Anti-Booth

Opposing politicized science. 

Look at this shocking display of a lack of scientific objectivity and integrity.

[Thanks to Gaston from Gab pointing that out]

What a mendacious piece of filth this Booth is.

That confirms everything I always write concerning the highly political nature of population genetics. Booth's agenda is NOT science; it is politics. It is an admission that politically-motivated “scientists” are going to intentionally, and with malice aforethought, LIE to the public about the meaning of genetic studies, in this case about ancient DNA samples, including LYING about the identities of the ancient peoples and their objectively determined relationships with modern populations.

This is why population genetics studies need to be examined with an extremely skeptical eye - because these studies are being performed and presented to advance political agendas. The authors sometimes OPENLY admit it, as in this case. And it is not only the interpretative section of a paper (e.g. the Discussion) that requires close examination. In addition, methodology can be chosen and modified to yield desired results – for example, the choice of reference populations for supervised admixture analysis or the choice of population comparisons in PCA and for other types of analysis. Population genetics studies are very sensitive to “input” with respect to what the “output” is and it is therefore very easy for population geneticists to skew the data in a particular direction based upon how the data were generated.  And omission is as important as commission – when have you seen researchers ever do direct kinship analyses of human populations? When have you seen genetic integration approaches applied to human genetics data? Approaches that would produce politically incorrect data are avoided, while the methods that are utilized can be, and are, designed so as to obfuscate truth. Couple all of that with left-wing political bias in interpretation and - presto! – “woke” “science” is generated.

Real scientists should objectively and dispassionately present and discuss their data, and the sociopolitical interpretations and ramifications of that data are for others to determine. Science is not about putting political “spin” on data and is not about manipulating the work and lying about it in order to achieve particular politically-relevant objectives.  Booth and all of the rest of his ilk should be rejected by the scientific community.

Population genetics papers – and certainly anything by Booth and colleagues – must be carefully scrutinized for signs of bias and for politically-motivated content. Of course, scientists have the right to privately engage in political activism (and I wish more would be on the Right instead of an almost unanimous slant to the Left). However, they need to be careful not to let political bias intrude into their research and contaminate the science. 

It is inevitable that some degree of unintentional bias will slip into research, particularly with respect to topics (like population genetics) that have sociopolitical implications. That is human nature, after all.  That is why readers always need to be alert to potential bias and need to read papers and scientific pronouncements with a skeptical eye. But what we see with the likes of Booth is much worse - it is the openly admitted intentional injection of politics and political bias into the work, which is then presented to the public as "science." That alone is unacceptable and dangerous, but it gets even worse - much worse - when the openly admitted goal is to obfuscate truth and mislead the public about the science for political objectives.

After all, it is objectively true that, in the majority of cases, ancient peoples from given territories are genetically more similar to extant indigenous populations in those same territories than they are to later, intrusive elements, such as more recent migrants. Indeed, there is often an ancestral relationship, to at least some degree, between the ancient peoples and the modern indigenous populations. This is uncontroversial and accepted, with no problem whatsoever, for Africa and Asia, and it is certainly also well-accepted for the Americas, where, often, today's Native Americans exercise legal control over access to ancient American remains, on the premise (accepted by all) that the ancient peoples were the ancestors of extant Native Americans. The only exception to the rule of accepting ancient-modern population links is, of course, Europe. The native, indigenous peoples of Europe are denied their basic human rights and their fundamental sense of identity, and have their deep connections to ancient Europeans obfuscated, for purely political reasons, with one stated rationale being "to protect marginalized populations."  It would seem to me that, given this unequal treatment, and this denial of basic human rights, it are the Europeans who are truly the marginalized populations. Indeed, denying the group identity of a people and denying their ancestral origins and their "blood and soil" ties, which are clearly demonstrated by both genetic and history analyses, is the first step toward genocide of that people.

In summary, the political activity of Booth and his ilk, being injected into the scientific discourse as it is, must be unalterably opposed.  When the likes of Booth spread their poison, please use this post (and whatever others like it that you may find) as an antidote to Boothite anti-White venom.

Indigenous Again

That definition once again.

In response to the offensive Salon article mentioned at Amren, I’d like to once again offer my definition of indigenous:

A group is indigenous to a territory when they are the oldest extant group that underwent ethnogenesis in that territory and cannot be said to be indigenous to any other territory.

Also see this.

