Category: ethnic nepotism

Not the Best Scientists

Answering a moron.

A moron:

The problem here is that Asians are basically the best scientists, as seen in their dominance of science departments at top US research universities…

No.  The “dominance” is due to:

1. Asian ethnocentrism vs. White universalism. Asian PIs typically hire Asian underlings. Meanwhile, White PIs will often – in some cases preferentially – hire Asian underlings because of the issues listed below. There is a continuous ratchet here moving in the direction of the displacement of Whites by Asians in STEM.  Asians hire Asians out of ethnocentrism and rampant ethnic nepotism, while Whites hire Asians out of Universalist naiveté and ethnic masochism. Of course, then, the Asians will “dominate.” It is always amusing to see a scientific paper with all-Chinese authorship, assuming the lab is from China, and then seeing that is from the USA instead.  American labs are full of Chinese, with Chinese PIs excluding Whites and hiring only Chinese.

2. Asians are willing to, at least initially, work for less (cheap labor) and for longer hours. The latter holds because they do very little actual work – much time instead being used to play the stock market, steal data and ideas, sit around and gibber in Mandarin (loudly screeching), etc.

3. Despite their time wasting, Asians produce a lot of data, advancing their careers and making them more attractive to White PIs. How do they do so?  Read Bottle of Lies to understand the corrupt Asian biomedical research culture. When you are willing to invent, manipulate, steal, etc. data then, yes, you can produce much “data.”  Two anecdotes come to mind, told to me by various colleagues over the years (presented here in the most general terms, with no pertinent details, of course).

First, a Chinese working for a White PI produced an “important paper” by showing that gene “X” is not expressed in cell line “Y” after treatment “Z” – with high clinical significance. Hoorah!  Problem is, after the Chinese parlayed that into a higher position elsewhere, a White researcher could not reproduce those results. After much investigation, it was discovered that the Chinese got the “desired” data by exposing the blot to film for an extremely absurdly short period of time, so there was not enough time for the band to show. If I recall correctly what I was told about the incident, for normalization, the blot filter was cut and the area of the filter for the normalization gene was exposed for the correct time, disguising the fact that the experimental band was not present because of the short exposure.  Of course, the White PI did not get upset at the Chinese fraud but instead at the White who exposed the fraud.

Second, a grant reviewer reviewing a grant put forth by a research group led by Asians discovered that some of the blots in the grant were from a previous paper by the same group, turned upside down, and relabeled as something else. Essentially, fabricated data

4. Asians demonstrate ethnocentrism by showing favoritism in the grant and paper reviews of their co-ethnics, advancing the research careers of those co-ethnics as opposed to Whites, whose work is more harshly (perhaps, unfairly) reviewed..

5. If any of the Asian “scientists” are (ostensibly) female, then some White PIs no doubt hire and promote them for, shall we say, Derbyshirian reasons.

6. I documented incidents (at my previous Western Biopolitics blog, I believe) of Asians (in that case, South Asians) sabotaging the research of Whites working in the same lab as them.

7. The presence of larger numbers of Asians in American science not only makes STEM careers less attractive because of low wages, but also because of low prestige (an occupation highly represented by a bunch of clannish, gibbering, corrupt foreigners), and an alienating and unpleasant work environment (dominated by White-hating, ethnocentric Asians, screeching in foreign languages and eating foul-smelling food). So, educated Whites go into other professions, pushed out of STEM in favor of Asiatics.

Hainan at Home and Jeelvy

Chinatrix calling Whites “foreigners”…in America.

Read here. Emphasis added.

Thus, when, a week into the crisis, it looked as thought the U.S. was going to stand firm, I got into a spot of bother with my suggestion that perhaps George W. Bush should counter the Chinese demand for an apology by demanding an apology from them. After all, I pointed out, the U.S. plane was over international waters, and the F-8s must have been flying awfully close for the accident to have happened — close enough to fairly be accused of harrassment, whatever the precise details of the mishap.

Rosie: “Nonsense! China give an apology to America? You’re mad! What was that plane doing so close to our shore? Spying, that’s what! You foreigners think you can just do as you like in China! …” In less time than it takes to hit the MAYDAY button on an EP-3 control panel, we were into the Opium War and the suppression of the Boxers. Dialectical Materialism may have passed undigested through Rosie’s alimentary canal, but the xenophobic stuff went direct into her bloodstream.

Keep in mind that “Rosie” was living in the USA at this time (as she does now).  If I am not mistaken, “Rosie” is now a “American citizen” who votes. “You foreigners,” indeed.  Thanks, Derbyshire.

