If you still don’t get it, you never will.  Why does this nation have to collapse, because we destroyed it, the corruption is part of the structure of the system, it all needs to come crashing down, we will all pay for what we have done, every nation, everyone.

“Climate Change”, “Population Change”, And The Need For An Immigration Moratorium

By Steve Sailer

The President is about roar off to Copenhagen in his personal 747 jumbo jet to raise awareness, in a December 9 speech, of how carbon emissions lead to Climate Change—the cause formerly known as “Global Warming”.

But while the President gears up his campaign for Climate Change awareness in Denmark, a Population Change anti-awareness campaign has long been in full swing in America.

The acid test of the sincerity of Climate Change activists: do they publicly demand a U.S immigration moratorium to keep carbon emissions from increasing?

A few environmentalists pass this test proudly. For example, Californians for Population Stabilization has started a new ad campaign. Their press release says:

“The campaign recognizes immigration as the number one factor driving U.S. population growth and makes the point that when immigrants settle in the U.S. their energy use quickly becomes Americanized. As a result, immigrants’ carbon emissions skyrocket. The result is a quadrupling of immigrants’ carbon footprint compared to the amount of carbon emissions they produced in their home countries.”

Mexicans don’t illegally immigrate to avoid starvation. The average life expectancy in Mexico is over 76 years. Instead, the major motivations for sneaking into America include: the hope of owning a big truck or SUV; and to have more kids than you could afford to have in your own country. The current total fertility rate in Mexico is 2.34 babies per woman per lifetime—versus 3.7 babies among immigrant Latinas in California.

But, alas, the vast majority of those who claim that carbon emissions is the overwhelming issue of our age fail this test of good faith flatly.

On the other hand, their dishonesty doesn’t guarantee that they aren’t right about carbon and global warming. Global warming true believers seem, on the whole, like the kind of people who would be more likely to be right about something for bad reasons than for good reasons.

As you may have noticed from the above, I normally don’t have much to say about climate change. I’m sort of an agnostic.

I know enough about statistics to realize how much effort would be required for me to develop an opinion worth expressing. Nor is it obvious that, even if I invested years of work, I would be able to add much value to the discussion.

After all, both sides in the debate over anthropogenic global warming debate are lavishly funded.

Thus the participants have much to lose if the numbers don’t come out the way they want. This is demonstrated by the Climategate scandal, in which a skeptical whistleblower leaked embarrassing emails from the prestigious Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

I do instinctively admire much of the Burkean-sounding rhetoric used by Climate Change activists: “sustainability”; cautiousness about the future; a concern for the long-term impact of millions of small action; a regard for the welfare of posterity.

Yet why are those Climate Change  insights so seldom applied to the question of Population Change?

So I’ve decided to devote my time to Population Change. It’s an issue that is at least comparable in long-term importance to Climate Change. The changing makeup of the population has far-reaching ramifications that deserve well-informed public discussion. But, of course, that’s not a fashionable view on either the Left or the corporate Right.

Unlike with Climate Change, there’s almost no debate over the numbers with Population Change. The government collects voluminous statistics about the present that are, at minimum, good enough for government work, and make plausible demographic projections about the future.

Nor do I have to worry much about my rivals in the Population Change debate. While the other side enjoys unlimited access to the media, it simply prefers demonizing to debating.

Quantifying what you can see with your own eyes makes you a bad person these days. A nice person, one who believes in climate change, has faith in the power of things unseen.

To serve my country, I just have to have a thick enough hide to withstand rage-filled respectable conduits of the reigning dogmas screaming “How dare you?” at me.

Mostly, I just have to dare.

Moreover, the data, both governmental and academic, merely confirm what’s visible to anyone with eyes to see. In contrast, the scariest prediction of Al Gore and Co.—that the ice caps will melt, causing the seas to rise and inundate us—is not at all obvious from just using your eyes.

I went for a walk on a Southern California beach recently, and couldn’t see any evidence of the ocean level rising.

That doesn’t mean ocean levels aren’t—or at least won’t start—rising Real Soon Now. But it does mean that it’s not at all obvious.

And, as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, you have to notice the dogs that aren’t barking.

For example, are California surfers complaining that rising seas are wiping out beaches, or deepening the water over underwater reefs that cause famous breaks like the Pipeline in Orange County?

Not that I’m aware of.

Are rich, white liberal environmental activists who live on the beach in Malibu, such as David Geffen, fleeing to the High Desert?

No.

Walking the beach recently after a rain shower, I didn’t notice any For Sale signs on the zillionaires’ homes forty yards from the surf. Indeed, in California, home prices have proven much more resilient in direct proportion to how close they are to the ocean’s edge, while they’ve plummeted in the high and dry Inland Empire.

This is not to say that there’s nothing to worry about from Climate Change. Yet what people seem to actually be affected by, as demonstrated in real estate prices, is Population Change.

The Mortgage Meltdown is closely linked to population change. For example, the correlation for the 20 biggest California metropolitan areas between minority share of subprime mortgages in 2006 and foreclosure rates in 2009 was a stratospheric r = 0.89.

California has already been inundated, fiscally, by the rising tide of population change.

