|
|
Pigmentation loss is of itself maladaptiveJ. Richards tells us very punnily that “Peter Frost has written a cool paper on the evolution of blond hair”. Cool it may be but plausible it is not—if I may use a Yiddish grammatical construction. The theory advanced depends on three postulates and as far as I can see, none are well-attested. 1). Nordics were particularly dependant on men for food acquisition. The facts as I know them are that up until the 20th century the Nordics were as sexually jealous and puritanical as anyone; that many populations and probably all primitive ones have had high rates of male fatality; that Nordics were farmers as well as hunters as far back as we know; and women doing farm work is as common as dirt in human populations. If I am wrong in those common understandings, I would be delighted to see good evidence of it. I prefer the traditional theory which I will very briefly restate in a moment but let me offer a small anecdote first: I was once at a conference at Oxford when I got talking to a Swedish psychologist. He was a Knight of the Northern Star, in fact, so he was a very eminent Swede (You didn’t know Sweden had knighthoods, did you?). I talked to him about the emigration of Swedes out of Sweden and he commented that seeing the place was mostly in the dark for six months of the year he really didn’t understand why anybody ever wanted to live there in the first place. And that fits in with the view that loss of pigmentation (in hair, eyes, skin) is a MALADAPTIVE mutation (or set of mutations). Because of increased visibility, proneness to skin cancer etc, people with that mutation got competed out of living in desirable places and had to go to places that were at once cloudy (so less likely to allow sun-damage to fair skin etc.) and places that nobody else wanted (because of the cruel climate). But, to survive in such a climate, abilities to think ahead had to be selected for and that gave us the higher IQ of whites. And with that higher IQ they bounced back and in effect conquered the world. What’s wrong with that account? That the genes involved in pigment loss seem to be various is the only obvious objection but we still know very little about how genes interact so one crucial mutation could well be at the back of it. Update: I should of course have mentioned that, while fair skin is maladaptive to an outdoor life in most of the world (sunburn, skin cancer, visibility to prey species etc.), it is of course adaptive in cloudy climes—being better able to use whatever light there is to make the very important vitamin D. As this article notes, even today, darker skinned people living in cooler climates can develop vitamin D deficiency diseases. It might also be argued that a fair skin is good camouflage for hunters in a snowy environment but ANY naked hunters amid snow would be distinctly unlikely! Posted by jonjayray on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 at 08:45 PM in Genetics & Human Bio-Diversity Comments:2
Posted by J Richards on March 02, 2006, 01:12 AM | # John, Peter Frost’s paper is not just about blond hair, but also about lighter eyes, an unusually high diversity of eye and hair color, and the more feminine appearance of white women. I also added the finer facial features of whites [especially of the Scandinavians] and parts of the face, such as the jaw, whereby the chin is better developed than in non-Nordics, even though all other parts of the jaw have shrunk significantly. All this is strong sexual selection writ large. In Peter Frost’s paper, the conclusion of intense sexual selection is separate from the proposed reason for the intense sexual selection, and even if it could be shown that the proposed reason for the intense sexual selection is incorrect, the fact of intense sexual selection will stand. All your objections target the proposed reason behind strong sexual selection, not the conclusion that strong sexual selection has taken place, which apart from the correlates I mentioned in the first paragraph of this reply, is also based on the recent rapid accumulation of an unusual amount of genetic diversity at the MC1R locus in Europeans. I replied to your last comment in my entry regarding skin color differences between the Irish and the Scandinavians, and will repeat it here. The Scandinavians are not as pale-skinned as the Irish, though they are blonder. Contrary to your interpretation, this strengthens Peter Frost’s case because it argues against the notion that natural selection is responsible for across-the-board depigmentation. Whereas Peter Frost has mentioned the more feminine appearance of white women, he has probably thought it best to refrain from mentioning the finer facial features of Scandinavians compared to the Irish, which once again reflects strong sexual selection. It is difficult to imagine any advantage of finer facial features from the standpoint of natural selection. You assume that loss of pigmentation occurred due to mysterious forces beyond the control of the ancestors of Nordics, and then they moved to cloudier regions to protect their skin. Well, maladaptive mutations would be selected against. By all means, loss of skin pigmentation occurred after humans moved up North, and was adaptive in the sense that it made them make the most of the limited amount of sunlight they received. Part of the skin depigmentation could also be possibly related to sexual selection. There is no genetic reason why skin lightening need necessarily correspond to lightening of hair and irises. Regarding the three postulates that you mention, Peter Frost has made a good case that Northern populations would have been more dependent on men for obtaining food because of limited opportunities for food gathering, and has also cited evidence that they derived most of their food from animal sources (i.e., hunting). To address the second postulate, Frost has cited molecular data, which I have appended, showing that a smaller proportion of European males per generation have been successful at reproducing than non-European males. This issue needs to be looked at in more detail among European populations, but greater reproductive skew among European males appears to be a fairly robust conclusion. Finally, speaking of being sexually liberated, how long have the Scandinavian been Christian? Like a thousand years or so, and presently the majority of them are not Christian in any sense of the word. Christianity was imposed upon Northern Europeans, and they have largely modified and abandoned [the Middle Eastern aspects] it because it is not part of their nature. Do you seriously believe that the sexual freedom Scandinavians give to their women is entirely due to some kind of social conditioning that could be implemented in any other human population? Think before you or someone else tries to explain this in terms of feminism or liberalism. There are undoubtedly feminist types among the Saudis, but any feminist movement there would be mercilessly crushed, and with the backing of many women. Race differences are more than skin deep. 3
Posted by AD on March 02, 2006, 01:56 AM | # Why is it about pigmentation loss? Primates have white skin. Dark skin was the mutation. If we were ever dark skinned back up the family tree, our pigmentation has now returned to what it originally was. Maybe our breakaway race just remained hairy enough until we got to Europe that we kept white skin all along. 4
Posted by Desmond Jones on March 02, 2006, 03:30 AM | # Charles Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man:
Certainly concubines were common amongst the pagan Nords and animal husbandry, especially regarding cattle was important to the Germanic people. If the Nords and the Jollofs both considered the importance of selection in breeding their animals, it seems not unreasonable that the Nords might apply the same criteria to their concubines. 5
Posted by Mark Richardson on March 02, 2006, 07:08 AM | # This is the Roman historian Tacitus writing about the northern tribes in his work Germania (98 AD):
Of course, this is only one source of evidence. But this source does strongly suggest that the northern tribes were not at all lax in their sexual morality, but were strict even by later Christian standards. 6
Posted by SD on March 02, 2006, 10:15 AM | # This is interesting:- “21 November 2001 A German scientist claims the old adage about blondes having more fun is no longer true. Professor Hans Juergens says his research proves brunettes now have more fun. He believes men want to marry blondes like Claudia Schiffer but have affairs with brunettes like Catherine Zeta Jones. Professor Juergens says men associate blondes with marriage and washing powder but brunettes with sex. To test his theory the professor from Kiel put two adverts in a newspaper pretending to be a 26-year-old woman looking for marriage. In one he made her blonde, in the other a brunette. “The men wanted to bed the dark-haired women, but were thinking of sharing their lives or building a house with the blonde,” he said. Professor Juergens says advertisers have already cottoned on to changing attitudes about hair colour. “Almost everything that is associated with washing and cleaning materials is advertised with a blonde,” he said. Dark-haired women, said the professor, are usually used to sell chocolate, alcoholic drinks and sexy underwear” 7
Posted by Guessedworker on March 02, 2006, 10:37 AM | # Is there by any chance a survey out there which shows that a large majority of men think it’s churlish to be too fussy. 8
Posted by J Richards on March 02, 2006, 01:26 PM | # Mark, I’d be more impressed if you found a similar description of the Vikings. The problem with your account is that Germans are central European in large part. The Nordic element in Germany is largely in the North, and some of its dates to recent history, namely when the Swedes went down south to fight the Catholics in the 1600s (the 30 years war), and some settled there. Nordic types have passed through Germany in the past, but this was way before Tacitus was born. 9
Posted by Desmond Jones on March 02, 2006, 02:23 PM | # The Illicit Love Visit: An Archaeology of Old Norse Sexuality
Re: multiple sexual partners she writes,
10
Posted by J Richards on March 03, 2006, 06:25 PM | # Desmond, Thanks for the excerpts. Mark, I have recently learned that what Tacitus had to say about Germania is not necessarily 100% reliable. Tacitus never visited Germany and conceded that his work is “unauthenticated.” In a paper titled The Duel in International Relations, I also came across the statement, “Yet even when more exacting investigators study the same subject [duels to settle disputes], Tacitus’ narrative repeats with nauseating monotony across history and cultures.” 11
Posted by Calvin on March 07, 2006, 03:52 PM | # This theory sounds like a bunch of crap to me. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the hunter gatherer lifestyle was more viable than the primitive agricultural lifestyle. It was no more difficult for humans to survive in ice-age Europe than it was in many other environments. Why haven’t Eskimos evolved into blue-eyed blondes? There is no evidence that the HG lifestyle was more dangerous to men than it was to women. HG women were just as exposed to accident or attack from wild animals as HG men were and they were most likely to have not been armed to defend themselves against such attack. There is no evidence that blond hair or light eyes would be regarded as attractive in a brown eyed dark skinned population. As deviations from the norm, these traits are more likely to have been regarded as ugly deviations. The selective pressure needed to elevate a recessive gene to a dominant position, a position in which the vast majority of the population possessed the attributes of a non-dominant gene, would have to be phenomenal. If prehistoric populations had concentrated their reproductive choices on such a limited selection of females the European race would have become extinct thousands of years ago. Blondes are still the bench mark of feminine beauty and yet blondes, we are informed, will be extinct in about 200 years time. According to this theory the modern preference for blondes should lead to a massive explosion of blondness. A recessive gene cannot become a dominant gene. Nordic Europeans must have been created blonde and blue-eyed. Is this what passes for science these days? 12
Posted by J Richards on March 07, 2006, 05:14 PM | # Calvin, Have you bothered to even read the actual paper? Are you kidding me that it was not more difficult to survive in the cold North compared to the tropics? The reason for the Nordic looks is more intense sexual selection, not natural selection or else Eskimos and Northeastern Asians would have also acquired lighter hair, lighter eyes and a high level of diversity of hair and eye color. And, Frost is not just considering hair and eyes; he is also addressing the more feminine appearance of white women, and I have mentioned a bunch of other aspects of the facial features of Nordics that suggest strong sexual selection. You completely ignore the unusual diversity at the MC1R locus in Europeans that has accumulated so rapidly that random genetic drift can be ruled out and natural selection does not appear to be implicated, you disregard molecular data showing greater reproductive skew among European males compared to non-European males, ignore evidence of Norse sexuality, ignore evidence that Nordic looks are well-appreciated among many dark people, and if you only had bothered to read the link that John Ray refers to, you would have encountered information debunking the rumor that blondes are supposed to go extinct in 200 years. Peter Frost’s paper by no means suggests uniform blondness given enough time. He talks about rare color advantage, something that will tend to maintain a high level of hair and eye color diversity in Nordics rather than cause uniform blondness. 13
Posted by Calvin on March 08, 2006, 05:23 AM | # “Are you kidding me that it was not more difficult to survive in the cold North compared to the tropics?” No. I’m saying that it was no more difficult to survive in ice-age Europe than it was to survive in Siberia, Northern China, or the Kalahari desert. “And, Frost is not just considering hair and eyes; he is also addressing the more feminine appearance of white women, and I have mentioned a bunch of other aspects of the facial features of Nordics that suggest strong sexual selection” There are plenty of ugly blonde and ginger people around. There is no reason to suggest a correlation between lack of pigmentation and general beauty. In order to have a selective advantage the blondes thrown up through random mutation would also have to have been fortunate enough to be more beautiful than their dark haired competitors. Your average blonde is more likely to look like Jade Goody than Anna Kournikova. “You completely ignore the unusual diversity at the MC1R locus in Europeans” I don’t see any reason to assume that phenotypic diversity is attributable to anything other than the fact that Europe was inhabited by a multitude of sub-races. We see the same range of diversity in African populations expressed in morphology rather than through pigmentation (although Blacks do vary in pigmentation). “Nordic looks are well-appreciated among many dark people” And Oriental looks are appreciated among European males. If I claimed that Europeanshave become increasingly dark haired because of an innate preference for black hair and brown eyes, I could cite the attraction many White Europeans have for East Asian women as evidence. Would anyone take that proposition seriously? I do hope not. Historical evidence seems to indicate that certain European racial groups were almost uniformly light haired and blue eyed. These groups seem to have lost their distinctive pigmentation through lengthy interbreeding with darker Europeans with dominant chromatic genes. Why are we assuming that Nordic had to “turn” blonde? Is their a big debate in China about how they became black haired? 14
Posted by J Richards on March 08, 2006, 09:53 PM | # Calvin, You wrote:
Why do you ignore evidence of greater reproductive skew among white males compared to non-white males, as revealed by Y-chromosome data? Peter Frost notes:
Note the differences between the eastern and western ends of the Eurasian tundra belt. You wrote:
No correlation between lighter pigmentation and general beauty? Have you not noticed the finer facial features of Northern Europeans? It is not the contention of Frost’s paper to argue that the initial blondes had finer facial features, but more intense sexual selection has lead to a high frequency of light hair, a high frequency of light eyes, a great deal of hair and eye color diversity and finer facial features among Nordics. Yes, there are ugly light-haired people around, but it is clear that Northern Europeans have finer facial features than other Europeans. You wrote:
I am not talking about phenotypic diversity, but genotypic diversity at the MC1R locus. So you are suggesting that red-haired, brown-haired, black-haired and blonde-haired populations mixed to form the Nordics of today? Why did such population diversity arise in the European tundra belt but not the Asian tundra belt, and where is the evidence that European populations distinguished by hair color mixed to produce the present-day Nordics? Do not forget that the diversity at the MC1R locus has rapidly accumulated within the past 14,000 years. If what you say is true, then there would be molecular evidence of mixing of distinct populations among Nordics. Where is this evidence? Also note that if you remove recent Northern migrations toward southern Europe (e.g., Franks and Normans toward France, Lombards toward Italy, etc.), you end up with largely dark-haired Europeans in Central and Southern Europe. So what made all the hair and eye color diversity rapidly accumulate in a small [Northern] portion of Europe? It does not appear to be natural selection. You wrote:
Few white males have an interest in East Asian women. Most white males that I have seen with East Asian women are loser types. You wrote:
What historical evidence are you talking about? To the best of my knowledge, no such population has ever existed. Besides, if everyone is blond and blue-eyed, how attractive will these traits be within such a population? Rare color advantage is well-known in the context of sexual selection, and it is unlikely that sexual selection ever transformed a European population to uniform blondness and uniform blue-eyedness. Who said anything about assuming that Nordics had to turn blond? There is no reason why they had to from the perspective of natural selection, but they became a lot blonder than other populations and this needs to be explained, and the explanation best appears to lie in sexual selection. Before you respond, please read Peter Frost’s paper and the commentary on it first. 15
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 09, 2006, 11:54 AM | # There are two issues here. One is the Frost theory itself, which sounds reasonable, but remains conjectural. The second issue is the “political” reasons for these posts, which possibly revolve around the attempt to convince guys like JJR and David B. – who ignore or mock the concept of EGI – to support the preservation of populations that are characterized by certain phenotypic traits. Of course, if it works, anything that can motivate a defense of EGI – even when that defense is unconscious and performed on the conscious level only in defense of certain proximate values – could be adaptive. However, there are some problems with concentrating on the proximate approach. First, different people have varying views of what phenotypic traits should be valued. The GNXPers value “high-IQ cognitive elitist technocrats” and thus support assortative mating based on intelligence and not race nor racial phenotype. They indeed seem to welcome Sailer’s vision of a “Jeurasian elite” future. It doesn’t seem likely that these people would be bothered if the average physical appearance of North America and Europe was similar to that of Razib, as long as “high intelligence” and “technological progress” was maintained and promoted (although Razib himself would mourn the loss of blonde, Nordic women as potential mates for his descendants). JJR may well dis-associate fair complexions from “fine features” (e.g., “pink-skinned” mestizos) and/or may wish to associate fair complexion in an aracial manner associated with GNXP-like considerations of ability and status (e.g., the idea that the infusion of “high quality” non-white genes into the pool of “fair-skinned” elites is “good” – with Latin America viewed as a role model). Here John is actually stating that fair skin is “maladaptive” and he seems to be mirroring the GNXP IQ preferences. The point is that JJR, David B., and others are unlikely to share the same phenotypic preferences as say, J Richards, or Guessedworker. While it may be emotionally satisfying to classify white males with Asian mating preferences as “losers”, the fact remains that phenotypic preferences vary among the populace: Second, even if all agree on a set of phenotypic preferences, the implication then is, that if a population is a focal point of positive interest because it has a high incidence of the valued traits, then populations characterized by lower incidence of the traits are of lesser, or no, interest. To the extent that these differences correlate with actual genetic distance, particularly when the latter populations are quite genetically different, then utilizing proximate interests have some adaptability. However, in some cases, it may be possible that the latter populations are genetically closer to the person making the value judgment than the former populations. More likely is the scenario in which the latter populations may be more distant, but only slightly so, and thus represent a repository of considerable genetic interest. Another likely scenario is a combination of both possibilities, in which kinship overlap exists so that for some members of the judging group, the latter population is genetically closer, while for another fraction of the judging group, the latter population is indeed more distant, but by a small margin. Here we approach the problem inherent with the “disjunctive racialism” of the German National Socialists, who ignored the possibility that, for some Germans, Frenchmen and Poles may be genetically closer than are other Germans, and the wider reality that Poles and Frenchmen are genetically not very distant from the German genetic average as a whole, and thus, the cost-benefit ratio of the disjunctive racialism amongst these groups is questionable. The usefulness of these proximate values is ultimately dependent upon how well these values track with genetic interests. Therefore, eventually, points one and two lead to point three: While proximate values may suffice for the “man in the street”, with respect to the intelligent minority of the population who have – or should have – a disproportionate influence on policy, there is no reason to mask the underlying EGI. If there are many without the brainpower to understand EGI, and thus need to be “tricked” into self-defense by the invocation of proximate interests, there are others who should be capable of understanding ultimate interests. If the only objectivity of proximate interests is how they serve ultimate interests, the more intelligent members of the majoritarian group need to focus on the ultimate interests themselves. 16
Posted by J Richards on March 09, 2006, 07:19 PM | # Slinker, Sailer, Toldya, Sly, Frost’s idea is more than mere conjecture. It is a far better explanation of some aspects of Northern Europeans looks than the alternatives. My entry was not aimed toward JJR or David B., but toward whites in general. The MR crowd is not different from the GNXPers when it comes to desiring governance by a cognitive elite, but we want the cognitive elite to consist of whites who do not undermine the interests of whites in general. Europeans have a long history of inventions and innovations, and do not need aliens in their midst to continue technological progress. You say that the GNXPers support assortative mating based on intelligence and not race nor racial phenotype. This is only half true. Do you think that Razib will be willing to breed with an intelligent Negress or want his children to breed with intelligent Negroes? You have cited two links showing variability of phenotypic preferences among white males, but the variation described is that which exists in European populations. Peter Frost’s paper does not postulate uniform blondness in Northern Europeans given enough time. Rare color advantage in the context of sexual selection will tend to maintain diversity in hair and eye color. I have no reason to believe that a substantial number of white males like Asian women; only a few do. Regarding physical appearance, modern genetic research has clearly shown that population classification based on overall physical appearance is the same as that based on neutral DNA markers. Therefore, an attempt to preserve physical appearance is equivalent to a preservation of the entire set of genes that constitute EGI. An attempt to preserve physical appearance of a given specification need not imply at all that other appearances are of lesser value. Since you mention National Socialists, back then there were hardly any non-whites living in Germany, and if some of them did not like some non-Germanic European populations, then big deal. Left to themselves, Europeans will be in conflict with each other for numerous reasons. 17
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 10, 2006, 06:26 AM | # “Regarding physical appearance, modern genetic research has clearly shown that population classification based on overall physical appearance is the same as that based on neutral DNA markers.” Evidence? Sure, when looking at broad racial/sub-racial categories *of course* there is a strong correlation between appearance and genetic ancestry. But, is a group of blonde/blue-eyed Englishmen genetically more similar, with respect to overall kinship, to blonde/blue-eyed Estonians, than they are to a group of dark-haired and eyed Englishmen? Actually, I don’t know the answer to this question with certitude, but I’d suspect the answer is no. If you had read my comment carefully, I’m talking about genetically similar intra-continental populations. That physical appearance matches markers when comparing, say, Swedes with Bengalis, is conceded. When comparing Swedes to Frenchmen is another matter. I doubt that a blonde/blue man is more similar, genetically, to a blonde/blue stranger, than he would be to his own brother, who may be brown/brown, such color combinations to be found in European families. Facial appearance can differ within families (and ethnic groups) as well. Morphological subracial classifications can differ within families, which, it you are familiar with the work of Coon, you should be aware. Razib’s personal mating preferences are well known. This, however, does not change the fact that the primary ideological thrust of GNXP is assortative mating based on intelligence and the promotion of Jeurasian mongrelization. The point remains that not everyone shares the same phenotypic preference as a strong motivating factor, and, proximate interests can, by definition, ultimately only be subjective. It is rather remarkable to dismiss the NS disjunctive racialism and hostility toward toward non-Germanics as “big deal”; these attitudes leading as they did to many of the problems we face today. “I have no reason to believe that a substantial number of white males like Asian women; only a few do.” Evidence? I believe that this form of mixing ranks up with Negro male-white female as the most prevelant. Actual rates of white-Asian mixing must take into account the relatively low percent of Asians in the population and their concentration in “blue states.” If the only “evidence” is anecdotal, one can then cite the anecdotal evidence of your average large blue state college campus, where white male-Asian female couplings bid fair to outstrip all other combinations in frequency. I am in fact against such couplings. But to fight something, one must consider the facts. And the facts suggest to me that, when given access to Asian females, a significant fraction of white males are attracted to them. Why that may be needs to be dissected, but dismissing it by calling all these college students and other professionals (eg, David Baltimore, Nobel winner) as “losers” doesn’t cut it. “An attempt to preserve physical appearance of a given specification need not imply at all that other appearances are of lesser value.” I then await phenotypic-oriented posts that expand the range of positive interests to a wider spectrum of European types. 18
Posted by J Richards on March 10, 2006, 08:12 PM | # Slinker, Sailer, Toldya, Sly, For one example of similar population classification based on DNA markers and an independent classification based on 20 discreet cranial traits, see: American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2003, 121:241–51. This is not what you would have a problem with given that you expect this to be the case at the level of the species. You wonder whether something like this is true for closely related populations such as the English and the Estonians. Well, the hair and eye color example that you give is reminiscent of a common argument of race deniers. Race deniers would often pick one or two traits such as lactose tolerance and ask that since the majority of Swedes and the majority of some African tribal groups are lactose tolerant, then does this mean that they belong to the same race or whether a lactose tolerant Swede is a closer kin of a lactose tolerant African than a lactose intolerant Swede? Well, race does not lie in a few genes; it lies in the correlation structure of a large number of genes. If one were to assess the English and the Estonians on 10,000 microsatellites and 1,000 anatomical traits, including hair, eye and skin color, it is highly likely that the ancestry assignment of randomly picked individuals from these two groups based on either microsatellite data or anatomical traits will typically assign the individuals correctly. This would be an example of population classification based on overall physical appearance being in agreement with population classification based on DNA. I am not aware of any such study, but the point is that the closer the populations, the greater the number of markers required to correctly classify the majority of individuals. It is true that there is variation within a group, and on several measures, the majority of the variation is within groups. Yet, if a large number of markers are assessed, the correlation structure of the markers distinguishes populations. You are right that not everyone shares the same phenotypic preference, but there is nothing subjective about the overall physical appearance of whites; the subjectivity lies in its rating. Once again, preserving overall looks is equivalent to preserving the entire set of DNA markers that constitute EGI because these are well correlated, and the correlation structure of the genes behind the looks of whites are part of the EGI of whites. Regarding white male preference for Asian women, there are hardly any reasonable studies on this count, but I do know of some studies where whites are shown line drawings or pictures of white people, and these figures are manipulated to make the nose flatter or the jaw more protruding, and then the participants are asked to rate the attractiveness of the series of images. It turns out that an increasing amount of transformation toward non-white looks sharply reduces the attractiveness ratings. Therefore, by all means, most whites do not appreciate the looks of non-whites, especially those as different as Mongoloids, but when men are deprived of desirable women, most will usually take up whatever they can, i.e., undesirable women. Thus, the white male losers will disproportionately end up with Asian women and white males living among a large number of Asian women will also disproportionately end up with Asian women. None of this proves that a substantial number of white males like the looks of Asian women. Two examples of the kind of studies that I have mentioned above are: Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery, 2004;6:257-62. Before the flood of non-whites into the West, there is a long history of fewer white males reproducing per generation than non-whites males, as assessed from Y-chromosome data, which Peter Frost has cited. If you start flooding the West with non-whites, then it should not be surprising that several whites who would normally remain partnerless would end up with non-whites, but this cannot be interpreted in terms of the appeal of non-white looks on the part of the whites involved in interracial relationships; such appeal characterizes a small minority of whites. 19
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 11, 2006, 04:04 PM | # Why cite a paper that you yourself admit has no bearing on the specific issues I’ve raised? Only you can answer that question. The point remains: there is as yet no evidence to support your blanket assertion that aiming at morphological phenotypes will accurately preserve the underlying EGI – or perhaps I should rephrase that to state that such a method will be no more accurate, and perhaps less accurate, than others. Some of the work performed by DNAPrint Genomics may shed some light on the genotype-phenotype connection. But this proves my point. The forensics-driven studies by DNAPrint attempt to ascertain phenotype based on known genetic markers. Why bother doing the reverse, when the genetic markers can be directly assayed? If it may take correlating 1000 anatomical measurements to accurately distinguish intra-continental populations in a manner that accurately correlates with genetics, then that is certainly NOT easier than just doing the gene assays; in fact, if anything it’ll be more difficult. The cruder phenotypic analyses that characterize the posts on these topics on the blog are no more likely – and probably less likely – to correlate with genetic ancestry that is a simple determination of what someone’s ethnic background is. What’s then the point? If there *really* is a sincere interest in EGI, then focus on the genetics, without moving a step away and focusing on the phenotypes derived from a small fraction of those genes. I suspect what is going on is that the real interest is in the phenotypes themselves, and the “concern” with EGI is just a cover to justify a primary focus on proximate and aesthetic, rather than ultimate and genetic, interests. Even if one decides to focus on proximate phenotypic interests, genetics must still be considered, since genes are “prior” to phenotypes. This brings up the question of exactly how a focus on phenotypes can be used to preserve EGI on levels finer than the crude continental levels that are obvious to everyone. Lighter complexions are definitely recessive to darker, and there is reason to believe that so-called fine features are recessive as well. Therefore, a person with more dominant traits but heterozygous may well be indistinguishable physically from one that is homozygous, but the impact that these two sets of peoples would have on the frequencies of the desired recessive traits would be markedly different. A dark haired, dark-eyed white may have a blonde/blue-eyed full sibling, and there are wide variability within families, and ethnies, on other morphological traits as well. A man may look more similar to a complete stranger, including a non-coethnic stranger, than to his own brother. Saying that this is equal to “race denial” leads to the problem mentioned above. Yes, indeed, with sufficient numbers of traits measured over a sufficient number of people, you may begin to get a closer correlation to genetics. But why measure hundreds of anatomical traits in an attempt to get an ever-closer correlation to genetics, when the genetics can simply be directly measured? This is the year 2006, not 1906. The cost/benefit ratio of using phenotype over genotype decreases markedly the more similar are the individuals and groups analyzed. An Englishman does not need to know genes or ethnic identity to understand that the dark Negro guy is less of a genetic interest to him that is that white guy standing next to him. Phenotype can suffice. But to distinguish among narrower populations with accuracy? Even IF you were correct with respect with this, the other problem I cite is that a focus on phenotype may lead to disjunctive racialism in which the high levels of genetic interest in various populations are ignored because the frequencies of specific phenotypic traits are lower in these groups than in other populations. Carried to the extreme, reduction to absurdity, one can practice disjunctive familialism in which a person favors their second cousin over their brother due to the fact that their second cousin looks more similar to them than their own brother, or, to an even greater extreme, one ignores their own brother because of a relative dis-similarity in appearance. Once again, I suspect that the real interests here are phenotypic. That these posts also reinforce stereotypes –actively propagated by ‘anti-racists’ and other enemies of western survival - that racial nationalists are concerned only with the types of physical specimens valued by J Richards is another point of consideration. With respect to white-Asian matings: there is a relatively high outmarrying rate for Asian females, and most of that is with white men. You suggest that’s because white “losers” with no access to white women are taking the Asian women as replacements. Evidence? Citing prehistoric rates of white mating does not suffice. Before the influx of Asians, were there large numbers of white men not reproducing? Are all the white guys attending college “losers” as well? And, there is certainly no shortage of white women at college, more females than males attend college in the USA, most of whom are white. Given a choice between an abundance of white females and a crop of Asian females, some white males choose the latter. Are guys like David Baltimore and Nicholas Cage and other professional or celebrity white men with Asian wives, “losers?” In a genetic sense, yes, they are, but that is not what you mean, is it? The problem is that you impose your own aesthetic standards on others. Citing studies only marginally related to this issue is questionable, someone may in response site Gillian Rhodes’ study that you critiqued. 20
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 11, 2006, 04:17 PM | # A quote: The Fox and the Grapes: One hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the thing to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.” Moral: It is easy to despise what you cannot get. Posted by J Richards on Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 06:51 AM “| # Does this mean that if someone disagrees with your aesthetic preferences then they are non-white, plain-weird, or suffering from “sour grapes?’ Isn’t it possible that they simply have different opinions of feminine beauty than you do? 21
Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 03:05 AM | #
What do you mean it has no bearing? It is not a detailed comparison of English vs. Estonians as in my hypothetical example, but if you look at the paper, the 20 discreet cranial traits did indeed separate Eastern Europeans from the English, just as a detailed genetic comparison would do.
This is just absurd. Nature itself acts on and selects the phenotype, not the genotype. The genotype is selected indirectly. In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype? Once again, don’t bring up one or two phenotypic traits; consider a large number of phenotypic markers.
Why indeed bother measuring a large number of anatomical traits? There is no need to. The example that I gave you is a hypothetical scenario where you would see broad agreement between genotype-based and phenotype-based classification of closely related populations.
None of the “cruder phenotypic analyses” you have encountered in my entries are supposed to be used to determine someone’s ethnic background. They are offered as items of interest to some. Even the entry that John’s post above has branched off from is mostly descriptive and the only prescriptive item in it is my argument that we have yet more reasons to keep the non-white masses out of the West, which I don’t think that you should have a problem with.
Phenotype is related to genotype, and the genes behind overall superficial appearance correlate well with other genes related to EGI.
Genes by themselves do nothing. They are mere DNA sequences. Translating them into gene products requires an elaborate metabolic machinery, which is part of the phenotype. Do not forget that selection directly acts on the phenotype and genes are only indirectly selected. To consider the phenotype is to simultaneously consider the associated genotype, and if the phenotypic markers are large enough in number, then the entire set of genes related to EGI are automatically taken into consideration.
Phenotype is not merely physical appearance but also functional traits, and once again, phenotype is related to genes. Therefore, emphasizing phenotypes related to intelligence and behavior, and thereby culture, also maps into EGI.
Most genes behind skin color are co-dominant (i.e., do not show dominant-recessive relationships). The reason that white plus dark-skinned non-white produces a dark offspring is because white skin is at one extreme and if you add in the genes for darker skin, the result would naturally be darker.
Most genes are additive rather than associated with dominant-recessive phenotypes. Therefore, if you consider a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, the problem that you list will not be a problem since admixture will be easy to detect based on phenotype alone.
There is no need to measures anatomy in detail. The example that I gave you is a hypothetical example to drive home the point that population classification based on a set of sufficiently numerous phenotypic markers will correspond very well to population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genes involved in non-considered phenotypic markers and neutral DNA markers.
Who above has proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry?
Talking about some phenotypic traits is not the same as especially focusing on them. Besides, whites will not be fighting each other over looks.
Do you seriously believe that any such thing would happen? You can do better than to come up with a ridiculous scenario that will never come to pass.
There are over 2,000 entries at this site, and only a miniscule number of them deal with superficial looks. So what is the problem? Nobody here is trying to win over the “anti-racists.” Even if you are as clean-cut and circumspect as Jared Taylor is, you will be seen as no different from skinheads and Nazis as far as the “anti-racists” are concerned. 22
Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 03:06 AM | #
What pre-historic evidence? The Y-chromosome data is based on DNA extracted from living people, and it reflects racial history. Also, you should know that in many parts of the world, one has an arranged marriage system, typically long-standing, with few to no young adults being able to select their partners on their own initiative. This system is much more loser-friendly when it comes to reproducing. What do you expect to happen when non-whites are flooding the West and white losers come across plenty of non-whites who find them a lot more attractive than most whites do? You have not addressed the fact that studies show a sharp drop in attractiveness ratings of whites by whites when parts of white faces are transformed to those of non-whites. If some people can be sexually interested in dogs or children, then surely some whites can be sexually interested in Asians, but all these interests characterize only a small proportion of whites.
All white males attending college are not dating Asian women; only some of them are. Besides, academically-decent colleges attract a lot of white nerds and white geeks, the kind that are usually losers when it comes to dating white women.
Here is what I wrote:
I said most, not all. So what if some non-loser white males end up with Asian women? This does not undermine my contention that most white men who end up with Asian women are loser types.
This entry and the one that it has branched off of have nothing to do with me imposing my own aesthetic standards on others. Regarding Gillian Rhodes, her stupid study is based on unattractive whites and numerous methodological problems, and is of hardly any relevance here. You have quoted a passage by me from an entry on Nordic beauties. I was responding to a commentator who called the Nordic women bland compared to the non-white women. I said:
Note that I said it is likely rather than it is certain. Therefore, it is obviously possible that this person has a different concept of beauty than mine, and nothing that I have stated rules out this possibility. 23
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 12, 2006, 06:42 AM | # Compare this: “What do you mean it has no bearing? It is not a detailed comparison of English vs. Estonians as in my hypothetical example, but if you look at the paper, the 20 discreet cranial traits did indeed separate Eastern Europeans from the English, just as a detailed genetic comparison would do.” With this: “Why indeed bother measuring a large number of anatomical traits? There is no need to.” Which is it then, do we measure large numbers of cranial traits or do we not? “This is just absurd. Nature itself acts on and selects the phenotype, not the genotype. The genotype is selected indirectly.” Yes, and the aim of the process is to select genotypes. Genes are the ultimate replicators, not phenotypes. “In the absence of genetic engineering, how would you preserve EGI without aiming toward preserving the phenotype, given that the phenotype is strongly correlated with the genotype? “ Why invoke genetic engineering? What does that have to do with preserving EGI? Absolutely nothing. To preserve EGI what you need to know are the genetic relationships of the peoples in question. ‘Genetic engineering’ has zero to do with that; all that are needed are genetic assays. “Phenotype is related to genotype, and the genes behind overall superficial appearance correlate well with other genes related to EGI.” Evidence? Besides measuring “20 cranial traits.” “Genes by themselves do nothing. They are mere DNA sequences” I don’t want to get into “ad hominem” (as you do when you term people “losers”), but you are sounding a bit like Barlow and David B., just about now, do you know that? A computer program “does nothing” as well, by this criteria. For any system, biological or computational, information is fundamental and the ultimate interest. In your case, I’d assume you’d be interested in what the computer looks like. “Do not forget that selection directly acts on the phenotype and genes are only indirectly selected.” Hard to forget as you’ve now mentioned it twice in the same comment. And where, pray tell, does the phenotype come from? “To consider the phenotype is to simultaneously consider the associated genotype, and if the phenotypic markers are large enough in number, then the entire set of genes related to EGI are automatically taken into consideration.” The entire set!!?? First, this assumes that Salter is correct that EGI is focused solely on functional genes, which in fact is logically flawed and inconsistent with his other comments about “the entire distinctive genome.” Second, to analyze a set of phenotypic markers large enough to cover the entire “functional” genome would require “measuring a large number of ….traits.” Why, indeed, bother? Because that is the *only* way of getting even an approximate correlation to the most narrow definition of EGI, which, as stated, is insufficient. “Phenotype is not merely physical appearance but also functional traits, and once again, phenotype is related to genes. Therefore, emphasizing phenotypes related to intelligence and behavior, and thereby culture, also maps into EGI.” Ethnic identity can “map” with EGI as well. “Most genes behind skin color are co-dominant (i.e., do not show dominant-recessive relationships). The reason that white plus dark-skinned non-white produces a dark offspring is because white skin is at one extreme and if you add in the genes for darker skin, the result would naturally be darker.” Eye color being an example. “Most genes are additive rather than associated with dominant-recessive phenotypes. Therefore, if you consider a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, the problem that you list will not be a problem since admixture will be easy to detect based on phenotype alone.” Really? How many phenotypic markers would you need to detect, say, lower levels of, say, East or South Asian, or Amerind, admixture? Easy to detect? Do you really believe it is easier to detect the Asian admixture in Kate Beckinsale via phenotype than with genetic analysis? “Who above has proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry?” Since EGI is a measure of common ancestry (going back far enough), you. “Do you seriously believe that any such thing would happen? You can do better than to come up with a ridiculous scenario that will never come to pass.” Do you understand the concept of “reduction to absurdity” as an argumentative technique? “There are over 2,000 entries at this site, and only a miniscule number of them deal with superficial looks. So what is the problem? Nobody here is trying to win over the “anti-racists.” Even if you are as clean-cut and circumspect as Jared Taylor is, you will be seen as no different from skinheads and Nazis as far as the “anti-racists” are concerned.” Focusing on the contributions of particular bloggers, the entries are more than miniscule. If you can understand argument, you can see that I am NOT in any way implying that we need to “win over” anti-racists. The point is – and I thought it obvious – that anti-racists stereotype white racialism, with the aim of convincing the same third party observers that this blog wishes to convince as well. And that the more white racialism fits into these stereotypes, the easier it will be for the anti-racists to influence these third parties. “What pre-historic evidence? The Y-chromosome data is based on DNA extracted from living people, and it reflects racial history.” Yes, and it reflects the entire history of the specific NRY back from the time it was distinguished from others – starting in prehistory, no? “You have not addressed the fact that studies show a sharp drop in attractiveness ratings of whites by whites when parts of white faces are transformed to those of non-whites. If some people can be sexually interested in dogs or children, then surely some whites can be sexually interested in Asians, but all these interests characterize only a small proportion of whites.” It is difficult to talk about a “small proportion of whites” when Asians are a minority and clustered in blue states. It is proper to look at the situation at places where numbers of the two groups are more equal, and observe the large numbers of couplings. “All white males attending college are not dating Asian women; only some of them are.” Not all blacks are criminals, only some of them are. Apply that logic to your Katrina post, for example. “I said most, not all. So what if some non-loser white males end up with Asian women? This does not undermine my contention that most white men who end up with Asian women are loser types….Note that I said it is likely rather than it is certain. Therefore, it is obviously possible that this person has a different concept of beauty than mine, and nothing that I have stated rules out this possibility.” OK, so white guys who are with Asians are mostly “loser types”, but then again, using words like “likely” indicate that maybe it is just a preference, depending what assertion you are trying to defend. Yes or no: do you believe that white men who prefer non-white female phenotypes are, or are not, abnormal and/or “losers?” If you wish to use “likely”, feel free, but state what you believe the predominant tendency is. 24
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 12, 2006, 06:57 AM | # “So what is the problem? “ Critical analysis of ideas/posts is now a “problem?” How about changing MR to a blog like Sailer then, that allows no comments? “Problem” solved. 25
Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 06:38 PM | #
What is this? The point is that there is no need to measure a large number of superficial anatomical markers to determine ancestral relationships, but this can be done if needed to show that population classification based on a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers will agree very well with population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers
The aim of the process (nature acting on the phenotype) is to select phenotype; genotype is selected indirectly. Genes cannot replicate themselves without the phenotype.
Genetic engineering offers the possibility of genetically engineering people for a desired set of genes, and if this can be achieved, it will offer the best way of preserving EGI. People are not going to go around and ask others for their DNA profile to determine how well they are related to them. A determination of relatedness is typically based on overall physical appearance and also elements of culture, all of which map very well to the genes related to EGI.
You apparently do not have a sufficient background in biology. It is time for you to pick up a basic textbook of biology and look for the section that offers evidence for evolution. Part of the evidence offered will point out that the initial classification of living organisms based on external appearance has corresponded very well to classification based on DNA markers, most of which have nothing to do with external appearance, including DNA markers not involved in gene expression. In light of the above, it is hardly required to show the same for humans, including closely related populations, but some studies have done so, as in example of the study that assessed 20 discreet cranial traits. Another study showed that Bosnians and Croatians, who happen to be next door neighbors, were distinguished by a set of 22 skull measurements [American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 124:73-80]. Do you think that DNA testing using a sufficiently large number of markers will not separate the majority of Bosnians from most Croatians?
Ad hominem is attacking an argument by attaching malicious motives to one’s opponent or critiquing an argument by pointing out negative traits of one’s opponent rather than addressing the claims of one’s opponent. How does the claim that most white males that I have seen with Asian women are loser types qualify as ad hominem? Information is of course important, but by itself it does nothing. The value of computer software lies in what it can be made to do using computer hardware. The fundamental/ultimate interest is not the information itself, but what you can do with it. What you can do with information obviously requires the information in the first place. Therefore, any measure to derive the benefits of some information will automatically ensure that the information itself is preserved.
The phenotype comes from the genotype and its interaction with the environment.
Guess what? When you look at a person, you simultaneously see a huge number of anatomical markers, and mating preferences based on matching ancestry-informative anatomical markers with your own so as to produce a child that pretty much looks like you guarantees—at the population level—that the entire set of genes constituting EGI (including neutral markers that distinguish ancestry) will be taken care of. In this case, there is no need to take out calipers and actually measure anatomical traits; your brain does all the evaluation that you need.
The genotype-phenotype correlation is typically validated at the level of a population. Given enough examples of individuals such as Kate Beckinsale, yes it would be easy to detect lower levels of non-European admixture using superficial anatomical markers in the group. I also wish to add that if a white man had to choose between Kate Beckinsale and a far less attractive white woman, he would not be foolish enough to ask for a DNA sample to assess the amount of non-European admixture and then reject Kate Beckinsale because she is less European. In addition, if white males were to only breed with white-looking women, then it is a guarantee that the EGI of whites as it stands now will be negligibly affected by the inclusion of the rare women who have significant non-European admixture yet look European.
Cite where I have proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry.
Why even mention the absurd scenario when no reasonable person could end up practicing what you have termed disjunctive familialism?
Some bloggers occupy a particular niche, and the point remains that a focus on looks at MR hardly registers when all its contents are considered in totality. You don’t have to worry about so-called anti-racists making a point out of MR entries. They know better than to reference a site that offers a lot of content that they would rather have remain largely unknown. 26
Posted by J Richards on March 12, 2006, 06:40 PM | #
The evidence reflects pre-history and also the time period covering recorded history, and is therefore not labeled pre-historic as you have termed it.
Well then, people don’t just marry for looks. There are plenty of reasons why people marry, and it is not unusual to compromise on looks. Therefore marriage or couplings do not necessarily reflect a high rating of the looks of one’s partner. Additionally, even if you have an equal number of Asians and whites living in a city, these people will not be randomly distributed throughout the city. In a number of cases, some whites will encounter an environment where they come in contact with more Asians than whites. The fact remains that the best way of assessing preferred looks is to do the kind of studies that I have cited, where it is clear that most whites prefer white looks than non-white looks.
Where have I implied in my Katrina post that all blacks are criminals?
You have curiously combined “mostly loser types” with “likely.” These terms originally appeared in different threads and different contexts. What is not clear about the statement that most of the white men that I have observed with Asian women are loser types?
27
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 09:01 AM | # I’ll leave the Asian mating discussion to the newer Korean cartoon post, where commentators have been taking a more realistic view of the situation that you do. Note that the term “argument” can be used, in the broad biopolitical sense, to include lifestyle choices. In a real sense, Derbyshire’s marriage is an argument in favor of Eurasian mongrelization; thus, calling him a “loser” for that choice is ad hominem. You may “nitpick” all you wish on the terminology. How about formulating a response to Eurasian mating that *argues* (in the more traditional sense) in favor of endogamy, instead of calling people “losers?” Is calling a “white geek” a “loser” going to convince him not to mate with an Oriental? “What is this? The point is that there is no need to measure a large number of superficial anatomical markers to determine ancestral relationships, but this can be done if needed to show that population classification based on a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers will agree very well with population classification based on a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers” My point remains: it is easier, more direct, and accurate just to measure the genetics. Furthermore, forgive me for being skeptical that, given phenotypic overlap, that measuring cranial attributes will be able to give useful information about narrower classification on the individual level, which genetic analyses is beginning to have the ability to do. “The aim of the process (nature acting on the phenotype) is to select phenotype; genotype is selected indirectly. Genes cannot replicate themselves without the phenotype.” You need to wake up from your “big boob dreams” and actually realize what you are writing. Should we engineer Negroes to have the entire white distinctive genome? Or what, exactly? Who now is talking about unrealistic absurdities? All that is needed to preserve EGI is the maintenance of relative homogeneity of the defined “ethny”, which should share a higher concentration of distinctive genes/genetic structures than the non-ethny populations (so defined). If Iceland eschews immigration and has its territory reserved for Icelanders, that’s preserving their EGI. No need for “genetic engineering.” As you would say: “damn!” “People are not going to go around and ask others for their DNA profile to determine how well they are related to them.” No, instead they will go around with a set of calipers and take cranial measurements. In point of fact I know of some examples in which people interested in Russian/Ukrainian women for wives or egg donors have had the women tested using autosomal DNA analysis. DNA testing is of course imperfect and requires further improvements, but is more objective than other evaluative tools. “A determination of relatedness is typically based on overall physical appearance and also elements of culture, all of which map very well to the genes related to EGI.” Bait and switch. First, is the assertion that a large number of anatomical measurements can correlate with genes and hence EGI. Now we are back to “overall physical appearance” – but isn’t the point of bringing up measurements of large numbers of phenotypic traits precisely because “overall physical appearance” can be misleading? Your whole argument of course has as its purpose an attempt to justify using “overall physical appearance” as the ultimate evaluative tool, because, and let us be honest here; your predominant interest is in the phenotype, rather in EGI. Comments about culture are interesting as well. Culture is part of the phenotype, the extended phenotype. Very well. But non-whites may mimic, if not create, at least certain superficial aspects of white culture. Should we just then preserve culture and assume that the genes will be “along with the ride?” “You apparently do not have a sufficient background in biology. It is time for you to pick up a basic textbook of biology and look for the section that offers evidence for evolution. Part of the evidence offered will point out that the initial classification of living organisms based on external appearance has corresponded very well to classification based on DNA markers, most of which have nothing to do with external appearance, including DNA markers not involved in gene expression.” And you need to cut down on the porn and read up on evolutionary biology yourself. Maybe actually read Salter, or re-read it with the aim of actually understanding it this time. You “apparently” have missed the last 40 years of gene-based evolutionary theory. I am well aware of reasonable correspondence, in general, between morphological classification, and genetics. I am also aware that this correlation does not always hold in the case of humans. I’m sorry, but the narrower classifications of guys like Coon to not match genetic realities, and you yourself are attempting to justify a “man in the street looks at phenotypes” methodology, when that is fraught with errors. People on this blog think that pink-skinned mestizos are white, and cannot distinguish racially mixed beauty contestants from native Europeans. I have plenty of anecdotal experience to confirm that “overall physical appearance” can be misleading. It is you, sir, with your aesthetic interests, who refuses to acknowledge modern biology. “In light of the above, it is hardly required to show the same for humans, including closely related populations, but some studies have done so, as in example of the study that assessed 20 discreet cranial traits. Another study showed that Bosnians and Croatians, who happen to be next door neighbors, were distinguished by a set of 22 skull measurements [American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2004, 124:73-80]. Do you think that DNA testing using a sufficiently large number of markers will not separate the majority of Bosnians from most Croatians?” First, I’m doubtful that these studies have the same power as the potential of genetics, and you give no reason why we shouldn’t just use genetics instead. Second, you then talk about “overall physical appearance.” OK, then, can the average white American separate Bosnians from Croatians by sight? “Information is of course important, but by itself it does nothing. The value of computer software lies in what it can be made to do using computer hardware. The fundamental/ultimate interest is not the information itself, but what you can do with it. What you can do with information obviously requires the information in the first place. Therefore, any measure to derive the benefits of some information will automatically ensure that the information itself is preserved.” No, not when the “benefits” derive from only a fraction of the information, or if the same “benefit” can be derived from information less valuable in terms of a broader benefit, or when people don’t even agree on what that benefit should be. This is the key to the entire argument. You wish to preserve phenotypic interests; all the talk of correlating anatomical traits with gene frequencies was all so much obfuscation. We now have the tools to examine these questions on the genetic level. The resistance against these tools is very interesting, to say the least. 28
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 09:02 AM | # - continued - “I also wish to add that if a white man had to choose between Kate Beckinsale and a far less attractive white woman, he would not be foolish enough to ask for a DNA sample to assess the amount of non-European admixture and then reject Kate Beckinsale because she is less European.” Here you expose yourself as a phenotypic “interest-est.” I see. The fact that the woman is attractive trumps the fact that someone else provides higher genetic/parental kinship. Eurasian and other mongrels are acceptable as long as they fit your sense of aesthetics, genes be damned. “In addition, if white males were to only breed with white-looking women, then it is a guarantee that the EGI of whites as it stands now will be negligibly affected by the inclusion of the rare women who have significant non-European admixture yet look European.” In general true. But, again, why not use ethnic ancestry? “Cite where I have proposed using phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry.” Let’s see. EGI is based upon, ultimately, common (distant and not so distant) ancestry. You say that phenotype can be used to make choices to maximize EGI. Hmm….. “Why even mention the absurd scenario when no reasonable person could end up practicing what you have termed disjunctive familialism?” Disjunctive racialism is a historical fact, and may be practiced by those who share your proximate focus. “Some bloggers occupy a particular niche, and the point remains that a focus on looks at MR hardly registers when all its contents are considered in totality. You don’t have to worry about so-called anti-racists making a point out of MR entries. They know better than to reference a site that offers a lot of content that they would rather have remain largely unknown.” Let me explain it so even you can understand it. Let TPO = third party observer 29
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 10:58 AM | # No Bosnians here, but Croatians: Putting aside our calipers, and relying on brains and “overall phenotype”, I’m a bit skpetical that the average white person would be able to distinguish Croats from other Balkan peoples here. I also am skeptical of a reliable separation of Croats from a generalized Central or Southern European grouping. Of course, Croats can be distinguished by eye from the typical Turk and, especially, the South Asians. Within the European samples, greatest chances of separation would be from samples from the opposite ends of the continent. But, even there, there is overlap. Thus, if we would need to depend on calipers and large numbers of anatomical measurements for narrower distinctions, I don’t see why we just don’t look at the genes, and support the further development of such genetic tests. That’s one part of the problem. With increasing immigration and miscegenation, there is also the need for people to distinguish racially admixed people from native European types. Given my observations, I have skepticism there as well. I have already noted MR examples. Many white people may also place Paul Kariya and Merle Oberon as white, etc. Do not misunderstand: I agree that phenotype is very important, as is culture. However, if there is a sincere interest in EGI, we do need to consider actual genetic data. If the interest is at the level of the phenotype, then just be open about it, and not attempt to justify that by saying our choice is between a reliance on phenotype vs. genetic engineering, or use the possible general correlation of large numbers of anatomical measurements with genes (of which I am not convinced of) to justify a quite different tactic of using personal evaluation of overall phenotype to correlate with EGI. 30
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 11:40 AM | # If you are really interested in Frost’s descriptive theories, rather than a prescriptive distortion of EGI, you’d note David B’s critique of sexual selection on GNXP. 31
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 13, 2006, 04:38 PM | # More on genes: “Evolution 101” may be needed here: Now: Sailer tells us his wife (using her brain) looked at mulatto Shelby Steele’s “overall physical appearance” and decided that Steele was Greek. Perhaps people may think the half-Japanese Kariya looks Russian, or the one quarter Japanese Dean Cain looks, say, Serbian. Are Greeks, Russians, and Serbs then obligated to absorb the Negro or Japanese genes of those individuals? This is not a “rare” or “theoretical” problem. Although still a small percentage of the population, there are still plenty of mixed race people out there, and their numbers are increasing. Immigration of non-European Caucasian peoples also bring individuals of alien genetic background, but with “overall physical appearances” that Mrs. Sailer and others may designate as native European. Particularly, when these non-European Caucasians mate with European Caucasians (e.g., Razib telling us that his grandchildren will be accepted as white), this increases the Merle Oberon factor. Then there is the well-known Leo Felton story which is so ludicrous that one may think it is a “reduction to absurdity” argument, but nonetheless is true. Now, haven’t you expressed concern that a problem with race mixing is not so much the “losers” with the Orientals or the “fatsos” with the Negroes, but that their offspring would then be more likely to mate with the white population? This being so, let us at least depend upon a combination of phenotypic and genetic evaluative techniques. Someone may think Mr. Cain is “Serbian”, but analysis of, for example, large numbers of SNPs will allow us to determine his significant East Asian ancestry. Now, if someone says, “who cares”, he “looks white” to me and that’s what matters, that is their right. Others have the right to decide not to wish to absorb his East Asian genetic material. As per previous posts on these topics, there needs be no “naturalistic fallacy.” The fact that a Cain is ¼ Asian or a Beckinsale is 1/8 Asian does not imply that they must be rejected by a specific evaluation. But, why not have that information? Why do we need to depend on what the Sailer family, or anyone else, thinks about Shelby Steele. Frankly, I don’t care what Mrs. Sailer thinks about Mr. Steele; it is irrelevant for my evaluation of his impact on the genetic interests of others. Once again, I am not saying we should be pure genetic reductionists. By all means, let us consider phenotypes and culture as well. After all, from a practical perspective, a purely genetic argument would be unlikely to persuade most people to preserve EGI (unfortunately). But, we absolutely must consider genetic factors. We may decide that Beckinsale’s obvious phenotypic charms and her (I suspect) identification as white, together with her 7/8 white genotype “outweights” her 1/8 Asian ancestry. Or we may decide otherwise, or some of us may think one way, others differently. But we shouldn’t just ignore her genetics and her ancestry. And we certainly cannot say that just looking at her appearance tells us all we need to know about her impact on our genetic interests. It simply isn’t so. And it simply isn’t so that she is an extremely rare case, particularly when the “average person” lacks the discerning eye to make judgments in many cases. Examination of phenotype raises several challenges. Is intelligence, behavior, and cultural creativity/compatibility included? Even looking only at “overall physical appearance”, from a descriptive standpoint, how can this be evaluated in as objective and quantitative way as possible? From a prescriptive standpoint, how can it match this blog’s purported focus on the interests of western populations? 32
Posted by J Richards on March 14, 2006, 01:54 AM | #
If Derbyshire were married to a woman from the Baltics, would it imply an argument for Balticization? Whatever the reason for his marrying an Asian, I don’t think he promotes Eurasian mongrelization. Personal choice is not necessarily a statement of recommendation to others. And, once again, I have said that most white men that I have seen with Asian men are loser types; I have not called all such men loser types. Your saying that my statement constitutes ad hominem is just nonsensical.
I already have argued against Eurasian mongrelization by pointing out the loss to whites of attractiveness and the negative health consequences of race mixing. There are additional arguments, of course, which have been pointed out by others. Where have I called a white geek a loser? I have said that white nerds and white geeks in colleges are usually losers when it comes to dating white women. Note the word usually. Some white geeks go on to make big money when they start working, and then they have no problems getting all the women they want.
You talk about phenotypic overlap. Are you not aware of genotypic overlap? About 85% of neutral DNA genetic variation in humans exists within populations, i.e., the genetic information of races considerably overlaps. Of course, it is easier to obtain DNA samples and analyze thousands of genetic markers than to use calipers and lasers to measure hundreds of anatomical markers, but once again, when it comes to mate choice, basing it on similar ancestry-informative looks and shared elements of culture/personality/behavior maps very well to EGI.
If the aim is to replicate genetic structure, what happens if the environment changes such that the genetic structure becomes less optimal? Would nature still attempt to replicate the genetic structure? It is time for you learn that nature selects the phenotype, not to replicate the genotype, but its end goal, speaking anthropomorphically, is to simply select the phenotype. The genotype is selected indirectly.
Negroes genetically engineered to have white DNA will no longer be Negroes; they will be white. This is fantasy, of course, and is simply digressing into irrelevancy.
If Iceland reserves its territory for Icelanders only, I’ll be glad, and this point is not relevant here because I am not opposed to ethnostates. I don’t mind a small non-white presence in the West, but ethnostates are fine with me.
Of course ethnostates will preserve EGI, and I am not opposed to ethnostates.
I have not implied a choice between phenotypic and genotypic analyses; what I have pointed out is that multiple analyses serve the purpose of preserving EGI equally well.
To assess multiple phenotypic markers, calipers are not needed; visual examination is typically enough, but a DNA profile involves DNA extraction and subsequent laboratory analysis.
This is not how people normally reproduce. If you are going to obtain donor sperm or eggs, it is of course understandable that you will go for DNA analysis. If you are going to seek a spouse without going through the courtship process, I suppose you could go for DNA analysis, but this is not how most people find a mate or will be finding a mate anytime in the foreseeable future.
An evaluation based on a few phenotypic markers can be misleading, just as an evaluation based on a few genotypic markers can be misleading, but a visual examination of overall physical appearance takes into account a huge number of anatomical markers, which from a statistical point will not mislead to the extent that white males strictly breeding with white-looking women will make a significant change to the white gene pool resulting from non-European admixture.
This is patently false. What I have pointed out is that there are multiple ways of evaluating genetic relatedness that serve the purpose of preserving EGI equally well, and that multiple phenotypic markers are what people typically use to evaluate genetic relatedness, and sufficiently numerous phenotypic markers map very well to EGI. 33
Posted by J Richards on March 14, 2006, 01:56 AM | #
Non-whites may mimic culture, but can they mimic the physical appearance of whites? Nowhere have I implied a phenotypic focus on culture only. For phenotypic markers to map well with EGI, you need to have a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers, and combining overall looks with shared culture is good enough for preserving EGI.
What pornography? Molecular biology is my field, so don’t tell me to read about genetics.
Can genetics not be misleading? There are plenty of studies around that are used by race deniers to argue that the so-called races are not easily distinguished genetically. These studies have usually examined a few dozen genotypic markers at most, but when you increase the number of DNA markers evaluated, the probability of misclassification diminishes. For instance, in a study that has been addressed at length within this site, 326 microsatellite markers evaluated in 3,636 individuals missclassified only 5 individuals [American Journal of Human Genetics, 2005, 76:268–275], but note that there was still some misclassification. Similarly, relying on a few phenotypic markers corresponds to an unacceptable level of probability of misclassification, but increase the number of markers and the probability of misclassification rapidly goes down.
Nobody associated with this blog would mistake pink-skinned mestizos for white; John ray once left a comment in this regard, where he pointed to the retention of white skin among some mestizos, but if I remember correctly, he did not argue that these individuals have retained the facial features of whites. Another person commented on some mixed-race beauty pageant contestants as looking like they came from Southern Europe. This is not to say that that he believed that the contestants are white.
Once again, the choice is not between genetics vs. anatomical markers, but the point is that a sufficiently large number of markers belonging to either group will map well to race and EGI. I have never been to the Balkans and wouldn’t know how to distinguish Bosnians from Croatians via a visual examination, but both these groups are European, and I would have no problem with them breeding together or even myself breeding with an attractive Bosnian or Croat, notwithstanding the fact that I don’t have recent ancestors from the Balkans. On the other hand, why should whites have to care about distinguishing closely related white populations? Do you believe that Swedes should breed with Swedes only, Welsh should breed with Welsh only, and so on? Personally, whereas I would not breed with a non-white, if I like a white woman, I’m not going to bother what her nationality is.
The benefits here derive from a large set of genes. Overall looks and elements of culture correspond to a large set of genes that constitute EGI and also correlate well with all other genes that are part of EGI. There is broad agreement among whites that white looks and Western culture should be preserved.
Phenotypic interests also happen to cover genotypic interests, provided that a sufficiently large number of markers are considered.
If you have normal eyesight and vision, you should be able to tell a white person from one with significant non-European admixture. There will be exceptions, of course, but these exceptions are so few in number that if all whites were to breed with white-looking people only, the gene pool of whites will not change significantly as a result of non-European admixture.
I have no objections to genetic analyses of ancestry. It is you who has an objection to any focus on looks at this site.
JW Holliday has talked about DNAPrint Genomics’ work on several occasions. From its work, it is clear that most Europeans have a small amount of non-European genetic affinity. Now, the question is, if you had two prospective white women to choose from such that both have identical pigmentation and the very attractive one has 2% non-European genetic affinity and the less attractive one had 0.3% non-European genetic affinity, which one of these women would it be? I don’t know about you, but most white males, including myself, will go for the more attractive white woman. Attractiveness has high mate value and producing attractive white children is a good bet to ensure your genetic propagation. The question is how many attractive white women have a significant amount of non-European admixture? Very few. For some white males to breed with these women is to negligibly add non-European genetics to the white gene pool.
Of course, one could use DNA analysis, too, but if you wish to court a white woman, I wish you good luck with respect to getting her to submit to a DNA test to see how white see is so that you can determine whether she is the right woman for you.
Just because I point out that phenotypic classification well-matches genotypic classification is not to say that one should use phenotype rather than genotype to make inferences about ancestry. 34
Posted by J Richards on March 14, 2006, 01:59 AM | #
Conflict is a natural part of human societies. Flood the West with non-whites and whites of all stripes will join forces, but remove non-whites from the West and you will end up with some level of intra-European conflict (though nowhere as bad as that resulting from non-white presence). What makes you think that disjunctive racialism could not result from genetic analyses? Detailed genetic analyses will easily separate different European populations. The fact remains that whites are not going to kill each other over looks.
The TPO will actually encounter lots of cool information if he goes through my science-oriented posts, and will typically also go through some other entries to learn more about this site. Do you seriously believe that so-called anti-racists would want to impart such knowledge to neutral, white TPOs?
As far as white EGI is concerned, if whites belonging to closely related European populations cannot be easily visually distinguished by the layperson, so what? Interbreeding of white populations does not harm white EGI, and this would be confirmed by DNA analysis, which would show such close relatedness of the white groups involved that there would be no doubt that they belong to the same race.
There is neither a need to have caliper-based measurements nor a need to insist on DNA samples prior to breeding. Advances in both phenotypic and genotypic assessments continue. To preserve white EGI, one need only keep the non-white masses out of the West and breed with whites.
Racially admixed people are typically easily distinguished from whites. In the few cases where such distinction is obscured, the amount of non-white ancestry is typically minor and absorbing such people into the white gene pool will not significantly change the white gene pool because of the very small number of such people compared to whites. Even if race mixing on the part of whites were to increase greatly, the number of racially-mixed people who look white would be so few that breeding with these people will not undermine white EGI; the undermining of white EGI will result from breeding with the obviously non-white.
Biological science considers both phenotype and genotype, which is the way it should be.
It is your own distortion that I am arguing for a choice between a reliance on phenotype vs. genetic engineering. To preserve EGI, one needs to know who is part of the same race. This is easily accomplished via both DNA analysis and sufficiently numerous phenotypic markers.
David B’s essay is of no academic relevance. Peter Frost has an empirical argument, which David B has been completely unable to refute or provide an alternative explanation of. David B resorted to name calling to argue against Frost’s paper. So much for an academic critique! His so-called criticism is devoid of empirical data, and I will address it eventually; I am too busy right now.
35
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 14, 2006, 06:07 AM | # Since you are merely repeating the same arguments over and over again, complete with nitpicking qualifications, with no evidence to support any of your assertions, I see no reason to add to my comments of yersterday. I will add however, re: We have John Ray, an alleged academic who makes “arguments” that would be embarassing coming from a child, and here we have someone claiming to be in the field of “molecular biology” who is totally ignorant of evolutionary theory. I see that the “west’s” ability to compete on the academic level with Asia is being compromised through such individuals. 36
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 14, 2006, 06:51 AM | # Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Felton One can continuously assert that these are just rare cases, and of no practical interest. Perhaps. Or perhaps they are illustrative of the fact that in today’s multicultural, multiracial environment there are dangers in an emphasis on relying on the ability of the masses to discern “overall physical appearance.” 37
Posted by Calvin on March 14, 2006, 08:26 AM | # J Richards, just a quick word to say that I took your advice and read your original post. I have to agree that Frost’s theory is not without merit and that your introduction was very funny and informative. Sorry about that! 38
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 14, 2006, 09:37 AM | # Let us consider John, Martin, and Mrs. Sailer. As you are well aware, John Ray’s original contention was that there is a “white elite” in places such as Chile, thus “proving” that whites can survive and prosper as minorities in colored nations. John defined “white” purely phenotypically, and was unmoved, at least initially, when it was pointed out that the Chilean upper class is in fact substantially Amerindian. Under pressure, he later modified his ideal to that of “pink-skinned elites absorbing the ‘good genes’ of the best of the coloreds”, with the phenotypic badge of complexion being sufficient for John with respect to identity. At the very least, the predominant blogger here has learned but little from your posts with respect to facial features and other aspects of racial morphology. At worst, his initial ideas on this subject reflect problems that exist when purely phenotypic judgments are made, in that extensive racial mixture is considered acceptable as long as the resulting hybrids fit into a conception of “looking white.” Martin’s case is more damning, regardless of how you try to spin it. Your own assertion is that evaluations of “overall physical appearance” can be used as a proxy for genetic data, and be utilized to make decisions relevant to genetic interests; e.g., mating. How people are judged to look can be used as a reliable measure of what they are, and how they influence EGI, by this perspective. Isn’t that what Martin was doing? To him, the racially mixed and/or Turkic beauty contestants “looked just like Greeks and Italians.” Thus, by the phenotypic evaluation of his brain, which you promote, these women would/should be viewed by Martin as being essentially the same as Greeks/Italians with respect to his genetic interests (assuming he thinks in those terms, which he does not, but should). However, gene frequency data combined with Harpending’s formulae indicate that this is incorrect. Furthermore, genetic structure issues must be considered above and beyond the Salter/Harpending/gene frequency issue. For example, a Dutch-Indonesian hybrid will have extensive and alien L.D. compared to the parental racial stocks. In summary, stating that Martin didn’t say what the women *are* but what they *looked like* is in fact underscoring a problem with your whole approach, since you’ve been telling us what people *look like* can be used as a practical evaluative tool with respect to EGI (which is based, of course, on what people are). So, in fact, Martin is a prime example of an ostensibly intelligent and “worldly” person whose evaluations of phenotype would lead him to significantly mismeasure his genetic interests with respect to people he has judged. With respect to Mrs. Sailer, I cannot see how having her look at your posts will enable her to solve the Steele/Greek “problem”, as none of your posts have, as far as I can see, dealt with Greek phenotypes. In fact, all we’ve read of about the Irish, for example, is that they are (more likely to be??) more obese and less attractive than Germanic Europeans. Mention of other Europeans is usually incidental and usually to distinguish their lack of fine facial features compared to the Germanic groups. Mrs. Sailer presumably would not mistake Steele for a Swede; thus, her problem does not lie in that direction, but in distinguishing the wide variety of European morphological types from specimens such as Steele. 39
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 14, 2006, 05:14 PM | # I’ll agree with J Richards that the low levels of “non-European genetic affiliation” (or whatever you wish to term it) within native European populations is not a major concern; he gives an example of choosing beween two women, both with minor levels of such affiliation. OK, I’ll agree. As I have already stated, there are of course considerations other than raw genetic data. Agreed, for example, that attractiveness can boost reproductive potential. Let’s consider all relevant factors, including phenotype and culture. My point remains however that a direct evaluation of genetic data - for groups if not for individuals (I say *both*) - is required to get a handle on EGI. I for one want a degree of quantitative objectivity. There is of couse a difference between genetic gradients within native Europeans - to which J Richards refers to in his example of the two women - and cases of significant levels of admixture (Cain, Kariya, even Beckinsale). Contra Salter, and in agreement with JW and James Bowery, genetic structure needs to be considered as well. This may be “hypothetical” (and an area of needed analysis), but heavy admixture causes problems with genetic interests above and beyond changes in gene frequencies; in addition, the “timing” of the altered genetic information may play a role as well. Admixture leads to significant changes in LD, which may slowly dissipate over time (but, of course, changes in structure and, more so, in the overall gene frequencies remain); thus causing profound changes in genetic information, and hence, genetic interests. The following is of interest (and this may lead to methods to “time” “admixture” in genetic assays):
Collins-Schramm et al, Am. J. Hum. Genetc. 70, 737-750, 2002 40
Posted by third party observer on March 14, 2006, 10:16 PM | # slinker…sly: First, do you mind revealing your ethnic affiliation? And have you posted before under other names? Why are you so touchy about the idea that phenotype matters? Salter’s EGI framework is useful, but I daresay if there were no observable phenotypic differences between populations, we would be quite a bit less concerned with population-level EGI. I don’t see how anyone can argue with J Richards’ main points. The eye (supplemented with genealogical data where available) is at present the best tool the man on the street has for measuring genetic compatibility. Commercially available tests (i.e., those from DNAprint), are worse than useless in this capacity.
Northern Europeans aren’t telling Greeks, Russians, or Serbs who to mate with. If a N. European finds mixed race individuals indistinguishable from S. Europeans, that to me says just maybe the N. European should trust his instincts and mate with a fellow N. European, instead of listening to a S. Italian who tells him all Europeans are interchangeable. Because, after all, science tells us Swedes are genetically indistinguishable from S. Italians. Except, oops, it doesn’t.
You mean to tell me Greeks and Turks aren’t essentially the same with respect to a N. European’s genetic interests? That sounds suspiciously like “disjunctive racialism” to me (incidentally, I’ve only heard that term used by Rienzi/Holliday). More to the point: in my own prescription, Martin (assuming he is N. European) should not be mixing with either S. Europeans or mixed race types. Martin’s eyes/instincts are working fine. 41
Posted by J Richards on March 15, 2006, 05:14 AM | #
I have been forced to repeat some of my arguments because of your failure to understand some basic points. No evidence to support any of my assertions? Are you kidding me? I have cited a bunch of it from peer-reviewed journals, and the one time that you have cited a peer-reviewed journal is in reference to linkage disequilibrium, which is of hardly any relevance to this discussion given that the genetic structure of a hybrid is bound to differ from its unmixed parents.
How am I ignorant of evolutionary theory? It is your comments that show ignorance of basic biology. Regarding John, most of his arguments are sound but there are two of his arguments that most of the regulars at this blog have a problem with: his comments regarding race replacement, especially his not having a problem with large scale East Asian immigration, and his allegedly simplistic left vs. right description of political orientation. Regarding race replacement, John’s views are clearly outlier views here and have little to do with his academic specialty, i.e., social psychology. However, the left vs. right political orientation that John has talked about is related to his specialty and is academically sound. None of his critics on this count are familiar with principal components analysis, and the problem is with their misunderstanding, not with John’s allegedly simplistic model.
Your links do not show Felton’s facial features. Additionally, the link about the girls clearly reveals women who look Hispanic. I don’t see how these women could be mistaken as white by non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. And, if there are some white ignoramuses out there, then they could be educated about what constitutes white looks.
As far as I can recall, John did not say that their facial features are the same as that of white Spaniards; he just focused on skin color, and even if he regards these people as white, he is just one person. I do not know of any white person who would classify a white-skinned person as white if there is clear evidence of non-Caucasoid admixture from an evaluation of facial features.
All of the handful of examples that you have given involve minor rather than extensive non-white admixture, which does not externally show in rare cases such as that of Kate Beckinsale. See how many people with extensive non-white ancestry you can find that actually look white.
I have seen Greeks and Italians who look like the mixed-race contestants, but guess what? Do I consider these Greeks and Italians white? No, and Martin did not state that he considers the mixed-race contestants to be white. So what is the problem? A white Greek who wanted to preserve white EGI had best avoid breeding with Greeks who look like some of the mixed-race contestants.
Where has Martin implied that he considers people with the looks of the mixed-race contestants as part of his ethnic group?
White Greeks are slightly darker and have somewhat more robust facial features compared to Northern Europeans. Their facial features are Caucasoid, and Sailer’s wife could surely learn to distinguish Caucasoid facial features from the Negroid features of Steele.
Like I have said before, biological science considers both phenotype and genotype. By no means am I objecting to genetic analyses. Genetic and phenotypic analyses will not only broadly agree with each other, but they will complement each other. Additionally, using 3-D photography and geometric morphometrics, you can have all the quantitative objectivity you could want regarding physical appearance. 42
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 15, 2006, 09:39 AM | # “Regarding John, most of his arguments are sound but there are two of his arguments that most of the regulars at this blog have a problem with: his comments regarding race replacement, especially his not having a problem with large scale East Asian immigration, and his allegedly simplistic left vs. right description of political orientation. Regarding race replacement, John’s views are clearly outlier views here and have little to do with his academic specialty, i.e., social psychology. However, the left vs. right political orientation that John has talked about is related to his specialty and is academically sound. None of his critics on this count are familiar with principal components analysis, and the problem is with their misunderstanding, not with John’s allegedly simplistic model.” This apologia for John Ray is laughable. Let’s look at some of his “sound arguments” and opinions. He not only supports East Asian *and* South Asian immigration to the west, but has supported legal and illegal Hispanic immigration to the USA. Illegal immigration shows “ability”, as does the tasty breakfast cooked for John by a mestizo. He thinks that these immigrants are bringing “good genes” to the USA. He has argued with Sailer that the extensive psychometric data concerning modern mestizos are unreliable, because pre-Columbian Amerinds built big pyramids. John tells us not to be concerned with carrying capacity, since the USA can support and sustain ~ 3 billion people at a western European standard of living. He also tells us that the “REAL” reason for race replacement is differential birthrates and not immigration; the “evidence” for this is that places like Japan have low birthrates sans immigration. Of course, the Japanese are *not* being race-replaced precisely because they do not have the immigration that John promotes, but that inconvenient little fact is ignored in John’s “sound argument.” In all his posts, his childlike “arguments” are ripped apart like toilet paper, to which he responds by simply spamming the blog with the same already-refuted assertions over and over again – a behavior noted by several people associated with MR. This all indicates to me characteristics not consistent with academic rigor. Now, with respect to the left/right issue. The problem is not with a lack of understanding of principal components analysis; in fact, as far as I know, no one has ever critiqued the technical aspects of John’s methodology. The problem was and is that this methodology, however sound, yields a linear left/right continuum only in a specific context. What is this context (as has been discussed on this blog previously)? It is that an aracial set of carefully crafted questions (which JJR has linked to) are presented to the “man in the street.” The methodology is sound, but a limited input necessarily yields a limited output. What if a wider, more racially relevant set of questions were utilized? In addition to questions on economics, foreign policy, “democratic” politics, and morality, what if questions were added addressing race, immigration, EGI, and the wide range of social and political alternatives? And what if these questions were addressed to MR participants, as well as to people like Faye, de Benoist, Michael O’ Meara, Jared Taylor, Duke, Strom, Hart, Auster and others who John Ray casually dismisses as “outliers.” This input will, I guarantee, yield an output that is a multi-component ideological model. We already know that the people you would term “white ignoramuses” think that George Bush is “right” and John Kerry is “left” and that is all there is to the political spectrum. So? For a blog allegedly interested in western nationalist thought, perhaps we need to actually discern the parameters of that thought, rather than re-investigating what fans of Oprah and the NFL “think” about “politics.” If my critique is wrong, then let’s see John put together an analysis that addresses all the issues I cited above in a reasonable and comprehensive manner, and the let’s see if a linear continuum is produced. 43
Posted by sliner, sailer, toldya, sly on March 15, 2006, 09:46 AM | # “I have been forced to repeat some of my arguments because of your failure to understand some basic points. No evidence to support any of my assertions? Are you kidding me? I have cited a bunch of it from peer-reviewed journals, and the one time that you have cited a peer-reviewed journal is in reference to linkage disequilibrium, which is of hardly any relevance to this discussion given that the genetic I have already commented on your citations. The citation on LD was making another point, regarding differential effects of admixture and in the context of Martin’s phenotypic confusion. That you share Ray’s inability to follow an argument is your fault, not mine. “How am I ignorant of evolutionary theory? It is your comments that show ignorance of basic biology.” Selection works on the phenotype, as you say. But the only thing that is passed down from generation to generation is the information encoded in the genome (which may include some epigenetic modifications). Perhaps you believe in the homunculus theory of reproduction, I don’t know. Evolutionary theory is gene-based. Genes are replicators; phenotypes are vehicles. I cannot believe these things actually need to be debated in the year 2006. “Damn!” “Your links do not show Felton’s facial features. Additionally, the link about the girls clearly reveals women who look Hispanic. I don’t see how these women could be mistaken as white by non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. And, if there are some white ignoramuses out there, then they could be educated about what constitutes white looks.” If you are sufficiently literate, and sufficiently motivated to learn about the case, you’ll know that only the female on the right was considered “white”, not both of them. And given that “white ignoramuses” apparently constitute a sizable fraction of the population, you indeed have much work to do. Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate the Boston Globe article which featured both Felton’s full face photo as well as a photo of his father. Of interest as well is that that Felton photo was on Stormfront some years ago, with the comment that someone had classified Felton as a “Brunn” – a term I assume you are familiar with. “As far as I can recall, John did not say that their facial features are the same as that of white Spaniards; he just focused on skin color, and even if he regards these people as white, he is just one person. I do not know of any white person who would classify a white-skinned person as white if there is clear evidence of non-Caucasoid admixture from an evaluation of facial features.” John Ray, as you just stated. “All of the handful of examples that you have given involve minor rather than extensive non-white admixture, which does not externally show in rare cases such as that of Kate Beckinsale. See how many people with extensive non-white ancestry you can find that actually look white. There was actually a website dedicated to (extensively) mixed race people who “passed as white”; I don’t remember the exact name. Felton was not of minor admixture. Do you consider Beckinsale’s admixture to be minor as well? “I have seen Greeks and Italians who look like the mixed-race contestants, but guess what? Do I consider these Greeks and Italians white? No, and Martin did not state that he considers the mixed-race contestants to be white. So what is the problem? A white Greek who wanted to preserve white EGI had best avoid breeding with Greeks who look like some of the mixed-race contestants.” When you have evidence that Italians, Greeks, or any other European people can be separated into “white” and “non-white” genetically, let us all know about it please. Actually, DNAPrint data could in theory show how members of any ethnic group are genetically relative to empirically determined measures of “native European ancestry”, and, therefore, some can be more or less “European” than others. http://nusapiens.blogspot.com/2005/03/ranking-native-european-ancestry.html This may not, of course, coincide with your own evaluations; we shall see. I’d be particularly interested though if, for example, the population of Greece “considers” (see below) itself to be biracial. If Pontikos reads this, he may wish to comment. You are, of course, fully supporting my contention that your phenotypic analysis will lead to disjunctive racialism. In your world, “white Greeks” – by your definition - should be separated from, at least in mating, “non-white Greeks” based on your interpretation of physical appearance. The gets back to the subjectivity argument – what you or Mrs. Sailer think is not relevant to EGI. The genetic data are so relevant, and despite your attempts to conflate the two, they are not the same. “I have seen”, “I consider”….not very quantitative, that. In the absence of supporting genetic data, the relevance of your opinion to EGI is absolutely zero. By the way, do you consider Bjork to be white? Why or why not? Furthermore, because you think certain people look like other people – which may or may not be objectively correct – it does not follow that these peoples are genetically equivalent. Perhaps from Pontikos’ site, but not from your posts. 44
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 15, 2006, 10:05 AM | # “First, do you mind revealing your ethnic affiliation?” Hey, I’m a fine-featured ultra-Nordic Swede who makes Dolph Lundgren look like Danny DeVito by comparison. “And have you posted before under other names?” Have you? LOL! What? “Why are you so touchy about the idea that phenotype matters?” If you are capable of reading the English language, you’ll see I’ve said that phenotype is important. “Salter’s EGI framework is useful, but I daresay if there were no observable phenotypic differences between populations, we would be quite a bit less concerned with population-level EGI.” I daresay you have no idea what you are talking about, re: EGI. “I don’t see how anyone can argue with J Richards’ main points. The eye (supplemented with genealogical data where available) is at present the best tool the man on the street has for measuring genetic compatibility.” Which is why so many mistakes have been made by “men in the street.” “Commercially available tests (i.e., those from DNAprint), are worse than useless in this capacity.” That issue has already been addressed on this site. When properly interpreted, there is nothing wrong with that test. “If a N. European finds mixed race individuals indistinguishable from S. Europeans, that to me says just maybe the N. European should trust his instincts and mate with a fellow N. European, instead of listening to a S. Italian who tells him all Europeans are interchangeable.” I have never read anyone on this blog or elsewhere, who has stated that all Europeans are interchangeable. “Because, after all, science tells us Swedes are genetically indistinguishable from S. Italians.” No one has ever claimed that. “ Except, oops, it doesn’t.” Yes, and “science” also tells us we can use genetic assays to determine genetic relatedness, rather than your eye. “You mean to tell me Greeks and Turks aren’t essentially the same with respect to a N. European’s genetic interests? That sounds suspiciously like “disjunctive racialism” to me (incidentally, I’ve only heard that term used by Rienzi/Holliday).” Disjunctive racialism is discussed in Salter’s book, and the term will be familiar to anyone who has read that book, which I am assuming you have not. Greeks are not “genetically indistinguishable” from Turks. “More to the point: in my own prescription, Martin (assuming he is N. European) should not be mixing with either S. Europeans or mixed race types. Martin’s eyes/instincts are working fine.” From his own testimony, he has already mated with Balkan people and Jews. So much for his instincts. 45
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 15, 2006, 12:26 PM | # The following is important with respect to where I stand on these issues. At this point, it would be useful to summarize my position, so as to minimize the distortions, and to move away from side issues such as John’s mentality, Martin’s marital history, as well as evolutionary theory. What are the main points? Contrary to some assertions, I do believe phenotype is important (as is culture, which was also mentioned by J Richards), and I have repeatedly stated that. I also agree with J Richards that a combination of genetic and phenotypic analyses are required for efficient human evaluation. So far, we are in essential agreement. Where we differ, as I see it, is that I strongly emphasize the genetics, while J Richards strongly emphasizes the phenotype. I disagree with his assertion that evaluations of overall physical appearance are sufficient for decisions regarding EGI. With respect to the idea that European ethnic groups can be divided into white/non-white portions based on his evaluations of phenotype, I wish to see genetic data to understand the ancestral distributions within ethnic groups and Europe (and elsewhere) as a whole. This again underscores our differences as to where to place emphasis with respect to genotype/phenotype. Of course, different European ethnic groups are genetically and phenotypically distinguishable; no reasonable person would argue otherwise. Rather than obfuscating (genetic) differences – and similarities – among these groups, I in fact would like to see more data. I would like to see these similarities and differences quantified, as best is possible, on the individual and group levels. Certainly, people may wish to use their choice of genetic/phenotypic criteria to choose a mate. However, if you wish to use phenotypic criteria, just don’t attempt to justify that with appeals to EGI. There are of course rough correlations between the two, but they are not the same. Furthermore, if you do wish to use both phenotype and culture in addition to genetics, then, with respect to Greeks/Turks, I see phenotypic differences: The utility of genetic tests, commercial or academic, rests with: how the tests will be interpreted, the relevancy of the data to race and ethnicity, and, in the last analysis, does it “work” within the confines of how you are interpreting and using it. Actually, the same applies to phenotypic analyses as well. The issue of culture, particularly from a nationalist-Yockeyian perspective is another consideration; an important challenge will be how to integrate that into a biologically-oriented view (both genetic and phenotypic). If J Richards wishes to assert that all these components of identity are important, I will agree, although we will continue to disagree as to the extent to which the different components should be emphasized. This will I hope clarify my position. 46
Posted by TPO on March 15, 2006, 07:04 PM | # ‘Hey, I’m a fine-featured ultra-Nordic Swede who makes Dolph Lundgren look like Danny DeVito by comparison.’ I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone who paid $200 to be declared 100% Indo-European.
When properly interpreted, an individual DNAprint result yields no information not available to the naked eye.
And, *again*, the consumer “genetic assays” available today are worse than useless for the purposes to which you wish to put them. Do you think the genetic interests of a “100% IE” German woman are better served by mating with an allegedly “East Asian”-admixed German like Charles Kerchner or with a “100% IE” swarthy S. Italian or Middle Easterner? The raw marker data from a DNAprint test is potentially more informative than the “ancestry proportions”. But this data still represents only a tiny fraction of the genome. If you think this marker data can be used to assess genetic relatedness more accurately than can be done using visual inspection, it’s up to you to prove it. Good luck. I’d hope e.g. the Affymetrix 10k SNP array gives enough resolution to beat a human observer in determining relatedness. But we are years away from this technology being widely obtainable by consumers. And when it is? Will you stop associating with people whose results you don’t know? Doubtful. Visual assessment of phenotype (along with genealogical knowledge, and, yes, “extended phenotype”) will continue to be the main method for assessing relatedness into the forseeable future.
So what? They are closely related and genetically distant from N. Europeans. Why should a N. European accept a Greek into his country and turn away a Turk? And what of the many Greeks like your pal “Dienekes Pontikos” whose ancestors lived in Asia Minor into the 20th century. Are they now our European brothers because they crossed a magic line? “Pontikos”, for one, will happily tell you who he considers his racial brothers: Turks and S. Italians. Again, what I’m seeing here: you call it “disjunctive racialism” when people draw lines within Europe you don’t like; then you turn around and draw the lines to include S. Italians and Greeks, but not Turks.
Anyone who doesn’t use phenotypic criteria in choosing a mate is fucked in the head. That said, I believe people should, as they traditionally have, choose mates who share their local, national, or, at least, regional background. This is how ethnic genetic interests arise, and how they should be preserved. This may be more difficult in the U.S. than in Europe. But most people know where their ancestors originated. 47
Posted by J Richards on March 16, 2006, 12:34 AM | #
What is laughable is your poor comprehension. I pointed out that John’s views on race replacement are outlier views here, and this by no means constitutes apologetics. His views in this regard are his personal views and do not happen to be related to his academic specialty. His academic work is rigorous enough; try reading it.
The methodology, i.e., principal components analysis yields a left-right dichotomy because this is how it is in nature. Libertarian stances or authoritarian stances do not cluster, as has been repeatedly shown. Regarding the aracial content of the questionnaires, the attitudes underlying political orientation have been investigated over decades. So you have a different set of questionnaires over different social circumstances that reveal the same left-right dichotomy. What makes you think that racial questions will reveal at least a 2-D attitudinal structure? There are several reasons these won’t. What PCA does is to show whether there are underlying factors behind multiple stances, and research shows that the underlying factors orient individuals along a unidimensional scale, one end of which comprises of individuals who have a strong belief about how others should live their lives and are willing to extensively use state machinery to make others live the way they want them to, and the other end comprises of individuals who wish people to maximally determine their own lives. The former characterizes the political leftists and the latter characterizes the political rightists. The problem that people have with this conceptualization is that the academic work of John and others conceptualizes left vs. right in terms of underlying attitude toward a wide variety of stances, whereas the public usage of left vs. right is in terms of the stances taken. John has extensively show that the eugenicists, the Nazis, the Fascists and the Communists were all leftists; the Nazis and fascists being to the right of the Communists. Guess which end of the scale do most white nationalists lean toward? It is toward the left of the scale, even though they are publicly thought of in terms of being on the far right (because colloquial usage is based on stances taken, not PCA). People’s behavior regarding political issues is not just a function of left vs. right orientation, but knowledge and personality factors also enter into the picture, thereby accounting for why people with the same attitudinal orientation (left vs. right) can take widely different stances. Given prior research, it is highly unlikely that you will come up with a multi-dimensional attitudinal model (what you call a multi-ideological model) if you include racial questions. The attitudinal dimension will be unidimensional and the other dimensions will be non-attitudinal (personality, knowledge).
The burden of proof is on you to support what you call criticism since John has extensively addressed the Nazis and the like, and shown them to be leftists.
TPO or anyone else reading this thread can easily see just how well you have responded to my comments: ignoring a lot of it and citing irrelevant research as in the LD example.
I will ask you a question again. If, anthropomorphically speaking, the goal of nature is to replicate genotype, will nature still try to replicate the genotype if the environment changes such that the genotype is no longer optimal? The answer to this question is crucial to whether, anthropomorphically speaking, the goal of nature is to select phenotype or replicate the genotype.
If you had read my comment carefully, you would have noted that I said that both women look Hispanic to me. The page that you link to argues that one woman considers herself to be white. Where does it say that a sizable fraction of non-Hispanic whites consider her to be white?
John’s classification of the fair-skinned upper class in Latin America as white is based on a bird’s eye view. See if you can come up with an example where John Ray is calling a white-skinned person with clear non-Caucasoid facial elements as white.
Felton’s mother is Jewish and happens to look like a white Caucasoid. Felton’s father happens to be part black and probably half white. So yes, Felton has minority non-white ancestry. Kate Beckinsale is seven-eights European, if I recall correctly. 48
Posted by J Richards on March 16, 2006, 12:35 AM | #
Don’t be ridiculous. It is not my stance that white Greeks should be physically separated—in regard to mating—from non-white Greeks. How white and non-white Greeks want to breed is up to them. My recommendation is of course that white Greeks should preferably avoid breeding with non-whites. And, you have once again failed to address how genotypic analysis could not lead to disjunctive racialism since sophisticated genotypic analysis is bound to separate different European populations.
If phenotypic markers are subjective, then how do you plan on assessing genetic relatedness for the purposes of maintaining EGI? Do you want to have people carry RFIDs with their DNA code so that any passerby with a handheld device can see how white the person is? If so, good luck trying to get this system implemented. The best way to preserve white EGI is to keep the non-white masses out of the West and for whites to breed with those who look white.
Bjork has never looked white to me. I do not know about the ancestry of Bjork, but I do know that I have no inclination of breeding with someone who looks like her.
Even identical twins are not exactly genetically alike. However, the fact remains that matching people using a sufficiently large number of phenotypic markers will also well-match them genetically in terms of shared ancestry.
So you are telling TPO that if all human populations looked the same and had the same intelligence, culture and behavior (amounting to no observable phenotypic differences), then there would still be a need for this site and for Salter to write a book on EGI?
So many mistakes? Most whites do not have a problem with figuring out who is white. Besides, what is your solution as to how to determine the ancestry of a prospective mate? Mandatory possession of RFIDs with one’s DNA code? Mandatory requirement that people courting each other insist on a DNA test? Or, is it something else?
Wrong! Just because more of my entries have addressed phenotype rather than genotype does not mean that I strongly emphasize phenotype; I am occupying a niche others do no address. Both genotype and phenotype have their own relevance. As to the rest of your stuff, TPO has said it well:
49
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 16, 2006, 06:05 AM | # As J Richards is the one actually making arguments here, unlike TPO’s snide remarks, I’ll answer JR. I’ll just note that in the combination of the ABD and Euro tests (the latter ignored), I’m sure that a typical German woman would turn out closer overall to Kerchner than to an Italian or Greek. DNAPrint has already been discussed on this blog *extensively*, no reason to repeat all that. I can understand where some people prefer single locus and HLA studies because these can be distorted to support their preconceptions, rather than high number marker analyses that do not, but that speaks for itself. With respect to John. What is laughable, JR, is your lack of comprehension. I cited examples of John Ray’s moronic, childish, and illogical arguments. It is not so much his anti-majoritarian views that I address, but his mentality, or lack thereof. My point was, and remains, that a so-called academic - even if he believes in outlier ideas - should be able to formulate these ideas in a manner that would not be embarassing if coming from a retardec chimpanzee. I am skeptical of John not because of his outlier beliefs, but because of the outrageous stupidity in which he “defends” these beliefs. If my concept of a multi-dimmensional outlook is wrong, why isn’t it proven wrong. Instead John casually dismisses people as “outliers” (he should know), instead of defending his methodology (no surprise that you do a better job than he). Perhaps what we have here is a difference in what we are interested in measuring. My interest is in precisely (as best as possible) a person’s ideology within a framework relevant to nationalist activism. John’s work cannot do this, and, furthermore, he uses his studies as a hammer to bludgeon people with his conceptions of left/right. 50
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 16, 2006, 06:53 AM | # correction: retarted chimpanzee continued- “I will ask you a question again. If, anthropomorphically speaking, the goal of nature is to replicate genotype, will nature still try to replicate the genotype if the environment changes such that the genotype is no longer optimal? The answer to this question is crucial to whether, anthropomorphically speaking, the goal of nature is to select phenotype or replicate the genotype.” A genotype that fills the environmental niche will be replicated in favor of that that does not. “Don’t be ridiculous. It is not my stance that white Greeks should be physically separated—in regard to mating—from non-white Greeks. How white and non-white Greeks want to breed is up to them. My recommendation is of course that white Greeks should preferably avoid breeding with non-whites. And, you have once again failed to address how genotypic analysis could not lead to disjunctive racialism since sophisticated genotypic analysis is bound to separate different European populations.” In a purely genetic view, disjunctive racialism will not occur, because people will be judged on relative genetic distance from he/she making the judgment, without any clear cut-offs. However, this is not purely practical in the “real world”, which is why I in fact do support including phenotype, culture, etc. in the evaluations (as well as raw numbers of people involved, as Salter does in comparing Greeks and Turks). Plus, of course, genetic variation is not purely continuous, but clustered as well – and the same can be said of phenotype and culture. Putting these all together, there are reasonably discontinuous dividing lines between human populations, of course at different levels of distinction. I’ve never said that, in real-word judging, genetics alone should suffice. However, examination of phenotype is inferior to genetic assays as measurements of EGI. Since you are interested in practicality and how people behave, do you really believe Greeks perceives themselves as being white or nonwhite? You are dividing an ethnic group based on your own opinion of how members look! If we are going to do that, at least we need to use genetics to discern if there are ancestral subtypes in the population. “If phenotypic markers are subjective, then how do you plan on assessing genetic relatedness for the purposes of maintaining EGI? Do you want to have people carry RFIDs with their DNA code so that any passerby with a handheld device can see how white the person is? If so, good luck trying to get this system implemented. The best way to preserve white EGI is to keep the non-white masses out of the West and for whites to breed with those who look white.” Individual testing for the entire human race is obviously impractical. However, sampling from each ethnic population can give an idea of the genetic range inherent in that population; surely you know of the concept of sampling. Of course, certain populations are more heterogeneous than others, and, of course as well, ethnic measures may not accurately fit all individuals. Thus, the individual can have the option of being personally tested, if it is believed that the ethnic measurement ill fits the person in question. And, as I’ve repeatedly stated, phenotype and culture would be included. But phenotype alone cannot cut it; at the very least it must be supplemented by a conception of the genetic background inherent in the person’s ethnic identity – with the option of more personalized analysis as required. “Bjork has never looked white to me. I do not know about the ancestry of Bjork, but I do know that I have no inclination of breeding with someone who looks like her.” Bjork is Icelandic. “So you are telling TPO that if all human populations looked the same and had the same intelligence, culture and behavior (amounting to no observable phenotypic differences), then there would still be a need for this site and for Salter to write a book on EGI?” As long as there are differences in the distinctive genome, there are genetic interests. Of course, these interests can be larger or smaller depending upon how different the populations are. “So many mistakes? Most whites do not have a problem with figuring out who is white. Besides, what is your solution as to how to determine the ancestry of a prospective mate? Mandatory possession of RFIDs with one’s DNA code? Mandatory requirement that people courting each other insist on a DNA test? Or, is it something else?” I have already addressed that above. If genetic data are available, that should be first priority. Next, comes ethnic identity, and then, last, phenotype. How many times do I need to say all are important? 51
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 16, 2006, 06:56 AM | # LOL! correction: retarded chimpanzee John may be infecting the rest of us with his cognitive problems. 52
Posted by J Richards on March 17, 2006, 01:33 AM | #
It is not unusual for intelligent and knowledgeable individuals to hold on to some strange beliefs/stances that cannot be reasonably defended. Therefore, these individuals can do no better than to put up an absurd defense of their bizarre ideas. This should not detract from their reasonableness otherwise.
Repeated studies have failed to show multidimensional attitudinal variation in regard to political orientation. If you look at the history of such studies, it has been a great interest of the leftists to prove that rightists are narrow-minded and authoritarian, but to their chagrin, authoritarian attitudes simply do not cluster. Additionally, people open minded about somethings are narrow minded when it comes to other things. John has offered plenty of his papers online, including those that address this issue. If someone critiques his conclusions without bothering to read his papers, do you really expect him to waste his time defending his methodology?
How much more nationalist could you get than the mid-century German National Socialists? John has extensively written about the Nazis and shown them to have been leftists. The fact is that white nationalists generally lean toward the left, where leftism is defined not in terms of the stances taken (colloquial usage) but in terms of the underlying factor common to multiple stances, which is obtained from principal components analysis.
So nature here is being selective about which genotype it replicates. So how does nature decide which genotype is worth it? It does so in terms of what the genotype does, and what the genotype does is known as phenotype. Therefore, it is the phenotype that nature is concerned about and what it selects; the genotype gets selected indirectly.
This is a curious statement. With a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers, clusters will clearly emerge, notwithstanding clinal variation with respect to many individual genetic markers. How can you guarantee that the clusters will not be used to practice disjunctive racialism?
It is only natural that the definition of who is white will be stricter in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe, but the fact remains that regardless of how Italians and Greeks classify themselves, whites not breeding with non-white-looking Italians and Greeks will not be harming white EGI.
Your answer has sidestepped the issue. A person can easily get himself tested, but for the purposes of mating, how do you plan on testing a prospective mate to see how white the person is? How romantic would it be to ask for a DNA sample!
Differences in the genome include deleterious alleles that have no benefits whatsoever. Are these part of EGI, too?
A Northern or Central European who avoids breeding with either of these individuals is surely not undermining white EGI.
To say that some non-white contestants look like Greeks is not to say that all Greeks look like the contestants. Once again, avoiding breeding with darker people, regardless of whether they are 60% genetically European or 90% genetically European, does not undermine white EGI. The latter is not disjunctive racialism. There is no obligation for lighter-skinned whites to breed with darker people if the darkies have at least a specified amount of European ancestry.
Nobody is doing this. 53
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 17, 2006, 09:35 AM | # “This is a curious statement. With a sufficiently large number of genotypic markers, clusters will clearly emerge, notwithstanding clinal variation with respect to many individual genetic markers. How can you guarantee that the clusters will not be used to practice disjunctive racialism?” Look, reality itself, including time, is (likely) a quantized phenomenon, genetics will be no different. All distinctions are disjunctive to some degree, but that degree can markedly differ. In practical terms, depending on context, certain aspects of disjunctive racialism will be more prevalent than others. One cannot “guarantee” anything, but I note that using quantitative genetic assays will be more likely to yield less disjunctive measures of genetic distance than would a qualitative white/nonwhite judgment based on a person’s evaluation of physical appearance. As I say below, sure, people may mate with whom they wish. However, white EGI would be harmed if the “white-looking” person chosen in fact has significant levels of non-white ancestry that is not discernable in the phenotype. “Your answer has sidestepped the issue. A person can easily get himself tested, but for the purposes of mating, how do you plan on testing a prospective mate to see how white the person is? How romantic would it be to ask for a DNA sample!” One can use ethnic genetic data and known genealogy as a proxy for personal genetic data, along with phenotype and other evaluations. The issue of practicality is indeed the fundamental problem for a gene-assay based evaluation of personal EGI – for mating, not other purposes. This does not alter the fundamental fact that overall physical appearance can be misleading with respect to EGI. Ethnic data may be misleading for specific individuals as well, which is why if someone *does* consider the gene issue important, individual testing should come to the fore. No question your methodology is more practical; that does not make it accurate or desirable – the Taylor/Sailer debate is sort of an analogy with this with the greater “pragmatism” being less productive. JR, come on, now. Surely you remember David B’s comments on Salter and Huntington’s disease, and JW’s answer to that. Let’s not waste our time on an already answered argument. 54
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 17, 2006, 09:37 AM | # “A Northern or Central European who avoids breeding with either of these individuals is surely not undermining white EGI.” Sure, I agree. My point would be that it is not in the interest of any European-derived person, including Southern Europeans, to mate with someone with large amounts of non-European ancestry. Evaluations of that can be based on known ancestry, ethnic genetic data, personal genetic data (when known), and, yes, phenotype. I would not depend on phenotype alone. “To say that some non-white contestants look like Greeks is not to say that all Greeks look like the contestants. Once again, avoiding breeding with darker people, regardless of whether they are 60% genetically European or 90% genetically European, does not undermine white EGI. The latter is not disjunctive racialism. There is no obligation for lighter-skinned whites to breed with darker people if the darkies have at least a specified amount of European ancestry.” Of course. No one is under any obligation to mate with anyone. My point remains that, given interest in EGI for purposes of ethnopolitics, you need genetic data, at least at the group level. I stress genetics, rather than phenotype. We obviously disagree on this point, and repetition here would be superfluous. I note, without rancor, that you are falling into a light/dark (disjunctive?) distinction here, which mirrors comments about “pink-skinned populations.” Looking at those 4 women, in my opinion, 1 and 3 obviously do not look like Greeks. Maybe a few Greek women look like #4, but even here I’m skeptical, as # 4 – based on phenotype – “looks Asiatic” to me, in a way that few Greek women would. As GW suggests, only # 2 – who to me “looks the most European” of the 4 – could favorably be considered to like a fraction of Greeks, etc. Looking at the right-side picture of # 2, I’ve seen some French and Central European women with that kind of appearance as well, so there is some overlap with regards to that particular photographic representation of # 2. But the point remains: a roughly similar phenotype with a radically different genotype. Ssts: “Making no distinctions between a European, Christian population and an Islamic Asian one, given that biological differences also do exist, is disjunctive.” JR: Nobody is doing this.” The problem is that some do that. I’m not saying you do it, but others may, for example, in comparing Greeks and Turks. People in Europe understand these things better. Turkey in the EU threatens to tear that union apart; Greece in the EU causes no problems of any significance. There may be some mutterings about the poorer Eastern European nations (particularly with respect to migrant worker movement, which should not be allowed), but no one says or believes that inclusion of those nations will mean the ‘death of Europe’ as has been said by many, and certainly not all of them ‘far-rightists’, about Turkey. Conversely, there are reasons that the neo-conservatives and the Zakarias push so hard for Turkey in the EU. Different factors converge to create a practically disjunctive distinction that is recognized by many throughout the continent, and among globalist elites in the USA. Re: evolutionary theory. Just to illustrate the point, let me be more anthropomorphic about all of this. The phenotype is sort of an “experiment” in which the (functional) genes are “tested” by the environment to see which are most adapted to that environment. Selection works directly on the phenotype, but the phenotype is produced by the genes for the ultimate purpose of replicating the genes. Even more anthropomorphic: functional genomes can be considered like car companies, phenotypes are the cars they produce, and the environment is like the consumer. Consumers choose cars based on their characteristics (appearance, performance, and price). The consumer is selecting on the level of the car. Fair enough. What happens then? If Toyotas are chosen and Fords are not, Toyota is successful and Ford is not. Ford may well go out of business, as their car phenotype is out competed by the Toyota car phenotype. But why are Toyota and Ford making cars to begin with? Are the cars an end to themselves? No. The cars are a way for the corporations to make money and prosper in the market place. Likewise, genes are in competition for representation in future generations, and the phenotypes they produce are what are being directly “chosen” by the environment. But the whole aim of the process is to replicate the genes, with success being measured by the degree of representation in the next generation. Of course, this is also reflected in phenotypes. If Ford goes out of business, those cars will not be created, just as the company itself does not exist. If genes are not represented, the resultant phenotypes are not represented. But the phenotypes are not the end in themselves; they are not replicators. Like the cars, they are vehicles (no pun intended). Obviously, genes and the information they contain cannot be selected directly; they do not directly interact with the environment. I see this as no obstacle to viewing genetic information as fundamental. Many competing theories about the physical environment can be only selected indirectly through the use of experimentation. The direct selection here is at the level of the outcome of the experiments, but, assuming we are not instrumentalists, the experimental outcome itself is of no fundamental importance. The whole point of the exercise is to select, albeit indirectly, the correctness of the theories under consideration. Phenotypes are directly selected, but the “purpose” is to select which replicators (genes) will be present in the next generation, and to what extent. There is a close relationship between genotypes and phenotypes, but only the genes are true replicators. Look, all jokes about John aside, I’ll be serious. Let’s assume his methodology is perfectly sound and that it measures “attitudinal” differences related to political orientation. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant and useless to the kinds of analysis I believe we need. We need to understand the fall range of biopolitical and sociopolitical thought; we need to understand, dissect, critique, clarify, expand upon, and develop the ideas that will be helpful in promoting western interests. We need to classify and analyze the positions of men like Taylor, Salter, Yockey, MacDonald, etc., not just have them clustered as “leftists” and “rightists” dependent upon their attitudes toward the state. Whether or not John can justify nationalist Nazi racialists being clustered with aracial Marxist Lysenkoists is immaterial to the information that needs to be obtained and the heuristic models developed. In addition, adding to this flaw a moral dimension of using “leftist” as a pejorative is not helpful either. So, I’m not going to make fun of John, nor bash his work. I’m just telling you that it is irrelevant to what I see as important in the development of nationalist ethnopolitics. We have serious differences in conceptual outlook; discussing these has been interesting, but I’ve made my points (as have you). There is little further I can add at this point. 55
Posted by Guessedworker on March 17, 2006, 11:08 AM | # Ssts: Let’s assume his methodology is perfectly sound and that it measures “attitudinal” differences related to political orientation. Unfortunately, it is irrelevant and useless to the kinds of analysis I believe we need. For over thirty years I have lived with a different appreciation in my own head and my heart from the one JJR proffers. I know it to be true and I feel it to be true that there is a certain discriminative test one may, if so persuaded, apply to the broad subject of “interest”. Since I am no mathematician or man of science, to describe this to another person using the wordy writer’s way that I must is next to impossible. One is talking about something which lies always just over the horizon for my fellow man and his all too suggestible mind. Without the appropriate psychological data already in place he cannot process my words correctly. He cannot allot to them their due place and value. He makes fundamental and killing mistakes. So we are separated by a void of understanding. I can hear him OK. I hear him everywhere. But I perceive that his order of values is all awry. In return, he cannot hear me at all. Well, then, John holds to the conventional idea that the left-right axis is the only one on which a clustering of Ordinary Joe’s opinion is evident. Let’s not dispute that. But let’s remember who he is measuring: a man who cannot hear our voices. Speaking for myself, the determination of whether I support one of John’s test propositions or another is, naturally enough, its effect on my interests. Nothing unusual or untoward there. Similarly uncontroversially, those interests need not always be private and individual. That is abundantly clear even in conventional political thinking. One may be selfish. One may be selfless. By my peculiar reading, though, one may NOT be selfish when harm is done to one’s own kin, ie those to whom one is kind. Likewise, one’s self less ness is not absolute but conditional also on kin. For me public interest, meaning kin-interest, reigns supreme in certain areas of life. So what does it mean when other kin- or race-aware people like myself tend to hang not to the right on John’s axis, like me, but to the left? Only, I suspect, that within the ethny as a whole they are more attentive to their particular social class. They are expressing a partiality which might be an overhang from the century and more of Marxian activism. But I think it more likely that it connects, or could easily connect, to those rather beautiful sympathies which underpinned the many self-help movements indigenous to the rural and urban working classes before the whole shooting match became marxised. And that, let me say, would be a perfectly honourable position for a race-aware person to hold. One last thought, then. If the latter is true, which I believe it is ... if one can entirely eschew Marxist-style leftism from a race-aware axiality, what kind of axiality are we actually looking at. To me it is clear. I have argued on this blog that, ultimately, the liberal zeitgeist is the problem. John’s thesis is merely that within the liberal zeitgeist ‘x’ and ‘y’ apply. Of course. For example, there is no true Conservatism - my politics - within the zeitgeist. One must find a means of contrasting the liberal sleep to the “other” wakefulness. That appears to me to suggest horizonalism and verticalism respectively. One ceases to dream and rises in the morning. 56
Posted by J Richards on March 18, 2006, 11:57 PM | #
Chances are that it is going to be the other way around. There is more genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees than there are genetic differences. Therefore, you don’t need substantial genetic differences to end up with substantial phenotypic differences. More sophisticated genetic analyses are bound to show that notwithstanding substantial genetic similarity across populations within a race, minor differences have important phenotypic consequences, which will provide enough genetic ammunition for Nordicists to justify excluding a substantial number of Southern Europeans from the ranks of whites. Don’t get me wrong; I am not a Nordicist.
If you adopt a strict phenotypic definition of who is white, as in Central and Northern Europe, you are more likely to incorrectly classify a borderline white person as non-white than falsely classify a predominantly European individual with significant non-white ancestry as white. This will not harm white EGI.
You have once again sidestepped the issue. Ethnic genetic data is a property of a group, and individuals can be outliers. How do you plan on obtaining the DNA of a prospective mate and finding out the genealogy of this person prior to courtship? I suppose you could court a person and try to obtain some body tissue such as cheek cells in order to extract DNA and get it tested. But, good luck trying to convince others to do this.
I have not mentioned this in the context that David B did. I have mentioned this to point out that what genes do (phenotype) is relevant to which genes are regarded as part of EGI.
Radically different genotype? Note that there is a Southern European element in France, that there have been Asiatic invasions of Central Europe, and that most genetic variation is within populations. For white males to avoid breeding with women who look like the mixed-race beauty pageant contestants, regardless of where they come from or their genealogy is not to undermine white EGI.
It is not at all necessary to refer to genetics to persuade others to keep the Turks out of the EU. There are plenty of phenotypic reasons that suffice. In any case, Greece is part of the EU, and there is no significant movement to kick it out of the EU, notwithstanding the Greek phenotype. 57
Posted by J Richards on March 18, 2006, 11:59 PM | #
The phenotype is produced by the genotype so that it can replicate itself? Speaking anthropomorphically, this is acceptable, but nature cares about the phenotype, not the genotype, i.e., only some genotypes succeed in replicating themselves.
The cars are a way for the corporations to make money and prosper in the market place by satisfying consumer demand. So you have the knowledge of making cars (genotype), the cars themselves (phenotype) and consumer demand (part of nature). Are the car companies making cars primarily to ensure that the knowledge of making cars (genotype) is passed on? Obviously not. For a car company to ensure that it stays in business, it is best to come up with cars that the public wants. Therefore, the focus of both the consumer and the car company would on the phenotype of the cars themselves.
To determine which genes to retain, one has to know about the value of the genes or what the genes do (phenotype). Therefore, a focus on phenotype indirectly selects the desired genotype.
What will this analysis reveal? If you document the factors underlying political behavior, you will run into political attitude (left vs., right), personality, knowledge and personal circumstances. Of these variables, only knowledge and personal circumstances are available for manipulation. If you care about better informing others, contribute to the likes of Jared Taylor and set up your own blog or contribute to a group blog (which you are doing here).
John has shown that Marx was a racist and that the Marxists of yesteryears were racists. When it comes to undermining white interests, the Marxists will pretend to be aracialist, but this is obviously not true; anti-white Marxists will help any race as long as white interests are undermined. Therefore, it is surely not the case that the Nazis were racialists whereas the Marxists were not. 58
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 19, 2006, 06:39 AM | # JR, as I’ve said I don’t have much more to say than I already have. However, given the comments about France, and your skepticism about a “radically different genotype” - of course the genotype will be radically different. Do you think *any* of these French women who may look like # 2 will have a genotype in any way similar? That they will be genetically half Southeast Asian? Quarter? What? Asian influx into Central Europe may have left genetic traces, and these may influence phenotype - and EGI - no doubt. But no native Frenchwoman will have gene frequencies even remotely approaching, say, a Dutch-Indonesian hybrid. And, of course, the reason for me to cite the LD article is that relatively recent admixture will create fundamental changes in genetic structure above and beyond the raw gene frequency data. We are left with a roughly similar phenotype representing a truly radically different genotype - the whole point of my initial objection to begin with. 59
Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 20, 2006, 08:46 AM | # I’m a bit skeptical about this alleged connection between Marxism and racism. The personal racism of Marx can be explained by his ethnic ancestry; there must have been lots of genes for ethnocentrism and xenophobia being expressed there. It does not follow that his carefully crafted ideology reflected this racism. It is also easy to understand why Marxism was co-opted by Third World nationalist intellectuals as part of their fight against colonialism. Marxism had a lot to offer as an organizing force for the colored masses: hyper-collectivist, with simple slogans, dialectic flim flam to explain away any inconsistencies, and a communist utopian dream world to serve as motivation. More to the point, the dismissal of the importance of biology, heredity, and race, and the elevation of economics, served as an important, and face-saving, explanation for Western pre-eminence and a justification for overthrowing the hated West. After all, the situation as existed was thus merely a result of capitalist exploitation and historical forces, and had nothing at all to do with the inherent abilities of Occident vs. Orient (including Africa and Latin America as well as Asia). On a practical level, declaring themselves as Marxist assured assistance from the Soviet Union (and, later, China) as well as from “western” Marxists. Furthermore, if there were endogenous elites who needed to be overthrown, especially if those elites were seen to be ineffective against, or collaborative with, the West, Marxism served to motivate the masses in a class war to replace those elites with a new revolutionary elite. White Marxists in America saw the coloreds as recruits in the war to over-turn the system; race was a way of destroying traditional America. Here, race was a tool, not the main objective. It would seem to me then that the “racism” that JJR and JR observe in Marxism is really envy – the envy and hatred of the marginalized toward those they perceive as their superiors. In some cases, this translates into race (despite official Marxist doctrine), or into class, or even gender or sexual orientation. Among white Marxists today a healthy number of them are homosexuals or radical feminists, who can explain away their personal feelings of inadequacy by invoking the oppression of the patriarchy or of religious tradition, etc. Those familiar with Nietzsche’s “The Antichrist” may recognize similarities with early Christianity. “The last shall be first”, ‘To each according to his needs”, “The wretched of the Earth”: there seems to be a connection there. 60
Posted by AJ on March 25, 2006, 03:35 AM | # Hi folks, (I’ve made the following comments under the entry ‘The evolution of blond hair and blue eyes among Nordics’ but let me post them here again. I want more people to know about my ideas.) I’m sure the result would be a world with more conflicts and more unhappiness. I do believe blondes have more fun and are more fun to be with. So let me cut to the chase. Here’s my plan to save the blondes and the world. There are two forces at work, natural selection and sexual selection. In order to save natural blondes from any possible future extinction, we have to spread the blonde genes around more. With technology, it can easily be done, and I’m not talking about cloning. All you have to do is get attractive blond men to donate their sperm and then attractive blonde women to donate their eggs. Match the blond sperm with the blonde eggs to create embryos that will turn out to be blonde babies. Now, here is the cool part. We can simply implant the blonde embryo into a non-blonde or even non-white woman. She will, in effect, function as a surrogate mother and give birth to a naturally blonde baby. If more non-blondes and non-whites do this, plus the natural blonde couples who have blonde offspring, then the number of blondes will greatly increase. I have heard cases of white surrogates giving birth to Asian couples’ babies. Why not the other way around? Of course, there’s the moral debate and people will be in an uproar over the racist/eugenics undertone. Personally, I do not advocate any “forced” campaign by any organization or government. All I want to suggest is that people should be given the choice and that sexual selection is the law of nature. Put it this way, if most men (regardless of race) find blondes to be more attractive, then why not make your own daughter blonde if you are not blond yourself? Commission a blonde embryo to be created and implant it into your girlfriend/wife’s womb and 10 months later, you’ll have a blonde baby daughter. Raise her as your own. She’ll grow up to “have more fun” of her own. Similarly, if most nonblonde women desire to be blonde, then the same logic goes. Why not give your daughter blonde genes? With IVF and surrogacy, we can produce lots of true natural blondes. But this method is expensive and very controversial. I don’t know if society is ready to see black women, Asian women, and Hispanic women having and raising blonde babies. A more “intermediate” or “compromise” method is to use the donated blond sperm to inseminate more nonblondes and nonwhites. Artificial insemination (donor insemination) is cheap and easy to perform. I mean, just inject the sperm into a woman. Any woman can practically do it herself without any assistance. So let’s say a single Asian woman desires to give her child blonde genes but does not have the money to go the full method, ie, implanting a blonde embryo, then she can go for this halfway solution. Her child will be half blonde/Caucasian, half Asian. Ideally, I would also recommend using technology to select the sex of the baby. The technique that exists currently has a 90% guarantee for female babies and 70% for male babies. Make the baby female so that when she grows up, she can also receive blonde genes again by AI. By I’m sure my proposal will sound very racist and contentious to many people. But I would repeat my most basic arguments to critics again. They are: 1. Blondes are and have more fun because they are more So again, I’m all for freedom of choice. With analtruistic spirit, let’s make the choice for blondes available to everyone, not just natural blondes themselves. It’s kind of stingy for real blondes to keep blonde genes to themselves. Share the good stuff. Pass them around. That’s basically what I’m saying. Nobody is going to be forced to do anything they don’t want. Instead, the forces of sexual selection will help people choose. I think somebody ought to really open up a sperm bank and make some money selling blond sperm. Another business is to open up an agency recruiting blonde eggs. Yet another is to provide counseling and matchmaking service,ie, finding and matching male and female donors, advice on the medical stuff, etc. I welcome more thoughts and feedback. Feel free to share my ideas with others. Next entry: My last word in a dialogue of the deaf Previous entry: Hey! Fathers matter after all! |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Søren Renner on March 01, 2006, 11:57 PM | #
Swedes are pale like cave salamanders? Witrh vestigial eyes?