JW Holliday visits a revisit of Ethnic Genetic Interests by David B

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:24.

Two points before I comment on David B’s latest nonsense about Salter’s work.

First, I have not commented on this blog since late July. Therefore, Fred Scrooby, all of those times you confidently stated that a particular commentator was me (e.g., “Freda Scriber”, as well as others) you have been wrong. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

On a related note, I have no interest in participating in this blog, so once this David B issue is dealt with properly, I do not plan to further comment here. Therefore, Fred, if someone sarcastically critiques one of your posts, it will not be me. If it is me, I’ll be sure to state so openly.

JW Holliday

- - - - - - - - -—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DB: “I also take the opportunity now to emphasise something I should have done previously: that differences in gene frequencies between human populations are in general fluid and transitory. Since Salter’s aim is to preserve existing differences, this is fatal to his doctrines. Let us consider how such differences arise.”

I object to David B’s seeming implication that the processes he cites will diminish differences between groups over time, making preservation (“Salterism”) irrelevant. Actually, in the absence of the mass migration/miscegenation favored by GNXP, drift and selection may actually increase genetic differences between population groups. Further, looking at the spectrum of genetic differences that separate groups, rather than just changes in specific alleles, the racial groups that exist today have exhibited significant differences from each other for thousands of years, and will continue to exhibit such differences into the future, in the absence of the panmixia advocated by GNXPers (at least, advocated for Western peoples; e.g., “Jeurasian” fantasies, etc).

Individuals from Europe who had contact with members of other racial groups in, say, the classical world, noticed the same differences in phenotype (which are heritable) that we note today. The same within Europe; in the Greco-Roman world, differences of those peoples with the Germans and Gauls were noted. As discussed by Rushton and others, Islamic scholars of the past commented on the intellectual and behavioral characteristics of sub-Saharan Africans in a manner that would seem quite familiar to a reader of “Majority Rights” today. I am sure that J Richards can tell us of skeletal evidence that demonstrates that racial differences we see today were in existence in the distant past. I am also sure that, if Paabo’s Neanderthal project works, and similar techniques are utilized to assay the autosomal genomes of more recent human ancient remains, genetic differences between population groups that are observed today will also be observed in their ancestors - albeit that the exact extent of these differences may change over time, and certainly not always in the direction of lessened differences, as studies on recent selection suggest.

If Salter’s vision of “Universal Nationalism” comes to pass, there is no reason to believe that there will be any significant diminution of group differences and/or that the genomes of the different races will converge over time. Note as well that, since genetic interest is a relative concept, any degree of distinctiveness between groups, even IF such is less than that of today, will contribute to differences of genetic interest. Even siblings within a family have different genetic interests from each other, certainly, population groups will always have such differences in the future.

Since it is unlikely that any peoples other than that of European derivation will follow the GNXP/Ziv advice of panmixia, then differences of genetic interests will always be an important factor in human interactions, even if one of the major racial groups no longer exists. Others will continue to exist, and those will harbor differences in gene frequencies and, hence, differences in genetic interests from other groups. It may be David B’s fondest wish to so intermix the world’s populations so that no differences in genetic interests exist at the group level; however, such a wish is likely to occur only in Europe, North America, Australia, etc. It is doubtful that the population of China, for example, is going to lose a significant portion of its genetic distinctiveness compared to the rest of the world’s population and, so, the Chinese will continue to possess a legitimate rationale for defending their genetic interests far into the future. Of course though, we understand that the GNXP urge to delegitimize the concept of EGI is not directed toward the Chinese ...

One also wonders how anyone can be so obtuse in general about changes in gene frequency in any given population – which is of course the fundamental point here, since any sort of “convergence” between populations must entail changes in gene frequencies within the individual populations themselves, for the reasons David B stated (as well as one other). Of course, it is impossible for any population group, even in the absence of any migration whatsoever, to exactly reproduce its gene frequencies generation after generation. Besides issues of selection and drift, which David B mentions (as if Salter and others are unaware of them), there is the more fundamental issue of recombination and independent assortment of alleles.

So, yes, even in the complete absence of selection and drift (not to mention migration) gene frequencies will change over the generations simply due to the realities of sexual reproduction. These changes will of course be amplified by the effects of selection and drift. This is all part of nature and Salter certainly is not proposing to alter the laws of nature. More to the point, neither does he propose an absolutely perfect pursuit of genetic interests; he openly states that this is unlikely to be feasible and, perhaps, the most one can hope for is an avoidance of obviously maladaptive policies, such as mass migration, etc. Once again David B is toppling strawmen, for “Salterism” in no way depends on an absolute preservation of gene frequencies from one generation to another, which is physically impossible in any case, for the reasons outlined above.

There is a difference between, on the one hand, processes such as genetic recombination, selection, and drift, which have always operated on humans and will continue to do so, and, on the other hand, the importation of alien ethnies into a group’s territory, resulting the in the replacement of the original ethny and their genetic structures from said territory. That gene frequencies of any group will naturally change somewhat over time is a given, and is built into the relative nature of genetic interests (such change will occur in all groups), does not lead to the conclusion that it is irrelevant whether radically alien genetic structures move into Western territories. If you have a population of German Shepherds living in an isolated territory, one would expect changes in gene frequencies over generations. If this population of German Shepherds was then subjected to the migratory influx of large numbers of Great Danes, with partial or full replacement of the original German Shepherd population by Great Danes and Shepherd-Dane hybrids, then this will also alter gene frequencies (to a much larger degree). Are the two scenarios equivalent? Apparently, the GNXPers wish us to believe so, but it is obvious they are not. Not only is the degree of change quantitatively different (to a significant degree), but qualitatively different as well; in the former case, the population over time (at least in the foreseeable future) will be recognizable as being German Shepherds, and will exhibit a genetic structure characteristic of that breed (even if the relative frequencies of certain specific alleles fluctuate over time). In the latter case we are dealing with quite different genetic structures; Great Danes and Shepherd-Dane hybrids are not German Shepherds either genetically or phenotypically. What about introgression of selected Great Dane genes into the Shepherd population (via limited admixture), if these provide a fitness benefit? See the discussion of the replacement of maladaptive alleles, below. And what if, over a long period of time, selection and/or drift (particularly, strong selective pressures) alter the German Shepherd genepool to a significant extent? Well, then, this is a natural process of adapting to the environment, part of the natural history of all populations. Again, this is quite a different proposition than the replacement of indigenous Shepherd genes by an alien Dane influx.

European derived peoples should see their genetic destines unfold according to natural processes; it is neither “necessary” nor desirable to have these peoples genetically replaced by other groups. Race replacement and indigenous, natural changes in gene frequencies are not equivalent. Likewise, note that families change over time, as older members die and new members are born. This is part of the natural cycle. This does not imply that it doesn’t matter if the entire family is immediately killed off and replaced by others; nor does it imply that changes in gene frequencies between the generations of a family means that family members should disregard the effects of miscegenation in radically altering the family’s genetic structure.

DB: “Moreover, since differences in selective conditions cut across racial or ethnic boundaries, the resulting differences in gene frequencies are only weakly correlated with Salter’s coefficients of ‘ethnic kinship’.”

Actually, the wide differences in racial phenotypes are likely to be at least partly due to area-specific selective pressures, and these correlate, at least on the inter-continental level with “ethnic kinship” – which is why Bamshad stated that functional genes could be used to cluster population groups as well as neutral genes, except that more functional alleles would need to be assayed to result in the same level of resolution. Further, and in some contradiction to Salter’s functional -genecentrism, genetic interests deal with the entire distinctive genome, not just “functional genes” (putting aside the issue that many so-called “nonfunctional genes” may actually have some regulatory functions).

