Category: 23andme

The System is Killing White Men

Some items.


The System is killing White men (emphasis added).

“What’s interesting is that Hispanics and blacks who started off at lower levels of life expectancy, they have continued to make progress. They’re not in the deaths of despair category for the most part,” Brookings Institution’s senior fellow Carol Graham told Yahoo Finance, adding that “The entire trend is driven by premature mortality among less-than-college-educated whites, mainly in the middle-aged years. That’s a pretty big marker that something’s really wrong.”

Wrong?  Hey!  I thought the destruction of the White man was a feature of the System, not a bug.  Shouldn’t the attitude of these types be “job well done, full steam ahead?”

Women and blacks became more optimistic over time, beginning in the 1970’s when gender and civil rights improved,” Graham wrote in the report. “The one group that experienced drops in optimism around the same time were less-than-college-educated white males, not coincidentally when the decline in manufacturing began.

What mendacity. Note how they try to blame it all on economic reasons, even though they say that for Negroes and Yeastbuckets, they “became more optimistic over time, beginning in the 1970’s when gender and civil rights improved” – and that was precisely the time that optimism among White men declined.  That’s the key to “not coincidentally,” not the hand-waiving about “decline in manufacturing.” Economic concerns may play a factor, but not the major role.  As evidence that it is not all about economics, see the following form the same article:

“We uncovered those death patterns,” Graham says. “What struck me is that poor African-Americans were three times as likely to be optimistic about the future as poor whites,” Graham said. “The metric that really stands out is not sort of happy, unhappy. Happy today doesn’t matter a whole lot. It’s hope for the future or lack thereof that’s really linked with premature mortality.”

Gee, the lack of economic opportunities are not harming those “poor African-Americans” who see hope for a future in a System that literally worships them, while poor Whites, and all Whites, particularly men, view the future with despair, as they are the “devil” of the System. Indeed, opinion polls for Whites in general show they are more pessimistic than Coloreds about the future; even “highly educated Whites” are more pessimistic.

Don’t blame it all on the economy, liars.  It’s more about race and culture.


Read this excellent Hood piece.  Emphasis added:

In contrast to leftists, President Trump focuses on public opinion. He talks big but does little. He cites favorable polls to prove his greatness. His campaigning and governing styles are contradictory. He advocates policies he doesn’t implement, such as an executive order on birthright citizenship, a remittance tax, or a flag burning ban. Rather than legitimizing ideas, this discredits them. Instead of encouraging supporters, he betrays them.

But Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness, right Greg?

It’s time to rethink the Overton Window. The truth is already on our side. Many people already agree with us on most issues. If that were enough, we’d have already won.

In general, yes. With respect to specifics, such as HBD and racial fetishistic dogma, no.

Instead of trying to shock public opinion, we should focus on demanding platform access, creating financial networks, and building institutions and communities the media can’t destroy. Instead of focusing on ideology, we should focus on logistics. We need to change conditions on the ground and make it easier for white advocates to organize. 

I agree on all, and this is very consistent with ideas I have proposed here previously.  There needs to be an emphasis on actually achieving concrete objectives, rather than nitpicking on the typical “movement” ideological and memetic obsessions. We need to fight social pricing, ensure access to the public square (both digital and analog), and real community building (which everyone talks about, but no one actually does anything about).

Otherwise, we risk ending up like Georgia Clark, pleading for help from leaders who have already abandoned us.

Leaders such as the sincere God Emperor of genuine greatness, Antifa Don Trump.

Now, I’ve already spent much time and effort here deconstructing the abysmal stupidity of extant ancestry testing, but it is worthwhile to read this, which in some ways compares favorably to some of the points I’ve made here in the past.

An amusing comment that I’ve found online (emphasis added): 

So basically the ancestry DNA test claims I’m 58% Great Britain! I am not even from Great Britain, I’m German I live in Great Britain though

Whew!  It’s good he doesn’t live in Uganda, imagine what results he would have gotten then!

In all seriousness, AncestryDNA may be the worst test out there…either that or 23andMe…both are borderline D/F grades in my opinion, absolutely horrid. AncestryDNA specializes in providing bizarre data points that overlap with zero. 23andMe isn’t much better. They’re competing for last place, putting a lot of effort there. Probably using the raw data for health-related issues may be the best use of that nonsense.

