Odds and Ends, 10/30/22

In der news.

A Gab correspondent gives us the following interesting phenotypic comparison:

Emperor Hirohito.

Heinrich Himmler.

It seems Himmler fits in well with Bromstad and Bjork.  Grab dem chopsticks!

See this. Well, the one positive from all of that is that maybe, just maybe, this latest massive humiliation, after all of the others (Rotherham apparently was not enough), is enough to make Britons lose their arrogant "the wogs begin at Calais" attitude toward the rest of Europe, stop thinking that they are still on top of the world, stop the idea that they still have an empire and the dead hag was "Queen of the World," and they will finally start having a bit of humility and work with other Europeans to build a New European Order.

Or...we'll just have more Anglomanic Anachronisms like Andrew Fraser behaving as if it was the year 1890.

The UK now has King Tampon, Prince Peggster, Prince Old Driller, Gunga Din as Prime Minister, and Paki Din as mayor of London, while in the USA, WASPs are junior partners to the Jews, Australia is becoming a colony of China, Canada is a frozen dystopia, and New Zealand is ruled by SJW hysterics - and people still take the likes of Andrew Fraser seriously.

From FOX:

notsopolite

The fun fact is that UK now is an Indian colony. How ironic is it?

It is not the fault of micks, wops, or hunkies that the UK is now ruled by Gunga Din. The British did it to themselves.

Rule Britannia!

Some European nations had a temporary pre-eminence for several centuries and now they (and their overseas Diaspora) do not want to believe it is over. That's why they promote HBD-Nordicism so as to suggest that their temporary pre-eminence is a sign of innate permanent superiority. The reality is that today's Britain is in an analogous condition as post-Roman Italy under the Ostrogoths and Lombards.

Eraserhead is a classic of pro-MGTOW propaganda. Lynch likely did not intend it to be so, but in retrospect it is.

How small town High Trusters treat Italian-Americans - see here. How they treat non-Whites:

But Mr. Jetton, who is Korean American, noted that forward-looking Republicans in many places were competing for minority voters. 

Mr. LeTulle used to lead the county party’s outreach to minority voters, courting culturally conservative Asian American business owners and professionals. He said he often visited the local Hindu temple in his cowboy hat and boots with a kurta over his Wranglers. And he cited some success, like persuading a Black Democrat who had lost her primary to switch parties.

Mr. Nehls called immigrants an asset to the community.

“If you go to the Sugar Land memorial hospital and try to read the names of the doctors, we can’t pronounce them or spell them, right?” the congressman said in an interview at his book signing.

“But those are the same guys who are going to be putting in my stent in a few years!” he continued, trying to sound out the name of his own cardiologist from a business card. “I think he is from Pakistan, and I think he is a Muslim,” Mr. Nehls said, “and I love him!”

Racial Proximity Theory marches on. Yes, there are some High Trusters who don’t like non-Whites, as indicated in the article, but given the Burr Ridge example, no doubt they would be much more hostile to White ethnics.

A Gab correspondent alerts me to this. Sailer is despicable. Note he uses the Left's term of "White supremacy." What about White nationalism? I don't care if Disraeli is "fabulous" or supreme or whatever. I don't want him as my leader and I don't want to live in the same polity.

There's a reason I call Sailer "Breezy Steve" - he has to rate as the most damnably superficial commentator on Der Right. I challenge Sailer to name one well-known, prominent "White supremacist" who denies the cognitive capabilities of Jews as well as that of elite Asian immigrant stock.  Sailer is disgustingly mendacious - in other words, a HBDer.

See this argument here.  OK, fair enough. But...remember this?

For blacks in the United States to make their presence felt on the state and national stages, they need one thing more than anything else: space. They need to completely dominate entire cities, or portions of or precincts of cities, in order to be able to elect their own as representatives. These people then go to the state capital or to Washington, DC to represent them, as well as to push whitey around as best they can. Blacks come to do this not by fighting crime or reducing unemployment, but by doing as little as possible to stop their own misbehavior in their own neighborhoods. That way, non-blacks stay away. Nobody wants to live with them, and as a result, blacks have spaces to call their own. They may not be very nice spaces, but that doesn’t matter when they are tallying votes in the House of Representatives, does it?”

Something VERY strange is going on with Amren and Counter-Currents. I'm not sure yet what it is, but eventually all these things come out, whatever they are, whether it is just plain plagiarism, people writing under different names at both forums, some other sort of deep communication, or is possible that these types are such dogmatic conformists that such perfectly overlapping theses are actually independent coincidences?

If MacDonald his right, then his favorite ethnoracial groups are unsuitable for leadership in pro-White politics, because of their innate high-trusting, individualistic, pathological altruism that results in groveling to non-Whites. If MacDonald is wrong, and Sallis is right, then those same ethnoracial groups are still unsuitable for leadership in pro-White politics because of Racial Proximity Theory that results in their groveling to non-Whites. If both are wrong, it still doesn't matter, because whatever the explanation, those groups are prone to grovel to non-Whites and therefore are unsuitable for leadership in pro-White politics. So, in all circumstances, the High Trusters are unsuitable for leadership in pro-White politics.

We are told that High Truster societies would be orderly, productive, safe, and well-run if only there weren't all of those Colored migrants and their posterity around to ruin it all. OK, fair enough. But what if the presence of all of those Colored migrants and their posterity is an innate part of High Trustism? What if the wonderfully high trust cognitive suite that creates those orderly societies also makes the native majority crave the presence of Coloreds and makes them crave to debase themselves before those Coloreds? What if "diversity" is a feature and not a bug of High Trustism? That is in fact one area of agreement between the MacDonald and Sallis views - that High Trusters will inevitably grovel to Color. MacDonald says that it is from high trust altruistic individualism and Sallis says it is from Racial Proximity Theory, but the end result is the same. In a world of rapid international travel of movement of peoples, there will inevitably be Color with High Trusters. And because of the recent historical preeminence of High Trusters and their political domination of the "West" that means that Color will infiltrate into the South and East of Europe as well, as it is doing. High Trusters not only wreck their own societies with Color, but force others to do the same.

Long time readers may wonder why I now mock Brexit when I originally supported it. That's because how it turned out. Brexit would have been worth it if the UK had stopped all Colored immigration and had moved to the Right on issues like law and order and free speech. But, no. Instead they did the opposite, flooding the country with more Coloreds and being more hysterically "woke." That strongly suggests that the real motivation for Brexit was Racial Proximity Theory all along, and not a principled opposition to globalism and mass immigration as I so naively believed at the time.

See this. Typical Johnson. First, note that he only engages with and debates mediocre midwits. Second, as outlined here he has in fact endorsed Europeans waging war against each other and engaging in ethnic cleansing. Thus, he's a hypocrite pretending he's against such in his latest screed. Third, ethnonationalism is such a potent force that some of its adherents can't even practice it in their own lives, colonizing other people's countries, and that includes past and present Counter-Currents writers.

