Friday, October 19, 2018

What is a Self-Serving Narrative, Part 2

Revisionism by omission.

From the summer of 2015 to the fall of 2016, the Alt Right was winning debates and changing minds. Even more significantly, it was also changing the parameters of political debate. It was increasingly capable of driving the news cycle and forcing the political establishment to respond to it. It was also funny, creative, and cool. Naturally, people wanted to join the movement and embrace the brand.
It was during this time that only two people (that I know of) associated with (American) racial nationalism had the prescience to be critical and/or skeptical of the Alt Right: Ted Sallis and Kevin Strom.  Everyone else – including Johnson – were 100% on the Alt Right bandwagon.  All the juvenile posturing, intellectual vacuity, obsessions over a cartoon frog, screaming about something called “Kek,” Trump worship – that was 100% fine and good to all these other people. Strom was skeptical, and I was openly critical (and skeptical), predicting (and hoping for) an end to the “Alt Right fever.”  Those are the facts that all sorts of revisionist attempts at rewriting history cannot change.
But that presented some problems.
The Alt Right itself was the problem, and carried within it the seeds of its own downfall, clear to anyone with foresight and good judgment.
First of all, the Alt Right was a decentralized, largely anonymous, largely online network of individuals, webzines, and small organizations. Because of its online nature, there were no barriers to the movement’s viral growth—but by the same token, there were no barriers to entry either.
Doesn’t most of that also apply to Der Movement in general as well?
Second, the Alt Right brand was effective because of its vagueness. 
No, that was one of the key flaws leading to its downfall.  It was a building with no foundation.  It was a deck of cards – which predictably collapsed at the first strong wind.  That Johnson even now doesn’t realize this is remarkable.
But the flip side of that vagueness was that nobody could control how it was used. Anyone who dissented from the Republican establishment could call himself Alt Right, and as the Trump campaign gained momentum, increasing numbers of young Trumpian populists and civic nationalists wanted to use the term. However, many of these newcomers were ideologically naïve and half-baked.
The problem is that “ideologically naïve and half-baked” describes the founders of the Alt Right themselves.
The main bone of contention was race. The core and vanguard of the Alt Right were White Nationalists. They believed that whiteness is a necessary condition for being a member of any European or European-derived society like the United States. Many newcomers rejected this idea. They were ignorant of the problems of multiracial, multicultural societies. They believed the widespread dogma that being an American is a matter of a civic creed, to which people of any race can adhere. Many of them greeted White Nationalist ideas with indifference or downright hostility.
And so the Alt Right fell in between these two stools.  Surprise!
The utility of the Alt Right brand was as a tool of reaching out to people who were closer to the political mainstream, the “normies.” The normies were now coming in droves, and some of them wanted to define the Alt Right in more comfortable civic nationalist terms. This led to a crisis in the Alt Right. 
For years, people in our movement had complained about only “preaching to the choir.” But now that White Nationalists had a vast audience of people who didn’t already agree with them, they did not feel elated; they felt threatened. Many people were worried that their movement was going to be “coopted” by “entryists” and started thinking in terms of how to repulse newcomers.
Here’s where I think we delve into revisionism by omission.  Johnson leaves out a middle ground here. My criticism of the Alt Right was two-fold.  First, I didn’t like its intellectual vacuity, Millennial jackassery, regurgitation of empty “movement” dogma, stupid memes, Trump worship, drunken acting out, and all the rest.  Second – and relevant to the point here – I vehemently objected to the Alt Right’s pretensions of hegemony of (American) Far Right activism.  My point was, and is, clear: if the Alt Right wanted to welcome all sorts of “newcomers,” if it wanted a “big tent,” if it wanted to equate its worldview to a mash-up of Trump, Pepe, Kek, alcohol in Alexandria loft apartments, Beavis and Butthead sniggering, and Arthur Kemp, all well and good.  But – BUT! - keep the Alt Right as its own separate entity, the “Far Right for immature Millennials” – don’t you dare pretend to represent, or speak for, ALL (American) Far Rightists, don’t you dare equate the Alt Right with White nationalism, and vice versa.  I opposed putting all our racialist eggs in one Alt Right basket, I opposed Alt Right dominance and hegemony, I foresaw the damage that would be done by the Alt Right’s inevitable collapse, and I, frankly, resented being represented in the public eye by this group of semi-retarded imbeciles.  It was not an either-or of “vanguardism” vs. “mainstreaming entryism.”  It was to keep the Alt Right separate from racial nationalism proper.  But all the folks who are historical revisionists about the Alt Right today did not see that then (or even now).  
I thought this was self-defeating. I urged people to see the situation as an opportunity to convert a vastly expanded audience to White Nationalism. The reason we had come so far is that we had the best arguments and propaganda. We just needed to have faith in ourselves and our message, then we needed to get back in the battle and continue winning new converts.
Was the way to win new converts – all those “normies” – to declare that the Alt Right was White nationalism or nothing at all?  Seems inconsistent.  Don’t you want to bring the “converts” in gradually?  Isn’t the whole point of Johnson’s argument so far that the original Alt Right was successful in attracting a “big tent” following because of its vagueness?
We also needed to be realistic about the limits of our ability to control a decentralized, grass-roots, online social movement with anything less than the best memes. It is empty to talk of entryism and purges when one is dealing with an online movement with fuzzy boundaries. 
How does this differ from Der Movement in general?
We cannot prevent people from going online, nor can we throw them off the internet. Finally, we needed to develop an ethos that would allow us to collaborate productively with people closer to the center, whose links to the mainstream were channels for our ideas and influence.
By declaring that the Alt Right was White nationalism – or nothing at all?
These arguments, however, were rendered moot on November 21, 2016, when Hailgate allowed the mainstream media to forever tie the Alt Right to neo-Nazism. At this point, many civic nationalists rejected the Alt Right brand entirely. This was the birth of the so-called “Alt Lite.” It was “lite” only in one sense: it had tossed White Nationalists overboard. The Alt Lite remained a potent force, while the Alt Right became significantly weaker. The Alt Lite commanded a large audience, which White Nationalists could no longer reach. The Alt Lite retained an enormous social network, from which we were now cut off. White Nationalists could accomplish less, because a lot of highly competent and creative people on the Alt Lite would no longer cooperate with us.
If the Alt Lite was so sensitive, so weak, then good riddance.  You don’t want to be in a foxhole with someone who starts running as soon as they hear one artillery shell being fired.
Perhaps the worst loss, however, was in the ideological realm. The most important intellectual battle White Nationalists face is to destroy the taboo against white identity politics. After Hailgate, the Alt Lite differentiated itself from White Nationalism by drawing a firm line against white identity politics and digging in behind it, strengthening the taboo among the very people who were most receptive to questioning it.
Ideological realm?  What was it before Hailgate?  Pepe?  Kek?
It was a disaster. But it did get high marks from Andrew Anglin, who had been at the forefront of the effort to identify the Alt Right with Nazism: “Basically, Richard Spencer did something at NPI that was needed exactly right now in the post-victory period: he separated the Alt-Right from the Alt-Cuck and the Alt-Kike. We are better off without these people.”[1] We were better off only if one’s goal was to assert control over a marginal, subcultural political movement. We were significantly worse off if one’s goal was to interface with the cultural and political mainstream and move it in our direction.
I thought Anglin was one of the new voices of White nationalism?  I suppose when he defends Spencer, that’s all forgotten, eh?  Look, I disagree with Anglin on most things, but he was right about all those folks throwing Spencer under the bus because of Jews. I wish we had “pro-White leaders” who cared about ALL Whites (i.e., European-descended people) as much as they care about Jews.  Then again, Jews are much superior to low-IQ Afrowops and all those “non-Western” Romanians dancing the hora (long may it turn), right?
Some figures on the Alt Lite have speculated that Spencer engineered Hailgate precisely to drive off civic nationalists by identifying the Alt Right with racial nationalism in its most stigmatized and toxic form. For what it is worth, I ran this theory by someone who socialized and worked closely with Spencer over the years, and he rejected it as “giving him too much credit” for Machiavellian strategizing. Instead, he chalked Hailgate up to a mix of impulsiveness, drunkenness, and unfathomable bad judgment.
I said it then, and I’ll say it now: Hailgate was bad judgment and bad optics, but it was nowhere the disaster all the Spencer-haters make it out to be.  Spencer and the Alt Right could have rebounded, if all the hysterical Alt Wrongers didn’t start immediately disavowing him (for all the wrong reasons) and if Spencer and the Alt Right wasn’t fundamentally characterized by “a mix of impulsiveness, drunkenness, and unfathomable bad judgment.”
Whether Hailgate was intentional or not, however, it became the pattern for what came next: a drive to centralize the Alt Right under the leadership of Richard Spencer, which led to further division and dysfunction.
All Spencer’s fault.  Boring already. How about the error in trying to centralize White nationalism under the Alt Right?  And if folks are now saying that Spencer has long been “problematic” and has all sorts of serious personality flaws, then why didn’t they see that earlier?  Didn’t they all work with, associate with, and make podcasts with, Spencer before?  Before these folks had their own personal falling out with Spencer, he and his “flawed personality” were no problem.  Judgment?

