Category: EGI

Reparations for White Americans, Etc.

In der news.  In all cases, emphasis added.

Putting aside all the proximate issues of the costs of Colored crime, destruction of the cities, social welfare handouts, affirmative action, and the overall dispossession of Whites – which alone would be sufficient to guarantee White Americans huge reparations – there is a genetic, biological, EGI-based reparations imperative, as outlined here.

Genocide is worth reparations, is it not?  Genetic replacement is worth reparations, the lost child equivalents of EGI is definitely worth reparations. 

Reparations for White Americans.  Needed now more than ever.  Cash or check?

Tulsi Coconut – Princess of Negro Reparations, and her admirers.  And again.  And again.

“Our country is full.”  Yet is he on record saying he wants large amounts of more “legal” immigration.  Can Congress please impeach this buffoon, and vote to remove him from office?  Is it possible that all of the fat from the fast food he eats is clogging the arteries bringing blood to that underused spongy (small) mass that passes for his “brain?”

Remember that the great and good Desmond Jones claimed that Italy is, and shall remain, completely homogeneous to the end of time, forever and ever, amen.  Read this.

Said Mechaout, 27, born in Morocco but a naturalised Italian citizen, confessed to the killing, which occurred on the banks of the river Po in Turin on February 23rd, claiming he had purposely been waiting to kill a white Italian near his own age, Il Giornale reports.
“I hit a white, based on the obvious fact that a young Italian would have caused a sensation,” he allegedly told police. “I looked at him and I was sure he was Italian…

The wonderful racial theorists of Der Movement have told us that Italians and Moroccans are racially identical “Mediterraneans.” Interesting that Moroccans themselves do not believe that, and of course population genetics does not support that view either.  But, hey, the racial theorists are right because, well, they say so, and who can ever possibly argue against that?

Amren podcast.  The part about racial envy is true, but long time readers of this blog have read it all before.  See this from June 2015, which, by the way, was not the first time I had discussed that issue.  You’ll always get the breaking news and ideas here at EGI Notes first.

He’s better than Trump.

By the way, here is EGI Notes on October 5 2016:

For these reasons, I endorse Trump, even though I personally believe he is lazy and ignorant buffoon, an idiot with Jewish family connections, unread and unprepared, not very bright, hysterically undisciplined, a race cuck to the Negro – it is not Trump’s supporters who are the “basket of deplorables,” it is instead Trump’s myriad personal flaws that instead constitute the basket. But remember what Yockey said about de Gaulle: Europe may be saved by an idiot. Similarly, America may be put on a better path – a path of despair, division, misery, hatred, and multicultural untenability – by the idiot Trump.
My endorsement is made more difficult by the pitiful homoerotic pro-Trump hysteria in Der Movement. “Activists” – always eager for a “man on White horse” savior quick fix – have gravitated toward Trump (having abandoned Putin for the time being), and, also, the quota queens see in Trump a reflection of themselves.

From July 2016:

What’s Der Movement going to do if and when Der Touchback publicly backpedals like a clown on a unicycle? 
What if he is elected and reneges on his promises?

Well now we know. They’ll pretend they never worshipped the man in a paroxysm of homoerotic sweaty fervor, and they’ll mutter “Javanka” and “I told you so.” Der Movement is full of the most outrageous gaslighting liars possible.  The only person who has the right to say “I told you so” is yours truly, the crazy and bitter swarthoid, that gesticulating Negroid, Ted Sallis. 

The fetishists on Counter-Currents assert that Italy is merely a “geographic expression.”  That tired old canard again.  The genetic evidence shows that Italians from different parts of that country have reasonably similar ancestry proportions, with the expected north-to-south clinal differences in gene frequencies matching the “genes mirror geography” paradigm.  There are no large, abrupt differences, just a shallow, expected cline.

Is Germany a geographic expression?  We’re not allowed to say that. It’s not in the “script.”

Advertisements

Grading the Testers

Best and worst of the worst: A survey of some ancestry testing companies. Introducing the term “parental privilege.”  In all cases, emphasis added.

This is an opinion piece on some examples of the “state-of-the-art” (such as it is) in commercially available ancestry testing; this is not meant to be comprehensive.  I’m not going to discuss online accusations that the companies fudge results to “stick it to racists.”  For the most part I’ll discuss the actual product, with a few words here and there about certain other issues.

Before we begin, let’s take a look at “movement” Type I droolcup commentary:

Tostig 

I think that it is weird how some people clutch at microscopic bits of DNA and pretend that they are something they are not. My DNA is 90% Southern England, 5% German and 5% Norwegian. The two 5%s, is due to those Vikings raping and pillaging everywhere. Actually, at least 30% is down to the hunter gatherers who followed the retreat of the ice. I do not desire any exotic mixture

Alfred the Great Tostig

Your DNA is very similar to mine. The admixture that we have is from kindred, white races. So we are pure.

Yeah, Alfred.  How about this instead – you derive from ethnies well represented in your testing company’s parental population database, ancestral components labeled as “European.”  You are essentially being compared to yourself.  Congratulations.

The perfect “historical” example of this was DNAPrint Genomics using Hapmap CEU – essentially Anglo-Mormons from Utah – as the parental population for “European,” followed by Pennsylvania German-Americans getting significant levels of “East Asian admixture.”  By those standards, Mitt Romney was undoubtedly a pureblood.  So, tell me, Alfie – if the PA Germans had been used to define “European” instead of Utah Mormons, what do you think would have happened to all that “East Asian admixture?”

I’m sure the Type I peanut gallery response to that question would be: (((((crickets)))))

For information aimed at Normies see the following:

Also, see Dienekes’ criticism of these tests and their use of parental reference populations for “training data.”  Note that many companies include customer data as part of their parental populations, and that data is not verifiable to the extent data derived from academic publications are.  Are customers’ reported ancestries accurate?

Please keep in mind I am focusing here on ancestry, not health data, and I am focusing on autosomal ancestry data, not NRY or mitochondrial DNA, single locus markers that I have zero interest in. If you are into health data, 23andMe provides some of that, although people have complained about the accuracy of such data (stories about that are found online), and several companies provide NRY and Mito data that seem reasonably accurate.

The following comments are based on my reading about, and analyzing, the tests and some online results, based on my own scientific knowledge, the population genetics literature, what is known about human population history, as well as logic and common sense.  The viewpoint is informed by a concern for politically relevant EGI, rather “movement” obsessions about “purity.”

I have long criticized 23andMe, which is an absolutely terrible test – it seems like the most popular such test among both Normies and Nutzis, it has majestic flaws, it is constantly misinterpreted, and in my opinion the company’s lack of transparency about certain realities borders on fundamental dishonesty.  As one example of the latter, consider: 

23andMe amusingly explains “unassigned” this way:

It is also possible to see a percentage of your DNA listed as “Unassigned.” There are two reasons why a piece of DNA might have unassigned ancestry:

The piece of DNA matches many different populations from around the world.

The piece of DNA does not match any of the reference populations very well.

That’s amusing because obviously the second explanation is what makes sense; the first is absurd.  The whole purpose of the test is to identify and distinguish ancestral components. Since humans share 99+% of their DNA, excuse #1 should in theory apply to everyone equally.  If the riposte is that we are talking about specific haplotypes stretching across chromosomal fragments, and those are not so widely shared, then how could it be possible for a stretch of DNA (chosen for examination for its value in assigning ancestry) to be so widely shared as to be “unassigned” to begin with?  And why would most of this “unassigned” show up only at the highest, most conservative, confidence level?  How come this “matches many populations” fragment is assigned to specific populations at the 50% interval?  And why is it that the “unassigned” just so happens to show up for those individuals for whom parental population coverage is relatively lacking?  Coincidence?

It’s obviously point #2 – the fragment doesn’t match the limited reference populations. At the most conservative setting they admit this is “unassigned,” but at the lower settings they just pick whatever population samples they have available at the time that may be slightly more similar to the fragment than are others. To say that 30% or 40% or 50% or whatever of someone’s genome, which is being used to distinguish ancestry in the first place, is common to many populations is ludicrous if you think about it – it is just coming from a population that may be more intermediate in the clinal genetic range than the parental populations they use.  If the DNA fragment is one that is similar between “many populations” than how can they distinguish it in some people and not others?  Simple answer – the “privilege” of being a member of a population well represented as a parental population. This is what I term “parental privilege” in ancestry testing – some people derive from ethnies well represented as parental populations, so those individuals get good matches and relatively “pure” results. For these lucky people, suddenly the “shared by many populations” (faux) problem no longer exists. This company makes it sound (for point 1) that, hey, it’s just a generalized piece of DNA, but then they ignore that it just so happens – a coincidence no doubt! – that people who derive from certain parental populations can have that fragment very easily assigned. It is “common to many populations” only when no matching parental population can be found in their database. “Parental privilege” is analogous to a form of affirmative action in ancestry testing. 

perfect example of parental privilege can be read here.  Note that, with the most conservative confidence level for 23andMe this person was getting only 0.3% unassigned ancestry. 0.3%!  Meanwhile, other people, at the same confidence level, get in the range of 30-50% – two orders of magnitude higher!  How can you compare the accuracy of those sets of results?  It is absurdity.  Someone who at the highest, most stringent, confidence level offered by the company, has only 0.3% of their ancestry unassigned is obviously getting much more dependable results than someone who has 30% or 40% or 50% or whatever high level of their ancestry as unassigned.  Amusingly, this person is still not satisfied by the fact that they are essentially being compared to themselves; thus:

The lack of defined reference samples from specific countries within the British Isles also sometimes gives confusing results. I have one project member with seven of his eight great-grandparents born in Wales and one great-grandparent born in Devon. At AncestryDNA he comes out as 64% Irish and 12% Great Britain, 12% Scandinavia and 11% Trace Regions. At Family Tree DNA his ancestry is reported as being 97% from the British Isles and 3% from Finland and Siberia.

