Auster points to a very interesting article by a CFR Globalist lamenting the possibility of the European Union falling.
The most interesting part was this:
"The E.U. is now just trying to keep the machine going," a member of the European Parliament told me recently. "The hope is to buy enough time for new leaders to emerge who will reclaim the project."
If only Greece could find the courage to default on its debt, as Germany should've defaulted on the noxious terms of the Versailles Treaty.
That would put the dagger in the heart of the EU.
The way it could happen, I suppose, would be if the organizations involved in national strikes could manage to effect the overthrow of the current Government, which is basically just a pack of EU vetted stooges and sellouts.
It's in the best interest of Greece for the EU to be destroyed, it's in the best interest of all of Europe.
Note: Golden Dawn is a political party in Greece, its platform calls for the forthright rejection of Greece's subjugation by EU memorandum.
Golden Dawn's website is found here:
Information on how to donate to Golden Dawn can be found here:
Golden Dawn New York's website is found here:
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Auster points to a very interesting article by a CFR Globalist lamenting the possibility of the European Union falling.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
This intelligent and important comment was recently left at In Mala Fide:
Actually, as much as I hate to say it, No Fault Divorce is not the lynch-pin that many Men's Rights Advocate’s claim it is – and it should be noted that I have considered to be so myself.
However, upon reading of the history of the suffragette and 2nd wave movement, it becomes clear that creation of No Fault Divorce was merely society catching up with the court system of the day.
Divorces were always given freely to women who wished to have them, except that it usually had to be done under the “fault” of “Cruelty.” – read “The Case for Father Custody” and/or Belfort Bax’s “The Fraud of Feminism” – basically, according to these gentlemen, before no-fault-divorce, a woman who claimed “cruelty” basically won the right to divorce each and every time under this claim of “fault” whether the man was guilty of cruelty or not – the creation of No Fault Divorce was basically just a way for the courts to stop lying about what they were doing – which was basically the way the courts have always worked: Give the little lady what she wants, which includes placing all the blame on the man.
Granted, the divorce rate skyrocketed in the few years after the creation of No-Fault-Divorce, but in reality, things didn’t change much in regard to things – Women have always left men more than men left women, and the courts have always favoured women over men. (We could go all the way back Joseph and Potiphar’s wife falsely accusing of Rape as an act of vengeance – and getting away with it).
Men will always be held to be more responsible than women because, well, men are more responsible than women. This is why, up until around the 1860′s, assumed father custody was the norm.
This changing of custody from the father to the mother is what started the divorce craze. In fact, “The Case for Father Custody” claims that in the 50 years from 1870 to 1920, the divorce rate rose by over 15 times! Granted, there were only a few thousand divorces a year when men were guaranteed custody of the children born in wedlock – but the numbers don’t lie. The divorce rate started increasing from this point onwards, after remaining relatively constant for thousands of years, and it has risen in a more or less linear fashion ever since up until the present day.
A return to presumed father custody (not that shiboleth “shared parenting”) is far more accurate of a path than no fault. Basically, the only reason women are able to hose men through no-fault divorce is because they have presumed mother custody – in which the most irresponsible parent turns the children into mutilate beggars by virtue of her, and the children, becoming poorer for leaving their husband/slave.
Therefore, because the woman has custody of the children, the courts justify taking money from the man to feed these mutilated beggars.
Leave the children with the man, and there are no more mutilated beggars. When women cannot get custody of the kids, they apparently are much more reticent to leaving – especially since without the kids, they have no income they get the courts to steal from the man.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Lawrence Auster writes:
As Diana West chillingly reports, all the indications point to a massive Russian cover-up of the truth about the airliner crash in Russia last April that decapitated the Polish political elite. If things are as they increasingly seem, the crash was not an accident but one of the great crimes of modern history, and Putin's Russia is as monstrous as Brezhnev's or Stalin's.
The assassination of 96 prominent Poles would be one of the greatest crimes of modern history? That's hardly the case.
And Brezhnev's somehow the equivalent of Stalin? That's absurd, much less the idea that Putin is.
Anyway, if the Russians actually did this it's extremely hard not to admire them for it.
