“Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

Also, are readily identifiable clusters of genes corresponding to traditional continental ethnic groups. Two groups that form distinct clusters are likely to exhibit different frequency distributions over various genes, leading to group differences.

MAO-A variants which place people at greater risk of aggressive behaviour (in combination with childhood maltreatment) also show different frequency distributions across groups.

http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1250/2441/

http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2007/01/metric-on-space-of-genomes-and.html

Also, note global crime rates are consistent with the rates observed by Liddle.

Rushton, J.P., & Whitney, G. (2002). Cross-national variation in violent crime rates: Race, r-K theory, and income. Population and Environment, 23, 501-511

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/P&E%20Crime.pdf

I think most people, y’know black, brown, white etc, would see what Ogundele and Jolie did as pretty abhorrent.

I am Scottish. Am I supposed to excuse Scottish killers on the basis that they are Scottish? Well, I don’t think I will and I doubt any black person would excuse Ogundele or Jolie either.

It is a messed up arguement.

What a horrible pair of self centred egoists they were.

But it wasn’t about their attempted murder, was it? He was frothing on how frightful black people are. As a rule of thumb, I’d assume people are against young men trying to drown their pregnant girlfriends unless otherwise stated, particularly when it’s of only tangential relevance.

Given that Ogundele and Jolie’s attempted murder was what prompted Rod Liddle to write that article in the first place, your disregard for the facts is incredible. TNB.

In fairness, even the crazier commenters at LC don’t declare direct lineage from Odin, but chacun a son gout. That’s “each to their own”, in more ethnically-patriotic language. Cheerio, though.

You seem to have picked a good spot for it here, plenty of suitable cases for treatment I should have thought.

Well I have enjoyed our little chat but since you appear to not have much new or of interest to impart I’ll say cheerio for now.

I may pop back in from time to time to see whether Unity ever gets round to finishing off his magnum opus. I do hope we haven’t put him off.

And not racist at all, apparently.

Please don’t mention it, it’s the very least I could do for someone who gets her very own profile on normblog and who’s not even Jewish! At least I’m assuming that’s the case. There aren’t any Jewish Abos, are there?

By the way blacks can be ethno-nationalists too and very often are.

Oh OK then you can stay.

Thank you Massa.

So “ethno-nationalist” is the new non black, is it?

My family are more or less equal parts Irish, Scots and English, but I could no more give a shit whether my very distant ancestors were from Atlantis or Madeupistan than I do about your hilarious “My folks have been here since the Paleolithic/And anyway, the Romans were white too” gags.

The country I live in is unrecognisable from the one that existed even three centuries ago, and I can take plenty of pride in it and its people as they actually exist without having to resort to some half-arsed, Zeppelin-esque ethnic fantasy about my ancestors stomping around ancient Britain looking like Beowulf for a false sense of security and superiority.

Why not grasp the opportunity presented and generate some much-needed new blog traffic by coming up with a bunch of catchy new sector titles for things you and chums don’t care for.

Because I’m not a propagandist or even a political activist. I’m not interested in banging the drum for any of the people, causes or trends that you so clearly despise; I am, however, interested clearing away some of the wackier ideological baggage from the crowded aisle of our national discourse. I reckon nutty ideologues should be exposed as such and that publicity generally works, especially when combined with pointing and laughing.

Now this, uttered by you under the category “Things you and your chums don’t care for”…

…the Free Speech Industry

You are writing this under a post that explicitly urges you to state your opinions and have them judged by the public at large, and a thread filled with affirmation and reaffirmation of that principle. What you mean here is “your right to disseminate racist propaganda without being called racist,” which is on a par with my “right” to fart in a crowded lift without everyone using the words “fart” or “smell”.

(“Racism” is) a leading indicator that your adversary is an intellectual pigmy who confuses name-calling for argumentation.

Ho ho, always with the name-calling, those intellectual pygmies. How unjust when an Englishman can’t characterise his country as “infested by darkies” without the horrible liberals using the R-word.

I see though that you are now calling yourselves “ethno-nationalists” rather than the more obvious “white supremacists” or just plain “racists”. I have to warn you that this ruse will likely disguise you for about a week and a half, since public revulsion at your politics isn’t based on branding – it’s based on your politics. You could call yourselves “Furry Bouncy Puppy Nationalists” and within months, the voting public would be skipping over the the new FBPN Party on their ballots towards parties that aren’t filled with racists, conspiracy nuts, cranks, misanthropes and thugs.

they’re all angling for the ethnic vote

Of course they are. I imagine Phil Woolas is quite the heartthrob amongst young black and Asian girls.

