More Biased Science

How can you oppose biased science when you alienate, ban, and blacklist STEM allies?

Amren is disturbed. I have written about leftist bias in science, particularly in population genetics, many times.  For example:.

I have often written how the science of population genetics has been corrupted by leftist, “woke,” “anti-racist” political bias, and thus everything coming from the mainstream (more so the interpretations rather than the data, but data can also be suspect if it was created by flawed and/or biased modeling) has to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

I have often read articles warning about “racists” “misusing” genetic data and have had “scientists” at conferences tell me to my face their political concerns about this field, including their own work.

Recently, I was reading nonsense about the “misuse” of ancient genomics data by “bigots” and the need for “scientists” to use such studies and their findings (or, more properly, biased interpretations of the findings) to “fight bigotry.”

It is not the place of science and genuine scientists to promote or oppose any ideology or belief system.  Once that occurs, we are no longer talking about science but about politics and the so-called “scientists” are actually politicians, who have given up any pretense of objectivity. They should not be trusted and their perfidy is corrosive of the entire scientific enterprise, which is supposed to be based on disinterested, unbiased, and apolitical analysis and the pursuit of objective truth. And who are these people to judge what is moral or not, and then to have the temerity to apply their subjective value judgments to distort the pursuit of scientific truth? What arrogance!  What if they are wrong and their opponents are right?  Why not just present the data and leave value judgments to politicians and philosophers?

Obviously, biased science is both unacceptable and dangerous and must be opposed, and I have been opposing it for decades, as someone who is part of the STEM community myself.

But there are two basic problems with respect to how the Right impedes the ability of people like myself to oppose leftist politicization of real racial science.

First, the Right, and in particular the Dissident/Far Right, focuses on irrelevant issues, makes stupid comments, misinterprets data, and in general makes it easy for the Left to ridicule and oppose the Right’s foolishness. Why obsess over Neanderthal ancestry when such ancestry is also found in various types of non-Negro Coloreds?  Why fetishize lactose tolerance and chugging gallons of milk when a significant fraction of Europeans (yes, even some Northern Europeans) are intolerant, while some Coloreds are tolerant?  Why promote false “racial purity” narratives, which I have opposed and debunked? Why make absurd claims about PCA (that I also have debunked) or a variety of other absurd misinterpretations and laughable distortions?

The Right makes it easy for the Left to attack “racial science” because much of what passes for “racial science” on the Right is essentially pseudoscience, irrelevance, misinterpretation, lies, and other nonsense. And the infiltration of the HBD cult into the Dissident Right has only made the situation worse.

My advice, which has been for most part ignored, is to focus on the rock-solid evidence, and biopolitical relevance, of genetic distance, genetic difference, genetic kinship, and genetic integration/structure, and then apply all of that to ethnic genetic interests. No doubt the Left will attack that as well, but we would be on solid ground defending those concepts and the Left will be ultimately reduced to promoting ludicrous falsehoods such as that there are no genetic differences between human groups and that somehow adaptive interests do not apply to humans. But does the Right take my sound advice?  No. In fact, some retards on the Right do the Left’s work for them and actually attack the idea of ethnic genetic interests!  Do we need to wonder why our side always loses?  Do we need to wonder why it is so easy for the Left to attack the Right’s “racial science?”

Second, I am bemused by how the Quota Queens are outraged by the Left’s tactics and thus run articles about how leftist academics are planning to distort science in order to oppose “race science.” Dear Quota Queens – do you believe that alienating, banning, and blacklisting some of the few people on the Dissident Right with the scientific expertise to defend “race science” is good for the cause you allegedly support? How can you oppose biased science when you alienate, ban, and blacklist STEM allies (cough, Sallis, cough)? But, alas, those questions assume that your Fearless Leasers really care about the cause as opposed to caring about creating and maintaining an entertainment brand to support themselves off of the donations of retarded and lazy imbeciles.

The Incoherence of HBD Nordicism

Bad theory.

From MacDonald’s Diaspora Peoples, emphasis added:

This emphasis on relative egalitarianism and consensual, democratic government are tendencies characteristic of Northern European peoples as a result of a prolonged evolutionary history as hunter-gatherers in the north of Europe (CofC: MacDonald Preface to the First Paperback Edition xxxix 1998/2002). At the same time, there was a high degree of cohesion within the group made possible by a powerful emphasis on cultural conformity (e.g., punishment of religious heresy) and public regulation of personal behavior related to sex (fornication, adultery), public drunkenness, etc. These anti-individualist tendencies would be expected to strengthen not only the cohesion of the community but also strengthen the tendencies for cooperation and high-investment parenting within the community without compromising the tendencies toward political and a large (albeit limited) measure of economic individualism. One might say that Puritanism was an individualistic group strategy—individualistic in economic tendencies and political tendencies, but collectivist in the areas of religion and sexual behavior.

Indeed, the intensity of public violence directed at defectors may be an example of altruistic punishment discussed by Fehr and Gächter (2002). That is, a highly collectivist, cooperative culture derived from hunter-gathers would be expected to be characterized by high levels of altruistic punishment directed at free-riders.

So, Puritans, as part of a culture “characteristic of Northern European peoples as a result of a prolonged evolutionary history as hunter-gatherers in the north of Europe” was “a highly collectivist, cooperative culture…characterized by high levels of altruistic punishment directed at free-riders” with “a high degree of cohesion within the group made possible by a powerful emphasis on cultural conformity” described as “anti-individualist tendencies.”But, making vague and unsubstantiated claims about political and economic individualism, MacDonald then says that the cohesive, highly collectivist, cooperative, anti-individualist, and punishment-coercive Puritans were “an individualistic group strategy!”

This supports my thesis that the underlying emotional rationale here is “that by Western standards individualism is good and collectivism is bad, by Der Movement standards Northern Europeans are good, hence Northern Europeans must be individualists” even if one describes their society as “highly collectivist, cooperative” with “anti-individualist tendencies” including enforcing “cultural conformity” through “high levels of altruistic punishment.”  Look how MacDonald described Puritans:

Puritans created a tribalistic, insular society in New England that regularly excluded heretics and intruders and retained strong control over group members. Puritans in New England viewed themselves as a separate group whose attitudes required them to transform their entire lives.

How in the name of god is that “individualistic?” Note that this chapter also contains discussion of the highly collectivist, insular, and endogamous Hutterites and Amish, which are Germanic groups. I suppose that they are “individualistic” as well?

Also:

Puritans waged holy war on behalf of moral righteousness even against their own cousins, perhaps a form of altruistic punishment described by Fehr and Gächter (2002) and found more often among cooperative hunter-gatherer groups than among groups, such as Judaism, based on extended kinship. Whatever the political and economic complexities that led to the Civil War, it was the Yankee moral condemnation of slavery that inspired the rhetoric and rendered the massive carnage of closely related Anglo-Americans on behalf of slaves from Africa justifiable in the minds of Puritans.

That behavior can be perfectly explained by Racial Proximity Theory, which fits Occam’s Razor much better than convoluted “spin” that attempts to explain extreme collectivist conformity in terms of “individualism.” The evolutionary history of groups like the Puritans was characterized by conflict with other Europeans; contact with Africans and other alien groups was virtually non-existent.  Thus, the enemy is the fellow White while the Negro is looked on upon with warmth and as something to sacrifice oneself for.

…the Chinese are strongly predisposed toward collectivism. Traditional Chinese social life is highly collectivist…

So, when the Chinese act as collectivists, then they are “strongly predisposed toward collectivism.” When Northern Europeans act equally collectivist, then they are “individualists.”

My message to Der Movement is this – for a moment, forget about how much you love MacDonald and how much you hate Sallis, and ask yourself if the tenets of HBD Nordicist theories about “western individualism” make any sense, are in any way coherent, and are consistent with Occam’s Razor and the scientific method of falsifying hypotheses. Here we have the idea, the theory, the hypothesis if you will, that groups that ae highly collectivist, conformist, and who enforce social norms with ruthless altruistic punishment and other forms of social pricing are “individualistic.” Even those Diaspora groups that combine the aforementioned collectivist conformity with a highly insular endogamous society are said to correlate with “individualism.” I’m sorry; I simply cannot take any of that seriously. As a hypothesis, it literally falsifies itself. Stop with the de facto religious dogma and use a bit of reason and common sense.