A human group is indigenous when it is the oldest existing population to come into being as a distinct ethny, different from any other, in a specific territory.

So, while the Sami are indigenous to Lapland in Northern Scandinavia, all of the various ethnies of Europe are equally indigenous to their native homelands.

My definition of indigenous is fair, comprehensive, and serves White interests, but is of course ignored by the “movement;” after all, the Eloi must maintain their cordon sanitaire to protect against the dastardly Morlocks and their runty penned up chicken ideas.

By the way, speaking of the Sami, Der Movement (and Raciology) weeps (emphasis added):

Autosomal genetic analyses found that the Sámi people carry a significant amount of genome originating from an East Asian/Siberian source population, best represented by the North Asian Nganasan people, a Samoyedic people. This East Asian/Siberian component is found in mostly all European peoples at low frequency, higher among Northeastern Europeans, where it range between ~9% to ~30% among different Fennoscandian populations, with a average peak of 25% among the Sámi people. The specific East Asian/Siberian like ancestry is proposed to have arrived in Northeast Europe during the early Iron Age, linked to the arrival of Uralic languages. The East Asian/Siberian Nganasan-related component is also detected among ethnic northeast Russians at a frequency of 8%.

Some Thoughts on Separation

Consider.

Consider this:

…since reducing the non-White proportion of the U.S. population to 10% would still require the separation and removal of over 100 million non-Whites, or over three-quarters of them, it raises the question, “Why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there.” It seems arbitrary…

By the same logic, since achieving McCulloch’s objective would require a massive upheaval of American society, possibly even a civil war, then why stop at the point of sacrificing part of the USA for multiracial and Amerindian nations?  Isn’t that arbitrary?  Why not go all the way and take it all, send the non-Whites back to their homelands, including the Amerindians back to Siberia (albeit Russia may have objections)? An argument would be that White Americans have an innate sense of fairness and would not want to deprive non-White “Americans” of an American homeland, or that such a homeland or homelands would lessen non-White resistance to separation. 

With respect to the second consideration, I do not buy it. Any time Whites want to separate, even in the informal manner of de facto residential segregation, non-Whites (implicitly) insist that they have a fundamental human right to have access to Whites. That’s why we have forced racial integration. I doubt that some homeland out in the desert will lessen resistance. With respect to the first consideration - White perceptions of “fairness” - that is undoubtedly the main issue here, let us be realistic where we are right now. About half of the White American population are masochistic leftists who believe that even multiracial “America First” civic nationalism is “racist” and “fascist.”  A large fraction of the other half of the White American population are aracial civic nationalists; like Tucker Carlson they believe we are all “stuck with each other” and they would reject separation as unrealistic, evil, or insane. Further, demographic change means that even if you can convince a majority of White Americans to support separation, a democratic and orderly solution is unlikely. The solution likely requires physical resistance, a scenario that bodes ill for a declining and aging White American population as time goes on.  

In any case, given these realities, in order for White Americans to support separation, and to make the necessary sacrifices, the situation for White America will by necessity have degenerated to such a point of desperation that it is unlikely that even “High Trust” Whites would care much about "fairness" to non-Whites.  At that point, where outcomes would be determined by blood and iron and not by debates and voting, these detailed plans and non-White homeland maps, never mind the phenotype charts and the to-the-decimal-point 23andMe “data,” would all be irrelevant. At that point, the efforts needed to convince Whites, in conjunction with the bad negative conditions that would make Whites amenable to be convinced, making them willing for extreme measures, would be such that “why stop there, at that point, instead of going all the way when you’re most of the way there,” would be a fair assessment with respect to the division of territory.  If Whites would be willing to fight for most of America, why not for all of America? If conditions get so bad that even cucked Whites are willing to fight for survival, would they really care about being “fair” to non-Whites or to White leftists and other traitors who brought us to this condition? (Note: Many of these same arguments hold with respect to repatriation of non-Whites from Europe; but here I focus on the American White ethnostate scenario.)

I’m not trying to be obstructionist – I support the ethnostate idea and have written about it previously (although I disagree with others on the details).  But we must be realistic.  First, we are far, far away from having any significant number of Whites even thinking about supporting the idea. To get to that point will take time and, unfortunately, much White suffering. Talk about “winning the hearts and minds of Whites” does not impress me, since the people saying such things have failed for decades, and lack the self-awareness to realize that their bizarre ideas (phenotype charts, decimal point test measurements, etc. – denounced as “Nuremberg Law-like” even by some TOO commentators: “Phenotype this” and “autosomal that” and soon we’re off to the races with phrenology and the Nuremberg laws. No one is going to accept this stuff. Look at the world we’re operating in. This kind of rhetoric is just not going to fly) are not attractive, and are unlikely ever to be attractive (even in the dire conditions discussed above, to most White Americans.  

