Category: phenotype vs. genotype

Lost Haplotypes

A bit more on admixture.

One must remember that the farther back an admixture event is, the more difficult it is to detect, at least with the 23andMe methodology.  Over time, haplotypes are broken up by recombination and, after a while, the intrusive alleles become part of a group’s native genome and are possibly no longer recognized as admixture.  This is particularly true if the admixture is small.

This, if group X is a mixture of A, B, and C in historic times, this is fairly easily detected, even if components B and C are relatively minor.  Going back much farther in time, it is not so easily detected, and the genetic combination of A, B, and C is just considered as “pure X.”  The ancient combination blend is no longer easily discernible – by methods looking at haplotypes and using extant populations as the parentals (ancient DNA is another matter, see below).

Some would say using NRY and mtDNA would help in this regards but those are single locus markers very sensitive to population replacement events.  If the degree of admixture was relatively small, and ancient, there may well be no trace using those uniparentally inherited markers.

Then again, access to ancient autosomal DNA, utilizing appropriate methods, can (and does) detect ancient admixture, which is why the European genepool can be viewed as a mix of ancient components, and that’s fine, but with respect to “racial admixture” as is commonly perceived the problem still exists. When people, particularly heavy-breathing Nutzis, talk about admixture, they typically refer to the various racial groups extant today; they do not refer to ancient tribal groups making up the bulk of the European genepool nor do they refer to Neanderthal gene variants that are a normal part of that genepool.  And it is precisely the type of admixture that Der Movement worries itself so much about that is characterized by the problem discussed here.

It is possible that the existence of such “occult” ancient admixture could explain unusual phenotypes observed at low frequencies in populations thought to be (relatively) “pure.”  Alleles from intrusive groups exist, “scattered” throughout the population, but not recognized as intrusive, but instead viewed as part of the normal gene frequency pattern in these populations.  Such alleles may happen to be more prevalent in certain families, and through random mating events (independent assortment, recombination) may become concentrated in particular individuals – resulting in an “atavistic” physical appearance reflecting low levels of (near) undetectable admixture in the population.

Of course, on an individual (or even family), even with more recent admixture, recombination can dissociate alleles coding for phenotypic traits from other alleles typically used to ascertain ancestry, particularly when the former are few in number (e.g., for isolated traits or sets of traits).  On a population level, this may be less of a problem for more recent admixture, as these things average out, but for more ancient admixture, the issue described above still may hold.

Possibilities such as this, and the inherent problems in ascertaining very old low levels of admixture fly night over the heads of Type I ethnic fetishists.  On the other hand, these problems may actually be desirable for some, as the outcomes reinforce pre-existing dogma.

Advertisements

It’s all in the Genes

Plain facts.  Excerpts presented. Emphasis added.

Establishment Lie:

Environment is everything; nurture (or lack of it) is the key.

Truth:

Now, one of the country’s top psychologists and behavioural geneticists, Professor Robert Plomin, of King’s College London, offers an emphatic conclusion.

It is drawn from 45 years of research and hundreds of studies. He says the single most important factor in each and every one of us — the very essence of our individuality — is our genetic make-up, our DNA.

The basic building blocks of life that we inherit from our parents are what determine who we are — not how much they loved us, read us books or which school they sent us to.

And this, by extension, must also apply to ethnic and racial differences.  All the societal manipulations in the world won’t make a Negro into a Dane.

DNA accounts for at least half the variance in people’s psychological traits, much more than any other single factor. Put simply, ‘nature’ trumps ‘nurture’ every time, and not just marginally, but by a long, long chalk.

Our DNA, fixed and unchangeable, determines whether we have a predisposition not just to physical traits — from how tall we are to how much we weigh — but also to our intelligence and our psychology, from a tendency to depression to having resilience and grit. 

Plomin’s revolutionary conclusion — outlined in a challenging and thought-provoking new book, Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are — is a game-changer, he claims, with far-reaching implications for psychology and for society.

Chicago-born Plomin’s startling conclusions come from two of his long-term studies. Over the course of 40 years, he tracked 250 adopted children in Colorado along with the birth parents who gave them their genes, and the adoptive parents who raised them. After moving to London in 1994, he launched a 20-year study of more than 12,000 pairs of twins.

