Category: genetic variation

Which Way 2019?

Questions.

Is the new focal point of the American “movement” in 2019 going to be the Alt Wrong?  Is the new focus the emerging Counter-Currents-Amren-VDARE-TOO-HBD axis?  How much damage will that do to the “movement” before it collapses as did its Alt Right predecessor?

This is actually a very serious threat, potentially more damaging to (American) racial activism than was the Alt Right.  The Alt Right did damage activism, but that was mostly through bad optics, public humiliation, and wasted opportunities. In “economic” terms, the opportunity cost of investing in Alt Right stupidity was such that it set back activism for years.  However, the damage was not ideological.  It could have been worse.  If the Alt Right took Johnson’s advice and followed a Big Tent-Alt Lite strategy, serious ideological damage could have occurred.  But, thankfully, that did not happen. The Alt Right collapsed under a pile of Pepes, Keks, and alcohol bottles, but did not become subsumed into civic nationalist mainstreaming right-wing populism.

On the other hand, domination of the “movement” by the Alt Wrong can do very serious and lasting ideological damage. Here, the threat is that White nationalism will become hijacked by HBD race realism, Judeophilia, and Yellow Supremacy.  While Spencer was tarred as a “tool of Moscow,” the Alt Wrong reality is that of “White nationalists” becoming tools of Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and Beijing.  Instead of pursuing the racial interests of Whites, we’ll just get puppets dancing on the strings of their Jewish puppeteers, as well as Derbyshirian “measured groveling” to Asians.  Hora-dancing Romanians will be out, while Hora-dancing Jews and inscrutable Orientals will be in.  Derbyshire’s “Arctic Alliance” will come to fruition, with a segment of the White population being the subaltern caste junior partners to their Jewish-Asian masters.  

Of course, it won’t be that blatant, but the end result will be the same. That’s where my critics fail with their talk of my “insanity” when I write about things like this in such stark terms.  They erect a strawman in which they assert that I am saying that we will literally see pro-White leaders on their knees before Jews and Asians and that these leaders will openly call for Jewish/Asian dominance.  Of course, they are not going to do that, and some of them may be so naïve that they don’t even realize how they are being manipulated.  But I am not talking about surface optics.  I am instead talking about the fundamental underlying reality, the ultimate consequences, of a course of action.  So, yes, the Alt Wrong will be more careful about optics than the Alt Right.  Yes, they will be careful so as to make their destructive memes palatable to Type I nitwits and sweaty ethnic fetishists. No, they will not be so blatant in that the ultimate outcome of their agenda is easily seen as a form of activism very palatable to Jewish and Asian interests. It does not matter. The final outcome will be the same, even if they don’t literally grovel before the Altar of Asia, even if they don’t literally worship a pile of yarmulkes.  Look behind the curtain, dear reader, and observe the sneering Levantines and grinning Orientals, all benefiting from activism ostensibly meant to benefit Whites.  Observe a “movement” hijacked to serve Asiatic interests. This is a danger far deadlier than Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Righters and their drunken podcasts.

If any WN 1.0 folks read EGI Notes, I hope they heed this warning, and prepare for the Alt Wrong (and Alt Yellow) assault against White nationalism. You guys still have some “pull” in the “movement” – I do not and never had.  It’s your responsibility and obligation to battle the Alt Wrong – doubly so, since you are in part responsible for the affirmative action program that results in EGI Notes having no “pull” in Der Movement.  You want to be leaders?  Then act the part.  Finally, speak out against HBD and the Alt Wrong.

Question: Will the Silkers make peace with the Alt Wrong, and look the other way as regards Jewish influence, as long as Asian interests are being served?

Question: Will the Alt Wrong be so clumsy – and not quite as optics-friendly as I wrote above – that they’ll let Jews and Asians play a more direct and public role in White racial activism?  I would predict that will eventually happen IF there is no pushback against the Alt Wrong, if they become over-confident, and if they believe that they have defeated the Ourselves Alone pro-White faction of the “movement.”  On the other hand, if they are more subtle and clever, they’ll only work behind the screen of Derbyshire and various other White HBDers.  In either case, expect Derbyshire – as long as his health allows – to play a larger role going forward. Amren and VDARE will also be expected to be proportionately more prominent.  HBD will be pushed and possibly we’ll see more articles similar to Munro’s “hit piece” against Romanians.  Never forget: pan-Europeanism is the deadly enemy of the Alt Wrong and vice versa, and the HBDers will continue to divide Europeans against each other, and attempt to set up the Jeurasian future with a subset of Whites. The Derbyshire family, in conjunction with the Hart-Weissberg crowd, is the future the Alt Wrongers want. More HBD, more Arctic Alliance, more ethnonationalism – no surprise that the Alt Wrongers wanted to subsume the ethnonationalists, anything to divide Whites – that’s what one can expect.

Who is going to be the “mainstream movement” opposition to the Alt Wrong? Will Strom finally – finally! – speak out against Jew/Asian worshipping HBD?  Or will we only have the tragicomedy of Parrott and his “Sieg Heil and pass the beer” crowd as opposition to the “Yellow Supremacy and pass the wine and cheese” crowd?

Or will the Alt Wrongers try to appease the WN 1.0 by appealing to their vanity and ethnic fetishism?  They’ll tell the WN 1.0ers that, don’t worry, you guys are so much better than those Hora-dancing Romanians.  Just throw the “outer Hajnal” crowd under the bus, get yourself a nice Asian girlfriend, and you’ll get invited to all the HBD conferences, where you can rub shoulders with that Aryan superman Professor Hart.  What’s not to like?    Better Hart than Codreanu, right?

Who will Greg Johnson feud with next?  Will the Alt Wrong alliance last through the end of 2019?

Who is the next prominent HBDer to either die and/or be exposed as was Rushton?  Will 2019 be the year of Lynn?

Johnson:

It is clear that the movement needs to do fine grained empirical studies and publish them to assess the impact of events, so we can prevent liars like you from claiming that “[Propaganda disaster X] was actually good for the movement.”

That costs money.  Which tin cupper will part with some of their proceeds to make this happen?

I’ll give Johnson credit for his online debating with Parrott.  Who’s going to be next on the comeback trail after Parrott and Heimbach?  Derek Black?  Who? Hal Turner? Patrik Hermansson?  The mind boggles.  Maybe the reincarnation of Dan Burros?  Getting back to “labor leader” Matt: For godssakes, Parrott, just go away.  JUST. GO. AWAY.

Maybe that will be a theme of 2019: Movement Zombies and Vampires – discredited and/or humiliated “movement leaders” and other personalities who rise from the activist dead to suck the blood and life out of what’s left of (American) racial nationalism.

What will be the next sex scandal in Der Movement?  Will it happen in 2019? Heterosexual?  Homosexual? Bisexual?  Transgender?  Inter-racial?  Adultery/cuckoldry?  Pedophilia? S and M?  Bestiality?  Necrophilia? Some combination thereof?

One possible scenario: A “movement leader” is accused of having S and M sex with male and female dead puppies and kittens.  These puppies and kittens were the sexual playthings of another “movement leader” (cuckoldry!) and now both “leaders” declare they are transgender and involved with Negro transgender lovers.  After several months both “leaders” re-emerge with tweets telling us everyone else in Der Movement, Inc. has it all wrong – only they, the disgraced “leaders,” are the fount of all activist wisdom.