I can give my take on the war and can be brief. While I have sympathy for the Ukrainian people's struggle for independence, and their rightful distrust of Russia, I see both sides as wrong. The war is between Trad Vlad's Hapa Eurasianism vs. Ukrainian nationalists being hoodwinked yet again (as in 2014) to serve Jewish-Globalist interests. The war is a catastrophe for everyone and needs to be settled via diplomacy. My opinion of Trad Vlad is well known, but I just can't wrap my head around Ukrainians having a Jew President after what was done to them in the Holodomor. Russia has legitimate grievances and was ill-treated by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Eastern Europeans, including and especially Ukrainians, have strong reasons to want to be outside the Russian orbit. Russia should have been allowed to join NATO 30 years ago. Russia should be looking to the East and South for their real enemies, not West.

I got some bad news for Der Retard Right who believe that a possible Supreme Court decision, re: affirmative action (in school admissions, focused on Asians, because who cares about Whites?) will actually change anything. The schools (and other pro-quota entities) will just do a work around (as they've been doing even now to get around restrictions on using race-only). Ever hear of "holistic review?" All you got to do is destress, or eliminate, objective academic metrics, and instead stress "life experiences" and "a commitment to DEI" and you can fill your class up with ignorant apes. Problem solved.

Read the comments to this utterly moronic Counter-Currents article (yes I know that description is redundant). A few isolated glimmers of sanity in a sea of Dunphy-Stronza madness. The WN 3.0 mantra:

• Downward mobility is good. Let Jews and Asians dominate the professions. Counter-Currents can still get its D'Nations of course - why save for retirement? Everyone over 40 should just die anyway.
• The enemy of Whites under 40 are Whites over 40 (no doubt older White ethnics are the worst). Generational Solidarity! Youngsters like Neil and Lipton are your allies against the White gerontocracy!
• We need to live at a 14th century standard of medical care. If you die of an "Infectious" (scare quotes - viruses don't exist) disease that means you are weak and deserve to die.

Der Movement is BY FAR the greatest enemy of Whites in existence because Der Movement will utterly repulse the types of normal, sane, and rational Whites required to actually achieve pro-White goals.

Of course, if your real goal is to be a grifter living off the D'Nations of followers because you've realized you threw away your life and career and you have no other options, then I suppose being a "movement" "leader" among such unfettered madness makes sense. You might even be a middle-aged person who knows better, and you will still let your blog descend into a whirlpool of insanity as long as the moolah keeps rolling in.

Proof positive that Dunphy is full of shit - Mophead is an old White guy whose second wife is a much younger woman (what Jeelvy would term "mate poaching") and who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars/year in "executive compensation" from supporters for "running an Internet publication" (you know, more or less what I do for nothing). Greggy Tincup is in his early 50s, while Sammy Flanders and Kevin MacTruster are old enough to be Tincup's father, all three dominating Der Movement. And yet the cowardly little worm turd Dunphy has no criticism for any of that, no siree, but instead focuses his ire on regular older White folk who have worked hard for decades and now have a little bit of savings to show for it. What a hypocritical pathetic piece of shit this Dunphy is.

By the way, Dunphy will always be White but will one day be old (that is, if he unfortunately lives that long). I suppose that realization has not yet occurred to the single neuron bouncing around his skull that he mistakenly calls a "brain."

Men's Rights Manifesto on Abortion

Thoughts.

If women want the "right to choose" then they must also have the responsibility for raising the child if they want it and not demand that the father pay "child support." A exclusive right to choose obligates an equally exclusive responsibility to support.

On the other hand, if fathers are to be obligated to pay child support, at least in certain circumstances, then they must have the right to contribute to the decisions about pregnancy. What if there are conflicting views? If the woman wants the child and the man does not, then she can go ahead and have the child but with no support, economic or otherwise, whatsoever from the father. If the woman wants an abortion and the man objects, the woman can have the abortion but must pay the man reparations equal to whatever child support payments he would have been obligated to pay for the child until that child's independence.

It is time for men to take a stand on this issue.

Milady weeps.

Epigenetic Conundrum

A disturbing possibility.

Genetics vs. epigenetics. To briefly summarize, genetics deals with the actual DNA sequences - the genome - while epigenetics deals with factors (e.g., DNA methylation, histone modifications, and other mechanisms cited in the linked article) that affect how the genetic information in the genome is expressed. Epigenetic changes can be heritable, at least for several generations (including being stable for a time after the environmental stimulus causing the epigenetic alteration is no longer present).

Readers of my work know that I prioritize genetics over epigenetics. After all, it are the DNA sequences, particularly the autosomal genome, that are the focus of ethnic genetic interests; further, genetics is the basic foundation of the phenotype, the fundamental instructions, the essential blueprint, while epigenetic influences are in the secondary role of modulating those basic instructions.

Having said that, secondary importance is still important. Epigenetics are important. In addition, they are typically more rapidly responsive to changes in the environment than are genetic mechanisms. So, whole both genetics and epigenetics can have crosstalk with the environment, when we focus on the environment influencing gene expression (in contrast to the opposite, the effects of gene expression on the environment, such as human culture), we observe that altering the genome is a slower process of selective pressure over generations, while epigenetic changes can occur in real time and then can be inherited by the subsequent generation(s). Therefore, epigenetic changes - the epigenome - are typically a more immediate response.

It is true that epigenetic inheritance eventually will – in the absence of continued environmental influences that caused the epigenetic changes to begin with – “peter out” over time, with the modifications being essentially “reset” via “reprogramming” to baseline (see the epigenetics and inheritance article linked above). That this can occur is itself underscores the importance of the environment, since epigenetic changes can be maintained over a long time period, and “reprogramming” avoided, if the environmental stimulus affecting the epigenome is continuously maintained.

A change in the environment can do two things – first remove the stimulus for a pre-existing epigenetic profile, allowing that profile to disappear over time via “reprogramming,” and, second, at the same time, it can produce a different epigenetic profile to come into existence. So, as stated above, while genetic changes are more important (and tend to be more long lasting) they are typically much slower to respond (however, see the mention of evolutionary capacitance below) while the epigenome can be reprogrammed within a single generation.

For example, if an environment of White Western Culture creates effects that manifest in a particular set of epigenetic changes, that epigenome will be maintained over very long time periods only insofar as that particular environment continues, and is able to maintain the “White Western” epigenome and the consequent gene expression and phenotype. If Jew-Colored influences result in a changed, non-Western multicultural environment, then White people can rapidly lose their pre-existing epigenome and have that replaced with a different epigenome reflecting non-White environmental influences. 

Thus, epigenetic changes in gene expression and White phenotype can occur and, at the same time, slower selective pressure will be at work to also alter the underlying fundamental genome as well.  The epigenetic changes may result in more subtle alterations in phenotype than the slower genetic changes; however, rapid subtle changes in the epigenome, multiplied over the masses of entire populations, can cause profound change to the character of the population and to the resulting society.  And this profound change can occur even if the change at the level of a single individual is more modest; thus, modest change multiplied over millions, tens of millions, and hundreds of millions of people can have a world historical impact.  

