Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘admixture’

Time Is The Real Zero-Sum Game

Monday, December 4th, 2017

In any task, you will find yourself asking who “da real MVP” is, meaning the person without whom it would not have happened. When we look at decisions made about our future as a civilization, we have to figure out what the bottom line is: what of the many factors involved will draw the line between victory and defeat?

Any sensible analysis will say that the MVP here is time. Ordinary citizens exist in a kind of time-loop where they make decisions about very similar things, day in and day out. For them, a missed opportunity means a need to correct it with the next very similar decision. Life however operates on higher stakes at the civilization level.

Think of it in terms of your birthdays as a child. You can have only one birthday per year, and only one party, and therefore, only one type of cake. You choose lemon, or vanilla, chocolate, or cherry, and that is it. You do not get repeats; you cannot go back and do-over your sixth birthday. The same is true of civilization.

This means that time is the most valuable player because our decisions are a zero-sum game. To choose one thing is to exclude all of the others; to fail to actively select an option is to choose entropy. This means that we are not choosing from a perspective of the present time, but from that of the future. We are choosing our future.

With that in mind, our matrix of decision-making changes. We are no longer looking for threats to what exists as we have it now, but choosing which elements available to us now that will make the future we desire. What we choose will become our future, even if it is not a threat now.

When discussing diversity, many people say things like, “I don’t mind having a Japanese neighbor, because they are high intelligence and considerate.” But do you want to be replaced by Japanese people? To be a society of half- or a quarter-Japanese people? We will no longer be Western Europeans, but a new hybrid group.

People tend to focus on what they see as negatives with other groups. They will talk about crime, average IQ, laziness, resentment, or welfare use. These are disadvantages to having people among us, but can be overcome. What cannot be overcome is that these people will then replace us, and that diversity never works because our group will be in conflict with any other group dwelling among us.

To talk about another group in terms of its bad impact on the status quo requires that we think in negative terms. When we say that a group “fits in” and “does not cause trouble,” we are not thinking of the future, but the present. Our failure to extrapolate to the next stage reflects a lack of faith, hope, and attention to the future.

On the other hand, if we think in positive terms, we will simply ask, “Are these the basis of the civilization we need to be?” Even after our lives, our children and those of our friends and family will live on. Do they want to live on as Japanese hybrids? Once the ancestral connection to a culture is lost, it quickly evaporates too.

Modern people cannot get their heads outside of the mental ghetto imposed by equality, so they assume that culture is like government regulations, a series of rules and procedures which are written down and whoever follows them is getting the job done. In this view, as long as we brainwash random warm bodies into doing things our way, our civilization in theory continues to exist.

In actuality, culture is genetic, as history shows us. Only the group that produces the culture can understand it. They are genetically shaped by it, and it was designed for who they instinctively are, and so they are the only ones who can produce it. Western Civilization requires Western European people.

You can see the negative analysis in the wild in statements of patriotism and loyalty to ideology like this vapidity:

Proudly, we are composed of all kinds of people. People who have different heritages and religions. Though at times we have a cause – like WWII – or a hate – terrorism – that can bind us, it is not something that can last forever.

There must be something deeper, and everlasting, something that all citizens can feel and touch in perpetuity.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is patriotism and nationalism. In other words, the love and affection for one’s country and one’s fellow citizens.

Never mind that they have confused patriotism for nationalism, a common mistake in egalitarian societies, because they cannot face the ethnic and racial roots of culture.

These people are as indoctrinated as any Communist, Fascist or National Socialist. To them, civilization is a means to an end, and that goal is these abstract ideas. They assume that every person who reads the same words on a piece of paper comes away with the same interpretation, and that therefore they live on through their obedience to the rules.

In reality, you only live on if you live on genetically. Anything else means that you pass along your notes for the kids in your class next year, and they fit them to their understanding. If this class consists of radically different people, they will have a different interpretation, and everything you do will fail.

Think about how many civilizations across the third world have adopted Western methods like democracy, constitutions, capitalism, Christianity, and suburban living. Those implementations never look quite like ours, and their results have not been as good. Each society has an order which fits it because genetics is the origin of behavior and values.

You can only make one choice for the future of your civilization. The question is not what fears you have about others, but whether they can be you and your ancestors. If they are from a different tribe, they cannot, and they will replace you, whether by you taking on a Japanese wife, your kids having families with people who are 1/32 Asian or Black, or by the gradual process of outbreeding.

Tyrants — leaders who are concerned only with their own power and view their civilization as a means to that end — bring foreigners here because they know that people are dumb when they are young, and whatever they are sexually attracted to, they marry. Those children no longer have the genetic profile of the original culture, and so it is erased and replaced by the ideology the tyrant uses to justify his continued power.