DB: “Pursued to a logical conclusion, the implication of Salter’s concessions is that the ultimate test of whether the frequency of a gene should be increased or decreased is its effect on fitness, not its current frequency within the ‘ethny’. We would therefore be left with the absurd result that the only genes to which Salter’s original doctrine of genetic interests applies are those that are selectively neutral!”

No. The effect on “fitness” is a net effect on the fitness of the distinctive genome. In other words, Salter is concerned with a NET effect on that distinctive genome. Altering the specific “maladaptive allele” itself imposes a genetic interest cost, if the allele in question is population-specific (at least, in frequency). However, if altering that allele results in a net fitness gain for the remainder of the distinctive allele frequencies, then that “sacrifice” results in an enhancement of genetic interests. Obviously, the greater the number of alleles that are so “sacrificed”, the greater the fitness gain required for the rest of the distinctive genome to result in a net gain of genetic interests. Since, as David B puts it, we are just “tweaking gene frequencies” it should be obvious that it will be difficult to justify altering more than a few alleles in this fashion, since diminishing returns will quickly diminish net gains to zero.

To put it another way, it may well be adaptive to eliminate from a population a particularly maladaptive allele (e.g., for a disease). But, if population “X” is more successful than population “Y” for a number of heritable reasons, it is not to the advantage of “Y” to have all their distinctive gene frequencies altered to that of “X”; for the population is no longer “Y”, is it? This is also analogous to the alleged benefits of “highly skilled immigration”; if the natives are being displaced and replaced by said migrants, it is difficult to see how they derive net benefits. One may argue that a couple of Nobel Prize winners may have negligible effects of genetic replacement and may enhance overall group interests, analogous to replacing a single allele. But large numbers of said immigrants impose such a genetic cost on the natives that it cannot be realistically compensated. The same holds for allele replacement in a given population; at some point, the magnitude of replacement results in losses of genetic interest that cannot be realistically be compensated in any manner. This should be fairly obvious to an intelligent reader of Salter’s comments on this manner, but by now we understand that we are not dealing with readers who can be so characterized.

DB: “…pursuit of his ‘genetic interests’ really involves, namely a minor tweaking of population frequencies for alleles which often have no adaptive significance in any case.”

Is genetic replacement of one population group by another simply “tweaking of population frequencies?” If the Euro-American population of the USA were to be replaced by, for example, South Asians, that would entail changes in the frequencies of many genes, both functional and neutral, and the net effect of all these individual changes would be enormous. If one then superimposes on that the fact that these changes in gene frequencies are not independent of one another, and that the correlation structure inherent in such a change is the difference between a Euro-American and a profoundly alien desi, then one wonders at David B’s nonchalant attitude toward all of this. How about stating that replacement of “high IQ gene frequencies” with those from those of lower IQ is just “tweaking” of the gene frequencies and, hence, unimportant? Or, replacing a person’s biological family with complete strangers is just a “tweaking” of the gene frequencies and thus unimportant; if David B believes this, let him be the first to sacrifice his own kin to show us the way.

DB: “The average relatedness between randomly selected members of a population, relative to the gene frequencies of that population, is always zero (apart from sampling error). We therefore should not expect altruistic behaviour to evolve between random members of a population, so far as interactions within that population are concerned.”

That is of course a fundamental point that Salter makes early in his book, which I wonder if David B has actually read. Of course, in reality we live in a multi-ethnic and multi-racial world (and, unfortunately the “West” itself is now multiracial), so there are legitimate conflicts of interest between groups and, hence, legitimate differences of genetic interests between groups. Besides which, as has been pointed out endlessly (but which seems to escape GNXPers), Salter has not written a treatise on the evolution of altruism, and his argument is not connected with “how” and “why” questions, but rather with “what.” He is not explaining human behavior, but stating in a prescriptive fashion what that behavior should be if people wish to behave adaptively. No matter how clear that is in Salter’s book, and how often it is stated, the GNXPers will continuously bring up “the evolution of altruism” and “green beard effects” and the like, even though it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to Salter’s main thesis.

DB: “It depends what is meant by ‘interest’. Salter’s own concept of ‘genetic interest’ seems to me to be mystical twaddle, so I do not believe that parents have an interest in their children in Salter’s sense.”

“Mystical twaddle”, very good. I think “cognitive elitism” is self-serving GNXP twaddle, so we can match “twaddle” with “twaddle.”

DB: “There is nothing to suggest that people usually have any concern for the genetic prospects of their more remote relatives, let alone of random ‘coethnics’.”

Once again David B manifests an inability to distinguish descriptive and prescriptive statements. Whether or not the common moron has any concern for the “genetic prospects” of more distant kin is an issue separate from whether they SHOULD have such concerns.

DB: “Salter’s frequent references to Hamilton seem to me to be little more than name-dropping. There is no real connection between Hamilton’s theory and that of Salter.”

Whether or not that is the case is irrelevant, but agreed that Salter should emphasize to a greater degree the novelty of his arguments and defend these directly. What is relevant is whether Salter’s ideas are valid or not, not whether they can be directly derived from the work of Hamilton, a separate subject which can be pursued by those with an interest in that direction.

DB quotes from Salter preface to the new edition of OGI: “This is an interesting argument, but one made previously by Grafen.”

First of all, it is not an “interesting argument”, and whether this so-called “argument” was made by Grafen or not is irrelevant. First of all, David B seems to suffer from a cognitive deficiency which manifests itself in an inability to distinguish “ethnic genetic interests” from “parental kinship”. Salter emphasizes the latter in his section of miscegenation. Parental kinship, as discussed by Salter, focuses on the genetic relatedness of a specific parent to their specific children, and changes in said kinship resulting from exogamy are compared to the situation which would obtain if endogamy had been practised instead. Thus, exogamy will always decrease parental kinship, and that is independent of losses of kinship of the other parent or whatever changes in genetic interests occur in the wider population. An Englishman who has a half-Chinese offspring will always suffer a loss of parental kinship compared to the kinship he would have had with an unmixed English child.

Second of all, getting back to genetic interests per se, as has been pointed out over and over again, the alleged “fallacy” of Salter is merely a special case of a mythical dreamworld in which ethnies are evenly distributed worldwide and there are no differences whatsoever in migration flows and reproductive rates. In this purely hypothetical “neutral assumption”, David B’s point holds, and, perhaps, Salter needed to state that his thesis in this regard holds for every conceivable human situation except for this particular dreamworld. Very well. As we live in the real world, in which peoples of many races live in the USA, and there are net migratory flows into the West from the outside, David B’s “argument” is merely abstract nitpicking. As far as I know, or as far as anyone can tell, there has never existed in human history a situation in which David B’s alleged “Salter’s fallacy” would hold. There have always been uneven distributions of ethnies, uneven migratory flows, and differential reproductive rates. Again, Salter should not have underestimated the nitpicking obnoxiousness (desperation?) of his critics and should have anticipated and dealt with this asinine “argument.” So, yes, in an unachievable, narrow, specific situation, exogamy would not harm relative genetic interests on a worldwide scale (but always would harm parental kinship), but in EVERY other conceivable situation, exogamy does harm the interests of at least one population group.