Will Kessler organize Unite the Right III?  And will anyone show up if he does?

What are the chances that the various “movement” bigwigs will win the Unite the Right civil case?  Not good, I think.  If I had to bet, I’d bet on a loss.  That’s not because they are in the wrong; in this case they are not wrong – the case against them is ludicrous. But in Trump’s America, the rule of law is meaningless and the Left is triumphant. 

Which Way Trumpian Man?  Will 2019 lead to impeachment?  Resignation?  Or just more blowhard tweets with nothing at all getting done?  Will Roissy finally turn against his man-crush Trump?

How much of the “wall” will be built in 2019?  No, I mean the “fence.”  No, that’s not right, I mean the “metaphor.”  Yeah, yeah – “metaphor” – that’s the ticket.

Hey, Antifa Don – assuming you’re running for reelection in 2020, and won’t be in prison enjoying the attentions of DeShawn, then all those voted from your disillusioned and disgusted base will be a “metaphor” as well.  You’ll make Goldwater on 1964 look like a victory lap by comparison.

What failure of mainstreaming – and success of farstreaming – will European politics present to us in 2019?

Cue “movement” comments about Moops, Hora, and Mongols.  After all, when Whites turn on each other, the Alt Wrongers are waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.

What outrageous errors will the Quota Queens make in 2019?  What leftist will they label an “alpha shitlord” (trust the phyzz!)?  What leftist academic or movie director will they label “a man of the Right?”  One can imagine some Old Kingdom Egyptian mummies getting gene-tested as 85% Middle Eastern and 15% sub-Saharan African, and the peanut gallery will declare – “Arthur Kemp was right!”  The mind boggles!  Possibilities, possibilities!

Prediction: White women will continue acting badly in 2019, and Johnson will continue to mumble about “Joan of Arc.”  It’s sort of like Whites and Blacks – the men who defend women the most are the ones who have the least experience and interactions with them.

Bad news.  What happens when you reward bad behavior?  You get more of it.  Good going, all you Type I rank-and-file nitwits.

Epilogue – a retard looks back and makes predictions:

ZMan:

Because the Democrats will be shifting their focus to winning the White House in 2020, the censorship trend will take a different turn, as the tech giants begin to censor the Left. Look for the social media companies to begin cracking down on the BernieBro wing, in an effort to boost the standing of party approved candidates. Suddenly, groups like Antifa are going to find themselves without the protection they have enjoyed. They were always corporate tools, they just never knew it. In 2019, they find out who signs their checks.

We’ll see about that.  Frankly, I’m skeptical, but who knows?

This is the time of year when lazy writers post about the comings and goings of the previous year, usually in the form of a listicle. “The top-10 events of the past year” is column that used to turn up in every newspaper at least once. Then you have the predictions for the coming year, which no one ever mentions as part of their year in review posts. With technology being what it is, you would think a new genre of year-end post would be the review of futures past type of post, but that has not happened.

And so Zman essentially proceeds to do what he just criticized.

One thing I got very right is the continued growth of nationalist and populist parties in Europe. It is easy to forget that the smart people were all talking about the populist wave having crested last year, so going the other way was a bold prediction. Not only have the populists displayed staying power, new movements from the Left are turning up. The Yellow Vest thing in France is much more of a leftists cause, especially in Paris, than a right-wing phenomenon. That’s something to watch for next year.

Yellow Vests!  The new heroes!  The Yellow Vest on White Horse Syndrome!  At least Zman has more sense than some other idiots on the Right and correctly labels the Yellow Vesters as more leftist.  In contrast,one can imagine Roissy identifying “alpha shitlords” among some Marxist Yellow Vesters, or Johnson pontificating about the need for a big tent (a circus tent would be most appropriate) to include such people.

 

Summary: I think it’s a reasonable prediction that 2019 will be another year of “movement” failure, humiliation, and wasted opportunities.

Advertisements

The Year in Review: 2018

The year that was.

A brief outline of 2018, with an emphasis on Der Movement and the Sallis Groupuscule.

1. Sallis contra Lewontin. I finally got around to formally (preliminary) demonstrate that “Lewontin’s Fallacy” applies to any form of human population grouping, including random grouping, mixed-race grouping, etc.  That is, any human population, however chosen, will demonstrate “more variation within than between” – and this has nothing to do specifically with race, and retarded leftist “arguments” that assert that “within/between” somehow invalidates race, or worse, demonstrates that “Whites and Blacks are more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own racial group”, are absurd, and objectively and quantitatively absolutely wrong.

This was, in my opinion, by far my most important contribution in 2018 and, predictably, it was completely ignored by Der Movement.  Indeed, even among readers of this blog, based on page views, I notice that criticisms of Der Movement get much more attention than any of my genetics-based posts, or book reviews (here or at Western Destiny), or any other such analysis.

Whether that is because activists are “hungry” for alternative and critical viewpoints of the “movement,” or simply because people prefer to read about “movement gossip” and infighting, I do not know.

However, the fact that groups ostensibly interested in these genetics-based matters – racialists, HBDers, etc. – studiously ignored this (and other similar material produced here) should tell you something.  It’s “Who” and not “What.”  Material of utility for White racial interests, material of interest to “race realists”- all of that is ignored if it is produced by the “wrong” people.  Values get thrown out the window when personal and narrow ideological interests are at stake.  Remember that when all those types protest about how much they prioritize ethical activism and White racial interests and “the pursuit of the truth.”

2. Reviews. Speaking of things that have been ignored, Bolton’s important biography of Yockey was available, so I got a e-copy, read it, and reviewed it found here. I also did a review of the “Whither Judaism and the West?” book chapter, found here.

3. Alt Blight.  2018 is the year that the Alt Right definitely and obviously collapsed, the bubble burst, the Alt Right fever broke, much to my relief – and just as I predicted as far back as 2016 (when all the heroic “movement leaders” were jumping on the Alt Right bandwagon).  This has to be by far the single biggest “movement”-related story of 2018, at least on the American scene.  And both proponents and opponents (Left and Right) of the Alt Right admit and acknowledge the collapse.  Indeed, post mortems have been written from both sides of the political spectrum. It’s that obvious.

The problem is that the niche space of “movement” stupidity must be filled, like air rushing into a vacuum, and we are now seeing a resurgence of the Alt Wrong (see the Counter-Currents ethics issue below).

4.  They’re not proud, boys.  Concomitant with the collapse of the Alt Right, the Alt Lite has also degenerated, exemplified by the “Proud Boys” being chased out of LA bars by noodle-armed soyboys, and then essentially disowned by their creator.  Are these the types you want to get under the “big tent” with?

5. Deplatformimg, persecution, and the rule of Antifa.  One reason for the decline of the “Alts” and the “movement” as a whole, has been the inability to deal with a concerted effort by the System to target Far Right activists at various points of vulnerability.  Rightists have been deplatformed from social media and various online financial entities, they’ve been targeted by lawfare and social pricing, and the Far Left Trump administration has let Antifa essentially conquer the American Street, so we have scraggly wanna-be leftists acting as the running dog enforcers of the globalist-big business-anti-White alliance. Antifa is now the de facto police force of the government and of globalist big business interests.

