Salter Video Lecture

Important video lecture.

2005 Salter lecture.

A usual, Salter gives us excellent material.

One must consider what Salter (and I here at this blog) has to say about academics who cannot or will not speak the truth on race and genetics. The outrageous behavior of all those leftist and/or cowardly geneticists and other academics is and was disgusting. Almost as disturbing is that a genius like Hamilton didn’t realize from the very start that identical by state = identical by descent; identical = identical.  Oh, well, Hamilton likely did realize it - but didn't want to be called "racist." That is the same mindset that affects most academics in this field today: rank cowardice.

As far as Lewontin goes, I’ve discussed that issue many times. In ANY group of humans, the genetic variation will always be greater within groups than between groups; it is a trivial finding.  Most genetic variation is random among individuals; for example, you can divide any group – say, left-handed red-headed Walloons - into those born on weekdays and those born on weekends, and you’ll find more variation within than between.  That is proven with actual data here.  In that post, I demonstrated that no matter how you define groups, there is always more variation within than between (that holds for dog breeds as well, by the way). But, FST is at its highest when you compare continental population groups (races), because it is with those groups that inter-group genetic variation is maximal. It’s the specific, distinctive variation that’s important.

And of course politics plays a part – the most important part. It’s almost ALL politics. That's the real reason academics lie about race.

Indeed, I note Salter's description of his interaction with the execrable Dawkins (one of the most over-rated figures in contemporary science), and recognize similarities to experiences I and others have had.  So, for example, you go (like Salter did) to a scientific conference. There you walk up to a poster hosted by some geneticist or computational biologist, concerning, e.g., the genetic differentiation and sub-speciation of some type of butterfly.  You read their poster, have them go through it with you, and then you ask them the applications of their work to human genetic differentiation and sub-speciation.  Lo and behold the reaction! Assuming that they don't immediately drop to the floor, writhing in a epileptic fit, foaming at the mouth, you'll see their lower lip quivering, their eyes filling with tears, as they denounce any association of the genetics of butterflies with that of humans (who are all exactly, exactly the same, have no doubt!).  And then, I recall when I was surfing the web looking for human genetic data, back in the days I obsessed over population genetics, I came across this pathetic embarrassment.  I will assume that's meant to be taken seriously, and is not meant as a parody of hysterical SJWism among so-called "scientists."  Can you imagine any serious academic of the past putting conditions on the use of the objective scientific data produced through assays probing the nature of reality (in this case the reality of human genetic differences)?  The whole idea is anathema to genuine science, it is the province of sniveling weaklings, and to the extent that such disclaimers are meant to be serious, and not some sort of bad joke, then there is no way that they can be denounced forcefully enough.

The situation is even worse than Salter ever suspected. It's not enough that "scientists" won't tell the truth; they want to prevent others from doing so as well. This is the same mentality that led to the imprisonment and execution of Giordano Bruno.

Disgusting.