The lack of proper parental populations for Europe is a major problem.  I believe that this is a fundamental reason why the results for European-derived peoples seemingly get worse and more absurd every time that these companies “update” their tests. These companies seem to be going “PC” and adding reference populations from non-White, non-European populations; and since results are modeled based on the available reference population samples, the more non-White references you add, the greater the probability  of assigning ancestral components to those populations. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between the politically-motivated stress on adding “diverse” parentals and increasingly absurd results. We need more parental populations from Europe – where most of the people using the rests derive their ancestry from. 

Let’s take an example. Imagine a testing company wants to determine the ancestral proportions of Iraqis. They model the “admixture” under four scenarios. One – a large reference population from Iraq; many Iraqi samples as parentals. Two – few samples from Iraq, but many samples from Jordan, Germany, and Ghana. Three – the same as two, but with the addition of a large number of reference samples from South Asia. Four – the same as two, but with the addition of a moderate number of samples from Turkey and a large expansion of the samples from sub-Saharan Africa. Now, under those four scenarios, will the results from a given set of Iraqis be the same, or even very similar? Hardly. They would be markedly different. Only when there is a significant number of reference samples from the specific population of the person or persons being tested will the results be reasonably accurate, and even then the results can be altered when there are significant changes in the types and numbers of other reference populations used to model the “admixture.” These are facts that cannot be responsibly evaded by the testing companies, although they’ll like to pretend that this is not a factor.
The current state of commercially available ancestry testing means that such testing is virtually useless for significant numbers of European-derived people. Actually, less than worthless, as the results are absolute incorrect. Again, the major advantage of this testing is using the data to make an “end run” around the paternalism of the medical community and getting a handle on health issues – assuming that the data are accurate, which is an issue that needs to be confirmed if something “bad” is discovered.

Against the Arctic Alliance

Amren once again giving Yellow Supremacism a forum.

Well-known novelist and cultural commentator John Derbyshire explained his concept of an “Arctic Alliance” between Asians and whites. He said these groups have in common a high mean IQ and low fertility rates, which could lead to a common strategy against the “demographic” and “dysgenic” threat posed by mass immigration. Mr. Derbyshire raised and then refuted several objections to his plan. These ranged from questions of terminology and feasibility to larger issues about whether Asians will follow whites down the path of self-hatred. He wondered whether ethnomasochism is unique to whites or is “the inevitable result of post-industrial society.” He argued that the purpose of groups like American Renaissance is to resist dispossession and to build a defensive strategy of “Arctic peoples” that can ensure the survival of civilization.

Err, excuse me, you lousy despicable wad of shit Derbyshire, you who had no problem with agreeing with the description of Amren attendees as “latrine flies” before your defenestration from National Review, but Asians are part of the demographic mass immigration threat to the West.  How about stopping the Asian influx, and repatriating the aliens, including your family, and then we can take another look at this alliance, hmmm?   In fact, Asians are part of the Colored Alliance against Whites, and Yellow Supremacists like Amren are part of the HBD political movement to enslave Whites to Asian interests. 

And Derbyshire is such a breathtakingly dishonest fraud it is stunning.

He completely ignores the two biggest objections, actually completely distorting the first objection, which is that as radically different races and civilizations, Whites and Asians are natural enemies, with conflicting interests; they are not, and can never be, allies.  Derbyshire laughs in our face by talking about “similarities” between the two groups, as if the only objection was a “narcissism of small differences,” while East Asians are approximately as genetically distant from Europeans as are sub-Saharan Africans.

Second, as alluded to above, Asians are part of the problem, they are part of the Rising Tide of Color, and they are part of the demographic tidal wave swamping the West.  And Asians in America are anti-White political leftists, proving the point.  In the long term, if Whites survive the current threat (which Asians are mightily contributing to), then Asians, particularly East Asians, will constitute our most formidable competitors, our most serious threat. Do you make an alliance with your greatest long-term enemy, particularly when that enemy is currently actively trying to destroy you?

Even apart from all of that, practically speaking, the “Arctic Alliance” idea is absurd.  An alliance is predicated on the two sides assisting each other against a threat.  How would this occur in this case? If Asians wanted to help Whites then they could simply stop invading our nations – and take back the invaders already here, including “Rosie and the kids.”  Or are we to accept the Silk Road White nationalism solution – colonies and armed garrisons of Asians patrolling the borders of the West, guarding against the Global South immigration threat (that the Asians are actually part of), with Chinese girls with guns running the show? That’s great.  Depending on “allies” for your own defense really worked out well for latter-day Rome, didn’t it?  And why would Asians defend the West?  What’s in it for them – apart from conquest?  And Whites, who cannot even defend their own nations, are not fit allies for anyone.  Indeed, if Whites became fit allies, then they would no longer need the alliance to begin with. The practical application of the alliance undermines its own justification.

No, the whole thing is merely Derbyshire trying to obfuscate the divide of race, civilization, and hatred that separates Occident from Orient, White from Yellow, West from East, Europeans from Asians, so as to make White America safe for his mixed-race family.  Sorry Derb, we are not obligated to sacrifice our own interests because of your life choices.  Just crawl back home and do some more “measure groveling” (and who knows what else) for “Rosie.”


Counter-Currents commentator gets it right:

Ambrose Kane

 “John Derbyshire explained his concept of an “Arctic Alliance” between Asians and whites” – This doesn’t surprise me, especially when one considers that Derbyshire has an Asian wife and half-Asian children. I know he will deny that this has influenced him, but I find it hard to believe that his own act of miscegenation hasn’t motivated him in some sense to hope for an ‘Arctic Alliance’ between Asians and Whites.

I find the notion of an ‘Arctic Alliance’ less than convincing. Although the Asians, generally, have some admirable qualities and traits, they are very much different than Whites. They are conniving and deeply committed to their own. Their ethical framework differs greatly from the western one, especially one that might be influenced by Christian values.

Moreover, such an ‘Arctic Alliance’ will inevitably lead to greater miscegenation between Asians and Whites. How can it not when such an alliance and cooperation is encouraged as something good for us? This is probably last thing we should want or promote since our birthrates are already greatly dwindling.

I don’t know if Derbyshire has an ‘Asian fetish’ as some have maintained. However, it’s become clear to me having listened to him on several occasions that he is far too pro-Asian for my tastes. At a time when our numbers are dwindling and when anti-White propaganda is spreading at fever pitch throughout the world, the last thing Whites should be encouraging is ‘alliances’ with Asians or any other racial group. We ought to be suspicious when such calls come from one who is himself married to an Asian and has produced half-Asian children.

Actually, Derbyshire does not deny the influence of his home situation, he just claims that it does not matter since he is right about the Arctic Alliance.  But he is not right, for the reasons stated above.  If anything, Whites should be forming an alliance among themselves against Asians, not an alliance with Asians.

Ethnoracial nepotism on display.  Where are all the leftists screeching that it is not adaptive? Or is that only for White folks?

Notice the Israeli connection.  Mazel Tov!

What standards of accuracy for the ancestry testing?

The company also emphasized “the distinction that [23andMe’s] ancestry testing is different from our health report testing, which is regulated by the FDA and meets the agency’s standards for accuracy and clinical validity.”

As I’ve been telling you. Emphasis added:

Companies like 23andMe, Ancestry.com, and MyHeritage compare your set of SNPs to known reference groups (SNPs that tend to be found in people of, say, Greek origin). The tests are looking for evidence that you have common ancestors with people in the reference group.

But the reference group each company uses can be different.

Another limitation: These reference groups are largely based on people who are self-reporting their ancestry. These people may be pretty confident that they know where their families come from, but it’s not a perfect measure. 

 

Ancestry DNA companies can often track down European DNA to specific countries [Salis note: Only for those with parental privilege]. But if you’re a minority [Sallis note: Or a non-privileged European], your report might be vaguer. Prior to this past summer, 23andMe could only match people to just three broad regions in sub-Saharan Africa, which is an enormous area with a lot of geographic and ethnic diversity. And that’s just because there aren’t as many African people in these company’s reference data sets. 

“Imagine you’re from a small town in Spain,” Pickrell says. “If [the testing companies] have a bunch of people from that small town, they can match you against them really effectively.” But if they don’t have people from that specific small town, they might just determine you’re broadly Spanish, or European [Sallis note: Or “unassigned”].

Advice for Potential French Cuckolds

Frenchmen, free yourselves from feminist tyranny!

