Why countries don’t exist

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 09, 2006, 01:21 PM | #

The whole “more variation within than between” groups argument is bogus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin’s_Fallacy

It’s logically irrelevant as well.  What’s the big deal?  If you take the total of human genetic diversity, the bulk of it is randomized among individuals.  But some fraction is specific among populations, which proves that these populations are distinct.

If you had two sets of 100 dice each, and for each set, for 85 of the dice it was completely random what number comes up when you throw them, and for the other 15 dice, those from one group always comes up as “ones” and the other set the 15 dice always comes up as “sixes”, obviously the two sets of 100 dice are distinct, because of those 15 dice.

That they share 85 random dice doesn’t change the fact that the 15 are different.

Humans share most of their genes with chimps and mice as well, it are the differences what are important.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 09, 2006, 02:37 PM | #

This is a timely post for me.  I’m ashamed of how long I let the “more variation within than between” argument pass unmolested.  The fact is that I never even understood what was meant by it.  I thought it was a high-flying analysis of genetic code, not something as stupid and facile as tendentious semantics.

I tip my hat to the jew who took the time to explain to me what was meant by the argument:

http://www.vdare.com/misc/060221_goldberg.htm

My God that’s so simple, I can’t believe that’s what was meant every time I let that silliness pass.

According to this logic, there are no sexes, either.

Posted by Svyatoslav Igorevich on March 09, 2006, 02:38 PM | #

There are no cars or trucks, either.  One could probably fill a book just listing what this logic dictates cannot exist.

Posted by Ben Tillman on March 09, 2006, 02:55 PM | #

I’m ashamed of how long I let the “more variation within than between” argument pass unmolested.  The fact is that I never even understood what was meant by it.

Of course.  It has no meaning.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 09, 2006, 03:27 PM | #

Svigor, see:
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010014

Risch is an Ashkenazi who is honest about race (although I disagree with his evaluation of Clinton’s “noble” intentions).

Note among the things Risch states is that his group found a larger genetic discordance between gender and genetic markers than between race and genetic markers!

So, therefore, I guess there are no differences between Victoria’s Secret Models and Mr. Olympia contestants - “gender does not exist.”

Another point is I think the few examples of “racial genetic discordance” in Risch’s study (i.e., the 0.14% error rate) were easily explained by, e.g., admixed African-Americans who identified as black but were actually genetically more white.

Certainly, if one were to compare Swedes to Nigerians to Chinese, there would be a 0% error rate.

“Errors” are due to hybrids who identify with one of their parental populations even though they have a greater ancestry from the other.  The objective nature of their ancestry doesn’t change, simply how it is described.

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 09, 2006, 04:36 PM | #

Perhaps not directly related to this post, but still the comparison is informative.

Please compare this:

http://www.whymarryjewish.com/
http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=108396
http://www.jewishsurvivalseries.org/pages/1/index.htm
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/IntermarriageWhyNot.htm
http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/future.html
http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp
http://www.mnemotrix.com/heights/schur16.html

To this:

http://www.slate.com/id/30352

Posted by slinker, sailer, toldya, sly on March 09, 2006, 04:39 PM | #

Libertarians note: Asians are well able to act “collectively”:

March 9, 2006

Heather Fong
Chief of Police
850 Bryant St. 5th Floor
San Francisco, 94103

Subject:  Request to Investigate Chinatown Homeless Beating as Racially
          Motivate Hate Crime. ( Occurred March 6, 2006)

Dear Chief Fong:

The European/American Issues Forum, a moderate and thoughtful Bay Area civil rights organization respectfully requests that the recent beating of a homeless white man by young Asian men in Chinatown be investigated to determine if it was a racially motivated hate crime. The victim was white.

We are shocked to read your Public Affairs Office Press Release that does not mention that the victim is a white man*. If the homeless man were Asian and the perpetrators white, then the newspapers, television stations, the police department and the SF Human Rights Commission might sound an alarm calling for a racially motivated hate crime prosecution. We have no objection to that response. However, we rightfully expect the same kind of a response when a white homeless man is beaten by Asian youth.

We hope the investigating officers would pursue a line of questioning that could reveal racial motives. Only the San Francisco Examiner, Bonnie Eslinger, reported the race of victim and perpetrators.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Louis Calabro, President

Posted by James Bowery on March 09, 2006, 09:09 PM | #

A good article by Steve Sailer addresses this fallacy as well with a great illustration of how the difference between still weather and a hurricane is virtually indistinguishable based on the “more difference within than between” Lewontinist violence against truth and reason.

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 10, 2006, 12:47 AM | #

I love that Sailer article!

Correspondent: Is there no meaningful distinction to be made between a calm day and a raging hurricane?

Sailer: What are you, some kind of windist?

Posted by Steve Edwards on March 10, 2006, 02:15 AM | #

The logic of Fred’s comment is irresistable. Race denialism must necessarily lead to the denial of practically everything. Which is why I chose to highlight this fact using the examples of South Africa and Brazil.

However, I must concede that the race denialists will never deny Brazil - they love Brazil so much that they wish to Brazilianise every country on earth. So Brazil will always be an undeniable reality, even for denialists.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 10, 2006, 06:37 PM | #

Fred,

That is absolutely right on the money.

Have you read MacDonald? I recommend that you read it. If you need a copy, send me an e-mail. I’ll post it to you.

Posted by Zach on March 10, 2006, 11:55 PM | #

I found the whymarryjewish.com site above quite funny. For the longest time how I have thought that starting a site/society dedicated to encouraging Jews and blacks to marry would be a great thing for someone to do. If I recall correctly from bible stories, Moses had a black wife; perhaps it could be called the Moses Project.

For those who promote equality, what better way to help out poor blacks than with some of those Jewish high-IQ genes? Likewise, economically, Jews and blacks are on opposite ends of the scale. As I recall, the Jewish 2.5% of the population has around 25% of the wealth in the US. What better way to redistribute it with poor blacks than through intermarriage? Jews have always been the leaders behind the movement for promoting desegregation and black interests; this would be the final, logical conclusion. For too long, they have had to live in separate neighborhoods than the people they were most trying to help. Why just share the same neighborhood when Jews and blacks could be sharing the same roof?

As for those who would object, it is important to remember that race does not really exist, as we all know. What matters is not the collectivist “racial” agenda of Jews or blacks, but rather the individual happiness resulting from combining compatible individuals. This could be greatly facilitates by an match.com style online database of Jews and blacks (and libertarians, for that matter) who were willing to put their commitment to equality on the line in promoting the equalization between Jews and blacks in a personal, involved way.

Granted, the above is (largely) in jest; I don’t personally wish to see the mongeralization of anyone, Jew, black, white, etc. But it would be a profound rhetorical device against the hypocrisy of the multi-culturalists and their moral-particularism. Plus, it might have the added benefit of exposing the true divide between Jews and their minority allies.

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 11, 2006, 12:49 PM | #

Check this out:

We love each other...

Don’t mistake chemistry/infactuation for real love. Love, true love comes from a shared world view, common values (deeper than “we both like hang gliding and bungee jumping”), and a commitment to build a family together. The ultimate Jewish value is to create a Jewish family which will be part of the 3000 year chain of Jewish wisdom, values and tradition. The non-Jewish partner is unlikely to buy in to this chain of tradition. Unless you are going to submerge all religious values in this relationship, especially at milestones like births, marriages and deaths… you’re going to be at cross purposes; which will affect the relationship.

I intend to use that against various proponents of race-mixing. Very well said.

Posted by Drasic on March 12, 2006, 08:50 PM | #

Don’t marry a jewess
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3223268,00.html