Category: mendacity

Race Fraud

Marital crypsis.

Who is the victim?  The “racist” father – the one his scum daughter wants to portray as a villain.  Look, the man thought he was marrying, living with, and procreating with a woman he perceived as White, was misled (by her) to think as her being White, while she was actually a light-skinned (mixed race) “African-American.”  The man had one life to live, he married and reproduced with (insofar as I know) one woman, and he wasted his life, and wasted his genetics, on an indescribably evil race fraud.  Evil?  Yes.  If she knew her husband was an anti-Black racist, how could she fool the man, in the most intimate manner possible, for their entire married lives?  It’s at least as bad as cuckoldry, passing off another man’s child as his own.  She was passing off someone else’s racial identity for her own, and passed off the offspring of an inter-racial marriage to the husband as if they were a product of an intra-racial marriage.

Evil.  Disgusting. Horrific.

However, the father can’t get off without criticism.  He was a victim, but was also victimized by his own stupidity.  I cannot image marrying someone without having a very clear idea of their ancestry and without meeting their family (or even seeing pictures of said family).  The fraud looked, as Grant said about Argentinians, “suspiciously swarthy,” so the man should have looked more deeply into the genepool he was going to dive into.

But, even with that, he’s clearly the victim in this story – defrauded into destroying his pre-existing genetic lineage, foregone parental kinship, lost European progeny.

If you allegedly “love” and “care for” your life partner, how could you willfully defraud them in such a callous manner?


They Wuz Dumb II: More Movement Misinformation about Race

Lies or stupidity – it’s anyone’s guess.

In all cases below, emphasis added.

Read this. After rehashing the points I made about Cheddar Man several days ago, we then get comments about Egyptians, ancient and modern, that are either mendacity or reflective of a problem with reading comprehension.

Today’s Egyptians have some sub-Saharan alleles, but this mixing appears to have begun only about 700 years ago.

The linked Nature article concerning that issue clearly states that the events of 700 years ago were in addition to the significant sub-Saharan ancestry that existed before:

The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq. 

Got it?  That’s 8% more than what was there before, not 8% suddenly appearing 700 years ago on a background of 0%.

See this.

The original paper:

…reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient…Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference population

Got it? Moderns have ~8% more than the ancients, but the ancients may have been as high as 15%, with a floor of 6%.

So, what is the take home point?  It is this: Der Movement, and particularly its HBD wing, LIES about race, LIES about population genetics, and LIES about racial history. Or, if you want to be more generous, they are not lying, but they are simply sincerely stupid, unable to read clear English, so they spread their wrong-headed misinformation around the Internet.

Thanks a lot for giving the Left ammunition to accuse racial activists of peddling pseudoscience about race. But, then, the HBDers do that a lot, don’t they?  I don’t call them the Alt Wrong for nothing.

By the way, did you catch this from the original paper: “depending on method and choice of reference population.”

Sound familiar?  Yes, it does.

Facts on race = EGI Notes

Falsehoods on race = Der Movement, Inc.

Sallis Right Again: Its the Dolt Right

How the Alt Right (Dolt Right) defames racial nationalism.

Long time readers of this blog are aware that one of my major warnings against the Alt Right is that by promoting themselves as encompassing the totality of racial nationalism, the Alt Right will taint the entire “movement” with their stupidity and mendacity.  Thus, whatever the Alt Right says and does will be construed as representing and reflecting all racial nationalists, even those of us who despise and oppose the Alt Right fad.

Read this, emphasis added:

Eli was in his mid-20s, from a middle-class suburban home, and he had led an unremarkable life, up until the Charlottesville rally launched him forward within the ranks of the loosely organized white-nationalist movement. He rose from a self-described “anonymous Twitter troll” to head of one of the largest groups in the so-called alt-right.

“I came to the realization around the inauguration that we must take this from an online activist movement to a real-life activist movement,” he told me. “I decided that was my calling.”

After a few phone calls, Eli agreed to give me an on-camera interview, at Richard Spencer’s apartment in Alexandria, Va. Spencer, 39, plays the big brother to many teenagers and 20-somethings drawn to the alt-right, and his one-bedroom apartment has become a frat house for white nationalists passing through the D.C. area. When I was there, a steady stream of young men (and an occasional woman) flowed in and out. Although Eli lives less than an hour away, he often crashes there on late nights spent drinking and planning the next event. He proudly told me he always gets the couch, while others sleep on the floor.

