Category: phenotype vs. genotype

Ignorant Buffoon Jr

Touchback Jr. 

I essentially agree with Spencer’s analysis.  Did Jr do anything illegal?  I don’t see it. Treason?  Absurd (*).  On the other hand, let’s not let him off the hook that easily.

The bottom line is that Trump Jr is as stupid and politically clumsy as his father. Do you go personally to this meeting?  Ever hear of plausible deniability?  How about using cut-outs? Or…whatever – if you are the son of a Presidential candidate who is vehemently opposed by the media and the entire Establishment, you had better at least superficially keep up appearances. Let others, several layers removed, do the “dirty work.”  It doesn’t matter that he did nothing wrong; in politics, appearance means as much (or more) than reality. Come on, Donnie Jr was on Celebrity Apprentice with dear old dad, doesn’t he know the power of appearance?

One thing Spencer could have mentioned – of all of Trump’s children, Don Jr seems the most right-wing and the most in tune with an at least Alt Lite right-wing populism, another reason to be targeted by the Deep State.

A side note: I’m certainly no phenotypist, but on the other hand, unlike what some of my detractors believe, I certainly do acknowledge the importance of racial phenotype (it just has to take a back seat to the genotype). This “Russian lawyer” – is she actually an ethnic Russian?  She looks like she could be ¼ or even ½ Chinese.  Raciology alert!  Maybe – hopefully – she is a non-Russian “Russian citizen.”

When all is said and done, Trump is an embarrassment.  Relevance to EGI? Thanks to the Alt Right, Trump’s civic nationalist phony right-wing populism has been connected in the public mind with Der Movement, so, like it or not, the outcome of the Trump Presidency will, in some manner, influence the direction of American activism.  Hopefully, we can all survive the damage being done by this lumbering buffoon.

In all honesty, the “crazy and bitter” Ted Sallis could do a better job as President.  Sallis in 2020!  Who should be my VP choice – Durocher or Silver?

*In the early 19th century, the US government was unable to convict Aaron Burr of treason, despite Burr’s plans (and activities) in attempting to establish an empire out of the USA’s western territories and Mexico (both to be seized by force).  Now, in the early 21st century, we are told that Don Jr’s meeting with Suzie Chopsticks to get “dirt” on Hillary Clinton (certainly low-hanging fruit if there ever was) is “treason.”  Yeah…who was levying war against the United States?  Who are the two witnesses to Don Jr levying war or assisting in such levying?  As Spencer points out, the USA and Russia are not at war.

6/11/17 Notes

Some notes.

As I’m planning to begin tackling Heidegger’s Being and Time over the next several months, I found this interesting:

But if the change we desire is already on the way, does this mean that we can simply sit back and let history do our job for us? No, because some of us are not just called to dissent, we are called to fight. But we go forth into battle with the assurance that the change we fight for is already in some sense real, and it is coming to meet us.

I agree with that assessment…or sentiment.

I have some concerns here about this:

In Year Seven, John Morgan of Arktos Media came to work with me full time at Counter-Currents.

…but everyone does their own thing; I have no say on how Counter-Currents is run, so good luck with all of that. Of course, the “back story” there may inform the recent flare-up of the Johnson-Spencer-Friberg/Arktos feud, but what do I know?

Here is an interesting Durocher piece.

Note that as regards bison, phenotype/morphology/phenotype is not enough – the actual genome matters.  Durocher seems to support that view.  Very well.  Sound familiar?  I’ve been preaching the priority of genotype over phenotype nearly my entire time online and writing for racialist journals.  It is of course common sense and biologically reasonable and consistent with adaptive fitness.  Of course, when I do it, I’m labelled “crazy “and with an agenda.  Perhaps Durocher will have better luck- the fact that he specifically mentions Northern Europeans may make his comments more palatable to a “movement” that sees no difference whatsoever between Southern Europeans and Africans, or Eastern Europeans and Asians.

Breezy Racial Analysis

HBD, HBD, HBD marches on….

From two VDARE articles we get to observe two examples of Steve Sailer’s objective and empirical HBD-style racial analysis:

1. Black Lady Sprinters Are Really Black

2. My calculations aren’t perfect, but I spent a lot of time looking at pictures of runners to ascertain their race. 

You can’t beat that!  Racial science at its finest!

Human Biology News: Social Mobility Genes Identified

It’s all in the genes…or at least some of it is.

Dr. Belsky and colleagues matched the genotypes of Dunedin Study participants with the genome-wide associations with educational attainment that had been reported previously. The results revealed that genetic links with educational attainment predict outcomes that go well beyond the completion of schooling, as Dr. Belsky and colleagues hypothesized. 

Details of the Duke study appeared June 1 in the journal Psychological Science, in an article entitled, “The Genetics of Success: How Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Associated With Educational Attainment Relate to Life-Course Development.” The study reported five main findings. 

1. Polygenic scores predicted adult economic outcomes, even after accounting for educational attainments.
2. Genes and environments were correlated: Children with higher polygenic scores were born into better-off homes.
3. Children’s polygenic scores predicted their adult outcomes even when analyses accounted for their social-class origins; social-mobility analysis showed that children with higher polygenic scores were more upwardly mobile than children with lower scores.
4. Polygenic scores predicted behavior across the life course, from early acquisition of speech and reading skills through geographic mobility and mate choice and on to financial planning for retirement.
5. Polygenic-score associations were mediated by psychological characteristics, including intelligence, self-control, and interpersonal skill.

Of course the major question: does this differ between population groups? 
What about all the hand-waving about “the associations are small?” 
Three points: 
1. Additional studies may uncover new genotype-phenotype associations that increase the fraction of the “social mobility phenotype” influenced by genes.

2. Even if the associations remain small, these small effects need to be multiplied over large numbers of people, particularly if differences exist between population groups, and over evolutionary time, and one will therefore likely see important large scale gene-based behavioral patterns emerging at the mass level, based on these “small” associations. 

3. Point #2 of the paper is key: the correlation between genes and the environment. 
Even if the genetic influence is “small,” that influence can alter the environment and that environmental change can not only directly affect phenotype, but can further select gene frequencies. Therefore, a positive feedback loop between genes and the environment, connected through resultant phenotypes, can be established even with “small” associations. Those associations “get the ball rolling” and the effects are amplified; the “better off homes” noted by the authors are the result of the parents’ genes and those of the surrounding population.

Another Creative Genius Fail

Dumb Cochran.

Before defending Jews (*) as innocent and naïve waifs who foolishly actually believe in the extreme egalitarianism they preach to the Gentile rubes, the “creative genius” unburdens himself thus:

gcochran9 says:
June 2, 2016 at 11:05 am
Considering that I have gone and on and about the lack of any built-in instinct to favor your own race, and explained why no such tendency is likely to evolve, I am hurt. But there is a simple solution to that.


Well, OK, that’s computer work.  What about Greg’s “real-life” examples?  Cherry picked?  Didn’t the Indians (dot, not feather) eventually work together to eject the British, for example?  Groups like Jews and Chinese are known to be high on ethnocentrism. Jews view themselves as akin to a race and there are more Chinese alive than all the Whites combined; Chinese are more or less a race as well.  And, certainly, East Asians living in other people’s nations have developed a very nice racial solidarity.

More to the point, contra Cochran and the rest of the HBD scum, IT DOES NOT REALLY MATTER.  As those of us with intellectual honesty (and common sense) have stated over and over again, the pursuit of ethnic genetic interests has nothing to do with the “evolution” of anything, but rather with rational thought mechanisms (that is beside the point that [evolved] ethnocentrism actually does exist, more in some groups than others; however, the fact remains that such innate ethnocentrism is not required for EGI).

But Cochran and the HBDers always either insinuate or openly state that “genetic interests cannot exist because we have not evolved X,Y,Z.”

They are frauds and liars, knocking down straw men.

But, let us turn it around.  Have humans evolved a preference for “high IQ” or any other of the ranked phenotypic traits so beloved of the HBDers?  Let’s look at the verdict of history, let us look at the experiment of real life!

Fact is, Greg, folks prefer dumb athletes, moronic celebrities, alpha male blowhard leaders, dark triad pick up artists, etc. over brainy scientists, academics, inventors, and HBD bloggers. That’s the evolved preference, from human evolution, to prefer the muscular hunter, the successful leader, the charismatic individual, the sexually attractive and successful, and to scorn the spindly brainy nerds unable to kill the mammoth, unable to inspire men into battle, and unable to excite the ardor of the opposite sex.

Folks prefer Babe Ruth over Albert Einstein, Kim Kardashian over Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Muhammed Ali over Bruce Lahn, Donald Trump over nebbish policy wonk Jeb Bush, and dim-witted and violent Negro athletes over balding and unattractive (and artery-clogged) New Mexican HBD bloggers.

That’s the way of the world, that’s our evolved preferences, so give it up Greg!  HBD is useless!  Who cares about IQ?

Oh wait, we will be told, we need to use rational thought mechanisms to decide what preferences are best, are most adaptive, and are better for us and for society, in the modern world.  Very good, very good.  Genetic continuity, including at the ethny level, is better for us in the modern world as well, you mendacious jackasses; in fact, genetic continuity is the very definition of biological adaptive fitness – more so than favoring some racial alien with a “high IQ.”

Once again, we are really getting tired of Cochran’s tiresome shtick as the “misanthropic, foul-mouthed, lovably ill-tempered creative genius.”  You’re boring Greg, a big YAWNfor you, and with increasing tribalism, the days of aracial HBD are numbered.  Unfortunately, the days of White survival are numbered as well, and the longer Whites waste time with the HBD cult, the less of a chance Whites have of out-living it.

Speaking of out-living: the unfortunate reality is that the wrong one died; in a just universe, Henry Harpending would still be alive and Greg Cochran would be the one dead. Well, it’s too late for the former, but we can still hold out hope for the latter.  How’s the ticker doing these days, Greggy?  Wouldn’t want you to get all worked up over at the blog you know.  Sudden heart attacks do happen, especially to those prone to them.  EGI Notes betting pool: who will drop dead first, Tricky Dick Lynn or Ticker Temper Cochran?  Dick is older, but Greg seems rather unhealthy.  Place your bets!

* A Judeophilic HBDer!  Who has ever heard of that?

More on the Ethnotype

More thoughts.

A correspondent has shown interest in my ethnotype idea and has made two major suggestions, one I mostly agree with and the other I have some reservations about but partially agree with.
First, the suggestion was made that the ethnotype is best conceived as a normal distribution. Thus, while all the possible (and, of course, existing) genotypes of an ethny contribute to the ethnotype, some are more possible, or more frequent, than others.  Therefore, one will observe a cluster of more common genotypes defining the central or median part of the normal distribution curve, with outliers (the y axis is of course frequency, the x axis may be defined in various ways; perhaps a 3-D rather than 2-D distribution is best; in any case the genotypes making up the ethnotype can be distributed both relative to each other and relative to those of other ethnies).
This has certain advantages.  One can observe how the central tendency varies with time.  If one wanted, one could break up the genotypes to look at various traits (see second point below, but this in my opinion deviates from what I’m considering here, which is the entire genotype as an integrated genetic unit.  Another important advantage is how it handles the question of miscegenation and assimilation, including the assimilation of hybrids (this assumes that hybrids would be assimilated and not ejected from the population, which could be favored).  Consider mixing across wide racial lines.  Assume small-scale mixing that affects only a small fraction of the population.  This would increase the range of possible, and actual, genotypes, but would not really alter the mass of more central genotypes that make up the median ethnotype.
On the other hand, more massive miscegenation, assimilation, etc., particularly with widely divergent populations, would indeed shift the entire normal distribution and alter the central/median types, indicative of more serious effects on genetic interests.
In general, this may not be a bad idea.
The second idea, of which I am less enthusiastic, is to tie the ethnotypes to phenotypes, stressing functional genes (and, as above, possibly dividing the ethnotypes, if desired, into more specific traits).  Now, this confuses my use of the ethnotype concept – that is genetic – with the more anthropological phenotypic view.  I’m not defining ethnotype to describe a racial phenotype or set of phenotypes.  I’m using it to express the reality that while individual phenotypes are ephemeral, the range of possible genotypes of an ethny can be reasonably stable over long periods of evolutionary time.  And by genotype, I consider the entire genetic integration of individuals of a population, not individual alleles in isolation.  Further, while I am willing to grant (true) functional genes a higher per-allele value than (true) non-functional genes (since the functional ones influence their own replication, I do not – for reasons I have discussed many times – relegate non-functional genes to irrelevance.  It is the entire distinctive genome that contributes to genetic interests.  One must be careful that a sole focus on form, function, and phenotype does not lead to a John Ray-like memetic attitude that large scale miscegenation and genetic replacement is acceptable as long as certain phenotypic traits are maintained (e.g., “White-looking” heavily admixed mestizos of Latin America).
Again, a focus on form, function, and phenotype (while it has its relevance in particular contexts) deviates from the objective of my ethnotype definition: to capture the reality of a relatively stable set of (genetically integrated) genotypes (genetic structures) that define an ethny and its genetic interests, and to distinguish the ethnotype from an individual and unique “one-shot” genotype.

Why Do Jews Look The Way The Do?