Who is ultimately at fault here?  Neither Spencer nor Johnson.  It's the rank-and-file of Der Movement, who keep on following and enabling failed leaders through all of their "unfathomable bad judgment."

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Der Movement Thursday

Plain facts, as they say.

These guys (defined in various ways) all praise each other.  One must maintain the illusion that they know what they’re talking about, and that their prominence in the “movement” is solely merit-based.

McCulloch does critique Johnson’s timeline, in that most proponents of the ethnostate today won’t live to see, and live in and enjoy, the coming ethnostate.  It’s understandable to feel that way, but is it realistic?  Frankly speaking, I doubt racial separation will ever happen at all, much less quibbling over when it will happen. White Americans elect Trump, whose civic nationalism is termed “fascism” by a triumphant Left that is rioting in the streets with absolute impunity, while Trump’s DOJ supports the rioters and indicts Trump’s own supporters.  Two years after Trump’s election, Whites are more cowed and persecuted than ever. Now, things can change fast – look how quickly the Soviet Union collapsed – but you can’t count on that.  The best you can do is produce a real movement that actualizes pro-White activism and moves the ball forward to the ethnostate.  This does not exist today.  In actuality, Der Movement is an impediment to racial progress, not a promoter of it; thus, if anything, Johnson’s timeline for the ethnostate is too optimistic.  If it isn’t, then how do we get from “here” to “there?”

I think a fairer, and broader, criticism of Johnson’s timeline is that it is reflective of the “movement’s” manipulation of time goalposts to avoid responsibility and accountability. You see, the “movement” slyly accomplishes this in two contradictory ways.  On the one hand, they avoid responsibility for actually being serious and building a long-term infrastructure by stressing the imminence of change. Thus, to paraphrase a leading Type I activist circa 2002: “I can’t understand why any Whites are saving for retirement or going to college, or why racial activists waste their time taking about long-term strategy – don’t they know that the System is going to collapse within the next 5 years?”  So, that’s the “Der Tag is imminent, off to the woods with your musket and hide in your snug hobbit hole until you hear the shooting” gambit.  It’s always only “5 years away” so why bother organizing?  Of course, real quick, those “5 years” become 10,15, 20, 25, 50 years, and you end up having done nothing but fantasize.  On the other hand, some activists, devolve accountability onto future generations by postponing any reckoning to some indefinite time period hence – “the ethnostate will come into being at least 50 years in the future, so politics is not for us today, instead let’s do metapolitics – and don’t forget to send me a donation.”  So, it's either that they are not responsible for actually doing anything prudent and strategic because The Collapse will happen any day now OR they have no accountability because The Solution will happen some time in the distant, hazy future.