We know what it is like to be a hybrid. Look at South America, Eastern Europe, India, Southern Europe, or Ireland. The group never attains the greatness of the original Western Civilization, and it forms a civilization that is rather exotic and more like its admixture, even if only in traces.

Still think that Japanese, Korean, Jewish, Greek, Italian, Irish, or Polish wife is a good idea? You are breaking down your genetic profile and replacing it with something that can never be the original. You are genetically erasing yourself, and with that, destroying your culture, even if your laws and economic system live on.

As the old saying goes, “Which way, Western man?” If we deserve to live, we have to realize that time is a zero-sum game and that therefore, we can make only one choice: we must defend ourselves and exclude all others, even if they do not cause problems, or are nice and well-mannered and love our educational systems.

It does not matter whether you replace yourselves with Nigerians or Japanese. Any diversity is the end of your people. If you think your people deserve to live, and want Western Civilization to exist, you have to exclude all racial and ethnic diversity, and choose a future that is exclusively Western European.

How Diversity Extinguished White People In Ancient India

Wednesday, November 8th, 2017

All of us in this modern time run the risk of succumbing to a certain kind of inertia: that of giving in to our hope that everything will just turn out fine. We see two paths, one of the incredibly difficult realization that our current path leads to doom, and the other being the much easier way of assuming that everything will just work out fine, so keep doing what we are doing.

As it turns out, history shows us some lessons of where our current path will lead, and it is to our erasure and removal from history, not any kind of positive result. We know this because in addition to the examples of ancient Greece and Rome, whose original ethnic populations no longer exist, we can look at the example of India, which was once a white nation but now has only linguistic, legal and economic traces of that order:

According to Hans F.K. Gunther’s The Racial Elements of European History (1927), the conquering Indo-Aryans called themselves the Haris, meaning “the blondes,” and, according to the Vedas, they called the dark skinned indigenous people the Dasas, or “slave bands of black descent.” These people were later called Dravidians. Like the Greeks, many of their gods were blonde. The Vedas describe the Storm God Indra as having cheeks, beard, and hair the color of gora, which is Sanskrit for “golden-yellow.”

The Aryans themselves separated into three classes, or castes: the Brahmins, priests and scholars; the Kshattriyas, nobles and warriors; and the Vaisyas, farmers and craftsmen. This parallels the division of Proto-Indo-European societies into clerics, warriors, and herder-cultivators. We find the same division in Rome: flamines, milites, and quirites.

In India, below the three higher classes were the Sudras, or slaves, who were non-Aryan. In an attempt to preserve these social and racial divisions and codify ancient customs, the Brahmins drew up the Laws of Manu. They forbade intermarriage, and in some cases even social mingling among Indians of different castes. They also recognized the existence of three instead of two racial groups: more or less pure Aryans, dark-skinned Sudras or Dravidians, and the Varna-Sankara (those of mingled colors). The Sanskrit word for caste, varna, literally means “color.” The caste system can be viewed as the world’s most long-lived and elaborate system of racial separation.

Although it survived into modern times, the caste structure failed to preserve the Aryan racial type. Higher-class Indians are never blond or fair skinned, though they are taller and lighter than other Indians and some have Aryan features. Examples are the actress-model Aishawarya Rai and the Indian-American Governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, whose parents are Sikhs. Color prejudice and a preference for lighter skin remain strong both in India and among Indians of the diaspora.

In other words: the finer people (blonder, more intelligent) invaded a place occupied by the coarser (darker, less intelligent) and tried to limit the latter with some kind of system of rules. It failed, and now all of the people there are darker, and not unintelligent, but less intelligent than the finer people.

Those terms, coarser and finer, are borrowed from H.P. Lovecraft but work adequately for these descriptions.

The bigger story here is not finer-versus-obviously-coarser, but finer-versus-crypto-coarser, and in India, we see that whatever the paternal line of the nation was, it quickly became absorbed into a maternal line of Asiatics. The same will happen to the West, where Asian women are easily acquired and white women become increasingly neurotic, solipsistic and disagreeable.

In turn, what happened in India probably provoked an exodus, resulting in many of the Dravidians/Australids ending up in Africa, and coloring the population there, despite that group having perhaps been lighter-skinned previously.

Much as diversity destroyed white people in India, it can do so here, and by the same mechanism: we will end up mostly Caucasian, with a large amount of Asiatic, and some of the African and Australid in us. We will then resemble existing mixed-race populations like those of South America, Israel and the Middle East.

Our only hope for avoiding this rests in declaring separation of the original unmixed Western European group from all other influences. This requires that we stop demonizing other ethnic groups, which produces a result similar to that of the racial-caste system, and instead to separate from them, so that we do not mix and produce yet another human average that erases its original influences.

