Tag Archives: Analysis

Miscegenation an Objective View

As there is so much pseudo science and politicaly motivated information regarding miscegenation I feel the need to put an article out there to put the matter in context. In regards to the phenomena of miscegenation it must first be defined. The definition of which I will be operating on is the genetic intermingling through sexual reproduction of two populations both genetically and phenotypically distinct from each other. The classical definition of miscegenation would of course be the “interbreeding between races” but seeing as the term race always brings up accusations of “folk taxonomy” or pseudo-science I prefer to use the term continental population or sub species. A population is a group of individuals of one species inhabiting one location and interbreeding and the biological definition of a subspecies being the only valid taxonomic classification below the species level. A species in turn is a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

.

To understand what a subspecies is it is useful to visualize the 90% rule which says “If 90% of population A differs from 90% of population B” than you have a subspecies. (Mayr, Ernst 1969) To think of it in layman’s terms if you took 100 individuals from one group and 100 from another group mixed them together and were than able to resort them into their original groups by appearance or traits than you have two distinct subspecies. (Whitman 2014) Using this 90% rule it becomes evident that miscegenation is nothing more than the interbreeding between two subspecies. Something which when applied to wolves or wild horses is abhorred by conservationists as it reduces ecological and biological diversity. As the old Green Peace saying goes “extinction is forever.” Though with modern day gene sequencing and reproductive technologies we may need to adjust this adage.

.

In regards to Homo sapiens miscegenation has been going on since the species originated and began spreading out across the globe. In prehistoric times people were far less mobile than they are now and probably didn’t wander far from the place of their birth, at least if they could help it. Traveling into unknown territory with hostile strangers and unknown food supply would have been unadvisable to say the least. Geographical barriers would have also hindered travel and led to further differentiation among the species as mountains, deserts, oceans and islands acted as filters if not total barriers to movement. After the initial colonization of the globe ending after the last Glacial Maxim and rising of sea levels, most people probably did not interact or interbreed with groups that were vastly different from themselves either in looks “phenotype” or in genetics “genotype.” Most certainly no Arctic Inuit ever encountered an Australian aborigine or interbred with one in ancient times.

.
If one population was to travel it would have meant encroaching on another population’s territory and resources which would have resulted in conflict and small scale tribal war often resulting in the genocide of one population through the killing of the males and the enslavement and or intermarriage of the females of the less powerful or less numerous population. In this regard prehistoric humans were very similar to chimps. Male chimps of one interrelated group will stake out a territory, constantly patrol it and explore slightly beyond the boundaries. When they meet males from an unrelated group they will attack them and if numerically superior and kill them. Neighboring bands of chimps will repeat this process to each other until all the males of one group are killed off. When this happens they kill the juvenile chimps and mate with the females of the defeated group. Similar to how the Greeks threw Trojan babies from the walls during their sack of Troy.
The real question is why do males of rival population seek to kill the males of another population? To answer this we must look at the world through a strictly genetic sense and inquire into the life work of evolutionary biologists Edward O Wilson and William D Hamilton.

.
Both men wished to answer the question of “altruism” among social insects such as bees and ants. Altruism is a behavior that decreases an individual’s fitness and increases the fitness of another around it. In other words why do social insects form complex social groups and sacrifice their own “fitness” or genetic survival for that of their related kin. This issue perplexed even Charles Darwin. Hamilton’s work led to the revolutionary theory of “kin selection and inclusive fitness.” Simply put Hamilton determined it was useful to think of “survival of the fittest” from the point of view of “individual genes.” Humans for example share 50% of their genes with their siblings and 12.5% with their cousins. You pass on 50% of your genes to your children, 25% to your grandchildren and 12.5% to your great grandchildren. In essence a gene that caused you to sacrifice your life to save two siblings or eight cousins would be beneficial and spread among the group as a percentage of your genes would survive even if you did not. In the case of ants who are 75% related to their siblings (through complicated genetics I won’t get into) this behavioral is even more extreme leading only one ant or bee in the colony to reproduce and the rest to support her. This same tendency to favor close genetic relatives exists in all species particularly mammals.