But talk is cheap. Attorney General Jeff Sessions should give Cuomo what he inadvertently asked for: a federal investigation into Antifa, a group that is overtly based around denying Americans their First Amendment rights through violence.
For godssakes you naïve fools: JEFF SESSIONS IS A SUPPORTER OF ANTIFA.  GOT IT?  His DOJ specifically targets rightists, if “Trumps DOJ” were to “act” it would be to indict the “Proud Boys” for more hate crimes charges.  Can’t you quota queens stop indulging in fantasy and face harsh reality?  “America’s Senator” is a hardcore cuck.  Trump himself is a LAZY FAY VULGAR MORON and his fanboys in Der Movement cheer his “Horseface” and Pocahontas” taunts while never noticing he blithely stands by and allows his own supporters to be attacked in the streets AND THEN stands by while his DOJ inducts his own supporters for hate crimes.  That’s Trump.  That’s his DOJ.  And no amount of “negs” and cheap blustering will change those FACTS.
The plain fact is that, nearly two years into the Trump Administration, the president’s voters enjoy far less freedom and safety than they did before he took office.
Yes, that’s a plain fact.  So why can’t you understand that this is a feature, not a bug, of Trump and his administration? TRUMP IS A FRAUD, and this blog identified him as such long before the election, while all of the “we’re always wrong but we got dem dere affirmative action protections” quota queens were lauding Trump as an “American Caesar” who would usher in a new era of White greatness.

Speaking of White greatness: Der Movement believes promoting prostate cancer is a mark of White identity!

A reasonable Counter-Currents comment:
Vauquelin

Posted October 15, 2018 at 5:00 am | Permalink
I should add that the modern commune today is virtual. It’s websites, places like these. They can be reached by anyone and from anywhere, and it works because it is to some degree incorporeal. They can be destroyed, but its denizens cannot be isolated easily.
An online groupuscule.
Of course the right should not limit itself to the internet alone. But ensconcing oneself outside of civilization cannot be the answer. In my opinion, if there is any physical undertaking the new right should consider, it would be the creation of secret societies embedded in existing institutions.
That is a good idea; infiltration can go in both directions.

Bustamante also compared Warren’s DNA to white populations in Utah and Great Britain to determine if the amounts of Native American markers in Warren’s sample were significant or just background noise.
I wonder how careful the testing companies are in the same sense, especially when some of them have the highest confidence level at 90% (instead of the more scientifically typical 95%+) and routinely – and comically – have as the default reporting 50% (flip that coin!).  For majority ancestry that’s not a problem as the percentages hardly change as you move up to more stringent confidence levels; however, for the micro-levels of reputed admixture as what is reported here for Warren, it certainly is an issue.

The ignorant Steve Sailer:
My guess is that Trump will never, ever use “Picohontas.” This has a double utility to Trump. By not using it, Trump doesn’t alienate the vast percentage of voters who don’t know that “pico” means “one-trillionth.” (I personally guessed it meant one-billionth, but that of course would be “Gigahontas.”)
No, Steve, it would be “Nanohontas.”  Giga = one billion; Nano = one-billionth.  You need to get the magnitude directionality of your scale right.  Here are two examples that will be helpful:

1. The average brain weight of HBDers is one nanogram.

2. Let’s cull the cogelites and drop a 100 Gigaton cobalt bomb on China.

Got it?

Wednesday, October 17, 2018

Tales of Fst: Sallis vs. Lewontin

A small scale yet informative analysis of genetic variation.


We are all aware of the “more variation within groups than between groups” argument against the biological validity of race.

Now, I believe – or at least hope – that honest population geneticists (albeit very few if any exist) know better not to make absurd claims about Lewontin’s “finding” – that it “makes race meaningless” or that “people are more closely related to members of other races than members of their own race.”  At least they won’t say that among themselves, in their publications, or among other types of academics, but maybe they’ll still try to fool the rubes; after all, from my personal experience most population geneticists are anti-White SJW leftists.

The problem is more with your rank-and-file leftist, your Tim Wise types, your opinion writers, “anthropologists,” openly political population geneticists (the majority who are apparently dishonest), writers of “popular science,” politicians, bloggers, anti-White activists, etc. who make absurd comments about “more genetic variation within than between.”  Not only do they foolishly proclaim that it invalidates the race concept by making distinctive grouping impossible – that is absurd as Edwards so cogently pointed out – but they are even in error on a more fundamental level.

You hear these people make the most bizarre claims – that “more variation within than between” means that “Whites are genetically more similar to Blacks than they are to other Whites”- comments that reflect a complete misunderstanding of the concept (to be fair, those “academics” who have for decades championed Lewontinism to the rubes have, in my opinion, intentionally attempted to promote such a misunderstanding for political reasons).

You see, the basic problem is that these people think there is something special – in the negative sense - about classifying people by race (or ethnicity) that creates the Lewontin finding.  Because there is more genetic variation within “races” – for example, more variation within Whites than between Whites and Blacks – they think that means that if you were to compare one random group of Whites to another similar group of Whites then there would be more genetic variation between those groups of Whites than within those same groups (ignore the gaps of logic in this implicit, or sometimes overt, leftist “argument).  In other words, they say or imply, something like this:
Race is such a bad way to divide people, it is so wrong and meaningless, that WHEN you divide people by race THEN you get the result that there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.  [Implication: this difference in the apportionment of variation occurs as a result of binning people by race].  If we were to bin people randomly, arbitrarily, or by how “closely related they are independent of race” (whatever that means), then there would be more variation between than within groups, but when we use this stupid artificial racial boundary we see more variation within.  Indeed, the fact that binning people by race creates a situation that genetic variation is greater within the group proves that race is an invalid concept – how can a grouping that creates “more genetic variation within groups” be better than random groupings or aracial groupings that do not (we assume) do so?
You see, this is the implied message.  Race (and ethnicity) are negatively “privileged” groupings that create the Lewontin “finding” – after all, that’s how he reported it, and after all, that’s how it’s been discussed for decades, through the lens of racial classification.

