Immigration: The individual matters most
As those who read the comment boxes on this blog will be well aware, I am often attacked for my view that Australia offers a generally good model of immigration policy. My critics think that immigration policy should be racially based and I—like most Australians—do not. I am also often accused of being confused and inconsistent because I recognize that there are important ethnic differences but do not think that such differences should be the basis of policy. So this is a brief reply to all that:
For starters, I think that the slightest knowledge of history (and even a good knowledge of history) makes it obvious that some ethnic groups (and most ethnic groups are of mixed race) have made far greater contribitions to civility and human progress than others. I think particularly there of the Anglo-Saxons, the Scots, Northwestern Europeans generally and the Jews. And the greatest contribution to civility in particular has undoubtedly come from a book entirely written by Jews: The New Testament.
But, as a psychometrician, I could hardly be unaware that there are also great differences WITHIN races and that those differences greatly exceed the differences between races—though there are some attributes on which the overlap between the population distributions is quite small—e.g. the black/white IQ distributions.
That being so, it seems clear that a policy of focusing on the attributes that are desired in an immigrant rather than the race of the immigrant will be much more likely to give a satisfactory result. If, for instance we want highly educated immigrants, we are more likely to get them if we examine each person’s educational background than if we examine their race—notwithstanding the fact that some races tend (but only tend) to be more highly educated than others. And that, broadly, is what Australia does. And that policy has massive and bipartisan support in Australia. And despite one of the world’s highest rates of immigration per capita, Australia has almost no ethnic problems. The one exception arises because Australia has on some occasions weakened its selection criteria to allow in “refugees”. And that has given rise to a problem with Muslims who got in through that loophole. The problem is however largely confined to one suburb (Lakemba) in one city (Sydney) and the problem is more a problem of supine policing than anything else.
What I find hard to understand is the failure of other countries to enforce a policy similar to Australia’s. The U.S. and U.K. policies of largely ignoring a huge influx of illegal immigrants rather astonishes me. What can anyone make of a society that does not enforce its own laws? The permissive U.K. practice is relatively recent so has some possibility of being corrected in some way but the U.S. practice is longstanding and the large numbers of Hispanics now in the USA make it politically impossible for much to change, as far as I can see. So in that case America must inevitably become steadily more Brazilianized. That need not necessarily lead to much loss of civility, however. And it has taken an Italian to make that clear for all to see. Giuliani’s policy of zero tolerance in NYC showed that the amount of civility even a very mixed society will have is almost entirely a function of how vigorous and determined the policing is. America’s huge problem with black crime, for instance, is obviously a reflection of how black crime is policed. And history reinforces that. When policing of black crime was severe (up to the 1960s), black crime was low (black on white crime particularly) but now that policing of black crime is very permissive, black crime is high. No economist would be surprised.
The source of permissiveness towards all kinds of illegality is of course the political Left so it seems that the real problem for Americans and Brits is their Left rather than their immigrants or their minorities. I am profoundly grateful that the mainstream Left in Australia is much more responsible than the Left in the USA or Britain.
But those who wish to return U.K. and U.S. immigration policy to the rule of law, will NOT achieve that by references to race. Most Americans and Brits rightly see that what the person is like as an individual is more important than his race so campaigning on the basis of race is just pissing into the wind.
Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, May 29, 2005 at 12:41 AM in Immigration
Comments (166) | Tell a friend
Comments:
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 01:11 AM | #
And the greatest contribution to civility in particular has undoubtedly come from...The New Testament.
Can you expand on that?
Have you considered the fact that all the information on the races is not yet in, and that your policy of destroying them is irreversible? (which is contrasted by particularism which is entirely reversible?)
That being so, it seems clear that a policy of focusing on the attributes that are desired in an immigrant rather than the race of the immigrant will be much more likely to give a satisfactory result.
What has led you to believe that desired attributes and race can’t or don’t overlap?
And despite one of the world’s highest rates of immigration per capita, Australia has almost no ethnic problems.
Australia has lots of space, doesn’t it John?
The one exception arises because Australia has on some occasions weakened its selection criteria to allow in “refugees”. And that has given rise to a problem with Muslims who got in through that loophole. The problem is however largely confined to one suburb (Lakemba) in one city (Sydney) and the problem is more a problem of supine policing than anything else.
Wouldn’t racial particularism have prevented this problem? Doesn’t race blindness contribute to this sort of problem?
How do you answer Salter’s claim that once an ethne has mixed with another, it is less able to separate its interests from the other? In other words, how do you propose to keep Australia from turning into otherville?
The source of permissiveness towards all kinds of illegality is of course the political Left so it seems that the real problem for Americans and Brits is their Left rather than their immigrants or their minorities. I am profoundly grateful that the mainstream Left in Australia is much more responsible than the Left in the USA or Britain.
I agree to an extent, though not with the conclusion you’ve drawn. If I let a hungry lion loose from its cage, I am indeed guilty of turning a problem loose on the world but that does not mean the lion itself isn’t a problem.
But those who wish to return U.K. and U.S. immigration policy to the rule of law, will NOT achieve that by references to race. Most Americans and Brits rightly see that what the person is like as an individual is more important than his race so campaigning on the basis of race is just pissing into the wind.
You’re right short-term and on this particular issue because immigration is already a sore-spot with almost everyone not in control of it. That doesn’t apply across the board though.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 01:12 AM | #
Christ I really bolloxed the tags on that one.
[Phil’s note: Tags repaired]
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 01:16 AM | #
Also, given that most of the world is indeed tribal, that man is inherently tribal, doesn’t your policy of atribalism just beg for a tribalists to take advantage of it?
Tribalism and racialism are safer than egalitarianism John. The default state of man is tribalism, and assuming that you can read someone’s resume and determine if he plans to turn your country into otherville is just a bit naive.
How would your policy protect against Chinese espionage?
Posted by Stuka on May 29, 2005, 01:19 AM | #
I really don’t understand what this liberal is doing posting at a site like MR.
Posted by john fitzgerald on May 29, 2005, 01:21 AM | #
I disagree with most of this.
One you don’t take into account the controlled media. People would think the opposite, that is be racially aware and want immigrants of thier own kind if that message was put forth by the media as being respectable.
“Focussing on atributes that are desired” would for most Australians be the same as selecting by race.
Examining educational background isn’t allways so useful. The Indian quack responsible for fifty or so deaths in Australia had a good educaton. It’s a mistake to think education makes one intelligent etc., it doesn’t.
Most countries use race as a criteria for immigration, those that don’t would be prudent to fall in line with the majority.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 01:43 AM | #
“If, for instance we want highly educated immigrants, [...]” (—from the log entry)
We don’t need any immigrants, John. None. We’re plenty highly-educated enough ourselves, thank you.
“Australia has almost no ethnic problems.”
Funny, that’s not what we’ve learned from Andrew L who posts here ...
“The U.S. and U.K. policies of largely ignoring a huge influx of illegal immigrants rather astonishes me. What can anyone make of a society that does not enforce its own laws?”
It astonishes us too, John. We’re livid over it. But the political class is entirely bought and paid for by the Wall-Street cheap-labor lobby. Organized Jewish interests are probably partly responsible too, from the point of view of buying votes in Congress (Jewish organizations like the ADL who both fear and dislike white Christians want the white Christians in this country and apparently also in Europe to become racially diluted through race-replacement “immigration” of non-whites). Catholic groups, especially Irish Catholics, are another very big part of the problem—they seem to like the idea of getting more Catholic Mexicans into the country, and are just generally attracted to the idea of sticking it to protestants by ruining the country they built in any way they can (it’s not for nothing that Irish Catholics were known for the longest time, both in the British Isles and in North America, as being, shall we say, not exactly “the brightest bulbs on the tree” ...). Government here simply will not listen to the people because it’s been influenced—and literally bought—by these groups and others. “Others” includes slime balls like Grover Norquist who first came to D.C. to set up shop as an advocate for lower taxes—he headed up an outfit called the American Taxpayer’s Union or something like that. He never did a damn thing to keep the lid on taxes but in recent years he’s been bought by the Saudis, or some Arabs or other, to be made into an advocate, and a very vocal one, for more Moslem immigration into the country (and rumor has it he’s now actually become a Moslem himself, since his recent marriage to a Moslem woman). These are among the kinds of pro-immigration people and interests who control the government here. And that’s the GOP government types. The left-wingers and Dems of course don’t need lobbyists to make them want race-replacement, as they’ve all bought the accusation that whites have behaved in the most beastly way toward non-whites, the poor dears!, over the centuries and therefore must be punished by being made to suffer genocide through race-replacement.
“The source of permissiveness towards all kinds of illegality is of course the political Left so it seems that the real problem for Americans and Brits is their Left rather than their immigrants or their minorities.”
But their non-white immigrants and minorities make their politics veer ever more leftward—and ever more anti-white: do you think a non-white majority is going to control violent street-crime in cities the way Giuliani did in NYC—by severely cracking down on it—when 99.9 percent of it’s being perpetrated by non-whites against whites? Not gonna happen, John. Have you checked out Southern Africa recently? ...
“Most Americans and Brits rightly see that what the person is like as an individual is more important than his race so campaigning on the basis of race is just pissing into the wind.”
Do they? Then why are all these draconian hate-speech laws needed? What would happen if they told people they could say whatever they wanted, John? How about we take the government muzzle off whites, stop intimidating them, stop forcing the companies they work for to hire certain percentages of non-whites, and so on, and also stop brainwashing white kids in schools to hate their own race, then let’s see what whites think of the situation, shall we?
Posted by Mark Richardson on May 29, 2005, 01:57 AM | #
John doesn’t get it. When Australia had an immigration policy favouring Europeans, it wasn’t because people believed that the worst kind of European was a better person than the best kind of non-European.
It was because Australians felt an affinity with each other based on their ethnicity. Their national identity (their communal identity) was based on real historical, biological ties of kinship.
That was the basis for selectivity. They did not want to give up this kinship affinity.
Although John doesn’t quite express it openly, he hints at the reason why liberals, as a matter of principle, have overthrown this kinship preference.
Liberals believe that what matters is what we make of ourselves as individuals, rather than what we “merely” inherit.
Therefore, liberals disapprove of the idea that we might “discriminate” in preference of a person based on their race or ethnicity, rather than in terms of factors that an individual can determine for themselves, like their educational level, or level of civility, or manners.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 02:04 AM | #
Mark: I don’t see liberals in that light, since they crafted, enacted, and support many racist anti-white laws.
Posted by Drew Fraser on May 29, 2005, 02:21 AM | #
What evidence is there for the proposition that “most Australians” do not believe immigration should be racially biased? Polling evidence over the last half-century has consistently revealed high levels of opposition to mass immigration-even though the media, the schools, the universities and the political class have been solidly in support of the massive influx of non-whites.
The human rights industry and its armoury of anti-discrimination, “equal opportunity” and “hate speech” laws have also worked to suppress free thought much less free discussion of the issues. That legal regime effectively prohibits anyone who opposes the forced integration of non-whites into his business, his neighbourhood or his children’s schools from acting on those beliefs and attitudes.
Surely the emergence of a soft totalitarianism steadily stripping Australians of the ethnic monopoly over their own homeland that the Federation of the Australasian colonies was intended to preserve counts as an “ethnic problem!”
The transformation of Australian universities points the way to the fate of the Australian nation generally. Thirty years ago one could walk around the campus of universities in Australia and hardly see a non-white face. In those days, the univerities still harboured a few academics attempting to pass on the cultural heritage of Western civilization from one generation to the next. Nowadays, one could be forgiven for thinking that one is in Hong Kong when entering the library or other public spaces on campus. Quite obviously, the universities are now in the business of subverting antipodean Western civilization, replacing Australian students with non-English speaking foreigners. True,this policy of race replacement at the micro-level hasn’t (yet) resulted in race riots on campus. But why isn’t it an “ethnic problem” (for white Australians) just the same?
Is John suggesting, in effect, that only open and violent resistance to the Third World invasion would persuade him and the other tender-minded managers and professionals who run the corporate state that they have created a demographic time-bomb. If not, how else will they come to recognize the mess they are making of our lives and the lives of our children’s children?
