Category: reality of race

Genetic Basis for Health Disparities

More “hate facts.”

Read this.  Author summary is below (emphasis added). The “received wisdom” from the Left is that all human populations are genetically identical, there is no such thing as race, and that racial health disparities are due to “White racism.”  Science says different.

Individuals of European and African ancestry have different susceptibility for developing specific infections and diseases. Part of this difference in immune response is thought to arise from genetic differences accumulated over the millennia that conferred advantages in fighting different infectious pathogens endemic to different parts of the world. The impact of these immune differences and how they are influenced by modern lifestyles and living environments remains to be understood. Findings from this study revealed population differences in the levels of circulating cytokines, i.e. chemical messengers of the immune system, which were due in part to different demographic and lifestyle factors. Further, a change in the gene encoding for the Duffy antigen receptor protein, identified as rs2814778 and known as the Duffy-null allele, was the most important factor explaining low circulating levels of CCL2 and CCL11, key chemokines regulating the migration of white blood cells, specifically monocytes and eosinophils, which play a role in inflammation. This genetic variant occurs almost exclusively among Africans, likely because of its role in protecting against malaria infection, and results in loss of Duffy antigen protein on red blood cells. The substantial immune differences by ancestry may have broad implications for health disparities.

Race denial is the biggest scientific fraud of the last half-century.  Unfortunately, HBD is also politicized pseudoscience (one can imagine the anguish of the race realists if genetic analysis confirms negative stereotypes of Jews and East Asians – well, we don’t really have to imagine anything; consider how the Alt Wrong has studiously ignored studies, including those by Jewish scientists, showing Jews as genetically distinct from Europeans).  What we need is a real racial science – neither race denial nor Jew/Oriental worship.

Advertisements

Fundamental Basics of Salterism

Truth so basic and obvious that only politically motivated mendacious anti-Whiters would try to “refute” it.

Previously, I wrote a lengthy “Defense of Salterism” against particularly mendacious and/or retarded “critiques” of the EGI concept.

This post will be more fundamental: essentially to demonstrate that “Salterism” is based on four basic principles, all of which are not only true, but obviously true, even trivially true. While science should be defined by skepticism and rigorous hypothesis testing (which is why HBD is not science), it is also true that at some point, certain facts and ideas have been so well established that one can accept them as, to the extent we can perceive them, reality.  Although one can of course keep an open mind toward future findings in astronomy, planetary geography, etc. it is still reasonable to accept that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa, and that the Earth is essentially spherical and definitely not flat or “Frisbee-shaped.” Arguing about such established facts does not advance science or human progress. Salterism is based on principles which begin to approach that of “the Earth revolves around the Sun,” which should tell you something about the (political) motivations of those who deny such obvious facts and established ideas.  Thus:

1. Population groups differ genetically; there are differences of genetic kinship between groups (with some groups being more or less similar or distant than others).  This is true; there isn’t the slightest doubt on this obvious fact, apart from the mendacious or the mad.

2. On average, members of groups are more genetically similar to their group than to members of other groups. I say “on average” because this depends on how similar the two groups are.  For very dissimilar groups, like the major continental population groups (races), the greater within group similarity is virtually always true, for more closely related groups (say, Germans vs. French) there will be some overlap, but even there, on average, it holds.  In summary; with sufficient markers, when considering the major population groups, there is always greater intragroup vs. intergroup genetic similarity.

3. From a pure fitness standpoint, identical by state is the same as identical by descent; identical = identical.  For ethnies, identical by state vs. identical by descent is sort of a distinction without difference – or a difference without distinction – because in that case identical by state is identical by (relatively) distant descent (when talking about the distinctive genome). This is obviously – basically, trivially – true, although I guess you can always find politically motivated con artists who claim that identical does not mean identical, that a DNA sequence of GCTAGG is not the same as GCTAGG.

4. Genetic continuity (and expansion) is adaptive.  This is basic biology, the basic definition of biological fitness.  This is at the core of the Darwinian (or Neo-Darwinian) perspective.  That’s what life is about.

The basics of Salterism can be boiled down to one sentence:

“True enough, it is an evolutionarily better strategy to spend beneficial behavior towards fellow ethnics than towards outsiders, because you are more closely related to them.”

Who wrote that?  Frank Salter?  Ted Sallis?  No.  It was written by liberal academic Ingo Brigandt, a critic of the idea of ethnic nepotism.  You may be confused: why would someone critical of ethnic nepotism write an admission of the adaptive value of ethnocentric behavior?  You see (to make a long story short), the Brigandt types promote the bizarre idea that if a specific behavior could not, and therefore did not, “evolve,” then actualizing that behavior is impossible. So, by analogy, since humans did not evolve with computers, obviously you are not reading this post on your computer screen.  Impossible!  The riposte to that would be to argue that evolutionarily novel behaviors, such as computer use, are possible courtesy of evolved general behavioral and cognitive suites, such as intelligence and problem solving.  Indeed.  Therefore, even IF ethnocentrism is not an evolved behavioral trait, humans can (and do!) behave in an ethnocentric manner if they perceive that to do so is to their advantage.  Why would they perceive that advantage?  See the four points listed above.  Now, I would argue that ethnocentrism could and did evolve (the amygdala response to racially alien faces is evidence for this, and see the next link below), but even if it is not an “evolved behavior” it can still occur, and be adaptive, derived from more general behavioral and cognitive mechanisms, which, we all agree, are evolved. 


You may argue that Brigandt talked about the “costs and benefits” of ethnocentric behavior evolving, but those calculations have been done (the aforementioned link), and support the dominance of ethnocentrism over alternative competing behaviors; further, the “laboratory of human reality” demonstrates ethnocentric behavior being a longstanding reality of the human experience, and one cannot help but notice that ethnocentric groups like Jews and Chinese are doing very well for themselves, with the Jews surviving as a group through all sorts of tribulations (if Brigandt wants to argue that those tribulations are due to the Jews’ ethnocentric behavior itself, let him do so, which would admit that ethnocentric behavior has been evolutionarily stable in that ethny over a period of many centuries).

Now, why do these types promote anti-Salterian memes that are, to an objective viewpoint, patently absurd?  Because their objections are, in my opinion, not objective but subjective.

Thus:

1. If Salterism is correct, then Whites (*) have the absolute right to pursue ethnocentrism in pursuit of their adaptive fitness.

2. If Whites behave in an ethnocentric manner, then “Western” multiculturalism will collapse.

3. They do not want multiculturalism to collapse; therefore, Salterism must be incorrect and refuted.

You, dear reader, are under no obligation to accept that con game.


That Whites are so detached from any perception of their own self-interest that the Salterian analysis is even necessary – do you really need to be told and taught something so trivially true that the genetic continuity of your group is adaptive? – is disturbing.  That Whites actually try to delegitimize these obvious facts, or buy into the ethnically self-interested critiques of non-Whites, does nothing but confirm the objective worthlessness of the White race from the standpoint if adaptive fitness.  Time to wake up, guys (or should that be goys).

In addition, there has also been some controversy over the term “race” with the politically-motivated race-deniers picking apart some of the (in some cases, admittedly deficient) definitions put forth by some on the Right.  I would propose that:

A race is a population group consisting of smaller population groups and the individuals therein that are, on average and in toto, more similar to each other with respect to genotype and phenotype than to other groups; members of a race tend to share more most recent common ancestors with each other than with members of other races, and racial groups tend to be indigenous to particular continents or sub-continents in which they came into being (“ethnogenesis”).

*This holds for all groups, but for some strange reason ethnocentrism becomes a problem only when Whites practice it.

SLC News: Science Edition

Better: pseudoscience.

Why people with no background in science shouldn’t blithely assume they are qualified to embarrass themselves by rambling on subjects they so obviously do not understand.

And why Der Movement needs genuine scientists to do quality control on sweaty “movement” ramblings.

Hint: scientific “materialists” understand more about organism development that what is implied in this retarded essay.

Another hint: the fact that all facts are not yet known doesn’t mean you are free to invent whatever fantastic fantasies you wish.

Having said that, the essence of real science is open-mindedness, testing hypotheses – hypotheses that have real explanatory power.  I do not dismiss “morphogenetic field theory” out of hand.  Who knows?  It may be true.  But we need evidence, not “movement” solipsism.  And the need for such a theory has to be based on real gaps in existing theory, not imagined gaps that do not exist, or small gaps that are rapidly closing.

A last hint: interesting similarities between separated identical twins could well be genetics, random chance, and confirmation bias.  There are no doubt separated identical twins who lead completely different lives with no overlap – but we do not hear about those, as they are not interesting.

