Category: who is White

Sallis Agrees With the Alt Right on Something

Some good sense.

I essentially agree with and endorse this article, with some caveats, and it should be read together with this piece I wrote several years ago.

The article is reasonably sound, although one caveat is that if one approaches these tests with a sense of realism with respect to their limitations – limitations spelled out in my Counter-Currents piece – then getting tested may not be a bad idea.  Having the raw data could be useful if you can find someone who can do a genetic kinship analysis with it. But taking the details of the data literally – thinking that there’s a real difference between 100% A, 0% B vs. 99.3% A, 0.7% B, for example – is ludicrous. I would take even the 90% confidence readings with a large grain of salt, and the 50% confidence readings are so absurd that the salt grain needs to be the size of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

The other caveat to the article is that the comments section is mixed; some comments are useful, some are asinine, so caveat emptor.

There are two basic questions here.

1. Is 23andMe a good test?

2. Assuming an ancestry test is good, is it worthwhile?

To which I answer: 1) No and 2) Maybe, depending on context.

In an absolute sense, 23andMe is superior to DNAPrint’s tests from ~15 years ago; in a relative sense – comparing each test to the “state of  the art” available at the time – it really isn’t better at all.  With the level of understanding and methodology we have today, coupled with a prudent interpretation of the data, one could do much better.

What if a test was sound?  Well, sure, it can be interesting, but I’ll repeat something I’ve been hammering home here over the past few years – the only biopolitically relevant genetic metric is genetic kinship (at all levels of genetic integration).  If one can measure that, then it is useful. All else can be interesting, but not directly important from an EGI standpoint.

And if people are going to hysterically obsess over sub-fractional admixture percentages then this is missing the forest for the trees.


Joe Costello: Not “Who We Are”

Lindsey Graham – Ja!  Joe Costello – Nein!

Strom discusses the early days of ADV and who was against the show, and who gave the show a forum to exist (emphasis added):

And we made some powerful enemies. To keep us off 50,000-Watt shortwave station  WRNO, organized Jewish groups boycotted the station and withdrew their advertising from it and its FM sister station — but Joe Costello, the station’s owner, believed in free speech and kept us on the air even though it cost him a huge amount of money. Then they “outed” Joe Costello as a so-called “racist,” and published in their newspapers that he had given money to — horror of horrors — David Duke’s political campaigns, trying in yet another way to ruin him financially. But Joe Costello would not bow down. American Dissident Voices stayed on WRNO — for many years.

Who was Joe Costello and family?

Survivors include his mother, Josephine Cortese Costello, and three brothers,
Martin Joseph, Donald Mario and Michael Angelo Costello.

And family origins.

His father, Joseph Costello Sr., emigrated with his family from Italy in 1882…

Dat dere no good Negroid swarthoid Mafiosi!  Instead let’s focus on good, hearty, real HuWhite men of the West, such as the high-IQ Jews who tried to force the show off the air, and those real White men like Lindsey Graham and John McCain.  That’s the ticket!  Der Movement knows real racial quality when it sees it!  Who We Are, indeed!

Breezy, 12/11/16

A nugget of interest in a pile of nonsense.

This is the usual Breezerian stupidity – e.g., that definitions of “White” should depend upon politically-motivated (and anti-White!) US government census categories, who looks like Breezy after a shave, and whether or not Danny Thomas went to Catholic school. That said, I would prefer “European-American” to “White” as it is more precise a category.  But, will even that be tainted by the Alt Wrong?  In the midst of Sailer’s ramblings (surprisingly nothing there about real estate, PISA scores, or golf courses), we read (emphasis added):

Jared Taylor very much wants Jews within his identity politics movement. As a certain immigrant media tycoon once remarked to a friend of mind in explaining why he subsidized neoconservative spokesmen, “To succeed in America, don’t need all the Jews in New York on your side, but you do need some.”

A European-American identity movement with heavy Jewish leadership might become an accepted player on the identity politics scene.

One wonders if some of the ruthless right-punchers – who are on record as rejecting Jews in Der Movement – will at some point forcefully address the HBD Alt Wrong Jeurasian plan of a “White movement” with “heavy Jewish leadership” (and a Chinatrix wife for every mewling beta White male)?  Or can we not criticize “one of the boys?”  Inquiring minds want to know.