Respond to this by ordering this for you and your “offspring.”

There are of course possible problems here. If a Frenchman discovers cuckoldry through a 23andMe test, and acts upon it (demands a divorce, etc.), will he be subject to legal sanction? Or could he use those results to demand a court-ordered, legally sanctioned direct paternity test?  And how long would the 23andMe loophole exist once people start using it? Will France ban ancestry testing – or at least ban those tests that look at the chromosome level, instead of just at the SNP level?

Ultimately, the law needs to be overturned. What kind of madness is this that paternity testing is outlawed?  That’s the same wonderful Europe that bans free speech, so I suppose we cannot be surprised by any of it.

Methodological comment: True enough, the SNP-level tests that do not look at things from the chromosome level could in theory give some information about paternity – but what if the real biological father is the same ethny as the assumed legal “father” and would have similar ancestral percentages?  Then there is the matter of statistical error – you would really need to have the real father to be of a significantly different ethny than either mother or legal “father” for ancestry percentages to give useful data – and at that point, in some cases, the “eyeball test” might suffice to raise suspicion. Matching chromosome identity is obviously orders of magnitude better for paternity determination – although for ancestry testing such tests amplify errors due to parental population choice. But here we are talking about paternity, not ancestry, so 23andMe performs well.  

Absolutely correct.  What the fellow doesn’t quite get is that the flaws in the IQ argument is a feature and not a bug, from the HBD perspective. The HBDers want us to worship Asians and Jews and to subordinate White interests to that of Asians and Jews.  And, after all, it’s no coincidence that the “Ruv Squad” of Asiatrices sent out to influence WNs always mentions IQ. Get on your knees before the Altar of Asia!  You’ll find the HBDers already there.

The HBD future.  China in charge; scattered Whites are nothing but stepandfetchits.  Why do White HBDers support this?  Hey, maybe some “awkward squad” types will get sexual access to Asian “females.”  Do you have a better explanation?

We need a Far Right front against the HBD Yellow Supremacists.

A Purebred Son of Europe

As much an Aryan as the good and great Professor Hart, no doubt.

So, here we see a Jew named Letzter complaining about ancestry testing variability, even though, as we shall see, he is benefiting from parental privilege.

The thing I find interesting is the 23andMe results – he tests as 100% Ashkenazi Jewish, which the company labels as “100% European.”  A purebred son of Europe!  More of a purebred than Spencer and Johnson, eh?

Now, the alert reader is probably wondering – if the Ashkenazi genepool is ~ 50% (modern) Middle Eastern, how can someone who is 100% Ashkenazi be 100% European?

Well, let’s trace the “logic” of 23andMe here, and the “logic” of those that take such test results seriously while onanistically and breathlessly discussing the data on Amren comments threads.

First, we have a specific narrow ethnic group being well represented among the parental (or reference) samples used to determine genetic affiliation.

Second, a member of that group gets tested, and since he is essentially being compared to himself, he gets a result of 100% membership in that group (*).

Third, 23andMe decides to label that group as “European;” hence, the individual is “100% European”- obviously nonsense from a genetic-historical perspective.

This tells us two things about ancestry testing as offered by the various companies:

1. The results obtained are exquisitely sensitive to, and dependent upon, the available parental populations – the choices of the reference samples used.

2. The superficial interpretation of the results, particularly for normie and Nutzi nitwits, is going to be influenced by the choice of labels that a company decides to use for given ancestral components.

Considering the second point, 23andMe could have just as easily labelled Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as “Middle Eastern,” or perhaps (and most accurately) given it its own category separate from both European and Middle Eastern.

More importantly, consider the first point.  A thought experiment – what if there were no Jewish parental population samples, and Ashkenazi Jews had to be analyzed using non-Jewish parental populations?  Then, instead of being “100% Ashkenazi Jewish,” such Jews would get results indicating they are a mix of Middle Eastern, Southern European, and Eastern European.

I trust that people with a triple digit IQ see the underlying problem here, and why parental privilege is such a big issue with these tests.  A person’s fundamental results, and the public perception of “purity,” is going to drastically differ dependent upon whether their narrow ethny (or ethnies) is included as a parental population or not. When Ashkenazi Jews are included as parentals, people of such ancestry will get results such as “100% Ashkenazi Jewish” (*) – labeled as “100% European” – but if the Ashkenazim were not included as a parental population, then those same people, with their same genomes, would now be interpreted as mixtures of various other groups.

