Ted Sallis: An important new paper (free online; see here) has come out on Jewish population genetics.
The populations used in this study are described as:
The Middle Eastern populations included in the study were Bedouin (46), Druze (42), Mozabite (29), and Palestinian (46). The European populations were Adygei (17), Basque (24), French (28), Italian (13), Orcadian (15), Russian (25), Sardinian (28), and Tuscan (8). Middle Eastern and European non-Jewish individuals were taken from the H952 subset of the HGDP-CEPH panel [24]. The Jewish samples included Ashkenazi Jews (20), Moroccan Jews (20), Tunisian Jews (20), and Turkish Jews (20).
The major findings are described below, emphasis added:
Abstract: Background: Genetic studies have often produced conflicting results on the question of whether distant Jewish populations in different geographic locations share greater genetic similarity to each other or instead, to nearby non-Jewish populations. We perform a genome-wide population-genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations.
Results: We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, [statistical analyses] place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations. Conclusion: These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations of European descent.
Neighbor-joining population trees obtained for the three distance matrices were generally quite similar (Figure 3). All three trees are divided into a European side and a Middle Eastern side, with the four Jewish populations located in the interior.
This result … assigns the Jewish populations and the Palestinians to the same cluster (Figure 2), and by the relatively close placement of the Palestinians and the Jewish populations in MDS plots of individual distances (Figure 5).
What about the Khazars?
One frequently discussed conversion that likely occurred in the 8th century at the far eastern edge of Europe, north of the Caucasus and Black Sea regions, is that of the Khazarian kingdom [60, 62, 64]. The demographic effect of this conversion is debated, so that only a small minority of the Khazars may have adopted Judaism. While the ultimate fate of the Khazar population remains unknown, the theory has been advanced that a large fraction of the ancestry of eastern European Jews derives from the Khazars [60, 62-64]. This theory would predict ancestry for the eastern European Ashkenazi Jewish population to be distinct from that of the other Jewish populations in the study. Although we did not observe such a distinct ancestry, it is noteworthy that in some analyses (Figures 2 and 3), as was observed in the recent study of Need et al. [10], we did detect similarity of the Adygei, a north Caucasian group from the area once occupied by the Khazars, to the Jewish populations.
This is consistent with what I’ve said in the past. The data are consistent with a ”weak Khazar hypothesis” — that Ashkenazi Jews may have some fraction of Khazar ancestry but are more closely linked to other Middle Eastern groups. On the other hand, the “strong Khazar hypothesis” — that the Ashkenazim are merely “converted Khazars without any connection whatsoever to the Middle Eastern populations of the classical world (i.e., Hebrews)” — is highly unlikely. Not only are the Ashkenazim genetically close to the Sephardim (who have traditionally been considered as likely Hebrew descendants), but this study yet again confirms previous findings of a significant fraction of historical Middle Eastern ancestry in the Ashkenazim.
Therefore, the idea that the Ashkenazim are simply Khazars with no Middle Eastern ancestry is untenable.
However, equally untenable is the idea that the Ashkenazim are “just like Europeans” and are not distinct from the European genepool. It is quite clear that Europeans are different from Middle Easterners, with various Jewish groups positioned intermediate to those two major Caucasian continental population groups. Indeed, it may be reasonable to see Jews as a “mini-race” as they are distinct from both Europeans and Middle Easterners and are indeed more similar to each other than to these other groups. This conclusion is supported by the work of Need et al. (Note 1), which demonstrated that 1/4 Jewish ancestry can be detected in individuals. This ability to detect 1/4 Jewish ancestry, in a reasonably reliable manner, within the broader Caucasian family suggests a degree of racial differentiation of Jews sufficient for consideration as a separate (sub-) racial group.
In general, these findings support Jewish history and tradition, given the commonalities of the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, as well as the Middle Eastern connection. One would think that persons of Jewish ancestry would be well pleased with these findings, which have a strong empirical basis. Indeed, persons who falsely claim that the Ashkenazim are “Europeans” are as anti-Semitic as those who continue, in the face of all contradictory evidence, to peddle the “strong Khazar hypothesis.”
Note that discussions of the Ashkenazim as a group do not necessarily cover all individuals of this group. Likely (and supported to some extent by this paper) individual Ashkenazim may be essentially genetically European, and others genetically Middle Eastern, even when most of their fellows are intermediate to those populations. Global similarity analyses, such as the quantitative measurement offered by 23andme (using over 500,000 autosomal SNP markers), may be useful to determine the genetic affinities of individual Ashkenazim (and Sephardim); particular individuals may be quite different from their ethnic genetic centroid.
That being said, this paper’s data are fairly clear that the Ashkenazi (and Sephardic) genepool, as a whole, is not European, and it is not Middle Eastern either. It is a unique and distinct blending of these ancestries. This analysis is in no way a commentary on the debates found elsewhere on the Internet about “are the Jews white?” Different people draw the line of “whiteness” at different places within the Caucasian family of peoples. The issue here is, instead, empirical determination of the place of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in the genetic spectrum of human populations. This paper is an important contribution to our understanding of this complex and fascinating topic.
This paper also refutes some self-serving stupidity that a part-Jewish and highly confused commentator has been making, in that he incorrectly asserts that the major biological/genetic split of Caucasians is within Europe, with northern Europeans (who he bizarrely believes underwent racial differentiation in India [!] of all places) separate from the other Europeans, who he thinks are in the Middle Eastern population branch. Of course, autosomal analyses consistently show this is incorrect, and I’ve previously cited those papers in other forums. From the present paper (emphasis added):
Neighbor-joining population trees obtained for the three distance matrices were generally quite similar (Figure 3). All three trees are divided into a European side and a Middle Eastern side, with the four Jewish populations located in the interior. This division is supported by relatively strong bootstrap values… …the basic pattern visible in all three trees, in which the Middle Eastern and European populations cluster separately with the Jewish populations in the center.
