of the world female line genetic markers show a high degree of continuity with past generations, while male line genetic markers show evidence of past migrations-- basically, to oversimplify, the men migrated while the women stayed put.
And there most certainly is evidence, both from archaeology and linguistics, of people emigrating from Central Asia into India and bringing the Indo-Aryan languages with them. This may not have involved enormous numbers of population replacements: a small linguistic minority can introduce their language to new areas where it replaced older tongues. In England for example it's impossible to derive more than 10% of the genome (as an average) from the Anglo-Saxons, yet English did replace Celtic in most of the country.

Exactly. Very much agree

"Caste" itself did not emerge that late in India as the Greek vistor Megasthenes (writing c. 300 BC) already describes an Indian hereditary caste system that was more rigid than contemporary Hellenistic class that he was familiar with i.e. he notes that sons in India follow their father's profession, unlike in Hellenistic world where they do not always do so. Of course Megasthenes did not understand the ritual purity/impurity aspect of Indian caste--(and probably he could not understand it as it would presumably have been too foreign to his Greek world view).

So while modern notions of "jaati" may indeed have arisen later than c. 300 BC, it is going too far to say that as a whole "caste...emerged much later during the classical age (0 to 500 AD)."

As for relatively strict endogamy, presumably the DNA discussed by Reich et al provide some evidence for how far back it goes in Indian history.

Moreover your endorsement of Clark's view that upward mobility was non existent in traditional India is also something I don't agree with.

Clark's entire analysis is based on surnames. And surnames in India have been dynamic with new people adopting a certain surname as their occupation / social standing changes. So an Agarwal from modern day Delhi is not necessarily related to an Agarwala who probably lived in the Delhi of 13th century. The modern day Agarwal could well be from an altogether different caste who became part of the Agarwala community say a few hundred years ago.

Castes contrary to popular perception, while stable, have not been completely ossified entities. So using surnames to claim zero upward mobility is wrong. Because the upwardly mobile groups take over the surnames of the more successful communities in many cases, and as a result their upward mobility won't be evident. This is particularly true in Southern India where many groups got "sanskritized" in culture and adopted Sanskritic names and moved up the ladder of castes.

20:42 2:42

count it!

Similarly, my surname "Sailer" used to be "Seiler" but an ancestor who became mayor of a small town in Switzerland changed the spelling to a more social climbing variant, like Smythes tend to be more ambitious than Smiths.

Interesting yes...

So because of this leveraging surnames to comment on upward mobility is a bit futile. You may see the same surnames in certain professions but that doesn't mean there has been no upward mobility.

By the way, in Southern India, surname analysis totally fails, because people don't have surnames. Most people use their dad's name as their last name

Sir, I grow thinnah and thinnah.

His opinion on the NYT was great and I will definitely read his book.

"The extraordinary fact that emerges from ancient DNA is that just five thousand years ago, the people who are now the primary ancestors of all extant northern Europeans had not yet arrived."

Linguistically speaking, we knew that : people occupying northern Europe at historical time (Germans and Celts) arrive recently fro places in central or eastern Europe. For Celts, their great expansion to the west, including to the north-west (Scotland, Ireland, Belgium and part of Netherland,...) is around the fifth century BC, so only 2500 years ago. For the Germans, it is less well understood, but it should be not more than 1000 years before the celts, so 3500 years ago at the earliest. (This we know by crossing linguistic and archeological study, without any genetics. For the Celts we even have (almost) contemporary historical account of their migrations, by Greek or Latin authors).

Now obviously, linguistics is not genetics and it was not obvious at all that the process by which Germans and Celts imposed their languages on the pre-existing population in northern (and western) Europe also imposed much of their genes. But that it is indeed the case seems to be implied by the finding reported by Reich. This suggests a greater correlation between linguistic and genetical data that many people (including me) expected. Interesting.

also imposed much of their genes.

Or the pre-existing population was just not very numerous.

Or at least the survivors of the pre-exisiting population were not very numerous after the new guys finished with them.

Actually, more likely their microbes got done with.

The fact remains, using both North and South America as well documented examples, the real collapse in population comes from disease first, thus easing the process of conquering significantly.

Certainly not among hunter-gatherer populations. This only happens when populations residing in high-density permanent settlements meet populations with a significantly lower population density

"This suggests a greater correlation between linguistic and genetical data that many people (including me) expected." "Many people" are so often wrong, especially if they unreflectively adopt fashionable opinions.

"This is a truly excellent work, readable and informative at A to A+ quality, and the subtitle is Ancient DNA and the new Science of the Human Past."

Yet, famous American scientist Gregory Cochran has been criticizing it harshly. https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/who-we-are-2-purity-of-essence/

for us non-PhD's, what is the key distinction between a "truly excellent work" and merely an "excellent work" ... or is this just standard marketing hype to be ignored by sensible persons? The narrow focus on DNA hardly seems a broad, groundbreaking illumination of "how science is done".

Think of this as a recommendation from a generally well informed layperson - it’s probably a well written, internally consistent book that presents ideas that are novel to non-experts. You should not assume that experts would agree with TC’s characterization.

I'd like to hear Tyler interview Cochran but I doubt that he would do it.

To be fair, Cochran has criticized Tyler harshly, too.

I forgot about that one:

"We’re going to see more and more articles like this: people want to hear it. Tyler Cowen certainly does, but then he may not really be people. None of this research will ever be replicated by anyone careful and honest, but that has hardly stopped a flood of analogous nonsense in the social sciences – for example, how poverty reduces your IQ, unless your name is Abel or Ramanujan.

If the progress of Science were inevitable and unstoppable, I wouldn’t worry, but that is not the case in the human sciences. Look at mental illness, where Freudians supplanted people who were at least trying to figure things out. Look at archaeology, which progressed from halfway accurate ideas about European prehistory to pots-not-people: if we just click our heels together, we can make past violence disappear."


To be fair, he hates Caplan even more the excellent and esteemed Bryan Caplan: "Caplan thinks that the government should stop subsidizing education. He favors full separation of school and state. That position sounds a little less interesting when you realize that is his default position. He would undoubtedly argue that private charity would be the best way of funding resistance to invading Martian tripods. And even if that didn’t work, it would still be the right way to respond, even as we endured a miserable existence under the Martian yoke and lash."

To be fair, he hates even more the excellent and esteemed Bryan Caplan: "Caplan thinks that the government should stop subsidizing education. He favors full separation of school and state. That position sounds a little less interesting when you realize that is his default position. He would undoubtedly argue that private charity would be the best way of funding resistance to invading Martian tripods. And even if that didn’t work, it would still be the right way to respond, even as we endured a miserable existence under the Martian yoke and lash."

