Hollywood In Danger of Making Historically Unprecedented Returns From Pro-Euroman Movies

No, actually, Fred was being more reasonable than most of the “reasonable” folks give him credit for.  Re-read the messages about “natural” vs “artificial” and how those terms might reasonably be related to what “evolutionary psychologists” (ie: political centrists in the sociobiology vs loony sociology debate) call “the environment of evolutionary adaptation”.

Given the measures of genetic distance between human “subspecies” and the genetic distance between some “species”, it is difficult to make the case against Fred very strong.

See the story about Harpending’s study in the most recent Majority Report roundup.  Here’s Harpending’s abstract:

Understanding human races: the retreat of neutralism.
Henry Harpending
Discussion and debate about human races has been dominated for decades by neutral theory and statistics. Since this literature never posed a real question, it has never produced an answer. Lewontin’s 1972 paper with its claim that a value of 1/8 of a statistic like Fst is “small” and that this means that human race differences are insignificant is a staple of our textbooks. Recently geneticists have had a closer look and pointed out that Fst of 1/8 describes differences among sets of half sibs and few claim that half sibs are insignificantly related. Anthony Edwards has shown that the significance of differences is in the correlation structure of a large number of traits, again denying the Lewontin assertion that human differences are small. Alan Templeton in 1998 claimed that human races were less differentiated that races of some other large mammals, but he compared human nuclear DNA statistics with statistics from mtDNA in the other species. An appropriate comparison shows that human are more, not less, differentiated than other large mammal species. Since neutral differences are a passive
record of demographic history they are not very significant for issues of functional biology. Newly available data sources allow us to study the natural selection of race differences instead of their drift. It appears that there is a lot of ongoing evolution in our species and the loci under strong selection on different continents only partially overlap. Human race differences may be increasing rapidly.

“it couldn’t be more obvious based solely on classical Linnæan taxonomy — with all modern genetics out of the picture — that Euros and True Negroes are different species” (—my comment, above)

-- “Modern genetics” first coming on the scene in the year 1953 with Watson & Crick’s discovery of the molecular sturcture of DNA.  So from Adam and Eve up to and including the year 1952 we were in the era before modern genetics.  All that was known about Negroes and whites in the year 1952 satisfied Linnæan criteria for their being accorded separate species status.  Some authors did exactly that — accorded them separate status — as late as the end of the 1800s but then came Franz Boaz and the twentieth century, and ... well ... we all know what happened to objective science during the following ten decades or so ... But there’s no excuse now for not getting back to it.

Jewish academics will never openly endorse the current claim by “race-realist” science that Negroes and whites belong to different races, because Jewish academics place politics above public acknowledgement of certain scientific truths:  those truths they see as potentially threatening to Jewish ethnoracial/national interests. 

Privately among themselves, among their Jewish families, their Jewish friends, and their Jewish professional colleagues, Jewish academics know perfectly well what the situation is with Negroes, that there are races and that they are a different race (I consider them a different species), that they have a higher crime rate, lower IQ, and all the rest, and that it’s all to a significant extent inborn.  Seated around the table with their Jewish friends and relatives, when the subject of the schwartzes comes up they know exactly what the score is.  They all do.  There are no illusions.  Stephen Jay Gould knew perfectly well there were races.  So does Prof. Dershowitz.  So do they all. 

That’s in private, among Jews, Jewish friends, family, and colleagues.  Before the public they obfuscate and invent sophistries purporting to disprove race and inborn (i.e., genetic) intelligence and behavioral tendencies because they see such disproof as good for the Jews politically. 

Jews use race to keep Euros down, and to overcome Euro resistance to having race used as a bludgeon against them race has to be denied.  “Race?  What race?  There’s no such thing.  Negroes are exactly the same as you.  So shut up and integrate with them, and tell your kids to marry them, the sooner the better.” That’s why Jewish academics affect to deny race in their public pronouncements.  (I trust no one will be surprised if Alon Ziv marries/is married to a Jewish girl instead of a Negro or that he’s not going to wax enthusiastic, in discussions with his own children when the time comes, about the idea of their marrying Negroes instead of whites at least, and Jews preferably.  I sincerely expect no one here will be surprised if he learns any of that about Prof. Ziv ....)

Race-denial is false Jewish science in pursuit of political ends.  If the notion that there are more than one species of human alive today ever begins to “get legs,” Jewish academics will first try to obfuscate things by coming up with sophistries based on irrelevancies having to do with interspecies hybrids.  If that fails they’ll come up with a whole new Jewish academic discipline of species-denial (butressed by sophistries which Euro morons like Prof. C. Loring Brace and President Bush will fall for) which will be an extension of the Jewish academic discipline of race-denial. 

Race-denial and, when it finally gets developed, species-denial don’t belong in the category of science but of political science.  They are tools used for political maneuver. 

They’re all false Jewish science motivated by politics in pursuit of what the Jews see as their ethnoracial Jewish national interest.

“And yes, I never stated that I WANT Frenchmen and Germans to mix — but, I could careless if they do.  Modern European nation states are Euro-mongrelized anyway — why pretend otherwise.” (—D.S.)