From these studies, it was possible to unravel the relative importance of genes as opposed to environment when it came to their development.

Millions of pieces of data were amassed from the parents, teachers and the children themselves, about psychological traits such as hyperactivity and inattention, talents such as school achievement and the ability to learn languages, and physical characteristics, such as the propensity to put on weight and become obese.

From all this, he found overwhelming evidence that adopted children are similar to their birth parents, not the parents who raised them. Identical twins (ie, from a single egg and therefore with the same DNA) develop much more similarly to each other as compared with non-identical twins (from separate eggs and with different DNA). 

The conclusion was clear — DNA makes us who we are. In the long term, the environment you grow up in has little impact on the way you turn out.

In fact, what really matters in such situations is our genes, because it is our genes that determine how well or badly an individual deals with such setbacks. And whether we’re resilient to life’s catastrophes or cave in is determined by our DNA, too.

Why shouldn’t the same apply to population groups?

In fact, Plomin argues, there are genetic influences in virtually everything we do. Those differences determine how we perceive and interpret the world we grow up in, and how we modify our behaviour accordingly.

As his research developed over the years, Plomin was taken by surprise by the all-pervasiveness of genetic influences he discovered in almost every aspect of human behaviour — even down to being a nice person or not.

Altruism, caring and kindness are components of what personality researchers call ‘agreeableness’, and for years it seemed logical to him that these traits had to be the result of the environment we live in and the influence of those around us.

But his research showed this was not the case. Being nice is also something in our DNA. The same goes for grit and determination. Nurture and example do not teach some children to be tougher than others, their genes do.

Consider differences between population groups in these traits.  Sorry, you cannot cherry pick and only apply these findings to atomized individuals.

All this leads Plomin to a conclusion that is hard to take: the family, he tells us, far from being the monolithic determinant of who we are, the bedrock from which we learn and grow, actually makes little difference to our personalities and the way we turn out.

The same applies to societies and races.

‘Each child is their own person genetically. We need to recognise and respect their genetic differences. If we go against the grain, we run the risk of damaging our relationship with them.’

Let’s rewrite:

Each race is their own population genetically. We need to recognise and respect their genetic differences. If we go against the grain, we run the risk of damaging our relationship with them – and risk damaging ourselves trying to fight Mother Nature.

Schools, he says, matter in that they teach basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. They also dispense fundamental information about history, science, maths and culture. But choice of school makes very little difference to a child’s achievement.

‘Genetics is by far the major source of individual differences in school achievement.’

As any multiracial society should be aware.

The same principle applies in the debate about private and state schools. If, as Plomin claims, schools have little effect on individual differences in achievement, then those 7 per cent of parents who pay huge sums to send their children to private schools in the belief that it will give them an advantage may well be wasting their cash.

Plomin writes: ‘Expensive schooling cannot survive a cost–benefit analysis on the basis of school achievement itself.’ 

If your genes fit, you’ll do well; and, if they don’t, no amount of cash can change the abilities you’re born with.

Negroes don’t perform badly because their schools are “bad.”  Their schools are bad because they’re the students in them.

Not that the influence of our DNA is confined to our early years when we’re growing up.

Indeed, Plomin shows that it gets stronger as we get older. More and more, we revert to type. Yes, other factors impact on us, such as our relationships with partners, children and friends, our jobs and interests. All contribute to give life meaning.

Which is why “Head Start” gains and other nonsense dissipate over time.

The same applies to anyone with a genetic propensity to depression, learning disabilities or alcohol abuse.

‘Genes are not destiny,’ says Plomin. You don’t have to succumb.

Perhaps, but you have limited options to change course, dependent upon your genetic blueprint.

It’s also good, he argues, that we can know our limits — those things that our DNA just won’t let happen, however hard we try.

Plomin quotes with approval the observation of American comedian W.C. Fields: ‘If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no use being a damn fool about it.’

Can we then give up attempting equal outcomes on the basis of race?

Plomin’s radical new world may force us to bow to our genetic limits but, on the plus side, it will encourage us, like Alastair Cook, to do the best we can with the talents we’ve been given.

Some folks can land on the moon, others can layup basketballs.  It’s all in the genes.