Second, considering that if the ethnostate does happen, it will likely happen in chaos, in blood and iron, and not through parliamentary debates and scholarly white papers, whatever plans and ideas we develop need to be as fundamental, simple, and streamlined as possible. It is possible that even what I outline below is too complex for the coming reality. In the dark future ahead it is possible that “look White, think White, and act White” will be sufficient (although in my opinion, that would allow for too many Jews, White traitors, and other undesirables to slip through). Whatever the case, I doubt that the Whites of tomorrow will have much use for calipers, phenotype charts, or 23andMe “spit tubes,” while they are fighting for racial survival, or after the struggle is over and a new homeland needs to be built.

This comment about McCulloch’s third section is I think relevant to my own comments:

Some White Guysays:

January 28, 2021 at 8:40 pm

I read the third part of the article yesterday and have been thinking about it since. I have to say I am disappointed in the offered “solution”. It is a rehash of past proposals to divvy up the USA, which will never happen. Texans and others are not going to agree to having their states made into the corral areas for the mixed race peoples of North America. Absurd.

The people who run every element of our countries have a firm grip on all they control. They are making it very clear at present that we have no power and no control over any of it. Anyone who has spoken up is currently being arrested and/or ostracized from society.

They are not going to just let us do what we want. These types of “solutions” are beyond ridiculous. Anyone advocating for such things will be squashed like a bug by those who rule us. It is cruel and immature to suggest to people that such things are possible.

Call me a defeatist if you will, but I prefer realistic realism to fairy tales.

And in response to that comment:

Canadianersays:

January 28, 2021 at 9:20 am

Good post.

Lots of people have pie in the sky fantasies about ethnostates and seem to forget that we are a powerless ethnic group with no evidence that we are able to work together to achieve big goals.

You are absolutely right that the first order goal is to survive. We can do that by building strong communities. Big political schemes come second to survival and the basic process of “re-tribalizing” where we basically learn what it means to act tribally and how to achieve tribal goals.

As a side note, I agree that we do need to have contingency plans for Whites surviving as a stateless people in the event that the ethnostate idea is not actualized, or is not actualized for a very, very long time.  

With respect for the ethnostate, simplified considerations for the ingroup:

Biological:

To simplify and streamline, and to be most fair and reasonable, we consider as follows. Individuals who derive familial/genealogical ancestry from any or several of the native, indigenous peoples of Europe would be included in the ethnostate. The vast majority of White Americans know their ethnic background and their genealogy can be traced back to Europe, to a satisfactory degree, if required. That is sufficient. What if such cannot be determined? People may be adopted, or there may be a lack of knowledge for another reason, or there may be a good reason to suspect someone is being dishonest. For those specific cases, genetic testing can be considered, in the rational comparative manner described below.

What about “White Hispanics” or individuals who may have some low-level fractional Amerindian (or other) New World admixture (or whatever other low level admixture)?  This can be judged on a case-by-case basis, judging based on overall assimilability (phenotype, identity, intelligence and behavior).  In some cases, genetic testing could be considered, also  as described below.

The vast majority of determinations can be very simple and streamlined – of European ethnic genealogical ancestry or not? The minority of other cases can then be judged as indicated in the preceding paragraph, above. Thus, for most cases, there will be no need for bizarre alphabetical phenotypic charts or “testing” or whatever.

Cultural:

Only people who are part of the Western/Orthodox civilizational background – the Western High Culture with Eastern European Orthodox added on – should be included. From a religious perspective, what’s compatible with this background would be: Christian, pagan, agnostic, or atheist. Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. are not compatible. Unfortunately, I do not advise excluding homosexuals, since they would be regenerated each generation. It is my opinion that the vast majority of homosexuality (particularly for men, but for some women as well) is biologically determined. So, unless you exile homosexuals every generation, a strict exclusion makes no sense. However, we should not accept gay cabals or general sexual degeneracy.

Political:

Individuals who have in their private and/or public histories significant anti-White activities should not be included. While the bulk of White liberals are probably redeemable, hardcore activists and political figures are not. Would we want the likes of Hillary Clinton or Angela Merkel in a White ethnostate?