This statement comes close all by itself to delegitimizing Norman Lowell’s entire project.  As a matter of fact, it delegitimizes it. 

I believe this man goes way further than Lowell wants in de-emphasizing intra-European ethnoracial/national distinctness.  This individual should be jetisoned.

“careless” I don’t think so.  I don’t believe that any European tribe should miscegenate.  I don’t think the different areas of France even should miscegenate between all the Euro French.  France has distinctive provinces because of the residue of ancient Gallic/Norman tribes and others.

The only way to preserve tribal/national culture is NOT to miscegenate.  Welsh shouldn’t be marrying Scotsmen and Scotsmen, Irish!!!!  No miscegenation!!!  at all amongst any Euronation! 

A Man’s duty is to his Tribe/Nation---First and foremost and his energies should be marrying his own kin!
-----------------------------
To Fred Scrooby, No, I don’t believe in what that Greek said.  Of course Germans and English are civilized and have civilizations and High Culture.  I am NOT anti-German, I have 1/4 German in me, and my mothers maiden name is Schuch.

I hope Fred that you went to the Lyceum page at my website, my articles are there.

“...recall visiting Russia recently and being impressed by two things about the phenotypes”

what about the genotypes?

We need to find out what the admixture levels really are.

Lindsay yes, I did go to the Lyceum page and browsed it, finding the material there highly interesting.  Thanks for drawing it to my attention.

nitpicking bull shit this third page of comments is.... what about mixture between white Americans and white English peoples? The majority of people will not do it, so why worry if a Swede wants to marry a Finn? They are all good genes across the (white) board....

W.LindsayWheeler wrote:

Boy, do we need a little “Classical” knowledge around here!

Unfortunately PF has given up on correcting you, which was our major source for classical knowledge in this thread.

The first business in discussing anything should be philology and words.

Philology can illuminate the current meaning of words. It doesn’t tell you what words do mean or even what words should mean. Believing that it does is a fallacy. “Race” and “ethnicity” are different words and they carry different meanings today, regardless of their respective linguistic histories.

Ethnicity and Nation which have been adopted into the English language come from two different language groups BUT mean the same thing. Then English adopted another word meaning the same thing as Ethnicity and nation===Race ... Ethnicity, Race, Nation, all mean the same thing

Even if all that were true, and it isn’t, we would still need a word to convey the meanings signified by modern English “race.” Since thankfully we already have modern English “race,” we would be wise to keep using it.

There is no French race today; there once was a French race in an earlier period of English linguistic history. Words often change their referents over time, and no one should be disturbed by that fact. 

***

Slavs are NOT European and don’t belong in Europe!

They are European. They already live in Europe. I hope you’re not seriously suggesting that they should be kicked out.

Rnl, a race can be as small as just one person, as big as all humanity, or any of various groupings intermediate between those two extremes.  Common sense will inform the reader of my comments as to the different ways in which I use it, depending on context.

Even if Frank Miller was Jewish, what difference would it make? I shall tell you. None! I watched a bootleg DVD of 300 but I will watch it again in the cinema when it comes out this Friday. Damn! The movie gave me goosebumps. It is VERY
powerful, especially for young people. The fact that it mixes fact with myth makes it all the more compelling. The look of the film is awe-inspiring. Arno Breker would find great delight in the sculptured bodies of the Spartan warriors. The movie openly praises eugenics. The Spartans’ stance at the Hot Gates reminded me of the brave Red Army soldiers who held Stalingrad against the anti-European Fascist beasts. All Glory to Leonidas and Stalin!

Constantin

Ave Constantin, Constantine P. Cavafy has been noted ... just another link in the chain.  The FTs here never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.  Well, as good’ol Goethe once stated, “Tis to folly the betterment of fools!”

Spasibo bolshoi!

“the brave Red Army soldiers who held Stalingrad against the anti-European Fascist beasts. All Glory to [...] Stalin!” (—Constantin v. H.)

1:  No one loathes Bush, his invasion of Iraq, or his war crimes in that country more than I, but I protested over at Occidental Dissent when a couple of regulars (Germans incidentally, and guys whom I respect), who had posted a video showing U.S. soldiers in Iraq being picked off by Iraqi snipers, were snickering, laughing, and rejoicing over it.

You can be an anti-Hitler German without saying what Constantin said above, in the particular way he said it.  An anti-Hitler Russian, yes:  you can say that in that way.  That’s understandable and normal. 

But not an anti-Hitler German. 

There’s something especially disconcerting about it when one reflects, as D.S. suggested we do, on the meaning of the “von” in Constantin’s name.  That “von” in his name doesn’t just confer rank, status, or privilege, but also duty, including duty to uphold certain standards and duty to serve the people and nation in certain ways. 

How far would Count von Stauffenberg go in his opposition to Hitler?  We all saw how far:  he gave his life.  He laid down his life in devotion to his opposition to Hitler but there were things he would not do:  he never said what Constantin said above.  That he never did. 

Giving his life?  Yes.  Saying that?  Never.