Thus, the outcome of the measurement is fully dependent upon how the measurement is conducted – Bohr and Heisenberg could have fit in well with 23andMe and the other testing companies.

And idiots who take the companies’ reporting of results at face value, without considering all of these points, are just that – idiots.

*Yes, the first iteration of Letzter’s results had his Ashkenazi percent in the “low 90s.” That is still remarkably good and indicative of someone with parental privilege, a person deriving from a specific ethny well represented in the parental population base. Consider that for the somewhat broader British/Irish category, also well represented as parentals, Derbyshire got only ~ 70%, although the strong representation of other Northwestern European samples covered him very well at the regional level. If 23andMe had a well-represented specific English category, Derbyshire’s main ancestry percentage would have been higher.  

The bottom line is that “low 90s” for a single ethnic group is a great match, and 100% obviously cannot be improved upon.  Derbyshire’s results are not as good from the single group perspective, but from a regional/subracial basis, he’s also a parental privilege beneficiary – his entire ancestry is covered by groups represented as parentals and labeled in the “European” category.  

As an extremely important aside, I would strongly suspect that both Derbyshire as well as Letzter would have a very low “unassigned” percentage at the highest (90%) confidence level of the 23andMe test. Such a low percentage would indicate that there is excellent parental population coverage for the person’s entire ancestry. The difference between, Letzter and Derbyshire is that the good parental population coverage for Letzter is highly specific (Ashkenazi Jewish) while for Derbyshire is its more diffuse with broader groups (British/Irish and other closely related Northern and Western European ethnies). The relatively greater advantage for Letzter is indicative of both the obsession with Jewish genetics (and thus the availability of Ashkenazi parentals) and the high level of distinctiveness of the Ashkenazi genepool.  

Even apart from the issue of how the company decides to label ancestral components, the validity of 23andMe results at the lower confidence levels is, in my opinion and consistent with logic, going to be correlated to the amount of “unassigned”  ancestry at the highest confidence level.  Indeed, for those people with low  “unassigned” at 90% confidence, it is very likely that their 50% and 90% confidence results will be quite similar – an obvious impossibility for those people getting in the range of ~ 30-50% “unassigned”  at the 90% level.

More on Cancer Cell Lines

Race, race, race.

Read here.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

Assessing the role of ancestry-associated genetic variations in disease etiology is further complicated by the recent admixture that characterizes various populations of the world (24). Hence, an individual’s ancestry can be described by quantifying the proportion of the genome derived from each contributing population (global ancestry). Heterogeneity is also observed locally in the genome, as variability is observed in the ancestral origins of any particular segment of chromosomes (local ancestry; ref. 25). Ultimately, genetics plays a role in the biological characteristics of a cancer in the form of both germline variation and somatic alterations. Further research is needed to determine the extent to which genetic differences align with ancestral genetic changes (26).

Cell lines reported as “African” or “Black” clustered with African-American populations in 81.6% of the cases, emphasizing the ambiguity of the existing nomenclature. In fact, the proportion of the genome inferred to be of European origin in these cell lines averaged 18.32% (ranging from 0% to 95.09%). Another type of ambiguity concerns the cell line Hs 698.T labeled as originating from an “American Indian,” which clusters with populations of South Asia, suggesting an origin in India rather than from a Native/Indigenous American individual. A total of 26 cell lines were reported as Caucasian but clustered genetically with other populations including African (n = 2), African American (n = 6), East Asian (n = 1), Hispanic/Latinos (n = 16), and South Asian (n = 1). Interestingly, 89% of the cell lines identified as Hispanic/Latino from admixture patterns and clustering are reported as “Caucasian.” Several groups have reported a concordance between self- or observer-reported belonging to major racial/ethnic groups (141–143). However, these categories do not capture the inherent heterogeneity of admixed populations (144–147). What appears as inconsistencies in self-report and genetic data may result from individuals having limited knowledge of their ancestral origins, or culturally identifying to an ethnic group that is not representative of one’s admixture proportions (18). Sociological, behavioral, and biological factors that underlie race, ethnicity, and ancestry are likely to interact (148). Consequently, from a biomedical research perspective, both self-reports of race/ethnicity group as well as genetically determined clustering and admixture are expected to be relevant in understanding disease susceptibility, and ultimately, the causes of health disparities (18, 148, 149).

