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.