2:  Constantin throws around the word “fascist” the way the WW-II Soviets did, meaning “nationalist” as opposed to their own fundamentally diaspora-Jewish ideal of the nationless raceless communityless ethnicityless historyless religionless identityless sovietized robotized worldwide working class of denatured worker ants.  That’s the diaspora-Jewish ideal because under that set-up diaspora Jews don’t feel so “alienated,” so they like it.  It makes everyone else miserable but they don’t care as long as they’re less miserable.  Is CvH sure he wants to endorse that particular Bolshevik outlook?  I am one-hundred-percent certain Normal Lowell rejects it.  (D.S. I don’t know about — I suspect he’s simply not subtle enough to think things through to their implications.  Some tranquilizer pills might calm him down enough to let him do that, high-strung nervous shoot-from-the-hip bluster being no substitute for thought ...).  If the reply will be that the opposition to “fascism” is to the societal/economic policies, not the nationalism, what does the commenter think of the implications of this important Robert Locke piece and Wintermute’s commentary on it, in terms of the possible need for a general reappraisal of, and perhaps rehabilitation of, the German and Italian fascist societal/economic systems?

First to Daniel, who wrote

“...what about mixture between white Americans and white English peoples?

First off, Daniel, “America” is NOT a race or an ethnicity. What you mean by “White Americans” you actually mean European.  I am NOT an American.  I am an European.  America is a false construct.  IT is a psuedo-nation.  It is a Masonic, Enlightenment creation that is man-made.  What America is about is RACE-MIXING.  It is about confusing all things together.

Then RnL who writes the most BS I have ever seen;

“...Once “race” dwindles into ethnic group...”

Where is this said anywhere?  Race dwindles into ethnic group?  Where this is new info for me!  Ethnic comes from the Greek Word “ethnos” meaning NATION.  Nation is synonomous with Race.  How does Race/Nation dwindle into Ethnic?

The Oxford English Dictionary relates its meaning

late Middle English (denoting a person not of the Christian or Jewish faith): via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek ethnikos ‘heathen’, from ethnos[B] ‘nation’[/B].

The Oxford English Dictionary does say “Sub-group” for a Nation though in modern usage.  Shouldn’t that “sub-group” be “Tribe”?

I don’t know what the HECK you are talking about RnL

Or even better, just use “ethnic group” when you mean ethnic group and “race” when you mean race.

What is the difference?  I can find places in the Bible that translate Ethnos in the Greek to Race in the English!!!!  You provide NO authority or quote any Reference or Dictionary material.

I haven’t been on this board for awhile but RnL you are not upfront and you seem to dissemble, you deconstruct, you are subversive.

If one could give an “IQ rating” to the quality of the posts of a thread, this one is in danger of dipping under the triple digit barrier.  Good work guys.

“I’m sorry, ‘American’ isn’t an ethnicity?

What is it....

What am I?”

OK....George Bush is an “American”, Alan Dershowitz is an “American”, and Al Sharpton is an “American.”

Same ethnic group?

“Nation is synonomous with Race. “

Really?

America is a Masonic Creation!  Look at the back of your One dollar bill---IT says, “Novus Ordo Secularum”.  What is the Novus ordo?  Europe is the “Palios Ordo”. (I mixed Greek with Latin there, since I don’t know the word for Old in Latin).  Europe is the Old Order!  The Founders based on the Protestant Milieu of Millenarianism sought to “re-create” their colonies in a “New Creation”.  This milieu melded with the Enlightenment/Masonic order of also, deconstructing the Old, and replacing it with the New.

America is supposed to be a Race-mixing place, a new creation.  It is about Ending Diversity by intermixing all into ONE as the motto says, “E Pluribus Unum”; “Out of Many, One”.  This the methodology of the New Order, the Masonic New Order!  It is part and parcel of the de-nationalism and de-racianation of the Jews.

America is a failed state.  It is NOT organic neither is it natural but a man-made ideological creation; doomed to failure and it has!!!!  Yes, I NO longer consider myself an American and it behooves each and every one of us to return to OUR NATURAL ROOTS---our national European heritage.

America may be a “culture” but not an ethnicity!!!  Ethnos is the same as Nation.  Gnxp, you answer Really to me saying that Nation is synomous with Race?

Race~a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc. ; an ethnic group4

Ethnicity~ the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition4

Nation~a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory4

All from the Oxford English Dictionary!!!  Now, what the Hell are we talking about here?  We say all sorts of things that have no reference to any standard Dictionary!!!  That’s great.

In all the Classical and Religious Texts---Ethnos is translated Nation.  Now how can I understand this term in the Greek when the Modern usage is different from its origins.  Where’s the harmony?  How can anybody read Classical or Religious texts and understand them, when the Modern meaning is different from the one these texts mean?

I read books from Classical Antiquity, from the Medieval Ages and in Modern Times.  How can I understand what Ancient peoples wrote if meaning keeps on changing?  Is there not continuity over 2500 years of Western Culture and Western Civilization?  Are you making up a totally new language divorced from the roots and heritage of Western Culture?  How can I understand Classical Antiquity of Cicero and Aeneas when moderns keep adjusting the meanings of words?

