Slashdot Mirror


Hungarian Sequencing Company Vets DNA For 'Gypsy Or Jew' Genes

ananyo writes "Hungary's Medical Research Council (ETT), which advises the government on health policy, has asked public prosecutors to investigate a genetic-diagnostic company that certified that a member of parliament did not have Roma or Jewish heritage. The MP in question is a member of the far-right Jobbik party, which won 17% of the votes in the general election of April 2010. He apparently requested the certificate from the firm Nagy Gén Diagnostic and Research. The company produced the document in September 2010, a few weeks before local elections. Nagy Gén scanned 18 positions in the MP's genome for variants that it says are characteristic of Roma and Jewish ethnic groups; its report concludes that Roma and Jewish ancestry can be ruled out." Adds ananyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited." Just when you think the world is too modern for such things, modernity gets hijacked by flim-flam.

467 comments

  1. Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 5, Funny

    But did they scan him for the vampire gene?

    1. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      Being against vampires is racist now?

    2. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 0

      Did I reply to the vampire post?

    3. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you always answer questions with a question?

    4. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only if by "racist" you don't mean "white person who says anything bad about someone who's not white" and consider it fairly.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if I do?

    6. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by BronsCon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't see anything racist in that comment, aside from, maybe, "knee grows", but, then, I would ask "What term can be used to refer to a black person and not be considered, by some, to be offensive or racist? African American? Black? Colored? Negro? Afro Puff? Porch Monkey? Nigger?". All of those offend somebody, some moreso than others; and I'd say all but the first three would be considered by most to be racist terms.

      It's fact that black kids trying to better themselves are ousted for "being white" and often get the shit beat out of them. The ones who survive that are often quite successful and well-accepted members of society. Hell, one of them even got my vote for President. I wonder if all the knee grows interviewed on the news saying they were gonna vote for him "because he black" realize they would have kicked his ass in high school for "being white".

      And before I get jumped for being a racist, I'm only parroting the exact argument made by most of my black friends.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by kanto · · Score: 1

      But did they scan him for the vampire gene?

      From the looks of it I'd trust the "shows up in the mirror" -test more; also saves you a wooden stake or two in case there are mishaps at the lab.

    8. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who didn't get that "knee grows"==Negros?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 0

      Sad but true about many black communities dragging down those who try to make more of themselves. Either way, I generally refer to them as "colored people" as that seems to be the preference amongst themselves, NAACP. I dislike the term "African American", it does not apply to colored people who are not Americans and if you are an American... Any man who refers to himself as something else and then an American is not an American at all.

    10. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      The general consensus among my black friends is that they prefer to be referred to as black, "colored" refers to any non-white race and is too broad. As with my post above, which for some reason was modded flamebait, I'm only parroting the words of my black friends.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    11. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Am I the only one who didn't get that "knee grows"==Negros?'

      Yes.

    12. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      The motive isn't exterminating the white race. The motive is exterminating the middle class. You're confused because the middle class in America is mostly white.

      Some people see a forest, others see only trees. I see a forest fire.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    13. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by pegasustonans · · Score: 1

      The general consensus among my black friends is that they prefer to be referred to as black, "colored" refers to any non-white race and is too broad. As with my post above, which for some reason was modded flamebait, I'm only parroting the words of my black friends.

      All racial terminology is arbitrary and largely based on artificial social preferences.

      Why not just refer to people as "human" and be done with it?

      --
      And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
    14. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by dindi · · Score: 1

      I am not a grammar Nazi (not any kind either), but what bugs me is the usage of the term "American" by US people. I moved to Central America and noticed how the term American is only used for US by the US, while the whole FSCKIN continent is America.

      Back to the subject. I am told, that black people preferred "black people", even though it is considered politically incorrect recently. Well.. here at least...

    15. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's so, then why isn't Japan or Korea being flooded with Indonesians?

      Japan and Korea are 100% diverse.

      White countries need more diversity. They will be 100% diverse when there are no white people left.

    16. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Why not just refer to people as "human" and be done with it?

      For the same reason my black friends don't like being refered to as "colored": Because not everybody wants to be refered to that broadly.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    17. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by nomadic · · Score: 2

      "but what bugs me is the usage of the term "American" by US people. I moved to Central America and noticed how the term American is only used for US by the US, while the whole FSCKIN continent is America."

      There is no better option. It's the United States of America. Only one of those words makes sense to use as a national identifier.

    18. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a grammar Nazi (not any kind either), but what bugs me is the usage of the term "American" by US people. I moved to Central America and noticed how the term American is only used for US by the US, while the whole FSCKIN continent is America.

      Well, let's see. What names do these countries call themselves?

      Argentina of America? No, just Argentina.
      Belize of America? No, just Belize.
      Bolivia of America? No, just Bolivia.
      Brazil of America? No, just Brazil.
      Canada of America? No, just Canada.
      Chile of America? No, just Chile.
      Colombia of America? No, just Columbia.
      Costa Rica of America? No, just Costa Rica.
      Ecuador of America? No, just Ecuador.
      El Salvador of America? No, just El Salvador.
      Falkland Islands of America? No, just the Falkland Islands.
      French Guiana of America? No, just French Guiana.
      Guatemala of America? No, just Guatemala.
      Guyana of America? No, just Guyana.
      Honduras of America? No, just Honduras.
      Nicaragua of America? No, just Nicaruagua.
      Panama of America? No, just Panama.
      Paraguay of America? No, just Paraguay.
      Peru of America? No, just Peru.
      South Georgia of America? No...
      Suriname of America? No..
      Uruguay of America? No...
      Venezuala of America? No..

      United States of America? Wait.... I think I found your answer dindi. It's because it's part of our frickin name.

    19. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by makomk · · Score: 1

      Why not just refer to people as "human" and be done with it?

      Because there are racist assholes out there who do actually treat people differently based on their race, and it's kind of hard to describe the effects of this when the only term you have to talk about people is "human"?

    20. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by aevan · · Score: 1

      test for the Irish gene?

    21. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by swalve · · Score: 1

      There are the Estados Unidos Mexicanos, so they technically could also be called the United States too. Just to muddy everything up.

    22. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      There are also American Indians, who are Canadian citizens and have never been to the USA but have most of the rights of citizens of the USA, to further muddy things up.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    23. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by drkim · · Score: 2

      I also dislike the term "African American" simply because it doesn't really mean an African American; it's just vague.

      Case in point: Charlize Theron. She was born in South Africa. Grew up in near Johannesburg. Became a US citizen in 2007. Shouldn't she be considered African American?

      Generally, I think people should be able to call themselves anything they want.
      Personally, I would like it to be descriptive - or at least - consistent.

    24. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Geeky · · Score: 2

      All racial terminology is arbitrary and largely based on artificial social preferences.

      Why not just refer to people as "human" and be done with it?

      Perhaps when you want to describe someone? It makes me laugh when people tie themselves in knots trying to describe someone without using colour - you'd use height, hair colour and style - loads of things like that. Why not skin?

      Sometimes it's the clearest identifying characteristic. I've had it at work - someone has told me I need to go to another office and speak to the a guy - "Oh, the tallish one, medium build, er.. brown eyes...". He was the only black man in the office - surely that would have been a lot easier, but they felt it would be racist to mention it.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    25. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Any man who refers to himself as something else and then an American is not an American at all.

      Not sure I understand this. I recall once referring to myself first as "your typical American mongrel", and then explaining that I was a French-Scottish-Irish-Dutch-Danish-Italian-Ojibwa-American. Did the second description cancel out the first? Or should it just be considered a sort of mocking of the usual "X-American" usage?

      It also occurs to me to wonder how many other countries use this sort of phrasing. I know I've seen similar descriptions for Mexicans and Brazilians, both of which have a history of mixed immigration similar to the US, but I have no idea if it's common in those countries.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    26. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

      If you were born in America, you are an American. To call yourself anything else is disgraceful. If you were born elsewhere and became a US citizen, then it is appropriate to call yourself a -American. Such as a Frenchman who has become a US citizen, then the term French-American would be appropriate and descriptive.

      I dislike it when colored people born in America call themselves African-Americans. They are not, the term is incorrect. If Africa is such an important part of your life that you must define yourself by it, then go get citizenship in an African country, in which case you'd be an American-.

    27. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      If you were born in America, you are an American. To call yourself anything else is disgraceful.

      I'm a Canadian. By your definition that makes me an American. Do I get to vote in your next election now? I have some Panamanian friends who would love their American vote too...

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    28. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Also consider that one of the strongest traits of the human personality is projection. When you (the hypothetical you, not you specifically) call me a racist (despite the number of non-white friends I have) for calling a black man a black man, what are you saying about yourself?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    29. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by jc42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a Canadian. By your definition that makes me an American.

      Nah; you're a North-American. ;-)

      The simplest way to explain why "American" refers to a citizen of just the one country is to consider the question "What's the only country in the world with 'America' in its name?" The English term "American" is an adjective that refers to that one country. That's why English-speaking people everywhere use "American" to refer to citizens of that country. Similarly, they use "Canadian" to refer to anything related to the country with the string "Canada" in its name.

      Granted, it is confusing to have "America" also used in the names of a couple of continents. But we should be smart enough to handle that issue. This problem doesn't exist with, e.g., "Africa". It is used in the names of several countries, so when you want to talk about citizens of one of those countries, you usually wouldn't say "African"; you'd include another part of the country's name.

      There have been a few attempts to coin names based on the "US" abbreviation, but that sorta flopped. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of other countries whose names (in translation) include "United States of". So "citizen of the United States" is technically ambiguous, and refers to different countries when you translate it into various other languages.

      But no other country uses the character string "America" in its name, so it can be safely and unambiguously used (in any language) to refer to a citizen of just the one country.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    30. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      White countries need more diversity. They will be 100% diverse when there are no white people left.

      I remember around 1980 reading comments from demographers that their best evidence was that the US had passed a threshold sometime in the previous few years: The majority of Americans now had black-African ancestors. This was, of course, only a rough estimate, since DNA testing was in its infancy then (and might be said to be in its toddler stage now ;-). But the evidence since then seems to be consistent with their conclusion.

      I've seen claims recently that only about 1/4 of the American population is of pure European descent. Of course, around 3/4 of the population "passes" for white, and most of those don't even know about their non-white ancestors. The population appears to be mostly white because that's the main source of their genes. But to the racists among us, there has to be some worry about the fact that more than half of the white people around them aren't "pure".

      In my case, nobody would suspect that I'm not pure white, probably entirely norther-European. But in fact our family records show that my father's father's mother was an Ojibwa (aka Chippewa). I don't consider this terribly significant, because I've never faced discrimination on that basis. It's also not very special, since current estimates are that 20-25% of the US population has "Native-American" (the current euphemism since there are now so many folks from India in the country ;-) ancestry. I've found that when I mention this, the person I'm talking to often tells me which of their ancestors was in which tribe. So I can easily believe that 20-25% estimate.

      Anyway, it does appear that the folks who want to keep America pure white have already lost the battle. It's only a matter of a few more generations until it evens out, and the majority doesn't even look white.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    31. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Don't care, still hate vampires and zombies. Hate Hate Hate.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    32. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by baerm · · Score: 1

      People are lazy and shorten names, 'American' actually makes sense as a shortened (English) term that is still unique enough to differentiate the country.

      United States of America => American
      United States of Mexico => Mexican
      Canada => Canadian
      etc.

      Of coures there are many more examples in North American alone. Most can easily be shortened to one word and still be unique, just like 'American'. Off hand, I don't believe there actually is a conflict in this method between using 'American' for the USA and a similar term for any other country in the Americas. Although, you are on your own for 'Dominican'.

    33. Re:Maybe not Gypsy or Jew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "why "American" refers to a citizen of just the one country",

      Says who?

      All Brazilians, Argentinians, Colombians and Mexicans I know like to think of themselves as Americans. Just because Yanqui, Gavachos or Gringos can't comprehend the world that surrounds them (and Canadians are too shy to upset their neighbour) doesn't change the fact that "American" is used to refer to anyone living on the American Continent(s).

      To understand what I'm saying (hopefully) just think about the difficulties USAmericans have with various metric measurements: the fact that they are unable to teach these to their children does not alter the fact that these are part of the international system.

      On the other hand, your observation is quite interesting: the imperialist attitude of USAmericans is probably related to the fact that, strictly speaking, their country has no name except that of the continent it is a minor part of. Even the term "United States" is ambiguous.

  2. But.. by David89 · · Score: 1

    Why would the ETT want to start a prosecution? Oh yeah, didn't RTFA

    --
    Track IP - Remotely track the IP address of a machine via email or MySQL.
    1. Re:But.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, I was wondering the same question about prosecution, then read:

      The ETTâ(TM)s secretary, JÃzsef Mandl, chair of medical chemistry at the Semmelweis University in Budapest, says that the certificate is âoeprofessionally wrong, ethically unacceptable â" and illegalâ. The council discussed the issue on 7 June and concluded that the genetic test violates the 2008 Law on Genetics, which allows such testing only for health purposes.

      I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?

      I suppose this guy could claim he was trying to screen himself for something like Tay-Sachs disease or something else genetically related to being Jewish...

      But still....kinda hard to see a law like this in existance...shouldn't you be able to test yourself for whatever reason you wish?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:But.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?

      A few months ago I was listing to NPR, and they were having this exact debate. There was a representative from the AMA arguing that ordinary people were too stupid to interpret DNA tests, and therefore they should be illegal unless a doctor requests them. So this is not just a Hungarian thing, there are plenty of Americans who also think the world is "too modern" for you to be allowed to have knowledge about your own body.

    3. Re:But.. by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And as OP shows, they were right. Uneducated people cannot interpret them correctly, so instead they work their imagination, and use the tests for racial profiling and discrimination nazi-style (notably this is the CORRECT usage of nazism, as that is exactly what nazi idea was - that humans have racial elements that make them less worthy that are genetic based on race, rather then largely independent of race, such as stupidity).

      Here you see the danger of ignorance at work, yet again. Saddest part is, we already have done this particular dance in the past, several times. And it never ended well. And as sad as it is, the argument that "people need to be protected from their own ignorance" appears to have merit. Though personally, I would prefer education as a solution rather then enforcing ban on exploiting ignorance.

    4. Re:But.. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      ...and use the tests for racial profiling and discrimination nazi-style

      From reading the article, I didn't see where this individual had used his own genetic results for any type of discrimination.....but he had looked into it, to see what his own racial profile was.

      I do see he's a racial issues type person....but the USE of the tests for himself, didn't seem to do any harm to anyone else.

      Is finding your genetic racial disposition something that in of itself is inherently wrong?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If people did it to say, "cool I'm a (insert ancestory here)," and left it at that then there wouldn't be a problem with this sort of genetic testing. The problem is that people could use it to say, "I'm racially pure." Worse yet, they can use it to say, "you're racially impure, therefore you do not (belong here/deserve the same rights/etc.)."

      I'm not going to frame it as people are too dumb to use these results responsibly. It is far better to say that some people want to use these results maliciously.

    6. Re:But.. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Look up at what his party is about and WHY he was profiling himself in this specific way. Then put two and two together. C'mon, you're on slashdot and not digg, you can't possibly to pretend to be that dense?

    7. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he's still alive, it means he doesn't have Tay-Sachs, no need to screen for that...

    8. Re:But.. by flaming+error · · Score: 2

      " I didn't see where this individual had used his own genetic results for any type of discrimination"

      Perhaps you missed the part where he made it his campaign platform.

      "the USE of the tests for himself, didn't seem to do any harm to anyone else."

      The use of the tests was to pander to racists. Fanning the fire of racism does harm, in this case to jews and roma.

      "Is finding your genetic racial disposition something that in of itself is inherently wrong?"

      Probably not, but logical fallacies are:

      1) Z = X + Y (learning genealogy + campaigning on genealogy)
      2) X is non-negative (nothing wrong with genealogy)
      Therefore Z is non-negative

    9. Re:But.. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      But if premise 2 is true (and I imagine it would be hard for a rational person to honestly claim otherwise) then make Y or Z illegal, not X.

    10. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the larger question would be, why in the world would there be a law in finding out anything you want pertaining to your own genes??? They ARE your genes aren't they?

      For the same reason the police doesn't make statistics for crimes commited by gipsies.

    11. Re:But.. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that the tests were carried out, it is that the testing facility issued a certificate stating something that their tests cannot conclusively prove, and even if they could prove it, it would go against medical ethics to issue such a certificate, as the document has no ethical use.

    12. Re:But.. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Also, he didn't find his genetic racial disposition, he focused on "proving" he wasn't descended from two particular racial groups, neither of which is defined exclusively by their genetic makeup.

    13. Re:But.. by BlackSheepBahBah · · Score: 1

      Testing yourself for your own reasons should be legal. Testing somebody else for your own reasons should be illegal.

    14. Re:But.. by BlackSheepBahBah · · Score: 1

      Most people are too stupid to own guns or raise children... yet thats not illegal.

    15. Re:But.. by BlackSheepBahBah · · Score: 1

      It might aswell be illegal to look at yourself in the mirror. By looking in the mirror, you determine that your race is different from that of some others... sure seems like the same principle to me.

    16. Re:But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Un-politically-educated people cannot interpret them politically correctly

      FTFY

    17. Re:But.. by mhelander · · Score: 1

      Another logical fallacy would be:

      1) Z = X + Y (learning genealogy + campaigning on genealogy)
      2) Y is negative (something wrong with campaigning on genealogy)
      Therefore X is negative

    18. Re:But.. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      And here we have an example of the exact problem I was talking about.

  3. Vampire by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Thats Rumania, not Hungary

    1. Re:Vampire by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 2

      Tell that to Bela Lugosi

    2. Re:Vampire by daem0n1x · · Score: 4, Informative

      Transylvania is only a part of Romania (not "Rumania") after World War I. It was a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before. And Hungarian is still the second language there. Nothing is simple in the Balkans :-)

    3. Re:Vampire by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      Not just second language, there are several cities with Hungarian majority there. There was even a movement for autonomy of the region.

    4. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also this is not the Balkans...

    5. Re:Vampire by billstewart · · Score: 2
      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    6. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Hungary is not in the balkans - now i'm really confused :)

    7. Re:Vampire by davester666 · · Score: 1

      "But I'm not dead yet..."

      "Can you come back in 5 minutes?"

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "that's", not "thats";
      that's rOmania, not rUmania.

      (Gramer natsi)

    9. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transilvania was always a Romanian speaking principality, before Romania was formed as a nation. It was under hungarian occupation for around ~400 years, time in which the population kept its language and culture, no matter how hard the Hungarians tried to turn the people into hungarians.

    10. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeap, there are some towns of predominantely Hungarian ethnicity, just like Leicester in the UK is 90% asian. You don't see them trying to declare themselves the independent republic of Leicesterstan now, do you?

    11. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the hungarians came and conquered Transylvania only in the 9th century, while the ancestors of the romanians had been living there since the pre- Roman Empire times. And Hungarian is not the second language there, it only has a "minority language" status in a couple of counties.

      Indeed, nothing is simple in the Balkans.

    12. Re:Vampire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thats Rumania, not Hungary"

      The time when Prince Dracula lived it belonged to the land called "Hungarian Kingdom". But Dracula himself was Romanian. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler.

    13. Re:Vampire by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      So true. Look up Bulgarian history for more political soap operas.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  4. As a hungarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.

    1. Re:As a hungarian by octothorpe99 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.

      Don't do that! You'll need your towel if you're going to travel!

    2. Re:As a hungarian by semiotec · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant throwing the towel into his bag.

    3. Re:As a hungarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats it. I'm outta here too. (Eddig bírtam kb. én is. takarodni kell a p*csába, ha akarunk még kezdeni valamit a jövnkkel)

      meaning : I could hold out this long and not longer. We've got to GTFO while we can, if we want an at least tolerable future.

    4. Re:As a hungarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this country.

      Don't do that! You'll need your towel if you're going to travel!

      Don't panic.

    5. Re:As a hungarian by Post-O-Matron · · Score: 1

      As an Earthling I feel like throwing in the towel and getting the hell out of this dump of a rock a while now.

    6. Re:As a hungarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a hungarian jew; I am very thankful to my parents for moving us out of the country, before things like this started happening.

    7. Re:As a hungarian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that's what my Hungarian ex did. Poland is not without its own disadvantages, but Hungary's really getting stinky those last years.

    8. Re:As a hungarian by lahvak · · Score: 1

      He is a hungarian, not a roma. He probably does not really know how tu use a towel properly!

      --
      AccountKiller
    9. Re:As a hungarian by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Earth looks really good in your rear-view mirror!

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  5. Hard to know what to think of this... by multicoregeneral · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why would it even matter? Unless you're some kind of right wing, neo nazi freak - oh, wait... never mind.

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by hendridm · · Score: 1

      +3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...

    2. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      +3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...

      I don't think Jobbik has exactly been coy about it's platform with regards to this: they DO hate Jews and Roma. Take your thinly-veiled Godwin's law reference and stuff it up your Nazi ass.

    3. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or more likely a left wing neo nazi freak.

    4. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      +3 Informative? Because you can't be on the right without hating Jews and Roma people I guess...