Well, others have it worse.  And then read this, an excerpt:

One could thus reasonably infer that, rather than ancestry, commercial DNA test results represent current geographic distribution of various population groups living wherever they happened to be living when the companies collected their samples. A customer’s DNA matches inform them of not where their ancestors might have come from in the past, i.e., their ancestry, but rather current geographic distribution of similar patterns of DNA bits that each company happens to probe for. Is that DNA-based heritage or ancestry, i.e., hints of ancestral people customers may have descended from? Sounds far from it.

I agree and that is one of the points I make in this post; one flaw in these tests is using extant populations to model past “admixture” events, and this is particularly comical since even “pure” extant populations are mixtures of earlier groups.  Further, to use extant populations in a fair manner you need broad parental populations, which as we have seen, and will see more below, do not exist.

Getting back to the “unassigned” issue, online comments by customers speculating that “unassigned” regions may be due to “admixed regions” also fails as a logical excuse.  First, it doesn’t consistently fit with the idea of a fragment being read as shared by groups (excuse 1) – being shared by different groups is not necessarily the same as being a mixture of those groups. Second, on an even more fundamental logical level, it fails because all extant ethnies are mixtures of past groups, but are being definitively assigned as a specific ethny if that ethny is well represented as a parental population today. If an ethny is a parental population, then a similar fragment is assigned to that ethny, regardless of the ethnic history that created that stretch of gene sequences. So, this excuse basically conflates with the more realistic excuse 2 – insufficient coverage of parental populations. It’s not a mysterious piece of DNA widely shared but yet distinct for any group represented in the parental populations, and it cannot be shrugged off at the same time as admixture. It is poor coverage. Adding more parental populations will create matches to those regions even at a 90% (“conservative”) confidence level, and make all the results more accurate and realistic.

As stated above, using extant ethnies to estimate deep ancestry is not going to give consistent results, as we in fact observe. Then there is the problem that people take seriously the labels companies give to particular ancestral components – as if a name is more than just a convenient label and instead carries some deep and objective meaning about the underlying objective ancestry. If a company decided to label some type of ancestry “Martian” does that mean people with that ancestry are descended from little green men?  True enough, the labels do have some meaning on the broad scale.  No company is going to label Sino-Japanese ancestry as “European.”  They have some standards.  But as we dig deeper, the correlation between names and objective meaning starts to fall apart.

An example of the labeling problem is that some of these companies label Ashkenazi ancestry as “European” while ancestral components that are part of the European genepool (e.g., enriched in Southern Europe), entering from the Neolithic to Bronze Age to Classical Age (and to some extent possibly from more modern intrusive invasions and migrations) are labeled “Western Asian” or “Southwest Asian” or “Middle Eastern” or “North African” or “Turkish/Caucasus” due to similarity to gene sequences found in modern populations from that region.  Greg Johnson’s admixture component, if real and not an artifact, is likely from such an ancient source. 

Thus, a problem here is that Jewish genes are labelled “European” while parts of the European genepool are labeled as something else. Again, labels are not the things themselves; dependent on the biases and parent populations of a given company, a given ancestry can be assigned to different continental population groups.  For example, why not label Ashkenazi as Middle Eastern? Why not invent a “Neolithic” or “Mediterranean” label (instead of “West Asian” or “Southwest Asian”) for component autosomal ancestries enriched in those regions where J2 NRY is common?  One labeling scheme is as justified as the other.  If the idea is “we label based on where the ancestries are most enriched in modern times,” then great – last time I looked Israel is not in Europe.  Inconsistent much?

Also, if we were to assume some, any, or all, of this purported admixture is real (and only at the highest confidence levels should it really be possibly so considered), and if we note that current populations are being used as the parental populations, the it is clear that “Western Asian” or “Southwest Asian” almost certainly tracks with the dispersal of J2 NRY and would most likely be ancient Neolithic, Bronze Age, and perhaps Classical population movements. Later invasions would be Berber-Arab and would track with North African/Arabian ancestral components – although some of these can be ancient as well, particularly with contacts between Southern Europe (particularly Iberia) and North Africa in ancient times (as well as the modern Moorish intrusive elements).  We should not conflate “West Asian” with “North African” – these are not the same racially or historically. Consistently with these tests, ancestral components like Anatolian genetics seem to track with J2 NRY, so it appears it is an ancient component, and showing up in European populations because of poor parental population coverage

And again we come back to the issue of parental populations.  European ethny “X” – not a parental population – is characterized by a test as having some degree of “admixture” compared to the parental populations available. However, if “X” itself is used as a parental population, then individuals from “X” will see most (and in some cases all) of the “admixture” disappear, since they are being compared to the consensus of their own ethny.  

The riposte to that would be that “that is an unfair obfuscation of the underlying genetic realities.”  Perhaps.  But why can’t the same be said about other groups used as parental populations?  As noted above, when DNAPrint Genomics was using CEU Utah residents as the European parental population – basically using Anglo-American Mitt Romney types as the reference population for “European” – some German-Americans (*) were getting “East Asian admixture.”  Most tests today have Germans as one of the parental populations, so few if any Germans are getting any such admixture. So, groups used as parental populations are “privileged” (see above) in the sense that members of such groups, or genetically closely related groups, are going to get minimal to no “admixture,” as they are being compared to their own ethny.  The riposte to that would be that “well, we ‘know’ from ‘racial history’ that some groups are more admixed than others, so the choices of parental populations makes sense.”  Perhaps, but that is mostly subjective, and when based on genetics data it is circular reasoning.

Objectively, we could just use raw genetics data for genetic kinship analysis – by its nature kinship analysis includes all sources of autosomal genetic variation, including admixture – but people seem not to want that and/or companies refuse to offer it. In any case, the companies can’t be so stupid as to not know that the choice of parental populations directly affects the results.  They (with the one exception below) just don’t want to admit it.  

One point I’d like to make is that although 23andMe’s “chromosome painting” has some advantages if done correctly – identifying chromosome blocks and the timing of putative admixture events – the key point is “if done correctly.”  In most cases, just looking at SNP frequency data is going to be much more dependable, because the higher-level analyses are increasingly dependent on proper parental population samples (as well as an overall proper methodology).  If you misidentify several SNPs out of the many used, well, that’s not good but not “fatal” to reasonably accurate results, as long as the rest of the SNPs are more or less correctly characterized. But if you misidentify an entire chunk of someone’s chromosomes, then you are going to markedly alter their ancestral composition.  I trust it is clear why this is so – it is the difference between misidentifying individual alleles vs. misidentifying haplotypes that cover significant portions of the genome.  The latter situation amplifies the error because the error constitutes such a large percentage of the ancestral calculation, while the former error is relatively minuscule.

So, I’d trust the data based on SNP frequencies more given equal parental population representation.  That doesn’t mean the SNP frequency data are correct – the company may have made errors in that as well – but we are talking about relative probabilities here.

In summary, 23andMe gets a C for people who have good parental population coverage, they good a F for those who do not, so the overall grade for 23andMe is a D.  And that’s not good. It’s terrible in fact. By comparison, evaluating DNAPrint’s test by today’s standards, it would be a D- or F, while by the standards of its own day it was maybe a C+ or B-. In a relative sense, 23andMe is far worse, and in a gross sense, it is at best only marginally better. It’s a disaster. I’m not impressed by DNATribes either – parental population coverage there is relatively good, but…STR analysis? An F for them.  They’ve announced they are going out of business – should they be upgraded to an A for that?  In my opinion, DNATribes is/was even worse than 23andMe, and we can only hope 23andMe follows DNATribes’ lead in closing up shop.. And, I’ll give FamilyTree DNA an F – F for FBI.  Genetic privacy matters. Enough said about that.  What about other tests?

We can consider AncestryDNA, yet another substandard test.  If you look at their website, they make it sound like they have a really large number of parental populations, for example “see all regions” at their website. However, when the customers get their results, it is the same old story with the standard reference populations. True enough, the company will tell customers, in a qualitative sense, where the more specific place of origin of their majority ancestry most likely is, but that’s it.  The more specific subregions are not being used as reference (parental) populations, and they are not directly used in a quantitative sense to give the ancestry proportions.  The company’s website is therefore in my opinion highly misleading.

As a positive, they give errors bars, which is a plus; however, the range they give is sometimes extremely broad.  Results can vary over a range of 10-20%, etc. That’s not very precise, and demonstrates why these tests cannot be used to determine exact cut-offs. A person “100% pure” may actually be, say, 85%, and a person “85%” may actually be 100%.

From an online forum about this company’s test:

thednageek says:

September 13, 2018 at 10:00 am

Thank you for the kind words. I’d love to hear how your new results compare to your tree. Northern Europeans seem to be quite happy with the new estimates; southern Europeans less so.

I can’t say I’m surprised.  Look at the reference populations. In general, the sample sizes for Southern Europe are less than that of Northern or Eastern Europe. Italy has the most at 1000, but that is less than France, “Germanic Europe,” England/Wales/”Northwestern Europe,” as well as “Eastern Europe”/Russia.  Population genetics studies have shown greater genetic heterogeneity in Southern Europe than the North. So, good coverage is particularly important in the South. Consider that the “movement” likes to tell us how Northern and Southern Italy are radically different, racially speaking. If that is so, then those regions should have their own separate reference populations. Or are they really similar? You can’t have it both ways. If Lombards and Sicilians are less similar than are Norwegians and Swedes to each other (the company has Norwegians and Swedes as separate reference populations), then the different Italian subgroups should have their own reference (parental) populations. On the other hand, if those Italian groups are so similar that a general “Italy” category is sufficient, then all the fetishists should stop foaming at the mouth over intra-Italian differences. Again, you can’t have it both ways. In general though, a test that distinguishes Norway from Sweden, and England from Scotland, should probably break apart places like Italy into subregions – which would be more honest given how they advertise the test on their website.