Daniel J, are Scots on average born exactly the same as Poles or are the two born with differences making Poles on average look and act different from Scots and giving Poland a different “feel” from Scotland? 

If they’re not born the same but each with a subtle inborn distinctness different from the other’s — distinctness which will mark the nations of Poland and Scotland with distinct characteristics and “national personalities” — is it right for the E.U. to force Scotland to change demographically from Scottish to Polish or vice-versa? 

If the two races, Poles and Scots, are born exactly the same there’s no change when the populations are exchanged but otherwise there is, and why must they endure these imposed population exchanges?  What are the E.U.’s reasons for forcing them?  What if Scots and Poles like the way they are?  What if they don’t want to change? The E.U. says, “Too damn bad.  You have to change.” Why, exactly? 

Gen. Wesley Clark said that was the underlying reason he bombed Belgrade so savagely:  the forces behind him — his ventriloquists — thought Belgrade preferred to stay itself rather than undergo forced racial change into some other national group, a preference Gen. Clark’s ventriloquists saw as unacceptable:  in the 21st Century under the New World Odor, Gen. Clark’s ventriloquists said, no traditional Euro population group will be allowed to stay itself but all must undergo transformation into some other group and any who resist will be bombed back to the Stone Age as Belgrade was. 

The Jews and Israel are exempt from this obligation because Jews make sure they use their money and influence to keep themselves exempted.  Euros aren’t that smart, so no Euro nation is exempt (and Jews certainly helped see to no Euro nation’s being exempt):  all must undergo demographic change into something else. 

In questioning the New World Odor’s requirement that all traditional Euro populations must change into some other group no one is looking at any marriage between an individual Scot and Pole or an individual Englishwoman and Nigerian Negro. No one cares about that on an individual level.  We are looking at large demographics-altering numbers, what amount to wholesale population transfers mandated by the E.U. and, this side of the Atlantic, Bush.  Bush took the white state of California and changed it from white to Mexican on purpose and the E.U. is trying to change all the traditional nations of Europe demographically.  Was it right for Bush to make California Mexican and is it right for the E.U to make England Polish?

Now if the E.U. gave England a choice between getting changed into Bantus or Poles they’d choose Poles, obviously.  But why must they be given that choice?  Why can’t the New World Odor and the E.U. let them remain Englishmen and why couldn’t the NWO let California remain white?  These are questions our élites refuse to answer.

If one could give an “IQ rating” to the quality of the posts of a thread, this one is in danger of dipping under the triple digit barrier.  Good work guys. -gnxp stinks…

You are right. I’m frustrated and tired… Sorry. I will just lurk for a bit.

Daniel J, thanks for that gracious answer.  Here are my signature slogans, by the way, the ones in red being à propos of my last comment to you:
______

-- “All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”—Enoch Powell

-- Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

-- Balkanization is better than Brazilianization!

-- “The beauty of the most attractive whites cannot be enhanced by the absorption of non-whites among whites, but will be undermined.”—J. Richards

-- The 1965 “It’s Good For The Jews” White Genocide Immigration Act:  the gift that keeps on giving!

-- Diversity is death!—Nick

-- What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the usual suspects!

-- “White fellows fight back and we fight back hard; it is in our genes, being Anglos.”—Andrew

-- Stop genocide!  Long live the Afrikaner Volkstaat!

-- Long live Free Padania!

-- Long live Free Flanders!

-- “The discussion of race and intelligence is being actively repressed on campuses as I write these words. But intellectually, the battle is over: Race realism has won.”—Prof. Rushton

-- “Our concern has nothing one way or another to do with the member of any race or group considered as an individual.  Our concern has to do with numbers, not individuals:  numbers of incompatibles and the policies that bring those numbers about.”—F. S.

-- “General Wesley Clark on why the aggressive war against Serbia was undertaken by NATO: ‘There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.’ That is quite simply the most disgusting thing I have ever heard in my life.  I feel rather ill.”—Steve Edwards

-- The New World Order’s official motto:  “To the extent we can manage to commit genocide, there’s hope.”

-- “The message we’re always given relative to 3rd-world-ization is, ‘Give up, surrender, your cause is hopeless,’ just like war propaganda.”—John Bolton

-- “The male/female game is the game of opposites:  the male instinct is to compete (maximizing fitness) while the female instinct is to conspire (raising the cost of sex, enforcing monogamy).  Applying this simple yet powerful and, most important of all, accurate model, the male instinct is to be racist (because it is males who fight to protect territory and to retain the racial integrity of the tribe), so therefore the female instinct is to be ‘anti-racist.’

“If their behaviour is unlimited, females are capable of, firstly, making their own males into an underclass, for example by their wholesale preference for alien males, as can readily be observed in areas with high immigrant populations.  Secondly, they are capable of taking their race to the brink of extinction if not beyond.” (—Simon Sheppard)

-- “You really have to have been through a total lobotomy not to realize by now that something is wrong.  What words you choose to describe it seems irrelevant — only the act of war as it is presented matters now:  retaliate and defend against it is all that matters now.”—Andrew

-- “General Wesley Clark on why the aggressive war against Serbia was undertaken by NATO: ‘There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea, and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.’ That is quite simply the most disgusting thing I have ever heard in my life.  I feel rather ill.”—Steve Edwards

Wow! I never read that before.... That should be an eye opening comment for some of my “race-neutral” anarchist friends.

