Category: phenotype vs. genotype

Another Answer to Retardation

He may as well talk to the wind for all the good it will do.

As regards this issue, see the comment below. I don’t agree with every detail, but the main thrust is generally in accord with my views, and the points to which I agree with most are highlighted. I am not correcting the various errors of writing or formatting; those are minor issues of no great relevance to the main themes of the comment.

GrandioseNationalist
Posted July 11, 2019 at 4:03 pm | Permalink
Another Nordicist who tries to “preach” us about history. This thing never ends; always trying to find artificial excuses to undermine Southern European contribution to Europe and further divide Europeans based on some outdated ideology. There’s a reason why the Star Systems and planets have Greek and Roman names and not Norse ones. See now how we’ve engaged in this fruitless debate that only serves our demise?
Furthermore all White Nationalists have to keep in mind a few things:
a) It’s not Greeks that have Turkish DNA but instead it’s the Turks that have Greek ancestry (along with other ethnic backgrounds). There is virtually no research or proof that shows that Greeks have Turkic ancestry. All racially mixed offsprings were either absorbed into the Turkish society or the Christian Orthodox women would commit suicide or murdered and shunned by their families before having kids with the “Muslim Oppressor”.
b) The Ancient Greeks had this ancient motto knows as “pas mi Hellen varvaros” which means “all non-Hellenes are barbarians”. Although there were some exception among the lines of the Persian, Celtic, and Roman kindred, Greeks shared an equal hatred even for each other (Spartans vs Athenians, etc.). Alexander was no exception, as the man who civilized the East.
c) Nordicist ideology has contaminated our tenets for more than a century and has only served to divide and conquer us, by placing basis on an abstract sub-racial division. There are Nordics common in all European nations just as there are Meds in Britain and Ireland.

c) Although not directly related to this article, it is vital to acknowledge that Pan-Europeanism is our only way out. When the Southern States, Southern And Northern Europe get overrun by migrants we ‘re gonna have to unite in a way that has never been done before. The US showed that White intermixia and nationhood is perfectly feasible and desirable if we proceed carefully step by step to that direction (that has already been happening for centuries now; look at us for example). It sure as hell didn’t lead to chaos and anarchy as some Ethnonationalists would wish. Now I’m saying this as someone who is of pure ethnic stock and has reached to that conclusion after lots of consideration and the studying of history.

The SYSTEM doesn’t give a penny or two about whether you’re Anglo-Celtic, Greek, Nordic, or what. All they see is a White person, and they attack our Whiteness because that’s the essence of our identity.

NATIONALISM is evolutionary: it extends for the POLIS to the REGION to the COUNTRY and eventually to the WHOLE RACE. By simply making a regression to these patterns would mean to be forced to repeat this endless loop of factricidal war and foreign infiltration. The Athenians would’ve objected to be united with the Spartans under the “generic definition” of the Greek, and they’d want to keep their “individual differences and have their separate ways”. Now that Greece is united, do you see any war between the two? Now they’re just Greeks and nothing else.

In less then two centuries time we’ll see the salvation of the White Race come to fruition under a life-saving fusion of all those who are Called Europeans akin to that in the US; under a centralized transcontinental state . Think on that.

The major problem with this well-meaning fellow is that he is wasting his time. He may as well talk to the wind for all the good it will do; he’ll get more of a useful response if he was addressing a pile of bricks.

It doesn’t matter that there is no evidence supporting the Counter-Currents viewpoint, it doesn’t matter that ancient DNA studies have so far refuted Kemp, none of that matters. When you are dealing with blind religious faith, facts do not matter and logic does not matter.  There is no place in Der Movement for pan-Europeanists, just as there is no place for Southern and Eastern Europeans. The Type Is have always had a stranglehold on control of the American “movement” and they will continue to hold on; if you want change, you’ll have to do it yourself by contributing to the formation of a new, alternative racial nationalist structure, a Type II-led movement.

I want to comment on this picture, much beloved by Nordicists. By modern phenotypic standards, we may say, subjectively, that Terentius Nero had an atypical phenotype. Very well.  So what?  That’s not evidence supporting that he was not of indigenous stock.  We do not know the range of indigenous phenotypes of ancient Italy.  For all we know, Nero’s phenotype  may have been common, at least among those of plebian stock, and may reflect Neolithic farmer ancestry. On the other hand, maybe he did have non-indigenous ancestry. Can you know any of that by looking at that one picture?  It’s not as if he looked like a Negro, a Chinaman, or David “Chopsticks” Bromstad, for example.