Three implications of this story:

1. The predictive value of gene pool to phenotype correlations will be greater for populations than for families, since the intra-family variability in phenotypic expression – due to the “meiotic lottery” – would tend to be averaged out over the millions of people making up typical ethnies.  Thus, one could more reliably predict phenotypic expression from the allele frequencies in the genepool when considering (large) populations.

2. Significant and long-term improvements in various psychometric performances would require genetic change – and the most rapid and directed approach to achieve this change (other than futuristic gene editing) would be via eugenics.

3. This all underscores the mendacity of globalist shills who tell us that people who lose their jobs due to free trade, outsourcing, immigration, and automation can simply be “educated” and “retrained” to perform the more challenging, information-based “jobs of the future.”  No, that middle-aged coal miner is not going to become the next Bill Gates or Elon Musk (and, besides, some of these “advanced jobs” will themselves be eventually lost to the same processes that have hollowed out the American [blue collar] working class and middle class).

An Empirical Racial Soul?

A brief materialist look at “spiritual race” mechanisms.

Readers of this blog are probably aware that I – a scientific materialist and empiricist – am critical of “spiritual race” theories, including ideas about a “racial soul” or “race soul,”  whether these are derived from Spengler, Yockey, Evola, or German Nazism.

However, is there perhaps an area of overlap between biological and spiritual race theory, one in which ideas of a “racial soul” and “spiritual race” – an innate sense of self, instinctive behaviors and preferences, and metaphysical beliefs and aspirations connected to particular ethnies – have some sort of discoverable, knowable, physical basis, a materialist foundation?  In other words, spiritual race exists but is not something independent of matter and of the physical body but is a derivation of it; the race soul being an emergent property of biological racial characteristics, influenced by culture and a people’s history, their “genetic memory” as a ethnocultural-historical entity.

One could speculate that characteristics of a “racial soul” are influenced by:

1. Genetics; complex epistasis of many gene variants and their expression that influence behavior in a manner beyond the current level of understanding of definitive “genes that affect behavior.”

2. Epigenetic influences that are stable over time because they are constantly reinforced by cultural/historical/environmental factors, some of which are themselves influenced by epigenetics (self-reinforcing) or underlying genetic differences (gene-culture effects and canalisation).  

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.

3. Learned behaviors, passed down through the generations, which appear instinctive and unlearned because they are long-term, subtle and complex, and hence invisible to casual and immediate observation.

4. The combination of 1,2, and 3 so as to produce reproducible ethnic and racial traits that are seemingly unconnected to strict biological race, and seemingly so because the level of analysis is superficial and only looking at direct and immediate relationships between “one gene and one phenotype.”

Please note that if complex “cross-talk” exists between culture/environment on the one hand, and genetics/epigenetics on the other, manifested as a “racial soul” – or “spiritual race” – then by altering a group’s culture and environment, one can change the underlying physical basis of their racial soul.  Is one reason for the degeneration of Whites in recent history – their complete spiritual and moral collapse – due to the poisoning of their culture and the decay of their environment due to Leftist/Jewish influences?

Also note that given variability within a race as regards genes and epigenetics, and different life experiences of individuals, outliers of the racial soul can exist (as noted, e.g., by Yockey and Evola) – a member of one “biological race” belongs to a different “spiritual race” – mechanistically explained by unusual combinations of influences 1-4 listed above.  But for an entire group, and most of its members, the racial soul should be consistent (and also, unfortunately, consistently susceptible to degeneration).

At this point, it is imperative to further consider “cross-talk” between genes and culture, and between epigenetic influences, genes, and culture, and the process of “canalisation.”

Canalisation is a measure of the ability of a population to produce the same phenotype regardless of variability of its environment or genotype. It is a form of evolutionary robustness. The term was coined in 1942 by C. H. Waddington to capture the fact that “developmental reactions, as they occur in organisms submitted to natural selection…are adjusted so as to bring about one definite end-result regardless of minor variations in conditions during the course of the reaction”. He used this word rather than robustness to take into account that biological systems are not robust in quite the same way as, for example, engineered systems. 

Biological robustness or canalisation comes about when developmental pathways are shaped by evolution. Waddington introduced the concept of the epigenetic landscape, in which the state of an organism rolls “downhill” during development. In this metaphor, a canalised trait is illustrated as a valley (which he called a creode) enclosed by high ridges, safely guiding the phenotype to its “fate”. Waddington claimed that canals form in the epigenetic landscape during evolution, and that this heuristic is useful for understanding the unique qualities of biological robustness.

