http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html http://vorige.nrc.nl/buitenland/article2539373.

ece/Europees_DNA_deels_afkomstig_van_Neanderth alers Between 1-4 percent of the DNA of many humans living today likely came from Neanderthals. People of European and Asian heritage are most likely to carry the Neanderthal genes. "Neanderthals live on in non-Africans," co-author David Reich told Discovery News. "At least some Neanderthals were absorbed into the modern human population." Reich is an associate professor of genetics at Harvard University who also serves as a population geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. He and his colleagues analyzed over one billion DNA fragments taken from Neanderthal bones -dating to approximately 38,000 years ago -- found in Croatia, Germany, Russia and Spain. Although 95 percent of the fragments consisted of bacteria and microorganisms that colonized the Neanderthal remains, special DNA isolation and anti-contamination measures enabled the scientists to piece together over 60 percent of the entire Neanderthal genome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXEupeEMwyw http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm http://news.discovery.com/human/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.html http://www.humanevolution.net/ http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/jpr_rghrs.html http://www.andrews.edu/~rbailey/Chapter%206/Sexual%20maturation/7708344.pdf >The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence http://necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.pdf >Genes destroyed with admixture/racial mixing http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83 >A third cousin is the optimal mate (balances inbreeding depression with outbreeding depression): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140855.htm >Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/ >Race: a social destruction of a biological concept http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race.pdf >The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is

demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H. sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies. http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900537-4/abstract >DNA Turning Human Story Into a Tell-All http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research-into-humanorigins.html >A skull that rewrites the history of man http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/a-skull-that-rewrites-the-history-of-man-1783861.html# >Confirmed: All non-African people are part Neanderthal http://io9.com/5822357/confirmed-all-non+african-people-are-part-neanderthal >Breeding with Neanderthals helped humans go global http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.000-breeding-with-neanderthals-helped-humansgo-global.html >Humans may have Neanderthals to thank for brains, U of C research suggests http://chicagomaroon.com/2006/11/21/humans-may-have-neanderthals-to-thank-for-brains-u-of-cresearch-suggests/ >Boas, Bones, and Race http://www.rps.psu.edu/0305/boas.html >The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001071 >James Watson Tells the Inconvenient Truth: Faces the Consequences http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php >Liberal Creationism http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/features/2007/created_equal/liber alcreationism.html >Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx >Heritability of IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ >THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/pppl1.pdf >Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence http://www.govrel.vcu.edu//news/Releases/2005/june/McDaniel-Big%20Brain.pdf >WHOLE BRAIN SIZE AND GENERAL MENTAL ABILITY: A REVIEW http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668913/pdf/gnes119-692.pdf