There's something beautiful about it, a kind of ungratitious but highly effective genius expressed in a movingly audacious manner.
Plus considering the Polish government at the time was allied with America, a Country that has been going around trying to assassinate the elite of its ideological enemies in Pakistan, I'm not sure what right the Polish president and his elite followers have to complain, if it so happens Russia played a role in the plane they were on crashing.
Note: I really don't understand why Auster has been so Anti-Russian lately, Russian Jews are treated perfectly well in "Putin's Russia".
That's perhaps part of why the recent Russian Jewish immigrants in Israel are trying to get their Government to amend its stupidly Anti-Russian stances, such as their propping up of the American stooge Saakashvili in Georgia.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
A while ago I wrote an article pointed out the importance of Iran responding to being attacked by attacking the World Economy.
In this context a recent statement by Iranian President President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is quite interesting:
Referring to Israel's occasional threats against Iran's nuclear facilities, Ahmadinejad called any attack unlikely, but he said if Israel did, the reaction would be overwhelming.
"The scope of Iran's reaction will include the entire earth," said Ahmadinejad. "We also tell you — the West — that all options are on the table."
Hopefully this shows an understanding on Ahmadinejad's part of the strategic issues his nation faces in the event of an Israeli and/or American attack.
The key thing is to hit the World Economy, which is very fragile at this time (especially the American part of it), while avoiding the infliction of too many civilian fatalities on America.
In the same way that National Socialist Germany's mass killings of Slavic Whites in places like the Ukraine needlessly galvanized them behind their Left Wing overlords, killing too many American civilians (at least on American soil) would needlessly galvanize them behind their Left Wing overlords.
Iran needs to play tough but fair, that is the road to victory.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The Gallup Polling company just did a survey finding Obama's Job Approval rating at 42% approve versus 51% disapprove.
To contextualize this information it's important to note that Gallup found that at this point in his second term, George W. Bush's Job Approval rating was 42% approve versus 54% disapprove.
One way of looking at this is that Obama has gone nearly as much down the drain in two years as it took a smirking and mass murdering incarnation of vacuity six years to manage.
But of course there’s the issue of the economy.
The economy is in much worse shape now than it was in August of 2006, so that could be having an effect.
Also there’s the issue of war fatigue.
War fatigue is progressive. This means that if one President starts a war, the President who continues his war policy tends to suffer more of the political consequences of increased discontent caused by the war.
It's ironic how new Presidents always feel the need to continue wars they had nothing to do with starting in the first place.
This is especially so when one of the central reasons they were elected in the first place was because the voters wanted to express their dissatisfaction with the Republicans for starting the wars.
Of course the elites in favor of the war(s) stay the same, for the most part, though the President changes.
Actually, Obama has done well to resist calls to invade Iran.
The key is for Iran to get Nuclear Weapons before the 2012 election.
A Republican wouldn't have done nearly so well on this metric as Obama has, and there's no reason to think a Republican who gets to be President in the context of Iran lacking a Nuclear deterrent will do nearly so well either.
That is unless one of the rare Republican politicians who are sensible on foreign policy, such as Rand Paul, gets the nod in the primaries.
Friday, August 20, 2010
SAN DIEGO–Diagnosed three months ago with terminal lymphoma, David Bradley, 46, has stood as such a stirring example of courage in the face of disease that he is inspiring others in his community to get cancer.
"Seeing David and the way he's bravely battled this thing, I couldn't help but follow his lead," said neighbor Timothy Willis, injecting himself with a concentrated dose of the carcinogen trichloroethelene in an effort to contract the disease.
"David understands that every day is a precious gift. Pretty soon, I'm going to realize that, too." Said Mandy Pitnick, 14, chain-smoking three unfiltered Camels: "I want to be a symbol of hope just like David."
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Ferdinand Bardamu wrote something on his Blog negative about Iran, saying they would be flattened in event of war. The Irishman Pat Hannigan replied thusly:
Yeah, I dunno about your point re Iran not being the threat it’s cracked up to be. The Iranians are pretty cluey pricks and nothing like the dopey Sunni Jihadis who have no strategic sense, or a nation to build.
Unlike the Sunni Jihadis, Iran is a state based actor with imperialistic designs. It can do a tonne of damage to Saudi Arabia and other Mid East countries in retaliation for air-strikes. The USA is in no economic shape to withstand a massive disruption to oil supply. Militarily the US is already too stretched to maintain another ground assault which is what will be required if Israel goes the Iranian’s nuclear plants (if they have them?).
From a paleos perspective (and I understand that there is some perception that Buchanan is a bleeding heart Palestinian lover), we should look to be ensuring the Israelis don’t threaten Iran because if they do we’re in for more problems. We need to understand that Iran couldn’t give a crap about the Palestinians just as the Israelis don’t. But the Iranians are using them to further their goals just as they did with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In general to those reading:
I don’t understand why White Americans (and Australians it would seem) keep wanting to send our White men off to die in battles, which they win, so that we can all ensure that we get more and more non-Whites immigrating to our lands. If the paleos are bleeding hearts on the Palis, the same can equally said about those White people who are bleeding hearts on the Jews in Israel.
We should act in our national and ethnic interest. Ceasing all non-White immigration is in our interest. Ensuring that we have economic access to those primary resources our economies rely on is in our interest. Interminable wars for “democracy” are not in our interest. Making sensible, non nationally compromising alliances are in our interest.
I know we like to think that we’ve got big swinging dicks and can go all Rambo anytime we like but, after the smoke has cleared, our lands are the ones being invaded, peacefully, and the lands we invaded, like Iraq, rely on the enemy, Iran, to keep and maintain the peace.
Has the USA overcome the Global Financial Collapse of 2008? Is the USA prepared for a crippling, however temporary, blow to her economy all to prop up Israel’s “right” to exist? Why do White Americans fight to maintain a Jewish Israel as these same White Americans are actively replaced in their own land?
But, I’m led to believe that the Iranians are the stupid ones who will be easily overcome.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Judge Walker’s Rational Basis for Supporting Polygamy
Thursday, August 5, 2010, 6:00 AM
If there was any doubt that Judge Vaughn Walker would allow his personal views of homosexuality trump legal reasoning, he removed that with his ruling today overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Fortunately, the reasoning is so jaw-droppingly stupid that it will be overturned on appeal when it reaches the Supreme Court. [That's what you think.] Since Walker is (presumably) not a stupid man, he has to know that his ruling is weak and has no basis in actual reason. The only explanation is that he decided that sending a message of support to his friends in the gay community was more important that applying coherent legal reasoning to interpret the law.
Admittedly, this is a serious accusation. Yet I think it can proven with a simple test: Ask Judge Walker if his reasoning applies to polygamous marriage. [There is no reason to ask a Judge his opinion on a question that isn't being brought before his court at this particular time, unless it is during his confirmation hearing.] In the decision he handed down, Walker find no rational basis for denying this fundamental right to same-sex couples. But every one of his reasons applies equally to polygamy. [Darn tootin'!]
I am not claiming that his reasoning leads to an argument ad absurdum. That would be a lateral move from one absurdity to another. What I’m claiming is that, if he is consistent, Walker would have to conclude that his rational basis criteria effectively overturns not only the ban on same-sex marriage, but the ban on polygamy.
Here are key excerpts from his opinion. (I assure you that this summary (which was compiled by the Wall Street Journal) comes from the actual opinion and not from The Onion.)
This one is straightforward: replace “polygamous partners” for “gays and lesbians and it would be equally as applicable.
Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society. (Page 85)
Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments. (Page 90)Even for an opinion riddled with idiotic reasoning, this justification is exceptionally ridiculous. Almost every law passed has a negative fiscal impact on California. That does not make them unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, if preventing homosexuals from marrying has a negative fiscal impact, the same must hold true for denying polygamists the right to marry.
Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs. (Page 91)The same holds true for polygamists.
Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents. (Page 93)The same holds true for polygamists. [Certainly, that's part of why the laws against Polygamy are so unjust. There's a tragic history in this Country of Polygamists being hounded and discriminated against by the Government; see for example the extermination order against the Mormons passed by the tyrannical Governor of Missouri in 1838.] Both research and common sense support the idea that children function better when they have both a mother and a father. In a polygamous marriage, the child would generally not only have a mother and father but a spare parent as well. Imagine the benefit of having both parents at work and yet still having a parent who can stay home with the children.
Since many children in America already have multiple stepparents, why would it be any more detrimental to their psychological health to have all these parents living under the same roof?
The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child. (Page 105)
Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals. (Page 113)Even Walker isn’t dumb enough to believe that gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage. But if that’s the reasoning we are using, then the multiplication of genders would not change the conclusion.
In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. (Page 132)Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been widely practiced throughout history. There are few civilizations, religions, or cultures where polygamy has not taken root.
In fact, almost ever religion has, at some point in their development, accepted the legitimacy of polygamy. All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity—have condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses. In contrast, none of them has ever tolerated, much less openly accepted, same-sex marriage.
The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.
The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.
This leaves proponents of same-sex marriage with two choices. They either have to accept that polygamy is just as legitimate as gay marriage or they must admit that there is no inherent “right” to expand the definition of marriage. In the past, they’ve been hesitant to defend the practice because it is politically unpopular.
However, as studies have shown, most homosexual do not have an actual objection to polyamourous relationships, so we can expect that their political clout continues to grow, they will feel more comfortable admitting that they don’t really oppose polygamous marriage.
Walker may be willing to admit this already. He is able to say, with a straight fact, that there has never been a rational basis for denying homosexuals the right to marry. And if it is true, as he claims, that same-sex marriage fall within the purview of the equal protection clause, then polygamy must also have to be included.
But If it is not an inherent Constitutionally protected right, then the citizens retain the ability to decide the legal status of matrimony—whether gay, straight, or polyamorous. The people could even lobby their legislatures to allow same-sex marriages while excluding polygamous unions since the legislative branch has a greater degree of latitude in making arbitrary distinctions than does the judiciary.
Of course if they did, Judge Walker would conclude—based on his rational basis criteria—that the legislature did not have a proper basis on which to legislate. For him, unelected judges—not the people, not the rule of law—are the final arbiters of what is proper and reasonable.
If this is the standard then he should at least be consistent: If the courts have the authority to decide if a woman can marry another woman, then they must afford the same right to a woman, a woman, and a man.
[Finally someone is talking sense.]
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
"But the power-gifts which the Washington regime has made to Russia are not explicable entirely by simple stupidity, simple incapacity. There is the further factor at work that the Zionist Washington regime is on both sides of most power-questions in the world. Its sole firm stand is its fundamental anti-German position: Germany must be destroyed, its young men must be slaughtered. In Algeria, Washington is on both sides: it is with the French Government, as its 'ally': it is with the rebels by virtue of its world-program of "freedom" for everybody. In Egypt, the Washington regime told Palestine, England and France to attack, and when Russia rose, it told them to stop. It was, within a week, anti-Nasser and pro-Nasser. It occupied Lebanon, then evacuated. It held back Chiang when from his island, he would have attacked China with whom the Washington regime was then at war. It defended South Korea, but helped the Chinese maintain their supply line to the front. During the Chinese War in Korea, it made war and negotiated peace at the same time, for years. In Cuba it forbade exportation of arms to the loyal Batista and thus helped Fidel Castro; now it is committed to the overthrow of Castro.
It is a psychological riddle, decipherable only thus: the Zionists have two minds, which function independently. As Zionists, they are committed to the destruction of the Western Civilization, and in this they sympathize with Russia, with China, with Japan, with the Arabs, and as such they anathematize Germany, which is the mind and heart of the Western Civilization. As custodians of the United States, they must half-heartedly remain at least the technical and political domination of that Civilization even while destroying its soul and its meaning. In a word, they are working simultaneously for and against the Western Civilization. Quite obviously they are thus doing more damage than conferring benefit! If a commander of a fortress sympathizes with the enemy, but yet insists in defending the fortress rather than surrendering it, he has surely found the highest formula of destruction."
-Francis Parker Yockey, THE WORLD IN FLAMES (1961)
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Federal district court knocked down California's homosexual marriage ban. This is what I've long expected.
Auster was surprised though:
But I still think it’s unlikely that the plaintiffs will prevail. There are (un)constitutional bridges too far, even for radical liberal judges.
Now what would surprise me is if this doesn't lead to Homosexual Marriage being legalized in all 50 States by ruling of the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court can square Government mandated sexual and racial preferences in hiring with equal protection, they can certainly square a little thing like forcing the States to recognize same sex marriage.
It's not like I can think of anything in the Constitution that specifically forbids having same sex marriage. All I can think of are things that would stop the Federal Government from forcing the States to do it.
But of course these are also the things in the Constitution that should've stopped the Supreme Court from ramming legalized pornography and abortion down the throats of the States.
These are the things in the Constitution that should've stopped the Congress and White House from imposing all sorts of things on the States.
It's key to understand that all of the Federal Government was prohibited from doing this sort of thing by Constitution, back when the Constitution was in force, NOT just the Supreme Court.
Perhaps when the Congress and/or President impose their constitutionally unauthorized will on the States it's a little bit more Democratic, but this doesn't change that the Founders of this Country would've been just as dead set against it.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
This article by Fred Reed illustrates an important point previously made by the War Nerd:
I wonder whether Americans realize that they have a Vienna-sausage military at filet-mignon prices. The sorry performance in recent wars is just one example of the ongoing rot, but the whole enterprise has become unbalanced, aimed at fighting the kinds of enemies we don’t have instead of the ones we have recently chosen to make.
The Navy is a fine example. The carrier battle group, the heart of the Navy, is a hugely expensive way to get relatively few combat aircraft to a remote place...
But the Navy has not fought a war for sixty years, certainly not one it needed to win, and it shows. Today’s battle groups, CVBGs as we say, are almost indistinguishable from those of 1945, except for the upgrading of weapons. Instead of five-inch-thirty-eights, we have Standard missiles. Instead of F4F Hellcats, the F-18 Hornet. Yet the carrier is still the Mother Ship, protected by screens of cruisers and destroyers, with interceptors flying CAP. The problem is that the enemy has changed.
Bear in mind that a great many countries fear attack by the United States, among them such trivial nations as Russia, China, and Iran. None of these has the money to build carrier groups to oppose those of the Navy.
All of these have thought about cheap ways to overcome the US behemoth. Four solutions soon came to hand:
1.Very fast sea-skimming cruise missiles, such as the Brahmos and Brahmos II (Mach 5+).
2.Supercavitating torpedoes, reaching speeds of over 200 miles an hour.
3.Very quiet submarines, diesel-electrics in the case of poor countries.
4.Anti-ship ballistic missiles, such as the one attributed to the Chinese.
Any military buff knows that the Navy cannot defend itself against these. It says it can. It has to say it can. In fleet exercises against submarines, the subs always win—easily. The Pentagon has been trying to invent defenses against ballistic missiles since the days of Reagan (remember Star Wars?) with miserable results. If you have close friends in the Navy, ask them over a few beers what scares the bejesus out of them. Easy: Swarms of fast, stealthy, sea-skimming cruise missiles with multi-mode terminal guidance.
Add to the brew that today’s ships are fragile, based on the assumption that they will never be hit. Go aboard a WWII battleship like the Iowa, BB-61 (I have) and you will find sixteen-inch belt armor and turrets designed to withstand an asteroid strike. Now go aboard a Tico-class Aegis boat (I have). You will find an electronic marvel with big screens in a darkened CIC and an amazing SPY-1 phased-array radar that one burst of shrapnel would take out of commission for many months.
Now note that cruise missiles have ranges in the hundreds of miles. Think: Persian Gulf. A cruise missile can be boxed and mounted on a truck, a fast launch, or a tramp steamer. The Chinese ballistic missile has a range of 1200 miles, enough to keep carriers out of aircraft range of Taiwan. I wonder whether the Chinese have thought of that?
In short the day of surface navies seems to be coming to a close, at least as strategically decisove forces. So does the day of the manned fighter as Predator-style “drones” improve.
What happens now? Nothing—for the moment.
To understand the problem, assume for the moment that the Navy knew beyond doubt, and openly admitted in internal discussion, that it could not protect its surface ships from modern anti-ship missiles. What would it do? What could it do?
Nothing. Why? Because, apart from the missile submarines, which have no role in combat, the Navy is the surface fleet. Many, many billions of dollars are invested in carriers and careers, in escorts for carriers, in countless men trained to run them. Mothball the carriers, and the Navy becomes a few troop ships useful for unopposed landings. Maintaining a large fleet only to support the Pentagon’s preferred role of massacring half-armed peasants would just be too costly.
So: Does the Navy say to Congress, “We really aren’t of much use any longer. We suggest that you scrap the ships and put the money into something else”? Mankind doesn’t work that way. The appeals of tradition, ego, and just plain fun run high. (Never underestimate the importance of ego and fun in military policy.) A CVBG is a magnificent thing, just not very useful. The glamor of night flight ops, planes trapping ker-whang!, engines howling at full mil, thirty knots of wind over the flight deck, cat shots throwing fighters into the air—this stuff appeals powerfully to something deep in the male head. The Navy isn’t going to give this up.
Thus it can’t admit that its day comes to a close, whether it knows it, suspects it, or refuses to think about it.
The carrier is forever. Unless one gets sunk.
Which (I suspect) is unlikely, because the admirals won’t risk the test. I don’t know what Iran has but, if a shoot-out came, and half a dozen ships appeared on international television smoking and listing with large holes in them, that would be the end of the Navy’s credibility. Remember what happened in when an Iraqi fighter hit the USS Stark with two French Exocet missile: The missiles worked perfectly, and the Stark’s multitudinous and sophisticated defenses failed utterly. The Navy produced all manner of face-saving explanations.
Note: Plus it seems the US Navy is promoting people to officer not based on merit, but rather on Affirmative Action (!!):
The Navy is listing dangerously in politically correct water
Golden Dawn's website is found here:
Information on how to donate to Golden Dawn can be found here:
Golden Dawn NYC's website is found here:
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
This fascinating chart on genetic distance can be found in the online book "Erectus Walks Among Us".
One of the interesting things about it is that the genetic distance between the six non-African groupings and Bantus is almost perfectly predicted by the genetic distance between those groupings and East Africans.
The pattern is consistent, the pearson correlation between them is very strong .993, with a P Value of .0001 in spite of the very small sample size.
Bantu East Africans
India 2202 1078
Near East 1779 709
Korea 2668 1475
S. China 2963 1664
English 2288 1163
Australia 3272 2131
As can be seen every non-African group is closer to East Africans than to Bantus.
This combined with the correlation suggests that all similarity between Caucasoids, Mongoloids, and Australoids relative to Bantus is merely the consequence of their relationship with East Africans, and indicates that West Africans didn't play a meaningful role in the peopling of Eurasia.
Also interesting is the pattern that Caucasoids (Near East, English, India) are closer to East Africans than Mongoloids (Koreans, South Chinese) are.
This may in part be because a large number of East Africans, for example Ethiopians, are partly Caucasoid by ancestry, genotype, and skull shape.
Since the gene flow came from the Middle East, this helps explains why the Near Eastern Caucasoids are more similar to East Africans than other Caucasoids.
Strong evidence for meaningful gene flow from the Middle East into East Africa can be found in the fact that the East Africans are 64% closer to Near Easterners than they are to English, while Bantus are only 29% closer to Near Easterners than they are to English.
Another thing that stands out is that though Caucasoids are more similar to East Africans, East Asian Mongoloids are more similar to Australoids.
Even the Indians, thought to have fractional Proto-Australoid ancestry by some, are further away from Australian Aborigines than the Mongoloid populations are.
E.Af India N.E. Kor. S.C. Eng.
Australia 2131 1176 1408 850 1081 1534
Especially notable is how close, relatively speaking, the Koreans are to Australoids. I think the ancestors of the Ainu had something to do with this, given the similarities found between their skull shape and the skull shape of Australian Aborigines.
But the most interesting thing about the chart is just how hard the break is between Caucasoids and Mongoloids, and how tightly the Caucasoid groups cluster together relative to the total diversity found in Eurasians.
For example, even the Indians who seem to have Proto-East Asian genetic ancestry are more than 3 times closer to the English than they are to their South Chinese neighbors (also they're 4.2 times closer to the English than to Australoids).