Comparative Genetic Testing:

In general, the large majority of the White population have clearly defined genealogical roots in Europe and that is sufficient.  

For other specific cases, any genetic testing must be performed in a comparative not absolute manner. It is childishly naive and unscientific – and I have pointed out many times beyond the capability of the methodology – to set some hard-and-fast base-line (e.g., 91.567%) and then make distinctions based on that (91.658% good, 91.566% bad). Instead, comparative evaluations should be made – establishing what the “ethnotype” range of different European ethnies are and then observing whether the “unknown” is in the same general range.  For example, there are no European ethnies whose members would be 15% Amerindian and 10% sub-Saharan African.  Anyone with such a profile is obviously not of Old World European stock. Again, this would not be a case of rigid boundaries, but a common sense evaluation. If someone is 1% past the range of an ethny they claim membership in, that’s reasonable. 15% is not. If one wanted to be more objective, one could establish the standard deviation of genetic variation within an ethnotype range, but this possibly gets to the point of nitpicking.  It is fairly simple to ascertain if the genetic profile of an unknown sample is generally consistent with what would expect from various European ethnic groups. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to determine that, e.g., someone who is ~40% South Asian is either recently admixed or a Roma (and the timing of admixture could be determined – but in either case, 40% South Asian is obviously not consistent with any European ethny).

The relative objectivity of this approach derives from the fact that any flaws and imprecision in the methodology (that exist and will always be present to some extent) apply to both the known and unknown samples equally, and as long as the comparisons are done in a “fuzzy” manner, without absolute strict boundaries, then the inherent imprecision is not a barrier for making useful comparisons.

The other advantage of this approach is that it, by necessity, includes all European ethnies as the known reference samples. Thus, if a person claims to be of ethny X then they must be compared to X, not to Y or Z or any other group.

What about Hispanics and other groups that may have New World admixture, etc.?  The approach applied there would be to determine a set of “knowns” – for example “White Hispanics” determined to be acceptably assimilable based on chosen characteristics (phenotype, for example) – then determine the genetic range of these “knowns” and, finally, compare, in a general sense, whether the “unknowns” are similar to that range. 

But, my views and proposals may well as be as unrealistic as those promoted by others. However, I stand by my comments as being somewhat more reasonable; at the very least, the proposal, re: genetic analysis is the only semi-objective rational one I’ve seen. The only way to deal with imprecision and the myriad flaws inherent in these genetic approaches is to use a comparative analysis, utilizing fuzzy boundaries, and making sure each and every European ethny – and this includes regional sections of nations (East vs. West England, North vs. South Germany, North vs. South Italy - with Sicily and Sardinia each being separately represented – North vs. South Russia, Flemish vs. Walloons, North vs. South France, etc.) - are represented as "known" reference samples.  

In summary, besides offering my own ideas on the subject, a major criticism I have of “movement” separation schemes revolve around them being unrealistic and somewhat delusional based on the current situation we find themselves in, and the lack of self-awareness with respect to some of the bizarre and esoteric aspects of some of the obsessions of the individuals in question. There is also a lack of self-awareness with respect to decades of unending failure; none of these people seem to ever ask why their target audience rejects their message.

It is possible my ideas are all wrong as well. However, I argue otherwise, which is my right (and others will argue for their own ideas, as is their right). 

Of course, there is a difference between prescriptive and descriptive. It is certainly true that if the ideas of McCulloch or of myself or anyone else is prescriptively necessary than that argument should be made, even if the current descriptive situation with respect to White attitudes makes the prescription seem unrealistic. We cannot rely on description to make policy. After all, a purely descriptive approach – basing policy on what White public opinion currently is - would be to promote the “racial status quo” (like Weissberg) or to promote Sailerian “citizenism” (aka civic nationalism). However, I argue that McCulloch and others are also prescriptively wrong and I promote my own prescription instead, for all the reasons given here and in all my previous work on the subject.

But description should not be ignored.  Although we should not let description determine what we offer in general as a prescription, it does affect the form in which our prescription can take and also definitely influences the probability of success for our prescription, and, most practically, affects the approach we should take in achieving our prescriptive objectives. 

Ultimately, we need things like opinion polling and other empirical methods for understanding why Whites reject separation, what would make them change their minds, and if they would accept separation, in what form would they accept it? Again, that should not change our prescription if we believe our prescription is right and the White masses are currently wrong; instead, we can try and educate them and/or await for more propitious times.