6. The Turd Emperor.  This blog correctly and presciently identified Trump as a fraud and a vulgar ignorant buffoon back in 2015. Three years later, and after two years of a failed Presidency, most (but not all) of the Trump cheerleaders have realized that they’ve been “had, “and the intra-“movement” consensus is that Trump is a pathetic failure.  However, the Quota Queens by and large take no personal responsibility for this fiasco of misplaced trust and enthusiasm; there will of course be NO accountability for the latest Man on White Horse Syndrome episode.  Expect it to happen again.

7.  Going counter to the ethical current. The ethical collapse of Counter-Currents is another story of 2018. That site has been in decline for several years, and the gaslighting of trying to blame the failures of WN 2.0 on WN 1.0 was one low point this year.  But, as bad as that was, it was merely an appetizer to the two shoes dropping

First, we observed Counter-Currents embracing Derbyshire, doubling down on the good old boys network, despite the fact that Johnson in the past strongly denounced Derbyshire as an anti-WN, race-mixing opportunist, and also denounced WNs who embraced Derbyshire.  Second, Johnson wrote that “Trevor Lynch” is going to be featured at the Jew Unz site.  That’s astonishing, and not in a good way.  It seems that with the death of the Alt Right, Counter-Currents is pivoting to the Alt Wrong.  

More evidence of the Counter-Currents shift is this excerpt of a recent Johnson comment:

The mature thing for the American movement is to invest in individuals and organizations that are changing minds and bringing people over to our side, as opposed to failures who only bring shame upon us. Here’s my short list:

1. Counter-Currents and me

2. American Renaissance and Jared Taylor

3. VDare and the Brimelows

4. The Occidental Observer and Kevin MacDonald

5. Identity Europa and Patrick Casey

6. Red Ice

Of the five non-CC entities listed, three (60%) are HBD/Alt Wrong, with two (40%) – Amren and VDARE – being the fundamental pillars of the Alt Wrong.  Johnson and Counter-Currents have thrown in their lot in with the Alt Wrong, and one can reasonably predict that  in the long term Counter-Currents as a vehicle for White racial nationalism is finished.  Also note that Johnson’s list is enriched in people and entities who “threw Spencer under the bus” after Hailgate.  Also note that there is solidarity there for both the affirmative action program as well as for tin cup panhandling.  This is the “movement” “amen corner” reinforcing each other’s biases and errors.

By the way, here is my comprehensive list of “individuals and organizations” that are of any use:

1. Ted Sallis and the Sallis Groupuscule (EGI Notes and Western Destiny)

List complete.

I have had my disagreements with the WN 1.0 folks, but at least those people are of a more sound character when it comes to not selling out.  I can’t imagine the likes of Duke, Strom, Roper, Linder (or Pierce when he was alive) writing for Unz, groveling to a race-mixer like Derbyshire, or anything else of that nature.  Leave that to all the WN 2.0 and 3.0 heroes. Despite ideological disagreements, as well as disagreements on strategy and “optics,” I’m much closer in basic character to WN 1.0 than I am to any of the later permutations.  All these guys keep on trying to reinvent the wheel, and they haven’t yet figured out that this won’t work.

Here’s Roissy on Unz:

Ron Unz lies a lot in an article about the Alt-Right which he penned last year but reposted yesterday. I think the strawman-per-word ratio in his id-shaped rant is higher than anything I’ve read outside of a feminist tumblrrhea screed.

His main contention is that the “alt-right” are being deplatformed and de-personed because representatives (whoever they are) exaggerate the criminal threat of latino immigration, and the Soylicunt Valley nerdos who have been thrust into the role of Speech Police can’t tolerate the lies.

This is an utter inversion of the reality, which is that the Big Tech Poindexters can’t tolerate the truths which dissident outposts daily level against the corrupt Globohomo worldview and nation-dissolving agenda.

The “alt-right” (really, a constellation of realtalkers who refuse to parrot neolibogisms) is silenced because they write truths that the masturbators of the universe don’t want to read.

Simple as that.

Censorship has historically been used as a tool by the powerful to suppress the views of the powerless who threaten the former’s hold on power. That Unz can’t or won’t grasp this ineluctable fact of no-holds-barred status jockeying between antagonistic groups says a lot about what kind of resentful agenda motivates him.

How about all Unz contributors being upfront as to whether they are being paid by Unz and if so how much?  And can any of us believe we’d see the day when Roissy makes more sense than Johnson?

8. Randy Phil. Rushton was exposed as a hypocrite, a race traitor, and a fraud – and by a fellow HBDer no less.  Rushton fathered a child with a Negress.  What’s next?  Pierce having had a secret love child with a Jewess?

And of course all the Rushton fanboys either ignored the revelations or started with ad hominem attacks against the messenger Dutton, as if those personal attacks could in any way alter the pathetic and disturbing facts of the case.  That’s HBD for you.  But let’s give Dutton credit for some honesty here.   Twilight of the Idols indeed.

9. Out of Africa. The Spencer and Johnson 23andMe results – emphasizing the absurdity of that test’s minor admixture estimates.

10. Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong. Typically wrong – Jack Nicholson as a prospective “alpha shitlord” – while any 30 second Google search can demonstrate that he’s a life-long liberal Democrat.  A “jacked” Bezos making a “hard turn right” politically – except he didn’t. Good going there, Roissy, on both counts.  “Shakin’ Stevens” and his Odinist perspectives – that is, when he’s not being a Red.  Good going, Rowsell.  Not to mention the “movement’s” humiliation about Trump, mentioned above.  In Trump We Trust – until “we” don’t.

11. Can’t keep it in the pants.  There was the Heimbach-Parrott and Spencer-Conte dramas. The lack of moral fiber and sexual self-control demonstrates a failure of leadership character.  To be fair, the Spencer-Conte issue is murky, and has not been definitively established.  The other incident is more definitive.

And, gee, Heimbach’s latest comeback attempt was short-lived.  Try, try again.  It must be great to have a “free pass” from Der Movement for having the appropriate ethnic ancestry.  After all, even Baby Daddy Rushton is still worshipped in some circles. 

Delenda Est Der Movement

The White race will be free only AFTER Der Movement, Inc. is destroyed.

More on Population Genetics

Let’s consider some ideas I’ve written about before.

A genetic testing company can in theory define a certain consensus genome as “Puerto Rican,” and it is therefore possible in that case for typical Puerto Ricans to test out as 100% (or 99% or 92 % or 90%.etc.) Puerto Rican.  But if the same genome is interpreted in light of the major continental population groups (races), then someone who is “100% Puerto Rican” would then be, e.g., 50% European, 40% sub-Saharan African, and 10% Amerindian. Same genome, different definition.

The gene frequencies that define “100% European” today would not be the same as, say, several thousand years ago.  Genetic ancestries which back then would have to be classified as non-European would today be part of the European genome, as intrusive elements have been assimilated.  A haplotype today defined by 23andMe as “British/Irish” or “French/German” or “Italian” or “Balkan” may be by the standards of, say, 2000 BC, mostly European (by 2000 BC standards) but with some non-European components (again by 2000 BC standards).  

