|
|
|
Pauline Hanson and the abuse of DNAPrint testing for multicultural ends Back in February this article by journalist Edmund Burke appeared in the Brisbane tabloid, Courier-Mail. It was not very subtle in the way it set about its business:-
Let’s see now. On what basis does “Dr” Thomas know that a “Middle Eastern” reading of, say, 9% is from an “Arab ancestor, rather than, say, experimental error, or, if the 9% is actually statistically significant, and hence, real, that it is not some ancient genetic background from, say Neolithic incursions? Does Thomas in fact know that a) the 9% represents a statistically significant result, and b) it is derived from Arabs? Point a) can be answered from his company’s data, they can figure out the threshold of significance. But, unless DNAP has made unannounced progress on discerning the timing of admixture events, and tracking down more specific origins in time and space, then Thomas’ comments about b) are nothing but irresponsible, despicably misleading and politically motivated horseshit, and he should be ashamed of himself and apologize to the public for spreading such unverifiable crap. What is a “purebred” European? Is there any European ethnic group that, when tested, that is 100% of anything? With respect to Beattie, another mentally challenged turd, he needs to explain how particular ancestral profiles are a “victory for multiculturalism”, particularly since any group’s ethnic genetic interests are based upon their actual genepool, as it exists at present, and not some sort of juvenile strawman representation of a “pure European.” There would be a “victory for multiculturalism” if no differences were found between the genetic profiles of ethnically distinct peoples. But, that’s not the case, is it? The fact that Europeans may have complex genetic histories when one profiles gene frequency profiles that may have been established hundreds of generations ago, is not a “victory” for “multiculturalism” or for anything else. It is simply the way the genepool is structured, and until we understand more about what that means, the only responsible comment that can be made would concern how these profiles differ from each other. The imbecillic strawman that Thomas and Beattie wish the audience to come away with is that someone like Hanson just must, must, must expect to test out as 100% “Northern European”, and, by golly, if she doesn’t, then, well, we are all mongrels and there is no reason to oppose immigration now, is there? What stupidity. Every ethnic group is going to have some “ancestral fingerprint” from whatever “admixture” test is used, there is no way at present to delineate exactly from where the low levels of “exotic” “ancestry” is from; the utility comes in using the data in a comparative, not an absolute manner, Thomas and Beattie, you two stupid bastards. Yeah, Hanson may have “9%” “Middle Eastern”, but, how, pray tell, will that compare to, say, an Iraqi? Note how these results are presented. Instead of comparing Hanson to, say, some Lebanese or South Asian immigrant and commenting about how radically different their profiles are, and how alien they are, genetically to each other, these creatures instead cast their net about for whites of British ancestry, trying to pick out ancient signals of “exotic” ancestry to show “how similar we all are to each other.” Yeah, Thomas, if we are all so similar, let you produce for our inspection an Arab or Hindu who has an ancestral profile that matches that of Hanson’s for each of the categories with +/- 5% points. Further, I wonder how Thomas can justify his suggestion that Hanson’s “Middle-Eastern” reading is somehow indicative of “Arab” or other Middle Eastern ancestors during historical times, when DNAP’s own website includes comments such as:-
And:-
Indeed, and the same reasoning that applies to “10% East Asian” will apply to “9% Middle Eastern” as well. It’s not that the data are wrong; it is that some are willfully misinterpreting the data, even when doing so goes against what is written on their own website. Politics, anyone? And, why should Hanson be “surprised” when every group tested shows low levels of various “exotic” genetic readings. In fact, the surprise would have been if the opposite had occured. Indeed, here is another quote from DNAP’s website:-
Variation is the rule, not the exception – so why was Hanson’s data put forth as if it were some sort of shocking surprise? It was entirely expected, entirely predictable. And note the comment that “European ethnicities” are genetically more similar to each other than with other populations – is that a “win” for “multiculturalism, Mr. Beattie? I would think quite the opposite, I would think it support for the idea that we of different major racial groups are less “all like each other” than we have been told. Besides studying the DNAPrint website in detail (and as well looking at commentaries posted here in past years), Hanson would be well advised to register and listen to Frudakis’ comments about these tests at the free online web seminar found on the home page here. Which, of course, gives a more nuanced and complex explanation of data interpretation than outrageous comments that a “9% Middle Eastern” reading somehow is “evidence” of historical “Arab” ancestors. It, in theory, could mean that, and it could equally – and in Hanson’s case overwhelmingly more likely – mean something else. After all, DNAP itself admits that finding “Native American” percentages in Greeks does NOT mean that Greeks in Athens have Native American ancestors – it may instead mean a very ancient common ancestry derived from Central Asia, or other explanations. Again, listen to Frudakis on the web seminar. Quite a different “tune” is “sung” there compared to Thomas’ assertions and implications. Then again, the web seminar doesn’t have as an agenda promoting non-European immigration to Australia, which is more than I can say about this whole bizarre episode in which an attempt is made to convince Hanson that she is part “Arab.” One hopes Hanson will realize that she has been duped – not by the test, which simply reports what the gene frequencies are, but by those who make comments about the results which they really should know are unsubstantiated. JW Holliday Comments:2
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 31 May 2007 21:17 | # Perhaps Pauline Hanson is a descendant of the Muslim Prophet. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 08:55 | # I don’t think Pauline Hanson can be blamed for accepting scientifically-derived conclusions presented to her by “an expert” at face value. We all do this all the time. Only those like JW with specialist understanding can cleave the issue and extract contrary meanings. No, Proofreader’s question begs a greater question, namely: “Is genetic science too dependent on funding from ideologically anti-racist sources, and too heavily staffed by individuals loyal to the MultiCult, to treat of the reality of race with integrity? 4
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:08 | # How, pray, can one possibly be ‘9% middle-eastern’ ? 5
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 13:18 | # What if five of the eight great grand parents were Middle-Eastern? And then “Middle-Eastern” itself is not 100% of anything. Allow for complexity, Kenelm. 7
Posted by MMR on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:09 | # ie you could be 50%, 25%, 12.5% etc ‘middle-eastern’. Even if clear categories existed, 50/50 is an approximation—you could conceivably inherit 9% from one grandparent, 14% from another. 8
Posted by MMR on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:12 | # Let me fix that: Even if perfectly non-overlapping categories existed, 50/50 is an approximation—you could conceivably inherit 9% from one great-grandparent, 14% from another. 9
Posted by jimbo on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:59 | # virtually nuthin’ originating from the MSM can be believed! DNA testing is far from infallible and is susceptible to the slightest amounts of contamination from a multitude of sources! DNA ‘test samples’ can also be easily ‘spoofed’; these findings would have to be peer-reviewed, critiqued & meticulously scrutinised before being given any credibility; also: a definition of terms is necessary; WTF does ‘Middle Eastern’ mean? Arabic? Jewish? Iraqi? Iranian? but: Iran contains millions of white people and significant amounts of white genes; so: ‘Iranian’ could just as easily mean ‘white’; ‘Middle Eastern’ isn’t a race!; ‘semitic’ is a race; ‘negroid’ is a race; ‘asiatic’ is a race; ‘caucausian’ is a race! 10
Posted by Anon on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 16:41 | # The whole point of this was to try and shut Pauline Hanson up. 9%, so what? Jimbo happens to be right about the Middle East, it could mean a variety of things. What the Anti-white, pro-immigration, one worlder assholes wanted to do was say this, “Look, Pauline is a hypocrite! She isn’t 100% nordic so she can’t have any view on immigration of 3rd worlders except that it is 100% great and the best thing ever!” Good luck to them. As for this: You bet it is. 11
Posted by Thomas Matthew on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 19:39 | # “DNA testing is far from infallible and is susceptible to the slightest amounts of contamination from a multitude of sources!” Are you a lawyer for OJ? That’s a bunch of crap. The DNA was from a cheek swab; Hanson’s DNA would be over-represented by several orders of magnitude over any putative “contamination.” It’s not like they are doing PCR on ancient samples: http://www.freshpatents.com/Multiplex-assays-for-inferring-ancestry-dt20070215ptan20070037182.php?type=description The methods used are going to favor the huge amount of DNA present from Hanson, not a few stray molecules from others. “Contamination” is not the issue here. Willful misinterpretation of data is. “DNA ‘test samples’ can also be easily ‘spoofed’” If so, then the company leaves itself open to civil suits. I doubt they would be so stupid as to put their holdings at risk just to “spoof” Hanson. The data come with the sequences; if she suspects anything is amiss, she could, in theory, try and have her alleles determined elsewhere. The chances of that being the case is virtually nil. Once again, it is not “contamination” and it is not “spoofing”, it is willful distortion and misinterpretation of real data. “these findings would have to be peer-reviewed, critiqued & meticulously scrutinised before being given any credibility;” Well, “Dr” Thomas, when and where will your company’s ancestry testing actually be published? We await with bated breath. “also: a definition of terms is necessary” Oh, yes…. “WTF does ‘Middle Eastern’ mean?” If you’d bother to look at the website, as well as previous commentaries on this blog, you would know the answer to that. “Middle Eastern” in the context of this genetic test means a set of gene frequencies that constitute the predominant genetic profile of groups sampled in the Middle/Near East. Should the exact identity of these populations be made known? You bet, and that’s another question for “Dr” Thomas. However, that omission doesn’t invalidate the fact that Hanson has a certain % of markers characteristic of extra-European peoples. The question is whether or not that means she is “Middle Eastern”, and the answer obviously is NO. “but: Iran contains millions of white people” WTF does “white” mean? A definition of terms is necessary. “ and significant amounts of white genes…” If by ‘white’ you mean European, I challenge you to provide evidence that Iranians are significantly European, genetically speaking. The chart in this article: 12
Posted by Amalek on Fri, 01 Jun 2007 22:48 | # jimbo: “‘Middle Eastern’ isn’t a race!; ‘semitic’ is a race; ‘negroid’ is a race; ‘asiatic’ is a race; ‘caucausian’ is a race!” ‘Semitic’ is a linguistic term like ‘Aryan’, often misused—in the former instance, to designate one particular race which constitutes only a fraction of the total who speak semitic languages. Here is a map of the incidence of these languages: http://almashriq.hiof.no/general/400/410/Semitic-Lang-Map.html 13
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:03 | # You often hear of individuals bragging about ‘Irish blood’ or being 1/16th ‘Red-Indian’ or whatever (curiously you never hear of anyone going out of their way to claim Negro blood), but for some reason claiming that you are 17.8% ‘Irish’ or ‘middle eastern’ or whatever just doesn’t cut it on a emotional level. 14
Posted by 17.8% on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:15 | # “Perhaps scientifically it all makes sense somehow , but for a layperson like me it all seems to be rather missing the point. Hmm. Brilliant. How about becoming a paternity lawyer? When the judge orders a DNA test, you can argue against it, on the grounds that the results are not emotionally satisfying. Instead all involved can attempt to figure out if the infant looks more like the alleged father or to someone else. Be careful though; if the judge thinks the infant looks most like you, you’ll be stuck with 18 years of childcare payments. “How can something such as bloodlines, which most normal people are extremely proud of and jealousy guard can be given as approximate mathematical percentages that don’t even round off into factors of two? Gee, if “most normal people” were so concerned with their “bloodlines”, we wouldn’t be having all the racial problems, would we? In any case, the facts of science are what they are, and data should not be mocked, dismissed, or delegitimized, because “normal people” are incapable of grasping concepts that require a minimal understanding of math and of human genetics. 15
Posted by 17.8% on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:20 | # Putting aside the issue that these data are only estimates anyway (and, by the way, are given in whole number integers and not “17.8%”, so you can cut the crap), the numbers are what they are. If the data comes out as “9%”, then that’s what it is. If some people can only comprehend multiples of 2, that’s their problem. It’s been made quite clear that we are looking at overall ancestry, not recent genealogy. The bigger problem is why there is so much resistance to science and data. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:38 | # Kenelm, “Normal” aka ordinary people do not apprehend ethics. They do not apprehend political theory. They don’t know what individualism is, or why it is influential. They don’t know really know what “interests” are, or “rights”. They are suggestible, malleable, slavish. In a sense, it doesn’t matter what they know or don’t know, because clever people can always change it tomorrow. The lot of ordinary people is to belong. To what they belong is not a matter of their choosing. Their numbers are all that is required, since legitimacy is abstracted therefrom. This is the station in life of the ordinary. It is not much. But then, ordinary people do not read MR. Ordinary people do not understand the forces we oppose. Ordinary people will not lead us out of the racio-political quagmire. To be ordinary is to be used by the powerful. To be ordinary is to frustrate and fail the loyal. Find a better authority to which to appeal, Kenelm. Ordinariness, while it is still “us”, is not nearly good enough. 17
Posted by 17.8% on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:39 | # On the one hand, I can understand that there are “laymen” who may not understand the details of population genetics. Fine. But why not desire to learn? Why not attempt to understand so that one does not get duped and “flustered” as did Hanson? GW complains that the science is in the hands of the “anti-racists”, but if so, doesn’t that emphasize the need for truth-tellers to understand enough of the science so as to formulate rebuttals? A luddite attitude of “I don’t need this fancy science mumbo-jumbo” is essentially conceding defeat on an issue of importance. 18
Posted by 17.87654321% on Sat, 02 Jun 2007 17:55 | # “said she was confident her ancestry came from England and Ireland.” And here is THE point: there is nothing, _nothing_, in her results that in _any_ way goes against that confident assertion. Or does “Dr” Thomas like to give us a reason why Hanson’s results should be any different from that of, say, the Irish samples listed on the DNAP website, which show a level of “Middle Eastern” affiliation about the same as what Hanson exhibited? The test is NOT measuring “Englishness” or “Irishness.” The “Northern European” measured by the test means that genetic profile found at its highest levels in Northern Europeans (e.g., English and Irish); that is, the predominant defining genetic characteristic of those groups in the test. Nowhere is it asserted that any person of English and/or Irish heritage _must_ be “100% Northern European”, and there are, I am sure very few, if any, people who would get such a reading. And, even if they did, given statistical error, there is no real difference between “100%”, “99%”, “98%”, or “97%.” If Ms. Hanson is reading this thread: your results actually SUPPORT, and not refute, your English/Irish ancestry - as your profile is predominantly “Northern European” (as expected) with lower levels of other ancestries, prominent among which is another European category, “Southeast European.” That may well represent the Paleolithic/Neolithic split _naturally_ found in the genepool of the British Isles/Ireland. If “Dr” Thomas has evidence to the contrary, may he please present it for inspection? 19
Posted by jimbo on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:02 | # ‘thomas matthew’ maintains: DNA testing is far from infallible and is susceptible to the slightest amounts of contamination from a multitude of sources!” Are you a lawyer for OJ? That’s a bunch of crap. The DNA was from a cheek swab; Hanson’s DNA would be over-represented by several orders of magnitude over any putative “contamination.” It’s not like they are doing PCR on ancient samples: http://www.freshpatents.com/Multiplex-assays-for-inferring-ancestry-dt20070215ptan20070037182.php?type=description i’m talking about contamination ‘in transit’ between the taking of the sample & its testing! you clearly know next to nothing about the dodgy history of i’m not saying any-thing about this particular company but there have been many, many cases here of such ‘samples’ being bodgied up whether by accident or design! a second if not a third test from an independent source would be required to convince me of the veracity of the results! The methods used are going to favor the huge amount of DNA present from Hanson, not a few stray molecules from others perhaps: if the test was DONE CORRECTLY….i have seen no such evidence; again: given the dubious history of such cases in Oz, i would, @ the very least, require independent verification!
even State forensic science laboratories, where the freedom of an accused person hangs on the correctness of biological testing, have, on several occasions, made major errors; so: i put no faith in a private company un-less there is independent corroboration of the results and, BTW, i doubt very much if they would be perturbed abt ‘a civil suit’ from Mrs Hanson; the MSM in Oz has almost absolute power and they have been overtly hostile to Mrs Hanson from the moment she appeared on the political scene; as such: it is doubtful if such a ‘civil suit’ would even get off the ground! (and Mrs Hanson wouldn’t have the funds to pay lawyers any-way: most of her savings were exhausted fighting bogus/‘trumped up’ charges a while back!....for which the Queensland government refused to compensate her!) The chart in this article:http://www.amren.com/973issue/973issue.html#cover i read it…..i’m not convinced of that claim; the photographic evidence i’v seen strongly suggests a large Caucasoid component in the Iranian population although, doubt-less, there are also significant ‘semitic elements’; that region was innundated by ‘Aryan-type’ people millenia ago; many have probably not ‘inter-bred’ much; again: i base this on the photographic evidence; as such, an intensive, nation-wide genetic study like that done recently in Iceland would be necessary to convince me OTW! 20
Posted by 17% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:28 | # Right, jimbo: any and all inconvenient results will be obfuscated and explained away by “contamination” and/or faulty sampling, with the “requirement” that results be verified by repeated testing. Will _you_ pay for it? And, as justification for these nitpocking complaints, we get anecdotal comments about errors made in Australia. “i read it…..i’m not convinced of that claim; If you actually did read it, you could discern that the data came, originally, from a peer-reviewed massive study by Nei and Roychoudhury, with the data later analyzed further by others; Whitney was just reporting the results. “suggests a large Caucasoid component in the Iranian population ...” First, genius, no one denies that Iranians are “Caucasoid”, the point is if, if you define “white” as European, that Iranians are genetically European? as far as That’s the ticket. You saw some pictures of Iranians who looked white, so therefore, that’s the evidence you need to conclude that there is a European style (“white”) element there. The Nei study of course is airily dismissed, we can’t have, like, you know, actual genetic data contradicting your expert analysis of pictures of Iranians. Gee…what happens when a woman claims that the “photographic evidence” suggests that you are the father of her child…and dismisses any paternity test genetic data as a “contamination in transit.” Get ready to pay up. “as such, an intensive, nation-wide genetic study like that done recently in Iceland would be necessary to convince me OTW” nah…you could always claim it was “contaminated”, obviating all the findings. 21
Posted by 17.0000001% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 13:49 | # Let’s consider. First, “contamination.” Hanson swabs the cheeks, and puts the swabs in a sealed envelope, which is opened in an analytical laboratory (which also can handle forensic cases). Where’s the “contamination” sufficient to skew the results? Does an Arab postal worker open the envelope and scrape his cheeks with the same swab? Or some other paranoid fantasy? Keep in mind, please, that the company can very well determine if there are more than one person’s gene sequences in a sample, which is necessary for the forensics. Or, were the swabs “switched” in the lab? That would be quite curious, since Hanson’s findings are, as already stated, consistent with her heritage. There is no reason to speculate about “contamination”, because there is NOTHING unusual about her findings. Low levels of “exotic ancestry” is a _normal_ finding among Europeans, and is nothing to get excited over. The same applies to “spoofing”; there is no reason to expect it, since there is, again, nothing unusual about Hanson’s results. Further, why would the company take the chance to destroy their own business just to “fluster” Hanson? The idea is ludicrous. Political correctness aside, if it came out that any result was not “kosher” (no pun intended), any genetics testing company would be finished. They’d lose their clients, and their stockholders would dump their holdings ASAP. It doesn’t matter if racial liberals would approve of the spoof, it is a matter of professionalism and scientific and business integrity. The whole thing is absurd. And anecdotes about “dodgy” findings in “Oz”, is no evidence that there was anything wrong with the test, methodologically speaking. Given that: all your comments are completely irrelevant. Unless of course, the aim is to delegitimize genetic testing in principle, which I can understand is important when findings are inconvenient, and go against the vaunted “photographic evidence” of “white aryan Iranians.” 22
Posted by 17% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:13 | # ‘dem ultra Aryans: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/927 some “photographic evidence”: http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/iran/club_pics/2007-03 Persian Night/target39.html which is of course, not really the point, but anecdotal cherrypicking can go in either direction, no? What is needed is quantitative data. 23
Posted by 17% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 14:33 | # More anecdotal cherrypicking: http://bamjam.net/Iran/People.html http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1419643220049149527jajIXu http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1419644119049149527jzRyiJ http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1419643290049149527YkMHrS http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1419650333049149527SHsoSn http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1419644139049149527bEDvuJ Or, how about the “photographic evidence” of this “white guy”, who looks more “white” than many of the Iranians pictured. That’s Grady Sizemore who, according to what I’ve read, identifies as a “black” player and has a father described an “African-American.” Obviously he is more “white” than “black”, but that’s not the point is it? He is not white. How dependable is your “photographic evidence?” 24
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:13 | # I stick to my point against that ‘oh so clever’ Indian troll, “17.3%”. 25
Posted by 17% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 15:24 | # “My point is that this so-called ‘genetics’ is worthless lies.” But of course. Objective science is “lies”, while your subjective, luddite horseshit is the “truth.” If you can’t figure out how a person can be 17% “Middle Eastern”, particularly when “Middle Eastern” is a set of gene frequencies, then you really are a useless retard. 26
Posted by GT on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 17:10 | # 17.87654321% writes: “If Ms. Hanson is reading this thread: your results actually SUPPORT, and not refute, your English/Irish ancestry - as your profile is predominantly “Northern European” (as expected) with lower levels of other ancestries, prominent among which is another European category, “Southeast European.” That may well represent the Paleolithic/Neolithic split _naturally_ found in the genepool of the British Isles/Ireland.”
27
Posted by Bodkin on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:16 | # Sorry to interrupt the flow of this rather interesting thread, but Channel 4 put out a programme called 100% English last year where they did exactly the same thing with Norman Tebbit, Carol Thatcher and Gary Bushell and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%_English “100% English was a Channel 4 television programme shown in November 2006 in the United Kingdom. It looked at the genetic makeup of English people who considered themselves to be ethnically English and found that while all had an ethnic makeup similar to people of European descent, a minority discovered genetic markers from North Africa and the Middle East from several generations before they were born. The presenter was Andrew Graham-Dixon[1]. The test results were interpreted by DNAPrint Genomics, based in Sarasota, Florida. The concept of the show was to: Take eight people - all of whom are convinced they are 100% English. Then submit a sample of their DNA to a series of state-of-the-art tests… Lord Tebbit, Garry Bushell and Carol Thatcher are among the participants who have agreed to place their genetic make-up under the microscope..[2]” 28
Posted by Bodkin on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:20 | # That is probably where this bit in the thread header came from: “Last year, genetic tests conducted on the daughter of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher showed 24 per cent of her DNA was Middle Eastern.” 29
Posted by 17% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:41 | # Putting aside the point that DNAP results are given in whole numbers and not decimal points, we can ask: is it possible for someone to be “17.3%” “Middle Eastern”, or anything else. Of course. Going back ten generations, and ignoring possible inbreeding, everyone has 1024 possible ancestors. Given equal representation of the ancestors to your genepool, then 177 “Middle Eastern” ancestors would give you a 17.3% “Middle Eastern” genepool (simply, 177/1024). Simple division. 17.3% is merely 173 per 1,000; given that there are thousands of genes and millions of gene sequences in the human genome, it is very simple, and very easy for there to be 17.3% of the genes being one thing or another. Further, if “Middle Eastern” actually represents a set of genes rather than actual ancestry, then it is even easier, all it requires is that for every 1,000 genes, 173 of them are characteristic of the predominant “Middle Eastern” genetic profile. Of course, some, who either lack the cognitive skills to divide 177 by 1024, or fear objective measures that will refute their personal opinions, will assert that simple mathematics are a “genetic lies” told to you by an “Indian troll.” Is there any wonder the “movement” has gotten nowhere, and will always go nowhere? The “movement” needs to be completely reconstructed from bottom up and top down, and all the numbnuts who think that their personal opinions trump science need to be shown the door. 30
Posted by 17% on Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:53 | # “...and found that while all had an ethnic makeup similar to people of European descent…” as did Hanson. No problem. “...a minority discovered genetic markers from North Africa…” That’s BS. DNAP does not have a “North African” genetic category. If the show claimed that, they are lying. “...and the Middle East from several generations before they were born.” several generations? How do they know? How about several thousand years? “The concept of the show was to: Take eight people - all of whom are convinced they are 100% English.” “English” is NOT a category of the test, therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for the test to determine “Englishness.” Since a person who is “100% English” may well have a certain % of “Middle Eastern”, any attempt by the test givers to question the “Englishness” of the participants based on that is outright deception. The _only_ way for the test to indirectly determine “Englishness”, would be to have a large number of indigenous English individuals tested, and average out their results, which would give a “diagnostic profile” of an “average Englishman.” How close someone comes to that could be used as a metric. Better by far is a more detailed test with more and more specific markers which could in fact directly determine English ancestry, which the current test does NOT do. “that would be little more significant than, say, the gene frequencies humans share with rabbits?” When someone devises a rabbit ancestry test, I’ll let you know. Hopefully they’ll be able to distinguish between rabbits and hares. Until then, the relevancy esapes me. 31
Posted by GT on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 01:30 | # Fred Scrooby asks: “Btw, is GT the same as the one who signs occasionally as TG?” No, I’m not TG. Since Serial Killer Whiteout I’ve signed on as “GT” and once or twice as “gt” for serious discussion. Three or four other, humorous nyms where used when providing smart-aleck responses to trolls - that is, before GW and James banned them. Thanks for answering my question, by the way. Perhaps I should have used chimpanzees instead of rabbits? What I’m looking for is a down and dirty response to the “Euros are mutts due to middle-eastern ancestry” -claim. 32
Posted by 100% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 02:29 | # Kenelm: How can something such as bloodlines, which most normal people are extremely proud of and jealousy guard can be given as approximate mathematical percentages that don’t even round off into factors of two? You get exactly 50% of your genes from each parent, but you do not get exactly 25% of your genes from each grandparent (look up “meiosis” and “crossing over”; interestingly, alleged “scientist” “17.8%” also seems to have forgotten high school biology.) You are right to regard DNAprint’s claims skeptically, but not for the reason stated here. 33
Posted by 100% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:07 | # I’m not sure what “17.8%” thinks he’s accomplishing being combative toward people who lack his fine sense of scientific discernment. (OK, having just read “numbnuts who think that their personal opinions trump science need to be shown the door”, now I do.) Anyway, we should not blame people for taking the “science” of DNAprint with a grain of salt when what it tells them disagrees with what their eyes and history tell them. And, sure, journalists twist the actual meaning of these test results, but DNAprint employees have repeatedly assisted in these deceptions. Ideally, everyone would understand genetics, statistics, and DNAprint’s methodology. But stunts like testing Pauline Hanson for “Middle Eastern” ancestry prey on an uninformed public. Given a choice between people uncritically accepting the DNAprint results (as 17.8% has done in the past), or completely disregarding this “science”, the latter is clearly less damaging. 34
Posted by 100% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:26 | # Again, listen to Frudakis on the web seminar. Quite a different “tune” is “sung” there compared to Thomas’ assertions and implications. This may be true now, but, having exchanged email with Frudakis when the ABD test originally came on the market, I can state that Frudakis himself has previously shown a lack of understanding of the limitations of his own company’s test (assuming he wasn’t just lying). Why, then, should we expect the public to immediately grasp how the test works and what the results mean or don’t mean? More importantly, what actionable information would a WN gain by taking a DNAprint test? Are you still promoting this company’s products? 35
Posted by 123 on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:14 | # 100% said…I’m not sure what “17.8%” thinks he’s accomplishing being combative toward people who lack his fine sense of scientific discernment. Agreed. It’s hard to see what Rienzi is bitching about. Kenelm is in tune with human-nature when he says: Emotionally I feel kinship with people who look like me, who have the same distinctive features who I know must have shared common ancestors. And that emotional feeling is both the cause and the result of Rienzi’s scientific data and perfectly (inevitably) congruent with both. Kenelm didn’t put a word wrong. Rienzi’s science explains Kenelm’s emotions, but take no possession of them. For Rienzi’s gene-supreme agenda to work out he *needs* people to think like Kenelm, and he needs *not* to reject people who think like Kenelm. Rienzi might not be emotionally capable of cooperating with others in a collegiate blog such as this, but his talent is wasted sniping from the sidelines. Start a blog of your own Rienzi, or at least make properly available your Legion Europa work. And grow up child. 36
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:31 | # 17%: “Right, jimbo: any and all inconvenient results will be obfuscated and explained away by “contamination” and/or faulty sampling, with the “requirement” that results be verified by repeated testing. Will _you_ pay for it? And, as justification for these nitpocking complaints, we get anecdotal comments about errors made in Australia. “i read it…..i’m not convinced of that claim; If you actually did read it, you could discern that the data came, originally, from a peer-reviewed massive study by Nei and Roychoudhury, with the data later analyzed further by others; Whitney was just reporting the results. “suggests a large Caucasoid component in the Iranian population ...” First, genius, no one denies that Iranians are “Caucasoid”, the point is if, if you define “white” as European, that Iranians are genetically European? as far as That’s the ticket. You saw some pictures of Iranians who looked white, so therefore, that’s the evidence you need to conclude that there is a European style (“white”) element there. The Nei study of course is airily dismissed, we can’t have, like, you know, actual genetic data contradicting your expert analysis of pictures of Iranians. Gee…what happens when a woman claims that the “photographic evidence” suggests that you are the father of her child…and dismisses any paternity test genetic data as a “contamination in transit.” Get ready to pay up. “as such, an intensive, nation-wide genetic study like that done recently in Iceland would be necessary to convince me OTW” nah…you could always claim it was “contaminated”, obviating all the findings” don’t give me the fkcn shits, you pathetic FUCKTARD! WTF do you know abt court cases in Oz? you fckn low-life jew turd! hunh? u evr hear of the Lindy Chamberlain case? !Google it you piece of dog-shit & then come back when you know WTF yr talking about, hunh? FUCK YOU! waddabt this ‘private company’ that did the test? WTF r the major share-holders? hunh? more importantly: WTF is their ethnicity? and, while we’re @ it: WTF is yr ethnicity, you maggot? many large companies in Oz r controlled by god-damn jews: shows how much you know abt my country, you germ! so: they’re mightily bloody SUSS whn it comes to stuff like this and then they can cover every-thing up by claiming “commercial: in confidence!” and: yr study: STFW if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal: the more important points are: i/what % of the Iranian ppltn did they test and ii/what were the actual nature of the tests…..i don’t rely on photographic evidence either: i rely on scientific evidence: provided it’s done properly by independent groups! here’s some other photographic evidence for you to chew on, dip-shit!
they all look pretty bloody white to me!.....prblby whiter than u, u fkcn mud-crab! 37
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:34 | # 123, Our mutual friend is a highly valuable asset who will, therefore, always have the support of this blog, even if sometimes he speaks against it. That doesn’t matter in the wider scheme of things. We don’t set special standards for party loyalty. Jimbo, We do set a standard for civility. You are welcome to put serious ideas on our pages but not expletives, and not expressions of hatred of other peoples. Can you please respect our rule so I don’t have to ban you? Thanks. 38
Posted by MMR on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:43 | # many large companies in Oz r controlled by god-damn jews: shows how much you know abt my country Jimbo, Please do tell more of the media and bank ownership situation in Australia. How did Jewry giddyup Australia into the Iraq war posse of 2003? 39
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:25 | # If it could be shown that Ms Hanson’s genotype contains a *specific sex-linked* allele that is never, but never found in people of English ancestry but exclusively in those of this so-called ‘middle-eastern race’, then I would eat humble-pie and accept that my opinions are worthless. If supposing that unique alleles colud be identified that are EXCLUSIVELY found in a so-called ‘middle-eastern race’ and are NEVER found in other ethnicities - I would accept the possession of these alleles as concrete unequivolcal proof that the individual is wholly or partially ‘middle-eastern’ dsecent - there is no room for argument. But what is being foisted on the gullible here is something completely different. the frequencies of specified patterns of alleles are being used to denote as a mathematical percentage of ‘descent’ - the concept is a completetly illogical load of balls - of a so-called ‘race’ (don’t anti-racists deny the existence of ‘race’) which is supposed to correlate - with the same percentage - to ancestral origin in a particular location that is ‘assigned’ to this ‘race’. 40
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:28 | # Please do tell more of the media and bank ownership situation in Australia !Google up ‘Frank Lowy’ & ‘Westfield Group’ for starters; that was mostly down to John Winston Howard, a jew gofer, as well as his Defence Minister, Robert Hill, an out-and-out-kike! 41
Posted by 17.3% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:43 | # Lots of comments here to respond to, so briefly: I’m not promoting anything; the major point of the post and thread was to refute the attack on Hanson, an attack which was unfair, unethical, and left her “flustered.” With respect to the utility of the test itself, that was exhaustiveky discussed here in the past, particularly in response to John Hawks. Again, the point of the post, which some seem to have missed, was the mendacity of “Dr” Thomas. I have a reasonable understanding of high school biology. However, since Kelnem’s understanding is far below that level, isn’t it best, for the sake of clarity, to first assume equal contributions to the genome, and then introduce the concept of simple division? Once someone understands that 177/1024 = 17.3%, then we can all move onto the high school level of independent assortment. Note that I wrote: “Given equal representation of the ancestors to your genepool”, by which I meant, “Assuming equal….”; that is, making an assumption for the sake of simplicity. Unlike Razib of gnxp, I actually do understand the essentials of human reproductive biology. “I can state that Frudakis himself has previously shown a lack of understanding of the limitations of his own company’s test (assuming he wasn’t just lying).” Fair enough. I think that Charles Kerchner, an engineer, understood the implications earlier. Note though that Frudakis today seems to have a better grasp. To what extent that has derived from outside input, who knows? What he says in the seminar was stated on this blog a year earlier, if I remember correctly. Jimbo, my point in posting the pictures, which you apparently missed, was that anyone can cherrypick pictures to make a point; only quantitative data can lead to more objective conclusions. I post brown Iranians, you post “white” Iranians, what’s the point? With respect to Kelnem’s “emotions”; one wonders if he would accept Grady Sizemore as his “kin.” Good luck with that. “provided it’s done properly by independent groups” In other words, “properly” means that the results meet your preconceptions. 42
Posted by 17.3% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:46 | # Kelnem, If you think that is “crap”, then complain to the forces of natural selection, or to God, or whatever it is you believe in. Science is what it is. Because you cannot, or will not, understand it, doesn’t make it “crap.” 43
Posted by 17.3% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:51 | # “gene-supreme agenda” Reality is not an “agenda.” Putting proximate interests as predominant to ultimate interests, to suit personal aesthetic tastes is, however, an agenda. 44
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:57 | # Humans share 99.9% of their DNA with a chimpanzee, at least 70% with a rat, a considerable proportion with a lettuce, and even with yeasts and moulds. 45
Posted by 17.3% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:21 | # First, your numbers are wrong, but anyway… Yeah, so what? Are you a race denier now? It’s the differences that are important. I assume that Kelnem’s “emotions” compensate for ignorance and a complete lack of logic. Wonderful. Here’s the point: genetic science is a powerful weapon in defense of racial interests. If we abdicate the use of genetic science because it is “crap” and leave the field to the likes of Thomas - is that a wise choice? Why the resistance to knowledge? If you do not understand, then learn. “Grow up, child” as some here would say. Except it seems the “growing up” is suggested to the empirical, and not to the emotional, the stubborn, and the factually ignorant and illogical. Be prepared for another 40 years of absolute failure. 46
Posted by 17.3% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:31 | # And, certainly, the wayback machine is an excellent preservationist resource. Most useful in analyzing old versions of various websites that have been subsequently altered for obfuscatory purposes. 47
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:31 | # 17.3%, 48
Posted by 17.3% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:42 | # That’s right Kelnem, you know that, you know everything. Very certain we are. Very “grown up.” Ignorance is bliss and the “movement” is full of the joyful. 49
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:42 | # Kenelm, look at the exchange between 123 and myself. 50
Posted by Proofreader on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:06 | # In reply to GW, the point I was trying to make was that Mrs. Hanson should have read up a bit on the relevant literature before submitting to the test. She then could have dismissed the 9 % percentage of ME heritage as the trivial component of Neolithic ancestry all Euros share. 51
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:45 | # GW, Jimbo and Kelnem are correct. How can I – or anyone else here – compare to the racial purity and racial beauty of the Iranian people. Therefore, I post some photographic evidence of the white European nature of Iranians, in all its aryan majesty:
52
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:52 | # Fred, what’s important is to make sure samples are representative of the people based on indigenous ancestry. Of course, choice of parental populations plays a role and we await with bated breath the “peer reviewed” papers that Thomas promises. Of course, if genetic categories are establised from the data without any a priori assumptions, as with Risch’s work, so circularity is introduced. Circularity can be introduced via “visual inspection” as well. 54
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:37 | # HEY!.....‘17%’....y don’t you post a random sample of ‘Kwans? betcha they’d be evn ‘muddier looking’ than the ones you whacked up there…..eh? (depends wht areas of Iran we’re talking abt just as it depends wht areas of the “kwa we’re talking abt, eh?.....random LA or NY pics would, more likely than not, be almost all mud whereas random Montana pics would, more likely than not, be all white!) 55
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:49 | # Iranians are mongrels. A small minority, who nevertheless constituted a disproportionate share of the country’s pre-revolution business/professional class, have retained fair skins and other, albeit diluted, Aryan markers. This guy is extremely scathing on the subject of his fellow Iranians’ ‘Aryan’ pretensions : 56
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:55 | # Things have gotten a bit of topic here. There are two main points with respect to the Hanson episode. First, and which I assume all agree with, Hanson was unfairly duped in an unethical manner, for political reasons, and this deception needs to be exposed and condemned. That was the purpose of the original post. Second, and here is where some may unfortunately disagree, this episode underscores the need for nationalists, particularly those in “leadership” positions, to have some familiarity with genetic science, or at least to have somewhere to go to get the facts, so as to not be deceived again in the future. What was the purpose of this “exercise” from the anti-Hanson view? Her personal “flustering” was only secondary. The major purpose was to discredit her views to third parties, who would respond to future anti-immigration statements by Hanson thus: “what a hypocrite, she herself is part-Arab, the ‘science’ says so, why should she be against Middle Eastern migrants?” Now it is all well and good that there are some who will say in response “genetics is crap”, and state that they have an emotional connection to Hanson as kin based on her appearance. However, to many people, particularly deluded whites wishing for an “excuse” to be anti-racist, that attitude will appear to be “sour grapes.” In other words, the attitude will be that the nationalists are unable to refute the findings, they are “flustered” by the findings and thus dismiss the whole science by calling it “crap” and saying it is unimportant. I see it better to expose the fraud for what it is, which would have the side benefit of making the populace suspicious of any future such proclamations, and make them see that it are the nationalists who are able to make the logical, fact-based arguments and it are the anti-racists who must depend on distortions and deception. If you have the truth on your side, why not use it, instead of running away from the battle? Sure, we can’t compete with the MSM, but GW tells me that shortly after this post went up, it quickly rose to the top of the result for googling “Hanson dnaprint.” That’s all to the good, I think; after all, the post was aimed primarily at the right end of the bell curve, computer-literate, intelligent people who need to have the deceptions of the anti-racists made very clear. And this post remains at the top of the search results today. Why not? Why not use the truth as a lever to promote our interests? Why not use science to expose the frauds and the deception? Why not give Hanson a rhetorical tool to use the next time someone brings up this story as a means to discredit her politics? 57
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:03 | # Jimbo, “American” is not an ethnic group. Iranian - or more properly, “Persian”, is. Obviously, America is composed of different racial groups. You probably want to say the same about Iran. Very well. That may be so. That does not mean that any of those groups are European. Present evidence that there is a racial group in Iran that genetically falls within the European range. I’m openminded. I see the clear evidence, I’ll then agree with you. That evidence, however, does not exist. I doubt it will ever exist. This is not “anti-Iranian.” They are their own people. Iran is an Asian Muslim nation, whose people have been separated from Europeans, ancestrally speaking, for thousands of years. They have the right to exist and thrive in their homeland and I wish them well. But if you want us to believe that some fraction of the Iranian population _genetically_ overlaps Europe, I hope you do not mind that I ask for evidence. 58
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 15:19 | # Let me go further. Let’s look at the genetic landscape of different ethnic and racial groups. One can look at the major groups: Europeans, East Asians, Africans, etc. One could divide them further; for example, the first North/South split in Europe, followed by East/West, and, eventually, narrower groups. The same can be done for East Asia, South Asia, and the Near East. Now, perhaps, groups designated as single ethnic groups, such as Persians, may be homogenous (relatively), or they may be heterogeneous. There are two questions. Where would the overall Iranian/Persian genepool lie? We need more data on that, I do not see it as definitively conclusive, but based on available data, particularly that discussed in Amren, I would think it lies in the Near Eastern part of the genetic landscape. The question of perhaps more relevance: are the fairer Iranians you pictured significantly different genetically than those I posted, and, if so, are they closer to Europeans, or any subset of Europeans, than they are to their darker co-ethnics? No one knows the answer to that, because no one has done that study. That would be somewhat similar to Fred’s idea of combining visual inspection with genetic data. Such studies should be done and I hope that someday they will be done. Until that day comes, one needs to either consider the overall ethnic data for Iranians, or consider individual data for any specific person, if such is avaliable. Considering we are dealing with an Asian, non-western population, separating from European genetics presumably by thousands of years, a people with their own identity, most of whom look non-western (with some exceptions, as noted), and who, current data emphasized, overall in their own part of the genetic landscape, I think it prudent to not get overly excited by a small minority of Persians who look European, given that they have their own identity and given that we don’t know the genetic meaning behind the difference of their appearance with that of their co-ethnics (co-ethnics that they may well favor over you). I believe that is a fair and open minded perspective. 59
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:08 | # 17%: “That does not mean that any of those groups are European. Present evidence that there is a racial group in Iran that genetically falls within the European range. I’m open-minded” AFAIK, the appropriate studies haven’t been done; as i prvsly posted, such a study would involve a nation-wide-Icelandic-type project; ‘genetics and race’ & ‘IQ and ‘race’ are, how-ever, still pretty much ‘taboo’ topics: as others here have noted, scientific research into the latter is littered with caveats: you just have to look @ the opprobium heaped on some-one like Rushton to realise that! another example of this is the attempted ‘cover-up’ of the Tocharian ‘mummy’ & ‘Kennewick man’ finds; there are clearly powerful and, dare one say it, EVIL forces in the world to-day (both in the academy and in the MSM!) that will do almost any-thing to prevent the spread of an idea like the frequent genetic occurrences of European-type peoples in both Eurasia & in the Americas! until then, or until some-one with the expertise decides to mount a well-funded private scientific investigation, the best i can do is rely on anecdotal evidence like photographs! for the moment, that is good enough for me! 60
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:17 | # ‘Al Ross’: Iranians are mongrels. A small minority, who nevertheless constituted a disproportionate share of the country’s pre-revolution business/professional class, have retained fair skins and other, albeit diluted, Aryan markers perhaps i would, how-ever, dispute ‘small minority’; any-thing over 10% would, IMO, constitute a significant minority!; in the absence of any specific DNA testing, the children & adults in the photographs i posted above would, prima facie, qualify as ‘European’ and would clearly pass for such in any European nation! if their ‘Aryan markers’ have been diluted, i would hazard a guess that it would be only very slightly: certainly they would be much more Aryan than the average kike who is quite definitely a mongrel mixture of mud! and, prima facie, repulsive! 61
Posted by jimbo on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:40 | # 17%: What was the purpose of this “exercise” from the anti-Hanson view? Her personal “flustering” was only secondary. The major purpose was to discredit her views to third parties, who would respond to future anti-immigration statements by Hanson thus: “what a hypocrite, she herself is part-Arab, the ‘science’ says so, why should she be against Middle Eastern migrants?” <snip!> And this post remains at the top of the search results today. Why not? Why not use the truth as a lever to promote our interests? Why not use science to expose the frauds and the deception? Why not give Hanson a rhetorical tool to use the next time someone brings up this story as a means to discredit her politics? the voter base for the One Nation Party peaked @ some-thing close to 1½ million around 2000; that’s some-thing like 13-14% of the Oz voter base; a not in-significant ‘minority’; when ‘second preference’/Senate voters are included(i.e: voters who placed her party ‘second’ on the ballot paper or voted One Nation in the Senate but not in the Lower Houses) then that base increases to 2million!: that’s some-thing over 18%: a quite respectable political following; many of those voters supported her because of the illegal confiscation of privately-owned fire-arms by the Howard Coalition government; they also ensured that the Coalition Party was ‘turfed’ out in every state & territory in Australia and may well be ‘turfed out’ in the up-coming Federal poll @ the end of this year; the rest of the people supporting her did so over ‘immigration issues’; one of the ONP candidates was Robyn Spencer, past chair of Australians Against Further Immigration! virtually all of those supporters(who are still ‘out there’) would support her again if ONP was ‘resucitated’ because those issues are still relevant! failing that: they will invariably vote against the Coalition Party when-ever they can and, frequently, support Independent, or non-alligned, candidates(both major parties in Oz being seen as equally culpable over the above issues) a major characteristic of these people and i am speaking here from personal knowledge is their extreme dis-trust of the Oz MSM: particularly that portion of it controlled by Murdoch! as such: they would be un-likely to believe such ‘twaddle’ as Hanson being ‘Middle-Eastern’; most of the remaining sectors of the voting public are ‘rusted-on’ adherents to either the Labor or Coalition parties and would be un-likely to change their views of her regardless! there remains a small % of so-called ‘swinging voters’ who are the ones usually ‘targeted’ by electioneering ‘pork barrelling’ Down Under; they might be swayed by what they perceived as ‘hypocrisy’ but, if the issues were ‘hot’ enough, may well not be influenced; Bob Katter, an Independent Queensland MP and a break-away Coalition member is, apparently, part Aborigine and still gets elected term after term! that said: he’s only a ‘very small part’: Aussies generally don’t like their politicians to be too muddy-looking! Bob’s family(very white looking!)
62
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 17:56 | # Not to discount the importance of investigations such as this, however it is pretty clear this demonstrates the primacy of freedom of association with sovereignty over carrying capacity sufficient for those associations. “White nationalism” cannot survive any other way. There are going to be disagreements and it is the “Aryan” way to resolve them within the context of Nature rather than in the context of debate. Do the voluntary human experiments, grounded in Nature and the choice of adults as to which experiments they will submit their lives and wish everyone well, so long as they seek not to interfere with the experiments of others. If they so seek (particularly by gaining access to the indoctrination of others’ children) then let them be neutralized by any means necessary. 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:04 | #
Look at the relationship between the imposing power broker Lord Levy and the submissive, intimidated Tony Blair, as depicted in this Luke O’Farrell column. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” 64
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:11 | # “Bob’s family(very white looking!) “ I see. Unfortunately, Europeans do not have a genetic interest in the propagation of aboriginal genetic information, “white looking”, or not. “in the absence of any specific DNA testing” There is no absence. “Do the voluntary human experiments, grounded in Nature and the choice of adults as to which experiments they will submit their lives and wish everyone well, so long as they seek not to interfere with the experiments of others.” I agree wholeheartedly. I would however like the people setting up these experiments to have as much access to information, including genetic information, as possible. If they choose not to use it, and engage in racial cuckoldry, in favoring as “kin” asiatics and part-aboriginals with different genetic structures, that is their loss. But I consider it to be unethical indoctrination to posit that Iranians are European sans solid evidence for such a counter-intuitive “idea.” On other words, let’s out the facts on the table and let people decide on how to use them. 65
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:23 | # I would however like the people setting up these experiments to have as much access to information, including genetic information, as possible. Controlling free speech within some experiments may be necessary. If someone interferes with an adult’s right to leave an experiment then they forfeit their rights to conduct the experiment. The main issues are the definition of “adult” and how one becomes informed of and exercises one’s right to leave. The case of espionage is also an interesting issue. If someone pledges themselves to follow the conditions of the experiment and then fails to do so, it might be sufficient to simply expel them. The problem arises when this is so virulent that it systematically interferes with the right to freely associate—de facto espionage. I suspect that even here it may be feasible to expell and then trace most espionage agents to their source group so as to neutralize the source if necessary. However, this is a serious practical problem as demonstrated by the unconsciously sociopathic hypocrites that “pledge” themselves to the US in becoming “citizens”. 66
Posted by 17% on Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:13 | # Actually, after James’ food for thought, I’d like to retract the comment: “numbnuts who think that their personal opinions trump science need to be shown the door” The “movement” as it exists is beyond reformation and the “numbnuts” in question would likely make up a large majority of the “activists.” Instead, the best thing would be to have an alternative experiment in WN, emphasizing empiricism, critical thinking, science, and rejecting rigid dogma. Freedom of association within alternative experiments is a more effective way of leveraging scarce resources than attempting to “show the door” to 95% of a group’s members. That other 5% should simply try another experiment. 67
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:36 | # I do not know if the polygenes that control the characteristic and defining ‘White European’ phenotypic characters of White skin, light eyes and light hair have been identified or not, but it is not unreasonable to presume that this distinctive system of polygenes is found exclusively in White Europeans - incluing the real ethnic English - and is absent from therest of the world who cannot claim any remote European ancestry. 68
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:34 | # “If thre was such a thing as a ‘pure middle eastern race’ as these charlatans by definition posit” No one, not even the “charlatans” “posit” that. That’s your fantasy. Please point us to someone “positing” a pure Middle Eastern race. Obviously, you haven’t even bothered to learn the slightest about what it is you are talking about. This is exactly the problem: critical thinking is absent, completely absent, from the “movement.” “as it is the characteristic that defines ‘Englishness” Ancestry studies are usually based upon neutral markers to get away from the confounding effects of selection. It is quite obvious that a “movement” that contains the likes of a Kelnem and a Jimbo is beyond rational argument and reformation. Experiments, we need more alternative experiments. If The Inverted World can set up such an experiment, why can’t the rational? “those characters would follow the ‘factors of two’ law -” I presume that some of my critics begin to understand why getting into issues of indepenent assortment is a lost cause when dealing with people who cannot even understand simple mathematics? 69
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:06 | # Yes, yes, you are a VERY clever man, and good Go, don’t you love to tell us all. 70
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:34 | # I suggest you look up how computers approximate continuous numbers. See floating point numbers. You can get good approximations of real numbers with 32 bits and each base pair in the human genome represents 2 bits. Yes, there are “bit positions” that are very significant—“dominant” you might say… 71
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:44 | # Can you divide 177 by 1024, idiot? Have you ever heard of codominance and multi-allelic genes, or does your “knowledge” end with Mendel’s initial observations? “And that the science of genetics is based on the principle of discrete factors and not a continuous blending.” And there are thousands of “discrete factors” and most traits are determined by a number of these “discrete factors” working in tandem, with the levels of gene expression and, hence, phenotype controlled at precise levels to yield a vast continuum of traits. “Have youe ever hear” You tell ‘em! 72
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:47 | # http://www.hobart.k12.in.us/jkousen/Biology/inccodom.htm I doubt any brains here got any bigger. One cannot grow what one does not have. 73
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:49 | # “and good Go” All hail the might Go. You wouldn’t be from the Amren lists would you? The shining light of intellect so common from those comment threads seems to be very bright here. 74
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:47 | # Fred there is a difference between: a) people who do not know, but who sincerely want to learn, and b) people who do not know, do not want to learn, and are so arrogantly cocksure that they know what it is they do not know, that they accuse anyone else who points out their errors as “f**kin’ mud crabs”, “Indian trolls”, “sure you are not white”, etc. It’s one thing if someone doesn’t understand something completely. It’s another if they label what they don’t understand as “crap” and attempt to indoctrinate others away from learning things that may be useful. Or, should we let people such as Matt Thomas monopolize the discourse on genetic science and so be in a position to “fluster” Pauline Hanson with impunity? 75
Posted by wjg on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:32 | # 17%/Kenelm/Jimbo, This interesting and important debate is not about us as individuals but about us as a people. Are we to live as a vibrant, growing, improving race or continue our decline to oblivion? Many in the “movement” have different things to offer: some more of a pure intellectual nature, some as activists, some as both. Who knows what else. Within these various domains there will be differences of opinion. Isn’t it best to presume that these disagreements don’t render the opposing party an infiltrator but just a brother with a different perspective? If we always keep in mind that we are in a war and we cannot afford ad-hominem fights then maybe we can civilly agree to disagree. Whether or not you realize it, we need each other. If/when it is discovered that a supposed brother is a troll or a plant then that is a different matter all together. Treason is the worst crime to Aryans. Don’t attribute it lightly. Fred’s points are well said. 76
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:42 | # Anti-Ziv: http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030090 Hmmm. It seems some have not been exposed to the same selective pressures. “However, a caveat should be considered when interpreting the differences between African-American and non-African populations: the statistical power to detect selective sweeps is likely to be much lower in the African -American sample. Because the CLR test is based on a complete sweep model, the recent admixture of African and European lineages in the African-American population probably weakens the signal of Africa-specific selective sweeps. If a complete selective sweep occurred in African populations after the divergence of European populations, then the beneficial allele, and corresponding haplotypes, would not be fixed in the African-American sample. In other words, admixture is expected to fundamentally alter the molecular signature of a selective sweep..” Admixture can at least partially erase the frequency differences in beneficial alleles. That’s no surprise to us. It may be a “surprise” to Alon Ziv. More: “For example, in this demographic scenario, if a selective sweep occurred within Africa in a source population for the African-American population, the molecular signature of this sweep would be obscured by the admixture among African populations during the founding of the African-American population, and the signature would further be eroded by subsequent admixture with the European population.” And: “Another general pattern that emerges from our analysis is that we observe more evidence for selective sweeps within subpopulations, compared with the cosmopolitan sample. This result suggests that adaptation to local environments has been an important force in recent human evolution.” 77
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:53 | # But the implication posted in the original article that ‘Pauline Hanson is 9% of middle eastern origin’ is just so intuitively absurd and offending to common sense that it must be challenged. 78
Posted by 17% on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:05 | # Er, Kelnem, uncovering that deception was the whole point of the original post. 79
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:36 | # I believe that was is termed by these charlatan scientists as ‘DNA lineages of middle-eastern origin’ are based on sampling individual genotypes of X number of persons from the so-called ‘middle-east’ (which countries?, which regions?, how many individuals from each region?) and using them in the aggregate to conjure up a statistically ‘normal’ genotype of All the above is heavy-going, I admit and will probably be hated, belittled and execrated. I much prefer writing lighter-hearted, Pythonesque posts about Peter Tatchell, Lonnie Donegan and the Bermondsey by-election of 1983. 80
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 12:52 | # Kelnem, you haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about. That is, what can be understood from the semi-illiterate gibberish you post. Fred, it is simply NOT possible to plaster over these differences, it’s as if the different sets of activists originate from different worlds with entirely different ways of thinking. The “movement” is a disgusting disgrace. There is a “leftist” tinge to it, but not in the manner JJR asserts. Instead, what the “mainstream movement” and the real left have in common is that they wish to distort reality to fit their preconceptions. “and from that perspective the inference is taken that this norm means definitively -’the middle eastern race” utter and complete bullshit ” MUST follow the ‘law of halves’ “ Are you reading this Fred? What can be done with such “people?” Leave them alone in their “movement” freakshow sandbox and just begin an alternate experiment elsewhere. 81
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:18 | # I address the following specifically to Guessedworker and Fred Scrooby. How many times on this thread was it explained how a person could be “17% Middle Eastern”, or anything else? Was the explanation not ‘simple enough?’ Indeed, I was accused of not knowing “high school biology” because of the extent to which I simplified the explanation, and left out everything except the mathematical bare minimum, so that can’t be it. Any explanations? Further: I was under the impression, and this was particularly emphasized in the byplay between GW and Soren in the interviews, that Majority Rights is especially aimed at the right end of the bell curve, at an elite. At what level do you think this elite will need the distortions of Matt Thomas refuted? Do you think that some of the semi-literate exclamations on this thread are going to be convincing? At what point will it be admitted that the lack of critical thinking in the “movement” is a serious flaw, especially when there are pretensions of “reaching out to an elite?” When will an attempt be made to actually shift course away from 40 years of unending failure? 82
Posted by jimbo on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 15:58 | # i’v got as much faith in ‘science’ as the next white man; how-ever: what should be borne in mind is that the scientists of to-day are of a very different calibre indeed! than those of even a century ago! to-day’s ‘scientists’(with few exceptions) are by-products of the ZOG ‘schmuel system’; few, if any, could be described as even resembling WNs(MacDonald & Rushton being probable exceptions!); gone are the days when a ‘scientist’, usually of independent financial means, would fully & fearlessly follow a scientific trail to its ultimate conclusion; way too many of these characters are ‘shackled’ by such restraints as: ‘tenure’, ‘grants committees’ & ‘job security’(with private conglomerates); added to that, most of them have a very large dollop indeed of pre-existing ‘ideological pre-suppositions’ as part of their intellectual baggage! as such: their ‘findings’ whether published in ‘peer-reviewed journals’, the MSM or as works of reference/books must, AFA possible, be care-fully scrutinised and assessed for traces of such ‘ideological bias’; even findings in ‘peer-reviewed journals’ need to be care-fully weighed and compared; if possible: with other scientific findings published in other formats! how many times over the last 50yrs or so have certain ‘scientific schmucks’ trumpeted some ‘finding’ in the scientific literature or the MSM only to sheepishly with-draw it a few yrs later; invariably w/out the grandiose hubris that accompanied the original ‘discovery’! don’t most scientific texts have to be completely re-written every few years any-way? i say we stick with ‘the tried & true’ stuff and treat any new ‘finding’ (especially in ideologically-loaded areas like ‘race’ & ‘culture’) with a very large grain of salt indeed! the ZOG ‘matrix’ insidiously infiltrates every area of our life and committed WNs must be constantly on the alert to nullify its sinister encroachments! 83
Posted by M on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:10 | # 17%, Do you have your own blog? or is there another one to which you regularly contribute? Any attempt I make to give an erudite expression of admiration will undoubtedly come across as clumsy, but I do quite like your style. (sincerely). 84
Posted by jimbo on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:14 | # 17%: “people who do not know, do not want to learn, and are so arrogantly cocksure that they know what it is they do not know, that they accuse anyone else who points out their errors as “f**kin’ mud crabs”, “Indian trolls”, “sure you are not white”, etc” yr the one who strikes me as ‘arrogant’, china! airily dismissing some-one’s points with sneering asides & sarcastic ad-hominems usually merits a response in kind if not more so! i don’t make a habit of making shit up! it’s well known that DNA-testing has its draw-backs and is an evolving field: what was taken as ‘gospel’ 10/15yrs ago is now considered inadmissable in a court of scientific law! in a few years time, the same could well be said of what is now considered ‘scientific certainty’! a measured and considered response would have @ least acknowledged as much instead of coming across as a Mr Know-it-ALL! u strike me as a ‘prime example’ of the scientific ‘hubris’ i mentioned in my prvs post! but, as they say, “pride cometh before a fall!” 85
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:14 | # Right, Jimbo - anything and everything to discredit or delegitimize what you cannot understand or what may refute your cherished beliefs. “i’v got as much faith in ‘science’ as the next white man” Which is why you put the word science in scare quotes. “i say we stick with ‘the tried & true’ stuff” You know, the same old crap that has resulted in 40 years of utter failure. “how many times over the last 50yrs or so have certain ‘scientific schmucks’ trumpeted some ‘finding’ in the scientific literature or the MSM only to sheepishly with-draw it a few yrs later; invariably w/out the grandiose hubris that accompanied the original ‘discovery’! ...don’t most scientific texts have to be completely re-written every few years any-way?” That tells me that the “scientific shmucks” engage in critical thinking and are willing to alter their opinions once new evidence is uncovered. This contrasts to the fossilized and deranged “movement” which adheres to dogma with all the fanaticism of a religious cultist and will never, and can never, admit that they are wrong about anything. Give me an honest man willing to admit to error that a blinded fanatic spewing forth nonsense endlessly without even the willingness to attempt to understand why they may be wrong. “most of them have a very large dollop indeed of pre-existing ‘ideological pre-suppositions’ as part of their intellectual baggage! “ Sound familiar? You’ve just described the “movement.” The real solution to politically motivated science is to understand the science and the art of critical thinking, so that the deceptions can be uncovered, rather than hiding behind whatever “ideological pre-suppositions” you are most comfortable with. 86
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:17 | # “17%, Do you have your own blog? or is there another one to which you regularly contribute? “ No. “in a few years time, the same could well be said of what is now considered ‘scientific certainty’! a measured and considered response would have @ least acknowledged as much instead of coming across as a Mr Know-it-ALL! “ Thar’s my point. I’m willing to change my mind if presented with evidence. Jimbo and Kelnem are not. 87
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:03 | # Some further comments. First, as the original post and subsequent comments make clear, there is nothing in Hanson’s results that in any way question her English/Irish heritage or seriously suggest that she has “Arab ancestors.” It is quite clear that’s politicized hokum from Thomas and should be treated as the despicable nonsense that it is. However, some here have an agenda formed by their opinion that genetics is “crap” and that science is a word to be used with scare quotes. Well, I can understand how, just like rigid religious fanatics oppose science because it conflicts with their faith-based dogma, that the “movement” fanatics reject anything that may conflict with their cherished fantasies. That’s not what I understand that this blog is about though. Although the lack of any defense of science and the scientific method, other than my own, does make me wonder. Then we have Jimbo’s nihilistic idea that current scientific opinion and findings should be rejected because of the theoretical possibility that they may be superseded in the future by different findings. Hey, the germ theory of disease may be proved incorrect, so if someone with pandemic flu sneezes in your face, there’s nothing to worry about! More to the point: if you adopt this attitude (while paradoxically promoting the “tried and true” things that could also be shown to false) – how do you know that the latter findings, and not the earlier ones, are correct? Maybe the latter findings are “contamination” or “spoofs” or the dire manipulations of the “Zionist matrix.” That way, you can disbelieve all findings at all times because both the older and the newer findings are equally likely to be the errors or deceptions of the “scientific shmucks.” Except of course if a set of findings happen to match your “ideological pre-suppositions.” Then those findings can magically become part of the “tried and true” dogma, and any future refutation can be attributed to “contamination” and “spoofs.” That’s a permanent and foolproof method of disregarding any findings that you may not like. It is not rational, and cannot be argued using rational methods. For example, I can equally reject Jimbo’s photos of fair Iranians. Since all Iranians I have ever met have been dark and obviously non-white, my “emotions” and “common sense” and “evidence of my eyes” and “knowledge of history” tells me that those pictures just MUST be false – they are doctored, they are spoofs, they are a lie concocted by “mud crab Zionist matrices.” The children are actually Swedes; the Iranian leader is actually dark brown, the picture being doctored by the mainstream media to confuse our racial instincts. It’s all a lie, all a spoof! Prove to me to my satisfaction that the pictures are legitmate. I refuse to believe it. How do you know that sometime in the future, a photographer will admit that the pictures are doctored? Etc. Etc. This is all nonsense, a majestic waste of time. I wonder how Scrooby can justify such willing stubborn ignorance. 88
Posted by 17.994736584843737% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:13 | # Next, well be told that Turks are white too: Wait-a-minute: that’s already happened in the comments section at Amren, and as well in the letters section. There you go. 89
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:03 | # This post was about a scientific sleight of hand in the cause of anti-nationalism. It was not a complex post. It was certainly not a controversial post. It was necessary and fair that the doughty Pauline Hanson should be provided with a corrective argument to the scam that was perpetrated against her. Necessary and fair correctives are not normally controversial. It is the original trespass, in this case the one by Thomas, that should excite controversy. So here I am wondering why Jimbo and Kenelm are battling against the scientific tide and, by default, giving succour to the enemy. I think it’s time for a statement of first principles. In what ultimate cause do they respectively labour? Not Thomas’s? Not Iranian ethnic interest, surely? Fred and WJG are right that unity is essential to political progress and, yes, in any movement there have to be many talents. But ... it is not the place of the activist to usurp the role of thinker. I can just about crack open the occasional philosophical nut. But the scientific ones are too hard for me, and I readily give ground to my betters, listen to them, learn from them. By all means let us unify, but let us also “articulate” - with every individual attending to his own tasks, being respected in that and respecting others in theirs. 90
Posted by jimbo on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:56 | # 17% displays his usual ‘ideological bias’: “That tells me that the “scientific shmucks” engage in critical thinking and are willing to alter their opinions once new evidence is uncovered. This contrasts to the fossilized and deranged “movement” which adheres to dogma with all the fanaticism of a religious cultist and will never, and can never, admit that they are wrong about anything” ‘critical thinking’?...don’t make me laugh…their ‘critical thinking’ goes abt AFA as their next ‘grant committee’ hearing: and, mean-while: you roll out the straw men, eh? my point was that most of today’s scientists wouldn’t have 1% of the integrity of some-one like Newton or Boyle or Linnaeus; here we have the almost over-whelming evidence for ‘race’ and we’ve got…what?.....less than a hand-ful of brave men prepared to ‘tell it like it is’.....now: WTF does that tell YOU, genius? hunh? i’v yet to hear of one scientist who trumpeted their ‘findings’ here, there & every-where and when, some months or years later, their findings were either repudiated or drastically modified they trumpeted such ‘re-calibrations’ equally as loudly! and: the racial ideas that ‘the movement’ (of which you are clearly NOT a part!) are based on are grounded in firm scientific facts proven over and over again in the last century or more! and yet more: “then we have Jimbo’s nihilistic idea that current scientific opinion and findings should be rejected because of the theoretical possibility that they may be superseded in the future by different findings. Hey, the germ theory of disease may be proved incorrect, so if someone with pandemic flu sneezes in your face, there’s nothing to worry about!” more ‘straw-men’: u must have a whole bloody stable-full of them, eh, champ? nope…..i don’t reject scientific theories that have been exhaustively demonstrated for decades!...like: for instance, ‘germ theory’! DNA testing, how-ever, is a new area of science and, there-fore, requires some caution! and so on & so forth: ”....can equally reject Jimbo’s photos of fair Iranians. Since all Iranians I have ever met have been dark and obviously non-white, my “emotions” and “common sense” and “evidence of my eyes” and “knowledge of history” tells me that those pictures just MUST be false – they are doctored, they are spoofs, they are a lie concocted by “mud crab Zionist matrices” those photos are good enough for me until most of the Iranian population is tested! and: “Since all Iranians I have ever met have been dark and obviously non-white”.....that’s yr bull-shit logic, not mine: i’m basing my claim that many Iranians are white on evidence from a n° of sources: not ‘those i met’....but: yr such an illogical prick, you’d be saying malarkey like: “i don’t believe anyone’s ever died in a car accident because i’v never met one who has!” .....right? yr not being real bloody logical are you, squire? i suggest you enrol in Logic 101 before you submit any more posts here! 91
Posted by jimbo on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:10 | # ‘GuessedWorker’: “So here I am wondering why Jimbo and Kenelm are battling against the scientific tide and, by default, giving succour to the enemy” i’m not ‘battling against the scientific tide’; i believe i made valid points about the hubris of scientists and their pre-existing ZOG biases!......the fact that those assertions weren’t even addressed let alone repudiated sez to me that some people here could well qualify as ‘gullible’! WTF? you think only media hacks, politicians and lawyers have ZOG-friendly attitudes? it’s every-where, sun-shine!.....every klutz you meet is ‘a potential agent of the System’ un-less proved OTW, eh? ‘scientists’ are no more immune (perhaps even less so!) than the average ZOG-washed-air-head skipping around the streets! “I think it’s time for a statement of first principles. In what ultimate cause do they respectively labour? Not Thomas’s? Not Iranian ethnic interest, surely?” i also think it’s time for a ‘statement of first principles’: the welfare of white people should be the concern of the move-ment where-ever they reside: be that Iran, Russia, South America, South Africa or New Zealand!......i couldn’t give a flying FUCK! abt ‘religions’ or ‘nationalities’, the only bench-mark i use is RACE!......my race is my nation and my folk is my faith! the fact that you (and others) here can’t or won’t relate to that makes me doubt YOUR PRINCIPLES!.....WTF are youse and WTF do you work for, eh? 92
Posted by jimbo on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:29 | # the abv psts will be my last on this thread…..i’m only an occasional peruser of mj/rghts (VNNF is my alma mater!) and i only ‘bought in’ on this because i’m a former ‘One Nation Party’ member: i’ll let others here or others viewing the thread from else-where decide whether i’v made valid points or not….any-one desirous of making further comments, re: my comments, can do so on my ‘blog…..i don’t censor or moderate any such material (not saying mj/rghts does either, mind! ) RAHOWA! (jimbo) 93
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:34 | # “i’m not ‘battling against the scientific tide’; i believe i made valid points about the hubris of scientists and their pre-existing ZOG biases!......the fact that those assertions weren’t even addressed let alone repudiated sez to me that some people here could well qualify as ‘gullible’!” Of course, you ignore the fact that this was the entire meaning of the original post. Have you read it? “the only bench-mark i use is RACE” The question is how you determine that. Racial cuckoldry anyone? Ultimately, racial cuckoldry can be identified by the same methods used to nail down suspected cases of paternal cuckoldry. “i’v yet to hear of one scientist who trumpeted their ‘findings’ here, there & every-where and when, some months or years later, their findings were either repudiated or drastically modified they trumpeted such ‘re-calibrations’ equally as loudly! “ The scientific method is through hypothesis testing. Even if individual scientists do not always measure up to the standards of scientific integrity, there will always be someone else testing the findings to determine their validity (which is how scientific fraud is discovered). The issue is not whether individual scientists may be “schmucks” or frauds. You are attacking the entire scientific enterprise as a whole, not individuals; therefore, the issue can be examined as a whole. Even if an individual scientist does not trumpet their own errors, then someone else in the scientific community will. Despite your assertion that virtually all scientists kow-tow to PC visions of race, it is in fact that there are honest scientists that we now have irrefutable evidence for the biological existence of race. So, yes, even though we may never hear mea cupla from “Dr” Lewontin, someone else in the scientific community wrote “Lewontin’s Fallacy”, and that is good enough. “those photos are good enough for me until most of the Iranian population is tested!” You are indeed a nut case. The population of Iran is, what, 70 million? Give or take several some 10s of millions. What? Who is going to pay billions of dollars to test “most of the population?’’ In your own words: WTF? Are you serious? Have you ever heard of “statistical sampling?” No, as you know absolutely nothing except writing incoherent illiterate commentaries, I guess the answer is no. I’m curious as well why a handful of photpgraphs is sufficient to make assumptions about Iranian race, while you believe that a genetic study needs to assay millions of people? But of course, raise the bar for genetics to an extent that can never be possible, while accepting the most absurdly small anecdotal sample for “visual inspection.” I got it. “yr not being real bloody logical are you, squire? “ No, you are too stupid to see the analogy between my example of rejecting reasonable data about the pictures and your rejection of reasonable data on genetics. Don’t despair, perhaps stem cell science can grow you a new brain in the not too distant future. The old one can be put into a thimble and used as a conversation piece. 94
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:36 | # That’s great Jimbo. By the way, you’ve just committed the crime of assault (which lawyer Ben Tillman can confirm) and have made threats of violence over the internet. How many felonies do we have here? 95
Posted by 17 on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 22:42 | # Actually, my error: not assault in the technical definition, but making threats over the internet, etc. At least one felony. And you do this while linking to your blog. 96
Posted by 17% on Wed, 06 Jun 2007 23:42 | # GW, I would suggest that for the blog’s best interests that you delete the criminal’s felonious and vulgar comment. When “activists” behave no better than ghetto negroes, one need not wonder why the “movement” is a dismal joke. 97
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:08 | # You are right, I will delete the last tirade. Evidently, it was just too difficult for Jimbo to keep on the linguistic straight and narrow. Perhaps Melba should take him for a walk in her backyard. 98
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:22 | # This is my point: You can slate me as much as you want but I will stick to it. It is claimed that Ms Hanson has ‘9% of her DNA of middle-eastern origin’. There is of course, only one other, vanishingly remote possiblity of the inclusuion of what is stated a priori as the ‘middle eastern’ genotype in Ms Hanson’s genotype at such a significantly large percentage - that is that the ancestral root-stock from which the English are descended was thoroughly hybridized at some remote point with pure ‘middle-eastern blood’ to the extent that an average value of mixing according to ancestral input established itself.If we consider the original gene pool as endogenous after the mixing event the average degree of hybridity found in the freely mating population would tend to settle at a value predicted by ‘the law of halves’ - A similar case has happened in historical times to ‘American negroes’ who are stated to be, ‘on average’ 1/4 White. The notion that ‘middle-eastern’ interlocers continually on a random (an vanishingly small) basis to visit and hybridize amongst the natives to any significant extent can be dismissed. 99
Posted by 17% on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:00 | # Sigh…no one claims that there must be a “pure Middle Eastern race.” There are gene frequency profiles which are diagnostic of the predominant feature of any group. Thus, when the gene frequency data (from samples which I admit were not clearly defined and need to be, in “Dr” Thomas’ alleged upcoming “peer reviewed publications) are entered without any a priori assumptions - four categories fall out. The company decides to name these four categories after the groups in which they are observed at highest levels: Northern European, Southeastern European, Middle Eastern, and South Asian. They could have just as easily named them A,B,C, or D, or Stanley, Arthur, Jack, and Jim. That’s not the point. They can than say that any individual or any group has a genetic profile that is some combination of these four genetic ancestry profiles. The data are real, but the names given to the categories do not reflect what people commonly think of as geneaological categories - because the categories are NOT representing, in a definite way, any pure races (although, in theory, they may in fact represent some very ancient groups). So, an Arab from the Middle East is NOT going to test out as 100% “Middle Eastern” in the test, but at some fraction of that. And so forth. Now the following is even more basic: Even IF there were such pure races, assume the following (note to critics: I am intentionally simplifying this below the level of high school biology for the advantage of the cognitively deficient): no inbreeding and equal representation of ancestors to your gene pool. 10 generations ago, you have 1024 ancestors. If 177 of those are “pure Middle Easterners” and the rest are “pure English”, and given the assumptions outlined above, then 17.3% of your genetic structure will be “Middle Eastern” and the rest “English.” Of course, there will not be equal representation of all your ancestors and the DNAP categories do _not_ equate to “pure races”, so it is quite obvious that the percentage of a person’s genes from any source may be _any_ number between 0 and 100, not just “powers of two.” I can understand where the addled cannot grasp this, but I ask the triple digit IQ people here whether or not this is abundantly clear - that is, after maybe half-a-dozen repeated explanations. 100
Posted by 17% on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:07 | # Likewise, even if beyond all reason you persist in talking about “pure races” and direct geneaology (which this test is NOT per se measuring), then if Hanson had 1024 ancestors 10 generations ago, and 92 of those were “pure Middle Easterners”, then, yes, that would equate to 9% “Middle Eastern” ancestry. I assume that for post readers of this blog, dividing 92 by 1024 on a pocket calculator is not beyond their powers of comprehension. Note to Fred and wjg: no, it is not possible to “join together” in a “movement” with people incapable of understanding simple division, or who think that the entire population of Iran needs to be genetically tested before we can make any conclusions about the genetic makeup of the populace. No, those people are just the walking stereotypes that enable the ADL and SPLC to paint WNs as ignorant “haters.” 101
Posted by 17% on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:35 | # “Most readers…” not “post…” I believe I have identified one “problem” here, the tendency for people to think of ancestry only within the narrow patrilineal or matrilineal lines combined with an inability to realize that one’s ancestors themselves had ancestors of their own. So, if I may indulge in some pre-high school comments, yes, “Joe” has eight great grandparents, with, assumptions given 12.5% ancestry from each. But didn’t each of those 8 great grandparents have eight grandparents of their own? That’s 64 people right there, and if 6/64 of them were of a “pure race”, that’s ~ 9% of ancestry, rounding off the fractions. And of course each of those 64 people would have had their own great grandparents, no? Then let us add some post-high school ideas of genetic recombination and independent assortment and the reality is that you are not getting equal representation from all these ancestors to your own genes. Further consider that each of these ancestors may contain genetic combinations from intermingling of peoples centuries/millenia ago, and those peoples may not themselves have been “pure” at a level that could be discerned with a certain set of DNA markers. Add to that that all of these measurements, from the commerical tests, are rounded off to the nearest whole integer, and that there are error bars for each measure. So, no, one would _obviously_ not expect that measurements would follow a “law of 2.” 102
Posted by 17% on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 15:37 | # “But didn’t each of those 8 great grandparents have eight grandparents of their own?” that is, eight GREAT grandparents of their own… 103
Posted by 100% on Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:54 | # Kenelm: You are embarrassing yourself. You would have been correct to dismiss the article’s claims as a priori absurd; but if you if you are going to make a scientific argument, you have a responsibility to understand basic science instead of making up your own non-existent “laws”. Your refusal to admit that you’re wrong, even after being shown with basic arithmetic that your non-existent law wouldn’t imply what you think it does even if it were true, shows either a lack of character or an even more severe lack of ability. I suggest you re-read this thread, look up the words and concepts you don’t understand, and think very hard before you post again. 104
Posted by wjg on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 02:52 | # “Note to Fred and wjg: no, it is not possible to “join together” in a “movement” with people incapable of understanding simple division, or who think that the entire population of Iran needs to be genetically tested before we can make any conclusions about the genetic makeup of the populace.” 17%, Any movement is made up of many talents. If this “movement” is restricted to people of a high level of scientific or mathematical ability it will go nowhere. GW has every right to exclude his site to whatever audience he sees fit but if anyone thinks a philosophical/intellectual forum like MR is a whole body they are mistaken. It is only PART of a movement, albeit a very important one. When the various WN pieces realize that they do not a whole make then maybe, maybe, we will start to coalesce into the force we can be. The force we must be if we are to survive. 105
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:41 | # The only possible, commonsense, logical explanation of ‘9%’ middle-eastern ancestry’ is to equate it to the approximate equivalent of a single pur-blooded ‘middle-eastern’ grandparent. 106
Posted by 17% on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:38 | # Obviously, Kelnem is characterized by “either a lack of character or an even more severe lack of ability.” Pathetic. No, wjg, we are NOT talking about innate knowledge. We are talking about people with SEVERE cognitive and character issues, who refuse to even attempt to understand the simplest of concepts even after they have been explained patiently over and over again. Only a demented retard cannot understand that 92/1024 = 9%. Do you advise that we embrace demented retards in the “movement?” I understand that they’ll fit in well with the 99% of their fellow demented retards who are already “movement activists”, which is why I advise setting up alternate experiments for those who are not demented retards. 107
Posted by jimbo! on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:59 | # 17%:When “activists” behave no better than ghetto negroes, one need not wonder why the “movement” is a dismal joke the ‘move-ment’ is a dismal joke because it has way too many ‘arm-chair revolutionaries’ like 1.7%; as for the comparison to ‘ghetto niggaz’: since when have ‘ghetto niggz’ even been able to string a sentence together, let alone use a computer or the inter-net? yr the type of gutless prick that would shit their pants if confronted with any sort of a ‘physical situation’; i think it was Adolf Hitler him-self who said that one brave man in the move-ment is worth a thousand chair-bound cowards! 108
Posted by 17% on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:34 | # “Can someone please remove the moron” Alex’ suggestion is seconded here. He is not only a moron, but, objectively, a criminal. His tirade may have been removed, but rest assured, it is electrobically saved. “the ‘move-ment’ is a dismal joke because it has way too many ‘arm-chair revolutionaries” Or maybe too many retards, criminals, sexual deviants, and so forth. “‘ghetto niggaz’: since when have ‘ghetto niggz’ even been able to string a sentence together” That’s the point, Jimbo, we are still waiting for you to out together one coherent sentence, with proper spelling, etc. And, by the way, children are being taught in elementary school to use computers these days, so I don’t see your ability to go online as intellectually separating you from a Negro. 109
Posted by 17% on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:36 | # Jimbo’s retardation and illiteracy is contagious. I meant “put together…” 110
Posted by jimbo! on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:46 | # 1.7%:“Can someone please remove the moron” Alex’ suggestion is seconded here. He is not only a moron, but, objectively, a criminal. His tirade may have been removed, but rest assured, it is electrobically saved so fckn wot? “the ‘move-ment’ is a dismal joke because it has way too many ‘arm-chair revolutionaries” Or maybe too many retards, criminals, sexual deviants, and so forth maybe you’d qualify as ‘a sexual deviant’ yr-self, hunh? That’s the point, Jimbo, we are still waiting for you to out together one coherent sentence, with proper spelling, etc PISS OFF! u rat! And, by the way, children are being taught in elementary school to use computers these days, so I don’t see your ability to go online as intellectually separating you from a Negro. “ so TFW? 111
Posted by 17% on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:59 | # GW, can you please get this retarded, moronic, stupid, ignorant, criminal asshole off the blog. Thank you. 112
Posted by 17% on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:02 | # “AFAIMC, you never satisfactorily rebutted ANY of the many points i made….i’ll let others back that up if they like!” I have “satisfactorily rebutted” ALL of the imbecillic comments made by both yourself and Kelnem; it is not my fault that both of you are too cognitively challenged to recognize it. Go away, criminal. 113
Posted by jimbo! on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:07 | # 1.07%: “GW, can you please get this retarded, moronic, stupid, ignorant, criminal asshole off the blog” don’t get yr panties in a wedgie, poof! i’v ‘said my piece’ here: i’v got better things to do than trade ““how do you do?“s with drongos like yr-self! have a FCKD UP LIFE! u’v EARNED it! 114
Posted by 17% on Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:19 | # Another intelligent, well-written and introspective comment by the “IT degree” Jimbo. This is the second time he has promised to leave the comment thread; apparently he believes that, without his words of wisdom, we would all be at a loss. 115
Posted by Kenelm Digby on Sat, 09 Jun 2007 13:13 | # 17%, I will not be posting on this forum anymore. I have found the level of pomposity, assumed superiority, sneering and snobbishness, from certain quarters, simply insupportable in a forum supposed to foster White-racial pride as its raison d’etre. Similarly, I find it incomprehensible why anyone who purports to be in accordance with the founding principles of this site should fight so ferociously and with such gutter tactics - TO DEFEND THE THE PROPOSITION THAT WHITE PEOPLE ARE HYBRIDIZED WITH NO-WHITE GROUPS TO THE EXTENT THAT A GRANDPARENT OR GREAT-GRANDPARENT IS OF RACE MOST HEALTHY’ WHITES FIND TO BE EXECRABLE. 116
Posted by 17% on Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:50 | # Yes it sounds all ‘scientific’ and plausible - but really it is a nonsense - there simply was no influx of single ‘middle-eastern’ males or females historically into England at that period approx 250-300 years ago to… “ Dear Moron: No one is arguing that this took place! When did I say that, idiot? The entire post is arguing against it. The point is that YOU have been arguing that it is impossible for anyone, in theory, to have 9% ancestry from a any specific source, because that is not “the law of halves.” THIS is the point that everyone has been arguing, NOT that Hanson is part “Arab”, which ALL agree is absurd. So stop the crap, and stop changing the terms of the debate. “TO DEFEND THE THE PROPOSITION THAT WHITE PEOPLE ARE HYBRIDIZED WITH NO-WHITE GROUPS TO THE EXTENT THAT A GRANDPARENT OR GREAT-GRANDPARENT IS OF RACE MOST HEALTHY’ WHITES FIND TO BE EXECRABLE.” First, retard, no one is “defending” this “proposition”, which is the fantasy of your addled “brain.” Second, IF it were true, then whether or not “healthy whites” find it “execrable” is irrelevant to what the facts are. I do realize , however, that the demented “movement”, just like their counterparts in the demented “anti-racists”, wish to twist reality to meet their preconceptions, rather than basing opinions on natural reality. In other words, if it is “execrable”, it just “can’t be true.” No, something is true or not independent of your “opinion” of it “I will not be posting on this forum anymore. “ Thank god. “I have found the level of pomposity, assumed superiority, sneering and snobbishness, from certain quarters, simply insupportable in a forum supposed to foster White-racial pride as its raison d’etre. “ Yes, go back to the amren comments list, where the “evidence” for a given opinion is the opinion itself, as if every commentator is a god, who can create a new reality just by their pronouncements. “If we take as the hypothesis of a very simple model that the English were hybridized at one specific unknown prehistoric point - to a significant degree with this ‘pure typus’ at a known ratio of ancestors and subsequently formed an endogenous freely-breeding race, then according to the law of binomial distribution and the law of the Gaussian norm we would expect the degree of infiltration of the ‘middle-eastern’ typus to cluster statistically in the ‘average’ English individual at a level commensurate with the original degree of ‘middle-eastern’ ancestor input into the gene-pool at the founder event ie the hypothesized unifirm hybridization event.” You haven’t the slightest idea what you are talking about. Ever hear of selective pressure? Ever hear of migration and admixure? Every hear of genetic drift? You are, literally, insane, if you believe that the degree of detected “admixture” in a modern population is going to be “commensurate” with that at the “founder event”, particularly if such happened millenia ago. Even in the absence of any migration/admixture, gene frequencies can change drastically over time due to drift and selection. Wait-a-minute, that’s science and not fantasy and therefore talking real science is “gutter tactics. 117
Posted by 17% on Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:05 | # In addition, as was stated over and over and over and over again, the fact that a genetic pattern is discovered in a person of group A, when this genetic pattern is predominant in group B, does not logically imply that a) the person has any historical admixture from group B, OR b) group B must be 100% “pure” with respect to this genetic pattern, OR c) that the person in question cannot have the observed genetic pattern The question is not tracing direct lines of descent, but merely asking: the genetic background of this person is most similar to what combination of empirically determined “genetic categories.” As was stated, repeatedly, in this thread and others, the fact that a certain combination of DNA markers is called “Middle Eastern” (a name) does not in fact mean that a low level of these markers observed in a person means that they are part-“Arab.” But, that’s not what the problem in this thread has been. The problem has been people inventing their own “laws” of genetics (a science they call “crap”), with an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the basic science involved and the complexities of the issue, combined with others who think we need to assay a population of 70 million people before we can draw any conclusions at all about that population. Guys like Thomas see all this stubborn ignorance and must laugh. On the other hand, someone who critiques Thomas, and attempts to demonstrate to Hanson and everyone else how she was unethically deceived gets attacked by the ignorant. They “know better” you see. Why do they “know better?” Because they say so. After all, in the “movement”, facts and logic are incosequential. Every man a god, every man capable of creating his own universal reality just by stating his opinion. With all this omnipotence, it is puzzling then why the “movement” is such a dismal failure. 118
Posted by 17% on Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:25 | # Basic, simple, explanations of why the genetic patterns of a modern population can be quite different from that of the past, including at “founder events”, including those with “admixture”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
119
Posted by Akil Tariq on Thu, 14 Jun 2007 05:37 | # Her genetic makeup is not the issue. The issue is whether or not to allow people to immigrate to your country. If your country believes people are not worthy based upon their genetic makeup, or so-called racial identity…great! If you believe they are worthy based upon what they bring to the table [skills, expertise, etc]... great! It is your country…hopefully you will make better decisions than the US Post a comment:
Next entry: Postcivil Society: The “Youth” Vectors of London
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
?
Posted by Proofreader on Thu, 31 May 2007 20:54 | #
Good post! It raises a question: does a person so easily duped deserve to be a leader?