A hypothesis.
I have been seeing some “far-right” sites discussing the issue of Jewish physical appearance, and I remember one site having its members put up a rather extensive gallery of pictures of repulsive Jewish celebrities, which quite literally made me physically nauseous.  These sites usually discuss theories for the stereotypical physical appearance of (Ashkenazi) Jews, often invoking the “inbreeding” argument (see below).  Although I am really not interested in these HBD-style discussions, the trauma inflicted by viewing some of those faces has led me to propose my own ideas on this subject.
Two points.  First, this is not meant as any type of criticism or insult toward Jews.  It is instead a relatively dispassionate discussion of a very real phenomenon.  Most people, including I believe most Jews, understand that this is a group known for brains not beauty.  Of course, there are always exceptions; in biological phenomena, outliers always exist.  The existence of these exceptions by no means invalidates the reality that the typical Ashkenazi Jewish phenotype is very well represented by the likes of Anthony Weiner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Second, this is a hypothesis, not a dogmatic insistence of reality.  Unlike the “movement” and HBD, I do not have The Lathe of Heaven Syndrome, there is no solipsism here.  Therefore, I do not cite data but merely provide ideas that constitute a hypothesis that requires more empirical testing.
I’m not going to bring up “Jewish inbreeding” as a mechanism for their physical defects, for the simple reason that some HBDers (e.g., Cochran) have been making a big song-and-dance about how the whole bottleneck/inbreeding thing for Jews is not true; I haven’t really looked at the data since I am not very interested.  I can make my arguments without invoking inbreeding and will therefore go ahead and do so.
Instead, here I assert that two major mechanisms account for the typically repulsive physical appearance of (Ashkenazi) Jews: their particular ancestral origins in the modern Middle/Near East coupled to admixture, and the lack of subsequent sexual selection for improved (mostly female) appearance.
Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have originated in the modern Middle/Near East in historical times, followed by entry into Europe and a significant initial degree of admixture with native Europeans (the paradigm is Middle Eastern males with European females; the Europeans initially were likely mostly Southern Europeans, with, later, Germanics and Slavs entering the picture as Jews infiltrated to the north and east).  The Middle Eastern origin of Jews is well revealed by the phenotypes of Jews such as Weiner, which betray (the nose! the nose!) the Near Eastern-Semitic-Araboid antecedents.  Many stereotypical Jewish physical traits, particularly facial traits, likely have their origin in this derivation from NEC Middle Eastern population streams.  However, that is not the full story.  After all, despite similarities, there are differences in appearance between Jews and Arabs; furthermore, the distinctive Ashkenazi appearance has more to do with an overall disharmonious, discordant, off-putting “affect” than it does with any grouping of single features (e.g., noses).  Therefore, it is not only the Middle Eastern origin that is the mechanism here, but the subsequent hybridization with European stocks, which led to a discordant mismatch of NEC and European features, a disharmonious combination of features that fit poorly together.  Even further, one can speculate that this combination never stabilized into a harmonious blend because of a lack of sexual selection for physical appearance, which is the subject of the next part of this analysis.
Many (most?) human groups have undergone some degree of sexual selection for physical appearance.  In many (Eurasian) groups, this is most directed at the female, but of course male appearance is also affected through inheritance of maternal traits.  Some HBDers (e.g., Frost) assert that this mechanism was most highly developed in the northern climes of Europe during the hunter-gatherer times (cue “movement” heavy breathing at the mention of hunter-gatherers), and this is likely true.  In any case, sexual selection for appearance occurred throughout Europe and in many areas of Asia as well.  It may well have also occurred in Negro Africa, but there focusing on male appearance (I do not speculate on Amerinds, but possibly they too partook in this mechanism, for which sex predominantly I do not know).
Jews, however, I see as different.  For them, sexual selection was about intelligence, ability, family connections, business or intellectual success.  A physically grotesque Jewess may very well have found eager marriage partners if she was the daughter of a successful businessman, rabbinical scholar, or some other sort of community leader. Thus, she would pair up with an equally grotesque male Jew, from an equally successful family, and they would produce ugly yet intelligent children, with a greater probability of survival than the children (if any were produced) of less intelligent Jews (of whatever physical appearance). Thus, for Jews, there was no “gracilization” of physical appearance that could have attenuated the distortions and unpleasant features derived from their unique ancestral origins. The Weiner and Bader Ginsburg phenotypes were thus perpetuated, along with high verbal intelligence, high ethnocentrism and neurotic intensity, and other stereotypical Jewish traits.
To summarize: The hypothesis is that the stereotypical (Ashkenazi) Jewish appearance is due to their origins rooted in the modern Middle/Near East, coupled to discordant admixture with European stocks, creating phenotypes that never became aesthetically stabilized and gracilized due to a lack of sexual selection for beauty.