Actually, even some of those well represented regions have problems.  What is “Germanic Europe?” Why not Germany alone?  Why not separate North and South Germany?  Different regions of France?  Separate Russia from other Eastern European nations?  England vs. Wales vs. “Northwestern Europe?”  And Ireland and Scotland combined?  Why?  Now, as I have said, areas with greater genetic heterogeneity require more coverage, but, still, e,g., the English and Welsh are not identical and should not be lumped together as such.

I also read where the newest version of the test (like 23andMe) uses haplotypes rather individual SNPs. If you do that, you MUST have excellent coverage for your reference (parental) populations.  An error is misidentifying an entire chromosome block is going to be a lot more damaging than getting scattered SNPs incorrect  That amplifies the problem of insufficient reference population coverage and is another explanation why Southern European results have gotten worse after the change.

So, AncestryDNA gets a D/D+ for overall results, which would have been upgraded to D+ for giving error bars (however broad), but because they are (in my opinion) misleading customers as to what the reference base actually is and how detailed it is for subregions, they get downgraded to a D.

Now we will consider another terribly flawed and incompetent test – the National Geographic Geno 2.0 (Helix) test, which uses Next Generation Sequencing, is purported to be designed to look at “deep ancestry,” but that make the error, consistent with other companies, of using extant, narrow, parental populations as proxies for “deep” ancestry, which is a major flaw.  Their “reference populations” are extremely limited (as usual – the typical “parental privilege”), the labels they give ancestral components are strange, and the website is reported by some customers to be difficult to use.  We will consider the various versions of the Geno tests, of which Helix is one.

Putting aside this person’s (somewhat dated) opinions of the tests (keeping in mind she derives from populations that may have better parental coverage – even at that time – than others), I find it interesting that a person who is predominantly of Northern European heritage has a substantial contribution of “Mediterranean” and “Southwest Asian” ancestral components as measured by one (older?) version of the National Geographic “deep ancestry” test.  Granted that there is an unknown component in her genealogical ancestry, still, I believe that these data – to the extent they are in any way meaningful – likely represent Neolithic (and perhaps Bronze Age) influences.  In other words, these components – including “Southwest Asian” – are a natural part of the European genepool, albeit represented to different degrees in different parts of Europe. Of course, I disagree with their “Mediterranean” category that lumps together genetically and historically disparate groups; however, in that case, it may represent a common thread (Neolithic?) of these groups, with the rest of the total ancestry of these groups being different. In any case, once again, we see the danger of taking labels literally, and also the problem of using current extant parental populations to represent ancient ancestral components.  

See this.  We note several things here.  There isn’t a good range of parental populations. We note that all European populations – including Northern European populations – are bring represented as being composed of different ratios of Northern European, Mediterranean, and Southwest Asian ancestral components (with some populations having low levels of other ancestries).  Thus, different ethnies are represented as diagnostic ancestral components.  Also, some of these populations are considered by 23andMe as distinct, discrete “pure” populations but are here represented as mixes of various ancient ancestral components.  

Here is yet another (“next generation”) characterization of reference populations with their respective ancestral components.  We notice three crucially important things.  First, many of the populations are the same as in the original list (discussed above) but the ancestral components are different. The same populations, with the same gene sequences, are being represented differently with alternate sets of ancestral components (each component given descriptive labels by the company). Thus, how a population’s ancestral components are represented, and how those components are labeled, can change over time; differing between various versions of a test and of course varying between different company’s tests. Second, again we see that European populations are composed of different components, they are all “admixed” to some degree based on the ancient components identified by the test. Third – and this applies to both versions of the National Geographic reference populations – what is considered mixes here would be considered “pure” in 23andMe, demonstrating how concepts of “purity” differ with what reference populations are used, how companies decide how to represent those populations, and what labels are used for description. Thus, in 23andMe, “European” includes “Greek/Balkan” as a category, as that is represented as part of their parental population base.  In theory, someone genetically similar to 23andMe’s Greek/Balkan reference population could be “100% Greek/Balkan” and hence “100% European” – while that same ancestry in the National Geographic test will be shown as a mix of different ancestries, mostly European but some non-European.  It’s the same gene sequences, the same ancestry, but interpreted in widely divergent ways by the companies and the tests. What one company labels “pure” another company – digging deeper in the ancestral mix – considers to be “admixed.”  It’s all relative, not something definitive and set in stone. There’s nuance and interpretation, shades of gray, not black and white.  And both Nutzi fetishists and Normie ignoramuses cannot understand this.

Ancestry results are not something that can be interpreted as absolutes, they are dependent upon methodology, parental populations, labels given to ancestral components, all leading to whether the company is assaying more recent ancestry, or “deeper” ancient ancestry.  The “purity” myth is on display here, since “100% pure” ancestries in one test will be represented as mixtures of components in a different test. Labels and interpretations are not the same as objective reality. And this is a crucially important point. The ancestral components themselves are certainly made up of mixtures of earlier population groups.  For example, with respect to the “Eastern European” component, which most possibly reflects Slavic ancestry, the company states (emphasis added):

The large Eastern European component is typical for the region, and is itself a genetic composite of years of migration through the region.

So, again, this is something “movement” fetishists don’t understand – the ancestral components that they perceive as “pure” are themselves mixtures from earlier times, mixtures containing components that may well trace from outside of Europe.  That is the nature of human biological reality.  There is no “purity.”  Instead, there are greater or lesser degrees of genetic similarity and difference.

If “Eastern European” does in fact reflect a basic Slavic ancestry, and if these results can be trusted, then it is interesting that Balkan South Slavs like the Bulgarians are heavily Slavic, only a few percentage points less than Russians and Poles, and more than the Czechs, all groups typically considered “more Slavic” than are Balkan groups.  So, there may well be evidence for a common Slavic ethnoracial foundation for all these groups. Also note that Romanians are more “Southern European” than are Bulgarians, despite the fact that Romania is just to the north of Bulgaria, and based on simple gene flow you’d expect the results to be the opposite.  Maybe there is something to the idea that there is a significant “Latin” “Roman” component to the Romanian ethny in addition to Slavic and other elements.  What about “Diaspora Jewish?”  Described as a distinct category here (and in 23andMe more specifically as “Ashkenazi Jewish”), academic population genetics suggest that this is in actuality a combination of Middle Eastern and European genetics.  Once again we see a category that is either a single distinct “pure” ancestral component, or a mixed component, dependent on how it is analyzed and interpreted.  

What about statistical significance?  Confidence levels?  Error bars? And, more fundamentally, what was the reason for changing the ancestral components between the different versions of the tests?  Whatever the reasons, there’s no explanation that I find satisfactory; the overall attitude of all these companies tends to be “trust us, we’re the experts,” and the customer base accepts that, with some grumbling from those more skeptical and better informed.  None of these companies provide the nuanced interpretations and more detailed explanations that I am providing with this post.

The National Geographic test does tell customers the two groups they are most similar to.  Fine, but not enough.  There needs to be a complete list, with quantitative measurements of genetic kinship.

In summary, although some of the ideas behind the National Geographic test are interesting, the test itself is as bad as 23andMe (or worse).  The basic problems are the same – lack of sufficient reference populations, lack of nuanced understanding of the meaning of the ancestral components, lack of real statistics, and the subjective labels given to ancestral components.  If we couple this to a bad website, lack of explanation, and changes between all the different versions of the test (without sufficient explanation), this test is lucky to get a D, and not a D-.

Then we have LivingDNA, which has a leftist anti-racist narrative behind its founding, and which has received some criticism from customers online (but, then, of course, all these companies have their share of dissatisfied customers).  The results from this company seem to be slightly more plausible than that generated from 23andMe, which isn’t saying much, but suffers from the same basic problem – individuals from ethnies likely not well represented in their parental database get skewed results.  I say “likely” because the company provides remarkably little information (that I can find) on their methodology and parental population database, but given the results they generate and given the general history of companies having weak representation of certain ethnies, it’s a fair bet that this company also exemplifies “parental privilege” for certain ethnies. So, basically, it is a real bad test, only slightly better (if that) than 23andMe and National Geographic.

They also exhibit the curious results that a person of 100% genealogical ancestry X turns out to be a mix of X, Y and Z – despite the fact that, e.g., Y and Z are known to be components of X. This is the same problem with all of these companies.  It may well be that X is not represented well in their parental database; hence, the problem.  That is more likely that the X person is really so much Y and Z that it presents in addition to the Y and Z inherent in X.  Of course, the companies of course explain none of this nuance to their customers.

Indeed, a major weakness of this company (besides their politics and the questionable results) is the relative lack of information they provide about the test itself, and about the results, to their customers.  On the one hand, it’s a weakness, but then, given that much of the information provided by other companies is questionable at best and bogus at worst, maybe being reticent is a positive.  Addition by subtraction, so to speak.

No surprise of course that results from this test can very markedly differ from that obtained from, for example, 23andMe. Who expects consistency, what with different methodologies, parental population databases, gaps in those databases, labels given to ancestral components, etc.?  Don’t expect careful statistical analysis either. We certainly can’t have that!

I note that they say results can be “refined” in the future as their database expand, a tacit admission that they do not presently have good coverage of certain ethnies.  That also emphasizes the impossibility of utilizing precise cut-offs as the always-fuzzy boundaries are ever-shifting.

So, with all these weaknesses, balanced out by (possibly) marginally more plausible results than 23andMe, this company gets a “healthy” D+ for their efforts.  Really, I could have given them a D, but they seem to be relatively new, so I’ll be generous for now, and we’ll see if they improve or get worse (more likely).  I do not like their politics, but I’m not grading them on that.  I’ll expect them to ruin their test with “upgrades” the same as every other company; in that case, they would then get the D (or D-) they likely really deserve.