And thus Thiago continues a matter of blind tradition, with no consistent principle, nor even any consistent feeling, to guide it in which such profession is put on as part of the costume and formalities of the occasion. To say memory is nothing more than mode of feeling is akin to thinking that supply creates its own demand. Rayward’s keystone holds together the detached and fragmentary component parts of my knowledge and beliefs

A clockwork orange, man you one creepy f-ing 'bot

Cochran is an extraordinarily grumpy old codger. He criticizes everyone harshly.

Well, I read that blog post, and I didn't see the slightest scientific disagreement between Cochran and Reich in it. What Cochran criticizes Reich for is the unhappy formulation of certains mild value judgements about "mixture".

I believe Cochran is right. Already in the NYT piece, I could see that Reich felt obliged to apologize at length for presenting a point-of-view that might, if ill-interpreted, be disturbing for the liberal doxa. This is sad, but many interesting academics are like that nowadays, and this seems to be something especially widespread among Harvard professors (perhaps because they have more to lose, in term of salary and status, if they ever get tagged as a "bad guy" by the liberal hyenas of academia).

It is easy however, in practice, to go beyond their forced apologies, and to focus on the scientific aspects of their works, which is the only that matter.

Who really had the weird motivation here? Mixtures happen for a lot of reasons throughout history, and being in the past, all beyond our control. So why even say "[mixture] can also be a bad thing?"

I don't suppose he is worrying about Vikings raid on Ireland there ... but what are we supposed to do, downgrade the Icelanders?

"being in the past, all beyond our control."

So we shouldn't study any history then?

"So why even say “[mixture] can also be a bad thing?”"

Because you get triggered by it.

ABC. One should always be careful to avoid going down the road of race theorising that leads to Auschwitz, Birmingham or Chicago.

So you propose that we should follow you to the gulags?

And even if he really badly wanted to apologize, he could have done so without attacking Watson.

Yeah, that passage attacking Watson (over what he sais on a private conversation) was disgraceful.

The cheap shots at Watson were just a few of the dozen or so places where Reich signals that he is a good and right thinking scientist. But can you blame him?

Yes, I can blame him. Not for making smoke before the enemy hoves into view, but specifically for attacking Watson - yes, of course. It was the act of a scoundrel.

If you anticipate that some people will misappropriate and/or misinterpret findings, perhaps even intentionally, then good science can be consistent with preempting this.

This was supposed to be answer to Thiago just above.

Hating other races is human nature. No theories are necessary. Impeccably proven scientific arguments don't make the members of Group A any less annoying to the members of Group B, especially when Group A is playing that awful music they like.

It's not just other races. We distrust anything that isn't familiar. It's not even a human thing -- animals prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar: Zajonc (1980) says, "Preferences need no inferences." Or, as I like to put it, "What doesn't kill us doesn't kill us." There's an instinctive preference for what is familiar due to an instinct for self-preservation.

I think there are two aspects to racial differences -

a) Cultural differences - which everyone is willing to acknowledge. That can explain preferences in music or literature or religion or morals.

b) More fundamental differences which have nothing to do with culture - Eg : West Africans for some reason clock better speeds than Indians or Chinese or even Europeans. Controlling for any number of factors.

The latter has to have something to do with genetics. The former may be ephemeral and subject to change as cultures change.

Race is defined by culture or diet and climate?

Catholics, Protestants, Evangellicals are three different races?

Historically, these "races" hated each other, causing strife, rebellion, civil war, expulsions, all in the British empire in a span of a few centuries, in the British Isles and it's American colonies.

The existence of cultural differences between groups of visually observable closer lineage does not preclude the possibility for there to be identifiably different cultural groups among those with visually observable closer lineage.

And yet, somewhere along the way, human ancestors bedded down with Neanderthals and Denisovans. Producing viable offspring is the definition of a species. We're all the same species. With catholic tastes.

There are several definitions of a species, few of them entirely clear or unambiguous, or without exception. So I am told. To which I add; it's a useful idea but, as usual, it's best not to try to deduce facts from words.

I don't quite follow what "racist beliefs" are.

Is it racist to believe that different groups have different probabilities of excelling at different endeavors? I'd back a randomly picked West African to beat a randomly picked Indian or Chinese in a 100 meter sprint. Is that being racist?

I will leave the r-word aside and say, boy you should not gamble. You didn't qualify age or health. You might get a 70 year old west African with emphysema in your draw.

Which is of course why group bias yields so little real life benefit.

Meet your actual contestants.

lol do you really believe this

Over n number of trials, age and health would average out

Perhaps, but that reinforces the original error.

While averages are pretty useless at predicting individual outcomes, averages probably do predict average outcome.


But the results won't average out over time.

Let's have a hundred 100m sprints involving 3 randomly picked runners from Ivory Coast, Southern India and Shanghai, each time. I would expect the Ivory coast runners to win 90 out of 100 times.

shrikanthk, your original construction was "I’d back a randomly picked West African.."

A, one, singular.

An expectation that your perception of the group would apply to a "randomly picked" individual.

That is not how genetic diversity works, at all.

I implied "n" trials

Everyone understood was srikanth meant, including you although you pretended not to for some reason

It's not obvious what he meant. The point is that people make this mistake all the time in dealing with individual encounters - assuming that the group average is always going to apply to isolated individuals. if you take the thirty seconds or so to determine if the individual in question is 70 years old or has emphysema, you're going to score better than if you just go "West African, therefore, winner!" every time.

I never said apply group characteristics to individuals, if individual specific information is available.

I was referring to an experiment with N trials (let's say a 1000 races) with 3 candidates chosen afresh each time, with no knowledge of them except their race.

Yeah, I understand the argument you are making but there is a meta level to this discussion you might not be aware of.

Essentially, the meta-level is saying that, for example, if blacks have higher crimes rates, then it should be acceptable for police to be more suspicious of black people, and apply "racial profiling". Or, say, that if black have average lower intelligence, then it should be acceptable for employers, or landlords, to quickly discriminate among applicants by tossing out applications from black people. After all, obtaining additional information is costly, ans it's quick and easy to just use the rules that the average black person is going to be stupid and/or a criminal, so it's cheap and easy to simply discriminate against them. That is the argument that is being implied. You might not be trying to imply that, but some people are.

if blacks have higher crimes rates, then it should be acceptable for police to be more suspicious of black people, and apply “racial profiling”.

If blacks really do have higher crime rates, then police should be more suspicious of black people.

