tdaxp

From Dienekes and gnxp, part of the conclusion of "Analysis of genetic variation in Ashkenazi Jews by high density SNP genotyping" (pdf):

There were small but significant differences in measures of genetic diversity between
AJ [Ashkenazi Jewish] and CEU [Utah whites from the HapMap sample]. Analysis of genome-wide LD structure revealed a greater number of haplotype blocks which tended to be smaller in AJ. There was essentially no difference in global LD decay between AJ and CEU, although there was a tendency for faster decay of nearby SNPs and slower decay of intermediate distance SNPs in the AJ. These data are more consistent with the AJ as an older, larger population than CEU, and would suggest that, depending on regional differences in LD structure, AJ populations may not always provide an advantage for whole-genome association mapping.

I asked:

Re: the population sizes, would a more reasonable non-mathematical rendering be that the smallest AJ bottleneck was larger than the smallest CEU bottleneck, or the average AJ population size was larger than the average CEU population size?

And the Henry Harpending (you may remember him) replied:

Re Dan's question: either answer could be right. Instead of thinking about effective size think of the inverse of effective size, (1/Ne), which is the rate of diversity loss. This inverse can be averaged over time, like any speed. A bottleneck has a much larger effect on the average of (1/Ne) than it does on average Ne.

Will this put an end to the talk about a bottleneck in Ashkenazi history and about Ashkenazi disorders being the result of drift?

This is what is so exciting about widespread genetic testing: not only can we actually get answers for some old questions (are there different genepools within the human race? yes) we can ask questions that never would have occured to us before (what was the last year when Jews outnumbered whites?).

Askhanazim Jewry, g, and Higher Education

Jaschik, S. 2007. 'The Power of Privilege.' Inside Higher Ed. April 11, 2007. Available online: http://insidehighered.com/news/2007/04/11/soares.

A treasured friend & trusted reader sent this article in, which discusses possibly antisemitic reasons for the introduction of the SAT test in Yale University. The piece spends a lot of time on the quirks of the New Haven, Connecticut school, so I'll just quote one part of it and talk in more general terms:

If colleges more closely understand their histories, Soares said, they might be more likely to adopt truly progressive policies today. His book ends with a series of recommendations along those lines, not just for Yale, but for other elite colleges. He calls for affirmative action policies based on socioeconomic status, a de-emphasis on standardized testing, and the elimination of preferences that defy true meritocracy (such as those for legacies and athletes).

Favoring athletes, he said, makes very little sense if talking about the social mission of higher education. Even at top universities, this has become “the doorway in,” and counter to the images many people have of athletics as a pro-diversity force on campuses, most of the beneficiaries are white. “What is it that athletics contributes to higher education? Why is it a part of higher education?” Perhaps showing the impact of his Oxford history, Soares noted that the admissions preferences offered by top American colleges make no sense to educators anywhere else in the world. “At Oxford and Cambridge, you are not going to be admitted just because you are good on the rugby field.”

Trying to discriminate against Jews by factoring in g (general intelligence would be odd, as Ashkenazim ("northern European") Jews apparently have higher average g than most other races. This seems to be a result of intense selection pressure on Jews in the past thousand years, as cruel and mean regimes adopted policy after policy to limit Jewish mobility, wealth, and reproductive success. Average- and below-average Jews were selected against, while above-average Jews were selected for, by the European environment relative to other Europeans.

Thus, institutions of higher education used a variety of methods to keep Jews out, by defining merit as something other than general intelligence. From a century ago, Eastern universities used the idea of the "whole man" to discriminate against Jews. Because Jewish cultural traditional is relatively unathletic, Jewish history in Europe kept them seperated from the land and much physical exertion, and relatively higher rates of historical inbreeding (owing to ghetto living conditions), Jews were at a disadvantage under the "whole man" criteria. Likewise, modern affirmative action is a method of limiting the success of Jews and other market-oriented minorities.

See also: My series on feminism, leftism, and cash, covering the SAT and computer science.

My friends, the charade is over. For years I have been furitively poisoning easter wells, using the blood of gentile children for matzo balls, and of course smuggling aphrodisiac chewing gum to Egyptian teenagers. I have been able to do this because your foolish governments have not required me to wear a yellow star, thus allowing me to deceive good Muslims and Christians into believing I am not a Jew. I know my actions are evil and wrong, but they are the ways of my ancestors, the pigs and the dogs.

What is disturbing about LNM's comment, I also find it particularly disturbing for someone who is Jewish, and anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, to falsify his identity in order to defame others., is not that it is (apparently) Islamic hate-speech. I've been threatened with harm and condemned to Hell by Muslims on this blog before. Rather, it is that the comment combines serious criticism with paranoid ravings. Education and westernization no more detracts from Arab anti-Semitism than it detracted from German anti-Semitism.

When we face fanatics and anti-Semites, we are not dealing with back-water hicks. Rather, we struggle against modern ideologues who hold modern ideologies. This has implications for the long war against terrorism. Appeasing our enemies, avoiding outrages and allowing them to modernize on a steady tract, may not be a wise thing. The problem with the Arab world (and those it influences) is not that it is modernizing too slowly, it is it is modernizing in the wrong way.

Barnett, T.P.M. (2006). Israeli nationalism v. globalism. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. December 31, 2006. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2006/12/dave_goldberg_wrote_tom_what.html.

My post which criticized Tom Barnett's attack on Israel now is just one response amongst many. Jimmy Carter's intellectual dishonesty is well known, but now Tom Barnett says that such is not important:

Carter's argument needs to be dealt with head on, not seemingly discredited on the basis of factual errors and interpretations.