But only evil people like me are aware of that—and dare to tell the rest of America.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

Very Quietly, Obama’s Case Reaches Supreme Court

[Fragment that wandered in off the Net.]

Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. (sic) Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president.

Britain’s Daily Mail has carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president.

Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder.

Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

The basic rule of politics is that voters ask whether the politician is on their side. The Kurds in Iraq don’t vote for each other because of “racism”, but because they understand that the Arabs, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, won’t be on their side.

Any white not blinded by dogma should’ve known that Barack Obama is not our side. People made a big deal of him being a Moslem. I much rather prefer the Moslem leaders of Turkey and Qatar than the guy who for 20 years sat in the the church of Jeremiah Wright. There are good Moslems and bad Moslems, but there is no good Jeremiah Wright.

Obama attended a rally organized by Louis Farrakhan. His autobiography is admittedly “a story of race”. He broke up with a girlfriend for being white.

Obama’s official White House visitors included the head of the New Black Panthers, as well as Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and of course what President can survive without meeting Oprah Winfrey!

Barack Obama picked sides a long time ago, and it is only now that whites are realizing that he didn’t pick our side.

Since the start of his presidency, U.S. President Barack Obama’s approval rating has declined more among non-Hispanic whites than among nonwhites, and now, fewer than 4 in 10 whites approve of the job Obama is doing as president.

Obama last week fell below 50% approval in Gallup Daily tracking for the first time in his presidency, both in daily three-day rolling averages and in Gallup Daily tracking results aggregated weekly.

In his first full week in office (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), an average of 66% of Americans approved of the job Obama was doing, including 61% of non-Hispanic whites and 80% of nonwhites. In the most recent week, spanning Nov. 16-22 interviewing, his approval rating averaged 49% overall, 39% among whites, and 73% among nonwhites. Thus, since the beginning of his presidency, his support has dropped 22 points among whites, compared with a 7-point loss among nonwhites.

{snip}

Blacks’ support for Obama has averaged 93% during his time in office, and has been at or above 90% nearly every week during his presidency. Thus, part of the reason Obama’s support among nonwhites has not dropped as much as his support among other groups is because of his consistent support from blacks. (With Hispanics’ approval rating down five points, greater declines among Asians, Native Americans, and those of mixed races account for his total seven-point drop among nonwhites.)

The accompanying table shows how Obama’s approval rating has changed by subgroup from his first full week in office to the most recent week. The only subgroup showing a greater change than whites is Republicans, down 24 points during this time. Independents’ approval of Obama has declined nearly as much (down 18 points), whereas support among Democrats is down only 6 points.

Obama’s strongest support comes from blacks, Democrats, and liberals—all of whom give him approval ratings above 80%. He maintains solid support of more than 60% from nonwhites, Hispanics, and young adults.

A Closer Look at Race and Party

One reason Obama may have maintained support among blacks is their overwhelming affiliation with the Democratic Party. This is not a sufficient explanation, though, because Obama’s approval rating has dropped among Democrats even as it has held steady among blacks.

In fact, it appears as though Obama’s relatively small loss in support among Democrats has come exclusively from white Democrats. In late January/early February, Obama averaged 87% approval among white Democrats and 90% approval among nonwhite Democrats. Now, his approval rating among white Democrats is 76%, down 11 points, but is essentially the same (if not a little higher) at 92% among nonwhite Democrats.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124484/Obama-Approval-Slide-Finds-Whites-Down-39.aspx

Thanks to Jay for this:

“Human geneticists have reached a private crisis of conscience, and it will become public knowledge in 2010. The crisis has depressing health implications and alarming political ones. In a nutshell: the new genetics will reveal much less than hoped about how to cure disease, and much more than feared about human evolution and inequality, including genetic differences between classes, ethnicities and races.

In 2010, GWAS fever will reach its peak. Dozens of papers will report specific genes associated with almost every imaginable trait—intelligence, personality, religiosity, sexuality, longevity, economic risk-taking, consumer preferences, leisure interests and political attitudes. The data are already collected, with DNA samples from large populations already measured for these traits. It’s just a matter of doing the statistics and writing up the papers for Nature Genetics.”

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737

Information like this is why I write this blog. I’d like the truth to be known. It really gets to me when the same people who cheer for “race is biological” suddenly reverse themselves and scream that it’s sociological when it suits them, as well as other similar intellectual dishonesty. I see people argue in an intellectually dishonest way and I think of shutting down this blog for good.

Then I get articles like that and I know why I continue to write.

Ultimately race realists will win. Those who are intellectually honest will be proven right by facts. I am done with white nationalism, just as I previously gave up on neo-cons and libertarians.

Staying true to the facts, something none of these can do when they contradict what they want to hear (as is true for the liberals as well), is what race realists try to do. If the response to my posting a peer-reviewed study that blacks have higher testosterone and drawing the obvious observation that blacks – due to testosterone, as the science shows – find it easier to build muscle is to claim that I have a black boyfriend, as racehist claimed, then WN is not worth supporting.

