Jewish Identity and Odds and Ends

Various items.

I agree with those who do not consider Jews White, but it goes beyond a simple “they’re Semitic” comment. One needs to look at the totality of Identity. As regards the biology, I have written (and podcasted) multiple times about Jewish genetics. The Ashkenazim are a mix of Middle Easterners, Southern Europeans, and Northern/Eastern Europeans (other Jewish types are even more distant from Europeans). In addition, these Jews have undergone centuries of endogamy and selection to make them genetically and phenotypically even more distinct from Europeans. Culturally, Jews belong to the “Magian” High Culture, not the Western/”Faustian” one from which they have been in conflict with; in ancient times, they were similarly separate from, and in conflict with, the Classical High Culture. Historically, Jews identify with the Middle East and with the ancient Hebrews, not with Europe and Europeans, and when they decided to create a modern homeland that was done as Israel, in the Levant. Finally, Jews consider themselves to be, and are considered by many others to be, a distinct people, different from Europeans, from Westerners.  Jews are considered to be a minority group, they cannot be simply equated with White Gentiles. Jews are not an indigenous European ethnic group.

The idea of heritable behavioral differences between groups needs to be analyzed (like IQ was) via methods such as twin studies, adoption studies, looking at immigrants vs. the same ethnies in their own homelands, etc. Even the individualism vs .collectivism issue, which has been studies and with some genetic evidence obtained, could benefit from a more stringent analysis.  Are behaviors consistent, and linked to ancestry, as opposed to environment? Of course, things can be more complicated than typical simplistic HBD “thinking.”  It can be both genes and environment. Possibly, the genetic component will be reliably expressed only in certain environments. Possibly, some differences may only manifest when large numbers of people with the same traits live together, creating positive feedback and threshold synergy – in this cases behaviors, even on an individual level, would be more manifest in a homeland than in a Diaspora (and general environmental factors will influence this as well). For example, herd a lot of Italians together in a concentration (e.g., in Italy) and you get singing on balconies.  More dispersed Italian populations (e.g., in America) would not be so triggered to burst into sing while standing on a balcony. I suspect that all of these factors play a role. The childish HBD theme of absolutely deterministic genetic behavior in a wide range of traits is unlikely to be strictly true.  But it does not need to be true for heritable behavioral differences (to the extent they exist) to be important.  If predispositions to certain behaviors can manifest in certain contexts, then that is meaningful. That’s how cultural differences likely come about.

Another issue is the HBD cold climate = high IQ argument, followed by the struggle to explain why Eskimos are not all geniuses. While, all else being equal, cold is more selective for intelligence than warmth, I believe that that real drivers of enhanced human intelligence over time are seasonal variations and population density and its consequences. So, Eskimos in the Arctic are smarter than tropical Negroes, but not as smart as populations inhabiting areas that go through seasonal changes.  After all, all the Eskimos needed to adapt to was constant arctic frigidity.  Once that is figured out, it is a constant environment.  Seasonal change, also coupled to long term climate change (so it is not that the same seasons play out exactly the same year after year, there are constant variation), is more conductive to intelligence. Also, there is a low population density in the Arctic.  That not only limits opportunity for mutation, selection, assortative mating, etc., but also lacks the selective pressure for intelligence in more complex societies, with more social interaction, specialized societal roles and occupations, government and politics, resource competition and distribution, warfare, etc.  But expect the HBDers to simply gibber “cold…high IQ” and leave it at that.

In Faye’s Why We Fight:

Decadent civilizations designate their friends as enemies and their enemies as friends.

Sounds like Der Movement, which spurns the White ethnics who tried to join in good faith, while worshipping Color in WN 3.0 and, in HBD race realism, obsessing over the intellectual and behavioral superiority of Jews and Asians.  Also, consider the banning, blacklisting, and defaming of the “paranoid insane crap” Sallis compared to the eager embrace of the Lipster and Our Man in Arkansas.

Anti-Booth

Opposing politicized science. 

Look at this shocking display of a lack of scientific objectivity and integrity.

[Thanks to Gaston from Gab pointing that out]

What a mendacious piece of filth this Booth is.

That confirms everything I always write concerning the highly political nature of population genetics. Booth’s agenda is NOT science; it is politics. It is an admission that politically-motivated “scientists” are going to intentionally, and with malice aforethought, LIE to the public about the meaning of genetic studies, in this case about ancient DNA samples, including LYING about the identities of the ancient peoples and their objectively determined relationships with modern populations.