"Free White Person"

Must be an error!

Use of the racial term “white?”  In 1790?  Say it ain’t so!  According to the great and good Sir Desmond Jones, “the white race is a 20th century Jewish construct.”

Therefore, obviously – obviously! – the aforementioned document was actually written in 1970, not 1790, and its author was one Rabbi Moshe Finklestein.

Der Movement Marches On, 7/21/16

Reproduced without further comment, emphasis added:

Posted July 21, 2016 at 5:44 am 
Australia had a national identity – we were British (with some Northern European accretions), but of a different character resulting from our unique history and environment. The first blow struck against that identity was from the mass migration of several million Southern Europeans (mostly Greeks and Southern Italians). They may be members of the European family of nations but they were (and still are) not us.
The fact that they are now considered “White” (which is a euphemism for Northern European) is a sign of our desperation. We are looking for allies wherever we can find them.

Shooting the Breeze, 4/2/16

More superficial Sailer stupidity.

One seldom mentioned reason that white flight is a slow process in California is because the 1978 initiative Proposition 13 gives a major property tax break to homeowners who stay in their homes.

Yes, for as we know, in the Steveosphere, all societal trends boil down to one of three things: real estate, PISA scores, and golf courses.

…and the Asians bailed out to small school districts in the San Gabriel Valley that they could take over and control, like Arcadia. This also proved a way for Asian parents to keep their daughters away from chasing white boys by moving them to Asian dominant public schools.

More accurately: “This also proved a way for Asian parents to keep their daughters from being chased after by white boys, by moving them to Asian dominant public schools.” After all, even though the White male is a sissified pansy, unable to muster even the slightest effort for racial and cultural self-defense, he’ll leave no stone unturned in his quest to have sexual access to Asian females.

If the government creates a new Census category in 2020 breaking out “Middle Eastern – North African” from poor dumb old whites, is the white population of Los Angeles suddenly going to drop?

Hey, Steve, who exactly are these “poor dumb old whites?” One of your arguments against “White nationalism” is the inability to decide precisely who Whites are, and yet you write about this non-existent group on an almost a daily basis.

Must have something to do with the real estate prices of golf courses, and the PISA scores of cheating Asians grabbing the 9 iron.

Der Movement Sows, Der Movement Reaps

Harvesting the crop of stupidity.

Given this essential agreement with those he is criticizing, what exactly are Mr. Williamson’s objections to “white nationalism?”

1. Firstly, he devotes a lot of space to a silly remark by some unnamed internet troll that “the Italians are not really a white people” — without, alas, explaining why this should be taken as an authoritative expression of “white nationalism.”

2. Similarly beside the point is his allegation that “white nationalists begin by defining as ‘white’ people who look like themselves and work backward from there to determine who is, and who isn’t, ‘white.’” This appears to be a variant of the charge that racialists are interested in skin color or other physical traits rather than in the people for whom those traits are a (rough) marker. Clyde Wilson has not found this line of argument beneath himself either. Relax, Chronicles — if “white nationalists” are that stupid, you need not worry yourself about them.

A while back, some of us criticized the “movement,” asserting that the ethnic fetishism, obsessions, subjective evaluations of phenotype, and intra-White hostilities would and do delegitimize racial nationalism to people who otherwise could become useful adherents to the worldview.  That criticism was met essentially with the counter-view that the criticism was all just “ethnic” special pleading.  But, Williamson is not a dumb swart Med or a debonair Slavic brute:  

To my knowledge, I haven’t a drop of non-British blood—English, Scottish, Irish, probably Welsh—in my veins. 

Williamson’s arguments are breathtakingly stupid, and his understanding of European ethnicity and history is abysmal.  But the point remains that Williamson’s stupidities were and are provoked and enabled by the equal stupidity of the “movement.”  “Two wrongs don’t make a right,” as they say; the fact that Williamson is ignorant and illogical doesn’t make the “movement” any less ignorant and illogical.  Indeed, it is the opposite: each feeds off the other.