Against Counter-Currents and McCulloch

In all cases, emphasis added.

Let’s see.

He focused on preserving America’s founding Nordic stock.

What else could be important?  OK, let’s see what else is associated with that:

…he argued that the United States should recognize the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution and he supported Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal…He eventually became chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sounds about right.

And, something that the fundamentally dishonest Counter-Currents leaves out:

From 1900 to the 1920s, Ross supported the alcohol Prohibition movement as well as continuing to support eugenics and immigration restriction.  By 1930, he had moved away from those views, however.

Laugh at this.

I was proud of the fact that Michigan, where I vote…

Not where he lives though, eh?  When are the long suffering people of Hungary going to be free of the Morganian invader?  Ethnonationalism!

It quickly became apparent, however, that those individuals who found themselves thrust into the Alt-Right spotlight lacked the character, maturity, and judgment to make it happen. 

Sure.  Let’s name some prominent Alt Righters: Greg Johnson, John Morgan…

…the fact remains that the Alt-Right’s spectacular and tragically unnecessary failure will continue to hamper us for many years to come.

I seem to recall someone predicting the downfall of the Alt-Right by late 2016, certainly by early 2017.  I wonder who that was.

When it comes to the Dissident Right, Trump offered little but empty rhetoric. Despite occasionally talking about establishing controls over Big Tech to prevent their blatant censorship of non-conformist views that challenge the neoliberal narrative, no action was ever taken in this direction. Apart from his Charlottesville press conference, neither did Trump ever take a stand in defense of white advocates, and he often went in the other direction, such as in September, when he promised to declare the “Ku Klux Klan” a terrorist organization (thus opening the door for any Dissident Right groups to be targeted given the lack of an easily identifiable unified KKK organization), calling for Juneteenth to be declared a federal holiday, and promising $500 billion in aid to black communities.

But, he’s a sincere man of genuine greatness, and don’t you forget it!

One thing that is certain is that these new leaders must be completely disconnected in every public way from the fiasco that was the Alt-Right.

No Greg Johnson or John Morgan then.  Ted Sallis is still in play, eh?

Of related interest.

The sole consideration for ingroup status should be race as determined by phenotype and ancestry. Basing the ingroup on non-racial categories such as religious beliefs or sexual orientation...

Interesting that "sexual orientation" is specifically cited as a category that should be of no consequence. 

As I have previously noted, every once in a while, like a flash of lightning illuminating a dark landscape, the power of the cabal is nicely illustrated.

...would indicate that the purpose of the proposed solution is at least to some degree something other than racial preservation. 

As it should be. If you are creating a new nation and a new society, why not utilize considerations other than McCulloch's racial aesthetics?  Why should race traitors, anti-White leftists, criminals, feaks, and perverts be included in a state of our creation?  Just because we need to satisfy one person's single-minded obsessions about racial aesthetics?

In fact, any attempt to divide the White race on ideological or other non-racial lines would be contrary to White racial interests and incite internal division and opposition.

But dividing groups and families based on McCulloch's bizarre and laughable "racial phenotype charts" is, of course, not at all divisive and would not " incite internal division and opposition." That nonsense like this has been tolerated in Der Movement for decades is one very significant reason why pro-White activism has made ZERO progress in that time.

In the great majority of cases, ingroup classification can be determined by the traditional and natural way by the visible physical phenotype which is also the method most consistent with White racial sensibilities and would therefore enjoy the strongest support and agreement. 

There is zero evidence that is true other than McCulloch's solipsic assertion that it is.

The standard for this determination should be based on the normal European phenotypic range, not on rare exceptions and outliers.

Should people who think that Mariah Carey has no non-White ancestry, and "looks more recessive" than Al Pacino, dictate racial views to those of us with a normal visual cortex?

I propose that persons of at least three-quarters (75%) European ancestry and within the normal European phenotypic range—i.e., with no visible physical indication of non-White mixture should be racially classified as White. Phenotypically borderline cases, including some common Southern European phenotypes that are also common in the populations of North Africa and the Middle East, should be decided by establishing at least 15/16ths (93.75%) European ancestry.

Someone can be 25% non-White and still pass muster!  25%!  And then we have the no good “common Southern European phenotypes.” You see, phenotypes common in Southern Europe are also common in "North Africa and the Middle East." Looking at David Bromstad and Bjork we can ask if phenotypes common in Northern Europe are also common in Central and East Asia, but that's another issue.

Then we have - 93.75%!  Let's calculate to the last 0.75%!  Is that determined by genealogical ancestry? What? Any other determination is absurd – how could you accurately and precisely genetically distinguish 93.75% from 93.74% or 93.76%? Or from 94%? Or 95%? Or 90%? Or, for that matter, with "tests" that report results at the 50% confidence level, differentiate 93.75% from, say, 85% at a sufficiently high level of accuracy? And if genealogical ancestry is the only way to get precise and reproducible measurements then you could simply make that your politically relevant yardstick (as I do). But then he gives us:

A 2014 autosomal genetic study by Katarzyna Bryc et.al. (see Figure 2) found that the average proportion of European ancestry in a “23andMe” sample of 8,663 Hispanic-Americans (“Latinos”) was only 65.1%, a proportion that would not qualify them to be classified as White as a group, although perhaps about 10–15% of Hispanic-Americans would qualify individually as White by European standards. This is in sharp contrast to their “23andMe” sample of 148,789 non-Hispanic European-Americans, whose average proportion of European genetic ancestry was determined to be 98.6%. The study also found that only 3.5% of European-Americans have 1% or more African ancestry, only 1.4% have 2% or more African ancestry, and only 2.7% have 1% or more of “Native American” ancestry, with about 94% having essentially no genetically measurable non-European ancestry.

Anyone who uses 23andMe and its methodology as a serious yardstick for anything is not to be taken seriously. There are many population genetics papers that give real measures of Hispanic ancestral components. I also enjoy how we are given percentages here to the decimal point, when results can vary up to ten to twenty percentage points every time the company makes an update to their parental reference base. And, hey. why 23andMe?  Why not Ancestry?  Living DNA? Maybe we can dig up old DNAPrint data?  Never mind the fact that these estimates are based on supervised admixture analysis and are thus completely dependent on what samples are used as the references and how those are classified.  Does McCulloch know that 23andMe considers Ashkenazi Jews to be fully "European," so that a hook-nosed pure Jew would be "100% European?"  Back to phenotype and genealogy, I suppose. This is the vaunted scholar upon who we look to consider how many significant digits we should extend our analysis. Why depend on serious academic analysis instead? Also note how he is completely inconsistent.  I though phenotype was all important?  So, if a Hispanic is 25% (or 24.9%, eh?) Amerindian-Negro, but "looks Nordish" then what's the problem?  

In his part I, McCulloch makes the reasonable point that:

So by any reasonable standard Europeans should be regarded as purely European.

I agree. After all, if - IF! - you did supervised admixture analysis with an unbiased and comprehensive set of parental reference samples, covering the full entirety of the European ethnoracial spectrum, then you would indeed find that Europeans would be "purely European" - or close enough with statistical error.  After all, you would be essentially comparing people to themselves (i.e., to their co-ethnics).  To break this circular reasoning you would need an independent rationale for identifying genetic ancestries as "European" - see here.  You could draw a line around PCA clustering, but the precise boundaries would require some of these other considerations as well, as would the identification of genetic elements in unsupervised admixture analysis. 

Note I am not saying that genetic analyses are unhelpful - quite the opposite.  But you need to understand the limitations and you need to avoid both circular reasoning as well as avoid bias in supervised analyses. Someone could do an analysis in which "Sardinian" is defined as "European" and then sit back and watch Northern Europeans all test out as significantly Siberian/East Asian. Would that be reasonable?  Of course not. DNAPrint defined "European" as the CEU sample (mostly British ancestry from Utah), which caused some German ancestry people to have significant "Asian admixture." That was unreasonable - a biased reference sample. Populations not well represented in the parental reference banks will demonstrate more false positive "admixture" than those populations well represented. Further, if Ashkenazim are defined as "European" then full-blooded Jews will be "100% European" (or close), even though real population genetic studies put Jews as 50% European ("European" being defined as the indigenous stocks of Europe, as opposed to diaspora nomads).

All of this confusion derives from McCulloch obsessing over details of phenotype, rather than just genealogical ancestry, which would yield:

So by any reasonable standard Europeans should be regarded as purely European.

With some reasonable exceptions being made for White Americans with slight Amerindian ancestry or "White Hispanics" who are of overwhelmingly Iberian ancestry.

Pareto Principle - simplify.  Thus:

So by any reasonable standard Europeans should be regarded as purely European.

Is that so difficult?