People just don’t seem to understand that people that strive to wield power over others have ideologies. They think they are just looking out for special interests, or enjoy the limelight, but the truth is this people-our ‘elite’-our true believers in this insane Utopian fantasy.

I’m afraid for my future. Luckily, my normal career field is very lucrative and if I can just get a couple a’ more good years in before the great economic collapse, which will quickly degenerate into race war (fingers crossed), I should be able to amass enough resources to whether the coming storm. My family (living in the heart of Aztlan in their ‘gated community’) will not be so lucky.

Fred Scrooby wrote:

… their own fundamentally diaspora-Jewish ideal of the nationless raceless communityless ethnicityless historyless religionless identityless sovietized robotized worldwide working class of denatured worker ants. That’s the diaspora-Jewish ideal because under that set-up diaspora Jews don’t feel so “alienated,” so they like it.

Diaspora Jews are hostile to strong nation-states, but they should also fear, I think, anything resembling European Empire. A Europe in which old ethnic loyalties are weakened and a common sense of Europeaness is strengthened could be dangerous for Jews. I don’t mean that as an argument for reducing ethnic loyalties, but only as an observation about Jewish preferences.

Their preferred European state, as A.J.P. Taylor once pointed out, was Austria-Hungary before its dismemberment - that is, a collection of squabbling ethnic groups and competing ethnic interests held together only by state coercion and lines on a map. In that fragmented environment, which Hitler found so offensive, Jewish difference and self-interested activism were normalized, just as they are in multicultural America, which is why most American Jews like multiculturalism and loathe the “white-bread” America of the 1950s.

Were it not for the fact that Muslims dislike Jews, multicultural Britain today would also be an optimal Jewish environment: growing state coercion to inhibit the shrinking majority from complaining about their dispossession; regular celebrations of balkanization ("diversity"); a vision of the (anti-)nation that defines sensitivity (aka capitulation) to minority demands as a core British value.

On the other hand, a pan-European superstate that deemphasized old ethnic loyalties in favor of a common European identity could make Jewish otherness seem like a willful rejection of Europe. Jews benefit from grievance industries and they need loads of ethnic and racial squabbling in order to make their own destructive activism seem normal. A pan-European superstate might deny them that.

So Hoffmeister’s vision, if I understand it correctly, could be bad for Jews. That doesn’t make Hoffmeister right, and we shouldn’t, of course, argue for something just because we believe Jews would dislike it.

Constantin von Hoffmeister wrote:

The Spartans’ stance at the Hot Gates reminded me of the brave Red Army soldiers who held Stalingrad against the anti-European Fascist beasts. All Glory to Leonidas and Stalin!

Please tell us, in normal English and without slogans ("Fascist beasts"), how Eastern Europe benefited from Soviet domination. Don’t tell us that the Germans were bad; tell us how Stalinist Marxism was good. 

Even if Frank Miller was Jewish, what difference would it make? I shall tell you. None!

The suspicion, which Jim Bowery alluded to initially, is that the film could be a timely advertisement for neocon wars in defense of Israel. That’s possible. Anyone who doesn’t believe that Jews use their media power for distinctively Jewish purposes lives in a fantasy world. The URL Lindsay cited earlier is suspicious:

Miller feels that the story of “300” - where a small band of Spartan warriors fend off a vast Persian army in a battle that probably saved modern civilization - still has relevance today, reflecting the struggle in the middle east and the fight of modern society against certain fundamentalist Islamic groups.

The claim that “the struggle in the Middle East” is part of our defense of the West (reduced here to “modern civilization” and “modern society") must reflect either intentional deceit or sloppy ignorance.

The sentence, however, is not a direct quote, and the ideas, if they really are Miller’s, may indicate only someone who suffers from freeper-like gullibility. A traditional American patriot, guilty only of reading too much Mark Steyn, might express himself similarly.

But, as Hoffmeister says, it doesn’t matter. The film is about Westerners confronting non-Western invaders. Some viewers may see a defense of the neoconservative invasion of Iraq, but if they do they will be ignoring the clear structure of both the film and the event it represents. Resisting an invasion is different from conducting an invasion, and fighting a war for your own people and their posterity is different from stupidly fighting a war for the benefit of another people.

***

Here is Stennett, back in his ESU days, discussing Thermopylae; the text successfully appeared on FreeRepublic, surprisingly surviving Jim Bob’s policy of ejecting anything that might suggest “racism”:

The Spirit of Thermopylae
http://library.flawlesslogic.com/spartan.htm

thank you Rnl…

All this crap about America being a creation of the New World Order....

Stop trivializing my History…

Even Jefferson was an ideologue closer to us than the Clintons.