By the way, Salter’s section on miscegenation, and indeed the entire EGI concept, needs to incorporate the concept of genetic structure, discussed here previously by several individuals in considerable detail. Salter needs to look further for a broader understanding of genetic correlation structure. Edwards’ criticism of Lewontin is one place to start.

In Conclusion

It is a source of continual amusement that David B actually believes that his highly flawed and illogical “critiques” of Salter in any way “poke holes” in Salter’s thesis. They do not. The more I consider such “critiques” of Salter the more it becomes obvious that the central ideas of Salter’s concept are, essentially, irrefutable from any standpoint other than that of values. Genetic differences exist between populations, and these differences have always existed and will continue to exist (despite processes that alter gene frequencies), as long as given populations are not eliminated through replacement and/or panmixia. Although no one can be forced to value the continuity of one’s group, and, thus, the inherent genetic interests they have in that group, it is a perfectly natural and reasonable idea that such interests should be vigorously pursued, and it is equally legitimate to make distinctions between ultimate and proximate interests. Without its continuity, what other interests are relevant to living organisms?

This, I assume, is “twaddle.” However, if David B believes that group continuity/group kiinship is of no value, it does not follow that others can not believe differently, nor does it follow that living organisms do not have an inherent interest in their own genetic continuity. I may be accused of confusing “is” and “ought” arguments and if so, so be it, but the most defining characteristic of life is its reproduction. The central focus of life as we know it, from bacterial to mammals, is replication/reproduction and one can do worse than to make (relative!) genetic continuity a central foundation of one’s value system. There is certainly no reason to engage in sophistry and illogic in an attempt to delegitimize others’ pursuit of adaptiveness, even if one decides to behave in a biologically maladaptive manner themselves.

By the way, a person who harshly critiques a book is expected to have actually read the book carefully. Stating that an important comment by the book’s author was missed because it was “100 pages into the text” is not a reasonable “mitigating factor”; instead it is sloppiness. Of course, as speculated previously, one possibility is that all of David B’s “technical comments” on Salter did not originate with David B himself, but with another individual who obviously hadn’t bothered to read Salter’s work. That is just speculation, but one wonders.

I would also advise David B to learn some humility and perspective. He labors under the delusion that he is “uncovering” all sorts of insightful points and flaws about Salter’s work – issues that he apparently believes were missed not only by Salter himself but also by Harpending, Hiram Caton, EO Wilson, van den Berghe, Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Anthony Flew, James Bowery, myself (*), and others. No, more likely that David B is simply stating things which are so obvious that all of these people, and others, simply took it for granted that it was understood; for example, that gene frequencies naturally change even in homogenous populations through the generations. Salter may have been mistaken to assume that readers of his work have a grasp of basic human biology; certainly, on a blog in which one of the founders cannot tell the difference between sister chromatids and homologous chromosomes (an issue brought up here previously), one cannot expect biological fundamentals to be understood. Perhaps Salter needs to write a children’s version of his book that may be understandable by GNXPers.

*In fact, my very first post on “Majority Rights”, concerning Salter’s work and genetic structure, openly discussed the fact (known to anyone who has taken any introductory biology course, but, perhaps, not known to those who cannot distinguish “sister chromatids” from “homologous chromosomes”) that gene frequencies in even an isolated population will change over time for no other reason than genetic recombination/independent assortment of alleles. Note that no one started beating their breast screaming “Salterism is refuted” after that, because it is quite obvious that Salter’s work does not require some sort of perfect, absolute preservation of gene frequencies. Only at GNXP do we get people who think that citing a fundamental and basic part of sexual reproduction is some sort of brilliant insight that needs to be passed on to the masses. Further, people at this blog, as well, I am sure, those who “proofed” Salter’s book, are aware of evidence of recent (and ongoing) selection in the human genome. None of this in any way “disproves” the EGI concept.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:05 | #

Thank you for the swan song, and all past services here in our common cause.

I wish you well, and urge you to continue to make your voice heard wherever you are.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:41 | #

I do apologize for that JW, but wait, it gets worse — I thought Robert Reis was you in the beginning. It wasn’t until something like his half-dozenth entry that it dawned on me he wasn’t you posting under a different name.

Sincerely, I’m sorry. Just as sincerely, I express the hope you’ll reconsider, and perhaps resume your participation here.

Thank you for this refutation of David B and his imbecility masquerading as thought.

Incidentally, my vote for the web’s most over-rated blog goes, hands-down, to GnXp. The pen name “GnXp Stinks” was quite well-chosen.

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:04 | #

Where is JW Holliday these days? I showed up here during the JJR fiasco when those two were going at each other like Sicilians at a family reunion. He was more or less gone by then. I’m only familar with bits and pieces of his defense of Salter’s EGI concept. I haven’t read Salter and have no background in genetics.

Does he have a blog of his own? We can’t afford to keep losing people like JW because of shit stirrers and time wasters. If he has issues with some of the authors and commentators here (this ‘David B’ character, for instance), I wish he would set up shop elsewhere; run his own house as he sees fit, exclude those who annoy him, so we don’t lose his contributions. Everyone who wants to read JJR, for example, knows where to find him at Dissecting Leftism.

I see now that Kevin MacDonald is recommending a blog called ‘Occidental Observer’. Jared Taylor should install a blog at American Renaissance. VDARE already has one.

This could be a virtuous process: one groups breaks away from another group, finds a niche, people break away from that group, find another niche, and so on. The end result would be a diaspora of racialist/pro-white/ethnonationalist voices on the web.

People falling out of the aracial mainstream would have an easier time finding alternatives. The anti-white voices could be excluded like pro-whites voices are in the ‘conservative media’ at venues like Free Republic.

Posted by Scimitar on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:18 | #

Individuals from Europe who had contact with members of other racial groups in, say, the classical world, noticed the same differences in phenotype (which are heritable) that we note today. The same within Europe; in the Greco-Roman world, differences of those peoples with the Germans and Gauls were noted.

Now here you are speaking my language. In one of Snowden’s books, exactly which I don’t recall, there is a racial typology comparing Greco-Roman classifications of Europeans and negroes to their eighteenth century counterparts.

They are identitical. Race is nowhere near as unstable as this ‘David B’ seems to be insisting it is.

Posted by GNXP stinks on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:50 | #

I will continue to elaborate on this thread until my objectives are achieved.

David B has apparently not read the section on “Freedom and Adaptiveness” near the end of Salter’s book. There Salter explicitly states that “differential reproduction” within populations (which would of course alter gene frequencies of the population from generation to generation) is required for continued evolution (due to selective pressure, and which would have the effect of altering - in a positive or negative fashion - genetic differences between populations). Thus, not only is Salter not oblivious to changes in population gene frequencies due to selection and other factors, he is openly stating that this is a normal, even desirable, part of the life histories of humans and human populations.

However, what he does also state is that such natural changes in a population is NOT inconsistent with ethnic preservation, genetic continuity of groups, and the pursuit of EGI. What Salter rejects are genocide, destructive aggressive wars, as well as mass migration of alien ethnies. Salter advises us to reject obviously maladaptive scenarios that would result in marked fitness loss; he does not propose a mythical world in which all genetic differences between and within human populations are statically fixed.

EGI is indeed compatible with differential fitness outcomes, changes in gene frequencies, and eugenics - WITHIN a population. It is not compatible with aracial “cognitive elitism” and the importation of “hundreds of thousands” of “skilled Asian immigrants” per year into the USA or any other white majority country. EGI does not reject change within a population, but does reject race replacement. EGI does not reject the important of proximate measures, but says that kinship-based ultimate interests are paramount. EGI is not an absolute and inflexible commandment of genetic inflexibility, but rather an analysis of cost/benefit, related to relative differences in genetic information, to determine the more “fit” biopolitical/social paths that a people should embark upon. One needs to read Salter’s book and not assume that everything that GNXP says about its contents are actually true.

