The Ten Commandments of Race and Genetics. Not.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, 20 July 2008 22:32.

I will begin with a confession. I haven’t kept up sufficiently with the growth of bioethics in American colleges. I seem to remember a few years ago reading about the setting up of special “bioethics” departments. MR touched upon the issue here.

Hardly surprisingly, our take on it then was that the liberal-left and Jewish ethno-centric reactionaries were instituting a strategy to control any damage that genetic science could do to the lovingly-constructed lie of “Race Does Not Exist (and if it does, It Does Not Matter)”.

Ten days ago Stanford University came forward with a portentous set of “Ten Commandments” on race and genetics. The Stanford Group of, yes, ten not overly Jewish hard and soft science folk issued it in the form of a letter. There have been many responses to it, but not much that I’ve seen from the radical end of the market. So I thought I would pitch in.

The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics

Statement 1: We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity
The equality of rights of all human beings is an unquestionable, moral claim that cannot be challenged by descriptive, scientific findings. As a normative commitment, equality is fundamental to our conception of human rights, and is not open to debate. Classification by racial and ethnic categories has, at particular moments in history, been used to further racist ideology. In view of concerns that linking of emerging genetic data and race/ethnicity categories may promote racist ideologies, we emphasize that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically ranked categories of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, we abhor any use of genetic data to reinforce the idea of between-group difference in order to benefit one group to the detriment of another.

Let’s rewrite that. All seats are created equal. Discrimination against a comfy settee because it doesn’t perform well on shooting expeditions is seatist and against the all-conquering morality of Seat Rights. Intolerance of any design of seat is intolerable. And will not be tolerated. Obviously.

Well, I’m sorry to be flippant. But, really, how is one to react when ten learned men and women adumbrate for months over their supposedly seminal and morally Olympian task and come up with … that trash. Frankly, I am embarrassed even to have to take it seriously for the purposes of this response. There is no ethics here, just tenured Nazoid fantasy.

The simple response to give, of course, would be to state that equal treatment under the law is all any person or group requires or deserves. Oh yes, and maybe make it clear that equality is not a moral value at all, never mind an unquestionable one. It is, in this present context, a rank refusal to measure Man, made for the purposes of maintaining a political deception.

First impressions have turned out to be right, and bioethics is revealed precisely as the deceitful, faux-moral left inveigling itself into the scientific process to still-birth inconvenient findings. But no matter. Knowledge is far superior to, say, wealth redistribution or culture war, and this garbage is nothing better than anti-science.

In 1927 Carl Schmitt wrote in The Concept of the Political “Ethical or moral pathos and materialist economic reality combine in every typical liberal manifestation and give every political concept a double face.” For “economic“ substitute “racial”, and observe the two-faces of liberalism - the claimant to high principle and the wilful wrecker of our European life.

Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population
Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries. Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution. This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.

Well, thank you very much. I think! But let’s get it out in the open, shall we? Do two Icelanders have more DNA in common with yeast than with each other? Perhaps. But it doesn’t matter, because Icelanders are Icelanders and yeast is yeast. What matters genetically is what makes one an Icelander and the other only yeast. Or Han. Or Bantu. Difference is what matters. Difference is what we value and understand, and live to advance. Difference is the product of adaptivity, without which there would be no science, nor would there be Man, nor life.

Evolution and reproduction, and the combination of the two in natural selection, are the great tricks by which life arose and clung on in the margins. Who can say how many hundreds of thousands of times it was generated, only to disappear again before these tricks were incorporated within? Denying their value, and the value of the distinctiveness which they engender, is more than anti-science. It is anti-human, anti-life. Until recently, the scientific Marxoid left did exactly that. But now it has to admit that it can’t get away with it any more.

But, golly, you can see that it’s not happy.

Statement 3: We urge those who use genetic information to reconstruct an individual’s geographic ancestry to present results within the broader context of an individual’s overall ancestry
An individual’s ‘geographic ancestry’ or ‘biogeographical ancestry’ can be taken to mean the sum of all the geographic locations inhabited by an individual’s biological ancestors. Often, however, genetic data reflect just a small subset of these ancestors. For example, knowing a person’s Y-chromosomal lineage is at best a partial view of an individual’s ancestry. We note also that in some cases individuals’ or groups’ self-identification differs from their biogeographic ancestry, depending on a range of historical, cultural and sociopolitical factors. We see value in recognizing both biogeographical and cultural ancestry that underlies an individual’s and group’s identity, particularly in the context of addressing health disparities.

But does anyone anywhere, never mind in the genetic sciences, actually think that human populations do not migrate or “interact” - meaning war, pillage, rape, enslave, and trade with one another, and otherwise get the proverbial leg over? No. So how about asking the question: “To what extent, on average, is a person’s history written only in his or her genes.” Ample data exists to determine hereditarian and environmental causalities in the main disease groups. Would the Stanford Group welcome clarity on that, I wonder?

I suspect the social scientists would not, and the hard scientists, being liberals still, would hedge quite a bit before quietly saying “yes please”.

Statement 4: We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time
Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual’s full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. Diverse populations identified as ‘Hispanic’, for example, are heterogeneous and have distinct ancestries and social histories. We recognize that social experiences and conditions inform racial identity, making such identity a poor proxy for genetic ancestry.