WN’s remember that blacks have higher testosterone when it comes to crime. They remember that T has some positive effects when it comes to attacking feminist claims that women are equally good athletes. But when we apply the same science to black-white difference, there’re childish claims of “you are gay!”, that’s not realism, that’s utter stupidity.

There are differences in intelligence, personality, physical ability. Sometimes, my group will come out ahead and sometimes behind, but I prefer to stay intellectually honest about it, rather than feed myself lies I want to hear.

The Left is probably worst of all. At least WNs support their own, which is commendable. The Left is like AIDS that tries to undermine its own organism. They freely admit, as A Conversation About Race showed, that blacks deserve their athletic success, but not that whites deserve their intellectual and business success.

How the liberals aren’t all suicidal is beyond me. If you are so horrible, such a danger to humanity, get rid of yourself. Or maybe that’s what they are doing when they are not reproducing.

It’s interesting that I got this article as I was watching the show “Meet The Natives”, about Australoid Pacific Islanders coming to the US. Did people really need genetics to know that there are vast differences? Our ancestors knew it just by having a bit of common sense, a quality sorely lacking today.

The Reign Of Lord Jew

HAC:

The enclosed article by Jeremy Clarkson was in this week’s Sunday Times but has since been pulled – probably by the subject of the article, Peter Mandelson. So much for free speech.

But poor old Manglebum fails to appreciate how the blogsphere works and in no time the article finds itself going viral round the world.

Wonderful. Enjoy it – and feel free to pass it on if you did…..

Best Regards, Adrian

*************

Censored Peter Mandelson Article
by Jeremy Clarkson

Sunday Times 8/11/09

I’ve given the matter a great deal of thought all week, and I’m afraid I’ve decided that it’s no good putting Peter Mandelson in a prison. I’m afraid he will have to be tied to the front of a van and driven round the country until he isn’t alive any more.

He announced last week that middle-class children will simply not be allowed into the country’s top universities even if they have 4,000 A-levels, because all the places will be taken by Albanians and guillemots and whatever other stupid bandwagon the conniving idiot has leapt onto.

I hate Peter Mandelson. I hate his fondness for extremely pale blue jeans and I hate that preposterous moustache he used to sport in the days when he didn’t bother trying to cover up his left-wing fanaticism. I hate the way he quite literally lords it over us even though he’s resigned in disgrace twice, and now holds an important decision-making job for which he was not elected.

Mostly, though, I hate him because his one-man war on the bright and the witty and the successful means that half my friends now seem to be taking leave of their senses. There’s talk of emigration in the air. It’s everywhere I go. Parties. Work. In the supermarket. My daughter is working herself half to death to get good grades at GSCE and can’t see the point because she won’t be going to university, because she doesn’t have a beak or flippers or a qualification in washing windscreens at the lights. She wonders, often, why we don’t live in America .

Then you have the chaps and chapesses who can’t stand the constant raids on their wallets and their privacy. They can’t understand why they are taxed at 50% on their income and then taxed again for driving into the nation’s capital. They can’t understand what happened to the hunt for the weapons of mass destruction.

They can’t understand anything. They see the Highway Wombles in those brand new 4×4s that they paid for, and they see the M4 bus lane and they see the speed cameras and the community support officers and they see the Albanians stealing their wheelbarrows and nothing can be done because it’s racist.

And they see Alistair Darling handing over £4,350 of their money to not sort out the banking crisis that he doesn’t understand because he’s a small-town solicitor, and they see the stupid war on drugs and the war on drink and the war on smoking and the war on hunting and the war on fun and the war on scientists and the obsession with the climate and the price of train fares soaring past £1,000 and the Guardian power-brokers getting uppity about one shot baboon and not uppity at all about all the dead soldiers in Afghanistan, and how they got rid of Blair only to find the lying twerp is now going to come back even more powerful than ever, and they think, “I’ve had enough of this. I’m off.”

It’s a lovely idea, to get out of this stupid, Fairtrade, Brown-stained, Mandelson-skewed, equal-opportunities, multicultural, carbon-neutral, trendily left, regionally assembled, big government, trilingual, mosque-drenched, all-the-pigs-are-equal, property-is-theft hell-hole and set up shop somewhere else.

But where? You can’t go to France because you need to complete 17 forms in triplicate every time you want to build a greenhouse, and you can’t go to Switzerland because you will be reported to your neighbours by the police and subsequently shot in the head if you don’t sweep your lawn properly, and you can’t go to Italy because you’ll soon tire of waking up in the morning to find a horse’s head in your bed because you forgot to give a man called Don a bundle of used notes for “organising” a plumber.

You can’t go to Australia because it’s full of things that will eat you, you can’t go to New Zealand because they don’t accept anyone who is more than 40 and you can’t go to Monte Carlo because they don’t accept anyone who has less than 40 mill. And you can’t go to Spain because you’re not called Del and you weren’t involved in the Walthamstow blag. And you can’t go to Germany … because you just can’t.

The Caribbean sounds tempting, but there is no work, which means that one day, whether you like it or not, you’ll end up like all the other expats, with a nose like a burst beetroot, wondering if it’s okay to have a small sharpener at 10 in the morning.

And, as I keep explaining to my daughter, we can’t go to America because if you catch a cold over there, the health system is designed in such a way that you end up without a house. Or dead.

Canada’s full of people pretending to be French, South Africa’s too risky, Russia’s worse and everywhere else is too full of snow, too full of flies or too full of people who want to cut your head off on the internet.

So you can dream all you like about upping sticks and moving to a country that doesn’t help itself to half of everything you earn and then spend the money it gets on bus lanes and advertisements about the dangers of salt. But wherever you go you’ll wind up an alcoholic or dead or bored or in a cellar, in an orange jumpsuit, gently wetting yourself on the web.

All of these things are worse than being persecuted for eating a sandwich at the wheel. I see no reason to be miserable. Yes, Britain now is worse than it’s been for decades, but the lunatics who’ve made it so ghastly are on their way out. Soon, they will be back in Hackney with their South African nuclear-free peace polenta. And instead the show will be run by a bloke whose dad has a wallpaper shop and possibly, terrifyingly, a twerp in Belgium whose fruitless game of hunt-the-WMD has netted him £15m on the lecture circuit.

So actually I do see a reason to be miserable. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to tie Peter Mandelson to a van. Such an act would be cruel and barbaric and inhuman. But it would at least cheer everyone up a bit in the meantime.

Scientists Call for End to Race-Denial

Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity

Bruce Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein
Nature, 8 October 2009

Science is finding evidence of genetic diversity among groups of people as well as among individuals. This discovery should be embraced, not feared, say Bruce T. Lahn and Lanny Ebenstein.

A growing body of data is revealing the nature of human genetic diversity at increasingly finer resolution. It is now recognized that despite the high degree of genetic similarities that bind humanity together as a species, considerable diversity exists at both individual and group levels (see box, page 728). The biological significance of these variations remains to be explored fully. But enough evidence has come to the fore to warrant the question: what if scientific data ultimately demonstrate that genetically based biological variation exists at non-trivial levels not only among individuals but also among groups? In our view, the scientific community and society at large are ill-prepared for such a possibility. We need a moral response to this question that is robust irrespective of what research uncovers about human diversity. Here, we argue for the moral position that genetic diversity, from within or among groups, should be embraced and celebrated as one of humanity’s chief assets.

The current moral position is a sort of ‘biological egalitarianism’. This dominant position emerged in recent decades largely to correct grave historical injustices, including genocide, that were committed with the support of pseudoscientific understandings of group diversity. The racial-hygiene theory promoted by German geneticists Fritz Lenz, Eugene Fischer and others during the Nazi era is one notorious example of such pseudoscience. Biological egalitarianism is the view that no or almost no meaningful genetically based biological differences exist among human groups, with the exception of a few superficial traits such as skin colour. Proponents of this view seem to hope that, by promoting biological sameness, discrimination against groups or individuals will become groundless.

We believe that this position, although well intentioned, is illogical and even dangerous, as it implies that if significant group diversity were established, discrimination might thereby be justified. We reject this position. Equality of opportunity and respect for human dignity should be humankind’s common aspirations, notwithstanding human differences no matter how big or small. We also think that biological egalitarianism may not remain viable in light of the growing body of empirical data.

Many people may acknowledge the possibility of genetic diversity at the group level, but see it as a threat to social cohesion. Some scholars have even called for a halt to research into the topic or sensitive aspects of it, because of potential misuse of the information. Others will ask: if information on group diversity can be misused, why not just focus on individual differences and ignore any group variation? We strongly affirm that society must guard vigilantly against any misuse of genetic information, but we also believe that the best defence is to take a positive attitude towards diversity, including that at the group level. We argue for our position from two perspectives: first, that the understanding of group diversity can benefit research and medicine, and second, that human genetic diversity as a whole, including group diversity, greatly enriches our species.

[...]

Box 2. Emerging understanding of human genetic diversity

Genetic diversity is the differences in DNA sequence among members of a species. It is present in all species owing to the interplay of mutation, genetic drift, selection and population structure. When a species is reproductively isolated into multiple groups by geography or other means, the groups differentiate over time in their average genetic make-up.

Anatomically modern humans first appeared in eastern Africa about 200,000 years ago. Some members migrated out of Africa by 50,000 years ago to populate Asia, Australia, Europe and eventually the Americas. During this period, geographic barriers separated humanity into several major groups, largely along continental lines, which greatly reduced gene flow among them. Geographic and cultural barriers also existed within major groups, although to lesser degrees.

This history of human demography, along with selection, has resulted in complex patterns of genetic diversity. The basic unit of this diversity is polymorphisms — specific sites in the genome that exist in multiple variant forms (or alleles). Many polymorphisms involve just one or a few nucleotides, but some may involve large segments of genetic material. The presence of polymorphisms leads to genetic diversity at the individual level such that no two people’s DNA is the same, except identical twins. The alleles of some polymorphisms are also found in significantly different frequencies among geographic groups. An extreme example is the pigmentation gene SLC24A5. An allele of SLC24A5 that contributes to light pigmentation is present in almost all Europeans but is nearly absent in east Asians and Africans.

Given these geographically differentiated polymorphisms, it is possible to group humans on the basis of their genetic make-up. Such grouping largely confirms historical separation of global populations by geography. Indeed, a person’s major geographic group identity can be assigned with near certaintly on the basis of his or her DNA alone (now an accepted practice in forensics). There is growing evidence that some of the geographically differentiated polymorphisms are functional, meaning that they can lead to different biological outcomes (just how many is the subject of ongoing research). These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary).

For most biological traits, genetically based differentiation among groups is probably negligible compared with the variation within the group. For other traits, such as pigmentation and lactose intolerance, differences among groups are so substantial that the trait displays an inter-group difference that is non-trivial compared with the variance within groups, and the extreme end of a trait may be significantly over-represented in a group.

Several studies have shown that many genes in the human genome may have undergone recent episodes of positive selection — that is, selection for advantageous biological traits. This is contrary to the position advocated by some scholars that humans effectively stopped evolving 50,000–40,000 years ago. In general, positive selection can increase the prevalence of functional polymorphisms and create geographic differentiation of allele frequencies.

Link to Abstract

Link to Box 2

This paper was even written up in the New York Times (with obligatory “opposing view” that doesn’t amount to much).

Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease

Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang
Genome Biology, 2002

EXCERPT:

With this as background, it is not surprising that numerous human population genetic studies have come to the identical conclusion – that genetic differentiation is greatest when defined on a continental basis. The results are the same irrespective of the type of genetic markers employed, be they classical systems [5], restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) [6], microsatellites [7,8,9,10,11], or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [12]. For example, studying 14 indigenous populations from 5 continents with 30 microsatellite loci, Bowcock et al. [7] observed that the 14 populations clustered into the five continental groups, as depicted in Figure 1. The African branch included three sub-Saharan populations, CAR pygmies, Zaire pygmies, and the Lisongo; the Caucasian branch included Northern Europeans and Northern Italians; the Pacific Islander branch included Melanesians, New Guineans and Australians; the East Asian branch included Chinese, Japanese and Cambodians; and the Native American branch included Mayans from Mexico and the Surui and Karitiana from the Amazon basin. The identical diagram has since been derived by others, using a similar or greater number of microsatellite markers and individuals [8,9]. More recently, a survey of 3,899 SNPs in 313 genes based on US populations (Caucasians, African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics) once again provided distinct and non-overlapping clustering of the Caucasian, African-American and Asian samples [12]: “The results confirmed the integrity of the self-described ancestry of these individuals”. Hispanics, who represent a recently admixed group between Native American, Caucasian and African, did not form a distinct subgroup, but clustered variously with the other groups. A previous cluster analysis based on a much smaller number of SNPs led to a similar conclusion: “A tree relating 144 individuals from 12 human groups of Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, inferred from an average of 75 DNA polymorphisms/individual, is remarkable in that most individuals cluster with other members of their regional group” [13]. Effectively, these population genetic studies have recapitulated the classical definition of races based on continental ancestry – namely African, Caucasian (Europe and Middle East), Asian, Pacific Islander (for example, Australian, New Guinean and Melanesian), and Native American.

[...]

Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians [5]. The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.

Most recently, Wilson et al. [2] studied 354 individuals from 8 populations deriving from Africa (Bantus, Afro-Caribbeans and Ethiopians), Europe/Mideast (Norwegians, Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians), Asia (Chinese) and Pacific Islands (Papua New Guineans). Their study was based on cluster analysis using 39 microsatellite loci. Consistent with previous studies, they obtained evidence of four clusters representing the major continental (racial) divisions described above as African, Caucasian, Asian, and Pacific Islander. The one population in their analysis that was seemingly not clearly classified on continental grounds was the Ethiopians, who clustered more into the Caucasian group. But it is known that African populations with close contact with Middle East populations, including Ethiopians and North Africans, have had significant admixture from Middle Eastern (Caucasian) groups, and are thus more closely related to Caucasians [14]. Furthermore, the analysis by Wilson et al. [2] did not detect subgroups within the four major racial clusters (for example, it did not separate the Norwegians, Ashkenazi Jews and Armenians among the Caucasian cluster), despite known genetic differences among them. The reason is clearly that these differences are not as great as those between races and are insufficient, with the amount of data provided, to distinguish these subgroups.

Are racial differences merely cosmetic?

Two arguments against racial categorization as defined above are firstly that race has no biological basis [1,3], and secondly that there are racial differences but they are merely cosmetic, reflecting superficial characteristics such as skin color and facial features that involve a very small number of genetic loci that were selected historically; these superficial differences do not reflect any additional genetic distinctiveness [2]. A response to the first of these points depends on the definition of ‘biological’. If biological is defined as genetic then, as detailed above, a decade or more of population genetics research has documented genetic, and therefore biological, differentiation among the races. This conclusion was most recently reinforced by the analysis of Wilson et al. [2]. If biological is defined by susceptibility to, and natural history of, a chronic disease, then again numerous studies over past decades have documented biological differences among the races. In this context, it is difficult to imagine that such differences are not meaningful. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a definition of ‘biological’ that does not lead to racial differentiation, except perhaps one as extreme as speciation.

A forceful presentation of the second point – that racial differences are merely cosmetic – was given recently in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1]: “Such research mistakenly assumes an inherent biological difference between black-skinned and white-skinned people. It falls into error by attributing a complex physiological or clinical phenomenon to arbitrary aspects of external appearance. It is implausible that the few genes that account for such outward characteristics could be meaningfully linked to multigenic diseases such as diabetes mellitus or to the intricacies of the therapeutic effect of a drug.” The logical flaw in this argument is the assumption that the blacks and whites in the referenced study differ only in skin pigment. Racial categorizations have never been based on skin pigment, but on indigenous continent of origin. For example, none of the population genetic studies cited above, including the study of Wilson et al. [2], used skin pigment of the study subjects, or genetic loci related to skin pigment, as predictive variables. Yet the various racial groups were easily distinguishable on the basis of even a modest number of random genetic markers; furthermore, categorization is extremely resistant to variation according to the type of markers used (for example, RFLPs, microsatellites or SNPs).

Genetic differentiation among the races has also led to some variation in pigmentation across races, but considerable variation within races remains, and there is substantial overlap for this feature. For example, it would be difficult to distinguish most Caucasians and Asians on the basis of skin pigment alone, yet they are easily distinguished by genetic markers. The author of the above statement [1] is in error to assume that the only genetic differences between races, which may differ on average in pigmentation, are for the genes that determine pigmentation.

Link

BIOLOGICAL RACE

Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association’s recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what’s politically motivated. Forensic anthropologist and professor of anthropology George W. Gill, whose assessments are supported by modern genetics, explains.

---

Anthropology

“First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80 percent accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations.

“The ‘reality of race’ therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether ‘real’ or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is ‘only skin deep’ is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.

“Morphological characteristics…like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have shaped human races with regard not only to skin color and hair form but also the underlying bony structures of the nose, cheekbones, etc. (For example, more prominent noses humidify air better.) As far as we know, blood-factor frequencies [used to deny race] are not shaped by these same climatic factors.

“Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the ‘race denial’ faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in ‘race denial’ are in ‘reality denial’ as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.”

(Gill, 2000)

---

Genetics

“A detailed genetic analysis of more than a thousand human subjects clusters them into five groups corresponding to major geographical regions. This new study shows that self-reported ancestry is a good predictor of one’s genetic make-up.

“The novelty of the recent work of Rosenberg et al. [2002] is precisely that they have checked the validity of the population-sampling approach and tried to define the genetic structure of the human population without using a priori information on the geographic origin of the individuals. For that purpose, they used the structure program, which attempts to find, for each individual, the proportion of its genome that comes from a given ‘population’, whose unknown genetic constitution is estimated in the same process. This procedure is performed successively with the assumption of an increasing number of ‘populations’ or clusters (K): K = 2, 3, 4 and so on.

“Rosenberg et al. applied this procedure to 1056 individuals analyzed for 377 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci. This data set is the first outcome of the analysis of a cell-line panel of 52 worldwide populations…. The results obtained…are quite remarkable. For K = 2 case, where it is assumed that there are two clusters, a contrast is found between individuals from sub-Saharan Africa and native Amerindians. Individuals from other regions seem to harbor various proportions of ‘African’ genes, with a tendency to a dilution of these genes with distance from Africa.

“Assuming that three populations are present (K = 3) leads to a split of individuals found in sub-Saharan Africa from those found in Europe, North-Africa, the Middle East and Pakistan (Figure 1, barrier 2). With K = 4, a cluster of Asiatic and Oceanian individuals separates from Amerindians (Figure 1, barrier 3). With K = 5, an Oceanian cluster appears (Figure 1, barrier 4), and we are left with the pleasant picture of a world divided into genetic clusters that closely correspond to five geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Oceania, the Americas and the rest, comprising Europe, North Africa and West Asia. … It thus seems that these five groups do correspond to major subdivisions of the human population.”

(Excoffier, 2003)

* * *

Here’s the chart of inferred population structure from a revised version of Rosenberg’s study, in which the data set was increased from 377 polymorphisms to 993:

[click to view large, vertical image]

(Rosenberg et al. 2005)

RACES OF MAN

A brief overview of human races and their geographical distribution, with illustrative plates from Carleton S. Coon’s The Origin of Races.

---

Caucasoid: Europe, West Asia and North Africa.

(Pakistan)

Mongoloid: East Asia, Oceania, the Arctic and the Americas.

(Taiwan)

Negroid: Sub-Saharan Africa.

(Sudan)

Capoid: Southern Africa.

(Kalahari Desert)

Australoid: Australia and Melanesia.

(Melville Island)

MEGA DEPRESSION – THEN MEGA CIVIL WAR

I am Thomas W. Chittum, the author of the book, Civil War Two – The Coming Breakup of America.

My book asserted that because America is a multiethnic empire it will experience a violent shattering along tribal lines just as other such empires have throughout history. I further predicted that this implosion will occur relatively soon, probably no later than the year 2020, based on ongoing demographic trends. My book was published in 1993 and it ignited a mini firestorm of controversy. To date, it is still the ONLY non-fiction book on the topic of a civil war here in America.

Did anyone write a book predicting our first civil war? I did some research on that subject and I was unable to find a single book warning Americans that they were fast approaching an abyss. That’s not to say that people were unaware of the approaching war. In fact, many people were perfectly aware that a civil war was inevitable. My guess is that not a single person wrote a book on the coming war because they thought it would be a sort of picnic with a little gunfire mixed in, and in any case it would be over in a few months. As history records the war ground the entire southern half of America into a smoking wasteland and killed or crippled almost an entire generation of American men.

Today, people are even less aware of the seriousness of the approaching calamity than our ancestors were. If you mention the possibility of a Yugoslav-style ethnic war here in America in our lifetime most people will scoff at the idea. Five years ago most people would have likewise scoffed at the prospect of a second depression. Now, most people are waking up to the horrid fact that a second depression is upon us – that their retirement cookie jars have been systematically looted.

I’m sure that most visitors to the Rumor Mill News site are perfectly aware that a devastating depression is unfolding and that the economy is in a crash and burn mode with no plausible salvation in site. In this and following rants I will attempt to make the case that this economic meltdown will hasten our descent into an internal civil war that will depopulate the entire North American continent, wiping out 50% or more of the population.

No, I’m not kidding. I’m going to say that again – most of you people reading these words right now are going to starve to death in the tribal wars that will follow close on the heels of the economic meltdown.

Before I go on I’d like to revisit my book and go over what I got right and what I got wrong. I mentioned the New World Order in my book. At the time I wasn’t aware that the New World Order was an active conspiracy of bankers and aristocrats centered in London. I thought it was a sort of lose alliance of giddy globalists, trendy tree huggers and politically correct airheads. Then along came both the internet and the 911 terrorists attacks. I took me approximately three months to wise up to the fact that 911 was an inside job. I’d always followed military events closely and that’s how I woke up to the 911 scam. For years the American military had been encircling Afghanistan with military bases and pre-positioned stockpiles of military goodies. Then along came Osama bin Subcontractor like some boogie man in a bad movie. It all seemed like a low-budget Hollywood production. That’s because it was.

So … I got on the internet and started listening to commentators like Eustace Mullins, John Coleman, Henry Makow, Charles Savoie and anybody else who didn’t depend on the establishment for their supper.

Even before 911 I knew from personal experience that nothing in this rotting empire was as it was spray painted by the establishment media. After my book was published I got my 15 minutes of fame. I was on Television. I was a guest on numerous radio shows. I was a guest speaker at a lot of political meetings. I met a lot leaders of (mostly) right-wing type extremist groups. I remember telling one rightist-type leader that my presence as a speaker at their meeting did not mean that I was endorsing his organization or its stated goals. I told him I’d gladly speak to a “roomful of Rabbis” if they would invite me.

I made it plain to everybody that I was pretty much a one-trick pony. My self-assigned task was simply explaining to people why we were headed for a Yugoslav-style civil war and in our lifetime. I wanted to explain this to every living American, and I didn’t care two cents what their own political beliefs were. I made no apologizes then for speaking to right-wing extremists and I make no apologies now. After a while I began to realize that something really strange was going on inside the so-called extremist right-wing groups.

At every meeting there were always one or two dudes who just didn’t fit in. My favorite was a investment banker and Yale graduate. What, I wondered, was a blue-blood Yale investment banker doing mixing it up with all these guys who drove pickup trucks draped with confederate flags. Mind you, I wasn’t totally naive. I knew that the FBI and/or the CIA routinely sent guys to monitor these groups. Frankly, I didn’t give a damn. As far as I was concerned the more people that listened to me the more I liked it. Nazis, rabbis, government spooks, good-ole-boys in pickup trucks – I didn’t care – the more the merrier because my warning was for everybody.

Ultimately, it dawned on me that these obvious government spooks weren’t there to spy on these groups – these government spooks were there because THESE GOVERNMENT SPOOKS WERE ACTUALLY RUNNING THESE RIGHTIST GROUPS. Most of these right-wing groups were conceived, planned, created and then run by government spooks. It’s all part of what I call peasant management.

The powers that be know full well that their policies will always generate opposition both leftist and rightist … so … they create and subsidize false flag opposition movements that they can lead around in eternal circles thus creating no real problems for the establishment. And don’t forget that it’s the same exact scam with the phony baloney leftist groups. They are mostly establishment creations. In fact, it’s a double payoff for the establishment. They create false flag rightist groups to stampede leftists into the ranks of their false flag leftist groups, and they create the false flag leftist groups to stampede rightists into their false flag rightist groups.

Our Current Mess:

Here are my guesses about the future:

The New World Order is in a hell of a jam. Both Russia and China have how shaken off communism which was imposed on them by the London Banking Cartel. Both have turned to state-directed development and growth policies and are striving to feed their people and increase their standard of living. This is the exact opposite of the global depopulation and genocide via starvation and war that the New World Order is imposing on the rest of the globe via the Club of Rome and their other psychotic think tanks and NGOs. Russia and China and some neighboring states have formed a double whammy military and economic bloc called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

The London Banking Cartel cannot let this situation continue or it’s just a matter of time until the Russian/China economic bloc takes their place. Furthermore, it has long been the military doctrine of the London Banking Cartel that the Eurasian landmass is the key to the military control of the globe. See Halford Mackinder. From the perspective of the London Banking Cartel it’s all or nothing and here and now. The clock is ticking against the London Banking Cartel and the only solution to fulfilling both their military and economic blueprints is pedal to the metal all-out war.

It isn’t like the good old days when a handful of Zionist assassins in communist clothing could overthrow a decadent Russian government, and the tiny British fleet and army can no longer kick a decadent Chinese oligarchy around and impose imported communism. Nothing but all-out war will suffice, and that means nuke warfare.

The only card the London Banking Cartel has to play is the American nuclear arsenal. They have to get America into a nuclear shootout with both Russia and China, and the sooner the better. Now I know what some of you are thinking: But golly, don’t these guys realize that a nuclear war will leave the planet a radioactive wasteland? Now hear this: The nutcase LBC boys perceive nuclear warfare as winnable and survivable. In any case that’s the ONLY card they have left to play. It didn’t get much play in the national media, but VP Cheney has been digging his personal nuke bunker in DC deeper and deeper like a beaver on go pills. He’s getting ready for it … and so should you.

The LBC has to sell global war to the American airheads, hence the 911 terrorist attacks. Dictatorships cannot stampede the people into giving up their property and their liberty without conjuring up both foreign AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES. That’s why a civil war is in the offing. A civil war in America is not only possible – IT IS ESSENTIAL. It’s all part of the plan. Flood the Southwest with millions of Mexicans and then trash the economy so the starving and ticked off Mexicans will burn an entire geographic region right down to the ground. This should be sufficient to stampede the rest of the peasants into accepting anything the LBC pukes up and presents as a solution to the resulting mess.

To understand their logic we’ll have to take a quickie refresher course in the history of Western war. Napoleon resurrected the concept of the citizen soldier that had been doormat since the Roman Republic. He was thus able to raise massive armies of peasants who perceived themselves as citizen soldiers. Deluded as they were they nevertheless simply swept aside smaller armies of professional soldiers. The ONLY military reply his opponents could make was to raise massive armies of their own so-called citizen soldiers.

Under the new military system large populations were an absolute military necessity. The increasing mechanization of warfare didn’t change the situation at all. Massive peasant armies were still required because hordes of deluded peasants were still needed to drive the trucks and armored vehicles that delivered themselves to the slaughterhouse. There existed a rough balance between the quantity of military supplies an industrial society could churn out and the quantity of “citizen soldiers” needed to transport and then use the supplies at the front. Massive quantities of peasants were necessary for both production and subsequent usage at the front.

The pendulum didn’t begin to swing back the other way until the arrival of nukes on the scene. Massive peasant armies were no longer a necessity due to the extreme energy density of nukes. The industrial infrastructure necessary to generate a really impressive nuke arsenal was far greater than the relatively small number of professional soldiers (read airforce) necessary to deliver them.

When peasants became useless for war the bulk of them became useless. Before nukes the rule was the more peasants the better. After nukes only a smaller number of peasants were needed to produce goodies for the idle aristocrats.

Today, massive peasant armies are obsolete and are maintained chiefly on a reduced scale for theatrical purposes. They are there for peasant perception control purposes exactly as are the false flag leftist and rightist mock opposition groups I mentioned earlier. Ordinary infantry such as our current army and marine divisions are obsolete. Ordinary infantry are useful only for fighting other likewise obsolete infantry, and for suppressing uprisings of lightly armed domestic peasants … and for pure theatre.

Now that you understand this point I can get back to America via a short detour through the Middle East. The primary objective of our current insane activities in Asia is the conquest of the Asian heartland. A secondary but also necessary objective is the total destruction of our current and obsolete military machine to transform it into one more useful to insure the destruction and dismantling of the American Republic. Russia and China have both slipped the grasp of the London Banking Cartel and they dare not risk America going the same route, hence their stealth plot to carve up America like pizza into manageable mini-states.

The destruction of the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan will pave the way for its replacement by privatized military contractors formerly known as warlords. Citizen soldiers might balk at massive ethnic cleansing operations in California for example, but warlords won’t. Picture armies of Blackwater mercs composed of mostly non-Americans recruited from all points of the globe. They will gladly slaughter everything in their path including any remaining American military units who might oppose them. The LBC must first ignite a civil war in America and then ultimately ensure the that the secessionist win after their hired warlords and mercenary hordes have stomped the new mini states into malleable mush which may or may not be glued together in some sort of North American Confederation with “Ameros” for money and some multi-colored rag for a flag.

I basically think it will work. I think the coming tribal/civil war in America will be roughly proportional to the severity of the economic collapse that sets it off. Meanwhile, while you are waiting for Osama bin Subcontractor to nuke us and waiting for your starving neighbors to batter your door down, keep an eye on California. It’s the canary in the coal mine. When it croaks the rest of America will follow sooner or later.