Hello, and welcome to part 2 of Coontown’s Human BioDiversity Resource takedown. Part one can be found here.

Today I will examine the HBDR Dictionary. This was kind of a weird source to takedown. It’s a dictionary for a (although I hate calling it this) set of discursive terms used by an academic intellectual internally consistent vocal group, they can use these words to mean whatever they want in their little circle. As such this isn’t really a takedown, but I think it's good practice to accustom oneself with the relevant terminology, in order to engage with the material.

I will attack the definitions where I can by showing their limitations, or outright inexactness. If I am fine with a definition I will seek to examine how its inclusion in this ‘dictionary’ is reflective of Coontown’s/race realist political agenda (in some cases I may search for posts on the sub which reflect this). What I will try to do is refer back to this piece during future takedowns to show how the terms have been adopted to suit a political agenda.

This is about half of the dictionary. I don't know if I will do the next half in full, probably just highlights. It is getting slightly repetitive, and the same problems just keep coming up. The dictionary has some weird obsession with the French right, particularly Nouvelle Droit, and a tendency to use non-English European words for race. Several definitions are highly politicised, and others it seems were included for political reasons (although I was looking for this).

Aggression: Human aggression seems to be adaptive in hunter-gatherer societies, as the most aggressive males sire the most offspring. However, in agricultural or post-agricultural societies (e.g. Europe or North Asia) human aggression is probably maladaptive. It has been surmised that Sub-Sahara blacks have a genetic disposition toward aggression.

“Human aggression seems to be adaptive in hunter-gatherer societies.” Citation needed. Perhaps we will run into one later. This is one of these things which seems like it may be intuitively true, but really isn’t.

“in agricultural or post-agricultural societies (e.g. Europe or North Asia) human aggression is probably maladaptive.” Citation needed. I would also argue that this is demonstrably false; would aggression not have been a significant contribution to Scandavian Europeans genetic success during the Viking era? This and the last claim seem to ignore the counter point that universal adaption of a certain behaviour is not that beneficial to a social animal like humans,

“It has been surmised that Sub-Sahara blacks have a genetic disposition toward aggression.” The implication here is that ‘sub-Saharan blacks’ did not have agriculture, and were hunter-gather societies, this is patently false. Iron metallurgy was apparent in Sub-Saharan society as early as 3000BC.¹ There was certainly agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa before this, because it is unlikely you develop metal working before agriculture. In the last takedown I did the claim was continually repeated that human genetic diversity has emerged in the last 10,000 years, but if aggression is one such trait, then it emerged in a mere 5000 years (3000BC – 2000AD is 5000 of the 1000 years), but not been selected against in the next 5000 years (despite increased interaction with distant populations which weren’t hunter gatherer societies). This is just terrible science.

Allele(s): The alternative forms of a gene that can exist at a particular locus. Thus, A, B, and O are the alleles of the ABO blood group system; positive and negative are the alleles of the Rh system.

This is fine, doesn’t really have a political agenda either. I hope they’re all like this! Defining scientific terms correctly definitely lends you credibility.

Alphas: Alpha males, the dominate male in the pack. Most females attracted to alphas, who are the leaders of men and women.

Good God, citations needed everywhere. I’m not sure what this is supposed to be referring too, is it referring to wolf packs, is it referring to human groups, is it just referring to the concept of alpha males? What makes someone an alpha male, is that species dependent? Do all social species have alpha males? Does human society have alpha males? This leaves me with more questions than I had going into it.

Aristocracy: Historically, aristocrats originated as a military caste and have tended to be fairer-skinned and taller than commoners (e.g. the "fair princess"), both in Europe and North Asia. Aristocrats also have reproduced at a higher rate than commoners. According to Guillaume Faye, aristocrats are those who defend their people before their own interests. An aristocracy has a sense of history and blood lineage, seeing itself as biologically representative of the people it serves.

“Historically, aristocrats originated as a military caste and have tended to be fairer-skinned and taller than commoners.” So, like, this is a really strange claim. I don’t even see how you would justify it. You haven’t seen aristocrats, or peasants from the past! Some throwaway line to some ‘fair princess’ isn’t a very good justification, as it is a single example. It also seems to have the etymology of the word backwords, fair originally meant beautiful then came to mean of light complexion.. Also, I’m pretty sure the North Asian phrase for ‘fair princess’ isn’t a literal translation, but rather a contextual translation (I’m not a linguist, so this may not make much sense, so someone who understands me and is smarter than me could hopefully clean it up!).

“Aristocrats also have reproduced at a higher rate than commoners.” Where’s the citations, yo? It wouldn’t surprise me if this was true, to be honest, but I would suggest that there was a significant social factor to this. I just don't think they have the research to support this claim.

“According to Guillaume Faye, aristocrats are those who defend their people before their own interests.” Guillaume Faye, major theorist of Nouvelle Droite, who Alain de Benoist called extreme, that Guillaume Faye? Well, Maximilien Robspierre said “It is with regret that I pronounce the fatal truth: Louis must die that the country may live”, so, it seems we have reached an impasse. I would love to see the evidence Faye gives for this claim, but once again, no sources! On the one hand, I love their lack of sources, because it means I don’t feel obliged to source too heavily myself, but it makes it really hard to argue! Anyway, somebody should do a badhistory takedown on this, because it seems awful, but suffice to say that a single quote, without context or sources, from a signal person (who didn’t even live during a time when feudalism was common) doesn’t make for a justified position. The etymology of “Aristocrat” seems to relate it to the Greek “áristokratía” meaning “rule of the best”⁸ I actually haven’t found a single definition of Aristocracy, but the one’s I have found 1, 2 , 3 seem to focus on the aristocracies limited size, and special privilege, not their altruism.

“An aristocracy has a sense of history and blood lineage, seeing itself as biologically representative of the people it serves.” This just isn’t true. Sure an Aristocrat believes their rule is derived from their ‘blood’ but there was no biology to this. They didn’t represent their population, they ruled because it was their divine right. Biology wasn’t even a concept during the heyday of aristocracies, so how could they have seen themselves as ‘biologically’ representative. This statement is dripping with presentism, and shows a distinctly poor understanding not only of aristocracy, but of medieval history, scholastic philosophy and political theory.

Betas: Beta males, subservient to alphas, often providers or conciliators, sometimes former or future alphas.

I mean, same problems as the alpha statement, raises more questions than it answers. Still don’t really know what a beta is, don’t even know if we’re talking about people. Don’t see how the concept of beta/alpha applies in post industrial societies when people interact with social groups larger than 100, but whatever. The inclusion of this is just weird and I expect plays into reactionary political agendas about race mixing, immigration and gender relations.

Biopolitics: A political project oriented to a people’s biological and demographic imperatives. It includes family and population policy, restricting types of or all immigration, and addressing issues of public health and genetic well-being.

Holy Post-Modernism Batman! Have the race-realists been reading Foucault? Nope, of course not. Wikipedia gives 13 definitions of BioPolitics, including the Foucauldian sense of the term. It seems most commonly to be used as a way to discuss politics/political bodies, as biological entities, which isn’t the way it is defined here.³ Oh well, I guess this is just a technical term in race realism.

It’s not clear to me what “oriented to a people’s biological and demographic imperatives.” Is this what allows them to live the longest, the happiest, to best fulfil their abilities. It just seems like a strange thing to base your politics on. Well the Wikipedia says the Nazis used the term to refer to their racial policy, so at least they have precedence.

“family and population policy, restricting types of or all immigration, and addressing issues of public health and genetic well-being.” Oh, Biopolitics is eugenics! You should have said!

Blue Blood: The fair-skinned upper-class / aristocracy (e.g. a fair princess). During the Medieval period in Southern Europe, one's skin was supposed to be fair enough to see the blue veins (hence "blue blood"), thus distinguishing fair-skinned Europeans from the duskier Moors and others.