Thus, it is part of the racial soul to reproduce the same phenotype regardless of variation in the environment, or even regardless of fluctuating variation (e.g., from genetic drift, bottlenecks, etc.) in the genotype – as long as certain core components of the genotype remain intact.

Also consider the related hypothesis of “evolutionary capacitance.”

Evolutionary capacitance is the storage and release of variation, just as electric capacitors store and release charge. Living systems are robust to mutations. This means that living systems accumulate genetic variation without the variation having a phenotypic effect. But when the system is disturbed (perhaps by stress), robustness breaks down, and the variation has phenotypic effects and is subject to the full force of natural selection. An evolutionary capacitor is a molecular switch mechanism that can “toggle” genetic variation between hidden and revealed states. If some subset of newly revealed variation is adaptive, it becomes fixed by genetic assimilation. After that, the rest of variation, most of which is presumably deleterious, can be switched off, leaving the population with a newly evolved advantageous trait, but no long-term handicap. For evolutionary capacitance to increase evolvability in this way, the switching rate should not be faster than the timescale of genetic assimilation.

This mechanism would allow for rapid adaptation to new environmental conditions. Switching rates may be a function of stress, making genetic variation more likely to affect the phenotype at times when it is most likely to be useful for adaptation.

Different ethnies contain different types of, and levels, of such genetic variation; hence, human groups differ, qualitatively and quantitatively, in their evolutionary capacitance.  What this means in terms of a “racial soul” is that different groups may not reflect a type of phenotypic difference in one environment, but once exposed to a different, stressful environment, robustness breaks down and the inherent genetic variation is expressed in phenotypes previously masked.  This expression of masked phenotypes is one manifestation of the “racial soul.”

Note that canalization and evolutionary capacitance reflect the concept of a racial soul in opposite manners.  The former describes the robustness, the consistent replication, of racial behavior and racial expression in various environments (with perturbations within limits) – thus, different ethnies will consistently reproduce aspects of their racial souls even when transplanted to new living spaces, such as groups migrating to the same common territory (e.g., America).  The latter concept describes situations in which differential expression of a racial soul is masked, hidden, because canalization stabilizes phenotypic expression within a particular environment, but this expression of the racial soul is unleashed upon transition to a more radically different environment.  Thus, different groups, which appear similar in behavior on the surface, will reveal radically different behaviors – seemingly instinctive behaviors – for example in times of war, upheaval, or even radical changes in cultural paradigms.  

Both poles of racial expression – the robustness of canalisation in which the revealed states are stable within a certain degree of environmental variation and the unleashing of hidden states of racial expression built up through evolutionary capacitance – should have materialist, physical explanations.  Canalisation is due to gene-culture co-evolution (with perhaps epigenetics playing a role), while evolutionary capacitance is due to inherent genetic (and possibly epigenetic) variation of ethnies that creates the potential for behaviors that, hidden at one time, become revealed and expressed at another time.

Both of these poles of expression – the uncanny consistency of group expression and the hidden abilities of groups that become revealed in times of stress – can be considered aspects of race typically labeled as “spiritual race” and the “racial soul.”

On related notes, see “genetic memory” (mentioned above) – also discussed here – as well as Jung’s “collective unconscious.”  If we are to seriously consider these ideas from the standpoint of materialist biological science, then the same mechanisms discussed above likely apply.

With sufficient understanding and technical advances, it may be possible at some point in the future to evaluate these ideas, and determine whether there is an underlying material basis – actual physical mechanisms – for these postulated phenomena, and, more fundamentally, determine the validity of the actual existence of these phenomena for the human condition.  In other words, does a “racial soul” really exist and, if so, what is its physical, mechanistic basis?

More Sweaty Fetishism Debunked

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

The Viking travels to the New World are well documented, and should be acknowledged and celebrated.  However, after that, the essay goes off the rails in typically demented “movement” fashion.

Nordic Amerindians.  Nordic Polynesians.  Nordics from Atlantis.  Nordic Martians.  Nordics from the Andromeda Galaxy.

By the way, blond hair in Pacific Islanders is due to a native gene variant that differs from that of Europeans, and thus once again “movement” fantasies are disproved by objective scientific facts.