My argument has been that this is a complete misunderstanding.  See this.  Excerpts, emphasis added:
With respect to Lewontin’s well known “there is more genetic variation within groups than between groups” we need to clarify whether the 85:15 split has any meaning other than the fact that the bulk of human genetic variation is randomly distributed. 
Comparing Danes vs. Nigerians: 85% variation within each group and 15% between.  The same would be observed with Japanese vs. Iranians. 
What if you considered a mixed group of Danes + Nigerians as a single population, and the same for Japanese + Iranians?  If you then apportioned genetic variation between D+N vs. J+I you would still get more variation within than between. 
If you went in the opposite direction, and considered Japanese from Tokyo as one population and Japanese from Kyoto as another population, the same within/between distinction would hold.  If you compared one Japanese family to another, you would also see more genetic variation within the group (family) than between families. 
As has been pointed out previously by others, a significant amount of genetic variation is found within single individuals; thus, if you were to compare one Japanese individual to another,~ half the genetic variation would be found within the single individual. 

For any set of human groups, one would expect to find more genetic variation within the group than between groups.  
Hence, the “within group” component of genetic variation is found within any defined set of individuals, and is randomly distributed among individuals.  It cannot be used to assert that members of an ethny are more dissimilar than to other ethnies, nor can it be used as a legitimate argument against the reality of genetically distinct population groups. 
And this doesn’t even touch upon the fact that with respect to many phenotypically relevant traits under selective pressure, racial differences in allele frequency is so great that there is actually greater genetic variation between compared to within groups.
Thus, most genetic variation is randomly distributed among individuals irrespective of classification. It has nothing to do with race (or ethnicity).  Racial classifications are not – as the leftists slyly imply – in any way special in exhibiting more variation within than between.  ALL and ANY human groups – even random, arbitrary groupings of people from within the same race or ethnic group, will show the same pattern of more variation within than between.  You can mix up groups of different races and get the same result.  You can create any arbitrary groups of individuals, in endless combination, and no matter how you do it, you will always get more variation within then between.

I doubt Lewontin and all the other academics who have foisted his “finding” on the masses were/are so stupid as to not realize this. They must understand that any and all human groupings, no matter how random or absurd, will show the same pattern.  Then, I suspect, knowing this, they decided to specifically choose racial classification as an example in order to trick people to believe that race is invalid, and do so for political reasons.

In actuality, the reality is the opposite, the genetic variation argument actually supports race, since the portion of genetic variation that is between groups is greatest when you bin people based on this concrete biological concept, and the between group variation portion is smaller (or in some cases virtually non-existent) when you bin people by random, or other arbitrary, methods.  Dividing Whites from Blacks is when you get the greatest amount of variation between, NOT dividing Whites from other Whites.  There was never reason to expect that human genetic differentiation was so extreme that the differences in genetic variation between groups would be greater than the unstructured variation found within groups.  If that was so, we would be totally different species, rather than variations (no pun intended) of one species.  

Let’s look at some data, but first, some comments on methods.  I have criticized Fst (and is variants) before – it is a lousy metric for measuring genetic distance, kinship, etc.  What it is – a measure of relative genetic variation
The fixation index is a measure of how populations differ genetically. One derivation of the fixation index is FST = (HT – HS)/HT, in which HT and HS represent heterozygosity of the total population and of the subpopulation, respectively. This derivation measures the extent of genetic differentiation among subpopulations. The value of FST can theoretically range from 0.0 (no differentiation) to 1.0 (complete differentiation, in which subpopulations are fixed for different alleles).  
A simple visualization of this idea is that of two squirrel subpopulations that are physically separated by a canyon and therefore cannot interbreed. Each subpopulation is homozygous for one allele of a SNP (in other words, each individual of one subpopulation might have a C at that position, while individuals from the other subpopulation have a T). The heterozygosity of the total population (HT) would therefore be 0.5. The heterozygosity of each subpopulation (HS) would be 0.0 (because every member of the subpopulation is homozygous). The calculation of FST in this oversimplified case would be (0.5 – 0.0)/0.5 = 1.0. In other words, 100% of the genetic variation of this population is between subpopulations, with zero variation within subpopulations.  
While a value of 1.0 for the fixation index is theoretically possible, such value in reality is usually much smaller. In general, high FST values reflect a low level of shared alleles between individuals in the sampled population and the total population. Conversely, low FST values indicate that members of the subpopulation share alleles with the total population. The proportion of individuals in a population that carry a certain allele varies over time and is influenced by the forces of migration, genetic drift, and natural selection.
But this is exactly the point – when discussing Lewontin a measure of relative genetic variation is exactly what we need, the weakness of Fst for kinship is a strength when tackling Lewontin.  In other words, we can use Fst to measure that portion of genetic variation that is between groups, with the balance being than within the groups.  For getting a precise measure of kinship, genetic similarity and difference – Fst is suboptimal.  For measuring within/between genetic variation, Fst is exactly what you need (and can give a crude estimation of distance).

After all, consider what Lewontin did – from the Wikipedia article linked above:
In the 1972 study "The Apportionment of Human Diversity", Richard Lewontin performed a fixation index (FST) statistical analysis using 17 markers, including blood group proteins, from individuals across classically defined "races" (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines). He found that the majority of the total genetic variation between humans (i.e., of the 0.1% of DNA that varies between individuals), 85.4%, is found within populations, 8.3% of the variation is found between populations within a "race", and only 6.3% was found to account for the racial classification. Numerous later studies have confirmed his findings.[5] Based on this analysis, Lewontin concluded, "Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.
Let’s consider "1000 Genomes" data for 99 Nigerians and 99 CEU Whites (Northwestern Europeans from Utah – in other words, folks like Mitt Romney).  Let’s consider three SNPs and calculate Fst for different examples of groupings. 