Getting back to inconsistency of results – as we can read in various online articles and blog posts, people who use multiple companies typically get markedly divergent results.  The main ancestry is usually similar but after that it all falls apart. Now, if the tests and their interpretations were all sound and consistent, how could that be possible?  The answer of course is that with different sets of narrowly defined parental populations with insufficient coverage and different ways of breaking down ancestral components and different approaches to labeling those components, of course the results will be different.  And, lacking sufficient information, as well as statistical information, how can we say one result is more accurate than another?  The only thing we can go on is how well the results match what academic population genetics data say about the ethny or ethnies making up a person’s genealogical ancestry.  If that’s the case, then why take the tests?  Just go to the published papers. And, laughably, the companies do not even give customers remotely similar calculations for percentages of Neanderthal ancestry. What is it?  Do they use different caveman reference populations?  One company uses Fred Flintstone and the other uses Barney Rubble?

The deCODEme site used to have a free, good (albeit qualitative) kinship comparison based on 23anedMe data – ranking relatedness to a global ethnic groups, arraigned by continent, and those results seemed reasonable, but it seems no longer offered. The original 23andMe site used to have a more quantitative estimate of relatedness at the continental and sub-continental (e.g., Northern vs. Southern European) level, as well as a PCA plot, but unfortunately they did away with that in favor of material less politically relevant (or not relevant at all).

I suppose if someone has the money to try every testing service they could look into it, and try all the companies, for personal interest. Again, this essay is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of every company; I may have missed a test that is particularly good or bad. This post is instead meant as a brief and cursory survey of some of the main current competitors in the field, coupled with some general commentary on the tests themselves.

In any case, I agree with Johnson here.  Past “Old World” admixture is part of the European genepool.  Certainly, we can always strive to improve the genetic situation (e.g., eugenics), but we are what we are. We have to look to the future, not the past.

Grades for (autosomal) ancestry testing companies:

23andMe: D

FamilyTree: F 

AncestryDNA: D

National Geographic: D

LivingDNA: D+

DNA Tribes: F

Others are not worth mentioning or I have insufficient data.

The patterns is of very low grades, reflective of the reality that the overall state of current commercially available ancestry testing is poor.  And just as the companies claim that the data they present to their customers may change and become more “refined” with more parental population coverage, so may the grades I give these companies change (likely for the worse, given their poor performance heretofore) and become more refined with more data as well.  So,expect grade updates in the future.  Also, new companies may come into existence and  those may be evaluated as well.

The most urgent need is proper parental (or “reference”) population coverage.  Nor more “parental privilege” affirmative action for some groups and not for others.  Either add more parental population coverage or have the integrity only to offer the tests to customers who match the reference profiles.  Otherwise, it is all a misleading fraud.

In addition, these tests need to be interpreted in a relative (e.g., greater or lesser degrees of different ancestral components comparatively speaking) rather than an absolute e.g., definitive results with hard cutoffs, concerns about “purity”) fashion.  Given the realities of uncertainty and methodology, even a good test would need to be interpreted in such a fashion, much less the mediocrity we have to deal with. Of course, Nutzis will remain incapable of understanding any of this.

Really, what is needed is genetic kinship assays on all populations, comparing individuals and populations to each other, but I suppose such a biopolitically relevant metric is nothing we should expect any time soon (or ever).

One could argue that ancestry testing as it exists today could be, at best, an amusing personal hobby for individuals, if it wasn’t being politicized by actors on both the Retard Right (see quotes at the beginning of this post) and the Loony Left (LivingDNA’s anti-racialist agenda, deCODES’s “gotcha” of Watson, and the Cobb setup debacle).  But we live in an age where everything is politicized, for better or worse. In that case, we had better focus on genetic kinship, which is politically relevant with respect to EGI.

But instead we’ll have more juvenile ignorant blustering from entitled Nutzis basking in their “parental privilege” affirmative action ancestry results.

Needless to say, I was very, very surprised with the results of my DNAPrint “geographic ancestry” test results when I received it, and it showed a 21% East Asian content and 79% European instead of a 100% European which I had expected. In discussing this with AncestrybyDNA lab personnel I have learned that surprisingly to them some other PA Germans tested have had similar significant high teen, low 20’s% East Asian content results. At present they have no clear explanation as to why.

The “clear explanation” seems obvious in retrospect. Compared to the Romenyite parental population for “European,” some Germans would appear to be 4/5 Romney and 1/5 Chairman Mao.  If the parental population had been “PA Germans” then all those folks would have been “100% European.”

I’ll say it again for the mentally slow: The results of ancestral component testing is going to absolutely and directly depend on the choice of parental populations.

I need to summarize the whole “parental privilege” problem for the Nutzi crowd.  I’ll try to make it as simple as possible.  Let’s consider it first in outline form.

1. A company defines a particular ancestral component as “European.”

2. The reason for that label is that the ancestral component is defined by a parental (or reference) population (or populations) that is European.

3. But why does the company label a particular parental/reference population as European?  Well, it is because the population is historically tied to Europe, it derives from a nation or region within the boundaries of Europe, the population came into existence as a distinct group within Europe.  All of which essentially matches much of what I define as an indigenous population.

4. Very good.  So an ancestral component is European if it is derived from, or defined by, or represented by, a population that is European. European populations tend to possess ancestral components that are “European” because those components are defined from an analysis of European populations.

This is saved from being circular reasoning by the fact that the initial definition of a population as European is not based on the ancestral components (that are themselves defined as European because they come from populations labeled as European), but instead because of the historical existence of the population within Europe, as an indigenous population of Europe, so defined.

5. OK.  But, if population groups A,B,C, and D are all historically European ethnies, if they all historically exist and existed within specific regions of Europe, then why should A and B be among the parental populations that define European ancestral components, and not C and D?  There is no reason to privilege A and B over C and D.  The only practical reason is that the company simply doesn’t have any, or enough, samples from C and D, while they have many samples from A and B.

6. Because of this deficit of C and D, and presence of A and B, individuals of ethnic background A and B, or ethnies very similar to A and B, are essentially being compared to themselves in the test.  If A and B define the ancestral components of “European,” and your ancestry is A and/or B (or something similar), it stands to reason you will test out as being close to, or at, “100% European,” with the subpopulation being A and/or B. Again, you are essentially being compared to yourself.  

On the other hand, individuals from C and D are being compared against a standard defined by A and B.  So, individuals from C and D will be represented as “mostly A and/or B” but with some “E and F”- with “E and F” being ancestral components labeled as from other, non-European, populations that happen to be well-defined in the parental population database.

7. On the other hand, if C and D were included as parental populations, then their ancestral components would be included as “European” and results for individuals of C and D ancestry would be similarly “European” as for A and B, with the subpopulations in this case being C and/or D.

And in the rare cases in which testing companies decide to be honest, they admit the reality of “parental privilege” – although of course they do not term it as such.  Thus, we read:

On the old Decodeme site (login was required, so no URL available), the following was admitted (emphasis added): 

The reference population samples were obtained from the HapMap project – they are:

1) European Americans from Utah – who most likely have a majority of north European ancestry

2) Yoruban Nigerians

3) Chinese from Beijing and Japanese from Tokyo.

The characteristics of these reference population samples and the clinal nature of human genetic variation (i.e. the fact that people typically become gradually more different as you travel further from your country) have several minor implications for the interpretation of the results. For example, a deCODEme user with a majority of ancestors (during the past >2 generations) from south-east Europe, will typically see higher percentages of African and Asian ancestry than a deCODEme user whose ancestry is mainly from north-west Europe. The difference will be small, but present.

So, deCODEme at least had the honesty that populations not represented in the parentals would exhibit artefactual “admixture” due to clinal differences in gene frequencies.  As to what level of difference is “small” they do not say, but keep in mind that another company was stating that close to 9% “admixture” was close to the levels of statistical significance. 

Here’s the response from our scientist who developed the algorithm underlying ancestry painting: “There’s no case that I’ve seen where 9% Asian ancestry does not indicate genuine East Asian or Native American ancestry. I’ve looked at order thousands of individuals of known ancestry, that approximately cover the gamut of human diversity. Thus I would regard 9% as a reliable indication of East Asian or Native American ancestry. That said, 9% is close to the threshold above which the following statement can be made, so it is still theoretically possible, albeit very unlikely, that the prediction is not true.

If that is so, and then you add to that the extra uncertainty due to “parental privilege” what are we talking about here as potential error for non-privileged populations?  10%?  15%? More?  In some cases that falls with the errors bars provided by companies like AncestryDNA!

Now, of course, there really is some (modern, historical) admixture in Europe, higher in some regions than in others.  But the amount of real admixture is much lower than what would suppose from looking at commercially available ancestry testing that inflates admixture for the reasons explained above – an inflation that, by some happy coincidence, just so happens to be compatible with the leftist political views of the companies, their founders, and their employees.

While single locus markers are absolutely useless on an individual basis, they do have some utility for populations, with results averaged out over large sample sizes. Such data suggest that real admixture in Europe tops out at about 5%.  And much of that is non-European Caucasian or Central Asian.  More divergent sub-Saharan African or East Asian admixture is going to be significantly less than 5%.

So, in the end, the real reason why something like the post linked here is essentially correct is that the typical “movement” activist is too stupid to understand all of the points made in my post that you are currently reading here at EGI Notes. Even when the companies themselves admit that “parental privilege” is real, even when the companies admit the fairly large statistical error, and even when confronted with the obvious logic that someone essentially compared to themselves is going to be, by necessity, ”pure,” the Nutzi retards still won’t get it.  Or, maybe it is not that they are too stupid, but that they lack the incentive. After all, those who benefit from affirmative action rarely criticize the program; the same applies to “parental privilege.”  Let some testing company start using, say, Sardinians as the reference population to define “European,” and all the Nutzis suddenly start getting “exotic mixture,” and I’m sure they’ll all cry bloody murder.  All of a sudden, everything written here, and all the open admissions of the companies themselves, will become crystal clear and acceptable.

Rethinking Horizontal Race

Yockey.
More commentary on this and related topics will be forthcoming, as a major focus of my work will be to formulate a scientifically-informed Yockeyism that incorporates Salterism into Yockeyist thought (and vice versa?).
While I will still deconstruct the “movement” when appropriate, a constant monitoring and critiquing of every single stupidity of Der Movement is a waste of time, for many reasons, not the least of which is that the “movement” is not redeemable, and all of the Type I Nutzis are never going to change their ways. It is time for the Type IIs to plan on making their stand.

