Bad choice, adoptive parents are abusive

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.


Bad blood will out.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Amplification IQ

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category
Self-report 0.39 0.06 0.55 13,329
Other report (usually parents) 0.53 0.22 0.25 6,851
Criminal records 0.33 0.42 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?


The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

  • Extraversion:           0.86
  • Openness:              0.92
  • Neuroticism:            0.59
  • Agreeableness:       0.85
  • Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

Adoption is dyscivic. It’s AA for bad parents.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.


A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s \rho = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

Inbreeding without depression

As in, normal group preference, genophilia. No mutations.

Reminds me of the study that found distant cousins most fecund.

Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.

In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.

Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.

“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.


The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.

And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.

The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.

By choice or rape?

But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.

“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived they intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.

“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”

Inbreeding is great if you have low genetic load in the participants, it preserves the health, looks and intellect of the bloodline. The breeding of good breeding was this deliberate sexual selection for fitness. It’s only a problem when you introduce mutations. They compound.

Outbreeding is far more likely to produce diseased or infertile offspring, much like a liger or a mongrel, the depression of mutations in genetic load can occur in a single generation.

Genetic culture (collectivism, individualism) paper

Over the last 30 years, social psychologists have documented an impressive array of psychocultural differences. For example, in East Asian cultures the self tends to be defined in relationship to the group, or collective, whereas in Western cultures (e.g. Europe and the nations of the former British Commonwealth) there is a greater proclivity for the self to be viewed as unique, stable and independent of the social group (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). A critical question raised by such findings is how do such cultural differences arise? Why do some groups tend towards collectivism, while others tend towards individualism?

Answering this complex question will require integrating many levels of analysis including ecological, sociological, demographic, economic, psychological and biological. A helpful means of integrating these diverse influences is to adopt a cultural neuroscience perspective (Chiao and Ambady, 2007), because the brain is the central hub where each of these influences converge. Accordingly, genes affecting brain function are likely to influence the adoption and formation of cultural norms and, conversely, culture may also shape the expression and selection of genes.

The second part is like saying horses evolved to run in front of carts.


People build on their homeland. Look at architecture. Anglo is quite specific, Germanic, France/Italian/Romantic again, specific. That’s just WEST Europe.

I know some nerd in the future will write their dissertation on how you could predict multiculturalism’s failure by America’s inability to agree on one architectural design aesthetic and I hope I’m here to read it.

Although the study of psychological genetics is in its infancy and much is still to be learned, in this article, we present data suggesting that variation in several genes known to affect brain function appear to influence the degree to which one is emotionally responsive to the social environment. We then extend this social sensitivity hypothesis to the cultural realm and present evidence indicating that it may be of relevance to the cultural construct of individualism–collectivism. Although the vast majority of genetic variation exists within populations (Lewontin, 1972), a measurable proportion of human genetic variation does exist between populations of different ancestral origins. Therefore, we examine below the relationship between population differences in cultural orientation and the relative frequency of several genetic variants thought to affect sensitivity to the social environment. In addition, we also explore potential psychological processes that may explain the effect.

They’ll catch up.

Click to access 2007Chiao.pdf

Cultural Neuroscience chapter

see page 3 or 239

“The neuroscience of culture versus race”


Cultural neuroscience: parsing universality and diversity across levels of analysis (2007)

Stop straining, sub-species (better known as race) is as real as species and genus.

Arguing for Darwin in biology is common sense, like men and women EXIST (sexual dimorphism).

Even the Creationists don’t question that.

So again, for the cheap seats:

no magic dirt, no magic equal economic cogs and no, cuckservatives, you can’t talk Asians into “acting white” and voting for small gov. They don’t even view themselves as an individual person. Stop projecting libertarian 115IQ white guy reasoning onto the entire planet. You are wrong.

And whatever their upbringing, foreigners NEVER share exactly the same culture.

Even a host culture of a hundred plus years, like blacks had in America to “integrate”.

Never gonna happen.

They’re not like a petri blank.

Fuck, look at Chinatown. In American cities or London, it’s more alike than the host nations.

Over a hundred years. What’s your excuse?

[White culture is also the easiest and nicest to integrate into, so WTF.]

East Asian are African mongrels

No, literally.
Historically they didn’t exist until recently, in the archaeological record. Recent colonialism also mingled some Euro DNA into Indians to make obvious castes but this isn’t about that, it’s about East Asians specifically and WAY before that.
They’re Mongoloid-Negroid half-breeds.
Literally. They’re the first mixed race.

I’m not kidding. Just East Asians and like I said before, the morphological similarities bear this out.

Read it and weep.

Stronger jaws, larger head overall in size and lower national IQs, huge lips.

Okay, you argue, but how do we know they actually interbred? And this wasn’t some labeling error or mistake?? Wouldn’t there be modern Africans who look Asian too? Interbreeding goes both ways, after all.

Yes, there would. Again, plenty of morphological similarities.

That’s an African girl.

Tell me there was no inter-breeding.







Asian, just to throw you off. Note the nose.

Large mouth, pronounced raised brow, pronounced nostrils, broad jaw.

The Asian one, large mouth, pronounced nostrils, raised brow, broad jaw.

I saw it before but didn’t realize we had genetic proof.

The broad flat nose with flared nostrils with characteristic dip between the eyes plus forehead bulge ALL pinged to me as African.

The profile is very African, mathematically. In profile many of the blacker ones have a very curved forehead in profile.

To test the hypotheses of modern human origin in East Asia,

because it isn’t ancient, archaeologically

we sampled 12,127 male individuals from 163 populations and typed for three Y chromosome biallelic markers (YAP, M89, and M130). All the individuals carried a mutation at one of the three sites. These three mutations (YAP+, M89T, and M130T) coalesce to another mutation (M168T), which originated in Africa about 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. Therefore, the data do not support even a minimal in situ hominid contribution in the origin of anatomically modern humans in East Asia.

A lot of weebs are gonna be pissed.

And to study the men… so that’s an African man chromosome in your waifu, she been blacked centuries ago!

Apparently Canaanites were black!

Well, if you’re sure!

They also have photos of black Asians a century ago, in case anyone wonders about more recent mixture tainting findings.

Read top study here:

To test the hypotheses of modern human origin in East Asia, we sampled 12,127 male individuals from 163 populations and typed for three Y chromosome biallelic markers (YAP, M89, and M130). All the individuals carried a mutation at one of the three sites. These three mutations (YAP, M89T, and M130T) coalesce to another mutation (M168T), which originated in Africa about 35,000 to 89,000 years ago. 


An international study has found that the Chinese people originated not from “Peking Man” in northern China, but from early humans in East Africa who moved through South Asia to China some 100,000 years ago,

Based on DNA analyses of 100,000 samples gathered from around the world, a number of human families evolved in East Africa some 150,000 years ago, said Li Hui (李輝), a member of Jin’s team.

About 100,000 years ago, some of those humans began to leave Africa, with some people moving to China via South and Southeast Asia, Li said.

According to the newspaper article, it has been proven that the “65 branches of the Chinese race” share similar DNA mutations with the peoples of East and Southeast Asia.

This all explains very well why Aboriginal Australians look SO black.

Despite being Asian, genetically.

Their ancestors evolved on the African continent and were the first modern humans to arrive in Asia, the work confirming they have occupied Australia continuously since that time, perhaps 70,000 years.

“Australians are truly one of the world’s great human populations and a very ancient one at that, with deep connections to the Australian continent and broader Asian region. About this now there can be no dispute.

“The study also confirms controversial claims that the ancestors of all living Eurasians interbred with the Neandertals,

Both Europeans and Asians, we’re distinct races by genetic distance studies.

Eurasian, like Caucasian, is a category error.

Asians also bred with Neanderthals, we knew this.

while past Asians/Oceanians also mated with the mysterious ancient humans from Denisova cave in Siberia. This is clear and independent validation of DNA work on both these extinct humans, confirming their deep connections to Australians and other indigenous people in our region.”

Wow so they’re like the most mixed race, like the race OF mixes.

At least black admixed. Dat Y chromosome, eh?

Back to the Chinese, for fun

The Han Chinese are the largest ethnic group in the world, and their origins, development, and expansion are complex. Many genetic studies have shown that Han Chinese can be divided into two distinct groups: northern Han Chinese and southern Han Chinese. The genetic history of the southern Han Chinese has been well studied. However, the genetic history of the northern Han Chinese is still obscure. In order to gain insight into the genetic history of the northern Han Chinese, 89 human remains were sampled from the Hengbei site which is located in the Central Plain and dates back to a key transitional period during the rise of the Han Chinese (approximately 3,000 years ago). We used 64 authentic mtDNA data obtained in this study, 27 Y chromosome SNP data profiles from previously studied Hengbei samples, and genetic datasets of the current Chinese populations and two ancient northern Chinese populations to analyze the relationship between the ancient people of Hengbei and present-day northern Han Chinese. We used a wide range of population genetic analyses, including principal component analyses, shared mtDNA haplotype analyses, and geographic mapping of maternal genetic distances. The results show that the ancient people of Hengbei bore a strong genetic resemblance to present-day northern Han Chinese and were genetically distinct from other present-day Chinese populations and two ancient populations. These findings suggest that the genetic structure of northern Han Chinese was already shaped 3,000 years ago in the Central Plain area.

So it’s applicable.

And some Chinese are so mixed they’re distinct from their own ancestors.

Despite the fact that the continuity of morphology of fossil specimens of modern humans found in China has repeatedly challenged the Out-of-Africa hypothesis, Chinese populations are underrepresented in genetic studies. Genetic profiles of 28 populations sampled in China supported the distinction between southern and northern populations, while the latter are biphyletic. Linguistic boundaries are often transgressed across language families studied, reflecting substantial gene flow between populations. Nevertheless, genetic evidence does not support an independent origin of Homo sapiens in China. The phylogeny also suggested that it is more likely that ancestors of the populations currently residing in East Asia entered from Southeast Asia.

East Asia is one of the few regions in the world where a relatively large number of human fossils have been unearthed–a discovery that has been taken as evidence for an independent local origin of modern humans outside of Africa. However, genetic studies conducted in the past ten years, especially using Y chromosomes, have provided unequivocal evidence for an African origin of East Asian populations. The genetic signatures present in diverse East Asian populations mark the footsteps of prehistoric migrations that occurred tens of thousands of years ago.

The timing and nature of the arrival and the subsequent expansion of modern humans into eastern Asia remains controversial. Using Y-chromosome biallelic markers, we investigated the ancient human-migration patterns in eastern Asia. Our data indicate that southern populations in eastern Asia are much more polymorphic than northern populations, which have only a subset of the southern haplotypes. This pattern indicates that the first settlement of modern humans in eastern Asia occurred in mainland Southeast Asia during the last Ice Age, coinciding with the absence of human fossils in eastern Asia, 50,000-100,000 years ago. After the initial peopling, a great northward migration extended into northern China and Siberia.


Global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup C reveals the prehistoric migration routes of African exodus and early settlement in East Asia.

The regional distribution of an ancient Y-chromosome haplogroup C-M130 (Hg C) in Asia provides an ideal tool of dissecting prehistoric migration events. We identified 465 Hg C individuals out of 4284 males from 140 East and Southeast Asian populations. We genotyped these Hg C individuals using 12 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 8 commonly used Y-short tandem repeats (Y-STRs), and performed phylogeographic analysis in combination with the published data. The results show that most of the Hg C subhaplogroups have distinct geographical distribution and have undergone long-time isolation, although Hg C individuals are distributed widely across Eurasia. Furthermore, a general south-to-north and east-to-west cline of Y-STR diversity is observed with the highest diversity in Southeast Asia. The phylogeographic distribution pattern of Hg C supports a single coastal ‘Out-of-Africa’ route by way of the Indian subcontinent, which eventually led to the early settlement of modern humans in mainland Southeast Asia. The northward expansion of Hg C in East Asia started approximately 40 thousand of years ago (KYA) along the coastline of mainland China and reached Siberia approximately 15 KYA and finally made its way to the Americas.

That’s how your so-called Natives were made, so …technically, blacks were there first?

Since Asians can be traced to Africa.


Genetic evidence of an East Asian origin and paleolithic northward migration of Y-chromosome haplogroup N.

The Y-chromosome haplogroup N-M231 (Hg N) is distributed widely in eastern and central Asia, Siberia, as well as in eastern and northern Europe. Previous studies suggested a counterclockwise prehistoric migration of Hg N from eastern Asia to eastern and northern Europe. However, the root of this Y chromosome lineage and its detailed dispersal pattern across eastern Asia are still unclear. We analyzed haplogroup profiles and phylogeographic patterns of 1,570 Hg N individuals from 20,826 males in 359 populations across Eurasia. We first genotyped 6,371 males from 169 populations in China and Cambodia, and generated data of 360 Hg N individuals, and then combined published data on 1,210 Hg N individuals from Japanese, Southeast Asian, Siberian, European and Central Asian populations. The results showed that the sub-haplogroups of Hg N have a distinct geographical distribution. The highest Y-STR diversity of the ancestral Hg N sub-haplogroups was observed in the southern part of mainland East Asia, and further phylogeographic analyses supports an origin of Hg N in southern China. Combined with previous data, we propose that the early northward dispersal of Hg N started from southern China about 21 thousand years ago (kya), expanding into northern China 12-18 kya, and reaching further north to Siberia about 12-14 kya before a population expansion and westward migration into Central Asia and eastern/northern Europe around 8.0-10.0 kya. This northward migration of Hg N likewise coincides with retreating ice sheets after the Last Glacial Maximum (22-18 kya) in mainland East Asia.

Very very mixed.

So China relates to East Asia discussions.

They moved up and into Europe, like they’re trying to do now. To be pushed back, again.

At least we didn’t have the African result like they do.

The human genetic history of East Asia: weaving a complex tapestry.

East Asia encompasses a wide variety of environments, peoples, cultures and languages. Although this review focuses on East Asia, no geographic region can be considered in isolation in terms of human population history, and migrations to and from East Asia have had a major impact. Here, we review the following topics: the initial colonization of East Asia, the direction of migrations between southeast Asia and northern Asia, the genetic relationships of East Asian hunter-gatherers and the genetic impact of various social practices on East Asian populations. By necessity we focus on insights derived from mitochondrial DNA and/or Y-chromosome data; ongoing and future studies of genome-wide SNP or multi-locus re-sequencing data, combined with the use of simulation, model-based methods to infer demographic parameters, will undoubtedly provide additional insights into the population history of East Asia.

They’re mixed but must avoid ‘hurt feelings’.

South Asia–comprising India, Pakistan, countries in the sub-Himalayan region and Myanmar–was one of the first geographical regions to have been peopled by modern humans. This region has served as a major route of dispersal to other geographical regions, including southeast Asia. The Indian society comprises tribal, ranked caste, and other populations that are largely endogamous. As a result of evolutionary antiquity and endogamy, populations of India show high genetic differentiation and extensive structuring.

aka outbreeding depression

Linguistic differences of populations provide the best explanation of genetic differences observed in this region of the world.

No, they don’t.

Within India, consistent with social history, extant populations inhabiting northern regions show closer affinities with Indo-European speaking populations of central Asia that those inhabiting southern regions. Extant southern Indian populations may have been derived from early colonizers arriving from Africa along the southern exit route. The higher-ranked caste populations, who were the torch-bearers of Hindu rituals, show closer affinities with central Asian, Indo-European speaking, populations.

Indo-European only refers to a language, stop.

Still not European, let alone isolated Anglo. Stop.


East Asia is widely concerned as one of the important places for the dispersal and evolution of the Anatomically Modern Human (AMH). How the diverse ethnic groups in East Asia originated and diversified is also widely focused by different disciplines of Anthropology. The adoption of genetic data had provided new clues for reconstructing the genetic history of East Asian populations. Genetic studies supported the hypothesis that the AMHs originated from Africa’s Homo sapiens at about 200 kilo years ago (kya) and then migrated out of Africa at ~100 kya, followed by expansions into the whole East Asia since their arrival in Southern East Asia at 5~6 kya along the coastal route.

Early Homo Sapiens might have genetic contribution to the non-African AMHs. Early settlement, cultural assimilation, population migration and genetic exchanges are crucial in the origination and evolution of East Asia populations. Previous studies made detailed analysis for the genetic history of East Asian populations, which largely resolved the longstanding divergence between archaeology and history. However, this needs further verification by whole-genome sequencing and ancient DNA studies. Here we briefly reviewed the progresses of genetic studies in exploring the population origin, dispersal and diversification in East Asia, which improved understanding of the evolution of East Asian populations. We also prospected the future of genetic studies in revealing the prehistory of East Asians.



The main unequivocal conclusion after three decades of phylogeographic mtDNA studies is the African origin of all extant modern humans.

This is a study about Asians. No.

Title: Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago.

Stay in your lane.

In addition, a southern coastal route has been argued for to explain the Eurasian colonization of these African pioneers.

new term for rapist, exotic

Based on the age of macrohaplogroup L3, from which all maternal Eurasian and the majority of African lineages originated,

doesn’t make sense, if ALL humans are from them, ALL humans would have that…

the out-of-Africa event has been dated around 60-70 kya. On the opposite side, we have proposed a northern route through Central Asia across the Levant for that expansion and, consistent with the fossil record, we have dated it around 125 kya. To help bridge differences between the molecular and fossil record ages, in this article we assess the possibility that mtDNA macrohaplogroup L3 matured in Eurasia and returned to Africa as basal L3 lineages around 70 kya.

So you’re comparing Asian fossils to African DNA, nothing to do with Europeans.


The coalescence ages of all Eurasian (M,N) and African (L3 ) lineages, both around 71 kya, are not significantly different.

Different enough to call different.

The oldest M and N Eurasian clades are found in southeastern Asia instead near of Africa as expected by the southern route hypothesis. The split of the Y-chromosome composite DE haplogroup is very similar to the age of mtDNA L3. An Eurasian origin and back migration to Africa has been proposed for the African Y-chromosome haplogroup E. Inside Africa, frequency distributions of maternal L3 and paternal E lineages are positively correlated. This correlation is not fully explained by geographic or ethnic affinities. This correlation rather seems to be the result of a joint and global replacement of the old autochthonous male and female African lineages by the new Eurasian incomers.

See pictures above.

The reservation “Americans”, genetic Asians were also well known for gang rape up until the 19th century, even of little girls.


These results are congruent with a model proposing an out-of-Africa migration into Asia, following a northern route, of early anatomically modern humans carrying pre-L3 mtDNA lineages around 125 kya, subsequent diversification of pre-L3 into the basal lineages of L3, a return to Africa of Eurasian fully modern humans around 70 kya carrying the basal L3 lineages and the subsequent diversification of Eurasian-remaining L3 lineages into the M and N lineages in the outside-of-Africa context, and a second Eurasian global expansion by 60 kya, most probably, out of southeast Asia. Climatic conditions and the presence of Neanderthals and other hominins might have played significant roles in these human movements. Moreover, recent studies based on ancient DNA and whole-genome sequencing are also compatible with this hypothesis.

So more using the Eur- of Eurasian without a shred of proof to include white people.

Still, the HBD lot should eat this up.

Whites were the original Native Americans (Clovis people)

Solutrean hypothesis. [Aside from small bands of Viking later on].

“The Solutrean-Clovis connection (more formally known as the “North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor Hypothesis”) is one theory of the peopling of the American continents that suggest that the Upper Paleolithic Solutrean culture is ancestral to Clovis. This idea has its roots in the 19th-century when archaeologists such as CC Abbott postulated that the Americas had been colonized by Paleolithic Europeans. After the Radiocarbon Revolution, however, this idea fell into disuse, only to be revived in the late 1990s by American archaeologists Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford.

Time of academic standards and real proofs.

Radiocarbon is bullshit and everyone knows it. The hard limit is a thousand years or two.

Radiocarbon Dating Becoming Unreliable

“I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.

(1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago.  This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. ”

And that’s wood, DNA dies faster but thankfully, we have skeletal forensics.

Their supposed and awfully convenient Asian DNA/Clovis finding was based on, you guessed it, radiocarbon data.
Plus a hefty pinch of BS.
“Only 1 to 2 percent of the collected DNA was human,” Willerslev said. “The rest of it came from bacteria that invaded the skeleton after death.” “Comparison studies of the ancient DNA showed that it was similar to the genomes of ancient people living in Siberia and the ancestors of East Asians.”
– Siberia is European, racially, especially at that time. So they didn’t actually disprove Solutrean whatsoever.
You also cannot compare 1% of an ancient child’s skull shavings, tops, with modern 100% human DNA.
ANY modern human. It’s well within error range for a racial study. Hypothetically, however….
If they were Asian, they’d be comparable with modern Asians including those living American tribes, not ambiguous and long-dead ‘ancestors’ of certain Asians. AKA they’re (Clovis) not actually related to the modern tribes at all claiming the name ‘Native American’, by their own admission. What does ancestors mean? Could be bloody African for all we know, because they do not explain. Could be an amoeba. Literally.

And why would they genocide their own relatives? Think.

More on Solutrean:

Bradley and Stanford argued that at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, ca 25,000–15,000 radiocarbon years ago, the Iberian peninsula of Europe became a steppe-tundra environment, forcing Solutrean populations to the coasts. Maritime hunters then traveled northward along the ice margin, up the European coast, and around the North Atlantic Sea. Bradley and Stanford pointed out that the perennial Arctic ice at the time could have formed an ice bridge connecting Europe and North America. Ice margins have intense biological productivity and would have provided a robust source of food and other resources….”

Migration proof, timing, ecosystem, food supply. All in keeping with Darwinism.

In line with other intellectually honest, more recent info e.g. A Troublesome Inheritance.

Cue bullshit cover-up.

“Evidence supporting the Solutrean theory of Clovis colonization includes two artifacts—a bi-pointed stone blade and mammoth bone—which are said to have been dredged from the eastern American continental shelf in 1970 by the scalloping boat Cin-Mar. These artifacts found their way into a museum, and the bone was subsequently dated to 22,760 RCYBP. However, according to research published by Eren and colleagues in 2015, the context for this important set of artifacts is completely missing: without a firm context, archaeological evidence is not credible.”

It’s negative evidence for the latter Asian hypotheses, you are wrong.

Appeal to credulity, fuck off with your scientism.

No artifact has context because you can’t go back in time and ask them questions, not an argument.

They literally have objects taken from areas of the earth from those time periods, no radiocarbon required.


One piece of supporting evidence cited in Stanford and Bradley’s 2012 book, ‘Across Atlantic Ice,” is the use of caching. A cache is defined as a tightly clustered deposit of artifacts that containing little or no manufacturing debris or residential debris, artifacts which appear to have been deliberately buried at the same time. For these ancient site types, caches are typically made up of stone or bone/ivory tools.

Ancient preppers, aye.

So you have undisturbed earth, specific cultural objects and known white behaviour.

Stick a fork in it, it’s done.

Bone artifacts are recorded as European and Neanderthal based. They are still used in Europe for leathercraft.

Related reading to Solutrean:

“A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast.”

Stanford and Bradley suggest that “only” Clovis (such as Anzick, Colorado and East Wenatchee, Washington) and Solutrean (Volgu, France) societies are known to have cached objects before 13,000 years ago. But there are pre-Clovis caches in Beringia (Old Crow Flats, Alaska, Ushki Lake, Siberia), and pre-Solutrean caches in Europe (Magdalenian Gönnersdorf and Andernach sites in Germany).”

“The most prominent opponent of the Solutrean connection is American anthropologist Lawrence Guy Straus.”
One guy means fuck-all. Whataboutism doesn’t work.

The proof wouldn’t be there if the peoples were not.

Since the discovery of credible Preclovis sites, Bradley and Stanford now argue for a Solutrean origin of Preclovis culture. The diet of Preclovis was definitely more maritime-oriented, and the dates are closer in time to Solutrean by a couple of thousand years—15,000 years ago instead of Clovis’s 11,500, but still short of 22,000. Preclovis stone technology is not the same as Clovis or Solutrean technologies, and the discovery of ivory beveled foreshafts at the Yana RHS site in Western Beringia has further lessened the strength of the technology argument.”

Lessened is not debunked, lessened is your claimed opinion, they just need more data (edit: found, added above). The data they have doesn’t vanish.

Above link up to 26,000 years ago now, guess they found the extra evidence they needed.

“Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, there is a growing body of molecular evidence from modern and ancient indigenous American people indicating that the original population of the Americas have an Asian, and not a European, origin.”

Conflation, intellectual dishonesty, false equivalence.

Er, studying modern people claiming a title means NOTHING to ancient ones. Non sequitur. The modern tribes are Asian based but they’re noticeably not dead under icy layers. It is mathematical certainty the modern Asians in America must’ve killed the ancient Clovis tribes. Genocide.

So there’s no thing as a Native American – that’s still alive.

Latter X2a studies essentially try to prove a negative, therefore impossible, as well as wrong.

Modern tribal Asians in America are also European-Asian mongrels, drawing any conclusions on their DNA is patently false, as it pertains to ancients. Shit in a pool is still shit.

Outside of America, the Clovis child skull study was interpreted correctly:

Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy’s origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy’s ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.


Krauts are so Asian, aren’t they?

Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas — from the Alaska’s Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes — are descended from Montana boy’s lineage.

Mongrels, discounted. Some of those the product of white female rape. Well documented into the late 19th century.

Last week, the scientists published the results of sequencing the child’s DNA in the scientific journal Nature. Late last year, the same team published the decoded genome of another early human: A juvenile buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia some 24,000 years ago. Their genomes showed surprising ancestral similarities.

That American publications forgot to mention.

Along with the entire Siberian study, really.

Totally forgot.

Not suppressed, no.

Perish the thought.

This earned Willerslev’s team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages — when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over — in greater detail than ever before.

specific DNA, mapped migration patterns, items used…. where’s the argument against now?

In the trash, where it belongs.

A third of both juveniles’ DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal’ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany’s Swabian Jura mountains.

Germans are the new Asian?

Such genetic analysis of Native American bones is highly controversial. It is a sacrilege to some. Others fear it could link their ancestors to Europeans, as this study has done. 

If you don’t like science, stop taking our antibiotics.

Gathered at the burial site, Willerslev revealed the team’s results: the remains’ age, the boy’s ancestry to native tribes of the Americas and the links to Siberia and Europe. Doyle’s reaction would determine whether or not Willerslev’s study could be published or not because the scientist had promised to destroy it if he didn’t obtain permission.

Quit your bullshit, scientism.

We don’t destroy findings because the non-whites get uppity. They raped enough white women to have that DNA, it means f-all. It doesn’t connect to ancient peoples directly, as the most PC reporters actually admit.

I’ll believe they’re related to whites when they stop taking AA.

Further reading

New book reveals Ice Age mariners from Europe were America’s first inhabitants

Some of the earliest humans to inhabit America came from Europe according to a new book Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. The book puts forward a compelling case for people from northern Spain traveling to America by boat, following the edge of a sea ice shelf that connected Europe and America during the last Ice Age, 14,000 to 25,000 years ago."Across Atlantic Ice : The Origin of America's Clovis Culture" Across Atlantic Ice is the result of more than a decade’s research by leading archaeologists Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, and Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Through archaeological evidence, they turn the long-held theory of the origins of New World populations on its head. For more than 400 years, it has been claimed that people first entered America from Asia, via a land bridge that spanned the Bering Sea. We now know that some people did arrive via this route nearly 15,000 years ago, probably by both land and sea. Eighty years ago, stone tools long believed to have been left by the first New World inhabitants were discovered in New Mexico and named Clovis. These distinctive Clovis stone tools are now dated around 12,000 years ago leading to the recognition that people preceded Clovis into the Americas. No Clovis tools have been found in Alaska or Northeast Asia, but are concentrated in the south eastern United States. Groundbreaking discoveries from the east coast of North America are demonstrating that people who are believed to be Clovis ancestors arrived in this area no later than 18,450 years ago and possibly as early as 23,000 years ago, probably in boats from Europe. These early inhabitants made stone tools that differ in significant ways from the earliest stone tools known in Alaska. It now appears that people entering the New World arrived from more than one direction.

In “Across Atlantic Ice,” the authors trace the origins of Clovis culture from the Solutrean people, who occupied northern Spain and France more than 20,000 years ago. They believe that these people went on to populate America’s east coast, eventually spreading at least as far as Venezuela in South America. The link between Clovis and contemporary Native Americans is not yet clear.

Sure it fucking is – there isn’t one.

They’ve looked and found nothing.

Bradley and Stanford do not suggest that the people from Europe were the only ancestors of modern Native Americans.

They’re mixes, duh. Heavily Asian, look at the skulls.

They argue that it is evident that early inhabitants also arrived from Asia, into Alaska, populating America’s western coast.


Their ongoing research suggests that the early history of the continent is far more intriguing than we formerly believed. Some of the archaeological evidence analyzed in the book was recovered from deep in the ocean. When the first people arrived in America, sea levels were nearly 130 meters lower than today. The shore lines of 20,000 years ago, which hold much of the evidence left by these early people, are now under the ocean. This is also the case in Europe.

We now have really solid evidence that people came from Europe to the New World around 20,000 years ago,” Bradley says. “Our findings represent a paradigm shift in the way we think about America’s early history. We are challenging a very deep-seated belief in how the New World was populated. The story is more intriguing and more complicated than we ever have imagined.” “There are more alternatives than we think in archaeology and we need to have imagination and an open mind when we examine evidence to avoid being stuck in orthodoxy,” Stanford adds. “This book is the result of more than a decade’s work, but it is just the beginning of our journey.” Across Atlantic Ice is published by University California Press, Berkeley.–Source University of Exeter

But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]


The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)

e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

Cellular memory transfer and GMO human babies

At the School of Nursing at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, researchers sought to evaluate whether changes experienced by organ transplant recipients were parallel to the history of the donor. Researchers focused on 10 patients who received a heart transplant and found two to five parallels per patient post-surgery in relation to their donor’s history. The parallels that were observed in the study were changes in food, music, art, sexual, recreational, and career preferences in addition to name associations and sensory experiences. In the study, a patient received a heart transplant from a man who was killed by gunshot to the face, and the organ recipient then reported to have dreams of seeing hot flashes of light directly on his face.

Yet they won’t spring for 3D printing.

Hope the new liver doesn’t turn you gay.

The nurture people can’t really explain this, especially changes in politics.

Either that or the people are literally being haunted. Isn’t organ donation a kinda necromancy, if you think about it?

If it was dead, it is. If it wasn’t, a person was murdered. Either explains the almost haunting plot of these ‘memories’.

artificially breeding twin babies with genes resistant to HIV.

stolen European genes developed with plague resistance?

We already exist.

“Similarly, professors of genetics at Berkeley, Rasmus Nielsen and Xinzhu Wei, have proven that people of British ancestry with the CCR5 mutation have a 21 percent higher risk of dying between the ages 41 and 78. The information was acquired from the U.K. Biobank, a database with genetic informatic on nearly half a million U.K. citizens.”

Removing a gene is not a simple thing, it could be there for important reasons.

It is NOT a code. It’s a living being.

“The scientists are of the view that laws of natural selection intended for human beings to have the gene, since the protein is required for various functional purposes and if it were dangerous, the protein would have been destroyed by evolution naturally.”

White human beings.

“The CCR5-∆32 mutation is found in 11 percent of Northern Europeans and is uncommon in Asians, so unfortunately Jiankui’s genetic alteration has no sample to predict its results. Only time will tell.”

Asia wants to genocide us. The only reason they’d want to steal our genetic advantages. War.

If we’re still alive, why do they need to snip out parts of our DNA now? Why the urgency? White people have a right to our own DNA, exclusively. We evolved that through events like civil wars and the Ice Age, we earned it.

It belongs to us.

Genetic AA wouldn’t even be good for them.

Technically they wouldn’t be Asian anymore but transracial. But we evolve as complete beings for a reason. If you cut and paste, you’ll actually harm the organism. The foreign cells still react to the white DNA. Various disease risks, morons. Ah, but it isn’t about HIV, is it? They suppose a nootropic effect, all these Asian-stealing open borders DNA experiments are about muh IQ. North Europeans are the clue.

But wait, why steal white DNA if, as they claim, they’re already superior?

Cause they lyin’.

Link: mixed race marriage and biological problems

Parents do not give equal shares of genes to their child, this is a myth.

The party with more recessive genes e.g. white, will be less than 50% of a genetic parent to their mixed child.

“In evolutionary terms, one could argue that mixed-race marriages are maladaptive in that they reduce a person’s overall genetic fitness – i.e. passing on copies of one’s own genes.  In a multiracial marriage or relationship, one is showing altruism toward a partner who shares fewer genes than a co-ethnic would share.  A parent will also share fewer genes with a multiracial child than with a same-race child.”

Study the in/fertility of the mixed kids, that’s also a doozy.

If it’s well known their organs don’t work properly, that includes the gonads.

Cavalli-Sforza’s team compiled extraordinary tables depicting the “genetic distances” separating 2,000 different racial groups from each other. For example, assume the genetic distance between the English and the Danes is equal to 1.0. Then, Cavalli-Sforza has found, the separation between the English and the Italians would be about 2.5 times as large as the English-Danish difference. On this scale, the Iranians would be 9 times more distant genetically from the English than the Danish, and the Japanese 59 times greater. Finally, the gap between the English and the Bantus (the main group of sub-Saharan blacks) is 109 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish.”

Hey sub-race, they still won’t discuss you.

Using the genetic distances outlined above, let’s look at two hypothetical multiracial marriages.

An English Man and a Japanese Woman:  As genetic distance figures above note, an English man would be around 59 times more closely related to a Dane than to his Japanese wife. 

aka the joke in this

Why would you willingly take on a genetic disability, to be trendy?

Bloody anti-white cucks. Well, at least they impair their own idiotic genetics.

Regarding the individual’s genetic investment in the second example above, Frank Salter (On Genetic Interests, pg. 261) writes:

“For a person of English ethnicity, choosing an English spouse over a Dane gains less than one percent fitness. But choosing an English spouse over a Bantu, one yields a fitness gain of 92 percent….  The same applies in reverse order, so that a Bantu who chooses another Bantu instead of someone of English ethnicity has 92% more of his or her genes in offspring as a result.  It is almost the equivalent to having twice the number of children with an English spouse.

Genetic preservation, also to be encouraged in other races.

If you want to annoy a Europhile, point out they’re pushing for the preservation of the white race.

Thus assortative mating by ethnicity can have large fitness benefits, the largest derived from choosing mates within geographic races.”

In other words and general terms, a white mother will be almost as twice as closely related to a child with a white father versus a child with a black father.  Because same-race parents share more genes,  each parent is likely to see more of his or her genes in the offspring even if they are not passed on directly.  For example, if the father has gene X and doesn’t pass it on directly to his son, there’s a good chance his same-race spouse will have gene X and pass it on, so the son will indirectly possess the father’s gene X.

Noting phenotype in mixed-race children, each parent would more closely resemble co-ethnics than their own child, especially the white mother, since whites tend to have recessive traits for appearance.  (A person only 1/16 black will often still have visible and prominent black features.)

And appearance does matter.  The fact that mixed-race children do not resemble the parents, esp. the fairer parent, seems to be an issue of concern, although not widely discussed.

Hey, you wanted attention. You got it.

it is unsurprising that mixed-race children suffer more problems of identity and health.  For instance, mixed-race people are less likely to survive organ transplants, especially bone marrow transplants.  In general, mixed-race people have more health problems. A study by J. Richard Udry notes:

“A new study that involved surveying 90,000 adolescent U.S. students showed that those who considered themselves to be of mixed race were more likely than others to suffer from depression, substance abuse, sleep problems and various aches and pains. Conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the National Institutes of Health, the investigation found that adolescents of mixed race were more likely to have other health problems as well.”

It’s child abuse, if we’re honest.

For the parent’s fetish or vanity.

In other words, an argument could be made that mixed-race families are maladaptive — both for the parents and the children  — and undermine one’s genetic interests.

Hybrid weakness, it seems.

Human history was polyandry

Most women got their top choice. If a woman has her pick of the men, that’s polyandry.

So, sure, genetically polygamy has a long history… most men would hate that system though.

But eggs (and the carrier) are expensive, sperm is worthless.


That is not a bad thing. Selecting out the weak are the ones whose offspring wouldn’t have survived long anyway. Humanity would’ve died out if they didn’t choose the healthy and civilized.

By low IQ alone, a sizable number of men should be rejected.

Insufficient men existed genetically for so-called hypergamy, a marriage detail of the 20th century where rich men preferred beauty in women (regardless of background, given the finite supply in their own class, they had to marry down) which has NOT continued into this one (aka not how evolution works). The social phenomena of hypergamy is why male sexual selection fails, it’s dysgenic, they fuck down and over generations, ruin their bloodline because they don’t have any decent standards (dating studies reinforce this). They prefer a pair of marginally nicer tits over quality descendants (see IQ/class studies, regression to the mean) who actually continue to breed (so their investment was not wasted).

To this day, white women are least likely to miscegenate, and yet men, knowing the ruin that follows, are somehow more open (sexually desperate) to the prospect. This is why women are the prudent, selecting sex, the peahens assessing the tail feathers. It’s the only system that works intergenerationally.

Monogamy is still the best course in my opinion (or look at the Third Worlds with too many men and not enough war falling into sewer-exploding chaos), the way humans have evolved in civilization (not like other primates) and it’s definitely the best course for men.

You know, mathematically.

Men save time picking a good woman, impressing a vast sample size of ONE and then mate guarding. Their instincts arise from ancestors’ success with this. Parental attachment becomes secure and that leads to stable child development e.g. later menarche, and then improves odds of grandchildren, etc… etc.

[Being a sterile manwhore means nothing in evolution.]

This isn’t about man feelings, thank you. It’s as impersonal as genetics.

From here on out, no normie filter.

You have been warned.

Much is written by foolish men on the longer technical male fertility window, omitting quality studies, but what they fail to notice is how the vast majority of men would’ve been dead by middle age (mid-30s) thanks to rites of passage, crime, war and disease. The best quality men had to be rewarded for surviving somehow.

They bring up wolf packs (one, monogamous alpha pair) and lion prides (most males are dead) without the slightest glimmer of self-awareness.


The cuck thing intrigued women because it seemed like quality men were getting their act together by refusing to support the weak ones any longer, letting the entitled leeches of society e.g. deadbeats, shrivel up without the taxpayer teat. It’s more a promise. Why did women vote for Trump? ACTION.

Hillary wanted to import weak, cowardly men to flood their already swelling domestic angry ranks of would-be rapists and murderers.

Women didn’t vote for her. Shocker.

“If I hated American men and wanted their legacy to die out, I’d convince them women are like the Jewish Lilith and never to marry or have kids (both of which extend male lifespan and joy).”

Anyone who falls for it deserves to die out.

Women didn’t talk about #killallmen because, well, we kill most of them by genetic suicide anyway. What’s there to say?

Why was this such a huge hit? Listen.

He didn’t think she was good enough, so she rejects him. Now he’s alone.

She wanted to invest, he didn’t. Now he can’t find equivalent offers.

What was she supposed to do, sit around and pine while her ovaries dried up? He had at least three years! That’s three decades in ovary time! Shit or get off the pot, man.

It’s like passing up on a Ferrari because it’s the wrong colour. Men are not passive.

[Also why fronting and negging do not work. Sir, there is a LINE. Please move over so the next guy can talk. You see this in clubs.]

Men get confused since women have options – it’s like offering BBQ to a vegan or a Prius to a Trump supporter, we don’t want those options.

We’d rather have NOTHING.

What’s worse for men – there’s no such thing as “alpha” or there is, and you aren’t one?

So why don’t women talk about it?

We do, you don’t hear it.

At no point did Jesus say “and thus every man is entitled to a waifu” but a lot of men heard it.

The perfect woman of proverbs 31 wears purple silks to make her husband look good but they point to the vain line in another section about pearl braids their husband can’t afford. The problem there isn’t jewelry and fashion, it’s keeping up with the Joneses instead of being a good wife. If you can be a good wife first, roll on the pearls.

Even under so-called polygyny, the women get to choose to marry – the best man, rejecting N-1 of males.

Again, basic maths.

However, this was in there:

I’m sure they forgot.

To be friendzoned, you must actually be friends.

Most people are acquaintances.

Hey guys, I am very smart for saying this but – water is wet?

Why are misogynists so common and misandrists so rare?

To this day, I haven’t seen a misandrist go on a murder spree.

Thousands of years and counting. They have cause, look at crime stats.

What are they doing in revenge? You don’t see a future together? Funny, so does she.

Imagine if women sent an influx of vag pics to Milo. It looks like an audition.

Why do we ‘slut shame’? Fine, I’ll humour you. They don’t choose good men, allow bad behaviour that inconveniences everyone and add shit to the gene pool. Nobody wants shit in their pool.

You let the men think they run everything while killing off the ones who disrespect you.

And that’s why you are here.

The top segment of men support this, by the way, roll on Patriarchy, time of oddly fatal male labour? Abortion only for rape babies? Lots and lots of ground war? Why did Marx point out class war as crushing men? Men are their own worst enemy.

Try to deny it to yourself with each passing year. Women win, just accept it and maybe you can share in it.

Why do “male feminists” turn out to be secretly misogynist the whole time?
Why do they have a reputation for rejection?

This is why weaker men wanted to prevent women from deciding for themselves who to marry.

Evolution is brutal and cannot abide weakness. Mother Nature.

Your ancestors were the least misogynistic of the bunch, it’s selective breeding like domesticating dogs. And you think, to keep women in line and producing for society, being the exception will help you? Ask Elliot how that went. Product of hypergamy Elliot. Angry, mongrel Elliot, who blamed women instead of his father who didn’t want a white son. Cannon fodder in saner times. Not heir material. Why did he preferentially stab Asian males?

Misogynists hate women – but they hate men even more. Most psychopaths are misogynists, most psychopaths are men, most homicide victims are….. ?

Did ya guess? It’s men. If only there were a clever way for nature to resolve this problem. To produce a… civilization?

They don’t become crazy because they’re bachelors, they are bachelors because they are crazy.

If women are crazy, why want them?

As mentioned here and elsewhere, misogyny is a known trait of the inferior male.

Good men don’t despise femininity. Rich people don’t hate the banks.

If you had to choose a man to invest in, would you choose a protector or abuser?

Good men use the death penalty to remove the scum from the gene pool, women use passivity with not a drop of blood spilled and each generation progressively more peaceful. Until the weak men imported more dregs out of spite. What do they salivate over? Men being killed in terror attacks, no valor and women being raped, no choice.

That is the omega.

Omega females want pretty women to have ugly, stupid or mud babies. You can’t be out-competed by a better bloodline that doesn’t exist. Again, spite is evil. Wrath is a deadly sin.

That picture needs two fewer dogs and two more children. Ban pets and the white birth rate would skyrocket.

Remember, Muslims hate dogs? Pattern recognition is a skill.

Why in times of war do women say of men in praise “he was a good man, he didn’t deserve to die”, what does that imply?