It’s OK. In the style of Mao Tse-tung, who was fond of comparing crises in the Party with earthquakes, this is no worse than a 4 on the Richter scale. It certainly doesn’t compare with last August 6, a Sunday, and a day that will live in infamy, when I woke early with the horrible realization that it was our wedding anniversary, crept out of the house, spent a frantic hour trying to find a card store that was open, and got home … too late. Harmony will re-assert itself. I just have to follow the President’s example: be patient, and do some measured grovelling.

The last five words = the role of Whites in the “Arctic Alliance.”  And also a summary of HBD.

The ethnocentrism on display here is also reflected in all the spying scandals involving ethnic Chinese living in America spying for their ethnic homeland, reflected in the mind-numbing knee-jerk hatred of Whites and of Western civilization, and is also reflected in networks of ethnic nepotism, including in the professions. Keep on groveling – in a “measured” fashion of course – Whitey.  Kneel down in abject subservience before the Altar of Asia. Hail HBD!

No Nut Jeelvy!

Pathetic. Jeelvy:

I’m pretty sure you’ve heard by now of No Nut November, which is a challenge for all who take it upon them not to commit the sin of Onan – i.e., masturbation – in the month of November. As it happens, most of the people taking the challenge are young men, most of them white and, if not quite on the Right, then at the very least not allergic to our ideas. Of note is also that No Nut November has been countersignaled by the smut merchants at VICE, which I consider to be a glowing endorsement.

I am glad to tell you, my friends, that I have passed this challenge. My mind is at ease, my soul feels clean and pure again, and my body is a weapon fit for the Archangel Michael. I could also offer you details concerning some of the other psychosomatic effects, but as Counter-Currents is a highbrow webzine, the traditional Slavo-Mediterranean braggadocio about sexual prowess and genital size should be used sparingly.

I’m no stranger to addictive behavior, or to the cessation of addictive behavior. In my life, I’ve been seriously addicted to three substances: risperidon, nicotine, and sugar. Two of those I’ve completely dropped, while sugar I’ve learned to consume in moderation. I’ve also had my fair share of problems with video game addiction…

Isn’t this the guy with the fist-sized-breasted wife?  So…what?  He was masturbating regularly before “No Nut November?”  Yes sir, that “traditional Slavo-Mediterranean braggadocio about sexual prowess” really fits when a married Millennial finds it necessary to pull a “no nut.”  Counter-Currents is really hitting new heights of “highbrow” erudition with the new crop of writers Johnson has pulled out of the Alt Right sewer.

As someone who used to write for both sites, I have to say that there are some remarkable parallels between Majority Rights and Counter-Currents. In my opinion, one major reason why Majority Rights declined is because of Guessedworker’s inability or unwillingness to exercise quality control over his site, to realize what is or is not appropriate for the site. While Greg Johnson, unlike Guessworker, actually moderates the comments section of his site (too much in my opinion), apparently he is not exercising quality control over the actual contributors to his site (Jeelvy being a perfect example). And thus, the sad decline continues,  Remarkably, the “movement’s” marching morons continue sending in the “D’Nations.”

Simon Says and Salter Speaks

Of interest.

First, John Simon posts an “apologia” – emphasis added:

So let me start with the serpentine view of me, most conveniently promulgated on the basis of my satirical remarks about something which the poor actors could not control. But are not performers in shows and movies supposed to be appealing, indeed exemplars of something all of us strive for, or do we go to the theater and cinema to look at unsightliness? Except, of course, where the latter is predicated, or do we want the witches in “Macbeth” played by or acted as gorgeous women?

The old Hollywood dedicated to glamour knew what it was doing all right, even if its notion of beauty wasn’t always of the subtlest kind. This has changed, with populism insisting that it would rather look democratically at a homely Zoe Kazan or Jessica Hecht than romantically at a Laura Osnes, Laura Denanti, or Katrina Lesk. And yes, if we desire sets and costumes—again with meaningful exceptions—to be beautiful, why not the faces and figures of performers? Are they not part of the spectacle? Or do young women aiming for stage or screen careers grow up yearning to be Barbra Streisands? Heaven help us, maybe they do. Still, I would like to think that, however unavowedly, they would rather be a Jane Fonda or a Sharon Stone.

Salter video from 2002 on ethnic kinship. Keep in mind that this was an early permutation of Salter’s thought.   The refined theory of EGI does not require – repeat, not require – “the evolution altruism,” the evolution of ethnic nepotism,” or “group selection.” However, the comments about Hamilton and his 1975 paper though are as relevant today as they were back then.

Genetic clustering is real, but in general genetic boundaries are fuzzy and clinal, not disjunctive. Phenotype as well.  It is when the biological characteristics are merged with genealogical descent from historically defined ethnies, culture, and other aspects of Identity do you achieve a practical disjunctiveness.

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference – or a difference without distinction – because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:

“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”

Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 

You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.


1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.

That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary – do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? – is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.