Racial Kinism vs. Racial Instrumentalism

Two competing visions of racialism: WN vs. HBD.

There are many distinctions within racial activism.  One fundamental difference is that between White nationalists proper and so-called HBD race realists.  Of course, there is overlap between these positions to a greater or lesser degree.  However, let us consider the question of where a person’s primary interests lie.  Does a person take the view that race is of interest because they wish to preserve and promote their race for the reason that it is theirs – a kinship-EGI-based approach, or is their interest in race instrumental and utilitarian – they view population groups on the basis of some phenotypic characteristics of these groups, characteristics independent of whether or not the group is one to which the person belongs.  The former position, which I term here “Racial Kinism,” is more relevant to basic White nationalism (or any racial nationalism), while the latter position is that taken by HBD race realists.

Let us back up a minute and clarify.  HBD race realism is often pursued for reasons other than those stated by the HBDers.  For example, Jewish and Asian HBDers are for the most part really Race Kinists – racial nationalists – who support HBD as a way of promoting their own racial interests. In this case, they are Racial Kinists pretending to be Racial Instrumentalists in order to manipulate White HBDers to behave in ways congenial to Jewish and Asian interests. Thus, HBD is an approach for Jews and Asians to have White HBDers as the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians. Some White HBDers have personal reasons for promoting HBD – consider Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  So, familial and sexual interests play a role.  Academic HBDers promote their careers, and so forth. [And we have the White Silkers and their sexual motivations – but that’s another story].

But what about, speaking generally here, White HBDers without any obvious personal agenda?  How do we compare their viewpoints to that of White nationalists?  How do we compare Kinism vs. Instrumentalism regarding race?

Racial Kinism:  This group supports racial preservationism for its own sake. This is the basic White nationalist position – if you are White, then the White race is your race, and one you should support and promote, akin to family writ large.  Certainly, such a person may value particular characteristics of Whites, and may use such arguments, but that is not the primary motivation.  This agenda is consistent with Salter’s concept of EGI – ethnic genetic interests – a kinship-based approach where one’s ethny is a large storehouse of genetic interest for them, and inclusive fitness approaches to promote the interests of one’s ethny is consistent with biologically adaptive behavior. The Racial Kinist approach therefore values as the ultimate focus of interest biological/genetic relatedness (kinship). One supports one’s race because it is their race.  Such individuals realize that it is maladaptive to sacrifice the interests of your group for that of another group, just because that other group may rank higher on some phenotypic trait that someone values (proximate interest).  The ultimate interest of genetic continuity and EGI trump any proximate concern.  Again, this does not mean that proximate concerns are unimportant, merely secondary.

Racial Instrumentalism:  This group views race primarily in an instrumental and purely utilitarian fashion.  An ethny is valued because of how they rank in a hierarchy of certain phenotypic traits.  Arguments in favor of one’s ethny revolve around some perceived (or objective) value they have based on certain characteristics that are independent of the genetic kinship the ethny has to the person making the evaluation of the phenotypes.  While such a person may profess some value in kinship, this is a relatively weak factor; they are primarily concerned with “form and function,” and if another ethny ranks higher in the desired traits than one’s own, then that genetically alien ethny will be valued to an equal degree.  Racial Instrumentalism – caring about population groups primarily based on perception of traits, ability, and performance – leaves the instrumentalist vulnerable to extreme maladaptive behavior, as they can invest in a genetically distant group rather than in their own.  It is Whites who are particularly vulnerable – as they are generally more individualistic, lower on ethnocentrism, more universalist, more “objective” and “rational” when it comes to evaluating groups, and therefore more prone to “judge individuals rather than groups” and thus willing to accept membership in a racial categories (e.g., cognitive elitism) based on traits rather than on kinship.  Other groups, more ethnocentric and subjective in their ethnic self-interest, can manipulate this aracial universalism of Whites by promoting to those Whites the “legitimacy” of these aracial categories in which the ethnocentric non-Whites are valued for their ranking on traits.  Thus, a White HBDer, being a Racial Instrumentalist, rejects Blacks only because Blacks are perceived as stupid, violent, uncreative, sociopathic, and useless, not because of the gulf of kinship, the raw racial difference; conversely, Jews and Asians are valued as “high-IQ cognitive elitists.”  Whites can be manipulated into non-reciprocated “alliances” with these groups.  Also, note how White HBDers are manipulated into rejecting so-called “Outer Hajnal” Europeans while at the same time embracing genetically alien Jews and Asians who are even more “Outer Hajnal” than any of the European groups in question.  Interestingly, a trait ranking that is a problem when associated with fellow Europeans mysteriously disappears as an issue of concern when Jews and Asians are considered.  If none of this makes sense, well, it is really not supposed to.  The HBD cult is, in the last analysis, a strategy for making Whites into the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians.

It’s interesting that many WN 1.0 Kinists refuse to critique HBD instrumentalism.  Is that because of personal connections – the good old boys network?  Is it because they foolishly think they can use instrumentalism in an instrumental fashion, to promote kinism (the means defeating the ends, I think)? Is it because the Instrumentalists appeal the ethnic and subracial vanity of the WN 1.0ers – you guys are better than the swarthoids and hunkies? Or is it plain cowardice, naiveté, or both?

Indeed, many Kinists are heavily into Instrumentalism.  Nothing wrong with using some degree of Racial Instrumentalism as a “side-argument,” but not as the main issue. Alluded to above, I believe that certain Kinists have been (intentionally) “seduced” by the HBDers, appealing to the Kinists’ vanity and the narcissism of minor differences, favorably comparing the good “Inner Hajnal” (and higher-IQ) superior Whites to the bad “Outer Hajnal” (and lower-IQ) inferior Whites.  Thus, these Kinists are made to feel part of a (cognitive elitist and behavior elitist) “elect” – which serves the HBD purpose of dividing Whites against each other.  Note that Jews have been said to promote alien immigration into America so as to disrupt the White majority, to disrupt the homogeneity and organic solidarity of White America – because Jews feel more safe and comfortable as one minority among many in a diverse America, and not as an identifiable minority singled out in a more homogeneous majority White America.  Similarly, HBDers fear and oppose (pan-European) White solidarity that would exclude Jews and Asians, and thus they do everything possible to disrupt the organic solidarity of the European peoples, turning different types of Whites against each other, to build a Jeurasian ingroup based on a HBD-promoted ranking of traits that would have Jews and Asians on top. And the Type I Kinists fall for it time and again, because their egos and ethnosubracial vanity trumps prudence and common sense.

What about the argument that HBDers are in “pursuit of the truth?’’ Long time readers of this blog, familiar with my exposés of HBD, know this is a lie, and know that the HBDers lie, distort, cherry pick, and omit to pursue their political agenda.  Is “pursuit of the truth” why certain “race realists” refuse to discuss population genetics findings – even those generated by Jewish researchers! – that show Jews as a genetically distinct entity, different from Europeans?  Why did the HBDers get all hysterical over the Schettino case, but studiously ignore a similar incident involving Koreans?

No, HBD, ultimately is a political movement; it is not science.  Real racial science is based on falsifiable hypotheses and hypothesis-testing, it is based on facts and skepticism, hard data, proper methodology, and a willingness to re-think ideas if the data do not fit.  HBD starts with the desired conclusion and then creates ad hoc hypotheses, combined with cherry picked data, and hand-waving spin to explain when, inevitably, the data do not support the hypotheses.  When was the last time an HBDer admitted they were wring about something fundamental?  It is politics, not science, with the politics serving Jewish and Asian interests and White HBDers seduced into supporting the political interests of alien racial groups.  That Jews have been supporting HBD is without question. They’ve supported it financially and,of course, people like Hart and Levin have been leading HBDers, saying nothing of Sailer who in the past made vague claims of at least part Jewish ancestry for his biological parents.

Although Racial Kinist WNs and Racal Instrumentalist HBDers can sometimes cooperate on certain narrow projects, the bottom line is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible when one considers primary value systems.

This is all a concern as the HBD Alt Wrong attempts to seize control of Der Movement, and many WNs refuse to oppose this, or in some cases, commit Race Treason and facilitate it.  And if so-called “anti-Semitic” WN 1.0ers continue to fail to speak out against the At Wrong, I will call them out about it.  HBD is NOT racial science, it is a perversion of it.  What are you waiting for?

Note:

Kinism apparently exists in Christianity as well.  I would guess Jews and Asians are not preferred there either.

Friday Follies

“Movement” madness.  In all cases, emphasis added.

John Ronald Reuel Tolkien is a favorite author of New Left “hippies” and New Right nationalists, and for pretty much the same reasons. Tolkien deeply distrusted modernization and industrialization, which replace organic reciprocity between man and nature with technological dominion of man over nature, a relationship that deforms and devalues both poles.

Dat right!  Let dem dere Chinese do dat technology, we’ll just hike through the woods, eating twigs and branches.

But philosophically and politically, Tolkien was much closer to the New Right than the New Left. Tolkien was a conservative and a race realist. 

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

…In 1961, Tolkien sharply criticized a Swedish commentator who suggested that The Lord of the Rings was an anti-communist parable and identified Sauron with Stalin. Tolkien said, “I utterly repudiate any such reading, which angers meTolkien vocally opposed Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party before the Second World War, and was known to especially despise Nazi racist and anti-semitic ideology. In 1938, the publishing house Rütten & Loening Verlag was preparing to release The Hobbit in Nazi Germany. To Tolkien’s outrage, he was asked beforehand whether he was of Aryan origin. In a letter to his British publisher Stanley Unwin, he condemned Nazi “race-doctrine” as “wholly pernicious and unscientific”. He added that he had many Jewish friends….

Well, given Johnson’s recent Unzian slant, Tolkien fits in well…a pro-Jewish Christian cuckservative.

