|
|
|
Using Science on Behalf of Whites (As Opposed to Being Used By It)
It shows the perils of scientism: being used by scientific concepts rather than using them. With that, how our enemies can use scientism against us. We determine how these things count. What counts as White. Yes, we use science and genetic tests to aid in that determination, but ultimately it is our (social) agreement that makes the determination. Facilitating that joint decision-making and blocking of scientistic misuse against us are a few of the key reasons why we should not flout “race as a social construct” providing that the idea is used properly - viz., as realist, and not idealistically (obviously, social constructionism as a concept can be misused by our enemies against us and has been). There are many important issues to discuss here. Relating to the “out of Africa theory” a typical pernicious scientism is that, “we have all evolved from Africa, therefore we shouldn’t discriminate because we are therefore all quite similar - or for that matter, beholden to Africans as our forefathers.” The possibility of relation sometimes causes White nationalists to take desperate and foolish quests* to deny or disprove “out of Africa”, when it is not particularly necessary to deny; and can in fact, be counter-productive to do so. In addition to solidly basing our arguments in factual evidence, there are many important arguments on our behalf to be grounded “out of Africa.” While we make people aware of the reality of African bio-power, in whatever hegemony it may have, the seriousness of its pejorative aspects, such as the corollary of their higher testosterone levels and aggression becomes more warrantably assertable. We might also take the view that yes, we evolved from Africa - not only do we have them and their capabilities in our makeup, but we became progressively more and more distinctly human and we do not want to go back.
* There can sometimes develop among White nationalists a kind of paranoic concern to reject any facial stylism that smacks of what may generally be perceived of as a black feature - e.g. a large nose; when perhaps ecologically speaking, some of those features exist in the European ecosystem as an aesthetic buffer - nature abhors a vacuum. It has been a peeve of mine that the American aesthetic has always seemed to be that “a beautiful woman” is always blonde, with a small nose and big boobs. That’s a fine aesthetic, but it is not the only kind of beauty and will probably not hold up as the only kind, particularly not with exotic stylisms on offer from beyond Europe. There is perhaps an additional deception at work against the American perception. American blacks have been from Western Africa, therefore it is a White rebellion against Western African features. Whereas Europeans are probably evolved from Eastern Africans. Therefore, the rebellion against Western African features is no guarantee of genetic distance from Africans per se. Europeans have a sophistication in being comfortable with these European gradients that Americans lack, probably for under-representation by certain continental types. Comments:2
Posted by Lawrence on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 02:27 | # Well Cobb says he’s undergoing more tests to get to the bottom of this:
3
Posted by Lurker on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 05:59 | # I aint no scientist or nuthin’ (so feel free to correct) but if Cobb is supposedly 14% black doesnt that imply one parent was @28% black? Which would point to one of his grandparents being half black and thus one great grandparent being all-African. I find it hard to believe that he wouldnt know about that either from first hand experience of his grandparents (or even great grandparents) or at the very least least from family lore, family photos. On the other hand his alleged black ancestry might come down more than one line and thus full black ancestors would be further back in the family tree but then with all these blacks in the family he would surely know something about all these black folks knocking about in the family tree? And if he knew this why would he fall into such a trap as this DNA test? Which leads me to think he didnt know because its not true and if anything he’s guilty of being to naive and trusting about the MSM slime he is dealing with. 4
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:49 | # Well I’m all against vulgar scientism but I have little interest in the low-rent buffoon in the clip regardless of how black (or not) he is. Off topic but of interest. “Researchers have tracked the rising popularity of “English” as a national identity. Recent changes have been so sharp that, of all the people in the UK, only England’s ethnic minorities are now most likely to describe themselves as British.” see http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/12/speak-up-for-the-english-ed-miliband As I suggested, some time ago, the rise of Scottish nationalism and prospect of the break-up of the Union will inevitably result in the ‘cultural politics’ of Englishness becoming a far more potent topic. I think it’s very telling that the people for whom ‘official’ Britishness means so much are (i) slimeball politicians of every major UK wide party and (ii) ethnic minorities that obviously feel that the older tribal identities of the UK (the Celts and the Anglos) are not quite so ‘open’ to them as a badge of convenience. In a sense England has to be rediscovered out of the detritus of Britishness. Britain and England were never truly synonyms as now even the English are started to ‘see’. 5
Posted by wattylersrevolt on Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:58 | # Serious elite geneticist laugh at these ancestry tests…statistical reliability exponentially decreases after a certain number of generations..which is why the claims of direct dissent from Charlemagne are all bullshit. This is what Steven Jones and his fellow geneticist believe..go google it. These ancestry testing services are largely a scam. Cobb clearly isn’t sophisticated enough to have done a preinvestigation into the statistics of the gene testing that these discover your ancestry companies rig. 6
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:18 | # * There can sometimes develop among White nationalists a kind of paranoic concern to reject any facial stylism that smacks of what may generally be perceived of as a black feature - e.g. a large nose; when perhaps ecologically speaking, some of those features exist in the European ecosystem as an aesthetic buffer - nature abhors a vacuum. It has been a peeve of mine that the American aesthetic had always seemed to be that “a beautiful women” was always blonde, with a small nose and big boobs. That’s a fine aesthetic, but it is not the only kind of beauty and will probably not hold up as the only kind, particularly not with exotic stylisms on offer from beyond Europe. There is perhaps an additional deception at work against the American perception. American blacks have been from Western Africa, therefore it is a White rebellion against Western African features. Whereas Europeans are probably evolved from Eastern Africans. Therefore the rebellion against Western African features is no guarantee of genetic distance from Africans per se 7
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 04:43 | # Story at the Daily Mail Featuring this photo. Is that Jimmy Marr at the controls of the bagpipes? 8
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:08 | # That is my understanding, that it is Jimmy Marr. He is playing the bag pipes to welcome his fellow Scotsman Graham, that he may abide comfortably in Lieth, with his dear American friend, Craig Cobb. 9
Posted by Silver on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 23:05 | #
Well…duh. If you’re going to state the obvious couldn’t you at least do it a bit more artfully? In these instances of restating principles already well understood your penchant for producing prolix blocks of text would actually serve you rather than hinder you, as is typically the case when you’re attempting to advance a novel take on an issue. Anyway, what a cretin this Craig Cobb is, to go on a show like this completely unprepared for the ‘shocking finding.’ Way to help your cause, numbnuts. His pals over at VNN couldn’t take a moment out of their hectic schedule of naming the Jew to offer a few words of advice? Well, never fear, Leon Haller, as usual, imagines he’s got it all sorted out: if a man looks white, acts white and fights white, he’s white. That’s not bad, but it’s not quite enough. It works among friends, and it describes the reactions-to-race of the vast majority of people—even among those who consider themselves racially-minded (ie very few purists out there)—but if you take that on the air waves the media smart ass on the other side is going to have a field day with the exceptions and contradictions. You’d think that surely in fifty years the brightest and blanchest among the movementarians could have worked out something a tad more solid, and yet, astonishingly, it seems not. 10
Posted by Leon Haller on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 00:49 | # Silver@9 I claim little formal knowledge of biology. Indeed, as a racialist, it is a lacuna in my overall understanding, one I need to rectify, at least at a basic level. What I know has been derived mainly through racialist and eugenicist readings (beyond my mandatory high school year, most of which was long forgotten). I am interested in the politics, history, culture and ethics/theology of the race problem. I happen to think strict biological determinism is an empirical, as well as racialist, mistake. That said, I do know that the biological world is messy. Classifications are not perfect; species shade into one another. This is especially true when it comes to human groups, where biology must overlap with culture. I once met an alleged Bosnian, who could have passed for a plain, American white man. I once knew a Turk very well; he looked like the Jewish psychologist Oliver Sacks (yes, I know, whether Jews are white is itself problematic; but this Turk was lighter than a Sicilian-American girlfriend I once had (and she, in turn, was lighter/whiter than an Italian-American I dated briefly, whose father’s family originated in Rome, but whose mother’s was from Northern Italy)). Moreover, many Americans have Indian blood in them, esp among the more Old Stock (and conservative) elements. I have cousins who are blonde and as standard white, Middle American-behaving as you get, but who look slightly ‘off’ around the eyes, because they have verified ‘Native American’ ancestry. Should they be read out of our race? Really, commonsense must at some point prevail. If a man looks white, acts white, and fights for the white, he’s white. A rough and ready standard, to be sure, but can it really be improved, without fatally dividing our already vitiated and enervated race? Race is not just about biology; it is a proxy for allegiance and behavior (which is what most racialists are really concerned with anyway). We cannot be too loose, or we risk dilution over time (Justice Clarence Thomas, however jurisprudentially admirable, is not white; Hillary Clinton, however politically despicable, is not a mud). But, if only prudentially, we shouldn’t be so strict we alienate those loyal to the West. It is the survival of Western Civilization which is the ultimate concern in all this, after all. 11
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 03:10 | # With regard to furthering knowledge of biology, I would recommend ‘Race’ by the late (and wonderfully erudite) Prof.J.R. Baker of Oxford University. This 642 page magnum opus was published by Oxford University Press and is available as a free Kindle download. 12
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:13 | # Posted by Silver on November 14, 2013, 06:05 PM | # It shows the perils of scientism: being used by scientific concepts rather than using them. With that, how our enemies can use scientism against us. Well…duh. If you’re going to state the obvious couldn’t you at least do it a bit more artfully? In these instances of restating principles already well understood your penchant for producing prolix blocks of text would actually serve you rather than hinder you, as is typically the case when you’re attempting to advance a novel take on an issue.
However, I decided to err in the direction of simplicity because the essential point is so important and contrary to your charge, not well enough understood by our right-wing or critical mass, that I wanted to be ultra-clear. We still have loud, largely respected voices in WN botching these matters in basic terms. I wanted to zero-in on the topic as closely as possible so that it could not be misunderstood or misrepresented by commentariat. Nevertheless, you managed to do that - talking about me and my writing style instead. For those who can see into the content, there are non-trivial and subtle matters laid bare, thus I rather like the challenge to codified vanity by being ulta-plain in this case. You are perhaps right about the few lines that you point out, in that the style could be put-offish to our commentariat. However, casting it, the style, in the light of better criteria the aim was something like the useful simplicity of the Greeks. That everyone might see clearly and participate in the examination. I think that was what I was aiming for: not style but some essences. The hour is getting late. I believe this is an exceedingly important discussion to get right - in fact, it is an important discussion to be had, despite your typical distraction. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:21 | # Just about everybody on our side involved in the thread wars will have encountered the “racial purity” argument, against which I, for one, have had to develop a few responses. Of course, in the native British context the purity argument is raised in a different way to how it is raised in the US. The most usual is to claim that a history with Ancient British, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans proves the existence of a nation of immigrants and mongrels, and therefore there is nothing to defend. There are variants on this argument, but a typical response will go something like this:
Another is to concentrate this on the founding aspect ... ethnicity as an event, not an open process:
A third is to quote the on-going Oxford group study of the genetics of Britian, thus:
Regarding Cobb, any group will always exhibit both clustering and clining, and whites in America are no different. The fact of clining does not disqualify the fact of clustering. None of the established racial groups in America are made non-existent by the clining nature of the boundaries between them, and all have a natural interest in their own well-being and continuity - including whites, of course. In the English case I have been punting my definition around for a couple of years now:
... and no opponent has managed to dent it yet. WNs need such a temporized definition focussed on relation, not genetic purity. 14
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 05:43 | # Recommended reading on who the British are must surely include Sir Gavin De Beer’s 1965 Rede Lecture, ‘Genetics and Prehistory’, published by Cambridge University Press. 15
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:05 | # Sounds good to me, GW. I would add… Though the concern with allaying purist (and anti-purist) fears is one important aspect that I hoped to address, it is also the concern here to look beyond the mere, relative legitimacy of a racial category pure enough to warrant exclusion, and address the importance that the process of categorization and exclusion not send those who might indeed, be only a bit gray beyond a particular European ethnicity, into a wholly antagonistic if not non-European grouping, where they might rather form a discreet European group of their own and important buffering* function at once. You are going into the mereological “how-to” of categorizing European types, which is really important. And Graham seems to have some important things to say about how the potential for fratricide is to be corrected with humane, mereological management.
I am particularly concerned to employ more sophistication as I (still) advocate the Euro DNA Nation as one important criteria. 16
Posted by wobbly on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:11 | # GW Sounds good. i’d also suggest something like
17
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:43 | # One of our guys said something like: “How can a DNA test show 14% of a social construct?” 18
Posted by DanielS on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 19:29 | # If we take the position that race and genetics is real - and I hope we do, last I checked it was real - then we might operationally verify a construct of 14 percent admixture. 20
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:45 | # How do you explain the Arabs or Afghanis? What made the English a national ethnicity instead of a group of factional ethnicities was non-kinship based reciprocity… a commitatus based upon the rule of law, not reciprocity based upon relatedness or kinship. 21
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:26 | # Posted by Leon Haller on November 15, 2013, 06:29 PM | # Lurker@17 That guy was brilliant! I don’t think so, Leon. But if true believers in race as a mere social construct are puzzled by this challenge, and it forces them to rethink their misuse of the concept, it might have some utility. It might also have some utility for “race realists” who, in criticizing race as a mere social construct, might come to understand the significant utility in properly understanding its utility to our agency, in anything from seeing the important social responsibility to our history and future, to the valencing of appropriate genetic matches presently, to the mere determination as to how the offspring count, e.g., how they are to be classified. 22
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:57 | # DanielS - I was impressed when I read it, its perfect thread fodder. I shall be using it. If they want to claim race is a social construct then they have to stfu on this matter. They are simply not allowed to comment on this matter. If they believe the DNA evidence then they have admitted genes/race mean something. By their own standards that makes them ‘racist’. Whichever they want to argue it, we can then shut them down. To me thats all good. 23
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 05:24 | # Lurker, the mistake is in treating social constructionism as the enemy camp, when in fact, the enemy camp misuses social constructionism against us. Whether trying to diminish the reality and importance of race as our enemies do, or getting snookered into leaving a very important conceptual tool and weapon of our own making on the battlefield, while directing our allies into a right wing straight jacket.. ..anyone who takes the angle that race is a social construct and therefore it does not matter is adding either explicitly or implicitly the word “mere” before the term “social construct.” They are saying that they treat race as a “mere” social construct. That, in turn, would be a contradiction of terms, as the whole idea of social constructionism, traceable at least to Vico’s anti-Cartesianism, was to take thought and its products into interaction, the process of joint creation - something very real, not ideal, not some airy (Cartesian) flight of fancy. Still, your rejoinder, better than being a shut up line, might provoke people to a better understanding of these matters.
26
Posted by Lurker on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 06:14 | # Another one our liberal pals are fond of is the mantra that science has proved the non-existence of race. Ideally I like to catch one of them saying that while crowing over the Cobb DNA test. I’ll definitely be looking out for that one. 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:23 | # Desmond: What made the English a national ethnicity instead of a group of factional ethnicities was non-kinship based reciprocity… a commitatus based upon the rule of law, not reciprocity based upon relatedness or kinship. I dislike this form of thinking intensely. It is an apologia for the mad idea that overblown dreams of personal self-aggrandisement, whether material or of self-repute, trump love; and it is not true. Obviously, ethnicity flows from sexual selection, and local focii arise. But they are not factional per se - a strong word. They are patterns in the whole ethnic fabric. Nature coheres as well as conflicts, and the coherence nests at levels of relatedness. National ethnicity is the encompassing level. Thus Stalin ruled Russia as a terror-obsessed communist between the mid-1920s and 22nd June 1941, and as a nationalist until the end of the war. The will to enter the field is grounded, ultimately, in love. 28
Posted by MOB on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 10:15 | #
Poetic justice? No, that trivializes the tragedy of England’s failure to defend their close genetic neighbors, the Germans, who were struggling to the death against destruction of their own people and their own country by the common enemy. I wonder who placed the advert? The Empire Windrush The diesel-powered motor ship was built by Blohm & Voss in Hamburg, Germany and launched on 4 December 1930. She was delivered to Hamburg-Südamerikanische-Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft (Hamburg South American Steam Shipping Company) in 1931, which named her ‘’‘Monte Rosa’‘’ and used her for cruises. Many passengers on these cruises were aboard as privileged Nazi Party members, as part of the Nazi Strength Through Joy programme, intended to reward and encourage party members and as a reward for services to the Party. During the Second World War, the ship was used as a barracks ship at Stettin, then as a troopship for the invasion of Norway in April 1940. She was later used as an accommodation and recreational ship attached to the battleship Tirpitz, stationed in the north of Norway, from where the Tirpitz and her flotilla preyed on Allied convoys en route to Russia. In 1944, the ship was in the Baltic, being used as a refugee evacuation ship rescuing Germans trapped in Latvia, East Prussia and Danzig by the advance of the Red Army. In May 1945, the Monte Rosa was captured by advancing British forces at Kiel and taken as a prize of war. The following year the ship was assigned to the British Ministry of Transport and converted into a troopship. She was renamed HMT Empire Windrush on 21 January 1947, for use on the Southampton-Gibraltar-Suez-Aden-Colombo-Singapore-Hong Kong route, with voyages extended to Kure in Japan after the start of the Korean War. The vessel was operated for the British Government by the New Zealand Shipping Company, and made one voyage only to the Caribbean before resuming normal trooping voyages. In 1948, the Empire Windrush was en route from Australia to England via the Atlantic, docking in Kingston, Jamaica. An advert had appeared in a Jamaican newspaper offering cheap transport on the ship for anybody who wanted to come and work in the UK. At that time, there were no immigration restrictions for citizens of one part of the British Empire moving to another part. The arrival of the boat immediately prompted complaints from some members of parliament, but legislation controlling immigration was not passed until 1962.
29
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:28 | # Poetic justice? No, that trivializes the tragedy of England’s failure to defend their close genetic neighbors, the Germans, who were struggling to the death against destruction of their own people and their own country by the common enemy. I wonder who placed the advert? Obviously Hitler and his party were not of a mindset to act otherwise, but imagine if he was somehow of a mind to not to go farther, to not even tempt Britain to declare in late August 1939 that it would go to war if Nazi Germany attacked Poland?
30
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 12:53 | # At that point, Hitler had, in defiance of Versaille: re-armed Germany; occupied the Rhineland; annexed Austria; Nevertheless, Germany had then not only the ability, but still large warrant against any declarations of war against Germany; It could have thus, potentially worked in continuance on the difficult negotiation of the transfer agreement; more, it was ceded the Sudetenland: “The loss of Sudetenland damaged more than Czechoslovakian pride. From the military perspective, the loss of the Sudetenland region deprived the country of its natural defense (mountains) as well as its man-made fortifications (arguably the second best in Europe, after the French Maginot Line); this is especially disheartening since western Czechoslovakia was by this time surrounded on three sides by Germany. In fact, after Hitler had toured Sudetenland after the annexation, he was surprised to realize that if Germany had to resort to force to take Czechoslovakia, German troops would have been bogged down, thus would expose western Germany to a potential invasion for much longer. Economically, the loss of industrial facilities, mines, roads, and railways caused her to lose, directly or indirectly, 66% of its coal production, 80% of lignite, 86% of chemicals, 80% of cement, 80% of textiles, 70% of electric power, 40% of timber, and 70% of iron and steel. Believing that Hitler would uphold his promise that Sudetenland represented his final territorial demand in Europe, Chamberlain noted that, now that this “most dangerous” obstacle to peace had been overcome, “I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.” In actuality, Hitler actually was frustrated by British and French concession of Sudetenland; he had secretly wished for resistance so that he would have the excuse to take the entire Czechoslovakia by force.” 31
Posted by Leon Haller on Sat, 16 Nov 2013 22:53 | # The grounding of nationalism is almost certainly not love, but fear and enmity. Nothing wrong with that. Man evolved under conditions of eat or be eaten. The essential folly of the idiot West was explained millennia ago by Juvenal - “Luxury is more ruthless than war”. The sentimental asininity of liberalism was always latent in our race. It just took a certain level of economic development - of removal from the harsh Darwinian realities of existence - to allow its efflorescence. The nationalist’s task now is to identify and rationalize that fear of the (genetically) alien which was once instinctual. 32
Posted by Desmond Jones on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 04:45 | # Guessedworker: Nature’s coherence at the level of relatedness is the point. A hive of bees is only concerned with their genetic relatives, not the ‘race’ of bees if you will. Love, according to the hypothesis, is founded upon genetic proximity. However, the Afghanis, a genetically proximate people have no sense of a national ethnicity in the way the English do. Are they somehow bereft of love? Or do they find solace in the reciprocity of their extended family. Non-kinship based reciprocity was adaptive for the Germanic ethnicities driven from their homes by a climatic/geologic shift. Volkerwanderung disrupted immediate family ties forcing oath based reciprocity to ensure survival in distant lands, especially across the water in England. It allows for the love of strangers, and for the English to possess a national ethnicity. 33
Posted by Jonathan Portes on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 09:59 | # If someone, anyone doesn’t have a damned good idea about who all of their antecedents were 200 to 300 years ago, then you have to look upon that person with a good deal of suspicion. I believe that the German SS required genealogies dating back 200 years for recruits. 34
Posted by Leon Haller on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 11:26 | # Portes: Maybe that is true for Europeans (though still to this day?), but not for New World whites. Few of us can trace our ancestry back more than a few generations. I know my people were all white, but among the more recent (19th C) European immigrants, we know nothing about the European ancestors. Thus, I had some great-great grandparents from Eastern Germany, but know nothing of their parents. I think that’s true for most whites of my acquaintance. Their genealogical knowledge starts with ancestral arrival in the US. 35
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Mon, 18 Nov 2013 04:50 | # Nature’s coherence at the level of relatedness is the point. I cannot lie and say that I don’t sympathize greatly with Guessedworker on this particular issue but I believe you guys are in fundamental agreement here. That said, isn’t “love” of anything that is not an identical twin of our own self something that would raise the issue Desmond? Would maximizing fitness (or whatever) be filling the earth up with identical copies of one’s self? That is essentially the declaration of war against non-self and the strategy of the selfish gene no? Obviously this is impossible and so I believe that Guessedworker’s essential point remains. Loci of interests arise and relative interests arise beyond the immediate relation which makes room (or clears a “space”) for nationhood as GeeDub suggests. Geneto-narcissism is not functional and excessive “love” not balanced by familiarity and respect for the rest of the genetic landscape is a recipe for excessive inbreeding. A hive of bees is only concerned with their genetic relativs, not the ‘race’ of bees if you will. Well hopefully we can both agree that bees aren’t human beings. Bees have no concept of “beedom” or the broader taxa which they inhabit. In fact, they don’t have a concept of the hive. I’m not sure they are “concerned” with anything; hive included. However, by demonstrating concern for the hive they are demonstrating concern for the community of bees no? Healthy hives are the substance of which a healthy community of bees is composed. Ah the one and the many always rearing its head in the West! Love, according to the hypothesis, is founded upon genetic proximity. On my admittedly limited understanding, love-according to the hypothesis-is balancing relatedness with other concerns and finding a harmony between conflict and cohesion. However, the Afghanis, a genetically proximate people have no sense of a national ethnicity in the way the English do. Are they somehow bereft of love? Or do they find solace in the reciprocity of their extended family. Well here in America I’m undergoing to process of losing my national identity (if I ever truly had one). I’m not sure it invalidates the fact of the English Nation. I think you two should definitely explore this idea some more. D 36
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:54 | # The quest for identity can sometimes be a tricky endeavour as one Yorkshire - based, trumpet - playing, Nigerian lesbian discovered upon turning up for an audition with this musical ensemble : 37
Posted by Robert Reis on Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:07 | # http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elwcKvn6WF0 Why doesn’t Graham Lister take his medications or, at least, get a personality implant? 38
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 02:59 | # Daniel,
No, because the fitness accrues, according to Dawkins and Williams, at the gene level not the vehicle level.
In that case it would have to be consistent. It wouldn’t vary with genetic distance. The hypothesis states that Brazilians have not evolved a national ethnicity because as a group they are genetically distant. How then does it explain Afghanis or Arabs who are genetically proximate but remain a factional people of many ethnic groups? Why does a genetically proximate people resemble a genetically divergent people vis-a-vis a national ethnicity? It’s because both groups rely much more upon the support of extended families. 39
Posted by Classic Sparkle on Wed, 20 Nov 2013 04:08 | # Desmond, No, because the fitness accrues, according to Dawkins and Williams, at the gene level not the vehicle level. Right. Agreed. But don’t copies of one’s self stand the best chance of expressing those same genes? What I was getting at is that if we project “selfishness” backward onto the gene we can also project “love” back onto the gene and thus any difference in genotype at all would raise the issue under discussion no? I confess I might be missing your point here. Freely. But maybe I’m way wrong and what I’m saying about non-self doesn’t entail the issue of balance that GW brought up. How then does it explain Afghanis or Arabs who are genetically proximate but remain a factional people of many ethnic groups? Relative to Brazilians they are more proximate but perhaps those Afghanis (at least the ones not in Kabul eating McDonald’s) are expressing genes that are more “agressive”? Maybe they appear to be less “distant” on paper (or wherever those genetic distance calculations get stored) but the genes of the Afghanis themselves are more significant in their variance. Or perhaps we just don’t understand the Afghani nation? Maybe they are a people even more united than the Brazilians (despite the more robust national identity of the Brazilians and the Brazilians’ greater genetic distance) and the English but we just aren’t seeing it? Perhaps, had the Afghanis colonized some distant South American territory and interbred with the locals, it would today be even less of a nation than Brazil? I know that’s a pretty jumbled thought and if you don’t grasp what I’m trying to put out there I could take another stab at greater clarity in expression. I guess what I’m saying is that there is no “ultimate” referent to which we can compare so that we can only take a best guess about what a “factional people of many ethnic groups” even means due to the aforementioned “loci of interests” and their variable expressions. Perhaps those tribes that appear genetically close by whatever standard we’ve chosen either: 1) really aren’t due to their small genetic differences being far more important than we think, or 2) they are actually closer by our standard and had they been less related would be even more factional in our estimation. - D Post a comment:
Next entry: The camel’s back
|
|
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— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsJames Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:49. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:37. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:24. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 21:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 20:16. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 20 Apr 2024 18:19. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 20:43. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:16. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:42. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:38. (View) |
Posted by Lawrence on Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:55 | #
Hypodescent has generally been the norm, especially when it involves black admixture. There’s no agreement that octoroons are white.