      Yes, +3 informative. Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media. Only in American journalism does the term "far right" not exist. Anytime extremist parties like the National Front or British National Party are mentioned in America it is conveniently omitted that these are parties of the right.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    5. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do those parties advocate for a capitalistic society without government intervention?

      If not, they probably shouldn't be labeled as a far-right party. The left-right dichotomy is about ownership of the means of production and the distribution of wealth. I feel as though lumping in extremist groups, which have little or nothing to say about economic policy, with other right or left-leaning groups to be a disingenuous attempt to make the more mainstream, non-extremeist parties look bad by association. Whether it's lumping in a group of racial bigots with the right or eco-terrorists with the left, it doesn't accomplish anything and just detracts from meaningful conversation by providing for easily constructed straw men for people on both sides of the isle.

      That your comment has turned into the usual Europe vs. US crapfest just goes to show why lumping in extremist groups is a bad idea. It just fosters additional rhetoric and generalizations that aren't conducive for civil discourse.

    6. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The left-right dichotomy is not exclusively about the means of production and distribution of wealth. It began as a divide between the aristocracy and the commoners, and what is now called "libertarian" (generally considered "right-wing" in America) was originally a left-wing position, being against the established powers of the nobles.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    7. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what the american politics has labelled as extremely left-wing

      When the right wing started cutting its own arms screaming about the RINOs crawling under its skin, that's where the difference in meaning started, not some imagined slip of the lip by Cronkite.

      When the Republicans make up their mind what "right" means then we can have permanently fixed "left" and "right" signs, until then it seems that they just claim to be "not left" where "left" changes daily as they think of new things to complain about and call "leftist".

    8. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Neo-Nazi parties in Europe are on the far right and labelled as such in the European media."(sic)

      I prefer the Heinlein political dichotomy:

      "The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

      There are elements of both the "far left" and "far right" which strongly support the use of state power to achieve their objectives. Was Hitler "far right" (nationalism) or "far left"(socialism)? How about Stalin?

      This linear view of the spectrum of political ideas is frustrating. In the USA, people(leftists mostly) accuse those who advocate individual liberty and small government as belonging to the "extreme right". There's certainly no parallel to the "far right" who want authoritarian government to carry out their policies.

    9. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's up with the 'sic'?

    10. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      European right:

      Free trade
      Less government regulation (liberalized economy)
      Law and order
      Controls on immigration and measures to make immigrants conform to local customs

      European left:

      Statutory protections for workers
      Individual rights
      Tolerance for immigrants and respect for diversity

      American right:

      Homophobic, xenophobic, scientifically illiterate, market fundamentalist, religious fundamentalist nutjobs who worship at the altar of Ronald Reagan even though he'd be run out of the modern GOP as the 'most radical socialist president everrr!'

      American left:

      Anything to the left of Genghis Khan

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    11. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by F.Ultra · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics) the definition have changed over time, is often used differently in the USA vs most of Europe. However since the beginning, Fascism (which is what these parties are) have belong to the right, together with the Coservatives, and one thing that is common among all these we-hate-minorities is that they are extremely conservative.

    12. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Nice stereotyping. Especially the scientific illiterate and fundamentalist nut job labels. The US, under any government, has been a world leader in technology advancements. For example, every major computer OS was developed in the US. The religious fundamentalists have been trying for 40+ years to over turn Roe vs Wade and failed. In actuality your far right and left stereotypes apply to a very small minority of people. Both the fringe hard Left and hard Right are experts all over the world when it comes to making headlines but when it comes down to actually doing something meaningful they have shown little success.

    13. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by HuguesT · · Score: 2

      Sorry, we are on Slashdot here,

      For example, every major computer OS was developed in the US

      Try Finland. Do I need to specify the OS ?

    14. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

      Sorry, we are on Slashdot here,

      For example, every major computer OS was developed in the US

      Try Finland. Do I need to specify the OS ?

      FFS will you stop confusing the "everything cool was invented in America" lobby with facts? Sheesh!

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    15. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

      Do those parties advocate for a capitalistic society without government intervention?

      Sorry, but the capitalist v socialist / privatisation v nationalisation debate ended in Europe ages ago. Everyone is more or less agreed that there's a happy medium. Only in the USA is this tedious debate still going on.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    16. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by cavreader · · Score: 3, Informative

      Linus was born in Finland but did the vast majority of his Linux work in the US. His family even moved to Portland, Oregon to be closer to the OSDL's Beaverton, Oregon location to do his work. As of 2006 he was only responsible for developing approximately 2% of the entire Linux OS. The kernel was developed using UNIX as the model to produce a version capable of using the different CPUs for things like the PC or phone CPUs and chip sets. He did great work but building a kernel does not make a OS, it provides the most important component but he is not 100% responsible for the Linux OS. His biggest contribution was increasing awareness of the Open Source model. He has did a lot of good work but Windows, Unix, and the Apple OS are the predominate OS systems in use today all over the world. People come to the US mainly because it offers the individual the opportunity to succeed using the resources available in the country. Most of the other countries in the world rely on stealing the technology developed in the US and re-branding it.

    17. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Save the financial crises.

      I couldn't resist.

    18. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more complete model, that with any luck may calm down the idiots who think all definitions are useless just because they don't explain things they weren't created to explain, is the political compass. It uses two axis, one for left/right and another for authoritarianism/libertarianism. On http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2 they explain the system and have a silly online test thing too.

    19. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      "libertarian" (generally considered "right-wing" in America) was originally a left-wing position, being against the established powers of the nobles.

      Really? I always thought that Libertarian views came out of the nobles resenting paying taxes which get spent on improving the lives of the commoners.

    20. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      What is now called libertarianism predates anybody ever proposing progressive taxation and social services, and so cannot possibly have been a reaction to that.

      Way back in the bad old days, the state was unabashedly an apparatus of the powerful to keep their position of power by exploiting the masses. This was called feudalism, serfdom, aristocracy, etc.

      Then some revolutionaries had the crazy idea that the law should treat everybody as equals, give everyone the exact same rights and responsibilities, and let those bloody aristocrats work for a living instead of leeching off the labor of their serfs. Let everyone be free to make their own way in life equally, owing nobody anything but the respect of letting them do the same; and let everybody be responsible for themselves, and unable to burden others with providing for them while not lifting a finger themselves. This was called liberalism, and is now called classical liberalism, or libertarianism.

      Later still, some other people said hey, some people are getting richer than others even without special treatment by the law, and that lets them oppress the poor masses anyway even if legally they're all equal; there should not only not be laws favoring the powerful over the powerless, there should be laws favoring the powerless over the powerful. This is called variously socialism, communism, or other names depending on the flavor; and because it's advocated by the same classes of people who were advocating the removal of legal restrictions earlier, the name for their movement -- "liberalism" -- was inaccurately applied to it, despite it no longer being about liberty per se.

      Since both the people who liked the old feudalism and systems like it, and the people who liked liberalism before socialism came along, are fighting to preserve some system they see as good against changes they see as bad, both are "conservative". But to the original right wing, liberals (classical liberals, libertarians) are just as radically leftist as socialists. And to liberals, socialists are taking a step backward from equality before the law back into authoritarianism and some people living off the labor of others. And to socialists, like yourself apparently, both liberals and the old conservatives appear equally to resist the glorious socialist revolution, despite the fact that they disagree with each other just as much as liberals disagree with socialists.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    21. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by Disfnord · · Score: 1

      Do those parties advocate for a capitalistic society without government intervention?

      No, what you described is known as "liberalism", which, in the US, is generally associated with the center-left.

    22. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that historically in the US increased state power, especially when held by the central government (read: the Feds), has led to decreased oppression. Especially oppression of US Citizens (remember Indians don't count as Citizens until 1924).

      The Civil War ended the most oppressive regime in US History and greatly expanded Federal power. Reconstruction protected the former oppressees, until a reduction in Federal power ended it. The situation was created by private citizens forming their own self-protective associations, who managed to defeat the official State Militias and anti-oppression private militias in the few open battles that were fought. The situation could not be fixed until the New Deal greatly expanded Federal power.

      That's the problem with Libertarians claiming to be pro-freedom in the US. Technically they are, but in practical terms the second Libertarians control all three branches of government the KKK's gonna re-start it's terror campaign against black people, and the whole point of libertarianism is that the government should not have the power to stop them.

    23. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The US, under any government, has been a world leader in technology advancements.

      First train? English.
      First commercial train service? Manchester to Liverpool.
      First car? German.
      First TV? Invented by a Scotsman.
      First TV broadcast service? English.
      First freeway/motorway/autobahn? German.
      First satellite? Russian.
      First man in space? Russian.
      First man to orbit the Earth? Russian.
      First woman in space? Russian.
      First moon rover? Russian.
      First space walk? Russian.
      First space station? Russian. (The ISS has a Salyut-derived core)
      First probe to land on another planet? Russian.
      Countless records broken for long duration stays in orbit? Russian.
      Inventor of the jet engine? English.
      Home of first electronic computer? Manchester, England.
      First supersonic airliner? Anglo-French.
      Inventor of the World Wide Web? An Englishman working in Switzerland.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    24. Re:Hard to know what to think of this... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      The US, English, and Russians all acquired German technology and the scientists to go along with it after WW2. Nobody started from scratch developing the rocket technology used to put people in orbit. You mentioned a lot of "firsts" but what have any of them did with their great inventions since then? A great deal of Russian space technology was rushed out because they didn't give a single solitary shit about the safety of those involved and even then the US could not afford to get away with throwing peoples lives away for the "state". The Russians put a man in orbit first and the US put people on the Moon (several times) so which achievement comes out on top?

      The guy from Switzerland must have been working with Al Gore when he invented the Internet. The guy developed HTML not the Internet. It was DARPA who first built the infrastructure and the network communication protocols that eventually ended up morphing into today's Internet. I really am not a rah-rah go USA type of person but I have had a bad day and have reached the limit of BS I can stand from people denigrating and writing off US accomplishments. My greatest wish is for the US to close every single foreign military base, leave NATO, leave the UN, quit handing out foreign aid, and tear up any existing defense agreements with other countries. This is not isolationism it is just giving people what they are asking for. The US will have to deal with some problems from these actions but adjustments can be made. International commerce should be the only area that the government should engage in with other countries and most off that should be handled by the corporations or private individuals looking for foreign based trade opportunities. If a country finds themselves in a military pickle they can publicly and explicitly request US assistance and be prepared to receive an invoice with at least 50% due up front for any services rendered. Thankfully the US has already started letting the rest of the world deal with their own problems. People are claiming the US is losing power when in actuality they are just starting to not give a shit unless it directly involves US interests. People are fond of claiming China owns the US without ever mentioning that China relies on the US market for over a 1/3rd of their economy and they produce nothing the US cannot get somewhere else or produce domestically. They only own approximately 6% of all outstanding US bonds and treasury certificates and it is not a loan for them it is considered a safe investment. Syria, let them kill each other as long as they want. Egypt, the last thing they accomplished was building the pyramids so why worry about thier ongoing problems. That indifference goes for the entire Mideast and South Asian regions as well. Isreal, let them finish the job of eliminating their enemies without any interference. The UN Relief and Works Agency has been the biggest waste of money for the past 40 years so why continue spending money on it. Every country in the middle east and south Asian region thrives on killing one another so it's time we let them and if the US has to deal with any particular country for anything let it be with whoever happens to be in charge of the country at the time regardless of their pedigree. If anyone has a problem with that they are certainly free to spend their own time and money. People say the US lost the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but the US military accomplished their missions. Missions designed to give the Iraqis and Afghan's some breathing room to reorganize their governments and societies without Saddam Hussein or the Taliban killing anyone who disagreed with them. It was the citizens of those countries who squandered their opportunity to start building a better life. For a comparison just look at how Japan swallowed their considerable pride and used US assistance to rebuild their country after WW2 instead of running around setting up IED's and burning US flags. The Iraqi's started killing each other less than 2 days after the US left and no doubt the Afghans will do the sa

  6. Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

    These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.

    It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid, and to not *care* about racial purity.

    While notions of race are tied up in all sorts of political correct nonsense and/or racist stereotyping, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a certain nexus of genes that are associated with what we commonly call race, and no amount of politically correct handwaving will make the science go away. Things like sickle cell anemia are associated with people of African descent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease#Genetics), as is Tay-Sachs in Ashkenazi Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jewish_people), high rates of adult lactase enzymes in people of Northern European descent, low rates of alcohol dehydrogenase in several Asian groups, and so forth.

    Long story short, while the concept of race is socially constructed (what is considered "white" has changed significantly over the last 100 years), the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.

    1. Re:Nonsense? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we are going to be scientific, drop the notion of race and use clines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cline_(biology)

      It would kind of be like applying modern astronomy to the celestial spheres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres

    2. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, and it should be obvious. As far as I know characteristics like intelligence and fitness do not vary over different races, perhaps because judgements of the quality of those characteristics are variable as well. Other than that, it makes sense that a group of humans living in an area with particular characteristics would adapt to those characteristics with changes in their own characteristics. This is just evolution, a response to conditions, and could never logically lead to racial hatred, though it could expose racial tensions and conflicts. It exposes the conditions of the past.

    3. Re:Nonsense? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      In short, it's not nonsense that you can determine parts of heritage from genetic testing.

      It IS nonsense that it matters.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have one picture for you: http://i.imgur.com/PTol8.jpg

      So much for race not existing.

    5. Re:Nonsense? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They aren't even always ethically suspicious. I'm a pasty white guy with a father from india. 2 generations from now my descendants could wonder if my father is really my father and they actually have a great grandfather from india. That could be especially important if it turns out we carry some genetic disposition to disease that would effect women, that we will never see manifest.

      If you're Black in the US you may want to know what tribe or area you ancestor was kidnapped from in africa.

      Testing like this can also, on a macroscopic level, pose serious questions about any notion of racial purity. This jackass in hungary may be definitely not be partially roma or jewish, but that doesn't ask what percent of the population in hungary are.

    6. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cline and race have the same definition, so their use is interchangeable. The general public knows what race means and not cline. So if you want to speak to the general public use race.

    7. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know characteristics like intelligence and fitness do not vary over different races

      IQ tests have consistently shown that different groups have significantly different averages. Go read Murry & Herrnstein's 'The Bell Curve'. Stating what the statistics have shown is what got the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA in big trouble right before his retirement.

    8. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      In cases like the Hemmings family finding out they're related to ole' Tom Jefferson, it certainly does matter, as it sheds light on an aspect of history that is traditionally not recorded and/or talked about by historians.

    9. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know characteristics like intelligence and fitness do not vary over different races

      Yes they do.

    10. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      low rates of alcohol dehydrogenase in several Asian groups

      That's incorrect. In reality, East Asians tend to have LADH that is 10 to 15 times more efficient than in Western Europeans and acetaldehyde dehydrogenase that is 3 to 4 times less efficient. Since the reactive intermediate in the blood becomes acetaldehyde instead of ethanol, alcohol consumption causes acetaldehyde to promote vasodilation and cause the 'Asian flush'.

    11. Re:Nonsense? by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>Adds anonyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

      These are two different claims. One is that the test is nonsense, the other is that racial purity has long been discredited.

      That's why the two statements are joined with the word "and"...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    12. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that there are many half-truths in what you have written. Sicle cell anemia is stongly associated with some groups in Africa, and their descendants in the wider world, and those groups are also associated with darker ("black") skin. But the reverse can not be said, e.g.: not all African groups have significant instances of sicle cell enima, nor are all "black" skinned populations prone to sicle cell anemia.

      The cause of course is that sicle cell anemia is only going to be evolutionarily viable/stable in areas with a high prevelence of malaria, since if you only inherit the gene that causes it from one of your parents you are rewarded with a high tolerance to malaria. This benifit is the only thing that kept this condition from removing itself from the gene pool. Outside of those specific areas, it is not prevelent in the population.

      Of course that nuance is far to complicated to be taken into account in a ideology as corse as "race". So no, nothing like this goes to show the concept of race as a valid idea. The world is simply too complicated for over-generalizations like "race" to mean much.

    13. Re:Nonsense? by radtea · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the labels that we do use for race can be backed up by genetic testing (by looking for clusters of genes associated with a race), and so tests like this *are* scientifically valid, even though ethically suspicious.

      Not so much, because hybridization is the norm, not the exception. That is, it is perfectly possible for a "white" person in the US to have many "black" genetic markers. My family has been in North American for over 300 years, and it would be astonishing if I didn't have some African, Jewish and Native American ancestors.

      So while it is correct to say that "certain genetic markers have higher rates of association with certain socially constructed cultural groups" the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless. So it is clearly false to claim that genetic tests for "race" are "scientifically valid" (whatever that means... certainly they are anti-Bayesian, which is the only meaning "scientifically valid" should have.)

      Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim that if they have just one ancestor who happens to belong to a particular socially constructed cultural group then their own racial identity is completely destroyed (ie is fragile). Since racial identity is purely a social construct that happens to be weakly associated with minor genetic variations, this is clearly idiotic.

      As an example of the lack of genetic distinction between "races": both Irish and Eastern European immigrants to Canada were once considered racially distinct from Anglo-Scottish immigrants. They were literally considered "not white" (which you allude to.) Likewise, Korean and Japanese people are genetically identical, but belong to socially distinct and often mutually antagonistic "racial" groups.

      Genetic differences between cultural groups may (but do not necessarily) exist. This does not validate genetic tests for "race" because "race" is a genetically meaningless concept due to the weakness of the association between cultural groups and genetics.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    14. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetic subgroups, OK--although based on probability, yes? But does that make a "race"? Are (Ashkenazi) Jews a "race"? Are "several Asian groups" a "race"? Better to use less-charged language, don't you think?

    15. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's quite possible for both the genetic test to be valid

      Judaism is not encoded in anyone's DNA. People convert to Judaism all the time, and people convert away from Judaism to other religions all the time. My great-grandfather was a blond-haired, blue-eyed German who was raised by Catholic parents, who fell in love with my great-grandmother, converted to Judaism, and immigrated to America. Unless you are one of those people who thinks that converts are not really "Jews" (which is not a position that even the most hard-core ultra-orthodox Jewish movements [openly] accept), you cannot claim that genetic tests can reveal whether or not someone is Jewish.

      A second issue with the tests is that there are several genetically distinct Jewish populations (hint: this is because genetics has more to do with geography than with religion). The Ethiopian Jews have a very different genetic "fingerprint" than European or Middle-Eastern Jews, and I am just going to go out on a limb and guess that the test performed on this politician did not include genetic markers from Ethiopia. I similarly doubt that genetic markers from Central Asia populations were included, or from controversial communities like the Lemba. Not all Jews have white skin, black hair, or prominent noses, and not all Jews have European DNA.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    16. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>the association is sufficiently weak to be diagnostically useless

      No, it's not. That's the point. Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.

      If you can discriminate between two groups using stats, that means that the two groups are statistically distinct, tautologically speaking.

      >>Furthermore, the very notion of "racial fragility" (which for some reason gets called "racial purity") is enormously stupid. Racial fragilists claim that if they have just one ancestor who happens to belong to a particular socially constructed cultural group then their own racial identity is completely destroyed (ie is fragile). Since racial identity is purely a social construct that happens to be weakly associated with minor genetic variations, this is clearly idiotic.

      I agree it's all nonsense - it's normally called miscegenation here in the US.

      As I said in my post, it is possible for racism to be nonsense while still acknowledging that science can genetically tell the socially-constructed races apart.

      It's the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it might make you feel.

    17. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      Given this was taking place in Hungary, we can use some common sense and assume they are testing to see if the guy's DNA matched markers taken from Ashkenazi Jews.

    18. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>Genetic subgroups, OK--although based on probability, yes? But does that make a "race"? Are (Ashkenazi) Jews a "race"? Are "several Asian groups" a "race"? Better to use less-charged language, don't you think?

      Being afraid of language never benefited anyone.

      As I said, race is a socially constructed phenomenon that *also* has enough statistical differences in the people given those labels for science to discriminate between them.

      I just hate it when otherwise scientifically-minded people become complete dimwits any time a politically correct urban legend turns out not to be true.

    19. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering that as recently as 400 years ago, Hungary was ruled by the Ottoman Empire -- the same empire that mass numbers of Sephardic Jews ran to after the Spanish expulsion -- it is not at all unlikely that there are Hungarians who are descendants of Sephardic or even Yemenite Jews, or any of the other Jewish populations that lived under Ottoman rule. You are also ruling out the possibility that people traveled, and that some of this guy's ancestors might have found their spouse in the middle east (which is not terribly far from Hungary), or that someone from another region was traveling and met their spouse in Hungary.

      The only populations you can really rule out are populations that were isolated to the point of being forgotten, like Ethiopian Jews.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    20. Re:Nonsense? by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

      The criterion that whoever has a Jewish mother is Jewish though is widely accepted in pretty much all of Judaism.
      And it doesn't matter if you convert, you'd still be a Jewish Catholic or Jewish Atheist or Jewish Pastafarian.

      I suppose these people's racial 'logic' works on similar terms.

    21. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hemmings family is DEFINITELY talked about by historians. It's more like, recently you can't find an exhibit about Jefferson that doesn't make that a primary piece of the exhibit.......

      And for the record, people knew he was sleeping with his slave even at the time.

    22. Re:Nonsense? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that they're not testing for "race". They're tasting for "racial genes", which are supposed to tell if you have any Jewish or Roma heritage.