So the earliest reference I can find for this phrase is 1809, and surprisingly it is to say that Castillian aristocrats had literal blue blood, not contaminated by Moors and Jews.⁴ So I guess this is fine. I just sense that there is some political agenda here, stating that the white people were the aristocrats, and the ‘duskier’ moors as not-aristocrats, maybe I’m jyst sensitive to these things. I’m interpreting the political agenda based on the return of that phrase ‘fair princess’ and the fact that they are referred to as “The fair-skinned upper class” not just “The upper class.”

Bottleneck Effect: An evolutionary event in which a significant percentage of a population or species is killed or otherwise prevented from reproducing.

This isn’t quite right. It specifically describes the lack of genetic variation which results from the inability of a significant portion of (at least) one generation to have offspring. Every source on this topic is quick to point out the loss of genetic variation.^{5 6} Without that this is just a partial definition.

Celto-Germanic: A person with ancestry from the British Isles (e.g. England, Ireland, Scotland, etc.) and a Germanic country (Germany, Sweden, etc.). The majority of white Americans could be classified as Celto-Germanic.

This seems to be a weird way to view European racial history. England was conquered by the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans. I’m not 100% on this (feel free to call me out on this), but three of these groups are Germanic peoples anyway. I would suggest that having ancestors from the British Isles qualifies you for this category. Also, and again, not 100% sure on this, but weren’t Celtic people Germanic too? Also, what if I have ancestors from Brittainy and Alsace, am I Celtic-Germanic then, even though none of my known ancestors are from Germanic countries or the British Isles? Just want to be clear here!

Chain migration: The endless and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because the law allows citizens and lawful permanent residents to bring in their extended, non-nuclear family members.

This is sort of true. Chain migration is a very important feature of settler history. It is what allowed Irish communities to maintain their Irish identities in places like New Zealand, for example. It is interesting that they use this as a political tool, as Europeans have benefited as much as any other racial group from chain migration. It also clearly isn’t endless; Irish immigrants do not arrive in New Zealand the same way they did in the 1870s. It also isn’t clearly the largest influence on immigration, again looking at the Irish in New Zealand, it was the ability to move away from migration chains and to invite a more diverse range of Irish into New Zealand which really allowed the Irish to come in numbers.⁷

Clark Thesis: During Medieval England the upper-classes reproduced at a 2:1 rate over the lower classes, which resulted in a downward drift of people and their genes and which might explain the general decline in violence and the increase in average IQ. Other researchers have found similar phenomena in other European countries.

Well, this is sort of a source for an earlier claim, so that’s good. But they don’t source where they found the ‘Clark Thesis’ so, like, not that helpful. This seems to come from Gregory Clark’s book A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Here’s what person said about reviews of this book:

“Every commentator has applauded the author for his boldness and energy, but almost to a reviewer they point to fundamental gaps in his evidence or analysis” ⁹

I guess it’s only a thesis, but it seems from that it is lacking. Even worse, however, is that from the reviews it doesn’t seem that Clark’s thesis was necessarily a genetic theory, although he admitted the possibility of genetics:

“we may speculate [that the English held an] advantage [that] lay in the rapid cultural, and potentially also genetic, diffusion of the values of the economically successful throughout society in the years 1200–1800”¹⁰

Class division: Class distinctions are often more pronounced in racially homogenous societies. However, in racially diverse societies, ethnic, racial or racial-caste distinctions most often trump class distinctions. In diverse societies, class / caste divisions may also represent underlying racial divisions. See India, Latin America, or "blue blood" in Southern Europe.

I prefer E.P Thomson’s definition of class (I get that it’s E.P Thompson, and he isn’t really a sociologist, but he is probably England’s best social historian, so I feel justified using it):

“class happens when some men, as a result of common experiences (inherited or shared), feel and articulate the identity of their interests as between themselves, and as against other men whose interests are different from (and usually opposed to) theirs•. The class experience is largely determined by the productive relations into which men are born or enter involuntarily.” ¹¹

In this definition the “ethnic, racial or racial-caste distinctions” become class distinctions. Instead of certain societies having ‘economic class differences’ and others having ‘racial caste differences’ instead societies have different mixtures of numerous different types of class.

Culturalism: The view, contra the hereditarian view, that most human behaviors can be attributed to culture. Popularized in the early 20th century by Boasian anthropology / Cultural Marxism.

I mean, yea, this seems fair enough. Culturalism, as defined by Florian Znanecki means pretty much this, and Boas was certainly an influence. I don’t know what is with the addition of Cultural Marxism to this though, I mean, Boas is considered the founder of American anthropology, right? It just confuses me that they fail to mention that, but mention Cultural Marxism. Luckily, the next entry should shine some light.

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”. Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries. Cultural Marxists have promoted idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology.

Who are these Cultural Marxists? You would think a definition of them would include the orginisations they run, and the institutions they are involved with. Apparently not. I can’t really argue with this though, because I don’t know who is making these claims. I can’t follow anything up, like who said “that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children.” What was the context? Was it like ‘The world is overpopulated, why not adopt a Chinese baby instead of having your own?’ because it seems ‘race’ isn’t the motivation in that example.

The ideas “that gender and race are ‘social constructs’” and “race-based identity politics of non-whites” are presented as contradictory. They are not, a slightly edited comment of /u/deathpigeonx will help clear this up: “What I hate about this is that this doesn't understand the arguments about social constructs at all. Yes, race is socially constructed. That means it's mutable and changeable and not inherent, not that it doesn't matter or it's not really a thing. I mean, when I argue that crime is a social construct, I am not, not, not saying crime, for example, doesn't matter or is not really a thing”. What I mean is that crime is defined relative to the society it occurs in, and what might be a crime in one society (for example slavery in our society) may not be a crime in another society (slavery in 18th Century America).¹²

Devirilisation: Declining values of courage and virility for the sake of political correctness.

“Declining values of courage” citation needed. I don’t even know what this would entail, does it mean people have less courage, does it mean courage is less promoted, does it mean ‘courage’ as a concept has declined to mean something different? Is this about the whole Caitlyn Jenner thing? And, what do we mean by courage, is it some Platonic ideal form, or is it a socially constructed concept, or is it a set of behaivours determined by specific genes, I don’t know, because these anti-intellectuals, despite having a list of over 100 sources including this, fail to source ANYTHING!!!

Also, are they saying that our virility is declining, or that our value of virility is declining? Because like, there’s a whole lot of other things going on there, like overpopulation, the invention of the condom and the pill, other than “the sake of political correctness.”

“for the sake of political correctness.” I don’t even know how to tease this out. How do you link these things? Are they saying that spouting hate speech takes courage, and we try to prevent hate speech, and we are trying to undermine the value of courage? Like, that’s the best I can do trying to understand this. Fuck it must be difficult inside these people’s heads.

Diaspora Europeans: Whites living outside Europe (e.g. in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States).

This is fine. A diaspora is a scattered population with a smaller, shared geographic origin, so yea this is fine.

Donohue-Levitt hypothesis: A controversial theory that legal abortion reduces crime on the grounds that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals and that an inverse correlation is observed between the availability of abortion and subsequent crime.

Here’s the Wikipedia article on the theory. It gives a decent overview, I have to say. This is one of those things that they have defined well, but will probably use to support some political agenda at a later time.

Dysgenics: A term describing the progressive evolutionary "weakening" or genetic deterioration of a population of organisms relative to their environment, often due to relaxation of natural selection or the occurrence of negative selection.

This is pretty much correct. The term itself was coined as the opposite of eugenics. It will be interesting to see how the people of Coontown politicise this term. It would be very easy for them to do so in a way which contradicts the findings of 10,000 Year Explosion which my last post showed to be important to race-realist thought.

