0 comment Monday, September 8, 2014 | admin
Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds
Some scientists apparently haven't gotten the memo which decreed that 'race is only a social construct', because they insist on doing studies on the innate, genetic differences among the people of these various 'social constructs.'
I'm no genetics expert, obviously. I've studied only a little about these things in anthropology classes in college, but I think the main purpose for studies like this one is to push a political agenda. The agenda, of course, is the multicultural 'we are all one people, who came out of the African matrix' agenda. However, this study serves to confuse more than it clarifies.
First of all, the conclusion that whites are 'genetically weaker' than blacks is based on what? What in the results of the study backs up that statement?
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.''
Apparently, the 'less variation' genes, and the claim of 'more possibly harmful mutations' are the findings that they relate to 'genetic weakness.'
The fact that they qualify that last statement by saying 'possibly' harmful mutations indicates that they are making a possibly unjustified judgment there.
The fact that black Americans have more genetic variation should not be surprising, considering that their ancestors derived from a number of different tribes, and not from a single group of people.
However, how valid is a study like this, based on only 20 White Americans and 15 black Americans? Did they pick 'average' Americans, or did they pick white Americans from, say New York City or some other large urban area, which tend to be unrepresentative of Americans in general? Or did they pick heartland Americans? There is no indication of who the subjects of the study were.
We often hear the politically correct claims that 'there is no average American; we're all mixed, we're all mutts.' Yet this study seems to show relative homogeneity for Whites. If this is true it should give us further incentive to unite and think and act as a group. But that's not PC.
Another politically correct article of faith is, as I said, that race is a mere social construct, and that skin color is the only thing that distinguishes black from White.
Obviously this study does not substantiate that claim, but not to worry; that won't deter the next simple-minded liberal from saying it again anyway.
Another often-repeated canard is that black Americans have a higher rate of diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other such ailments. If, however, Whites are 'genetically weaker' because of a greater number of possibly harmful mutations, how is it that Whites apparently have a longer life expectancy and better overall health, at least according to the frequent laments about racial disparities in disease and health care?
Probably the stock answer would be that blacks are victims of racism and an inherently unequal health care system, and so that's why Whites live longer and have lower rates of certain diseases. "When in doubt, blame it on racism", seems to be the rule.
The very technical article on this study from Nature is here for those who have the scientific knowledge to be able to follow it.
I think the overall message meant to be conveyed by the mainstream media reporting on this study of a few dozen (possibly unrepresentative) people is that whites are deficient in 'diversity'. Since diversity is so all-important, being our strength and all, for the sake of the improvement of the human race (there's only one race, remember) we had better start doing a better job of blending everybody together in the big blender. The blender is now the symbol, not the melting pot.
I've noticed that a certain argument keeps cropping up when the subject of racial differences is discussed: the idea that whites are an 'inbred' group of people and as such, defective and in need of some diversity to lend some 'hybrid vigor' to the species. Is there any basis to this canard?
How closely related is 'inbred'? I think it's especially odd to consider people of European descent as not diverse enough when we can see for ourselves that European-descended peoples are the only group with any degree of variety in phenotypes: European-descended people have every possible shade of hair color and hair texture, varied eye color, varying complexions from pale, porcelain skin to olive, various body types and head shapes, heights, and sizes. Yet each of the other major races seems to have mostly dark hair and eyes, with almost no exceptions, and similar hair texture and complexions within each major group. Nowadays it is highly un-PC to say, as older generations did of various other races, that 'they all look alike to me'. In a sense, that observation is true, from a White perspective. We are used to seeing much more variety within our own supposedly non-diverse group, while other groups seem much more similar than different within their groups.
Notice the AP photo that accompanies the linked article; not-so-subtle propaganda, and it's typical of what we are being bombarded with in the old media.
We have to be able to look at these kinds of stories from the media and recognize them as what they are: not an attempt to further scientific understanding (although maybe the actual scientists involved may have purer intentions) but as media attempts to shape our thinking on race.
Some scientists apparently haven't gotten the memo which decreed that 'race is only a social construct', because they insist on doing studies on the innate, genetic differences among the people of these various 'social constructs.'
I'm no genetics expert, obviously. I've studied only a little about these things in anthropology classes in college, but I think the main purpose for studies like this one is to push a political agenda. The agenda, of course, is the multicultural 'we are all one people, who came out of the African matrix' agenda. However, this study serves to confuse more than it clarifies.
First of all, the conclusion that whites are 'genetically weaker' than blacks is based on what? What in the results of the study backs up that statement?
Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.
They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.''
Apparently, the 'less variation' genes, and the claim of 'more possibly harmful mutations' are the findings that they relate to 'genetic weakness.'
The fact that they qualify that last statement by saying 'possibly' harmful mutations indicates that they are making a possibly unjustified judgment there.
The fact that black Americans have more genetic variation should not be surprising, considering that their ancestors derived from a number of different tribes, and not from a single group of people.
However, how valid is a study like this, based on only 20 White Americans and 15 black Americans? Did they pick 'average' Americans, or did they pick white Americans from, say New York City or some other large urban area, which tend to be unrepresentative of Americans in general? Or did they pick heartland Americans? There is no indication of who the subjects of the study were.
We often hear the politically correct claims that 'there is no average American; we're all mixed, we're all mutts.' Yet this study seems to show relative homogeneity for Whites. If this is true it should give us further incentive to unite and think and act as a group. But that's not PC.
Another politically correct article of faith is, as I said, that race is a mere social construct, and that skin color is the only thing that distinguishes black from White.
Obviously this study does not substantiate that claim, but not to worry; that won't deter the next simple-minded liberal from saying it again anyway.
Another often-repeated canard is that black Americans have a higher rate of diseases such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other such ailments. If, however, Whites are 'genetically weaker' because of a greater number of possibly harmful mutations, how is it that Whites apparently have a longer life expectancy and better overall health, at least according to the frequent laments about racial disparities in disease and health care?
Probably the stock answer would be that blacks are victims of racism and an inherently unequal health care system, and so that's why Whites live longer and have lower rates of certain diseases. "When in doubt, blame it on racism", seems to be the rule.
The very technical article on this study from Nature is here for those who have the scientific knowledge to be able to follow it.
I think the overall message meant to be conveyed by the mainstream media reporting on this study of a few dozen (possibly unrepresentative) people is that whites are deficient in 'diversity'. Since diversity is so all-important, being our strength and all, for the sake of the improvement of the human race (there's only one race, remember) we had better start doing a better job of blending everybody together in the big blender. The blender is now the symbol, not the melting pot.
I've noticed that a certain argument keeps cropping up when the subject of racial differences is discussed: the idea that whites are an 'inbred' group of people and as such, defective and in need of some diversity to lend some 'hybrid vigor' to the species. Is there any basis to this canard?
How closely related is 'inbred'? I think it's especially odd to consider people of European descent as not diverse enough when we can see for ourselves that European-descended peoples are the only group with any degree of variety in phenotypes: European-descended people have every possible shade of hair color and hair texture, varied eye color, varying complexions from pale, porcelain skin to olive, various body types and head shapes, heights, and sizes. Yet each of the other major races seems to have mostly dark hair and eyes, with almost no exceptions, and similar hair texture and complexions within each major group. Nowadays it is highly un-PC to say, as older generations did of various other races, that 'they all look alike to me'. In a sense, that observation is true, from a White perspective. We are used to seeing much more variety within our own supposedly non-diverse group, while other groups seem much more similar than different within their groups.
Notice the AP photo that accompanies the linked article; not-so-subtle propaganda, and it's typical of what we are being bombarded with in the old media.
We have to be able to look at these kinds of stories from the media and recognize them as what they are: not an attempt to further scientific understanding (although maybe the actual scientists involved may have purer intentions) but as media attempts to shape our thinking on race.
Labels: Diversity, Genetics, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Race
0 comment Saturday, September 6, 2014 | admin
Following my post of the other day about inbreeding and the way the anti-White left uses that fear against us, there's this about Moslem inbreeding in Britain.
'Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.�
Studies have shown that 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins � and in Bradford, this rises to 75 per cent.''
And when, predictably, the angry Moslems denounced this, saying it 'demonises Muslims', Professor Jones -- equally predictably -- feels compelled to mention that inbreeding also occurs in the UK:
In his talk, Prof Jones said inbreeding was not confined to Muslims, and historically had occurred in every part of society, including the royal family.
He said: 'We are all more incestuous than we realise. In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname, which suggests a high level of inbreeding.
'There�s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Hebrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.�
Well, the good professor should know that pointing to an exceptional area like the Outer Hebrides does not mean that the British are just as prone to inbreeding as Pakistani Moslems. Shame on him for implying that.
And as for his notion that the same surname indicates inbreeding -- is he that clueless? People named 'Smith' descended from people who were smiths by trade. Were they all related? Many people have surnames based on where their ancestors lived; are they all kin? And since some of these surnames have been around for many centuries, the relationship may go back dozens of generations. It's silly to suggest that a common surname indicates a close enough relationship to classify it as inbred.
And I know that a lot of people, even in the UK, like to bash the royals, and royalty in general, for various reasons. But the inbreeding that did occur among royals was not as 'incestuous'. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second and third cousins several times removed, being connected by descent from Queen Victoria -- four generations back.
No doubt there have been royal marriages between closer cousins but those marriages seem far less common today. Again, shame on Jones for implying that the royals are 'incestuously' inbred.
Why is it now some kind of unwritten law that when criticizing a 'protected' group in some way, or when some ''insensitive'' third party criticizes them, White people must say that we are just as guilty? That is getting very old, and somebody has to speak up about it. Just tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
'Bradford is very inbred. There is a huge amount of cousins marrying each other there.�
Studies have shown that 55 per cent of British Pakistanis are married to first cousins � and in Bradford, this rises to 75 per cent.''
And when, predictably, the angry Moslems denounced this, saying it 'demonises Muslims', Professor Jones -- equally predictably -- feels compelled to mention that inbreeding also occurs in the UK:
In his talk, Prof Jones said inbreeding was not confined to Muslims, and historically had occurred in every part of society, including the royal family.
He said: 'We are all more incestuous than we realise. In Northern Ireland lots of people share the same surname, which suggests a high level of inbreeding.
'There�s a lot of surname diversity in London but if you look at the Outer Hebrides there are rather fewer surnames in relation to the number of people.�
Well, the good professor should know that pointing to an exceptional area like the Outer Hebrides does not mean that the British are just as prone to inbreeding as Pakistani Moslems. Shame on him for implying that.
And as for his notion that the same surname indicates inbreeding -- is he that clueless? People named 'Smith' descended from people who were smiths by trade. Were they all related? Many people have surnames based on where their ancestors lived; are they all kin? And since some of these surnames have been around for many centuries, the relationship may go back dozens of generations. It's silly to suggest that a common surname indicates a close enough relationship to classify it as inbred.
And I know that a lot of people, even in the UK, like to bash the royals, and royalty in general, for various reasons. But the inbreeding that did occur among royals was not as 'incestuous'. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are second and third cousins several times removed, being connected by descent from Queen Victoria -- four generations back.
No doubt there have been royal marriages between closer cousins but those marriages seem far less common today. Again, shame on Jones for implying that the royals are 'incestuously' inbred.
Why is it now some kind of unwritten law that when criticizing a 'protected' group in some way, or when some ''insensitive'' third party criticizes them, White people must say that we are just as guilty? That is getting very old, and somebody has to speak up about it. Just tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.
Labels: Genetics, Inbreeding, Moslems, Political Correctness