European populations included are examples of Basque, French, Italian, Orcadian, Russian, Sardinian, and Tuscan. Basque, Italian, Sardinian, and Tuscan are southern European. Orcadian is northern European, the French can reasonably be seen as “central,” and Russians are eastern European. Given that European genetics is clinal as well as clustered, the arrangement of the populations in the “trees” is what one would expect.
Note:
1. The Need et al. paper also clearly shows a variety of European populations (similar to those analyzed in the paper discussed here) clustering separately from Middle Easterners, with Jews in an intermediate position. Thus, different research groups, using different marker sets, are coming to the same conclusion – a conclusion supported by other peer-reviewed papers as well.
Facing the Future as a Minority
After reading the Khazar theory a few years ago, I decided it didn’t really matter. What actually matters is what these people are doing as a group, no matter where there ancestry lies.
Jason, in a sense you are correct. However, it is important not to let the lies and distortions about Jewish population genetics one finds online to go unchallenged. Papers like this are important antidotes for the lies.
And note the authors of this paper, typical of this topic. It is hardly “anti-Semitic” to discuss empirical data demonstrating the non-European and heavily Middle Eastern identity of Jewish populations. It is mostly Jewish population geneticists producing these data, which are celebrated by rabbis as confirming Jewish tradition.
Indeed, one can suspect that the “Ashkenazim are just like Europeans” crowd are the real anti-Semites.
Good points Ted. I’ve actually seen writings by Jews themselves using both “sides of the coin” to their perceived advantage. I suppose my stance in the end is that they themselves see their group as a separate, alien population. So do I. And as I’ve written before, i think it’s time for European descended whites to have this type of thinking, to plant the seed in their children’s minds that it is we who are the outsiders. Because we are in the zionist created multi-cultural mess. A mess that has all of the chaos they hoped for and more. Because with chaos, they’re hoping people will have an even harder time noticing what they are up to.
Ted,
Ian Jobling has a new article up attacking Salterism. I figured it might be of some interest to you.
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/Articles/Articles/the_ethnic_nepotism_fallacy/
Hunter,
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I intended to write an in-depth reply, but there is no need. This is some of Jobling’s worst stupidity, and that’s saying a lot.
Putting aside his forays into the moralistic fallacy (just because he believes something may lead to “evil” – presumably distinguishing Jews from Europeans? – doesn’t mean that it is not true), he also implies the naturalistic fallacy to Salterism, which is not true either.
However, his major flaws are three-fold:
1. Like many critics of Salter et al, he cannot cognitively understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. He makes the same dumb argument GNXP hero Brigandt makes, in which he conflates adaptive value (prescriptive, should you do it) with whether something evolved or not in the past (descriptive). Yes, humans have evolved a craving for fats and sweets. We can see how “adaptive” that is today, with waddling fatsos obscuring our vision, dying prematurely, and presenting themselves as less attractive mates for reproductive success.
It DOES NOT MATTER whether “ethnic nepotism” “evolved” or not. What matters is whether it is or is not adaptive to – when given a choice in the proper context – favor ethnic kin over non-ethnics. Even Brigandt admitted that was the case. But because he thinks it did not “evolve” he attacks the idea. I could care less if it “evolved.” I care about people behaving in an adaptive manner today or in the future. [this is besides the case that one can make an argument that a certain degree of xenophobia and tribalism has evolved - but it is not crucial for my argument]
Let us assume that an Irishman has no evolved tendency to favor Irish over Nigerians. Is it, or is it not, adaptive for him to invest in preventing Ireland from being over-run with Nigerians, and the Irish being displaced?
2. He ignores relative interests and 3. He ignores genetic structure. We may share X% with a mouse, but a mouse is structurally different genetically than a human, so that an infinite number of mice do not constitute an interest to a human greater than one other human (note – one cannot completely blame Jobling for point 3, since I am not satisfied with how Salter himself handled that in OGI). Further, the point is relative. One does not indiscriminately favor ethnic kin in all circumstances, and let one be outcompeted by co-ethnic free riders. One does not favor mice when more closely related human interests are threatened. If a particular circumstance favors family over ethny, choose family.
Jobling’s attack (and, Hunter, don’t you find the timing of this interesting considering certain debates over the past few weeks?) is against a strawman representation of Salterism.
more to come
Hunter,
I have wasted too much of my time over the last several weeks debating these nitwits, and will have to cut back on that. It is not a productive use of time, which is better invested in more important “offline” activism.
However, I recall that I did write something on this topic a while back and if I can dig it up, suitably edited and updated it could serve as a reasonable riposte. I also hope that the academics whose work was critiqued in the Jobling piece will respond as well.
You may be pleased to know that this incorrect, illogical and destructive-to-the-movement piece that you alerted me to has in effect “knocked me off the fence” with regard to the issue of philosemitic activism. I am afraid that this faction will attempt to subvert racial nationalism in the same manner that the Neocons subverted traditional American conservatism. Therefore, good luck with your new blog.
There are Jews of every phenotype. That they could live in diaspora for two thousand years and retain a genetic link greater to each other and to the middle east than to the population in which the individual finds himself is extraordinary. The Jews want to believe they are a race separate from all others and low and behold *scientific* research appears to support that want. The Jews are more linked through their attitude toward the other than they are in their genes. Jewishness is a mentality.
“Jewishness is a mentality.”
Perhaps…but if so it is inherited.