The common occurrence of blond hair among the dark-skinned indigenous people of the Solomon Islands is due to a homegrown genetic variant distinct from the gene that leads to blond hair in Europeans, according to a new study from the Stanford University School of Medicine.

Hmmm…it seems that refined French “intellectuals” are no better than the American “burgers” they so despise.

Summary: Der Movement Inc. LIES to you about race and racial history, it lies over and over again.  As to the excuse “it’s just ignorance, not dishonesty,” I respond that the facts about Polynesian hair color genetics can be found with about 10 seconds of online searching; instead AltRight.com runs an article quoting some crazed babbling from 1953.

They are fundamentally dishonest.

A Person of Tallness

About height.

Preferences for height were and are certainly not just due to an association between height and social status (and health and good nutrition).  It is likely that height was selected for, and appreciated, at least for men, because increased size gave men an advantage in combat, both for mate competition and also in warfare (this during pre-technic periods of human evolution).  Selection for height also includes extreme sexual selection by women for male height (which continues to this day); this preference is no doubt an evolved one, given the superiority of larger males in combat, providing protection for the women and offspring, and the ability to pass on these genes for tallness to the woman’s male offspring.  Further, as has been noted in a recent book review at VDARE, given that women select (or at least used to) for male intelligence as well as height, there seems to be a general trend for height and intelligence to correlate, although of course the bell curves overlap to a considerable degree.

There are of course costs to height, which may explain why, despite advantages to being taller, some ethnies are shorter than others, on average.  For example, looking at the well-known difference between taller Northern Europeans and shorter Southern Europeans (the latter, as Der Movement tells us, are low-IQ cringing subhumans), we can consider some selective pressures against height.  Larger people tend to do better in cooler climates rather than in the warmer clines of the south. Further, larger people require a greater caloric intake to maintain their mass, which necessitates more calorie-dense foods.  Northern Europe’s generally cool and wet climate allowed for agriculture that provided a diet rich in calorie-dense foods, such as (red) meat and dairy.  In the warmer and drier south, a more plant-based diet would have been insufficient to maintain a significant fraction of the population of larger size; in this latter scenario, smaller people would have had a long term survival advantage that more than balanced out the advantages (combat and mate competition) of height. Thus, the advantages of male height are a net evolutionary gain only in circumstances in which the environment can maintain a sizable fraction of the population being larger and with greater caloric requirements.

As Sailer suggests, cancer rates are higher in the tall; it may be in part cell number as he mentions; in addition, the increased caloric needs of the tall may help fuel cancer growth through diet (there are associations between diet/energy consumption and cancer, particularly between caloric-dense foods and cancer), and increased growth signaling, particularly in the young growing stage, may prime the body for later cancer, not only by increasing cell numbers, but, possibly, by epigenetic and other changes in the cells themselves.

However, this cancer link is generally not counter-selective against height, at least not in human evolutionary history, as cancer typically is a disease in the older (Sailer’s case being one exception, as are childhood cancers and some of those due to inherited mutations), past prime reproductive age, individuals.  It is a cost of height, though, at the individual and public health levels.

As to Sailer’s main thesis, why “heightism” is not a SJW issue, we must consider that Female Privilege plays a role.  Milady always gets her way (Roissy being correct about the “Fundamental Premise” – females being considered more valuable, and catered to, because eggs are more valuable than sperm).  Male height is a female preference, so discrimination against short men is socially acceptable.  Female thinness is a male preference, so that is socially unacceptable “fat shaming” – instead we must celebrate “curvy women” – an euphemism for disgusting piles of sweaty lard, with the BMI of a neutron star, rolling around the landscape, each consuming more calories in  a day than the entire world population of blue whales does in a year.  When you consider that men really can’t do anything about their height, while women can certainly lose weight, the fact that an immutable characteristic is “shamed” while a changeable one is not tells you all you need to know of the raw dominant power of Female Privilege (aka, the Yeastbucket Advantage).

Racial Facial

Or is that facial racial?