You’re Scotch right, so how about a Sassenachs Out Industry. That’ll go down a bomb with your mates I’d have thought.

IHow I would love to see you come to Scotland and sit down with a few of our small minority of racist nationalists. It’d be interesting to see how you deal with ridiculous arguments on ethnicity, race and tradition when the boot is on the other foot.

That’s the silly thing about fringe reactionaries. They’re more PC than an outreach worker from Haringey.

So, what are we supposed to make of mixed race couples or their children? A good thing or a bad thing. You haven’t been exactly explicit about that yet, have you?

Yes it is. It is intended to be taken in that sense by the native population in order to pre-empt any resistance to the ongoing process of future mongrelisation. The fact that you personally don’t perceive it as a slight is neither here nor there. It is deployed for the purpose I describe even to the extent of forming part of the indoctrination that our children receive at school. The plain fact of the matter is that native Britons are not racial mongrels in any scientifically-meaningful sense any more than are native Chinese or native Nigerians, so it not simply untrue but also an insult to anyone with any pride in their ancestry and heritage. Which seems to exclude you own goodself.

Which is one major reason why I don’t fancy shooting the shit with your pals.

Ah well, we’ll consider it our loss. You could have taught us so much.

As for the various “industries” you’re talking about, I’m at a bit of a loss. We don’t refer to the “Social Worker Industry” or the “Cutting People Out Of Wrecked Cars Industry,” yet these are publicly-funded jobs from which people definitely profit. OTOH, I’ve heard of the “No-win-no-fee industry,” largely from people who hate it and want it destroyed. Coincidentally, the other “industries” you dislike here are all ones that deal with immigrants.

There you go see. Why not grasp the opportunity presented and generate some much-needed new blog traffic by coming up with a bunch of catchy new sector titles for things you and chums don’t care for. How about the Free Speech Industry, or the Freedom of Association Industry? Maybe also the People Who Object to Their Homeland Being Infested by Darkies Industry. I’m sure you can come with some good ones on your own. You’re Scotch right, so how about a Sassenachs Out Industry. That’ll go down a bomb with your mates I’d have thought.

You’ll notice that we’ve had an election in the last five years where immigration was a major factor, and the party pushing the issue lost to Tony Blair, whose personal slipperiness and dishonesty was public knowledge at the time.

You’re not talking about the one where the Nasty Party threatened to crack down on asylum abuse, introduce strong border controls and bring in an Australian-style points based ‘managed’ migration system, are you? It’s no wonder they didn’t get elected, putting forward such an airy-fairy scheme that anyone could see was going to turn out to be totally ineffective. Or was it the BNP? I forget now, it’s hard to tell these mainstream parties apart these days, they’re all angling for the ethnic vote.

You’d have thought though that it might have dawned on either Tweedledee or Tweedledum by now that when 70% or more of the electorate flag a single issue as being of great significance for them, it might just be something that could be usefully latched onto for one or the other’s benefit. As it is, they seem quite satisfied to ignore the issue and alienate around half the electorate who choose to stay at home rather than turn out to vote for parties that don’t have their interests at heart.

141. FlyingRodent

If you’d rather be called a “non-believer in the multicultural state” than a racist because you find the latter upsetting and unpleasant….

I don’t find it upsetting or unpleasant, merely tedious and puerile. It’s a leading indicator that your adversary is an intellectual pigmy who confuses name-calling for argumentation. But if you insist on placing everybody you disagree with into a neatly-labelled pigeonhole, then I’d like to be called an ethno-nationalist if it’s all the same to you. Thanks.

What is immigration for and how has it benefitted us non-migrants?

I feel very wounded. I’m an immigrant to the UK. My non-migrant employers tell me I give a strong performance at work and I buy drinks for my non-migrant friends. I spend money at non-migrant shops and pay taxes to the non-migrant government. I appreciate the non-migrant countryside and non-migrant culture and write about them at length on my blog. Non-migrant people have been kind enough to say that they’d miss me if I returned to my very own non-migrant home.

However, I don’t know if I’d pass the DNA test.

If you’d rather be called a “non-believer in the multicultural state” than a racist because you find the latter upsetting and unpleasant, whatever the dictionary definition of “racist” is, no doubt someone somewhere will accommodate that. I never had you down as a believer in political correctness, though.

No, it isn’t. For it to be a pejorative term in this sense, I would have to attach some particular importance to the concept of a pure-bred idealised “British” race that is in some way superior to every other on the planet or any mix thereof. The idea that having a very mixed – i.e. “mongrel” – heritage is somehow inferior is one that I leave to white supremacists.

Which is one major reason why I don’t fancy shooting the shit with your pals. Attempting to convince the type of person who spends their spare time sniffing their own DNA for ethnic purity that racism is a bullshit enterprise is nobody’s idea of an entertaining or productive night in, for much the same reasons that would put me off arguing for the wisdom of Pope Benedict with a bunch of Orangemen.

Doesn’t the prospect of evangelising to a whole new flock of potential converts, perhaps even saving some souls in the process, have any appeal?

You appear to have mistaken me for someone who is particularly concerned about your opinions or those of your readers. I can assure you that’s not the case – I write posts on my own blog for fun, and sometimes sites like LibCon choose to republish them.

I’ll leave the evangelising to people who are great campaigners and joiners of political parties. If you want to take your opinions to the public and let them decide, then be my guest. I suggest you start with the stuff about your Mum’s paleolithic heritage.

As for the various “industries” you’re talking about, I’m at a bit of a loss. We don’t refer to the “Social Worker Industry” or the “Cutting People Out Of Wrecked Cars Industry,” yet these are publicly-funded jobs from which people definitely profit. OTOH, I’ve heard of the “No-win-no-fee industry,” largely from people who hate it and want it destroyed. Coincidentally, the other “industries” you dislike here are all ones that deal with immigrants.

Of the various other “industries” you’re talking about here, I’ll quickly go for the one I know most about – the Human Rights Lawyers Association is not a crack team of 1600 ambulance chasers ready to leap into action. It’s a glorified information-sharing network for lawyers who are qualified to deal with cases with human rights elements – the number of pure human rights challenges in the UK are negligible, and usually restricted to London.

There isn’t anywhere near enough work for 1600 lawyers on human rights in the UK, because most local authorities have made sure they’re compliant with the Convention, which is not particularly taxing. If you want a human rights lawyer in Scotland, for instance, I can think of one medium-sized law firm and two one-bloke-and-a-secretary operations that might possibly take your case, maybe. There’s your “industry,” right there – assuming anyone else is still paying attention, they can take on everything else.

That doesn’t seem to deter present-day cultural marxists from falling back on the old reliable standby of denouncing anyone who questions their orthodoxy as mentally disturbed, as you have succinctly demonstrated during the course of our little chinwag.

There’s a reason why it’s an old reliable standby, and it isn’t the UK’s cultural Marxism. You’ll notice that we’ve had an election in the last five years where immigration was a major factor, and the party pushing the issue lost to Tony Blair, whose personal slipperiness and dishonesty was public knowledge at the time. I won’t say good luck if you want to give it a bash yourself, but I don’t fancy your chances.

Just because someone compiles a set of statistics based upon skin colour still doesn’t mean it’s sensible to group people of the same colour together for the purposes of asking “what have they done for us”. There’s no “they” there. It’s not a coherent basis upon which to judge collective value. That you have chosen to do so is basically racism.

Yes, I know it was very naughty of me to use the government’s own classification scheme as a basis for distinguishing between different groups of non-indigenes, but it mitigation I’d like it noted that in using the ‘what have blacks ever done for us?’ meme I was semi-ironically parroting Mr. FR’s pythonesque rhetoric.

The question that I would really like answered is: “What is immigration for and how has it benefitted us non-migrants?” So far nobody here has chosen to grasp that particular nettle, perhaps Unity will when he publishes the final installment of his series on immigration. If he doesn’t, I will raise it again there too.

Let me just deal with the Freud thing first and then we’ll get on to the r-word. So no, I haven’t read him myself and am relying upon the conclusions of others who have and whose opinions I respect. Is it actually necessary though to have read everything ever published before being qualified to express an opinion? I am prepared to go along with the general point that race is one of the weaker factors on which group coherence can be measured, but am unclear how that precludes the sorting of population groups by various parameters (eg IQ, propensity to criminality, etc) on racial grounds.

On to the r-word. It is a depressingly familiar experience at venues such as this one for non-believers in the multicultural state or those who question standard mantras such as ‘diversity is our strength’ that sooner, rather than later, an adversary will always resort to playground-style name-calling. The very act of objecting to one’s homeland being demographically transformed into something that few actually want and none ever asked for is apparently ipso facto evidence of racist belief. If such objection is the mark of a racist then I plead guilty as charged, M’lud.

Fair enough. I have no reason to doubt your veracity. If you claim you have DNA evidence that your ancestors arrived in Britain 11 thousand and 2,100 years ago and never inter-bred with anyone who arrived later than that then so be it. You are aware, however, that such a lineage puts you in a tiny minority, though, right? And to base residence rights on such a lineage is utterly impractical.

I’m not aware of having called for residence rights to be based on evidence of such an improbably remote possibility. It is obvious that such interbreeding will have taken place over such a long historical period. But that obscures the point that even the ‘invaders’ were (until very recently) of practically identical genetic stock to the existing population and that they stopped coming a thousand years ago. Since then there had been almost no alteration to the genetic profile of the population until the 1950s.

On the other hand, DNA testing might be helpful for someone whose recent family history is unknown or unclear. The vast majority of the population know their antecedents and where they were born. If not, it is relatively simple to find out, at least as far back as 1837.

That must’ve been quite a genealogy project, if you can accurately trace your family tree back thousands of years before the beginning of recorded history.

I didn’t say family tree, that’s something you’ve decided to assume off your own bat in obvious ignorance of how DNA tests work. Glance back to #122 and re-read what I actually wrote.

Further, it’s amazing to meet a modern British citizen whose ancestry is completely untouched by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans or any other of the millions of invaders who have conquered or colonised Britain in the last two millenia.

It would be amazing, I agree. It would also be rather hard to distinguish anyone who did have Norman or Anglo-Saxon ancestry since since they are genetically indistinguishable from the rest of the population who share the same HG. Although as more and more subclades are discovered it is getting easier to perform geographic clustering. The mutation that distinguishes my own paternal line, for example, appears to have originated in the Rhineland around 4,500 kya. Romans are another matter and their presence probably accounts for some of the small amount of J2 and E1b1b present in the British population, although the Romans themselves were of course as Indo-European as the rest of us.

I propose to you that, if your assertion is true, then your parents arrived in Britain via time machine. Or – and I throw this out there purely for discussion – you are living in a hilarious fantasyland of ethnic purity and are made of the same mongrel stock as the rest of us.

‘Mongrel stock’ is a simply a pejorative deployed by immigration enthusiasts in support of their false pronouncements that we are a ‘nation of immigrants’. Well, the scientific consenses is clear that we are not, at least we didn’t used to be. The genetic profile of the population of the British Isles remained essentially unchanged for a thousand years until large-scale non-European migration started little more than two generations ago. Britain is becoming mongrelised it’s true, but that is a very recent innovation.

@132 FlyingRodent

Insofar as “let everyone say exactly what they think and let them be judged accordingly by their audience” is a strategy, then yes. This has an excellent democratic pedigree in ensuring that extremists stay marginalised, which is much to the good of everyone who isn’t a nutter themselves.

Fair enough, it is a two-way street you know.

While your invitation is very kind, I suspect it would prove about as productive as shouting into a bucket.

Well you’ll never know until you tried it will you? Doesn’t the prospect of evangelising to a whole new flock of potential converts, perhaps even saving some souls in the process, have any appeal? If you don’t at least make a token effort at outreach your audience may start to develop thoughts that your faith may not as robust as you’d have them believe.

And in denying the existence of an immigration industry, how else then would you collectively characterise the following organisations, each of which is wholly or partly dependent on public funds to continue in existence: the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (membership 1000 plus), the Immigration Advisory Service, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Refugee Action, the Refugee Council, to name just a few? Add to this the myriad governmental departments and quangos that facilitate, one way or another, the migrant stream and you looking at a very sizeable operation indeed.

If it’s evidence of a human rights industry you seek, look no further than the Human Rights Lawyers Association with its current membership of over 1600. Diversity and equality? Well, we can start off with the EHRC and its £70 million budget, and add to that the literally countless diversity specialists that have been added to the public payrolls since the introduction of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act of 2000. As a result of a FoI request I was able able to determine that a middle-sized borough council in the Northwest (population around 200,000) has a full time staff of twenty in its ‘Ethnic Diversity Staff’, and a further six staff managing the council’s use of outside interpreters.

Industry doesn’t even come close.

Indeed. If only the Sheeple would wake up and watch these Youtube videos -in which you can clearly see a hovering Socialist fighter jet firing murderous Somalis into the burning World Trade Centre, causing it to collapse – they would all agree intensely with your opinions.

‘Show them the money’ has an even more salutary effect, in my experience.

*Or call it people being “fooled by political correctness” if you prefer – cut it however you like, and it’s still standard Commie rhetoric, and look how well they’ve fared in the UK in the past century or so.

That doesn’t seem to deter present-day cultural marxists from falling back on the old reliable standby of denouncing anyone who questions their orthodoxy as mentally disturbed, as you have succinctly demonstrated during the course of our little chinwag.

Dear Dunc:

Given that that close to 90% of males in the British Isles share one of three of haplogroups (I1, R1b or R1a), the last of which entered the Isles more than 1,000 years ago and more than three-quarters of females are members of one of three HGs that all date back to the UP, it’s a fair bet that anyone whose deep paternal and maternal ancestry demonstrates such a lineage has an ancestry which consists of these HGs. Especially someone whose gggparents were also born in the Isles.

What is also true is that anyone whose deep paternal and maternal ancestry does not indicate one of the stated HGs is not indigenous.

So you see, there is no problem slight or otherwise.

paternal side 2100 bc approx, maternal side sometime during the upper paleolithic

I presume you’re referring to a combination of Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA analysis there… There’s just one slight problem – Y-chromosome only gives you information about the direct male line (father, father’s father, father’s father’s father, etc) and mtDNa only gives you information about the direct female line (mother, mother’s mother, mother’s mother’s mother, etc). Neither can tell you anything at all about the vast majority of your antecedents who are not on either line (father’s mother, mother’s father, and so on). In any given generation N, you have 2^N ancestors, and these techniques can only tell you about exactly 2 of them. Unless, of course, your family has been sustained entirely by the marriage of bothers and sisters for the duration in question…

I suppose it might except that, last time I checked, they don’t compile the immigration stats by footie club affiliation. Wouldn’t betting though that a goodly number are bloody Man Yoo supporters.

Just because someone compiles a set of statistics based upon skin colour still doesn’t mean it’s sensible to group people of the same colour together for the purposes of asking “what have they done for us”. There’s no “they” there. It’s not a coherent basis upon which to judge collective value. That you have chosen to do so is basically racism.

Which isn’t an attempt to shut down discussion or to condemn you as a person. “Racism is the water through which we swim” as a wise man once said. To a greater or lesser degree it’s part of most of us. The point is though, that it’s an irrational part. Therefore we are obliged to overcome it — to swim against the current so to speak — if we wish to speak or act rationally or sensibly.

There are indeed those who seek to shut down debate by screaming “racist”. I’m not one of them though. My goal has always been to reach a point of understanding. Mutual understanding if at all possible. So when I hear racist views I’m more interested in pointing out the inherent irrationality of those views, in the hope that the person who holds them will try to justify them rationally (to themself, not me, I couldn’t give a toss what your personal justifications might be). Once it sinks in that there is no evidence that ascribing specific beliefs or behaviour to groups based upon skin tone has a rational basis (see my mugger / doctor analogy, above, for instance) then — if the racist is also someone who seeks understanding above point-scoring (more optimism than expectation, I admit) — an attempt might be made to arrive at a more evidence-based belief system.

In my book describing something as being comprehensively demolished by Freud (…) is praise of the highest order. The only higher accolade might be that Franz Boas had been implacably opposed as well.

As it happens, I used to hold very similar views about Freud. Though in my case, I initially rejected him from a left-feminist perspective, which — something tells me — isn’t your position.

Then, however, I actually spent a few years studying psychoanalytic theory and discovered to my shock that Freud’s work has been systematically misrepresented for the best part of a century (almost as much by his own followers as by his detractors, bizarrely). I wonder therefore whether you have actually studied Freud, or are basing your position on hearsay and prejudice?

I ask the question not because I think you’re being deliberately intellectually dishonest (genuinely) but because on the subject of Freud, half the world are basing their position on the spurious analysis of post-Freudians and the other half (me among them for a long time) on the spurious analysis of his detractors; while few have actually read the source material.

Now now Jimbo, even the products of what is still laughably called the British educational system will be aware, even if you aren’t, that what is now Britain was only re-colonised around 11 kya. Let’s not be letting the side down with daft remarks eh?

Well, you said “Upper Paleolithic” which marks out a period between 10 and 40 thousand years ago. I took a random date within that period. Thing is, I’m not a product of the British education system (except for my first degree — which wasn’t in paleontology), so the prehistoric ins-and-outs of one particular European island never really came up at school.

And yes, I’m willing to show you my markers if you’ll show me yours.

Fair enough. I have no reason to doubt your veracity. If you claim you have DNA evidence that your ancestors arrived in Britain 11 thousand and 2,100 years ago and never inter-bred with anyone who arrived later than that then so be it. You are aware, however, that such a lineage puts you in a tiny minority, though, right? And to base residence rights on such a lineage is utterly impractical.