But, again, description can tell us what approach we should take for that education and tell us what non-essential details of our prescription can be changed to make it more palatable, without changing the essentials. Who knows?  Maybe people would want to be evaluated by calipers and DNA tests; I doubt it – but let’s find out. Of course, those opinions shouldn’t ultimately influence whether those things are good or bad from a racial perspective, but if we deem them to be non-essential then at least we’ll know if that correlates with White opinion, and we can proceed from there.

We need data.

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.

Duchesne and Other News

In der news.

If Duchesne thinks that only Southern Europeans have Neolithic Anatolian Farmer ancestry, he’s completely wrong. That ancestry is at its highest levels in Southern Europe, but it is found, at various levels, in all parts of Europe.

The way to argue against the meme of “Europeans are just mongrels from migrations” is NOT to argue that all of the ancestors of modern Europeans sprang up from the soil of Europe back into the mists of time. If you go back far enough, hominid origins were in Africa (most likely). 

The proper argument is to point out that EVERY group was formed by migrations and mixes, including all of the colored “indigenous” groups the SJWs so love.  Amerindians originated in Asia; however, we call them indigenous Native Americans because their process of ethnogenesis took place in the Americas, their identity as a group is historically rooted in the Americas, they are the oldest extant group to have come into being in the Americas, and they became a genetically and culturally distinct group (distinct from their own ancestors as well) in the Americas.  The same applies to Europeans in Europe.  I define “indigenous” here.

And the fact that something occurred in the past does not obligate us to accept something similar happening in the present or future. The fact that my embryonic and fetal development took place in my mother’s reproductive tract does not mean that I should go out and attempt to shove my head up a woman’s vagina.

How a group came to be in no way obligates it to pursue or accept a course of events that would lead to its diminishment and demographic replacement. And, anyway, ancient European genetics tend to overlap in PCA plots in a general sense with various modern European populations; none of them overlap with Nigerians or Chinamen.

So much winning!

More and more winning!

Trump the radical leftist.  Trump the architect of White Genocide. Trump the God Emperor of the Great Replacement.  Trump the Traitor.

You see what happens when you have “court Jews” in positions of influence?  How is Unz any different?

Girrrl power!  Agency!  Joan of Arc!  Lauren Southern!  It is all one!

Fits in well with the Catholic Church or with Alt Right meetings.

The same applies to Der Movement.

Copy, copy, copy, steal, steal, steal. The HBDers weep.  Emphasis added:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former engineer and a Chinese businessman have been charged with economic espionage and conspiring to steal trade secrets from General Electric Co to benefit China, according to an indictment unsealed by the U.S. Justice Department on Tuesday.

The indictment against the former GE engineer, Xiaoqing Zheng, and Chinese businessman Zhaoxi Zhang, comes after Zheng was initially charged in August in connection with the alleged theft. It marks the first time the U.S. government has formally said the scheme was carried out to benefit China and that the Chinese government provided "financial and other support."

According to the indictment, Zheng stole the proprietary data on GE's turbine technology by encrypting the files on his computer and secretly embedding them into a digital photograph of sunset before emailing the photograph to his personal email.

Zheng, 56, pleaded not guilty on Tuesday and was allowed to remain free on bond. His attorney Kevin Luibrand declined to comment.

The charges are the latest in a handful of cases brought by the Justice Department since last year as part of a broader crackdown by the Trump administration, which has vowed to fight Chinese theft of corporate secrets, cheating through intellectual property theft, illegal corporate subsidies and the use of rules that hamper U.S. corporations that want to sell their goods in China.

The FBI has said in the past that nearly every one of the agency’s 56 field offices have investigations into economic espionage tied to China.

The 14-count indictment against the pair charges that Zheng, who worked at GE Power & Water in Schenectady, New York, stole multiple electronic files containing details about design models, engineering drawings and other specifications related to the company's gas and steam turbines.

Prosecutors say he emailed the files to Zhang, who was located in China.

GE said in a statement it has "been in close cooperation with the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for some time on this matter."

The two men allegedly used the stolen information to advance their own business interests in two turbine research and development companies - Liaoning Tianyi Aviation Technology Co Ltd and Nanjing Tianyi Avi Tech Co Ltd.