Genes for facial shape identified in human (i.e., European) samples.  Emphasis added:

Genome-wide association scans of complex multipartite traits like the human face typically use preselected phenotypic measures. Here we report a data-driven approach to phenotyping facial shape at multiple levels of organization, allowing for an open-ended description of facial variation while preserving statistical power. In a sample of 2,329 persons of European ancestry, we identified 38 loci, 15 of which replicated in an independent European sample (n = 1,719). Four loci were completely new. For the others, additional support (n = 9) or pleiotropic effects (n = 2) were found in the literature, but the results reported here were further refined. All 15 replicated loci highlighted distinctive patterns of global-to-local genetic effects on facial shape and showed enrichment for active chromatin elements in human cranial neural crest cells, suggesting an early developmental origin of the facial variation captured. These results have implications for studies of facial genetics and other complex morphological traits.

A summary, emphasis added:

Scientists from KU Leuven and the Universities of Pittsburgh, Stanford, and Penn State say they have identified fifteen genes that determine our facial features. Doctors could use DNA for skull and facial reconstructive surgery, forensic examiners could sketch a perpetrator’s face on the basis of DNA retrieved from a crime scene, and historians would be able to reconstruct facial features using DNA from the past….

…“We’re basically looking for needles in a haystack,” says Seth Weinberg, Ph.D., of the departments of oral biology and anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh. “In the past, scientists selected specific features, including the distance between the eyes or the width of the mouth. They would then look for a connection between this feature and many genes. This has already led to the identification of a number of genes but, of course, the results are limited because only a small set of features are selected and tested.”

In the current study the team adopted a different approach.

“Our search doesn’t focus on specific traits,” lead author Peter Claes, Ph.D., KU Leuven, explains. “My colleagues from Pittsburgh and Penn State each provided a database with 3D images of faces and the corresponding DNA of these people. Each face was automatically subdivided into smaller modules. Next, we examined whether any locations in the DNA matched these modules. This modular division technique made it possible for the first time to check for an unprecedented number of facial features.

The scientists were able to identify fifteen locations in our DNA. The Stanford team found out that genomic loci linked to these modular facial features are active when our face develops in the womb.

“Furthermore, we also discovered that different genetic variants identified in the study are associated with regions of the genome that influence when, where and how much genes are expressed,” adds Joanna Wysocka, Ph.D., at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Seven of the fifteen identified genes are linked to the nose, and that’s good news, according to Dr. Claes. “A skull doesn’t contain any traces of the nose, which only consists of soft tissue and cartilage. Therefore, when forensic scientists want to reconstruct a face on the basis of a skull, the nose is the main obstacle. If the skull also yields DNA, it would become much easier in the future to determine the shape of the nose.”

The four universities are continuing their research using larger databases.

“We won’t be able to predict a correct and complete face on the basis of DNA tomorrow. We’re not even close to knowing all the genes that give shape to our face. Furthermore, our age, environment, and lifestyle have an impact on what our face looks like as well,” points out Mark Shriver, Ph.D., of the department of anthropology at Penn State.

Shriver…Der Movement’s least favorite physical anthropologist (cue heavy breathing, re: DNAPrint Genomics).

In any case, this interesting work has implications for race, genotype-phenotype correlations, and other topics of at least peripheral interest to biologically-minded racialists (however genetic kinship is still fundamental and this other data, although interesting, is secondary).

The Face of the Duce

Also: Introducing Racial Recapitulation Theory.

What can the phenotype of the young Mussolini tell us?

Let’s take a look at the physical appearance phenotype of the Northern Italian (from Predappio in Romagna) Benito Mussolini, as a young man, to dissect certain aspects of “movement” dogma about Italians.

Let’s be honest. If you showed someone those pictures, and if they didn’t know who it was other than being told “it’s an Italian,” you know very well they would immediately say “must be a Southern Italian,” “It’s a Sicilian,” etc. – the extreme non-gracile swarthoid qualities would give the impression that reflects popular stereotypes.  However, Mussolini was, as stated above, a Northern Italian.  I also note that General von Rundstedt once deeply offended Hitler by questioning Der Fuhrer’s friendship and alliance with the “Negroid Asshole” Mussolini.  Did the good general see ll Duce’s Swiss mugshots?

What conclusions can we make based on these photos?

I want to first reply to potential objections to this brief analysis:

1. “This is just anecdotal evidence, a single-point piece of data.”  That’s correct, but Der Movement does the same with all groups (especially S. Italians), using pictures of single individuals as representative of an entire group, so we can do the same here.  There are indeed N. Italians who look like the young Mussolini, so there’s some general utility in the analysis.