Why There Is No “White Race”

Monday, June 19th, 2017

American Renaissance points out a vital problem with the Caucasian animal, namely its seeming lack of racial loyalty under duress:

The racial dynamic in prisons puts whites at a tremendous disadvantage. First, whites are often outnumbered by both blacks and Hispanics. But far more important, just as they show no racial solidarity in “the free world,” whites in prison do not band together to protect each other from predators. As No Escape reports, Hispanics sometimes rape Hispanics, and blacks sometimes rape blacks, but neither group permits anyone of another race to rape its own people. If a black tried to “turn out” a Mexican, the Mexicans would riot and try to kill him. Blacks also defend each other from white or Hispanic rapists. It is only whites — unless they are known members of white racialist gangs who do stick together — who are on their own and can be raped with impunity. It would be hard to think of a more cruel consequence of stripping whites of racial consciousness.

It is important to read this in context: these are whites in prison, many of whom are not really good people at all. It is quite possible to go to jail in this country for something that is not bad, but the majority of people in jails are sociopaths. Lots of people use drugs, for example, and some guys get sent up for wrong place/wrong time. But the rest are probably greedy dealers.

White Nationalists bemoan the fact that whites do not stick together. They do not do it at the ballot box, nor in the media, nor in conversation. Whites seem to identify more with the type of automobile they drive than with race. If pushed, most of them will admit that they like to live near, work with, and befriend “people like me” but will not elaborate.

This is why we should face the ugly truth: there is no such thing as the white race.

But first, let us look into the other reasons why whites are not particularly race-loyal. The first is that whites still perceive themselves as a majority in power and as a result see no reason to be racially alert, and the process of awakening takes many years, so when thrust into prison or another rough situation, they are not prepared to think in racial terms.

Another important reason for the missing white cohesion is that whites are highly competitive. This means that we see each other not as natural allies, but as the other team that needs to be beaten down. In highly competitive situations, helping out the opposition means losing position and prospects.

With this we see the problem of high-trust societies like we have in Western Europe. That high social trust is used against us in class warfare, where those with more than others are perceived as free riders and demonized for their lack of sharing. Think of how your average white parent would react to a child in preschool who refuses to share a toy.

High-trust societies function efficiently and as a result are wealthier and more resilient than other types of societies. However, they also have an Achilles’ Heel, which is that the trust can be weaponized into demands for universal sharing of resources. At first, this seems like a good idea, because it promises to reduce conflict.

The problem with it however is that it also reduces trust. When any person can launch a social attack on you for what you have, it is best to socialize only with those who you know will not do so. This is why class warfare produces even more radical class separation: each class can only trust others of the same class, and so naturally acts to exclude all other classes.

In addition, whites do not perceive a need for racial unity because they still see themselves as the majority in Europe and the USA. For those of us who have grown up in majority-minority areas, this is laughable delusion, but most people take a snapshot of the world around age eleven and expect it to be (mostly) that way for the rest of their lives.

As a result, most whites expect that the mostly-white communities of the 1980s and 1990s still exist, when in fact rising majority populations, refugee resettlement and redistribution of Section 8 housing to the suburbs has changed the nature of those communities. In addition, propaganda in schools has raised new generations who see this not as threatening but positive and cheer their own replacement.

Majorities are notoriously slow to defend themselves. The reason for this is that they do not recognize themselves as having an identity as a majority since they view themselves as the norm. To whites, identifying with being white is like introducing yourself as an aficionado of breathing air.

Because of this majority status, people within a majority identify with smaller groups (lifestyle, class, region, profession, religion) and see no link between themselves and others who share a genetic background, identified as generic because it is of the majority, but not the special interest group to which they belong.

Minorities on the other hand are constantly reminded of their racial identity. They are aware every minute of every day that this society was not designed, created or maintained in its healthy days by people who looked like them. Instead, it belongs to the Anglo-Saxons who founded it, drove out the murderous Indians, and set up systems of law, economics and culture which reflect their heritage.

In addition, it is important to note that white diversity does not work, just like every kind of diversity does not work. Poles and English and Germans and Italians can work together, but at the end of the day, they want to go home to neighborhoods filled with people “like them.” This is why ethnic groups have steadily been pulling apart in America, starting with white groups.

This is why there is no white race. There are white ethnicities, but many of these reflect an origin in Nordic-Germanic people and subsequent admixture, so they are alien to the root and resent it much as minorities resent the majority. Someone of Irish-Italian descent who is told that white diversity does not work inevitably retaliates by insulting Western Europeans. Diversity creates resentment, even among whites, and among admixed whites like Southern and Eastern Europeans, envy and hatred of the Western European founders can be seen as clearly as it is in Hispanic, Black, Asian, Arab and Amerind groups.

