Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:13 | #

“the kind of genocide they once could impose on us with impunity.”  (—James Bowery or, as June Gordon knows him, Jamie-B.-Bad)

One take-home point here is that a significant proportion of this shit that’s going on is naught whatsoever new but is what was already old, what was already ancient, ten thousand years before the Bible was written:  tribal wars.  Race wars.  Things aren’t done on a tribal basis any more?  WRONG.  GUESS AGAIN!  In fact, that’s the ONLY way things are done:  on a tribal basis.  Forget “racism,” forget “fascism,” forget “hate,” forget “nativist,” forget “tribalist,” forget “afraid to accept change,” forget “afraid of the other,” forget “afraid of black skin,” forget “Nazi,” forget all of it.  Remember only this:  you, YOU ... are being exterminated by someone of another tribe, another race, who hates your tribe, hates your race, and wants you and everyone of your race, your tribe, dead.  It’s called race war, it’s called inflicting genocide by multipronged assaults consisting of race-replacement immigration combined with hate laws and the array of white-race-suppression laws, directives, policies, and brainwashing that’s been cutting off our oxygen these thirty or forty years and more. 

That’s all that’s going on, you can forget the rest.  Just forget it.

For crying out loud, those who aren’t yet awake:  wake up!  WAKE!!!  FRICKING!!!  UP!!!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:39 | #

Example of how, when you scratch the surface, everything is tribal.  Remember the Tian An Men Square student pro-democracy demonstrations in Peking?  The students suddenly wanted democracy, right?  Right.  But why?  Why all of a sudden?  Why all of a sudden carrying papier maché Statues of Liberty around the Square, demanding a less totalitarian government, and willing to die under tank treads crushed to death, they were so mad?  Here’s the real reason, the one you never heard on the managed news programs:  because in their university dormitories African Negro students kept sleeping with Chinese girls and every time they showed their displeasure by beating up some of the Negroes who were doing it the government clamped down on them, on the Chinese students not the Negroes, it being communist government policy to deny the importance of race in accord with communist theory, and in more practical terms, to cultivate good relations with the non-white Third World and not insult them.  So the students demanded a government that would oppress them less, meaning one that would stop telling them they had no choice but to look the other way when all the Negroes were shagging all their women.  The riots began at Nanking University for exactly that reason — too many Negroes fucking Chinese girls in the dorms and the government turning the male students a deaf ear when they protested at it — and within a month the pro-democracy movement had gathered steam and spread to Peking University and elsewhere, erupting into a major political conflagration threatening to overthrow the whole Chinese Communist Party.  Because the guys didn’t like the Negroes being given free rein to fuck all their women they wanted.  That was the deal with that, in plain language.  Any more questions?

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:41 | #

It was the lead story in the left-liberal Independent, so that’s capped the RDNE well, I suppose.  Of course, a full picture of h-bd will emerge but politically the once-denied fact of difference will now become less significant that the extent of differenbce.

We are moving back on to Prof Rushton’s territory.

Posted by Jean Depression on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:34 | #

There seems to be three basic types of genetic structure:

1) correlation of gene frequencies of any alleles, including those not physically linked, etc.

2) alleles together on the same coinherited chromosomal block; haplotype blocks

3) larger-scale structural differences, as exemplified by this paper

Thus, the Salter-Harpending estimates of ethnic genetic interests/parental kinship, based as they are on Cavalli-Sforza’s old data, are a gross *under*estimate of the reality.

Considerations of genetic structure must be included in any determination of genetic interests that would reflect real-life, and the methodologies to quantitatively ascertain this are in the process of being developed, as shown by this paper.

Salter needs to update his theory - at least in the qualitative sense - in any puatative “second edition” (in which the actual text, and not just the introduction, is altered).

Two English-Bantu offspring are not the equivalent of one unmixed offspring, and never can be.  Structural differences between races are so large this information cannot be recovered through excess mating.

We are moving back into not only Rushton’s territory, but Salter’s as well.

Posted by BrisBrain on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:50 | #

“...among those who stood to benefit reproductively by this propaganda during an era of emerging de facto polygyny (misnamed by those same “authorities” as “serial monogamy”). “

What would be some characteristics of a serial monogamist, say, one targeting white women?

Promotion of high-IQ alien immigration, coupled with a disdain for working class/middle class white men, and an embrace of globalist economics that ensures the downward mobility of those white male sexual competitors?

Hmmm.

Posted by calvin on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:55 | #

Fred

Your information on the Chinese democracy protest is astonishing. Where did you find out about this?

Posted by Jean Depression on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:24 | #

Figure 7 from the paper here:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/fig_tab/nature05329_F7.html

black dots- Utah European-Americans, greens - Japanese/Chinese, reds- Nigerians

Therefore, clustering using these copy number variations is similar to that achieved with Alu sequences, and Fst (measure of genetic distance) is similar to that observed with SNPs.

Thus, superimposed above the “traditional” differences in gene frequencies are differences, of similar magnitude, in genomic structure variation, between racial groups.

Of course, fellows such as Lewontin tell us that human genetic variation is miniscule and race has “no biological validity”, while fellows like Ziv encourage panimixia between the most genetically distant groups - promoting the destruction of this richly textured human genetic diversity, much of it functionally significant.

It is obvious that such “snake-oil salesmen” should be dismissed with contemptuous scorn and ridicule.

Posted by Saturated Fats on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:58 | #

Uh..“Jean Depression.”

Meanwhile, on “Gene Expression”, Razib is attacking Finns again, leading a MR commentator “chet snicker” to post a diatribe against Finns including:

“2) finn baiting? it’s been too long, and it’s WAY too easy. you mongrels have had a fallow period, back on your heels bitches”

Perhaps someone familiar with the “mentality” of that site can explain the hostilty toward people of Finnish ethnic descent.

It doesn’t have anything to do with James’ findings about autism, does it?

What have Finns ever done to Razib, we may ask?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:17 | #

“Fred, Your information on the Chinese democracy protest is astonishing. Where did you find out about this?”  (—Calvin)

Calvin, check the links in these two comments at Majority Rights.

Here, by the way, is another example of purest tribalism masquerading as something else.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:05 | #

Jean Depression wrote:

There seems to be three basic types of genetic structure:
...
Thus, the Salter-Harpending estimates of ethnic genetic interests/parental kinship, based as they are on Cavalli-Sforza’s old data, are a gross *under*estimate of the reality.

Yes that was the primary point of my first MR article:

<a >Removing Lewontin’s Fallacy from Hamilton’s Rule</a>.

We should be modeling in terms of correlation structures of nucleotides.  The precise form those correlation structures take is of secondary importance.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:47 | #

Saturated Fats wrote: It doesn’t have anything to do with James’ findings about autism, does it? What have Finns ever done to Razib, we may ask?

While its possible it may have something to do with my observation that people of Finnish ancestry (and with recent discoveries, high degrees of Neanderthal ancestry?) may be particularly vulnerable to the pathogens of the Dravidian ecology, it is hard to say what that connection might be.

It reads more like some sort of “in joke”.  Perhaps Razib/GC think I have Finnish ancestry and that I therefore cherry picked the data rather than, as I reported, merely followed my working hypothesis to the logical conclusion which was then validated by the ecological correlations?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Nov 2006 20:50 | #

Svyatoslav Igorevich, the increase in biodiversity probably applies across species so that the relative differences between humans and chimps remains at around 20 times the differences between human groups—although this is merely looking at alleles, not their correlation structures let alone the correlations of these larger structures.

Posted by Schoenerer on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:49 | #

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought…

So the difference between the races is now 1%? I thought I did read something about 10% somewhere. Can someone confirm the number?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:44 | #

Schoenerer, it looks as if the article linked in the log entry has “timed out” (you have to pay for it now).  This news is discussed here and here.  What they’re talking about is the discovery of additional ways information is borne in the genome, such that individual people are way more genetically different from each other than previously thought, the additional differences stemming from arrangements of the DNA within the chromosome which weren’t known to exist before now to this extent, and which — these new arrangements themselves — can carry genetic information.  So this adds another dimension to the ways in which people and races differ genetically.