2. “I thought you value genotype over phenotype.”  That’s true.  But we do not have access to Mussolini’s autosomal genome.  We do have access to his physical appearance; I’ll use the data at hand.

3. “I thought you wrote that phenotype is an imprecise reflection of the underlying genotype, of the underlying ancestry.”  That’s true as well; however, that is most true for phenotype analyzed as a stand-alone evaluation, and when one ignores available genetic data in favor of a purely phenotypic analysis. In the absence of genetic information, combining phenotype with other pieces of information – such as an individual’s ethnic affiliation – can give some useful information.  It’s flawed and subjective, but insofar as I know, no one has genotyped Mussolini’s remains, so we use what we have.

So, what can we say?

Two major points.

First, it is almost certain that Mussolini could not have been of exclusive Celto-Germanic ancestry (remember that one of Der Movement’s memes is that Northern Italians are Celto-Germanic).

Second, even if Mussolini did have some Celto-Germanic ancestry, it is likely in the extreme that such ancestry was only a minority of his ancestry.  The majority of his ancestry likely derived from other sources.

So, we can ask: what were those other sources?

According to another school of “movement” “thought” (Duke/My Awakening, etc.) Northern Italians reflect ancestry from the original Romans (or at least the original peoples of Italy).  If so, Il Duce suggests that at least some of those original Romans/Italians were quite swarthy and non-gracile indeed.  That goes against that precinct of “movement” “thought” that asserts that the original Romans/Italians were all akin to Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga.

On the other hand, if you deny that the original peoples of Rome and Italy – or at least some of them – looked like Mussolini, and instead assert that his Swiss mugshots reflect “the racial degeneration due to Roman slavery” then you have to admit that such degeneration spread to Northern Italy, and that the ancestral remains of such degeneration is still present there in modern times.

So, it would seem that Der Movement dogma is at an impasse. Il Duce suggests that either there were real swarthoids among the original Romans/Italians or that Northern Italians are not purebred Romans or not purebred Celto-Germanics, or not merely a mix of the two.  Is it one or the other? Swarthy original Roman populations or racial degeneration in Northern Italy?

The point is for Der Movement to get beyond kneejerk dogma and at least think and consider the implications of their mutually exclusive memes coming into contact with facts and logic.

I doubt that will occur though.

By the way, Mussolini’s phenotype through his life reflects an observation I have made in that European-derived swarthoids tend to be swarthiest and most non-gracile in young adulthood and become lighter and more gracile as they age.  Hormones?  Some sort of racial version of recapitulation theory – “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” – at different stages of their life individuals reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, different aspects of their ancestry (*)?  Thus, for individuals of multi-component ancestry, they would look more like different components of that ancestry at different ages, at different phases of their life.  Would that be from actual differences in gene expression from various ancestrally-different gene segments that affect phenotype?  If so, what is the trigger for the switch – the aforementioned differences in hormone levels?  Some other age-related changes, possibly including epigenetics?  Or is it simply that phenotypic changes in physical appearance that normally accompany aging mimic the effects of looking more like various ethnic types?  This would require further consideration and study.  The former possibility is much more interesting than the latter, and more in keeping with “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.”  Perhaps both possibilities operate.  Again, this would seem to be a potentially fruitful area of inquiry.

Finally, the purpose of this post is to critique Der Movement’s rigid, unquestioning dogma, certainly not to cast any dispersion at a historical leader I admire – Il Duce.  Indeed, with respect to Mussolini, my opinion of him is the same as Yockey’s – Il Duce was a great man, one of the great leaders of history, a flawed man of course, but a man of vision and force.  He was ultimately betrayed by Italian laziness, ineptitude, and hedonism – and he knew it, given his comments about Italians with an analogy of Michelangelo being forced to work with clay.  Mussolini’s phenotype is simply Italian – a reality that Der Movement misses with its view of Northern Italians all looking like actor Dolph Lundgren and Southern Italians all looking like boxer Mike Tyson.


Here is another picture. A Celto-Germanic Nordic on the left, a Nigerian Negro on the right.

*Racial recapitulation theory!  You read it at EGI Notes first.