Our much-vaunted civility has allowed our rulers and their new-found immigrant constituents to take white Australians for suckers. Clearly, the masses of non-white aliens crowding into our cities are much more conscious of the need to promote and protect their own particularistic ethnic interests. Perhaps it’s time for the natives to get seriously restless!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 02:34 AM | #
“True,this policy of race replacement at the micro-level hasn’t (yet) resulted in race riots on campus.” (—Drew Fraser)
A far less blatant policy did result in race riots on campus—in China. They happened right before the Tiananmen Square massacre. The student “pro-democracy demonstrations” against the Chinese government which led to the tanks rolling over the students in Tiananmen Square grew out of student unrest in another Chinese city caused by the students being forced by the Peking government to accept the fact of African Negro students on campus sleeping with Chinese women students.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 02:43 AM | #
Posted by Mark Richardson on May 29, 2005, 02:47 AM | #
Svigor, it’s true that many liberals claim on the one hand to be against race discrimination but then discriminate against whites.
But this makes sense in terms of what liberals are aiming for. If you are a white liberal your primary aim will be to break down the influence of the mainstream white ethnic identity.
There’s some variation in how liberals set about doing this. Some claim to be purely race neutral. Others claim that whites are part of on oppressor class. Some totally reject the idea of a white culture (what culture?) whilst acting paternalistically toward minority cultures (Aborigines etc). Others claim that race doesn’t even exist.
The tactics vary but what remains constant is the idea that it is illegitimate to uphold your own mainstream ethnicity as part of public policy.
Posted by Mark Richardson on May 29, 2005, 02:58 AM | #
Drew is right about opposition to immigration by rank and file Australians.
Here are the surveys undertaken in the 1980s and 90s, showing the percentage wanting lower rates of immigration:
1984: 62% 1988: 68% 1990: 65%
1991: 73% 1996: 65%
It’s true that a poll taken in 2001 showed a much lower percentage: 41%. However, this poll was taken when the Government was cracking down on illegals and when the legal rate was being held back.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 03:35 AM | #
Therefore, liberals disapprove of the idea that we might “discriminate” in preference of a person based on their race or ethnicity, rather than in terms of factors that an individual can determine for themselves, like their educational level, or level of civility, or manners.
I stand behind my statement that this quote doesn’t accurately describe leftist attitudes and actions. If leftists were truly against discrimination per se, they wouldn’t practice it. If they really were about ideology, they’d be consistently ideological. Do I think some kid themselves into a facile belief in the individual and against discrimination? Sure, but that doesn’t make the belief accurate.
There’s some variation in how liberals set about doing this. Some claim to be purely race neutral. Others claim that whites are part of on oppressor class. Some totally reject the idea of a white culture (what culture?) whilst acting paternalistically toward minority cultures (Aborigines etc). Others claim that race doesn’t even exist.
This multifarious nature only supports my statement; liberals justify their anti-white policies in any of a number of ways, and as long as they stay on the reservation the leftist cause is served (i.e., it doesn’t matter why, only if).
Posted by Mark Richardson on May 29, 2005, 04:01 AM | #
Svigor, here’s one example of how liberals think.
Australian columnist Andrew Bolt has criticised Aborigines for being too “tribal”. He wrote that Aborigines have forgotten:
“The humanist idea that we are all individuals, free to make our own identities as equal members of the human race.”
Here we have the distinctly liberal idea that what matters is a freedom to be self-created, to “make our own identities.”
Or take the views of Professor Michael Ignatieff, a leading liberal spokesman on issues of nationalism.
He rejects ethnic nationalism because “Ethnic nationalism claims ... that an individual’s deepest attachments are inherited, not chosen”.
Ignatieff declares his preference for a liberal civic nationalism in which “individuals can reconcile their right to shape their own lives with their need to belong to a community.”
So again Ignatieff judges things in terms of what either aids or impedes the self-fashioning individual.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 04:07 AM | #
I think he’s Noel Ignatiev, unless I’m confusing him for yet another “white” Jew arguing for white annihilation.
He’s a liar and a race-warrior for Jewry. His statements shouldn’t be taken at face value, even if he has deceived himself that they’re honestly-held.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 04:08 AM | #
My mistake, I did indeed conflate the two mistakenly.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 04:14 AM | #
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ignatieff
Obviously, the critique still stands, as Ignatieff is yet another “white” Jew arguing for white annihilation (and neocon adventure in the ME, of course).
Posted by Mark Richardson on May 29, 2005, 04:32 AM | #
Svigor, Andrew Bolt is a Dutch-Australian Christian, and arguably the most right-wing journalist in this country - but still a liberal.
His views can hardly be dismissed as a mask for alien ethnic interests. Nor can all those gentile intellectuals from the Renaissance onwards who have held to the same ideology.
Posted by Svigor on May 29, 2005, 05:30 AM | #
Then I’m glad I didn’t mention how his surname gave my Jewdar a slight tweak (flamboyant/self-congratulatory names like that are often a clue - Blitzer, Krauthammer, Bright, Wise, etc.,).
I wouldn’t attempt to dismiss his motives as veiled particularism (I don’t feel particularly logical in doing so for Jews, but frankly I’m fed up with their manure*); as I said there are all sorts of motivations for this on the left. No doubt some are “legitimate.”
*Maybe if “individualist” “egalitarian” Jews would start in their own back yards I’d feel differently, but they never do so I don’t.
Some may feel that I overemphasize Jewry’s role. I don’t underestimate non-Jewish elites’ role in this, however; they’re as important to our race-war as Jewry (the difference is motivation and awareness and organization; Jews do it as a tribe, the elites as a class).
Chalk my overemphasis up to everyone else’s underemphasis.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 05:37 AM | #
Despite a very high rate of immigration, Australia’s race problems pale into insignificance compared to the UK, the USA and most of Western Europe. When is the penny going to drop that Australia’s policy is the best available?
And by world standards Australia is a very conservative country with a very high level of civility so all those dastardly non-Anglo voters are not doing much of a job of destroying the place
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 05:50 AM | #
I might add that from what I have seen in my surveys most Australians would be perfectly happy with a policy that allowed unlimited immigration from other Anglo countries. We have such a policy towards New Zealand and we had such a policy towards Britain until the Brits started trying to keep us out of there. It is only the political class who do not implement such a policy because the storm of “racism” accusations that that would bring down on their heads would make it too big a fight and there are not enough votes in it.
And although education is a good proxy for most desiderata, it is far from foolproof and allowing in people who are in every sense “like us” is probably a pretty good proxy for most desiderata too.
I personally am delighted at the big influx of Southern African whites in recent years. I have met many of them and have every reason to regard them as being first-class citizens. But note that they too had to jump through the selective immigration hoops.
Posted by Drew Fraser on May 29, 2005, 06:01 AM | #
And so, according to John, there is nothing to be done! “Australia’s immigration policy is the best available” and is not really open to criticism so long as Enoch Powell’s oft-quoted prophecy-Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno-doesn’t turn out to be strictly accurate.
But the fact is that the Third-world invasion may well destroy Anglo-Australia-if it hasn’t already-even if the Parramatta or Yarra rivers don’t foam with much blood. After all, the Aboriginals gave up without much of a struggle and they have endured a persistent “ethnic problem” ever since. (Not that their problems wouldn’t have been much greater if the Chinese had beat the British down under!)
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 07:28 AM | #
One of the more laughable arguments above is that a more “ethnic” USA will be less inclined to enforce law & order. How could any society be less inclined to enforce the law than what we see under the present Anglo hegemony?
By contrast note the very law-abiding Chinese society in Singapore. That is part of the reason why I am happy that Australia is now about 10% E. Asian
Posted by stari_momak on May 29, 2005, 08:14 AM | #
Surely John Ray realises that the ‘individual’ out in the world, making his way on his own, is an Anglo-Saxon concept. Other groups are quite open about their favoring their own—e.g. overseas Chinese and their economic networks in SouthEast Asia. There is no doubt that such in-group cooperation favors that group. In such a world, a population who convinces its members to soldier on in an ‘individualist’ paradigm will be at a severe disadvantage.
Indeed, homogeneity seems almost a requirement for Liberalism/Libertarianism. Otherwise, if one identifiable --phenotypically, culturally--ethnic group starts favoring their own (probability of which approaches 1 as the number of ethnic groups grow) then every other ethnic group must do the same, just to keep a ‘level playing field’. Its no accident that classical liberalism developed in very homogeneous England and Scotland , and not in the , say, Hapsburg Empire.
Posted by Guessedworker on May 29, 2005, 09:05 AM | #
I really don’t understand what this liberal is doing posting at a site like MR.
Stuka,
John is a powerful advocate against left-liberalism. He adheres to right-liberal (libertarian) views admixed with Reaganite-Conservartism. Those two facts make him friend and foe to me, for instance, since I am a nationalist Conservative. But as John has said elsewhere, he reflects views considerably closer to the mainstream than mine.
Now I consider that mainstream corrupted by advanced liberalism. But even so I believe we must take into account the real state of opinion that obtains among our benighted people, among whom only a tiny percentage have access to political output beyond the mainstream media.
Furthermore, I think it behoves nationalists to be reminded of their marginalisation, however discomforting that may be. John helps to keep us honest and focussed on the immensity and gravity of the task of saving Western Man from obliteration.
Accordingly, I have sought to make MR a broad church of free speech, where ideas can compete and where we might all learn something we didn’t know before. John has a distinctive role in that, which I think he may relish. Certainly, his posts produce some of the most active and interesting threads - in which your own contributions frequently excel, btw.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 09:57 AM | #
David (GW) is a model of traditional English politeness. We are lucky to have him.
Posted by Guessedworker on May 29, 2005, 12:08 PM | #
Not necessary to say that, John. I’ll probably bite your head off on the next thread anyway!
Posted by Pericles on May 29, 2005, 12:15 PM | #
To Drew Fraser,
According to Gavin Mendes the Chinese did get “down under”, but the Maoris ate the last ones a short time before Captain Cook arrived.
http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/content.asp?EvidenceID=400
http://www.1421.tv/pages/evidence/content.asp?EvidenceID=295
Pericles
Posted by Guessedworker on May 29, 2005, 01:56 PM | #
Did they have time to bequeath the Maoris any cultural artifacts like stir-fry or sweet & sour?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 02:11 PM | #
“I personally am delighted at the big influx of Southern African whites in recent years. I have met many of them and have every reason to regard them as being first-class citizens. But note that they too had to jump through the selective immigration hoops.” (—John Ray)
The only “selective immigration hoop” that should be applied where white South Africans are concerned is, “Are you one of the Anglo-Saxon or Jewish South Africans who favored rule by the ANC? If you are, sorry, but go back there and stew in your own juice—you’re not going to be let into Australia or New Zealand. Hey if you don’t like the new South Africa you’ve helped bring about there’s always Mugabe’s Rhodesia right next door for whites to move to—after all, your liberal ilk helped bring about that paradise too, and what you lot have succeeded in fobbing off on others can’t possibly in all instances be failures—so it’s not as if you and your family are totally screwed if we refuse to let you into our white country 
... . All South African Boers and Afrikaans-speakers, on the other hand, get right into Australia and NZ no questions asked, with generous stipends to get them started in establishing themselves here. A big, warm, hearty welcome to them!”
Those should be the only “selective immigration” rules where South African whites are concerned.
Posted by JW Holliday on May 29, 2005, 02:12 PM | #
John continues reposting the same arguments. Genetic interests are ignored and the difference between “would” and “should” is also ignored. I also don’t quite understand the difference between a de facto and a de jure racial immigration policy. Any “skilled immigration” program for the USA will run into black and Hispanic complaints about “racism” - complaints not so important for Australia because there the major immigrant flux is Asian. Why should whites struggle to impose a “skilled” immigration policy - that would benefit Asians to white detriment - instead of struggling for a policy that would benefit themselves?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 02:22 PM | #
“Those should be the only “selective immigration” rules where South African whites are concerned” Scroob is back breathing fire and brimstone!
“I also don’t quite understand the difference between a de facto and a de jure racial immigration policy. Any “skilled immigration” program for the USA will run into black and Hispanic complaints”
In that case you don’t understand politics. The de factor one is widely accepted in Australia and might well be accepted in the USA but a blatantly racist policy would never get off the ground in either country
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 02:28 PM | #
“Genetic interests are ignored”
Not ignored—disagreed with. Like the libertarian I am I think that concentrating on individual interests will lead to the best outcomes. And that is an argument that runs from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand.
A “brotherly” society such as Frank Salter talks about sounds uncomfortably Hegelian to me. Worker ants are all sisters, you know.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 02:33 PM | #
I actually grew up in a small Australian country town where I had relatives and everyone knew each other.
Easily idealized but the reality was different. Being at all out of the mainstream was not well-received. Much backbiting and gossip. Give me the less brotherly big city any say.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 02:35 PM | #
That last should be “any day”. It’s after midnight here and I am making more typos than usual. To bed!
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 02:48 PM | #
“In that case you don’t understand politics. The de factor one is widely accepted in Australia and might well be accepted in the USA but a blatantly racist policy would never get off the ground in either country” (—John R.)
Something along the lines of a race-based policy is simply going to have to get off the ground or whites will face oblivion, John. You of course, viewing as you do your earthly mission as ridding the world of Anglo-Saxon yobs and replacing them with polite, law-abiding Hindu and Chinese PhD candidates, would see naught whatsoever wrong with that, but rest assured the rest of us here view it with alarm—and not only that, but because what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander we demand to know what race goes next into oblivion after the Euro-whites?
A race-based policy is doable, John, or else how could exactly that sort of policy exist in literally every non-Eurowhite nation in the world? It takes political will, that’s all—precisely that political will you and your ilk are so fond of sapping at every opportunity.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 02:50 PM | #
Your typos make more sense than your opinions, John.
Posted by Kubilai on May 29, 2005, 05:54 PM | #
When John’s super-selected immigrants have produced offspring and they begin to outnumber the native population who by that time will have lost all their rights to speak up against their eventual race-replacement/extinction, you’ll get second and third generation, not so high IQ “Australians” that will be clamoring for their ethnic genetic interests without any fear of reprisal from soon to be dead White men and women. Look into your future, John…
Friday, May 27, 2005 12:25 a.m. EDT
L.A. Mayor: Mexico Will Shape My Policies
Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa said Wednesday that Mexico will play an important role in shaping his policies, reports Mexico’s El Universal Online.
“We are starting a new era. Instead of closing the borders, as stated by Schwarzenegger, we should look at our border as an opportunity,” Villaraigosa said.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 05:56 PM | #
Ayn Rand
Oh dear, John. You don’t read that raving anti-Christian lunatic, do you?
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 05:59 PM | #
Here’s a summary of the Randist position on religion.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 06:00 PM | #
More anti-Christian bile from the Randists.
Posted by Kubilai on May 29, 2005, 06:14 PM | #
Furthermore, I think it behoves nationalists to be reminded of their marginalisation, however discomforting that may be. John helps to keep us honest and focussed on the immensity and gravity of the task of saving Western Man from obliteration. - GW
I agree with you in principle, GW. However, these are quite serious and emotional topics for most of us in the marginalized minority. We can still learn more from the opposite views, even though most of us here have heard them, digested them, and internally refuted the untenable fallacies. What I would like to see is less ridicule, baiting, glee at causing frustration and anger, and more thought placed on disproving OUR position with verifiable data instead of repetitive postings on only slight variations of said untenable fallacies.
I would hate to see extremely knowledgable commenters, of which I am in awe and extremely grateful of their time and wisdom, leave because John finds enjoyment in “goading the racists”. I am only stating my observations and opinion here and this in no way should be taken by you as some sort of ultimatum or call to action. I am extremely confident that you are fully aware of this dynamic, let’s hope my little post jars a marble or two with John.
Posted by Guessedworker on May 29, 2005, 06:56 PM | #
Kubilai,
Good point, well worth consideration.
You may be asking the impossible in respect of refutations, though. EGI aside, I reckon John is signed up to the full race-realist cannon (for example, he acts as webmaster for Chris Brand for the latter’s secondary site).
Furthermore, I don’t know whether any Aussie can be asked to entirely forego ridicule and baiting. That’s a shocking sacrifice, as any Pom can appreciate. Glee at causing frustration and anger is a bit beyond the pale, though. I’m sure John could enter into the spirit of things and do something about that one. John ... John?
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 07:42 PM | #
Kubilai,
I think we can all agree that aside from so called “high IQ” immigration, we do not have any other issues of major disagreement with John (there are lots of minor issues where we have disagreements but I wouldn’t get into that here).
You correctly note that John never deals with some of the most fundamental objections to his ideas. The most fundamental objection to this “high IQ imigration” theory was raised by me in my post on the tendency of Asian immigrants to consistently vote Left (not just in America but in Canada and Australia too). Its a serious matter. John hasn’t dealt with it. I think he doesn’t because he has no substantive answer other than to say that he “hopes” that they will stop voting left-wing at some point (even though there is evidence to the contrary in the US and Canada).
But this again demonstrates, as GW says, the enormity of the task facing us now. Men of John’s outlook represent the majority among conservatives in the Anglo Saxon nations (or the historically Anglo Saxon nations). And perhaps our task is to keep rebutting him every time and come up with those fundamental objections again and again. I don’t think John will ever come to see things our way but every thread that inspires this debate is a record of the very objections that we believe must be advanced against such policies.
Frankly, Ive had my bit of fun refuting John’s arguments but I don’t have unlimited time and I cannot keep churning it out day after day (I’m only 27 and not retired you see). But as GW says, John’s presence is a reminder to us that in the countries where we live (not necessarily every country that constitutes the West), conservatives are inclined to think like John (even if they are willing, for a start to accept racial differences in intelligence). And the enormity of our task is to convince them of our argument. Without winning over the mainstream right, we cannot become a viable political force. That is the way things are.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 08:33 PM | #
“Your typos make more sense than your opinions, John”
Now Fred: Be nice!
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 08:36 PM | #
“Oh dear, John. You don’t read that raving anti-Christian lunatic, do you?”
It’s a very long time since I have read Rand but as I am myself an atheist that aspect is no great problem for me. One can respect Christianity—as I do—without being a believer personally
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 08:43 PM | #
As far as the Asian vote in Oz is concerned, I have not seen the figures but I think I would have if there was a big imbalance. I had the impression that, as refugees from Communism, they were predominantly conservative voters. Be that as it may, they certainly have not hurt John Howard, who is now in his 4th term in office. And as 10% of the population, they have a lot of votes.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 08:44 PM | #
I should perhaps explain that many of the ethnic Chinese here arrived as refugees from Vietnam
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 08:47 PM | #
Immigration: The individual matters most
We see your error immediately. There is no such thing as an individual. There are just different levels of organizational complexity. What you think of as an “individual” is both a component of a higher-level unit and a collection of lower-level units.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 08:52 PM | #
I think that some of the controversy here is actually about feelings. When I go to an ethnic restaurant and there are a lot of Anglo-Australians there, the whole scene is noisy and aggressive. Go to a similar restaurant full of Chinese and everyone is smiling and softly-spoken. Which do YOU prefer?
And from what I hear of British “Chavs” the Australian experience is not unique.
I realize of course that it our ethny that has largely created the modern world but I think this century will be the century of China. We may have started out ahead but I think the Chinese will overtake us. We have seen before how a civilization contributes something and then tends to fade out.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 09:03 PM | #
John,
If the Chinese overtake us, is it our duty to surrender our nations to the Chinese and simply disappear?
The bad behaviour that you deplore so much is the result of bad breeding - social pathologies that have been set in motion by a period of limitless prosperity and comforts (and bad bad social policies). I have heard in more recent times that the current crop of Japanese teenagers is very badly behaved (for example).
Also, the smiling and the politeness comes from a culture of despotism. China has produced (all of Asia has produced) nothing but different forms of despotism - time after time. The excruciating politness may be a very nice thing in and of itself but it comes with a cultural baggage which is baggage that is seeped in a history of tyranny. John Derbyshire said this once about Chinese immigrants. That they learn to be polite because back home they have to cringe endlessly before Government bureaucrats, corrupt public officials and the like.
I think that some of the controversy here is actually about feelings.
So you admit that your adherence to race-blind immigration is essentially driven by feeling rather than hard-headedness?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 09:41 PM | #
Hmmm…
What Phil says about Chinese character goes against all our knowledge of the heritability of personality. Chinese personality is genetic, I am afraid, though no doubt experience reinforces it.
In fact it is Chinese patience that is sometimes said to explain the tyranny of Chinese government. The Chinese just try to retreat into family and put up with whatever their governments do.
As someone who provides cheap accomodation to Asian students, I have had a fair bit of experience of the young treasures of Japan and I can assure you that it is only by Japanese standards that they are unruly. They still leave us for dead as far as civility is concerned.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 09:49 PM | #
And I am always a bit perplexed by hostility to Indians. In almost every sense they are just brown Europeans. They even need to speak English (or Hobson-Jobson anyway) to communicate with one-another a lot of the time. And their institutions are almost wholly British. And they are great communicators. The Chinese just put up with us but the Indians can often persuade us to do things their way. Everybody I know who goes to India seems to love it—and it’s not because of the standard of living.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 09:54 PM | #
Japanese “youth trends”:
http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/techno/LoveParade2001/TK_JapanesePunk.JPG
What Phil says about Chinese character goes against all our knowledge of the heritability of personality.
Not necessarily. The creation of despotisms may itself be a genetic trait, no?
Because you say:
In fact it is Chinese patience that is sometimes said to explain the tyranny of Chinese government. The Chinese just try to retreat into family and put up with whatever their governments do.
So this patience is a genetic trait which causes them to put up with despotisms. Genetic link?
I am only speculating here. It was only to clarify that if you are taking the genetic route, then perhaps despotism may well also be explained by that.
Also, if Chinese politeness is really genetic, then should we replace Anglos with Chinese everywhere to crate “polite societies”? Because simple immigration of Chinese into Anglo nations won’t change Anglo genetics that you say are the cause of incivility.
If you ask me honestly, I think you try to trace too many things to genes. Was drinking as widespread in Britain before Wilberforce as half a century after him? Was divorce as common in 1900 as it is now? Was teenage pregnancy not a moral scandal in 1900 and its ok now.......Our genetics havn’t changed that much in two or three centuries.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 09:56 PM | #
The Indians understand us. The Chinese think we’re baboons.
And when I see what the polite Chinese have to put up with from ignorant Australians in their restaurants I am always appalled.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 09:57 PM | #
And I am always a bit perplexed by hostility to Indians.
I’m not hostile to Indians. I have Indian friends.
But your impressions about India seemed to be utterly irrational. You’ll have to live there to be able to pass judgement about what its like among Indians.
Actually, you make no sense whatsoever. By all accounts, Arabs are closer to us genetically than Indians. Why not let all the Arabs into Europe?
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:00 PM | #
John,
People who go on tourist holidays to Thailand love it - everything is dirt cheap, they get great service, good weather and exquisite Hotel rooms in luxury hotels for next to nothing. But thats not the life of the average Thai you know..........
I have nothing against the Japanese, South Americans or even Africans. But I don’t see why all of them have to come here. If I want my country to remain unaltered, does that mean I must be motivated by horrible malice against peoples of ther ethnicities and races? Now, you’re sounding like leftie...........
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:02 PM | #
The Indians understand us. The Chinese think we’re baboons.
So why are we letting in boatloads of people who think we are sub-human?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 10:05 PM | #
“I realize of course that it’s our ethny that has largely created the modern world but I think this century will be the century of China.” (—John Ray)
That’ll only happen if we let it, John, by continuing on this insane course of nonwhiteization our élites have us on. If we, the U.S., stay white, there’s not a nation on earth that will be able to challenge us this century: no nation, and no combination of nations. China will be the biggest threat, it’s true. That’s why, in addition to chucking race-replacement as our (completely insane) national policy together with taking a handful of simple steps aimed at getting the white population here back up to 90% (or higher ...), we ought to be exploring the possibility of fragmenting China into its consituent nationalities by means of fomenting rebellions here and there within its borders. It’s an empire made up of distinct, potentially free-standing nationalities, as everyone knows—and many of them are probably itching to break free of Peking’s rule and strike out on their own. With that behemoth broken up into its parts we’ll have strictly nothing to worry about in terms of domination by others. There are steps we of the West could be taking now to ensure our future, John, but your attitude is always defeatist for some reason, and it’s not a pretty sight.