>Scientist's Study Of Brain Genes Sparks a Backlash http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html >Best evidence yet that a single gene can affect IQ http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428613.900-best-evidence-yet-that-a-single-gene-canaffect-iq.html >Tiny gene change affects brain size, IQ: scientists http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7gYRMF5mYp-vUbSUIwAjx03IOdw? >Genes related to human head size identified http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/qatar/191070-genes-related-to-human-head-size-identified.html >GWAS and AnatomyPooled Data Fingers Genes Driving Brain Size, IQ http://www.alzforum.org/new/detail.asp?id=3128 The positions of populations within some clusters correspond well to their predefined assignments to specific regional groups. The sub-Saharan African farming populations (these may include pastoralists; we use the term "farmers" to encompass both) are closer to each other than to the hunter-gatherer San and Mbuti populations50 and 48, respectively, in the plot (fig. 3). The San and the Mbuti are at the boundary of the sub-Saharan Africa cluster, somewhat apart from another hunter-gatherer population, Biaka (47), which lies within a subcluster of the farmers. Eurasia, which includes the Middle East, Europe, Central/South Asia, and North Africa, clearly separates from other major groups, and its internal structure is reflected by distinctive subdivision into regional groups. Despite the genetic proximity of North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe that is highlighted in figure 3, North Africa (represented by a single population, the Mozabite) separates from the rest and lies at the edge of the cluster. The populations from the Middle East are placed close together. European populations form a contiguous subcluster, but Basques (33), Sardinians (36), and Orcadians (38) deviate from other European populations and are closer to populations from the Middle East. The Kalash, a Pakistani group that may have considerable ancestry from the Middle East or Europe, deviates from the Central/South Asia samples and lies in the European group (fig. 3). The other populations of Central/South Asia are represented by a subcluster in figure 3, with Balochi, Brahui, Makrani, Pathan, and Sindhi differentiated from Uygur, Hazara, and Burusho (20, 27, and 26, respectively). The plot indicates that the latter group deviates from the remaining Central/South Asian populations whereas the former group is located between the latter and the Middle East/North Africa/Europe cluster. Note that Uygur, Hazara, and Burusho, which are populations that have been found to be genetically intermediate between Eurasia and East Asia (Rosenberg et al. 2002), also have intermediate locations in the multidimensional-scaling analysis; the position of the Uygur and Hazara populations, at the edge of the Central/South Asia group and closer to the East Asia cluster, perhaps reflects a shared contribution of Mongol ancestry. The East Asian populations form a distinctive group (fig. 3). Like Eurasia, this group also exhibits some internal structure. The Lahu, She, Naxi, and Miao, from southern China, appear in the lower part of the East Asia cluster, whereas most of the northern, Altaic-speaking populations (Daur, Hezhen, Mongola, Oroqen, Tu, and Xibo) form a group in its upper part. (In the analysis of Rosenberg et al. [2002], populations of northern China were largely grouped together, separate from those of southern China, although there were some exceptions, e.g., the Lahu and the Tu.) Oceania also shows clear separation from other continents in figure 4, although its populations are placed close to those of East Asia in figure 3. The populations of America separated from those of other regions (fig. 3) and show much greater within-region genetic differentiation than populations on other continents (fig. 3; see also Rosenberg et al. 2002). Dawkins:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155 >IN the 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change. >Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice. >I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question? ///--------------James Watson, co-discoverer of DNA. "If you really are stupid, I would call that a disease.... The lower 10 percent who really have difficulty, even in elementary school, what's the cause of it? A lot of people would like to say, 'Well, poverty, things like that.' It probably isn't. So I'd like to get rid of that, to help the lower 10 percent...." "It seems unfair that some people don't get the same opportunity. Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it. It would be stupid not to use it because someone else will. Those parents who enhance their children, then their children are going to be the ones who dominate the world..." "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great...." "I think it's irresponsible not to try and direct evolution to produce a human being who will be an asset to the world." --DNA, British documentary, March 2003 "My view is that, despite the risks, we should give serious consideration to germ-line gene therapy. I only hope that the many biologists who share my opinion will stand tall in the debates to come and not be intimidated by the inevitable criticism ... If such work be called eugenics, then I am a eugenicist." --DNA: The Secret of Life, 2003 "Here we must not fall into the absurd trap of being against everything Hitler was for.... Because of Hitler's use of the term Master Race, we should not feel the need to say that we never want to use genetics to make humans more capable than they are today." --A Passion for DNA: Genes, Genomes, and Society, 2000 "If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we? What's wrong with it?... Evolution can be just damn cruel, and to say that we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity?" --Engineering the Human Germline, symposium at University of California Los Angeles, March 20, 1998

///--------------OK, OK, I think I can create a synthesis over this huge "Guns, Germs and Steel" argument. Bear with me. The environment of Africa is by and large responsible for the racial disparities we've observed through history and see today in reference to Subsaharans. This is for two broad reasons: 1. Because the environment was responsible for much of what Diamond talks about. Horrible disease environment, difficult domesticates, merely OK crops, north-south axis. 2. This environment, including the resultant (relative) lack of civilization, had an impact on genetics. The people who left Africa were adapting to a better disease environment, then adapting to agriculture and civilization. This is what Diamond leaves out. Yes, there was the genetic introgression from other subspecies, but that just accelerated things. Do you really think the last 10,000 years of agriculture haven't changed our genes? Do you really think certain groups haven't been changed by the advent of writing? If we just walked away from Africa and let Darwinism take its course, you'd see black African phenotypes better adapted to modernity within a few hundred years. TL/DR: Of course it's because of the environment. The environment changed the genes! ///--------------I think one aspect that is underappreciated is the impact of the worst disease environment on earth. It's not like Africans can just get immune, no, the diseases in subsaharan Africa have been busy coevolving with them since the missing link. This is most explicitly shown when diseases like HIV cross over from great apes. So what does that do? 1. R-strategy reproduction- more offspring, less investment in each one. What's the point of investing much in each child if child mortality is sky-high? Just toss 'em out and hope some survive. Case in point- remember that french movie Bebe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babies_%28film%29 Before the Namibian baby turns one, momma is spending very little time with him. And unlike the Mongolian, Japanese, or American baby, daddy isn't seen ONCE. 2. Higher general mortality. This lowers genetic lifespan (see: mice vs mole-rats, lizards vs tortoises). This also means faster maturity/earlier age of reproduction, taken to its greatest human extreme with pygmies. 3. Lower population densities. When people get together harmful diseases have an easier time of it. If it's harder to make cities (because they'll randomly die out during formation and people will acquire cultural memory of many people together=not good) then labor specialization won't get going and ideas will be exchanged more slowly. Environment impacting culture, culture and environment impacting genetics, genetics impacting culture and environmental change (or lack thereof). ///--------------Culture is a necessary part of the feedback loop here. But culture doesn't exist in a vacuum. Genes, culture and technology feed back into each other constantly. Now, you could come up with a fairly useful 'culture-only' model of what's going on, but it would be incomplete. It wouldn't explain the constant dead ends we observe in the education system. It wouldn't explain the achievement gap. That isn't to say that you can't improve education. The KIPP schools kinda prove that. But you won't

eradicate the achievement gap without changing the underlying genetics. In any case, as it stands now there are differences in average (AVERAGE! JEEBUS certain people love to ignore this word) ability and temperment that reinforce certain negative cultural dynamics among the black urban underclass. On it's own ghetto culture would be shitty enough. ///--------------Genome-wide association studies establish that human intelligence is highly heritable and polygenic >General intelligence is an important human quantitative trait that accounts for much of the variation in diverse cognitive abilities. Individual differences in intelligence are strongly associated with many important life outcomes, including educational and occupational attainments, income, health and lifespan. Data from twin and family studies are consistent with a high heritability of intelligence, but this inference has been controversial. We conducted a genome-wide analysis of 3511 unrelated adults with data on 549?692 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and detailed phenotypes on cognitive traits. We estimate that 40% of the variation in crystallized-type intelligence and 51% of the variation in fluid-type intelligence between individuals is accounted for by linkage disequilibrium between genotyped common SNP markers and unknown causal variants. These estimates provide lower bounds for the narrow-sense heritability of the traits. We partitioned genetic variation on individual chromosomes and found that, on average, longer chromosomes explain more variation. Finally, using just SNP data we predicted ~1% of the variance of crystallized and fluid cognitive phenotypes in an independent sample (P=0.009 and 0.028, respectively). Our results unequivocally confirm that a substantial proportion of individual differences in human intelligence is due to genetic variation, and are consistent with many genes of small effects underlying the additive genetic influences on intelligence. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/mp201185a.html ///-------------->Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brainmapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931 >The culture-only (0% genetic--100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic--50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black--White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black--White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black--White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black--White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics). http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

///--------------Recent human evolution is real and substantial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion "The first four of the book's seven chapters serve as a preamble to the final three. First, Cochran and Harpending present evidence for recent, accelerated human evolution after the invention of agriculture. In itself, this argument represents a paradigm shift, albeit one that now has clear data to back it up.[3] The International HapMap Project and other studies have shown that selection is ongoing and has accelerated over time. This has been a key discovery in human biology, and Cochran and Harpending, building on their own work and that of others such as John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison,[4] tie the advent of agriculture??and the selection pressures resulting from the new diets, new modes of habitation, new animal neighbors, and new modes of living that agriculture made possible??to this accelerating evolution." ///-------------->>Well, if they'd only been exposed to those diseases on a regular basis then it would have all been the same! Are you aware of something called the innate immune system? Or are you perhaps aware that even the adaptive immune system has variant parts? Have you heard of something called the major histocompatability complex? One reason the epidemics were so bad in the New World was the low genetic diversity of the locals. They only had a few histocompatability variants among the population, and little variance among the rest of the immune system components. This meant that once a disease hit the jackpot, it could sweep through like a grass fire. Look, it's like having a monoculture crop in a region- it's much more vulnerable to disease than if several different crops are grown. Like I said earlier, adaption to Africa's disease environment (or rather, constraint to the same standard by Subsaharan Africa's disease environment) would limit people to a constant 'red-queen' race on immune system genes, as well as r-type reproduction. Once outside that environment, different strategies could arise. ///--------------Environment-only theories of intelligence aren't plausible: >Because differences in material resources across a broad range of family circumstances seem to have no demonstrable effect on IQ by late adolescence, culture-only theories have now begun to stress psychological rather than material disadvantage as the root cause of group differences in cognitive performance: for example, racism-depressed motivation, racial stress, race-based performance anxiety ("stereotype threat"), and low self-esteem. All are generally posited to result in some manner from White racism. However, there is no evidence that any of them causes either short- or long-term declines in actual cognitive ability, either within or between races; not all of them (e.g., self-esteem) are lower for Blacks; and none can begin to explain the large array of relevant non-psychological facts, including why the races also differ in brain size and speed (in milliseconds) of performing exceedingly simple cognitive tasks such as recognizing which of several buttons on a console has been illuminated (a reaction time task). Because the American Black-White IQ gap has not narrowed in the century since it was first measured, the psychic injury must also be just as deleterious now as it was during that earlier, more hostile era for Blacks, which seems implausible.