But that isn’t an argument for anything - certainly not for denying the reality of the “diverse” European genetic heritage or not distinguishing it from “Hispanic” or black, which is what this political bullshit is all about. Race is lineage. Race is kinship. European lineage and European kinships exist. Sociologists, however, are merely social constructions. They should all urgently breed with those genetically slippery “Hispanics” and then dispassionately observe the (always, of course, non-existent) ethnic consequences.

Statement 5: We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores, tendency towards violence, and degree of athleticism
Among the most pervasive and pernicious claims of genetically determined traits are theories on the racial ordering of intelligence [21,22]. Despite the weak scientific basis for such ordering, the consistent return to the rhetoric of racial hierarchies of IQ reflects the powerful role that science has historically played in promoting racist ideologies [23]. Current evidence suggests that for most complex behavioral traits, contribution of any one gene to normal variation is small and these traits may be more fully explained by variation in environmental factors.

We therefore caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in a complex behavioral trait, where environmental and social factors clearly can and do play major roles.

Again, does anyone in the genetic sciences currently think that only genes determine all behaviours and abilities? I would doubt if there were any. That said, the degree of genetic determination in these things is certainly not yet known, and it is begging the question as much to presume that it is negligible as it is to presume that it is absolute.

The Stanford Group’s insistence on “much more complicated interactions” bespeaks a desire for negligibleness. It is just as political as any race-realist “trying to use genetic differences …”

So what can one say at present? Well, correlation is not causation - for now. The DNA for “differences in intelligence, violent behaviors or the ability to throw a ball” await discovery. But do those differences correlate with lineage and kinship? By golly, yes. So let’s shout it out in those terms and see what evidence the racialist-left can summon up in its own defence.

Not much, I think.

Statement 6: We encourage all researchers who use racial or ethnic categories to describe how individual samples are assigned category labels, to explain why samples with such labels were included in the study, and to state whether the racial or ethnic categories are research variables
A first step towards preventing the use of science for racial stereotyping is careful consideration of the use of racial and ethnic categories in the initial design of research. Researchers can assess the purpose and impact of using racial and ethnic categories in their research and investigate whether alternative approaches would be appropriate. The editorial boards of several flagship scientific journals have issued publication guidelines to their authors on the use of ‘race’ in reporting research findings.

This one earns a flat “No!” Researchers should be fearless about using groups when they design experiments. The spirit of the scientific mind lies entirely in the purity of its quest for truth. Nothing - nothing - should stand in the way of that. Not a Marxised liberalism masquerading as scientific “responsibility”, and not any highly intelligent ethnic minority strategising for its own all too well understood interests.

Statement 7: We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group
Although a broad range of associations between genetic markers and human traits - including diseases - is emerging, any accompanying correspondence with race or ethnicity is statistical.

Although certain relatively rare genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs, are found in higher frequencies in some human populations, the result of population bottlenecks or environmental pressure, these diseases are also found in other populations.

Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior. Such essentialism is particularly dangerous in clinical translation, where a focus should be maintained on the individual rather than the group.

The function of medicine is to save lives, not to serve low political interests. Left racialism should butt out of the saving of lives, and let the men and women whose honour and privilege that high calling is do the job to the best of their abilities and with the best tools available, genetic or otherwise.

I would add that the long-established field of medical ethics is limited to the competence and probity of the profession, and is, or should be, an important form of patient protection given the vulnerability of us all in illness. Ethics are not self-evidently political. In terms of genetics research, it is entirely ethical that the scientific method should be enough. Forcing a political preference upon research is itself unethical.

Statement 8: We encourage the funding of interdisciplinary study of human genetic variation that includes a broad range of experts in the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences
Common human behaviors and diseases result from the interaction of genetic, cultural, linguistic, economic, social and behavioral factors; genetic differences underlying behavioral or health status differences between groups are especially difficult to identify. Medical research is most likely to be successful when genetic studies proceed in tandem with studies of environmental and behavioral factors that include geneticists, epidemiologists and social scientists as members of the research team.

Any public sector document which begins with the statement “We encourage the funding of …” has to be treated with the sort of caution one might extend to a large and very hungry boa constrictor, especially if the snakes are political and ethnocentrist.

Personally, I don’t believe the day will ever come when a left-racialist sociologist throws his or herself into the work of life-saving. If they sincerely wanted to do that they would wouldn’t be left-racialist ideologues. The real agenda is here, and it’s ugly.

Statement 9: We urge researchers, those working in media, and others engaged in the translation of research results to collaborate on efforts to avoid overstatement of the contribution of genetic variation to phenotypic variation
Scientific data are often quickly politicized and incorporated into specific policy agendas without extensive explanation of the scientific research and its details. Often lost in the announcement of scientific findings is discussion of the limitations of the research. Our hope is that scientific data about human genetic variation might undermine spurious popular beliefs about the existence of biologically distinct human races and beliefs that support racist ideologies.

What, they mean like the Lewontin fallacy, or Gould saying “Repeat it five times before breakfast. Equality is a contingent fact of human history.”

But no, they don’t mean that. Because they have absolutely no problem with ethno-strategisers like Lewontin and Gould deceiving the goyim. Their problem is that the deceit will be found out by good science, and we will get to hear about it and turn down their invitation to quietly die.

But at least here the agenda is nakedly presented. The last sentence is a completely plain outpouring of leftist neuroticism. Suddenly there are no “biologically distinct human races”. All over again. Whatever happened to the “geographically-defined populations” of Statement 2?