The EGI concept does stand opposed to that which GNXP represents.

Hence, the eagerness of GNXP to grasp at any and all methodologies of delegitimizing the EGI concept.

Posted by GNXP stinks on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:56 | #

Of particular interest is David B’s admission of how his current post was initiated:

“Razib has informed me that Salter’s book is available in a new edition (2006) from Transaction Publishers.”

If I remember correctly, the original set of anti-EGI GNXP essays were themselves initiated by a posting by Godless Capitalist that noted that Salter’s first edition of OGI was out, and asking if anyone had read it.

While David B and others may scoff at, and mock, our interpretation of the extended phenotype model with respect to GNXP’s dynamics, it would seem that GNXP attacks on the work of Frank Salter occur subsequent to concerns expressed (either “onlist” or “offlist”) by Razib or Godless Capitalist with respect to the EGI concept. Thus, David B can be reasonably seen as an expression of Razib’s and Godless Capitalist’s interests in discrediting and delegitimizing Salter’s work. Of course, David B may have (analogous to Derbyshire’s attacks on MacDonald) his own familial genetic interests in attacking Salter. However, without knowing the particulars of that possibility, what can be observed is one individual behaving as an extended phenotype of two other individuals.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:05 | #

It isn’t Salterism the GNXP boys want to attack. If an Indian academic had formulated the same thesis while labouring in the University of Kerala, say, and if there was really no prospect of American racialists picking up the idea, it would all be different. Those brown boys are motivated by ... EGI.

David B is, I believe, English and a patrician liberal. He was a career diplomat, which raises the possibility that he married a dusky maiden while on secondment in some frightful place. Certainly, his focus strays rather often on to the not very vexing question of exogamy and the loss of genetic interests therein.

I will send David the link to this page, just in case he has the stomach for a fight.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:58 | #

Anyone know David B’s ethnicity? At this point in the game that’s a fair question, I’m sorry. (Do we even know he’s white?) There’s something not right in his stubborn refusal to acknowledge race, basing his truly stupid race-denial on 1) clines, and 2) the fact that races can mix (both of which “reasons” also “deny” the existence of everything else, every other category, in the known universe). Species can mix too — so there are no species? In at least one case, genera can. There are no genera, David?

Let’s face it, this is not an acute intellect. He’s been taken on over there and kept around as long as he claps his flippers, balances the ball on his nose, and barks, on cue. A mediocrity such as he could never aspire to the attention he gets over there as their trained seal, he knows it, hence his willingness to function as their mouthpiece as he basks in his celebrity. That’s what he gets out of it. What they get is a phenotype extension — an all-important (in their eyes) white one. (Again, assuming he’s white.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00 | #

GW forgive me, I hadn’t seen your comment just above, in which you answer as to David B’s ethnicity.

Posted by VLC on Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:33 | #

the bison’s EGI is in good hands:

http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/bison.php

Threats

Cross breeding with cattle threatens the genetic purity of bison. The few remaining genetically pure wild bison must be conserved separate from cross-bred bison to protect pure bison genes.

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:11 | #

That arch-liberal billionaire, Ted Turner, would have vetoed any mention of White EGI on his CNN network when he was in charge but he is working hard to preserve the EGI of the bison.

http://www.tedturner.com/enterprises/ranches.asp

Posted by JWH on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:32 | #

The imbecile David B has responded to my refutation. My response below.

“My attention has been drawn to a critique of the above post by J. W. Holliday. I won’t give a link, as the critique is personally abusive, but those who are interested will be able to find it easily enough. I recommend it to connoisseurs of paranoid fantasy.”

After complaining about ad hominem, the hypocrite David B engages in his own. Very good. Any explanation why his original essays on EGI were personally insulting to Salter, which David B himself admitted? I guess when one is an extended phenotype of genetically distant, alien desis, one cannot even really understand one’s own inconsistencies.

“I won’t respond in detail. As a famous philosopher once said, comments on comments on comments (etc) are subject to the law of diminishing fleas.”

He won’t, because he cannot.

“I will however pick up a few points. I emphasised in my post above that differences between populations due to genetic drift will be eroded and eliminated even by modest amounts of migration. Holliday appears to doubt this, but it is a well-established result of population genetics. The strength of genetic drift is inversely related to the size of the population. In a very large population, such as a continental race with a population of hundreds of millions, genetic drift in the population as a whole is extremely slow. Even low rates of migration - say, one in a thousand per generation - would be orders of magnitude more effective in changing gene frequencies. Indeed, subject to certain qualifications, even an exchange of one migrant per generation is sufficient to stop two populations drifting apart. Anything more than this, and the gene frequencies in the populations will tend to converge.”

Uhh..in case David B has not noticed, despite human history being marked by constant large scale migrations, there are large and consistent differences in gene frequencies between populations. What does he consider “low migration?” By “one in a thousand”, I presume he means one alien for every 1000 natives. Thus, in say, a nation of 50 million (a typical European nation, for example), this would mean 50,000 alien immigrants per generation. Newsflash, extended phenotype: a Salterian system is not going to let in 50,000 migrants into any population. If these migrants were orientals, and the natives European, that’s the equivalent of ~25,000 lost child equivalents for EVERY member of the receiving population! In other words, David B is faulting Salter for a situation which WOULD NOT EXIST if Salter’s prescriptions were heeded. Instead, it is David B’s buddy Godless Capitalist who wants “hundreds of thousands” of Asian immigrants per year (much less then per generation). As regards one migrant per generation being sufficient…that’s madness. If the native population numbers in the tens/hundreds of millions, how is ONE migrant per generation going to converge the gene frequencies? If that were true, we’d all be looking like Razib by now.

“Differences in gene frequencies due to differing selective conditions are another matter. Migration will tend to reduce them, but if selection is strong enough some differences may be maintained. I have never disputed this.”

And what level of migration? Again, the lunatic David B is putting forth as a “flaw” in Salter’s reasoning a scenario that Salter’s reasoning says we must not do!

“Holliday assumes that I (or rather gnxp, which in his fantasies has a policy on such matters) advocate ‘mass migration/miscegenation’. “

It is a matter of record, you mendacious extended phenotype, that Godless Capitalist, one of the founders of that blog, advocates large scale Asian immigration to the USA, and both founders, GC and Razib favor a “Jeurasian” mongrelization in the USA. Do we need to dig up the quotes?

“In fact, as I said in EGI1, ‘there are sound arguments against large-scale, uncontrolled immigration ‘.”

What about large scale “controlled immigration?” What about those “hundreds of thousands” of Asians/year? Or how about 1/1000 migrants “per generation?”

“I just don’t think Salter’s doctrines are ‘sound arguments’, and I believe it would be positively harmful to the case for immigration control if it became tainted with Salterism.”

“I don’t think..”

that’s for sure

“I believe…”

his opinion, which obviously is not worth much.

“As for ‘miscegenation’, I gave my considered views on the effects of interracial marriage here. In my ‘Salter’ post on the subject (IMSF) I was simply concerned to show that Salter’s main argument against interracial marriage is a fallacy.”

It is not.

“Holliday concedes that it is a fallacy…”

Liar. I openly state it is NOT a fallacy.