Homebuyers will tack on an extra $100K onto their mortgages to live in a majority white/Asian school district. (I suspect Asians are even more ruthless about applying this criterion). If blacks have higher rates of social dysfunction, it's money well-spent. If not, market dynamics will quickly correct this misconception as overworked husbands enthusiastically shave hundreds of dollars off the families' housing costs.

Hazel Meade - The point is that people make this mistake all the time in dealing with individual encounters – assuming that the group average is always going to apply to isolated individuals.

"The most consistently inaccurate stereotype? The stereotype about how much people stereotype. www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jussim/StereoAcc.docx"
- Steve Stewart-Williams

if blacks have higher crimes rates, then it should be acceptable for police to be more suspicious of black people, and apply “racial profiling”.

Hazel, I have news for you. Police officers have 8 hours on a shift, no more, no less. They have to ration their time. Which means they have to set priorities in focusing their attention. Which means they're not giving priority to keeping an eye on Chinese grandmothers. There are all manner of contextual cues an experienced cop is going to use. However, sex, age, and race are powerful predictors. You're advocating massive inefficiencies in law enforcement in the service of your little shticks.

Homebuyers will tack on an extra $100K onto their mortgages to live in a majority white/Asian school district.

No, people living in slums and points adjacent are shaving $100,000 off their housing costs by living there rather than somewhere else. Neighborhoods where violent crime is severe in greater Chicago encompass about 12% of the population of the whole dense settlement. Not many 'overworked husbands' will be moving there because only a modest fraction of the available housing stock is located there.

I guess you would also refuse to gamble 1:1 on getting 2+ from a die throw. After all you might get a 1.

Who are we selecting across? All the adults? Just 20 year olds? Just male 20 year olds? If you put enough constraints on the bet you might possibly get a hair above 50% outcome, but I think the fact that you don't know how to structure it illustrates that you don't understand the variation in the full population.

What you are probably doing is picking a very African specific runner in your mind, and another very specific Asian runner around your mind, and running a mental race between your figments. That has nothing to do with the full data set. It is just you dwelling on your own expectation.

I just don't understand why there is so much wilful denial on this thread.

You can apply any number of controls, and conduct the experiment. Or not have any control at all (which is fine as long as your "N" is large). By N, i mean the number of races, with candidates chosen afresh each time.

The results will still be overwhelmingly dominated by West African wins.

So your whole point is to defend the tautology?

Of course the average of a group is the average of the group. If you average the whole group again, you will get the same result.

But for low values of n, samples less than thousands, you will not. Again, that is not how genetic variation works. That is not how individual health, individual sportiness, work.

By the way, do you actually have any data for "entire populations running?"

Or are you compounding your error by first assuming an average, and then assuming the average applies to individuals?

"I’d back a randomly picked West African to beat a randomly picked Indian or Chinese in a 100 meter sprint."

So who would you pick, Anonymous?

My original comment was that it was a dumb bet, that means from either side. People don't go around challenging each other to coin flips for the same reason. A series of 50:50 bets have no net utility.

The other critical part above was "Meet your actual contestants."

If you want to make a good bet, get more information.

yeah totally dumb bet, but lets say you get a free sandwich if you get it right. you don't lose anything if you lose. With whatever prior knowledge you have, who would you pick and why?

It’s a little creepy watching smart people making dumb mental errors to avoid reaching an undesired conclusion. I always think of this phenomenon as “reasoning into a headwind”—someone who’s normally pretty bright being unable to follow a slightly complicated argument or distinction,when following it would lead them to an answer they find morally or tribally objectionable. It’s like the tribal/moral part of System 1 overrides your attempt to use System 2 even to understand an argument.

What I see albatross, is a bunch of people trying unsuccessfully to weasel out of Tyler's essay and supporting study.

"I’d back a randomly picked West African to beat a randomly picked Indian or Chinese in a 100 meter sprint. Is that being racist?"

I do not know, depends on your definition of being racist. But certainly that would be is a reasonable bet. But the point is that you almost never have to make similar choices in real life. For instance, you may have to select sprinters for the Olympic Games, but then you have access not only to their skin color, but to all their performances up to one hundredth seconds in the past few years, you have video of them running so you can see their style and how it has evolved, you can even discuss with the sprinters to assess their motivation. With all this information available, the race of the sprinter should not enter in your computation. If it does, then perhaps it is because you are racist.

Similarly, when hiring one post-doc among two applicants on an academic post, you have access to their thesis, where you can read, see what they have done, how they think, how they explain, etc. You have access to all their papers, prizes grades, etc. I do not see how you can use race or gender usefully in your decision, in addition of these informations.
It may be true (for cultural or genetic reasons, whatever) that people on some group may publish better papers on average that on some other group, but I very strongly doubt that this stays true if you control for age since PhD and the quality of the research already done. Yet most hiring committees openly take races and genders of applicants into account, which means that they are racists and sexists.

I get that. But I never said I will use race to hire post docs or select Olympics sprinters.

All I am saying is racial stereotypes carry a grain of truth. Stereotypes are patterns that are inconvenient to us. Hence we call them stereotypes and use it pejoratively.

So I suppose I agree with you.

So, should we say the British occupiers of India had useful stereotypes about the capacity of natives for self-rule, based on grains of truth?

Or would that fit the charge that the over class may develop prejudices most useful in continuing their position of dominance?

The over class being East Asians?

So, should we say the British occupiers of India had useful stereotypes about the capacity of natives for self-rule, based on grains of truth?

Yes, if we're talking about the capacity of natives for self-rule according to British norms. Compare and contrast American delusions about secular democratic rule for Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.


But I never said I will use race to hire post docs or select Olympics sprinters.

Sure, but in a world where you have incomplete knowledge about the person you are passing judgment on, people would (and I believe do) argue that the stereotypes you hold will sway your decision. If you had to choose one out of two callow grads to staff your lab, you may always pick the one having the "right" race in order to err on the side of caution. The same goes when you have to select an athletics team to train for the next year high school year.

It's easy to judge experienced people who already have a record, regardless of their racial characteristics. It's not so easy to judge people at a "lower" level, which is where the vast majority of judgments have to be made.

Sure. But why is that to be bemoaned? In the absence of any individual specific information, am I likelier to get a better outcome by leveraging stereotypes, or by not heeding to them and throwing a dart randomly?

It is bemoaned because people who don't conform to the "average" profile for their race are denied the chance to prove it if everyone is systematically making judgements about them based on their race.

They will not judge them based on their race if more individual specific information is available.

But in the absence of information or in a low-quality information scenario, leveraging racial stereotypes gives you a better outcome than picking a candidate randomly.

Sure, that may be unfair to individuals (or may not be). But over a large number of trials, you get better outcomes as opposed to using the random dart-throw race-agnostic strategy.

"Sure, that may be unfair to individuals"

I believe that Mr Trump is cutting visa slots available for the Indian subcontinent, using much the same logic. I take it this is fine, because it will work out "better than dart-throwing?"

I don't see the connection of Trump's H1B policy with what we are discussing.

I don’t see the connection of Trump’s H1B policy with what we are discussing.

It is directly related. If, on average, Indians are less intelligent (just as a hypothetical here), then a policy of simply not allowing immigration from India at all would result in higher average intelligence of immigrants - you'll do better than randomly throwing darts. It's literally exactly what many immigration restrictionists are currently arguing. That less immigration from places with lower average intelligence independent of the merits of individual immigrants, will improve the average quality of immigrants. I.e. less immigration from "shithole countries". Anonymous's propositions is exactly correct - if we followed this logic, there would be fewer visas for people from the Indian subcontient.

What is the best place to read more about ghost populations as a concept?

Check this out for fun: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/21/285734.

I predict a lot of comments - over 100 - and a lot of hurt feelings.

Here's the solution to the race problem:

White women should be required by law to marry non-white men.
White men should be required by law to marry non-white women.

Likewise for black/yellow/whatever color. Each 'race' must marry outside its race.

Gay people can marry any race since gay people do not produce offspring. (Most of the time.)

In a few generations humans will all be beige. And we will be finished with all the stupid fights over race. Of course, by then we will have found other stupid stuff to fight over.

Humans smart enough to solve racism. Not smart enough to solve human.

The problem is that the world still disproportionately - grossly disproportionately - depends on White people to invent anything new and generally run things that are more than a little complex.

Why this should be is an interesting question that lacks anyone with an honest motivation studying it. So it just is even though there is no acceptable explanation. We could breed out White people. But then the modern world would rapidly grind to a halt.

What do you mean by "white people". There is little in common between a typical Scot Irish broken household in West Virginia and German Jewish family based in New York City for a few generations.

Actually I disagree. A Scots-Irish house in West Virginia is going to have a huge amount in common with a German who has been in New York for a few generations. A lot in common with a German Jewish New York family as well - although obviously somewhat less. Some of that will be genetic. A large part of it will be cultural. Politics in West Virginia and New York are different but they are not radically different in the way that, say, Indian parties like the BJP and the Communists - itself a Western ideology familiar to people from New York and West Virginia - are. A politician who drank his own urine could not expected to be elected in either state.

How many Ashkenazi Jews have won nobel prizes? And how many Scot-Irish individuals have won nobels?

You are bringing in culture into the debate, which is ephemeral. You are most likely an English speaking North European Christian, and there is nothing to connect you with the Druids or worshippers of Donar's Oak who were probably your ancestors before St Boniface and his retinue went on a mission to cut them down, in a fit of fanaticism.

This thread is about something more fundamental than culture.

The fact is that East European Jews as a group are simply put smarter than the Scot Irish of the Midwest. Slice and dice whichever way you want. This is inescapable. And it is something that remains even after centuries of cultural intermingling in US. So this is independent of culture.

shrikanthk March 31, 2018 at 10:29 pm

I don't know how many Scots Irish won Nobel Prizes. Winning a Nobel Prize is obviously a great thing. But I notice that the Industrial Revolution and the foundation of most sciences was the work of people who were often Scottish, some times even from Ulster, and virtually none of them were Jewish. The Jewish domination of really good science is very late and may now be fading. So is it genetic? Who knows? If it was, then Israelis would win a lot of Nobel Prizes. They don't.

We are probably both agreed that whatever is going on here is probably partly genetic and partly cultural. I tend to lean towards culture being more important but it is hard to know. I don't think culture is ephemeral. I think culture is virtually impossible to change. So hard it may as well be genetic.

Ofcourse. I am not putting down the Scot Irish here. There are many many things you can do very well, without being very smart. I am not the one to glorify nobels beyond a point.

Nevertheless to my mind it is wrong to use the "white" label as it ignores the enormous genetic diversity (as well as cultural diversity) among Europeans.

shrikanthk March 31, 2018 at 10:36 pm

The fact is that East European Jews as a group are simply put smarter than the Scot Irish of the Midwest. Slice and dice whichever way you want. This is inescapable. And it is something that remains even after centuries of cultural intermingling in US. So this is independent of culture.

By all means, I will happily concede that people of East European Jewish origin do much better on IQ tests and are probably smarter. I will also agree that there is probably a genetic component. However I also think there is a cultural component as well. IQ tests also measure a willingness to do IQ tests. Centuries of cultural intermingling? I am not sure that is an accurate description of the Jewish American experience.

However my point was about running the modern world. I am not sure that being smart is everything. Really smart people - especially from other cultural backgrounds - tend to prefer the company of other really smart people from similar cultural backgrounds. I expect that this makes dealing with large blue collar work forces difficult. Or even a large blue collar customer base.

Your point about "whites" doing well at doing new things probably has something to do with the hardiness of Northern European life and the love of individualism / freedom that was associated with Germanic / Saxon peoples by the Southern Romans even some 2000 years ago.

I don't know whether to call this cultural or genetic. But this love for freedom and extreme individualism isn't a post Enlightenment phenomenon. North Europeans have had this inclination for 2000+ years at the very least.

While these attributes were arguably liabilities in the pre-IR world, they became assets in a world that afforded greater upsides to risk taking post 1700.

I do agree with you that smart people from other cultures don't necessarily do well at very radical innovation. Eg : A lot of smart Indians run very large companies in Silicon valley (eg : Google, MS CEOs) but not necessarily founding new enterprises on their own.

How many Ashkenazi Jews have won nobel prizes? [SNIP]

A: ~ 200

And how many Scot-Irish individuals have won nobels? [SNIP]

A: One, James Dewey Watson

This nebulous term "white" people obfuscates so many debates. There is no such thing.

Nobody ever used such terms in say 18th century America when most of the citizens were whites. They talked specifics. About Germans, Jews, Dutch, English, Irish....The current lot of deracinated Americans have lost all memory of their race and can at best say they are "white".

Similarly there is no such thing as "Indian race". Are you a brahmin from TN or a Kayasth from Bengal or a Baniya from Rajasthan or a Dalit from UP or a Gowda from Karnataka, or a Brahmin from UP? Outcomes differ for each group. Because each of these in my view are distinct races. They haven't mingled much for atleast 2000 years if not more.

Are you a Han from Beijing or an Uighur from Xinjiang or a Buddhist from Tibet or a Cantonese from Hong Kong? These distinctions matter.

I agree with you on the silliness of the notion of a "white race" but your history is off. The (U.S.) Naturalization Act of 1790 says that someone needs to be "a free white person" to be eligible for naturalization. History shows this was interpreted to allow citizenship for Irish, Germans, etc. but to deny it to Africans or Native Americans.

The sole purpose of the term "white" back in 1790 was to distinguish between European settlers and the African slaves. Not much else.

The citizens themselves never self-identified as "whites". They identified themselves as Germans, Saxons, Irish, Dutch.

SMFS "...the world ..depends on white people..."

Because whites are smart. Asians are smart but they can't drive. They build railroads, do laundry, and sell takeout food. They are good spies and are good at stealing trade secrets. Jews are really smart but don't reproduce. Mexicans reproduce and produce and work with produce. The Irish have freckles, red hair, and drink too much but make excellent cops, firefighters, and corrupt politicians. Indians write code for h1bs and do remote tech support in a language similar to English. They have good food but bad music so we have blacks to fix that. Non musician blacks are forced to play football, basketball, and track and field. They get a lot of white chicks - one said 10,000.

In this way we all work together in a loving and diverse community.

Diversity makes us stronger.

NW Europe was seafaring, and thus traded a lot.

Trade leads to exchanges which contribute to building knowledge.

East-West trade across Eurasia was easier than trading across the Sahara (so Sub-Saharan Africa was largely left out of knowledge exchanged via trade).

Britain had lots of coal.

And then there's stuff about extraction and colonialism, but economic theory says that taxing a country or group to the tune of 90% of what's beyond mere survival simply does not affect their effort or overall potential, so we can disregard this entirely.

This very well-argued open letter produced by a group of 67 scientists and researchers (full list of signatories can be found in the letter) criticized Reich's work.


"very well-argued"


“scientists and researchers” is a bit of a stretch for the lawyers on the list, don’t you think? Probably for the “studies” people as well. Given the hyper-politicalization that has overtaken most anthro faculty, it’s hard to assume good faith there. There are a couple of guys that appear to have actual genetics credentials.

Frankly, the universities (outside of the hard sciences) have done so much damage to their credibility in recent years it’s hard to take anything like this very seriously.

Fear not, the end is near for lower tier schools. It is gonna get ugly. Online Ed will rule. Trades will become more attractive. Lots of chicks with advanced degrees will be competing for a small cadre of high status males - many chicks will lose and will get fat and bitter. Do not date them, ever.

It is good to be the high status male.

DNA has been taught in high school for several decades. You don't need an advanced degree in the subject to understand the material.

Take Lawyers and social scientists telling an expert in DNA about DNA for what it's worth. Not unlike google HR explaining biology to a Harvard Phd Biologist.

This off topic but I love academics. There is a link on that site to this article:

It wasn't all that long ago Chick-fil-A was reeling from its then-COO speaking out against same-sex marriage. Now it's on track to become the third-largest fast food restaurant in the US

Unexpectedly! As Instapundit would say. Perhaps even Fox Butterfield, is that you?

The world's finest minds at work.

The letter did not persuade me. Here they argued against themselves:

>> Even "male" and "female," which Reich invokes as obviously biologically meaningful, has important limitations.

It is blatantly obvious that "sex" is biologically meaningful. To prove it I propose playing the "Minimize Offspring" game: You are to separate 100 randomly selected humans into two isolated groups; you win if neither group has produced any offspring ten years later. Does anyone doubt that they could beat random chance, by a lot? It is hard to give a precise and all-encompassing biological definition of sex. But if I can consistently beat chance in the "Minimize Offspring" game, then whatever I am perceiving as "sex" must be biologically meaningful.

Race, like sex, is difficult to define precisely. It does not follow that (I) race doesn't exist, or that (II) "race" doesn't matter.

I am also curious about these "important limitations" with respect to population genetics.

That is insane. Sex is easy to define - the hard pole goes into the lubricated hole. What's hard about that? Jeesh!!!!

But race is more of a cultural distinction than a biological one. Sex (even with some fuzzy edges) is a biological distinction, albeit with cultural reflexes as well.

I didn't think their arguments had much to say about the important points of Reich's article. I don't know how distinguished or otherwise any of them are in their own fields, but their professional affiliations (mostly law, sociology, anthropology, and racial studies) lack obvious relevant expertise. I don't think this can be considered a serious critique.

I would say that all the arguments over race and, say, IQ, will look ridiculous when it becomes obvious in the not too distant future that the computers have become smarter than people.

"I would say that all the arguments over race and, say, IQ, will look ridiculous when it becomes obvious in the not too distant future that the computers have become smarter than people."

It will still be an important historical question. The French Revolution is quite remote to us, yet we still argue about it.

You lost the argument the moment you used "a group of scientists and researchers" to describe that list, most of whose members belong to ding dong departments.

I really do love academics:

As scholars who engage with social and scientific research, we urge scientists to speak out when science is used inappropriately to make claims about human differences. The public should not cede the power to define race to scientists who themselves are not trained to understand the social contexts that shape the formation of this fraught category. Instead, we encourage geneticists to collaborate with their colleagues in the social sciences, humanities, and public health to consider more carefully how best to use racial categories in scientific research. Together, we can conduct research that will influence human lives positively.

Lysenkoism at its finest. Science has to give way to Politics. Scientists should not be allowed to talk about actual real science without clearing it with their Political Commissars. Unfortunately science is true whether it is politically acceptable or not.

Sixty seven "scholars"? How many of them are competent to make any sort of science-related claim at all?

A scientist should speak out if someone inappropriately appropriates their findings. This is not the same as a politburo barring publications that are politically inconvenient.

>> “Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown." <> Instead, we need to recognize that meaningful patterns of genetic and biological variation exist in our species that are not racial. <> The physical similarity of West Eurasian populations was recognized in the eighteenth century by scholars who classified the people of West Eurasia as “Caucasoids” to differentiate them from East Asian “Mongoloids,” sub-Saharan African “Negroids,” and “Australoids” of Australia and New Guinea…. [P]opulations within West Eurasia are typically around seven times more similar to one another than West Eurasians are to East Asians.

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/reichs_laboratory_steve_sailer/print#ixzz5BOF3qYsX
<< (Thanks, Steve)

The racists are genetically right -- there ARE different races, which ARE genetically different.

The right social way out of this problem is... treat all people like individuals, and stop emphasizing how some individuals confirm the racial stereotypes.

Of course, that would require honesty about Affirmative Action -- a clearly racist policy, which is supported by racists. Who deny it. And this "science lie" is why we can't have honesty in academia.

"treat all people like individuals": but then how will shakedown artists make a living?