First, a direct comparison of these two racial groups (Nigerians vs. CEU Whites), as it is usually done - calculating Fst of different distinct population groups compared to each other.

(UPDATE: I have changed the data format after getting criticism from some correspondents that the original version was not optimally clear to the layman. Hopefully the new version is better).  The first data:

Nigerians vs. CEU Whites
Fst = 0.1718

We observe the usual result.  The Fst between these two groups is 0.1718.  So, essentially, 17% of the total genetic variation inherent in the total of 198 individuals is that between the two racial groups of 99 each, and 83% is found within each group of 99.  The calculations from the Left always end there, with heavy breathing and triumphant cries of “more variation within than between” when we classify by “race.”  Let us continue the analysis.

Let us now arbitrarily break up each of the two populations into three subgroups of equal numbers (three groups 33 Nigerians and three groups of 33 CEU Whites) and measure Fst comparing now the intra-racial groups (Nigerians s. Nigerians and Whites vs. Whites).

Nigerians broken up into three “populations” of 33 individuals each:

Three arbitrary groups of Nigerians
1 vs. 2  Fst =   0.0024
1 vs. 3  Fst = - 0.0150
2 vs. 3  Fst =  -0.0027

Negative Fst (in red) is essentially the same as zero.  Thus, there is very little to no fraction of the total variation between these groups, virtually all within.  So – hey! – “more variation within than between” even in randomly picked individuals from single ethnic groups, exactly as I predicted (and which is consistent with simple common sense – something leftists lack).  Of course, this is not surprising (or shouldn’t be), comparing Nigerians to Nigerians there should not be a significant difference in variation between the groups, as the individuals are derived from the same population. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY THE POINT. When comparing races, we DO see a significant fraction of between group variation, because races are distinct and valid biological entities.  The fact that the between group variation in the inter-racial case is smaller than within group variation does not invalidate race – why would one imagine that human races would be so differentiated that you would have most of the variation between groups?  Most of that variation is random. One sees any significant Fst only when comparing different population groups, because they are distinct. The same pattern holds with dog breeds – more variation within than between (see below). In the Nigerian example presented here, there may be a lot of variation within groups, but that’s on an individual-to-individual level; the group in general is similar to itself as shown when arbitrarily broken up into sub-groups.

And of course, this individual-to-individual variation exists not only within groups but between groups, in fact between all individuals, and it does NOT in any way mean that members of a group are genetically more similar to members of other groups than they are to their own. The fact that group members are virtually ALWAYS more similar to same-group members has been shown (many times in fact and can be observed via private genetic testing – remember when Decode was giving ethnic similarity matches, even with 23andMe data?) – see here.

When looking at many markers at the same time, groups and the individuals within can be easily distinguished racially – see Edwards’ article for the logic there, and why Lewontin’s finding is a “fallacy” with respect to racial classification.

I would also like to point out that genetic variation is not the same as genetic difference.  Indeed, on a fundamental level, these concepts are not the same.  Degrees of variation is not the same as difference (or distance). If one were to catalog the types of ethnic populations extant in, say, New York City and San Diego, there would be differences.  One could clearly distinguish between the two – more Jews and Puerto Ricans and Dominicans and Caribbean Blacks in New York, and more Mexicans in San Diego, among other differences.  The populations of these two cities are distinct, and “distant” in their differences.  But the internal differences are even greater: consider the myriad ethnic types in NYC.  So, the ethnic variation within these cities is greater than that between, even though the two cities have highly distinct, easily classifiable populations, and these differences are not “trivial” but affect every aspect of life in those areas.

Back to the main point: if we apply the same SJW racial comments to the intra-group data, we’ll have to say that because Nigerians exhibit more variation within the group than between groups then there are no such thing as Nigerians, and yet at the same time the groups of Nigerians have low to Fst in comparison with each other, but significant Fst when compared to Whites and Asians.  So, at the same time, Nigerians do and no not exist as a group, a logical impossibility.  

And if, as the Left claims, Whites are more genetically different from each other than from Blacks, then White-White Fst should be greater than that of White-Black Fst, and one should see a considerable portion of the genetic variation in a White-White comparison to be between groups of Whites as opposed to within. 

[Note: In a logical sense, the leftist argument is absurd – they would clam that between group variation of the three White sub-groups would be great precisely because the amount of within group variation of the original White group is so large, and measure this with Fst, which compares the two.  But this is, again, the point: the claims of the Left are inherently and logically absurd, and when followed through to their conclusion leads one to a logical paradox – the greater the portion of within group variation then the greater the portion of between group variation when looking solely at that group.  On the other hand, Fst is a relative measure, and one can argue that the White-White comparison is qualitatively different from the logical perspective from the White-Black one. In either case, my approach achieves its goal – either the Left’s arguments are inherently illogical, OR, if you want to claim that their arguments are logical, I show in this post that the arguments are factually wrong, as the data yield the opposite results from leftist predictions].

The data for CEU Utah Whites:

Three arbitrary groups of CEU Whites
1 vs. 2  Fst =  -0.0094
1 vs. 3  Fst =   0.0072
2 vs. 3  Fst =  -0.0041

Again, minuscule to zero Fst (negative [red font] = zero). Once again, we observe the same “more within than between” pattern with arbitrary divisions of a group of humans.  Note that Fst is greatest with the inter-racial comparison (0.1718), precisely because races are valid biological entities with the greatest genetic distance between them (while Fst is not the best measure for distance, it does reflect differences in genetic distance, so is valid for such relative comparisons).

