Posted by Al Ross on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:00 | #

The BBC piece is a typical example of what used to be called ‘Mikado journalism’ after Pooh Bah’s line in the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta : ’ Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative’.

Posted by john rackell on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:46 | #

I guess Daly Thompson didn’t bring the races together then. But that was only the decathlon, and who cares about that, but now there’s football to be progressive with.

I’m starting to feel sorry for the left now that their spin, their control over our perceptions are starting to unravel. It must be awful to have spent the last 50 years despising your country and then suddenly out of the blue - thanks, Nick - you’re forced to start sounding and acting patriotic. Progressive patriotism isn’t designed to give “new” Britons an identity to root for. It’s for the Establishment worthies who are having to hold their noses over that corpse called patriotism that they thought they had left dead and buried long time ago. Now it’s been disinterred. PP is a palliative, about all that they can take right now with a fake show of good cheer. It’s patronizing to the rest of us - really the majority who never gave it up -  and they aren’t good enough actors to fake it.

Maybe after a bit of conditioning with the right patriotic attitude they’ll fake it with a bit more gusto - but it’s self defeating. At some point they would just morph into the BNP or a credible alternative, which is psychologically impossible for them. I mean patriots do patriotism - that’s their thing.

Can you imagine If the BNP keep doing well in Labor strongholds, the Left will have to start feigning an interest in the white working class. So the Left will attempt to reconcile the disgust they hold for the vile racist nature of the average Briton, and their newly found sympathy, feigned as it is. They won’t be able to pull it off, it’ll be psychological torture: Cognitive dissonance. Who knows what synthesis they’ll come up with to cure them of it. Integrationism?

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:21 | #

john,

They won’t be able to pull it off, it’ll be psychological torture: Cognitive dissonance. Who knows what synthesis they’ll come up with to cure them of it. Integrationism?

How much longer until the elite start speaking of the white working class needing to integrate into the new, multiculti nation-less nation?

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:45 | #

The presumption among liberals is that the more we are together, the merrier we shall be: familiarity with other races breaks down ‘ignorance’, ‘bigotry’ etc, replacing them with acceptance, miscegenation and eventually beige bliss. How we will laugh then as we look back at the quaint fetishising of those accidental and superficial biological divisions, that once divided our hearts and minds as well!

However, it is also popularly remarked that familiarity breeds contempt. It is not implausible that growing, diurnal awareness of the existence of historically separate races through confrontation with the Other—as opposed to abstract knowledge from picture books—makes whites more aware of their own specialness and less willing to submerge it in the name of hospitality, particularly since the guests are gatecrashers. We may find that beholding them in collars and ties or trainers and tracksuits—‘Why, they’re just like us!’—is refined by familiarity into ‘Oh no, they’re not so like us after all’.

Several decades of exhortation and coercion by our NWO masters have not yet broken down resistance. We might look around the globe and enquire where such a policy has worked: certainly not in the USA, once the poster child of multiracialism, where the waters under the earth are now stirrring towards a second dissolution of the union. Nor in the old colonial empires, which all dissolved, nor in ‘progressive’ jumbles such as the USSR and Yugoslavia, nor in the arbitrarily demarcated, omnium-gatherum nations of tribal Africa.

If there are any convincing large-scale examples of major races living together peaceably and coalescing into some higher national synthesis, I have missed them. Why should the UK set the precedent?

After 40-50 years of mass coloured immigration into Britain, the race relations industry laments that so few whites have many coloured friends, and that districts are voluntarily segregating as the whites obdurately regroup among their own kind. Even if assortation on the basis of equal average IQs were more feasible within the British mix, other factors such as differences in culture and religion might inhibit true mixing. As it is, discrete groups of immigrants, nursing mutual suspicions, are present in such quantities that they are now able to form their own self-sustaining communities. Disregard and distrust are busting out all over.

The racial whiggism of the likes of Bragg, based on a quest for shared symbols, pastimes and habits, therefore seems as dubious as its onward-and-upward political forerunner.