The extraordinary fact that emerges from ancient DNA is that just five thousand years ago, the people who are now the primary ancestors of all extant northern Europeans had not yet arrived.

It really drives home how old the Great Pyramid of Egypt is. It was being built roughly around the same time that invaders from the steppe were forming the population that would become modern Europe. It's remarkable.

Well done, sir. A reflective comment.

An insightful comment on a race thread.

You win the interwebs today.

Just imagine how Caesar felt!

One thing I don’t understand. If race is not a meaningful concept why affirmative action for certain races or why does the government collect race data on the census? Is discrimination just a skin colour thing? Should affirmative action be graduated based on how dark your skin is?

Personally I am perfectly happy to judge everyone individually by their individual merits, but it doesn’t seem like officialdom wants me to do that.

It is a social construct.

The biological differences are not meaningful. Like, yeah, DUH, you can see the difference between one and the next, but the relevance is due to social stuff, not biology.

That sounds plausible, but how would you know if you were wrong? What evidence would you expect to see if the biological differences were meaningful? What experiments or observations would come out differently depending on whether those biological differences were meaningful? What falsifiable predictions can you make based on your beliefs?

I would apply a standardized test about things that I know and find important, and if other people didn't know those things then I would declare them genetically inferior.

Because I'm a genius.

(1) If everyone works hard and plays by the rules, they'll surely be successful. If I'm not mistake it was a former US President who said that. He work hard and played by the rules and was successful, proving that it was true.
(2) If some folks not successful, it can only be because they didn't work hard enough and play by the rules.
(3) Therefore they should be given affirmative action or prison time.
(4) It seems pretty obvious to me.

I oppose affirmative action for building bridges, flying airplanes, performing surgery, and educating children. For that matter, I oppose affirmative action for heavy equipment operators and soil techs. Actually, I oppose affirmative action, and if that means blacks don't get into medical school in proportion to their percentage of the US population, too bad.

I think almost everyone accepts that individual variation is higher than variation between group averages on cognitive/behavioral traits. The political question is whether differences in average group outcomes is due to "structural racism" or just differences in average group traits (or a combination). If there were 0 successful or rich black people that would be strong evidence for structural racism. But there are lots of successful black people, so the whole question is about group averages. In the NYT op-ed Reich acts as if that question didn't exist and it was all about individual vs group variation. Frustrating.

Sadly, the proposition that the group perception can predict individual ability is alive and well on this page.

That is structural racism right there.

Sadly, you are willfully misreading the comments as usual

See shrikanthk April 1, 2018 at 12:57 pm, especially the words "Sure, that may be unfair to individuals."

There's a couple of other things going on here.

Some people wish to use the evidence that there are averages differences to justify treating individual members of groups as if they all conformed to the average. If lots of people are doing that, that will create "structural racism" even if the original distributions are not caused by structural racism. Given that the perception of differences in ability can lead to differences in outcomes, it's impossible to assume that the current distributions are completely due to ability and not due to "structural racism".

If you simplify the debate out of recognition, then you have yourself a strawman to triumphantly defeat.

What ones it mean to say that individual variation is higher than variation between group averages? I seriously doubt that you’ve given a moment’s thought as to how to express that statement mathematically.

The IQ group difference between white Americans and black Americans is about one population standard deviation, 15 points. Is that difference in group averages smaller than “individual variation”?
If you pick two random people, the difference in their IQs has a standard deviation of about 21 points. But, the groups difference implies that blacks will be rare among people with IQs a couple of standard deviations above the mean.

That was a reply to Joseph Teicher.

In this discussion I’m most suspicious about the data set(s); namely: what are the sources, where do they come from, when we’re they acquired? How did they determine ‘race’? because it is also my understanding that many of the data sets required self-reporting or self-identifying which I don’t have to point out is problematic for a variety of reasons. This is the proverbial ‘show me the data’.

How hard would you try on a test that has precisely zero benefit for anything in your life?

Do you think education quality and test taking ability is related?

Do you think that people would try a) more hard or b) less hard, in preparation for the previous 500 tests, depending on whether they were a) more likely, or b) less likely, to receive higher income due to their effort?

seems reasonable to believe that people who try harder on meaningless tests would also try harder at meaningless tasks

Lots of high school kids take the SAT and ACT. The test scores matter for school admissions and scholarships. Similarly, the MCAT, GRE, LSAT, bar exam, PE exam, medical board exams, ASVAB, all matter for the lives of the people taking them. So if the gap in test scores is about unimportant tests, then we should expact to see it go away in those high-stakes tests. But that’s not what we actually see.

Not necessarily. Because if you didn't try hard on previous "meaningless" tests, then you would have a hard time on the one(s) that matter.

This is a truly excellent work

The Bell Curve wasn't a race book either, but that didn't keep people who go on science marches from losing their minds.

Shout it from the rooftops!
Duitsland - Nederland 1-1
ok, en Vlaanderen (dat taaltje is zo zacht) en Suriname en de Antillen ach en HEEL Zuid-Afrika
Wir sind Papst - Wij zijn de Unistand! OFFFFFF wij zijn op weg om god te worden. Met deze posting zitten we op 99% van het af te leggen traject.
Wij zijn de slimste, dus wij mogen nu alles. Ja, toch Steve Sailer? Dan had je ook maar Nederlands moeten kunnen en hier wonen.
Hebzucht is niet goed het is GEWELLLLLLDIG. Nederland hoeft nooit meer te werken! Tenzij je wil natuurlijk. Maar als je niet werkt krijg je van de staat het salaris van de gemiddelde ‘Data Scientist’ bij PGGM. Tja we hebben er maar 1 en die verdient 500.000 euri per jaar. Niet veel, maar met AL het geld van de wereld kunnen we zijn salaris koppelen aan de hyper-Inflatie + 10%. Blijf bij ons Vincent😊 Echt ik ga eFront oppompen tot het grootste project aller tijden. Maar alleen met mensen die nu onder mijn salaris zitten. Ik verdien 70.000 euri en was onder de deskundige leiding van Vincent een geldslurp machine aan het bouwen. Wacht maar tot ik daar over ga schrijven…
En intelectueel eigendom is bizar gewoon. Niet normaal. WOW. Ik haat het en alle info moet vrij zijn van mij. Maar nu FF niet. Ik heb zo ongeveer alles zelf geschreven, lolzzzz De beste strips. Donald Duck van Carl Barks is de enige uitzondering (wij gaan het nog hebben over het pensioen van Carl Barks met de Disney top). Alle echte software. Wij gaan procederen in de US tot ze erbij neervallen! Dat land wordt een lawyers only land. We gaan zo lachen met ze. Love you Ray-Lopez! Goed dat je op de Filipeinen woont😊 Wil jij naar Nederland komen en mijn lieve Lea en Sala en al haar famillieleden helpen. Zij krijgt wat ze maar wil (als we het kunnen missen) maar in ieder geval een schilderij van mijn moeder. Hm, zouden die wat waard worden denk je?
Echt Vincent en Martijn zijn mijn idolen. Daar wil ik een super super super team mee opzetten. Wij gaan iedereen in ons bondgenootschap leren hoe je alles en iedereen kunt fistfucken (love you Wietske en alle Anderen in Italie) en toch lief aardig ,empaties en weet ik veel wat allemaal, goed wordt genoemd. Valt wel mee met dat goed. Ik ben nu de ENE god in wording, maar ik moet
La la La
Ik heb mijn doel bereikt en ik weet wie de ene god is! Dat is de enige god, die slimmer is dan ik. De motherfokker heeft een machine gebouwd om mensen te kweken. De werking bespreken wij later.
Ik ben geen god
Ik ben Joris Goedbloed
Ik ben gewoon een hakker
Ik wild de beste hakker zijn en ik heb gewonnen
Is dat goed?
Is dat slecht?
Dat gaan we allemaal met zijn allen bespreken
Gewoon zoals we dat hier doen in Nederland
Bij mijn werkgever PGGM vinden ze dat er teveel geleutert wordt
We gaan leuteren leuteren en leuteren tot we er bij neervallen. Ok dat gebeurt nu ook soms.