None of this should come as a surprise, since population genetics studies looking at Fst of different parts of a single country (indigenous natives) – such as, say, Germany or Italy, show relatively low Fst.  Nevertheless, it is useful to demonstrate that an arbitrary intra-population division not only mimics the racial finding (more variation within than between), but does so in a more extreme manner.

The preceding has been an appetizer; now we get to the main course.  The twin tenets of the radical Left view of Lewontin’s “finding” are:

1. Race (or even ethnicity) is an especially wrong classification scheme that (implied: specifically) results in “more genetic variation within than between” groups, because it artificially separates all the people of different “races” (leftist scare quotes) who are actually genetically similar.

2. Thus, the “more within than between” means that groups like Nigerians and Northwest European Utah Whites are more genetically similar to members of the other group than they are to members of their own group.

By now, we should know that this is nonsense, as is the claim that races don’t exist, but let’s continue to take this leftist farce at face value.  If these twin tenets are true, then arbitrarily creating multi-“racial” groups – say, random mixed groups each consisting of Nigerians and Utah Whites together in the same groups – would result in a larger Fst comparing these mixed groups, with relatively more variation between and relatively less within.  Or – let us be more charitable with all the leftist delusions and logical impossibilities.  Let us merely state that if the Left is correct, and that conceptions of race and ethnicity are meaningless due to the apportionment of genetic variation, then, at minimum, Fst comparisons of the mixed groups should be no less than that of between the racially defined groups.  That’s the most conservative interpretation of the Left, and the one that makes them seem less stupid and illogical.  What’s the data then?  Here it is (negative Fst again in red font):

Three arbitrary groups of mixed Nigerians and CEU Whites together
1 vs. 2  Fst =   0.0029
1 vs. 3  Fst =   0.0105
2 vs. 3  Fst =  -0.0047

This is crucially important. Mixing the two groups together has greatly reduced or eliminated Fst – it has essentially eliminated the between group genetic variation.  Here, virtually all the variation is within group.  This is a complete and perfect refutation of the extreme leftist (mis)interpretation of Lewontin’s “findings.”  The results from comparing variation between and within mixed race groups, contrasted to that obtained from monoracial groups, is exactly the opposite of what would obtain if leftist fantasies were correct.

One could continue playing around with genetic data in this manner, with larger data sets, random number generators to form groups, etc., but the point has already been established.  Thus, you can pick names randomly out of any diverse big city phonebook – New York for example – and use these random people to form groups, and if you would analyze the genetic variation of these random and arbitrary aracial groupings you will find more variation within than between AND a smaller Fst compared to real inter-racial comparisons.

Now, it can be – and should be – argued that the arguments and findings in this blog post are simple, common-sense, intuitive, even trivial.  OF COURSE random groups would have even more genetic variation within and OF COURSE racial groups will have a larger Fst, indicative of a larger share of variation between.  Of course races are real biological groups and of course the Left is wrong.  But given leftist hysteria and mendacity over race and genetics, the issue had to be formally demonstrated, which it was here.  It is unfortunate one must waste time “proving” things so obvious it is the equivalent of “the sky is blue” but so it goes in the modern world.

A comparison with the situation with dog breeds is also instructive.  There is much about dog breed genetics online, from both the Right and Left, and much of that is misleading; instead let’s read what an expert on the subject has to say, concentrating on the implications for Lewontinism:
The phenotypic diversity of the world's 350 to 400 dog breeds is mirrored in their genetic diversity. Although most breeds have existed for less than two centuries, the level of diversity (FST) in dogs is about twice that found in humans (FST averages 0.28 among dog breeds).
So, we see that due to intense artificial selection, Fst between dog breeds is about twice of that between human races, despite the fact that many dog breeds are recent developments in evolutionary time.  Very well.  The most important fact that we observe here is that despite all of this intense artificial selection and the vast phenotypic differences between breeds, Fst for dog breeds is 0.28, meaning that the vast majority of the genetic variation – 72% in fact – is found within breeds; only 28% is between.  Consider the huge – existential in fact, defining the identities and utility of different dog types – marked heritable differences between dog breeds in physical appearance, physical capabilities, size, intelligence, and behavior and note that despite all these enormous differences there is still “more genetic variation within than between.”  More genetic variation within dog breeds than between!  What would the Left say?  Is the difference between a vicious Pit Bull and a placid Pug merely the figment of your imagination?  Does “more variation within than between” mean that the differences between a Chihuahua and a Mastiff are merely a “social construct?”  Do we claim that “dog breeds do not exist?”  Now consider again the vast differences between dog breeds and ponder the implications of the fact that human inter-racial between-group genetic variation reaches a full 50% of that between dog breeds.  Once again: the differences between humans is a full 50% of the enormity of difference between dog breeds that was derived from a regimen of constant intense and directed artificial selection. Racial differences are not only real, they are staggeringly large.