The indictment adds that the pair received financial and other support from the Chinese government through those two companies, and they coordinated with Chinese government officials.

According to the indictment, Zheng told GE in February 2016 that he was operating an aviation parts supply company in China with his brothers, and asked permission to ensure it did not violate any rules about conflicts of interest. GE approved his proposal, asking that he protect the company's intellectual property.

About a year later, around November or December 2017, GE discovered a large number of encrypted files saved on Zheng's computer.

By July 2018, the company learned he had embedded the files in the seemingly innocuous photo of a sunset and emailed them to himself.

In interviews with the FBI in August 2018, prosecutors said he admitted to taking GE files. He also told agents his companies in China had received grant money from the Chinese government.

Zheng and Zhang, 46, were formally indicted on April 18. A jury trial has been set for June 24 in Albany, New York. Zhang was believed to be in China, the Justice Department said.

Zero creativity.  Zero contributions to human progress.  Everything copied and stolen.  But they have those high, high. high IQs!  Yellow Supremacy!  Yang Gang! Asian overlords!  Rice burning!  Hail Derbyshire!  Hail measured groveling!  Hail Asia!  Hail!

Implications of the Marcus Case

Jews are an ethnic group.

First, read my definition of “indigenous,” which I believe is reasonable and captures the essence of the essential meaning of the term in a manner that can be fairly applied to all peoples, including Whites.

Very well.  Now read this, emphasis added:

The move by Kenneth L. Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights and a longtime opponent of Palestinian rights causes, signaled a significant policy shift on civil rights enforcement — and injected federal authority in the contentious fights over Israel that have divided campuses across the country. It also put the weight of the federal government behind a definition of anti-Semitism that targets opponents of Zionism, and it explicitly defines Judaism as not only a religion but also an ethnic origin.

And it comes after the Trump administration moved the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, moved to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and announced the closing of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington.

In a letter to the Zionist Organization of America, obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Marcus said he would vacate a 2014 decision by the Obama administration and re-examine the conservative Jewish group’s cause not as a case of religious freedom but as possible discrimination against an ethnic group.

There is much in support of Marcus’ contention that Jews are an ethnic group: population genetics studies that show that the bulk of Jewry (excluding some numerically small outliers), and especially the Ashkenazim (but others like the Sephardim are genetically close to the Ashkenazim as well, so they all can be viewed as one large group), do constitute a biologically distinct population group; history; culture; certain physical and behavioral traits; a sense of shared destiny and peoplehood – the totality of Identity. The fact is that genetic testing can identify Jews and even one-half and one-quarter Jews.

In this sense, Marcus agrees not only with the verdict of science and history, but with what White nationalists and other racial activists have been saying for a long time: Jews are a distinct ethnic group.

Now, a question.  If Jews are an ethnic group, where is their homeland?  In other words, to what territory are they indigenous to?  Is it in Europe?

After all, the English are indigenous to England, Germans to Germany, Italians to Italy, Russians to Russia, Irish to Ireland, Swedes to Sweden, Greeks to Greece, etc. Even at the level of “regions,” this still holds: Saxons and Bavarians, Padanians and Sicilians, Flemish and Walloons, Basques and Catalonians and Andalusians, Bretons, etc. are all indigenous to their particular areas of Europe.

Where in Europe – specifically where – is the Jewish ethnic group indigenous?   Re-read the definition if you need help answering that question.

Answer: Nowhere.  They are not indigenous to any nation or region of Europe for the simple fact that they are not European.  Like the Roma, the Jews are an intrusive group that entered Europe in historical times, settled into nations and regions already populated by indigenous groups still extant today, and to an extent interbred with the natives (although there are still large pockets of essentially pure Roma and there is variation among Jews in their ancestral proportions).  

Now, no one on the Far Right – and most people otherwise in fact – consider the Roma to be European, to be White.  They are considered a racial minority group within Europe.

The same applies to the Jews, and that derives not only from facts, history, and logic, but from the views of Jews themselves – the refutation of the Alt Wrong “they look White to me” attitude in fact directly can be derived from the arguments of Marcus.

If Jews are an ethnic group – and they are – then they cannot be one that is indigenous to Europe; there is no “blood and soil” tie between Jews and any specific nation or region of Europe. They are a Diaspora group scattered across Europe, and across Asia and North Africa as well.  They have chosen Israel as their homeland, properly reflecting their modern historical origins in the Levant, in the Middle East.