Ah, but this is the internal battle between the bio boys and socials in the Group. The bios had to be given their little bit of recognition in Statement 2, such as it was, before the socials bit back.

Bu they’re all in total agreement really. No, really.

Statement 10: We recommend that the teaching of genetics include historical and social scientific information on past uses of science to promote racism as well as the potential impact of future policies; we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and programs for secondary and undergraduate education
Education is critical in providing both the foundation - basic scientific literacy - and the historical context through which to understand human genetic variation as data from studies are released. We believe that expanded public education at all levels will enhance understanding of human genetic variation and interpretation of any correspondence with categories of race and ethnicity. We recommend that the teaching of genetics include what we recognize today as past uses of science in promoting racism. Finally, we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and educational programs that focus on the social impact of scientific discoveries as well as the impact of social values and beliefs on the conduct of science.

Let’s re-write that one, too. Any high school or college student learning about genetics should also learn about the criminal attempts from Boas and Montague right up to the present to distort science and make ready the way of what I’ve termed the Four Horsemen of the European Apocalypse …

Marginalisation, Displacement, Dispossession and Deracination.

All biomedical scientists and social scientists should agree to respect scientific truth above all political and ethnic interests - always. They must never misrepresent the races of Man as an accidental and unimportant collection of fundamentally identical individuals. That is a travesty of Man’s mighty history, truly the Reductio ad absurdum of left-racialism, and it is unacceptable.

If the biomedical scientists and social scientists of the Stanford Group and their fellow travellers genuinely care for all peoples of the World, as they doubtless claim, let them assign an equal right to Europeans to live free and at peace among ourselves, as we wish to live. Let them do what the UN General Assembly did not do last September, and admit to the definition of oppressed indigenous peoples our European people.

If they will not do so, we are free to bring them to the bar of public opinion to explain why the four horsemen have been loosed upon Europe‘s children, and why our resistance … our desire to live is, apparently, not ethical.

The Stanford Group letter concludes with a conclusion, a particularly boring one, actually, that I don’t recommend you to read. But the last sentence - the closing thought - is this:-

... this statement looks to shape future use of categories of race and ethnicity in biomedical research.

It’s good to know that we immoral, unethical, unacceptable racists - we happy few! - are important enough to warrant such attention from the fevered and the enslaved and the merely tenured. But I don’t know. This document has about it a cry of anguish in defeat. These people told us for years that “biologically distinct human races” do not exist. Evolution stopped at the neck, and you’re a Pygmie’s uncle. If you thought otherwise, you could be turned into a hate object quicker than Franz Boas could count to 17,000 (believe me, he had a way of doing it extremely quickly).

But that bubble has been burst by the genome. All the big claims, the big lies are over and done with. All that’s left is this sort of crisis management. They are weak. We plainly have the opportunity to be strong.

Tags:

Comments:

Posted by Reiv on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:59 | #

[A related exchange. R.]

Re: [e-l] ‘Ten Commandments’ of race and genetics issued

quote: No genetic data has ever shown that one group of people is inherently superior to another. Equality is a moral value central to the idea of human rights;

ams: And that is the central absurdity of it all. Liberals themselves seem to hold the position that equality before the law is based on the presumption of biological equality. Thus, what should be a purely empirical question—do people have the same genes or not?—is repositioned as a “moral value.” It would be as though people who lived before Magellan sailed around the world argued that the flat earth was a “moral value” and that no one had actually sailed “around” the world to disprove it, while ignoring all other contrary data. In the case at hand, while specific genes that contribute to human inequality may not have been firmly identified, phenotypic inequalities with mearsurable heritabilities, sometimes quite high heritabilities, have been observed and measured repeatedly.

Quote: Those that share the same culture, language or location tend to have different genetic variations than other groups.

ams: *Except* for genes that contribute to differences in human abilities—those genes are exempt from inter-group variability; and that is an article of faith which, if you express doubts about, you are immoral and heretical.

quote: This is becoming less true, though, as populations mix.

ams: That is an assumption, but recent evidence indicates that different populations are continuing to move apart genetically at an accelerating rate.

quote: Studies looking for health disparities between individuals shouldn’t rely solely on this identity.

ams: Just as they should not rely “solely” on the patient’s family history; but does tnat mean his family history should be ignored?

quote: Social definitions of what it means to be “Hispanic” or “black” have changed over time. People who claim the same race may actually have very different genetic histories.

ams: Yes, they *may*, but usually not. And including “Hispanic” in this example is highly misleading. “Hispanic” has never referred to a race. That would be like using “Americans” as an example of a race.

quote: Trying to use genetic differences between groups to show differences in intelligence, violent behaviors or the ability to throw a ball is an oversimplification of much more complicated interactions between genetics and environment.

ams: No, it’s not, geneticists do not oversimplify; they do not say “genes only explain behavior.” A total straw man. And isn’t it interesting that when social scientists or others really do resort to environmental explanations unmodified by genetic considerations that no one ever accuses the environmental determinsts of “oversimplification” or warns us against using environmental differences between groups to explain differences in intelligence or behavior?

quote: Researchers should be careful about using racial groups when designing experiments

ams: Because it might result in unwelcome discoveries!

quote: Overemphasising genetics may promote racist views or focus attention on a group when it should be on the individual.

ams: Because their ideological obsession with the fiction of racial equality is their primary concern, not your health.

quote: The study of genetics requires cooperation between experts in many different fields

ams: I don’t disagree with this statement, but I do note that they never say this about the study of the social sciences, even though it is no less true there, and even though interdisciplinary contributions that includes genetics is far more lacking in the social sciences than the other way around.

quote: Oversimplified science feeds popular misconceptions

ams: Yes—the popular misconception that “all men are created equal.”

quote: Genetics 101 should include a history of racism

Any high school or college student learning about genetics should also learn about misguided attempts in the past to use science to justify racism.

ams: Because misguided attempts to ignore or distort science in order to suppress popular knowledge of racial differences has been much more common and much more successful, it is far more important for students to learn of those attempts in their genetics classes.

quote: The Stanford group didn’t always agree when coming up with these ideas. Predictably enough, the biomedical scientists tended to think of race in neutral, clinical terms; the social scientists and scholars of the humanities argued that concepts of race cannot be washed clean of their cultural and historical legacies.

ams: Yes, because political activists long ago infiltrated the social sciences and humanities with the goal of acting as Marxist “change agents.”

quote: But both groups, according to the letter, recognise the power of the gene in the public imagination and the historical dangers of its misrepresentation as deterministic and immutable.

ams: Once again, what about “the historical dangers of” misrepresenting environmental influences “as deterministic and immutable?” That has been far more common and its consequences far more severe, yet, as usual the social scientists and humanities professors exempt themselves from scrutiny.

—ams

==========================================

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:46 | #

The only kind of white people that would go along with “The Ten Commandments on Race and Ethics” are liberal-racial-egalitarians whose god is liberalism itself, or the malicious-Europid-hating Jew. Furthermore, it takes a great deal of self-deception to deny racial differences…especially when evedence of the senses, in normal thinking people, can perceive and clearly identify those differences.

The following essay should be required reading before anyone sets eyes on the PC trash being promulgated by the “Stanford Ten.” :-

The Genetics of Race
Common sense is a better guide than liberal myths.

by Harold Stowe

http://www.amren.com/ar/2006/07/index.html#cover

Posted by Maguire on Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:18 | #

“The following essay should be required reading”

I was once required to take an effective writing course as part of professional development. The instructor hated the passive voice with a passion since it assigned no responsibility. Rewriting this sentence to meet her standards we could derive:

1. “They should make the following essay required reading.”
2. “We should make the following essay required reading.”

Number 1 is clearly not on the table. “They” made the New Ten Commandments required reading instead. “They” are not going to work at cross-purposes to their goals. Therefore we are left with Choice #2, “We”.

In order for us to enforce such a rule it’s necessary to first have control of a learning institution. Creating an institution is more practical and less costly every day. But this action runs into the well known fact the typical ‘aware’ white man would rather sit back and whine on the internet. In my experience the tendency towards this preference rises to 100% the closer the aware white man concerned is or was an academic teacher.

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:05 | #

“In order for us to enforce such a rule it’s necessary to first have control of a learning institution.”—Maguire

True, but everyday life is the learning enviornment. And for now, Internet sites such as MR, AR, etc., serve as the learning institutions we control. In fact, sites such as this one are invaluable. It’s where we learn from one another by exchanging ideas.

“We” must define/label those that consistently criticise or diminish the importance of the EXCHANGE OF IDEAS at MR (or any similar sites for that matter) as counterproductive antagonists.

Posted by danielj on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:31 | #

Sociologists, however, are merely social constructions.

Hooray!

Posted by GT on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:40 | #

Maguire,

In order for us to enforce such a rule it’s necessary to first have control of a learning institution. Creating an institution is more practical and less costly every day. But this action runs into the well known fact the typical ‘aware’ white man would rather sit back and whine on the internet. In my experience the tendency towards this preference rises to 100% the closer the aware white man concerned is or was an academic teacher.

FYI:

Criticism of easy online racialism is one idea among the many EXCHANGES OF IDEAS taking place at MR (and similar websites) that certain people will not tolerate. All ideas, except for ideas not liked by this group, are to be accepted as equally valid. Please avoid introducing ideas that require testing, implementation, leadership, and the assumption of personal risk, and ideas which indict certain people for failing to break the cycle of endless discourse. Endless discourse DOES NOT indicate mental illness or character deficiencies. Rather, it demonstrates a love of ideas for the sake of ideas alone. DISCOURSE IS WAR, you see, no matter if it takes place among the inmates in the psychiatric wing of a prison hospital or on the marginalized fringes of the Internet. All criticism of discourse is ANTAGONISTIC, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, and marks you as a rude, crude ANTI-INTELLECTUAL dimwit and barbarian.

Understand? Good. I expect more intellectual ego-scratching and circle-jerking out of you from this point on.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:23 | #

Have you got a concrete project you’re working on, GT? How far along are things?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:44 | #

I mean, if the people at this blog are so hopeless, you must by now, in your great and commendable zeal, have rounded up far better prospects. Can we have the latest news? The Amish have something very like what you envision and have had it in Pennsylvania for two hundred and fifty years. Are they ready now to challenge the Jews, do you think? Hey maybe they are, I’ve been out of the Amish loop a while. The Branch Davidians had the beginnings of something like it, and so do these ultra-weirdo Mormon polygamous groups, like the ones in their sprawling compound down in Texas who just got themselves raided by the feds and some three hundred of their children confiscated and the leaders in jail awaiting trial. None of those outfits look like they’re ready to do much challenging of the powers-that-be and get away with it but, ya know, I prolly don’t read as much newspapers as I should, haven’t kept up with the latest developments. Maybe you could fill us in a little.

GT I hope you don’t mind some teasing as above; you have a valuable point of view but, you know, it gets tiresome and abrasive the way you keep condemning this site’s bloggers and commentariat. We could condemn and ridicule you in corresponding ways but we don’t. Why not give your views an ongoing airing and give the endless condemnation of “easy online racialism,” etc., a rest?

Posted by Maguire on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:59 | #

GT,

>>Understand? Good.<<

Got it.

I was only led to comment because .357 mentioned making the essay “required reading”. I assumed he meant “required” in a structured educational setting similar to the “Ten Commandments” that GW discussed. This caused me to explore strategies that could translate his proposed reading requirement into an enforced educational reality.

I wouldn’t have said anything had he originally proposed the essay for purely passive voluntary web surfing, mainly by pensioners long past their child raising years. He subsequently amended himself to indicate that, which is fine.

Maguire

Posted by GT on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:06 | #

There are philosophical and concrete dimensions to the project, Fred. The endless discourse of the “discourse is war” brigade has met the condemnation of easy online racialism. Is it tiresome? It offends some and raises the consciousness of others.

Why not give your views an ongoing airing ...

My views have been aired from the beginning.

... and give the endless condemnation of “easy online racialism,” etc., a rest?

It’s “mete,” Fred.

50 years of “discourse is war” on one side of the White nationalist zeitgeist and dysfunctional behavior on the other is quite enough.

Posted by GT on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:22 | #

“The Amish have something very like what you envision and have had it in Pennsylvania for two hundred and fifty years. Are they ready now to challenge the Jews, do you think? Hey maybe they are, I’ve been out of the Amish loop a while. The Branch Davidians had the beginnings of something like it, and so do these ultra-weirdo Mormon polygamous groups, like the ones in their sprawling compound down in Texas who just got themselves raided by the feds and some three hundred of their children confiscated and the leaders in jail awaiting trial. None of those outfits look like they’re ready to do much challenging of the powers-that-be and get away with it but, ya know, I prolly don’t read as much newspapers as I should, haven’t kept up with the latest developments. Maybe you could fill us in a little.”

We have, Fred, but you haven’t paid attention or are acting disingenuously. 19th century technology and commune living has not been recommended – although certainly these are within the range of choices.

Posted by GT on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:25 | #

Maguire,

I was only led to comment because .357 mentioned making the essay “required reading”. I assumed he meant “required” in a structured educational setting similar to the “Ten Commandments” that GW discussed. This caused me to explore strategies that could translate his proposed reading requirement into an enforced educational reality.

I wouldn’t have said anything had he originally proposed the essay for purely passive voluntary web surfing, mainly by pensioners long past their child raising years. He subsequently amended himself to indicate that, which is fine.

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:46 | #

GT,

Until you have acually accomplished something ..or can show proof any kind of success with your “philosophical and concrete dimensions to the project” (LOL), you lack the bona fides to “mete” out anything to anybody. Got it?

P.S.

Wiring diagrams of a kiln that any first year electrician apprentice can design don’t count as an accomplishment.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:18 | #

One of your mistakes, GT, lies in not recognizing that development and exchange of ideas is action. Development of and exchange of ideas isn’t “doing nothing.” Were it otherwise, for one thing, people wouldn’t be getting thrown in jail for it. People who develop and exchange ideas are engaging in action.

Also, development and exchange of ideas doesn’t preclude other action. You behave as though it did; as though you want it to end so that the other kind of action may begin. It’s not keeping the other from beginning. Something else must be.

You seem to think there’s been enough talk and no more is needed. It’s a rare subject that could use no more analysis.

You criticise “easy online racialism.” Is “racialism” wrong to talk about? No, so that can’t be what you object to. Is it that it’s being talked about online? Presumably not, so the “online racialism” part isn’t the problem. How about “easy”? Is that the rub, the fact that it’s easy? First, it’s not so easy. It’s hard to figure some of this stuff out. But even if it were easy, why would that be something to criticise? Is being easy bad? So in the expression “easy online racialism” I don’t see which part is objectionable. Is it that racialism, that is, what some call racial reality, shouldn’t be expressed? Or shouldn’t be expressed online? Or shouldn’t be expressed if it’s easy (which it’s not — it needs a lot of reflection, a bit of knowledge of biology, a sure moral sense, and steady nerves)?

Also, discussion of racial reality online (“online racialism”), whether “easy” or hard, doesn’t preclude setting up microcommunities and a barter economy. The two activities are orthogonal to one another, as the expression goes: neither hinders the other, so if microcommunities and a barter economy aren’t being set up it’s not because there’s discussion online of racial reality whether hard or “easy.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:28 | #

“It offends some” (—GT)

Not me. I find it without a clear meaning, probably wihout merit, and its constant repetition in the way you do it increasingly abrasive. Not the same thing as being offended.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 15:44 | #

In this comments thread Dienekes (who, by the way, generally tilts what in common parlance is called “left”) tries to explain to a Jewish asshole, “Victor,” and to a Basque asshole, “Maju,” why they’re both assholes but they still don’t get it.

(It’s the comments thread for this Dienekes log entry which deals with the same subject as the present MR.com log entry.)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:31 | #

Different color twins born in “Germany.”

“The odds are one in a million, say doctors, but it can happen with fraternal twins due the genetic soup in our backgrounds. Peter Propping, former director of the Institute for Human Genetics at Bonn University, told Die Welt that the black mother may have had some white ancestors, or that the white father may have had black ones. Very occasionally, the roll of the DNA die may cause the baby of biracial parents to inherit only the genetic coding for one color.”

The question here isn’t the twins’ colors but why this German man was brainwashed by U.S.-led post-WW-II race-replacement propaganda into marrying a Negro woman.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 01:08 | #

Yup ...

“anyone who uses quotation marks around racial or race is a graduate of Indoctrination U.” (—Cyd the Kid, comment number fifty-something in the thread for this Dienekes log entry)

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:57 | #

For those with some French, here’s a video illustrating some of the problems with the idea of racial integration. For those whose French has seen better days, watch the beginning anyway, to see how closely the silouettes of the Sub-Saharan’s head, face, and jaw in the video’s first sequence (showing two Sub-Saharans being interviewed) resembles Homo erectus (note particularly the striking smallness of the brain-case silhouette compared to the largeness of the face and jaw).

The video’s last two screens in French say this:

Globalization, immigration, multiracialism, race-mixing ...

Destructive utopias orchestrated by the élites, forced on the people against their will.

Let’s put a stop to all this!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:02 | #

In that first sequence, that’s the Sub-Saharan in the foreground I refer to, who displays those obvious H.-erectus-like characteristics, not the one further away. The one in the foreground moves, so it’s a little hard to see, but if you pay close attention you’ll see them all. Look for the small brain case.

Posted by GT on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 05:14 | #

Fred,

One of your mistakes, GT, lies in not recognizing that development and exchange of ideas is action.

Rehashing 50 years of failed or non-implemented ideas is not development. It is intellectual masturbation and useless as pounding sand. Development requires modeling, testing, and revision. Easy online racialists don’t test. They repeat failed ideas and send money to others.

Not me. I find it without a clear meaning, probably wihout merit, and its constant repetition in the way you do it increasingly abrasive. Not the same thing as being offended.

I won’t stop offending easy online racialists, Fred.

——

Mr. Johns of Onlooking .357 magnum fame,

Wiring diagrams of a kiln that any first year electrician apprentice can design don’t count as an accomplishment.

Clearly you haven’t the intelligence to realize that your public persona is that of a kid with a terrible inferiority complex and chip on his shoulder.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:35 | #

“I won’t stop offending easy online racialists, Fred.” (—GT)

Just to get this out of the way, let’s be clear that the main target of GT’s constantly repeated “easy online racialism” gibe is me, my commentary here. He doesn’t come out and say that for some reason, but I’m it, the chief one he’s after with that (at this blog, at any rate; certainly, according to things he’s said, there are others at other blogs who bother him the same way). He’s sick of reading my comments, really sick of it, and wants me to shut up with what I generally say, and switch to either saying nothing or limiting myself to talking about the purely practical aspects, the practical “nuts and bolts,” of how to go out “in the field,” with “boots on the ground,” and set up real live microcommunities and a real live barter economy. He wants me to shut up or be a rural community organizer for his planned pathway to independence for our people — either that, or stuff a sock in it. That’s fine, he’s got his views, I’ve got mine. As for where he declares, “I won’t stop offending easy online racialists, Fred”: I’m not offended, absolutely not. I find his constantly repeated attacks abrasive, not offensive. But by all means abrade away, GT. I assure you I’m not offended.

“Rehashing 50 years of failed or non-implemented ideas is not development. It is intellectual masturbation and useless as pounding sand.” (—GT)

GT is referring mainly to me in that comment but is trying to be polite so doesn’t “name names.” All I’ll say in reply is, again, he has his notions of what takes place at this blog, including my commentary, I’ve got mine, and we can agree to disagree on that. I’ve been commenting here almost from day one, and among readership who are generally on our side, about half have had negative reactions to my style, some of them strongly negative. “Gongstar/Nux Gnomica” for example, and there’ve been not a few others. Because of that I’ve considered shutting up and limiting myself to reading, without posting comments. But each time I’ve been persuaded that enough readers have found my stuff helpful to justify continuing. So here I am. (I guess I can’t really accuse GT of being abrasive when many who are on our side find my stuff way more abrasive, or of being repetitious with “easy online racialism” when I’m far more repetitious with “forced race-replacement.” But hey it’s OK because he and I are abrading/boring different segments of the readership! If they were the same segments we’d have no readership left, so thank God they aren’t!)

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:52 | #

GT,

Clearly you have the public persona of a hot-headed loser.

Face it GT. You never accomplished a thing. You lack the ability to create any ‘real life’ accomplishments of value.

Also, given the fact you come on this site and ONLY TALK about ‘grand ideas’ (or losing propositions, IMO) such as microcommunities and bartering ... that in itself, by definition, classifies you as an “easy online racialist.” Therefore, GT, you are not only a hot-headed loser, you’re a hypocrite to boot!

Now go somewhere else and bake a brick! ... that is when you get finished with your life’s most ambitious project: that of fabricating a small kiln.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:21 | #

The Jewish press celebrates the adoption of a white baby by a Negro.

This is not good. No matter how loving the Negro dad will be, this white baby will be introduced into the Negro world growing up, which will prove to be a nightmare for it, and very likely a real threat to life and limb for it (jealousy on the part of Negro kids makes them abuse, torment, and seriously injure white kids who find themselves in a Negro milieu). I wonder why the Jewish press doesn’t see that? Or maybe they do? Maybe they like it and want more of it to happen, more nightmares for the goys? More goy payback?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:02 | #

Lush, fertile Haiti should be a tropical paradise exactly like Hawaii, overflowing with abundance. But because it’s peopled by ... well, you now what ... it’s starving and a general hellhole.

But see, that must be wrong because these are the people the Jews keep telling us need to be brought into our country in ever greater numbers (wait, wait, NOT into Israel in ever greater numbers, just HERE — JUST HERE, NOT INTO ISRAEL! Get that straight before we go on) need to be brought into our country in ever increasing numbers in order to make it more vibrant, the people the Jews from Alon Ziv to Michael Eisner to Abe Foxman to Ben “Race-Replacement-of-Euros-Gives-Me-Orgasms” Wattenberg to you-name-it, if it’s Jewish it tells us it, constantly say Euros must intermarry with to get healthier, smarter, physically more attractive children than they’d get from marrying among themselves, and especially, most important of all in the eyes of sex-obsessed copulation-oriented Jews like Alon Ziv, to give Euro women the far, far, far superior orgasms they can obtain only from Negro men (wait, don’t Jewish women want those great orgasms too? Or are their vaginas ... different somehow?? How come so few of them are shagging, marrying, and bearing the babies of, Sub-Saharans these days??? Shouldn’t Alon Ziv and Abe Foxman be getting on that, finding out who’s depriving all these Jewish women of all these fantastic orgasms, all these smarter, healthier, and better-looking mulatto Jewish babies, and all these so-much-more-vibrant Negro husbands???).

Posted by .357 (Dave Johns) on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:52 | #

“Lush, fertile Haiti should be a tropical paradise exactly like Hawaii, overflowing with abundance. But because it’s peopled by ... well, you now what ... it’s starving and a general hellhole.”

Amazing isn’t it ? But it was all too predictable.

I’ve also liked the comparison between Haiti and Iceland.

Iceland, originally a frozen wasteland, was transformed by people of northern European decent into a first-world civilization. On the other-hand, Haiti which WAS a tropical paradise overflowing with abundance, was transformed by negroes into a ‘fourth-world’ chaotic wasteland.

Even in the face of such glaring contrast of outcomes, the liberals (led mainly by ____) continue to bleat on that “race is only a social construct.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 27 Jul 2008 19:12 | #

“Iceland, originally a frozen wasteland, was transformed by people of northern European decent into a first-world civilization. On the other-hand, Haiti which WAS a tropical paradise overflowing with abundance, was transformed by negroes into a ‘fourth-world’ chaotic wasteland.” (—357)

Memorable lines. Too bad they can’t be worked into some Wikipedia article (where they’d last long enough to define the newest unit of time shorter than the “femtosecond” — call it the “wikisecond”).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:10 | #

Thursday ten Negroes gang-raped and robbed five brainwashed Dutch females ages 17 to 26 who were in the town of Kakamega, Kenya, taking part in a humanitarian aid project helping to construct a school:

http://www.fdesouche.com/?p=4956

Who brainwashed these girls/women to think they could be alone as a group among Negroes without armed white men guarding them against sexual attack? (They were “guarded” during the night in question by two Negro night watchmen who apparently colluded in the gang-rapes.) Who brainwashed them to think they could be safe that way, the Catholics? The Jews? Who? Whoever did is guilty of being an accessory to the crime.

They’re god damned lucky they got away with their lives and without being horrifically beaten, maimed, disfigured (assuming they weren’t — the article doesn’t say).

One can only hope these five, at least, have learned their lesson for a lifetime, although bitter experience with how these things generally go almost dashes that hope in advance (often they don’t learn but insist on excusing the Negroes on grounds of disadvantaged upbringings, lives filled with poverty and racism imposed on their African society by the evil European peoples, etc. You actually see Euro-race women, victims of horrific rapes by African Negroes, excuse their rapists in this way, and shift blame onto whites for “oppressing Africans, making them into rapists.” Or they blame “men” or “the Patriarchy” instead of blaming Negroes. There was one famous case in South Africa exactly like this: white bimbo, actually someone well known in South Africa as a liberal writer or journalist or something, I forget what exactly, got gang-raped by a bunch of Negroes, then blamed, not the perpetrators, but whites for the way they treat Negroes. In her eyes the perpetrators were innocent. Whites, especially white men, were guilty.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:17 | #

Antigua Negroes shoot young British doctor and her husband on their honeymoon, killing her, critically wounding him.

It happens that the murdered Welshwoman’s cousin “had vowed never to return to Antigua after taking his honeymoon there five years ago.” The cousin and his wife had “felt Antigua was too violent. They didn’t like to go out at night.” Afterwards the cousin said he would never go back there and he didn’t feel safe there.

The cousin didn’t say this (not that the Guardian reported, at any rate), but all of that is because there are lots of Negroes in Antigua. This Guardian article won’t come out and say that, of course, though the editor responsible for it surely knows the truth too, knows it perfectly. So the hypocritical Guardian lets unwarned British tourists go to their deaths in places where there are lots of Negroes — which includes most U.S. cities, by the way: Antigua isn’t the only tourist destination Negroes have rendered extremely dangerous for whites to set foot in. And if the Jews and ex-communists are allowed to get their way, every city in Europe will end up in the exact same degenerate racial condition: Homo erectus sp. and Homo erectus interspecies hybrids, when present in large numbers, are not compatible with a civilized existence for whites unless kept under strict control, which of course becomes impossible where lots of Jews love nothing better than to excite Homo erectus sp. against European peoples and hinder their measures taken to protect themselves.

The woman killed by the Negroes was Dr. Catherine Mullany, née Bowen. She and her critically-wounded newlywed husband Benjamin are from Pontardawe, near Swansea, south Wales.

“Dozens of pictures of the Mullanys’ wedding day, on July 12, are posted on the social networking site Facebook. The photographs show the couple getting married at a church before celebrating with friends at a reception. Catherine Mullany, who studied at Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, listed her interests on the website as sewing, cooking, reading and gardening.”

Why did this young woman doctor, this newlywed on her honeymoon, have to die? (Are the Jews and ex-communists happy now?) Ask yourselves that, any people reading this who haven’t yet thought this matter through to its brutally honest conclusions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:29 | #

“They’re god damned lucky they got away with their lives and without being horrifically beaten, maimed, disfigured (assuming they weren’t — the article doesn’t say).” (—my comment a couple above)

It also doesn’t say if they got away without being infected with AIDS — which won’t be known for some months yet. There’s a good chance they were infected, of course. Thanks to ... (I’ll let the reader decide that).

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:17 | #

Just one dimension of the myriad adverse effects a certain demographic element has on U.S. cities:

Then there are the comments about the pernicious effects of “suburban sprawl” and “long car commutes,” and that “people would rather drive than use mass transit.” How about some honesty, please? “Suburban sprawl” exists because of “white flight” (i.e., ethnic cleansing of whites from the cities) – as the coloreds made increasingly large areas of urban and near-urban suburban American unlivable for, and off limits to, white Americans, the atomized whites, unable and unwilling to act collectively for their racial interests, ran further and further away from the urban centers where they work. Hence, the “suburban sprawl” – whites flee, get chased by coloreds, and then flee farther and farther away – and the consequent “long commutes.”

Recent news stories about how “white flight” is ending or being reversed miss the point. First, the decentralization of city life, and the “long commutes,” that have resulted from “white flight” are now an integral part of America ’s infrastructure, and it will be many, many decades – if ever – before any significant changes take place that would significantly impact the link between race, location, and energy consumption. Second, the “gentrification” that is supposed to represent the “reversal” of “white flight” is actually just another manifestation of that flight itself. Now that the coloreds have followed whitey to the suburbs, and are in the process of destroying those suburbs and making them unfit for civilized living, and given that the “sprawl” has just about reached its practical limits, the whites have started to run away from the colored suburbs back into the cities – to some limited degree. But, of course, the outcome of this is inevitable: once certain suburban areas become Detroit-like wastelands, and once certain “gentrified” city centers improve, the coloreds will follow whitey back to the cities, causing whitey to flee back to the suburbs again. That is – if the energy economy exists at that time to allow such mobility. If not, whitey will need to actually make a stand…or, more likely, fade away to nothingness.

And why are whites reluctant to use “mass transit?’’ Can it have anything to do with the fact that mass transit ridership is very “diverse,” and that one can often find news stories of whites being harassed, attacked, and even killed by non-whites while attempting to use trains and/or buses?

If the E.U. is permitted to get its way, the above will be a description of every European city and country.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:36 | #

The husband of the Welsh doctor whom the Negroes shot to death is now reported to be brain-dead, the bullet which the Negroes fired at him having lodged in his brain. So, the Negroes have killed both these newlyweds on their honeymoon vacation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:05 | #

Look at the joyous wedding photo of this fine-looking couple who, when it was taken on the 12th of this month, had only days to live before they were both horrifically gunned down and killed by the Negroes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:36 | #

I just happened across this Racial Reality log entry from October: the folk of the Yugoslav mountain ranges are said to be Europe’s tallest race.

Posted by JBB on Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:15 | #

what punishment should the sinner who committed this research get?

Racial groupings match genetic profiles, Stanford study finds

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/sumc-rgm012705.php

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:08 | #

Look what this woman, this beauty queen and successful television reporter, this star who could get any man she wanted, goes and gets herself. She could have anyone, any white man in the country. Look what she chooses. And look at the kind of person he is, not just his exterior. Can it be fathomed?

Notice how, when this topic is broached, no woman ever steps up to offer a view of how this sort of thing can exist. Far from ever offering an opinion of how white women who can do far better engage in these sorts of low pairings, women limit their role to warmly praising the interspecies couple.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:30 | #

Newlywed Ben Mullany, from a small town in Wales, has died of the bullet wound to his brain, shot by Negroes. In the Negro attack he also suffered a broken leg and fractured skull, indicating this former British Army soldier and former policeman received his death-wound attempting to defend his slain bride and himself against Negro attack.

Little did the couple know, the day this wedding photo was taken a few weeks back, that they had only days to live before their lives would be snuffed out by the Negroes.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:00 | #

Why do people want to go on vacation where there are lots of Negroes? Can anyone on Earth figure that out? Generally, where there are lots of Negroes, you want to go in the opposite direction.

Is that mean to say? What’s meaner, not saying it and having people get killed, or saying it and having people live?

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments