Category: reality of race

I’m an Indigenous Swarthoid

A riposte.  Red font emphasis added.

This is what the “movement’s” fetish with “racial purity” has given us.

I warned all of you fetishists:

The concept of (absolute) racial purity was originally a racialist meme, one which had particular relevance in the New World environment of the intermingling of highly distinct racial groups (European, Amerindian, and Negro), Negro slavery, and fears of miscegenation. However, today, in the age of genetics, racial purity has become an “anti-racist” concept, a meme of the anti-White Left, a weapon to be wielded against the concept of racial preservation. The leftist argument goes like this:

Premise 1: The reality of race and the legitimacy of racial preservation depends upon absolute racial purity.

Premise 2: Absolute racial purity does not exist (as scientific studies tell us).

Conclusion: Therefore, there is no such thing as race, and racial preservation is illegitimate and irrelevant.

So, this is a logical argument that comes to a false conclusion because of a faulty premise: Premise 1. Premise 2 is however correct. Genetic studies tell us that groups heretofore thought “pure” are likely the result of ancient mixes of other groups.

But, hey, don’t listen to me. Instead follow the great and good Durocher and Ash Donaldson. Victory awaits!

It is also funny how “there is no such thing as indigenous peoples” applies to Europeans, but not to, say, Amerindians or Australian Aboriginals. Curious, that.

 “There’s no such thing as a Dane or a Swede or a German.” 

Hmmm, how about: “There’s no such thing as a Jew or a Nigerian or a Chinamen.” Mr. Netanyahu, tear down that wall!  Nigeria, hand over your land to Bushmen and Hottentots!  China, hand over your territory to all who wish to invade; after all, your national existence is an illusion!

I have, of course, dealt with the question of “what is indigenous?”  See here.

A simple one sentence definition: A group is indigenous when it is the oldest extant group inhabiting a territory in which the group underwent ethnogenesis.

Of course such groups are not “pure” – why should they be?  And why should fast talking Jews and their Goyishe kop puppet liars stop the analysis at “Africans and Russians?” Why not Homo erectus?  Why not self-replicating RNA molecules floating around in the primordial soup?

And by the way, you stupid bastard, ancient steppe peoples were not genetically equivalent to modern Russians.  They were not “Russian” any more than a Cro-Magnon from Provence was “French.”

In my case, I’m an indigenous swarthoid and damn proud of it!  Skin darker than a Nigerian and nostrils wider than an Angolan!

Derb the racial hypocrite.

Twenty years ago, my mother was bedridden and near death. It was one of the last times I was with her, perhaps the very last time—I’m not sure. She was drifting in and out of awareness, sometimes just saying things out loud—random things, clear and coherent but not connected to each other.

So I was sitting there by the bed and heard her say: “I don’t mind dying. At least I knew England when she was England.”

Yeah, Derb, if your mother was still alive, would she see England in the faces of her grandchildren?

Trump will monitor the situation!

There is no truth to the rumor that Greg Johnson, being taller than Richard Spencer, scorns Spencer as an incompetent manlet.  No truth at all!  But, hey, focusing on a bagel dwarf and “incels” helps distract from things like this.  At this point, I think these guys are just trolling us. They can’t still be serious about racialism, can they? I mean, it’s a joke, right?

Yet, Taylor can’t be there because he’s banned from the EU.  The whole thing is curious.

Advertisements

A Duel of Wits

Between unarmed opponents.

See this.

There is some good here, but also considerable nonsense. If the characterization of Richard Spencer’s racial views is correct, then Johnson’s racial views are sounder from an empiricist-materialist standpoint. However, there is much lacking here from a more hardcore scientific standpoint (the wages of “Traditionalism” I suppose). 

The whole “transplanted brains” scenario is absurd and meaningless intellectual masturbation.  What could one do? There are racial – and subracial (cue Durocher’s heavy breathing) – differences in brain structure that can be identified via imaging methodology.  If one were really determined to obtain a definitive identification, a small brain biopsy can yield DNA to assay for genetic ancestry and thus prove whether or not the brain tissue was of Negro origin. As far as the ridiculous question as to why build a community on race instead of other characteristics, I point both interviewer and interviewee to Salter’s On Genetic Interests. Adaptive fitness is the ultimate interest of evolved organisms (such as humans), and any group that promotes their ultimate interests will outcompete and replace those who do not. And, after all, one can always form these narrower communities within your racial group while preserving EGI, but the opposite is not possible.  One can form your little group of Tolkien fans among Whites in an all-White ethnostate, but a multi-racial Tolkien group that is not stratified by race (by definition, if it is multiracial and stratified only by Tolkienism, it will not be stratified by race) will constitute a loss of genetic interest.  Smaller groups within a White ethnostate will retain the advantages of a concentrated EGI; on the other hand, smaller groups of Whites in, say, a multiracial Tolkien Fanboy state, will suffer as a result of a loss of EGI, itself a consequence of the multiracialism of such a state. In the latter case, the situation can be retrieved only by racial separation – so why not  divide on the basis of race to begin with?

Stupidity about gender-specific nations also fails – I remember Bowery writing (correctly) long ago that gender/sex is not a genetic interest.  A man has more genetic commonality with female relatives and co-ethnics than with male non-ethnic strangers. One could subdivide a racially pure state by gender (for what purpose?) but the racial stratification must come first if one is concerned with biological fitness. If you are not concerned with fitness, fine, but that’s not an evolutionarily stable situation. You’ll end up in the dustbin of genetic history, replaced by more ethnocentric others. These are reasonably obvious arguments.  I would also point out that sexual reproduction has evolutionary advantages via increased genetic diversity. No doubt that a sufficiently advanced technology could artificially impose independent assortment and recombination on a single-sex artificial reproduction regimen, but, again, for what purpose?  While eliminating the yeastbucket requirement would no doubt be advantageous in many ways, what would be the sexual outlet for such an all-male society?  Widespread homosexuality?  I’ll take a pass on that. There are probably some things best left unchanged in human nature and the division between two sexes for reproduction is likely to be one of those.

And what’s with this obsession with Rushton and Lynn?  Look, the broad theories of both of them are likely true, but that’s as far as it goes. R-K theory on race (that I independently came up with in the 1980s after reading an ecology textbook) is undoubtedly true on the general level of – Blacks and Browns have more offspring and invest less in them; Whites and Yellows have fewer offspring but invest more in them. And, as well, Blacks and Browns have faster life histories (earlier maturation and reproduction and earlier death) than do Whites and Yellows. If Rushton had stuck with that, instead of trying to shoehorn every racial characteristic (including penis size) into the formulation, he’d be more respected today. Likewise, Lynn is likely correct that there is a general association between national IQ and economic productivity (as measured by GDP) and general accomplishment; the problem occurs when he falls too much in love with his theory (as did Rushton with his ideas) and tries to fit every data point into the pattern, with ludicrous “estimates of IQ,” racial history fairy tales about admixture, and hand waving “just so stories” to explain anomalies. The problem, I suppose, is that the broad theories are a bit too obvious and common sense, plain to any reasonably intelligent and honest observant individual, and so there isn’t much “intellectual prestige” in merely stating the obvious.  Therefore, ego-driven “intellectuals” have to build castles of sand to demonstrate how very clever they are.

Counter-Currents commentary:

Craig
Posted July 1, 2019 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Yang was a joke who never should have had any support from the Dissident Right in the first place. Those who did have made public fools of themselves.

Craig, meet Greg Johnson. And Richard Spencer. And many more.

Also, what’s the big deal about Gabbard? Oh she’s good on foreign policy. But so is Trump. He not once, but twice, averted war by outmaneuvering the warhawks in DC. First with Syria and now with Iran. He’s the peace candidate you should be voting for.

There’s no reason to pay attention to any of these clowns with a (D) in front of their name.

Craig, meet David Duke.  And Richard Spencer.

Then there’s John Morgan:

John Morgan
Posted July 1, 2019 at 6:33 am | Permalink
Rep. Gabbard seems to be the least bad (notice I’m not saying good) of all these people. It’s also worth mentioning her connections to/support of Hindu nationalist groups in India like the BJP and RSS (since she is a practicing Hindu herself). This doesn’t necessarily equate to sympathy for nationalism for white people, but it suggests she may at least have the vision to not be completely averse to it. In practice that may not mean much, however. But as Mr. Hampton wrote, she has no chance of getting the nomination this time around, anyway.

You know she supports reparations for Negroes, right?

A one, a one, a one two three….

Ted Cruz at least spoke up about this.  Antifa Don Trump, The God Emperor?  Silence.

MAGA!  Pepe! Kek!

Readers of this blog know that I am no apologist for homosexuals (of either sex) but I’m no apologist for hypocrisy either.  I mean, really….  Apparently, “homophobia” – “vile” or otherwise – is perfectly acceptable in the service of “movement” feuds.  Perhaps, Antifa can be critiqued in other ways than their penchant for sending gay Asians to the hospital.

Race Denial Incoherence

And other news.

Denier:  There is no such thing as race!  It is merely a social construct with no biological basis!

Realist: Then how do you distinguish those nasty privileged White racists from those nice and humble oppressed Blacks, whose lives, as we are told, matter ever so much?

Denier: Look, there are some people who happen to have dark skin and others who happen to have light skin – and that’s the only difference between them – and the former are placed in a “Black” socially constructed group that is victimized, and the former band together as a socially constructed privileged “White” oppressor group.

Realist: So the only difference is the skin color of these groups, a mere superficial element?  No other similarities within and differences between the groups?

Denier: That’s right.

Realist:  But there are people from, say, South Asia, who have skin as dark or darker than many Black Americans, and there are some people from, say, Northeast Asia, who have skin as light or lighter than many White Americans. So are Koreans and Japanese privileged Whites who are oppressing Black Indians and Bangladeshis?

Denier: No!  When I talk about “Whites” I mean, you know, Whites, and “Blacks” mean Blacks.  You know what I mean.

Realist: No, I don’t know what you mean.  Please explain.

Denier:  I mean that “Whites” are relatively lighter-skinned people of European descent who look like Europeans, while Blacks are relatively darker-skinned people who have African ancestry and look like people from sub-Saharan Africa.

Realist: So these “socially constructed” groups are based on people who look somewhat similar to each other and who derive from particular continents – continental population groups?

Denier: They are ethnicities, not races!

Realist: Putting aside that your “ethnicities” are based on continent of origin and physical appearance that goes beyond mere skin color, I ask – are English, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and Russians all the same ethnic group?

Denier: Whatever. Those are socially constructed groups – part of the “White” social construct.

Realist:  Again – are they all the same ethnic group?

Denier: No.

Realist:  So, we have different ethnic groups that are binned together because they look approximately similar and originate from the same continent.  Population genetics will show similarities at that level as well, in a global context.  Obviously then, this group of “Whites” – which we can call a race – has a biological basis and is not merely some sort of social construct.

Denier:  You’re a racist!  You should get elbowed in the face just like Richard Spencer!

This demonstrates the problem with ancestry testing companies.  Assume European ethny “X” that has some Siberian/East Asian admixture.  A testing company has “X” as one of its parental populations, well represented in their database, and as part of their “European” category.  A person of “X” ancestry – someone who has the same Siberian/East Asian admixture – gets tested, and since they match the “X” parentals, they get a result of “100% X,” which the company interprets as “100% European.” In this manner, the Siberian/East Asian admixture is hidden, because it is part of “X” ancestry and “X” is a “European parental population.” The individual, who may well look like they should be eating with chopsticks, goes on Amren comments threads to pontificate on their “racial purity.”

Now, you may argue that if “X” is an indigenous European ethny, and if the admixture took place long ago as part of the ethnogenesis of “X,” then it is fair to call all “X” ancestry as “European.”  Very well, but then you have to accord the same status to the ethnogenesis of other European ethnies, including the cringing subhumans from the South.

Just in time to fool the rubes in 2020.  The Republican playbook: Campaign Right, Govern Left.

So much winning!  Never fear!  Trump is monitoring the situation, monitoring very closely

It is staggering that all of the heroes of Der Movement (with a few exceptions) did not realize early on that Trump was a fraud and a buffoon.  With respect to being a fraud, we have all of the evidence: His Jewish family connections, his fondness for Negroes, his socially liberal “New York values,” and his past support for leftist Democrats. As for being a buffoon, his debate performances were clear indication of that; for example, his clownish ignorance when asked about America’s nuclear triad strategic deterrent (of which he clearly knew nothing), compared to his great interest in talking about the size of his hands.  Why did anyone take this fat retard seriously?

He won the election because many White Americans were desperately hungry for red meat right-wing populism, and were heartily tired of the GOP Establishment and the non-choice of elections. They took Trumpian rhetoric at face value. I supported his election because it was obvious that Trumpsim was accelerating the breakdown of America and disrupting the multicultural consensus. I also stupidly (or naively) thought that Der Movement would be able to take advantage of Trumpism to further the promotion of explicitly White interests. I should have known better; that foolishness is to my eternal shame.

Just like Derbyshire – someone with a sense of entitlement who believes that their entire social milieu should change to accommodate their (wrong) life choices.

It is also amusing to see stereotypes conformed – the huge White whale has a Black “husband.”  White fatties and Negroes – who would have ever guessed?  All that’s missing from this picture is a bucket of fried chicken and Captain Ahab.

Race, Sex, Trump, Durocher

In der news.

Not an incel.  Good to see that all of the Joan of Arcs out there are properly rewarding only the most high-quality male biological specimens with abundant sexual access!  After all, we only want high-IQ geniuses, producing the most exquisite cultural artifacts and the most important discoveries and inventions for human progress, to be thus rewarded.

When we need to save “Black bodies,” then race suddenly exists, and has a biological basis.

See comment # 208 in response to Durocher. None of those comments are from me, by the way, in case anyone was wondering. There are others willing to point out Durocher’s unrelenting mendacity. There is no line drawn in Europe separating the areas of absolute purity from those exhibiting highly admixed cringing subhumans.  Further, as my posts about ancestry testing have demonstrated, you can model any group – or individual – as combinations of other groups, if for some reason you wanted to do so. In the early days of population genetics, it was all about modeling the European genepool as a mix of Asian and African; in the paper Durocher ejaculates about, we see a supplementary data table modeling populations as mixes of German, Saharawi, and Qatari. Only an idiot who thinks Ostara was a scientific journal would take any of that at literal face value, without nuance.

Trump the HBDer.  Getting more East Asian females in America will be a boon to two groups of White deviants.  First, sublimated pedophiles can indulge themselves with adult Asian females with no legal sanction.  Pederasts benefit also. Since there is minimal phenotypic difference between an adult Asian female and a pre-pubescent boy, sublimated pederasts can avoid legal and societal sanctions and indulge their predilection for man-boy love with adult Asian females.  A win-win, I suppose.

Meanwhile, Trump the White-hating criminal traitor wants to replace native professionals with an Asian overclass.  After all, there are no native geniuses, right Don?  Well, in the Trump family, that’s certainly true.

Hey, Pelosi, when are you going to impeach Trump, who is CLEARLY guilty of obstruction of justice?  Impeach, trial by Senate, indictment, conviction for the CRIME of obstruction of justice, and then time spent in the prison infirmary to repair certain injuries sustained while having intimate conversations with fellow inmates.

IMPEACH TRUMP!

More on Cancer Cell Lines

Race, race, race.

Read here.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

Assessing the role of ancestry-associated genetic variations in disease etiology is further complicated by the recent admixture that characterizes various populations of the world (24). Hence, an individual’s ancestry can be described by quantifying the proportion of the genome derived from each contributing population (global ancestry). Heterogeneity is also observed locally in the genome, as variability is observed in the ancestral origins of any particular segment of chromosomes (local ancestry; ref. 25). Ultimately, genetics plays a role in the biological characteristics of a cancer in the form of both germline variation and somatic alterations. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which genetic differences align with ancestral genetic changes (26).

Cell lines reported as “African” or “Black” clustered with African-American populations in 81.6% of the cases, emphasizing the ambiguity of the existing nomenclature. In fact, the proportion of the genome inferred to be of European origin in these cell lines averaged 18.32% (ranging from 0% to 95.09%). Another type of ambiguity concerns the cell line Hs 698.T labeled as originating from an “American Indian,” which clusters with populations of South Asia, suggesting an origin in India rather than from a Native/Indigenous American individual. A total of 26 cell lines were reported as Caucasian but clustered genetically with other populations including African (n = 2), African American (n = 6), East Asian (n = 1), Hispanic/Latinos (n = 16), and South Asian (n = 1). Interestingly, 89% of the cell lines identified as Hispanic/Latino from admixture patterns and clustering are reported as “Caucasian.” Several groups have reported a concordance between self- or observer-reported belonging to major racial/ethnic groups (141–143). However, these categories do not capture the inherent heterogeneity of admixed populations (144–147). What appears as inconsistencies in self-report and genetic data may result from individuals having limited knowledge of their ancestral origins, or culturally identifying to an ethnic group that is not representative of one’s admixture proportions (18). Sociological, behavioral, and biological factors that underlie race, ethnicity, and ancestry are likely to interact (148). Consequently, from a biomedical research perspective, both self-reports of race/ethnicity group as well as genetically determined clustering and admixture are expected to be relevant in understanding disease susceptibility, and ultimately, the causes of health disparities (18, 148, 149).

Note the last phrase.  Also, importantly, there is misclassification.  Given that people are not always accurate about their own self-reported ancestry, what can we say about the ancestry testing companies that use customer samples to inflate their pathetically limited parental/reference population datasets?

Also consider Figure 1 in the paper. It looks to me like the cancer cell lines exhibit more admixture than the actual human population samples. At the very least,there are observable differences in ancestral proportions. Some of that of course is simply the well known admixture in “African Americans,” but what about the other populations?  That could be due to the misclassification mentioned above, there are of course issues about sample size, and concerns over how accurate the ancestry testing is. Cancer cell lines also tend to have high mutation rates, reflecting the situation in the tumor of origin. However, even with all those caveats, can we consider the possibility that increased admixture is associated with a higher cancer risk; hence, cancer cell lines show more admixture because cancer patients are on average more admixed than is typical of the general  population?  Given how prevalent cancer is, the differences are not great, as we are dividing populations in two relatively similar “chunks” (the difference being cancer vs. non-cancer); but still, if there is going to be any differences between the two “chunks” – perhaps the cancer “chunk” exhibits more admixture than the non-cancer “chunk?” Anyone willing to test the hypothesis?  Or, we can consider the more general hypothesis of statistically significant differences in ancestry between cancer vs. non-cancer for each population group (regardless of admixture, or which group has more admixture, etc.).  

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.

We Are Not All the Same

Genes, Race, IQ, and disease.

One refutation of Lynn, and three papers with emphasis added.

Refuting Lynn, refuting the Alt Wrong/Alt Yellow.  Amren weeps.

Read here.

BACKGROUND:
Although cell lines are an essential resource for studying cancer biology, many are of unknown ancestral origin, and their use may not be optimal for evaluating the biology of all patient populations.
METHODS:
An admixture analysis was performed using genome-wide chip data from the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) Cell Lines Project to calculate genetic ancestry estimates for 1018 cancer cell lines. After stratifying the analyses by tissue and histology types, linear models were used to evaluate the influence of ancestry on gene expression and somatic mutation frequency.
RESULTS:
For the 701 cell lines with unreported ancestry, 215 were of East Asian origin, 30 were of African or African American origin, and 453 were of European origin. Notable imbalances were observed in ancestral representation across tissue type, with the majority of analyzed tissue types having few cell lines of African American ancestral origin, and with Hispanic and South Asian ancestry being almost entirely absent across all cell lines. In evaluating gene expression across these cell lines, expression levels of the genes neurobeachin line 1 (NBEAL1), solute carrier family 6 member 19 (SLC6A19), HEAT repeat containing 6 (HEATR6), and epithelial cell transforming 2 like (ECT2L) were associated with ancestry. Significant differences were also observed in the proportions of somatic mutation types across cell lines with varying ancestral proportions.
CONCLUSIONS:
By estimating genetic ancestry for 1018 cancer cell lines, the authors have produced a resource that cancer researchers can use to ensure that their cell lines are ancestrally representative of the populations they intend to affect. Furthermore, the novel ancestry-specific signal identified underscores the importance of ancestral awareness when studying cancer.

