Biological Reality, part 1

American Dissident Voices broadcast of December 27, 2014

by Kevin Alfred Strom

IT IS repeated again and again by the politicized prostitutes of the academy and by the well-paid shills of the mediasphere: “Race is a social construct. Scientists agree: Biological race does not exist.”

Consider Hannah Graham — a young White woman brutally raped and murdered by a Black male, then left in a field to die near Charlottesville, Virginia. Jessica Chambers — not yet out of her teens, a White girl who tried to exit the Black gang scene infesting rural Mississippi, who had lighter fluid poured down her throat and was then set aflame. Richmond’s Harvey family — musician Bryan Harvey and his wife, toy store owner Kathryn Harvey, and their two little girls Stella, 9, and Ruby, 4: They were getting ready for an afternoon party when two Blacks entered their home, overpowered them, bound them, tortured and beat them with blunt objects, then methodically slit all of their throats — and set their house on fire to destroy the evidence of their deeds. These and thousands of other Black-on-White violent crimes in America, no matter how wildly out of proportion they are to the percentage of Blacks in the population, cannot — I repeat, cannot — have anything to do with the biological race of the attackers because, as the media talking heads assure us, biological race does not exist.

In the last two decades, our knowledge of human genetics — and the genetics of other species — has increased many-fold. It is now, in fact, possible to accurately measure the genetic differences between human groups, as long as we have a representative sample of each group’s DNA. Look carefully at the graphic included as the first illustration in the text version of this broadcast. It’s a graph that shows us in visual form the genetic distance between 42 human populations, based on the differences found among them on two highly variable sections of mtDNA. (Cavalli-Sforza, 1994, p. 82). The graph is in the form of a map-like plane laid out in four nearly equal quadrants. As you can see, South Asians cluster, almost by themselves, in the lower left quadrant, North Asians and Eurasians in the upper left. Europeans and closely related peoples are tightly clustered in the upper right. When you add a few hybrid groups, a broad arc is formed across three of the four quadrants.

Now look at the lower right quadrant. Africans are on one side of the two axes of the graph and everyone else is on the other side — whether you look at the horizontal or the vertical axis. This is because Africans are more genetically different, from all other human populations, than any of the other human populations are from each other.

Notice also that, despite the fact that the graph has been exactly scaled to contain all of the populations measured, the center of the graph and a wide area around it is completely empty, even though that center would represent the average of all these measurements. This, as scientist and author Richard D. Fuerle tells us, “is because, although all these populations were once a single population, they have been becoming increasingly genetically different, on their way to becoming different species.” In other words: The races are evolving apart, becoming more different, and this must have been occurring for a very long time indeed to have progressed this far.

But never mind all that. We are told by our masters that biological race does not exist, and that is that.

The same team of scientists compiled tables that give us the genetic distance separating 2,000 different human groups from one another. I’ve included a table in the text version of this program showing the relative genetic distance between a few of these. In it we see that while Englishmen have a genetic distance of 236 from Near Easterners, who in turn have a genetic distance of 229 from Asian Indians, the genetic distance separating Englishmen and East Africans is 1,163 — from West Africans 1,487 — and from Bantus 2,288.

Another startling fact relating to genetic distance is that, for most Europeans and Asians, the mother of a mixed-race child with a Bantu African father is more closely related to another member of her own ethnic group, randomly chosen off the streets, than she is to her own hybrid child. This has tremendous implications for familial and social cohesion, since the biological basis for such bonds is genetic kinship.

Fuerle explains:

“Compared to all the human genetic variation in the world, people in the same ethnic group can be almost as related to each other as a parent is to his child. (Salter, 2003, pp. 42, 67, 124, 327, 329). ‘… in most situations individuals have a larger genetic stake in their ethnic groups than in their families.’ (Salter, 2003, p. 37). Thus, [racialism] is in everyone’s genetic interest…. The concept of genetic distance has, however, been distorted by the egalitarians to show that everyone is genetically about the same. For example, in his January, 2000, State of the Union address, then President Bill Clinton stated, ‘We are all, regardless of race, 99.9 percent the same.’ The implication is that the remaining 0.1% will produce only trivial differences and can be ignored, but ‘one-tenth of 1 percent of 3 billion is a heck of a large number — 3 million nucleotide differences between two random genomes.’ (Anthropologist John Hawks)…. ‘We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms. Only one chromosome determines if one is born male or female. There is no discernible difference in the DNA of a wolf and a Labrador retriever, yet their inbred behavioral differences are immense. Clearly, what’s meaningful is which genes differ and how they are patterned, not the percent of genes. A tiny number of genes can translate into huge functional differences.'”

But never mind all that. We are told by our masters that biological race does not exist, and that is that.

Looking at the pictures I’ve included in the text version of this broadcast, take a look at the skulls typical of Asians, Whites, and Africans. These images and much of the facts in today’s broadcast are taken from Fuerle’s excellent book, Erectus Walks Amongst Us:

“Overall, the dome of the Asian skull is round and the face is flat. Although the Caucasian skull is a bit longer (top to bottom), it is very similar to the Asian skull, indicating that the Asians and Caucasians did not separate into two races all that long ago, or that there was interbreeding between their lineages. [Now study] the male African-American skull. Although this skull is described as being of an African-American, it has many African features. …The African skull is quite different from the Asian and Caucasian skulls, indicating a much greater genetic distance between Eurasians and Africans than between Europeans and Asians.

“Compared to Asian and Caucasian skulls, the African skull is narrower. The bones of the skull (and the rest of the body) are denser and thicker. The eye sockets are rounder and proportionately larger and the distance between them is greater. The slight bump at the top of the head suggests a “saggital keel,” a ridge along the top of the head from the forehead to the back of the skull for attaching chewing muscles and strengthening the skull from blows received in fighting. The opening for the nose is wider, the nose bones protrude less, and the teeth more massive, with the incisors meeting at an angle.

“The most noticeable difference, however, is the protruding jaw, a condition known as ‘prognathism,’ a trait found in apes and in ancient human fossil skulls, even those not from Africa. The considerable gap between the cheekbones (‘zygomatic arches’) and the indentation on the sides behind the eye sockets (‘post-orbital constriction’) indicate that the more massive jaw was serviced by powerful chewing muscles that passed through the gap.”

Prognathism is “the absence of facial flatness” or the protrusion of the upper and lower jaw into a more snout-like shape (Hanihara, 2000) and it can be measured:

“by means of the facial angle, the slope of the face from the forehead to the jaws. [The illustration I’ll include here] is by Camper, who first used the concept. In his drawings, Camper gives the facial angle as 70° for the “Negro” (i.e., Congoids); [The pre-humans] H. habilis and H. erectus also have a facial angle of about 70°. An angle of 60° has been given for the Hottentots and Bushmen, and 66.6° for the Australian aborigines…. (Baker, 1974, p. 281); orangutans have a facial angle of 58°. Camper regarded a facial angle of 100° as the epitome of beauty (Etcoff, 1999, pp. 42-43); Sub-Saharan Africans have ‘remarkable prognathism.’ (Hanihara, 2000).”

“…Simian prognathism (a protruding jaw with a recessed nose) is a very primitive trait that is characteristic of apes. A jutting jaw is needed if the teeth are large, plus it is an advantage in fighting as it permits a bigger bite and makes the eyes less vulnerable. (Howells, 1959, p. 125). One is reminded of the 1997 title fight in Las Vegas where Mike Tyson bit a piece out of the ear of WBA champ Evander Holyfield.”

“…[Another illustration] (Nature, Vol. 228) shows a comparison of the lower jaw (mandible) of an orangutan, a Negro, and a white. The rectangles illustrate the width and length of the jaws. The numbers are the percentages of the length to the width. When there is simian prognathism the jaw is long and narrow, as in the orangutan, and when the face is flat, as the white jaw is, the length is actually less than the width; as expected, the Negro jaw is in between the jaw of the orangutan and the jaw of the white.”

Another primitive trait possessed by many Africans is the “saggital keel,” a ridge running front to back on the top of the skull, often partially or fully concealed by hair:

“Saggital keels can be found in herbivores that require powerful muscles to grind up plant matter, e.g., the gorilla, and carnivores that need a powerful bite to kill larger prey, e.g., the bobcat. (Nickens, T.E., “Survivor,” National Wildlife, Aug.-Sept., 2008)”

Look at the pictures I’ve included of a prehuman Homo habilis skull with its saggital keel — and the very similar skull form visible in the photograph of Black killer James Ealy.

Another racial difference can be seen in the whites of the human eye, also called the sclera. Among Asians and Whites, the sclera is white. Among African-Americans it varies from yellowish to white, but in pure Africans it is usually yellowish. Among gorillas it is yellow, and in chimpanzees it is quite dark:

“A white sclera means that it is easier tell where a human is looking and know at whom speech or a facial expression is directed, thereby facilitating communications and cooperation, particularly of subtle and personal information. A white sclera suggests more complex social relationships and a larger brain that is capable of interpreting this additional information. It also indicates living among people trusted enough to reveal what one is thinking about and what actions one may take. The slightly yellowish sclera that has been reported in some Australian aborigines (Baker, 1974, p. 298) and adult male Africans may be due to the presence of melanin in their sclera and a less complete conversion to a white sclera.”

But never mind all that. We are told by our masters that biological race does not exist, and that is that.

The cranial capacity — and therefore brain size, which is closely correlated with intelligence — of Africans is dramatically lower than that of Whites. But there are also more subtle structural differences in the brains of Africans, which also have a negative impact on higher reasoning:

“The ridges (‘gyri’) between the grooves (‘sulci’) at the surface of the brain greatly increase the surface area of the cerebral cortex, the outer layer of the cerebrum. Since the cerebral cortex processes information, increased brain fissures increases the percentage of the brain that is cerebral cortex and should increase intelligence without increasing the volume of the brain, although this is difficult to establish quantitatively. (Baker, 1974, p. 432)

“Notice [in the illustration] the fissures (and frontal lobes) in the brains of an orangutan, an African bushman, and the great German physicist, J.C.F. Gauss. Africans and some retarded people (Friend, T., “Brains of mice enlarged to help research,” USA Today, July 19, 2002, citing Chenn, 2002) have fewer convolutions (“fissures”) in the cerebral cortex of their brains, where abstract thought is performed. Australian aborigines also have smaller and less complex brains. [The next image] shows the back of the brains of an orangutan, an Australian aborigine, and a European.

“There are many other physical properties of the brain that are also associated with greater intelligence. The thickness of the …outer layers of the cerebral cortex …increases from lower animals to man. ‘The supragranular layers in the dog are one-half the thickness of those in the ape, and the thickness of the ape’s only three-fourths the thickness in man.’ The supragranular layer is 15% thinner in blacks than in whites.”

But, again — never mind all that. We are told by our masters that biological race does not exist, and that is that.

On our next program we’ll continue our discussion of the scientific, biological proof that Africans are identical, equal, and in fact largely indistinguishable from Europeans in every way except skin color. Be with me then on our first program in 2015 and in our 24th year of American Dissident Voices.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance, founded by William Luther Pierce in 1970. This program is published every week at whitebiocentrism.com and nationalvanguard.org. Please write to us at National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. We welcome your support, your inquiries, and your help in spreading our message of hope to our people. Once again, that address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.