We do not view ourselves as a white race because of internal differences, and trying to force us to do so will fail as it has in the past. We know that there is a seed of our people which came out of Asia, brought its blonde-haired long-faced blue-eyed presence among us, and melded with lower castes of previously mixed whites from Central Europe with some ancestors from the Mediterranean.

All of our literature alludes to this distinction in castes, where those who are blonde, tall, long-faced and cerebral rule over the darker, shorter, and brown-eyed lower echelons. In German, Scandinavia, England, France and the Netherlands this is recognized as true, as it was in American class tension literature from the last century. Whites are different based on percentage of Nordic-Germanic (“Aryan”) heritage.

Those who are not Nordic-Germanic tend to want to displace that group, so that the shorter/browner trace admixed Central Europeans — who are either a previous iteration of Europeans, or a group with some mixture that happened in the near Middle East — can rule in their place, just like minority groups agitate for overthrow of whites. Every group wants to rule the world, and needs to displace higher groups to do that.

Some would call this white supremacy, but in actuality, it is a revelation of the caste system within whites which ranks us by degree of admixture, plus the natural tensions of diversity in which every group wants to be in power.

The good news is what white unity is not what we need. Our future will be one of balkanization, or many small tribes breaking away from the failed nation-states of liberal democracy. These groups will be defined by a cascade of race, ethnicity, caste, religion and region on a basic level, with additional modifiers like lifestyle, sexual preference, politics, philosophy and profession.

For example, you may find a neighborhood filled entirely with Irish Catholic ship-builders, or a gay neighborhood that is open to whites and Asians. Maybe there will be a community of metalheads or punks somewhere, like the squatter communes of the 1970s. Perhaps people will find nice WASP neighborhoods isolated by high walls and armed turrets. We are entering a time of collapse when government is an enemy.

In the coming “balk,” being one big group is not useful. Being a distinctive group is however. For example, Western Europeans can recognize each other by sight and immediately read caste/class status, so they group together well. That distinctiveness counts in the split seconds before encountering another person or group will turn out to be friendship or racial violence.

There will be no middle ground. Where old school racism was based on stereotypes and perceived slights, new school racial politics will have a simple rule: if he is of my tribe, he is good; if he is not, he must be killed quickly before he calls others from his tribe to conquer mine. Friendship or violence will erupt seconds after meeting, and to be indecisive is to die.

This saves us from a unique form of suicide that many — usually from the admixed groups of “whites” — think is a really good idea. They want to create a white group, at which point they abolish distinctions between types of white (Western, Eastern, Southern) and caste/class differences. That will produce a generic white group with none of that traits of the group that made Western Civilization great.

Our suicide move would be to throw all whites into a category for purposes of defense, just like in the prison written about above, at which point interbreeding will be natural. This means that all of the white sub-groups will assimilate each other, losing ethnic distinctiveness and caste orientation. This will create generic Europeans who will lose their distinct traits.

To do that, in effect, will be to genocide ourselves. Western Civilization pops up from time to time in different places. Those societies eventually fail, and then the members of the tribe move on to another place and start another society. Ancient Greeks fleeing the fall of Athens went into Central Europe just like Europeans fleeing their socialist states came to America.

But the core, the essence, of Western Civilization remains its Western European people. These are basically still the same group that ranged the steppes, set up empires across Asia, North Africa and Europe, and provided the genetic seeds for the Greek, Roman, German and Nordic empires. These are the Western Europeans.

America has fallen, and Europe is dead for all practical purposes, but as long as we have our people, Western Civilization can rise again. This is why all of our enemies, both white and non-white, want to destroy that group. (Note: there are many non-whites who do not want to destroy us, but their position is a relative rarity because diversity creates such intense minority-majority resentment).

If we mix all the whites together, we will bring in the trace admixture of Asiatic found in Eastern and Southern Europe, which rather than being reduced will be amplified as racial mixing tends to be. At that point, we will have destroyed the seed of our unbroken heritage, and replaced it with a mixed future.

That will lead to white third world countries, where a light-skinned group with the features of the Middle East rules over a slightly darker but dumber herd. If we mix within the “white” race, we will produce a hybrid society like those of Iraq, Mexico, India, Brazil, and the Levant. We will have destroyed our potential for restoring Western Civilization that way.

As the West slowly awakens from its latest stupefactive flirtation with equality, interest in nationalism has risen to new heights. The problem is that the newly-minted “nationalists” are taking Leftist assumptions with them, and so they want an egalitarian nationalism, which is the exact opposite of what nationalism is.

We can see nationalism in white attitudes toward other whites. Nationalism is not race-patriotism, or swearing fealty to the “white” race, but hierarchy including caste and a rough calculation of how much Nordic-Germanic is present in each person. Its ultimate goal is not to form a political herd, but to preserve the subspecies of our peoples, and this cannot be done by combining or associating them.