And then all the “blah, blah” about the military record.  And so the mainstream conclusion based on this latest Alt Right fiasco is, emphasis added:

The movement itself also relies on falsehoods. It includes Holocaust deniers and pseudo-intellectuals who spout unsubstantiated theories about the science behind racial difference. In order to reach mainstream Americans, white supremacists have learned to cloak their racism in disorienting terms like “white identity politics.”

Thanks a lot, you goddamn idiots.  

The mainstream’s deductive reasoning:

Premise (that you promote): The Alt Right IS White racial nationalism

Premise (based on facts): The Alt Right are a bunch of stupid, lying, incompetent, panhandling, drunken lulzers

Conclusion: White racial nationalism as a whole is composed of stupid, lying, incompetent, panhandling, drunken lulzers


Premise (that you promote): The Alt Right IS White racial nationalism

Premise: The Alt Right is based on lies, is full of liars, and peddles HBD pseudoscience

Conclusion: ALL the science asserted by White racial nationalists is pseudoscience

In other words, because Alt Righters are drunken liars, EGI is pseudoscience.

Irrational on the part of the mainstream? Perhaps?  But isn’t it YOU, dear Alt Righters, who preach that people – the “normies” – are inherently irrational, so that instead of constantly burying them with logic and rational scientific facts, we need to project strength and fine character to appeal to their irrational instincts?

How’s that working out for you?  The rest of us know how it is working out for us.  Exactly as I warned, the Alt Right is wrecking racial nationalism.

Time for another half-drunk Alt Right podcast.  Cue the Beavis-and-Buttthead sniggering.

And some advice: If you are a bunch of babbling imbeciles who can’t get your stories straight in the midst of your alcoholic haze, then please don’t give interviews to the mainstream media. Thank you.

More on DNA Testing

DNA testing.

Putting aside the issue of companies intentionally altering results for sociopolitical reasons – for which they should be sued by customers – I think these tests are reasonably good at determining majority ancestry at the continental level and also good at determining high (10-15+ %) “admixture” at the continental level as well.  23andme, with all the SNPs they use, will most likely be reasonably accurate for intra-continental majority ancestry – whether someone is of British Isles descent or more generally Northern European or Eastern European or Southern European, etc. Some other information may be more or less accurate as well, but there are limits.  As I’ve said before, I would have a healthy skepticism for any minor ancestry under 10%, definitely skeptical under 5%, and once you get below the 1-2% range it’s laughable to believe that’s realistically statistically different from zero.  The possibility that these companies screw around with customers is real; it may be more likely though that they make the significance levels so broad that they virtually guarantee some “exotic admixture” for many people, particularly those not people derived from parental populations from which gene frequencies were determined (*).

The tests are more useful than some of the more extreme detractors claim; they do work in the broad sense stated above.  But they do not work to the extent that they are advertised by the companies, and they certainly cannot be used to definitively determine ancestry in the Nutzi fashion of obsessing over “purity” – even the most stringent confidence intervals used by these companies is not at the levels commonly accepted in the literature, and these companies have already admitted that genetic distance from parental populations can create artefactual admixture.  Tools are useful when used properly and when you understand their limitations, and these tests are tools that can be used or misused.

The one good thing about these tests is the accumulation of raw autosomal DNA data, which could be used in the future for genetic kinship assays or genetic structure analyses.  Years ago, Decodeme allowed 23andme users to upload their raw data and gave back a ranked list of ethnic groups most genetically similar to the uploaded profile.  That was a form of genetic kinship analysis (crude and qualitative) that was useful, generating findings that refuted both the crazed race-deniers of the Left and the crazed ethnic fetishists of the Right.

I’d like to finish by answering certain fundamentally dishonest population geneticists, interviewed by leftist journalists, who make comments such as “there’s no thing as a White European group” and “there are no single gene variants that distinguish one group from another; we all share such variants.”

As regards the first comment, your own data refute your statement, a continental European group (which can of course be further subdivided as one gets ever more fine-grained in the analysis) clearly falls out of the data, and the fact that the group – depending on how things are studied – may be slightly fuzzy around its edges does in no way suggest it does not exist.

As far as your second comment goes, I do notice the word “single” in there, you misleading, mendacious bastards – who says single gene variants define any population group?  Isn’t that why you study hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNPs, you dishonest scum?