A Brief Note on Scientific Bias

Population genetics cannot be trusted.

I have often written how the science of population genetics has been corrupted by leftist, “woke,” “anti-racist” political bias, and thus everything coming from the mainstream (more so the interpretations rather than the data, but data can also be suspect if it was created by flawed and/or biased modeling) has to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

I have often read articles warning about “racists” “misusing” genetic data and have had “scientists” at conferences tell me to my face their political concerns about this field, including their own work.

Recently, I was reading nonsense about the “misuse” of ancient genomics data by “bigots” and the need for “scientists” to use such studies and their findings (or, more properly, biased interpretations of the findings) to “fight bigotry.”

It is not the place of science and genuine scientists to promote or oppose any ideology or belief system.  Once that occurs, we are no longer talking about science but about politics and the so-called “scientists” are actually politicians, who have given up any pretense of objectivity. They should not be trusted and their perfidy is corrosive of the entire scientific enterprise, which is supposed to be based on disinterested, unbiased, and apolitical analysis and the pursuit of objective truth. And who are these people to judge what is moral or not, and then to have the temerity to apply their subjective value judgments to distort the pursuit of scientific truth? What arrogance!  What if they are wrong and their opponents are right?  Why not just present the data and leave value judgments to politicians and philosophers?

Some of the statements made in such articles are laughable. They fear that people may look at the data and conclude that certain past racial theories were correct. Well, if the data support the theories, then that is objective reality. If there is the belief that the conclusions are mistaken, then that can be debated based on the objective data; it is not the place of science to engage in the moralistic fallacy and conclude that because past theories were “bad” then the data cannot be allowed to objectively exist and to support those theories.

We are told that ancient genomics may show “diversity” in the past. Even if that is true, it is irrelevant for today (see below).  And in some cases, the “diversity” they grasp at is pathetic. One breathless account tells us that ancient England had a mix of “native Britons” and “people from across the channel.” Yegads! Different Europeans!  Different tribes of closely related peoples!  So?  Does that justify England today being overrun by Afro-Asiatic invaders?

They also claim that it is possible that modern populations may not be genetically related to previous occupants of the same territory (see below for the irrelevance of that for biopolitics). Well, maybe, and maybe not.  So why don’t we just see the data and find out for ourselves?  Why make such comments, with their implications, and then not actually allow people to see the data and to make the comparisons?  Are they afraid the data will actually show this?  Or this?  Or that people will use this?  If they think that showing ancient-modern differences in a territory somehow justifies today’s replacement (only for Whites of course) – and of course it does not justify that, as explained below – then would ancient-modern similarity then justify hardcore immigration restriction? And isn’t similarity relative in any case? The modern population of a European nation may be (or maybe not) somewhat different from the ancient peoples of the same territory, but I can be confident that both sets of peoples will be more similar to each other than either is to, say, Nigerians or Chinese.

In a very real sense, with respect to biopolitics, ancient genomic studies are irrelevant.  Ethnic genetic interests (and all genetic interests for extant populations) are relevant for the present and future, not the past. The ethnic genetic interests of past populations was of relevance to them, not to us.  It does not matter how a genome came to be, the owner of that genome has interests in the continuity of that genome’s distinctive genetic information moving forward. So, even if leftist “scientists” deconstruct ancient genomes that does not change one iota the interests that people today have in ethnic and racial preservation. Regardless of the underlying fabric of reality according to physics and cosmology, in a practical sense time only moves forward and the therefore tapestry of life moves forward. The adaptive interests of living organisms focus on their descendants, not their ancestors. That said, we do have proximate, cultural interests in preserving and promoting scientific truth, so we should oppose leftists rewriting genetic history for political purposes and obscuring realities of our ancestral heritages.

And of course, population genetics studies on modern extant populations do have biopolitical implications – at least metrics of genetic kinship have such implications – so we should be much more active in opposing lies about that.

WDR18: Conspiritards

Against knee-jerk conspiracy theories.

Listen here.