But this, as I pointed out in the thread below, is an ideal shared by *all* political parties, including the BNP. Apparently some clever tactical move to pull in further votes among disgruntled whites lies behind Nick Griffin’s swing from racial to cultural appeals to Britishness, according to his defenders.

I am a simpleton. I think Britain is best off with as few non-Britons as possible, not by harbouring blacks and browns in whiteface. I think the future for indigenous Britons is bound up with the permanent, bodily removal of aliens from these islands.

Posted by Beowulf on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:21 | #

I’m glad you brought this topic up, because this has also been a raw nerve of frustration for me: “multicultural” Britain and England basically deprive indigenous Britons and English people of title to their own name and identity!  An analogy would be, e.g., the appropriation of the name “Egyptian” by the people who reside in modern Egypt—mostly Berber and Arab—and the Egyptian history, despite the fact that the current Egyptians are of a very different lineage from e.g. the Egyptians of Ptolemy’s time.  The indigenous people have lost title to their own identity.

There’s another interesting little twist to this: English as a language once denoted a language used chiefly by Western, European, and very much White peoples.  It was a Western language spoken by Westerners.  However, in about 10 years or so with the ridiculously massive 3rd world immigration levels to the US, Canada, Britain and Australia, the majority of global English native speakers will be non-White!  Even our own language as White Westerners in the US and Britain is about to be taken away from us—English will soon become a Third World language itself.

This is one of the reasons why I abhor the English-only proponents who sometimes infiltrate WN and immigration reform meetings.  Many of them are actually open-borders, massive 3rd-world immigration supporters in disguise, using that moronic Tamar Jacoby argument that “immensely high immigration levels from the Third World are fine, so long as they learn English”—which is obviously specious and downright idiotic.  Moreover, these people are generally slaves to superficiliality—they focus too much on Band-Aid solutions, on fixing the symptoms (the language that the invaders speak), rather than the root problem itself, which is the too high immigration levels and the transformation of Whites into minorities in our own lands.

The irony here is, the current global appeal of English—combined with open-borders stupidity—may well be the chief factor that kills English as a language of world importance.  When it was firmly a Western language used by accomplished Westerners, it was associated with achievement and high civilization.  But as it descends to the level of a Third World language itself, it loses that appeal, to Whites and even to non-Whites. 

That might be why some clever observers I’ve been reading have been suggesting that in 50-60 years, German will probably take the mantle as the most important White, Western language as English slips into decline (though Italian and probably French, Dutch and Russian will also be important), the way, for example, Brazilian Portuguese is viewed today—an originally European language with quantity but not quality, and definitely not a marker of Western peoples anymore.  If English is no longer considered to be an identifier of White Western peoples—if it becomes a mainly non-White language—then it falls forever off its pedestal. 

This is yet another way that the suicidal policies of the ruling classes and the media barons in the US, UK, Canada and Australia do so much damage to us in such a fundamental manner.  Not only have we lost our social and economic potential, our political power, our right to identify as a common social group with common interests, our right to be free from the crime that trails these massive inflows—we have even lost one of the most precious rights of any people, the right to our own ethnic identity and language as integral descriptors of who we are, currently and in the historical trail that leads to us today.  It’s one of the most subtle and pernicious attacks on our very identity.

Posted by Tonarl Shrivel Frudickis on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:41 | #

DNAPrint bears some responsibility for this.  They could easily dispel the misconceptions, but choose not to do so and seem to encourage it.  A look at their far-left statement on race and discrimination on their site tells much about their political agenda.  That being overtly political may hurt business by offending potential customers hasn’t quite crossed their “minds”, it appears.  Maybe that is why the market price of their stock hovers at about 1 cent/share.

More disturbing is the utter stupidity of the people involved.  That the anti-racists crowing over the results are stupid comes as no surprise.  But, what to make of the pro-English identity activists said to be taken aback and flustered by the results?  Are they really so stupid?  One does not need to be a population geneticist to clearly see the obvious flaw in this exercise in PC.  For example:

‘English’ was not a specific category of the test.  Therefore, there was no way to know in advance whether or not a particular result was ‘typically English’ or not.  In the absence of a specific English category the only way to determine what is ‘English’ would be to sample a large number of (recently unmixed) persons of English ancestry and observe the results.  This was not done.

To make it even simpler – if the results were “unexpected”, what then were the *expected* results?  Surely, if the results were a “surprise”, then there should have been an assumed expected result.  What was that, and why was it expected?  What reason was there to assume such a result should be expected?

Perhaps someone would say, “I expected to be 100% Northern European.”  That, at least would be a start.  However, even a cursory look at the ethnic data at the DNAPrint site shows that no group is 100% of anything, proving that the expectation was unrealistic and an automatic set-up to “surprise.”  Further, a more detailed look at the site – which should have been a prerequisite for comments about the results – shows us that the company does not know what the “Euro 1.0” categories truly represent; the name “Northern European” was given by the company to a set of gene frequencies found at the highest level in Northern Europeans.  There is absolutely no reason to assume that Northern Europeans have to be, or “should be”, 100% of that, or any other, DNAPrint-named ancestry.  Proper interpretation of the tests has been, as linked to by GW, discussed here before, and in detail.

Why not an alternative test: compare Englishmen with South Asians and Africans living in England?  After all, if everyone is “really all the same”, that would be the surest way to show it, no?  For some reason, such comparisons never seem to enter consideration for media exploitation of genetics.

This underscores the importance of scientific literacy, not to mention logical thinking, among activists.  There is no excuse for activist leaders not to have sufficient grounding in science so as to hold their ground on these issues.  It is not necessary to go back to university; layman-level explanations can be found on the internet (including here), in journals such as American Renaissance, and elsewhere.

The Englishmen here should do two things:
a)  post a synthesis of the arguments of this post and this thread on the offending discussion list, and, more important,
b)  Contact the appropriate English activists and make them aware of how they were conned, and what they need to learn to avoid being conned again.  You can point them to “Transaction Publishings” new offering as well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:09 | #

[T]he race relations industry laments that so few whites have many coloured friends, and that districts are voluntarily segregating [...].  (—Matt O’Halloran)

Way back near MR.com’s beginning someone posted (I’m pretty sure it was at MR.com) a reader’s comment linking to simple computer thought-experiments some academic had done (I think the academic was somewhere in the Rocky-Mountain West — Colorado?  something like that) which showed that voluntary racial segregation took place where people holding very high opinions of other races merely didn’t want to live entirely surrounded by them.  Plug that into your computer program — they like them fine but simply don’t want to live entirely surrounded by them — and what comes out is a pattern of segregated communities, not homogeneity.  (I’ve since lost the link, to my regret, and haven’t been able to find it on google.)  That bit of research debunks the claim the usual suspects always make that segregation reflects “racism.”  It debunks it by showing that folk who don’t have a “racist” bone in their bodies and truly, sincerely like Negroes and other races perfectly will voluntarily self-segregate provided they have merely a preference for not living surrounded on all sides by Negroes but want at least half, let’s say, of their neighbors to be their own race—an understandable, legitimate, and wholly innocent preference.  This shows how draconian laws will have to be if they aim at forcing fully integrated communities and nothing but.  No law aimed at that has ever been able to bring it about in the U.S.  The people pushing such laws are of course a combination of the malignant Joseph Stalin types who know exactly what they’re doing and the simple-minded types who live in dreamy la-la land but with a totalitarian streak. 

Apparently some clever tactical move to pull in further votes among disgruntled whites lies behind Nick Griffin’s swing from racial to cultural appeals to Britishness, according to his defenders.

It’s true that the racial nettle ultimately has to be grasped, so might as well start getting used to the ways of doing that right now.  There is no way around it.  The only way around is through.  It has to be grasped or ... no more white races.

[T]he future for indigenous Britons is bound up with the permanent, bodily removal of aliens from these islands.

Words more true cannot be written — never were, never will be.  It’s as simple as that.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:25 | #

There never will be racial homogeneity, by the way:  thermodynamics prevents it (and, as Prof. Einstein said, the laws of thermodynamics are very strong laws that cannot be contravened).  Nodes of inhomogeneity will always spontaneously form, if not based on white-black or some such, then on different shades of beige or any other characteristic.  Thermodynamics decrees it and you might as well go against that as go against earthquakes, comets, or the planets in their orbits.  All programs aimed at bringing about racial homogeneity will fail.  So that’s that on racial homogeneity.  The only question remaining is, what races will go out of existence in the attempt and what won’t.  We’ve got to make it that whites won’t, once all the dust has settled and the Stalinists and la-la-landers have finished their truly evil, infernal meddling.

Posted by Grunting Brute on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:49 | #

“There never will be racial homogeneity, by the way:  thermodynamics prevents it (and, as Prof. Einstein said, the laws of thermodynamics are very strong laws that cannot be contravened).  Nodes of inhomogeneity will always spontaneously form, if not based on white-black or some such, then on different shades of beige or any other characteristic.  Thermodynamics decrees it and you might as well go against that as go against earthquakes, comets, or the planets in their orbits.  All programs aimed at bringing about racial homogeneity will fail.  So that’s that on racial homogeneity.”

With all due respect, Frederick, I’m not sure what you mean here.  I guess it depends on your definition of homogeneity.  If what you mean is a near clone-like level of similarity, then you are likely right.  If, however, homogeneity means mono-ethnic or mono-racial states, it is not quite clear why that is impossible, given the right political circumstances.

The “right political circumstances” meaning the establishment of ethno-nationalist regimes and a paradigm shift away from globalism and minority rights towards nationalism and majority rights.

Of course, if all we can hope for is voluntary segregation in a multiracial America, you may be right, but hopefully that’s not the ultimate endgame.

Posted by yllica on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:26 | #

Fred, that sounds like “Seeing around corners” by Jonathon Rauch.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/20020401.htm

Posted by Primitive Grunting Brute on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:35 | #

“Progressive Patriotism” is just another form of Constiutional Patriotism, one of the deadliest enemies of ethnic interests.  Vaccination against constitutional patriotism is assisted by getting a hold of ‘On Genetic Interests.’  Any chance you English guys can send Griffin a copy, assuming he has not already read it (which I doubt).

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:58 | #

Griffin mentioned EGI in his speech to the Amren Conference.  It’s likely he has read Salter.  But Griffin is up to his elbows in culture-based realpolitik, and a switch to a broader, interests-based strategy might be the wrong move at the present time.  While culture is working - and the signs are definitely there that it is - he has every right to continue with the existing strategy.

Posted by Primitive Grunting Brute on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:36 | #

My point about Griffin is that perhaps by talking about EGI he can get into race without *directly* offending any group and hence, getting himself in more trouble.

Question.  What if Griffin made a speech in the UK in which he:
1. Discussed the reality of race without mentioning differences in accomplishment
2. Discussed Salter’s idea
3. Put in layman’s terms how Salter’s ideas impact the native English (and Scots, Welsh, and Ulster Scots) with respect to immigration
4. Stresses that the immigrants may well be nice people and ‘looking for a better life’, but even so, even in those cases, their mere presence harms the natives
5. And we need to honestly discuss this, without rancor, to bring the majority’s interests into consideration, and that the majority needs to consider this in making policy.

The question is - would such a speech cause him trouble?  If no, then eventually he needs to make a speech like that, culture will get him only so far.

If yes, then you guys got a problem much bigger than we thought, and you’d better tackle the speech issue right now.

Posted by Matra on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:05 | #

The presumption among liberals is that the more we are together, the merrier we shall be: familiarity with other races breaks down ‘ignorance’, ‘bigotry’ etc,

Those liberals should be aware that in Northern Ireland it was increased segregation - often behind walls known as ‘peace lines’- that helped bring about an end to much of the violence in the mid-90s. With each community having its own space that was secure from the ‘other’ and its people having fewer scars from physical altercations with the ‘other’ the sting was taken out of the ethnic dispute. Despite occasional talk of tearing down the ‘peace lines’ virtually everyone in NI - including liberals - agrees that if that were to happen people would feel less secure and there’d be an increase in intercommunal violence.

I should hope that English liberals are aware of all this. Billy Bragg should be as he once told a Canadian reporter he was reading a book on the Troubles by an Irish-American about life in a working class Catholic area. I’ve read the book too and it discusses the ‘peace lines’

It wouldn’t surprise me if we eventually see such ‘peace lines’ in England to separate whites, Muslims, and blacks, with the liberals reluctantly agreeing to their necessity for the sake of stability. At least it would reduce miscegenation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:52 | #

With all due respect, Frederick, I’m not sure what you mean here.

Sorry for my clumsy wording.  I meant the world’s people will never consist of a single worldwide uniformly beige race, which is what the Stalinists and la-la-landers are trying to impose—or say they are.  The division of the world’s people into races is an arrangement that isn’t going anywhere:  it’s here to stay.  Let’s make sure Euros remain part of that in all their racial distinctness. 

The point is, if we don’t go out of our way to make sure, they won’t remain part of it.  It won’t happen by itself.  We have to go out of our way to make it happen because we have racial enemies constantly pushing in the opposite direction.  The racial nettle has to be grasped.  Euphemisms like “culture” won’t do the trick forever:  at some point, race has to be explicitly addressed (in clear, sober, always respectful language).  A lot of people don’t like doing that.  The penalty paid by those who refuse will be the disappearance of their race—sorry to be blunt.  If you like your race and don’t want to see it disappear, you’d better get cracking.

Posted by Brutally Primitive Grunting Cad on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:24 | #

Frederick - thanks for that clarification.  I understand, and I agree.  Place like Brazil are an example.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:12 | #

GW at his eloquent best, hammering nails into Dangerouslysubversivedad’s head.

DSD,

On the politics of English preservation ...

Are you ethnically English?

Do you think the English have the same right to pursue their own ethnic survival as any other people?

Do you think the English have the right to live sovereign in their own homeland and to evict whichever aliens they so choose? Or do you think the English have a moral obligation to accept aliens whether they like them or not?

Do you know any non-English ethnies who would answer “Yes and “No” to those last questions respectively?

Do you know any non-English ethnies who would commend mass English migration to their own homelands?

Did you know that India operates an official Brown India immigration policy? Did you know that Israeli law forbids sexual relations between Caucasian Jews and Falashas?

Do you understand the near-term consequences of a mass presence of non-English ethnies upon living space (well that one’s easy, DSD!) and upon our cultural and political mores? Do you understand that this has nothing to do with whether these ethnies are polite and peaceful, like Jains, Hindus and Sikhs, or difficult like Moslems?

Do you understand the concepts of gene flow, heritability and climate-driven human-biodiversity?

Do you understand that in the current social climate the English will become genetically much changed and, in the long-term, even lost forever as a distinct ethny?

On the nature of suggestibility ...

Where did you acquire the words “Racist” and “Nazi” to describe a Conservative and English nationalist? Do you understand the use of slurs to put an opponent’s argument beyond public consideration? (Not really an opononent, btw)

Why have you immediately leapt to the extreme in characterising my attitude - which is the normal, healthy attitude that existed in the England of my 1950’s childhood and which, in fact, still informs the whole non-Western world today? Do you understand the use of the “strawman” to escape the obligation of giving a substantive reply?

Why do you decry political correctness in others but not in yourself, where it becomes “moral” and “Zionism”?

Why are you driven by emotion in your responses to my comments? (Careful of that one - it’s a hand grenade.)

Do you understand the difference between the ultimate interest of ethnic preservation and the proximate or secondary interest of, for example, support for Israel? Do you understand that the first exceeds the second in meaning by several degrees of magnitude?

And one last question ... why don’t you come over to majorityrights.com more often. Argue your case with others than myself, if you don’t like my usage of the language. Out of heat comes light.

Good luck to you anyway.

Read the whole thread.

http://dangerouslysubversivedad.blogspot.com/2006/10/thats-it-you-lost-me-right-there.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:41 | #

RACE REPLACEMENT.  DON’T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT IT.

A quote from Roy Liddle in The Spectator, 11 November 2006

Apparently almost a million British citizens have left the country since 2000, to live somewhere else. Last year, according to the Office for National Statistics, 380,000 people left Britain, of whom about 200,000 were British citizens. At the same time, though, 565,000 immigrants arrived in Britain, the overwhelming majority from […] [Muslim] Pakistan and Bangladesh.

These facts were reported as if they were entirely unrelated. Nobody dared to venture that there was perhaps a very direct and causal relationship […] Even for our most free-thinking and dependable think-tank, Civitas, this was a bridge too far. Its spokesman, Robert Whelan, ventured that perhaps the parlous state of the [national] health service [NHS] was to blame for the exodus. You know, I suspect the majority of those who left had next to no contact with the NHS; they are, in the main, pre-middle-aged and healthy. No, it seems patently clear to me that an important reason […] that so many Brits are getting the hell out is that they think there are too many non-European foreigners here […]

Posted by Matt O'Halloran on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:23 | #

“But Griffin is up to his elbows in culture-based realpolitik, and a switch to a broader, interests-based strategy might be the wrong move at the present time.”

I keep reading these imputations of subtlety and strategy behind Grffin’s vagaries. Being a simpleton, I prefer to assume that either he makes it up as he goes along, or that he is a controlled agent of the State, helping to control the agenda.

However Guessedworker reposes endless faith in Griffin’s serpentine cunning, and a rather more fulsome estimate of the BNP’s achievements up to date than I can perceive from its handful of councillors, falling membership, near-insolvency, internal ructions, neo-Nazi yob image… and its continuing pariah status among conservatives.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:27 | #

Erm, nope ... that’s not me you’re talking about.  I refer you to this post, and in particularly to the wise comments by Amalek in the thread.

Of course, Matt, as I have said many times, if you would like to prosecute your opinions of Griffin et al from the top of the page instead of the thread you need only have a word with Amalek and, er ... well, whichever 1950s Chinese Infantrymen are on duty, and let me know.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:38 | #

One shocking ‘revealation’ was that none other than the tatooed high-priest of the skinhead revival and the ‘Oi!’ music scene, Garry Bushell, was according to the programme 8% Wog.
How pray, can someone be 8% sub-Saharan African?, my knowledge of genetics is rudimentary, but I know that each parent contributes their genes in a 50/50 ratio, therefore, ethnically ‘diverse’ genes are diluted in a ratio of powers of 2, a power series in which 8% does not figure, the implication is that a 8% conttribution must betoken avery proximate, discrete individual ancestor, rather than a generalised gene pool, of the order of great-grandparent.Surely Mr. Bushell would have been aware of this.
In a programme full of holes I can pick out many more inconsistencies and sloppy technical details and explanation.For example a woman he did not resemble a Romany Gypsy in any way, shape or form (yes I know what a real Romany from Romania looks like) was told rudely and emphatically that she was basically ‘pure Romany Gypsy’.
  Under the generalised heading of ‘European DNA was included ‘northern European’, ‘south-eastern European’ (whatever that might mean), Middle-Eastern(!) and South Indian (1), how ‘south Indian can be classified as ‘European@ i do not know, perhaps they should have said ‘Caucasian’, but it gives you a general measure of the sloppiness of the show.
  As I say, I,m not technically knowledgable in the subject, but I wish someone here, more knowledgable can rip to pieces this bad science for what it is.
What DNA locuses are they studying and why?, is this done on statistical frequency, or the possession of unique genes, mitrochondrial or nuclear DNA,why the association of certain loci with certain geographical regions?, wre ‘race specific’ genes looked for? etc etc.
All in all, my impression was of bad television, with very, very little explanation of the ‘science’ behind the bold assertions, a smug, pompous tone of moral superiority and trendy ‘anti-racism’ - and a lot of poor, foolish dupes silly enough to take British TV producers at their word.

Posted by Tony Shrivel Mark FruDICKus on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:25 | #

Ken, see here:
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/more_woeful_misunderstandings_of_dnaprint_tests/

What would be most useful is if the actual results - including error bars, etc - were posted for each of these people, so we can see what’s what.

“was told rudely and emphatically that she was basically ‘pure Romany Gypsy’. “

Excuse my “French”, but that is utter bullshit.  Is “Romany Gypsy” one of the categories tested? No.  Whomever told the lady that is a “pure F***ing Idiot.”

Again- what were the results?  That is what we *need* to see, not BS PC interpretations, but actual data.

Posted by Kenelm Digby on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:48 | #

In the Rod Liddle article, quoted by Fred Scrooby, it is clearly shown that the majority of immigrants to Britain are sub-Continental Indians, (as it has been for decades), with the inflow apparently impervious to control.
  To listen to the politicians and media, one would have thought that Poles were in the ascendant.

Posted by BGD on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:27 | #

A chap on the train in today was reading an article in a magazine that reviewed two or three books on the racial background of the English. It was titled something like Pedigree Chums: the Mongrel Gene in the English..

Any ideas? couldn’t see it by Google, on the New Statesman site or The Ecomonist though it was that type of magazine

Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:07 | #

Master Holliday explains the contradictions quite facundly:

Important - What the categories represent are those sets of gene frequencies that characterize the predominant distinctive ancestral genetic component of particular population groups.

That is much different than saying the category represents the group itself.  It may well be, for example, that, even in ancient times, the populations of the Middle East were never “racially pure.” Nevertheless, these populations share a particular predominant genetic component that distinguishes them from other major population groups, and this component can be determined and roughly quantified via the DNAPrint tests.  Thus, the assumption built into the test is that different populations have these distinctive genetic components - not that the populations themselves, including the parental populations from which the gene frequencies were determined, are “pure” or not.  In other words, the tests are pulling out from these populations that predominant component that distinguishes the population from others; that same ancestry may well be a minor component of the ancestry of another group.

3. Therefore, even if there is statistically significant “Native American” in a Greek, the test is not saying that the Greek in question is descended from Native Americans!  Rather, that the Greek contains, for whatever reason, a minor genetic affiliation with gene frequencies that represent what is the predominant distinctive portion of Native American SNP variation.  DNAPrint openly admits that they cannot distinguish how and why these gene frequencies are present:

Thus, the DNAPrint tests are really not genealogy tests per se, nor are they tests of absolute racial ancestry.  One cannot take a set of DNAPrint results as a literal reading of one’s exact ancestry.  One cannot say, hey, 35% of my ancestors were Northwest Europeans, 15% were South-Eastern Europeans, 10% were Middle Easterners, 10% were Native Americans, 10% were Africans and 20% were East Asians.

Instead the tests are relative and comparative, they allow you to compare how individuals and groups compare to other individuals and groups with respect to their relative genetic affiliations to the predominant distinctive gene frequency patterns of various major population groups.  Different ethnic groups tend to have distinctive patterns of these affiliations.  So that, one does not say that a South Asian is “100% South Asian”, but that South Asians tend to be characterized by a set of affiliations including a predominant “South Asian” component, usually with a strong “East Asian” minority affiliation, etc.

In other words, 8% sub-Saharan African or mongrel gene matters not. It’s not about racial purity but the “predominant distinctive gene frequency patterns” shared with the majority population group. Look again at Prof. Mark Thomas’ Anglo-Saxon apartheid theory. Clearly, he was able to establish a pattern of Germanic ancestry in central England that differentiated that group from the predominate genetic pattern of men in North Wales.

The distinctive Englishness of the study group did not make them purely Germanic, but showed a predominantly Germanic trait.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:37 | #

Fred, that sounds like “Seeing around corners” by Jonathon Rauch.  (—yllica)

Yllica yes, thanks:  that’s the article.  (This time I’ll be filing it in a more secure place!)

Mr. Schelling’s Neighborhood

In the 1960s [Prof. Thomas C. Schelling] grew interested in segregated neighborhoods. It was easy in America, he noticed, to find neighborhoods that were mostly or entirely black or white, and correspondingly difficult to find neighborhoods where neither race made up more than, say, three fourths of the total. “The distribution,” he wrote in 1971, “is so U-shaped that it is virtually a choice of two extremes.” That might, of course, have been a result of widespread racism, but Schelling suspected otherwise. [...]

One day in the late 1960s, on a flight from Chicago to Boston, he found himself with nothing to read and began doodling with pencil and paper. He drew a straight line and then “populated” it with Xs and Os. Then he decreed that each X and O wanted at least two of its six nearest neighbors to be of its own kind, and he began moving them around in ways that would make more of them content with their neighborhood. “It was slow going,” he told me, “but by the time I got off the plane in Boston, I knew the results were interesting.” When he got home, he and his eldest son, a coin collector, set out copper and zinc pennies (the latter were wartime relics) on a grid that resembled a checkerboard. “We’d look around and find a penny that wanted to move and figure out where it wanted to move to,” he said. “I kept getting results that I found quite striking.”

To see what happens in this sort of artificial neighborhood, look at Figure 1 [to see the illustrations go to the original article at yllica’s link], which contains a series of stills captured from a Schelling-style computer simulation created for the purposes of this article. [...] You are looking down on an artificial neighborhood containing two kinds of people, blue and red, with for simplicity’s sake no blank spaces (that is, every “house” is occupied). The board wraps around, so if a dot exits to the right, it reappears on the left, and if it exits at the top, it re-enters at the bottom.

In the first frame blues and reds are randomly distributed. But they do not stay that way for long, because each agent, each simulated person, is ethnocentric. That is, the agent is happy only if its four nearest neighbors (one at each point of the compass) include at least a certain number of agents of its own color. In the random distribution, of course, many agents are unhappy; and in each of many iterations, in which a computer essentially does what Schelling and his son did as they moved coins around their grid, unhappy agents are allowed to switch places. Very quickly (Frame 2) the reds gravitate to their own neighborhood, and a few seconds later the segregation is complete: reds and blues live in two distinct districts (Frame 3). After that the border between the districts simply shifts a little as reds and blues jockey to move away from the boundary (Frame 4).

[...] When I first looked at it, I thought I must be seeing a model of a community full of racists. I assumed, that is, that each agent wanted to live only among neighbors of its own color. I was wrong. In the simulation I’ve just described, each agent seeks only two neighbors of its own color. That is, these “people” would all be perfectly happy in an integrated neighborhood, half red, half blue. If they were real, they might well swear that they valued diversity. The realization that their individual preferences lead to a collective outcome indistinguishable from thoroughgoing racism might surprise them no less than it surprised me and, many years ago, Thomas Schelling.

In the same connection, look at Figure 2. This time the agents seek only one neighbor of their own color. Again the simulation begins with a random distribution (Frame 1). This time sorting proceeds more slowly and less starkly. But it does proceed. About a third of the way through the simulation, discernible ethnic clusters have emerged (Frame 2). As time goes on, the boundaries tend to harden (Frames 3 and 4). Most agents live in areas that are identifiably blue or red. Yet these “people” would be perfectly happy to be in the minority; they want only to avoid being completely alone. Each would no doubt regard itself as a model of tolerance and, noticing the formation of color clusters, might conclude that a lot of other agents must be racists.

[...] “The interplay of individual choices where unorganized segregation is concerned is a complex system with collective results that bear no close relation to the individual intent,” Schelling wrote in 1969.

______

... So much for the leftwing claim that the voluntary, spontaneous formation of racially-segregated neighborhoods by folk having the freedom to choose where they live is “the result of racism.”