.
But how does this answer the question of male chimps from one population killing males of another? Simply put these chimps are not closely related and by killing other males and “inserting” their own genes into a neighboring population by reproducing with their females, they are effectively destroying the genetic fitness of the neighboring population and advancing their own. Behavior that harms another organism with no apparent benefit to one’s self Hamilton termed “spiteful behavior” but in reality it is beneficial as it destroys or hinders genes that are in competition with the perpetrator’s genes. This in a nutshell is genetic similarity theory. My genes are in competition with your genes but helping those who are genetically similar to me helps my genes survive and hurting those who are genetically dissimilar to me prevents competition from rival genes.

.
So where does this leave the offspring of males who produced offspring with dissimilar populations? Well it depends on how dissimilar, how extensive the intermingling and the paternal groups attitudes towards the offspring. In the case of humans several scenarios have emerged under different circumstances throughout history. In the case of the Mongol conquest of Eurasia war rape and bride taking of non-Mongol women was common. From a genetic testing it’s has been determined the male lines of Central Asia are heavily East Asian while the female lines are heavily Western Eurasian (European or Iranic). Likewise in the Americas the Mestizo and Mulatto populations are heavily European on the male line but Amerindian and West African on the female line, though this varies in percentage by region and social class.

.
The present day Northern Russian population demonstrates the direction in which admixed genes strive for and that is the dominance and eventual hard sweep of the subjugated group’s alleles. A hard sweep is the removal of a certain genetic allele or alleles from a population. An allele in turn is one of alternative forms of a gene that arise by mutation and is found at the same place on a chromosome. It is well known that there are genetic affinities with Asian or Mongoloid looking Siberian groups among the peoples of the northern Russian forest. However unlike these seemingly related Siberian groups the North Russians do not possess the EDAR gene which gives East Asian Mongoloid peoples there characteristic eye shape, hair texture, shovel shaped incisors and dry earwax. This seems a paradox for a people who have ancestry from a group with the EDAR gene unless one consider purifying selection or the removal of an allele or in this case multiple alleles from a population.

.
Consider the following scenario. If one population is fixed at 100% for the A allele and another population is fixed at 100% for the B allele and if only males of population A mixed with the females of population B than the first generation would be 50% fixed for A and 50% fixed for B. By random chance each succeeding generation would see the ratio of these alleles fluctuate. If there was discrimination in favor of a certain phenotype or look caused by allele A than allele B would suffer. If there was discrimination against the look caused by allele B than A would gain in percentage as people choose to mate with individuals possessing A over B. If a group like North Russians were to have a preference for European features or just an internalized hatred of East Asian features and if these pressures were strong enough, than in following generations one phenotype and in turn genotype would prevail. To put it in layman’s terms Mongoloid genes seem to have been bred out of the North Russian population. A similar pattern may have happened in Finnish peoples as they share the same genetic affinities.

.
Similar instances have occurred in India and Latin America where racial caste systems have sprung up from historical intermingling of genetically distinct populations. The Caste system in India is the result of Indo-Aryan invaders from Central Asia conquering Dravidian peoples who in turn conquered Andaman Islander “negrito” like peoples. Other groups also added to the genetic medley with the introgression of East Asian, Austro Asiatic speaking peoples from the Burmese Border and other East Asian peoples from Nepal and Mughal Conquest. However in spite of the great injection of intermingling peoples the tendency after these initial conquests seems to have been genetic segregation with people breaking into endogamous groups based on appearance and in turn genetic similarity.

.
Likewise in Latin America a more recent phenomenon is scene with mate preference for European phenotypes. This has produced an upper class which ancestrally is not entirely white genetically though in appearance is. They may express European phenotypes but when put to genetic testing there is often low lying Amerindian and West African DNA. In the case of Argentina such extreme mate preference occurred that the traditional indigenous and African population of the country is virtually nonexistent today even if you may be able to detect it at low levels in the modern day white populations DNA.