Fat chance any of these people ever doing genetic kinship assays or DifferInt analyses on large-scale human data.  It’s not “paranoia” to say they have political agendas, it is just plain fact.  Anyone who doubts that should meet some of these folks at scientific conferences, go up to them at their poster presentations, and delicately bring up the implications of their work with respect to race.  You will get a hysterical SJW tirade in response; for these people anti-racist politics are more important than scientific integrity, by at least one order of magnitude.  Still doubt it?  Read this, particularly the last paragraph.

*Consider the category “unassigned” in these test results, which for customers of certain ethnies can reach very high percentages when the most conservative confidence intervals are used (and even those confidence intervals are too “liberal” by scientific standards).  So, what does it mean?  That these people are part-Martian?  No, what is actually does mean is that these companies have very poor ethnic coverage, and when one approaches reasonable confidence intervals large fractions of these people’s genomes are left undetermined.  That also raises the question of how accurate the assigned determinations of the genome for these people are, for minority “admixture,” as noted above.

Merry HBD Christmas, Suckers: 2017

Some observations.

I have previously written, repeatedly, on how HBD is a political movement, with concrete political objectives, including, but not limited to, hostility to White nationalism and promotion of the competing ideology of cognitive elitism, which is a thinly disguised attempt to enhance the status and power of Jews and Asians in the USA and throughout the West as a whole.

In this regard, the obsessive promotion of the “Hajnal line” narrative can be reasonably seen as an important component of the HBD political toolkit, designed to turn Europeans against each other, and disrupt the organic solidarity of Europe, the West, and the racial nationalist project.

It is certainly interesting that one never observes HBDers – or their sycophants in Der Movement – using the Hajnal narrative against, for example, Jews (huWhite Men of the West), East Asians, or others of interest (e.g., certain non-White HBD bloggers and their offspring who look like they were expelled from their mothers by defecation rather than by parturition). No, it is always used against rowdy Russkis, drunken Micks, swarthoid Afrowops, Iberian dagoes, greasy Balkanoids, and all those nasty Cuman-derived alien Romanians dancing the Hora – all the flotsam and jetsam of Southern and Eastern Europe, as well as that of the extreme Celtic fringe.

Speaking of ethnocentrism, for example, to the extent that trait actually differs within Europe (and the refugee crisis and the European response raises the question as to whether it actually does), it’s a mysterious coincidence that the more geographically peripheral areas of Europe that have historically been the subject of multiple invasions and occupations (by both Europeans and non-Europeans) are precisely those regions thought to be more ethnocentric.  It’s almost as it – perish the thought! – that an ethnic memory of repeated invasions, occupations, repressions, etc. by various peoples, including but not limited to Mongols, Turks, Moors, Saracens, etc. (never mind the French and German invasions of Russia and the enormous loss of life those, particularly the second, caused), have left behind a population distrustful of outsiders and more willing to defend the group from such outsiders.  Baffling it all is!  And, it’s almost as if regions of Europe historically secured against repeated AfroAsiatic invasion, and which never suffered the sort of trauma inflicted on Russia from Western Europe, would naturally be – shocking it all is! – less sensitive to being “triggered” by outside incursions.

No, let’s invent all sorts of HBD theories to explain it – as long as the extreme ethnocentrism of Jews is never, ever discussed (they are huWhite, after all).  Likewise, by analogy, the “Napoleonic complex” would be explained by HBDers as some sort of “genetic inherited behavioral trait biochemically linked to shortness” and not as the result of a learned behavioral reaction to the manner in which male height differences are dealt with by society.

Curiously, the HBD propensity to explain everything biologically stops at the entrance to the synagogue or to the Chinese restaurant (with the notable exception of constantly praising Jewish and East Asian high IQ).  Certainly, we will look in vain for a treatment at Amren about how Jews are alien to the West or about how East Asians reflect Down’s syndrome phenotypes.  After all, those degenerate Romanians are still dancing the Hora – long may it turn.

It are, by the way, Type I activists who are almost exclusively the ones so easily manipulated by the HBDers; Type II activists are for the most part immune (one can only imagine what Yockey would have thought about it).  This is yet another reason why the dominance of Type I activists in Der Movement is such a disaster and why more equitable power-sharing with Type II activists is absolutely required.

Merry Christmas, all you Type I suckers!  Long may you turn on your puppet strings manipulated by your HBD puppeteers.

Der Movement: 10/13/17

Der Movement roundup.

Fascinating how Der Movement is obsessed with Evola (I’m unimpressed with his work myself; as a scientific empiricist, I find Evola’s  writings the worst form of subjective gibbering nonsense), yet are, in general, filled with a loathing and contemptuous disdain for the people from whence Evola sprang.  It’s ironic, as I suspect that Evola’s “spiritual race” stupidity was a sort of “memetic allergic response” to those sorts of attitudes.