All of this does NOT mean that ethnicity and race are “socially constructed;” those are biologically real and legitimate entities.  However, the labels used to describe those entities are defined by people and these labels, and these definitions, can change over time.  This also  NOT mean that we should blithely accept intrusive elements entering the European genepool today; genetic interests are future-oriented, and what happened in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time, not us today. We are what we are, just like they were what they were.  One set of changes does not in any way obligate or justify a different set of changes.  Everything must be considered in the light of the interests of the people that exist at that time.

The major point, that most “movement” nitwits do not understand, is that people cannot take the labels given to particular gene frequencies or haplotypes at face value in the sense of an absolute and precise entity whose specific definition has the exact same meaning over long periods of time.  The actual degrees of genetic kinship based on the raw genetic data are real and concrete and precisely meaningful – to the extent we take into account statistical error and the over-riding importance of parental populations (that is tied into the topic of this post…what is the parental population you use to define “100% X?”) – but the defining labels are not necessarily so.

Movement and Epimovement

Clarifications.

Read this, dated November 29, 2018

Read this, dated August 1, 2018.

Hmm…Der Movement catches up eventually.

Now, Zman’s complaints are for the most part correct (if overblown); epigenetics is being grossly over-interpreted by both the Left and the Traditionalist Right.

However, as I wrote:

While I believe that epigenetic influences are grossly overestimated by ideologues of both the Left and Right, who have political reasons for de-emphasizing genetic determinism, it is wrong to lurch in the opposite direction and completely disregard potential epigenetic mechanisms.

We cannot completely rule out epigenetic mechanisms as a secondary, reinforcing, weaker mechanism for race-culture, the primary mechanisms being genetic differences and learned culture.  By a crude analogy to physics, genetics and culture are “strong forces” (e.g., nuclear) while epigenetics is a weak force (e.g., gravity).  But gravity, while being a weak force, is somewhat relevant to someone falling off a building. When dealing with objects with large mass, like the Earth, gravity is strong in aggregate; the same could be held for weak epigenetic influences that, if present over entire populations, can exert considerable racio-cultural force.

Having said that, my work over the years makes clear that I am NOT any sort of proponent of epigenetics as a significant factor in racial differences – those differences being CLEARLY genetic in origin.  Thus, the EGI Notes post linked above spends 99% of its content discussing Gene-Culture interactions, with epigenetics as a side note. 

In summary: Epigenetics may have a small and secondary but not completely insignificant role in reinforcing certain isolated and specific characteristics that are primarily determined by the interplay of genes and culture. However, the environmental influences that possibly exert effects through epigenetics must be consistent over time if you wish the epigenetics to be equally stable.  Epigenetic effects of starvation, for example, can be passed down from parent to child but it is unlikely that this will be carried down endlessly through time…unless the Dutch are continuously subjected to famines every few decades.  So, a consistent environmental factor could in theory continuously reinforce an epigenetic modification, but a one-off event is not expected to permanently alter a people’s epigenome.  Of course, given shifting gene frequencies over time, and effects of selection, changing environments will alter a populations’ genome as well.

Another analogy may be useful here.  Imagine an important book that describes Culture.  The main content of the text, the main text, the vast bulk of the words, explanations, meanings, and arguments are the Genes. In contrast, Epigenetics would be the footnotes to that main text. Many of the footnotes would be relatively unimportant; however, several of them would be very important clarifications of the meaning of the main text. In subsequent editions of the book, one would find that the footnotes are changing more frequently (additions, deletions, modifications) than is the main text; every once in a while, a significant change in the main text happens and that would be a particularly important new edition of the book.

That, given what we know now, puts things in the proper perspective.  The Traditionalists (and the Left) are wrong to elevate epigenetics as somehow the equal (or superior!) to genetics; the HBDers are wrong to equate the reality of epigenetics to crude Lamarckianism.  Both sides are politically motivated.  Real science keeps on investigating, though – speculating, hypothesizing, testing, and evaluating

And how about this analogy – the core reality of racial and cultural differences constitute the “genetics” of racial activism; while more ephemeral phenomena – influenced by people’s agendas – such as Traditionalism or HBD are the “epigenetics” of racial activism, mere footnotes (and in those cases, not clarifying at all).

Let us now consider some “words of wisdom” – dating from the mid-late 1990s – of a well-known “movement leader’ who shall remain nameless since this was from a private conversation.

First, with respect to the situation in Russia at that time, this “leader” suggested that it would be good if the Communist Party came back into power there, since they were “anti-Jewish” and “anti-globalist.” By that logic, the Islamic takeover of Europe is a good thing, since they are also anti-Jewish and anti-globalist.

Then, in response to my suggestion that this “leader” and his group utilize stock market investment (and other financial instruments) to grow their portfolio and hence have more funds for their activism – “no, I don’t want to do that, because playing the stock market is like gambling,”

Of course, proper fund investing, starting from that time and extending 20 years (until fairly recently) would have yielded an approximate 200% increase in funds.  Other investments would have yielded a greater positive outcome.

Thus, I’m sure readers of this blog will be shocked – shocked I say! – to learn that Sallis was right and The Fearless Leader wrong.  But, hey, keep on following these leaders because….affirmative action.

Oh, for godssakes:

Lord of the Rings is now being posited as a European meta-myth that can help guide us back from the brink.

I really do suspect an ethnic element in this – the “subracial soul.”  What some of us see as tiresomely boring, juvenile, and pretentious, others see as the core around to build a “European meta-myth.”  Sorry, friend, not all Europeans are buying it, only that fraction for whom “being snug in your hobbit hole” resonates as a “Faustian drive.” Sure enough, after all, burrowing into a hole in the forest and pretending to playact as semi-feudal “traditionalist” “hobbits” is better than all that scientific mumbo jumbo about “reaching the stars” (not Faustian that!) – we’ll leave all of that science and technics stuff to the Chinese, who will of course ultimately learn that they can’t power their steampunk starships because peak oil.  But them, I’m just a crazy and bitter orc and hence to be ignored.

Those wild and crazy South Asian cognitive elitists:

…a curious anecdote he relates about his own Bengali immigrant mother. Supposedly, when challenged by another woman (presumably white) for having such a large family at a time of a “population crisis,” Salam’s mother responded that “she fully intended to have a large family so that she and her offspring would displace America’s native inhabitants, just as European settlers seized the lands of the American Indians.”

That my friends is the essence, the fundamental meaning, the underlying core, the reality of “HBD race realism” – arrogant Asians and Jews replacing Whites, dispossessing Whites, gleefully subjecting Whites.  All promoted by the likes of John “self-admitted measured groveling to my Asiatic wife” Derbyshire.  Delenda est HBD!

Roissy:

The lawlessness of the FBI, CIA, and DOJ beggar belief. I’m not kidding when I say creeps like Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Strzok, Rosenstein, and Mueller should be in the docket to answer for their crimes of treason.

So why does Trump do absolutely nothing?

Race, Genes, and Breast Cancer

An explanation for “health disparities” – it’s all in the genes.