Let’s finish up by going back to the Wikipedia article on the Lewontin fallacy.
….biological anthropologist Jonathan Marks agrees with Edwards that correlations between geographical areas and genetics obviously exist in human populations, but goes on to note that "What is unclear is what this has to do with 'race' as that term has been used through much in the twentieth century—the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial. Again, the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin's analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species, and Edwards' critique does not contradict that interpretation.
Typical Jewish flim-flam. Marks proposes an unachievable, unrealistic strawman definition of “race” so as to declare that it does not exist. Given the reality of unstructured (“random”) genetic variation that exists between any and all groupings of humans, it stands to reason that grouping by race will also show the same intra-group variation.  BUT THE GROUPS ARE STILL DIFFERENT AND MEMBERS OF THE SAME GROUP WILL ALWAYS BE MORE SIMILAR MEMBERS OF THEIR SAME GROUP COMPARED TO OTHER GROUPS.  That is what race is, no one says that a race has to consist of genetically homogeneous individuals.  Are families – apart from identical twins – genetically homogeneous?  Only in comparison to other families.  Each family will have considerable internal variation.  But they are different. Marks states “the mere fact that we can find groups to be different and can reliably allot people to them is trivial.”  So, he declares that the fact that humans can reliably be allotted to different groups – the essence of race – is trivial, before postulating his strawman version.  Well, Marks, the “trivial” differences lead to differences of phenotype that are acted upon by various forms of selection, thus affecting the underlying gene frequencies, and, hence, the adaptive fitness of the individuals in question. The underlying essence of life is natural selection and adaptive fitness based on genetic differences and kinship.  Thus, according to Marks, the fundamental basis of life on Earth – the genetic distinctiveness of organisms and their representation in subsequent generations - is “trivial.”  Genetic differences, no matter how ‘trivial,” can increase or decrease in frequency and thus constitute adaptive interests for evolved organisms, like humans.  To deny the fundamental meaning of this with misleading verbiage, to consider representation in the next generation is “trivial” is anti-science and anti-reality.  Note to leftists: the variation equivalent of halfway from a Chihuahua and a Mastiff is not a “trivial” amount of genetic variation.

The real translation from the likes of Marks: racial preservation of Whites is “trivial.”  That’s what it is all about, of course.  Nonsense about races having to be hermetically sealed clones completely variant from other clonal races is just Jewish meme wars against White ethnic genetic interests.
The view that, while geographic clustering of biological traits does exist, this does not lend biological validity to racial groups, was proposed by several evolutionary anthropologists and geneticists prior to the publication of Edwards critique of Lewontin.
Err…” geographic clustering of biological traits” (including gene frequencies) is precisely what race is, so if such clustering exists, race exists.  I suppose one can, like Marks or any other mendacious Jew (a redundancy) redefine “race” using unrealistic criteria so you can proclaim “race does not exist” but that is meaningless.  One can define human” in like manner.  Thus, a “human” is any nine foot tall hominid with naturally blue hair who has an IQ of 10,000.  Such individuals do not exist, hence there are no such thing as humans. QED.

In summary:

1. There is nothing special, defining, or “privileged” about race (or ethnicity with respect to “more genetic variation within than between.”  Any and all human groups or mixtures of groups, no matter how arbitrarily or randomly chosen will always exhibit the same pattern, because the pattern is due to individual human variation and that variation is present no matter how groups of humans are arraigned. Making a big deal of this “finding” when it comes to race derives from leftist sociopolitical motivations.

2. The “more variation within than between” in no way invalidates the race concept, as Edwards (and I) pointed out.  Even Marks concedes classification is possible; he just labels it “trivial” – and this subjective assertion is also motivated by leftist social and political beliefs.  The apportionment of genetic variation certainly does not invalidate genetic differences and similarities between groups, and the greater genetic distances between the major racial groups.

3. Strawman definitions of race implying that races have to be genetically homogeneous are ludicrous and also motivated by leftist concerns.  Given that genetic variation is randomly distributed among all people, such will as a matter of course be found within groups, including races.  However, Fst increases as we consider ever more distinct racial groups, as an increasing portion of the total genetic variation derives from between group differences.  Given the large totality of such differences, a consistent distinctive genome is sufficient to define biological races, along with the background of random variation.  And that’s not trivial.  An analogy would be an extremely important radio message, of life-dependent importance, that you are listening to among a larger degree of random noise, of static.  The static may be louder, but it is the message that is important, and by proper adjustments to your methodology, you can cancel out the static and listen to the message.  For humans, the message is nothing less than our adaptive fitness, the over-riding importance of genetic continuity, of genetic interests – the ultimate interests.



Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Agons and Others

And various other tidbits of “movement” and racial issues.

Humans in all endeavors seek to prevent competition either through cooperation or domination.
Indeed, including the “leadership” of Der Movement, Inc., a money-making enterprise.  Cooperation includes that of the Quota Queen Cartel, who for the most part closes ranks against outsiders who are not part of the affirmative action gravy train.  Domination includes both attacks against those outsiders (“banning” them as “crazy and bitter” or supporting dogma that naturally excludes them, which is a form of rent-seeking, by the way) as well as internal feuds among the Cartel (e.g., Pierce-Covington, Spencer-Johnson) to maximize their market share of the tin cup.  The feuding is not incompatible with the cooperation, since the former never questions to legitimacy of the existence of the Cartel in the first place, and thus is tacit cooperation even in the midst of feuding.  One quota queen may attack another, but they’d never admit that their rival owes his prominence at least in part to non-merit reasons, for that would call their own legitimacy into question.  Cooperation means there are limits that they will not cross in their feuds.  To paraphrase Yockey, it’s an agon for internal domination, rather than an out-and-out war against the “other.”

Jared Taylor expresses himself:
I think Asians are objectively superior to whites by just about any measure that you can come up with…
That, my friends, is the essence of HBD.  Of course, HBDer Murray did show that most accomplishments of human progress came from Europe, but let’s not let that interfere with the core HBD concept of Asia worship. A bit of cognitive dissonance is good for any religion – one must have faith in Yellow Supremacy, even if your own facts don’t bear it out.

Sessions acknowledged that the SPLC at one time “did important work in South”: As an Alabama prosecutor he worked with it to convict a Ku Klux Klan member who’d murdered a black teenager.
Antifa Jeff Sessions: a Far Left radical anti-racist activist.  And he is a supporter of Antifa.

If you look at the comments threads on Yahoo articles on Negro crime incidents, you’ll see an increasing number of posts using the “13” or “13/90” paradigm – usually just past those numbers only – the suggestion to the readers is that “Negroes make up 13% of the population but commit 90% of the crime.”  Of course 90% is a bit of an exaggeration, but this meme hits home very well.  Interestingly, unless I missed something, this is a de novo outgrowth from the Internet, and not (directly) derived from Der Movement and its “leadership.”   It seems random folks online are more imaginative and useful in the meme war than are all the quota queens and their obsession with accumulating tin cup proceeds.