On That Irish Heritage (Semitic / Asiatic) Issue

Tuesday, June 13th, 2017

The Irish may be the West’s original experience of diversity and the inevitable ethnic replacement that occurs following it. This is why Anglos distrusted them and viewed them, along with Spanish and Italians, as not white. From recent analysis of Irish heritage:

Migrant communities did not compete with the original Irish. They became the Irish.

The ancestors of the Stone Age farmers began their journey in the Bible lands, where agriculture first began, and arrived in Ireland perhaps via the southern Mediterranean. They brought with them cattle, cereals, ceramics and a tendency to black hair and brown eyes.

These settlers were followed by people, initially from the Pontic steppe of southern Russia, who knew how to mine for copper and work with gold, and who carried the genetic variant for a blood disorder called haemochromatosis, a hereditary genetic condition so common in Ireland that it is sometimes called Celtic disease.

The middle eastern wave, which explains the middle eastern appearance of many Irish, came in through Southern Spain and wandered until it found a place where it could go no further, where it mixed with Neolithic remnants and later, the Eastern European wave.

This influence is separate from and in addition to the Black Irish:

So when or how would Sub-Saharan African (SSA) genes have arrived on our island? What other historical events may have contributed?

Well we all know about the reputation that the people of the west of Ireland have for being darker skinned, the so-called “Black Irish”. This may be due to the influence of the Spanish (people from the south of Spain have a higher percentage of SSA markers) who were active traders along the coasts of Ireland. Some five thousand Spanish soldiers made up the Spanish Armada which was wrecked across the Irish Western Seaboard in 1588.

Although the British reported that the majority of these soldiers were rounded up and executed, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that more of these soldiers survived that was originally thought and these soldiers could have contributed to the introduction of SSA markers into the Irish population.

Irish people who hail from the west of Ireland generally have some percentage of SSA markers in their profile.

The Irish are in other words a very ancient European population which has been mostly replaced by foreign groups, which makes sense because as an Island, Ireland experienced little population change except when major historical events disrupted it, as we can see through a brief ethno-history of Ireland:

After the Ice Age glaciers retreated from Northern Europe more than 9,000 years ago, hunter- gatherers spread north into what is now Great Britain and Ireland, during the Middle Stone Age. Some 3,000 years later, during the New Stone Age, the first farming communities appeared in Ireland. The Bronze Age began 4,500 years ago and brought with it new skills linked to metalworking and pottery. During the late Bronze Age, Iron was discovered in mainland Europe and a new cultural phenomenon began to evolve.

Around 500 B.C., the Bronze Age gave way to an early Iron Age culture that spread across all of Western Europe, including the British Isles. These new people originated in central Europe, near what is Austria today. They were divided into many different tribes, but were collectively known as the Celts.

…The Roman presence largely wiped out most traces of Celtic culture in England—even replacing the language. Since the Romans never occupied Ireland or Scotland in any real sense, they are among the few places where Celtic languages have survived to this day.

From a few years before the most recent analysis, Gene Expression gave us a plot showing the relationship between English, Irish and Nordic-Germanic populations:

Most likely, what this shows from a small sample size is the infusion of Irish and Scottish blood into England, along with Southern Europeans, rather than to reject the idea that the tall, blonde-haired and blue-eyed English were not of Anglo-Saxon origin. That fits with our new knowledge that the Irish cluster more with Southern Europeans, Mediterraneans and Semites than Northern or Central Europeans:

Yet the bones discovered behind McCuaig’s tell a different story of Irish origins, and it does not include the Celts.

“The DNA evidence based on those bones completely upends the traditional view,” said Barry Cunliffe, an emeritus professor of archaeology at Oxford who has written books on the origins of the people of Ireland.

DNA research indicates that the three skeletons found behind McCuaig’s are the ancestors of the modern Irish and they predate the Celts and their purported arrival by 1,000 years or more. The genetic roots of today’s Irish, in other words, existed in Ireland before the Celts arrived.

“The most striking feature” of the bones, according to the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is how much their DNA resembles that of contemporary Irish, Welsh and Scots.

This shows us a tendency of diversity: it changes what is present, and then elements from closer to the equator gradually absorb anything else that comes their way, leaving behind a population closer to that of the middle east than original European elements. Those middle eastern elements are significant for one major reason: they reveal Asiatic admixture, much like that in Eastern Europe.

We can see the results of this today in DNA tests taken by the Irish:

Deciphering The Egyptian DNA Puzzle

Thursday, June 1st, 2017

It is great when science confirms traditional wisdom. The net buzzes with discussion of a genetic study of ancient Egyptian mummies, following up on the the knowledge that parallel human evolution occurred in Europe (see contrarianism). But most have missed the point.

From the abstract:

The researchers discovered that ancient Egyptians closely resembled ancient and modern Near Eastern populations, especially those in the Levant, and had almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa. What’s more, the genetics of the mummies remained remarkably consistent even as different powers—including Nubians, Greeks, and Romans—conquered the empire.

Here we have an exercise in “hide the ball.” What is not being mentioned?

  1. Ancient Egyptians resembled modern Levantines. But who do modern Egyptians resemble?
  2. The mummies remained consistent despite occupations, but what about Egyptians as a whole?

We are — cleverly, so very cleverly — ducking the question of population change in Egypt. As a child, you too may have wondered why the Egyptians once built great monuments but now seem barely able to build a two-story house, and are known mainly for hopeless invasions of Israel and cuisine. What happened?

Luckily, National Geographic is willing to tell us something about modern Egyptian heritage:

This reference population is based on native Egyptians. As ancient populations first migrated from Africa, they passed first through northeast Africa to southwest Asia. The Northern Africa and Arabian components in Egypt are representative of that ancient migratory route, as well as later migrations from the Fertile Crescent back into Africa with the spread of agriculture over the past 10,000 years, and migrations in the seventh century with the spread of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula. The East African component likely reflects localized movement up the navigable Nile River, while the Southern Europe and Asia Minor components reflect the geographic and historical role of Egypt as a historical player in the economic and cultural growth across the Mediterranean region.

Modern Egyptians are 68% North African, 17% Arab, 4% Jewish, and 3% each from Asia Minor, East Africa and Southern Europe. In other words, while the mummies remained consistent, the population has not, which may explain why modern Egyptians do not do the things the ancient ones did.

Each population has a genetic profile based on centuries of adaptation, and these genes convey abilities and inclinations known as traits. By themselves, traits are rarely complete in the form we think of them, but when a profile is complete, different traits complement each other and produce the abilities, preferences and intuitive knowledge that we see in each population. Just as there is no single gene for intelligence, it takes many genes — like a net — to produce the effects we recognize as distinct to a population. When the genetic profile is disturbed by admixture, even trace admixture, then those abilities are lost.

In Egypt, we see a warning. Traditional wisdom was that as Egypt rose in power and wealth, people came from all over to be part of this civilization, and gradually replaced the original Egyptians with a group whose genetic net was disrupted and so lacked the abilities of the original. Originally it was thought that gradual absorption of Nubians shattered the Egyptian bloodline.

It turns out that the picture is more complex and delivers a more dire warning for us. The question is not what you mix with, but that you mix at all. Even trace admixed groups like Southern and Eastern Europeans, when mixed into another European group, can erase its genetic net and replace it with generic people lacking the original abilities.

The “Stupid Party” Continues Its Rampage As Sen. Ralph Shortey Arrested For Underage Sodomy

Thursday, March 16th, 2017

Being a conservative is difficult because the party that in theory represents you is usually doing something stupid and will inevitably let you down. This is why most conservative-leaning voters switched off long ago, realizing that democracy would never work for them and they would do better to focus on local things, in effect handing their votes to the Left.

Today’s “stupid party” hilarity is the bust of an Oklahoma Senator for alleged marijuana and sex for pay with a young boy, which seems to be a typical event for the GOP:

When police went to check on a juvenile at the Super 8 in Moore last Thursday, officers said they smelled a “strong odor of raw marijuana” coming from Room 120.

…The 35-year-old republican is involved with teens on a regular basis through the YMCA Youth in government program and as a senior staffer at Boys State.

When asked why he was in that motel room, he said “he was just there to hang out with his friend.”

The worst aspect of this case is that it looks like a classic setup: the teen’s girlfriend was watching the two enter the hotel, and at about that moment, a phone call was made to police, who showed up a half-hour later. The teen expressed that he expected to receive some kind of payment, and chat logs were leaked either before or shortly after the arrest.

Immoral behavior is one thing, and most conservatives would find it appalling that one of their own was found in a motel room with a teenager. Even worse is incompetence, and leaving oneself open to such blatant extortion attempts suggests incompetence of a vast scale. This leaves conservatives shaking their heads, wondering why we get the stupid party and such idiots in it.

Any answer to this question must be, by nature, multifaceted. The most obvious is that conservatives are by nature more inept at breaking the law. Another is that conservatism attracts people who need order because they feel they are prone to be out of control. And yet another is that the Left, who intend to break the law, make hiding their bad deeds a primary priority.

The latter — that conservatives are accidental lawbreakers, rather than people who structure their lives around lawbreaking — plus the general middle class cluelessness of conservatives in general, might explain why so many of these embarrassing incidents come to light. It also demonstrates why conservatism lives through its best thinkers, and not the rank-and-file politicians.

In any case, the time is now for a discussion and action on the future of conservatism. As a political theory, it is always captured by seemingly the least competent people possible, implying that the thoughtful conservatives stay out of politics for the most part. This tells us that we will always be at a disadvantage in a political system, and why we should thus always act to dismantle such systems.

Further, this incident pushes us to examine what it is to be a conservative. Do we want people who can play the political game, or who are oriented toward conservatism as a “folkway” or outlook and way of life instead of as dogma or ideology? Should we ask whether or not Sen. Shortey has an Amerind in his heritage, as he appears to, and whether that represents us?

Conservatives are the target of the rest of the political system because we are the party of NO. Unlike the Left, we set standards and require purpose and thus direction and hierarchy, and that viewpoint will always be less popular than “anarchy with grocery stores” as the Left promises. This means we have to clean up our act by focusing our action, because we were always the underdog.

Oregon Fears Genocide By Admixture

Sunday, January 22nd, 2017

In the land of Oregon, the realization has dawned that immigrants are polluting the local bloodline. Once mixed, the population can never go back, and this makes it more effective in the short term but less stable in the long term. In short, genocide will have occurred through replacement of the population by a new one, and that will erase all that was functional there.

Sound far-fetched? It is not, but we are speaking of genetically modified grass seed instead of human beings:

The altered grass has taken root in Oregon, of all places, the self-professed grass seed capital of the world with a billion-dollar-a-year industry at stake. The grass has proven hard to kill because it’s been modified to be resistant to Roundup, the ubiquitous, all-purpose herbicide.

…”We don’t understand the ecological or the economic impact of this,” said Katy Coba, former director of the Oregon Agriculture Department. “We need to figure out the extent of the contamination.”

…Many international buyers will not buy genetically modified products, citing potential safety concerns. Some countries ban them outright. It was just three years ago that some Asian buyers suspended purchases of Northwest wheat after traces of genetically modified strains were detected.

At first, it seemed ludicrous to worry about such things. Why concern yourself with what happens a valley or two away? Look toward yourself, and accept the new arrival. And then, it becomes clear that the new arrival will displace the old. It is resistant to many of the weaknesses that afflict the old, and yet, in the long term, it may be less desirable.

Slowly, the realization dawns that genetic pollution may be the worst form of all because there is no going back, and once it begins, it is difficult if not impossible to stop.

You Cannot Change What You Are

Tuesday, December 13th, 2016

Since Amerika specializes in heretical realism, here is a blasphemy against illusion for today: you cannot change what you are.

Biracial actress Meghan Markle is discovering this in her own life, which is why she is writing screeds against it in precious-snowflake magazines for bored lonely white women like Elle:

‘Right, but what are you? Where are your parents from?’ I knew it was coming, I always do. While I could say Pennsylvania and Ohio, and continue this proverbial two-step, I instead give them what they’re after: ‘My dad is Caucasian and my mom is African American. I’m half black and half white.’

To describe something as being black and white means it is clearly defined. Yet when your ethnicity is black and white, the dichotomy is not that clear. In fact, it creates a grey area. Being biracial paints a blurred line that is equal parts staggering and illuminating…

When I was about seven, I had been fawning over a boxed set of Barbie dolls. It was called The Heart Family and included a mom doll, a dad doll, and two children. This perfect nuclear family was only sold in sets of white dolls or black dolls. I don’t remember coveting one over the other, I just wanted one. On Christmas morning, swathed in glitter-flecked wrapping paper, there I found my Heart Family: a black mom doll, a white dad doll, and a child in each colour. My dad had taken the sets apart and customised my family.

There is much to appreciate about the deluge of neurotic chaos that is this article, but it takes us back to an old Leftist trope. Leftists are constantly trying to demonstrate that the exception breaks the rule, when by reflection in the eyes of those outside of the individual, the converse is true: the exception proves the rule.

And thus, the harder they try to show us that “biracial” is an identity, the more clearly they illustrate how it is not because the need for ethnic identity is strong. Take the divided Barbie family: it can have a black mother and white father, but as would be consistent with the thesis of Markle’s article, it should have not white or black children, but grey ones.

She writes about how race is a grey area, but that means we need to add on to the end of that sentence “to her,” or perhaps, “she hopes.” The fact is that she is reminded every day that she is between tribes, and therefore has allegiance from neither. As she writes later in the article:

Being ‘ethnically ambiguous’, as I was pegged in the industry, meant I could audition for virtually any role. Morphing from Latina when I was dressed in red, to African American when in mustard yellow; my closet filled with fashionable frocks to make me look as racially varied as an Eighties Benetton poster. Sadly, it didn’t matter: I wasn’t black enough for the black roles and I wasn’t white enough for the white ones, leaving me somewhere in the middle as the ethnic chameleon who couldn’t book a job.

Markle finds herself belonging to the tribe of no-tribe, and she is crafting this victimhood narrative to — in the usual Leftist way — bully us into accepting her new category as important even though all of us are proud of our tribes. She wants to tell us of her suffering, and then have us accept her, when in fact we are threatened in our identity by her because she represents entryism into two groups.

Later in the article, however, the full story is told. Witness the picture of Markle’s mother:

We are seeing not a black woman, but a mulatto, someone who is half-white (or more; it is hard to estimate). This means that Markle is likely not half-black, but a quarter-black, making her a lot like the people from Cuba, Puerto Rico, and South America who have gone a similar ethnic path. This gives her a new identity, and suggests that, indeed, she should consider those ‘Latina’ roles instead.

Race has been with us from the dawn of time. For some reason, the human race branched into four directions, and all that exists are those and hybrids between them, some of which turn out better than others, but none of which have as much promise as the original undiluted race. As the basis of identity, it is important, because it gives us a culture and thus immutable guidance and security from doubt as far as what we should be doing. Those who argue against race seem to exist, like Markle, in a perpetual miasma of doubt and confusion, and we do not want that for ourselves or our children.

Understood in the transcendental sense that appreciates the wisdom of the universe, race is a gift and a birthright, as is ethnicity. To be born a German means to never be faulted for doing German things; those constitute “the good life” and set the soul’s endless agitation for self-importance to rest, which is a blessing like the obliteration of pain by opiates in time of injury. It also gives that person a set of values to strive for, knowing that whether they succeed or fail in that ambition, they are victorious in the attempt as they have done right by their people.

Modernity has run away from you are what you are into “be what you want to be” (US Army slogan from the 1980s) or “have it your way” (Burger King slogan from the 1990s). The idea is that your intent rules over reality; you formulate a vision of what you desire to be, and then you act like you are that thing, and in the eyes of the herd, you are it. In reality, you are what you are, and deviating from this is a path to misery and confusion.

The Influences Of Admixture On Europeans

Monday, April 11th, 2016

racial_groups_of_europe

soviet_ethnic_chart

Diversity has been a threat for many centuries. When a group becomes mixed, its appearance changes, as does its possibilities for the future. Lessons from history are warnings for the future.

The American Nativists were right

Monday, February 8th, 2016

this_is_british

American Nativism was a movement in the 1800s which said that the original founding population of America was Western European and that adulterating that with non-Western European immigrants would destroy it. In particular, these Anglo-Saxons argued that bringing in Southern, Eastern, Mediterranean and Irish European groups would destroy our culture.

It turns out they were right, about everything. These new groups voted Leftist, having lower IQs and being more prone to unrealistic thoughts which they then defensively asserted preemptively as reality. These groups introduced lower standards of social behavior. And they voted, so soon corruption became the norm in politics. Anyone who remembers Tamany Hall shepherding Irish voters or the Chicago machine herding Eastern Europeans knows what this was like.

The fact remains that Western Europeans are the world’s only real minority and are an exceptional group that most closely resembles the historical European ideal. These historical Europeans ranged throughout Asia and India, came over the steppes and dwelt in Northern and Western Central Europe. From there, many other civilizations prospered as offshoots, possibly reflecting caste divisions in this ur-European tribe or its re-integration with the population that once produced it.

What will destroy Western Europeans is assimilation, including by “trace admixture” groups like the non-Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans are part Asiatic; Southern Europeans, part Persian; Irish, part North African; Jewish, part Persian, Arabic, Asiatic and Armenian; Greeks, park Turkic. Mixing these groups into the Western European gene pool will destroy Western Europeans just as surely as breeding them with sub-Saharan Africans. It is not what they are mixed with that counts, but that they are mixed at all, just as diversity of any kind is destructive, no matter what groups are involved.

Luke Ford notices JayMan’s comments on de facto American Nativism:

There are rational and sensible reasons to advocate for a strict moratorium on immigration to every developed nation (not just Europe and the Anglosphere), but if you seriously want to turn back the clock at this point, why don’t we be consistent here and just kick out every single Sicilian, Irishman, or eastern Slav from the United States, considering the poorer intellectual achievement of these European populations. After all, who are they to sap the creative juices of the master race?

JayMan is correct, but not for the reasons he thinks. These groups may have lower achievement but the important fact is that they are not Western Europeans. Western Europeans stand alone and need to act in their own self-interest, exluding all Other of any type.

To prevent ethnic genocide, one cannot simply keep the name of the group but replace it with near misses. The group must be preserved genetically so that it can continue its culture, values and civilization. The greatest threat to Western Europeans now is “white nationalism” or “ethno-bolshevism” which would breed us all into one uniform, admixed population and destroy the historical Western European remnant.

Recommended Reading