So, the System “take” is that “race is a social construct with no biological validity” and that “racial (presumably ‘social race?’) differences in health outcomes are all due to ‘White racism.”  What then to make of this, emphasis added:

PURPOSE:
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is most prevalent in young women of African ancestry (WAA) compared to women of other ethnicities. Recent studies found a correlation between high expression of the transcription factor Kaiso, TNBC aggressiveness, and ethnicity. However, little is known about Kaiso expression and localization patterns in TNBC tissues of WAA. Herein, we analyze Kaiso expression patterns in TNBC tissues of African (Nigerian), Caribbean (Barbados), African American (AA), and Caucasian American (CA) women.
METHODS:
Formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded (FFPE) TNBC tissue blocks from Nigeria and Barbados were utilized to construct a Nigerian/Barbadian tissue microarray (NB-TMA). This NB-TMA and a commercially available TMA comprising AA and CA TNBC tissues (AA-CA-YTMA) were subjected to immunohistochemistry to assess Kaiso expression and subcellular localization patterns, and correlate Kaiso expression with TNBC clinical features.
RESULTS:
Nigerian and Barbadian women in our study were diagnosed with TNBC at a younger age than AA and CA women. Nuclear and cytoplasmic Kaiso expression was observed in all tissues analyzed. Analysis of Kaiso expression in the NB-TMA and AA-CA-YTMA revealed that nuclear Kaiso H scores were significantly higher in Nigerian, Barbadian, and AA women compared with CA women. However, there was no statistically significant difference in nuclear Kaiso expression between Nigerian versus Barbadian women, or Barbadian versus AA women.
CONCLUSIONS:
High levels of nuclear Kaiso expression were detected in patients with a higher degree of African heritage compared to their Caucasian counterparts, suggesting a role for Kaiso in TNBC racial disparity.

Reality: Race is real, biologically relevant, and is reflected in important genetic differences that affect health outcomes.  The thing about reality is that it doesn’t change just because of hysterical SJW screeching. It is what it is.

Footnote: One wonders if the age differences in TNBC diagnoses comparing Nigerian and Barbadian females to “African American” females is due to the degree of European admixture in the latter.  Note that a more harsh outcome is with the former group, despite that the latter group is, according to the SJWs, more subject to “racism.”  Also note that nuclear Kaiso expression is obviously not the whole story as there was no difference between the different Negro groups for that metric, while age of diagnoses did differ. One possibility is that Kaiso does contribute to greater Negro propensity to TNBC, but that the AA group is partially protected (as I suggest above) by  a degree of White genetic admixture.

Tales of Fst: Sallis vs. Lewontin

A small scale yet informative analysis of genetic variation.

We are all aware of the “more variation within groups than between groups” argument against the biological validity of race.

Now, I believe – or at least hope – that honest population geneticists (albeit very few if any exist) know better not to make absurd claims about Lewontin’s “finding” – that it “makes race meaningless” or that “people are more closely related to members of other races than members of their own race.”  At least they won’t say that among themselves, in their publications, or among other types of academics, but maybe they’ll still try to fool the rubes; after all, from my personal experience most population geneticists are anti-White SJW leftists.

The problem is more with your rank-and-file leftist, your Tim Wise types, your opinion writers, “anthropologists,” openly political population geneticists (the majority who are apparently dishonest), writers of “popular science,” politicians, bloggers, anti-White activists, etc. who make absurd comments about “more genetic variation within than between.”  Not only do they foolishly proclaim that it invalidates the race concept by making distinctive grouping impossible – that is absurd as Edwards so cogently pointed out – but they are even in error on a more fundamental level.

You hear these people make the most bizarre claims – that “more variation within than between” means that “Whites are genetically more similar to Blacks than they are to other Whites”- comments that reflect a complete misunderstanding of the concept (to be fair, those “academics” who have for decades championed Lewontinism to the rubes have, in my opinion, intentionally attempted to promote such a misunderstanding for political reasons).

You see, the basic problem is that these people think there is something special – in the negative sense – about classifying people by race (or ethnicity) that creates the Lewontin finding.  Because there is more genetic variation within “races” – for example, more variation within Whites than between Whites and Blacks – they think that means that if you were to compare one random group of Whites to another similar group of Whites then there would be more genetic variation between those groups of Whites than within those same groups (ignore the gaps of logic in this implicit, or sometimes overt, leftist “argument).  In other words, they say or imply, something like this:

Race is such a bad way to divide people, it is so wrong and meaningless, that WHEN you divide people by race THEN you get the result that there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.  [Implication: this difference in the apportionment of variation occurs as a result of binning people by race].  If we were to bin people randomly, arbitrarily, or by how “closely related they are independent of race” (whatever that means), then there would be more variation between than within groups, but when we use this stupid artificial racial boundary we see more variation within.  Indeed, the fact that binning people by race creates a situation that genetic variation is greater within the group proves that race is an invalid concept – how can a grouping that creates “more genetic variation within groups” be better than random groupings or aracial groupings that do not (we assume) do so?

You see, this is the implied message.  Race (and ethnicity) are negatively “privileged” groupings that create the Lewontin “finding” – after all, that’s how he reported it, and after all, that’s how it’s been discussed for decades, through the lens of racial classification.

My argument has been that this is a complete misunderstanding.  See this.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

With respect to Lewontin’s well known “there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups” we need to clarify whether the 85:15 split has any meaning other than the fact that the bulk of human genetic variation is randomly distributed. 

Comparing Danes vs. Nigerians: 85% variation within each group and 15% between.  The same would be observed with Japanese vs. Iranians. 

What if you considered a mixed group of Danes + Nigerians as a single population, and the same for Japanese + Iranians?  If you then apportioned genetic variation between D+N vs. J+I you would still get more variation within than between. 

If you went in the opposite direction, and considered Japanese from Tokyo as one population and Japanese from Kyoto as another population, the same within/between distinction would hold.  If you compared one Japanese family to another, you would also see more genetic variation within the group (family) than between families. 

As has been pointed out previously by others, a significant amount of genetic variation is found within single individuals; thus, if you were to compare one Japanese individual to another,~ half the genetic variation would be found within the single individual. 

For any set of human groups, one would expect to find more genetic variation within the group than between groups.  

Hence, the “within group” component of genetic variation is found within any defined set of individuals, and is randomly distributed among individuals.  It cannot be used to assert that members of an ethny are more dissimilar than to other ethnies, nor can it be used as a legitimate argument against the reality of genetically distinct population groups. 

And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that with respect to many phenotypically relevant traits under selective pressure, racial differences in allele frequency is so great that there is actually greater genetic variation between compared to within groups.

Thus, most genetic variation is randomly distributed among individuals irrespective of classification. It has nothing to do with race (or ethnicity).  Racial classifications are not – as the leftists slyly imply – in any way special in exhibiting more variation within than between.  ALL and ANY human groups – even random, arbitrary groupings of people from within the same race or ethnic group, will show the same pattern of more variation within than between.  You can mix up groups of different races and get the same result.  You can create any arbitrary groups of individuals, in endless combination, and no matter how you do it, you will always get more variation within then between.