And then consider cross-talk and positive feedback loops.  A change in environment - caused, say, by the presence of alien peoples and cultures - causes a rapid epigenetic change in Whites.  Even if that change is modest, it can have profound effects on society – effects that cause further epigenetic changes and also exert even more selective pressure on the DNA gene sequences (genomes) themselves, etc. – with this constant “feed forward” mechanism amplifying over time. In this sense, multicultural diversity can be altering the very biological essence of Whiteness, and this process doesn’t even take into account the effects of miscegenation.

See this. So, not only can epigenetics explain phenotypic change that occurs more rapidly than expected from typical selection (and drift) genetic mechanism, but “evolutionary capacitance” also may play a role.

Different ethnies contain different types of, and levels, of such genetic variation; hence, human groups differ, qualitatively and quantitatively, in their evolutionary capacitance.  What this means in terms of a “racial soul” is that different groups may not reflect a type of phenotypic difference in one environment, but once exposed to a different, stressful environment, robustness breaks down and the inherent genetic variation is expressed in phenotypes previously masked.  This expression of masked phenotypes is one manifestation of the "racial soul."

Note that evolutionary capacitance can be epigenetic as well as genetic; the "stored variation" can result from genetic and/or epigenetic mechanisms. The bottom line here is that phenotypic change as a result of an altered environment can be more rapid than expected and this change can be heritable, or at least heritable to the extent that a particular environmental context is maintained. Phenotype equals genotype plus environment, and the environment can rapidly alter both epigenetics and evolutionary capacitance, as well alter the genome through slower processes of selective pressures. The rapid degeneration of Whites over the last several generations may in part be explained both by the more rapid mechanisms (epigenetics and evolutionary capacitance), as well as by the slower, more standard dysgenic effects acting at the level of the genome. In this way, degeneration may be due to dysgenics plus epigenetics plus evolutionary capacitance. Admixture can play a role as well, although this likely occurs to a greater extent once the original degeneration has set in and made the decayed race more susceptible to destructive practices such as miscegenation.

Therefore, not only are our racial enemies attacking us through all of the means we already know about and complain about, but they may be actually changing the very essence of our being. This is an existential attack against the meaning of White Being. The changed essence of Whiteness can alter how we engage in inclusive fitness and therefore directly affects defense of our ethnic genetic interests.

To secure our existence it is not enough to save the race and its genome but we must also place that race in an appropriate environment so that the racial genome and epigenome are properly manifested to secure White Being.

The Boston Virus

In all cases, emphasis added.

Please see this.

The paper.

Authors:

Da-Yuan Chen, Devin Kenney, Chue Vin Chin, Alexander H. Tavares, Nazimuddin Khan, Hasahn L. Conway, GuanQun Liu, Manish C. Choudhary, Hans P. Gertje, Aoife K. O’Connell, Darrell N. Kotton, Alexandra Herrmann,  View ORCID ProfileArmin Ensser, John H. Connor, Markus Bosmann, Jonathan Z. Li, Michaela U. Gack, Susan C. Baker, Robert N. Kirchdoerfer, Yachana Kataria, Nicholas A. Crossland, Florian Douam, Mohsan Saeed

First author.

Corresponding author.

Abstract:

The recently identified, globally predominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1) is highly transmissible, even in fully vaccinated individuals, and causes attenuated disease compared with other major viral variants recognized to date1–7. The Omicron spike (S) protein, with an unusually large number of mutations, is considered the major driver of these phenotypes3,8. We generated chimeric recombinant SARS-CoV-2 encoding the S gene of Omicron in the backbone of an ancestral SARS-CoV-2 isolate and compared this virus with the naturally circulating Omicron variant. The Omicron S-bearing virus robustly escapes vaccine-induced humoral immunity, mainly due to mutations in the receptor-binding motif (RBM), yet unlike naturally occurring Omicron, efficiently replicates in cell lines and primary-like distal lung cells. In K18-hACE2 mice, while Omicron causes mild, non-fatal infection, the Omicron S-carrying virus inflicts severe disease with a mortality rate of 80%. This indicates that while the vaccine escape of Omicron is defined by mutations in S, major determinants of viral pathogenicity reside outside of S.

Funding:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We thank Dr. Yoshiharu Matsuura from Osaka University, Japan, for providing the pCSII-SARS-CoV-F8 plasmid; the Department of Public Health, Massachusetts, for providing the clinical specimen containing Omicron virus; and the ICCB-Longwood Screening Facility of Harvard Medical School forassistance with IF image acquisition and analysis. This work was supported by Boston University startupfunds (to MS and FD), National Institutes of Health, NIAID grants R01 AI159945 (to SB and MS) andR37 AI087846 (to MUG), NIH SIG grants S10-OD026983 and SS10-OD030269 (to NAC), Peter PaulCareer Development Award (to FD), and BMBF SenseCoV2 01KI20172A (AE) and DFG Fokus COVID19, EN 423/7-1 (AE). We thank the Clinical & Translational Science Institute (CTSI; 1UL1TR001430) andEvans Center for Interdisciplinary Biomedical Research at Boston University School of Medicine for their support of the Affinity Research Collaborative on ‘Respiratory Viruses: A Focus on COVID-19’. 

See this.

However, neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported “gain-of-function” research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.

That’s not true anymore, is it?

Do you really want these people creating and handling deadly viruses? I suggest that American readers contact their Senators and Congressmen (Representatives) and demand that they investigate this fiasco and put an end to it.  Readers in other nations should contact their appropriate national leadership contacts and demand that they contact American equivalents and demand answers.

Odds and Ends, 10/23/22

In der news.

I notice that since the end of WWII, every time the High Trusters get racially threatened by Coloreds, the High Trusters become more Nordicist and start attacking White ethnics, particularly Southern Europeans, who not only did not cause the Colored problems, but in most cases also suffered from it. In America, the “civil rights movement,” integration, and the post-1965 mass Colored immigration triggered Nordicism, leading to Sir Humphrey, McCulloch, Pearce, and Duke, etc. Then, after the election of Obama and continued mass immigration and out-of-control illegal immigration, we now have the revival of more Nordicism in Der Movement, including HBD-Nordicism. The end of apartheid in South Africa led to the radical Nordicist gibbering of Arthur Kemp. The pattern is clear.  Afraid of dealing with Coloreds, the High Trusters look to White ethnics as easy outlets for their racial fears and frustrations.

Consider - a long period of outrages against native Britons by Colored colonists caused the Britons to turn against the EU and complain about White EU immigration, after which we got Brexit, cut the White immigration while increasing the Colored immigration that was causing the real problems to begin with.

Racial Proximity Theory anyone?

And the argument against that theory by invoking hostility against Jews doesn't cut it. First of all, sustained anti-Semitism in Germanic countries was mostly Germany and Austria. Second, such anti-Jewish hostility was more intense among South German types than among more Nordic North Germans. Third, Germans being more hostile to Jews than to Negroes actually supports, not refutes, Racial Proximity Theory.

Jim Crow in America doesn't refute it either. In the South, the divide was Anglo-Negro; in the North, there was plenty of hostility against the White ethnics who were present there, and, there were always the John Lindsay types who preferred Blacks and Hispanics to White ethnics. It is difficult to think of any strong refutation of Racial Proximity Theory.