Note the last phrase.  Also, importantly, there is misclassification.  Given that people are not always accurate about their own self-reported ancestry, what can we say about the ancestry testing companies that use customer samples to inflate their pathetically limited parental/reference population datasets?

Also consider Figure 1 in the paper. It looks to me like the cancer cell lines exhibit more admixture than the actual human population samples. At the very least,there are observable differences in ancestral proportions. Some of that of course is simply the well known admixture in “African Americans,” but what about the other populations?  That could be due to the misclassification mentioned above, there are of course issues about sample size, and concerns over how accurate the ancestry testing is. Cancer cell lines also tend to have high mutation rates, reflecting the situation in the tumor of origin. However, even with all those caveats, can we consider the possibility that increased admixture is associated with a higher cancer risk; hence, cancer cell lines show more admixture because cancer patients are on average more admixed than is typical of the general  population?  Given how prevalent cancer is, the differences are not great, as we are dividing populations in two relatively similar “chunks” (the difference being cancer vs. non-cancer); but still, if there is going to be any differences between the two “chunks” – perhaps the cancer “chunk” exhibits more admixture than the non-cancer “chunk?” Anyone willing to test the hypothesis?  Or, we can consider the more general hypothesis of statistically significant differences in ancestry between cancer vs. non-cancer for each population group (regardless of admixture, or which group has more admixture, etc.).  

Genetic History of Rome Coming?

Preliminary; emphasis added.

There is some talk that a paper is coming out soon tracing the genetic history of Rome (and surrounding areas of Italy) from prehistory to more modern times. Some preliminary summaries were put online, apparently written up by someone who saw an academic presentation. If we assume that the material posted online is accurate (we have to await the actual paper), what can we say about it?  Again, this assumes that the material below is authentic, which I give no guarantee to. I am just reporting what is online at this point. Whether it turns out to be true or bogus, only time will tell.

Presentation by Hannah Moots. No pictures, not allowed. Paper coming out in a couple of months, done with Pinhasi and Pritchard.

134 genomes, spanning 12000s BP to Renaissance and enlightenment. 0.5-3.5X coverage.

Time period covered.

Vast majority of sampling sites concentrated in Rome and surrounds, lowlands of Latium around the Tiber River, up to Ostia, almost all restricted to Lazio. Some extend to Abruzzo, South Le Marche, none, or maybe one, in Tuscany, and on the South of Tuscany if that.

Couple of samples from Sardinia.

Areas covered.

I’ll give a PCA position and a ADMIXTURE description for each time period. Note that the ADMIXTURE only had Iranian, EEF, WHG, EHG and Levant_N, no CHG. Where Iran N appears, it may be a stand-in for CHG. There is something quite puzzling in the list below, mislabeling in the slides? But that doesn’t explain it either.

UPPER PALEOLITHIC

All WHG

Which of course makes sense. In the Upper Paleolithic, only the Western Hunter Gatherers were present.  All ‘high-trust,” no doubt.

NEOLITHIC

Mostly EEF, some WHG. Some Iran_N, quite a significant quantity, as much as WHG. PCA position Between Sardinia and Maltese, east of Sardinia, closer to Sardinia than to Maltese

As I’ve written about many times, Southern Europe was heavily Early European Farmer – the Neolithic farmer expansion from Anatolia/Near East – since the Neolithic. The Paleo/Neo divide that the “movement” breathes heavily about was in place before the rise of the Classical Civilization.  The “Iranian” may be CHG ancestry.

BRONZE AGE (EARLY)

Overlaps modern-day Sardinia, Iran_N percentage declines, WHG and EEF increases

(Note that this represents a Europeanisation of the gene pool!)

Sardinian-like genepool, even more EEF than before.

IRON AGE TO REPUBLICAN PERIOD (700-20BC)

Note: Separated from previous period by 1000 year gap.

Fewer samples, of those that exist 60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily, centroid of overall cluster in central Italy but no samples occur there, very wide spread.

EHG appears, Levant N Appears for the first time, sporadic and inhomogeneous distribution, Iran_N increases further.

This may be the most important set of samples; unfortunately, they are “fewer.”  I say these are the most important because this is the period of Roman history that, according to Der Movement, the Ancient Romans were akin to Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga. Note that the centroid of the samples (not any individual sample itself) are akin to Central Italy – a North/South mix, a bit more slanted to the North (60% to 40%). “60% overlap with North Italy, 40% overlap with South Italy and Sicily” is hardly Dolph Lundgren walking around in a toga. Note that Levantine and “Iranian” influences, in addition to EHG, are present at this early time. These are parts of the Italian genepool dating back to the Iron Age. Combined with EEF, that likely explains much of the “Southwestern Asian” or “Anatolian” (or whatever) “findings” from ancestry testing companies (with their inadequate parental/reference populations) for customers from this region.

This period of Roman history seems to be rather genetically heterogeneous. The centroid is Central Italian, but no samples occur there. Was the population basically a bipartite Northern and Southern Italian mix?  Der Movement would of course infer Northern Italian Patricians and brutal and stupid Southern Italian Plebs. None of them seem to cluster with Scandinavia though.

IMPERIAL PERIOD

Dense cluster centroid between Greeks, Cypriots, South Italians/Sicilians, and Syrians, closest to Sicilians. Long tail stretching from central cluster to Syrians and Iraqi Jews. Couple of Northern-shifted samples overlapping N Italy, France, Spain.

Iran_N increases further, Levant N again sporadic and inhomogeneous.

During the Imperial Period Rome becomes more cosmopolitan, as historically noted, with increased population coming from Greece and the Levant, but some from more Northern and Western regions. This shifts the centroid from a more Central Italian to Southern Italian/Sicilian centroid, consistent with the modern clinal gene frequencies shown here.

LATE ANTIQUITY

Tight cluster centroid in S Italy, in the same place as in the previous period. Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.

Later, the centroid remains similar to Southern Italy, but perhaps a bit more Northern and Western than before – “Southern tail to Middle East disappears. N Italian, Northern European and NW European outliers exist.”

AFTER

Resemble modern central Italians.

I would assume that the increase in “N Italian, Northern European and NW European” shifted the centroid back to Central Italian.

Thus, during the period of Der Movement’s favorite era – the early days to the end of the Republic – these data  (again assuming they are authentic) show, crudely speaking, a Central Italian centroid Rome that was split between 60% similar to Northern Italy and 40% similar to Southern Italy/Sicily.

Cosmopolitan migration into Rome pushed the centroid a bit more South/East along the cline of gene frequencies to a more Southern Italian centroid during the peak of Empire. Without seeing the actual data, this could simply be the addition of Greeks, Jews, and Syrians to the population in addition to the bulk of the pre-existing population, rather than a panmixia.  But at this point, who knows?  Some admixture may be possible.

Later, an increased influx from the North and West shifted the centroid back to Central Italian, into modern times. 

Lactase persistence alleles appear abruptly after 0 AD.

Romans were therefore lactose intolerant during the period that Der Movement asserts was Leif Erickson as Consul of Rome.

Heterozygosity reaches modern level after Iron Age.

No information given on uniparentals.

Isotope information not available yet, no way apart from archaeological context to tell between migrants and locals.

Represents a preliminary effort, more work coming later.

If we assume that these data are authentic and if we further assume that the “more work” does not alter the story significantly (two big “ifs”), then the essential Der Movement narrative is not supported.  The only point of agreement (that no one has ever substantially argued against) is that the city of Rome (and some other areas) became more cosmopolitan during the Imperial Era. That there were migrants and slaves in the city is well known.  However, these data paint a crude genetic picture of a Republican Rome whose genetic centroid was Central Italian, a more Southern Italian Imperial and Late Antiquity Rome, and then shifting back to Central Italian in more modern times.  I suppose that Der Movement can try and salvage something here by asserting that “degeneration” (if such actually occurred, which is debatable) was accompanied by the Central to Southern Italian centroid shift. However, the more fundamental point is that these data (again, if authentic, which I do not guarantee) can be interpreted as suggesting that Rome, the Republic, the whole story, was founded by a lactose intolerant, EEF-enriched, Southern European people very crudely akin to a population of 60% Northern Italian and 40% Southern Italian/Sicilian. I suppose that Der Movement would claim that the Patricians were of that 60% and the Plebian rabble were all of the 40%.  Regardless, it is doubtful that any of the sample data are going to fit a narrative stating that Ancient Rome, of any period, was composed of Celto-Germanic Nordics.