I doubt Lewontin and all the other academics who have foisted his “finding” on the masses were/are so stupid as to not realize this. They must understand that any and all human groupings, no matter how random or absurd, will show the same pattern.  Then, I suspect, knowing this, they decided to specifically choose racial classification as an example in order to trick people to believe that race is invalid, and do so for political reasons.

In actuality, the reality is the opposite, the genetic variation argument actually supports race, since the portion of genetic variation that is between groups is greatest when you bin people based on this concrete biological concept, and the between group variation portion is smaller (or in some cases virtually non-existent) when you bin people by random, or other arbitrary, methods.  Dividing Whites from Blacks is when you get the greatest amount of variation between, NOT dividing Whites from other Whites.  There was never reason to expect that human genetic differentiation was so extreme that the differences in genetic variation between groups would be greater than the unstructured variation found within groups.  If that was so, we would be totally different species, rather than variations (no pun intended) of one species.  

Let’s look at some data, but first, some comments on methods.  I have criticized Fst (and is variants) before – it is a lousy metric for measuring genetic distance, kinship, etc.  What it is – a measure of relative genetic variation

The fixation index is a measure of how populations differ genetically. One derivation of the fixation index is FST = (HT – HS)/HT, in which HT and HS represent heterozygosity of the total population and of the subpopulation, respectively. This derivation measures the extent of genetic differentiation among subpopulations. The value of FST can theoretically range from 0.0 (no differentiation) to 1.0 (complete differentiation, in which subpopulations are fixed for different alleles).  

A simple visualization of this idea is that of two squirrel subpopulations that are physically separated by a canyon and therefore cannot interbreed. Each subpopulation is homozygous for one allele of a SNP (in other words, each individual of one subpopulation might have a C at that position, while individuals from the other subpopulation have a T). The heterozygosity of the total population (HT) would therefore be 0.5. The heterozygosity of each subpopulation (HS) would be 0.0 (because every member of the subpopulation is homozygous). The calculation of FST in this oversimplified case would be (0.5 – 0.0)/0.5 = 1.0. In other words, 100% of the genetic variation of this population is between subpopulations, with zero variation within subpopulations.  

While a value of 1.0 for the fixation index is theoretically possible, such value in reality is usually much smaller. In general, high FST values reflect a low level of shared alleles between individuals in the sampled population and the total population. Conversely, low FST values indicate that members of the subpopulation share alleles with the total population. The proportion of individuals in a population that carry a certain allele varies over time and is influenced by the forces of migration, genetic drift, and natural selection.

But this is exactly the point – when discussing Lewontin a measure of relative genetic variation is exactly what we need, the weakness of Fst for kinship is a strength when tackling Lewontin.  In other words, we can use Fst to measure that portion of genetic variation that is between groups, with the balance being than within the groups.  For getting a precise measure of kinship, genetic similarity and difference – Fst is suboptimal.  For measuring within/between genetic variation, Fst is exactly what you need (and can give a crude estimation of distance).

After all, consider what Lewontin did – from the Wikipedia article linked above:

In the 1972 study “The Apportionment of Human Diversity”, Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined “races” (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a “race”, and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5] Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, “Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.

Let’s consider “1000 Genomes” data for 99 Nigerians and 99 CEU Whites (Northwestern Europeans from Utah – in other words, folks like Mitt Romney).  Let’s consider three SNPs and calculate Fst for different examples of groupings. 

First, a direct comparison of these two racial groups (Nigerians vs. CEU Whites), as it is usually done – calculating Fst of different distinct population groups compared to each other.

(UPDATE: I have changed the data format after getting criticism from some correspondents that the original version was not optimally clear to the layman. Hopefully the new version is better).  The first data:

Nigerians vs. CEU Whites

Fst = 0.1718

We observe the usual result.  The Fst between these two groups is 0.1718.  So, essentially, 17% of the total genetic variation inherent in the total of 198 individuals is that between the two racial groups of 99 each, and 83% is found within each group of 99.  The calculations from the Left always end there, with heavy breathing and triumphant cries of “more variation within than between” when we classify by “race.”  Let us continue the analysis.

Let us now arbitrarily break up each of the two populations into three subgroups of equal numbers (three groups 33 Nigerians and three groups of 33 CEU Whites) and measure Fst comparing now the intra-racial groups (Nigerians s. Nigerians and Whites vs. Whites).

Nigerians broken up into three “populations” of 33 individuals each:

Three arbitrary groups of Nigerians

1 vs. 2  Fst =   0.0024

1 vs. 3  Fst = – 0.0150

2 vs. 3  Fst =  -0.0027

Negative Fst (in red) is essentially the same as zero.  Thus, there is very little to no fraction of the total variation between these groups, virtually all within.  So – hey! – “more variation within than between” even in randomly picked individuals from single ethnic groups, exactly as I predicted (and which is consistent with simple common sense – something leftists lack).  Of course, this is not surprising (or shouldn’t be), comparing Nigerians to Nigerians there should not be a significant difference in variation between the groups, as the individuals are derived from the same population. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT. When comparing races, we DO see a significant fraction of between group variation, because races are distinct and valid biological entities.  The fact that the between group variation in the inter-racial case is smaller than within group variation does not invalidate race – why would one imagine that human races would be so differentiated that you would have most of the variation between groups?  Most of that variation is random. One sees any significant Fst only when comparing different population groups, because they are distinct. The same pattern holds with dog breeds – more variation within than between (see below). In the Nigerian example presented here, there may be a lot of variation within groups, but that’s on an individual-to-individual level; the group in general is similar to itself as shown when arbitrarily broken up into sub-groups.

And of course, this individual-to-individual variation exists not only within groups but between groups, in fact between all individuals, and it does NOT in any way mean that members of a group are genetically more similar to members of other groups than they are to their own. The fact that group members are virtually ALWAYS more similar to same-group members has been shown (many times in fact and can be observed via private genetic testing – remember when Decode was giving ethnic similarity matches, even with 23andMe data?) – see here.

When looking at many markers at the same time, groups and the individuals within can be easily distinguished racially – see Edwards’ article for the logic there, and why Lewontin’s finding is a “fallacy” with respect to racial classification.

I would also like to point out that genetic variation is not the same as genetic difference.  Indeed, on a fundamental level, these concepts are not the same.  Degrees of variation is not the same as difference (or distance). If one were to catalog the types of ethnic populations extant in, say, New York City and San Diego, there would be differences.  One could clearly distinguish between the two – more Jews and Puerto Ricans and Dominicans and Caribbean Blacks in New York, and more Mexicans in San Diego, among other differences.  The populations of these two cities are distinct, and “distant” in their differences.  But the internal differences are even greater: consider the myriad ethnic types in NYC.  So, the ethnic variation within these cities is greater than that between, even though the two cities have highly distinct, easily classifiable populations, and these differences are not “trivial” but affect every aspect of life in those areas.

Back to the main point: if we apply the same SJW racial comments to the intra-group data, we’ll have to say that because Nigerians exhibit more variation within the group than between groups then there are no such thing as Nigerians, and yet at the same time the groups of Nigerians have low to Fst in comparison with each other, but significant Fst when compared to Whites and Asians.  So, at the same time, Nigerians do and no not exist as a group, a logical impossibility.  