If you want to play the (frankly stupid) game of using single pictures to make snap judgments about an entire ethny, nation, people, or race, then what about this?  The ancient peoples of Italy were brown-skinned with black curly hair! Terentius the Etruscan!

This is the young Benito Mussolini, a representative of a people – Northern Italians – that Der Movement likes to tell us (absurdly) are “Celto-Germanic Nordics.” Judging by that picture, the typical Northern Italian male looks like the younger brother of General Mapache from The Wild Bunch.

By the standards of “one picture to judge a people,” I won’t get into what the Bromstad family, or Bjork, may tell us about Northern Germanics.

Meanwhile, on a completely different (of course!) matter, I’m working on a post or posts in which I am going to admit that Sallis was wrong about an issue concerning the “movement,” in contrast to certain academic types who were right.  Stay tuned!

Advertisements

Race and Skin Properties

We are NOT “all the same.”

See this about skin properties.

See this. Excerpts below, emphasis added:

TABLE 2
Ethnic groups and highlighted key differences in facial structure

ETHNIC GROUP HIGHLIGHTED FACIAL STRUCTURE DIFFERENCES

Caucasian face Narrower nasal base and larger tip projection, intercanthal widths identical to the African face, lips with less volume

East Asian face Weaker facial skeletal framework, wider and rounder face, higher eyebrows, fuller upper lid, lower nasal bridge with horizontally placed flared ala, flatter malar prominence and midface, more protuberant lips, and more receded chin

Latino/Hispanic face Increased bizygomatic distance, bimaxillary protrusion, broader nose, broad rounded face, and a more receded chin

African-American face  Broad nasal base, decreased nasal projection, bimaxillary protrusion, orbital proptosis, increased soft tissue of the midface, prominent lips, and increased facial convexity

I don’t like the “Caucasian” category that bins MENA folks with Europeans, but, putting that aside, note the important and fundamental differences in facial structure between the major racial groups.

Let’s consider the HBDers’ favorite continent – Asia:

The Asian face. The Asian population is quite diverse. Literature is limited and has typically focused on a particular ethnicity or a small number of outcomes in several Asian populations, mostly from East Asia. Although literature is limited and without a full, thorough comparison, there are many differences that have been noted. East Asians typically have less wide mouths, elongated intercanthal width, and wider lower nasal margins.38 Studies suggest that Asians have a weaker facial skeletal framework, which results in greater gravitational soft-tissue descent of the mid-face, malar fat pad ptosis, and tear trough formation. It has also been proposed that the facial structure of Asians is similar to that of an infant, including a wider and rounder face, higher eyebrow, fuller upper lid, lower nasal bridge with horizontally placed flared ala, flatter malar prominence and midface, fuller and more protuberant lips, and more receded chin.39,40

Note the neotenic aspects of the Asian phenotype East Asian facial structure is similar to that of an infant. Also note that the higher body fat percentages of East Asians is also infant-like. This supports the idea that Yellow Fever has an underlying pedophilia predisposition to it. It is perhaps not surprising that a leading “movement” figure with an East Asian wife has publicly questioned why child porn should be illegal. Note the “frog faced” characteristics of the East Asian facial phenotype as well.

Despite the large South East Asian population, limited studies have been conducted assessing facial structure. Overall, there is tremendous variability over such a large geographic area and diverse population. Despite this, it is generally accepted that those from the Indian subcontinent share more Caucasoid than Mongoloid anatomical traits of the skull and face. 

Here we see the authors binning South Asians with East Asians, which is just as (if not more) racially stupid as binning Europe with MENA:

Compared to East Asians, South Asians typically possess eyelids that are on a more highly exposed platform, have well-developed nasal bridge with tip projection, and have comparatively darker and more uneven skin tones. Also, South Asians tend to have fuller lips and higher cheek bones with more buccal fat, often giving the lower cheek a more rounded contour. These features often provide physical support for the aging face more so than other Asian ethnicities.

The bottom line: Race is real and is written on all of our faces.  Live with it.  Reality doesn’t care about your politically correct feelings.