His preferences ran toward non-constitutional monarchy in the capital and de facto anarchy in the provinces…

The provinces, where our snug hobbit hole is located.

For those who need no introduction, there is no better commemoration than to spend a winter evening snug in one’s own Hobbit hole…

Some reach for the stars, others burrow into their snug little hole.

And let’s all read about Tolkien and his distrust of technics – yes, read all about it…on a computer, over the Internet. Traditionalists do have a comical lack of self-awareness, don’t they?

By this point I really do believe the Tolkien fetish has an ethnoracial biological dimension.  Traditionalism likely does as well in a related sense – Evola being an extreme outlier.  Or maybe it’s just me?  I don’t know.  This is a topic for further study.  Are there significant intra-European ethnic differences in the appeal of Tolkienite Traditionalism?  Are there different preferences for the snug hobbit hole vs. the spaceship?  And what does this tell us about Spengler and his pontifications about the Faustian Will-to-Power?  Tolkienism seems to be me as anti-Faustian as you can get – de facto anarchy in your hobbit hole.  

Delenda Est Traditionalism!

No, no, a thousand times, no!  A Mediterranean diet is going to double your melanin levels and halve your IQ; it is completely unacceptable for real White men!

Try this one instead.  Eat like a Viking!  “Movement” approved.

Can Strom explain how any of this Keystone cops routine is going to lead to “White renewal?”

Will Williams took over as NA’s third chairman in October 2014. He knew the organization was in financial and organizational disarray and hired accountant Randolph Dilloway to help restore the organization. {snip}

According to the lawsuit, Williams went to confront Dilloway for his shoddy work on May 3, 2015. Both men called the police, and Dilloway fled with a laptop and thumb drives with allegedly stolen documents. On May 20, the SPLC published an article called “Chaos at the Compound,” revealing documents Beirich admitted to receiving from Dilloway on May 6, three days after the confrontation.

I have a mixed opinion on all of this.

One the one hand, Spencer is a terrible spokesman for the Imperium idea, which is not at all incompatible with Salter’s Universal Nationalism or local sovereignty.  Pitching the Imperium idea with the aura of a James Bond villain, with lots of warmed-over Social Darwinism, does not impress. Spencer needs to read On Genetic Interests.  Universal Nationalism does not imply a lack of competition between nations and peoples; it does mean that every people should be allowed genetic continuity and at least some minimal means of existence.  And one must remember that in a world full of high-tech weaponry, including weapons of mass destruction, net EGI would suggest the wisdom of a degree of restraint in great power competition.

Universal Nationalism does not reject large-scale federated EU-like structures – see the discussion centered on Fig. 7.1 in Salter’s  book. However, at other times, “smaller is better” seems to be promoted for maximization of genetic interests.  Splitting the difference would lead to a scenario such as that suggested by a number of pan-European theorists (including myself) in which the federated structure is balanced against a degree of local sovereignty.  These are issues for careful discussion, not bombastic statements and posturing.

On the other hand, Vox Day is even worse.  Our interests are not served by following the ideas of a racially-mixed anti-WN Christian conservative and his bible-thumping followers. Is that ad hominem?  Yes, it is, but their attacks on Spencer are nothing but ad hominem as well.  At least I offer some actual criticism of Spencer’s thoughts and suggest he consult with some of Salter’s ideas (and my own) to broaden his worldview.  His Voxian critics descend to name-calling and the typical “CIA asset” accusations.  In the absence of a real argument, the same tactics can be turned against them. One cannot expect a person who identifies as racially mixed to understand, and promote, the best interests of Whites as a race, and Christian fanatics have long made clear that their priority is religion, not race and civilization.  Thus, Spencer is a misguided potential ally, and these others are opponents.

Spencer needs to seriously engage with Salter’s ideas.

Strom and IE

Der Movement.

Kevin Strom talks about racial identity.  That is an excellent contribution by Strom and is consistent with my idea of an “EGI Firewall” – that concerns for EGI should be the minimal foundation for any objective that a society sets for itself.  Whether you call it racial identity, racial interests, EGI, or whatever, it all boils down to the same thing.  Indeed, the only significant departure between my views and that expressed by Strom here is his assertion that the National Alliance is a serious vehicle for the promotion of White interests.  It was not that when Pierce was alive, and I don’t see the organization having any long-term viability in the absence of Pierce and the regard (whatever you believe it was justified or not) he was held by the broader “movement.”

Identity Evropa: they seem, at first glance, to be sound.  I wonder if they are for all Europeans, or just (the standard) subset of them.  That will, I assume become clearer over time.  I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt now, but origins in the Old Movement, particularly the Alt Right, does not inspire confidence in this regard.  The HBD-style material at their website does not inspire confidence either.

The community service approach is excellent and something I’ve promoted for a long time, see my interview in Griffin’s book for example.  That needs to be expanded.  The vetting seems so far to be working, and is apparently goes beyond the standard “are you Swedish?” “movement” fare.  The property expansion is good, and I am gratified that the person talking seems to understand the sort of contingencies and problems involved.  I am not as optimistic as this interview as for a positive outcome of the court cases, but we’ll have to wait and see. In general, I do not believe all these people, including Taylor, truly understand the extent to which the System is committed to crushing dissident views to racial orthodoxy.

One question, particularly relevant given the forum at which this interview took place: Does Identity Evropa consider Jews to be European and hence eligible for membership?

The Direction of Evolution

Diversification, integration, and cooperation. 

Read here. Excerpts, emphasis added:

Abstract

Two great trends are evident in the evolution of life on Earth: towards increasing diversification and towards increasing integration. Diversification has spread living processes across the planet, progressively increasing the range of environments and free energy sources exploited by life. Integration has proceeded through a stepwise process in which living entities at one level are integrated into cooperative groups that become larger-scale entities at the next level, and so on, producing cooperative organizations of increasing scale (for example, cooperative groups of simple cells gave rise to the more complex eukaryote cells, groups of these gave rise to multi-cellular organisms, and cooperative groups of these organisms produced animal societies). The trend towards increasing integration has continued during human evolution with the progressive increase in the scale of human groups and societies. The trends towards increasing diversification and integration are both driven by selection. An understanding of the trajectory and causal drivers of the trends suggests that they are likely to culminate in the emergence of a global entity. This entity would emerge from the integration of the living processes, matter, energy and technology of the planet into a global cooperative organization. Such an integration of the results of previous diversifications would enable the global entity to exploit the widest possible range of resources across the varied circumstances of the planet. This paper demonstrates that it’s case for directionality meets the tests and criticisms that have proven fatal to previous claims for directionality in evolution.

Diversification – consistent with this essay about racial differentiation and the evolutionary benefit of prejudice.

Integration – consistent with the pan-European perspective, which itself is compatible with diversification, since it by no means supports or implies any sort of European panmixia.

As far as any “global entity” goes – even with cooperation, there are differences of interests within the components of that cooperation (yes, even among Europeans) – there needs to be balance.  There is nothing per se wrong with global cooperation – as long as White interests – fundamentally and foremost White survival and genetic continuity – are part of the equation.  Otherwise, no global cooperation should occur, and without Whites – the glue that would hold it all together – such cooperation will not be possible.  Why should Whites participate in a process that leads to their own extinction?  That’s a prescriptive question, because descriptively, that is precisely what Whites are currently doing.

This paper presents a case for directionality in evolution that does not suffer from the deficiencies that have undermined other claims.

I’m not convinced by the mechanistic arguments (or even the main thesis of directionality) – but neither do I reject them – but there are other points of interest here.

It should be emphasized from the outset that the claim outlined here is made in relation to the evolution of all living processes on Earth, including humans and human organizations. As the paper will demonstrate, the trajectory of evolution can only be properly understood if the evolution of all living processes is taken into account, ultimately as a whole. In particular, the full nature of the trajectory cannot be identified and understood by focusing on, for example, only biological evolution. As we shall see, human cultural evolution and the evolution of human organisations and technology (including artificial intelligence) play a critically important role in driving the trajectory beyond a certain point. 

That is all consistent with MacDonald’s “group evolutionary strategies” (which Derbyshire pretended not to understand – after all, we can’t get “Rosie” upset now, can we?).

The nature of the evolutionary mechanisms that explore possibility space prove to be far less important in driving the trajectory than is the structure of the possibility space. In particular, the trajectory is shaped primarily by the nature and location of evolutionary attractors in possibility space.

Thus, by altering the environment, we can change the “possibility space” and the “evolutionary attractors” to shift “directionality” where we wish it to go, no?  More racist Whites, please.

Other parts of paper:

Section 2 of the paper begins to outline the case for a particular form of overall directionality. It identifies a large-scale pattern that is evident in the evolution of life on Earth.

Section 3 provides the pattern with micro-foundations by presenting a model which demonstrates that this pattern is driven by natural selection and other accepted evolutionary processes.

Section 4 subjects the model and its key predictions to appropriate tests, including those that have been failed by other claims for overall directionality.

Section 5 concludes the paper by providing an overview of the trajectory of evolution and discussing some of its key implications.2. A large-scale pattern

If we stand back from the evolution of life on Earth and view it as a whole, a number of patterns are apparent.

An obvious trend is that living processes have diversified as evolution proceeded. When life first began on Earth, it was limited to exploiting only a tiny proportion of available free energy sources under a very restricted range of environmental conditions. From there living processes have diversified progressively as evolution unfolded, spreading across the planet, adapting to an ever-widening range of environmental conditions and exploiting more and more sources of free energy. This trend towards increasing diversification has continued up until the present with the emergence of humans, albeit now mainly through the processes of cultural evolution, rather than through gene-based adaptation and speciation.

Racial differentiation.  The cultural part is consistent with MacDonald’s theses.  However, while change today may be mainly cultural, it is not exclusively so.  Genetic adaption continues.

But a less obvious trend that moves in a very different direction is also apparent. As well as the trajectory towards increasing diversification, there is also a trend towards increasing integration. As the evolution of life on Earth has unfolded, living processes have increasingly come to be integrated into cooperative organizations of larger and larger scale.