And if, as the Left claims, Whites are more genetically different from each other than from Blacks, then White-White Fst should be greater than that of White-Black Fst, and one should see a considerable portion of the genetic variation in a White-White comparison to be between groups of Whites as opposed to within. 

[Note: In a logical sense, the leftist argument is absurd – they would clam that between group variation of the three White sub-groups would be great precisely because the amount of within group variation of the original White group is so large, and measure this with Fst, which compares the two.  But this is, again, the point: the claims of the Left are inherently and logically absurd, and when followed through to their conclusion leads one to a logical paradox – the greater the portion of within group variation then the greater the portion of between group variation when looking solely at that group.  On the other hand, Fst is a relative measure, and one can argue that the White-White comparison is qualitatively different from the logical perspective from the White-Black one. In either case, my approach achieves its goal – either the Left’s arguments are inherently illogical, OR, if you want to claim that their arguments are logical, I show in this post that the arguments are factually wrong, as the data yield the opposite results from leftist predictions].

The data for CEU Utah Whites:

Three arbitrary groups of CEU Whites

1 vs. 2  Fst =  -0.0094

1 vs. 3  Fst =   0.0072

2 vs. 3  Fst =  -0.0041

Again, minuscule to zero Fst (negative [red font] = zero). Once again, we observe the same “more within than between” pattern with arbitrary divisions of a group of humans.  Note that Fst is greatest with the inter-racial comparison (0.1718), precisely because races are valid biological entities with the greatest genetic distance between them (while Fst is not the best measure for distance, it does reflect differences in genetic distance, so is valid for such relative comparisons).

None of this should come as a surprise, since population genetics studies looking at Fst of different parts of a single country (indigenous natives) – such as, say, Germany or Italy, show relatively low Fst.  Nevertheless, it is useful to demonstrate that an arbitrary intra-population division not only mimics the racial finding (more variation within than between), but does so in a more extreme manner.

The preceding has been an appetizer; now we get to the main course.  The twin tenets of the radical Left view of Lewontin’s “finding” are:

1. Race (or even ethnicity) is an especially wrong classification scheme that (implied: specifically) results in “more genetic variation within than between” groups, because it artificially separates all the people of different “races” (leftist scare quotes) who are actually genetically similar.

2. Thus, the “more within than between” means that groups like Nigerians and Northwest European Utah Whites are more genetically similar to members of the other group than they are to members of their own group.

By now, we should know that this is nonsense, as is the claim that races don’t exist, but let’s continue to take this leftist farce at face value.  If these twin tenets are true, then arbitrarily creating multi-“racial” groups – say, random mixed groups each consisting of Nigerians and Utah Whites together in the same groups – would result in a larger Fst comparing these mixed groups, with relatively more variation between and relatively less within.  Or – let us be more charitable with all the leftist delusions and logical impossibilities.  Let us merely state that if the Left is correct, and that conceptions of race and ethnicity are meaningless due to the apportionment of genetic variation, then, at minimum, Fst comparisons of the mixed groups should be no less than that of between the racially defined groups.  That’s the most conservative interpretation of the Left, and the one that makes them seem less stupid and illogical.  What’s the data then?  Here it is (negative Fst again in red font):

Three arbitrary groups of mixed Nigerians and CEU Whites together

1 vs. 2  Fst =   0.0029

1 vs. 3  Fst =   0.0105

2 vs. 3  Fst =  -0.0047

This is crucially important. Mixing the two groups together has greatly reduced or eliminated Fst – it has essentially eliminated the between group genetic variation.  Here, virtually all the variation is within group.  This is a complete and perfect refutation of the extreme leftist (mis)interpretation of Lewontin’s “findings.”  The results from comparing variation between and within mixed race groups, contrasted to that obtained from monoracial groups, is exactly the opposite of what would obtain if leftist fantasies were correct.

One could continue playing around with genetic data in this manner, with larger data sets, random number generators to form groups, etc., but the point has already been established.  Thus, you can pick names randomly out of any diverse big city phonebook – New York for example – and use these random people to form groups, and if you would analyze the genetic variation of these random and arbitrary aracial groupings you will find more variation within than between AND a smaller Fst compared to real inter-racial comparisons.

Now, it can be – and should be – argued that the arguments and findings in this blog post are simple, common-sense, intuitive, even trivial.  OF COURSE random groups would have even more genetic variation within and OF COURSE racial groups will have a larger Fst, indicative of a larger share of variation between.  Of course races are real biological groups and of course the Left is wrong.  But given leftist hysteria and mendacity over race and genetics, the issue had to be formally demonstrated, which it was here.  It is unfortunate one must waste time “proving” things so obvious it is the equivalent of “the sky is blue” but so it goes in the modern world.

A comparison with the situation with dog breeds is also instructive.  There is much about dog breed genetics online, from both the Right and Left, and much of that is misleading; instead let’s read what an expert on the subject has to say, concentrating on the implications for Lewontinism:

The phenotypic diversity of the world’s 350 to 400 dog breeds is mirrored in their genetic diversity. Although most breeds have existed for less than two centuries, the level of diversity (FST) in dogs is about twice that found in humans (FST averages 0.28 among dog breeds).

So, we see that due to intense artificial selection, Fst between dog breeds is about twice of that between human races, despite the fact that many dog breeds are recent developments in evolutionary time.  Very well.  The most important fact that we observe here is that despite all of this intense artificial selection and the vast phenotypic differences between breeds, Fst for dog breeds is 0.28, meaning that the vast majority of the genetic variation – 72% in fact – is found within breeds; only 28% is between.  Consider the huge – existential in fact, defining the identities and utility of different dog types – marked heritable differences between dog breeds in physical appearance, physical capabilities, size, intelligence, and behavior and note that despite all these enormous differences there is still “more genetic variation within than between.”  More genetic variation within dog breeds than between!  What would the Left say?  Is the difference between a vicious Pit Bull and a placid Pug merely the figment of your imagination?  Does “more variation within than between” mean that the differences between a Chihuahua and a Mastiff are merely a “social construct?”  Do we claim that “dog breeds do not exist?”  Now consider again the vast differences between dog breeds and ponder the implications of the fact that human inter-racial between-group genetic variation reaches a full 50% of that between dog breeds.  Once again: the differences between humans is a full 50% of the enormity of difference between dog breeds that was derived from a regimen of constant intense and directed artificial selection. Racial differences are not only real, they are staggeringly large.

Let’s finish up by going back to the Wikipedia article on the Lewontin fallacy.

….biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that “What is unclear is what this has to do with ‘race’ as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin’s analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards’ critique does not contradict that interpretation.

