Category: Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity
I’m turning this into a main post as I’ve put some careful thought into it and it seems trolls will try to bury it:
Hi MOB, don’t worry about Carolyn being advertised here. She has her niche and we have our direction which is not competing. Therefore, it is not necessary to give her inadvertent advertising in a staple of critical attention to her efforts.
“Without respectful recognition of the uniquely remarkable role played by Hitler and the Germans in the seemingly insurmountable struggle against Jewish world domination, you lose considerable substance and credibility.”
I never said that Hitler and the Germans were not unique and remarkable, nor that their focus on the J.Q. did not merit assimilation - particularly in the sense of prioritizing Jews as a concern and seeing the necessity to separate from them.
I did not say that we should reject everything about Hitler and the Germans - especially not the Germans, of course (and congratulations, I suppose, on drubbing Brazil, even if you do have an N, a Turk, an Arab of some sort, and a half Pole on your team). It is rather that we are not going to ignore and pretend the negative side of Hitlerism did not exist. Nor will we say that he was unique in being wise to the J.Q. or that he handled it in a uniquely effective way. It is clear that is not nearly true enough. *
If people come to MR and say, hey, you know, Hitler had such and such an idea right, I would not turn them away if it is coming from one who is not trying to promote Hitler as correct and worthy of our loyalty across the board - as Carolyn does.
We would not exclude an idea simply because Hitler held the same, nor for that matter just because Jews or Christians may have had similar thoughts on a matter. It is that we cannot endorse these world views on the whole as their drawbacks are too great.
Our agenda at MR is no mystery: we are here to advocate people of native European descent. As such, we would like to look upon peoples of native Europeans as a classificatory whole with subdivisions. The whole and the subdivisions to be maintained and fostered as ecologies symbiotic within and between each other.
In response to Katana, I will add this:
The term “White” is not especially problematic and works especially well in combination as “The White Class.” However, there is a danger in being too simple with “White” as a blanket term. “White” can be too unsophisticated in particular as it is susceptible to include Jews while excluding authentic Europeans. As we all know White is a more American term. It is better to ask Americans to be inconvenienced to drop it (especially since the country is going down in terms of our interests) than to ask native Europeans to drop the designation, “European.” It is a better strategy to resurrect “European” as meaning, “of native European extraction.” It is more descriptive and provides better grounding all around than “White”. Even for Americans it should be the better term in the long-run. Though again, I do not have a big problem with “White.”
I will draw the line on the contention that I am speaking in tongues when I insist upon an ecological and classificatory view.
Classification represents the mediation between Cartesian extremes: assertion of social classifications is what has been deprived us (Whites/Europeans) and what we need to restore (as a matter of coherence, accountability, agency and warrant, as I always say – lets add operational verifiability).
More, the view of ecological classifications is particularly important as it directs attention to systemic depth, patterns, historical relations as naturally conservative aspects of our evolution and relation to natural environment.
This class of classifications of native Europeans, the White Class, classifies, primarily not hierarchically but horizontally, between peoples, and discriminates accordingly. With especial vigilance to the European/ non-European distinction. With that, unlike Hitler’s world view, the maintenance of all native European peoples and their distinct nations should fall within our interest group - we should not be fighting each other for territorial acquisition, to establish a master- slave relation, whatever.
We do not see Jews as a part of our interest group; but as a distinct pattern averse to our interests.
It is problematic that there are some who are not harmful to us, perhaps even helpful; nevertheless, they do not fall within our interest group. An individual Jew who may be different from the pattern is still classified as a Jew - a non-European.
Nevertheless, it is our agenda to separate and have sovereignty from Jews, and other non-Whites, not to exterminate them. That confers the moral high-ground upon us and theoretical innocence. Even as we know, in fact especially as we know, that they are not likely to simply leave us alone (note the trolling of Thorn, et. al - why don’t they go away? need to ask?); this position is particularly important to maintain in assertion of our will to peace, cooperation and warranted defense as it may come to declared war (instead of the undeclared war as it now is).
What to do about quarter Jews and one eighth Jews (as Lenin apparently was), is also problematic - not a simple concern.
However, MR is sufficiently nuanced to address these problems in our posts and commentary. That is among our merits - we are clear but not too simple.
We have a hermeneutic view, which circles between scientific rigor and comprehensive imagination as need be - particularly regarding our interests.
As for MacDonald endorsing Greg and Counter-Currents, I think that is proper on a couple levels. First, Greg is publishing some good and sincere work on our behalf. Second, that people not let anti-homosexuality override the good work that he has done and can do. Though coming from a more scientific perspective, MacDonald has a view regarding homosexuality that is largely aligned with what I see as reasonable - critical, discouraging, but not shrill, because it is not numerically sufficient a draw for our men to prioritize as a staple of concerned attention either.
Finally, they do have that kindred Nordic entering point that I’ve discussed, in addition to a bit of academic snobbery going on. KM and Johnson are PhD’s and scholars. Their drawing lines around that has valid and invalid points, good and bad sides.
As maintained, their scholarly and professional standards can always be pointed to against those who say that we do not have that on our side. More, it is not merely an artificial line. They are gifted and skilled to examine the literature and issues in an in-depth and competent manner.
However, it does have its drawbacks.
The mannerly protocol of professionalism binds them into logics that can be insensible.
For example, they will not use the “N” word because, they say, that would turn-off soccer moms among other “intelligent” and “educated” people.
But they will openly court those who fully endorse Hitler, as if that will not turn-off intelligent and educated people.
That is the kind of absurd and insensible contradiction that sheer logic and professional interface with the respectable public is susceptible to.
MacDonald and Sunic maintain that the only stereotype to avoid for White Nationalists is the vulgar skinhead. I have maintained that the wimpish (or yes, faggy) nerd, who will not say “N”, could be equally a turn-off. In advocating our group interest, they are insufficiently “othering” people who should be “othered” and over “othering” people who should not be “othered.”
There might be some susceptibility to that in Germanophiles or Nordicists as they may resort to their logical abilities in transcendence and to focus on themselves in relation to Jews (an over focus on the most intelligent and formidable adversary indeed, but conferring an undue measure of benign innocence on other non-Whites; while unduly pejoratizing other European peoples); as Germanics and Nordics have not evolved in interface with Africa, but in antagonisms with other Europeans and Jews; they escape there, take cover in not being “prejudiced” against blacks; allowing other Europeans to take the brunt of black reality. It can be a logical perspective which, for its insensibility, leads to an unmeasured narrowing of prejudice and overcompensating response. This might only be compounded by Christianity, Hitlerism and Jewish incitement.
For my part, when a person uses the N word in an intelligent way, with proper context, it does not turn me off, but tells me clearly that this person has sense, knows what they are talking about, organizes matters properly. That will resonate for others as well.
The largest reason why I do no use it here is because it is my understanding that it is literally illegal in some European nations. I am not an agent provocateur trying to lead people to jail, fines or other limitations on their effective advocacy.
I am not a “Professional.” That gives me some advantages and disadvantages. It does illustrate that I am not the all conquering world beater, who can succeed in just any circumstance - a man whose ability and will carried him to a PhD even in America’s multi-cult hell hole. It also means that I am not so insensible as to carry on by dint of sheer logic, “rise above” and ignore what I should not. I did embark upon a PhD, but I cannot say that I regret not contributing to America’s multicultural hell hole or not saying anything sufficiently critical of it - contributing to it or not saying anything critical of it having been two requirements to go ahead in American academia. Nevertheless, I did participate in the PhD program and audited it enough to get a good feel, if not understanding of things I need to know.
On the positive side, my “inability” to achieve a PhD reflects sensibility on my part, an unwillingness to ignore the destruction of our people that was imperviously entailed in the “hegemonic logics”, i.e. PC requirements, of a PhD.
A Philosophy PhD once said to me (even though not knowing me or much about me), that you cannot be a racist if you are going to be a PhD.
I responded, “that is why I do not want a PhD”
He smiled as he understood my reasoning automatically.
Nevertheless, admittedly, being unprofessional does have drawbacks. For example, over indulgence of vulgarity (in my defense, against people who were vulgar with me and having vulgar motives) because I don’t see the status to be lost in such association - which could cost us an interview, say, with Frank Salter, who in turn would not want to be associated with vulgarity. Still, those indulgences were before GW suggested that I might take over the wheel and steer MR’s direction.
In this case, I do have more responsibility to not drag GW’s project down, as it is a noble and beautiful one. Thus, I would try more to refrain from unnecessary vulgarity as it might send intelligent professionals away from helpful connection with us.
Even so, it has been my position and continues to be that Europeans need to be more assertive, not self transcendent and self censoring. I believe that there is an optimal balance between intellectualism and efficiently asserted prejudice - the N word, for example, can be very effective coming from a scholar or an intellectual on occasion. More, it will signal to people that one has sense, sense enough to see and organize the pattern for what it is - thus connecting to people who have to rely more on their senses, where they cannot figuratively escape in and through baroque logics; and where they cannot literally escape their inundated circumstances. It would confirm from high and authoritative places that indeed, these people are not to be intimately mingled with. They are not ok for your daughter.
But “no no no, musn’t refer to those people as N’s. We must care about their families and how Jews are misleading them.” Upchuck from up-in-the-head logical escape of “White Enterprises” that of all positions should know better and provide feedback protective of Whites. But no, “Newsome and Christian were in the wrong place, should have known better” - really?! (if you can believe it, “Father Francis” actually said that)
“What would constitute tasty and nutritious food to draw WNs into the MR parlor on a regular basis? What would affirm and strengthen their present White Nationalist orientation?”
I would submit the essay below, “The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 1” as a good start
Note, MOB, that I do not consider or treat you as a troll, even though you have some disagreement with our editorial direction, you are different in being sincerely concerned with all Europeans and their significant distinctions.
Now that we have begun to clear away what and who we are not representing, we can begin to elaborate more and reach more for what and who we are representing.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, July 10, 2014 at 07:20 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Christianity, Demographics, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, That Question Again, Thread Wars, White Genocide Project, White Nationalism
The Pejorative Side of Modernity or Civilization, Competing Theories or Allied? Part 2
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, July 6, 2014 at 03:17 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Eugenics, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Globalisation, Marxism & Culture War, The American right, The Proposition Nation, White Nationalism
In response to “Flippityfloppity’s” concern regarding definitions
I may have deserved a barb for being a little hypocritically amenable to Anthony’s proposal that Christianity can serve an important constructive function in organizing a guiding and spiritual light for Whites. I was a bit too agreeable perhaps because I like the rest of what he says well enough. Though his including Buddha and Lao Tze into the mix would indicate that he can reach accord with people like me for whom race serves as the organizing spirit and transcendent, religious factor (our legacy being the hereafter). That is probably why I appeared to flip flop a little to accommodate him.
However, introducing Christianity into the mix, with its propensity for a myriad of definitions, including liberal and universal, non-accountability thereof, is problematic.
Regarding definitions, I do not flip flop. But people, including WN, do, especially between definitions of “Left and Liberal.” Basically because they are following an “official” (i.e., convenient to Jews) definition of “the left”, which fluctuates between being liberal and open to all; or specifically open to unions of non-Whites or unions of people with problems; imposed in special admission, inclusion and integration upon Whites under the guise of equality and undoing exploitation.
The chief reason why people might use The Left defined as such is because that definition has gained wide currency as the Jews have largely defined and promulgated the term through academia and the media – that being a confused definition promoted by Jews precisely because it is confusing and because it altercasts us as rightists (who are not necessarily against imposed liberalism, just against “equality” - great, we are accepting the definition of ourselves as elitist pigs, but open to others if they are “better”). The acceptance of this definition and its flip flop between left and liberal is exemplified by the way that the Political Cesspool (among others accepting the definitions, themselves as right, their opponents as left) will flip flop between saying “the left and liberal” in the same broadcast.
Those who accept the rightist altercast and endeavor its position are to blame as much if not more than Jews for enforcing the idea that leftism and liberalism is all about “equality.” That is even worse theoretically than it is descriptively. For as White Leftists, we would be basing discrimination mostly on an assortment and disbursing of qualitative differences, which would be a symbiotic, largely non conflictual basis; not subject to the false comparison that lends to conflict as the phoney “equality non equality” issue engenders. Equality/non-equality is neither sufficiently descriptive or prescriptive - unless, perhaps, you want to instigate what is likely to turn out to be mutually destructive conflict.
We might stay with the confused definition of The Left - as liberalism, advocacy of non-Whites, their equality and imposition on Whites because it has had currency through Jewish media. Then oppose that for obvious reasons, as has been the strategy of almost all WN. However, staying with that definition, just because it has wide currency - despite the fact that it is a disingenuous and confusing definition promulgated by Jews (for the reason that it is confusing and disingenuous as they want us to be “rightists”, to scare people, our own included) and turn people off, our own included, as such, by reflecting that disingen -uousness and confusion through disorganization and denial of accountability - is neither sufficient reason nor compensation for the price paid. It is like saying we should continue to trade in currency that makes Jews wealthy and destroys us. It is counterfeit currency (definition) aimed to circulate to our confusion and detriment.
It is obvious enough that plutocratic, traitorous and well, elitist pigs of any stripe, will conveniently cite “The left” as the great enemy.
I believe you make a good point, that we probably should nail down some definitions and try to make them stick, as best we can, at least here at MR. One trick will be getting people to do this despite me – so that they will not refuse to do it just to spite yours truly. That can be a problem because I am not always most tactful. I understand this motivation to not be ego bullied (for example, I would not use the prefix “Zio” or “Jewish supremacist” in part because Duke proposes it, in addition to the fact that I don’t like the sound). Nevertheless, I maintain that the aim here is not about ego but theoretical accuracy, viz. theory which serves White interests. I do use the following terms consistently and they continue to make perfect sense – that is why I “stubbornly” continue to do so.
These proposed definitions are holding up, making consistent sense of pro and anti White alike.
We must not be so averse to terms and concepts Jews have abused as to fall into the trap of their being didactic as the Jews may want, for us to rebel against what is good for us. This has happened with social constructionism and hermeneutics for example. To where even the Heideggerian notion of hermeneutics would be looked upon as Jewish and Marxist, such that we would not admit of that part of the non-Cartesian process which provides orientation on scientific focus, to allow for that tad of narrative speculation of the not-at-all-times-observable social classificatory boundary of the European biological system and its history (to allow for Heidegger’s admission of the form of the people as necessary as well, an observation by GW that I had missed).
The White Left as:
A social classification and classifying of a people (specifically native European people), legitimizing unionized discrimination against outsiders; accountability to those within; both in positive return on effort and what is brought historically; and in a negative sense against those would-be facilitators of “scabbing” and those elites who might betray the class. This would be in contrast to leftist classification and advocacy of other groups; and certainly in contrast to our universal obligation to include in (our) vital resources (esp. genetic) just anyone who appears to be down-trodden or desirous of entry, including those outside the socially delimited group. This is discrimination against individuals of classifications based on warranted prejudice of the pattern of which they are a part. The White Left would take the White Class as synonymous with the distinct genus of the native European race and its distinct sub-classifications. It is a social taxonomic classifying necessary to accountability and human ecology.
It focuses on qualitative and symbiotic differences while keeping to a minimum false, quantitative comparisons (as opposed to equality/non equality it focuses more on qualitative sameness or difference).
It is decidedly not against private property (may in fact work with the land tax / exemption scheme laid-out by Bowery)
It does not aspire to equal wealth (there can be some people who are significantly more wealthy than others), but does strive after some balance, a middle class and shared leverage on some basic necessities. The point is that the boundaries are maintained. More or less socialism or free enterprise can be flexible according to the particular state.
As a rule, it applies the silver rule to out-groups as opposed to the golden rule.
Thus, it is in contrast to liberalism as applied to non-Whites, which is what racialists normally mean when they say, “the left.”
Beliefs and practices which intimate and can ultimately deviate and rupture reconstruction of the systemic biological pattern, accountable social classifications.
Designating, classifying a social group as a race (a species of people distinctly evolved to circumstances and practices in history, who have discernibly more genetic similarity to themselves than to other human groups) and discriminating accordingly. It is a motivation to separatism, not elitism, exploitation and persecution. This separatist discriminatory motive is more than generally advisable, it is necessary for accountability, human ecology and biodiversity.
The coercive prohibition against classifying people (could be even non-racial classifications) and discrimination accordingly. The coercive imposition of one people upon another, the denial of their freedom of and from association.
As they are defined here, they even make sense of how other people bungle these terms.
This issue probably is worth this main post, as trade in the currency of these terms defined in this way would help a great deal to achieve clarity and direction. These definitions make consistent sense of organizing our people, their requirements and problems.
In my next post, I will attempt to show how modernity, as a pejorative term, does not contradict but contributes to the articulation of what Bowery sees as negative in his definition of “civilization.”
In that regard I would point them to Harré‘s suggestion that there are two vital aspects to self, and thus to authentic self and individuality, which are 1, the corporeal, embodied, genetic self, having biological requirements, potentials and limits (which you three are concerned to approximate in description of its authentic functioning as closely as possible, un-borrowed from non-native influence) and 2, a narrative self, which is crucial for the matter of coherence, orientation, connection with the systemic whole and history. Now, that narrative self can deviate, even terribly, from the authentic biological interests of the self and system. It is obviously better if it accords well with our biological interests and historical form. I believe the Jewish abuse of hermeneutics is why GW has been a bit averse, and surprisingly, as it is one necessary side of a would-be Heideggerian, hermeneutic process; but then, even MacDonald was averse, apparently for the same reason of Jews having made it didactic.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, June 22, 2014 at 06:26 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Christianity, Conservatism, Crusade against Discrimination in Britain, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, History, Immigration, Immigration and Politics, Liberalism & the Left, Linguistics, White Nationalism
I am one who tends to think that concern regarding homosexuality is exaggerated beyond its true importance in WN circles.
Perhaps because I was at one time confronted directly and from a complexity of different angles with the implication to myself, but having no doubt that I wasn’t, and wanting to be unburdened of any accusation’s tedium, I was forced to make efficient intellectual work of putting aside any such accusation, to master the ways in which the issue could be deftly set aside as it is - largely irrelevant.
Posted by DanielS on Monday, June 16, 2014 at 03:09 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Awakenings, Conservatism, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Health, Liberalism & the Left, Marxism & Culture War, Social liberalism
Posted by DanielS on Monday, March 17, 2014 at 05:51 AM in Activism, European culture, European Nationalism, Feminism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Social Conservatism, White Nationalism
Anti-Racism is not innocent, far from innocent, it is prejudiced, it is hurting and it is killing people. It is an impossible, pure Cartesian ideal, prohibiting necessary social perceptual grouping and accountable discrimination accordingly.
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 27, 2014 at 03:02 AM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Marxism & Culture War, Social Conservatism
Along with White Leftism, The White Class and other useful theoretical tools that Jews abuse and obfuscate as they direct White identity into the foibles of the Right.
This discussion will have a fringe benefit of provoking and flushing-out those who are not truly concerned with our people.
This essay is to be something of a summing-up and clarification:
“You alone are uncontingent my friend. I would counsel epistemic humility”
Thus, in background to this essay:
Posted by DanielS on Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 07:42 PM in Activism, Anti-racism and white genocide, Awakenings, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European culture, Far Right, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Immigration and Politics, Journalism, Liberalism & the Left, Race realism, Social Sciences, The American right, The Proposition Nation
A-Symmetry as Semiotic of European Evolutionary Advance
His colleagues noted that some species of crabs have asymmetrical appendages, one being larger than the other, but when one of the pair was lost, another grew back in mirror image to the other. To this they were disposed to ask, how did the crab gain symmetry?
Through the extended analysis, Bateson hypothesized that his colleagues had been asking the wrong question. They should rather have been asking, “how did the crab lose asymmetry?”
It was in fact, in the course of this very investigation into the biological laws of symmetry that William Bateson first coined the term “genetics.”
The rule by itself is not of particular relevance to our concerns for European ontology and nationalism. However, steps taken in ecological and cybernetic analysis and arrival at Bateson’s rule of morphology do have significant implications, suggesting hypotheses for semiotics of ecological (and ontological) correction - including of human ecology.
Posted by DanielS on Sunday, January 26, 2014 at 06:29 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Anti-racism and white genocide, Art & Design, Conservatism, Demographics, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Origin of Man, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
The most fundamental questions of who we are and how we might organize in our defense has a cogent, preliminary answer outlined by the Euro-DNA Nation
The very act of participating in the Euro-DNA Nation establishes a degree of merit to individuals as worthy members from the onset: This person is willing to undertake a minimal act in essential distinction of themselves and their group in flight or fight for the defense of European types.
There are additional qualities that need to be drawn-out by means of criteria other than genetics, of course. For example, Bowery might seek demonstrations of particular skills to confirm the type that he is looking for in his particular community. Lister would be correct to look for additional criteria beyond genetics and so on. These particular qualitative concerns are provided for in the Euro-DNA Nation as well.
We may hypothesize and verify that we do have a definition of White/European Nationalisms which can move easily in consensus, neither yielding to slobs or snobs.
Although there is some confusion over what constitutes White/European Nationalism by way of slobs and snobs, there is a de facto consensus that all people of indigenous European parentage, including Russians, are valid members. With that, there is a normal provision that the various kinds of Europeans ought to be able to maintain their distinct demographics and not have them blended away, not even with other European types. This normal provision protects against the slobs, those who cannot see the depth and importance of European differences from one another and in some of their slovenly cases, not even seeing difference from non-Europeans. It also protects against snobbish definitions of White, which would deny the overwhelming Europeanness or the value of some European kinds; in this case again, they are not seeing or acknowledging a difference that makes a difference from non-Europeans. Their concerns that some patterns among those others which are unlike theirs and not distinctly European might damage their kind if integrated, are alleviated by the human ecological accountability of the particular national and subnational bounds.
Thus, by maintaining national, regional and communal differences and values we may handle concerns of the snobs and the slobs. The snobs, those who do not really care for certain native Europeans, not recognizing them as a part of “us”, may be placated by the fact that borders with these groups that they do not particularly care for are maintained. They have the means to stem limitless blending away. Therefore, they do not need to throw these people overboard along with the non-Europeans. On the other hand, the slobs, people who have a tendency to be lax in recognizing the differences between Europeans or even worse, from non-Europeans, are, by the means of these national, regional and communal accountabilities, also prevented from going too far.
This framework allows for more and less pure alike, it maintains both genus and species of Europeans and thus provides a crucial basis that in theory might serve organizational grounds for our identity, its defense and expanse, even, into new territories.
Posted by DanielS on Saturday, January 4, 2014 at 07:47 PM in Activism, Anthropology, Demographics, Education, Ethnicity and Ethnic Genetic Interests, European Nationalism, Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity, Linguistics, Psychology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project, White Nationalism
In The Mind of Primitive Man, Boas wrote:
Boas wanted us to believe that no group is necessarily more primitive than another. Today, due in no small part to Boas’ life work, it is assumed that anyone disputing this ‘modern consensus’ must be an evil cretin. Even for some white racialists, it is considered vulgar or gratuitously pejorative to say, for example, that negroes are primitive.
It must be understood, though, that primitive is a relative term that can be based on objective measures. When we say negroes are primitive (in the biological sense), we mean they are closer to our last common ancestor (LCA) than are other groups. Such empirical claims must be based on their scientific merit, not the prevailing zeitgeist or group feelings. I agree with Boas when he wrote the following in the preface to the 1938 edition of TMoPM:
The traditional way to rank groups in terms of proximity to the LCA is based on anatomical features. As shown by Boas, though, such methods can result in people with different motivations cherry picking features for their argument. A better measure, then, may be a genome-wide comparison that counts the alleles shared with the LCA (ancestral alleles). Based on the HGDP SNP data, I created the following ‘hate plot’ showing the percent of ancestral alleles by human groups:
In Race, Ethnicity and Nation, (2007) Peter Wade states that “The impact of genomics on race studies has generated a good deal of controversy, particularly in the U.S.A. The key question has been the old chestnut of whether ‘race’ has any biological reality. Gilroy holds out hope that ‘the meaning of racial difference is being reconstructed by the impact of the DNA revolution and of the technological developments that have energized it’, although he recognizes that ‘genomics may send out the signal to reify “race” as code and information’ and that it will take some work to produce a ‘post-racial’ version of what it means to be human. Foster and Sharp capture the ambivalent results of genomics in a world before that work has been done: ‘It was hoped by some that the sequencing of the human genome would undermine the view that racial and ethnic classifications have biological significance. This position was based on the prospect that by showing that there are numerous genetic similarities across all social classifications and no genetic features that are entirely unique to any particular racial or ethnic population, genomics would provide definitive evidence that race and ethnicity are social, not biological, classifications. Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility, environmental response, and drug metabolism are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations reported.’”
We are all familiar with the mantra of the anti-racist when confronted with facts about race: there is more genetic variation within a race than between races. Is this true? It depends on how one measures genetic variation. Using Fst or AMOVA, the split is typically 85/15 between intra-racial and inter-racial variation. But these measures are based on allele frequency comparisons averaged over individual genes. It’s hard to reconcile an 85/15 split with the following PCA plot, based on 250,000 SNPs:
Science’s capacity to explain the “what” but not the “why” has excelled itself again in a new study of population genetics reported under the title Genes predict village of origin in rural Europe. It is published in the European Journal of Human Genetics. Coordinated across ten European institutions, the study is, in fact, focussed on three different area of bucolic Europe, as the abstract explains:
All four grandparents being born in the same settlement is probably about as tight as one could reasonably expect to frame an investigation into rural population structure. The result - that up to 100% of study subjects could be gene-mapped to within 8km of their familial villages - reveals not merely an increasingly refined technical capacity on the part of the researchers, but a remarkable portrait of European blood and soil.
I don’t think I would be presuming too much upon the study’s methodology to say that the portrait endures because, while a certain number of individuals move away and the rural population as a whole is declining, others move into these areas far less frequently. It is easy to fall into the trap of seeing a wider picture of conflict between the modernity, dynamism and cosmopolitanism of urban life - a life which is heterogeneous and destabilising in character - and their opposites among the fields of green and gold. It is worth remembering that, irrespective of whether one is born to town or country, in a healthy, monist society everyone’s forefathers will have worked the land in all weathers with forks, graips, shovels, hedge knives and hoes, brewed the beer, baked the bread and butchered the livestock, or milled flour, made pottery, worked iron, and taken up arms alongside his brothers when bidden. Timelessness underpins everything. And while science cannot tell us why the genes of the people who did all this, and which we all carry today, should be preserved and not lost to Neo-Marxism, globalism, Christian universalism and Jewish millenarianism, yet we are them, we serve them, and in the turn to our selfhood they are no longer a mystery or a mere portrait.
I’ve previously warned of the threat presented by the racist LBK (proto-KKK?) culture to Civilization As We Know It. If only unbiased scientists like Stephen Jay Gould were alive today to broadcast to the 125 IQ coeds with big bazooms the true interpretation of these new “data”:
In a previous entry, I made the following comment:
This is not true.
I’ve heard this bit about limited genetic differentiation in dogs repeated a number of times in racialist circles. I remember Jared Taylor using it in a debate with Tim Wise.
Steve Sailer wrote:
The myth seems to originate from the book Race: The Reality of Human Differences, by Frank Miele and Vincent Sarich (which I also read several years ago). Miele writes:
Miele also repeated parts of this in an online essay published on Vdare in 2008:
Vince’s surprising answer, though, was very misleading. Or Miele misinterpreted what he was told.
In reality, dog breeds are much more genetically diverse than human races, and they can be classified very accurately.
In a 2004 paper in Science, Parker et al. showed that very accurate classification is possible (410 of 414 dogs were correctly assigned to their breed). They also showed by Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA, a technique often used for estimating genetic variability using microsattelites and repeats, although it can also be used for SNPs) that 27% of genetic variance is between breeds. Using SNP data, they calculated an Fst distance between the breeds of 0.33. A recent paper on a genome-wide SNP analysis on 919 dogs from 85 breeds, showed by AMOVA that 65.1% of genetic variance was within breeds, 31.1% between breeds, and 3.8% between breed groups (they defined 10 different groups: Spaniels, Retrievers, etc.). They also that as few as 20 diagnostic SNPs can be used to accurately classify dogs into their breeds.
How does the genetic variation in dogs compare to that of humans? AMOVA analysis of humans shows that approximately 85% of variance is between individuals, 5% is between populations in the same racial group, and 10% is interracial (btw, this number is also close to the updated Fst measurement of Xing et al.). The average Fst distance between human races is approximately 0.15.
So, we can see that dog breeds are actually much more variable than human races. The myth of limited genetic diversity prevalent in racialist circles (to which I also fell victim) needs to be dispelled.
The utility of this sort of data collection and analysis in the modern world is an empirical question. On the one hand many Europeans are relatively less inclined to move in comparison to Americans. And yet the breaking down of borders with the European Union and the likely need for a more productive economic sector on that continent because of changing demographics point to greater mobility, migration and mixing, which would make these sorts of studies of only near-term use. Of more interest to me are going to be fine-grained analyses of social groups. For example the Indian caste system. Last fall in the Reich et al. paper the authors seemed to be indicating the likelihood of a lot of between population variance groups these groups. It doesn’t matter if a particular Bania sub-caste from Gujarat is scattered across the world, from Kenya to England to the United States. They may all still marry amongst a set of individuals who hale [sic] from the same original few villages.
No, an empirical question is one which can be answered by direct observation. The direct observation here is the exquisite genetic structure of Europeans. By this leap of illogic he can quickly arrive at the conclusion that such studies are ‘only of near-term use.’ Razib wants to keep things ‘empirical’ so people don’t ask important questions, like “Is this worth preserving?”. This way, Razib can celebrate the ‘good times’ that are the detection of village-level structure of subcons in White countries that are being transformed by 3rd world immigration. But people will wake up to this arrogant, invasive subcon. The conservationist instinct is one of the strengths of Europeans. Making the case for returning invasive species to their lands of origin will be one part of doing what me must to remain who we are.
Browsing through the news in England last week, I came across an article detailing the latest relationship woes of Boris Johnson. First some excerpts, then a theory:
Craig Venter, recently made in/famous by his work on creating synthetic bacterial life, has long been infamous in racialist circles for his wild statements about human biodiversity, including one about all humans being “essentially identical twins.” Following the initial release of the draft sequence for the human genome, few scientists did as much as Venter to downplay human genetic diversity.
For the first few years after the release of the human genome sequence, the consensus figure was that any 2 people have 99.9% of their DNA sequence in common. You still hear this number cited today by people who are not aware that Craig Venter himself, or rather, his DNA, showed in 2007 that this was an underestimate. The 0.1% was based predominantly on SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms, i.e. single base pair differences), but neglected structural variation like CNVs (copy number variants). The authors showed 4.1 million structural variants (22% of which were structural) that covered 12.3 megabases (74% of which involved structural variation). The end result was a new estimate of 99.5% similarity between 2 human genomes.
Now, a recent paper, again using Venter’s DNA, shows that 99.5% was also an underestimate. The authors report almost 41 megabases of new structural variation in the Venter genome. When ones accounts for differences to the reference human sequence due to SNPs (0.1%), inversions (~ 0.3%), and indels/CNVs (~ 1.2%), the percent similarity between human genomes is now estimated to be ~ 98.4%, in the range of previous estimates of human/chimpanzee similarity.
I recently had a chance to look over this paper which n/a had pointed out a while back on his blog. Unlike popular Bayesian clustering approaches such as structure and BAPS, the authors’ new method (Maximization of Genetic Distance, MGD) does not make assumptions about intra-population or inter-locus allele distributions, namely that they are in Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibrium. In this sense, the method is analogous to statistical methods like Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) and Kruskal-Wallis, which are non-parametric versions of the t-test and one-way ANOVA, respectively (these methods are non-parametric in that they do not assume a specific underlying distribution for the data, in these cases Normal).
MGD uses a simulated annealing algorithm to find the partition that maximizes the average genetic distance between populations. In this respect, it is very similar to traditional clustering methods like k-means. One interesting feature of the method is that it permits use of different distance measures. The authors use Nei’s D, which, while superior to Fst/Gst in that it is less sensitive to the level of heterozygosity, has the disadvantage of approaching infinity under certain conditions. Jost’s D, a more recently developed measure, may prove superior here. In simulation studies, the method performs better than structure or BAPS when the number of clusters is large or population structure is more complex. However, only structure gives the correct clustering solution when Fst is as low as 0.01.
Perhaps the most interesting result from the paper is the following, which compares the clustering solutions of structure and MGD over different numbers of desired clusters (2-7). The data set used is the HGDP microsatellite markers from Rosenberg’s 2002 paper.
Based on the results of this paper, in particular the nonexistence of the Kalash as a separate cluster using MGD, it is questionable as to whether structure always provides the ‘most correct’ answer.
Single locus based measures of genetic variance are the source of much of the misunderstanding about the existence of race and ethnicity. They have also been used by politically motivated scientists to discredit the concept of race. When arguing online with race-deniers, race realists often refer to A.W.F. Edward’s article on “Lewontin’s Fallacy” as a means to counter the claim that race cannot exist because most of the genetic variability (single locus based) is within human groups. There was also a recent demonstration by Harpending (see Appendix) that the diversity loss of having all races spare one vanish from the earth would be the same as that from having all members of a race spare 2 couples vanish. Graphic rebuttals are often PCA (or MDS) plots or structure clusters from studies that use hundreds or thousands of SNPs or microsattelites. Recently, I came across the following, in a figure from a 2008 Nature paper, which nicely shows how deceptive statements about racial commonalities can be when based on single locus measures:
At the single locus level, 81.2% of SNPs can be found in all 5 major races. However, when allelic correlation structure is considered, only 12.4% of haplotype clusters are common to all.
This figure makes a good addition to the rebuttal toolbox for online discussions with race-deniers.
The book Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age (2008) has numerous academic contributors—most or all on the Left. Their collective angst stems from the wide popularization of several key developments from genetic research. First, racial differences are very important when it comes to how people are treated medically. Genetic differences affect response to medicines and other treatments. It is difficult to argue that we are all the same when there are medical treatments directed to persons of one race or another. Forensic science, prominent in television and movies, shows that race can be determined from a bit of DNA.
Second, there is a great deal of interest in genealogy. What really bothers race deniers is that Blacks have a high level of interest in “geographic ancestry”: the use of genes to determine not only their race, but also their tribal origins (even though there is no real difference between a race, a tribe, etc.). “Geographic ancestry”, “population group”, or “continent of ancestry”, are code words used by liberals to avoid the reality of race. They wish to protect Blacks from the stigma of racial differences; at the same time blacks are embracing genes to determine their racial background.
It would be interesting to build up as detailed a picture as possible of selected behavioural traits by race, and even within-race. We have, I think, a pretty good idea of the sociobiology of Europeans. We talk a lot about issues of individualism and altruism, intelligence, civilisational capacity, faith, sexual mores, and so on. The tendency is, though, to see other racial and ethnic groups through the prism of their competition with us - some more than others, of course. When we contemplate their evolutionarily-selected behavioural traits, which would likely not be adaptive for us, we may be tempted to express the strong emotional signals that necessarily accompany maladaptiveness.
I would like to avoid that kind of “noise” and, if possible, collate through the comments thread as many ideas as we can muster about the traits of Ashkenazics and other Jews, Eurasians, East Asians, South Asians, Mexicans, Arabs, North Africans, Sub-Saharans, and so on.
For example, one can see that Han Chinese place a very high value on conformism which appears to include a strong desire for approval from authority, and on honour which in the negative form of face-saving may be linked to the same desire. Japanese, which might in large measure mean Yamato, are perhaps weaker than Han on conformism but stronger still on honour. Even so, Japanese parents will allow school teachers to beat any sign of rebellious individualism out of children who are scarcely more than infants (damn, you see what I mean about moral interpolation).
These are both populations which exhibit the adaptiveness in a northern hemisphere, cold-climate environment of high-K strategies for intelligence. But how different the outcome is from the European experience, and how fascinating that difference.
How fully can we explicate that difference on its own terms? And what of other group differences?
Racial cohesion is a result of different factors, important ones being similar physical appearance and behavioural patterns (whose aggregate phenotype is a ‘culture’ or ‘civilization’). The difference in physical appearance between races is obvious and results in implicit negative attitudes towards racial others. Aggregate behavioural differences can also be stark and are a major cause of the displacement of native Whites via ‘White Flight’.
One of the main weapons in the elite arsenal to weaken criticism of race-replacement has been the PC mythology on race: that it doesn’t exist, that differences are only skin deep, that differences are the legacy of White racism, and corrective social programs can equalize achievement. Although researchers have long ago taken the hammer to many of these idols, their worship in the popular press and political class continues. The torrent of data coming from projects like HapMap, however, now portends a coming twilight. Heretical musings bubble up in establishment organs like Slate and the NYT (though orthodoxy still prevails overwhelmingly). Social programs, like No Child Left Behind, continue to fail. The general avoidance or dismissal of heritable differences between human groups by the left (who do the elite’s ideological programming) is becoming less viable as a strategy for suppressing dissident views on race.
The crumbling of the dominant racial mythology and increasing racial tension undermine the legitimacy of Western elites who impose, or fail to prevent, race-replacement. As Whites become increasingly displaced and dispossessed, their discontent weakens the foundations of the current political structure.
What is to be done?
From Dienekes’ post:-
And, below the fold, the bulk of JWH’s post, with substantial quotes from the original paper:-
An article in the Chicago Tribune discusses the need for setting up a registry of egg and sperm donors. The argument for such a need seems a bit odd. The danger it seems is that a donor may have a condition that manifests itself later in life, like colon cancer, and they should be able to inform those children who carry the donors genes of the condition.
I don’t see how that is any different from parents who have family histories of ailments going ahead with having children. It is fairly accepted I assume that few of us are without at least some serious deleterious mutations of this sort or that. A registry however would be a good way to track quality donors by lineage, keeping track of the quality of the offspring, and using certain family lines as regular donors.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa