Culture of Critique

[Jakethehuman]

Anyone read or heard of Kevin MacDonald?

 

In a society where whites are being systematically targeted by civil groups, government and the media it doesn't make sense to ignore any relevant information when planning a counter-attack.

 

The only reason cartels don't really work in a capitalist system is because each individual is too committed to profit and self-interest, however if they were to be convinced that self-interest was synonymous with group interest, they would dominate.

 

The same is true for tribalism in an individualist society. Stefan has mentioned before the critical lack of tribalism among white westerners. I would suggest that, just like Trump is necessary to combat the contemporary crazy, white tribalism is required to keep a truly individualistic society possible in the long run. I know it sounds contradictory but I think some form of tribalism and moral universality is compatible.

[Wuzzums]

I agree. Tribalism is something that evolved over billions of years, it's biology and you can never win a fight against biology. Our best bet is to work with it or around it and not against it.

[Jakethehuman]

I agree. Tribalism is something that evolved over billions of years, it's biology and you can never win a fight against biology. Our best bet is to work with it or around it and not against it.

What do you think about the idea that unless and until every race/tribe is genuinely committed to marrying outside the ethnic group, whites should stay committed within their ethnic group?

 

Just trying to figure out what a commitment to white tribalism looks like.

[Wuzzums]

What do you think about the idea that unless and until every race/tribe is genuinely committed to marrying outside the ethnic group, whites should stay committed within their ethnic group?

 

Just trying to figure out what a commitment to white tribalism looks like.

 

I think the word "commitment" is too strong. What's been going on the the west is the exact opposite of white tribalism, as in the commitment of doing the exact opposite of one's instincts. If a white behaves like any other race they're accused of being racist. A white's behavior is deemed acceptable only if it's to promote any other race except their own. You're not allowed to marry whites, be friends with whites, watch movies with whites, enjoy white singers, hire whites, talk about being white, have white kids, and so on. I wouldn't call any deviation from this low, low, low standard for group preference as being committed.

 

We must set "I don't have to constantly castigate myself for being white" as a bare minimum and see where that takes us.

[Jakethehuman]

We must set "I don't have to constantly castigate myself for being white" as a bare minimum and see where that takes us.

That makes sense. The problems we are having would basically disappear if whites decided to stop feeling guilty and treat themselves and other whites with respect.

 

I think the problem that I see is achieving such a 360 degree shift peacefully in collective white consciousness is basically impossible. We didn't get here by accident and you don't change the future without understanding the past, people will be angry when they realise what has been done.

[Three]

I think it's a book of great importance! Gavin Mcllness recently shared the book and David Duke's book Jewish Supremacism on his YouTube video Help Send Gavin Mcllness to Israel. The taboo of speaking about Jewish influence will become discussed more and more as political correctness falls.

[Jakethehuman]

The taboo of speaking about Jewish influence will become discussed more and more as political correctness falls.

Yeah I agree, this is something that came completely out of left field for me and lots of others too perhaps. Once all the unpc crew figures out where all this shit started the game changes, and hopefully with the internet we don't forget this time.

[jabowery]

I agree. Tribalism is something that evolved over billions of years, it's biology and you can never win a fight against biology.

This is incorrect and is the downfall of so-called "white-identity".

 

Somewhere around 1.2 billion years ago, multicellular organisms started to overcome the "tribalism" of clones, inherent in mitotic reproduction.  This they did with haploid cells produced by meiosis known as "gametes".  Somewhere around 600 million years ago, sexual selection became strong enough to overcome mitotic "tribalism" and produced the Cambrian explosion of life forms.  It was hundreds of millions of years later that a few species tried to regress to the multicellular level, taking the form of eusocial insects.  By largely abandoning sexual selection, eusocial insects got stuck in an evolutionary dead-end but, because of their ecological dominance, became important components of the biosphere.  The general pattern of sexual selection became fixed in various forms of male duel and female mating preference (rape being very rare in sexual species).  These are the two primordial aspects of individual sovereignty.  In the primate line leading to humans, we see the first signs of vertebrate warfare outside of the naked mole rat's eusocial organization -- in which natural duel is compounded with gang warfare.  Other supposed cases of gang warfare in vertebrates, such as wolf packs in conflict, are more properly thought of as its nascent form in "champion warfare" in which outcome is decided by two alpha males in natural duel -- regardless of the lower level conflicts which, in any event, rarely entail even two ganging up on one.

 

Civilized man has taken the preliminary primate gang warfare to new levels and is therefore on the road toward eusociality.  However, there was at least one human culture that was in contact with civilization for millenia and chose, instead, to enforce natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing.  This was an attempt to return to the individual sovereignty of sexual reproduction driven by the ancestral memories of that more reliable basis for evolution established with the Cambrian explosion.  The result was great diversity in phenotypes of hair color and eye color, as well as a predisposition toward individualism and individual integrity.  It wasn't until about 1000 years ago that the last of that culture was overcome by civilization.

[Jakethehuman]

I don't know enough about what you've said to respond to most of it. However I thought changes in hair and eye colour was a result of climate and selection pressures?

[RichardY]

"From the dawn of time we came; moving silently down through the centuries, living many secret lives, struggling to reach the time of the Gathering; when the few who remain will battle to the last. No one has ever known we were among you... until now."

 

Highlander

[grithin]

Anyone read or heard of Kevin MacDonald?

 

In a society where whites are being systematically targeted by civil groups, government and the media it doesn't make sense to ignore any relevant information when planning a counter-attack.

 

The only reason cartels don't really work in a capitalist system is because each individual is too committed to profit and self-interest, however if they were to be convinced that self-interest was synonymous with group interest, they would dominate.

 

The same is true for tribalism in an individualist society. Stefan has mentioned before the critical lack of tribalism among white westerners. I would suggest that, just like Trump is necessary to combat the contemporary crazy, white tribalism is required to keep a truly individualistic society possible in the long run. I know it sounds contradictory but I think some form of tribalism and moral universality is compatible.

"The only reason cartels don't really work in a capitalist system is because "

It's been known since "The Wealth of Nations" made it clear, cartels form naturally in capitalism, and some understanding of history and economics would incline one to presume it was known way before then.  There seems some conspiracy by libertarians to deny the various problems of the free market - this being the biggest one.

 

"critical lack of tribalism among white westerners."

This I consider wrong without specifics.  Smarter westerners have only created smaller tribes, instead of trying to include idiots of the same skin color.  You might see this in something like skull and bones, or bigger groups like mormons and jews.  And, it is not in the interest of those groups the expend any effort towards propping up the average white person.  In fact, there is a tendency towards the application of order out of chaos, which has multiple avenues of exploitation.  For one, you can win a race by running fast, or by crippling your opponents (internal order while external chaos).  Or, you can exploit order out of chaos as a problem reaction solution plan (the arab spring, for instance).

 

"white tribalism is required to keep a truly individualistic society possible in the long run"

The tendency towards preferring the government, or the rights of the conceptual group, above that of the individual, has been the case since the inception of the constitution.  If whites were somehow ingrained with some individualistic society philosophy, then I'd think the society would have moved to solidify the rights of the individual, rather than to diminish them ("Hamilton's Curse" might describe what I'm referring to).  And, there are many ways the constitution can be improved, and yet, nothing in that direction.  Instead, it appears the rugged individualism was a fortunate coincidence of societal philosophy of the time, and a great amount of land to expand upon.

 

"The taboo of speaking about Jewish influence will become discussed more and more as political correctness falls."

This goes back to the notion of handicapping others to gain advantage for your group.  It is the same mindset of global government and technocracy that encourages depowering nations and creating controllable populations.

 

"is genuinely committed to marrying outside the ethnic group, whites should stay committed within their ethnic group? "

"We must set "I don't have to constantly castigate myself for being white" as a bare minimum and see where that takes us."

Whites will simply be outbred.  Let's just compare

-    chinese people: strong in group preference.  strong family.  high IQs.

-    white people: strong anti in group preference. broken, small family.  average IQs.  Indoctrinated to be insane.

 

If you had 100 of these broken white people, how many generations would you need to get smart, rational, in-group-preferenced, individual-minded white people?  Frankly, if I put these white people on an island, I would expect them to eat each other, and do a poor job at it.

 

 

 

 

[jabowery]

I don't know enough about what you've said to respond to most of it. However I thought changes in hair and eye colour was a result of climate and selection pressures?

Blue-eyed humans have a single, common ancestor 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

Blonde hair appeared 11,000 years ago.

White skin evolved 8,000 years ago.

 

If these had been climate adaptations, they would have occurred much earlier.

[ofd]

The paper doesn’t specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster’s results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk.

 

In general it's a good idea to read articles before you post them. Unless you want to use them to disprove your thesis.

[jabowery]

In general it's a good idea to read articles before you post them. Unless you want to use them to disprove your thesis.

I read it.  They quoted a casual comment by a passing reader of a poster paper.  Her comment doesn't prove or disprove anything but it is evidence that the reporter for sciencemag wanted _some_ kind of "explanation".  Since the paper itself merely showed evidence of the 8,000 year old origin of white skin, what was the sciencemag reporter to do?  Solution:  Grab the first person that supported the old notion that vitamin D deficiency was the driver.  If anything has been "disproved" by these new data on the young date of white skin, it is that old notion.

[ofd]

If there is no selection pressure, something accidental can't become ubiquitous. If white skin developed just so, we'd see variations of skin colour in Europeans. 

[jabowery]

There was selection pressure but the late time -- 8,000 years go -- demands that you answer the question that I have, now repeatedly, raised about the Vitamin D deficiency hypothesis:

 

Since anatomically modern humans -- indeed European humans -- were, 36,000 years ago, at least at as high a latitude as the highest latitude currently estimated for the origin of white skin, why did they wait to evolve white skin until the appearance of a variety of other changes in physical phenotype such as eye color and hair color, nearly 20,000 years later?

[ofd]

why did they wait to evolve white skin

 

That's not how evolution works. Without the mutation, there was no selection pressure for white skin. Genes don't adopt to the enviroment. After there is a random mutation, selection pressure comes into play. 

 

until the appearance of a variety of other changes in physical phenotype such as eye color and hair color

 

Because eye color, hair color, and complexion are related to each other. They are not seperate phenomena. Tyrosinase is responsible for variations in those. 

[jabowery]

That's not how evolution works. Without the mutation, there was no selection pressure for white skin. Genes don't adopt to the enviroment. After there is a random mutation, selection pressure comes into play.

Of course. Your imputation was unnecessarily uncharitable.

 

My ironic literary style was to highlight the (repeatedly posed) question of timing of the appearance of so many mutations in a short period of time circa 8,000 years ago.

 

Because eye color, hair color, and complexion are related to each other. They are not seperate phenomena. Tyrosinase is responsible for variations in those.

Yes, genes affecting pigmentation, hair and eye, as well as skin, are (to varying degrees) pleiotropic and their phenotypes (to varying degrees) multigenic.

 

The question still remains "Why circa 8,000 years ago and not earlier?"

 

Look, let me help you get beyond rhetorical posturing (ie: imputing to me ignorance of basic evolutionary concepts) to a substantive argument that addresses the timing issue that I have raised (now how many times?) -- giving you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you would prefer intellectually honest discourse over scoring rhetorical points with the ignorant among us:

 

The paper "The Timing of Pigmentation Lightening in Europeans" posits that the reason so many pigment-altering mutations swept through Europe within a few millennia of 8,000 years ago, is that agricultural migration increased both population sizes and genetic diffusion into Europe.  This then provided the raw material on which natural selection (ie:  Vitamin D deficiency) could operate.

 

Do you agree that might explain the timing?

 

 

[ofd]

Your imputation was unnecessarily uncharitable.

 

It wasn't meant that way. 

 

 question of timing of the appearance of so many mutations in a short period of time circa 8,000 years ago.

 

My understanding is that 8000 years is the under limit for that mutation to occur. It may as well have occured 20 000 years earlier. With that short of a timespan, genetic dating appears to be difficult.

 

The paper "The Timing of Pigmentation Lightening in Europeans" posits that the reason so many pigment-altering mutations swept through Europe within a few millennia of 8,000 years ago,

 

I have yet to read the article. But from what you wrote and based on my understanding of biologiy, the bottleneck scenario seems to be more plausible. Furthermore, I have to see how the article the similar mutations of indigenous people who didn't farm.

 

 

Do you agree that might explain the timing?

 

It's a good explanation for lactose tolerance which seemed to have come up independently to lighter skin. Again, I have yet to read the article you posted.

[jabowery]

My understanding is that 8000 years is the under limit for that mutation to occur. It may as well have occured 20 000 years earlier. With that short of a timespan, genetic dating appears to be difficult.

There is reason to believe some of these alleles were around for a long time in various populations but not subject to substantial selective pressure.

 

There's an important difference between the timing of the appearance of a mutation and the timing of its selective sweep through the population.  These studies don't tell us when the mutation first appeared, nor even where it first appeared.  A mutation -- particularly a loss-of-function (aka recessive) mutation -- can appear in the population, spread by drift and not be subjected to any substantial phenotypic expression and disappear by drift before having a chance to demonstrate selective advantage.

 

In this kind of situation, you need two circumstances for a selective sweep:

1. The recessive mutations drift into enough population frequency to encounter themselves in enough individuals for the statistics of their homozygous phenotypes to affect population frequency.
2. The environment has to confer selective advantage to these recessive phenotypes.

The important thing to note is the timing and geography of the selective sweep of these alleles (not just their appearance and drift) -- which is what these papers are addressing.  

 

Here's the problem with the agricultural diffusion hypothesis of Vitamin D selection:

 

The neolithic spread agriculture throughout Eurasia very rapidly.  While there may well have been vitamin D selective pressures for lighter skin throughout Eurasia for tens of millenia prior to the neolithic selective sweep, the selective sweep of the neolithic alleles petered out toward the east (Tarim Basin and, perhaps, Lake Baikal) even though agriculture spread to latitudes comparable to those in Europe.

 

Now for a brief aside:  In any hypothesis testing, a better criteria than Popperian "falsifiability" is the Plattian "strong inference" arising from having multiple competing hypotheses that are placed under the same testing regime.  In other words, "poking holes in a theory" is sophistry unless you have one or more competing theories subjected to the same tests.  No theory is "perfect".  You have to be quantitative, not qualitative.

 

In the current circumstance, I'm offering a competing hypothesis for the neolithic selective sweep that explains the geographic limits as well as timing:

 

Dogs.

 

Paleolithic Europeans had been under symbiotic coevolution with wolves for a longer period of time than paleolithic Asians, and this coevolution had been going on for about 10,000 years (if not more) prior to the neolithic.  This produced a unique strain of human:   Everyman an alpha.  That is to say, every Euroman was the head of his own hunting pack -- his "gang" -- his "dawgs".  This resulted in a less eusocial and more individualistic strain of human.  Moreover, this strain reversed almost a million years of collectivist primate evolution going back to group conflicts (gang wars) -- behaviors apparent in our closest primate relatives:  chimps.  In wolves, "warfare" is more properly viewed as champion warfare -- with the alpha of each hunting pack doing battle with the other alpha.  Subordinate wolves skirmish but generally only one on one.  When two Euroman-headed packs encountered each other in overlapping hunting territory, a similar champion warfare conflict would obtain -- with the two humans engaging in the male sexual selection of natural duel -- as with virtually all other sexual species.  This 10,000 year symbiotic evolution with wolves produced a predisposition toward natural duel as the appeal of last resort in dispute processing that became formalized with the neolithic's increased population and migration.  Agriculture's pressures toward collectivism thence "civilization" were a natural extension of the long evolutionary history of primate gang warfare but against the grain of Euroman individualism.  Natural duel was formalized but it also impeded the penetration of civilization into northern Europe until nearly 1,000 years ago when JudeoChristianity finally pacified the last of the Euroman holdouts.  It was this sexual selection among Euromen, amplified by agriculture's population pressures, that produced sexual selection among Euro-women -- nuclear family structure, individualism, self-reliance and and explosion of diverse recessive pigmentation.

[RichardY]

"For Why? Because the good old rule Sufficeth them; the simple plan, That they should take who have the power, And they should keep who can."

 

-Rob Roy

 

 

You seem to have very in depth knowledge on Anthropology Jabowery imho. Find it funny how your profile pick looks a bit like Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy, bring up dogs talking to guy with Dogbert profile pic. I wouldn't be surprised if it was humans mimicking dogs, it's interesting how Muslims find dogs unclean, police put shoes on the dogs for searches in Muslims households. Various cultures revering certain animals or not.

[ofd]

Now for a brief aside:  In any hypothesis testing, a better criteria than Popperian "falsifiability" is the Plattian "strong inference" arising from having multiple competing hypotheses that are placed under the same testing regime.  In other words, "poking holes in a theory" is sophistry unless you have one or more competing theories subjected to the same tests.  No theory is "perfect".  You have to be quantitative, not qualitative.

 

While I still haven't read the article (blame my lack of education in biology for that) it seems that you misunderstand falsifiability testing. You don't actively try to falsify a theory or try to prove that findings fall within a hypothesis. Rather, you have a look at null hypotheses. 

 

In other words, you don't measure the probability of a hypothesis with a test data (p (H|D)), rather you test p (D|H), the probability of the test data while assuming the hypothesis to be true. Significance testing allows you avoid the problem of induction and several objections Hume had. 

[jabowery]

... you don't measure the probability of a hypothesis with a test data (p (H|D)), rather you test p (D|H), the probability of the test data while assuming the hypothesis to be true. Significance testing allows you avoid the problem of induction and several objections Hume had. 

 

What you measure about a theory with the test data is the theory's ability to losslessly compress it -- or to approximate the data's measure of Kolmogorov complexity -- prediction errors included and quantified as units of information such as bits.  This brings data, theory and error into the same dimension:  Algorithmic information.

 

This is why elsewhere in this forum I stated:  

 

If all the major databases that social scientists use to publish their papers were appended in one big file, and prizes were awarded for making ever smaller executable archives, it would totally nuke the social pseudo-scientists cum quasi-theologians.

 

This would be vastly more powerful in the good that it would do than 1000 Stefan videos.

 

Advances in artificial intelligence required rigorous formalization of "the scientific method".  

 

See "Open Problems in Universal Induction & Intelligence".