Buchanan is more right than he knows.  Man on white horse syndrome, style over substance, betrayal, talk of amnesty – a heir indeed!

It seems unlikely that Marantz will offer either a retraction or offer sufficiently credible supporting evidence for his assertion.  Further, as I have previously asserted, anyone who uses the term “White supremacist” to describe White nationalists is being intellectually dishonest. MacDonald is not the only one who has a potential justification for a libel suit – Enoch has as well, if he can demonstrate that his views are nationalist and not supremacist.

I also find Marantz’s reply to MacDonald fascinating. When leftists contact Far Right leaders, digging around for more information for future “hit pieces,” it’s almost as if they are writing off of the same script; they all sound exactly the same: cheerful insouciance, bright-eyed innocence, insults couched in ostensibly friendly language, and, always, “I really want to know you better, I’m so very much genuinely interested in hearing your side.”  Emphasis added:

Hi Prof. MacDonald, as you’ll see in the piece, I bought your book and have read much of it, and I don’t think I characterized it unfairly. I have also read your many replies to your critics, here ( …) and elsewhere, and I understand your rejoinders (that Pinker never finished the book, that Tooby takes too narrow a view of genetic variation and adaptation, etc.)—and yet I don’t think it’s unfair to say that CofC was roundly debunked by mainstream social scientists. First, I think it’s fair to say that Pinker debunked the book even though he didn’t finish reading it. Whether it’s fair to debunk a set of arguments without engaging with them fully is another matter, but it is what he did, as did many others, not limited to Tooby. Of course, as you know, on your site you tend to emphasize the positive reviews of your book (by Derbyshire, Gottfried, etc.) but there are, of course, many negative ones as well, many of which are by mainstream social scientists (Jefferson Singer, John Hartung, etc). Again, not all of these took the form of published papers, but they were “debunkings” nonetheless. Your work is obviously influential in certain circles, and I would love to talk to you about it sometime—I am genuinely interested in it, and I think you’d find me a fair interview—but it’s just a fact that the mainstream has largely rejected your arguments. Moreover, it’s a fact I’ve seen you acknowledge (and complain about) fairly often…

In any case, MacDonald’s work on the Jews has NOT been “debunked.”  It has merely been criticized.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with that criticism (I disagree) is one thing, it’s another to falsely claim that this criticism has been so definitive (and unanswerable) so as to constitute “debunking.”  This all shows what a sorry state media writing has fallen to – it’s all political propaganda, without substantive, objectively useful, content.

Mainstreaming R.I.P.

It is time to move on from mainstreaming.  It is time to move on from a failed “movement.”

Her Majesty, the Imperial Milady Marine of Mainstreaming, has fallen.  Will we see any honest analysis of this disaster?  Doubtful, other than here at EGI Notes.

If mainstreaming worked, we would still have to debate whether the compromises and moderation is all worth it.  But here’s the point: It doesn’t work. Once again, to be clear: Mainstreaming does not work.

Moderating Marine has achieved nothing more, electorally speaking, than her more radical father (who she denounced) did.  So, what’s the point?  Look at Austria, look at the Netherlands, look at Australia, there’s no payoff. “Where’s the beef,” so to speak?  Where’s the advantage?  Golden Dawn is not in power in Greece; the Front National is not in power in France.  They are equally not in power.  Perhaps both models need revision?

If mainstreamers justify their strategy by the possibility of electoral success, and if mainstreamers continuously fail, then why is mainstreaming still considered legitimate? Why? Yes, I can see that it may make theoretical sense, at least to those amenable to (at least temporary) compromise.  But political theory must be judged, ultimately, in how it is actualized in the laboratory of real world experience.  One forms a hypothesis and tests it. According to Popper, if the data show the hypothesis to be wrong, it should be abandoned. Perhaps the situation is more akin to Kuhn and paradigm shifts.  Activists with an intellectual and emotional investment in mainstreaming will continue to create ad hoc explanations for its failures, and resist rejection of their theory/hypothesis.  Eventually though, the sheer volume of contradictory data, combined with the rise of new activists unencumbered by adherence to failed ideas, will shift the worldview, and a realization of the emptiness of mainstreaming will occur, and a new paradigm, more hard and radical, will take its place.

Perhaps that will happen.  But the time!  The time!  Can we waste so much time with people ignoring the facts right in front of their face?