Speaking (no pun intended) of Racial Proximity Theory, meet Tris Speaker, Texas Southron. First, his attitude toward White ethnics:

Despite the team’s success on the field, tensions were often high in the clubhouse. Speaker and catcher Carrigan never got along and had several brawls. Speaker was often not on speaking terms with Duffy Lewis, who, like Carrigan, was an Irish Catholic. (Religious differences had created cliques on the club, with Speaker siding with other Protestants including Joe Wood and Larry Gardner). The atmosphere grew more complicated with the arrival of Babe Ruth in 1915. Ruth crossed Wood and Speaker never fully forgave him. In his book Baseball As I Have Known It, Fred Lieb wrote that Speaker once told Lieb he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Although the Klan kept its membership rolls secret, Speaker’s alleged membership would not be surprising given that the Klan experienced a nationwide revival beginning in 1915, gaining much popularity with its anti-Catholic rhetoric. In addition, the Klan’s national leader from 1922 to 1939, Imperial Wizard Hiram W. Evans, lived near Speaker in Hubbard...newcomer Joe DiMaggio’s graceful play in the Yankees outfield inevitably caused comparisons to Speaker. The proud Texan bristled at the suggestion that DiMaggio was a worthy successor. When asked about the Yankee Clipper in 1939, Speaker responded, “HIM? I could name 15 better outfielders!

And now, his relationship with the Negro:

In 1947, at the request of general manager Bill Veeck, Tris returned to uniform as a special coach, to help convert Larry Doby, who had played second base in the Negro Leagues, into a center fielder.

It gets worse with Tris Speaker; here he defends a Negro against White "racism" -

Tris Speaker pointed to the racial tension of the era, saying, “the poor guy came up under the worst possible conditions… [he] had nothing to do with the condition that made him the target of the boo birds."

Big Bad KKKer Speaker, attacking the micks and wops but treating every Negro as if their name was "Ben Dover."

A Gab correspondent alerts me to this:

The Ostrogoths came as conquerors and treated the Italians as such. They practiced the typical custom of appropriating one third of the lands or productive revenues for themselves; they barred the Romans from military service; and the kingship (the most powerful position in the Kingdom) was exclusive to the Ostrogoths, who remained consciously separated from the Romans and adhered to their own law. They had no intention of assimilating or of being equals. According to their own law, Ostrogoths were forbidden from attending Roman schools, and intermarriage between Romans and Goths was prohibited.

The Ostrogoths were also Arians (a heretical religious sect which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and opposed Catholicism). Despite the vaunted "tolerance" of Theodoric emphasized by current historians, the reality is that towards the end of his reign he began to persecute Catholics.

Even though the civil administration remained in Italian hands, and even though Italy's Roman customs and institutions were largely undisturbed, in the end the Italians were still a subjugated people, subject to the Ostrogothic military class and to the king.

Well then, those Ostrogoths were certainly high trust altruistic non-ethnocentric individualists, eh?  Seriously though, the MacDonaldite thesis about "Western individualism" is continuously refuted.

Irrational Man

Book review.

See here for the Western Destiny book review of Irrational Man.

The book is a summary of existentialist thought, written in the late 1950s, and it is still relevant today, as existentialism as a philosophy has not significantly progressed over the past sixty years, having been replaced as a leading philosophical school of thought in what used to be the West by "critical theory" "deconstructionism."

Against the Ethnics

The historical truth.

I make no claims that the ideas presented here are original with me.  Most of this has come from others, much of it form people like E. Michael Jones, as well as comments by some Gab correspondents and others. Some of it are my ideas and/or my extension of the ideas of others.

“White Flight” is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. Among the various reasons for racial integration was the use of Blacks (and Brown Hispanics) as biological weapons to use against certain Whites – with the ones wielding these weapons of ethnoracial warfare being the WASP-Jewish alliance.  In the South, racial integration was another step in the long civil war between the Yankee WASPs of the North and the Southron WASPs of the South, a war that started before 1861 and continued past 1865. Of more relevance to this post, in the Northeast, racial integration was a weapon used by the WASP-Jewish alliance against the growing demographic-political power of White ethnic Catholics (Irish, Italians, Polish). White ethnics were driven out by crime, racial harassment, the destruction of the schools, filth, noise, plummeting property values, hostile political elites, etc. Therefore, racial integration led to an ethnic cleaning that broke up White ethnic neighborhoods and hence disrupted areas of political power, also disrupted family connections, negatively affected the education of White ethnic children, drained family finances, and physically terrorized the people – all according to plan.  John Lindsay can be seen as the High Priest of this vicious biological warfare.

And then we have the other attack pincer against the White ethnics – affirmative action. Affirmative action for Blacks and Browns can be viewed at least in part as a weapon to attack the upward mobility of White ethnics. The people harmed by affirmative action in higher education admission were not, and are not, the country club types with their legacy slots at the Ivy League, not the ones whose families have had inter-generational memberships to Skull and Bones. No, the ones actually harmed are, for example, first generation college students from working class White ethnic backgrounds, shut out of the best schools because of affirmative action for Blacks and Browns, combined with legacy slots for WASPs, and monopolizing of slots by grasping ethnocentric Jews and Asians.  With respect to affirmative action in employment, that predominantly harms those Whites who historically have lived in and around cities with large Black and Brown populations and are in employment competition with those populations, and such Whites are disproportionately White ethnics. Therefore, at precisely the time that White ethnics were displaying upward mobility to higher education, to the professions, and to join the White American middle class, affirmative action was introduced that to a significant extent retarded that progress.

No doubt the usual suspects will call me “paranoid” and “insane” for broaching this topic.  Further, following the advice that “the best defense is a good offense” WASP elites on the Right flip the script and accuse White ethnics of “dispossessing the founding stock” (no, actually the Jews did that) or invent sweaty sexual fantasies of White ethnic men cuckolding founding stock men or other such nonsense – anything to avoid dealing with the actual historical facts on the ground, and the actual balancing of the books for the sociopolitical warfare waged against White ethnics for many decades.

And of course the same scenario plays out in Der Movement itself.  White ethnics displayed too much upward mobility in Far Right circles, the Anglo-Germanics felt threatened, and so we observe a revival of Nordicism (much of it in the guise of HBD-Nordicism) as well as the ethnic affirmative action plan for Anglo-Germanics as well as WN 3.0 using non-Whites as a wedge against White ethnics, recapitulating what was done with racial integration in America’s urban Northeast. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Odds and Ends, 10/16/22

In der news.

Hood is at it again. One of the best pieces of advice I ever heard - and, surprisingly enough, it was from a woman - was that if you are going to bring up a problem then you should offer a solution. Hood and Amren do not do this. That site - and especially all of Hood's "verified hate" posts - is an endless litany of racial and cultural woe, and their only "solutions" are to attend their conference to hear more woe and to listen to Taylor state that Asians are superior to Whites by every standard.

Laugh at this:

Istvan

As if we should be surprised by this. Two brown eyed parents could conceivably have a blue-eyed child, rare though that might be.

Conceivably? Rare? These Amren commentators are incredibly stupid. It's a common occurrence among Europeans as many dark-eyed Europeans are heterozygotes.

Another pathologically self-obsessed navel-gazing essay by Jeelvy.

Italians cause many of their own problems.

In general, I agree with this, and when MacDonald writes about Jews, it is more or less sound (of course, my opinion here can be ascribed to bias; nevertheless, that is my opinion). The problem here is that much of what MacDonald writes about disguised ethnocentrism and deception/self-deception with respect to Jews can apply to certain other groups that pretend that they are disinterested altruists while ruthlessly pursuing group goals (the John Lindsay syndrome).

I have noted several times that the human mind was not designed to seek truth but rather to attain evolutionary goals.

Indeed - like HBD and HBD-Nordicism.

Consider Quota Queens who give a litany of woe without ever providing concrete examples of what to do about it, or, more generally, all those Quota Queens living off of their supporters. We will do a thought experiment. Odin rides down from Asgard on a lightning bolt, with Viking horns blaring, and tells the Quota Queens that if they push this button right here, the race problem will be solved, all will be well, and they don’t need to be activists any more.  However, that means they need to go back to be ordinary people, with no special privileges or positions, they need to support themselves and make their own way in life, independent of supporters and donations.  Do they push that button?

The same holds for the Mainstream Right.  Ronnie Raygun rides a MX missile down from The Great Supply Side Economy in the sky, and tells the conservative politician/activist that the Left can be defeated by pushing that button over there, but then that means no more phony political careers, no more think tanks and foundations, no more lobbyist jobs, none of it.  Do they push the button?

I think they would not push the button and would rationalize that decision by stating that they don’t want the easy way out and that victory needs to be achieved through struggle – but that’s all deception and self-deception. The reality is that they are addicted to grifting and don’t want to work like ordinary people. They want to be parasites instead – and all of that applies to both cases, Odin and Raygun.

The litany of woe approach delegitimizes the Quota Queens who practice it and are too stupid to realize that people will ask - if things are so bad for Whites, then why aren't they flocking to you and your "movement?"  And there are two basic possible answers:

• 1. Whites are useless and hopeless, and/or
• 2. Der Movement is useless and hopeless

In either case, there is no reason to support Der Movement and send them money. If #1 is true then nothing will help and if #2 is true then Der Movement is the problem and needs to be replaced.

White men inclined to MGTOW may try and do the right thing, and marry (intra-racially) and have children for the race and for personal genetic continuity.  They try and raise the children right and at least the children don’t end up with Color, but they then announce that they don’t want any children of their own, and the White man ends up with “grandchildren” that are dogs and cats. You’ve been played, sucker!

Gaslighting Greg Johnson was misrepresenting the meaning of White nationalism once again here in the YouTube discussion, and once again "debates" midwits who are unable to mount any sort of effective challenge. What a despicable coward. Defining White nationalism in terms of ethnonationalism is not only dishonest (and Johnson and dishonesty go together like peanut butter and jelly or like a homosexual's ravaged anal sphincter and KY Jelly) but it is also logically superfluous. A constellation of ethnic nationalisms can be subsumed under a doctrine of ethnic nationalism itself or as universal nationalism if you want to stress the "everyone deserves a homeland" angle. To give a specifically racial designation to nationalism means - to any sane and honest individual - that the "nation" in question encompasses the entire race as a whole, not merely all of that race's constituent ethnicities individually and separately in turn.

Sallis Tropes

My tropes.

See this.

In response, I can make Sallis Tropes with respect to popular culture.

There's always the wise, noble, and helpful Negro - after all, that's how Negroes are in real life, eh? Then there's the White alpha male type, typically with unshaven stubble, since over the last several decades the definition of rugged manliness is forgetting how to use a razor for several days (a definition no doubt meant as a counter-balance to plummeting testosterone levels). Then we have the angular flat-chested woman who is presented as the paragon of beauty and desirability (see Tokyo Vice and Banshee for perfect examples of this trope), but in fact appeals only to Hollywood homosexuals who see in her a dickless and ballless pre-adolescent boy. An associated trope is the man-jawed, cleft-chinned woman who is also presented as a beauty, although one whose T-levels are higher than the unshaven male star. Then we have the overweight landwhale who dumps her needy nerd boyfriend and somehow snags a tall handsome alpha male type (see The Tourist). Homosexuals and trans freaks are always noble and competent. Then there's the sinister yet noble Nordic Germanic villain, as opposed to greasy sleazy Wops or the also typical brutal Neanderthal-like Eastern European thugs. Jews are always sensitive and intelligent.

Odds and Ends, 10/9/22

In der news.

If:

• 1. You work for an institution that promotes “equity” while having, as almost all institutions do, a standard administrative structure.
• 2. You want to be a “ball buster.”
• 3. You do not believe that doing this will get you fired.

Then you can ask why an institution that is devoted to equity has a hierarchical administrative structure, in which some people have higher status, more power and authority, and a much higher salary, than everyone else?  Why doesn’t the entity have a more equitable, egalitarian structure, in which everyone has the same status and authority, and the same salary (suggesting that will really make them burn), with decisions made by discussion, consensus, and voting?

And you can imagine how various excuses they may make can be torn apart.  Everyone had an equal opportunity to rise?  False!  How do they know? The current leadership benefitting from structural advantages, an invisible knapsack of privilege, and others never had the same opportunities and support to rise to the positions they deserve.  Why does leadership believe they should have more authority and a higher salary than others?  Do they think they are better than the rest of us?  And it is argued that they are being rewarded for hard work, effort, ambition, education, etc. – think of the fun you can have with that.  Why isn’t the same applied to society as a whole?  Etc. etc.  If you are a skilled debater, and believe you can aggressively argue the points without “getting canned” then you can eviscerate their hypocrisy.

The Coco Chow thing is funny and all (and HBDers gnash their teeth in fury) but it underscores the basic problem with Trump - all bark and no bite; he speaks loudly and carries a twig. When President, did he even attempt to do anything to limit Asian immigration, Asian birth tourism, or the Asian takeover of American STEM? Nothing that I am aware of. The optimal combination for a political figure of the authentic Right is calm talk coupled with radical action. Trump does the opposite. His big mouth triggers the Left into thinking "Fascist! Nazi! Racist!" but The God Emperor actually governed like John McCain on estrogen treatments.

This is how Cleary responds to a detailed refutation of his nonsense:

Collin ClearyOctober 2, 2022 at 4:31 am

TLDR

Of course. Der Right never addresses serious criticism. They ignore it, do childish TLDR posts, call you crazy, or like MacDonald engage in ad hominem ("it's a self-interested wop") and strawman arguments (talking about family structure instead of addressing my arguments about ethnocentrism and definitions of individualism).

These guys cannot even address arguments from the Right; how will they respond to the intellectual salvos from the Left?

Writing TLDR is not going to cut it, retards.

See this.

As a black resident said after the Supreme Court put a failed Kansas City school desegregation program out of its misery in 1995, “We’re tired of chasing white people."

Ah, but that's the point isn't it? On the one hand, we are told that Whites are evil, racist, harmful to "Black bodies," and Blacks have "fatigue" from Whites and need to "escape the White gaze." And here we have the honest admission that the history of race relations and integration in America is that of Blacks "chasing white people." Whites run away from Blacks, and then Blacks follow with the intensity of a parasite desperately clinging to its host, or a predator hunting prey - until such time that Blacks become "tired" and Whites live so far from their jobs that they need hours-long daily commutes. And think of the "diversity tax" that Whites pay in addition to the long commutes (and gas prices related to that) - the isolation from urban-cultural centers and from other family members who are scattered across America, the high home prices, the costs inherent in constantly moving again and again, etc. Whites are tired of running from Black people.

Listen to this.  With respect to the issue of whether Yockey was correct in favoring the USSR over the USA, with the latter being “The Enemy of Europe,” I don’t fall in with either side. I believe that Yockey’s pro-Soviet attitude and his reasoning behind that was one of the weakest aspects of his work, but, on the other hand, Yockey was prescient in the sense that Eastern Europe has ended up better, with respect to demographics and culture, than the Western Europe of liberal democracy and American control.  But Johnson is correct in his denunciation of communism. However, Johnson neglected an important argument (apart from his reasonable argument that the situation was more a result of WWII and consequent events rather than Soviet rule per se) – that the situation of Eastern Europe today exists after a situation in which the USSR was effectively opposed by the “West” and, eventually, lost the Cold War. Do we know for certain that Eastern Europe would have ended up as well if the USSR had won the Cold War, particularly if they successfully conquered Western Europe?  A victorious USSR would not have had to placate Eastern European nationalist sensibilities in order to keep those people in line (without having had to send in the tanks, like they did, for example, in Hungary and Czechoslovakia)?  Perhaps a victorious USSR would have been in a position of strength to indulge in internationalist Marxism, including Eurasian panmixia. Who knows? There is no guarantee that the situation in Eastern Europe would have been the same with a victorious USSR as compared to the history we actually experienced.

Note all of the talk there about “ethnonationalism” not racial nationalism. Johnson and Counter-Currents having de facto control and influence over Yockey's work is extremely dangerous. The meaning of Yockey can be distorted to serve the Culture Retardation objectives of Counter-Currents. In that podcast, Johnson terms Yockey as an enemy and as an adversary, which proves my point. 

Correct:

DorfmannOctober 4, 2022 at 9:41 pm

Ironically, Yockey would view the ethnonationalists at Counter-Currents as enemies of Europe.

Delenda est Counter-Currents!

I more or less agree with this. However:

All of this can be added to the list of reasons why young white men should think twice before attending college.

Bullshit. I understand that mindset goes well with the downwardly mobile hobbit hole mentality of WN 3.0, where nice high IQ Jews and Asians can dominate the professions, and use their consequent power to suppress White ethnics, but according to Sallis 1.0, White men should not surrender academia and the professions to the other.

Should you be accused of sexual misconduct, your rights cannot be guaranteed. 

True, but you should sue, sue, sue, including leveraging Title IX against them. A process biased against men violates the letter of Title IX and you need to find appropriate rightist lawyers to wage lawfare against the college/university.

If you must go to college because your future line of work requires it, avoid socializing with female students.

Bingo! Avoid the yeastbucket. Of course, that will open up the White whores for Colored males, but that's their cup of tea anyway, eh?

Avoidance may not prevent all false accusations, however, only make them less likely. A malicious yeastbucket can still file a false accusation for any number of reasons. She may be bored. She may dislike a man for some reason, including if he has right-wing politics. She may, in her estrogenic fever dreams, imagine incidents that do not occur. Or, it may be directly related to avoidance. Imagine if Karen Tunasmell is infatuated with Chad Musclebound. Chad avoids/ignores/rejects her because he is MGTOW or she is grotesque. In revenge, she files a false charge, and milady must be always believed, right?

Gab correspondent Jack98 alerts us to this. That is entirely consistent with what I've been writing on my blogs for years - that much of the grand Chinese "scientific accomplishment," as measured by publications, that the HBDers rave about about and use to promote Chinese intellectual superiority, is based on fraud. Indeed, I have relayed over the years personal anecdotes with my own experiences with Chinese fraud (and incompetence, never mind extreme ethnocentrism) in American STEM. And yet, we have this.  Sallis right, Der Movement wrong.

Der Movement is always, always, ALWAYS wrong.

Who is White?

It seems that someone at Amren comments is rejecting "Coloreds Are Us" WN 3.0:

To me it is not "race realism" per se that is important, it is White Race Realism that is exclusively important to me. I don't care if Yellows, Blacks, Browns believe that race is important and then favor their own race over others. I only care if Whites believe that race is important and then favor Whites over others.

Excellent. Another Amren comment:

PanEuroFuturist

"Spanish people aren't really all that white"

Yes, they are. White means racially European. Last time I checked, Spain is in Europe. Does that mean all White ethnic groups are the same? No, of course not. But Europeans all cluster together genetically except for some of the North Asian and Central Asian types that exist in parts of Scandinavia and Russia. Nordicism is a cancer that has plagued our race for far too long. We can not afford to be divided and weak when all the non-White world stands against us. Nordicism is race treason which is why it is so often promoted by our enemies both from within and without.

The Snapshot Syndrome

A behavioral defect.

A behavioral problem many people have is what I call The Snapshot Syndrome – a tendency to focus on, and make judgments and decisions on, fixed “snapshots” of a given situation, instead of considering trends, projections of the future, reasons for which the situation exists, not to mention other more important issues than that current situation.

For example, there is a subset of voters (*) who ignore deep ideological issues and broad long term sociopolitical trends and objectives, and instead base their support of a candidate based on the current, immediate, “snapshot” of some metric of personal (and/or national) (perceived) well-being, in some cases, metrics over which the given candidate(s) have limited to no control over. If the economy is booming on Election Day, the incumbent is favored; if the stock market just crashed and a recession has begun, the challenger is this empowered. Of course, not only is it possible that these events took place for reasons independent of government policy, but regardless, it is possible that they may become reversed after the election, even if government policy remains unchanged. Further, there are other more important issues; what benefit a “booming economy” if the current administration is promoting race replacement immigration? Or if outsourcing, high skilled immigration, and massive income inequality mean that others benefit from all of the “booming?’’ And even if this is not the case, there may be other issues and concerns, putting aside the issue of the very likely temporary nature of the “snapshot,” as I have already indicated. Another possibility is that a candidate can “trick” voters by pretending to support views that they have heretofore rejected, in order to influence the voters’ perception of the current “snapshot” of candidate stands on issues, without considering the broad context. Arizona Republican voters who were fooled by McCain’s squint-eyed steely assertion that “we’ll build that wall” had their “snapshot” of an immigration restrictionist McCain vanish from view once the election was over, and the reality of Open Borders Invade the World Invite the World McCain once again (and predictably) became painfully obvious. That stupidity could have been avoided by considering the whole context and using the past to predict the future, instead of depending on a fixed, situation-at-the-current time view of the political situation. Voting by “snapshot” is a highly irresponsible and superficial approach to the democratic political process.

Another example are fools who say “the native population of country A does not face any threats of demographic replacement since as of today the alien population percentage of A is only X” completely disregarding that X has been increasing, all projected trends suggest that X will continue to increase and increase markedly, and A has been increasingly the focus of legal and illegal immigration.  Any sensible view would be that A is indeed threatened, and one cannot assume that the “snapshot” on any given day will be fixed for all time. Indeed, looking at any nation suffering from race replacement, at one time in the past, that was not happening, and a “snapshot” at that past time would have resulted in a completely false picture of future possibilities. And, indeed, those morons who said that country A was demographically safe until the end of time saw their imbecilic assertions quickly disproven.

Yet another example of The Snapshot Syndrome is to consider the status of an ethny at one given time and project that endlessly in the future (and sometimes the past as well). Thus, if an ethny has been having a great “run” for the past several centuries, then that is asserted to be evidence of their permanent and innate superiority, ignoring that the ethny is now in decline, was at a lower status in the past, and that other groups were in higher status in the past. Indeed, one consequence of projecting the current “snapshot” backwards in time is the rewriting of history, so that the accomplishments of other groups are falsely ascribed to that group that has been more recently been “on top.”  I’m sure we can think of a certain example of this historically popular among Der Movement. Of course, in some cases, like the Negro, the current “snapshot” is actually an accurate predictor of the future and is accurately manifested in the past – when a “snapshot” is consistently supported over historical time and is explained by plausible mechanisms, then it may well be accurate. Not all “snapshots” are misleading. But many of them are, and the tendency to judge by “snapshot” alone is a behavioral defect we should all strive to overcome.

Footnote

*Another issue in the mainstream political sphere, albeit unrelated to the main topic of this post (but is related to the broader issue of behavioral defects), is people having campaign posters on their property and stickers on their cars. There’s a bit of need of a childish need of political self-expression and also the power of conformity – the idea being people are more likely to vote for a candidate of they see many other supporting the same candidate (and vice versa). Regardless, it is stupid.

Sender Males Carrier Females

Salter’s Blank Slate Hypothesis.

Back in my Legion Europa days I discussed Salter’s “Sender Males Carrier Females” “Blank Slate Hypothesis,” also mentioning how underlying issues in that hypothesis illuminate inconsistencies in certain Nordicist paradigms at that time. I will revisit the Salter paper in this post.

See here.  Abstract:

The article introduces and elaborates the hypothesis of carrier features, characteristics which in females are attractive to males as mate-choice cues. Female carrier features increase paternal resemblance and are ultimately attractive because they help pair-bonded males distinguish genetic offspring from those conceived by mates in extra-pair copulations. The proposed kin recognition mechanism, whether culturally evolved or innate, facilitates discriminatory paternal investment, and hence male fitness. Carrier features would be attractive to males in monogamous species where paternal investment is high, and cuckoldry represents a significant risk to male fitness. Logical space exists for male sender features, which tend to be expressed in offspring regardless of female characteristics. Conflict of genetic interests between the sexes should favor the evolution of carrier, rather than sender, features in both sexes. The argument centers on humans, for whom candidate carrier features are discussed with regard to physiognomy, behavior, recessive traits, and body odor. Criticisms are discussed, and testable predictions enumerated.

The best summary of the hypothesis is in the opening of Salter’s paper itself:

Imagine an individual possessing a heritable characteristic of such a form that when the individual sexually reproduces, offspring tend to show enhanced resemblance to the other parent in that characteristic. To use the metaphor of radio communication, this hypothetical characteristic could be called a carrier feature, because it acts to transmit a distinctive characteristic of a mate to offspring.

Now, males who find carrier features attractive as mate-choice cues in females should be better able to discriminate their own offspring from offspring conceived by their mates in extra-pair copulations (EPCs). Female EPCs lower paired males' objective confidence of paternity. When paternal investment is significant, the phenomenon is often called cuckoldry and the victim a cuckold (a male who does not invest in his mate's young by provisioning or defending territory cannot be cuckolded, because he has nothing to lose) (Trivers 1972; Alexander 1974). Given these factors, males predisposed to choose as mates females with carrier features should experience an increase in relative reproductive fitness over males who are not so predisposed, so long as some anticuckoldry mechanism exists whose efficiency is improved by enhanced recognition of genetic offspring. Assuming these preconditions, genes and/or knowledge predisposing males to choose carrier-females as mates would tend to spread throughout the whole population. By the same logic, enhanced male characteristics that tend to express themselves in the offspring of any female, would be selected. To continue the radio analogy let us call these sender features, meaning characteristics with forms that tend to be expressed in offspring more than alternate forms.

Possible candidate carrier characteristics would be:

Facial appearance – female beauty (male preference) is typically associated with less distinctive faces with more average proportions; indeed, facial averaging methodologies (e.g., overlaying photos, computer morphing of composites, etc.) result in more attractive female faces than actual individual females, suggesting that individual females that have faces that trend more toward the non-distinctive average look would be considered more attractive.  Note that small noses, small chins, etc., are considered attractive in females, while more distinctive and masculine traits like larger noses and chins and the “manjaw” are considered unattractive in females. Symmetrical faces are typically considered attractive, although the data are stronger (as of the time Salter wrote the paper, 1996) for non-distinctive (“average”) features as opposed to symmetry, with respect to female features being more important than that if males.

Note that paternal relatives are typically particularly interested in noticing ostensible father-child resemblance. Further, some researchers have postulated differences in paternal vs. maternal gene expression on offspring, favoring paternal expression and resemblance, as a selected mechanism for assuring paternal investment.  Of course, as sender traits spread in a population, a male cannot be sure the sender traits in offspring are from him or another, similar man – there is no definitive proof of paternity other than genetic analysis. There is merely altered probabilities, and given the immense costs and benefits for fitness, probabilities are sufficient to be the target of selective pressure and altered paternal investment in offspring.

Behavior – attractive female behavior is more subdued and demure, and less idiosyncratic, than male behavior.

Recessiveness – eye, hair, and skin color, etc. Of course, as recessive traits spread in a population, paternity detection via sender traits becomes more difficult. When both the male and female are “monozygotic recessive” for a trait this becomes a problem. Also note that if a dark-eyed male is heterozygotic for that trait, it is of course less dependable than is homozygotic for that trait.  In the absence of gene sequencing, the male would have to look at his extended family – if everyone has dark eyes, without fail, it is more likely he is homozygous; on the other hand, having some number of light-eyed blood relatives increases the probability that he is heterozygous and hence that trait is a less dependable marker of paternity.

Male vs. female strategies would differ based upon how frequent recessive traits are in a population.  In populations that exhibit a high frequency of recessive traits, a female prone to cheat would want a recessive mate and recessive lovers so as to obscure paternity. However, females who want to maximize paternal investment via a “fidelity strategy” would choose a mate with dominant traits to make paternity “less ambiguous.” In populations that exhibit low frequencies of recessive traits, cheating females would want dominant mates (and dominant lovers) to obfuscate paternity; however, here, females choosing fidelity would prefer a recessive mate so the man can be more confident in recessive offspring (given that most potential male lovers for the female would be phenotypically dominant).

Body odor – this has the advantage that it can work subconsciously, without the male needing to even think about paternal investment in a conscious way.

Therefore, males would prefer and select females who have more recessive, more average (less distinctive), and/or less intense physiological (“carrier”) traits so that offspring resulting from mating with such females would reflect the more dominant, distinctive, and intense male (“sender”) traits of the (assumed) father, thus enhancing confidence in paternity (hence, an anti-cuckoldry mechanism). Carrier traits would be selected in females. What about males?  Male behavior would select for male sender traits. If females wanted to assure the male of paternity and enhance paternal investment in offspring, females would choose males with more pronounced sender traits. On the other hand, given female hypergamy, the optimal female strategy would be to choose male mates with carrier traits so paternity is obfuscated; alternatively, evolution of sender traits in females would favor female hypergamy interests by also obfuscating paternity (male paternity confidence is typically maximized by more sender traits in males and more carrier traits in females). Thus, there is a divergence of sex-based interests, resulting in competing selective pressures.  Of course, offspring are a mix of traits, so a sender male would see his sons be “more carrier” than himself (negative), compensated by daughters who are “more carrier” (positive) – for carrier females the calculation is of course different, more unattractive daughters with more sender traits from the father but compensated with sons with more sender traits. There is constant selection and counter-selection here, and it is not difficult to see how recessive carrier traits can spread in a population, particularly in populations in which paternal investment is high and in which the environment favors the maintenance of recessive traits. On the other hand, in societies in which paternal investment in low and cuckoldry doesn’t impose a large fitness cost to males, then there is less selective pressure for carrier traits – that these societies are often in tropical areas like Africa makes the maintenance of recessive traits more problematical in any case.

Patriarchal societies that enforce proper female behavior and control female hypergamy would have less need of the sender-carrier selective pressures, while more matriarchal and/or “liberated” societies would result in more female hypergamy, more cuckoldry, and increased selective pressure for sender-carrier selection.

Salter answers a number of potential criticisms and then makes predictions via testable hypotheses. These testable hypotheses are:

1. Carrier features should be independent of “health signs.”  As we know, many features considered attractive in humans, particularly in females, are markers of health.  Of course, the two may be “additive” – but there should be some additional carrier utility above and beyond health. This needs to be determined.

2. Carrier features in females should promote male sexual desire and mate bonding – this seems to be the case.

3. There’s some question as to whether carrier features would peak at a certain age and then diminish – e.g., at the peak of female youthful fertility – or should continue to ensure long-term mate bonding. This needs to be determined.

4. If strategies to control cuckoldry impose costs, then societies that have other mechanisms for controlling cuckoldry would have less need for the sender-carrier distinction. One can consider Middle Eastern societies that are very patriarchal and in which female sexuality is tightly controlled – females tend not have many carrier features compared to the males. More research is needed.

5. If “displays of fidelity” impose costs as well, one would expect populations that have females with many physiological carrier traits would also have females who feel less need to display behavioral cues of fidelity – the carrier traits are enough.  One could consider phenotypically recessive Northern European populations with “feminist” “liberated” females who are not pressured to act chaste.  Meanwhile, in other, less recessive populations, with fewer female carrier traits, females may be under increased pressure to act chaste to make the man confident in paternity through a (deluded?) perception of female fidelity. More research is needed. On the other hand, Africans have few female carrier traits and also very unchaste female behavior, but there is low paternal investment there (see below), so no need for carrier traits or displays of fidelity.

6. Populations that have more male mate choice of carrier females should exhibit more “paternal discrimination based on resemblance” (behavior that is genetic and/or cultural) than other populations.  This needs to be determined.

7. There may be group differences in sender-carrier features. Societies that have more female choice, then males would have more carrier features, since females would tend to pick carrier males who are easier to cheat on (except in populations that have mostly dominant sender characteristics, see above). Are egalitarian Northern European populations with bossy women examples of this – since the males have recessive features as well?  On the other hand, in societies with low levels of paternal investment, there is less need for the sender-carrier distinction. Note that sexual dimorphism in facial features is less in low-paternal-investment Africans compared to European and South American populations in which paternal investment is higher (particularly among Europeans); see this:

Sexual selection, including mate choice and intrasexual competition, is responsible for the evolution of some of the most elaborated and sexually dimorphic traits in animals. Although there is sexual dimorphism in the shape of human faces, it is not clear whether this is similarly due to mate choice, or whether mate choice affects only part of the facial shape difference between men and women. Here we explore these questions by investigating patterns of both facial shape and facial preference across a diverse set of human populations. We find evidence that human populations vary substantially and unexpectedly in both the magnitude and direction of facial sexually dimorphic traits. In particular, European and South American populations display larger levels of facial sexual dimorphism than African populations. Neither cross-cultural differences in facial shape variation, sex differences in body height, nor differing preferences for facial femininity and masculinity across countries, explain the observed patterns of facial dimorphism. Altogether, the association between sexual shape dimorphism and attractiveness is moderate for women and weak (or absent) for men. Analysis that distinguishes between allometric and non-allometric components reveals that non-allometric facial dimorphism is preferred in women's faces but not in faces of men. This might be due to different regimes of ongoing sexual selection acting on men, such as stronger intersexual selection for body height and more intense intrasexual physical competition, compared with women.

On the other hand, Asians tend to have low sexual dimorphism with higher paternal investment, which brings up issues of mate choice in those populations. These are complex issues with counter-acting selective pressures.

8. High status males should have more sender features and low status males more carrier – high status males have more choice in mates; the low status males have to be content with females who pick carrier males more prone to cuckoldry. There will be of course ethnic and racial considerations here, as some populations have a very high frequency of certain carrier traits. Prediction number eight would be most appropriate for populations that exhibit a higher degree of carrier traits. More study is required.

America is an interesting laboratory for Salter’s entire thesis, as it contains widely varied populations with a spectrum of sender-carrier traits, genetic and phenotypic differences of all types, evolved behavioral differences, differing levels of sexual dimorphism, etc.

On the whole, Salter’s hypothesis has merit and deserves closer examination and testing. This hypothesis compares favorably to related hypotheses, such as that of Frost, and, likely, these various hypotheses are complimentary, rather than in conflict.

As I wrote long ago, this all puts into question certain Nordicist paradigms.  On the one hand, Southern Europeans are said to be phenotypically dark and unassimilable, completely different in appearance from Northern Europeans.  On the other hand, Southern European men are said to be (mostly in America, I presume) engaging in mass cuckoldry of Northern European men via extra-pair copulations between Southern European men and Northern European women (who are the long term mates of Northern European men). But where is the evidence of the cuckoldry, even if we accept the alleged large phenotypic differences?  How can both be true?  If Southern Europeans are so phenotypically different and distinct then the offspring of such cuckoldry would be easily detected and the extent of the cuckoldry would be public knowledge and dealt with in some fashion.  Or, if the cuckoldry is hidden, then the phenotypic differences must be so small that the offspring of the cuckoldry cannot be easily distinguished, and, hence, there is essentially full phenotypic assimilability between the two groups.  Which is it?