I’m not surprising that Der Movement finds someone like Sheldrake seriously.  If I recall correctly, this hasn’t been the first time his “work” has been brought up by some uninformed Type I idiot.

Let’s reverse the course, and have someone like me write long rambling essays about “traditionalism” and “theosophic philosophy” without knowing a damn thing of what I’m talking about.  I’m sure all the Trad-Nutizis wouldn’t like that at all.

Roissy weeps.

From VDARE:

Greg Cochran is doing a fundraiser at West Hunter to pay him to review “Who We Are” in depth.

That’s the sound of a tin cup being rattled around.

Disgusting. How about just reviewing the book for, like you know, nothing?  For free?

Better yet: Ignore it.  How many times do the same leftist lies on race have to be refuted again and again?  But if you are so motivated, go to it.  For free.

More on DNA Testing

DNA testing.

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Born Neandertal

Biological realities.

Read here.  Neandertals were born, not ”made.”  

Neandertal and modern human adults differ in skeletal features of the cranium and postcranium, and it is clear that many of the cranial differences—although not all of them—are already present at the time of birth. We know less, however, about the developmental origins of the postcranial differences. Here, we address this deficiency with morphometric analyses of the postcrania of the two most complete Neandertal neonates—Mezmaiskaya 1 (from Russia) and Le Moustier 2 (from France)—and a recent human sample. We find that neonatal Neandertals already appear to possess the wide body, long pubis, and robust long bones of adult Neandertals. Taken together, current evidence indicates that skeletal differences between Neandertals and modern humans are largely established by the time of birth.

 

That’s interesting.  More relevant to issues of interest to this blog is the following from the same paper:

Adult European Americans and African Americans differ, on average, in the shapes of their long bones, with European Americans having thicker shafts and larger articulations relative to shaft length.

But, but, but…aren’t racial differences all “skin deep” – just about color – and that other than such trivialities, we are all “exactly the same?”  You mean, there are actual anatomical differences between the races (never mind the genetic gulf)?

Race denial is a farce.  Real racial science is caught between the laughable lies of the Left and the HBD pseudoscience and crazed ethnic fetishism of the Right.  Fighting the former doesn’t mean we have to accept the latter.  Both are wrong (but, admittedly, the former is more dangerous).

And speaking of the Left, and getting back to the main article, did anyone truly believe that extreme Neandertal robustness was somehow the result of lifestyle?  Is anti-genetic leftism so entrenched in science that it goes to that extreme of ludicrousness?   Were the Neandertals constructing makeshift barbells out of boulders and tree trunks and engaging in Ice Age powerlifting routines?  Granted, yes, I understand (unlike Der Movement) that things need to be demonstrated empirically, and not just assumed.  But still, one cannot pretend that a demonstration that Neandertal robustness was an inborn trait is any sort of grand discovery.  Only leftists would be surprised by this finding.

The Future is White

Good essay and video.

See this.


Which is the video version of this.


I have written about racial envy and resentment, which I suspect is the root cause of much anti-White hostility, see here.

One can imagine Negroes in particular being embittered about having to live their lives out as Blacks.
I remember Negro Chris Rock once arguing against the reality that Blacks are catered to and given unfair advantages. To paraphrase: “How many of you White guys would want to be Black? How many of you would want to exchange places with me?”
His illogic is on display there. Just because we recognize that someone has an unfair advantage does not mean we would want to be them. Imagine the wealthy child of a billionaire, born into a life of power and privilege. Now further imagine that child is a sickly retardate. Would you want to be them?
Who would want to be Black? Not many Blacks themselves, I suppose. ‘Sour grapes” is strong with them.

Race Is Everything: More Typical Negro Behavior

Racial realities in the news.

“A tendency towards violence….” Are any of us surprised?

A recent Scientific American had several articles about cities. Cities are the future, don’t you know; cities will be ecologically friendly, recycling wastes, with family-friendly spaces where people can walk or bike to work, which will close to where they live.  And we will have driverless cars!  What efficiency!

Well…no.  And the key is race.

Suburban sprawl and long commutes are due to the fact that most jobs are in the cities, but White folks can’t live in those cities because of Color. So, yes, live in cities and “walk or bike to work” and get attacked by groups of feral Negroes and Hispanics.  Ecologically friendly cities? – look at Detroit, Camden, Baltimore, the Bronx, look at the Colored proclivity for filth and littering and disdain for recycling. And driverless cars?  A new weapon for NEC terrorists.

Race is everything.  Everything.