Ethnic Nepotism: A concept in sociobiology to explain why people prefer other people of the same ethnicity or race. The more genes that X shares with Y the more likely X will act altruistically towad Y, since by showing altruisim toward a co-ethnic (vs. a non-co-ethnic) an individual hopes to pass on more copies of his own genes.

This is badgenetics. Having offsrping with organisms which they have a degree of genetic difference with can be beneficial to an individual, given that their partner becomes more likely to have different immunities and may allow the individual’s offspring to survive in a wider variety of environments. Your child gets 50% of your genes, no matter your genetic relation to your partner, no matter how different you and your partner are you are guaranteed to pass 50% of your genes.

I think what they’re implying is that if you have children with a “co-ethnic” they might get like 65% of your genetic material, because they pass on genes they share with you that you didn’t pass on. But I feel like taking steps to ensure my child has the best possible parent is better than ensuring they have the parent most similar to me in regards to ensuring the survival of my genes. Especially given the chance for detrimental regressive genes become phenotypical.

Ethnicity: A sociobiological subdivision of a race (i.e. a race broken into smaller units of biologically closely related people).

No. Ethnicity is not a sub-category of race. Every single definition you find of ethnicity will put it down to culture, religion, language, or the like.¹³ Some put it down to a shared descent, but this doesn’t necessarily imply a genetic feature. For example, my own ethnicity is Pakeha, which implies a descent from Europeans, but it is not a European culture as it is unique to New Zealand. The genes I share with my Scottish ancestors are not what make me Pakeha, but my descent from those Scottish people is part of what constitutes my Pakeha identity.

Also, one source claims ethnicity was a term developed to replace race, not as a sub-category of race.¹⁴

Ethnomasochism: Hatred of one's own race.

So the only place which has a definition for this term is Meta-pedia. I guess it’s a race realist technical term, that’s fine. I would have gone with egoethnosphobia, but maybe they see phobias (homophobia/Islamophobia) as, like, culturalist rhetoric,

Ethnopluralism: Popularized by Alain de Benoist. A view stressing the "right of difference," which asserts that each ethnic / racial group has the right to its own lands over which it can exercise complete sovereignty. This view envisions the world as a mosaic with a multiplicity of diverse races clearly delimited and with strict boundaries between them.

This is probably correct. I’m not overly familiar with Alain de Benoist. I’m not overly familiar with the French right. I generally know who Nouvelle Droit are, but other than that I don’t know much about them. And I’m also not that interested, besides I’m sure I’ll run into them again later.

Ethno-Religion: The phenomenon of race and religion overlapping and reinforcing each other. Prior to the rise of religious universalism in past couple centuries, ethno-religion has been the norm throughout human history, resulting in very strong group identities.

I’ve never encountered this term before, I take their word that this is what it means, but…

This seems like a correlation being taken for causation. Part of the argument I encountered in my last post was the idea that significant natural borders isolated different groups of humans in areas with different selection pressures. If we are acknowledging that natural borders isolate genes, then isn’t it also reasonable that they also isolate ideas/beliefs/ideologies? The hypothesis that natural borders prevented the spread of ideas is at least as plausible as the idea that religious beliefs are linked with genetics. If they can produce a peer-reviewed study from a non-biased institution establishing genetic link then I will take this term seriously.

Ethnos: Greek for tribe, race or ethnicity.

This is correct, it makes up part of egoethnosphobia. Eugenics: A system, first popularized by Plato and Aristotle and practiced throughout nearly all European history (and probably other civilizations as well, such as in North Asia), aimed at improving the characteristics of a population through breeding practices. Positive eugenics aims at encouraging those with advantageous traits to reproduce, while negative eugenics aims at discouraging those with disadvantageous traits from reproducing. Eugenics prior to WWII was quite popular among both the left and the right (e.g. American presidents and British prime ministers belonged to eugenics clubs), but after WWII eugenics acquired a negative connotation.