.
This tendency of genes to separate along lines of genetic similarity does not stop at mixed populations. Studies of sexually active couples and marriage partners among homogeneous populations show that when their genetics are analyzed they are more similar than the average individuals in that population. (Rushton, 1989) For most of human history the tendency outside of conquest was for people to marry somewhat distant relatives. In more traditional areas of the world like the Middles East and South Asia as many as 53% of people still marry first or second cousins as is the case with Iraq. (HBD Chick, FDB Cousin Marriage and clans and tribes in Iraq) In Pakistan the world leader in cousin marriage it reaches 70%. If all of human history was tallied it’s estimated that 80% of all marriages have been to first or second cousins. (BrighterBrains.org Cousin Marriage in Pakistan)

.
This innate often extreme desire to seek common genes is the very basis for ethnic group and sub species formation. Given enough time and isolation a group will continue to intermingle until all individuals in the population are interrelated. Most people alive today are heavily interrelated with their co-ethnics if you consider the size and scope of family trees. Going back 8 generations you have 1024 openings in your family tree, thirty generations ago it reaches a billion and forty generations ago it reaches a trillion! Of course there were not a trillion people alive in 1000 A.D. so you are descended from multiple pathways from the same ancestors. This explains why ethnic groups act altruistic towards their co ethnics more so than out group members as these individuals are in fact their distant relatives who share common genes. By helping these relatives you ensure the survival of your genes.
This endogamy among a population is also how specific traits like eye color, hair color, resistance to disease, body build, cognitive and personality traits become common or even fixed in a population as a favored trait or set of traits is spread within it. The longer two populations have been separated or the greater the selective pressure on the group the more extreme these differences will become.

.
After such divergent evolution if two populations or subspecies come into contact together and reproduce the offspring are often confronted with unforeseen consequences affecting health. In spite of the pop culture belief in “hybrid vigor” or the inheritance of the most desirable traits from both parents the offspring are just as likely to inherit the least desirable traits. Although desirable is a subjective term and can mean different things under different ecological circumstances. Here in lies the biggest hindrance to miscegenation as a desirable phenomenon. If two parents evolved to fit very different ecological niches interbreed they often pass on genes to their offspring that do not function well together. As genes do not evolve independently but rather as a package of interworking traits to ensure the survival of their carrier, combining such genetic packages often interferes with their fitness and the ability to form functioning cellular and organ systems. Is it really little wonder than that mixed race children suffer from higher rates of mental illness, allergies, autism, still births and birth defects when compared to mono racial children in the United States? (J. Richard Udry, 1995)
Even the most preferred racial pairing among high IQ types of European Man and East Asian women has been shown to result in exceptionally high rates of birth complications and health problems later in life. ( Race Bias Tracks Conception Risk Across the Menstrual Cycle, Navarrete Michigan State)

.
This purpose of this article is not to necessarily take a side on the issue of miscegenation and designate it as “good” or “bad” as most common people would. Rather I am attempting to explain the biological forces that give us instincts toward our own groups genetic preservation as well as the destruction of other groups genetic integrity via the male desire to dominate outgroup males and copulate with their novel looking females. By doing this a male is effectively destroying the other groups fitness as the progeny of such unions would not be accepted by their own group. In earlier times high childhood mortality rates and strong preferences for progeny that look like the in group would leave such individuals at a biological disadvantage. More often than not these hybrid offspring would separate along genetic similarity lines via genetic segregation and in group preference for homogeneous looking individuals. Just think how children tease and bully the child who has larger ears or a strange looking nose when compared to the rest of the group. Hybrid offspring would either not survive or have their genetic admixture mostly bred out over succeeding generations. This has been the case for much of human existence and the longer the intermixing event between two or more populations the stronger instinct among admixed populations to separate based on appearance. Caste Systems in turn evolved out of this tendency among admixed populations to seek out genetically similar mates.

 

 

Simplified this means although a male may pass on his genes with a genetically dissimilar female he increases the amount of his genes that survive into the next generation if he reproduces with a woman with those same genes. Other out group males in turn will attempt to impregnate women of his in group to decrease his fitness and in turn the fitness of his population

The Saudi Option

by Gregory Ritter

Stalemate: The Saudi Option

The Islamic State has reached its natural frontiers. Since its capture of Ramadi and Palmyra earlier this year, its expansion has stalled. In the north, its advance is blocked by the Kurds, who tenaciously hold on to their mountain redoubts. To the southeast, the Islamic State (IS) faces the Baghdad government. While totally ineffective on the offensive, Baghdad’s predominantly Shiite forces can defend their homelands around Baghdad and southward. For the IS to take Baghdad, it would have to incur huge costs, only to win control of a large hostile population. In the west, the IS advance has ground to a halt against the Syrian Arab Army of Bashar al-Assad. In recent weeks, the SAA has, with Russian support, found the will to stage a cautious counterattack.