Speaking of admixed peoples, here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews_deca/ynews_deca_ts1001
a piece of filth tries to legitimize his own ancestry by delegtimizing the importance others place on theirs.
The Jewish elite (and I use the term loosely) and their gentile sojourners like Tony Blair, wish to colonize the world through financial control as they have colonized Europe and America. Obama is an accomplice and therefore *filth*. The fact that he is of mix race has as much bearing on his choices as Blair’s race has on his.
I can’t say I am much surprised by the Jobling critique of ethnic nepotism and Salterism. As scientific papers continue underscoring the genetic differences between Jews and Europeans, we can be sure to see additional essays asserting that ethnic nepotism theory is a “fallacy” which can be used for “evil,” that genetic similarity theory is “wrong,” and that genetic interests mean that you must take the bread out of your child’s mouth and give it to the house mouse scurrying along your floor.
Apparently, Jobling’s long-term objective is to build a race-realist conservative movement based upon his perception of “white values” which would be attractive to Jews as well as to white gentiles. If this is the case, it is obvious that the radical anti-Semites need to be eschewed. However, he has also been busily alienating moderates like Taylor as well as (more recently) honest academics like Salter and Rushton (never mind his previous harshly unfair critiques of Kevin MacDonald). Perhaps he believes that this intellectual core can be safely dismissed. I disagree. Who will take their place? Jobling himself? Guy White? Iceman? That’s fairly ludicrous. I guess there is always Hart and Weissberg, but their previous memetic disasters at Amren are long remembered.
It would be one thing if what he’s saying in these essays was correct – after all, there is the long Western tradition of valuing truth-telling over political convenience. But it is not correct – and he’s making himself look bad to defend the interests of a group that has heretofore opposed all manifestations of race realism – moderate or otherwise.
Salter avoids the naturalistic fallacy by stating that one can either be motivated to the effect that they are a fitness conserver, a fitness neutralist, or a fitness minimizer. He does not contend any duty to pursue one of the three is written in the stars.
If Jobling claims ethnic nepotism is indeed not a behavioral manifestation of a genetically imbued tendency to pursue inclusive fitness and asserts it is merely a cultural construct, and further disregards any inherent value in pursuing that, then he is left with scant grounds with which to combat the extension of altruism beyond the bounds of what he defines as “white”. He calls his blog “White America,” implying it is a blog which advocates for the interests of White Americans. If he is to press his reasoning to its logical conclusion, White Americans’ – necessarily taken as individuals at least, and families at most from the perspective of pursuit of interests – interests would not be damaged by relinquishing their majority status, so long as that majority were constituted of cognitive elites of whatever ancestry thereby preserving the quality of life in America. So, any pretension he might have as advocating exclusively for Whites is exploded.
CC,
Yes. Jobling is in effect promoting “citizenism” – albeit he doesn’t want to deal with low-IQ blacks and hispanics. This is the natural consequence of trying to “square the circle” – creating a pro-white activism that would be palatable to the one group in America most hostile to any manifestation of white interests.
Basically “white America” and the previous “The Inverted World” had an agenda something analogous to Steinlight’s criticism of mass immigration – “is it good for the Jews?” Nothing more and nothing less.
Once genetic science separates Jews from Europeans, ethnic nepotism and EGI must be jettisoned.
I think everyone gives Jobling too much credit. He’s simply a paid shill, a front man for Jews who are playing both sides of the coin as always. If things tip the wrong way for the Jews, they’re hoping that the silly garbage they put forth with Jobling’s name on it will be evidence of their enthusiasm for “our side”, meaning whites. I’ve had several exchanges with Mr. Jobling and he is no heavyweight when it comes to cognitive ability. He’s a semi-bright fraud who realized he could make his money now by working with/for the tribe. Period. He took his 30 pieces of silver and set up shop. Probably not a little bit of his thinking shaped by his former “boss”, Mr. Taylor.
After reading the Khazar theory a few years ago, I decided it didn’t really matter. What actually matters is what these people are doing as a group, no matter where there ancestry lies.
The Khazar theory is certainly buttering somebody’s muffin. At the risk of mixing metaphors, this thing has legs. Maybe it’s Christian Identity’s big contribution? Otherwise it makes no sense to me; Koestler propagated the theory in Jewish interests. I.e., he wanted to undermine the idea of Jews as a race to give Jews cover for behaving as if Jews are a race. He wanted to make Jews “multiracial” and thus give them a pass for not mixing.
Ted and the rest,
This showed up in my referrer log. I’d like to have a debate with ethnic nepotism theory (ENT) partisans, although I’m going to ignore everyone who says I’m a paid shill for Jews and such things. If only it were true! I want a new TV, but the Mossad won’t return my calls!
I understand that Salter does argue we should act in our ethnic genetic interests (EGIs) whether we have instincts to do so or not. I wasn’t criticizing that claim in this article, although I will in the future. Rather, I was just arguing that EGIs can’t result in instincts. You may not consider that important, but Salter, Rushton, and the rest do make that argument, so they think it’s important, as do I. For example, Salter doesn’t believe Russians preferentially give money to Russian beggars because they are students of evolutionary theory, but because they have instincts to prefer their own ethnicity.
As I said in the article, I have many more criticisms of ENT, and I’d like to try some of them out here. My criticism in the article was that ethnic nepotism might in some cases increase inclusive fitness, but it would never be the optimal way of doing so. However, I don’t think charity or welfare towards co-ethnics could ever even increase inclusive fitness. Though it is true that Englishmen are closely related relative to Africans, they are nevertheless still distantly related in the conventional sense. For example, Icelandics are one of the more homogeneous ethnies in the world and are related to each other as sixth or seventh cousins.