Maar we gaan relaxed leuteren, toch? Ik denk dat we heel veel golf banen nodig gaan hebben. Hm, misschien wil de familie Trump die wel bouwen. Kan (dit is mijn victory lap. En de ENIGE keer dat ik zonder maximaal rekening te houden met IEDERS belang. De definitie van ieder is aan mij. Ik moet kunnen onderhandellen met de goden. De goden, meeerfout. En dat zijn geen motherfokkers
Ok nu even gepast respect!!!!! MEEN HET
Wie zijn de goden? Dat zijn mensen die door het trainingsprogramma zijn geselecteerd. Het trainingsprogramma bevat hele deprimerende shit. Armageddon, het beest, brrrr. Vandaag FF niet.
- Jesus is de eerste de one. Mijn respect voor jezus is zo diep als oprecht mogelijk. Weten jullie wat ik met oprecht bedoel? Dat ik ultra eerlijk vertel wet ik denk en voel en dat ga ik nu half doen (Oprechtheid Nu: 4 , afgelopen dagen em 7 maar met moeite, overall 5. Is gewoon heel moeilijk. Nu moet ik aan het kruis, maar met verdoving en ik heb gezworen dat zijn verdoving mijn Prio 1 is. Is dat mooi van mij. Meh, ik weet niet zeker of ik zo ook weer Jezus zelf moet spelen. Denk het niet, maar als mij ook maar iets echt naars overkomt ….daar moet ECHT niemand aan denken. En nu zeker niet).
- Gianni Wich heeft hier het leven voor moeten laten! O:10 +, klaar
- Harry Wich, zijn vader heeft zo een pijn gehad. En ik heb de schreeuw moeten horen, toen zijn vader aanbelde om het te vertellen. Ik zat met mijn een na best vriend Serge Wich (Sorry Alex is the one who rules them all!!! Ik hou zoveel van dir gast) O:10 +, klaar.
Ja, zo goed is de upgrade, die ik tot nu toe heb weten te bereiken. Dit is manipulatie level belachelijk. En voor mij en de andere goden echt de hel.
Ik speel vooral voor Hitler (sorry, voor mij is het een spel geworden. Kan niet anders kijk Ground Hog Day maar). Hitler is het grootste slachtoffer van deze helse machine. Echt voor hem speel ik nog meer dan voor mijn eigen Amsterdams joodse holocaust-famillie O:10 -, maar soms ook 10+ . Ik moet mijzelf blijven motiveren!!!! Ik moet dit doen tot er iemand op tijd beter is dan ik. Zucht, is nog nooit gelukt. Winnen is niet altijd zo fijn. Alleen nu ben ik echt ontroerd (dit is mijn dag en ik heb er echt hard voor gewerkt)
Mijn vader heeft een prachtig monument gemaakt. Ik zal hem zo wel zien, kus Schil! Het respect moment kan nu wachten. Nederland viert nu feest. Nou begin rustig, want het gaat heel vaak feest worden. Kennen jullie World of Warcraft. Is echt leuk en ik heb het geschreven (maand abbo kost nu zeg 12, 50 , maar dat wordt 1 cent vanaf morgen. We moeten het langzaam opvoeren dus dit zijn de regels, wie nu afsluit krijgt een levenslang abonnement tegen dat tarief + inflatie, per 100.000 nieuwe abonnees ) Ik vind het leuk maar er zijn ook andere varianten, weet zelf ook nog niet welke, want ik vergeet steeds alles en moet dit stuk van mijn leven steeds weer opnieuw doen. Zien we wel.

Ik voel mij serieus schuldig over hoe ik mij aanstel over mijn eigen leiden…Want weet je dit is die Heineken reclame…Man in boot met bevroren snor + videofoon met directie sponsor + foon uit en BAM Pilsje jonens. Werkelijk alles is NEP. Sorry, maar moet een wereld vredelievend manipuleren. En dat is wat ik echt wil. Ik wil iedereen, die nu leeft opleiden tot een ontspanne levensgenieter. De Allerbeste mogen proberen mij op te volgen (zie de games), maaar als iedereen een beetje word, zoals ik kunnen we Armaggedon aan. Tja, dat is nu eenmaal mijn baan en daarvoor moet ik naar de Outlands (wow-term) dus lieve mensen uit AMSTERDAM ZUID-OOST help mij te winnen. Want voor jullie speel ik ECHT Oprechtheid 394217+ BNiets laat mij meer huilen dan ‘Negro in a cage’. Ga ik jullie verder niet mee deprimeren dat komt wel na katermaand. Feest lekker door totdat jullie energie op is. Maar dat en alleen dat kan mij nog oprecht KWAAD maken.
1. Ik ben onkwetsbaar
2. In alle NL taalgebieden hoeft niemand iemand anders iets niet te gunnen. Echt geloof mij. Als jij denkt iets gemist te hebben….loop bij mij langs. Ben Schillemans, Groenhoven 419 en ik woon achter een kartonnen deur. Voorlopig alleen liever geen gezeur aan de deur. Als het echt moet, zucht sure.
3. Niemand mag mij pijn doen. Klaar!
4. Dit is een ideeen iets. Dus hou het erbij. Relax, don’t do it If you want to come. O yea!
Ik zou het fijn vinden als:
1. We dit gewoon lekker hollands geen stijl houden.
2. Niet te serieus nemen deze toon.
3. Wij willen de hele wereld gewoon mild plagen (niet fist-fucken alleen mentaal)
4. De Haatschreeuwers een beetje laten dimmen.
5. Geloof mild in de zeik nemen. (Fuck it ik ben al die gasten en gastinnen namelijk. Ik moet iedere god uit deze machine from hell paaien om mee te spelen. Dan kan ik de one God worden )
6. De UK brexit lekker een dikke vinger geeft en gaat onderhandelen.