Thus, while the proposed psychic insults may temporarily patch over some rips in the culture-only theory, they would seem to hold even less promise than the failed socioeconomic ones for explaining the longstanding, worldwide pattern of racial IQ differences and their links to the biological correlates of g. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf ///--------------I'm personally aware of arguments involving MAO polymorphisms (relating to agression), but do not have abstracts and cites queued up on the subject. The short of it is supposed to be that gene variants correlated with aggressive behavior have higher frequency among the subsaharan population. There's also evidence for r-strategy vs k-strategy reproduction. The most extreme are among congo pygmies, who (iirc) have a maximum lifespan in their 40s and can begin reproduction at an average age of 8. The earlier age of maturity and (a little bit more controversially) slightly lower average max lifespan among subsaharans is (I think) well established in medical literature. ///-------------->>There's no basis to the R-strategy thesis. Blacks have comperable fertility, gestation, and reproductive rates when exposed to the same socioeconomic influences, European family sizes were comperable to current African ones less than a century ago. See, now that's just illiterate bullshit on your part and I'll tell you why. R-strategy is about parental investment in the individual offspring, not the number. The age that you actually reproduce isn't the same as the age that you are capable of reproduction. The most extreme example is with pygmies. http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/short-lives-short-size-why-are-pygmiessmall >>Andrea Migliano at the University of Cambridge suggests that pygmies have opted for a 'live fast, die short' strategy. Their short lives gives them very limited time as potential parents, and they have adapted by becoming sexually mature at a young age. That puts a brake on their pubescent growth spurts, leaving them with shorter adult heights. ///--------------The following quotes are from North African Arabs, long before European colonialism took place. Ibn Khaldun. >What does he have to say about Negroes? 1. "The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. Other persons who accept the status of slave do so as a means of attaining high rank, or power, or wealth, as is the case with the Mameluke Turks in the East and with those Franks and Galicians who enter the service of the state in Spain." 2. "Beyond known peoples of black West Africa to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." 3. "Therefore, the Negro nation are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because [Negroes] have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as

we have stated." ///---------------- Medieval Arab writer Al-Muqaddasi "As for the Zanj, they are people of black color, flat noses, kinky hair, and little understanding or intelligence." "We know that the Zanj (blacks) are the least intelligent and the least discerning of mankind, and the least capable of understanding the consequences of actions." -- Jahiz (d. 868 AD), Kitab al-Bukhala (The Book of Misers) "Like the crow among mankind are the Zanj for they are the worst of men and the most vicious of creatures in character and temperament." ///--------------Genetic studies on self-identified racial groupings: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/?tool=pmcentrez >Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC139378/?tool=pmcentrez >Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity. >Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified?race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622 ///--------------The American Anthropological Association isn't a credible source, and you can refute people who cite them, like I did here: The official position of the American Anthropological Association is that intelligence cannot be biologically determined by race. The American Psychological Association has said that while there are differences in average IQ between racial groups, and there is no conclusive evidence for environmental explanations, there is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation, and no adequate explanation for the racial IQ gap is presently available. According to a 1996 statement from the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, although heredity influences behavior in individuals, it does not affect the ability of a population to function in any social setting, and all peoples "possess equal biological ability to assimilate any human culture" and "racist political doctrines find no foundation in scientific knowledge concerning modern or past human populations. >> Anonymous 10/22/11(Sat)14:41 No.2153624 >>2153621 The American Anthropological Association also has stated that Anthropology isn't science. You

see, experimental rigor might refute their bullshit. Article very related. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html ///--------------Dogs and wolves have a shorter genetic distance between each other than Negroids and nonNegroids. dog - wolf FST = .165 [1] Negroid - non-Negroid FST = .2+ [2] [1] doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.046 [2] doi:10.1101/gr.116301.110 Deal with it, human subspecies deniers. ///--------------///--------------///--------------///-------------->Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 311-319. >Because differences in material resources across a broad range of family circumstances seem to have no demonstrable effect on IQ by late adolescence, culture-only theories have now begun to stress psychological rather than material disadvantage as the root cause of group differences in cognitive performance: for example, racism-depressed motivation, racial stress, race-based performance anxiety ("stereotype threat"), and low self-esteem. All are generally posited to result in some manner from White racism. However, there is no evidence that any of them causes either short- or long-term declines in actual cognitive ability, either within or between races; not all of them (e.g., self-esteem) are lower for Blacks; and none can begin to explain the large array of relevant non-psychological facts, including why the races also differ in brain size and speed (in milliseconds) of performing exceedingly simple cognitive tasks such as recognizing which of several buttons on a console has been illuminated (a reaction time task). Because the American Black-White IQ gap has not narrowed in the century since it was first measured, the psychic injury must also be just as deleterious now as it was during that earlier, more hostile era for Blacks, which seems implausible. Thus, while the proposed psychic insults may temporarily patch over some rips in the culture-only theory, they would seem to hold even less promise than the failed socioeconomic ones for explaining the longstanding, worldwide pattern of racial IQ differences and their links to the biological correlates of g. http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/2005hereditarian-hypothesis.pdf >Genetic influences on brain morphology and IQ are well studied. A variety of sophisticated brainmapping approaches relating genetic influences on brain structure and intelligence establishes a regional distribution for this relationship that is consistent with behavioral studies. We highlight those studies that illustrate the complex cortical patterns associated with measures of cognitive ability. A measure of cognitive ability, known as g, has been shown highly heritable across many studies. We argue that these genetic links are partly mediated by brain structure that is likewise

under strong genetic control. Other factors, such as the environment, obviously play a role, but the predominant determinant appears to genetic. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15651931 >The culture-only (0% genetic--100% environmental) and the hereditarian (50% genetic--50% environmental) models of the causes of mean Black--White differences in cognitive ability are compared and contrasted across 10 categories of evidence: the worldwide distribution of test scores, g factor of mental ability, heritability, brain size and cognitive ability, transracial adoption, racial admixture, regression, related life-history traits, human origins research, and hypothesized environmental variables. The new evidence reviewed here points to some genetic component in Black--White differences in mean IQ. The implication for public policy is that the discrimination model (i.e., Black--White differences in socially valued outcomes will be equal barring discrimination) must be tempered by a distributional model (i.e., Black--White outcomes reflect underlying group characteristics). http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf //-------------------->IQ/g is best single predictor, mental or non-mental. IQ/g usually predicts major life outcomes better than does any other single predictor in broad samples of individuals. http://livearchive.org/2011/pdf/2004socialconsequences-groy/ >Results indicate expert consensus that g is an important, non-trivial determinant (or at least predictor) of important real world outcomes for which there is no substitute, and that tests of g are valid and generally free from racial bias. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305 >Most transracial adoption studies provide evidence for the heritability of racial differences in IQ. For instance, Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into white American and white Belgian homes were examined in studies by E.A. Clark and J. Hanisee, by M. Frydman and R. Lynn, and by M. Winick et al. Many had been hospitalized for malnutrition. But they went on to develop IQs ten or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. By contrast, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study marked black/white differences emerged by age 17 even though the black children had been reared in white middle-class families (Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman, 1992). http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004064.html //-------------------->The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality, Ernst Mayr, 2002 There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition. Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races." Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can

read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature. http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html >Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H. sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies. http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2809%2900537-4/abstract >New genetic data has enabled scientists to re-examine the relationship between human genetic variation and 'race'. We review the results of genetic analyses that show that human genetic variation is geographically structured, in accord with historical patterns of gene flow and genetic drift. Analysis of many loci now yields reasonably accurate estimates of genetic similarity among individuals, rather than populations. Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry. These clusters are also correlated with some traditional concepts of race, but the correlations are imperfect because genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous, overlapping fashion among populations. Therefore, ancestry, or even race, may in some cases prove useful in the biomedical setting, but direct assessment of disease-related genetic variation will ultimately yield more accurate and beneficial information. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000 We already have genetic explanations for why blacks are more violent than other races. For example - At one end of the androgen receptor gene, which is alternatively labeled AR or NR3C4, there are varying amounts of the trinucleotide repeats CAG and GGC. Blacks possess less of these CAG repeats. Fewer CAG repeats causes increased transactivation of the receptor (meaning that the receptor became more activated to increase gene expression), see the research here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8065934 Cortisol responses are another area that highlight racial differences in behavior. a new study by Way and Taylor has found that the short allele of 5-HTTLPR causes increased cortisol responses to a perceived social threat provided by the Trier Social Stress Test. http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/PIIS0006322309012724/abstract Also, a new study by Armbruster et al found that the 7R allele of DRD4 causes lower cortisol responses and that this allele interacted with the long allele of 5-HTTLPR to lower cortisol response to social stress. http://www.citeulike.org/group/6880/article/6445652

Beaver et al determined that African-Americans have significantly more 7R alleles than whites. The possibility that low cortisol levels in African Americans could be partly genetic has important implications for research on the genetics of violence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1913922/pdf/1744-9081-3-30.pdf Indeed, in 2008 Rajender et al determined that male control subjects average 21.19 repeats, rapists average 18.44 repeats, murderers average 17.59 repeats, and men who murder after they finish raping average 17.31 repeats. http://www.springerlink.com/content/50x2125530hku64l/fulltext.pdf?page=1 The shortest repeat lengths are associated with a higher degree of violence, earlier criminal records, verbal aggression, assertive personalities, extraversion, neuroticism, and selftranscendence (mystical tendencies). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19448851 Sjoberg et al proved that higher testosterone levels increased aggressive tendencies in males with the 3R allele that is the most common MAOA allele in black people but did not increase aggression in males with the 4R allele that is the most common MAOA allele in whites. http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v33/n2/pdf/1301417a.pdf To summarize, African Americans have fewer CAG repeats in the androgen receptor gene, which somehow increases testosterone spikes. Higher testosterone decreases MAOA enzyme levels in those with the 3-repeat allele. Plus, androgen receptor alleles with fewer CAG repeats beget more androgen receptor activity. These receptors translocate to the cell nucleus and down-regulate the MAOA gene. African Americans likely have a significant genetic component to their lower baseline cortisol levels and lower cortisol spikes in response to threats. This further allows higher testosterone levels and decreases MAOA levels directly. >The truth about Lenin and the Bolsheviks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k_R9bpdndE http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3129 The French organization Contribuables Associs (Associated Taxpayers) has published a study on the real cost of immigration. The website Le Salon Beige has a link to the complete study, in pdf format. The study shows that for a 30-year period after the Second World War immigration was a benefit to the State. But when the immigration laws changed to allow family reunification, and political or economic asylum, employment as the primary motive was replaced by the notion of population substitution, i.e. the bringing in of massive numbers of immigrants to change the ethnic make-up of a country. The needs of the immigrant population have thus surpassed the revenue from payroll contributions and taxes. The key points of the study are as follows: - France has 6,868,000 immigrants, or 11% of the population. - Immigration reduces by two thirds the growth of the GNP. - The cost of immigration in France is 71.76 billion euros. - The revenue from immigration in France is 45.57 billion euros. - The deficit from immigration shouldered by the taxpayers is 26.19 billion euros. - When an immigrant does not return home at the expiration of his work contract, it is the State (the taxpayer) who bears the cost of welfare and social benefits. - Non-European immigrants and their descendants receive 22% of all social benefits.

- The unit-price of requests for asylum is 15,000 euros. - The majority of immigration expenses do not depend on the Ministry of Immigration headed by Brice Hortefeux. - Expenses for security linked to immigration amount to 5.2 billion euros. - The black market involves at least 500,000 immigrants and represents a loss to the State of 3.810 billion euros. - 65 to 90% of prostitutes are foreign. - The unemployment rate of immigrants is twice that of non-immigrants. - Social benefits constitute 14% of the average revenue of immigrant households versus 5% for non-immigrant households. >In addition, an ever growing group of Third World immigrants is dependent on welfare. A study by Tyra Ekhaugen of the Frisch Centre for Economic Research and the University of Oslo concluded that immigration has increased the pressure on the welfare state, because many immigrants do not join the tax-paying part of the population. >Third World immigrants are, the study showed, recipients of social security benefits at a rate ten times that of native Norwegians - destroying the liberal argument used by pro-immigration politicians in Norway that immigration was necessary to maintain the social welfare state. >More than half of all social security benefits in the city of Oslo are spent on non-Western immigrants. Immigrants from Africa have the highest unemployment rate, with official figures in 2005 showing a black unemployment rate of 17.5 percent. >Immigrants from Asia had an unemployment rate of 12.3 percent, while those from South and Central America had an unemployment rate of 10.1 percent. The average unemployment rate amongst native Norwegians was 2.4 percent. //--------------------Let's look at the 2 races that are the most distantly related. Blacks and Asians. Two reproductively isolated populations of a animal species, evolving independently for tens of thousands of years, subject to all the usual natural forces (founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation), somehow come out with (a) different skin, hair, and even earwax, (b) different bone structure, (c) different blood antibodies, (d) different disease susceptibilities, (e) different athletic strengths and weaknesses, (f) different cognitive abilities and yet they're both the same "race". I refuse to believe that Blacks and Asians are 99.9% similar enough to be lumped into one human "race" They're different species of humans and should be classified as such, that isn't a bad thing necessarily, as both races have their own respective advantages and disadvantages. http://vimeo.com/19922972 The global human population 10,000 years ago was 1 million. A human population requires 500 breeding individuals to avoid inbreeding depression.

10% of all marriages world-wide are between 1st or 2nd cousins & this gets as high as 50%+ in some countries especially around the middle-east. A deCODE genetics study in Iceland found the optimal mate to be a 3rd or 4th cousin. Iceland is a highly homogenous society which was founded by a bunch of Norse men who took Gaelic wives with them. Even within a single European ethnic group there is a great deal of diversity, never mind the whole of Europe. Ethnicmixing leads to higher rates of autism even inbetween whites. Racemixing leads to outbreeding depression & pairings of non-complementary traits. Pro-white Sites: http://www.theneweffort.com/ http://whiterevolution.com/ http://whitelocust.wordpress.com http://www.anunews.net/ http://www.kevinislaughter.com/wp-content/uploads/2083++A+European+Declaration+of+Independence.pdf http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/10/index.html http://mindweaponsinragnarok.wordpress.com/ http://www.solargeneral.com/library/fame-of-a-dead-mans-deeds-robert-s-griffin.pdf http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/One_Sheaf.pdf http://robertsgriffin.com/ http://www.vnnforum.com/ http://www.stormfront.org/ http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page http://incogman.net/ http://www.heretical.com/ http://www.whitelawtowers.blogspot.com/ http://www.alor.org/ http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/ http://praag.co.uk/ http://spiritwaterblood.com/ http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.ca/ http://www.whitepower.us/index.php/tag/white-people/ http://alexkurtagicofficial.blogspot.co.uk/ // Site not actually pro-white over-all http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htm 3. Of Race and People (Volk) What is a race? A group of living creatures is a race when its individual members share the same appearance and genetic inheritance. What do I understand under appearance and genetic inheritance? Physical characteristics that are passed along: the color of the skin, the shape of the skull, and

particularly facial features (shape of the nose, mouth, lips), etc. What are the major races? White, black, and yellow. To which race do Europes peoples belong? The peoples of Europe do not belong to a particular race, but are rather a racial mixture. Our German people is comprised primarily of six races. And what are they? The Nordic, the Pfalzish (flische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische), the Ostic (ostische), and the Dinarish (dinarische) races. List of banned books: http://www.truthinourtime.com/2008/12/extensive-list-of-banned-books.html http://www.scribd.com/doc/99508765/De-Ondergang-Van-Nederland-Mohammed-Rasoel Very important article: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/equality-as-an-evil/