There is a strong relationship between the military situation and the demographic realities:The IS wins where there are Sunni Arabs (as pointed out by Russia-watcher Anatoly Karlin). Its attack stalls when it encounters concentrations of anyone who is not Sunni and not Arab, for example, in western Syria, with its millions of Alawites, Shiites and Christians. Here the IS has made little headway against the SAA, which is all that stands between the local population and almost certain enslavement or annihilation. An even more extreme example is the city of Deir Al-Zur in eastern Syria, which has a large Armenian minority. There, over 200 km from friendly lines, SAA forces have held out for months. Contrast this situation with that of Ramadi, which the IS overran in a matter of hours, facing little resistance. The difference? Ramadi, like many other victims of the IS blitzkrieg, is overwhelmingly Sunni Arab.

So the IS advance had stalled, but why had it not been destroyed? Notionally everyone is against it–the US, Russia, Iran, the Damascus and Baghdad governments, the Kurds, Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Gulf Arabs. But realistically, none of these players is committed to the immediate destruction of the IS. There are, broadly speaking, two major ‘coalitions,’ based on aligned interests. On one side is Russia, Iran and Damascus (and Hezbollah). On the other is the US (and Europe), Israel, the Kurds and the gulf Arabs, preeminently Saudi Arabia. Outside these ‘coalitions’ stand Baghdad and Turkey. Baghdad manages to be a vassal of both Iran and the US, and Turkey plays for its own team.

Of course, this two-sided breakdown is a gross simplification, each ‘coalition’ is a mess of competing interests. But each is founded on an important convergence. The Russia ‘coalition’ (Russia, Iran, Damascus) are united in their desire to boost Iranian influence and maintain the existence of the Damascus government. They therefore oppose IS expansion into western Syria and southern Iraq. The US ‘coalition’ (USA, Israel, Kurds and gulf Arabs) opposes IS expansion in Iraq, but will tolerate, even encourage, IS attacks into western Syria. It would prefer to see the IS weaken Damascus’ position, because as Assad’s power weakens, so does Iranian and Russian influence. Some reports suggest that the US has gone so far as to give ISmaterial support (accidentally no doubt). On the other hand, the US coalition is wary of allowing the IS too free a hand. All players recognize that should the IS fall, their geopolitical opponents might gain an advantage from the ensuing power-vacuum. Everyone agrees that the IS is evil, but no one wants to destroy it.

In recent weeks, things seem to have changed. With Russian support, the SAA has started to regain ground, at first against assorted rebel groups, now against the IS itself. The Paris attacks have brought in France, who presumably would not be allowed to act without approval from Washington. Has the US coalition decided that it is time to wrap up the IS? Or is this just another head-fake?

Perhaps the US will continue its ineffectual bombing campaign, while continuing to funnel arms and supplies to IS. Maybe the US will pull the plug, and go all in against the IS. Whatever the case, one thing can be certain. The IS will not allow any outside power to decide its fate. And, while all the powers are jostling for advantage against one another, the IS has an ace in the hole.

The Saudi Option

The Islamic State has the grandest of ambitions, but only the meagrest of capabilities. Its leader, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, claims the position of Caliph and Amir al-Mu’mineen (commander of the faithful). He has received the nominal fealty of Islamist groups around the world. But his actual authority is limited to the upper Mesopotamia and stretches of Syrian desert. His state has limited economic resources, and it controls no cities of importance, save Mosul. His armed forces have reached their limits of advance, given demographic and political conditions. The global and regional powers, though divided, might well wreck IS in a matter of weeks. The IS doesn’t have a chance, even with soldiers fired up by its dank-ass fight song and balls-out helmet-cam footage. So what should their next move be?

Saudi Arabia. The IS needs to conquer Arabia, or at least Mecca and Medina. Admittedly an attempt on the Holy Cities would be the height of ambition, and could well end in disaster for the IS. But when has the threat of disaster ever deterred them? It would be difficult, but not impossible. The IS recruits from around the Islamic World, including Muslim enclaves in European cities, and no doubt has plenty of supporters and sympathizers in Saudi Arabia. It could also play on the internal weaknesses of the Kingdom, especially by stoking the ambitions of some distant relation with more self-esteem than career potential. Nothing fuels regime change quite like a butthurt second cousin. But before discussing the nitty-gritty of the “Saudi Option,” we need to examine why the IS should, and probably is, considering it. There are two factors: the Caliphate and the Holy Cities.

First of all, the Caliphate holds great symbolic value, even though it has been largely powerless, especially in recent centuries. The last Abbasid Caliphs were mere puppets. The Ottomans assumed the title in the 16th century, but the Sultan’s power lay in his earthly might, his armies, his police–his claim on the Caliphate was almost an afterthought. Still the claim was an important one, one that he regarded as crucial to his prestige. On several occasions, the Ottoman Sultan used his position as caliph to influence believers outside the Empire, for example to convince the Muslims of India to support British rule.

A crucial responsibility of the Caliph is to protect the Holy Cities. While he need not control them directly, he is at least notionally responsible for them as “Custodian of the Two Holy Cities,” a title first held by Saladin. The Holy cities are critical to the prestige of any Caliph. In 1803, when the forces of the First Saudi State seized Mecca and Medina, the Ottoman Sultan-Caliph ordered an army into Hejaz to retake them. The cities secure, the army marched into the interior to raze the Saudi capital in retaliation for the affront. Even that was not enough to wash away the blot. The offense was so grave, the Sultan had the captured Saudi patriarch, Abdullah bin Saud, brought to Constantinople in a cage and beheaded. (see Trofimov. The Siege of Mecca. Doubleday, 2007.)

The Holy Cities are also crucial in their own right. Stripping the Saudis of Mecca and Medina would delegitimize the Saudi claim to be “Custodian of the Two Holy Cities,” and make the IS, as the suzerain of Mecca and Medina, almost untouchable. Thus Al-Baghdadi would virtually inure himself to Western overthrow. No western country would dare harm a figure of such prestige, for to do so would incur the fury of all Muslims, or at least Sunnis. Control of the Holy Cities would, for all intents, put the IS beyond the reach of western military power. For while Muslims can fight other Muslims for control of the Holy Cities, no western army has entered the Hejaz since–well–Augustus, who ordered the Prefect of Egypt to conduct an expedition into the region. It was a disaster.

As has been noted, the Saudi Option is a radical proposal. But it could be done, and indeed a similar plot was carried out in Mecca in 1979, when hundreds of gunmen stormed the Al-Haram Mosque, which houses the Ka’aba. Only after a long fight did the Saudis regain control. The incident was a terrible blow to their prestige, so the Saudis are surely on their guard for similar attempts. But the situation is drastically different today, because the Islamist movement is stronger than ever. The IS can count on the support of sympathizers all over the world. And while the Saudi regime has an impressive security apparatus, it is not invincible. The IS could achieve its ends by different means, whether by fomenting a revolution, supporting a coup d’etat, or, like in 1979, storming a religious shrine and taking hostages.

One could argue that IS will not attack Arabia, because the Saudis supported and probably continue to support the IS financially. But al-Baghdadi surely knows that Saudi faith is Punic. The royal family will turn on the IS as soon as it is in their interest (and I don’t mean some bullshit, half-assed airstrikes). Because the Saudis are part of the US ‘coalition,’ they will abandon the IS as soon as it becomes advantageous–likely when the US and Israel have leveraged the IS to extract maximum concessions from Russia and Iran. Once the US pulls the plug, the IS will find resupply and reinforcement increasingly difficult, and will struggle more and more to hold off its enemies. Moreover, toppling the Saudis would bring material benefits. If the Saudis were ousted altogether, the IS would be in a position to secure the Arabian oilfields. Why bother with the Saudis’ petty handouts, when you could just take it all?

The Saudi Option would be a coup de main of the first order. It would break the stalemate in Syria by rocketing the IS into the ranks of regional, even world powers. If were executed successfully, the US would be forced to deal with it as a legitimate power.