“Also, the smiling and the politeness comes from a culture of despotism. [...T]hey learn to be polite because back home they have to cringe endlessly before Government bureaucrats, corrupt public officials and the like.” (—Phil Peterson)
First, the politeness among Subcontinentals which John is talking about is something he’s observed largely in his graduate-student tenants, a group not exactly known for yobbo behavior no matter what their ethnicity. Your average Subcontinental “man in the street” is certainly no more polite than your average Eurowhite and very possibly less, especially when he’s removed from the influence of his Eastern society with its strictures arising from Islam, Hinduism, general poverty, etc. As for the politeness of yellows, something John also constantly extolls, that’s doubtless partly genetic, it’s true—let’s not forget things like Rushton’s graduated arrangement of Negroes, whites, and yellows in that order. Nevertheless Derb as quoted by Phil above also surely has a point: these people’s politeness, partly genetic, isn’t entirely so but comes about partly from the influence of their society which keeps them scared-stiff to be anything but obsequious back home in that annoying way we’ve all seen which is both ostentatiously exaggerated and obviously phony. So, yes, yellows (not Subcontinentals) are innately politer than whites. But they’re also innately smarter, innately more refined, innately better able to conserve their body heat in winter because of their squat, short-limbed build, innately less likely to succumb to snow-blindness on the polar ice-cap (because their eyes are shaped like built-in Eskimo snow-blindness goggles) or to sand-blindness in the sandstorms of the Gobi (for the same reason—narrrow eye openings), and innately more likely as a race to win the “Human Race with the Fewest Natural Curly-Haired Redheads 2005 World Competition.” So what? Are those reasons we want to change into them? Are those reasons we want to go out of existence, come to an end as a race, and allow ourselves to be replaced by them? Of course not. So, here, as in so many comments threads, we see John in his acquiescence-in-racial-extinction-for-whites-because-it’s-both-better-for-them-to-go-extinct-and-futile-to-resist la-la-land stick-it-to-the-white-yobbos mode. We’re not interested in your illogical and, frankly, strange defeatism in this regard, John. So, how ‘bout changing the subject?
Hey, know any good chocolate-chip cookie recipes?
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 10:06 PM | #
Not ignored—disagreed with. Like the libertarian I am I think that concentrating on individual interests will lead to the best outcomes.
But concentrating on “individual” interests and concentrating on “community” interests are exactly the same thing!
The maximization of average “individual” interest results from observance of your libertarian non-aggression principle. But human nature (and the nature of all life) being what it is, the non-aggression principle will be observed only when there is an effective enforcement mechanism. The existence of such an enforcement mechanism will correlate exactly with the existence of a “community”. The existence of a “community” (or a group as an organism) will also correlate with genetic homogeneity. Your focus on the “individual” requires an equal focus on the “group”.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:13 PM | #
Next John will tell us that if Aliens land on earth and slowly render the human race extinct but replace Human society with something superior, its a cause for celebration for the human race even though it has gone extinct!
Like the Red Indians ought to be celebrating at having been wiped out by Europeans in North America.
Why not replace those stupid Africans with Chinese, John? Galton had the idea. You keep telling us that Anglos need to be replaced because we are uncivil and behave like barbarians (not the Anglos I work with I can assure you - most of them speak four languages flawlessly), then surely the Africans are worse than us. They ought to be replaced first, no?
But that would be “racist”!!!! Now of all the people I didn’t think John Ray had leftie double standards but I sense one there.......
Posted by Kubilai on May 29, 2005, 10:18 PM | #
GW and Phil, thank you for your comments. Needless to say, I agree with both of you for the most part. Phil, geez only 27! I am quite impressed with your “understanding” of things. It has taken me nearly 4 decades to get to where I am.
I’d like to ask John (that is if he’ll even answer) what is so glaringly absent in his life/upbringing that he fawns over Chinese and Indians? It is clear to me that as much as he crows about “knowing” these Asians while constantly heaping praise upon them for their “civility”, he has managed to know only their public facade and NOT the true Chinese and Indians. As I mentioned in a post before (maybe to Birch) Asians are one-dimensional. They live to compete and get into medical school. THAT’S IT! Everything else is secondary and is used ONLY to achieve that one goal, which brings the respect they so desperately seek. If that primary goal somehow cannot be attained, then anything that brings in money, and lots of it, is the next best thing. In a nutshell, that is a Chinese and Indian for you. Anyone who has gotten to KNOW them, and I do mean really know them by having long honest talks, will concur with my observations. The “civility” of Chinese is their desire to not rock the proverbial boat in order to maintain peace, even though they view outsiders with varying degrees of contempt. IF one was to infringe upon them and slight them where the result would be detrimental to their goals, then that civility disappears in a nanosecond. As to Indians, they are LESS civil outwardly and quicker to voice their disagreements. They may not “hate” us as do the East Asians, though this may have to do with the long British occupation and their desire for White women and acceptance which may translate to respect which they are quite big on. You know, the caste thingy. Regardless if they are more “tolerant” of Whites, they quickly look to help themselves first and foremost and if they get a whiff of disrespect, they become more uncivil than the model Chinese, high IQ immigrants we apparently so desperately need.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:20 PM | #
… the disappearance of whole nations would impoverish us no less than if all people were to become identical, with the same character and the same face. Nations are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The least among them has its own special colors, and harbors within itself a special aspect of God’s design.
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:21 PM | #
I think we invented free markets and got rich because of it but Asians are already following our lead. Each civilization builds on the one before
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:24 PM | #
“First, the politeness among Subcontinentals which John is talking about is something he’s observed largely in his graduate-student tenants”
Not true. I have been to India 3 times
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:29 PM | #
Not true. I have been to India 3 times
How many days did you stay each time?
I have acquiantances from Uni (those stupid lefties) who worked with NGOs in India. What they say about the general level of dishonesty is not particularly complimentary.
Why don’t you move to India, John? It might be the best thing for you. You’ll escape all the Aussie yobs and would be surrounded only by polite people.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:30 PM | #
Each civilization builds on the one before
We’ve done most of the Civilization building up to now.......
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:32 PM | #
“I’d like to ask John (that is if he’ll even answer) what is so glaringly absent in his life/upbringing that he fawns over Chinese and Indians?”
Can I turn that around? What is so absent in someone’s personal relationships that he has to get his kicks out of affinity with a group rather than individuals?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:36 PM | #
“How many days did you stay each time?”
Two stays were only for days but I spent 6 weeks once doing some survey work there.
All poor countries have high levels of dishonesty. If you were very poor, you would like to rip off people whom you saw as very rich too.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:36 PM | #
Phil, geez only 27! I am quite impressed with your “understanding” of things.
Thanks for the compliment Kubilai. Does that make me the youngest here? I guess it does.
I started reading about politics when I was 18. So although I am only 27, I have been reading about political issues for over nine years.
I started out as a Randist by the way. It seemed like the best response against the race-guilt driven leftism that was rampant in University education. And then I grew out of Rand. Rand is for teenagers anyway. Immature stuff.
If I had time I would read all the great philosophers with patience. But time I don’t have. Its almost always in short supply.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:37 PM | #
All poor countries have high levels of dishonesty. If you were very poor, you would like to rip off people whom you saw as very rich too.
Why are they poor?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:38 PM | #
“If the Chinese overtake us, is it our duty to surrender our nations to the Chinese and simply disappear?”
Is anybody proposing that we disappear? Our right to reproduce seems likely to remain intact to me.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:39 PM | #
“Why don’t you move to India, John? It might be the best thing for you. You’ll escape all the Aussie yobs and would be surrounded only by polite people.”
I have long been tempted but I am too old to move anywhere now
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:41 PM | #
“Why are they poor? “
Because of socialism. The ways things are going we could become more socialist as they become less socialist. That would be a REAL disaster
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:43 PM | #
“I started reading about politics when I was 18”
I started at 13—nearly 50 years ago now. I have read a lot in that time.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:46 PM | #
“Asians are one-dimensional. They live to compete and get into medical school. “
Silly stereotyping. They are individuals just like you and I are.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:46 PM | #
I hate yobs myself. But the yobbification of society has causes that are specific to 20th century ideas and social trends.
Genetics places limits on what humans can achieve. But within those limits the variations in the condition of a people can be breath-taking. Northern Europe was pretty much barbarian until only 1200 years ago (may be even later). And from there it went on to produce little nations that dominated the Earth (not just Europe).
How much do we have in common with the culture of the inhabitants of Britain from the 9th century in terms of social norms? Or with the inhabitants of Britain from the mid-19th century for that matter?
A race, a nation or a people can undergo immense change over time. Tracing everything to genetics smacks of intellectual laziness. One must recognize the limits genetics can place but as I said within those limits there is a fair bit that can happen.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:48 PM | #
Because of socialism.
Sweden is socialist too you know......
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:48 PM | #
Especially for Fred. A good cookie recipe:
Ingredients: 2 cups butter 24 oz. chocolate chips 4 cups flour 2 cups brown sugar 2 tsp. (Bicarb) soda 1 tsp. salt 2 cups sugar 1 8 oz. Hershey Bar (grated) 5 cups blended oatmeal 4 eggs 2 tsp. baking powder 2 tsp. vanilla 3 cups chopped nuts (your choice)
Directions: Measure oatmeal, and blend in a blender to a fine powder. Cream the butter and both sugars. Add eggs and vanilla, mix together with flour, oatmeal, salt, baking powder, and Bicarb (soda). Add chocolate chips, Hershey Bar, and nuts. Roll into balls, and place two inches apart on a cookie sheet. Bake for 10 minutes at (180) 375 degrees. The above quantities make 112 cookies.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:49 PM | #
“Sweden is socialist too you know...... “
Capitalist economy, though
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:50 PM | #
Is anybody proposing that we disappear? Our right to reproduce seems likely to remain intact to me.
But there are 1200 million Chinese and 18 million Aussie whites. With your policies being open ended, its a matter of time, no?
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 10:53 PM | #
What about IQ and the wealth of nations? Might the fact that India’s mean IQ appears to be a paltry 81 have anything to do with it?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 10:53 PM | #
“Arabs are closer to us genetically than Indians”
C’mon! You can do better that that. You must know that the Arabs are Semitic whereas we and the Indians are “Indo-European”. Sanskrit is a lot like Latin. A knowledge of Latin even shows you what “Sanskrit” means: Sanctus scriptus”—Holy writing.
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 10:58 PM | #
A race, a nation or a people can undergo immense change over time. Tracing everything to genetics smacks of intellectual laziness. One must recognize the limits genetics can place but as I said within those limits there is a fair bit that can happen.
Perhaps you should read Boyd & Richerson. Their first book is a bit tough to plow through, but their journal articles, many of which are avaliable online, make excellent reading.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/boyd/Publications.htm
They have apparently published another book recently, which I have yet to read:
Posted by Kubilai on May 29, 2005, 11:01 PM | #
Can I turn that around? What is so absent in someone’s personal relationships that he has to get his kicks out of affinity with a group rather than individuals? - John
I see no answer to my question. I’ll still entertain you though. The answer is nothing. Nothing is absent from my personal relationships with Whites, family, and even non-Whites. I see what I see and the facts are indisputable. I have quite a keen eye and mind for observation and critical analysis, if I may toot my own horn for a second. I also do not shy away from getting to know the non-White invaders and they do not impress me in the least. The MYTH that you constantly lay out for us is the only thing semi-impressive of these model immigrants. Once the truth about the myth is brought into the light, the myth quickly dissipates into nothingness. What’s left is a bunch of rude, aggressive, ethnocentric invaders that do care about us so much.
An even shorter version of why one wants to be associate with groups instead of only looking at individuals is ETHNIC GENETIC INTERESTS.
Now YOUR turn, John.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:02 PM | #
I read the genetics research. I will stick with that. When you see that the shared environment component of the variance is usually around zero, I suspect that you will too.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:03 PM | #
C’mon! You can do better that that. You must know that the Arabs are Semitic whereas we and the Indians are “Indo-European”. Sanskrit is a lot like Latin. A knowledge of Latin even shows you what “Sanskrit” means: Sanctus scriptus”—Holy writing.
John,
I had no idea your arguments would get this bad!
Here is Cavalli Sforza’s map of genetic affinity:
http://www.vdare.com/images/image002.jpg
As usual you are mixing up two totally different things here. If Finns don’t speeak an Indo European language but Germans and Indians do, does that mean that Germans are genetically closer to Indians than the Finns? 
Today there are people who have little affinity to us speaking the English language. Does that mean that those peoples are closer to the English “race” genetically than the French?
Language affinity and genetic affinity are two completely different things. That’s got to be the worst in your gallery of bad arguments. And that boggles the mind!
Posted by Kubilai on May 29, 2005, 11:08 PM | #
“Asians are one-dimensional. They live to compete and get into medical school.“
Silly stereotyping. They are individuals just like you and I are. - John
It is “silly stereotyping” to you because you know not of what you speak. This is clear to me about you, John. I have spent the equivalent of YEARS speaking and getting to know the non-White invaders. I KNOW them, they VERBALISED this to me many times.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:09 PM | #
“People who go on tourist holidays to Thailand love it - everything is dirt cheap, they get great service, good weather and exquisite Hotel rooms in luxury hotels for next to nothing. But thats not the life of the average Thai you know.......... “
Errr… I dont just visit India and China. I have them live with me. Is that not a sufficient means of getting to know them?
Posted by ben tillman on May 29, 2005, 11:09 PM | #
Regarding Sybach’s references to interbreeding by white settlers with Indians, it may be that such miscegenation was in fact adaptive for the white group. The Indians had, after all, experienced hundreds of generations of selection in the American environment. There may have been valuable genes to assimilate into the European gene pool.
But more importantly, at present, the reproductive decisions of whites are influenced by memes propoagated by a hostile ethny.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:12 PM | #
Errr… I dont just visit India and China. I have them live with me. Is that not a sufficient means of getting to know them?
So five Indians and Chinese are a representative sample for a nation of 1 billion and another of 1.2 Billion?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:14 PM | #
“they VERBALISED this to me many times”
Of course thery are ambitious. People from 3rd world countries generally are. Only we can be assured enough not to be ambitious. I have actually done an international survey on that. I found highest levels of ambition in India and the Phillipines and lowest in cosy Germany.
But ambition is not all there is to a person.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:17 PM | #
“So five Indians and Chinese are a representative sample for a nation of 1 billion and another of 1.2 Billion?”
I have known many more than that but I have actually done proper sample surveys as well —certainly the only one here who has
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:20 PM | #
John,
How do you get a proper sample on a country that has 43,000 endogamous groups?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:23 PM | #
“Language affinity and genetic affinity are two completely different things”
Of course they are but generalizations like that do not get you far. How did the linguistic affinity arise in the Indian case? It goes right back to the beginning of writing in India. Common origins are the usual explanation.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:25 PM | #
And Luca Cavalli-Sforza has come out with such gems of logic as saying that there is no such thing as race because we share 98% of our genes with chimps!
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:25 PM | #
The linguistic affinity arose because of invasions of small tribes from the Caucasus. Those tribes interbred with the broad mass of native Indians and ceased to become a racially distinct caucasian group. But they left their imprint in the form of language and probably religion. (Thats what Sailer’s article says if you read it carefully).
The actual number of Indians who could be considered gentically close to Europeans is minsicule.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 29, 2005, 11:26 PM | #
That recipe sounds scrumptious, John! Thanks! I’ll try it and let you know how it turns out! (Of course, I’ll have to quadruple the amount of bicarbonate of soda—otherwise just remembering whom the recipe came from might give me heartburn as I’m eating the things ... You understand, I’m sure, John ...)
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:27 PM | #
And Luca Cavalli-Sforza has come out with such gems of logic as saying that there is no such thing as race because we share 98% of our genes with chimps!
And what geneticist openly says that races differ genetically? Here are two articles by Sailer on Cavalli Sforza:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/may_24.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/cavalli-sforza_ii.htm
It says nothing about his competence as a scientist. Its only a chilling reflection on the power of political correctness in supposedly “free” nations.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:30 PM | #
“How do you get a proper sample on a country that has 43,000 endogamous groups?”
You can divide any population into 43,000 groups if you want to. If you want to generalize about a country, you sample the country.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:30 PM | #
And what was this survey about?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:31 PM | #
Genetic mapping is only in its infancy anyway
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:33 PM | #
My survey topics were ambition, attitude to authority and anxiety. There were many published journal articles from the project —all online
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:36 PM | #
But how does that give us any real indication of the inclination to political ideas when every ethnic group has its own customs, its own elaborate rules and all manner of religious differences?
As far as a political understanding is concerned, those management studies are little better than snake oil.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:36 PM | #
“That recipe sounds scrumptious, John! Thanks! I’ll try it and let you know how it turns out! (Of course, I’ll have to quadruple the amount of bicarbonate of soda—otherwise just remembering whom the recipe came from might give me heartburn as I’m eating the things ... You understand, I’m sure, John ...) “
Now Fred, you know I am really one of your favourite people!
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:37 PM | #
Genetic mapping is only in its infancy anyway
LOL.
So you think they will come up with evidence at some point that shows Indians to be closer genetically to Germans than Finns?
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:41 PM | #
“As far as a political understanding is concerned, those management studies are little better than snake oil. “
Mine were general population samples of major cities—not management studies.
I mentioned them only in response to a challenge that my knowledge was limited to a few individuals. They are not of course final or definitive in any sense. None of us has perfect knowledge. We all have to use what is available. But if challenges about personal competence are to be made, I think I have done my homework more than most
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:46 PM | #
“The linguistic affinity arose because of invasions of small tribes from the Caucasus. Those tribes interbred with the broad mass of native Indians and ceased to become a racially distinct caucasian group.”
You overlook that there are MANY Indian languages and as far as I am aware, even the Southern ones are Indo-European—though there may be the odd exception
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:47 PM | #
Whatever I see of Indian culture or whatever little I have seen of it (and it perhaps not a good sample) does not seem to indicate much affinity with Europeans culturally.
You are perhaps speaking most accruately of the tiny layer of anglicized Indians who sit at the top of the chain and have all the privileges. They would not in any way constitute a representative sample of Indians as a whole.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 29, 2005, 11:48 PM | #
even the Southern ones are Indo-European
No they’re not. All the Southern languages are dravidic (as far as I know). All the other Indian languages that are considered Indo-European originated from Sanskrit. There’s no magic in that.
Posted by John Ray on May 29, 2005, 11:50 PM | #
My reply to Kubilai:
The answer is nothing. Nothing is absent from my personal relationships with Whites, family, and non-Whites.
Ad hominem talk doesn’t get you far, does it?
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 12:08 AM | #
Yes. My memory failed me on the Dravidic languages but I did say “as far as I am aware”. And the maternal mitochondrial DNA studies show Indians as all being closely related North and South so the Aryan ivasion thesis is now generally discounted. And if that is so, the various Indo-European languages of India are autochthonous! But mitochondria have only a small amount of the total DNA so the genetics are all rather up in the air so far
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 12:11 AM | #
“You are perhaps speaking most accruately of the tiny layer of anglicized Indians who sit at the top of the chain and have all the privileges. They would not in any way constitute a representative sample of Indians as a whole”
I was thinking of the street people of Bombay as much as anything.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 12:13 AM | #
I think I have answered all the challenges so far so I am off to do other things now
Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 12:23 AM | #
stari_momak:
Surely John Ray realises that the ‘individual’ out in the world, making his way on his own, is an Anglo-Saxon concept. Other groups are quite open about their favoring their own—e.g. overseas Chinese and their economic networks in SouthEast Asia. There is no doubt that such in-group cooperation favors that group. In such a world, a population who convinces its members to soldier on in an ‘individualist’ paradigm will be at a severe disadvantage.
Indeed, homogeneity seems almost a requirement for Liberalism/Libertarianism. Otherwise, if one identifiable --phenotypically, culturally--ethnic group starts favoring their own (probability of which approaches 1 as the number of ethnic groups grow) then every other ethnic group must do the same, just to keep a ‘level playing field’. Its no accident that classical liberalism developed in very homogeneous England and Scotland , and not in the , say, Hapsburg Empire.
Thanks for putting it much better than I did.
JJR:
“Like the libertarian I am I think that concentrating on individual interests will lead to the best outcomes. And that is an argument that runs from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand.
Universal individualism is naive. As has been pointed out and is obvious, cohesive collectives outcompete masses of atomized individuals, hands down, every time. There is absolutely nothing preventing individualism within the framework of ingroup morality: a group practices individualism within its ranks, and collectivism vis-a-vis outgroups. This shows a way to actually preserve individualism and individualist societies, unlike naive universalist individualism. Ha! Ayn Rand, warrior for her tribe. Ever read her essay, Racism? Her particularisms show through there, at least.
A “brotherly” society such as Frank Salter talks about sounds uncomfortably Hegelian to me. Worker ants are all sisters, you know.
Wow, that’s quite the critique John, I’m impressed. You write a book a week and that’s the best you can do?
Kubilai:
I agree with you in principle, GW. However, these are quite serious and emotional topics for most of us in the marginalized minority. We can still learn more from the opposite views, even though most of us here have heard them, digested them, and internally refuted the untenable fallacies.
Yeah, in a couple of years posting at Stormfront I’ve seen no shortage of buffoons who think WNs are WNs because they’ve somehow been “taught” to be that way. This is a stellar example of how thoughtless and ignorant these people are, at least with regard to WNism. Where have we been living, under rocks? WE have heard everything THEY have to say, again and again, we have grown up with it, had it preached to us fingers a-wagging, lived it, believed it, and moved beyond it. THEY have not heard what WE have to say. THEY believe what THEY’VE been taught, WE believe what WE’VE taught ourselves.
That said, it is helpful to see these ideas clash and compete; that IS something new.
What I would like to see is less ridicule, baiting, glee at causing frustration and anger, and more thought placed on disproving OUR position with verifiable data instead of repetitive postings on only slight variations of said untenable fallacies.
Yes, JJR could act like less of a prick sometimes. I think he does it deliberately and I don’t think it’s necessary. I guess I could follow my own advice here too.
JJR:
And Luca Cavalli-Sforza has come out with such gems of logic as saying that there is no such thing as race because we share 98% of our genes with chimps!
A bit of squid ink is par for the course for scientists dealing with the third rail of genetics and race. Read inside the covers, rather than the jacket or the puff pieces from pimps in the media, and you’ll get a different story (at least, that’s what I’ve heard).
Posted by Kubilai on May 30, 2005, 12:51 AM | #
Ad hominem talk doesn’t get you far, does it? - John
LOL
And your unbiased, blinded, randomly selected cohort studies are where exactly?
John, your behaviour on this log entry, especially the back and forth with Phil, is strikingly similar to the arguments I’ve gotten into with the most obnoxious of Liberals. They refuse to hear any evidence that destroys their utopian view of how the world SHOULD be instead of how it is. They spout off one “brainwashism” after another and no matter how well one destroys their house of cards, they simply will not or possibly even cannot see the opposing view. I think you need to have your “objectivity” taken in for an overhaul. It is in dire need of repair.
THEY believe what THEY’VE been taught, WE believe what WE’VE taught ourselves. - Svig
Excellent description of the state of affairs, Svig. I never thought of it this way, however you make such a brilliant point. We have had to do it the hard way and in turn required a certain mental capacity that had to shake off the shackles of vile, relentless indoctrination. The ones still in the “Matrix”, if you will, are of the thoroughly and deeply brainwashed category. They will fight with their last breath to maintain the fallacy and refuse to see anything that might jeopardize this.
Posted by Svigor on May 30, 2005, 01:10 AM | #
Yep. I’m a bit ashamed to admit it took a few non-white fanatics crashing jumbo jets into two skyscrapers, killing 3000 or so people, to make me really start looking at things. I was raised to be and was thoroughly skeptical of our current Zeitgeist, but I admit I had my head pretty much stuck in the sand.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 03:44 AM | #
I am happy to say that those who write here are very well-informed about their issues—unlike Leftists. And I have made a lifetime study of far-Right thinking so I think I am aware of all the arguments myself. I even have areas of agreement with them—Racially different averages in IQ for instance—but I have heard nothing here that affects my conclusions. Where I think people here go wrong is to take a correct observation—such as the prevalence of tribal thinking—and extract non-sequiturs from it.
For instance it is true that Chinese are tribal but that does that mean tribalism is wise or unavoidable? I think the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
And when I allude to Salty Frank’s conclusions as “Hegelian”, I expect that people will underrstand the allusion without my going over it again—as I did a few moinths back.
I regard Frank as a friend but Frank’s views were very nationalist long before he became an academic. The conclusions he draws reflect his values as much as anything else—as one would expect.
And I think the debate here boils down to values. People here want me to see the virtue of a sort of extended family and I regard that as narrow.
Posted by Sybach on May 30, 2005, 03:51 AM | #
not the Anglos I work with I can assure you - most of them speak four languages flawlessly
Just wondering, Phil, but if it’s not too intrusive, what *is* your line of work, anyways? Molecular biologist, physicist, linguist, historian...you don’t need to tell me if you don’t want to, I’m just curious
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 03:59 AM | #
“People here want me to see the virtue of a sort of extended family and I regard that as narrow.” (—John Ray)
Not really me, John—I gave up on you a long time ago. But if you don’t mind, we others will go ahead and continue to regard it as anything but “narrow”—as extremely pertinent, in fact.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 06:59 AM | #
Scroob
How are your affairs going?
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 07:08 AM | #
Practically everything I say gets challenged here so to substantiate my claim that I have been studying far-Right thinking for a very long time see here:
http://jonjayray/netfirms.com/cogsimp.html
I actually find far-Right thought to be much more interesting than Leftist thought. There is really no such thing as Leftist thought. Such as it is it is only a sort of mental erection: Leftists just say what feels good at the time. How can anyone make sense out of people who say that equal treatment for all is right and just but who also say that there is no such thing as right and wrong? It makes emotional sense only.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 07:12 AM | #
Hmm…
Some problem with that link. Here it is again:
http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/cogsimp.html
or try:
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 07:19 AM | #
“And your unbiased, blinded, randomly selected cohort studies are where exactly”
They are certainly random. That is their point. But show me where they are biased and blind. The Left have never been able to,
They are listed here:
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 08:56 AM | #
And the maternal mitochondrial DNA studies show Indians as all being closely related North and South so the Aryan ivasion thesis is now generally discounted. And if that is so, the various Indo-European languages of India are autochthonous! But mitochondria have only a small amount of the total DNA so the genetics are all rather up in the air so far
There may not have been one invasion but several but the point stands. Mitochondrial DNA shows that the invaders were mainly men who married local women. It doesn’t discount the theory of invasions in the least. If anything, the invasions never stopped until very recently. That country’s history is a history of invasions one after the next.
So what are you talking about when you say the “genetics are up in the air”? That we should now disregard genetics because you can’t argue a silly point on the basis of genetics?
It is true that Indians are genetically closer to Europeans than the Chinese are, for example. But what does that mean? They’re European? You haven’t answered my question about whether you think Arabs are European too. And they’re a lot closer to us genetically than Indians are.
I was thinking of the street people of Bombay as much as anything.
Were you? You do know that 35 percent of India’s population is illiterate, don’t you?
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 08:57 AM | #
I think I have answered all the challenges so far so I am off to do other things now
LMAO
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 08:58 AM | #
Molecular biologist, physicist, linguist, historian...you don’t need to tell me if you don’t want to, I’m just curious
I’m a banker. Can’t divulge more than that!
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 09:07 AM | #
John’s tactics are pretty close to those employed by the left (and since he has spent such a long time studying leftists, its not a surprise that he has learnt a tactic or two).
The tactic is: Lose all the arguments but repeat them again and again. At some point, it’s bound to work!
Posted by Guessedworker on May 30, 2005, 10:00 AM | #
Where I think people here go wrong is to take a correct observation—such as the prevalence of tribal thinking—and extract non-sequiturs from it.
For instance it is true that Chinese are tribal but that does that mean tribalism is wise or unavoidable? I think the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
John,
This is indeed the heart of the artichoke. A much more substantial and versatile foodstuff, may I say, than those cookies you’ve been handing around.
It merits proper consideration, and I’ll try to put up something on it by tonight, family permitting. Provisional title “Ethnic solidarity”.
Meanwhile, I’d be interested to know whether you see in your own ideas advanced liberalism’s drive to eliminate white ethnic identity, or whether you compartmentalise this away someplace? How do you dispense your Conservatism along with such extreme liberal individualism?
Posted by Mark Richardson on May 30, 2005, 10:50 AM | #
“When I see what the polite Chinese have to put up with from ignorant Australians ...”
Oh boy, yet another dig at Anglo-Australians.
John, you’re creating a false impression of what the average Australian is like. Yes, there are young Australian men who drink too much beer and who act uncouth at times (usually in a friendly and harmless way).
But to suggest that the average Australian goes about abusing Chinese restaurant owners is strikingly untrue.
The average Australian that I know, and this applies especially to the most traditional Australians, is more sincerely friendly and open than any other nationality I’ve met.
I’ve lived and worked in Japan for a year. The Japanese were more “formally” polite than Australians. If you walked into a shop an immaculately attired young Japanese woman would bow and proclaim “Irrashaimase”.
I was impressed at first. But gradually it came to feel formal and distant. When I got home I appreciated the middle-aged working-class women in the shops who would smile warmly at you and ask “How are ya, luv?”
Yes, it’s a down to earth and relaxed approach - probably too much for middle-class sensibilities. But I still prefer it to more coldly formal manners.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 11:41 AM | #
And the maternal mitochondrial DNA studies show Indians as all being closely related North and South so the Aryan ivasion thesis is now generally discounted.
If there were no invasions, why does India have such an enormous variation in skin colour and phenotype?
http://www.cine-zoom.com/IMG/jpg/AISHWARYA_RAI_001.jpg
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0306/feature1/images/zm_zoomin.1.4.jpg
Posted by Guessedworker on May 30, 2005, 11:54 AM | #
Mark,
Not too much, even for English middle-class sensibilities. At least, not for this sample of three (me, my wife, my daughter) in what, timewise, was a wholly inadequate holiday Down Under some five summers ago. We found the friendliness of Australians of all classes very attractive. Oz is probably the only country to which I would consider emigrating.
One time, when we came away from, I think, a zoo in the south of Sydney we fell into conversation at our bus-stop with three barefoot, working-class lads truanting from school. They responded well to being treated as equals, and I found in them not aggression and surliness but a desire to have some fun and be taken seriously. We talked to them for about fifteen minutes and in that time I found them to be much like any other lads, save that they will probably wind up going “wrong” pretty soon.
It is these kids to whom, in this Pom’s view, John owes his allegiance - because, for sure, they would give it to him in extremis. That’s the real-world meaning of ethnic genetic interest. Got nothing to do with nationalism. It is to do with life as it is. Such kinship is something that won’t necessarily - and oftimes can’t - be provided by those with other ethnic genetic interests. I do believe that the right-liberalism John is espousing is an error, and he is compounding it by using phrases such as “far right” and “tribalism” to describe what, frankly, is an attitude of love.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 12:26 PM | #
I should add, further to the two images that I posted about India, that genetic affinity to more caucasoid populations goes from “high” in the North West of the sub-continent to “low” in the South East.
Here’s a Pakistani woman (probably upper class and from the more heavily caucasian side of the colour contunuum):
http://www.janubaba.com/wforum/uploads/shahrukhkhan/2004-11-05_211720_AmanS_14Oct_b28.jpg
Here is a Bangladeshi woman:
http://www.travelblog.org/Photos/90/3013/t/9906-Bangladeshi-beach-attire-0.jpg
This works perfectly with what we know of population movements historically in that part of the world.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 12:41 PM | #
“whether you see in your own ideas advanced liberalism’s drive to eliminate white ethnic identity”
Leftists have no ideas or purposes other than destruction of others and power for themselves but they USE whatever people agree with to that end. My ideas are common in society. That is why Leftists use them.
But I don’t think the ideas are destructive if used properly and even if used improperly the harm is small. I hate to use another word that has been transmogrified by the Left but I DO think diversity is strength. Unity as strength was the Fascist motto. And the USA exemplifies what I mean. It is the most godawful ethnic mess but it is also the world’s dominant society.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 12:46 PM | #
“If there were no invasions, why does India have such an enormous variation in skin colour and phenotype? “
You are the one who seemed to know all about DNA distributions so you explain the mtDNA findings
Anyway, I know the answer. You are just picking extremes.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 12:48 PM | #
I DO think diversity is strength.
Crikey.........
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 12:57 PM | #
The North/South colour gradient in India was always explained by the Aryan invasion thesis but the awkward fact is that the mtDNA North and South is very little different. We have much yet to learn.
But I did a lot of observing and discussing in Bombay—where all India meets—and there are few really light-skinned people there. Even most of the Parsees are pretty brown.
So I am inclned to think there has been SOME linkage of genes into India from fairer populations and that explains the tiny numbers of VERY fair people but the general North/South gradient is something else. I guess it could even be climatic. That after all is how we explain the general North/South colour gradient.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:02 PM | #
You are the one who seemed to know all about DNA distributions so you explain the mtDNA findings
Anyway, I know the answer. You are just picking extremes.
The point I made was that the overwhelming majority of Indians are not genetically close to Europeans. What you say doesn’t contradict that. It confirms the point I make.
I showed those extremes because they exist. And their existence shows that there were populations movements from the North West of India into the sub-continent. I gave that example to show that there are still a few markers left on the population which are evidence of this population movement. Other evidence comes in the form of language (which you were using as a proxy for showing that Indians are genetically close to Europeans because they speak an Indo-Europoean language).
What I have just showed you is evidence that backs the argument that Indians don’t need to be Europeans (or genetically close to Europeans) to speak an Indo European language. Practically all of South America speaks spanish including some of the remotest areas of South America where the actual influx of Spanish colonists was miniscule in number. Are you going to argue next that the Peruvian Indians are genetically close to Europeans because they speak a bit of Spanish?
Sailer says:
There appear to have been three major waves populating India.
Several tens of thousands of years ago, an early out-of-Africa wave left behind a substratum of modern hunter-gatherer tribes, and many of the 160 million Untouchables, at the bottom of the Hindu pyramid. They come in a variety of looks, from Caucasian to Negrito to Australoid. Thus they are hard to generalize about.
The second wave seems to have consisted of early Middle Eastern farmers. They now speak Dravidian languages and are most concentrated in the South. These typically small and dark Caucasians were largely ignored by the rest of the world—until the last two decades when word of their upper castes’ impressive skills at math, science, and technology caught the attention of the business world. The center of India’s burgeoning software industry is Bangalore in the southern highlands.
The last and most famous of the three waves were the Indo-European-speaking Aryan invaders—tall, light-skinned Caucasians from somewhere to the northwest. They introduced Hinduism and its accompanying system of social stratification: four major castes (plus the poor Untouchables), along with countless occupation-based inbreeding subcastes, all further divided by region.
So is Sailer wrong?
Your arguments are the usual combination of smoke and mirrors. First you say that Indians are genetically close to Europeans (and closer to us than Arabs). I show you the Cavalli Sforza map and you say Sforza’s credibility is suspect (I’d take Sforza’s word over your any day).
And when all else fails you say the “genetics is all up in the air”. Its pointless arguing about it because you will keep denying things and evading evidence that completely contradicts your arguments.
Thats a very leftie strategy - fit the facts around the ideology, not the other way round.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:05 PM | #
but the awkward fact is that the mtDNA North and South is very little different.
Do you have a link for this?
Why is this an awkward fact? I said the invaders were usually males who married local women. That fits well with the evidence that mtDNA is the same in the North and South.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:06 PM | #
John,
If you are arguing that there is little or no difference in skin colour and phenotype between say a Pashtun (North West of the sub-continent) and a Tamil (south east of the sub-continent), then your explanations are no better than flat earth theory.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 01:07 PM | #
The mtDNA contradicts Sailer. That seems to leave it up in the air to me
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:08 PM | #
Also, if Indian mtDNA is quite different from European mtDNA, how are Indians genetically close to Europeans (which was your whole argument)?
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 01:10 PM | #
“If you are arguing that there is little or no difference in skin colour and phenotype between say a Pashtun (North West of the sub-continent) and a Tamil (south east of the sub-continent), then your explanations are no better than flat earth theory. “
Since I spoke of a North/South colour gradient I was hardly doing that.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 01:13 PM | #
But it remains true that Bombay has lots of people from all over India—stretching even to quite a few Afghans—and most of them are pretty brown. There are only a few light-Browns. Though they rule the roost, of course.
Posted by Kubilai on May 30, 2005, 01:15 PM | #
I DO think diversity is strength.
Crikey......... - Phil
LOL
No sh*t, crikey! Though I have a special weakness for “blimey”. The only thing left now is the “there is no such thing as race” pabulum and John will have successfully tranformed himself from “libertarian” into leftwing wacko right in front of our very eyes.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:15 PM | #
John you said:
I guess it could even be climatic. That after all is how we explain the general North/South colour gradient.
You are saying the ones in the South stayed in the Sun too long. If they only stayed for too long in the Sun, they would only be darker but not phenotypically different from Pashtuns.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:17 PM | #
John,
Why don’t you also give us the genetic evidence along the male line?
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 01:24 PM | #
And how does any of this prove that Indians are genetically close to Europeans?
It doesn’t. But then you’ll say, “Its all up in the air anyway”. If its all up in the air, you will soon say that Nigerians are gentically close to Danes.
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 01:25 PM | #
Some links on the mtDna:
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2001/7-8/56-57_dna.shtml
http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2005/05/dna-study-european-genes-went-from.html
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 01:57 PM | #
As you will see from at least one of the above links, the DNA findings have inspired the theory that Indians are in fact the Ur-Europeans i.e. that the old theory had it back to front: The migration was out of India, not into India. Still think these things are not up in the air?
Posted by John Ray on May 30, 2005, 01:59 PM | #
But interesting as these studies of Indians are to me, they are rather off the original track of this post.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 02:00 PM | #
The important Y-DNA evidence:
Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations (Bamshad et al. 2001.)
However, a 2001 examination of male Y-DNA by Indian and American scientists indicated that higher castes are genetically closer to West Eurasians than are individuals from lower castes, whose genetic profiles are similar to other Asians. These results indicates that at some point male West Eurasians provided a significant genetic input into the higher castes, a result which supports the notion that the caste system was an attempt by these predominantly male arrivals to keep themselves separate from the native population. [3] (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf)
The genetic studies by Michael J Bamshad and his team (2001) from University of Utah and Dr. Spencer Wells (2003) from Harvard University, give strong backing to the Aryan invasion theory.
In the study by M.J Bamshad and his team [4] (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf) they wrote, “Our results demonstrate that for biparentally inherited autosomal markers, genetic distances between upper, middle, and lower castes are significantly correlated with rank; upper castes are more similar to Europeans than to Asians; and upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are lower castes.”
The genetic study involves the analysis of genetic material known as the Mitochondrial DNA which is only passed maternally and so it is used to study female inheritance. The male-determining Y chromosome, is passed along paternally and is therefore used to study male inheritance. The evidence implies that few millennia ago group of males with (Eastern) European affinities invaded the Indian subcontinent from the Northwest of the sub-continent.
The researchers went on to state that the genetic variations among the upper castes and lower castes is the evidence to the origin of the caste system. The people who were either migrating or invading the sub-continent had descendants in the male population largely in the higher castes than in the lower castes. The researchers state that these invading or migrating people might have instituted the caste system.
In the abstract to their paper the researchers stated, “In the most recent of these waves, Indo-European -speaking people from West Eurasia entered India from the Northwest and diffused throughout the subcontinent. They purportedly admixed with or displaced indigenous Dravidic-speaking populations. Subsequently they may have established the Hindu caste system and placed themselves primarily in castes of higher rank.”
The study also revealed another classic anthropological observation, that of women being significantly more mobile in terms of caste and hierarchical class than men, who are almost not socially mobile at all in terms of caste and hierarchical class. Genetic evidence reveals that over millennia men have married women from lower castes but women have rarely married men from lower castes. Thus the researchers imply that caste and class to a large extent is perpetuated by women and has also thereby contributed to the minimal mixing of Aryan blood with the natives.
The latest genetic research paper (2004) on Indo-European origins, support the conclusions of the (2001) study, backing the Aryan invasion theory[5] (http://www.webmonkey.ws/flillip.php?url=http://www.gnxp.com/IndependentOriginsOfIndianCaster.pdf).
(However see Kivisild [6] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003b.pdf) and [7] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf),for a different view and also Renfrew [8] (http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~traub/sloan/RenfrewXPM.pdf)).
Hoewever,most of the pro-invasionist papers imply that R1a1 is the genetic maker that is representative of an invasion due to its high frequency in Euro-asia.But an equally likely genetic maker is haplogroup L.This haplogroup is present in Greek ,Turkish,Lebonese ,Iranians ,Central Asian and Indian populations(and Europe,see Kivisild).This marker is found in locations where written sources record the presence on Indo-European languages and people ie Greek,Hittite,Hyksos,Mittanni ,Iranians and Indians.Its peak frequency is found in Indo-Iranian populations.(Another possible marker is J2).Also the ‘Western Euroasian’ components that are found in female mtdna show a distribution closer to that found in the Southern Caucases and Middle East,than in Eastern Europe
The Y-DNA is the crucial element in this. mtDNA may be the same across India but there is no reason why that would disprove a migration of Caucasians from the North West. If the migration is heavily male, it shows up in Y-DNA.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 02:02 PM | #
the DNA findings have inspired the theory that Indians are in fact the Ur-Europeans i.e. that the old theory had it back to front: The migration was out of India, not into India.
But when did this migration happen?
If it happened 50,000 years ago, you’ve had 50,000 years of evolution to separate Indian and European populations. Isn’t that relevant? (Rushton says that Mongoloids have only been separated from Caucasoids for about 40,000 years.) 50,000 years is a long time for the evolution of a race.
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 30, 2005, 02:05 PM | #
John,
By that logic, the “out of Africa” theory would make Africans the ur-Europeans. So are you now going to say that Europeans and Africans are gentically................
This is what I mean by fitting facts around the ideology. Your ideology is more important to you. That’s not unusual. Many ideologues are like that.
Posted by Kubilai on May 30, 2005, 02:10 PM | #
John,
Your links from the South Asians provide info on research done by a team of Glasgow geneticists. The NIH link isn’t working. They say that there was a migration into the Indian Subcontinent around 50,000 years ago or so with Europe being populated around 45,000 years ago. They postulate that there was ONE migration out of Africa and that seeded the planet. First, I am not sure if this is correct because there are schools of thought, and rightfully so, that posit multiple migrations out of Africa tens of thousands of years ago. For the sake of argument and assuming this Glasgow information as “correct”, they further state that Europe was populated by the original peoples of India. This theory if proven true, not a foregone conclusion, does not take into account the re-migration into India around 5000 years ago. The so-called “Aryans”. I trust even you can acknowledge that 35,000 to 40,000 years is adequate time for two separate populations to evolve into sufficiently different modern humans? As another tidbit, there is also evidence that modern H sapiens evolved OUTSIDE of Africa and re-migrated back into Africa interbreeding with African H erectus, a predecessor.
Now what exactly is your point to all this?
Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 30, 2005, 02:19 PM | #
“I hate to use another word that has been transmogrified by the Left but I DO think diversity is strength. Unity as strength was the Fascist motto. And the USA exemplifies what I mean. It is the most godawful ethnic mess but it is also the world’s dominant society.” (—John)
It’s not going to stay “the world’s dominant society” much longer, John, and what will keep it from doing is that it’s become “the most godawful ethnic mess.” Diversity is strength, yes, in some instances, not others. Diversity of the less-helpful variety very likely was what sent Ancient Egypt down the tubes. Furthermore, there’s the question of “How much diversity are we talking about?” Until the early 70s when the effects of the 1965 Kennedy-Celler Immigration Holocaust Bill first began to be felt we in the States had a tiny bit of diversity and in various ways that was indeed a strength (and in various others a weakness, for obvious reasons). Then we became swamped with diversity, such that it’s now become a very distinct weakness, potentially a fatal one unless we act soon to rectify the situation. (Iron mixed with a trace of carbon gives steel but carbon mixed with a trace of iron gives only a completely useless heap of crumbling flakes.) Finally, diversity consisting of fundamentally very different kinds of people living within the same borders—whites and Orientals, for example, or Orientals and Negroes, let’s say—will always be a highly questionable proposition wherever it’s not ideal for one or more of those racial components to lose their individual identities by mixing with one another. The U.S. was certainly enriched—“strengthened,” if you prefer—by Negro contributions to our culture over centuries, and it didn’t suffer the downside of the disappearance of either the white or the Negro race because there were natural social/racial/cultural/esthetic/and-so-on barriers, and in the pre-60s South, legal barriers as well, to any social evolution toward a significant mixing of the two races. They stayed largely apart and unmixed. But now government and powerful segments of the private sector such as Hollywood are exerting (each for its own selfish and in some respects what can only be called perverted reasons) strong pressure on the white race to disappear through a combination of government-enforced completely artificial Eurowhite subservience to, and mixing with, non-white races. If that process goes to completion diversity not only won’t have been a strength but will have been our downfall. Please don’t parrot leftist slogans mindlessly, John.
Posted by Tournament of Champions on May 30, 2005, 03:35 PM | #
It is the most godawful ethnic mess but it is also the world’s dominant society
It does appear that the US is rapidly growing as a whole relative to the rest of the world, we’re really leaving them in the dust. But, the white gentile share of the pie is fast shrinking. The double squeeze is from Jews and phd armed immigrants at the upper end and hordes of coloreds from below.
Posted by John Ray on May 31, 2005, 12:46 AM | #
I have already devoted a huge amount of time to this comment thread so I am going to have to call it a day. Has anybody ever put up on a single thread as many posts as I have on this one? Not often, I think.
Before I go however, let me cut a few throats with Occam’s razor:
The North/South color gradient in the subcontinent is mirrored by broadly similar gradients in two other very different longditudes-- from Scandinavia to equatorial Africa and from North China to Indonesia.
Nobody suggests that the Scandinavian population is the result of an original negro population being conquered and nobody suggests that the fair North Chinese are the result of an original Indonesian population being invaded.
So why does anyone insist that the fairer Northern subcontinenental population is the result of a Dravidian population being conquered?
An application of Occams razor would suggest that the colour gradient in all three cases is some sort of climatic effect.
Posted by J Richards on May 31, 2005, 09:24 AM | #
John Jay Ray,
There is not just a North-South skin color gradient in India, but a complex gradient concerning facial features, too, which is correlated with skin color. Furthermore, within any linguistic region, there is a between-castes skin-color gradient as well as a facial-feature gradient. A minority of Hindoos have the facial features of Southern/Eastern Europeans, and among the majority of Hindoos, you can clearly see varying combinations of two other major influences, an aboriginal influence related to Southeast Asians and Australian aboriginals and a flat-faced Asian influence. Can you make the case for climatic factors being responsible for the gradients in facial features, too?
It is not feasible to list the evidence here, but other than the molecular evidence cited by JW, a tremendous amount of linguistic, historical, cultural, and religious evidence unambiguously points to European migrations to India, a major one being that of the Aryans, who were ultimately lost to race mixing. Many nationalist Hindoos beat the dead horse of the relative lack of archeological evidence of the Aryan Invasion, but the chariot-riding Aryans with their superior physical build and military prowess would not have needed to fight a prolonged major war to subjugate the aboriginals/natives they encountered. Nevertheless, there are passages available from the earliest known Hindoo text known as the Rigveda which mention contempt for black skin and celebrate the victories over the black-skinned natives.
Posted by dan dare on June 02, 2005, 02:08 AM | #
I’m aware this thread is already quite long in the tooth but I hope it’s not too late to get in a few comments on John Jay Ray’s quite astonishing complacency concerning Australian immigration policy before GW does actually lower the boom.
As I understand, it JJR’s argument rests largely on the following premises:
1.Australian immigration policy is qualitatively superior to that of the other Anglosphere countries, principally because it is more selective and biased towards high IQ immigrants (or at least immigrants for whom there is some apparent current economic demand.)
2.Current immigration policy enjoys wide public support.
3.Australia has immigration ‘under control’.