This is why population genetics studies need to be examined with an extremely skeptical eye – because these studies are being performed and presented to advance political agendas. The authors sometimes OPENLY admit it, as in this case. And it is not only the interpretative section of a paper (e.g. the Discussion) that requires close examination. In addition, methodology can be chosen and modified to yield desired results – for example, the choice of reference populations for supervised admixture analysis or the choice of population comparisons in PCA and for other types of analysis. Population genetics studies are very sensitive to “input” with respect to what the “output” is and it is therefore very easy for population geneticists to skew the data in a particular direction based upon how the data were generated.  And omission is as important as commission – when have you seen researchers ever do direct kinship analyses of human populations? When have you seen genetic integration approaches applied to human genetics data? Approaches that would produce politically incorrect data are avoided, while the methods that are utilized can be, and are, designed so as to obfuscate truth. Couple all of that with left-wing political bias in interpretation and – presto! – “woke” “science” is generated.

Real scientists should objectively and dispassionately present and discuss their data, and the sociopolitical interpretations and ramifications of that data are for others to determine. Science is not about putting political “spin” on data and is not about manipulating the work and lying about it in order to achieve particular politically-relevant objectives.  Booth and all of the rest of his ilk should be rejected by the scientific community.

Population genetics papers – and certainly anything by Booth and colleagues – must be carefully scrutinized for signs of bias and for politically-motivated content. Of course, scientists have the right to privately engage in political activism (and I wish more would be on the Right instead of an almost unanimous slant to the Left). However, they need to be careful not to let political bias intrude into their research and contaminate the science. 

It is inevitable that some degree of unintentional bias will slip into research, particularly with respect to topics (like population genetics) that have sociopolitical implications. That is human nature, after all.  That is why readers always need to be alert to potential bias and need to read papers and scientific pronouncements with a skeptical eye. But what we see with the likes of Booth is much worse – it is the openly admitted intentional injection of politics and political bias into the work, which is then presented to the public as “science.” That alone is unacceptable and dangerous, but it gets even worse – much worse – when the openly admitted goal is to obfuscate truth and mislead the public about the science for political objectives.

After all, it is objectively true that, in the majority of cases, ancient peoples from given territories are genetically more similar to extant indigenous populations in those same territories than they are to later, intrusive elements, such as more recent migrants. Indeed, there is often an ancestral relationship, to at least some degree, between the ancient peoples and the modern indigenous populations. This is uncontroversial and accepted, with no problem whatsoever, for Africa and Asia, and it is certainly also well-accepted for the Americas, where, often, today’s Native Americans exercise legal control over access to ancient American remains, on the premise (accepted by all) that the ancient peoples were the ancestors of extant Native Americans. The only exception to the rule of accepting ancient-modern population links is, of course, Europe. The native, indigenous peoples of Europe are denied their basic human rights and their fundamental sense of identity, and have their deep connections to ancient Europeans obfuscated, for purely political reasons, with one stated rationale being “to protect marginalized populations.”  It would seem to me that, given this unequal treatment, and this denial of basic human rights, it are the Europeans who are truly the marginalized populations. Indeed, denying the group identity of a people and denying their ancestral origins and their “blood and soil” ties, which are clearly demonstrated by both genetic and history analyses, is the first step toward genocide of that people.

In summary, the political activity of Booth and his ilk, being injected into the scientific discourse as it is, must be unalterably opposed.  When the likes of Booth spread their poison, please use this post (and whatever others like it that you may find) as an antidote to Boothite anti-White venom.

Indigenous Again

That definition once again.

In response to the offensive Salon article mentioned at Amren, I’d like to once again offer my definition of indigenous:

A group is indigenous to a territory when they are the oldest extant group that underwent ethnogenesis in that territory and cannot be said to be indigenous to any other territory.

Also see this.

A human group is indigenous when it is the oldest existing population to come into being as a distinct ethny, different from any other, in a specific territory.

So, while the Sami are indigenous to Lapland in Northern Scandinavia, all of the various ethnies of Europe are equally indigenous to their native homelands.

My definition of indigenous is fair, comprehensive, and serves White interests, but is of course ignored by the “movement;” after all, the Eloi must maintain their cordon sanitaire to protect against the dastardly Morlocks and their runty penned up chicken ideas.