Dr. Barnett doesn't rehash "identity" (whatever he means by that), but now is concerned with the concept of race:

In the end, Israel's biggest long-term problem is that its nationalism is race-specific in a globalizing world where such state-sponsored "affirmative action" comes off as hopelessly discriminatory, whether you're talking Muslims in Tel Aviv or Paris or Los Angeles.

The central claim in the above sentence is that Israel is a Racist State.

Very lefty, and very wrong. Israel is a "Jewish State," certainly, but what does this mean? A race is a genetically related breeding population, of which "Jews" are not. There are historical breeding populations, such as the Cohenim, who make a disproportionate percentage of Israel's population, but then the Cohanim make up a disproportionate percentage of America's population, as well.

The "Jewish" in "Jewish State" refers to membership in a recognized a hybrid patrilineal/matrilineal tribe, and membership is not effected by skin color, skull formations, height, degree of genetic relatedness, etc. Barnett would be accurate to say that Israel is a patriotic state, but then so is America. Barnett would be accurate to say that Israel is a tribal state, but then are the Indian Reservations he describes as "prosaic."

Still, Barnett's post was good to read before I begin the Spring 2007 semester. One of the classes I am taking, Genetic Development, features a discussion on Leftist interpretations on race (see my four part series on the subject: 1, 2, 3, 4). Clearly, that brand of pseudo-racialist mumbo-jumbo has spread beyond the halls of psychology departments to infect even top-notch globalization pundits.

With the determination of a naked emperor walking down the street, Graves continues his confused attack on the concept of race (a largely factual division of humanity into localized breeding population) and the concept of racism (a normative argument that membership in a certain historical breeding population should determine one's lot in life). The third section of his presentation of Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, entitled “Applications and Misapplications of Darwinism,” runs from page 105 to page 154.

However, I wish to begin by stepping up from Graves-style rhetoric and present a testable hypothesis. Describing an early racist named Fritz Lenz, Graves writes that “Lenz considered liberal politics, money-making, and sexual proclivities as racial and genetic characteristics of the Jews” (132). Stripping down this statement to that which most interests me, Lenz is saying there is some Jewish genotype whose presence correlates with support for liberal policies. Both of these can be measured. One might measure Jewish blood through mitochondrial (female-line) allelles that tend to predominate in self-reported Jews, Y-chromosome (male-line) allelles that tend to predominate in the send, or perhaps some combination thereof. If you wanted sacrifice some scope for precision, you could measure the genetic Cohenim population that is spread throughout the world (Behar, et al., 2003, etc.). Then measure political persuasion through standard scales. Once you've defined your independent and dependent variables, such a statement becomes factually testable and loses much of its emotionality. It is known that politics that genetic background explains much of the variation in political persuasion (Alford, Funk, & Hibbing 2005; Alford & Hibbing 2006), so I would not be surprised if it is true. And if it is false, it is false.

This may be the bravest post I have ever written

After profiling the work of Amir Normandi, a photographer and a blogger, I received some constructive feedback:

fuck you all you fucking bastard on this website.. you want to spoil the reputation of islam by hiring those shit face girls....... your the shit and the most fucking and idiot assholes

and, also kindly

israel fuck you bastared

Clearly, some readers are concerned with subtle anti-Islamic messages in visual representations of Muslim women. Perhaps the reason thousands of Muslims throughout the Gap riot, kill, and leave hurtful comments is a rational, universal, human reaction to cartoons and such. Adam of The Metropolis Times and I responded to the Muhammed cartoon controversy by running holocaust cartoons. (Strangely, no Jews threatened to kill either of us, but presumably the Isaacian horde is approaching as we speak.) We try always to be fair.

Now I see that this was not sufficient, and photos of beautiful Muslim girls must be balanced by exploitative imagery of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists.

With a heavy heart, and expecting a IDF air strike at any moment, I accept this heavy burden.



I thank the somber folks at Jewlicious for pointing me to a fine example of Yisraeli carnal reparations, The Israeli Celebrity Source.

tdaxp needs equal time. I've mocked Muslims, Catholics, and Protestants. But no Jewish humor.

The Iranians have called on this to end. They're right:

"Forming a survival strategy: Conservative Jews plan bold new steps to stem tide of secularism," by Arlene Nisson Lassin, Houston Chronicle, 11 March 2005, http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/religion/3080795.

The "Conservative" branch of Judaism is facing obliteration

Dwindling congregations and increasing numbers of interfaith marriages are two issues Conservative rabbis plan to tackle following a four-day international gathering in Houston.

"With increased secularism on the part of Jews in this country, with diminishing support for Israel, and with the tough reality of diminishing demographics, it is more challenging than ever to hold our critical middle ground," said Rabbi Alvin Berkun, vice president of The Rabbinical Assembly, a Conservative organization.

...

"In the American Jewish Committee Survey of 2002, 39 percent of Jews were in interfaith marriages," Schorsch said. "Of that number, in the follow-up Phillips survey, they found of the ... interfaith marriages with children, only 8 percent of the mixed families described themselves as Jewish. Twenty-four percent identified themselves as Christian, and 68 percent identified no religion.

How can this be, at a time when "mainline" faiths are fading and socially conservative ones, such as Mormonism, Catholocism, and Evangalical Christianity, are blooming?

Well, Conservative Judaism isn't conservative, for one.

In other business, the rabbis reiterated support for stem cell research, the peace process in Israel and women's reproductive rights. The issue of same-sex marriages was referred to a special Law Committee.

The massacre of the innocents is not a conservative ideal. It is not a Jewish one, either.