“...but imagines that he can get Salter off the hook by pointing out that my assumption of ‘neutrality’ is unlikely to be strictly true in practice.”

Liar. I say that is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE in practice, and that it has NEVER existed, and NEVER can exist. Pretty convenient not giving the link, eh? So you can continue to lie, mendacious puppet.
My quote:” In this purely hypothetical “neutral assumption”, David B’s point holds, and, perhaps, Salter needed to state that his thesis in this regard holds for every conceivable human situation except for this particular dreamworld. Very well. As we live in the real world, in which peoples of many races live in the USA, and there are net migratory flows into the West from the outside, David B’s “argument” is merely abstract nitpicking. As far as I know, or as far as anyone can tell, there has never existed in human history a situation in which David B’s alleged “Salter’s fallacy” would hold. There have always been uneven distributions of ethnies, uneven migratory flows, and differential reproductive rates. Again, Salter should not have underestimated the nitpicking obnoxiousness (desperation?) of his critics and should have anticipated and dealt with this asinine “argument.” So, yes, in an unachievable, narrow, specific situation, exogamy would not harm relative genetic interests on a worldwide scale (but always would harm parental kinship), but in EVERY other conceivable situation, exogamy does harm the interests of at least one population group.”

“Well, of course. It is an idealisation which simplifies the arithmetic for purposes of presentation.”

In my original refutation of David B’s “Salter’s fallacy” - which of course he refuses to link to - I also used “simplified arithmetic” for the “purposes of presentation” to illustrate that the “fallacy” is a fantasy in David B’s mind.

“But Salter’s own approach remains fallacious even if we relax the assumption. “

It is not. Notice, no explanation of how this is so. I have already explained that in EVERY single possible scenario other than David B’s “neutral assumption”, Salter’s implication on miscegenation and genetic interests holds. Imagine a beach with an near-infinite number of grains of sand all of the same color, and then one - only one - of these grains is purple. According to David B we should concentrate on the purple grain, and ignore the billions of others. It is actually worse than this, because in that scenario, at least the purple grain actually exists. David B’s “neutral assumption” is merely an abstract figment of his (or likely, someone else’s) imagination.

NOTE: David B COMPLETELY IGNORES the main point of the distinction between parental kinship and genetic interests. Exposed as an incompetent, it is again convenient not to link, eh? Please note that Salter’s main point was on parental kinship, which David B studiously ignores.
My quote: “First of all, it is not an “interesting argument”, and whether this so-called “argument” was made by Grafen or not is irrelevant. First of all, David B seems to suffer from a cognitive deficiency which manifests itself in an inability to distinguish “ethnic genetic interests” from “parental kinship”. Salter emphasizes the latter in his section of miscegenation. Parental kinship, as discussed by Salter, focuses on the genetic relatedness of a specific parent to their specific children, and changes in said kinship resulting from exogamy are compared to the situation which would obtain if endogamy had been practised instead. Thus, exogamy will always decrease parental kinship, and that is independent of losses of kinship of the other parent or whatever changes in genetic interests occur in the wider population. An Englishman who has a half-Chinese offspring will always suffer a loss of parental kinship compared to the kinship he would have had with an unmixed English child. “

“But Holliday’s counter-argument is vague and unquantified. “

David B’s “argument” was “quantified?” I must have missed it?

“The effect of any single gene substitution on the degree of kinship would therefore be very small, and would be outweighed by even a modest fitness advantage (of the order of one in a thousand).”

David B’s reading comprehension skills must be real limited, since that is exactly the point I was making. However, I stressed a difference between specific replacement of maladaptive alleles and race replacement of distinctive genetic structures through alien migration. Another strawman propped up and knocked down, eh, David? The reader should look over the post above.
My quote: “To put it another way, it may well be adaptive to eliminate from a population a particularly maladaptive allele (e.g., for a disease). But, if population “X” is more successful than population “Y” for a number of heritable reasons, it is not to the advantage of “Y” to have all their distinctive gene frequencies altered to that of “X”; for the population is no longer “Y”, is it? This is also analogous to the alleged benefits of “highly skilled immigration”; if the natives are being displaced and replaced by said migrants, it is difficult to see how they derive net benefits. One may argue that a couple of Nobel Prize winners may have negligible effects of genetic replacement and may enhance overall group interests, analogous to replacing a single allele. But large numbers of said immigrants impose such a genetic cost on the natives that it cannot be realistically compensated. The same holds for allele replacement in a given population; at some point, the magnitude of replacement results in losses of genetic interest that cannot be realistically be compensated in any manner. This should be fairly obvious to an intelligent reader of Salter’s comments on this manner, but by now we understand that we are not dealing with readers who can be so characterized. “

“It should also be noted that if we replace ‘distinctive’ genes, i.e. those with different gene frequencies between two populations, by genes that have equal frequencies in the two populations…”

Another neutral assumption? Is this replacement bi-directional? If the distinctive genes of one population are being replaced and those of another are not (in their homelands), that’s a net loss for the receiving ethny.

“... in which case the net effect of a gene substitution on EGIs is zero (assuming equal population sizes)...”

Obviously not true. The whole point of EGI is in the distinctive genes. Genes shared by populations in equal frequency are not the subject of EGI considerations to begin with. The issue with say, an influx of alien south asians are the distinctive genes they possess compared to Europeans, not those that are in common.

“...and any fitness benefit of the substitution is pure gain.”

No, if population X loses genetic distinctiveness and Y does not, then in relative terms X loses out. Let the reader figure this out, if white Americans are losing distinctive genes through a south asian influx, while the south asians retain their own gene frequencies.

“But as EGIs are nonsense anyway, I think this is like arguing about whether chimaeras bombinate in the void.”

Right. No, EGIs are not “nonsense”; if they were nonsense, GNXP wouldn’t be getting hysterical about it. No, the problem with EGI is that it threatens the position of David B’s puppet masters, and that’s the big no-no.

“I agree that it is possible to find passages of this kind in his book.”

Too bad David B coudn’t find those on his own.

“The fact remains that the overwhelming emphasis of his doctrine is on defending existing genes and gene frequencies as they are, and he does not (in my opinion) explain why some changes are to be cheerfully accepted while others are to be fought tooth and nail.”

The key point is “in my opinion.” To any literate reader, Salter says that changing specific maladaptive alleles when such would increase overall fitness of the rest of the disttinctive genome is acceptable, but replacement of much or all of the distinctive genome through alien migration and miscegenation is not acceptable. By David B’s logic there is no difference between taking one vitamin pill a day and swalling 50 bottles of pills at the same time. What an idiot.

“If an author were to write a book making a passionate plea for freedom of speech as an ‘ultimate’ and ‘overriding’ value, but inserting sporadic unexplained concessions such as ‘except for libel’, ‘except for obscenity’, ‘except for religious abuse’, and so on, we would not form a high opinion of his or her consistency and intellectual rigour.”

But the over-riding value, liar, was never an absolute, impossible preservation of gene frequencies. The over-riding value is to preserve genetic interests to the extent possible in the real world. And as stated, Salter’s “concessions” are not “unexplained”, but adequately defended in the manner described above, idiot.

Posted by JWH on Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:39 | #

correction:

swalling = swallowing

Posted by Guido on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:24 | #

Pretty convenient that they turned off commenting to that post over there. Can’t keep the sheeple in the dark with all sorts of crazy ideas left by undesirables, can they?

Pathetic, they are.