The superiority of Australian policy
This notion appears to stem largely from a belief that Australia has somehow engineered a uniquely clever way of administering immigration that is qualitatively different from the other models.
On looking at the official government statistics, and after navigating with some difficulty through the labyrinthine thicket of arcane officialese about ‘streams’, ‘outcomes’, and ‘program(me)s’, it appears that Australia granted permanent residence to 148,884 persons in the year ending July 2004. It is instructive to see how this total breaks down.
The largest single category is the ‘Skills Stream’ at 71,243 immigrants or 48% of the total. I’ll hazard a guess that this represents the qualitative difference that JJR is suggesting exists between the Australian and, say, the US models. Before looking at that in more detail though, just to complete the full picture, the other components of the total figure are (as far I can make out): about 42,000 family members (28% of the total), 14,000 refugees (9%) and the remaining 15% being admitted under the ‘Non-Migration’ scheme which appears to be limited to New Zealanders.
Returning to the Skills Stream, this basically breaks down into three substreams: independent immigrants who can pass a skills test (about 27% of total immigration), Australian- (i.e. family-) sponsored immigrants who may or may not have to pass a skills test (10% of total), employer-sponsored (7% of the total), and the remaining few percent entrepreneurs and ‘special talents’. The corresponding ‘Skills Stream’ component in the US immigration regime would be the employment-related categories (principally intra-company transfers) which amounted to around 12% of immigration in 2003. This latter figure includes dependents though.
So, if we were to strictly interpret skills-based immigration as that which employers have actually been responsible for in the sense of organising and funding the immigrant, rather that which is based on some bureaucratically-defined benchmark, there doesn’t appear to be a great deal of difference between Australia and the US in actual ‘outcomes’ to use the lingo of the trade. The difference is that Australia provides an opportunity for lots more self-selected ‘independent’ immigrants who can pass as kills test to enter the country, after which they may or may not end up in gainful employment.
The Australian policy enjoys wide public support
This might perhaps turn out to be more than a little illusory, if the public were ever to be made aware of the actual facts rather than the official nostrums and bromides. And had an opportunity to express their feelings at the ballot box.
TBC
Posted by dan dare on June 02, 2005, 02:09 AM | #
Continued…
Australian immigration is under control
JJR’s comments about illegal immigration being more of an issue for the US and the UK are of course largely correct, but Australia’s relatively good record seems to me to be more a function of geography rather than public policy. That and also the fact that Australia does not as yet appear to have targeted by the international trafficking gangs, like the Chinese snakeheads and the Albanian Mafia, that are behind much if not most of the illegal immigration into the UK, for example.
A further factor that may be giving rise to current complacency is that family migration is, for the present, relatively low. This may be a function of the relatively recent change in Australian immigration patterns, in which traditionally immigration has been from Europe, principally the British Isles. As a rule, Europeans do not tend to go in for chain migration to the extents that Asians do. There is for example, the famous example of the now several-thousand strong Pakistani population in Oxford, whicht has been shown to derive from just two men who settled there separately in the 1950s. Or the recently discovered phenomenon that more than half of the privately owned motels in America are now owned by people with the surname Patel. Australia still has to experience for itself the magic of chain migration on this scale.
Certainly if you look at the 2004 stats for family migration, the growth in family immigration from the PRC and the rest of Asia is quite striking, particularly in the category of dependent children and parents. The incidence of fraud with respect to the immigration of children from the Indian subcontinent has become so rife that Britain now routinely insists on DNA testing before issuing such visas.
So my general response would be that it is early days yet for Australia’s shiny new immigration policy, and it might be politic not to be too over-smug or complacent about its long-term utility vis-a-vis the other (admittedly decrepit) models currently extant in the Anglosphere.
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 02, 2005, 03:49 AM | #
“As I understand, it JJR’s argument rests largely on the following premises:
1.Australian immigration policy is qualitatively superior to that of the other Anglosphere countries, principally because it is more selective and biased towards high IQ immigrants (—Dan Dare)
Stop. Stop right there.
What’s wrong with this already is people in the receiving countries have a right, if they want, to live amongst people who look, act, talk, and think like they do and are the same race as they are, which they won’t get if IQ be the only criterion for immigration. Do they want a bunch of high-IQ yellows filling up their country? Generally speaking, they don’t, although there are always exceptions of course. They don’t have any right to expect the whole world to be like they are, or even another whole country. But they damn well have the right to expect their fellow countrymen, who’ve always been like that and are related to them racially, to continue being exactly like that and to tell anyone who pretends they have no such right to go take a running leap off the nearest high cliff. Maybe they just find people of their own race better-looking or more companionable in the local bar or pub. That’s all they need to say in order that their wishes to keep their country as is be respected. Maybe they don’t feel they have to explain themselves at all, and prefer not to say. Well then, they don’t. They don’t want they country’s or community’s race changed, and as for exactly why, that’s their business, not the business of the race-replacers, who need to learn to leave people’s races alone. How dare these people think they can walk into a place and just change its race, squelching all opposition as “racism”? How DARE they! Where in hell do they COME OFF?
“I don’t want my country’s race changed.”
“Why?”
“I don’t know—I just would rather it not be changed.”
Well then, sorry, but no one has a right to change it! You heard him—he doesn’t want it changed, so bog off and go bother someone else!
Posted by friedrich braun on June 02, 2005, 09:28 AM | #
I’ve read this entire thread with interest, and I believe that John’s entire mindset on immigration (invasion) from failed polities into successful White nations can be encapsulated by the following revealing exchange:
“Why don’t you move to India, John? It might be the best thing for you. You’ll escape all the Aussie yobs and would be surrounded only by polite people.”
JJR: “I have long been tempted but I am too old to move anywhere now”
In other words, John would rather live among people of a different/foreign race than among his Anglos.
If that’s not typical White left-liberal self-hatred and ethnomasochism, I don’t what is.
I hope you - and generally people of your ilk - move (to India or elsewhere), John.
If you want to happily sign your own racial death-warrant, John, do it, but you don’t have a right to drag me along with you.
...
Another gem from John:
“Sweden is socialist too you know...... “
JJR: “Capitalist economy, though.”
Huh?...not good enough, John. I want John to explain why socialism in Sweden works but it doesn’t in India. And without him resulting to vacuous,nonsensical one-liners. I believe that most of the participants of MRB already know the answer to that question, however.
Next entry: Abortion: Only conservatives care
Previous entry: Modern Tribalist on Hispanic illegals
Existential Issues
Of note
Recent Comments
Leon Haller commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 11:47 AM. (go) (view)
Angry Beard commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 11:41 AM. (go) (view)
Angry Beard commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 11:13 AM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/30/10, 10:51 AM. (go) (view)
Dylan R. commented in entry 'The Genetic OmniDominance Hypothesis' on 07/30/10, 10:28 AM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Five Minds for the Future by Howard Gardner, 2007' on 07/30/10, 09:44 AM. (go) (view)
Leon Haller commented in entry 'Invasive subcon keeps it 'empirical'' on 07/30/10, 09:43 AM. (go) (view)
David Hawkins EI commented in entry 'Five Minds for the Future by Howard Gardner, 2007' on 07/30/10, 09:08 AM. (go) (view)
Bill commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 08:03 AM. (go) (view)
Gudmund commented in entry 'Turkey's back on the menu' on 07/30/10, 04:48 AM. (go) (view)
Fred Scrooby commented in entry 'Turkey's back on the menu' on 07/30/10, 04:35 AM. (go) (view)
Dasein commented in entry 'Debunking a racialist myth about the genetic variation between dog breeds' on 07/30/10, 04:19 AM. (go) (view)
Gudmund commented in entry 'Invasive subcon keeps it 'empirical'' on 07/30/10, 03:55 AM. (go) (view)
seawolf commented in entry 'Debunking a racialist myth about the genetic variation between dog breeds' on 07/30/10, 03:46 AM. (go) (view)
Greg Johnson commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/30/10, 03:19 AM. (go) (view)
ronery asian guy commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 02:42 AM. (go) (view)
Tom commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 02:35 AM. (go) (view)
Hume commented in entry 'Invasive subcon keeps it 'empirical'' on 07/30/10, 02:31 AM. (go) (view)
Fred Scrooby commented in entry 'Turkey's back on the menu' on 07/30/10, 01:38 AM. (go) (view)
Notus Wind commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 01:38 AM. (go) (view)
FB commented in entry 'Debunking a racialist myth about the genetic variation between dog breeds' on 07/30/10, 01:07 AM. (go) (view)
Rollory commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 12:55 AM. (go) (view)
J. M. commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/30/10, 12:34 AM. (go) (view)
Armor commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/30/10, 12:34 AM. (go) (view)
Fred Scrooby commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/30/10, 12:16 AM. (go) (view)
PF commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/30/10, 12:05 AM. (go) (view)
Thorn commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/29/10, 11:43 PM. (go) (view)
Dan Dare commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/29/10, 11:34 PM. (go) (view)
Guessedworker commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/29/10, 11:22 PM. (go) (view)
jamesUK commented in entry 'Turkey's back on the menu' on 07/29/10, 11:16 PM. (go) (view)
Metal Gear commented in entry 'Jack Donovan: 'manly' suicidal faggot to the right' on 07/29/10, 11:11 PM. (go) (view)
Thorn commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/29/10, 11:05 PM. (go) (view)
Gorboduc commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/29/10, 10:59 PM. (go) (view)
Notus Wind commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/29/10, 09:45 PM. (go) (view)
Bill commented in entry 'The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)' on 07/29/10, 09:42 PM. (go) (view)
Recent Posts
- The Liberal Project Bumps into an Ecological Wall (Part I)
- The UK Film Council and its paper tigerhood
- Debunking a racialist myth about the genetic variation between dog breeds
- Turkey’s back on the menu
- Invasive subcon keeps it ‘empirical’
- The Genetic OmniDominance Hypothesis
- Are Africans a different species?
- News from around the MultiCult
- The Diary of an Anti-Racist (Part 1)
- Bobbing and Weeving
- The Trashing of Poor Whites by Time Magazine Circa 1975
- I nose who you are
- Hindu Subject Without Confines
- Snappy refutation of race denial
- Jack Donovan: ‘manly’ suicidal faggot to the right
- A theory on trust and phenotypic diversity in Europe
- Muslim rioters: the problem with them is *not* that they ain’t got that old time religion
- London New Right: Bowden on Evola
- Dawkins sides with the race realists.
- South Africa: They can *even* organise a WC
General News
Science News
Science Categories
All Categories
The Writers
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Links
Endorsement not implied.
Crime
General
- American Renaissance
- Age of Treason
- Balder
- Brussels Journal
- Civic platform
- CofCC
- Chronicles
- Crosstar
- Culture Wars
- Dissecting Leftism
- Face Right
- Fallen Freedom
- Fred on everything
- Freedom Site
- From The Wilderness
- Frontierist News
- Gates of Vienna
- God help Britain
- Hogtown Front
- I am an Englishman
- Inductivist
- iSteve
- Modern Tribalist
- National Policy Institute
- Occidental Dissent
- Occidental Quarterly
- Our Way of Life
- Oz Conservative
- ParaPundit
- Romanian National Vanguard
- Rusty Mason
- Renaissance Press
- Salisbury Review
- Sam Francis Column
- Scotchfriend
- Signals From The Brink
- Spoils of War
- Snouck Hurgronje
- Songlight for Dawn
- Stop ACLU
- The Anti-White Media
- The Political Cesspool
- Tomorrow in Vinland
- Turnabout
- UK Commentators
- Viking Observer
- Western Survival
- White civil rights
Immigration
- American Patrol
- Immigration watchdog
- Immigration Watch Canada
- Limits To Growth
- Migration Watch
- Minutemen
- Numbers USA
- Private police
- Project USA
- Team America
- Vdare
Islam
Jews
- 9/11 – #1, #2
- Banking – #1, #2
- Eric Hufschmid
- Holocaust – #1, #2, #3, #4, #5
- Immigration
- Jewish deception
- Michael Delaney
- Subverted nation
- Why the Jews?
Nationalist Political Parties
- British National Party
- Front National (FR)
- Nationaldemokraterna
- Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands
- Vlaams Belang
New Right
Science
Whites in Africa