If one could give an “IQ rating” to the quality of the posts of a thread, this one is in danger of breaking all records for exemplary quality.  Good work guys!  Excellent thread!  The IQ level here is very high!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Monday, March 19, 2007 at 11:52 PM | #

Right, Fred, I forgot about all the “creative geniuses” here, it’s a veritable Renaissance, every post a speech of Periclean proportions.

Stop the self-congratulatory crap.  This thread, like most on this blog, has degenerated into a joke.

Anyone know the meaning of the words “quality control?”

Can anyone here quantitate the “tatar” admixture in Russians, please?  What are we talking about, exactly. Does anyone know?

Maybe Sailer can do the following: post a picture of Putin, in thd shadows, rubbing his eyes and stretching them out, side-by-side with a bright-light picture of Chairman Mao, with his eyes wide open in surprise.  Presto, dem Russkis are Asian!

True enough Rosenberg did see elevated Asian in Russians in his genetic studies, but this needs to be more precisely quantitated.

Please don’t think I’m at all saying we don’t need to discuss quantitive genetics.  Of course we do and I’d love to see way more of such discussion here.  I’m merely saying it’s not true that only that should be discussed here.  Lots of other stuff is perfectly legitimate to talk about and not only legitimate, but there’s a crying need for it.  We can and should have both kinds of discussion here, without the non-quantitative commenters getting sniped at or considered “second-class citizens.” Everything we knew of importance didn’t begin with quantitative genetics.

When D.S. gets on medication maybe “gnxp stinks” could borrow some?

“By golly, Fred, you are right.  ‘Joseph Conrad’s novels penned in the late 1800s’ are all we need to conclude that Germans and Poles are different races.” (—gnxp stinks)

Right — that, two eyes, and a couple of synapses between the ears oughta do it.  Science didn’t begin in 1960.  Aristotle figured lotsa stuff out a few years before then.  So did ... well let’s just say quite a few others ...

“Fred, you rank up there as another MR ‘creative genius.’ Certainly, during the next radio program, that should be a segment to discuss for 10 minutes or so - the ‘creative geniuses’ to be found among the commentariat.”

Right, then let’s do the grouchy control freaks.

“Sure!  Conrad novels [...] ‘male and female nostrils,’ and the like.”

Right, stuff like that belongs to the world of anatomy, histology, pathology, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and psychology.  The cataloguing of races, sex differences, ethnocultural differences and so forth didn’t begin and end with molecular genetics.  Gnxp Stinks makes the “clean-slate” mistake of the left:  “nothing of scientific value existed before modern genetics and therefore all assertions of difference, be they sex differences, racial differences, or what-have-you, are laughable superstitions left over from the antediluvian age and total nonsense.  Everyone, every race, and both sexes are considered to be born totally equal until science proves they’re not and until then we plan on forcing the races to miscegenate (not the Jews of course but everyone else).”

“Yes, indeed, questioning the sampling is a good deconstructionist technique.”

It’s the other side’s technique, not mine.

“Really?  I wonder how much of the ‘old bone’ stuff really holds up today.”

All of it.

“too bad Risch showed that the genetic data can be used to cluster into races without any a priori knowledge.  So much for that.....”

Yeah when samples are taken from “geographical areas” we get these patterns but don’t anyone expect to correlate the patterns with any actual individuals “on the ground” who look a certain way, which would be racism:  “Asian”?  Well sure, Tel Aviv and Izmir are in Asia so for all we know the peeps in those cities have slanted eyes, eat with chop sticks, and do the dragon dance on Chinese New Year and people in Shanghai have a menorah at Chanukkah and wrap-around sideburns?  Well yeah, for all we know they do:  Risch’s stuff only took geographical land masses into account, nothing “on the ground,” no actual people or what they looked like.” “But what about that European neighborhood of Hong Kong where all the Brit ex-pats live?  Can’t we say they’re white?” “Well no:  Cavalli-Sforza’s and Risch’s stuff only dealt in the Asian continent and so on — strictly geography — you know, the five major races and stuff — remember that colored map? — so, I dunno, these ex-pats must all cluster with the Asians of the Asian land mass if Hong Kong’s where they live.  Anything else would be to give in to The Patriarchy.”

“And by races, he didn’t mean “Germans” and “Poles.””

Right, only because he didn’t use enough markers.  Use enough and you’ll distinguish them all right.

“Note the relative lack of response when such material is posted here. LOL”

Yeah people don’t like having to wear ear plugs every time they come, what with all your mouthing off all the time for nothing.  (Look, aren’t there anti-grouch pills you can take for that or something? ...)

“Everyone, every race, and both sexes are considered to be born totally equal until science proves they’re not and until then we plan on forcing the races to miscegenate (not the Jews of course but everyone else).”

You’re crazy.  Maybe that’s your ideal, not mine.

“Right, only because he didn’t use enough markers.  Use enough and you’ll distinguish them all right.”

With enough markers you can distinguish two brothers; are they different “races?”

“All of it.”

No.

“ so, I dunno, these ex-pats must all cluster with the Asians of the Asian land mass if Hong Kong’s where they live”

But, they don’t. 

Anyone can willfully disregard data, even real important data like Joseph Conrad novels. 