Posted by fkaa on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:44 | #

It should also be noted that if we replace ‘distinctive’ genes, i.e. those with different gene frequencies between two populations, by genes that have equal frequencies in the two populations, then the negative kinship between the populations will also be reduced. I have pointed out previously that for consistency we should always count negative as well as positive EGIs, in which case the net effect of a gene substitution on EGIs is zero (assuming equal population sizes), and any fitness benefit of the substitution is pure gain.

This paragraph seems incredibly dumb even for Burbridge. It’s wrong in so many ways I don’t know where to begin.

I’m not sure why Burb. thinks eugenics or natural selection would lessen differences in gene frequencies between different populations. Considering the different environments, reproductive strategies, and genetic backgrounds on which selection would be occurring, the opposite seems more likely. For every variant that is universally beneficial, it seems likely there will be several which are only beneficial on particular genetic backgrounds.

Leaving aside that the premise is nonsense, think about what he’s saying here and take it to the logical extreme. As JW points out:

To any literate reader, Salter says that changing specific maladaptive alleles when such would increase overall fitness of the rest of the disttinctive genome is acceptable, but replacement of much or all of the distinctive genome through alien migration and miscegenation is not acceptable.

Burbridge is looking at the question from the perspective of the hypothetical future population with the new gene variant. The actual population benefits not at all from its descendants’ putative “reduced negative kinship”.

Living organisms are interested in perpetuating their genes. They are not interested in replacing genes to maximize the similarity of their offspring to other living things. Would Burbridge genetically engineer his offspring to share their entire genomes with cockroaches? It’s no big deal. They won’t look anything like you, but think of how much “negative kinship” you’ll reduce. See, it all cancels out, and cockroaches are really prolific.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 02:45 | #

“I just don’t think Salter’s doctrines are ‘sound arguments’, and I believe it would be positively harmful to the case for immigration control if it became tainted with Salterism.” (—David B as quoted in JW’s comment above)

1) Harmful? In exactly what way?

2) What, exactly, are David B’s objections to zero immigration of the racially unlike? Exactly what harm would that do to a typical European country’s traditional population? It’s the policy of all non-European countries. Can David B point to the harm it’s done any of them? Japan, let’s say? Or China?

Posted by ben tillman on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:04 | #

The over-riding value is to preserve genetic interests to the extent possible in the real world.

Or to preserve the right of each person, ethny, etc. to self-determination in regard to its genetic structures.

Posted by JWH on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:10 | #

Part I
“It should also be noted that if we replace ‘distinctive’ genes, i.e. those with different gene frequencies between two populations, by genes that have equal frequencies in the two populations…”

Consider this. If alleles at a particular locus (or loci) differ in frequency between two populations how can they be replaced by genes with the same frequency? Does David B plan some sort of enforded panmixia between the groups to bring the frequencies into exact accord? Is this another hypothetica “neutral assumption?” And, if somehow David can wave is “GNXP/Ziv” wand and equalize gene frequencies between two populations, what about the relationships of these two populations (or are they now one population), compared to that of the rest of the world?

David B is also reading too much into the idea of negative kinship. For example, in “Fitness Portfolios II”, Salter discusses how, in a two population model, each population has kinship Fst with each other and -Fst with the other population. Please note that kinship is a measure of genetic interests, and not genetic interests themselves - which Salter specifically defines as the numbers of copies of one’s distinctive genes, which can be amended at the population level to frequencies of said genes, or further amended to discuss genetic information/genetic structure. No matter - Fst (which, by the way, ignores genetic structure and is thus an incomplete measure) is merely a tool for evaluating changes in genetic interests.

David B then goes from this and equates a measure of EGI to being EGI itself and that positive and negative kinships somehow cancel out, from the perspective of any given individual or group.

But, note the Harpending/Salter formulae, and how this works out in reality. From the perspective of any given person/ethny, genetic replacement does not “cancel out so-called “positive and negative kinships” (probably Salter should have used different terminology to avoid confusion) - the effects are additive.

For example, replacing X with Y does not result in a cancellation of kinship differences from the perspective of X. It is a loss of “positive kinship”, so that Fst becomes -Fst and a gain of negative kinship (-Fst). It is not therefore Fst + -Fst = 0, but rather -Fst + -Fst = 2-Fst. See Salter’s calculations on child equivalents. In this case, X is both losing “positive” kinship and gaining “negative” kinship.

Posted by JWH on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:12 | #

Part II

What about David B’s “neutral assumption” here of the replacement being in both populations equally of gene frequencies that are then common to both groups? Note that EGI is an inter-generational concept, since questions of replacement involve future carrying capacity and questions of miscegenation involve comparisons between the genetics of the parental and future generations.

Thus, as fkaa notes, from the perspective of the original populations, both are losing Fst and are not gaining anything. From the perspective of the new, mixed generation, nothing has been lost, for each generation has its own set of genetic interests. But, that’s not the point is it? Genetic interests are forward looking and from the standpoint of the parental generation, an enormous loss of interest has taken place, not “compensated” by the fact that a future generation has no loss (bit, no gain either). That’s why as well, that Salter states, correctly, that a worldwide panmixia would entail a loss for all the original populations equal to the measure of the worldwide Fst. There would then be no further differences at the group level in the new mongrel population, but no “gain” from “lost negative kinship” (a David B fantasy) either. The loss would exist for the original populations and be compensated, from their perspective, by NOTHING.

Posted by JWH on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:13 | #

Part III

Further, I wonder where the “fitness gain” would be from all of this. If equalizing gene frequencies between two populations is beneficial to one of the populations (by moving freqs in the direction of the “better” population), it would obviously be a loss for the other population, who know has seen their frequencies move in a dysgenic direction. So, both populations lose GI as measured by the loss of positive Fst to zero (see Salter’s discussion of Chinese/Korean mating in (Fit. Port. II), with one population possibly gaining a fitness advantage and the other losing. I’m sure the losing population would be thrilled.

All this is more abstraction, pure obfuscation on the part of David B. Salter’s point is to attempt to quantitate the real genetic losses from migration and miscegenation, not consider all possible theoretical models of patently impossible, unrealistic scenarios (and even there, David B’s assumptions are often wrong).

David B just cannot get over the fact that his beloved Asians are imposing costs on others and that Salter’s concepts are not in the interests of those who control David B’s phenotype. That’s too bad, but doesn’t give him the right to cloud others to the facts of each case.

“one possibility is that all of David B’s “technical comments” on Salter did not originate with David B himself, but with another individual who obviously hadn’t bothered to read Salter’s work. “

Not answered by David B. Looking at the original post’s (from several years ago) hysteria about “eugenics”, is it unfair to question if David had any “help” in putting together his essays? And, if so, shouldn’t two names have appeared as the authorship?“It should also be noted that if we replace ‘distinctive’ genes, i.e. those with different gene frequencies between two populations, by genes that have equal frequencies in the two populations…”

Posted by JWH on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:36 | #

Razib:
“But Jindal is not my vision of the brown future. First, he’s married to a brown chick, which doesn’t foster the emergence of a Jeurasian class.”

Of course, Razib was wring about Jindal’s “wife”, as he is wrong about so much.

David B: care to explain how the promotion of a “Jeurasian class” is not the promotion of miscegenation by one of your blog’s founders?

Posted by JWH on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:42 | #

And of course, there are a number of quotes from GC, previously examined on this blog, supporting Asian immigration and race mixing, with the assertion that mongrels will have a better loyalty to America and “rally around the flag.”

More lies and distortion from David B.