By the way, speaking of the Sami, Der Movement (and Raciology) weeps (emphasis added):

Autosomal genetic analyses found that the Sámi people carry a significant amount of genome originating from an East Asian/Siberian source population, best represented by the North Asian Nganasan people, a Samoyedic people. This East Asian/Siberian component is found in mostly all European peoples at low frequency, higher among Northeastern Europeans, where it range between ~9% to ~30% among different Fennoscandian populations, with a average peak of 25% among the Sámi people. The specific East Asian/Siberian like ancestry is proposed to have arrived in Northeast Europe during the early Iron Age, linked to the arrival of Uralic languages. The East Asian/Siberian Nganasan-related component is also detected among ethnic northeast Russians at a frequency of 8%.

Some Thoughts on Separation

Consider.

Consider this:

…since reducing the non-White proportion of the U.S. population to 10% would still require the separation and removal of over 100 million non-Whites, or over three-quarters of them, it raises the question, “Why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there.” It seems arbitrary…

By the same logic, since achieving McCulloch’s objective would require a massive upheaval of American society, possibly even a civil war, then why stop at the point of sacrificing part of the USA for multiracial and Amerindian nations?  Isn’t that arbitrary?  Why not go all the way and take it all, send the non-Whites back to their homelands, including the Amerindians back to Siberia (albeit Russia may have objections)? An argument would be that White Americans have an innate sense of fairness and would not want to deprive non-White “Americans” of an American homeland, or that such a homeland or homelands would lessen non-White resistance to separation. 

With respect to the second consideration, I do not buy it. Any time Whites want to separate, even in the informal manner of de facto residential segregation, non-Whites (implicitly) insist that they have a fundamental human right to have access to Whites. That’s why we have forced racial integration. I doubt that some homeland out in the desert will lessen resistance. With respect to the first consideration – White perceptions of “fairness” – that is undoubtedly the main issue here, let us be realistic where we are right now. About half of the White American population are masochistic leftists who believe that even multiracial “America First” civic nationalism is “racist” and “fascist.”  A large fraction of the other half of the White American population are aracial civic nationalists; like Tucker Carlson they believe we are all “stuck with each other” and they would reject separation as unrealistic, evil, or insane. Further, demographic change means that even if you can convince a majority of White Americans to support separation, a democratic and orderly solution is unlikely. The solution likely requires physical resistance, a scenario that bodes ill for a declining and aging White American population as time goes on.  

In any case, given these realities, in order for White Americans to support separation, and to make the necessary sacrifices, the situation for White America will by necessity have degenerated to such a point of desperation that it is unlikely that even “High Trust” Whites would care much about “fairness” to non-Whites.  At that point, where outcomes would be determined by blood and iron and not by debates and voting, these detailed plans and non-White homeland maps, never mind the phenotype charts and the to-the-decimal-point 23andMe “data,” would all be irrelevant. At that point, the efforts needed to convince Whites, in conjunction with the bad negative conditions that would make Whites amenable to be convinced, making them willing for extreme measures, would be such that “why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there,” would be a fair assessment with respect to the division of territory.  If Whites would be willing to fight for most of America, why not for all of America? If conditions get so bad that even cucked Whites are willing to fight for survival, would they really care about being “fair” to non-Whites or to White leftists and other traitors who brought us to this condition? (Note: Many of these same arguments hold with respect to repatriation of non-Whites from Europe; but here I focus on the American White ethnostate scenario.)

I’m not trying to be obstructionist – I support the ethnostate idea and have written about it previously (although I disagree with others on the details).  But we must be realistic.  First, we are far, far away from having any significant number of Whites even thinking about supporting the idea. To get to that point will take time and, unfortunately, much White suffering. Talk about “winning the hearts and minds of Whites” does not impress me, since the people saying such things have failed for decades, and lack the self-awareness to realize that their bizarre ideas (phenotype charts, decimal point test measurements, etc. – denounced as “Nuremberg Law-like” even by some TOO commentators: “Phenotype this” and “autosomal that” and soon we’re off to the races with phrenology and the Nuremberg laws. No one is going to accept this stuff. Look at the world we’re operating in. This kind of rhetoric is just not going to fly) are not attractive, and are unlikely ever to be attractive (even in the dire conditions discussed above, to most White Americans.  