They can’t have it both ways – on the one hand claiming (truthfully) to be an ethnic group, but at the same time claiming to be “White” and “European.”  

Who is Marcus?  Great to see that the “God Emperor” is taking good care of people – the Jews - who did NOT vote for him, who despite him, and are part of the “resistance” against him.  Meanwhile, his supporters are ignored, shunned, or he signs legislation bringing the force of the federal government to combat them.  In other words, Trump punishes his friends and rewards his enemies.  A “cuck nagger” if I ever saw one.

A Reply To An Incoherent Argument

Answering rambling incoherence.

An Alt Right blog attempts to make arguments about “autochonthous” peoples.  I respond.

Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.

Of course “indigenous” has already been defined, in a reasonable manner, on my Western Destiny blog. But as I have “nothing useful to say” (as opposed to endlessly repetitive ethnonationalist blather), let’s ignore it, and make arguments of the fungibility of Europeans that (1) essentially refute the entire ethnonationalist argument in Europe, (2) goes way beyond anything a “crazed” pan-Europeanist like myself would say, and (3) if I had actually written anything like that myself, I would have been accuse by the usual suspects of some sort of “Medicist” agenda.

First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.
But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.

What a silly, juvenile, intellectually lazy, and morally obtuse argument.  As humans, with interests as evolved organisms, should we equate our own interests, and the morality of our genetic continuity, with that of dinosaurs or of the “primordial soup?”  Salter in OGI dismantles the “animal rights” argument from the standpoint of human genetic interests.  And then, inconsistently, after the snide remark “So much for evolution, I guess,” we get a cartoonish misunderstanding of natural selection:

A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement…

Improvement?  First, a “Darwinist” is not “arguing” anything.  A “Darwinist” supports a theory that is bolstered by many decades of observation and experiment. Organisms do replace each other, and that replacement is itself “being better adapted for survival” – the “being better adapted” is not the “mechanism” of replacement, better said the other way around.  Second, there needs not be value-implied terms like “improvement” used.  “Better adapted” is with respect to a particular environment at a given time.  The environment can be altered virtually instantly (e.g., volcanic eruption, fire, a bulldozer passing through), after which the “improvement” can become a “hindrance.”

…rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. 

Oh, that Golden Age!  We are now in the Age of Iron!  Kali Yuga!  Savitri Devi!  The men who can’t tell time!  That’s the reality, and don’t you forget it!

Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.

Stop confusing “Darwinists” – people who support a scientific theory that is backed by impressive data – and “Social Darwinists” – meme promoters who commit the naturalistic fallacy.

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

And what are these other moral rights?  More laziness.

Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

The non-White invaders into White lands today will claim they are making something of the land, and taking responsibility for it.

Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?

From the standpoint of genetic interests, that’s not relevant.  One could argue that settled peoples increase carrying capacity more than nomads, but that’s not a moral argument per se.

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Well then, can’t the same be said of Western peoples today?  They elect politicians that promote the dispossession of their own people.  Wasn’t Merkel re-elected? They rally to “welcome refugees.”  They sit and do nothing as they and their posterity lose control of the lands won, in one manner of another, by their forebears.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it.

So, rights to land depend upon what someone else thinks about what you’ve done with it?  Is this the Greg Johnson Law of Historical Eminent Domain?  Hey, maybe Muslims don’t think that European infidels are doing much with their territory, being unbelievers who do not follow the Koran.  Therefore, they should be disposessed.  Why not?  Maybe the Chinese think they can develop Vancouver better than the White natives.  Yellow replaces White.  Why not?  Who decides?

It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

There’s a difference between declaring those things “illegitimate” and declaring that the fundamental genetic interests of Native Americans were harmed, in an irreversible and existential manner, by White colonization of America.

Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Some would think that a Eurabian Ummah is something great to be created out of the “suffering and strife” of European dispossession.  Who judges?  What value system is used and why?

Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.
The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, but their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.

That may well describe the “Indians” of today – many of whom are part-White and even mostly-White hybrids. But I imagine that the pure-blooded Indians fighting dispossession in the 19th century would have been satisfied just to have their old ways back, their continent back, and see the “pale faces” long gone.

In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. 

Even Salter in his writings spoke of the dispossession of Native Americans and that the wealth brought by Europeans doesn’t compensate for the loss of an entire continent (!) for the exclusive use of the expansion of your progeny.  What kind of absolute nonsense denies genuine victimhood to peoples deprived of carrying capacity land?  I guess we can just turn around and say that “diversity” and “the economic benefits of youthful immigrants to Europe” means that dispossession of the original peoples of that continent is justified and Europeans are not victims?

I do not argue Whites need to feel guilty or give the land back.  But they should not dismiss legitimate claims of victimhood either. Native American dispossession happened.  From their perspective, it was a world historical calamity.  Why belittle that reality?

For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. 

Native Americans would argue that Whites can return to a Europe in which non-White colonization has been reversed.

…we can create an ethnonationalist world order…

I veto your dream.

Addendum: 

In another post by the same author at the same blog, we observe the usual ethnonationalist hypocrisy and incoherence.  A few brief excerpts:

For visitors and temporary residents, white and non-white alike, as well as for white minority groups living within their borders, ethnonationalists do not want or encourage assimilation. 

Alright, but then:

Immigration between white societies should be minimized. Practically all cases would be due to marriage.

Let's have an "out" for certain ethnonationalist ethnic imperialists who live in other people's nations and take the women of these other people.

Expatriates from other white nations should be allowed, in limited numbers, as long as they respect the dominant culture and the natives need not interact with them.

This allows ethnic imperialists from certain European ethnies to colonize the "warm clines" of other European ethnies.  Of course, respecting "the dominant culture" includes Deasy disrespecting Bulgarians after visiting Bulgaria, and Leonard promoting intra-Italian separatism while living in Italy.

In addition, are members of that blog, who are not ethnic Hungarians, living in Hungary not interacting with any natives?

However, once whites feel that we have a future again, we will be able to take the risk of accepting less than fully homogeneous societies…

Let's go through all the trouble of over-throwing the System just so we eventually can start the same problems all over again.

Political EGI, Part IV: Origin Myths?

Latest anti-racist lunacy.

The latest anti-White poisonous meme being promoted (in a recent issue of Science, for example) is that of the “myth of origins” in defense of mass migration.  In other words, peoples (i.e., White people) have the “erroneous” idea that they have a single point of origin, which leads to “bias” against “migrants.”  Instead, we are told, peoples are the product of “multiple migrations” with no single origin, hence – and this is really a non-sequitur – there is no rational justification to oppose migrants.

Now, my first response to this “argument” was – “hey, does that mean we don’t have to worry about all the oppressed indigenous peoples anymore?” You know what I mean here – all of those (carefully defined so as to exclude Europeans) indigenous peoples that we – and the United Nations! – need to worry so much about.  Amerindians, native Hawaiians, Australian aboriginals, etc. - no need to “feel bad” about their displacement by the White man!  After all, all those peoples are merely the product of “multiple migrations” and so the arrival of Europeans should have been met with great joy and welcoming. 

A second response would be to ask whether this leftist logic applies to non-Whites: so that Africans, Asians, etc. all should welcome displacement and race replacement.  Good luck with that.

With respect to actually answering the “argument” itself, I state that:

1. Any reasonable definition of “indigenous” – including and especially my own definition – should be based upon the act of ethnogenesis, which itself takes into account those migrations that are part of the history of virtually all peoples (some more than others, of course).  It simply does not matter in the last analysis how a people came to be – they exist, and if their ethnogenesis is tied to a particular territory, and if they are the oldest extant people on that territory, then they are indigenous to that territory, and their origin there is a reality, not a myth,

2. Regardless of how different peoples came to be, they differ genetically and culturally, and they have an inherent right to safeguard their uniqueness, an inherent right to their own territory, and an inherent right to resist displacement and race replacement.

3. It follows then that the actual mechanisms of origin, and the actual mechanisms generating a people’s genetic and cultural uniqueness, are irrelevant to their Identity, and to their self-conception tied to a territory and to an origin in that territory.  Group interests are inherent to group existence, and anyone who attempts to delegitimize those interests – for example by delegitimizing a sense of origin and a sense of identity – are threatening the group’s existence and are thus promoting genocide.

White racial activists like to bring up the United Nations Genocide Convention and how it applies to White displacement.  They need to get more serious about it.  As part of Political EGI, nationalist politicians should openly accuse their opponents of promoting genocide, and assert that those opponents need to be hauled into court for crimes against humanity. Not that this “hauling into court” will occur (for now, only nationalists are so “hauled”), but it is excellent political rhetoric and sets the tone for the future.

Part V will continue this discussion.