I agree one-hundred percent with the main thrust of Dienekes' exposition and have no idea who Arthur Kemp is (beyond having seen his name mentioned at various sites recently), or what he writes or thinks.

However, there is a flaw which weakens Dienekes' argument. It's about it being impossible for Italians not to have mixed completely together over 40 generations. That conclusion depends on his premise that individual Italians, like individual Greeks in his identical premise about them, have been equally likely, these forty generations, to marry all their countrymen in any given matrimonial union. A mere glance at history, at class divisions, at all the obstacles to inter-regional contacts whatsoever, let alone inter-regional marriages, at inter-regional prejudices, enmities, language and culture differences, isolation due to mountainous topography, dialect differences, earlier epochs where travel was limited, people were benighted with prejudice against the folk in the next village let alone the next mountain valley, etc., etc,. etc. -- a glance at these factors, and others galore, weakens Dienekes' reasoning in drawing this conclusion.

North-south (east-west also, of course, and yet others) cultural and dialectical prejudices, ethnic gradients, and all sorts of ethno-cultural elements that have the potential to separate peoples into sub-groups are well-known to exist in Germany (Prussians/Bavarians, Austrians, Swiss), France (Parisians, Provençaux), Frankland (*) (The Dutch as a whole/Belgian Flemings), British North America (New England/Dixie), China (Mandarin; wheat-growing; tall; Peking; Inner Mongolia/Cantonese; rice-growing; shorter; Hong-Kong; etc.), Vietnam (very marked cultural gradient and, many Vietnamese say, ethnic -- in the sense of *genetic* -- gradient, between Hanoi and Saigon (**) ), Spain ("Barthelona" (***) and El País Basco in the north/ethnically and culturally quite different south), Italy (Lombard League/Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia), Egypt (the more-white lower Nile/the more-Negroid upper), and the list goes on.

I see what Dienekes doesn't want, and I don't have a dog in that fight -- other than agreeing completely with the underlying point he is trying to make.

I could CARE LESS what a given race's "racial genealogy" is. However they got to be the way they are, they got there. Now let's prevent élites from erasing them -- from undoing thousands, in some respects tens-of-thousands of years of ethno-cultural evolution, and trampling on the basic human right not to have one's ethno-culture effaced just so that some Tranzi can stuff a few more dollars into his pocket. What I oppose is races being erased against their will by means of élite forces changing them into some other race. Dienekes has no dog in THIS fight (as I have none in the other) because he doesn't see it happening to Greece.

If someone came up to me and said, "There's been some mistake -- its been learned that all four of your grandparents were X," and substitute whatever you want for "X" -- Negroes, Bushmen, Australian Abos, Chinamen, Sephardic Jews, Icelanders, Scots, or WHATEVER -- it wouldn't change what I am now -- I'm still me. They'd just have to explain how that was possible, given my characteristics now -- but Hey, that's cool -- I'm sure they could explain it to everyone's satisfaction, and I could certainly care less about it. I view races the same way.

The Anglo-Saxons, the Greeks, the Comanche Indians, the Eskimos ("Inuits" according to the leftist name-changers), the Southern Italians of Naples and Sicily, the Northern ones of the Lombardy League, the Cambodians, etc., etc., all have a right to be fricken left alone in their age-old ethnicity and not be ethnolysed out of existence by some goddamed élites.

That's the fight I have a dog in. I don't want opposition to Arthur Kemp's ideas (I have no idea what they are, and if Dienekes' discussion is any indication, I could basically care less about them) to cause people to go to the opposite, Marxist extreme of "race-denial and let's force every race out of existence starting with the white ones -- then maybe we'll reconsider once THEY'RE gone, so we won't have to ethnolyse any of the others -- Hey, it's racial pay-back time, isn't it? SURE it is ... ." Let's not go from rejecting Kemp to embracing Ignatiev. Morality and the truth lie in a middle ground.

( * ) [I had to quickly invent a word for all Dutch-speakers, to fit into my sentence here.]

( ** ) [I don't use "Ho-Chi-Minh-ville" -- sorry, all you Marxists out there ... and an extra-special "sorry" to the biggest Marxist of all, Harvard "Professor" Noël Ignatiev! Sorry, Noël -- I'll TRY to get my act together, I really will -- that's a promise!]

( *** ) [The way the Castillians, who speak the soi-disant "correct" kind of Spanish, insist on pronouncing Barcelona]

I agree with everything you said. In fact, I told the exact same thing to Mr Kemp two or three days ago in here, after he wrote a series of lies about my site in the Stormfront Latin Message Board.

Good work Dienekes.

>> However, there is a flaw which weakens Dienekes' argument. It's about it being impossible for Italians not to have mixed completely together over 40 generations.

My argument does not depend on that, since it works even if the probability is much lower. Suppose that 30% "foreign" element was absorbed and the "pure" ones married it in each generation only with probability 0.1 times the percentage of the "foreign" element, i.e., initially 0.03: significantly less than random mating. In that case, today 96% of the population would be "mixed". Actually, ALL would be mixed, because as the "mixed" group grows, it becomes more difficult to identify who is "mixed" and who is not, as the admixture, initially distributed entirely to 30% of the population gets thinned out over a larger population. In other words, if the initial foreign element was e.g., Sudanese, it'd be easy to spot, but after a few generations, the 1/8 Sudanese descendants (part of the mixed group) would be much more difficult to spot.