Second, considering that if the ethnostate does happen, it will likely happen in chaos, in blood and iron, and not through parliamentary debates and scholarly white papers, whatever plans and ideas we develop need to be as fundamental, simple, and streamlined as possible. It is possible that even what I outline below is too complex for the coming reality. In the dark future ahead it is possible that “look White, think White, and act White” will be sufficient (although in my opinion, that would allow for too many Jews, White traitors, and other undesirables to slip through). Whatever the case, I doubt that the Whites of tomorrow will have much use for calipers, phenotype charts, or 23andMe “spit tubes,” while they are fighting for racial survival, or after the struggle is over and a new homeland needs to be built.

This comment about McCulloch’s third section is I think relevant to my own comments:

Some White Guysays:

January 28, 2021 at 8:40 pm

I read the third part of the article yesterday and have been thinking about it since. I have to say I am disappointed in the offered “solution”. It is a rehash of past proposals to divvy up the USA, which will never happen. Texans and others are not going to agree to having their states made into the corral areas for the mixed race peoples of North America. Absurd.

The people who run every element of our countries have a firm grip on all they control. They are making it very clear at present that we have no power and no control over any of it. Anyone who has spoken up is currently being arrested and/or ostracized from society.

They are not going to just let us do what we want. These types of “solutions” are beyond ridiculous. Anyone advocating for such things will be squashed like a bug by those who rule us. It is cruel and immature to suggest to people that such things are possible.

Call me a defeatist if you will, but I prefer realistic realism to fairy tales.

And in response to that comment:

Canadianersays:

January 28, 2021 at 9:20 am

Good post.

Lots of people have pie in the sky fantasies about ethnostates and seem to forget that we are a powerless ethnic group with no evidence that we are able to work together to achieve big goals.

You are absolutely right that the first order goal is to survive. We can do that by building strong communities. Big political schemes come second to survival and the basic process of “re-tribalizing” where we basically learn what it means to act tribally and how to achieve tribal goals.

As a side note, I agree that we do need to have contingency plans for Whites surviving as a stateless people in the event that the ethnostate idea is not actualized, or is not actualized for a very, very long time.  

With respect for the ethnostate, simplified considerations for the ingroup:

Biological:

To simplify and streamline, and to be most fair and reasonable, we consider as follows. Individuals who derive familial/genealogical ancestry from any or several of the native, indigenous peoples of Europe would be included in the ethnostate. The vast majority of White Americans know their ethnic background and their genealogy can be traced back to Europe, to a satisfactory degree, if required. That is sufficient. What if such cannot be determined? People may be adopted, or there may be a lack of knowledge for another reason, or there may be a good reason to suspect someone is being dishonest. For those specific cases, genetic testing can be considered, in the rational comparative manner described below.

What about “White Hispanics” or individuals who may have some low-level fractional Amerindian (or other) New World admixture (or whatever other low level admixture)?  This can be judged on a case-by-case basis, judging based on overall assimilability (phenotype, identity, intelligence and behavior).  In some cases, genetic testing could be considered, also  as described below.

The vast majority of determinations can be very simple and streamlined – of European ethnic genealogical ancestry or not? The minority of other cases can then be judged as indicated in the preceding paragraph, above. Thus, for most cases, there will be no need for bizarre alphabetical phenotypic charts or “testing” or whatever.

Cultural:

Only people who are part of the Western/Orthodox civilizational background – the Western High Culture with Eastern European Orthodox added on – should be included. From a religious perspective, what’s compatible with this background would be: Christian, pagan, agnostic, or atheist. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are not compatible. Unfortunately, I do not advise excluding homosexuals, since they would be regenerated each generation. It is my opinion that the vast majority of homosexuality (particularly for men, but for some women as well) is biologically determined. So, unless you exile homosexuals every generation, a strict exclusion makes no sense. However, we should not accept gay cabals or general sexual degeneracy.

Political:

Individuals who have in their private and/or public histories significant anti-White activities should not be included. While the bulk of White liberals are probably redeemable, hardcore activists and political figures are not. Would we want the likes of Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel in a White ethnostate?

Comparative Genetic Testing:

In general, the large majority of the White population have clearly defined genealogical roots in Europe and that is sufficient.  