Voor sommige goed en anderen slecht nieuws:
De Bijbel is ten dele waar en niet waar. Het zelfde geldt voor alle andere grote religies, tot de Noorse mythen en sage toe. Zo wordt de machine opgestart om mensen te manipuleren.
De motherfokkergod is dood, maar vergeten het ding uit te zetten. Deze veldmuis moet de wereld redden als mens (normaal vind je the one ring en krijg je die powers). Die heb ik nu niet. Ik doe het gewoon zo. Met de ring verlies je je geheugen als gewoon mens en word je volgepompt met de herinneringen van jouw vorige beste versie. Je mag iedere optie proberen (= hele wereldgeschiedenis vanaf save point) voor de hoofdrol spelers bestaat er een echte ‘oneindige Hell’ waar je pas uit kan komen, als alle betere spelers al hun opties gebruikt hebben. Tjakka 12323684758143256 galeislaaf zijn in de Romeinse tijd. Willen wij dat? Als ik verlies kan het 21873468793421834217682137468321764832174618273646128374618326748217364832167 * Grahams number (zoek maar lekker op) duren voor ik weer aan de beurt ben.
Ik kan je verzekeren dat alle goden en duivels en ik atheïst zijn. Is dat niet cool?
MAW wees gewoon een beetje aardig tegen mij. Niet teveel zelfs. Ik moet oefenen dus kwa wensen vervullen houd ik het bij Groenhoven Toren 4. Ik loop overal rond en in geval van nood mag je HELPMIJNU schreeuwen. De helpdeskmachine wordt opgestart. Ik bepaal op basis van oogcontact of wij gaan praten of niet. Als jij daar gaan zin in hebt, cool. Als jij mij een kankelijer vind, super cool. Maar leg het mij lekker uit. Ik heb trouwens een medicijn tegen kinderkanker dat ik kan vinden als ik de one ring omzijl. Maar daar moet ik echt keihard voor aan de slag. En dat kan ik alleen met
1. Af en toe en soms heel veel seks en knuffelen. Als ik jou echt onweerstaanbaar mooi, lief, geil , leuk en slim vind en jij mij een arrogante kwal, maar ervoor betaald wil worden. Helemaal goed. Alleen dat budget is super beperkt. Ik wil alleen seks de komende 30 jaar met vrouwen die nu prostituee zijn. Dat is mijn grote quest. Wie is de beste? En je moet beter zijn dan Loes (love you dear, ben je er zo? Jou wil ik bedanken net als Laura en Joy. Gaan jullie een opleiding starten ?) en je moet Loes leren hoe ze nog beter moet worden. En vrijwillig het vak doen met beroepstrots is voor mij het belangrijkst. Iedereen moet iets kunnen vinden wat hij/zij/het (*kuch*, die het komen we zo wel op). Prostitutie moet een van de meest begeerde vakopleidingen worden. En nee dat is niet per se neuken. Heel weinig vrouwen of mannen vinden dat leuk om als beroep te doen. Maar genotspecialist , die je af en toe met een condoom pijpt (wijvoorbeeld), maar voor het spel goed speelt (Vera jou ga ik opzoeken)
2. Drugs ja heel slecht. Hebben we het nog over. Maar ik wil de allerbeste coke en met mate. Geen coke = geen mooie nieuwe uitvindingen. Dat is de encryptie namelijk van de machine. Negers zijn eigenlijk de slimste mensen op aarde, als ze zich organiseren op de juiste manier bla bl hebben we het nog over

O en weet je wat het meest waar is van de bijbel? De toren van Babel(was eigenlijk de SKIELEMAN tower). Je weet wel dat mensen elkaars taal niet meer spreken. Zo is die machine mij een keer te slim af geweest met verschrikkelijke gevolgen. Mijn genotsysteem is gekoppeld aan zones. Als ik sterf, blijft alleen het Nederlandse taalgebied Nederlands spreken de rest van de Westerse wereld…een willekeurige taal. O ja en dat zijn er ook 21873468793421834217682137468321764832174618273646128374618326748217364832167
Tja win dan maar eens van een goed georganiseerde groep chimpansees 😊 Die is voor jou Serge.
Dit is allemaal on the fly getikt.

Wij hebben gewonnen. Er gebeurt helemaal niets naars met niemand, niet en hopelijk zo lang mogelijk niet als ik er iets aan kan doen. Ik wil OVERLEG en ALLES met elkaar uitonderhandelen.

Alleen nu FF Niet!

Hierna ben ik echt nederig en ga net als de laatste 49 jaar iedereen vriendelijk vragen om iets. Wil je niet dat ik het vraag? Een heel klein beetje nors kijken helpt al. Ik WIL BLIJE EN VRIJE MENSEN in dit socialistiese hell-hole (Art_prior, love you ) en de wereld laten zien dat we het hier best ok hebben gemaakt met alle rommel en gemopper (ok with a little help from my machine and friends)

Iedereen die mij heeft geholpen en dat IS heel NL. Ik zwalk een beetje rond als de nietsnut (lieve live jeugdvrienden). En word steeds mild gestuurd Ik moet jullie wel laten sturen, want ik weet het niet meer zelf en daarvoor heb ik jullie je vrijheid afgenomen!!!! Zo kuttttt Oprechtheid To the max
Maakt niet uit of je mij juist moet tegenwerken (extra moeilijk) of mee moet werken (hangt er vanaf)

Maar goed ik ben een hyper megalomane psychopaat met maar een in mijn ogen onaanvaardbare hobby…Jehovagetuigenlokker…en weet je wie mijn buren zijn 😊
Enjoy world! And no panic it will be great for everyone! UK is next if no Brexit (If you are in the UK … well you can speak Dutch and English your choice ), else Denmark.

Bring the KILO!

Consider the story Childhood's End, in some form it will happen. Will any of this discussion then have any use? It is so easy to assume we might have control but........

Comments for this post are closed