Now, with respect to elites. Of course people tend to marry people close to them and of same status. Even if there was a single elite though for these last 40 generations, it would still marry outside itself, as per the previous experiment and thus dilute itself. But, more importantly, there was a succession of "elites" in e.g., Italy: the Roman elite was dissolved, replaced by a Germanic elite, replaced by the elite of money.

Finally, with respect to geography. Sure enough geography has prevented certain branches of the nations to intermarry. That doesn't mean that there was no intermarriage. It only means that there was intermarriage at low levels. So, if there was once a "pure" area, it would become "mixed" in the span of a few generations. And, within each area the "pure" population would become gradually "mixed".

Also note that the rate of intermarriage between regions has increased in the last century or two, due to industrialization and urbanization.

In conclusion: it takes a leap of imagination to think that e.g., Italy absorbed large numbers of black and "non-white" slaves while there is still a "pure" and "mixed" population in Italy. That is a mathematical improbability.

Here's something Pontikos and I can agree on: critiquing Kemp's moronic ideas on race. On fact, I think I made some similar arguments some time ago on the LE site. Obviously, countries cannot be "bi-racial" if the inhabitants of constantly mixing with each other. It is possible of course, for some individuals in a nation to have more "foreign genes" than others, and this may be reflected in a phenotype. Italy and Russia are NOT biracial, but it is possible for a SPECIFIC Italian or SPECIFIC Russian to have more non-Caucasian genes and possibly an altered phenotype.
Note the following:
http://www.ancestrybydna.com/genealogicaladdition.html
of interest is mechanism #2. Now, by dear Nordniks, if SEs are mulattos, let us see the African admixture, no?
MORE TO THE POINT: GET TESTED YOURSELVES!

see:
http://www.kerchner.com/pa-gerdna.htm

One wonders what ABD 2.0 results would be obtained if all the Nordicists who rave and rant online would be tested.

BTW, there is no need to put white nationalist in quotation marks. Nothing wrong with that, although I'm sure that all the "Caucasianist" race bloggers may think so. I'm as much against Kemp as anyone.

But, I'm not a Caucasianist (no "" marks?) either.
I like to see facts. One wonders what Mr. Onassis' genetic structure would have been like, it tested.

As far as Kemp's fantasies that SEs are mulattoes goes:
let's test Italians and let's test Kemp and his fellow 'white' South Africans, and see which individuals have the highest African MLE %.
If admixture going back 18,000+ years can in theory be detected via ABD, certainly, Kemp's theories can be empirically tested, no?

one more point: Kemp's stupidity "makes sense" if one determines race solely by "phenotype", rather than actual ancestry. So Carleton Coon would consider a Danish father (Borreby) and a his equally Danish son (Nordic) to be different races (Upper Paleolithic vs. Nordic/Mediterranean) based on their "phenotype." That's absurd.
But, apparently many folks, even those critical of Kemp, think that "race" is defined by "skull shape" and such things, instead of genetic commonality.

>> One wonders what Mr. Onassis' genetic structure would have been like, it tested.

It doesn't make one iota of difference, since he was Greek.

>> One wonders what Mr. Onassis' genetic structure would have been like, it tested.

It doesn't make one iota of difference, since he was Greek.

Notice how Dienekes dishonestly witholds the fact that Onassis's family was of recent Asia Minor origin. Pontian "Greeks" of course were not part of the same breeding pool as the inhabitants of modern Greece until the 20th century.

So Carleton Coon would consider a Danish father (Borreby) and a his equally Danish son (Nordic) to be different races (Upper Paleolithic vs. Nordic/Mediterranean) based on their "phenotype." That's absurd.

Idiot. Coon says they are of different racial types, not different races. In the past, e.g., the Corded racial type may have been largely synonymous with a Corded race. Today, Corded types, like Upper Paleolithic types, appear as reemergences in (yes, initially "racially mixed" -- Cordeds and NW European UP types would have initially been different "races" in the broad sense, though of course they were not as distinct from each other as either would have been from today's Levantine southern Italians) populations.

One wonders what ABD 2.0 results would be obtained if all the Nordicists who rave and rant online would be tested.

Your childlike faith in "ABD" is pathetic, especially coming from a "scientist".

>> Notice how Dienekes dishonestly witholds the fact that Onassis's family was of recent Asia Minor origin. Pontian "Greeks" of course were not part of the same breeding pool as the inhabitants of modern Greece until the 20th century.

Onassis was from Smyrna, he was not a Pontian Greek.

>> Idiot.

No personal insults addressed to other posters please.

Onassis was from Smyrna, he was not a Pontian Greek.

My mistake. Let's rephrase that: Turkish "Greeks", "Pontian" and otherwise, were not part of the same breeding pool as the inhabitants of modern Greece. Now, do you admit you were being dishonest?

You don't know the difference between Pontos and Smyrna and yet you "know" the breeding structure of the Greek population. Amazing!

As usual, Anon illustrates the true size of his ignorance while making a total fool of himself.

Genetics, P. Anthropology, Nutrition, History, Logic, and now Geography.

A true "scholar" :).

You don't know the difference between Pontos and Smyrna and yet you "know" the breeding structure of the Greek population.

Hint: Smyrna is not part of Greece. "Pontos" is not part of Greece. Turks are not Greeks. You are a dishonest Turk. Any more questions?

Nordicist quote:
"Your childlike faith in "ABD" is pathetic, especially coming from a "scientist". "

Note well that there is no objective critique of the ABD test, only an insinuation that to promote a test that has been validated for over 2000 samples is "childlike" and "pathetic." That is typical Nordicist behavior - using ad hominem attacks in lieu of logical and factual discourse.

My experience over the past year is that Nordicists are rabid in their anti-ABD attitude, and why is that? After years of talking about racial admixture in others, they are now soiling their pants to think that they themselves may be racially mixed. So, just make sneering comments about a publicly available race test. Too bad that third party observers can smell the fear coming from the Nordicist's soiled trousers.

And yes, I am a scientist, no quotation marks needed.

get tested, coward.

A small sample of ABD test validation:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=18470845

The only thing "wrong" with the test is that is has been detecting East Asian admixture in "Nordish" populations, and not been detecting African admixture in Southern European populations.

I'll make the following assumption:
until they prove otherwise, I'm assuming tbat each and every Nordicist is either a Eurasian, a mulatto, or a mestizo.

different 'racial types' vs. 'different races.' I see. Very clear.

Nordicists can sing and dance, but they always come up flat

Dr. Rienzi,

If anyone is showing hostility it is you. Nordicists don't want you, and other swarthy Southern Italians, in their "club." Fine. Get over it, and open up your own club (and admit whomever you wish). No need to call them names, etc.

BTW, I'm willing to accept SEs and Slavs as White for the purposes of WN.

http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?showtopic=9107&hl=rienzi

A small sample of ABD test validation:
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=18470845

"For each sample, the majority ancestry determined matched the self-reported race"

This is the only thing "ABD" is good for. A mirror is much cheaper.

And yes, I am a scientist, no quotation marks needed.

Maybe I'll drop the quotation marks after you learn something about probability and statistics.

"and when detected, the admixture was consistent with what was known from the family history."

Not likely, considering the great many people who learn of "admixture" there is no evidence for, and the people for whom ABD fails to detect known admixture. By the way, did you notice you were linking to a DNAprint press realease?

I suggest you take a look at figure 1, here:
http://www.chalberweid.ch/DNAPrint/DNAWitness2.0.PDF

Note, this is the triangle diagram of the "parental populations" on which the markers used in the test were standardized on. Even if you were to accept that the English and Germans have significant levels of "NAM" and "AFR" ancestry (and an objective observer wouldn't), surely you can't believe that Nigerians have Amerindian ancestry too? If you still think "MLEs" given by "ABD" are infallible, you are either truly stupid or extremely deluded.

This test deals in probability, not absolutes. With the exception of FY-null (found in sub-Saharans and Sicilians and extremely rare elsewhere), the markers used are all found in multiple populations, just at differing frequencies.

Here's an extremely simplified illustration of why we don't expect a test like this to be exact. Say we have two markers, which are each found in 30% of Europeans and 80% of Asians. If someone carries both markers, using ABD-style logic we'd say the "MLE" is that the person has Asian admixture. Most Europeans don't carry both markers, and most Asians do; but nearly 1 in 10 Europeans will carry both markers, purely by chance and with no Asian admixture indicated (to say otherwise, as DNAprint has done with its attempts to write off anomolous results as "ancient admixture", is to beg the question). Since these hypothetical markers are both found in unmixed Europeans, they can't be used to prove Asian admixture, "ancient" or otherwise. If we wanted to prove Asian admixture, we'd need to use markers which have been proven to have originated in Mongoloid populations using the usual phylogenetic techniques. If ABD did perform this kind of analysis, they'd find that the markers they use are too old to have arisen in a Mongoloid population. When they string enough markers together, they can accurately determine the person's "major ancestry" in almost all cases. But, as the many anomolous results show, they can't accurately determine admixture.

My experience over the past year is that Nordicists are rabid in their anti-ABD attitude, and why is that?

Care to cite actual examples? From what I've seen, "Nordicists" and non-Nordicists alike much too readily accept the results of "ABD" as fact, just as laymen in general are inclined to take "scientific" pronouncements at fact value (especially when DNA is involved). I, too, intially assumed ABD admixture estimates were meaningful, though common sense always told me they couldn't be exact; since then, I've been stunned by the levels of dishonesty or incompetence the founders of DNAprint have demonstrated. I'd expect a genuine scientist to have a more critical eye. But you're happy to take whatever DNAprint says as gospel, since they're telling you what you want to hear.

After years of talking about racial admixture in others, they are now soiling their pants to think that they themselves may be racially mixed.

Take your shit fetish elsewhere, jewboy.

The only thing "wrong" with the test is that is has been detecting East Asian admixture in "Nordish" populations,

See above. Incidentally, if, against all odds, there are Pennsylvania Germans walking around with 30% "18,000 year old" "East Asian" admixture, that doesn't change who they are. They are still part of America in a way southern Italians can never be. One might expect a "scientist" to spot the contradiction here. Your promotion of "ABD" is not consistent with your promotion of "ethnic genetic interests". The categories "ABD" divides the world into are abstractions, and not very good ones, at that. According to "ABD", there's no difference between a European and an Arab. In your case, this may be true. In mine, it is not.

and not been detecting African admixture in Southern European populations.

Since the FY-null allele is present in Sicily, of course ABD would detect Negroid admixture in southern Europe (and that's aside from the large amounts of "Indo-European" North African Caucasoid ancestry).

until they prove otherwise, I'm assuming tbat each and every Nordicist is either a Eurasian, a mulatto, or a mestizo.

Great. Now why don't you swim back to Sicily and save yourself from us racially tainted Nordicists.

"Onassis was from Smyrna; he was not a Pontian Greek."

I just checked a globe and saw that "Izmir" is on the Aegean coast of Turkey.

I've got a dumb question: If today's Greece had ancient Greece's boundaries, where would its eastern boundary be? European Turkey, including Istanbul, would be part of Greece, of course, and so would all the islands in the Aegean off the Turkish coast (most of which are part of it now -- correct me if I'm wrong). In addition, how much of mainland Turkey's Aegean region would be included -- how wide a strip? (Izmir would be included, for example.)

Were the Trojans and Greeks closely related to each other, the way today's Spaniards and Portuguese or Germans and Dutch are? Or are they thought to have been completely different from one another?

>> Hint: Smyrna is not part of Greece. "Pontos" is not part of Greece. Turks are not Greeks. You are a dishonest Turk. Any more questions?

Modern Greece is a political entity that evolved from a very small area of the Peloponnese and parts of Sterea Hellas into what it is today. Using the same reasoning, the inhabitants of the Dodecanese who became part of Greece only in the 1940s, i.e., after the Asia Minor Greeks did are also not "Greek" enough. Using the same reasoning, the Constantinopolitan Greeks, are not Greek. Using the same kind of reasoning, George Seferis, the Greek Nobel winner is not "Greek" enough for "anon"'s tastes which have been conditioned by his long acquaintance with all things Greek (** sarcasm **)

>> BTW, I'm willing to accept SEs and Slavs as White for the purposes of WN.

Most self-respecting S. Europeans don't give $.02 about being accepted to a "WN" club or to be considered as "brothers" to folks from the north side of the Alps. Also, most self-respecting N. Europeans are perfectly aware that Nordicism is bogus science and they're perfectly happy with the real history of their ancestors.

There are of course some S. Europeans who have a need to "belong", just as there are some N. Europeans who have turned their low self-esteem problems into elaborate theories of "Nordish" or "Nordic" superiority. Most people on both sides of the Alps could care less about all that.

D: ...S. Europeans don't give $.02 about being accepted to a "WN" club or to be considered as "brothers" to folks from the north side of the Alps."

Rienzi seems to care.

Well, since you're a self-proclaimed "enemy of WNs" and the movement your comment is very predictable.

Do you feel greater kinship with your Middle Eastern "brothers"? (After all you're 50 % Middle Eastern).

friedrich,

off topic, and i can't find the post because the posts have been deleted, but i saw a post on Original Dissent that said that you have a jewish girlfriend. is that true?

>> Rienzi seems to care.

Rienzi is American.

>> Well, since you're a self-proclaimed "enemy of WNs" and the movement your comment is very predictable.

You can quote me on being a "self-proclaimed enemy of WNs" _if you can_

>> Do you feel greater kinship with your Middle Eastern "brothers"? (After all you're 50 % Middle Eastern).

Nah, I'm just 100% Greek. I don't care to split the genetic heritage of Greeks into arbitrary categories such as "European" and "Middle Eastern". Greeks are an ethnic group composed of various Caucasoid racial elements. Our closest genetic kin are our geographical neighbors, not Europeans in general. We don't have close cultural kin, although we share similarities with other peoples of the Italian, Balkan and Anatolian peninsulas where Greeks have traditionally lived, as well as with other Orthodox Christians.

>> but i saw a post on Original Dissent that said that you have a jewish girlfriend. is that true?

That is hardly a subject that belongs in this blog. Discuss it privately via e-mail, if you want to.

O: "but i saw a post on Original Dissent that said that you have a jewish girlfriend. is that true?"

Nah...she's Lithuanian-Candian. I did have a Jewish gf in my early twenties, though. A very nice and pretty girl (brown hair, light blue eyes...a body to die for...).

D: "You can quote me on being a "self-proclaimed enemy of WNs" _if you can_"

Well, are you?

A truly hilarious discussion. :)

The reality is, mostly "Nordicists" or "Nordishists", like most people who care about their race and heritage, are not dependent upon some myth of racial superiority or supremacy. It's good propaganda of course, and boosts morale, but not necessary for the justification of racial survival.

Most Northern Europeans who identify themselves as distinct from the majority of Southern Europeans and Middle Easterners simply want to preserve their racial heritage and way of life. I see nothing negative about that at all. I find something extremely negative about alien invaders who seek to alter and eventually abolish a native people, and all the while benefitting from(like Dienekes who is a "Greek nationalist" but lives in California lol) and exploiting the indigenous race.

America's fascination or "fetish" as some of the anti-Nordish Souds might say, has always existed. America's heart pumps Northwestern European blood. You change that blood, you change the nation, simple as that. Only an idiot could imagine Japan would exist unchanged if totally repopulated with Nigerians.

It seems Dienekes' sense of "Greek" is about as meaningful as the modern interpretation of "American". Which of course has been Judaized to mean nothing at all apart from existing on the landmass.

Even though Dienekes is obviously intelligent and educated, his ideology sucks royally. :) When I read that Dienekes thought if all the races in the world mixed, a Mediterranean(or Greek) would result, then that tells the whole story right there. Obviously the result is incorrect given the proportion of the 3 major races that inhabit the Earth, but the mentality behind that is what is so disturbing. Dienekes doesn't care about racemixing at all, perhaps from the realization of his own ancestry?

At first I know some statistics about marriage pattern in southern Germany in the middle age, and fact is, there were almost no spots with no mixing except some isolated villages.
But the rate of marriages out of a radius of 30 km was not very common and marriage out of the Oberdeutschen region was almost not existent.
What you said about mixing is true for the modern cities, but not for villages, and even in the cities there are differences especially of classes etc.

For me racially pure means just this: Individuals which look phenotypically pure and transmit this features to their descendents.
F.e. a man with "corded" nordic appearance who transmit this features to his childs and so on is pure enough to count as pure, because absolutely pure "corded" nordics are more important in a theoretical, than in a practical sense.
This is true for all other races too.

So its this unity of appearance and hereditary which ONLY count.
I wouldnt care anything if there is somebody who is genetically a "Northern European" but looks like a Pygmae.
Markers which say nothing about phenotype and genealogic relations are useless.
There are markers which say really nothing about genealogic background and phenotype which is only important and nothing else.
If I want to live in a state with good common sence and people which belong to each other in a community with strong identity and good features for a modern and progressive society, I dont care anything about genetic differences.

The reason why I want to save the white race(s) is, that this features are good in the white race(s) and there is no reason for mixing which would just fraction the society of the west and destroy the good features.
Expecially because the most immigrants are under the European average in the most important features (physical, phylogenetical, psychological, cultural, sociological) and the destruction of the long developed structures of the European cultures is not good for Europeans on their own and mankind too. (Because they were the progressive motor of mankind from the Renaissance.)

But, just think this would happen: A new group would appear, which would have all this good or even better features, and this group would have a better concept for the future of mankind and earth, I would fight with them, even if they would be the genetical most distant group. (But of course, this is no realistic scenario so its just a mindgame.)

The "greek" question is important just because its true that they are sometimes in doupt to be Europeans if you say that just Nordic, Faelic (and UP northern Europeans), Alpines, Osteuropide, Dinarics and European Mediteraneans are Europeans.
Because some greeks appear to be Armenoid as some Russians appear to be Mongoloid/Turanid.
It was funny when I saw in a documentation about the Greeks in Asia minor that some of them looked Armenoid, and many Turks of Europe looked Mediterranean or even Nordic.
My personal opinion is this: Racially the Greeks are maybe not the same like Norwegians, but they are Europeans culturally and predominantely Europeans biologically.
And even many Turks are so.
My problem with caucasoids of not European descendance is at first a cultural/mentality problem, and secondly a racial.
F.e. Southern Afghans are to some extend in every feature biological as progressive and positive as the corded Nordics.
The main problem is that they were not christianized and still live in primitive clanstructures.
Just compare them with racially European Albanians and you know what I mean.
Such differences are historically developed, sometimes just in 50 years, sometimes in 1000 years, but compared with fundamental racial differences this differences can be eliminated much faster and more human with the political will to do so.

Nordhammer, you are persona non grata here. I have a high tolerance for Nordicists (as one who can browse the archives of this blog can find out), but I have zero tolerance for sycophants, especially of your kind.

Friedrich Braun wrote:

>> Well, are you?

I guess that means you didn't find the bit of me "proclaiming" myself as an enemy to WNs.

In any case, WNs are completely indifferent to me, except as a curiosity, or whenever they infringe on matters Greek.

Dienekes:

I didn't just make it up, you know?

You made a comment to that effect on Gene Expression.

But maybe I misunderstood you...

D: "...whenever they infringe on matters Greek."

Why would WNs want to "infringe on matters Greek"?

That's a first, do you have an example of what you mean?

The vast majority of mainstream WN organizations value and cherish Greeks and Greek civilization.

I love the pre-Socratics.

Right now I'm reading Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.

I believe (along with Nietzsche) that Greco-Romans achieved cultural and intellectual heights unequalled by any other civilization in the history of the world.

You made Richard Poe look like a fool, and he's making rude and disparaging comments about you on his blog. But you undoubtedly know this.

F. Braun wrote:

>> I didn't just make it up, you know?

When you refer to what I "proclaim", please be ready to come up with the evidence that what you say is true.

>> Why would WNs want to "infringe on matters Greek"?

Take a look at MOTT that is hosted over at stormfront.org (one of the biggest WN sites out there). That is "infringement on matters Greek".

>> The vast majority of mainstream WN organizations value and cherish Greeks and Greek civilization.

Good for them although my impression is that very few WNs live according to the ethics of Greek civilization. Rather, I think that Greek civilization is just one big example of the Great White Race to many of them, for feel-good purposes.

I'm glad you are not one of those.

>> You made Richard Poe look like a fool, and he's making rude and disparaging comments about you on his blog. But you undoubtedly know this.

I don't actually. I haven't been paying attention to Poe after he decided not to respond to the factual content of my critique.

F. Braun wrote:

>> I didn't just make it up, you know?

When you refer to what I "proclaim", please be ready to come up with the evidence that what you say is true.

>> Why would WNs want to "infringe on matters Greek"?

Take a look at MOTT that is hosted over at stormfront.org (one of the biggest WN sites out there). That is "infringement on matters Greek".

>> The vast majority of mainstream WN organizations value and cherish Greeks and Greek civilization.

Good for them although my impression is that very few WNs live according to the ethics of Greek civilization. Rather, I think that Greek civilization is just one big example of the Great White Race to many of them, for feel-good purposes.

I'm glad you are not one of those.

>> You made Richard Poe look like a fool, and he's making rude and disparaging comments about you on his blog. But you undoubtedly know this.

I don't actually. I haven't been paying attention to Poe after he decided not to respond to the factual content of my critique.

"Nordhammer, you are persona non grata here."

My reputation precedes me, good. Do I make you uncomfortable, Mr. Greek?

I find your total omission of any argument to be very telling.

Don't worry, I only come here when someone sends me a link.

"I have a high tolerance for Nordicists (as one who can browse the archives of this blog can find out), but I have zero tolerance for sycophants, especially of your kind."

Your tolerances and intolerances are of no interest to me. I suppose this is some veiled threat?

The amazing thing is, Dienekes, that with all of your education about race and history, you still have a false belief of egalitarianism. Can you really swallow the lie that black Africans can produce what ancient Greece did? Can black Africans replace the modern Greek population, and the culture and nation remain unchanged?

Like "Poe" (not his real surname), I have to wonder if you have some Jewish ancestry which gives you your political bent. Maybe your lifestyle is just too good to give up for political incorrectness.

>> My reputation precedes me, good. Do I make you uncomfortable, Mr. Greek?

I have personal experience of your style of "debate". Of course you are in no position of making me uncomfortable.

>> Your tolerances and intolerances are of no interest to me. I suppose this is some veiled threat?

I don't do "veiled" threats. I told you loud and clear, you are not welcome here.

>> Like "Poe" (not his real surname), I have to wonder if you have some Jewish ancestry which gives you your political bent.

Nah, I'm just 100% Greek Christian Orthodox of the kind that is not likely to blame its own problems and inadequacies -both personal and racial- to the "Jews".

Don't post again here. You have been given fair warning, and subsequent posts will be deleted.

A few brief comments to "Anon"

1. His "simplified 30/80 example" would be valid if the test used one or a small handful or markers to distinguish IE and EA (as do many of the papers Nordniks like to quote). Instead they use 40+ markers to distinguish these groups. Even my "scientific in quotes" brain understands enough "statistics and probability" to see how the use of _dozens_ of markers can allow for an accurate estimate of ancestry even if many (but not all) of these markers are found in different groups. If all 40+ differ in frequency, and if a person has all 40+ similar to IE and not EA...gee, maybe that means something other than just a "random fluctuation?"

2. NA in Nigerians
a) the test has an admitted +/- 2-3% error rate. If you want a genetic test for individuals, and one that won't cost thousands of $$, then this is a quite reasonable degree of accuracy.
b) Since the test can detect ancient, as well as older, admixture, it is quite normal to expect a tiny amount of NA in Africans. Note that the Rosenberg paper in Science found 1% genetic identity in Kenyans of NA markers. This _confirms_ the ABD findings. There may have been a very low level and ancient flow of Northcentral Asian genes in various directions.
That an independent study, using a huge number of markers, found 1% NA genetic identity in one SSA group seems, to me, to make sense of a very low level of NA in Nigerians.

3. Indo European. The IE markers were established from a group of NORTHERN Europeans. Thus, 100% IE is a genetic structure which matches the gene frequencies - for this set of alleles - for this NE sample. South Asians may be Predominantly IE, but they have high levels of EA. One fellow I have heard of - a "Brahmin" - is 33% EA.

4. The markers used are those which arose after the major racial groups split off, and before the subgroups. The only "problem" is the occasional overlap in EA and NA ancestries. Again, the Rosenberg paper shows that some NA tribes have high EA genetic identity, as high as 18% in some cases.

5. More than 50 of the markers distinguish IE and African in the test. If there is African ancestry in Southern Europe, well, let's see the data, the test will detect it. I've been tested, but the Nordniks soil their pants in fear of discovering their admixture levels.

6. It is not that the test "tells me what I want to hear." I took the test not knowing of course what the results would be. The data are what they are. I promoted the test on certain lists _before_ I got my own results. The ones who are obfuscating the facts are the Nordicists, who are afraid they may find out they are not as pure as they think they are.

7. Anon, swim back to China, the land of your ancestors???

I'm going to look more into this, and hope that DNAP publishes their validation studies soon.
A few further brief comments.
1. How do my comments conflict with my promotion of "ethnic genetic interests?*
Genetic interests imply genetic commonality. If John of ethnie X is of pure stock, and Ted of the same alleged ethnie is actually a Eurasian mongrel, then how much 'common interests' does John have with Ted? I'd think that a Swede with no EA admixture would have more in common with an unmixed Irishman, than with a Swede who is 20% EA.
One can calculate the genetic distances incorporating the 20% EA and see the contrast.

2. Speaking of EA admixture, I guess it is only a remarkable coincidence that the highest levels of EA admixture in Caucasians are found in places like Russia, Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Scandinavia (with the PA Dutch perhaps getting Scandinavian or EE influences). Hmm...admixture of EA stock "just happens" to be highest in areas with a historical record of EA influences, areas in which the EA genetic influence has been confirmed by other genetic studies. If these are just alleles found 'randomly' in some Europeans, then why, pray tell, don't western Europeans have the same or higher EA than eastern Europeans?

3. Germans and English..do you know something I don't about the source of the NEs who were used for the IE calibration? I wonder if they instead
used NE-Americans for that. I hope that information is made available. Now then, surely, I guess that a Heather Locklear would present a different profile than a Sean Connery, no?

4. How ancient admixture is "begging the question", I don't see, since the markers are stable after the admixture event occurs.

5. I wonder if Arabs would present a higher EA than Europeans, South Asians certainly do. Since the IE comes from some sort of NE sample (presumably those markers found at high frequencies in the NEs, minus those that may be found in 'Nordish' mestizos or mullatos like Locklear), I would think that Arabs would present different profiles.

6. ABD will come out with a newer, more specific test, but since the Nordniks think DNAP are so "incompetent", I'm sure they'll eschew that also.

7. On other lists, etc I've had Nordniks make the most silly arguments against ABD - only the Nordniks shiver in fear.

8. I'm not a Jew. Are you, Anon? After all, the great McCulloch says that "Nordish" Jews are A-OK, so what's the harm in being a blonde Levantine, no?

9. Isn't it inconsistent for someone like Anon, who obsesses over admixture in SEs, to say that a 30% EA German-American is OK? Thus, it seems, racial mongrelization is OK, as long as the person belongs to a group that the great ad-man Wilmot says is OK. Interesting.

10. As regards Braun, my purpose is to refute Nordnik lies, just as I do with the race-deniers.
I do have my own project, one that does more good that anon's website.

*In the end, we can see who it is who produces material which may be of use for White survival, and who it is who produces childish websites that considers Quentin Tarantino movies as a valid subject in discussions of racial science. Right, "anon"?
I also find it amusing that Arthur "the other guy is admixed and I won't test myself" Kemp claims he is not a Nordicist, while all the folks who emotionally defend Kemp are Nordicists. Just a coincidence, I guess.

The fact that phenotypists of the Nord bent can't tell the difference between a mulatto like Leo Felton and a "generalized Nordish Brunn like Phil Collins or Chuck Norris" tells you all you need to know.
Hey - are you a mulatto? All you gotta do is shave off that afro and Nordniks will think you're a Brunn.
Wonderful. Guess what genetic test would have detected the African admixture in Felton?

Anon has problems debating like a man.

Anon also seems to have a strong dislike for genetic tests and scientific verification. Maybe he does have Asian genes?

It doesn't seem to me as though Rienzi wants to join any "club" -- what he is pointing out is that those who boast of their purity while denigrating others tend to fear taking a genetic test because it may expose THEM and not others as mongrels.

D: "Take a look at MOTT that is hosted over at stormfront.org (one of the biggest WN sites out there). That is "infringement on matters Greek"."

Well, in that case jump in and set them straight!

Are you aware that Nordicism is not tolerated by the moderators at SF (although they afford them some leeway in the spirit of free discussion)? Kemp gets frequently attacked at SF, see for. e.g. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=82549

>> Well, in that case jump in and set them straight!

I have already criticized MOTT extensively on my website. I don't particularly care to "set straight" the majority of the people who infringe on matters Greek, since I have very low opinion of them. I touch upon subjects that interest me.

>> Are you aware that Nordicism is not tolerated by the moderators at SF

The SF forum is a den of not so bright and bitter individuals who give the "white race" a bad name. This includes both Nordicists and Southern European "white nationalists" to name but a few.

D: "The SF forum is a den of not so bright and bitter individuals who give the "white race" a bad name. This includes both Nordicists and Southern European "white nationalists" to name but a few."

That's quite a sweeping statement!

SF is a gigantic board and the quality of the posts varies accordingly.

Most members of SF probably don't know about your blog, that's why I suggested going to SF to do some "missionary" work over there (as you've done with Poe). Education...very important...

>> Most members of SF probably don't know about your blog, that's why I suggested going to SF to do some "missionary" work over there (as you've done with Poe). Education...very important...

True, but the battle of education is won in the formative years of one's life. Hence, there is no hope of educating the types of folks that I'm referring to.

D: "True, but the battle of education is won in the formative years of one's life. Hence, there is no hope of educating the types of folks that I'm referring to."

With all due respect, I strongly disagree with the above.

Let me cite the latest issue of my favourite magazine (Free Inquiry, Summer 2003, vol. 23 no. 3):

Massimo Pigliucci (at 35)

"Science and educators should also take heart in and advantage of the most recent discoveries concerning the physiology of the brain. Studies of patients with split brains have allowed us to begin to understand the functions and relative roles of different parts of our thinking organ. The left hemisphere, usually referred to as the "rational" side, is actually the rationalizing one, what neurobiologists call "the left interpreter." It is in charge of holding onto one person's current paradigm and worldview, no matter what the evidence. The left brain will distort facts if they conflict with the current held viewpoint... [e.g., Bible-believers.]

In fact, the left brain can literally make up stories if the evidence is scarce or contrdictory...

These finding notwithstanding, people do change their mindes from time to time, and this is accomplished by an interaction between the left and the right brain. The right hemisphere continuously feeds (sometimes dissonant) information to the other side. If the degree of dissonance reaches a threshold (which is presumable different for different individuals) one experience a "Gestaltian" change: the abondonment of one viewpoint in favor of another. [Footnotes omitted.]

I'm an American from Chicago, IL. I've known people of many ethnic backrounds; we've become friends and have been guests in each-other's houses. I've gone to Irish festivals, Puerto Rican events, German fests, synagogues, etc. I am not Puerto Rican, but I love salsa- and merengue music. I have a Greek-American bumper sticker, an American flag on my window and I blast Puerto Rican music from my car stereo--maybe followed by Greek music and heavy metal, blues, jazz. I am so glad I wasn't raised in some Nordic outpost. I couldn't give a shit about northern Europeans per se--but you know what, I'm glad Greco-Roman civilization touched northern Europe and gave it direction. To the nordicists: Greeks felt about your ancestors the way you feel about those who don't share your physical ideals: bar-bar-barbarians. I have been to northern Europe and southern Europe. I found that northern Euoropeans are very reserved, hardly talking and openly expressing themselves. In Greece, people shout to each other in the streets and openly show affection. Is there any wonder why there are nordic racists? I care greaty about race and the accomplishements of my Greek ancestors, but not enough to form an ideology.

Nordhammer writes:

"I find something extremely negative about alien invaders who seek to alter and eventually abolish a native people, and all the while benefitting from (like Dienekes who is a "Greek nationalist" but lives in California lol) and exploiting the indigenous race."

Since Mediterraneans were the first settlers in California -- who built beautiful, advanced cities -- it is you and those like you who'd be the "invaders" in California.

While the Conquistadores were putting the little brown Mexicans in their place, your ancestors were painting themselves blue and wallowing in mud.

Now go swim back to your ancestral homeland and fornicate with some Lapps.

I am as Mediterranean as one can be as I was born on an island totally within the Mediterranean. It does annoy me that white supremists believe the inhabitants of Southern Europe MUST have negro ancestry. Why? Most North Africans stick out like sore thumbs in Europe. Their complexions, hair types and facial features are distinctive and not European. Southerners may be darker than some Norherners, but that does not mean Southerners are swarthy like Eastern Turks, Iraqis or Iranis. White supremists think in stereotypes eg Italians are short and swarthy, Greeks are greasy, black eyed and negroid. Most Europeans have brown hair of varying hues and eyes that are of any colour other than blue. True blondes are a minority everywhere even in Sweden. The centre for blonde hair in Europe is around the shores of the Baltic namely Poland and Lithuania. The centre for blue eyes is around Netherlands, England and Ireland. Neither of those centres is in Scandinavia. That may irritate some of you, but that is the facts. For those that want to know, I am 176 cm tall, my eyes are mostly chestnut brown, I colour my grey hairs with Brown/Black hair dye and I have a medium complexion which does not tan well. I live in Australia and as Australians say, I would not stick out like dog balls in most places in Europe, but I definitely would in North Africa, the Arab world or further East. And so would most Southern Europeans. As for Onassis, just because he was ugly, short and spent too much time in the sun does not mean he isn't Greek or European. Europeans like other ethnic groups are not particularly good looking. Most Swedes look like they should have bits in their mouths and saddles on their backs. It does not mean they are not Europeans.