Imperium Europa.

This progressive integration of organisms into cooperative organizations of increasing scale is not limited to evolution driven by gene-based natural selection. The trend has continued in human evolution where cultural evolutionary processes now predominate: small kin groups were integrated into bands, bands were integrated into tribes, these formed the constituents of kingdoms and city states, and these in turn have been integrated into nation states (Stewart, 2000, Turchin, 1977).

And Imperiums?

At each step in this process of integration, smaller-scale entities are integrated into cooperative organizations that become larger-scale entities at the next level of organization. Typically the larger-scale entities undergo a relatively rapid diversification and adaptive radiation (e.g. see Knoll and Bambach, 2000). As evolution unfolds, this step-wise process repeats itself, producing cooperative organizations of living processes of greater and greater scale. At each step, a new level of nesting of entities within larger-scale entities arises. And as evolution proceeds, entities with greater levels of nestedness emerge. The result is the familiar nested-hierarchical structure of living processes.

If the idea of nested, hierarchical structures sounds familiar with respect to EGI, then you have been paying attention; for example, read this.  There are concentric circles of racial and ethnic interests, which ultimately conflate to nested circles of genetic interest.  Race-based levels of interest and ethnic-based circles can be compatible.

Like the trend towards diversification, the trend towards integration seems to be continuing apace at present. Humans are increasingly integrating other living processes into its organizations through activities such as farming, aquaculture and broader ecosystem management. And human organization itself seems likely to continue to increase in scale. Although rudimentary, the League of Nations and the United Nations were early attempts to build supra-national organizations on a global scale. 

And they have been gross failures, for not taking into account those nested interests; with the UN today waging war against the most fundamental interests of the European peoples.

Some forms of economic organization are already global, and regional cooperatives of nation states such as the European Union have emerged. Global crises such as human-induced climate change seem to be increasingly evoking coordinated responses across nation states. 

Yes, Whites will do the solving, while China will continue to pollute.  A coordinated response?

The idea that some form of global governance is essential for human survival and flourishing is now strongly supported by many leading international relations researchers (e.g. see Craig, 2008) and economists (e.g. see Walker et al., 2009).

Shilling for globalism. The nationalist-populist response extant today suggests that the lower levels of nested interests are not being properly cared for by global managers, and in the absence of such care, and in the absence of a mechanism to fairly adjudicate competing interests, you cannot expect lower level nests to stick with the program. Global solutions are not meant to be a White racial suicide pact.

That cooperation can produce significant fitness advantages is not controversial (e.g. see Corning, 1983, Dugatkin, 1999, Miller, 1978, Ridley, 1996, Stewart, 2000). Cooperative organizations have the potential to be more successful than isolated individuals. Whatever the evolutionary challenges, living processes can respond to them more effectively if they form cooperative organizations and if their actions are coordinated. In part this is because cooperation enables the exploitation of synergies, including through specialization and division of labour (Corning, 1983). Furthermore, the larger the scale of any cooperative organization, the more resources are commanded by it, the greater its power, the larger the impact and scale of its actions, the greater the potential for collective adaptation and intelligence, and therefore the wider the range of environmental challenges that it can meet. 

Pan-European cooperation.  Group selection.

But cooperation does not evolve easily (e.g. see Boyd and Richerson, 2005, Buss, 1987, Olson, 1965, Williams, 1966). The reasons for this are well understood. Consider a population of living entities that compete for limited resources. Entities that invest resources in beneficial cooperation but fail to capture sufficient benefits of that cooperation, will tend to be out-competed. Other entities that take the benefits of cooperation without investing in the cooperation (free riders) will tend to do better than co-operators. Free riders undermine the capacity of co-operators to capture the benefits created by their cooperation.

So, free riders constitute the “cooperation problem.”  This has been discussed in detail at this blog, reflecting the large amount of analysis of the free rider problem by Salter and MacDonald.  The author continues:

If co-operators within a group of entities were able to capture all the benefits of their cooperation, cooperative organization would self-organize (in more general terms, the cooperation problem would be solved comprehensively if all the entities in a group capture the impacts of their actions on the group as a whole, whether the impacts are beneficial or harmful) (Stewart, 2000). Cooperation in which the benefits to the individual exceed the costs to the individual would be selected at the individual level (unless some alternative, more effective cooperation emerged). If this fundamental condition for cooperative self-organization were met, individual entities that engage in cooperation would out-compete non-co-operators. It would be in the evolutionary/adaptive interests of individuals to cooperate. As a consequence, the group would be able to explore the possibility space for cooperative organization, and any form of cooperation that was discovered and which was more advantageous would be able to persist in the population. 

One has to suppress free riding and ensure that cooperation benefits the cooperator more than it harms.  This has all been discussed here in great detail, and studies have shown that ethnocentric cooperation can outcompete free riding.  Leftists and HBDers may not want to hear that, but that is the reality, nevertheless.  Also see this.

…are there circumstances in which co-operators can capture sufficient of the benefits of cooperation to enable some simpler forms of cooperation to persist?

Yes.

Co-operators will capture proportionately more of the benefits of cooperation if they interact cooperatively with other co-operators more often than if all cooperative interactions are random. This will ensure that the benefits of cooperation are more likely to be shared amongst co-operators than leak to free-riders. If this condition is met, co-operators will capture a disproportionate share of the benefits of cooperation, and may capture sufficient to outweigh the costs of cooperation and the benefits that ‘leak’ to free riders. To the extent that this condition is met, co-operators will be collectively autocatalytic (they will collectively facilitate each other’s success), and cooperative organization will be able to persist and be a target of selection (Ulanowicz, 2009).

And the aforementioned analysis has determined that, yes, properly constructed cooperative structures can defeat and outcompete free riding.  The next time an HBDer engages in rants about “free riding makes ethnic nepotism impossible” – they are lying to you, and they have an agenda.  They want to convince Whites not to engage in ethnic nepotism, so that Jews and Asians can have the whole field to themselves, sans competition.

It is conceivable that this condition could be met stochastically at times in a population. But it is likely to be met far more reliably if the cooperative interactions within the population are biased in some way. 

Two main ways in which this bias can occur are:

1) Population structure: cooperative interactions may be biased because the population of entities is structured in ways that increase the likelihood that co-operators interact with other co-operators…Or the population may be formed into groups that tend to concentrate co-operators and restrict invasion by free-riders (e.g. Okasha, 2006).

Exclude parasitic ethnies.

2) Active selection: interactions may also be biased because co-operators selectively choose to interact with other entities that are more likely to be co-operators (conversely, they may also selectively exclude or punish entities that are more likely to be non-co-operators). 

Punish White traitors.  No ethnostate for you!

If the cooperation problem is to be overcome comprehensively, free-riding must be prevented, and as far as possible, the benefits of cooperation must go to the co-operators that create them. If this is to be achieved consistently and comprehensively in relation to a group of entities, special arrangements that have three key characteristics need to be in place (Stewart, 2000): 

1) Power: the arrangements must have power over the entities in the group (including over co-operators and free riders), and the power to re-distribute the benefits of cooperation amongst members of the group in favour of co-operators. Power means the ability to influence or constrain without being influenced in return. If the arrangements could be influenced in return by those they need to control, control would break down. For example, free riders would be able to escape effective suppression by the arrangements.

We must have the technology of the state, and impose social controls against free riding.  Libertarianism is poison.  Hyper-individualism is poison.  There must be the power to enforce reciprocity in cooperation for genetic interests.

2) Evolvability: the arrangements must be evolvable/adaptable. This enables the arrangements to explore the space of possibilities for supressing free-riders and for supporting beneficial cooperation. It gives the arrangements the capacity to optimize their use of power over entities, and to adapt their control as free-riders and other non-co-operators evolve and adapt to escape their control.

Fossilized dogma is no good.  The power structures – the “arrangements” for suppressing free riding and facilitating cooperation – must evolve.  No doubt free riding will evolve in an attempt to evade detection and suppression.  There will be an ‘arms race.”

3) Alignment of interests: the evolutionary/adaptive interests of the arrangements must be aligned with the overall evolutionary/adaptive interests of the group of entities that it manages. Evolvability/adaptability per se is not enough. Unless interests are aligned in this way, the arrangements will not necessarily evolve/adapt in the direction needed to solve the cooperation problem. They will not necessarily use their power and evolvability to suppress free-riders and to support cooperation.

This is crucial. The “arrangements” must have the same interests as the managed entities, or else the “arrangements” themselves will be free riders. Consider the global elites of today who have – or at least perceive themselves to have – a different set of interests as the populations they manage.  This is a dystopian scenario for genetic interests.  The system must be set up so it is reinforcing a common set of interests between manager and the managed, so that the evolvability of managers is in the direction of more effective management and away from exploitive free-riding.  We want symbiosis, not parasitism.

The problem is how to achieve this, and there are no easy answers.  Throughout human history, managerial elites – even when they started out as sincere and authentic representatives of group interests – have become isolated from the managed group and have descended into rent-seeking, exploitative, free-riding behavior. This is virtually a law of human nature, an inevitability – in the absence of some sort of powerful counter-balance this trend.  One can say – “make the arrangements, the managers, answerable “to the people” via “democratic processes.”  But, of course, the managers have the power to subvert those “democratic processes” to their advantage, which is happening in the West today. This post is not the place to delve into this problem, but it is a problem that needs to be solved.

It is useful to classify the constraints applied by management processes into two categories, although the categories represent extremes on a continuum: 

1) Prescriptive constraints: these specify more or less precisely the particular outcomes that occur in the managed group. For example, DNA determines the specific proteins that are produced in a cell, including the quantities. And in a human command economy, the central authority prescribes specific economic outcomes, such as the nature and volume of the consumer goods that are to be produced. Where constraints are prescriptive, evolvability resides primarily in the manager, not in the other entities in the group.