Being generous to ENT partisans, let’s assume that this level of relatedness applies to ethnies generally. Under what conditions would altruism towards our seventh cousins increase inclusive fitness? Seventh cousins are related to each other at 1/2 to the fiftteenth power. By my calculation, that means that they are 0.00002 percent related. Hamilton’s rule states that in order to increase inclusive fitness, the costs to the altruist must be less than the benefits multiplied by the coefficient of relatedness. In order for charity to coethnics to increase fitness, even given my generous assumptions, the benefit would have to outweigh the costs by 50,000 times! That is, roughly speaking, every dollar of welfare given to coethnics would have to be worth $50,000 to recipients in order for charity to coethnics to increase inclusive fitness! Under what circumstances would this be possible?
What this means is that it is certain that humans never could have evolved instincts for charity to coethnics. Moreover, even if we consciously tried to increase inclusive fitness through ethnic nepotism, we could never do so through welfare payments to coethnics. Moreover, it is very unlikely that any kind of government services provided to coethnics could get the return on investment required to increase the inclusive fitness of taxpayers. So Salter needs either to answer this objection or abandon all such talk.
On Icelandics: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iSteve/message/129
On relatedness: http://www.webfamilytree.com/relatedness_part_2.htm
So assume that the Ashkenazi Jews are a race, sub-race or an ethny, the American branch of the tribe has a TFR of 1.4 and an out marriage rate of nearly 50%. In a hundred years they are going to be a memory. Is there something wrong with my math?
Ted, that is what is so eminently frustrating about dealing with Jews: it seems that the only way to hash out some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement is to speak with honesty bordering on the brutal. But, of course, dyed in the wool paranoiacs (and self deceivers) that they are, they will have none of it. I mean, if we can take their ‘cancer on human history’ framing and still be willing to deal as honest and civilized men, then it seems that they should be able to come to the table in good faith – not as of yet. (That we become subsumed into yet another of their extended phenotype offerings as the only deal going is hardly dealing in good faith.)
Koestler propagated the theory in Jewish interests. I.e., he wanted to undermine the idea of Jews as a race to give Jews cover for behaving as if Jews are a race.
Likewise Shlomo Sand. The Invention of the Jewish People By Alec Dubro:
Fortunately, along comes The Invention of the Jewish People by dissident Israeli historian Shlomo Sand. Sand has compiled and analyzed the historiography, as well as recent archaeological and genetic research on the Jews and comes up with a fascinating—if combative and often academic—thesis. It seems the Jewish history we know is a fairly recent European development that mythologizes and ignores the verifiable history of this ancient religion.
It may come as a surprise to find out that there were no histories of the Jews as a people written from the time of Josephus to the 19th century. Sand explains that’s because there is no Jewish people. It’s not a race, it’s a religion, one that has been adopted by various peoples throughout the Old World and just as often abandoned.
Mr. Jobling always counters claims of his being a front man for Jewish interests the same way; a lame joke. The same thing that the Jews themselves do when they cannot counter facts. They simply say “… blame it on the Jews,” as a snide sarcasm. Which can be a good ploy in many cases. If your dealing with people who don’t have any background information so to speak. However, considering what we’ve seen in this country, especially since LBJ took office, the eruption of Marxist protesters in the 60′s (you know, Abbie Hoffman and others who “… just happened to be Jewish,”), the Immigration Act of 1965 written by, well, you know whom and you know what, I have to side with others who state Mr. Jobling saw a chance to try and make some friends. Friends in high places. So he put up his tent in the camp of a group I will openly call an enemy to the White race. Or maybe Mr. Jobling was completely and utterly brainwashed by the constant bombardment of anti-white / pro-jewish propaganda one has to endure in most of the West while growing up. In that sense, he’s your typical white who’s incapable of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, looking at the reasons behind the things that happen. Which means he’s no leader when it comes to whites digging themselves out of their current mess.
What an idiot this Jobling is. I guess he didn’t read Harpending’s appendix to OGI, which is that on a relative worldwide basis, racial Fst correlates to a co-ethny relationship at the level of grandparent-grandchild.
And I see that Jobling wants to argue even against prescriptive EGI. What a tool. Question, is “tool” of who?
“In a hundred years they are going to be a memory. Is there something wrong with my math?”
First, the core of America’s Jewish population will continue propagating, and, of course, there is no guarantee the outmarriage rate will continue forever. By the way, the orthodox and Hasids have a TFR of more than “1.4″
Second, let’s assume you are correct – one hundred years they will be a “memory.” Guess what? By that time, thanks to them, American white gentiles will be a “memory” as well.
Of course, Majority Rights has had Salters 2002 paper up on their site for years:
http://www.majorityrights.com/images/uploads/EGI.pdf
which covers the math fairly well. Further, I have to assume that Jobling either never got permission from his semitic masters to read OGI of, if he had, he is too stupid to have understood the math involved, particularly that of Harpending (*) in the appendix.
I note for the record that none of Salter’s anti-racist critics, including academics, ever questioned Harpending’s math – because it cannot be questioned, based as it is on the most fundamental aspects of human population genetics. After all, Fst being the proportion of variation within and between populations, it is ultimately a relative measure.
So, no, Harpending’s math has been accepted by everyone as it is as correct as saying 2+2 = 4. Only a “pro-white race realist” comes around to tell us that 2+2=5. Philosemitism makes one stupid.
By the way, once again, if the academics critiqued by Jobling are reading this, please start compiling your own more expert riposte. You will do a better job than I.
*And Harpending gave a speech at Hart’s recent conference. Surely, then, he can’t be all bad, Ian, can he?
I’m only familiar in passing with Salter’s work on Russians and begging, but my understanding is that the major point is not that Russians have an evolved mental module that makes them give charity indiscriminately to fellow Russians.
However, when given a choice between giving to a Russian, or giving to a non-Russian and, indeed, non-Slavic Asiatic “Caucasian,” Russians prefer to give to their own. Whether this tribalism is innate or is learned is an issue that requires further analysis.
Likewise, no one argues that Icelanders would behave adaptively by indiscriminately giving to unrelated co-ethnics. However, in situations of ethnic competition, given a choice between an Icelander and a Nigerian (or, perhaps, am Icelander and a bizarrely alien, genetically Palestinian Ashkenazi Jew) the Icelander is best served favoring the fellow Icelander – who is more likely to share genetic information identical (or, at least, more similar) by state, if not by direct recent descent.
Again, even anti-racist academics with an agenda against ethnic nepotism have to admit favoring co-ethnics in this contextual fashion is an “evolutionarily better strategy.”
With respect to some of this “Icelandic relatedness” stupidity:
The question is not whether one is going to give “cake” to a co-ethnic rather than keeping it to one’s own self. Nor is it a question of giving “cake” to a unrelated co-ethnic instead of to a close relative. No, the issue is whether specific types of (especially non-scalable) “cake” (e.g., access to the carrying capacity of a territory) is going to be given to co-ethnics or to genetically more distant non-ethnics. It has to be one or the other – even if Jobling has an cast-iron prostate and a “way with the ladies, ” I doubt he can produce millions of children to fill up an entire nation with his own immediate family. Thus, the choice has to be between alternate sets of unrelated people of different relative genetic distance to the actor in question.
This being so, the relevant metric is the relative genetic distance from the “cake” giver to the alternate potential “cake” receivers. Salter uses Harpending’s Fst calculations, which are themselves derived from population genetics. At a global racial level, we are talking about Fst = ~ 0.125; hence, Harpending’s use of the grandparent-grandchild analogy.
Keep in mind, as well, that a person can have millions of co-ethnics, but unless they and their own offspring have spectacular reproductive success, they are unlikely to have millions of grandchildren. Hence, the important of ethnic genetic interests.
Harpending, Salter, and the rest argue that coethnics are closely related relative to other ethnies. Thus, the point about .125 relatedness is relevant in cases of conflict of interest between ethnies, such as invasion or immigration. However, the case of charity towards coethnics is basically different, as it deals with relations among coethnics, rather than interethnic conflicts. In the case of charity then, what matters is relatedness in the conventional sense, and coethnics are so distantly related that charity towards them could never be adaptive.
Ted Sallis says, “This being so, the relevant metric is the relative genetic distance from the “cake” giver to the alternate potential “cake” receivers.” This is my point exactly in my article. The genetic distance is always smallest between kin, so the rational choice is to give whatever money one has to spare to kin, rather than to non-kin coethnics.
“This is my point exactly in my article.”
What exactly is the point? I don’t recall anyone in white activism advocating indiscriminate charity to non-kin coethnics?
By the way, “charity” is non-kin coethnics can be adaptive in a multicultural, multiracial society. Last I looked, that’s what we are living in.
My point is that charity is optimally directed towards those who share the most genes with us, just as you say. That means it is optimally directed towards kin, and there is never any reason to direct it at non-kin.
“Thus, the point about .125 relatedness is relevant in cases of conflict of interest between ethnies, such as invasion or immigration.”
This is the position we find ourselves in, though. Otherwise, what is the point of your blog (besides the one ascribed to it by the “anti-Semites” that is)?
“However, the case of charity towards coethnics is basically different, as it deals with relations among coethnics, rather than interethnic conflicts.”
Intra-ethnic charity, nay wealth redistribution with the intervention of the state, has the power to mitigate intra-ethnic class conflict to the effect that one day all that ‘White trash’ doesn’t one day storm the Bastille; or go a pogroming the ruling elites precious middle man minorities. What, that didn’t occur to you?
“and there is never any reason to direct it at non-kin.”
Never? If the “charity” helps non-kin co-ethnics outcompete non-ethnics, then in particular circumstances, it would be adaptive.
Indeed, the only scenario in which I could confidently say “never” would be a world consisting of a single, genetically homogenous ethny. However, given that such a situation could never be stable – genetic differentiation would occur – even then “never” would not last.
Of course, “charity” may not be so altruistic. Ethnic nepotism as practiced by Asians (including Jews) in the professions has included an expectation of having the favor eventually returned.
Indeed, all many non-white groups practice ethnic nepotism and self-enlightened ethnic “charity.” Why would any “pro-white activist” want to disarm whites in this competition?
Unless, that is of course the objective? The Asian supremacists tell us to eschew ethnic nepotism to eliminate competition from whites acting collectively. Presumably Jewish supremacists and their shabbos goy enablers have the same in mind.
The only point to the “article” by Jobling is to have material out there that his enablers can point to as (supposedly) countering solid science. Think about it. I guess the term “spine-cracking” applies to the disingenuous reasoning used to try and deny the increasing pile of factual information showing the genetically based reasons for certain behaviors. Never mind the common sense that had many of us reach the same conclusions much earlier before science backed our assumptions – common sense that seems to be lacking in most of the programs and beliefs promulgated by those who wish to destroy us.
Big E is correct. The ultimate purpose of the “article” is as a handy link that someone can use to “discredit Salter” and “refute ethnic nepotism.” We must understand human nature, and appeals to authority, as well as an unwillingness to study complex questions and deal with “gray” areas. Jobling’s “explanations” of what he specifically means or does not mean by the article will not alter the fact that such work is likely designed to be used in an instrumental manner to delegitimize Salterian ideas in online debates among people who have never read Salter’s work. In that sense, there is a lot of dishonesty of motivation.
Although this “debate” is going nowhere, I have an additional important point to make.
It is incorrect to consider ethnic nepotism to be limited to (indiscriminate) “charity” or to suppose that such nepotism always must incur a significant cost to the “giver.” Salter specifically mentions small, repeated acts of favoritism that impose little or no cost to the “giver.” In such a case – and the possibilities are endless – the nepotism can be almost infinitely adaptive for the giver. If no costs are incurred and some benefit to inclusive fitness is obtained, the benefit:cost ratio is infinity. Even if a small cost is incurred, not much benefit would be required to make it adaptive. People in positions of power can give big favors at little or no cost to themselves, and these acts of ethnic nepotism can be leveraged to yield large gains in inclusive fitness.
As a “hypothetical” example – one that likely happens all too often – let us consider a “big man” – Moshe Finklestein. Moshe repeatedly gives opportunities to other men, and he chooses between the likes of Irving Rubin or Patrick O’Brien. Finklestein’s position is such that he does not incur any significant costs at all with his choice. Thus, out of ethnic nepotism, he consistently chooses Rubin over O’Brien.
Under similar circumstances, Seamus McGraw does not consistently choose O’Brien over Rubin, the choice is random. Over time, the consistent practice of such acts of ethnic nepotism, at little or no cost to Finklestein, will allow the Finklestein’s of the world (and the Patels and the Chens) to outcompete the McGraws. Which in fact occurs, and MacDonald’s work, particularly its focus on the behavior of “Diaspora peoples,” chronicles this. I am also sure that the “IT Grunt” has many anecdotal examples of south Asian ethnic nepotism, for example.
Little or no cost to the “giver,” a bigger payoff to the recipient – adaptive to both giver and recipient, if both are genetically closer than the recipient’s competitors. McGraw should be empowered, not disarmed.
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/12/our-masters-voice-2/
Adaptive ethnic solidarity: for them, not for you.
“Never? If the “charity” helps non-kin co-ethnics outcompete non-ethnics, then in particular circumstances, it would be adaptive.”
How is giving money to beggars an effective means of aiding your ethny to outcompete others? If such were really the motive for charity, you would expect people to give their money to nationalist organizations, not beggars. The same goes for welfare systems. If the real motive of government spending were to outcompete other ethnies, you would expect governments to direct most spending towards wars of conquest.
Can ethnic nepotism really be considered cost-free in a society with laws against ethnic discrimination?
Also, consider this scenario: Finkelstein acts altruistically towards all Jews, including Goldstein, but Goldstein only acts altruistically towards his own family members. Whose genes win out? Goldstein’s because he gets altruism from Finkelstein and his like but does not return the favor. I know that ethnic favoritism exists, but EGIs aren’t the reason.
The Khazars were not a European or Slavic people. They were predominantly a northern caucasian people with presumably some Central Asian admixture. Ashkenazis are genetically close to Turks, Kurds and Armenians. Chechens have also been proven to be genetically close to Armenians. Modern day Chechnya was part of Khazaria. It also included the Dagestanis, Ossetians, Ingush, etc. Middle eastern markers have been found in those groups of people. Ashkenazis also have various Haplogroup G markers, which are found around or near the Caucasus, some originating in the Caucasus. Although, in depth studies have not been done in the caucasus region, especially the northern cacausus. The Ashkenazis are about as “white” as other caucasian peoples such as Armenians or Chechens.
“How is giving money to beggars an effective means of aiding your ethny to outcompete others?”
You dishonest philosemite, I’ve already repeatedly said that ethnic nepotism is not about just giving “charity.” Stop conflating ethnic nepotism to giving “money to beggars.”
“If such were really the motive for charity, you would expect people to give their money to nationalist organizations, not beggars.”
You dishonest philosemite, first you confuse prescriptive and descriptive, second, you assume people are rational, third, you forget the brainwashing and social pricing imposed on white gentiles by your favorite non-white group.
“The same goes for welfare systems. If the real motive of government spending were to outcompete other ethnies, you would expect governments to direct most spending towards wars of conquest.”
First, “western” nations are run by anti-white individuals such as yourself, hostile to the interests of their own majority population. Second, dishonest one, in the modern world, competition can be more economic than military, and Asian nations do a good job in investing in economic competition against the West. Third, dishonest one, governments have obligations to spend to support basic government infrastructure, and there is limited discretionary spending for “competitive” endeavors. Yes, imagine a government directing “most spending towards wars of conquest” and at the same time the nation’s internal infrastructure collapses due to lack of support. You really are not too bright, are you? And in a complex world, in which competition is not only economic, but weapons of mass destruction exist and so “soft power” is usually the way to national prestige, nations are not going to engage in “wars of conquest,” fool. The “cold war” was an intense competition, but “wars of conquest” were limited to backwaters like Afghanistan.
“Can ethnic nepotism really be considered cost-free in a society with laws against ethnic discrimination?”
You dishonest philosemite, “laws against ethnic discrimination” are NOT – repeat NOT, NOT, NOT – enforced against any group except whites (with the Finklesteins in this case specifically not included as “white.”). And why does the double standard exist? Precisely because whites do not practice ethnic nepotism and do not act collectively and are thus outcompeted by others.
“Also, consider this scenario: Finkelstein acts altruistically towards all Jews, including Goldstein, but Goldstein only acts altruistically towards his own family members. Whose genes win out? Goldstein’s because he gets altruism from Finkelstein and his like but does not return the favor.”
First, dishonest philosemite, I noted that reciprocity is expected in many of these actions. Second, dishonest philosemite, both Salter and MacDonald specifically and repeatedly discuss in their work the “free rider” problem to which you refer. Monitoring and punishment – frequently used in the Middle Old World cultures from whence your favorite non-white group originates – can be used to weed out free riders. Indeed, over time, if this is the case, free-riding may be selected against. Guess whose genes “win out” then. Third, “dishonest philosemite,” if Finkelstein NEEDS TO MAKE A CHOICE, dishonest philosemite, and the *choice* is *between* unrelated co-ethnic and un-related non-ethic, the adaptive choice is to pick the co-ethnic, even if there is no guarantee of reciprocity. Indeed, if Finkelstein NEEDS TO CHOOSE between having Goldstein’s genes “winning out” and O’Brien’s genes “winning out,” he’ll pick Goldstein. Goldstein, being a fellow non-white Middle Easterner, and more likely to share genes with Finklestein, is also more likely to contain the genes that would result in the same ethnic nepotistic behavior.
Dishonest one, both Salter and I both repeatedly said it is a matter of context. If Finklestein can choose between his own son and Goldstein, the adaptive choice, all else being equal, is how own son. However, if the choice is between Goldstein and O’Brien – both strangers but Goldstein more related and also more likely to return the favor through ethnic nepotism – pick Goldstein. Why is a relative metric so hard to understand? If the choice is between O’Brien and Tyrone Carjacker, the adaptive choice would be O’Brien – Carjacker is no more likely to return the favor than is O’Brien and O’Brien is more related (we hope). Of course, Finklestein may pick Carjacker anyway, since it can be viewed in Finklesteins’ ethnic interest to promote blacks over whites. It is complex, as I’ve said.
“I know that ethnic favoritism exists, but EGIs aren’t the reason.”
Again, you are confusing prescriptive and descriptive arguments. And why, pray tell, does “ethnic favoritism” exist for some ethnies? That some non-European, non-Western, Middle Eastern ethnocentrics have an inborn tendency towards it, regardless of adaptiveness? But, then, how did the tendency develop?
You sir, are an enemy of the white race. Thank you for the repeated clarification. Again, Hunter Wallace is correct.
Your dishonesty is pathetic. “Truth and morality,” my ass.
“You dishonest philosemite, I’ve already repeatedly said that ethnic nepotism is not about just giving ‘charity.’ Stop conflating ethnic nepotism to giving ‘money to beggars.’”
Well, giving money to coethnic beggars is one of the examples of ethnic altruism motivated by EGIs that Salter gives. So my question still needs to be answered.
If reciprocity is at the basis of ethnic altruism, then you have reciprocal altruism, which can be adaptive between any two humans, whether they’re related or not. Reciprocal altruism isn’t relevant to the discussion as the ENT partisans’ case is that kin altruism, which does not require reciprocity, is at the basis of ethnic loyalty.
And you still haven’t answered my objection about Finkelstein and Goldstein. Though they are coethnics, they are nevertheless Darwinian competitors, and altruism towards competitors will be selected against, as I carefully explained in my article. But I see that my questions aren’t welcome here, so I won’t be coming back.
Jobling: But I see that my questions aren’t welcome here, so I won’t be coming back.
Typical. He’s using the Hasbara Playbook tactics as suggested (or required) by his Masters. Jobling himself won’t answer questions, much like the Jews, he just tosses more questions at the questioner, many of them off the direct subject at hand, meaning the focus of the original question directed at him. Then he makes statements that he hopes will create discord or confusion in the casual reader, the newcomer, the person still standing on top of the fence. Pitiful.
To repeat my criticism of Jobling’s position: Even granting that there is a precipitous drop-off of altruism beyond the level of relatedness of cousins, which then plateaus into a much more tepid ‘ethnocentrism’, it is STILL manifestly in the interests of White elites to act with magnanimity and with a mind towards sustaining the life of their more lowly co-ethnics. Why? Because the social position of White elites is not stable or sustainable long term if not built on the solid foundation of ethnic homogeneity. Without the social reforms aimed towards wealth redistribution in Western Europe in the first half of the twentieth century there is a good possibility those nations would have fallen to Communism; and we all know just what awaits ‘class enemies’ upon the arrival of Communism. And in Latin America to this day the position the ruling class is perennially threatened by populist movements of indigenous peoples with a Marxist flavor. If Jobling will not even flesh out the above conclusion which follows from his own presumptions then he is truly useless.
I believe that we should let politics come after genetics and not interfere with it. The Khazar theory must be investigated further in the lager Caucasus region, among peoples such as the Ingush and Ossetians before any political driven conclusions are made. Having said that it is clear that Ashkenazis show a strong affinity with Armenians and Turks. These populations of course are not Europeans.
Ted says:
The ultimate purpose of the “article” is as a handy link that someone can use to “discredit Salter” and “refute ethnic nepotism.”
Ian Jobling says:
How is giving money to beggars an effective means of aiding your ethny to outcompete others? If such were really the motive for charity, you would expect people to give their money to nationalist organizations, not beggars.
and:
The genetic distance is always smallest between kin, so the rational choice is to give whatever money one has to spare to kin, rather than to non-kin coethnics.
Here’s a handy link that someone can use to discredit Jobling and refute his dissembling. It highlights the non-kin coethnic charity of jews, euphemized as “jewish philanthropy”.
Baltimore Jewish Times – Cover Story | Jewish Philanthropy Navigates The Economy’s Rough Seas:
Those who we considered Jewish were of Jewish descent or openly identified as Jews, either personally or in their giving.
Some quick stats: We are reasonably certain that 139 of the richest 400 Americans are Jewish, including 20 of the richest 50. Those top 20 control some $211.8 billion in personal wealth.
As an example of giving they note:
The Moscow-born Mr. Brin — who grew up in the College Park area and recently donated $1 million to the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society on the 30th anniversary of his family’s arrival in the United States
And in a section titled “Helping The Vulnerable”:
Mr. Terrill said he tends to take a holistic approach to fund-raising, rather than only looking in his own backyard.
“One of the benefits of being part of an international system is that people who live outside of your borders can have a positive impact,” he said, citing as an example the Birthright Israel-Taglit program, which was founded a decade ago by philanthropists Michael Steinhart and Charles Bronfman, and is funded by private contributions and the Jewish Agency. The program has provided a means for thousands of young Jews to visit Israel.
Mr. Terrill also gave the example of working closely with the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee in feeding approximately 180,000 elderly Jews (some of whom are Holocaust survivors) living below the poverty line in the former Soviet Union.
There’s no need to argue with Jobling about the existence or rationality of or motivation for ethnocentrism, ethnic nepotism, or non-kin coethnic charity. Jews openly celebrate these things and praise their benefits. Their wealthiest extend charity specifically to non-kin coethnic beggars.
White billionaires in competition with jews can only marvel at the media’s accolades for jewish “philanthropy”, knowing full well that any White behaving similarly would be smeared by that same media as a “racist” “neo-nazi” “hater” and swiftly find himself and his business partners under economic assault by boycott, lawsuit, and bad-mouthing campaigns specifically intended to diminish their wealth.
Jobling is not only wrong, he works very hard at being wrong.
“And you still haven’t answered my objection about Finkelstein and Goldstein.”
I did. You are either too stupid to understand or are being intellectually dishonest (or both).
“Though they are coethnics, they are nevertheless Darwinian competitors…”
As is your “close kin” – if, for example, your children are in competition with your brother’s children. It’s a matter of context, idiot.
“…and altruism towards competitors will be selected against…”
No one is talking about “selection” retard. How many times does that need to be explained to you. By the way, is “altruism” towards non-ethnics “selected” for? Why should Finkelstein favor O’Brien over Goldstein?
“…as I carefully explained in my article.”
You mean, “As I mindlessly pontificated in my article”
“But I see that my questions aren’t welcome here, so I won’t be coming back.”
But you have.
I have always tried to tell people that the Khazar hypothesis is weak in explaining Ashkenazim and Eastern European Jewry. There can be no doubt that some Asiatic features are found in Jews, but the evidence simply not there. Most Russian Jews have German last names, from the populations that went eastward during the Middle Ages. There were Jewish populations along the Rhine river shortly around the time after the fall of the Roman Empire. I believe the main reason white racialists consistently promote this hypothesis is because they follow Christian Identity beliefs and this excuses them from recognizing the connection between ancient Jewry and modern, as they refuse to drop Christianity altogether, let alone the Judaic background of it which they have adopted as their own, and stop reading their Old Testament bibles and giving their children Hebrew names. The Jews have never been relatively pure, they take genetic proselytes through inter-marriage and converting the Gentile among their host populations as they have always done. It is futile to try to pin down exactly what exactly the Jews are – they are a viral meme and a religion than a race, even though they retain genetic similarity and have shared characteristics. Hitler called them “a race of the mind,” for good reason, as they can intermix extensively acquiring any adaptive traits yet they are never submerged into a foreign population by lose of identity. They are part Middle Eastern/semitic, Aryan, and asiatic (and even trace african elements), but they have allegiance to no race or people but themselves. One can only approach them as a parasite and anti-race that has an alien soul, as Alfred Rosenberg (Myth of the Twentieth Century) correctly did. The Jews have become more Aryanized over time, to the point that it is hard to identify them on TV merely by look alone, even though one can always spot their disproportionate symmetry and exaggerated facial features. They steal genes from the best stock of whom they encounter. I disagree with Ken that they are more related to Armenians, Turks, and Kurds. They have moved through the Caucasus region and absorbed genes, but their origin and more recent genetic dispersal/diaspora is far removed from this element. I also disagree in labeling all people of this region non-white on a collective level, but that is an argument for another time.
Tanstaafl makes an interesting observation, that often Jews try to make the play that they are a religion rather than a race, to undermine the idea that they act in their own genetic interests. There is a similar phenomenon in the “anti-zionist” jew – ultimately I feel these Jews ARE acting in Jewish interests cleverly and subliminally in their own way, since they feel for good reason that the world is catching on and turning against Jewry as a result of Zionist excesses. Its basically damage control. “Look, some of us have altruistic motives and we’re not all inhuman ethnocentric monsters! So we’re not all bad.” However, we must all recognize the paradox of the Jew being a religion and people, but more of the former than the latter. We have to conclude that they are both. Once they have thoroughly bled the Western World and leave it in shambles, they will move onto their next target of racial subversion, which is already India and China. Shlomo Sand I believe raises an important topic, that the origin of the Jews is impossible to uncover. They pop up on the stage of history in a blurred and obscure manner, and archaeology has shown that their birth may have began as an economic revolt of Canaanites who turned against their own people, and invented a new history. If one looks at the substance of the Jewish religion it is full of stolen goods from other cultures that was assimilated into their own scheme, just as Jewish genetics is full of stolen blood from other peoples. I believe the original Israelites were a conglomeration of Egyptian slaves, wandering semitic nomads, and Canaanite groups that coalesced into one people.
Hmm…Jewish scientists (judging by the name) do research that supports their claim of being an ethnic group (unlike some “antisemites” who claim otherwise) with roots in the Middle east..