Typical Jewish flim-flam. Marks proposes an unachievable, unrealistic strawman definition of “race” so as to declare that it does not exist. Given the reality of unstructured (“random”) genetic variation that exists between any and all groupings of humans, it stands to reason that grouping by race will also show the same intra-group variation.  BUT THE GROUPS ARE STILL DIFFERENT AND MEMBERS OF THE SAME GROUP WILL ALWAYS BE MORE SIMILAR MEMBERS OF THEIR SAME GROUP COMPARED TO OTHER GROUPS.  That is what race is, no one says that a race has to consist of genetically homogeneous individuals.  Are families – apart from identical twins – genetically homogeneous?  Only in comparison to other families.  Each family will have considerable internal variation.  But they are different. Marks states “the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial.”  So, he declares that the fact that humans can reliably be allotted to different groups – the essence of race – is trivial, before postulating his strawman version.  Well, Marks, the “trivial” differences lead to differences of phenotype that are acted upon by various forms of selection, thus affecting the underlying gene frequencies, and, hence, the adaptive fitness of the individuals in question. The underlying essence of life is natural selection and adaptive fitness based on genetic differences and kinship.  Thus, according to Marks, the fundamental basis of life on Earth – the genetic distinctiveness of organisms and their representation in subsequent generations – is “trivial.”  Genetic differences, no matter how ‘trivial,” can increase or decrease in frequency and thus constitute adaptive interests for evolved organisms, like humans.  To deny the fundamental meaning of this with misleading verbiage, to consider representation in the next generation is “trivial” is anti-science and anti-reality.  Note to leftists: the variation equivalent of halfway from a Chihuahua and a Mastiff is not a “trivial” amount of genetic variation.

The real translation from the likes of Marks: racial preservation of Whites is “trivial.”  That’s what it is all about, of course.  Nonsense about races having to be hermetically sealed clones completely variant from other clonal races is just Jewish meme wars against White ethnic genetic interests.

The view that, while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist, this does not lend biological validity to racial groups, was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.

Err…” geographic clustering of biological traits” (including gene frequencies) is precisely what race is, so if such clustering exists, race exists.  I suppose one can, like Marks or any other mendacious Jew (a redundancy) redefine “race” using unrealistic criteria so you can proclaim “race does not exist” but that is meaningless.  One can define human” in like manner.  Thus, a “human” is any nine foot tall hominid with naturally blue hair who has an IQ of 10,000.  Such individuals do not exist, hence there are no such thing as humans. QED.

In summary:

1. There is nothing special, defining, or “privileged” about race (or ethnicity with respect to “more genetic variation within than between.”  Any and all human groups or mixtures of groups, no matter how arbitrarily or randomly chosen will always exhibit the same pattern, because the pattern is due to individual human variation and that variation is present no matter how groups of humans are arraigned. Making a big deal of this “finding” when it comes to race derives from leftist sociopolitical motivations.

2. The “more variation within than between” in no way invalidates the race concept, as Edwards (and I) pointed out.  Even Marks concedes classification is possible; he just labels it “trivial” – and this subjective assertion is also motivated by leftist social and political beliefs.  The apportionment of genetic variation certainly does not invalidate genetic differences and similarities between groups, and the greater genetic distances between the major racial groups.

3. Strawman definitions of race implying that races have to be genetically homogeneous are ludicrous and also motivated by leftist concerns.  Given that genetic variation is randomly distributed among all people, such will as a matter of course be found within groups, including races.  However, Fst increases as we consider ever more distinct racial groups, as an increasing portion of the total genetic variation derives from between group differences.  Given the large totality of such differences, a consistent distinctive genome is sufficient to define biological races, along with the background of random variation.  And that’s not trivial.  An analogy would be an extremely important radio message, of life-dependent importance, that you are listening to among a larger degree of random noise, of static.  The static may be louder, but it is the message that is important, and by proper adjustments to your methodology, you can cancel out the static and listen to the message.  For humans, the message is nothing less than our adaptive fitness, the over-riding importance of genetic continuity, of genetic interests – the ultimate interests.

A Bit of Racial Reality

It’s sad that one must continuously reinforce the obvious and proven fact of the biological basis of race.

This is one of Strom’s better efforts, emphasis added:

An article at the Harvard University Web site (and Harvard is heavily-Jewish in both student population and administration) argues that since “almost half” of alleles in the human genome are found in all seven major regions of the globe, there can’t be human races. Now, that’s really a bizarre argument. It means that by their own admission most human alleles (genetic variants) are not found in all regions, yet they persist in their claims. The article even admits (after invoking Donald Trump as one cause for all this terrible belief in human races — give me a break) that “7.4% of over 4000 alleles [studied] were specific to one geographical region” — that’s almost 300 alleles, and 7.4 per cent. — as we shall see in a moment — is a huge degree of difference, more than enough to account for human racial variation, even human-animal species variations. As one commenter pointed out, in 2012 the National Library of Medicine published a study of bears showing that having just half of the alleles shared among two populations was enough to prove that the populations were not only different races but entirely different species! In the scientists’ exact words, this degree of genetic difference was consistent with the two populations being “different species with little or no gene flow among extant populations.” So, if two groups share about half of their alleles, it proves they’re different species — if they’re bears. But if they’re humans, it proves the exact opposite — not only are they all the same species, but there’s not even any racial variation among them. It’s pretty obvious that someone is lying here, and I don’t think it’s the guys and gals studying the bears.

By the way, I call “BS” on the idea that Watson and Venter are more similar genetically to a Korean than they are to each other. If you sample sufficient number of alleles, that is NOT going to be the case.  See this.

As the authors used more and more markers to compare the three major racial groups (Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans), the less stringent clustering measurements rapidly fell to a 0% overlap, as expected from previous studies.  What about the more stringent measurement “w”, which looks at comparisons between individuals, and does not consider group data?  Once the authors reached 1,000 (or more) markers, the genetic overlap between these groups essentially reached zero. It is useful at this point to quote the authors about this fundamentally important finding: 
This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically more similar to members of their own group.
With respect to the question of whether individual members of one group may be genetically more similar to members of another group, they write:
However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘never’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
Thus, the naive “anti-racist” view, actually stated at times (e.g., the NOVA program on race), that it is possible for individual Europeans and Africans to be more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own race, is simply false.  Any such “finding” is simply due to insufficient numbers of DNA markers being used.
With an adequate methodology, individual members of the major racial groups will always be more similar to members of their own group than to members of other groups.  Some may not like this and deem it “racist”, but these are the scientific facts, nonetheless.

Read this, which, by the way, is from a Jewish researcher, emphasis added:

What makes the current study, published in the February issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics, more conclusive is its size. The study is by far the largest, consisting of 3,636 people who all identified themselves as either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic. Of these, only five individuals had DNA that matched an ethnic group different than the box they checked at the beginning of the study. That’s an error rate of 0.14 percent. 
Neil Risch, PhD, a UC-San Francisco professor who led the study while he was professor of genetics at Stanford, said that the findings are particularly surprising given that people in both African-American and Hispanic ethnic groups often have a mixed background. “We might expect these individuals to cross several different genetic clusters,” he noted. That’s not what the study found. Instead, each self-identified racial/ethnic group clumped into the same genetic cluster.
The people in this research were from 15 locations within the United States and in Taiwan. This broad distribution means that the results are representative of racial/ethnic groups throughout the United States rather than a small region that might not reflect the population nationwide.
For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes but are genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of forms at the same location.
Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch’s team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.
“This shows that people’s self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background,” Risch said.

And here is one of my old articles on the subject at Amren.

Also see this.

However, racial reality is not the same thing as “racial purity.”