Racial Kinism vs. Racial Instrumentalism

Two competing visions of racialism: WN vs. HBD.

There are many distinctions within racial activism.  One fundamental difference is that between White nationalists proper and so-called HBD race realists.  Of course, there is overlap between these positions to a greater or lesser degree.  However, let us consider the question of where a person’s primary interests lie.  Does a person take the view that race is of interest because they wish to preserve and promote their race for the reason that it is theirs – a kinship-EGI-based approach, or is their interest in race instrumental and utilitarian – they view population groups on the basis of some phenotypic characteristics of these groups, characteristics independent of whether or not the group is one to which the person belongs.  The former position, which I term here “Racial Kinism,” is more relevant to basic White nationalism (or any racial nationalism), while the latter position is that taken by HBD race realists.

Let us back up a minute and clarify.  HBD race realism is often pursued for reasons other than those stated by the HBDers.  For example, Jewish and Asian HBDers are for the most part really Race Kinists – racial nationalists – who support HBD as a way of promoting their own racial interests. In this case, they are Racial Kinists pretending to be Racial Instrumentalists in order to manipulate White HBDers to behave in ways congenial to Jewish and Asian interests. Thus, HBD is an approach for Jews and Asians to have White HBDers as the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians. Some White HBDers have personal reasons for promoting HBD – consider Derbyshire and his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  So, familial and sexual interests play a role.  Academic HBDers promote their careers, and so forth. [And we have the White Silkers and their sexual motivations – but that’s another story].

But what about, speaking generally here, White HBDers without any obvious personal agenda?  How do we compare their viewpoints to that of White nationalists?  How do we compare Kinism vs. Instrumentalism regarding race?

Racial Kinism:  This group supports racial preservationism for its own sake. This is the basic White nationalist position – if you are White, then the White race is your race, and one you should support and promote, akin to family writ large.  Certainly, such a person may value particular characteristics of Whites, and may use such arguments, but that is not the primary motivation.  This agenda is consistent with Salter’s concept of EGI – ethnic genetic interests – a kinship-based approach where one’s ethny is a large storehouse of genetic interest for them, and inclusive fitness approaches to promote the interests of one’s ethny is consistent with biologically adaptive behavior. The Racial Kinist approach therefore values as the ultimate focus of interest biological/genetic relatedness (kinship). One supports one’s race because it is their race.  Such individuals realize that it is maladaptive to sacrifice the interests of your group for that of another group, just because that other group may rank higher on some phenotypic trait that someone values (proximate interest).  The ultimate interest of genetic continuity and EGI trump any proximate concern.  Again, this does not mean that proximate concerns are unimportant, merely secondary.

Racial Instrumentalism:  This group views race primarily in an instrumental and purely utilitarian fashion.  An ethny is valued because of how they rank in a hierarchy of certain phenotypic traits.  Arguments in favor of one’s ethny revolve around some perceived (or objective) value they have based on certain characteristics that are independent of the genetic kinship the ethny has to the person making the evaluation of the phenotypes.  While such a person may profess some value in kinship, this is a relatively weak factor; they are primarily concerned with “form and function,” and if another ethny ranks higher in the desired traits than one’s own, then that genetically alien ethny will be valued to an equal degree.  Racial Instrumentalism – caring about population groups primarily based on perception of traits, ability, and performance – leaves the instrumentalist vulnerable to extreme maladaptive behavior, as they can invest in a genetically distant group rather than in their own.  It is Whites who are particularly vulnerable – as they are generally more individualistic, lower on ethnocentrism, more universalist, more “objective” and “rational” when it comes to evaluating groups, and therefore more prone to “judge individuals rather than groups” and thus willing to accept membership in a racial categories (e.g., cognitive elitism) based on traits rather than on kinship.  Other groups, more ethnocentric and subjective in their ethnic self-interest, can manipulate this aracial universalism of Whites by promoting to those Whites the “legitimacy” of these aracial categories in which the ethnocentric non-Whites are valued for their ranking on traits.  Thus, a White HBDer, being a Racial Instrumentalist, rejects Blacks only because Blacks are perceived as stupid, violent, uncreative, sociopathic, and useless, not because of the gulf of kinship, the raw racial difference; conversely, Jews and Asians are valued as “high-IQ cognitive elitists.”  Whites can be manipulated into non-reciprocated “alliances” with these groups.  Also, note how White HBDers are manipulated into rejecting so-called “Outer Hajnal” Europeans while at the same time embracing genetically alien Jews and Asians who are even more “Outer Hajnal” than any of the European groups in question.  Interestingly, a trait ranking that is a problem when associated with fellow Europeans mysteriously disappears as an issue of concern when Jews and Asians are considered.  If none of this makes sense, well, it is really not supposed to.  The HBD cult is, in the last analysis, a strategy for making Whites into the extended phenotypes of Jews and Asians.

It’s interesting that many WN 1.0 Kinists refuse to critique HBD instrumentalism.  Is that because of personal connections – the good old boys network?  Is it because they foolishly think they can use instrumentalism in an instrumental fashion, to promote kinism (the means defeating the ends, I think)? Is it because the Instrumentalists appeal the ethnic and subracial vanity of the WN 1.0ers – you guys are better than the swarthoids and hunkies? Or is it plain cowardice, naiveté, or both?

Indeed, many Kinists are heavily into Instrumentalism.  Nothing wrong with using some degree of Racial Instrumentalism as a “side-argument,” but not as the main issue. Alluded to above, I believe that certain Kinists have been (intentionally) “seduced” by the HBDers, appealing to the Kinists’ vanity and the narcissism of minor differences, favorably comparing the good “Inner Hajnal” (and higher-IQ) superior Whites to the bad “Outer Hajnal” (and lower-IQ) inferior Whites.  Thus, these Kinists are made to feel part of a (cognitive elitist and behavior elitist) “elect” – which serves the HBD purpose of dividing Whites against each other.  Note that Jews have been said to promote alien immigration into America so as to disrupt the White majority, to disrupt the homogeneity and organic solidarity of White America – because Jews feel more safe and comfortable as one minority among many in a diverse America, and not as an identifiable minority singled out in a more homogeneous majority White America.  Similarly, HBDers fear and oppose (pan-European) White solidarity that would exclude Jews and Asians, and thus they do everything possible to disrupt the organic solidarity of the European peoples, turning different types of Whites against each other, to build a Jeurasian ingroup based on a HBD-promoted ranking of traits that would have Jews and Asians on top. And the Type I Kinists fall for it time and again, because their egos and ethnosubracial vanity trumps prudence and common sense.

What about the argument that HBDers are in “pursuit of the truth?’’ Long time readers of this blog, familiar with my exposés of HBD, know this is a lie, and know that the HBDers lie, distort, cherry pick, and omit to pursue their political agenda.  Is “pursuit of the truth” why certain “race realists” refuse to discuss population genetics findings – even those generated by Jewish researchers! – that show Jews as a genetically distinct entity, different from Europeans?  Why did the HBDers get all hysterical over the Schettino case, but studiously ignore a similar incident involving Koreans?

No, HBD, ultimately is a political movement; it is not science.  Real racial science is based on falsifiable hypotheses and hypothesis-testing, it is based on facts and skepticism, hard data, proper methodology, and a willingness to re-think ideas if the data do not fit.  HBD starts with the desired conclusion and then creates ad hoc hypotheses, combined with cherry picked data, and hand-waving spin to explain when, inevitably, the data do not support the hypotheses.  When was the last time an HBDer admitted they were wring about something fundamental?  It is politics, not science, with the politics serving Jewish and Asian interests and White HBDers seduced into supporting the political interests of alien racial groups.  That Jews have been supporting HBD is without question. They’ve supported it financially and,of course, people like Hart and Levin have been leading HBDers, saying nothing of Sailer who in the past made vague claims of at least part Jewish ancestry for his biological parents.

Although Racial Kinist WNs and Racal Instrumentalist HBDers can sometimes cooperate on certain narrow projects, the bottom line is that the two viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible when one considers primary value systems.

This is all a concern as the HBD Alt Wrong attempts to seize control of Der Movement, and many WNs refuse to oppose this, or in some cases, commit Race Treason and facilitate it.  And if so-called “anti-Semitic” WN 1.0ers continue to fail to speak out against the At Wrong, I will call them out about it.  HBD is NOT racial science, it is a perversion of it.  What are you waiting for?

Note:

Kinism apparently exists in Christianity as well.  I would guess Jews and Asians are not preferred there either.

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.

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.