So this is a highly politicised definition of ‘eugenics.’ I would have gone with “People husbandry” or “An attempt to create, through artificial genetic selection, a superior group of humans.” But nope, these guys need to throw in endorsements from Plato and Aristotle, and “nearly all of European history (and probably others too!).” The cited their Plato and Aristotle claims, which is cool. Is the resource becoming self-aware as I type this?!

I don’t really care if Aristotle or Plato endorsed eugenics, or if it was practiced through most of European history. It doesn’t mean we should do it. I know they never claim we should in this post, but this is clearly an attempt to make eugenics easier to digest. It’s not that nasty Nazi stuff, it’s something which the Ancient Greeks did, and the British and Americans! It’s a great European tradition!

Basicially I just see most of this definition as rhetorical fluff. It could easily just be “A system aimed at improving the characteristics of a population through breeding practices. Positive eugenics aims at encouraging those with advantageous traits to reproduce, while negative eugenics aims at discouraging those with disadvantageous traits from reproducing.” But they decided to add all the extras.

European Americans: White people in the United States.

I guess this is fine. Just curious if it extends to Hispanics? Explicit Processing: Regarding brain activity; the opposite of implicit processing. It is conscious, controllable, and takes effort.

Seems to be an extension of explicit memory. Or at least, that’s what came up when I googled it :D. After a search on JSTOR, and a quick parse of a bibliography I found (this academic source with explicit processing in the title](http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/95/4/962/), so I guess it’s a thing? A psych major may be able to help me out.

Founder Effect: Occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. This small population size means that the colony may have: (1) reduced genetic variation from the original population or (2) a non-random sample of the genes in the original population.

This is ok. Good basic explanation of the founder effect as I understand it.

Game: According to Heartiste, a systematized blueprint of male behavior for attracting, courting and seducing women in an efficient and powerful manner based on the practical application of theories of human, and particularly female, sexuality derived from the insights of evolutionary psychology, biology and real world experimentation.

So, I didn’t know who Heariste was, and I had a wee looksie around the internet. First I found his twitter where I read: Let's face it, women's sports leagues are a joke. They should stick to what women do best: fucking, birthing, mothering. so I took a spliff break.

Then I found someone calling him: “the Aristotle of the manosphere. His site is the bedrock of what people consider common knowledge”

This is Heariste’s blog. I should have known there would be overlap here. This may be too much for me. In this instance, Game is a technical term for a group of people who advocate Human BioDiversity, which I just realised they use instead of race-realism because it covers gender differences too. Yay.

Genetic Drift: The change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling. The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces.

Literally straight from Wikipedia. Dat referencing doe.

Genophilia: Love of one's own race.

Yea cool. Not in most mainstream dictionaries, I would guess a term exclusively used online within select communities, but a term that makes sense.

Genophiliast: Lover of one's own race.

This one follows from the last.

Gens: Latin for tribe, race or ethnicity.

So there is some inconsistency in this list. Before they said ethnicity was a subset of race, but here they conflate the two. It’s also weird how they have all these non-English words for race in here, do HBD supporters not just use the English words or something? These aren’t really substantial criticisms, I just feel a little extra nit-picky.

I don’t know anything about Latin, but I think this is right.¹⁵

Bibliography:

1: É. Zangato & A.F.C. Holl, “On the Iron Front: New Evidence from North-Central Africa” in Journal of African Archaeology Vol. 8, Issue 1, 2010, p7-23

2: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fair

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopolitics

4: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=blue+blood

5: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml

6: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bottleneck+effect

7: Brosnahan, Sean, “The Greening of Otago” in NZHA Conference Papers 1993

8: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aristocracy

9: John S Lyons. The Audacity of Clark: A review essay on Gregory Clark’s A Farewell to Alms 2010

10: Clark quoted in Lyons, 2010.

11: E.P Thompson The Making of the English Working Class 1963

12: non-hyperlinked part is my addition, changed ‘offense’ to race and ‘gender’ to crime from the original.

13: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnicity

14: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/ethnic-inequalities/page-1

15: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gens#Latin