“I mean, there’s gotta be help for you out there...”

Sure, decreased exposure to this blog.

GN: Some of the work of Neil Risch and Noah Rosenberg (particularly the latter) are online free (do google searches, etc., or search Medline).

That’s a start.  The Dienekes Anthropology blog is a source, although I disagree to a significant extent with some of the emphasis and interpretations of that site.  Still, it’s a start, and provides links (some publicly available, some not) to papers.

Also look at the genetic similarity post put up on this blog a couple of days ago - it has a link to a freely downloadable paper that may be of assistance.

Of course, even more basically, wikipedia articles on “population genetics” and “DNA testing” may be helpful.

There are also a number of companies that sell personalized DNA testing, either uniparental (NRY or mtDNA) or autosomal, and their websites may contain some extra information.

Boy, I wanted a discussion on the meaning of terms to which we use and no discussion of terms and their definitions.  What do I get---Nothing.

We don’t even know what we are talking about.  We use terms with defintions NOT found in a dictionary and gnxp says he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about a dictionry!

You mistake my intent if you think I give a damn what is written in the Bible or a dictionary, or the shifting uses of the term “race” over the years. 

Notice the scientific spirt here---or the lack of one. What does “communication” mean if everyone has their own defintions and keep making up stuff!  There is NO communication.

You don’t have to be a “Christian” to understand that the Bible formed Western Culture.  It was the Luther’s translation of the Bible that FORMED German Language!!!  That the meanings and words in the Bible formed Western Mind.  The Bible is an integral part of Europe!  It has formed European Culture and Law and Art!

All I am asking is the “definition” of terms that are consistent with 2500 years of Western Culture.  The term Ethnos in the Greek used by Aristotle is the same use of the term in the Septuagint---Right?  Then the works of Aristotle formed Western Culture.  What did Aristotle mean by Ethnos?  Clearly, the Vulgate which did form Western Culture---what did it say about Ethnos---did it translate that into the Latin, “Nation”?  We use the term Nation from Latin because the Vulgate was EVERYWHERE!!!!!!  You don’t use any ethnic European language to describe one’s European “state"---we all use the Latin word that comes from the Vulgate!

Now, gnxp, you may be a rabid pagan and a misoChristianos, but let’s be scientifically honest here---The Latin Vulgate of the Bible INFLUENCED Europe, its language, and our concepts of terms!  Let’s have some Continuity of Western Culture.

Another bogeyman---It has been radical Protestantism that allowed the Jew free rein in their countries.  An exception to that rule was in Hungary where Catholicism let the Jew run wild.  In other parts of Europe, Catholicism and the Aristocracy sat and suppressed the Jew.  It was Cromwell who let the Jew back into England.

And onto wintermute: When America only gave the “White” man citizenship--it also gave it to the Jew as well.

So America is a Race-mixing place. It is race mixing when it mixed the English with the Dutch and the English with the Scottish.  That is Race-mixing.  It never made races live seperately--America is about “re-creating” man from a racial creature to, in Pat’s words, a “Creedal” creature.  America is NOT racially based but Creedally, and Ideologically based.  America is NOT based on race but on formal allegiance to certain Enlightenment ideals!!!!  Freedom from Tribal alliances and the effects of race.  Ohh, the FFoA didn’t want to mix with the African but on all other such things--they had no compuction with mixing English with German.

I’m not replying to gnxp stinks because every point of mine which he refers to he misrepresents.  Sorry, I don’t have time for that nonsense.  Let him re-read the points I made and get them right.  The guy seems to have a mind for genetics and an IQ in the moron range for everything else.  Look at his first line:  did I say when the two views conflict I reject the molecular view?  The whole freaking comment is the same:  fucking up what I said in ways so idiotic it must be deliberate. Get new eyeglasses, take your freaking pills, do whatever you have to do to get it right please, then come back and humbly apologize, and if I have time maybe we’ll talk.

Now getting back to something more interesting:  on the subject of interspecies hybrids, a few minutes ago I ran across this by accident:

Blue Whales are rorquals (family Balaenopteridae), a family that includes the Humpback Whale, the Fin Whale, the Bryde’s Whale, the Sei Whale and the Minke Whale. The family Balaenopteridae is believed to have diverged from the other families of the suborder Mysticeti as long ago as the middle Oligocene. However, it is not known when the members of these families diverged from each other. The Blue Whale is usually classified as one of seven species of whale in the genus Balaenoptera; however, DNA sequencing analysis indicates that Blue Whales are phylogenetically closer to the Humpback (Megaptera) and the Gray Whale (Eschrichtius) than to other Balaenoptera species; should further research corroborate these relationships, it will be necessary to recognize the separate genus Sibbaldus for the Blue Whale.

There have been at least 11 documented cases of Blue/Fin Whale hybrid adults in the wild. Aranson and Gullberg (1983)[6] describe the genetic distance between a Blue and a Fin as about the same as that between a human and gorilla. Blue Whale/Humpback Whale hybrids are also known.