I have previously written about the phenomenon of faux-sophistication, and we may be seeing some of that with the adherents of mainstreaming.  

A clear example of this psychological flaw is seen in sports.  Sportswriters and other so-called “experts” endlessly pontificate about the values and virtue of “defense” – so as to contrast their “sophisticated expertise” and “refined tastes” from the “crude” casual fans who, presumably, enjoy lots of offense, action, and scoring.  Thus, the “expert” sniffs: “[fill in name of sport] is 90% defense.” Well, from a logical standpoint, that’s nonsense – games are won by the team that scores the most points, goals, runs, etc.; therefore, scoring and preventing scoring are of equal value and hence any team sport is going to be, in general, 50% offense and 50% defense.  But let’s not let logic and common sense get in the way of preening expertise!

The same applies to politics.  Hillary Clinton’s campaign foundered in part because of snarky millennials and their “data” and “expert” advice to concentrate on “turning out the base” –in sharp contrast to Bill Clinton’s ignored advice to throw a bone or two at the Rust Belt White working class.  

Meanwhile, on the Far Right, the “experts” sniff with disdain at radicals who insist on such outdated concepts as non-negotiable fundamental principles, and instead these heroic “experts” extol the virtue of compromise and moderation.  And they keep on losing, over and over and over again. But they know better you see.  And by taking positions that contrast to all those knuckle-dragging radical extremists, these “experts” seem like real smart and professional and polished and all.  They keep on losing, but they lose with style!

Some would argue that I’m being “premature” and we need to be patient and give mainstreaming more time to succeed.  At what point does this patience move from prudent circumspection to blind adherence to a failed hypothesis? Marine Le Pen was the clearest test of mainstreaming so far, and the test was failed like all that preceded it.  I’m not sure repeating the same over and over again is going to yield significantly different results. That she did better than her father with respect to percentages, but still failed – is this progress? Perhaps the assertion that the Front National has attracted more youthful supporters than before will be accredited to mainstreaming.  But, putting aside that Le Pen still failed, we can ask – are youth really attracted by mainstreaming and moderation? That’s doubtful.  Yes, they may want more “liberal” social mores, but the key issues of race and immigration, and sovereignty, are what motivates most Front National supporters, and with respect to those key issues I’m doubtful that high-spirited and energetic youth, some of whom are involved in the Identitiarian movement, are really looking for mainstreaming and moderation.  In the end, despite whatever the youth wants, the bottom line is, again, that Le Pen failed. Mainstreaming failed (again), big time.

“Farstreaming” has in fact been more successful.  Sometimes politicians can be more successful being more radical.  That may be context-dependent, but it is clear that “moving to the center” simply hasn’t worked.

If we can agree on that, then we can start the process of formulating alternatives.  Activists need to stop listening to memes that sound good in theory but consistently fail in practice.

A counter-argument will be that radicalism hasn’t worked either.  But what kind of radicalism?  Yes, Nutzi stupidities haven’t worked, I agree.  Historical Nazism brought back in the post-war period hasn’t worked, warmed-over Guntherism (i.e., 99% of “movement” dogma) hasn’t worked, esoteric silliness about “Kali Yuga” and “the men who can’t tell time” hasn’t worked,” and breathless navel-gazing over cephalic indices and fractional admixture percentages hasn’t worked either.

But has anyone tried to formulate EGI/universal nationalism into practical politics?  No.  Has anyone tried to combine radical policy positions with rational and professional rhetoric and a polished presentation?  No.  It’s either been mainstreaming compromise or foaming-at-the-mouth Nutzism.  

The mainstreamers can run but they can’t hide. The French election was not only a catastrophic defeat for nationalism, but it should completely undermine confidence in the mainstreaming fraud. Let’s all sit back and watch the show, the mainstreamers spinning their endless stream of defeats, rewriting history (“We always said Le Pen had no chance of winning!” or “We never were in any way invested in a Le Pen victory!”  or whatever other lie), the mainstreamers moving on to the next election including the next French election (“Hey! We never said that 2017 was the last chance to save France and Europe through the electoral process!”), Der Movement giving the mainstreamers a “free pass” and forgetting their endless stream of bad advice, poor judgment, and catastrophic defeats.

Or will a miracle occur and the mainstreamers admit they are wrong and gracefully bow out and make way for others who don’t pretend they know everything and who want to take an empirical approach to determine, and then utilize, what actually works?

It is up to you, dear reader, to demand change and leave a failed “movement” in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.  I take it endless failure doesn’t appeal to you?