I am curious: what do German nationalists think about Der Movement’s obsessive worship of everything German and Germanic?  Are they flattered? Prideful?  Embarrassed?  Disgusted? Annoyed? Indifferent?  I also wonder how many genuine Germans – not “German-Americans” but ethnic Germans born and raised in that country – American “movement” “activists” have actually met?  How many other foreign-born Europeans have they met?  I do wonder.  Some of the “leaders” do travel a lot (using tin cup donation), so, yes, these people do have actual experience, but I doubt the rank-and-file have any such experience whatsoever.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Are We Not Men? We Are Traditionalists!

Type Is on the march.

Space colonization – NO!  Living in communes eating twigs and branches – YES!

An intelligent commentator:
John Carter
Posted October 14, 2018 at 6:51 am | Permalink
“Build the ethnostate by emulating hippies and regressing to the level of subsistence farming peasants.”
Another fantastic idea from the guy who thinks the space program will run on oil.
Why only oil?  The steampunk starships of the future will run on coal!  Complete with smokestack and propeller beating against the solar wind and the interstellar dust.  Full steam ahead at 20 knots!  Steady as she goes!  Ahoy!  The captain will be a fellow with a peg leg, hunting for a drunken green-colored space whale named Moby Mick.  And to think Ahab had to be content with sails and wind; steam-powered space travel is the perfect synthesis of Traditionalism and Science!

A less intelligent commentator:
You know who is trying space colonization. Elon Freaking Musk. Doesn’t that make you feel dumb for promoting it?
That’s an argument, I tell ya!  Space colonization is no good; after all “Elon Freaking Musk” is trying it.  QED.
It is especially crazy when certain voices in the alt-right-the ones who are way too convince in “race realism” – try to make it out as if space colonization can only be done by whites. I’m pretty sure China and India have space programs now.
Let the Chinese and Indians do all dat dere fancy schmancy science and space stuff.  When Asiatics reach the stars, Whites can be all nice and snug in their hobbit holes.

The Frodo Who Can’t Tell Time!

Sunday, October 14, 2018

Sunday Follies

News.

First, I will note for the readership that [posting frequency will have to decrease somewhat here for the time being, due to me being busy with other aspects of life.  Hopefully, quality will be maintained.

Second, even though I am busy, I am slowly working on a genetics-related post that requires some data generation at me end, which in turn requires a lot of tedious formatting.  I don’t know how long that will take, but stay tuned.

Third, the gamesters are always good for descriptive paradigms about the sexual marketplace; this courtesy of Roissy (emphasis added):
Previous research has indicated that men generally rate slimmer women as more sexually attractive, consistent with the increased morbidity risks associated with even mild abdominal adiposity. To assess the association of women's waist size with a more tangible measure of perceived sexual attractiveness (as well as reward value for both sexes), we examined the association of women's age and waist circumference with an index of men's erectile function (IIEF-5 scores), frequency of penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI), and sexual satisfaction in a representative sample of Czechs (699 men and 715 women) aged 35-65 years. Multivariate analyses indicated that better erectile function scores were independently associated with younger age of self and partner and women's slimmer waist. PVI frequency was independently associated with women's younger age and women's slimmer waist. Sexual satisfaction was independently associated with men's younger age and slimmer waist for both sexes. Better erectile function, greater PVI frequency, and greater sexual satisfaction were associated with women's slimmer waist, independently of both sexes' ages. Possible reasons for the waist effects were discussed, including women's abdominal body fat decreasing their own desire through neurohormonal mechanisms and decreasing their partner's desire through evolutionarily-related decreased sexual attractiveness.
Landwhales: flaccidators.

Attractive yeastbuckets: erectors

Science speaks.


Note at the end that Strom warns against Jewish-influenced “pro-White” groups, and mentions the “Alt Lite.”  Very well, Kevin, I agree with you on all of that.  But, pray tell, when will you critique the Alt Wrong?  You know to whom and what I refer, don’t you?  I suspect you may even read this blog from time to time.  Don’t you know of pro-Jewish “pro-White” groups and leaders?  Don’t you know about the dangers of the pro-Jewish and pro-Asian “HBD race realists?”  Don’t you know of entities where fast-talking Jews have promoted the idea of a multiracial “White separatist state?”  Don’t you know we’ve been advised to support “the racial status quo?”  Don’t you know we’re encouraged to admire – nay, inter-breed with! – Asians?  Any comments on that, Kevin?  We’re waiting.  Do your race a favor, make a distinction between genuine racial science and the HBD cult, and call out the Alt Wrong as the dangerous cul-de-sac that it is.

Friday, October 12, 2018

What Should Have Been Done

Wasted opportunities.

Three things that should have been done after Trump’s election (and this is not hindsight; I wrote as much at that time):

1. Activists getting involved in electoral politics in the appropriate jurisdictions, to leverage Trump’s implicitly White right-wing populist civic nationalism by stretching it into explicitly White pro-White politics.  Essentially, run to the right of Trump, stretching the boundaries of “acceptable” political discourse more and more in the radical direction.  Some of these electoral campaigns could have been for propaganda and informational purposes; others, in more propitious locations, could have been to try to actually win (and get “our side” in positions of influence).  In all cases, such campaigns would increase chaos and racial balkanization, and galvanize Whites, better than stupid rallies and drunken podcasts.

2. Infiltrate Trump rallies (which he still holds even after election) to disseminate pro-White ideas and to increase bitterness and balkanization, particularly if Trump reneges on his promises.

3. Use the “breathing space” brought by the election of Trump to build a real infrastructure of meeting places, community activism, online platforms, legal teams, hardcore activist groups, metapolitical development and meme construction, etc.

All these opportunities were wasted by the quota queen brigade.