Posted by JWH on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:35 | #

By the way, I recognize, and apologize for, all the spelling mistakes in the newer comments, above. I trust the major points are still clear, regardless of this minor errors.

By the way, does Sailer still read this blog? Does he care to explain his recent VDARE column, where he asserts a sizable “European” population in Israel?

I am assuming he refers to the Ashkenazim, if Sailer knows something we do not about Ashkenazi population genetics, can he please share this with us?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:23 | #

“ ‘But Jindal is not my vision of the brown future. First, he’s married to a brown chick, which doesn’t foster the emergence of a Jeurasian class.’ ” (— Razib, quoted by JW, 9:36 AM)

A class is not a nation. It’s not free-standing but stands on a nation. Whose nation is the Jeurasian class going to stand on? Razib contemplates replacing a nation with a class. If he’s going to race-replace a nation he’ll need a nation. What he’s picturing is a type of Brazil. What does the Brazilian working class look like and what race does it belong to? What do the Brazilian and Mexican working classes look like physically compared to their respective élite classes, and how do the working-class/élite-class genetics compare with each other, in both countries? Subcons have for three thousand years thought only in terms of their own personal class and caste, never in terms of nation. They lack that ability. The nation concept is alien to them.

Posted by JWH on Tue, 16 Oct 2007 09:41 | #

“Pretty convenient that they turned off commenting to that post over there. Can’t keep the sheeple in the dark with all sorts of crazy ideas left by undesirables, can they?

Pathetic, they are.”

Indeed. David B is a coward. Note that we have no fear in linking to his “essays”, but he has consistently refused to link to our refutations. Oh, yes, it is “personally offensive” to him. Note that, despite David B’s self-assertion that his original comments on Salter included “vulgar attacks” (e.g., the Dr. Strangeglove reference, among others), Salter himself still discussed David B’s “arguments” in the new edition of OGI (introduction) and provided links to the GNXP articles. We do it (despite having to get around the porn links with GNXP), Salter does it, but for “some reason”, GNXP cannot do it.

“Subcons have for three thousand years thought only in terms of their own personal class and caste, never in terms of nation. They lack that ability. The nation concept is alien to them.”

Good point, Fred. Notice that these “assimilated” desis - who prate and preen about how “American” they are and how “Western” they are - seem to have an inner urge to create an alien caste system in the USA and the West, based on a “Jeurasian” class and “cognitive elitism.”

Speaking of which, when is “silver” going to answer as to whether he believes that “cognitive elitism” is the aracial key to civilizational rebirth?

Getting back to GNXP, note that they typically present themselves as a “race realist” site that “fearlessly” discusses important heritable biological differences among human populations, as well as the genetic realities of race. Lewontin is debunked and Edwards praised. And yet, and yet, when someone like Salter comes along and interjects values into these biological differences and proposes a biopolitical scheme for preservation, GNXP hysterically backtracks and we have David B - without any criticism from all the “Edwardsian race realists” - diminishing the important of human biological variation with all the sophistry one would expect from an advocate of the Gould-Lewontin school.

Given the equation: is + values = ought, one could have expected GNXP to debate the relatively more subjective values part of the equation, as David B stupidly (“life has no interests”) did in his (?) first essay. But the hysteria at GNXP over Salter meant they could not restrain themselves and leave it at that. No, they had to question the “is” part and start the “technical objections” to Salter’s work, making fools out of themselves in the process, revealing ignorance and/or a naked ethnic agenda on the part of the desis.

It seems that human variation is important only when such variation doesn’t negatively impact desi status in America. Once it does, watch the turnaround so quick it is stunning.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:11 | #

I have just read a very interesting account by Constantin of the Jewish demand of Imperial Rome for equality + privilege. This demand is the absolutely mechanical expression of tribal competitiveness. Man does NOT seek equality but unique status, be that at the individual, intra-tribal level (ie, for mate competition) or at the tribal/ethnic level (for genetic interest). Desis in the US today are no different.

Fred is forgetting that Bangladeshis like Razib are Moslem, and Islam is supposedly free of caste. I suspect that Fred is right, and Islam’s famous Umma in the sub-continent is as riven with caste as ever it was in the Hindu times. But the argument needs to made, if it is there - and made by someone with far more knowledge of sub-continental Islam than I.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:27 | #

“Fred is forgetting that Bangladeshis like Razib are Moslem, and Islam is supposedly free of caste.” (—GW)

Excellent point by GW and yes, I did forget that. But as GW says or implies in his follow-up point, the whole Subcon world, dominated as it is by the Hindus, can’t help but be deeply influenced, even in its Moslem portions, by a nationless class/caste tradition/heritage/structure/culture/mentality.

Posted by JWH on Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:29 | #

Please google: “Razib Unz Foundation”

Attempts to obtain further information about the “Unz Foundation” have not been successful, but it would seem a distinct possibility that the “Unz” in question is related to the following:
http://www.vdare.com/letters/ron_unz_question_&_answer.htm

Interesting.

I have a few questions.

What is the “Unz Foundation”, what does it stand for and promote, and on what basis does it give out “fellowships?”

Is this foundation a tax exempt enterprise?

Does this foundation have a website or any other informational material that can be studied (particularly if it is a tax exempt organization)?

Is GNXP directly or indirectly at least partially supported by Razib’s fellowship?

What are the Unz Foundation’s positions - or at least, the positions of the foundation’s founder(s) - on such issues as: white nationalism/separatism, immigration, cognitive elitism, Salter and ethnic genetic interests, ethnic-racial preservationism, constitutional patriotism, the importance of human biological variation, etc?

Does Razib’s fellowship influence the content of GNXP, including the hysterical attacks on Salter?

Does the Unz Foundation approve of their “fellow” having a blog set up so that links from Majority Rights are directed toward an inter-racial porn site?

Does the Unz Foundation approve of the “Finn-baiting” and other often imbecilic and juvenile posts put online by their “fellow?” Is this foundation hostile to individuals of Finnish or other northern descent?

Does the Unz Foundation approve of GNXP’s censorship of James Bowery’s attempts to discuss his hypothesis about autism on that forum? Does this foundation believe that censorship regarding possible causes of that devastating disorder is the right and proper thing to do?

Who and what else does this foundation fund? Where do they get the money to disperse for such funding?

If readers have any further information on this topic, or merely wish to comment on an individual such as Razib - with his and his blog’s animus toward white preservationism - being so “funded”, let us know.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:02 | #

You have to google it with the quote marks only around Unz Foundation, excluding Razib, this way: Razib “Unz Foundation”

The page that comes up lists four sites.

Posted by JWH on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:07 | #

Fred, I meant for you to google it without any ” marks; I used the ” marks just to indicate the phrase that needed to be googled. Just do: razib unz foundation

Also do:

ron unz jewish

and

ron unz white nationalism

Here’s more on Unz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz
Note the Silicon Valley connection (of relevance to immigration and autism), as well as that The American Conservative seems to be compromised.

All very interesting indeed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:23 | #

OK, I scrapped my comment just now, since you have done the same keyboard exercise.

Unz is a standard-issue Jewish race-replacer, as Brimelow tacitly acknowledges - and to which acknowedgment Unz does not respond. It’s clear that his interest in English language teaching is to speed up Mestizo assimilation. He’s anti WN and anti La Raza. In other words, anti-separatism. He wants America whole and mainly Mestizo, it seems.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 01:31 | #

I agree with GW’s assessment of Unz.