Racial genetic differences mean that results obtained with cancer cell lines from one race may very well be NOT applicable to other races.  There are indeed racial differences in gene sequences and gene expression, with clinically significant implications for patients.

Read here.

BACKGROUND:
We examined racial differences in the expression of eight genes and their associations with risk of recurrence among 478 white and 495 black women who participated in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase 3.
METHODS:
Breast tumor samples were analyzed for PAM50 subtype and for eight genes previously found to be differentially expressed by race and associated with breast cancer survival: ACOX2, MUC1, FAM177A1, GSTT2, PSPH, PSPHL, SQLE, and TYMS. The expression of these genes according to race was assessed using linear regression and each gene was evaluated in association with recurrence using Cox regression.
RESULTS:
Compared to white women, black women had lower expression of MUC1, a suspected good prognosis gene, and higher expression of GSTT2, PSPHL, SQLE, and TYMS, suspected poor prognosis genes, after adjustment for age and PAM50 subtype. High expression (greater than median versus less than or equal to median) of FAM177A1 and PSPH was associated with a 63% increase (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-2.46) and 76% increase (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.15-2.68), respectively, in risk of recurrence after adjustment for age, race, PAM50 subtype, and ROR-PT score. Log2-transformed SQLE expression was associated with a 20% increase (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.03-1.41) in recurrence risk after adjustment. A continuous multi-gene score comprised of eight genes was also associated with increased risk of recurrence among all women (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.04-1.19) and among white (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.27) and black (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.02-1.20) women.
CONCLUSIONS:
Racial differences in gene expression may contribute to the survival disparity observed between black and white women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Health disparity differences in outcome for breast cancer in White vs. Black women have a genetic basis.

Read this.

Age at menarche (AM) and age at natural menopause (ANM) define the boundaries of the reproductive lifespan in women. Their timing is associated with various diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Genome-wide association studies have identified several genetic variants associated with either AM or ANM in populations of largely European or Asian descent women. The extent to which these associations generalize to diverse populations remains unknown. Therefore, we sought to replicate previously reported AM and ANM findings and to identify novel AM and ANM variants using the Metabochip (n = 161,098 SNPs) in 4,159 and 1,860 African American women, respectively, in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) studies, as part of the Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) Study. We replicated or generalized one previously identified variant for AM, rs1361108/CENPW, and two variants for ANM, rs897798/BRSK1 and rs769450/APOE, to our African American cohort. Overall, generalization of the majority of previously-identified variants for AM and ANM, including LIN28B and MCM8, was not observed in this African American sample. We identified three novel loci associated with ANM that reached significance after multiple testing correction (LDLR rs189596789, p = 5×10⁻⁰⁸; KCNQ1 rs79972789, p = 1.9×10⁻⁰⁷; COL4A3BP rs181686584, p = 2.9×10⁻⁰⁷). Our most significant AM association was upstream of RSF1, a gene implicated in ovarian and breast cancers (rs11604207, p = 1.6×10⁻⁰⁶). While most associations were identified in either AM or ANM, we did identify genes suggestively associated with both: PHACTR1 and ARHGAP42. The lack of generalization coupled with the potentially novel associations identified here emphasize the need for additional genetic discovery efforts for AM and ANM in diverse populations.

There seems to be genetic differences underlying reproductive lifespan in women of different races.  I hypothesize that Negro females would tend to possess variants promoting earlier reproduction.  Blacks and Hispanics have earlier puberty than Whites.