Note the last part – “evolvability resides primarily in the manager” – in this case DNA.  Anyone remember the insanity of J Richards and his claim that selection works ultimately at the level of the phenotype, not the genotype?  More “movement” madness.  Of course, it’s DNA, the genotype, not the phenotype.

2) Enabling constraints: these achieve outcomes that are best for the group without specifying what those outcomes are. They accomplish this by aligning the interests of group members with the interests of the group as a whole, and then letting the entities adapt freely in pursuit of those aligned interests. 

Problem: large numbers of Whites today do not perceive that their individual interests align with group – racial – interests.  That perception is incorrect, but how can it be corrected?  Certainly not by the stupidity of Der Movement, Inc.

Of course, enabling constraints became more effective once evolution produced entities that were highly evolvable and capable of pursuing their own interests adaptively. The potential advantages of having evolvable entities managed by enabling rather than prescriptive constraints were demonstrated by the competitive superiority of free market economies over command economies in the 20th century. 

Well, maybe.  But given how the “free market economies” have become subverted by globalist elites and middleman minorities, I’m not sanguine for the long term future of the alleged superiority of the “free market” in an age of increasingly militant populism.

It is not difficult to identify scenarios in which selection would favour entities that develop power over others. For example, their power may enable them to monopolize resources (including access to reproductive opportunities), or to predate others. But exercising power in these ways does not necessarily align their evolutionary/adaptive interests with those they have power over.

Right, but they may not care.  Jews have been successful – at least in the short-term in any given locale, but possibly long-term for their entire evolutionary history being predators on their host societies.

However, interests begin to be aligned to some extent if the powerful entities discover ways in which they can harvest an on-going stream of benefits from those they control. Once this occurs, they may do better if they use their power to help the group survive and thrive, and thereby produce a larger stream of harvestable benefits, not just a once-off dividend.

OK, agreed, but this requires (a) that the managing entities have innate interests aligned with the managed, and (b) the managers are capable of rational long-term thinking and strategizing.

In some circumstances, proto-managers that solve the cooperation problem and harvest an on-going stream of benefits may be able to do better than if they move between groups, exploiting them as they go. 

Bowery’s concept of Jewish virulence.

Where this is the case, selection operating at the level of individual proto-managers will tend to favour those that remain with a group and use their power to increase the stream of benefits that they harvest from it (Stewart, 1995, Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Jewish virulence is decreased when they are forced to stay local and suffer the same fate as the host population.

Salthe (1985) demonstrates that constraints that can control a dynamic of interacting entities may arise in either of two ways: 

1) Upper-level constraints: these arise external to the dynamic of entities. They can influence the dynamic without being influenced in return. This is often because they are larger in scale than the entities they constrain, and are constituted by processes that operate significantly more slowly than the interactions in the dynamic. Examples of abiotic upper-level constraints that act on a population of entities include features of the environment that are relatively unchanging from the perspective of the interacting entities, such as large-scale physical structure in the environment. The external managers referred to in this paper are evolvable systems of upper-level constraints. It is worth emphasizing here that they are often constituted by processes rather than entities.

In human affairs, processes and entities become intertwined.  Can we separate out the human factor?  You have the “process” of “democracy”- and this process becomes subverted by human entities with conflicting interests.

2)  Lower-level constraints: these arise within the entities themselves. These constraints are relatively fixed, internal features of the interacting entities that can influence how entities behave in interactions, but are not influenced in return. In effect, they hardwire entities. Examples of lower level constraints in living entities include genetic elements, and internalized norms, customs and beliefs.

In humans, the genes and the “customs and beliefs” are related via cross-talk.

Importantly, the evolutionary interests of a distributed internal manager tend to be aligned with the interests of the group that it manages. The manager will capture the benefits of any cooperative activities within the group, because it exists in each of the members of the group. Selection will therefore favour any variant internal manager that constrains the members of the group in ways that promote beneficial cooperation. 

Group selection theory.  But this has to be proofed against free riders, particularly against either native or alien elites who have – or believe they have – interests that are in conflict with that of the broader group.  Note that “because it exists in each of the members of the group” directly implies that the managerial processes are inherent in all the members of the group.  That sounds nice in theory, but managerial elites always form in practice. You will need the “upper-level constraints” to control their behavior, and dependable constrains have not yet been devised.

But the potential of cooperation can be realized only to the extent that the cooperation problem is overcome. Unless the cooperation problem is solved, complex cooperative organization will not arise. It will not come into existence while individual entities fail to capture sufficient of the benefits of their cooperation. Selection at the group level, no matter how powerful, cannot call it into existence.

Free riding is the deadly enemy of group selection, ethnoracial nepotism, and inclusive fitness in defense of genetic interests.  Free riding must be fought at all costs.

We have seen that evolvable management, whether external or internal, can overcome the cooperation problem. It can manage a group of entities to ensure that beneficial cooperation can be sustained within the group and can therefore be the target of selection. This massively expands the possibility space that can be explored as the group evolves.

This is straightforward evolutionary biology, but applied to – in the case of humans – political, social, and cultural organization. An objective is to build a managerial structure that is characterized by an inherent trait of evolvability.  Just like devising methods to prevent rent-seeking free riding, devising processes and constraints that ensure that the management can evolve is no easy task (and this ability to evolve will, as the author suggests above, help solve the free riding problem- the cooperation problem).  I suggest that the management will resist such evolvability, or hijack it for selfish interests – to evolve (or devolve) toward parasitism.  Making positive pro-group evolvability “baked into the cake” of managerial entities and processes is a task of fundamental importance. There are no easy answers.  Somehow, there has to be self-perpetuating upper-level and lower-level constraints that exhibit positive feedback and self-reinforcement. It may be prudent to have “separation of powers” with multiple entities and/or processes so that competition between them is channeled in the direction, paradoxically, of increasing cooperation in defense of the broader group’s interests.

Where a powerful manager is able to harvest an on-going stream of benefits from the group it manages, it will be able to capture the benefits of any management that increases the productivity of the group. 

This assumes a congruence between interests of manager and group, and also assumes a long-term strategy and vision. This is because it is very possible for alien parasitical managers to “harvest an in-going stream of benefits” through destructive exploitation of the managed group. One has only to look at the globalist capitalist elites and/or Jewish control of White societies for examples of this.

It will therefore be able to advance its own evolutionary/adaptive interests by promoting cooperation within the managed group. 

Again, only when manager and managed have similar or identical interests, if the manager knows this, and acts long-term.  The managers of the West today, with their own selfish interests, act to advance non-cooperation, atomization, and hyper-individualism among the managed White populations.

If managed groups compete with each other, and if a manager is less successful if it lives independently of its group, the most effective way in which it will be able to advance its interests will be to advance those of the managed group. In these circumstances the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the managed group as a whole (Stewart, 1997a, Stewart, 2000).

Not necessarily.  Parasitical managers can wreck a group and then move elsewhere – e.g., Bowery’s Jewish virulence thesis.

Because the manager’s evolutionary/adaptive interests will tend to be aligned with those of the group, selection acting on the manager will favour management which aligns the interests of the entities it manages with the interests of the group. As a result, all the members of the group, manager and managed entities alike, will adapt cooperatively to serve the group as a whole. Members of the group will be favoured by selection only insofar as they serve the adaptive interests of the group as a whole. As a consequence, the group will increasingly come to be organized and adapted to function as an entity in its own right. 

So, manager and group really need to be more or less genetically similar so that interests will correctly align. A Jewish-Asian overclass and a White underclass is not going to work out, HBDers.  Then, once biological homogeneity is established, cultural and social alignment must follow – we cannot have a managerial class that is a free riding parasite, even if it is composed of the co-ethnics of those managed.  We need to have social, political, and economic controls on managerial behavior, to suppress free riding and rent seeking behaviors.  Wealth disparity definitely needs to be suppressed soaps to eliminate the possibility of an exploitative plutocracy.

However, while ever cooperative organizations of the largest-scale are smaller than the planet, they will constitute a population of organizations that compete with each other. This will produce the cooperation problem. Organizations that act cooperatively towards others will tend to be out-competed. This dynamic is currently evident at the level of nation states. Global warming and international war are both manifestations of the cooperation problem. The existence of the cooperation problem at this level means that potential benefits can be realized through the emergence of global management (including global governance). Global management has the potential to overcome the cooperation problem at the level of nation states.

Effective global management would not only suppress destructive competition between nations. 

If genuine differences of interests exist, competition is inevitable.  What is “destructive?”  Yes, mutually annihilating war should be avoided, and, yes, I generally support Salter’s “universal nationalism.”  But the recent history of “global management” suggests that the ONLY competition that will be suppressed is that of Whites competing against Coloreds in order to secure legitimate White interests.

Ultimately it would also have the potential to realize the benefits of integrating all lower level entities into the global organization, including by supporting entities that contribute positively to the global organization. A global manager that is sufficiently powerful and evolvable has the potential to control a hierarchy of management that integrates the living and non-living processes of the planet into a cooperative and unified global entity(for more detailed discussion, see Stewart, 2000).

And this global manager is acceptable only insofar as it respect the rights and interests of lower levels of nested interests.  

When we stand back from the evolutionary process on this planet and consider it as a coherent whole, we see that there are two great trends within evolution. One is towards diversification. The other is towards integration and cooperation. As we have seen in some detail, both trends are driven by selection processes that are consistent with mainstream evolutionary theory.

And both are consistent with pan-European racial nationalism that preserves ethnic differences.

As the global entity emerges, it can be expected to increasingly manage the living processes, energy, matter and technology of the entire planet into a coordinated whole. As it develops, it will optimize all the processes on which it depends (including large-scale ecological systems) in order to create the most effective platform for its future evolution. 

“Future evolution: will be compromised by a racial panmixia that frustrates the evolutionary path toward increasing diversification by erasing all the evolved differences of population groups that contribute to human genetic and phenotypic diversity.

Of course, this is not likely to be the end of the evolutionary trajectory. The trajectory is likely to have unfolded elsewhere…