Then after looking around a bit, this:

ELEPHANTS
The Asian and African elephants look similar, but are not only different species, they are different genera i.e. each belongs to a different genus, making them even more distantly related). Crossbreeds between different genera is regarded as impossible. On 11th July 1978, an Asian elephant cow called Sheba gave birth to a hybrid calf sired by a 15 year old African elephant bull, Jumbolino. Though the pair had mated several times, pregnancy was believed to be impossible. The hybrid male calf, “Motty”, had an African elephant’s cheek, ears (large with pointed lobes) and legs (longer and slimmer), but the toenail numbers, (5 front, 4 hind) and the single trunk finger were like Asians although the wrinkled trunk was like an African. The forehead was sloping with one dome and two smaller domes behind it. The body was African in type, but had an Asian-type centre hump and an African-type rear hump. Sadly the calf was premature and died of infection 12 days later. There have also been rumours of three other hybrid elephants, all of which were deformed and did not survive.

African elephants are divided into 2 species - the Forest elephant and the Savannah elephant. Though these can hybridise successfully, their preference for different terrains reduces the opportunities to hybridise and they are genetically distinct from each other. The forest elephant (Loxodonta africana cyclotis), considered a subspecies of African elephant, has been raised to species status (Loxodonta cyclotis). Typical savannah elephants have 4 toenails on each forefoot and 3 on each hind foot. The forest elephant typically has 5 toenails on each forefoot and 4 on each hind foot. Both species have 5 toenails on all 4 feet at birth - the number of toenails at maturity is related to wear and tear on different terrain! There are differences in the shape of the jaw and ears. The forest elephant is considerably smaller and has thinner, straighter tusks.

A Chinese safari park has a sub-specific hybrid of Malay elephant x Indian elephant.

RHINOS

A subspecific hybrid white rhino (Ceratotherium s. simum x C s cottoni) was bred at the Dvurkralv Zoo (Zoological Garden Dvur Kralove nad Labem) in the Czech Republic in 1977.

TAPIRS

Hybrid tapirs from Baird’s Tapir (T bairdii) and the Lowland Tapir (T terrestris) were bred at the San Francisco Zoo around 1968 and produced a 2nd generation around 1970.

this

A Cama is a hybrid between a camel and a llama. Born via artificial insemination by scientists who were studying how closely related the two species were. The Dromedary Camel is six times the weight of a Llama, hence artificial insemination was required to impregnate the Llama female (matings of llama male to Dromedary female have proven unsuccessful). Though born even smaller than a Llama calf, the Cama had the short ears and long tail of a camel, no hump and llama-like cloven hooves rather than the dromedary-like pads.

At four years old, the Cama became sexually mature and interested in Llama and Guanaco females. A second Cama (female) has since been produced using artificial insemination. Because Camels and Llamas both have 74 chromosomes, scientists hope that the Cama will be fertile. If so, there is potential for increasing size, meat/wool yield and pack/draft ability in South American camelids.

then this, this, and other articles too numerous to mention.

Notice the two offspring of the cross between the camel (genus Camelus) and the llama (genus Lama) are hybrid offspring of two distinct genera, not species.  So why don’t we say we’re wrong to classify them as distinct genera or even distinct species?  Because we’re not wrong:  if you go that route, next thing you know you’ll be denying species and genera along with races and claiming humans and chimpanzees are the same race of human.  (Note where the article said the genetic distance between the blue whale and the fin whale, distinct species which have crossed several times in the wild, producing viable offspring, was about the same as between the human and gorilla.  Chimps are more closely related to us than gorillas are, yet the greater gorilla genetic distance apparently doesn’t preclude hybrid offspring, at least in the whale world — so what does that say about us and chimps?  There will be acacemics who will actually argue this if they think their ethnic group is benefitted by the associated political implications.)

Interspecies-hybrid salamanders, for anyone who thinks Euros and Negroes “must belong to the same species because mulattoes aren’t sterile.” (Hat tip.)

Interspecies hybrids:

Look at this, which caught my eye just now as I logged onto Wikipedia:

Der Blutspecht (Dendrocopos syriacus) gehört zur Unterfamilie der Echten Spechte (Picinae).  Er ist sehr nahe mit dem Großen Buntspecht (Dendrocopos major) verwandt, mit dem er gelegentlich auch sympatrisch vorkommt und hybridisiert.

This Syrian woodpecker apparently hybridizes in the wild with a different but closely-related species, the great spotted woodpecker.  (I looked up the English version of the article to link to instead, but it doesn’t include the above detail.)

If a Jewish movie-star couple did what Angelina Laide and Brad-the-Pits have done their careers would go into a nose-dive:  I don’t think the Jews who rule Hollywood want to see Jewish couples adopting lots of non-white kids, only Euro couples.  If some Jewish couple got the wrong message and accidentally did it, in the mistaken expectation it would be a good career move, they’d be very surprised when the opposite happened, and their careers came grinding to a halt as punishment.  A Jewish movie star adopting lots of Negro kids?  She can kiss her career good-bye:  the Jews don’t want to see that in Jewish women.  A Euro movie star doing it?  Her career just got guaranteed number-one star status for life:  that’s exactly what Jews want to see in Euro women.