Category: reality of race

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.
Advertisements

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.

A Brief Definition of Race

Just off the top of my head, more or less.

Race: A branch of humanity that is, in general, more genetically similar to each other (more genetic kinship) than with other groups, and that have, in general, a greater number of most common recent ancestors with each other than with other groups. Races also, in general, tend to share a constellation of phenotypic characteristics than, in toto, distinguish them from other groups. Layered upon these biological characteristics (biological race) are the historical and cultural components that contribute to racial identity and which influence, and are influenced by, the aforementioned biological characteristics.

Race, Ethnicity, Culture, and Epigenetics

Interesting findings.

If we ignore the PC-oriented nonsense about “social constructs” as well as the confusion about ethnic identification and ancestry, there are some interesting points in this article.

Excerpts, emphasis added:

These researchers report that they have identified signatures of ethnicity in the genome that appear to reflect an ethnic group’s shared culture and environment, rather than their common genetic ancestry.

“We found that both self-identified ethnicity and genetically determined ancestry were each significantly associated with methylation levels at 916 and 194 CpGs, respectively, and that shared genomic ancestry accounted for a median of 75.7% of the variance in methylation associated with ethnicity,” wrote the article’s authors. “There was a significant enrichment…of ethnicity-associated sites amongst loci previously associated environmental exposures, particularly maternal smoking during pregnancy.”

Roughly one-quarter of the epigenetic difference between the two ethnic subgroups could not be accounted for by differences in the children’s genetic ancestry. This difference, the authors suggested, could reflect a biological stamp made by the different experiences, practices, and environmental exposures distinct to the two ethnic subgroups.

It demonstrates in a whole new way that race combines both genetics and environment.

Studies by the Burchard group and others have found that using genetic ancestry rather than ethnic self-identification significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for certain diseases.

But the new data showing that a large fraction of epigenetic signatures of ethnicity reflect something other than ancestry suggests that abandoning the idea of race and ethnicity altogether could sacrifice a lot of valuable information about the drivers of differences in health and disease between different communities.

The nonsense about distinguishing more accurate “genetic ancestry” from less accurate “ethnic self-identification” fails the smell test since the Risch lab a while back showed near-perfect correspondence between identify and ancestry.  True enough, there is a social component to these things, since humans give simple labels to complex categories.  Thus, both Colin Powell and a pure-bred Nigerian would both identify as “Black” although there is quite a difference in their ancestry.  But that does not mean that ethnicity/race and genetic ancestry are different things; it instead means that human beliefs about ethnicity/race may not always be the same as genetic ancestry.

In any case, the main point here is that about 75% of the epigenetic differences between “ethnic sub-groups” are associated with genetic ancestry and cultural/experience differences associated with ethnicity accounted for the other 25%.  

Therefore, there is a two-way interaction between the biological and the social/cultural. Biological differences inform the foundation of ethnic/racial identity (influenced socially by human beliefs about these groups), and cultural differences stemming from these identities can feed back and affect the biology.

“Back in the day” Ursus Major, affiliated with the EASU, talked about a “Race-Culture.”  He was more right then he knew.

Racial Odds and Ends, 12/30/16

Several points.

Breezy gets upset that one of his Asian gods (a Chinatrix, cue Derb’s heavy breathing) stupidly attempts to delegitimize the concept of race.

The moronic flim-flam about Asians and Africans possibly being more genetically related to each other than to members of their own race was (easily) refuted years ago.  Further, the real weaknesses of these ancestry tests, and their strengths (kinship), was discussed as well.  But, perhaps dear reader, you are aware that the petty Sailer has never brought himself to link to any of my articles over the years, including the early science-enriched ones at Amren and TOO.  That tells you all you need to know about HBD lies and mendacity. Sailer would rather flop around trying to answer the Chinatrix with guesses and snark rather than quote the deplorable Sallis.  Of course, he could just skip Sallis and directly quote the Witherspoon paper, but that won’t do either, since genetic kinship is the enemy of HBD.

Here we see a Happy Penguin who doesn’t look very happy at all.  Boo-hoo, Pete, what’s up?  A six figure salary won’t be in reach for 2017? Maybe folks would be more willing to donate to VDARE if they knew exactly where the money was going.

Here we see how genuine Pan-European cooperation, pooling resources among European nationalists, have allowed great progress for APF and ETN in 2016.

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!

O’Meara’s Introduction to Yockey’s The Proclamation of London

One critique.

Reading O’ Meara’s Introduction to the latest edition of Yockey’s The Proclamation of London, one unfortunately sees the anti-biological race problem rearing its head again.  The strawman argument is made that so-called biological racial materialism (the adherents of which – like myself – O’Meara doesn’t want to waste his breath on) is all about looking at humanity from the perspective of superiority/inferiority or of a strict genetic determinism.  That is true of Der Movement certainly, and, from a Judeophilic and Asian-worshiping perspective, also true of the HBDers.  But it is not true of a kinship-based racialism that takes the reasonable view that it is adaptive to pursue the promotion of interests of those most closely related to you (genetic kinship), modulated by the numbers involved. That is a core component of my ideology – the Salterian EGI component – of which that there can be no compromise.  Race exists, it is real, population groups differ, genetic kinship differs, and adaptive behavior is tied into the relative levels of that kinship.  Culture is of course extremely important – High Culture/Civilization (using the broad definition, not the strictly Spenglerian distinctions) that includes science/technics – is indeed the most important proximate interest, but genetic kinship is ultimate. I don’t care about, or care for, racial aliens who ape aspects of White Western Culture.  I care about racial Europeans.  When talking about a Race-Culture both aspects are important, and in the order shown: race, then culture.
O’Meara also makes the bizarre argument that racial classifications are arbitrary because Victorian Englishmen saw themselves as more racially similar to Jews than to the Irish.  But here O’Meara is confused, and points the finger of blame in the wrong direction.  What biological science actually says is that indeed the English and Irish are more similar, racially, than either are to Jews (or even to many other European – including NW European – groups).  This belief of Victorian Englishmen was cultural – more akin to the Yockey/Evola “spiritual race” concept than to anything else.  Therefore, O’Meara uses this example of cultural race stupidity to indict biological racial materialism – even though biological racial materialism gives the right answer, and cultural race gives the wrong answer.  The example given is actually supportive of the importance of genetic kinship.  One can also state that total Identity is composed of both biological and cultural characteristics, and that today any racially aware Englishmen would consider himself more similar to the Irish either biologically or culturally than to Jews.
To be fair, apart from this issue, O’Meara’s Introduction is quite good.  This nevertheless is important and the critique, in my opinion, justified.