      Take a guess is that is possible. Hint: no. If you have mixed heritage, you could inherit these traits from any of the two parents, or get a mix of both. Now make such breeding to have happened many generations ago, and good luck trying to figure out now if you have any such heritage through traits or genetic testing. Chances are that even if there are any unique genetic profile to these races, it's long gone from your gene pool.

      Example: a black parent and a white parent can have a black child, or a white child, or a mixed color child. There are in fact cases where two very white-looking people can have a black child or vice versa provided they have same recessive genes that are suppressed in them and expressed in their offspring. Same goes for most other "racial" features.

    23. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      And it doesn't matter if you convert, you'd still be a Jewish Catholic or Jewish Atheist or Jewish Pastafarian.

      Not according to us Jews. I have been told by ultra-orthodox rabbis that a person who converts is considered to have been born with a Jewish soul, and just needed to find their way to the greater Jewish community. The Reform and Conservative movements are equally open minded; I grew up going to a Reform synagogue, and I never heard anyone question whether or not converts were really Jews, nor did I hear them refer to a convert's previous religion. Converting to Judaism is making a commitment to be Jewish, not just to be a "Jewish Catholic" or some other nonsense. The children of a convert are considered to be Jewish, as if their parents had been born into the community themselves.

      I suppose these people's racial 'logic' works on similar terms.

      Indeed.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    24. Re:Nonsense? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 3, Informative

      English is not a programming language. In addition to the logical AND usage of "and", it can also be used to mark co-ordinate statements.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    25. Re:Nonsense? by number6x · · Score: 1

      You left out 'Zen Judaism'.

    26. Re:Nonsense? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      I meant convert from Judaism.

    27. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Ah see, that is quite another story. My personal view is that someone who renounces Judaism and adopts a new religion is not Jewish anymore. I understand that this particular view is not widely accepted or mainstream amongst Jews, however; indeed, the ultra-orthodox view that people who convert to Judaism were born with Jewish souls does not extend to people converting away from Judaism.

      I think it is absurd to claim that people cannot stop being Jewish. If someone starts living their life as a Catholic or a Muslim, in what way are they still Jewish?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    28. Re:Nonsense? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.

      Sort of. Statistical methods are very good at assigning groupings, by definition. They're also very good at helping you win bets, develop a broad strategy and operate at a large scale. They can't guarantee that person A is race X - by definition.

      And it's there that this idea of genetic race identification falls apart. The racial identity is a social construct, and to associate it with genetic markers makes it a counterproductive undertaking.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    29. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You're just being clineist.

    30. Re:Nonsense? by pjt33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That really is a beautiful picture. It's a shame that it doesn't have any context to explain what it shows. Or are we supposed to just take your word for it that it supports your position?

    31. Re:Nonsense? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      English is not a programming language.

      That depends on much your lawyers charges per hour.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    32. Re:Nonsense? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I could easily see a "surprise" if I ever had a child. I have brown skin, eyes & hair like my father. However, my mom's side of the family isn't just blond, but very blond. Not just her, but BOTH of my maternal grandparents. Also, my GF is blond & blue eyed. So, even though I'm fairly dark, there's a real chance my kids (if any) would be blond, not just from my GF's side, but from mine too.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    33. Re:Nonsense? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Korean and Japanese people are genetically identical

      That's a flamebait if I ever saw one. Hehe.

      But how do you explain that the two peoples look distinctly different?

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    34. Re:Nonsense? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I am working at a law firm ;)

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    35. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See the axis labels, PC1 and PC2? Those are the principal components. The percentages are the amount of the variance that is explained by those principal components.

      Here's the same data, presented by someone else: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/novel-component-in-genetic-structure-of.html

      The leaders of the human genome project had to swear up and down that they wouldn't discover racial differences. Now genomic testing has disproven the less-than-a-century-old lie that race doesn't exist.

      Captcha is "legacies".

    36. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. That's the point. Statistical methods have enough power to determine what race a person is with, IIRC, around 13 markers checked.

      No matter how well your intention, you are simply wrong. It is circular reasoning. The only reason you can identify race by a set of genetic markers as you describe, is because you define that set of genetic markers as identifying a race. And whatever set people have chosen in the past, is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in genetic racial classification.

      There is only one genetic race of humans. It is different from many other surviving primates, but none of those we would classify as human. That is what is meant with the nonsense of genetic racial purity. It cannot be defined scientifically, only politically, by arbitrarily choosing a set of markers.

      In another post I saw you mention the fact that the sickle cell disease points to African descent. That is an excellent example of the error in your thinking. It does not point to African descent at all, but rather to the fact that your descendants have been living in areas of the world where the malaria parasite hasn't been endemic for a long time. For those who don't know, the reason Sickle-cell aenemia is prevalent in our genetic pool is because it is a mutation that also partially protects against malaria. In large areas of the world, having the defect on one of your genes gives you a survival advantage.

      It doesn't even show recent African descent because when malaria was still endemic in parts of Asia and Europe, sickle cell mutations developed independently in those areas, and those genes still survive in our current gene pool besides the ones from African origin.

      When using genes to backtrack the origin of people, one looks at specific genes or combinations of genes that express themselves in the genome, and can with some certainty, for some genes, and with some knowledge about general movement of people across the globe, identify that a person must have an ancestor who lived in a certain geographical location during a certain time. However that same person will carry genes from a large variety of other geographical locations and times and as such cannot be said to be of one specific genetic race, unless that 'race' is defined in an arbitrary non-scientific manner.

    37. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When using genes to backtrack the origin of people, one looks at specific genes or combinations of genes that express themselves in the genome, and can with some certainty, for some genes, and with some knowledge about general movement of people across the globe, identify that a person must have an ancestor who lived in a certain geographical location during a certain time. However that same person will carry genes from a large variety of other geographical locations and times and as such cannot be said to be of one specific genetic race, unless that 'race' is defined in an arbitrary non-scientific manner.

      And in addition to this, many people who have the exact same person in their ancestry will NOT carry that same gene that allowed the identification.

    38. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it is not at all unlikely that there are Hungarians who are descendants of Sephardic or even Yemenite Jews, or any of the other Jewish populations that lived under Ottoman rule.

      It is pretty unlikely, since Sephardic Jews settled in specific areas of the Ottoman Empire, and Hungary was not one of them.

    39. Re:Nonsense? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      My family has been in North American for over 300 years, and it would be astonishing if I didn't have some African, Jewish and Native American ancestors.

      Not at all astonishing. Until 1967 miscegenation was a crime in most states, and interracial offspring were highly uncommon, so most white people now living in the US are unlikely to have black ancestry. In addition to those laws, interracial relationships were very much frowned upon until the sixties, so there were social barriers as well as legal ones.

      Jews do not generally marry non-jews. The Bible discourages the practice (I don't remember if it's actually God's law in there somewhere). And as for the native americans, they didn't marry whites much either. Kinda hard to love people who work hard at exterminating you. So as you can see, racial purity really does have something going for it. You can, of course, question whether it has any relevance on what a particular person's abilities or character would be, but I would generally expect to find strong racial affiliation in the majority of the population.

      As an example of the lack of genetic distinction between "races": both Irish and Eastern European immigrants to Canada were once considered racially distinct from Anglo-Scottish immigrants. They were literally considered "not white" (which you allude to.)

      This is irrelevant. In every subpopulation like this there would be a unique set of genetic markers. A genetic analysis would statistically assign each individual to a set of races, with each membership quantitatively defined. This mapping will be a fact of nature. The only arbitrary judgement that will be left for society to make is how much % anglo-saxon you have to be to be called "white". For science, such questions are uninteresting.

    40. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget kung-fu jesus. I think he was commonly called 'Bruce Lee' and died for all our sins of not watching enough kung fu movies. :)

    41. Re:Nonsense? by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Unless you are one of those people who thinks that converts are not really "Jews"

      If I remember correctly, God made his covenant with Abraham and his descendants. If you did not descend from Abraham you can not be a Jew; God's covenant was not made for you. This does not stop you from believing in the Jewish God or following Jewish practices, of course, but I don't think that's enough to get you to the Kingdom of Heaven. Any Jews want to confirm or deny this?

    42. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're Black in the US you may want to know what tribe or area you ancestor was kidnapped from in africa.

      And if you're White in Africa, you may want to know what clan member or area your ancestor was before being kidnapped from the open seas.

    43. Re:Nonsense? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The criterion that whoever has a Jewish mother is Jewish though is widely accepted in pretty much all of Judaism.

      Reform Judaism accepts either parent, not just the mother.

    44. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Any Jews want to confirm or deny this?

      I am Jewish, born and raised, and I can assure you that Judaism welcomes converts, if they are really committed to converting. Conversions to Judaism take two years, during which a person is expected to learn about Jewish religion and culture, study with a rabbi, and ultimately have a bar/bat mitzvah. Once converted, a person is part of the Jewish community, period -- they are Jewish. I have not encountered any branch of Judaism that does not recognize converts; even the ultra-orthodox have a conversion process through which non-Jews can join the Jewish community.

      If you demand biblical references, look at the story of Ruth.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    45. Re:Nonsense? by profplump · · Score: 1

      No one is arguing that race doesn't exist. The argument is that race is a social construct, and that while genetically heritable traits may influence the way we define a race it's certainly not a reliable way to detect or define race.

    46. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Kinda hard to love people who work hard at exterminating you. "

      Who talks about love?
      Are you under the impression that 300, 200 and 100 years ago marriages were about romantic love?

    47. Re:Nonsense? by clarkn0va · · Score: 1

      If you're Black in the US you may want to know what tribe or area you ancestor was kidnapped from in africa.

      I assume this would be as specious an idea for Americans as for Brits.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    48. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The only reason you can identify race by a set of genetic markers as you describe, is because you define that set of genetic markers as identifying a race.

      I'm pretty sure that we were giving people racial names long before we had genetic testing.

      The interesting thing is that these arbitrary classifications can be scientifically discriminated against.

      >>There is only one genetic race of humans.

      You know as well as me that the common usage of "race" when referring to humans is different from the scientific definition. You sound like Stallman trying still, after all these years, to redefine words in common usage.

      >>It cannot be defined scientifically, only politically, by arbitrarily choosing a set of markers.

      Learn stats, please. If you can discriminate between two populations, then the two populations are distinct, and the labels are meaningful. I can create a test that can discriminate between "tall" and "short" people, or "fat" and "short" people. It doesn't matter what the labels mean, exactly, but if I can create a classifier that operates with a decent accuracy, then the labels show a meaningful difference. Note that I'm using a very unobjectional example here - the only reason people like you are objecting to the racial labels is because it's not politically correct for them to actually have meaning.

      >>In another post I saw you mention the fact that the sickle cell disease points to African descent. That is an excellent example of the error in your thinking

      I said it was correlated. And this is why you don't just check one marker, but multiple markers in your statistical testing.

      Do yourself a favor - replace the word "race" with "national origin". I think you'll find that most of your objections fall away once you get out from under your kneejerk reaction to a loaded word.

    49. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>They can't guarantee that person A is race X - by definition.

      Sure. But when they *can* discriminate, with high accuracy, between two groups, then the groups are distinct, and labels between them are meaningful. This is how science and statistics works.

      >>And it's there that this idea of genetic race identification falls apart. The racial identity is a social construct, and to associate it with genetic markers makes it a counterproductive undertaking.

      You're having a typical politically correct reaction to the (horrifying!) notion that race might actually mean something. Yes, it's a social construct. 100 years ago, Jewish people wouldn't be considered "white". They are today.

      If it helps you get around your PC mind block, replace all the racial labels "White", "Non-White Hispanic", "Black", etc. with "X", "Y", "Z", and so forth. If you can develop a statistical test that discriminates between them with a high degree of accuracy, then the labels are meaningful. If you can't then the groups are statistically identical, and the different labels are meaningless.

    50. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are very wrong. Cline and ethinicity are pretty much interchangeable. However, race is the same as species e.g. homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens. To keep using race to differentiate between Caucasians and Asian is to give credence to the idea they are different species or sub-species which was ruled out several decades ago.

    51. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The Hemmings family is DEFINITELY talked about by historians.

      Today.

      That's why I said "traditionally". Try finding Sally Hemmings in a textbook published in the 1950s.

    52. Re:Nonsense? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Are you under the impression that 300, 200 and 100 years ago marriages were about romantic love?

      In what country?

      America has never had arraigned marriages. Read John Adams diary for amusing stories of his socially awkward flailing at women.

      In countries like Japan, you can still get an arraigned marriage, more or less, if you want one.

    53. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact those converts to Judaism are not necessarily recognised. The core belief of Judaism is the special status of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are believed to be in covenant with god on the basis of that bloodline. Inter-marriage with other cultures has always been strictly forbidden in this culture, due to is extreme level of importance in that particular belief system, and as a consequence, they have a particularly 'pure' gene pool (as do some historically isolated people like the Tongans). It's worth noting also that there is a theory that 'white people' are one of the lost tribes of Israel, e.g. we look far more similar to Jews that we do the Arabs, who are also descended from Abraham, and we seem to have picked up on some of their 'blessings' over time.

    54. Re:Nonsense? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      "Jew" is used to designate both adherents of Judaism, and a member of the Jewish ethnic group. You're argument is a straw man; nobody's arguing he was genetically testing for religion; you deliberately picked the meaning of the term that, by context, was obviously not the one intended.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    55. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But how do you explain that the two peoples look distinctly different?

      Japanese were punched in the face by the Whites more often.

    56. Re:Nonsense? by khallow · · Score: 1

      No matter how well your intention, you are simply wrong. It is circular reasoning. The only reason you can identify race by a set of genetic markers as you describe, is because you define that set of genetic markers as identifying a race. And whatever set people have chosen in the past, is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in genetic racial classification.

      There's a huge problem with your assertion. The racial identification and those genetic markers work pretty well at distinguishing between such groups of people. I can't even fathom the attempt of claiming otherwise.

    57. Re:Nonsense? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      If you can develop a statistical test that discriminates between them with a high degree of accuracy, then the labels are meaningful.

      And this is where you're missing the point - again. The problem is that even the high degree of accuracy is irrelevant. If it is not 1:1, it should not be used as a meaningful identifier for anything other than exactly what the markers mean - various genetic predispositions and statistical probability of family origins. The re-ordering of arbitrary social groupings based on equally arbitrary, but completely different characteristics has been a plain disaster every time it was attempted.

      Let me repeat this, just to be clear: you're trying to apply statistical models to concepts that are both personal AND arbitrary AND have strong social implications. This is not a PC reaction to the notion that race might mean something. This is the scientific understanding that genetic markers and race are two wholly independent concepts, and the historical understanding of what happens when the two are improperly mixed.

      Quite frankly, your urge to scientifically measure race via genetic markers is far more disturbing than the fact that geneticists can tell who your ancestors are by looking at 4 clusters of genes.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    58. Re:Nonsense? by billstewart · · Score: 1

      White people may not have had arranged marriages, except in isolated communities like polygamous Mormons. For slaves it was a different issue. I don't know about the Native American practices, but they probably varied by tribe.

      (Arraigned marriages, on the other hand, were usually handled informally, with the girl's father bringing his shotgun to inform the boy that he was going to marry her.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    59. Re:Nonsense? by billstewart · · Score: 1

      For bigots who want to beat up Jews, the fact that somebody's now practicing Catholicism usually isn't a problem. That's especially true here in the US, where those bigots usually also don't like Catholics, and being a Jewish Muslim would just be a double target. It may be somewhat different in Catholic parts of Europe, but probably not much, because haters are still haters, and people they can beat up are still people they can beat up.

      (I'll leave the Jews for Jesus and Jews for Muhammad discussions to other people, preferably in other places.)

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    60. Re:Nonsense? by billstewart · · Score: 1

      At least in Israel, where religion affects whether you can get citizenship, the ultra-orthodox parties have tended to only recognize converts to orthodoxy. Converting to Reform Judaism isn't good enough for many of them, and even converting to Conservative Judaism isn't enough for some of them.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    61. Re:Nonsense? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How relevant is Sally Hemmings to Jefferson's contributions to history? Who you sleep with isn't very significant.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    62. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      There is no single Jewish ethnic group. Ashkenazic, Sepheradic, Yemenite, Ethiopian, and other, smaller Jewish communities are ethnically distinct (especially Ethiopian Jews, who were isolated long enough to have been forgotten by the rest of the Jewish world until very recently). The only commonality between these distinct Jewish communities is religion, and to some extent language (as it related to religious texts); even the traditional practices are different (see, for example, the different traditions concerning Passover that Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews adhere to).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    63. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it can also be used that way in programming, and often is. Of course, it means that if the first part returns a logical false, the second part isn't executed. Which is kind of like how it's interpreted in English: if the first part in false, the second part is suspicious.

      "the test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited"

      The test is just fine, and notions of racial purity are debatable.

    64. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that is more of a disagreement about how conversion should be performed than a disagreement about whether or not converts are actually Jews. I know one person who converted three times, once to Reform, once to Conservative, and then to Chabad (an ultra-orthodox movement). At no point did Chabad tell this person that he was not Jewish; they simply told him that he had "done it wrong" and would need to do it again.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    65. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Arraigned marriages, on the other hand, were usually handled informally, with the girl's father bringing his shotgun to inform the boy that he was going to marry her.)

      In other words, the boy got things started already, if you know what I mean.

    66. Re:Nonsense? by ananyo · · Score: 1

      Thank-you!

    67. Re:Nonsense? by PGC · · Score: 1

      There are two aspects of being Jewish: being a Jew and practising the Jewish religion.

      When you are born a Jew, you'll always be a Jew, no matter what. That is not up to the person to decide unfortunately, it is the world that says he is, due to the simple definition : mother(a) = jew -> a = jew .

      Whether or not the person practises the Jewish religion is his own free choice. (Although his environment could be of considerable influence of course).

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    68. Re:Nonsense? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      When you are born a Jew, you'll always be a Jew, no matter what. That is not up to the person to decide unfortunately, it is the world that says he is, due to the simple definition : mother(a) = jew -> a = jew .

      That is an overly-simplistic syntactic argument that (a) ignores the realities of martilineal descent laws (which do specify a limit on the number of generations removed from the Jewish community that a matrilineal line can be for a person to be legally considered Jewish) and (b) has no semantic or real-world significance. A person whose mother's mother was Jewish, but who does not practice Judaism or know anything about Jewish practices, is not Jewish in any way that matters. Applying syntactic labels to people is a pointless exercise.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    69. Re:Nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was your parents' milkman pasty white?

    70. Re:Nonsense? by PGC · · Score: 1

      It has every semantic and real-world significance. It doesn't matter wether you practice or not, in the eyes of the world you: you are a jew. The world is all about applying labels to people, regardless whether they desire them

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
  7. sort of two distinct issues by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. How accurate are these tests?

    and 2. How ethical is doing something like that?

    I think the answer on #1 is actually more complex than this summary makes it sound. The notion of pure ethnic groups is a fiction, but you can trace some kinds of population lineages using genetic markers. That's in fact some of how we've recreated early human population movements; by estimating when in time certain markers diverged between Asian and European populations, for example, we can estimate when those populations migrated out of the Middle East / Africa area where their ancestors likely originated. The HapMap project maps some more recent geographical correlations.

    1. Re:sort of two distinct issues by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anyone with even a brief understanding of the history of that region of Europe realizes that notions of racial purity are bunk. Now it is possible that the Roma and Jews are still sufficiently genetically distinct due to lower rates of interbreeding, but the fact is that the Hungarian people are, to put it vulgurally, mongrels. Even the ancient Huns themselves were likely a hodge podge of ethnic/racial groups from all over Eurasia, and Hungary has so many layers of occupation and invasion dating back to Classical times that while we can say the progenitor population probably spoke a Uralic mothertongue, you have a wide array of later groups; early Indo-Europeans, Turkic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic and on and on. If you want to find a population approaching a full blooded Hungarian, I suggest you go to Finland.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:sort of two distinct issues by CRCulver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you want to find a population approaching a full blooded Hungarian, I suggest you go to Finland.

      There are no "full-blooded" Uralic peoples. Uralic/Finno-Ugrian is a linguistic appelation, not a genetic one. The Uralic languages have spread across a wide swath of genetically unrelated peoples, and the Finns have just as much a varied background as Hungarians.

    3. Re:sort of two distinct issues by Iskender · · Score: 2

      Like the other poster said, you're wrong in your last point.

      Finland almost equals Iceland when it comes to being a go-to country for genetic research on homogenous populations.

      Now of course all present European peoples have many peoples behind them. But to say that Hungarians and Finns have mixed with others equally much is just wrong.

    4. Re:sort of two distinct issues by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Finland almost equals Iceland when it comes to being a go-to country for genetic research on homogenous populations.

      The issue with the poster above is that he suggested that Finns are pure-blooded vis-a-vis Hungarians. However, the only thing that ties Finns and Hungarians together is their languages, and not anything genetic. The Finns are an example of a genetically distinct population adopting an Uralic language from a different population. Thus, they are mixed in much the same way that the Hungarians are.

    5. Re:sort of two distinct issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, contrary to what the name Hungarian suggests, Hungarians are actually not descended from Huns. The Magyar tribes (Hungarian word for "Hungarian") actually arrived hundreds of years after the Huns to Europe from Asia. Their methods of living and warfare (nomadic, horse-riding tribes) were very similar to those of the Huns, whose memories very still vivid in the minds of the European people, hence they mistakenly identified the Magyars as Huns - Hungarians - and the name stuck.
      Second, Finnish are no more Hungarians then say Tatars are. The tribes share a common ancestor, but followed a completely different route towards Europe. The common ancestry can still be recognized through the language (grammar) structure, but they are otherwise pretty far apart. (About 1000-2000 years apart I think.)
      Third I'd say a Hungarian is anyone who is Hungarian by birth, taking up of citizenship, or by ancestry (and accepts/knows/is proud of(?) that fact). So a Chinese who took the Hungarian citizenship this year is no less Hungarian then a Russian whose grandparents moved to Hungary a 100 years ago, or someone whose main family tree can be traced back to some historical Hungarian personage back in the middle ages (who himself was probably another immigrant before that). Living in a land-locked country surrounded by other countries, and more or less supporting active immigration for it's full history tends to lead to a very diverse population. One of the reasons why Hungarian girls are beautiful. :-)

    6. Re:sort of two distinct issues by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly ethical to do the tests.
      What you do with the results will determine how ethical you are with the data.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:sort of two distinct issues by fermion · · Score: 1
      One can use genetic pieces to make guesses about who a person is descended from. For example, we are pretty sure that most europeans are descended from Neanderthals. We can also say that this person had ancestors that came from this region. But this is not about location. This is about race. So the question is can we relate genetic marker to race. Again, Hungary is in the Neanderthal region, so this guy is Neanderthal. So are Roma, though perhaps not Jewish. So is a Roma everything outside the Neanderthal? I am sure that we can define a set of markers for each race? In this sense #1 is not complex as it depends on a subjective view of what determines a race. One can say it is location, but that is just a statement, and very hard to systematically verify.

      As far as ethics, they come from trial and error. We treat each other fairly because that tends to work. We sometimes distrust people who look different because they could be a threat. It has been known that tribes stole women from each other, somehow knowing that the added genetic material is inherently beneficial. Again, we breed with Neanderthals. In recent US history, we have shown that isolated an identifiable group, and persecuting them, is profitable for the short term but not so profitable for the world. So we may talk about ethics, but what we tend to learn is what will create the best world for our children. Sometimes we are forced into choosing our children over others, but that does not really work either.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    8. Re:sort of two distinct issues by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      In addition to Finland, Iceland seems to be quite homogeneous. So much so that pharmaceutical companies do research there. Someone went to Iceland and took random pictures of people on the street at regular time intervals, and many people on those pictures showed resemblance of facial features.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    9. Re:sort of two distinct issues by billstewart · · Score: 1

      A Finnish friend of mine describes the similarity between Finnish and Hungarian as "kind of like the similarity between English and Russian." Yes, they're Uralic and not Indo-European, and there are some grammatical similarities and word roots, but they're nowhere close enough to understand each other (unlike Finnish and Estonian.)

      But genetically, Hungary's in the middle of Europe, and all sorts of people have passed through there on their way to somewhere else, or when trying to conquer them or all of Europe or Asia. Finland's off at the northern edge, and while they've occasionally been conquered by Vikings or Russians, and some of the people have been nomadic, it's a lot more stable.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    10. Re:sort of two distinct issues by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Sure. But he's doing the tests so he can join a party of bullies and thugs who hate people who are different from them.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    11. Re:sort of two distinct issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And sicilians were spawned by niggers.

    12. Re:sort of two distinct issues by jrumney · · Score: 0

      The notion of pure ethnic groups is a fiction, but you can trace some kinds of population lineages using genetic markers.

      Right, but the product of such tracing should be a report full of probabilities and giving a "most likely origin" type conclusion, not a certificate stating that someone is conclusively not Roma or a Jew.

    13. Re:sort of two distinct issues by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Roma migrated to Europe from Northern India, which is outside the Neanderthal region.

    14. Re:sort of two distinct issues by mhelander · · Score: 1

      "For example, we are pretty sure that most europeans are descended from Neanderthals"

      Link, please?

    15. Re:sort of two distinct issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  8. ananyo is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

    Really? Since when?
    We have a lot of blonde-haired, blue-eyed natives prancing about in Africa?

    1. Re:ananyo is bullshit by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Since we realized we all came out of Africa, the rift valley to be more specific.

    2. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really. It's been a while since then, and the interbreeding with Neanderthals that happened only to the future caucasoids and mongoloids. In particular, light-colored hair developed twice, among caucasoids and a certain tribe of pacific islanders.

    3. Re:ananyo is bullshit by hazah · · Score: 1

      I don't think the interbreeding did anything to propogate the genes. Where's the neandrathal DNA in modern humans?

    4. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's all back in africa

    5. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Oh, it did. See for example here.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    6. Re:ananyo is bullshit by semiotec · · Score: 3, Informative
      http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/7/1957.abstract

      An X-Linked Haplotype of Neandertal Origin Is Present Among All Non-African Populations

    7. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2

      I don't think the interbreeding did anything to propogate the genes. Where's the neandrathal DNA in modern humans?

      Congress?

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re:ananyo is bullshit by WaywardGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's part of us. I would be interested to know if white people's blond hair, blue eyes, and large noses have Neanderthal origins. After all, they lived in cold climates far longer than modern humans.

      The issues from TFA shed light on a the ethical complexity of genetics. Personally, I want a copy of my genome. I have some specific health related reasons I want it, but it would be cool to do things with it, like find out roughly what percentage Native American I am (I'm at least 1/32nd Cherokee), if that's even possible. Where have my mitochondria evolved most recently? Do I have the cheating gene?

      Hungary has it wrong on two counts. First, they outlawed extracting genetic information except for health reasons. That's got to put a real damper on genetic research, and the Libertarian in me is crying foul. It's my genes, and I should be free to do what I want with them. Second, they're going after the genetics lab over this dumb law, rather than going after the MP for racist behavior. Let's hope we have more success in the US in drafting legislation to protect peoples right to genetic privacy, while giving people full access to data about themselves, and promoting genetic research.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    9. Re:ananyo is bullshit by bmo · · Score: 1

      Since we realized we all came out of Africa

      Obligatory:

      BABE: Telegram for you, Miss DiAngelo! ... Oh, uh-I'm sorry-I didn't know ... This is for you, Ma'm ...
      LURLENE: Thank you, son. just a minute, boy! Come here ...
      BABE: Yes?
      LURLENE: Where are you from?
      BABE: Nairobi, Ma'm. Isn't everybody?

      --
      BMO

    10. Re:ananyo is bullshit by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the interbreeding did anything to propogate the genes. Where's the neandrathal DNA in modern humans?

      Congress?

      Legislation. So easy a caveman could do it. (apologies to the GIECO cavemen.)

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    11. Re:ananyo is bullshit by hazah · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the replies. I haven't looked into this in a long time. Last I heard was that the interbreeding didn't produce fertile offspring (aka horse + donkey = mule -- though as I reread the wiki on this, I see that mules do, on a rare occasion, have offspring). Something's telling me (my brain) that there's still some truth to that. I wonder if horizontal gene transfer could account for what we're seeing. I have yet to read the linkes from your replies, so this thought needs a grain of salt.

    12. Re:ananyo is bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attention Monsanto:

      According to Ananyo, it's obvious that your efforts at genetically modifying crops will prove to be abject failures since there is NO RACIAL PURITY.

  9. Crapola by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the rather complex history of invasions and migrations through Hungary, I can't even imagine what one would qualify as a pure Hungarian. We're not talking about largely homogeneous populations like Iceland or Norway, we're talking about a country that has been the stomping ground from everyone from Central Asians to Germans to Mediterranean types. Read a history of that region. The idea that there is any kind of true full blooded "Hungarian" is daft.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Crapola by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ah, you see, the beauty of the racist fuckwit approach is that you do not have to define "true full blooded Hungarian". You only need to define single factors as "un-Hungarian" or "un-$country_of_your_choice", so that you can persecute at your heart's content. When you done with one group, you switch to the next. Keeps the population on its toes, you see?

      Also, you employed reason while looking at racist crap. Never works, trust me on that.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    2. Re:Crapola by INeededALogin · · Score: 1

      The idea that there is any kind of true full blooded "Hungarian" is daft.

      The point wasn't to be full blooded Hungarian. The point was to not be a Gypsy or Jew.

    3. Re:Crapola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England on the other hand is an inbred island with bad teeth.

    4. Re:Crapola by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You don't have to go back that far, until not even 100 years ago "Hungary" was way more than modern day Hungary and people moved to and from. And not only in Hungary. The whole Balkan area was mixed and matched, including quite a bit of central Europe too.

      It's especially funny when you see some right wing idiot demand that everyone who is not a "pure $insert_country" has to leave, and when you ask for his name you notice that at some point in history his ancestor clearly didn't stem from around the area...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:In case you were wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are the Democrats.

  11. Re:In case you were wondering by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2

    And vomiting generalized insults over a whole continent puts you on the moral high ground compared to your average neonazi idiot how, exactly?

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  12. Re:In case you were wondering by gman003 · · Score: 2

    There are still Nazi pigs in Europe

    FTFY. This is just proof that idiocy knows no national boundaries - there's racist fucks in Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa, Australia, Oceania and probably even Antarctica.

    Unless you can definitively demonstrate that your country has never, in all its history, engaged in any sort of ethnic discrimination (or been the victim of it)...

  13. Speaking as an ignorant layperson by BitHive · · Score: 0

    Just what makes you all so sure these guys *haven't* figured out a way to screen for racial impurities? Heck, DNA wasn't even thought to be important until recently. Time and time again ivory tower eggheads have turned out to be wrong, despite all their book learning.

    1. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Just what makes you all so sure these guys *haven't* figured out a way to screen for racial impurities?

      The well-known patterns of intermarriage between Jews and the surrounding cultures, that's what. Jews do not generally like to admit it, but intermarriage has been happening between Jewish men and non-Jewish women for thousands of years (it is actually less common for Jewish women to marry non-Jewish men). This should not be terribly surprising, since Jews rarely lived in such isolation that they had no contact with other cultures, and one of the things that commonly happens when two cultures meet up is for people to intermarry.

      It is also worth pointing out that there is no single Jewish ethnic group. There are Ashkenazic Jews, Sephardic Jews, Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and less known populations of Jews in central Asia and Africa. These groups have distinct genetic patterns, with the exception of a common Y chromosome gene that indicates descent from the ancient priestly line (this is an uncommon gene among Jews, and has little use in ruling out that a person is the descendant of Jews; this gene is not present in Ethiopian Jews, for example).

      All that being said, I take issue with the term "racial impurities." What does that even mean? If I lined up a bunch of white men, would you know which ones were Jews (hint: not at all)? If a Jewish baby and a non-Jewish baby are switched at birth, how would anyone know? Judaism has more to do with culture and religion than genetics; there is no gene that makes someone Jewish, Jewish people are not born keeping kosher or covering their heads. You can make a similar statement about Gypsies; Roma is a culture, not something that is encoded in someone's genes.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      despite or because of? People were drawing maps of which racial groups lived where that were pretty accurate a hundred years ago. Talking about race became verboten in the middle of the last century, as part of the mass delusion of cultural marxism. Mommy professor says that race doesn't exist - she knows this because of the studies that have been produced to discredit the notion of race - liberals say that whites don't exist but other races are oppressed and need social services, respectable conservatives say that nothing is about race, especially race.

      George Zimmerman was going to be a white man who shot an innocent black 13-year-old who was just buying skittles until the Internet screwed that up.

      Eric Holder calls us cowards for not talking about race because as long as anything a conservative says about race is automatically racist the only winning move is not to play.

    3. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I lined up a bunch of white men, would you know which ones were Jews (hint: not at all)?

      I believe this was just tested. But if you can handwave the results away with politically correct platitudes, I guess that means if you raise Chinese kids to be white, they'll end up having green eyes just like the Irish.

    4. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I believe this was just tested. But if you can handwave the results away with politically correct platitudes

      I guess you have no concept of people converting to Judaism, do you? Or are you one of those people who things that converts are not really Jews?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by hazah · · Score: 1

      If a Jewish baby and a non-Jewish baby are switched at birth, how would anyone know?

      Saved my grandfather's life. By extension enabled my own to exist. Anecdotal evidence.

    6. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by hazah · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, the switch wasn't intentional. There was enough chaos to go around at the time.

    7. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If I lined up a bunch of white men, would you know which ones were Jews (hint: not at all)?

      Just taking some simple observations would give you an average success rate greater than random selection so your "not at all" is wrong. For instance, pick only those with dark hair. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7061-hair#anchor7)

      It is also worth pointing out that there is no single Jewish ethnic group. There are Ashkenazic Jews, Sephardic Jews, Yemenite Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and less known populations of Jews in central Asia and Africa. These groups have distinct genetic patterns

      The fact that race may be more complicated than the common usage does not invalidate the common usage. It doesn't stop us from talking about other poorly defined groups, like "blondes" or "children" or "smart people" or pretty much anything.

      Why do people insist on having an airtight, scientifically sound, completely precise definition for race?

      there is no gene that makes someone Jewish, Jewish people are not born keeping kosher or covering their heads

      You're mistaking the religious beliefs with the race.

    8. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Zimmerman is a white man, and he did shoot an innocent person who was just buying skittle. 13, 17, 30, it shouldn't matter.

      That you try to distract the issue by projecting the fault onto others is why everything you say is going to be racist, because it is.

      And no, the problems with race are not their existence, but the artificial characteristics and qualities applied to races, and the discrimination and abuse that resulted from it.

      Your attempt to ignore that is yet another sign of your racism. You're blaming "liberals" and "cultural marxism" (whatever that latter is) but giving no mention to the genuine abuses that happened? The segregation, the eugenics...

      Yeah, nothing for conservatives is about race, they prefer to go modern and blame other ideologies in the same way instead. It's just coincidental that so much of their actions coincide with racial discrimination.

    9. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      Racial impurity is a social construct not a scientific one.DNA just exists. People with different DNA exist based entirely on the random mutations that occur within DNA and the natural jumbling that occurs at conception. You can NEVER have a pure or identical specimen because natural life proceeds through change. Therefore, the notion of purity is established as arbitrary minute differences that can always change to fit someone's political agenda.

    10. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the same AC, but while I'd definitely acknowledge that people who convert to Judaism are Jewish (the religion), that has nothing to do with whether or not they're ethnically Jewish. The race and the religion are not mutually inclusive.

    11. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Not the same AC, but while I'd definitely acknowledge that people who convert to Judaism are Jewish (the religion), that has nothing to do with whether or not they're ethnically Jewish. The race and the religion are not mutually inclusive.

      Then define the race. There are black Jews, white Jews, Jews from the middle east, Jews from northern Europe, Jews from southern Europe, etc. What are the defining characteristics of this so-called "Jewish race?"

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    12. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Well, if I was going to define a "Jewish race", I'd say the middle east Jews. But I bet it would be interesting trying to tell them from the middle east Arabs by DNA. :)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    13. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      George Zimmerman is a white man

      nope he Hispanic/Latino
      try again ac

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    14. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I bet it would be interesting trying to tell them from the middle east Arabs by DNA. :)

      Indeed; the Ethiopian Jews were found to have more DNA in common with the rest of the population of Ethiopia than with any other Jewish population (it may not be the middle east, but Ethiopia is very close to the middle east and Semitic languages are spoken there).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    15. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hispanic and Latino is a cultural identity, it doesn't prevent a person from being white.

      Try again yourself, with a real argument.

      George Zimmerman is white. I know, you want to present him as a minority so you can ignore how he murdered somebody while playing cop, it plays well with the right-wing's persecution complex, but it's not credible. Especially since whether white, black or green, the real problem was with the cops making every effort to avoid prosecution.

      And this time, the Law and Order episode was actually aired quite a few years before.

      Anyway, now his wife is facing perjury charges for lying in the bond hearing. He's under the same examination for his conduct.

    16. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by toriver · · Score: 1

      Not all mutations of DNA are random though - the presence of retroviruses and other mutagens represent more predictable mutations, ref. the medical correlation between some chemicals and some birth defects.

    17. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Time and time again ivory tower eggheads have turned out to be wrong, despite all their book learning."
      Yes, they get new data, apply it to what they currently have. If it shows that where wrong, then say they where wrong and produce a more accurate model.

      That is exactly what you want. That is why Ivory Tower Eggheads should be listen to and not made an ad hom, attack from plebes like you.

      For the record, they are more often correct, and new data will modify a model, not destroy it.

      Einstein didn't prove Newton wrong, he only showed the gravitational model had more complexities.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of such stories of "unintentional" switches in Ukraine. If the switch was unintentional how do you even know there was a switch and that it wasn't intentional.

    19. Re:Speaking as an ignorant layperson by hazah · · Score: 1

      Well I don't know if the original family had this intention or not. As for the switch happening, he looks conciderably different than his family. though a lot of this I cannot verify, as anyone that would know is too old to remember or dead now. And I believe this was the Ukraine actually.

  14. Political agenda here? by GottMitUns · · Score: 2

    I got an impression that Slashdot is pushing a certain point of view here. What's that about "nonsense" of racial purity? Are you denying that Jews and Gypsies exist? There must genetic markers defining any racial group that physically differs. It is certainly possible to determine the likelihood of person having certain ancestry based on genetic typing.

    1. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There must genetic markers defining any racial group that physically differs.

      You'd think so, but it's not actually the case. e.g. Any two black Africans are no more likely to have common DNA than any black African and a white European. Sure, they're both going to have higher levels of enzymes that synthesize melanin, but that doesn't tell you anything you couldn't determine by looking at them. Race is an false concept invented out of ignorance and tribalism.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Political agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Check out the use of Principal Component Analysis in genetics, which is clearly able to distinguish people and groups from different areas, and even cluster them in some cases (though continuous variation is more common from looking at the charts they produce).

      http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-major-groups-of-living-jews-atzmon.html

    3. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, now try doing that on a large group of black africans and white europeans. You'll get a bunch of clusters, but the black africans aren't any more likely to be in the same cluster than a white european and a black african. There are going to be similarities between closely related groups, but those similarities don't match up with what we traditionally call race.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Political agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Principal component analysis on a bunch of genomes confirms that there are clearly delineated racial groups. Your PC screed would have been difficult to answer 20 years ago, but biology has moved on.

    5. Re:Political agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any two black Africans are no more likely to have common DNA than any black African and a white European.

      The DNA of Africans and Europeans/Asians differs a lot.
      I always find it amusing when people who don't know anything about genetics talk about it as if they do. Especially on slashdot.

    6. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The DNA of Africans and Europeans/Asians differs a lot.

      Very true. The DNA of any two random africans differ a lot as well.

      I always find it amusing when people who don't know anything about genetics talk about it as if they do. Especially on slashdot.

      Genetics is my job, bitch.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Political agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good guess, but wrong.

      Check out the figure in this post. This is a graph showing the first two principal components of *individuals*. The graph shows that using these principal components neatly clusters *individuals* by *self reported race*.

      So what you said is precisely wrong. The study has done exactly what you propose (do PCA on a group of black Africans and white Europeans + other races), and what you predicted would happen ("You'll get a bunch of clusters, but the black africans aren't any more likely to be in the same cluster than a white european and a black african") did not occur. In fact, africans appear in the European cluster 0% of times and visa versa.

      Thanks for engaging in this and clearly stating your position. I would have said exactly what you said about 5 years ago, until I saw evidence like this which clearly shows the opposite.

    8. Re:Political agenda here? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Genetics is my job, bitch."
      as a scientist, or the guy who runs IT cables?

      Because you historic posts don't read like a scientists writing. They lacj a certian professionalism and measure tone.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Political agenda here? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Scientist, but not PI. Why would I write with professionalism on /.? Usually I'm trying to avoid doing that when I'm here.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Political agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People use the argument that there is no race (a PC dogma) to deny the existence of white genocide. Do you do the saem?

      Africa for Africans, Asia for Asians, White Countries for Everybody
      Annihilation by Assimilation

      Every white country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country.

      The Netherlands is as crowded as Japan, Belgium is as crowded as Taiwan, yet no one says Japan or Taiwan will solve the RACE problem by letting millions of third-worlders invade, mate and date with them.

      The final solution to the RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to bring in the third world and assimilate with them.

      Immigration, tolerance, and especially assimilation are being used against the white race.

      All this immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.

      Anti-white is called anti-racist, which leads to the disappearance of one race only, the white race. The real aim of anti-racism is to wipe out the white race or make it a minority anywhere it exists.

      HOW IS THIS NOT WHITE genocide.

    11. Re:Political agenda here? by blackest_k · · Score: 1

      not really if there were races they are quite intermixed by now, I'm definitely a mongrel. there is at least a mix of irish , welsh scots, and french that I know of. could easy be more. My brother would say he is English!

      As for Americans there is a huge mix...
               

    12. Re:Political agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not too bright, are you?

  15. Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited." Just when you think the world is too modern for such things, modernity gets hijacked by flim-flam.

    Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.

    Now, if you want to talk about whether or not an adopted Jew, or a convert, count as "really" Jewish, that gets into matters of dogma, not genetics - And don't think this extends only to the "racists" - Just as some groups would hold such ancestry against someone, orthodox Judaism considers it (specifically, matrilineal descent) a requirement.


    And for the record, I consider both stances equally stupid.

    1. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by readin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sorry, but you either descended from Jacob (insert the comparabl\, or you did not. We currently have the technology to measure that with a high degree of confidence.

      Jacab was how many years ago? Maybe 5000? With an average childbearing age of 25, that makes 200 generations. Ignoring inbreeding for the moment, the number of ancestors you have doubles every generation. 2 to the power of 200 is....I don't have a calculator but it is pretty darn big, many many times the number of people there were on this planet 5000 years ago or even today.

      Even if you go back a mere 2000 years ago, you have 80 generations meaning you have far more ancestors than there were people.

      What this implies is that you are almost certainly the descendant of every single person who was alive and had progeny in your ancestors region 2000 years ago. You can argue that that still doesn't make you descended from certain minorities, but think about that exponential growth in ancestors again. All it takes is one foreigner to come in and mix with the gene pool. 1000 years later everyone is that foreigner's descendant. There might not have been a lot of travel back then, but there was enough.

      About the only way one could reasonably claim not to have ancestors of a certain race is if that race was almost completely isolated - like the American Indians or Australian aborigines. But anyone with ancestors from Europe, Asia or Africa can be pretty sure they have Jacob as an ancestor.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    2. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is simply untrue. Jews are commanded to welcome the convert.

    3. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by girlintraining · · Score: 2

      orthodox Judaism considers it (specifically, matrilineal descent) a requirement. And for the record, I consider both stances equally stupid.

      The jews believe that the savior hasn't yet come, because Jesus couldn't pass (or refused) tests in the old testament. They're still waiting for their savior, and one of those tests is that the savior will be a descendant of a particular person. If anyone here is being stupid, it's you -- there is no jewish race. Either you descended from that specific person, or you didn't.

      The jewish community has maintained geneology records to an unrivaled level of detail ever since; it's at the very heart of their religion. The scientific test is completely superfluous to them; they know who they are because they've maintained records since before we knew what DNA was. Also, a scientifically-valid test to determine whether a given person is a direct descendant of another person is a matter that has non-religious legal implications; For example, in estate proceedings.

      I guess the bottom line here is that people have gotten twisted up about the definition of race and forgotten that the jewish community is a special case: Their religion is literally based on genetics, and has been unfairly lumped into racial politics; They don't care what 'race' you are today, only whether or not you descended from a specific person (or not). Science can already determine whether you've descended from Ghenghis Khan or not (there's actually a pretty good chance the answer is yes), and if you go back far enough, you'll find a point when humanity was nearly wiped out... and almost all of us are descended from one of about 20 women, the so called "genetic Eves". You can't dismiss the jewish community without dismissing good science as well.... hell, the records the jewish keep have scientific value themselves -- anyone who studies geneology will attest to this.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by hazah · · Score: 1

      Jacob? That guy's an asshole!

    5. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Post-O-Matron · · Score: 1

      Considering that we have no proof that Jacob is a real person who actually existed, let alone having any surviving genetic sample from him, I think any attempt to assert that a person living today descended from Jacob or not is nonsense.

    6. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Post-O-Matron · · Score: 1

      There might not have been a lot of travel back then, but there was enough.

      2000 years ago at the height of the Roman Empire there was *a lot* of travelling. Not all of it by will...

    7. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      The jewish community has maintained geneology records to an unrivaled level of detail ever since;

      Ever since *when*? Also, citation needed. Wikipedia says Confucius' family tree is the oldest, and I don't think he was Jewish. I know there are traditions, e.g. Leonard Cohen's folks were said to be descendants of David, but I seriously doubt this is based on records. For David, we don't even know if he existed!

      it's at the very heart of their religion. The scientific test is completely superfluous to them; they know who they are because they've maintained records since before we knew what DNA was.

      Hell, I do that myself. DNA was discovered in the 1950s or something.

    8. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Considering you don't have any genes in common with ANYONE more then 50 generations back, it's impossible to tell if if he did exist; which is highly unlikely.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "The jewish community has maintained geneology records to an unrivaled leve"
      err.. no. You go back a few hundred years, and a lot of it was based on hearsay. Their is all kind of problems with that data.

      Which doesn't mean they aren't the best records, just in the context and the way you wrote it you are comparing "Best ever" with "Good'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No ancestor past 50 generation has any impact on your current genes.

      So, it doesn't it matter in the very literal sense of the term.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by toriver · · Score: 1

      There are some that call themselves "Messianic Jews" but they are more of a Christian sect than anything else...

    12. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But anyone with ancestors from Europe, Asia or Africa can be pretty sure they have Jacob as an ancestor."

      But the only thing they can really check is if they are descended from his wife.

    13. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 to the power of 200 is....I don't have a calculator but it is pretty darn big

      Pssst, you are posting from ... a computer.

      2^200 = 1.60693804425899e+60

    14. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Kergan · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. What this implies is that you've many ancestors who were more or less distant cousins.

      Incidentally, optimal fertility seems to occur when mating third or fourth generation cousins, aka someone from the nearby area. Some historians and demographers additionally suggest revisiting the idea that family size dropped when wealth increased during the industrial revolution: an alternative explanation, or at least contribution, could be that the increased population mobility led to inoptimal mating patterns.

    15. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for the record, all forms of Orthodox Judaism (with the sole exception of certain segments of the Syrian Jewish community) absolutely accept conversions done according to Jewish Law as legitimate. Chassidic thought in particular is rife with references to the holiness and importance of converts. The Satmar Rebbe z'l even went so far as to say that the sole reason for the Jewish people's exile from the land of Israel was for the purpose of allowing converts to find the Jewish people.

    16. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      You might think so, and 50 generations seems awfully high (that's 10^15 50-g-grandparents, vs. 3.2billion base pairs or 23,000 genes), but due to the cohesiveness of tribes and nations you will get most of your ancestry even 50 generations back from a few hundred thousand to a few million people, with most of those related to you in billions of different ways. With Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA there is relatively little mixing, so a few ancestors 50 generations back will have very similar Y-chromosome or mitochondrial sequences to yours.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    17. Re:Discredited as predictive, NOT for accuracy by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Huh? Of course they do. If you went back in time and shot one of my great**50th grandfathers, I wouldn't be here. (Somebody else might or might not, but her or she wouldn't be me.) And I'm descended from one of the people in Northern Europe who got the lactose-digesting mutation about 5000 years ago, so I can drink milk as an adult, which is kind of nice, and some ape who decided to try walking in the grass instead of swinging in the trees (which is of somewhat debatable usefulness), and that mitochondrion who hitchhiked on a eukaryote a billion or so years ago, making it easier for both of them to use oxygen.l

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  16. Nothing but a smokescreen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone here is barking up the wrong tree. Political power is always driven by self-interest. Logically, only a self-interested person would consider initiating coercion against another as his means to an end (and that is the essence of all government).

    Therefore, "Racial purity" is merely a gimmick that helps to consolidate political power into the hands of the elite few. Consolidation of political power is the end goal, and "racial purity" is nothing but a cheap attempt to chip away at that goal.

  17. Test Results by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't speak for the Roma, but on behalf of the Jewish people, I accept the results of this test. This idiot has nothing to do with us genetically. Cue other ethnic groups demanding he test himself so they can wash their hands of him as well. (Sadly, people like this take: "Nobody wants me" to be a compliment rather than an insult.)

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Test Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want to be associated with genital mutilating pedophiles either.

    2. Re:Test Results by toriver · · Score: 1

      You mean Americans?

    3. Re:Test Results by billstewart · · Score: 1

      Yup. A friend of mine started an "International Zionist Conspiracy" with a friend back when he was in high school, just so that when people blamed the "International Zionist Conspiracy" for things, he could say "No, that wasn't us, sorry."

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    4. Re:Test Results by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm actually quite upset when I hear someone say that Jews rule the world. After all, I'm Jewish and nobody's cut me in on this! With my luck, though, I'd get stuck being in charge of the Jersey Shore. *shudders*

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  18. bastagesGene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I get tested for the bastages gene instead. MY wife and I may be carriers but not full bastages. And we do know that to get ahead in this world only true bastages fully succeed. Only confirmed genetic testing would be able to vet out whom is a true bastage vs whom is acting like one as a means to an end. We must identify the Bastages.

      Also through empirical testing and anecdotal evidence Bastages is a genetic components as I have see the nicest people come from the biggest of Bastages and the biggest of Bastages raised by the nicest of parents. And though latent Bastage tendencies may be in all of us as a recessive gene, we should test and identify these Bastages early and shape their upbringing for the betterment of humanity

    Then again this could all just be a load of c#$p

  19. Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? by cpghost · · Score: 1

    Reading this kind of news is pretty shocking IMHO. First we have anti-ROMA racism in France, then anti-ROMA and antisemitic racism in Hungary. I really hope history doesn't repeat itself, though I'm not overly optimistic.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    1. Re:Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, not to be cynical, but was there ever a time when the Roma were accepted in Europe - read a random tour book for Southern Europe and you are likely to see warnings about Gypsy/Roma pickpockets included. Antisemitism has been fairly consistent in Eastern Europe, it never really went away, so you should not be overly shocked by it showing up yet again.

    2. Re:Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anti-Roma racism in Europe (esp. Eastern Europe) has purely pragmatic roots. Denounce it as non politically correct all you want, but there's a strong correlation between Roma and petty criminals - especially those Roma who are identifiably Roma (i.e. wear the appropriate clothing, speak the language etc). Of course, this isn't because there is some kind of "Roma DNA" that includes some "thief gene" in it. It's because European Roma culture historically was, and to a large extent remains, conductive of petty crime. Today, this is primarily a self-perpetuating problem, much like disproportionally high numbers of criminals among African Americans in the USA - association of the whole group with crime leads to discrimination of it uniformly regardless of how individual members conduct themselves, which in turn means that their individual opportunity to achieve a higher status in life is that much less, which means that many are turned towards crime again as the most rewarding way of living that is left available to them. But, from the perspective of your average Eastern European citizen, who knows that out of ten thieves he saw in his life, eight were Roma, it doesn't matter - "fool me once" and all that.

      Anti-Jewish racism, on the other hand, is mostly political - Nazi heritage and all that.

    3. Re:Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      read a random tour book for Southern Europe and you are likely to see warnings about Gypsy/Roma pickpockets included

      Go on a tour of Southern Europe, and you'll likely see evidence that those warnings are there for a good reason. The warnings themselves are not directly due to racism, though the continued lack of opportunities for Roma to break out of this underworld likely do have a lot to do with racism.

    4. Re:Are Europe's demons awakening (again)? by PGC · · Score: 1

      "Lack of opportunities" ? Please. Stop right there. Next thing you'll say is that it was their childhood that causes their behavior ? No, I don't support the racist views of the hungarion idiot; but Romans are a known 'problem'. It has everything to do with culture though....

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
  20. Hungarians are a sad bunch by Prune · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In talks with Hungarian friends, some of which still live there, they seem keenly aware of the poor image their country has in the eyes of the rest of the world. It's a country best known for giving the origins to history's most prolific serial killer, Elizabeth Bathory (killed ~600 young girls with torture methods that make the Spanish Inquisition look like amateur hour), and for being the de facto porn capital of Europe. Worse, the attempts of Hungarians to whitewash haven't made things much better, yet they persist. For example, last year there was quite a bit of drama on the Wikipedia page for the countess, with Hungarians trying to sanitize the Bathory article of some of the more gruesome details and putting in claims that the evidence against her was hear-say and/or politically motivated (veritably and verifiably false, as there were plenty of well-documented witnesses). When this didn't work out and much of the dishonest editing was undone (though I've still been unable to fully restore the article), they tried to shift the blame for the edit attempts on feminists. Which might have been convincing, had I not hang around Hungarian IRC channels in one of which the whole whitewash campaign was discussed.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's a country best known for giving the origins to history's most prolific serial killer, Elizabeth Bathory..."

      Believe me when I say that no one knows who the fuck that is.

      "...and for being the de facto porn capital of Europe."

      No one watches their shitty third-world porn.

    2. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      In talks with Hungarian friends, some of which still live there, they seem keenly aware of the poor image their country has in the eyes of the rest of the world. It's a country best known for giving the origins to history's most prolific serial killer ...

      Perhaps your friends need a reality check? Bathory was 16th century. Since then, the rest of us fucked over Africa, the Americas and most of Asia. There's Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler, king Leopold and many others. Hell, even .se spent half a century raping, killing and looting in central Europe, until we ran out of farm boys.

    3. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you need a dictionary. With it, you can look up the terms "War Criminal" and "Serial Killer" and see how they differ.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, no, that was until the Russians knocked on your door :)

    5. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's a country best known for giving the origins to history's most prolific serial killer, Elizabeth Bathory..."

      Believe me when I say that no one knows who the fuck that is.

      Your country, by contrast, is best known for its wide-spread ignorance. And its lack of curiosity when faced with a new name or fact. Did you even Google the name before commenting? I did, because I wondered if she really beat Gilles de Rais. I'd wager you don't know who that is either.

      "...and for being the de facto porn capital of Europe."

      No one watches their shitty third-world porn.

      Can't speak for the porn, but the chicks are plenty hot.

    6. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they just have the wrong idea about themselves. I know hungary by their mathematicians, termal baths and cute girls!

    7. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Prune · · Score: 1

      I'm not American :)

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    8. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Prune · · Score: 1

      You're talking about war and genocide. I was discussing serial killers. I assumed this can be explained by you forgetting your morning coffee, else it would make an implication of fallibility of those with sub-200K slashdot IDs that is too great to ever find acceptance on this site.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    9. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      killed ~600 young girls with torture methods that make the Spanish Inquisition look like amateur hour

      Here you go, I hope you learn something about "amateur hour":
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/vatican/esp_vatican29.htm#The%20Tortures

    10. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by PGC · · Score: 1

      Then you have no proper excuse for your ignorance.

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    11. Re:Hungarians are a sad bunch by LienRag · · Score: 1

      I think I've read something about this politically motived Bathory trial in the prose part (about historical context) of the comic book "Elizabeth Bathory" from Pascal Croci, who is not hungarian (although he is goth). I remember that there has been a similar theory about Gilles de Rais, the famous French serial killer. I'm not an expert in medieval research, but were trials in these times really about finding the truth?

  21. What is "Jewish"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is being Jewish a religion, ethnicity, or culture? Only one - ethnicity - could even possibly be connected to genes, and even then I gather that that is not valid?

    1. Re:What is "Jewish"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. Show up at Ben Gurion airport without a visa and try that line on them.

  22. No monopoly by kstahmer · · Score: 2

    It’s reassuring to know that the United States of America doesn’t have a monopoly on nut cases.

    --
    HRH The Duke of Windsor
  23. Funny by kdogg73 · · Score: 1

    She doesn't sequence druish.

    --
    Let's face it, most of us are scoffers. But moments before zero hour, it does not pay to take chances.
  24. Re:In case you were wondering by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Stop generalizing!

    Americans are so stupid...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. So are they trying to solve the Kazakh problem? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    So why are these Hungarians trying to solve a Kazakh problem?

  26. Re:In case you were wondering by value_added · · Score: 1

    Do they really celebrate Running of the Jew in Antarctica?

    [Sorry, someone had to slip a Borat joke]

  27. No, we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a Finn, I'd like to note that it's well-established that we are very inbred. There is a wide array of genetic diseases (and a few positive mutations) that can be found essentially nowhere else in the world.

    1. Re:No, we don't by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Finns have had little outside breeding since they've settled in that particular region, but not before they came there. Many other speakers of Finnic languages (like, say, Karels or Merya) interbred heavily with surrounding Slavic and Baltic tribes.

  28. The silver lining by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    The nice thing about malevolent bigoted fools who need to experience a noose is that they are eager to self-identify. Saves the rest of us a lot of trouble.

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
  29. DNA-determined anti-whiteness. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See their reaction when you ask them if they support:Africa for the Africans,Asia for the Asians,white countries for EVERYBODY! This is genocide according to international law.Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white.

    1. Re:DNA-determined anti-whiteness. by toriver · · Score: 1

      More anonymous ranting from the fearful.

  30. Anti-whites defined Hungarians as White by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Questions for the anti-whites: 1) If "RACE does not exist", then genocide can't happen and has never happened? 2) If "RACE is just skin color", then why is skin color so important to you? 3) If "RACE is just how people look", then why are you only against the way white people look? Why do you hate white children so much?
    Some anti-whites will say they want to genocide all races, which makes them mulatto-supremacists as well as criminals; I suspect however, they only say that to justify white genocide. Any which way you want to slice it, anti-whites justify white genocide. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  31. Define the Jewish "race" then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Just taking some simple observations would give you an average success rate greater than random selection so your "not at all" is wrong. For instance, pick only those with dark hair. (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7061-hair#anchor7)

    I read this while stroking my red beard (courtesy of my red-headed Jewish father) and running my hair through my blond hair (courtesy of my German great-grandfather, who converted to Judaism in order to marry my great-grandmother). If it will satisfy you, though, I will rephrase the question: given a lineup of five white people with black hair, how will you determine which person is Jewish?

    Why do people insist on having an airtight, scientifically sound, completely precise definition for race?

    Why do people insist that a religion or culture is even related to race? Race should refer only to sets of inheritable characteristics; Judaism is not something you can inherit. I cannot convert to having dark, African skin, no matter how hard I try; yet anyone who is willing is able to convert to Judaism, and if I wanted to I could convert out of Judaism.

    You're mistaking the religious beliefs with the race.

    So take away the religion and the culture, and what is left? What do you think Judaism is, beyond religion and culture?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by stdarg · · Score: 1

      If it will satisfy you, though, I will rephrase the question: given a lineup of five white people with black hair, how will you determine which person is Jewish?

      Hair color was just one example of a very simple visual assessment that would make a difference in your success rate. You claimed that Jews are indistinguishable from any other group, but that's in fact wrong. Your new question makes it harder to succinctly describe a visual method, but doesn't rule out such a method. How about if we simply use the genetic test described in the article?

      I cannot convert to having dark, African skin, no matter how hard I try; yet anyone who is willing is able to convert to Judaism, and if I wanted to I could convert out of Judaism.

      Say you could paint or tattoo your skin to look pretty much however you wanted, even if only for a time -- would that invalidate the idea of skin color? No because we see the difference between conscious manipulation and genetics. Same with converting to or away from Judaism. Yes I could declare that I am a Jew, but I would still be cognizant that I am Jewish in religion only, I did not suddenly change my ancestry.

      So take away the religion and the culture, and what is left? What do you think Judaism is, beyond religion and culture?

      As you noted there are a bunch of subgroups of Jewish people who have ancestral ties. As a result even if only due to their proximity and history there will be genetic ties as well.

      By the way, your story of your great grandfather and your father only illustrates how races can change over time. The result is that identifying groups becomes harder. Races can even die out -- which generally means they were absorbed into a larger group and their racial characteristics lost. It does not mean that the group never existed, or that it ceased to exist as soon as it changed a little bit.

    2. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      You claimed that Jews are indistinguishable from any other group, but that's in fact wrong

      Prove it. How will you distinguish Jews from non-Jews, other than by religion and culture?

      How about if we simply use the genetic test described in the article?

      As you noted there are a bunch of subgroups of Jewish people who have ancestral ties. As a result even if only due to their proximity and history there will be genetic ties as well.

      Except that the Ethiopian Jews' genetics were closer to the general population Ethiopia than to any other Jewish population. So much for using genetics to test whether or not someone is Jewish.

      By the way, your story of your great grandfather and your father only illustrates how races can change over time.

      No, it illustrates that there is nothing genetic about being Jewish. People have converted to Judaism throughout the history of Judaism; it is absurd to think that there is some Jewish forefather or that all Jews share some common lineage.

      Yes I could declare that I am a Jew, but I would still be cognizant that I am Jewish in religion only, I did not suddenly change my ancestry.

      So what? Do you really think that having Jewish ancestors has some special significance? I would guess that almost everyone living in Europe and the Mediterranean region has at least one Jewish ancestor. Does that really make a difference to you? Do you really care that much about who your ancestors were going back hundreds or even thousands of years?

      Judaism is a religion and a culture. There is no Jewish gene; there are some genes that are common to certain Jewish communities, which has to do with a cultural demand to marry within the community, but those genes have absolutely nothing to do with being Jewish.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Prove it. How will you distinguish Jews from non-Jews, other than by religion and culture?

      You must be using "distinguish" to mean "identify exactly" but I'm obviously not -- that should have been clear from my argument about hair color. Nobody said it had to be or could be 100% accurate, and arguing such is simply a straw man argument.

      Analogy -- pregnancy. By your logic, pregnancy has no biological basis because pregnant women can't be picked from a lineup with 100% success. Does that make sense? No. I don't know about you, but given a random sample of women, my performance in picking the pregnant women would be better than a random selection, therefore I feel comfortable saying yes, there is a visual difference in pregnant women, and therefore, yes, it has a real biological basis.

      My only point was that some physical features that have a genetic basis distinguish Jews from the general population, so your aside of "hint: not at all" or whatever was in fact wrong. A visual assessment would not be 100% accurate. I admit that.

      Except that the Ethiopian Jews' genetics were closer to the general population Ethiopia than to any other Jewish population. So much for using genetics to test whether or not someone is Jewish.

      What about how close Ethiopian Jews' genetics are to each other relative to the general Ethiopian population?

      Anyway, I've never thought of Ethiopian Jews as part of "the Jews" when thought of as a race, because yeah, they are not really genetically related to the Jewish race. I would be surprised if there weren't such thing as the "Ethiopian Jewish race" though, because if the Ethiopian Jews were as insular as other Jews, there is simply bound to be some genetic distinction among them.

      Look at this page: http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm#Race

      It echoes your argument that you can't become black, but blacks can become Jewish. And yet it also shows that in the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race. It also gives the example of Nazi Germany classifying Jews as a race.

      Now.. regardless of how you feel about that, you have to admit that many people recognize the Jewish race in addition to the Jewish religion. The article says there is a genetic test -- not 100% accurate -- that identifies at least part of that traditional Jewish race. I don't see why you have a problem with that. Is it because you feel like the test might exclude you? Yeah, it might. So what? You will still be Jewish, just not necessarily part of the Jewish race as defined by the test.

    4. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      You must be using "distinguish" to mean "identify exactly" but I'm obviously not -- that should have been clear from my argument about hair color. Nobody said it had to be or could be 100% accurate, and arguing such is simply a straw man argument.

      The company that performed the test claimed that they could completely rule out the possibility that the MP had a Jewish ancestor, so no, this is not a "straw man," it is exactly what was claimed in TFA. Your hair color example is equally flawed; unless you are claiming that dark hair is more common among Jews than it is among other populations (which is almost certainly false, since the proportion of dark hair is highest in Asia), it is a poor way to guess whether or not a person is Jewish.

      If you want to see how true that is, just do an experiment -- gather a random sample of 1000 Jews and 1000 non-Jews, and record their hair color. If you can show a non-negligible difference in the proportions of hair color observed in Jews and non-Jews, I will be convinced. I have my doubts that you will find such a result, but go ahead and prove me wrong.

      Anyway, I've never thought of Ethiopian Jews as part of "the Jews" when thought of as a race, because yeah, they are not really genetically related to the Jewish race

      So you basically throw away any counterexamples to your theory that there is a "Jewish race."

      Look at this page: http://www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm#Race

      I did, and this is what I saw:

      "But setting aside the emotional issues, Jews are clearly not a race. "

      "Common ancestry is not required to be a Jew"

      yet it also shows that in the 1980s the Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race

      For the purposes of applying an anti-discrimination law. The Supreme Court also ruled that tomatoes are a "vegetable" for legal purposes, even though botanically tomatoes are a fruit. Supreme Court rulings are not definitions of the world, they are just rulings on how the law should be interpreted.

      It also gives the example of Nazi Germany classifying Jews as a race.

      What a compelling example to point to...

      Now.. regardless of how you feel about that, you have to admit that many people recognize the Jewish race

      Many people think that the Earth is flat, but their views have just as little merit as the views of people who think that there is a "Jewish race."

      The article says there is a genetic test

      No, the article says that "many Jews have a common ancestry," a fact that was demonstrated through genetic analysis. That does not mean that there is a test that can demonstrate that someone is or is not Jewish since (a) it says nothing about whether or not other people may share that ancestry with Jews (all human beings share at least some common ancestry) and (b) it leaves room for a large number of Jews who do not share a common ancestry with other Jews. At best, you could use those markers to say, "This person shares a common ancestry with some Jews," which is a very weak statement.

      that identifies at least part of that traditional Jewish race

      You have yet to say what exactly the "Jewish race" even is. It seems to have nothing to do with a person's physical appearance, it seems to be loosely connected to genetics, and it seems to have no practical significance. Judaism itself was not started by some particular tribe, it was a collection of regional practices that coalesced several thousand years ago, likely due to the dictates of an ancient Israeli king. It would be somewhat interesting to see if this hypothetical "Jewish race" is nothing more than a subset of a broader "middle eastern race," that includes Muslims and Christians (and other, smaller religious movements) fr

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How will you distinguish Jews from non-Jews, other than by religion and culture?"

      somehow jews have no problem distinguishing themselves from others, even though they may or may not be religious and may have come from quite different cultures.

      i asked my jewish friends, "say, i embrace jewish religion and become the most observant orthodox, will i be jewish then?" they said - of course not. then i asked - "if i am a not religious, not observant bum, but my mom is jewish, who am i?" they said - "of course you are jewish then".

      that makes me think that religion and culture are deeply irrelevant in how we are determining the jewishness.

    6. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like one sends in tissue samples for genetic testing and then an Israeli passport returns in the mail. Now for off-topic, but practical concerns.

      In that case, if you are not in Israel already, what event would compel you to make aliyah? Are you going to wait out Jacob's trouble on the North American continent so as to be part of the second regathering mentioned in Isaiah 11? Why? Is it that you have considered the two-thirds in the land that are to be lost according to Zecharyah 13? Remember, there must be either a Temple or Tabernacle that Armilus/Antichrist (cf. Malbim) must defile.

      Inasmuch as America is perhaps the most noble of social experiments in human history, she is not Israel or co-Israel and remains foreign as a nation and with respect to the covenants made with your people. What makes you think that demographic changes started by Hart-Celler (Immigration reform act of 1965) will not culminate in political changes that will cause the USA to turn against Israel and thus set the stage for Armilus to be shown and act? I believe that this Obama is trying to destroy the US economy to throw the Christian Zionists out of work and reward those who oppose Israel.

      What if more and more cases of anti-Jewish bias crime results in jury nullification or non-prosecution because of said demographic changes?

      You cannot have Mashiach without Jacob's Trouble.

    7. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The company that performed the test claimed that they could completely rule out the possibility that the MP had a Jewish ancestor, so no, this is not a "straw man," it is exactly what was claimed in TFA.

      I haven't seen seen the company's claim of 100% accuracy. In the article it says

      Nagy Gén scanned 18 positions in the MP’s genome for variants that it says are characteristic of Roma and Jewish ethnic groups; its report concludes that Roma and Jewish ancestry can be ruled out.

      You are taking a journalist's analysis of the report as authoritative, but I've read plenty of news articles that poorly summarize scientific and medical research. I'm going on the assumption that, like every other scientific or medical test I've seen, the actual result reported by the company is a statistical result, not a black and white answer.

      Your hair color example is equally flawed; unless you are claiming that dark hair is more common among Jews than it is among other populations (which is almost certainly false, since the proportion of dark hair is highest in Asia), it is a poor way to guess whether or not a person is Jewish.

      Based on what I know, the proportion of Jews who are Asian is much lower than the proportion of humans who are Asian... so bringing up Asian hair color makes no sense. Also you specified a lineup of white men.

      It took a lot more work than I expected looking up hair color statistics -- not for Jews, but for others. Too many hits for hair coloring products. This site has some actual numbers:

      These figures show in a striking manner that in the provinces of Germany where the percentage of brunettes is smallest among the Christian population—in Prussia, for instance, only 14.05 per cent—the Jews have 42.34 per cent of brunettes; while in Alsace-Lorraine and Bavaria, where the Christians show 25.21 and 21.1 per cent of brunettes respectively, the Jews have only 34.59 and 39.45 per cent respectively of such.

      It's under a section about blond hair, showing that in populations with more blonds, Jews are also more blond. But you can still see the sizable difference in the prevalence of darker hair among Jews in those populations.

      Does that satisfy you? I thought it was common knowledge that Jews had darker hair on average.

      So you basically throw away any counterexamples to your theory that there is a "Jewish race."

      You bring up people who are religiously Jewish but not genetically Jewish and think that's a counterexample? No, because I have already admitted there are people in the Jewish religion who are not in the traditional Jewish race. As for Ethiopian Jews in particular, I just don't know. I don't think they have been studied as much as white Jewish groups. Like I said before I *bet* they would also have distinguishing genetic features, but I don't know.

      It's not my fault there's a racial term that is also a religious term. I didn't come up with them. Can't you see the difference in intended usage though, and not use examples of one as a counterexample to the other just because they use the same word?

      For the purposes of applying an anti-discrimination law.

      Of course. I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to rule on a scientific matter, would you? It stands that many people consider "the Jewish race" to be a legitimate concept.

      What a compelling example to point to...

      It's not at all compelling to dismiss a point because it mentions Nazis.

      Many people think that the Earth is flat, but their views have just as little merit as the views of people who think that there is a "Jewish race."

      You're just making stuff up. Many people think the Earth is flat, but their views have just as little merit as the views of pe

    8. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Do you also not fly in airplanes because Nazis considered a strong air campaign fundamental to defeating England?

      The Nazi war in Europe was not predicated on the existence of airplanes; their genocide was predicated on the existence of "inferior" races, including the existence of a "Jewish race." The fundamental Nazi philosophy was that some races are better than others (to point of including race in the definition of person's health); the extermination of "inferior races" was a matter of protecting and perfecting the genes of "superior races." That was the unique element of the Nazi genocide, that set it apart from previous massacres and genocides of Jews: where previously, Jews were told to convert or die, the Nazis did not care about religion at all, and were killing Jews only because of their "race."

      So yes, to speak of a Jewish race is to lend legitimacy to the very philosophy that led to one of the worst genocides in history.

      No I'm not. I'm the one who is distinguishing between the religion and the race

      Then why even use the word "Jewish," unless you are trying as hard as you can to be ambiguous?

      "Based on Jewish law's emphasis on matrilineal descent, even religiously conservative Orthodox Jewish authorities would accept an atheist born to a Jewish mother as fully Jewish." What do you say about that?

      I have encountered that view in the past, and I disagree with it. The matrilineal descent concept was nothing more than a legal ruling from a time when Jewish religious laws were the laws of local and regional governments (a time when religion and government were very closely related). When that concept emerged, the determination of whether or not someone was Jewish had official and legal consequences -- it could be a deciding factor in how a crime was punished, in whether some property could be inherited, in whether a marriage was considered valid, etc. That was the state of affairs centuries ago; times have changed, philosophies have changed, and the matrilineal descent argument is now a matter of religious debate only (except in Israel; however, the situation there is more complicated, as the purpose of Israel's immigration policy is to give refuge to people who are persecuted -- even if those people are not practicing Jews. If you want to turn this into a conversation about Israeli politics, you will have to find an Israeli to have it with; I am not familiar enough with the current state of Israeli politics to really carry on such a conversation). It is also worth noting that after some number of generations outside of the community, a person would not be considered Jewish even if you could trace their matrilineal line back to Jews.

      Also you should check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews if you really think there are no "people of merit" who think there's a genetic link among Jews.

      Right in the first few paragraphs of that article, you have this:

      "The genetics of Ashkenazi Jews have been particularly well-studied, resulting in the discovery of many genetic disorders that are associated with this ethnic group. In contrast, the medical genetics of Sephardic Jews and Oriental Jews are more complicated, since they are more genetically diverse and there are consequently no genetic disorders that are more common in these groups as a whole; instead they tend to have the genetic diseases that are common in their various countries of origin."

      I read that as saying that Ashkenazic Jews form a genetically distinct group (perhaps you could call that a "race," though someone else pointed out that "cline" is the correct term), whereas the rest of the world's Jews do not. If you want to grab a small victory, fine: you can go around talking about the "Ashkenazic Jewish Race" if you really

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    9. Re:Define the Jewish "race" then by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The Nazi war in Europe was not predicated on the existence of airplanes; their genocide was predicated on the existence of "inferior" races, including the existence of a "Jewish race."

      So anything that their genocide was predicated on is bad? Well their genocide was not predicated on the existence of a Jewish race, but like you said, the existence of inferior races. (Jewish does not imply inferior.) The Nazis didn't invent the idea of the Jewish race for the purposes of genocide, it existed long before that. That's why I saw it as analogous to airplanes -- a neutral idea twisted to cause harm in the furtherance of Nazi ambition.

      So yes, to speak of a Jewish race is to lend legitimacy to the very philosophy that led to one of the worst genocides in history.

      Oh well, I just can't see it that way, and I don't think you honestly do either -- after all you have referred to "white" and "Asian" races. And you are claiming, after all, that merely acknowledging the Jewish race is what is so bad. Well if you refer to the white race, and then someone else comes along and says the white race is superior, you've done the same thing as far as I can see.

      I read that as saying that Ashkenazic Jews form a genetically distinct group (perhaps you could call that a "race," though someone else pointed out that "cline" is the correct term), whereas the rest of the world's Jews do not. If you want to grab a small victory, fine: you can go around talking about the "Ashkenazic Jewish Race" if you really want to.

      Are you being sarcastic? The small victory was just one example. I find it surprising you didn't already know about the Ashkenazis. They're the group that is so over-represented in Nobel Prize winners, and they are often the subject in debates over race and intelligence. They were highlighted in the popular and controversial book "The Bell Curve."

      Anyway, since I'm the one who seems to be doing all the research with you just shooting it down, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions#Genetic_studies_of_DNA

      It is not a matter of being politically correct, it is a matter of understanding that there only relevant factor in modern Judaism is how a person lives their life. Things were different historically, and things are more complex when it comes to Israeli politics, but in general being Jewish in this century has nothing to do with genetics.

      I agree, I don't think we're disagreeing on what it means to be Jewish. We are disagreeing on what it means to belong to the Jewish race.

      yet here we are, talking about a "Jewish race." Why choose such a non-specific, confusing, and ambiguous name, if you are referring to a specific subset of Jews, from a specific region?

      I didn't choose the name. It's probably an artifact from when Jews were much more insular than today.

      I'm sure you're right that over time the "Jewish race" and "those who follow Judaism" will grow more and more apart, and the idea of a Jewish race will have even less significance and meaning. Eventually people will stop talking about it except in historical contexts.

  32. Why the hypocrisy? by cabadejo · · Score: 1

    There was a recently published book Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People By Harry Ostrer Oxford University Press. Read more: http://forward.com/articles/155742/jews-are-a-race-genes-reveal/ It was widely heralded as showing "Jews Are a 'Race,' Genes Reveal" http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dna-links-prove-jews-are-a-race-says-genetics-expert-1.428664 I did not see comments calling the book extremist or hateful words being used about the author. This man had a genetic test and he is some sort of devil. The same sort of tests are carried out on Jewish people are this is fine and dandy Why the hypocrisy? I see lots of anti-racist rhetoric. But it does make me wonder. Why is it bad for the politician to investigate his race but good for Jewish people to investigate theirs. It almost make me think there is denial of the White race. It makes me think this anti-racist rhetoric is really anti-White. I've seen posted: Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White. Looks like it is true for lots of posters here.

    1. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by Apuleius · · Score: 1

      This guy belongs to a neonazi party that literally and un-ironically wants to round up Hungary's Roma population and put them in labor camps. They will use DNA testing if they get control of Hungary.

      Mr. Ostrer, on the other hand, is an honest scholar. That is the difference.

    2. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by Zrinski · · Score: 1

      So if a white man who is considered "an honest scholar" writes a book about the Genetic History of White People that proves Whites are distinct race that must be preserved, how long you think it would take before said author goes from "honest scholar" to anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews? Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    3. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Genetic History of White People that proves Whites are distinct race "
      A) He didn't do that, so please stop making shit up
      B) If he "Proved it"? then yes, it's an honest scholarly proof, and like all proofs, must be preserved.

      "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
      No matter how many times you say it, it's still won't be true.
      Unless you have some proof? which I doubt, because if you did you would say so.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Hey, a rant from the fearful with a name attached? I thought you guys stuck to AC. Plus in-breeding in your "master race", ending up as the Habsburg family... is really the skin pigmentation that important to you?

    5. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by cabadejo · · Score: 1

      I agree "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white." had me thinking at one time. The key to understanding this is CODE WORD. Definition "a euphemistic or politically acceptable catchword or phrase used instead of a blunter or less acceptable term: The official report said the diplomats had a “frank and serious discussion”—code words for “angry argument.” So it is not saying Anti-racist = Anti-White. It is saying that very often things are described as anti-racist or a person proclaims to be anti-racist but in reality they are working against White people. They don't come out and say they are anti-White b/c that would not be acceptable. They might not even realise they are being anti-White, but they are still anti-White. An example. A study was carried out on White babies. The study said 9 month old White babies could recognise White faces from Black. The White babies were said to be racist. Commentators wrapped this up in some sort of anti-racism agenda but it boiled down to labelling White babies are racist. I saw a YT video where White kids were shown a range child figures from white through to black. They were asked which were pretty, good, bad, ugly. They picked their own colour as good, pretty and the opposite as bad and ugly. A normal reaction for a small child. CNN only did the study with White kids and one mother was crying with shame and the kids were all labelled as racist. This was in an anti-racist agenda. It was simply anti-White. There has been 50 years of Affirmative Action - it is painted as running on an anti-racist agenda but it discriminates on racial grounds against White people. There are many examples where so called anti-racist agenda is in play but when closely analysed it is anti-White.

    6. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by cabadejo · · Score: 1

      Why are you so anti-White? I don't hate other races, why do you hate mine?

    7. Re:Why the hypocrisy? by toriver · · Score: 1

      There is no "white race". There is a branch of the human race that developed light skin. It is about as significant a difference as red hair. That French philosopher from 1775 had shit for brains. As did the later proponents of "the white farce".

  33. Laugh all you want, but by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

    Perhaps, but before we laugh at such things I would like to point out that the U.S. government recognizes Native American heritage on less convincing evidence than a DNA sequence. It makes a difference in government benefits and tribal rights. My point is that governments regularly, and officially, pigeon-hole people into various groups based on "racial purity" or something like it. It sure seems important to a lot of people, especially when money is involved.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  34. recommend book "DNA USA" by Sykes by peter303 · · Score: 2

    DNA USA is a readable journey through various DNA techniques and ancestry studies by the British geneticist Bryan Sykes. It covers many of the arguments discussed in this thread. Sykes has written several other books like this, which update the state of the art about every three years or so.

    An interesting argument from Sykes is that after 400 years, some ancestors are edited out of your heritage. You can only have 50K contributors to the 25K pairs of genes you carry. And after 16 generators, some the ancestors no longer give you any genes. 400 years is 16 generations. To worry about a billion ancestors back 30 generations is not that important.

  35. Please don't by INowRegretThesePosts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If good gives up, evil prevails.

  36. Re:In case you were wondering by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    As an American I get a bit of Schadenfreude, that the Europeans have seem to be less snobbish lately on their superiority, over the Americans. Right before 2008 crash, there was all this stupid talk on how much better they are for all the government provided services... Then the market crashed, America is in a recovery, Europe is still having a tons of major problems. A lot of it is due to the fact that they offered too many services that they could only afford in a strong economy, while the US and other countries who took a more Conservative approach seems to be better off.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  37. This raises a vital question! by conspirator23 · · Score: 1

    Is there a test yet for the douchebag gene?

    1. Re:This raises a vital question! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes. If you gte a test so you can tell people you don't have a spcific kind of ancestory, you are a douchbag.

      The second test is watching Jersey Shore.
      Followed by uttering 'Bros. before Hos in any serious context.

      Followed by owning a Mac~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Maybe it's just me getting older... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    but I see more and more ways in which civilization moves backward. And I don't think it's just after having heard the term "Peak Civilization."
    It seems logical. As resources dwindle, people retreat physically and mentally.

    1. Re:Maybe it's just me getting older... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Civilization moved backwards after the Roman Empire as well, and yet here we are.

      Civilization has peaks, yes, but they're local peaks. There's no evidence to support the notion that, after some point, the only way to go further is down.

    2. Re:Maybe it's just me getting older... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Yes there is. There are many graphs like this.
      http://globalization.icaap.org/content/special/Leigh01.png

    3. Re:Maybe it's just me getting older... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Oil does not equal civilization. If we're smart, we'll finally throw enough at fusion to figure it out before the effects of dwindling oil finally start to be felt. If not, then we'll suffer a temporary setback until we get fusion.

      Don't forget about oil sands, either. There's enough of that stuff to last us another half a century even by the most pessimistic measures. God knows what it'll do to the environment by the time we burn it all, but that's another matter (and something high-tech countries will be best equipped to deal with).

    4. Re:Maybe it's just me getting older... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Those are well-worn discussions. What I've observed over the recent years though is that the doomers (the rational ones, not the "the sky is falling" types) are proven right and the cornucopians are proven wrong. The next big question is if the energy trap is real. We'll see.

  39. Re:In case you were wondering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, well so is the state of Israel, but I don't hear you Jews complain about that.

  40. Re:In case you were wondering by Hatta · · Score: 1

    A lot more of it is due to being taken advantage of by Goldman Sachs. There's nothing wrong with government providing services that it can pay for. The problem occurs when the government colludes with banks to hide the actual costs of those services.

    Further problems happen when the banks who knowingly made loans to insolvent nations demand to be paid back in full, forcing austerity measures on a public who has done nothing wrong, which even further damages the economy of the country. The entire thing is a ploy by Goldman Sachs to turn Greece into an indentured servant.

    The only people who did anything wrong in the European crisis are the government leaders and the banks. Those are the only parties who bear any responsibility, and those are the only parties who should have to pay.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  41. Re:In case you were wondering by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    correction: trolls are so stupid, as is anyone who blames all Americans for being prejudiced

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  42. Re:The test was not necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now these are racially determined?, I'm confused now.

  43. Where`s our white Indo-European genocme.org? by nostreetcars · · Score: 1

    Because mass immigration and "assimilation" is imposed on ALL white countries and ONLY on white countries.It is geNOcide.Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    1. Re:Where`s our white Indo-European genocme.org? by toriver · · Score: 1

      Creating new identities to post the same crap over and over is not debate, if that is what you think. And if you feel that "anti-racist" is "anti-white" you are probably a "white supremacist" anyway, stuck in superstition.

  44. anti-Whites define Hungarians as White by Zrinski · · Score: 1

    Questions for the anti-whites: 1) If "RACE does not exist", then genocide can't happen and has never happened? 2) If "RACE is just skin color", then why is skin color so important to you? 3) If "RACE is just how people look", then why are you only against the way white people look? Why do you hate white children so much? Some anti-whites will say they want to genocide all races, which makes them mulatto-supremacists as well as criminals; I suspect however, they only say that to justify white genocide. Any which way you want to slice it, anti-whites justify white genocide. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

    1. Re:anti-Whites define Hungarians as White by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Questions for the anti-whites

      If you want to ask a question to someone, you should clearly identify that group. I have no idea what an "anti-White" is.

  45. Re:The test was not necessary by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was a controversial 2005 paper that did suggest Ashkenazi Jews may have above average math and verbal intelligence, and inferior spatial intelligence

    Some 40% of Ashkenazi Jews have mitochondrial DNA descended from just four women. If those four women had DNA that encouraged above average intelligence it would be quite plausible for the same tendency to extend to a large percentage of Ashkenazi Jews.

    Physical characteristics of our brains are determined to a significant extent by our genes, along with nutrition and other factors, but it is entirely plausabile that there are genetic factors that would result in above average intelligence, just like there are genetic factors that result in above average strength, stamina or speed.

    Its just a matter of time before someone is going to try to genetically engineer superintelligent humans.

    P.S.

    Last laugh at all the people, especially interkin3tic, who fileted me on the slashdot thread a few weeks about $1000 DNA sequencing when I pointed out how neo nazi's would immediately latch on to it as a way to determine racial purity. Assorted liberals asserted that we had moved beyond Nazi's, eugenics and race and it would never happen again. I pointed out then Hungary already had a neo Nazi government going down this path again, and today here you are.

    --
    @de_machina
  46. Not so fast by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You can get information from the gene code to have a better probability with certain factors.

    I mean,. having someone come up with an 'racial purity' test o nonsense and below the aspiration of s civilized person, but that's a separate issue.
    You8 could tell that the person had no 'middle eastern' heritage, for example.

    However you can also have a man who is very black, and be eastern European heritage.
    Radio lav did an excellent story on this, btw.

    What you can not do, is look at someone skin and build and actually know ancestral history. I'm not talking about apparent or grand parent,s but many generations.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  47. Genocide has nothing to do with race by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Race as a biological intention of 'subspecies' then no, there is only humans. There are no subspecies of humans.

    You don't seem to uderstand what Genocide is:
    genocide/jensd/
    Noun:
    The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

    Stop confusing ethnicity with race.

    "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."
    And that is complete utter nonsense.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Genocide has nothing to do with race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Genocide has nothing to do with race", LOL! the very word means 'race-killing'!

  48. It is not just about the MP by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    If it were just the MP doing this out of curiosity, I would say he is a wacko who is overly obsessed with race and genetics. Yet the purpose of doing this was almost certainly political: he likely wanted to rally support from Hungarians who hate Jews and Gypsies, and wanted to parade around this "proof" that he is not one of "them." That is why it is problematic for a company to provide this sort of testing: it fuels violence and Nazi attitudes.

    Imagine if private schools or social clubs pressured people to get these tests, refusing to admit members who showed signs of being descended from Jews or Gypsies. Imagine if people were ostracized or even physically attacked if they "tested positive" for such genes. That is the sort of outcome that such testing will inevitably lead to. Hungary already has problems with ethnic violence; this sort of testing would undoubtedly fuel that.

    The fact that a right-wing Hungarian website called the test "noble" rather than "irrelevant" should be all you need to know that such Nazi ideology is not yet dead.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:It is not just about the MP by billstewart · · Score: 1

      He wanted to show he was "pure" enough to join the cool kids who beat up people they don't like. Maybe he's not doing anything directly bad with the genetic testing, but he's presumably trying to join them so he can help them make the world worse for people he doesn't like.

      And back in the alleged good old days, private schools or social clubs didn't need genetic testing to decide who was Jewish, because they usually knew who your family were and whether they were their type of people, or if they didn't, you weren't getting in anyway. There were tricks, like giving your kids traditional English names like "Irving", but that only lasted a little while before everybody figured it out.

      On the other hand, I do know a number of people who've done the "23&Me" ancestry-testing thing, and apparently most of the Ashkenazis in the US are at most 4th cousins of each other. There's been a lot of recent work showing that the Jews have mostly stayed in a few close-knit groups since the Diaspora, not mixing that much with either the Christian, Muslim, or pagan communities around them. I don't know if anyone's done much study on the Roma.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  49. Then came the bad news: he has African ancestry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all humans. :-)

    Of course, that's only "bad" news if you're some race-obsessed right-wing wacko.

  50. Re:Tell us about this won't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Talmud is not part of the Jewish belief system. It's a bunch of old men with no particular religious importance (judges and scholars) writing down their opinions on Biblical law. It's like pointing to Plessy v Ferguson as proof that all Americans are racist.

  51. Re:Tell us about this won't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    2. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    source = http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    That handles your line of crap perfectly with jews' own words. They wrote them after all.

  52. Re:The test was not necessary by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

    Mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) is only passed down from the mother, meaning it's not sexually mixed. This DNA is also ONLY used in the mitochondria, the DNA doesn't affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria. So even if there are 4 women who originate an entire ethnic groups Mitochondria it says NOTHING about the sexual mixing of regular DNA that has occurred over those generations. So not only can you say nothing about intelligence based on mDNA but mDNA is worthless for anything other than paternity and descendence studies.

    I won't even get into genetics versus environment and the studies that have shown intelligence, ambition and knowledge are as dependent on environment (upbringing) as they are on natural advantages.

  53. Aria/aryan papers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As disturbing as it might sound, my parents in Europe had to have aria/aryan papers to move around without being arrested/molested/deported/etc.

    I am from Hungary, but it has nothing to with my nationality, this was all around occupied Europe before.

    As for the subject: this is outrageous. What I wish, is that these people find out that they are gipsies/jews/blacks (or whatever they hate the most), then demonstrating their faith, they just set themselves on fire or hang themselves. Hopefully the rest of the idiots then follow :)

    And yes, I post as AC .. because it is a subject I do not with to discuss with my handle at all, even though I am on the non-agressor side of the issue.

    BTW : how is this worse than Obamas' birth certificate bullshit?

  54. Ashamed to have Hungarian citizenship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am part of a minority in Hungary and I have to hide this from my friends and coworkers. They would certainly change their attitude if they would know I am not '100%' pure hungarian. I am tired of this extremist culture, hatred and agitation.

    If I were to tell them I am Romanian, they most probably would hate me and god knows what else ....

    1. Re:Ashamed to have Hungarian citizenship by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Since Hungary is a EU member for the time being, why don't you use that opportunity while it exists and move elsewhere where you feel safe?

    2. Re:Ashamed to have Hungarian citizenship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since Hungary is a EU member for the time being, why don't you use that opportunity while it exists and move elsewhere where you feel safe?

      Maybe because he/she shouldn't be deported from his/her country for racist reasons. But rest assured, when Hungary will be finally kicked from the EU, a lot of people will immigrate abroad due to economical reasons, Hungarian ethnics included. You know, the degradation of Hungary is -- unfortunately -- already visible to the naked eye, your nationalist/nazi government managed to do a good job in destroying whatever you have built since the end of communism.

    3. Re:Ashamed to have Hungarian citizenship by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Hungarian, and I don't have any opinion (or much knowledge) on their present state of affairs. I was merely noting that immigrating now should be much easier than when (if?) they get kicked out of EU.

  55. Regarding the Roma race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel I have a civic duty to warn you all that is not a good thing to feed or give money to the Gypsies/Roma (they're the same thing). They'll try to look as if they're really poor and oppressed, but don't worry, they won't die from starvation or lack of money (they thrive on this, and just so you know, they might have a lot of money but still go begging), the vast majority of them reject most of the following things: education, work, honesty or civilized world's moral values and will steal from you on every chance they'd get (it's in their culture to reject society's values).
    Just so you know...your perception about their situation here is pretty much wrong, i'd love to see them invade the american continent and see how you cope, and how your general perception about them changes.
    Hopefully different from that of the West Europeans ;)
    Maybe this will make you understand why not having Roma genes is an important thing here, as a politician :)
    As for Jews...i don't have anything bad to say, and i don't understand why it would be relevant (in a bad way) to be or have Jew ancestors.

    1. Re:Regarding the Roma race by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      it's in their culture to reject society's values ... Maybe this will make you understand why not having Roma genes is an important thing here, as a politician

      Because, as we all know, culture spreads through genes.

  56. White Genocide - Growing Awareness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look closely.

    You have 1. Massive immigration, 2. To white countries only 3. Border laws suspended Coupled with: 4. Forced integration 5. Racial preference to non-whites 6. Coerced tolerance 7. Socially engineered assimilation/genetic blending

    What is the end result of diversity? Genocide, white genocide.

    How is this not white genocide - forced immigration + forced tolerance + assimilation = end of white people?

    1. Re:White Genocide - Growing Awareness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have 1. Massive immigration

      ,
      Immigration is due to economical reasons. Those people that were forced by poverty to go to your country actually worked hard to make your country better. Most of them probably started by doing all the hard work you didn't want to do. And now you want to kick them out?

      2. To white countries only

      What are those? Do they have eternal winter?

      3. Border laws suspended

      You mean freedom of travelling everywere you like, without being stopped by artificial rules and militarized forces? Freedom to sell your goods in other countries without taxes so that you can live even better?

      4. Forced integration 5. Racial preference to non-whites 6. Coerced tolerance 7. Socially engineered assimilation/genetic blending

      You know, the fact that you feel unfulfilled is not caused by others. You should really accept your shortcomings and work hard to overcome them.

      What is the end result of diversity?

      Freedom. Opportunities. Choice.

      Genocide, white genocide.

      Do you know what genocide actually means? Have you had any relatives that were shot because of arbitrary reasons (such as race)? ...

      Actually, why do I bother to answer you? You need professional help, it seems.

  57. Re:The test was not necessary by demachina · · Score: 2

    So you have definitively established that the mitochondria has no role in the function of the brain even though neurons have hundreds of mitochondria and they are essential to meeting the energy needs of neurons.

    Please do share with us your innovative research.

    --
    @de_machina
  58. Re:The test was not necessary by demachina · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is one of many papers, "Neuronal degeneration and mitochondrial dysfunction", where mitochondrial DNA does seem to "affect a damn thing in your body outside the Mitochondria".

    Would you like to retract your kneejerk claim now or later?

    --
    @de_machina
  59. Damn those 'far right' people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... meaning 'White people who simply want to live around THEIR OWN KIND and be left alone'...

    Perhaps some of the brainwashed Slashdotters can tell me why that is such a crime...

    Probably because Jews are incapable of living with THEIR OWN kind, since they don't 'do' manual labour... and thus have to live in a HOST country, leeching off the indigenous people...

    Seriously - are any of you going to tell me that YOU have the right to tell ME who I have to live with? That means you think you OWN me, and that I am your property.

    If you want to live as a white minority in a third world country so much (which is exactly where you left wing nutcases are sending every white country on Earth), why aren't you moving to Africa?

    1. Re:Damn those 'far right' people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a "white country"? How do you define "your own kind" (other than the close family)?

      You know, you are seriously disturbed. Maybe you should check with some local "white" psychiatrist, there may still be hope for you.

    2. Re:Damn those 'far right' people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Race differences are real.

      But I think cultural differences are a much bigger deal in terms of real behavioral and character differences.

      Being a North American white guy, I'd find it a lot more difficult living in, say, Poland with other whites, than I would living in my own country with a bunch of second generation Americans who share the same culture as me.

      The genetic differences are little more than flavor when everybody speaks and thinks the same language and value system.

      An atheist Semite is a very, very different person compared to somebody locked into the vile mind-cancer which is the Jewish religion.

      Genetics are important, though. Genetic psychopaths are a much bigger negative influence on community and the world, and they come in all colors.

      If you label exclusively by skin color, you're over-simplifying at your own peril.

  60. Far-right, etc. by billstewart · · Score: 1

    The groups in the US who consider themselves "conservative" or "far-right" seldom advocate a society without government intervention. Most of them are in favor of lots of government intervention, but only in some areas, and only supporting them and their interests. Lots of them approve of wars against Communism, and you don't get much more interventionist than war. (Of course, Muslim is the new Commie.) Lots of them approve of government making lots of social policies, and keeping the poor people and foreigners in their places (even if they're less concerned about what color the poor are than they used to be), and about banning "obscenity" (are vibrators legal in Texas yet?), and deciding who's allowed to get married.

    And they may be opposed to some kinds of government intervention in business (like environmental or worker safety regulations), but they sure want their defense contracts, and their "intellectual property" protection. And whether they like free trade or protectionism depends a lot on the business they're in (for instance, steel companies got Bush to support protectionist legislation, even though it made steel more expensive for American car manufacturers.)

    And when you're talking about European far-right parties, a lot of them aren't particularly in favor of civil discourse anyway.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Far-right, etc. by NicBenjamin · · Score: 1

      American conservatives are very selective in who they think should have economic freedom. If employers form a cartel, and start price-fixing it's the free market, and the anti-monopoly investigation is an evil. If the employees do it (via the AFL)...

  61. Re:The test was not necessary by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    It makes sense that a religious group with strong tradition would have a consistent environment. The upbringing would complement whatever innate tendency was already there. It may even encourage those lacking a genetic basis to better themselves.

  62. Race is Real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever hear of the Chinese occupation of Tibet? Israeli occupation of Palestine? Saddam Hussein and the Kurds? The Sunni and the Shea? Muslims kill one another all the time. In Darfur and Rwanda blacks hack each other to bits, and rape and kill one another. The entire planet is a fireball of ethnic conflicts, but you anti-Whites blame Joe European for it all. You want to demonize my race, for your genocidal intent! Anti-racism is just a code word for anti-White.

  63. Evolution, Genetic Diversity, and Africa by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Hatta's right here. There have been a number of studies that show that "modern" human genetic diversity was widest in Africa, and that some of those people moved north to Europe, and some of those people moved to Asia, and some of them moved to Australia and the Pacific Islands in various groups, and others of them moved to North America. Some of the Europeans hung out with Neanderthals, and some of the Asians hung out with Denisovans, and of course there were mutations along the way, like the ones that let the Northwest Europeans drink milk as adults (and separately, the ones that let the MauMau drink milk.)

    But the folks who went to different parts of Africa had a really wide genetic range compared to the ones who stayed in Kenya or went north.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  64. Re:In case you were wondering by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

    The US government can cook the books all it likes, but the employment (not unemployment) numbers have barely improved at all. We're short 10 million jobs. Income is declining in real terms for every income bracket except the top 0.1%. Even if that were not so, we actually took a less conservative approach than Europe. We gave tens of trillions of dollars in welfare to the bankers and speculators who caused the problem, Europe did far less of that and far more austerity, and where there was the most austerity there have been the worst results.

    Governments on both sides of the Atlantic would have been better to get equity in the big banks when they were on the ropes, in exchange for the bailout and recapitalization, effectively nationalizing all the too-big-to-exist banks. Then some real housecleaning, write-offs and mass prosecutions could take place, followed by breaking up the big banks and selling off the pieces. We also need to require them to make loans to productive enterprises as an enforced condition of their charters, rather than paying them to sit on their hands and buy treasuries as we are doing now.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  65. Re:Tell us about this won't you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His downmod of the original post's our answer http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2911237&cid=40301105 . It would appear what was quoted there is truthful.

  66. Re:The test was not necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shows who's dumb and it was downmodded http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2911237&cid=40301105 showing it was truthful and exactly who the dumb ones are.

  67. This appears to be encoded in Judaism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    ****

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

    22. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    23. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

    ****

    You can clearly see what they think of you all non-jews (yes, non-jews are Goy/Goyim and Gentiles from above), and quoted straight from their own beliefs and words. Perhaps it explains why Jews were persecuted in World War II and earlier in addition to anti-semetism now. They just can't be too smart to put stuff like that down on paper.

  68. Jews seem very racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    ****

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

    22. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    23. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

    ****

    You can clearly see what they think of you all non-jews (yes, non-jews are Goy/Goyim and Gentiles from above), and quoted straight from their own beliefs and words. Perhaps it explains why Jews were persecuted in World War II and earlier in addition to anti-semitism now. It probably explains them being kicked nation to nation throughout history also. They just can't be too smart to put stuff like that down on paper.

    1. Re:Jews seem very racist by able1234au · · Score: 1

      It is just as silly as the stuff written in the old and new testament and in islam. All these primitive tribal religions were full of this nonsense. I have dug into it but i am sure buddhists, shintoists etc have equally embarrassing things. All religion is stupid and to follow the dictates of the writings of goatherders means you get what you expect.

    2. Re:Jews seem very racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain why jews get kicked nation to nation since time immemorial then. Good luck. Everyone else is crazy, right? Wrong.

    3. Re:Jews seem very racist by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Only problem is, that's a collection of mind-bendingly out-of-context quotes and outright fabrications, penned by the KKK.

    4. Re:Jews seem very racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." source 10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17

    5. Re:Jews seem very racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing your post proves is that you are an idiot. You could try thinking for yourself, or go read the actual text of the Talmud to see if it really says what you're posting. Or you could go on hating just for the sake of hating. Do you realize that it won't make you any less insignificant to hate like this? Probably not.

    6. Re:Jews seem very racist by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 1

      Correction. He's a fucking idiot. I'm so happy that racist douches post on Slashdot.

    7. Re:Jews seem very racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction. He's a fucking idiot.

      I couldn't disagree, I just wasn't being that specific.

      I'm so happy that racist douches post on Slashdot.

      The more time here is less time spent on their loony websites and whacking it to pictures of Fuhrer/Stalin/dead goats, and there's the remote chance they may learn something. I too would prefer they spent more time reading and less time posting garbage.

    8. Re:Jews seem very racist by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Time to be picky, picky, picky ...

      The quotes aren't examples of racism; they're example of xenophobia. Racism means fear or hatred of others based on race. But the targets of these quotes included people who were genetically close relatives of the Jews of the time, so they're not actually based on race. The term Goyim referred to everyone outside the Jewish social group, which is what xenophobia deals with.

      Actually, "goyim" is often translated as "nations", which is a closer English match for the meaning. It has been common (for Jews and non-Jews) to view the Jews as a "national" group, which is the basis of considering them disloyal outsiders. The parent's quotes are simply the same thing seen from the Jewish side. The same attitudes are easily found about other religious groups, e.g., Catholics and Muslims.

      Of course, it has become common for people to use "racism" to mean "saying something I don't like about someone I do like". But this sorta cheapens the term. It's a more useful term if it's used in its basic meaning of classifying people by superficial racial characteristics. The English language also has useful words for social divisions based on other criteria.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  69. Are the Hungarians wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    ****

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

    22. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    23. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

    ****

    You can clearly see what they think of you all non-jews (yes, non-jews are Goy/Goyim and Gentiles from above), and quoted straight from their own beliefs and words. Perhaps it explains why Jews were persecuted in World War II and earlier in addition to anti-semitism now. It probably explains them being kicked nation to nation throughout history also. They just can't be too smart to put stuff like that down on paper.

  70. Kidnapped? They sold their own to slavers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need to get your facts straight. Blacks sold their prisoners and other malcontents to slavers. I wager you're not aware of that happening, and I suggest you look it up and verify it yourself. You'll doubtless be quite surprised to find out I told you the actual truth, not a line of horseshit.

  71. How ethical is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    ****

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

    22. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    23. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

    ****

    You can clearly see what they think of you all non-jews (yes, non-jews are Goy/Goyim and Gentiles from above), and quoted straight from their own beliefs and words. Perhaps it explains why Jews were persecuted in World War II and earlier in addition to anti-semitism now. It probably explains them being kicked nation to nation throughout history too.

  72. Re: Statistical agenda here? by billstewart · · Score: 1

    If you're lumping black Africans all into one cluster, you've missed both Hatta's point and the point of that Wordpress article. Those "two principal components" aren't some fundamentally significant choice of axes, they're components that let you get a visually distinct separation between groups that you've already clustered. So that picture was useful in showing differences between Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, and Native Americans. But if you were to split the Africans into 10 or 20 clusters, you'd see a lot more variation between those clusters than between the Europeans and the nearest African groups. For instance, compare the Kalahari Bushmen with the Eastern and Western Pygmy groups in the Congo, the Zulus, the Mau-Mau and other Kenyans, the Bantu groups, the Berbers in Morocco, the Tuareg, etc.

    Or for more precision, look at the Wikipedia pages for the L0 mitochondria haplogroup vs. L1, L3, L6, etc. and this picture. Non-African humans are all part of subgroups L3M and L3N, people who left Africa for Arabia a while back. (L3N is mostly in Europe, L3M mostly in Asia.) The Y-chromosome data isn't as well-sampled, but Wikipedia's Y-Chromosomal Adam page also suggests that most of the diversity's in Africa.

    And yes, there's also evidence of Neandertal in European genetics and Denisovans in Melanesia, though not in the Y chromosomes or mitochondria, and some other hominids in Sub-Saharan African genetics as well.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  73. Are they? Read Jews own laws/words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/

    ****

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    15. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    16. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    17. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    19. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    20. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    21. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

    22. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    23. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

    ****

    You can clearly see what they think of you all non-jews (yes, non-jews are Goy/Goyim and Gentiles from above), and quoted straight from their own beliefs and words. Perhaps it explains why Jews were persecuted in World War II and earlier in addition to anti-semitism now. It probably explains them being kicked nation to nation throughout history also. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see who the real racists appear to be here and it's not Europeans. They had their experiences with Jews, bad ones, and when no one else would take them, the european community did. They booted them every time in the end! Gee, wonder why? Not.

    1. Re:Are they? Read Jews own laws/words by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Jeez; how many times did you post this? I counted 33 copies, totalling more than half of the lines showing in my copy of the discussion, and I don't even have it set to show everything.

      Flooding a discussion like this with identical copy&paste tirades is usually a good way to find yourself banned by just about any serious discussion site.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  74. slashdot persistence award 2012 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    goes to the cut and paste Talmud guy.

  75. Let the jews speak again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    I'd like you to explain why it is jews got kicked from nearly every european nation then. They took them when nobody else would and you see the results. Explain that please. Good luck.

    1. Re:Let the jews speak again by Raenex · · Score: 1

      So you're going to back up a discredited source by using the same discredited source?

      I'd like you to explain why it is jews got kicked from nearly every european nation then.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

      Ethnicity, religion, being seen as outsiders, jealousy, and scapegoats. The question is why do people like you still fixate so much on a class of people. What is it with the Internet loonies and antisemitism?

      I've known several Jews personally, and they were mostly good people, and they were just people with the same strengths, foibles, and concerns as the rest of us.

    2. Re:Let the jews speak again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Using jews own laws from the talmud. They even say to lie about what was written in the talmud regarding non jews. I didn't write that, Jews did.

    3. Re:Let the jews speak again by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Prove it using a reliable source. Anybody can take the writings, for example, of the KKK and pretend they are part of an official religious text, or just make something up outright, but that doesn't make it true. If what you wrote is true, instead of just parroting some antisemitic propaganda, then it will have been documented and be online as part of a whole.

    4. Re:Let the jews speak again by BlackSheepBahBah · · Score: 1

      I think people are jealous and fearful of the supportive and exclusivist culture. They do seem to gain quite a bit of traction in the world of finance and law and to a lesser extent other areas.

  76. "GATTACA" dept, not gattica by i22y · · Score: 1

    The title in GATTACA was chosen using the letters A, C, G, T... as in:

    Adenine
    Cytosine
    Guanine
    Thymine

    (The four bases of DNA).

    --
    Mike
  77. Jewish genetic studies by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Depending on whose calculations you like, Jacob's birthdate was probably about 1650 BCE, and there are number of Y-chromosomal genetic studies of descendents of his son Cohen (Most of whom have names that are variant spellings, like Cohan, Kohan, Garfinkel, etc.) There's a good Wikipedia article on Jewish genetics.

    But no, genetic mixing isn't that as thorough and widespread as you'd think. People tend to marry people from the same culture, who speak the same languages, non-nomadic people tend to marry within their own village, nomadic people within their own tribe. Very few non-Jewish non-Arabs have Jacob as an ancestor (or at least have Rachel or Leah as ancestors - polygamy stuck around for another 1500-2000 years in that area.)

    Some connections are easier to trace (paternal lines through Y-chromosome, maternal through mitochondria), though of course you don't get any information from your father's mother's mitochondria or your mother's father's Y-chromosome, so you're mostly limited to statistical analysis from other traits unless there are distinct mutations available to work with.

    It does look like we're all descendants of "Mitochondrial Eve" about 200,000 years ago, and "Y-Chromosomal Adam" about 140,000 years ago, though of course there were lots of other humanish men and women around back then - they're just the ones whose easily traceable genes stuck around

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Jewish genetic studies by readin · · Score: 1

      People tend to marry people from the same culture, who speak the same languages, non-nomadic people tend to marry within their own village, nomadic people within their own tribe.

      That's true, but if you have Jacob even once in your ancestry, you're his descendant, and all it takes to have that occur is for that to occur is for one of his descendants to have married someone from your group 2000 years ago. How many Jewish people were traveling around the Roman Empire at that time? How many cities had Jewish communities? Paul seemed to find them everywhere he went. How many married outside their faith and/or culture. Remember, it only takes a few or even just one.

      How Hebrews were carried off to Babylon and blended in instead of returning to Israel, and how many of those might have descendants who traveled the Silk Route and intermarried with the people of East Asia? And even if that process took a 1000 years so that no descendant of Jacob reached China until 500 A.D., that means every person in China has 2^60 ancestors in China at a time when there were less than 1 billion people there. Even allowing for inbreeding (which is a mathematical certainty) you have extremely high odds that every Chinese is a descendant of that descendant of Jacob.

      The Mitochondrial ancestry requires, if I understand it correctly, a direct female line. That is, you would be looking at your mother's mother's mother's mother's...... mother. Now since you only have one of those at Jacob's time your odds are pretty small to have that particular link. The same odds apply true if you look for a direct male line ancestor. But if you're looking for any ancestor, you're looking at the odds of Jacob being one of the huge number of ancestors you had at that time - and your odds are pretty good.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  78. Re:Let's see who the racists are, shall we? by WaywardGeek · · Score: 1

    You are psychotic, and need mental help. I shouldn't respond to a post from a psychopath. It's just plain stupid, but I can be sometimes. My children are 1/4 Jewish genetically, although I think it's really more of a cultural than genetic heritage. I'm Unitarian, and the only belief drilled into me as a child is to respect other's religious beliefs, at least so long as they don't try to force me to adopt them.

    I'm guessing you consider yourself either Christian or Muslim. I am quite sure authorities of both religions reject you as a worshiper, as will God, if he does sit in judgement, when you die.

    --
    Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
  79. You avoided a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain why it is jews got kicked from nearly every european nation then in your own words. They took them when nobody else would and you see the results. Explain that please. Good luck.

    1. Re:You avoided a simple question by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I did explain it, but you completely ignored it. "Ethnicity, religion, being seen as outsiders, jealousy, and scapegoats." It's not like this kind of thing hasn't been going on for different classes of people throughout history.

      Now answer my question: "The question is why do people like you still fixate so much on a class of people. What is it with the Internet loonies and antisemitism?"

    2. Re:You avoided a simple question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You imply all nations that kicked jews out of their lands are bad instead of realizing that if that many people say "it looks like shit, smells like shit, it must be shit" they most likely have a point. Especially since it has been happening to the jews since ancient Egyptian times and in many nations that are not the same. According to you, everyone is wrong, except jews. Are you jewish? Of course nothing you say can be trusted if you are because of your laws (see #10 specifically from the list here) http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2911237&cid=40303537 . On antisemitism, I didn't write the list in that link but your reaction shows defensive posture on your part. If anyone is racist, it's jews, and from their own laws in the talmud.

    3. Re:You avoided a simple question by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You imply all nations that kicked jews out of their lands are bad

      First of all, there was this bit of history called the Crusades, where Christianity as a whole was acting like the dicks you make the Jews out to be. In general, people have been acting like dicks to each other over cultural, religious, and ethnic differences for quite some time.

      Second, you don't talk about all the nations where Jews weren't kicked out, and having lived in the United States my entire life among Jews, I call bullshit over your attempts to denigrate an entire class of people.

      Especially since it has been happening to the jews since ancient Egyptian times and in many nations that are not the same.

      Yeah, and many nations enslaved entire races of people as a routine matter. World history has been pretty ugly. Do you think you have the right to own a black slave, or have you moved beyond that?

      Are you jewish?

      No. I'm an atheist, secular humanist, and have no Jewish genealogy.

      On antisemitism, I didn't write the list in that link but your reaction shows defensive posture on your part. If anyone is racist, it's jews, and from their own laws in the talmud.

      Of course you didn't write it. You just copy-pasted it from some antisemitic propaganda site and took it as unadulterated truth without any skepticism because it feeds your loony, Internet hatred to give some purpose to your otherwise meaningless life.

  80. Correction, Re:Jewish genetic studies by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Gak, ignore half of that, I was low on caffeine, of course it was Levi who was Jacob's son (and there are some genetic studies there), the Kohans are descended from Aaron, mostly, who was of course several generations later.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Correction, Re:Jewish genetic studies by readin · · Score: 1

      Speaking of Aaron - he was a slave in Egypt. We know how in cultures where slavery is practiced it is not uncommon for the slave owners to make mistresses of the enslaved. How many Egyptian men - particularly the rich ones - had Hebrew mistresses? How many of the children of such relationships became traders traveling up the Nile and fathered descendants of Jacob in Ethiopia? Just a few - but wait 500 years and that few becomes a large number and if just a few of those travel farther south...

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  81. Re:Saddest bunch of all by Prune · · Score: 1

    I'm not Jewish :)

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  82. Re: Statistical agenda here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok no "ifs", I am going to explain exactly what the article did, and why they way you characterized the principal components ("they're components that let you get a visually distinct separation between groups that you've already clustered.") is wrong.

    The figure I linked to is figure S3B. The supplementary material describes the construction of this figure as follows

    We computed the Identity-by-State (IBS) matrix among the 938 individuals by using PLINK (12), producing a 938-by-938 matrix. We then performed a Principal Component Analysis on this IBS matrix for all samples and for seven regions separately, and used the top components to illustrate the genetic relatedness among individuals. We show the PC1-PC2 plots for all samples in Fig. S3B and six of the seven regions in Figs. 2 and S4.

    Now what you need to know about the IBS matrix, is that it is computed without reference to any prior clustering of the data. In case someone else decides to argue this point without doing their own research, here are the definitions:

    [The IBS matrix is a] square, symmetric matrix of the IBS distances for all pairs of individuals
    and further

    The [IBS] distance between two samples is returned as the proportion of allele comparisons which are not IBS.

    and finally

    For each pair of subjects the [number of allele comparisons which are IBS is] the total number of alleles which are IBS. For autosomal SNPs, each locus contributes 4 comparisons, since each subject carries two copies. For SNPs on the X chromosome, the number of comparisons is also 4 for female:female comparisons, but is 2 for female:male and 1 for male:male comparisons.

    source

    What is important here is that at no point as we trace through the definitions needed to understand how the principal components were constructed, is any data other than the DNA of the individuals used. So from these quotes, even the most reluctant reader can see that the graph I originally linked to was constructed without any prior knowledge of the races of the 938 individuals (except of course for the color of the dots).

    Now you are of course free to argue what the principal componets do and do not represent. But you are no longer in a position to argue that they were constructed in order to visualize a clustering that we had already assumed. They were not.

  83. WRONG! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited

    I beg to differ! I am a direct descendent of the first ever human(s) lol.

  84. Re:The test was not necessary by MiniMike · · Score: 1

    It seems the Jews and the Roma are the real winners here.

  85. Wisdom follows, pay attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Adds ananyo: "The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."

    Nothing non-sense! In 2007 Professor Fridakis famously DNA-sequenced a serial girl-killer as a black afro-caribbean, even though the guy had long been looked for as a white caucasian, based on unsure eye-witnesses and false psycho profiling. The killer was caught, indeed negro and his garden yielded a mass grave. He was sentenced to death and is now sitting on the death row. Soon after, Frudakis's gene lab company was shuttered on political and economic pressure.

    Read all about that case on Wired:
    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/10/dnaprint?currentPage=all

    BTW, if you don't know, the gipsy or tzigane or romani are a dark-skinned tribe that left North India in the 10th century and arrived into Central Europe by the 1400s. They are thiefs, violence-doers, fortune-teller fraudsters and a whole baby-production factory line. Any gipsy woman with less than 6 off-springs is shunned by the tribe. Since gipsy male are often in prison, the last one or two kids are often sired by the eldest son of a woman, leading to genetical degradation due to in-breeding.

    1. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on with the gipsies! Look at this piece of today's news:

      Britain's branch of the IKEA furniture mall chain employs security guards to stop gipsies from entering their car parks, because they steal from customers' vehicles and leave human and animal waste (!) on the premises. Britain's caravan travellers are actually a mixture of indo-genetic gipsy tribes and white low-lives, who have been "gipsified" by several generation of co-habitation.

      Here is the news URL and of course the libertine press is already crying rivers about racing:
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9328336/Ikea-employs-security-guards-to-stop-gypsies-entering-car-parks.html

      In Finland there are a lot of gipsies and their main occupation is property crime and blood revenge (no kidding). There, the underage gipsy criminals are held in a reform camp north of the artic circle. No electric fences and barb wires, as the EU bans that, but it is in the middle of nowhere, more then a week's walk from anything. In the winter, anybody would freeze outside in an hour and in the summer brother bear roams free. Not even the gipsy are stupid enough to have themselves eaten alive, so they stay on-premises.

      The tzigane / gipsy are the negro of Europe, meaning they are disproportionally highly represented among the prison population. Similarly their male reproductive capability and carnal lust is also magnitudes greater than that found in whites. Unsimilarly to blacks and less fortunately, gipsy are totally uninterested in athletics and sports, other than fornication and social security fraud. They beat the head of foetuses in the womb, because social security pays significantly more support for every mentally or physically handicapped infant and they are also useful for street begging. Gipsy can smell metal, especially copper, which they uncover, steal and resell illegally. They are a bane of catenary and railway safety systems, they even steal cables under high tension!

      Israel used to have 10k gipsy residents, as they suffered along the jews in WW2 concentration camps and were accepted to the land promised (promised by the british at the expense of arabs). Today there are just 500 free gipsy there, app. 1500 in prison and the rest already emigrated, since jews are very wealth-minded and can not tolerate even the smallest cases of property crime against their tribe...

    2. Re:Wisdom follows, pay attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are thiefs, violence-doers, fortune-teller fraudsters and a whole baby-production factory line. Any gipsy woman with less than 6 off-springs is shunned by the tribe.

      While the rational part of me would normally scream at these sentences as being unfair discrimination, I am sad to say that this is more or less completely true. I don't think it has anything to do with race; it does, however, have a lot to do with culture. There is a very good reason the dislike of gypsies is so widespread in mainland Europe - the rate of pretty crime among this particular ethnic group is invariably higher than the surrounding majorities. This is a typically insidious self-perpetuating problem, which is why I don't think it's fair to put the blame entirely on them; but despite being a person who despises unfairness and racism and has friends from lots of different ethnicities, it's only the Roma who I've learned to be careful with on the street. Posting AC to save my mods.

  86. Re:The test was not necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neo nezi government? They are spending for gipsy minority education and integration programs billions. Also they spending billions for gipsies' aids (unfortunately a huge amount of money are stolen by gipsy organizations' leaders like Orban Kolompar, Viktoria Mohacsi). If it's so bad for them from how they could buy luxury cars what other working people couldn't?

    If they were neo-nazis they would support the so-called white hungarian people but now as all of the other governments they are supporting only themselves as all of the other parties in Hungary.

    What are you talkin about is the jobbik they are a minority in the hungarian parlament (16%). About this test not just lot of people (of other parties supporter) wondering how could be somebody so stupid like this one, but lot of Jobbik supporters are disagree with this kind of stupidity.

    Just a picture about Viktor Orban (the leader of the so-called neo-nazi government) :
    http://erlauer5.nolblog.hu/files/2010/09/orban_metzger%20%5B800x600%5D.jpg

    Anyway I think in Hungary everybody welcome outlanders if they are working, able to have cultured behave. Yes unfortunately lot of gipsy people in Hungary are living from crimes (plus the aid) and because of this have lots of people prejudgement against them. But if they working (and usually if they working they are working hard as they can to prove that they are good people) nobody has problems with them. About jews I think they have a very good place in Hungary. Very very small amount of people have problems with them in real life, they have lot of schools, synagogues, and lot of cultural events. Of course some people trying to ride the small wave and make it bigger to get popularity and votes (saying that all of them are bad but they are not in the government and this is not Jobbik).

  87. Re:The test was not necessary by dargaud · · Score: 1

    Its just a matter of time before someone is going to try to genetically engineer superintelligent humans.

    There's a whole bunch of reason why that's not possible without resorting to external hardware additions. Our brains have been optimized by a billion years of evolution and the gains to be had are very tiny, unless you want to rebuild the whole thing from scratch ! The main limit is energetic: our brain already consumes an awful lot of energy to run even in 'sleep' mode. But there are other limits like the number of neurons, the number of connections, evacuation of waste heat, etc... Read a paper about that recently and it was interesting.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  88. Re:Jews can't be too smart because of writing this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should know that most (probably all but I don't have all day) of those examples are inaccurate (some to the point of being ridiculous), incomplete, or have the meaning changed by being taken out of context. For example see this site which offers actual explanations.

  89. Can anything you write be trusted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." and 5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording." from the jews own laws in the talmud. Are you jewish? Of course your answer can't be trusted if you say now per the above.

    1. Re:Can anything you write be trusted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you jewish? Of course your answer can't be trusted if you say now per the above.

      Irrelevant. Firstly, I didn't ask you to trust me. I asked you to read a web page which contains a correct version of the text you were quoting out of context. Secondly, do you realize what an idiot you look like by posting this list all over the comment section? Anyone with half a brain can see that it's a bunch of crap. I could care less who you decide to hate in a pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better (and I'm sure that the list of groups that you subconsciously feel inferior to is quite extensive), but I don't see how spreading such obvious BS around helps you any. Wouldn't you be better off just saying "dem jews, I don't like them none, don't know why" and getting back to watching the bug zapper?

  90. Re: wikipedia editors are a sad bunch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much time did you spent with researching the Elizabeth Bathory story before making those edits on wikipedia? Hammer movies and sites not citing sources, like straight dope do not count.

    Of course, B movie style, unthinkably sadistic mass murders are much more probable as real events, as politically motivated trials based on fabricated claims by the Habsburgs, who could easily get any amount of witnesses about anything after the right amounts of torture.

    And it is really impressive that you are actually bragging about protecting and maintaining bullshit popular culture myths. *slow clap*

  91. Re:The test was not necessary by BlackSheepBahBah · · Score: 1

    Mitochondria are the energy factories of cells. They could indirectly negatively affect any other part of the body if the mDNA is damaged. Likewise a coding for higher energy efficiency in neuronal mitochondria could result in better neural operation, resulting in higher intelligence. But then it would be likely that the same person would have better energy efficiency in all cells. Perhaps higher metabolism overall etc. (intelligent skinny people?). (intelligent skinny jews?). Its possible.

  92. Re:The test was not necessary by mhelander · · Score: 1

    There is certainly the risk for some very devestating effects on the brain and body from malfunctioning mitochondria. That does however not necessarily imply that different mitochondria will work very differently when they do perform their function.

    That is, of the (few) viable human mitochondria genomes we know of, there doesn't have to be much difference in function just because mutations into non-viable mitochondria genomes have strong degenerative effects. Not saying there couldn't possibly be such differences, but it would return the burden of proof to you to show some research to demonstrate this (different mDNA leading to differences in traits for example such as intelligence) to be the case.

  93. what are the specific genes tested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have any idea of which genes were tested? I've gone through many of the comments to see if this specifics were part of the discussion but no such luck.

    The discussion reminds me of the Polish election where the likes of Walesa and his opponents were arguing over who had the least Jewish ancestry. Given there are few Jews in Poland then or now, people were beating themselves over mirages of their long-standing prejudices.

  94. Re:The test was not necessary by jep305 · · Score: 1

    Interesting points, and it makes me wonder why "The test is of-course nonsense". One need not be racist to acknowledge that there are genetic differences between groups of people.

    --
    In Reason We Trust
  95. jewish = racial religion = gene flow barrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Racial religion, god's chosen race, laws against outbreeding.

    It is that simple.

  96. Re:The test was not necessary by Somebody+is+Grar · · Score: 1

    Mitochondria do pretty much one thing: convert sugar to energy for the cell. It doesn't control any development despite a malfunction having severe effects.

    --
    Grar II
  97. Re:The test was not necessary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So ... 'Mitochondria' are not passed from Jedi to Jedi then?

  98. Re:The test was not necessary by jc42 · · Score: 1

    So not only can you say nothing about intelligence based on mDNA but mDNA is worthless for anything other than paternity and descendence studies.

    Wait -- How can you use mDNA for determining paternity? It's only passed via the maternal line. I seem to have missed something about mitochondrial DNA ...

    (Actually, I've read claims that the occasional sperm cell contains one or more mitochondria. So it's possible that a tiny amount of our mitochondrial DNA comes from a male ancestor. )

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  99. Re:In case you were wondering by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Some people get a joke, some don't...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.