For other specific cases, any genetic testing must be performed in a comparative not absolute manner. It is childishly naive and unscientific – and I have pointed out many times beyond the capability of the methodology – to set some hard-and-fast base-line (e.g., 91.567%) and then make distinctions based on that (91.658% good, 91.566% bad). Instead, comparative evaluations should be made – establishing what the “ethnotype” range of different European ethnies are and then observing whether the “unknown” is in the same general range.  For example, there are no European ethnies whose members would be 15% Amerindian and 10% sub-Saharan African.  Anyone with such a profile is obviously not of Old World European stock. Again, this would not be a case of rigid boundaries, but a common sense evaluation. If someone is 1% past the range of an ethny they claim membership in, that’s reasonable. 15% is not. If one wanted to be more objective, one could establish the standard deviation of genetic variation within an ethnotype range, but this possibly gets to the point of nitpicking.  It is fairly simple to ascertain if the genetic profile of an unknown sample is generally consistent with what would expect from various European ethnic groups. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that, e.g., someone who is ~40% South Asian is either recently admixed or a Roma (and the timing of admixture could be determined – but in either case, 40% South Asian is obviously not consistent with any European ethny).

The relative objectivity of this approach derives from the fact that any flaws and imprecision in the methodology (that exist and will always be present to some extent) apply to both the known and unknown samples equally, and as long as the comparisons are done in a “fuzzy” manner, without absolute strict boundaries, then the inherent imprecision is not a barrier for making useful comparisons.

The other advantage of this approach is that it, by necessity, includes all European ethnies as the known reference samples. Thus, if a person claims to be of ethny X then they must be compared to X, not to Y or Z or any other group.

What about Hispanics and other groups that may have New World admixture, etc.?  The approach applied there would be to determine a set of “knowns” – for example “White Hispanics” determined to be acceptably assimilable based on chosen characteristics (phenotype, for example) – then determine the genetic range of these “knowns” and, finally, compare, in a general sense, whether the “unknowns” are similar to that range. 

But, my views and proposals may well as be as unrealistic as those promoted by others. However, I stand by my comments as being somewhat more reasonable; at the very least, the proposal, re: genetic analysis is the only semi-objective rational one I’ve seen. The only way to deal with imprecision and the myriad flaws inherent in these genetic approaches is to use a comparative analysis, utilizing fuzzy boundaries, and making sure each and every European ethny – and this includes regional sections of nations (East vs. West England, North vs. South Germany, North vs. South Italy – with Sicily and Sardinia each being separately represented – North vs. South Russia, Flemish vs. Walloons, North vs. South France, etc.) – are represented as “known” reference samples.  In summary, besides offering my own ideas on the subject, a major criticism I have of “movement” separation schemes revolve around them being unrealistic and somewhat delusional based on the current situation we find themselves in, and the lack of self-awareness with respect to some of the bizarre and esoteric aspects of some of the obsessions of the individuals in question. There is also a lack of self-awareness with respect to decades of unending failure; none of these people seem to ever ask why their target audience rejects their message.

It is possible my ideas are all wrong as well. However, I argue otherwise, which is my right (and others will argue for their own ideas, as is their right). 

Of course, there is a difference between prescriptive and descriptive. It is certainly true that if the ideas of McCulloch or of myself or anyone else is prescriptively necessary than that argument should be made, even if the current descriptive situation with respect to White attitudes makes the prescription seem unrealistic. We cannot rely on description to make policy. After all, a purely descriptive approach – basing policy on what White public opinion currently is – would be to promote the “racial status quo” (like Weissberg) or to promote Sailerian “citizenism” (aka civic nationalism). However, I argue that McCulloch and others are also prescriptively wrong and I promote my own prescription instead, for all the reasons given here and in all my previous work on the subject.

But description should not be ignored.  Although we should not let description determine what we offer in general as a prescription, it does affect the form in which our prescription can take and also definitely influences the probability of success for our prescription, and, most practically, affects the approach we should take in achieving our prescriptive objectives. 

Ultimately, we need things like opinion polling and other empirical methods for understanding why Whites reject separation, what would make them change their minds, and if they would accept separation, in what form would they accept it? Again, that should not change our prescription if we believe our prescription is right and the White masses are currently wrong; instead, we can try and educate them and/or await for more propitious times.

But, again, description can tell us what approach we should take for that education and tell us what non-essential details of our prescription can be changed to make it more palatable, without changing the essentials. Who knows?  Maybe people would want to be evaluated by calipers and DNA tests; I doubt it – but let’s find out. Of course, those opinions shouldn’t ultimately influence whether those things are good or bad from a racial perspective, but if we deem them to be non-essential then at least we’ll know if that correlates with White opinion, and we can proceed from there.

We need data.