All Episodes
Previous Next
May 12, 2021 - Radio Renaissance - Jared Taylor
06:14
National Geographic Pushes Pseudoscience
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, I'm Jared Taylor with American Renaissance.
As you know, it's the fashion to claim that there is no such thing as race and that all human populations are essentially the same.
This view never made sense, and now recent work in DNA has thoroughly refuted it, but the myth lives on.
For example, the April issue of National Geographic is devoted entirely to denying race.
And right in the introduction, editor-in-chief Susan Goldberg explains that, and I quote, race is not a biological construct, but a social one that can have devastating consequences.
Let's take a look through the magazine.
There is the inevitable article called Skin Deep.
It explains that race is, quote, largely a made-up label used to define and separate us.
Here is an interesting spread that shows different skin colors around the world, implying that skin color is all there is to race.
The article warns, sadly, that, quote, skin color still determines treatment in the 21st century.
On this page, we have the famous quote from Craig Venter of the Human Genome Project.
The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis.
Oddly, on the very next page are photos of a chimp.
And a baby side by side with the explanation that their DNA is nearly 99% the same.
How'd that get in there?
It shows pretty dramatically that tiny genetic differences can have huge consequences.
There is also an article about all the arbitrary and ridiculous things that divide human beings.
Of course, it includes a picture of the wall on the Mexican border.
There is a heartwarming spread called The Many Colors of Matrimony, with portraits of brides and grooms from mixed marriages.
An article called A Place of Their Own Celebrates Black Colleges.
Here are future scientists in a chemistry class at Clark Atlanta University.
An article called The Rising Anxiety of White America shows sad-looking white people in a bar.
As you can see, the caption says, Missing the past.
The article goes on to warn that some white people, quote, react anxiously and angrily to a sense that their way of life is under threat.
But complaining about immigration is, quote, akin to shaking a fist at a rain cloud.
This issue of National Geographic is also an apology.
As Susan Goldberg explains, The way the magazine used to cover race was so nasty that in her words, it leaves you speechless.
She had to go back 102 years to find a sufficiently shocking example of this.
Here is a 1916 photo of Aborigines.
The caption says, these savages rank lowest in intelligence of all human beings.
And so it goes.
Whites are miserable racists.
Race is a myth.
We are all the same, so we should relax and enjoy giving our country away.
Well, curiously enough, the very month this issue of National Geographic appeared, so did this book.
It's called Who We Are and How We Got Here.
It's by a scientist named David Reich, who has spent his career studying genetic differences between populations.
This book is mostly about how to use ancient DNA to understand prehistoric migrations.
However, Professor Reich also attacks what he calls the orthodoxy about race, namely that all groups are identical.
And I quote:"The indefensibility of the orthodoxy is obvious at almost every turn." Well, apparently not to Susan Goldberg.
He goes on to write: We should prepare for the likelihood that in the coming years, genetic studies will show that behavioral or cognitive traits are influenced by genetic variation and that these traits will differ on average across human populations.
Got that?
There are important differences between groups.
And whether you want to call them races or not, it's not just skin color.
There is already plenty of evidence for gene-based racial differences in average intelligence and many other traits.
Professor Reich is issuing a warning.
We're going to find the genes for these things, and the race deniers are going to look very foolish.
So, hooray for David Reich.
Well, maybe not.
After writing all this sensible stuff, he then jumps the tracks.
He writes that if you think...
The racial differences that science will reveal correspond to current stereotypes you are, quote, essentially guaranteed to be wrong.
He adds, "We have no idea right now what the nature or direction of genetically encoded differences among populations will be." We have no idea?
I have a very good idea.
We're going to find that stereotypes are correct.
Jews are smart.
Blacks have low impulse control.
Japanese are law-abiding.
West Africans are good spreaders.
How can Professor Reich possibly say we have no idea?
I guess he figures he can go only so far against the grain.
So, it's three steps forward and two steps back.
But we're headed in the right direction.
As I have always said, science is on our side.
For the pitiful propaganda that it is.
Will the new editor-in-chief apologize, as Susan Goldberg did?
▲
Export Selection