Posted by JWH on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:53 | #

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Conservative

particularly the end of the “history” section. Now, why would someone become the publisher of a journal that is ostensibly far to the right of them on many issues? More to the point, didn’t Sailer use TAC to promote his anti-racialist “citizenism?”

I propose the possibility of an Unz-GNXP-Sailer axis (an “axis of evil”, if you will) that views “white nationalism” as the “biggest threat to America” (isn’t that Unz’ view?), and one that believes that racial nationalism can be co-opted by aracial “race realism” and “citizenism” from a “paleoconservative” angle.

We can also consider why TAC wanted Unz as their publisher despite his views. That’s probably another strong indication that “implicit” methods just won’t work - aracial “conservatism” (“but, they are really, really on or side, but are just being ever-so-clever in hiding it”) is in fact exactly what it says it is: aracial. “Citizenism” isn’t “squid ink” or Sailer “being clever” - that’s what he really believes. When paleoconservatives claim they are not “racist”, one should accept that claim at face value. As far as I know, they wanted Unz and now they have him. So much for “paleoconservatism” and the “implicit” “secret racialism” nonsense.

Posted by JWH on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:07 | #

Don’t be misled by this criticism of Unz by Sailer:
http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/unzism.htm

They quibble on minor issues, with Sailer and GNXP preferring a somewhat smaller Asian influx, while Unz, apparently, would like things to continue exactly as they are, demographically speaking.

By the way, anyone catch the hypocritical inconsistency with Sailer? He condemns “Unzism” as defeatist, making the a priori assumption that traditional America is doomed (*). Sailer also asserts that this a priori concession of defeat will be perceived - rightly so - as a sign of weakness, and make things worse.

Of course, the exact same thing can be said of “citizenism.” It’s a defeatist option, making the a priori assumption that Americna whites will not, and can not (**), ever organize on an explicitly racial basis, so one needs to make concessions to stem the white decline. Well, if every other group in America is capable of ethnocentric activism, but whites permanently eschew such activism by adopting an aracial “citizenist” approach, isn’t that a sign of weakness as well? Imagine a MR writer putting together an essay similar to Sailer’s, but substituting “citizenism” for “Unzism” and “Sailer for “Unz.”

By the way, Steve, if Unz is a prophet of decline, why did TAC make him their publisher? And who else is being funded by the “Unz Foundation?”

*Sailer seems to be assuming that this isn’t Unz’s objective all along. How does he know for sure? One cannot assume that everyone shares one’s own perspectives.

**Or is that “should not”, Mr. Sailer? Easy to label as “impossible” something that you do not want to occur and fear that it may.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:20 | #

Unz has a personal fortune of “only” $10 million, which is not considered too impressive in the charitable foundation business. But that depends on how narrowly it is targeted. The estimate is that so far Unz has injected $600,000 into his foundation. That would keep Razib in spice and mustard-oil for a while.

A suspicious mind might well conclude that an Unzite Coalition of the Willing, together with The Realist’s inverted white nationalism, suggests a triangulation in progress. If that’s so, where else would the other side look to re-draw the boundaries for a constituency of awakening white Americans?

Posted by Oliver Cromell on Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:08 | #

Do a little find/replace on Sailer’s “Unzism” essay and this results:

Citizenism would of course alienate African-Americans. But he’s complacent about that. Hispanics, buoyed by legal and illegal immigration, plus higher birth rates, will soon outnumber blacks.

This is in many ways an impressive strategy. Many of the details are admirable. Nonetheless, it’s radically flawed, both as policy and as politics.

Citizenism is analogous to Henry Kissinger’s foreign policy strategy of the Seventies. Kissingerism assumed that American power was in permanent decline. He thus advocated détente as an artful means to manage our decay…. Once he had conceded the key point—that America’s military might would continue to decline—momentum swung catastrophically against us…. The point Kissinger forgot was that when you let people think you’re turning into a 97-pound weakling, they kick sand in your face. Expectations are everything—in foreign affairs, in the stock market, and, maybe most of all, in professional politics.

Sailer has forgotten that too. If the politicos feel that the traditional American voter is headed for insignificance, Sailer’s traditional American policies are likewise dead on arrival. Just as America’s perceived military weakness was central to America’s strategic decline then, immigration is the keystone of domestic politics today…. The smart money is betting that the old-fashioned assimilationist policies of Sailer are doomed - for the precise reason that the old-fashioned white majority that voted for them is doomed….

Now, it’s crucial to understand that in reality whites remain by far the dominant political power in America, just as the U.S. was inherently far stronger than the Soviet Union in the Seventies. Let’s say seven out of ten American residents are white. But keep in mind that voter totals lag well behind population totals. Voters must be citizens and age 18. In general, the highest voting rates are found among the old, the native-born, the English-speaking, and the well-educated: in essence, whites. At present, there is no shortage of traditional voters.

Yet, in America’s domestic politics today, America’s white elites feel the way they did in foreign affairs during the Ford Administration: fated for triviality and morally unworthy of exercising power. The danger is that prophecies of decadence tend to become self-fulfilling. The longer we continue with our present immigration policies, the harder it becomes to change them….

Posted by JWH on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:24 | #

Salter predicts that parents of mixed race offspring may act in the awareness that their genes are now with their destinies entwined with those of an alien ethny, and may therefore act to mitigate conflict between those ethnies. Certainly, the mongrels themselves have such an interest.

Thus, this absurdity:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/NewEnglishReview/2007-10.html

Right -o, Derby. Yes, sir, the Chinese are certainly in big trouble. There are *hundreds of millions* more Chinese in existence today than all peoples of European descent worldwide today. The Chinese will not tolerate replacement immigration - no, they themselves are among the biggest contributors toward race replacement of European-derived nations. China can dempgraphically decline for a very long period and still be overpopulated.

I wonder, Mr. Derbyshire, in light of this “Arctic Alliance”, and to keep the “civilized” white race as intact as the yellow, will the yellows forego immigration into white lands? Will they accept the repatriation of their co-ethnics from white lands - which would have the double benefit of white preservation and stemming the alleged “demographic decline” of the yellow nations?

The grand “Arctic Alliance” can start there, not with words, private conversations between Derbyshire and a Chinaman, or with Derbyshire’s ruminations - but with action: with the yellows agreeing to stop, indeed, reverse, the yellow colonization of white lands.

Once we have that, an alliance is possible. Otherwise, one is hard-pressed to see the difference between yellow, black, and brown, with the exception that the yellows are more intelligent adversaries.

With respect to the topic of this post, it would seem that Salter is right again, if Derbyshire’s twisting rationalizations are indicative of typical behavior of white parents of hapas.

Posted by Crom on Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:35 | #

http://www.courant.com/news/health/hc-leanplate0124.artjan24,0,3105676.story

An estimated 3 million South Asian immigrants now live in the United States and Canada. Studies suggest that this diverse group — with family roots in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh — is three to five times more likely to have a heart attack or to die from heart disease compared with other populations — despite the fact that many of them are at a healthy weight by Western standards.

Research hints at other ethnic differences. African Americans seem to be at much greater risk of high blood pressure compared with other groups. The Pima tribe of Arizona and other Native American peoples have soaring rates of type 2 diabetes, a condition that also is two to five times more common in Hispanics than in non-Hispanic whites.

The culprit appears to be the way fat is accumulated. South Asians, as with some other ethnic groups, tend to pile on more fat around the middle even though they are not overweight by Western standards. Differences such as these are prompting some international health groups to adjust their screening tools by ethnicity.

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments