Well, if we were to start an on-line broadcast operation (and we are) I don’t think I would associate it with human waste.  Not intentionally!  I suppose it takes all sorts.  Anyhow, the programme list for The Political Cesspool looks more interesting than the name would suggest.

Early this evening (UK time) Dr Tom Sunic circularised me with the link to his TPC interview, which was recorded in Croatia and is scheduled for broadcast at 7.00pm CST.  MR readers who catch the broadcast are definitely invited to post their impressions to the thread below.

If not quite with TPC’s effluent-chic we, too, are venturing into the exciting world of sound.  Next week, in fact.  Again, the MO will be in-depth political interviews, conducted for us by the inimitable and ingenious Søren Renner.  He will begin with MR folk but, we hope, spread his wings far and wide from there.  I’ve drawn the short straw for Interview 1, which will doubtless make everybody who comes after look very good indeed.

Reuters reports that:

Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said on Monday that U.S. employers were witnessing a clear shortage of certain types of workers, and he warned that this was pushing up some wages.

Oh, no! Not higher wages! Anything but that!

“Fisher is former vice chairman of Kissinger McLarty Associates, a strategic advisory firm chaired by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.”

You know it must be painful for these guys to see the rising sentiment against immigration since it will actually reduce the flow of fetus tissue into the dumpsters behind abortion clinics as people become more capable of supporting children.  I’m sure they much prefer “pro-life” activists who want to import more of their Christian Brethren to work the plantations of their Lords.

Leo McKinstry, a Belfast-born Protestant, has written a fair and honest article which you can read here.  Do include the thread, which is perhaps the most illuminating part.  Gratitude overflows, although of course it contains a quantity of wrong thinking (UKIP the only hope of the white working class!!).

The Daily 49er reports that:

A representative from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil rights firm based in Alabama that tracks hate groups, will visit the campus starting today [Nov 13—JAB] to investigate the writings of Cal State Long Beach psychology professor Kevin MacDonald and to write a report for its publication, Intelligence Report.

His heresy?

“MacDonald is producing work, especially his trilogy on the Jews, that’s being used as propaganda by Neo-Nazis and other extremists to prove their point that Jews are a cancer on America society,” said Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report and the representative who will be on campus investigating MacDonald through Wednesday. “His work is finding a home with the Neo-Nazis.”

Note, they aren’t even challenging MacDonald’s work (A People that Shall Dwell Alone, Separation and Its Discontents, The Culture of Critique and Understanding Jewish Influence) here—they are impugning the morality of the use to which it is being put by some groups.  Nor is this failure to challenge MacDonald’s work unique to this passage—it is characteristic of those attacking his work.  Rather they attack the fact that some groups find it useful for their propaganda.

The SPLC seems to operate under the presumption that the truth is irrelevant.

Addendum:  Dr. MacDonald has now posted a VDARE article responding to this attack on academic freedom.

Tonight Channel 4 broadcast their dishonest and/or technically ignorant DNAPrint stratagem, 100% English.  I am in no doubt that the purpose of the programme was to soften us up for what will be a sustained assault on our Englishness.  It is culture war of the most blatant kind.

Anyone wishing to post a response to the programme can do so by joining the Channel 4 Forum here.  It would be as well to read JW’s post on (willful) misunderstandings of DNAPrint technology.  It dates from 1st August last year and it’s here.

JW’s snapshot of the argument, which I have lifted with his consent from correspondence between us, runs as follows:-

... the tests are statistical estimates of affililiation/similarity to different ancestral pools, and cannot be directly interpreted to mean that any person actually has X % ancestry from source Y.

One could point out that “English” was not a category of the test, and if the English ethny is in fact an ancient ancestral mix of different genepools this does not in any way invalidate the concept of Englishness, English genetic interests, or someone being of unmixed English stock.  Or the obvious distinctions between an Englishman and a Negro….

By analog, the Bullmastiff is a mix of Mastiff and Bulldog; it is now an established, stable breed, and one can speak of a dog being a “purebred Bullmastiff.”

The fact that a Bullmastiff is composed of two other breeds no more means that a Pekingnese can be a Bullmastiff than the fact that the English may be a blend means that a Negro is somehow “English.”

If Orange is a mix of Yellow and Red, this does not logically imply that Orange does not exist, or that Purple can somehow be a shade of Orange.

Earlier today the BBC was already working on a softening-up process of its own.  The subject matter was English patriotism.  But lurking clumsily in the background was a non-prescriptive and, therefore, non-English English identity:-

... now the England football team is a key part of a new “progressive patriotism”, helping to reclaim the St George’s Cross from racists and provide the English people, regardless of their colour, with something to unite behind.

That is the view of musician and author Billy Bragg, whose book, The Progressive Patriot - A Search for Belonging, looks at what it means to be English, British or patriotic in modern society.

“The English people, regardless of colour,” they say.  So that’s it, then, for the genuine English.  They no longer have any right to their own name (a gripe I recognise has no meaning to the liberal mind since it considers all identity to be descriptive - without which consideration liberalism’s great lodestar of the unfettered will has no meaning).

READ MORE...

For over 10 years (actually more like 20) I’ve been saying some of my best friends are Neanderthals.  For a much shorter time I’ve been saying that there should be more attention paid to the fragility of humans evolved to push the frontiers of the ecological range of humanity (although I had the seeds of this idea 8 years earlier).  For an even shorter time I’ve been saying that the recent explosion of autism may be exhibiting that fragility in the form of higher incidence among people related to those at the frontiers of humanity in Europe, specifically the Finns or possibly the Saami, as technologically amplified mixing of human ecologies put them in contact with other human ecologies, specifically, that of Asian Indians.

It has been known for some time that both Neanderthals and autists (at least in their early development) have approximately 10% larger brains than neurotypical humans.  What hasn’t been known in the published literature until just this last month is not only (as previously reported here in MR) that Neanderthals may have contributed substantially to human macrocephaly (larger brains) but the macrocephaly of autists may not be a sign of pathology—rather part of their genetic heritage.

This is particularly poignant for me because when I posted back in 1994 “some of my best friends are Neanderthal” I had in mind specifically a friend who was working in Palo Alto, CA at a startup of about 100 employees where 4 families would have children diagnosed with autism within the next few years (one of those diagnoses was downgraded to Aspergers).  One of those children was the first born son of the “Neanderthal” friend of mine.  That boy remains profoundly autistic—unable to talk at all. (I also have a blood relative with Aspergers born to an Rh- mother whose brother suffered from autism—which anecdotally reinforces the “frontiers of the ecological range” susceptibility hypothesis but I admit these anecdotes are more poignant than necessarily relevant.)

I should close by referencing the website of an “aspie” (person with Asperger’s syndrome) Swede who has gathered a lot of data over the years supporting his own Neanderthal theory of autism.  He doesn’t do much in the way of providing any explanations for why there should be a dramatic increase in autism but he does do a good job of compiling generally relevant studies for arguing how Neanderthal lineages may be susceptible.

PS: There is only one published study I know of that supposedly “debunks” the above-mentioned ethnic correlate with autism—and that study (conducted by neighbors of the Berkeley “autism epidemiologist” who refused to look into the microcluster in Palo Alto I reported above) lists a number of predictors of “autism”—one of which is a black mother.  The problem is other predictors, such as high education of the mother, advanced age of the mother, negatively correlate with being a black mother.  This could mean that black mothers are particularly prone to bear “autists” if they are educated and/or delay motherhood but it could also quite easily point to a pre-existing different developmental pathway leading to similar symptomatology, but which has not been contributing substantially to the increased incidence of autism.  Certainly there are no accepted biological tests to discriminate “autists” from other pathologies and much of the difficulty we see in statistical analyses of autism may simply be the confusion of these various developmental pathways leading to similar syndromes.

Transaction, a social sciences publisher, has republished Frank Salter’s “On Genetic Interests, Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration”.

The blurb states:-

From an evolutionary perspective, individuals have a vital interest in the reproduction of their genes. Yet this interest is overlooked by social and political theory at a time when we need to steer an adaptive course through the unnatural modern world of uneven population growth and decline, global mobility, and loss of family and communal ties. In modern Darwinian theory, bearing children is only one way to reproduce. Since we share genes with our families, ethnic groups, and the species as a whole, ethnocentrism and humanism can be adaptive. They can also be hazardous when taken to extremes. On Genetic Interests canvasses strategies and ethics for conserving our genetic interests in an environmentally sustainable manner sensitive to the interests of others.

“[This] is a fresh and deep contribution to the sociobiology of humans, combining genetics with social science in original ways.”—Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University

“The book greatly expands Hamiltonian ‘kin selection’ by making ethnies in control of territory the central arena of ‘selfish genery’ in a modern world of mass migration.”—Pierre van den Berghe, University of Washington, Seattle

“Salter argues that all humans have a vital interest in genetic continuity that is threatened by mass migration. Salter advocates non-aggressive ‘universal nationalism’ as part of a balanced ‘fitness portfolio’ that includes investments in three levels of genetic interests—family, ethny, and the species as a whole. The synthesis is persuasive; the policy formulations provocative.”—Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Max Planck Society

“Five stars for Salter—he has provided us with a deep and compelling explanation of what most people know and what guides much of their behavior, but fear to acknowledge publicly.”—Michael T. McGuire, UCLA

“We are indeed all part of each other, as John Donne insisted even before the help of evolutionary genetics. But we are more part of some than others, and the nature of these boundaries of ethnic kinship has been ignored, avoided or denied. After Salter’s virtuoso synthesis we can no longer duck these issues which become more important daily.”—Robin Fox, Rutgers University

Frank Salter is an Australian political scientist who has been a researcher with the Max Planck Society, Andechs, Germany, since 1991.

This edition has a new introduction.  It would be very interesting to know the differences, and how - if they are substantive - Salter arrived at them.

I’ve previously pointed out how the amygdala is a very good candidate brain structure for the focal point of race replacement via parasitic castration.  There is now further study examining how amygdala activation predicts decision bias:

The subjects made these decisions inside a functional MRI scanner, allowing the investigators to record patterns of neural activity throughout the brain during the task. They asked whether activity in any brain region was correlated with a tendency to make biased decisions. To accomplish this, they summed the scans taken when an individual subject chose to “Keep £20” or to gamble rather than “Lose £30,” and subtracted the scans taken when he or she chose to “Lose £30” or to gamble rather than “Keep £20.” This analysis identified areas of the brain that were more active when subjects were choosing in keeping with the framing effect than when they were not. The results showed that framing-driven choices were correlated with increased activity of the amygdala…

Note the “Lose £30” or “Keep £20” choice was with respect to an original £50 so the choices are supposedly equal.  The researchers claim this points to “irrational” brain activity in those who were most biased toward the “Keep £20” choice.  My contention is that, as with other secondary sexual functions of the amygdala particularly in males, the territorial competition aspect is central to understanding this supposedly “irrational” brain activity, to wit: If one presumes that the agent with which one is gaming is attempting to acquire your assets/territory, one quite rationally considers the possibility that the phrase “Lose £30” could be interpreted by foes as “Lose at least £30” and like-wise the phrase “Keep £20” could be interpreted to mean “Keep at least £20” by friends.

Certainly these are not interpretations that give one’s opponent “the benefit of the doubt”—as we are continually admonished to do by moral authorities of the current secular theocracy—yet they are entirely rational from the perspective of an adversarial game situation.

Again, a functional amygdala is an asset and a primary target for destruction by the adversary.