Needless to say, from the standpoint of EGI and of biopolitics, all of this is irrelevant.  It is all completely irrelevant to the political facts on the ground today as they related to genetic interests.  From the standpoint of analyzing Der Movement, it is interesting. No doubt that whatever the final outcome of this research, the Nutzis will say “Arthur Kemp was Right,” although it undoubtedly will not truly be so.

Ancestral Graphics

A more visual explanation.

Let us explore some of the ideas broached here in a simplistic visual manner, to make some of the basic concepts more understandable to drooling Nutzi Type I retards. Note that all of the below is obviously very highly simplified so as to make the concepts clear to “movement” “activists” and their below-room-temperature IQs.

Also note that the first graphic uses, again for the sake of simplicity, a one-dimensional continuum, as opposed to the two-dimensional PCA plots used in many population genetics studies (and true biological reality is multi-dimensional, more complex than any PCA plot).  It shows clinal genetic variation.  Blue and green are European populations, while purple and yellow are non-European.  The other X’s are other populations that lie along the continuum of genetic variation. The red and orange-brown X’s represent populations even more genetically distant from Europeans than are the purple and yellow; these are presented for the sake of illustrating clinal variation and will not be relevant to the following analysis.


xxXxxxXxxxxXxxx—-xxxxxXxxxXxxxx—xxxxxxXxxxxxxXxx

A company calculates ancestry based on SNP gene frequencies, and chooses purple, blue, and yellow as parental populations (we can assume red and orange-brown are chosen also, but, again, for the sake of simplicity, we will not discuss those populations). Thus, the  company chooses blue as a population representing “European.”  Green is not a parental population for this company.

So, a green individual (i.e., someone of “green” ancestry), represented by the purple-blue-yellow parental populations, might be, say 85-90% blue and 10-15% yellow.  Blue individuals and individuals from the X’s adjacent to blue, would test out as close to 100% blue (European). What if green was chosen as a European parental population instead of blue?  Then green individuals (and persons from related groups) would be close to 100% green (European) and blue individuals may show significant fractions of purple.  Of course, including both blue and green as parental populations would be best.


Given that a company (deCODE back when they were offering their own ancestry test) openly admitted that clinal genetic variation coupled with a limited set of parental populations could result in artefactual “admixture,” the above analysis, however simplified, is a reflection of the reality of these tests. The more similar someone is to the parental populations, the greater the probability of getting high percentage (i.e., close to 100%) matches to their actual ancestry. The more distant, the lower the probability.  The more fine the level of distinction required,the greater the need for more parental populations.  At the level that these companies purport to assay, at racial and subracial, and ethnic levels, of course you will need a very broad array of parental populations, which they do not have. And, yes, of course they know this.  After all, why do they occasionally add more parental populations to their limited databases?  If it really didn’t matter, we could just go back to the days of DNAPrint and use CEU Romneyites from Utah as “European” and not bother with anything else.  But, alas, then Germans would start getting “East Asian admixture” and we can’t have that.

Apologists for ancestry testing companies would argue that some of those companies use chromosome blocks (haplotypes) to make their ancestry estimates, rather than just SNP gene frequencies.  As I wrote in the above-linked post, this is even worse.  Let’s consider what can go wrong here, again using a simplified example suitable for brain-addled Nutzi freaks.

Let’s assume an individual from the green ethny is tested via the haplotype/chromosome block method, using the same blue-purple-yellow parental populations.

At the most conservative, highest confidence level of 90% (that is still less than the 95% typically used in scientific publications, although there is obviously subjectivity on where to draw the line), this person gets 58% blue, 40% unassigned (black), and 2% yellow (that can be real or artefactual).  That can be crudely represented as follows (with a single continuum representing all the chromosomes for the sake of simplicity):

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But, at the pathetically comical 50% confidence level (flip a coin!), the 40% that was unassigned at 90% becomes: 3% still unassigned, 27% looks a bit more blue than yellow and so is assigned to blue, and 10% looks a bit more yellow than blue and so is assigned to yellow.

Now the person is 85% blue, 12% yellow, and 3% unassigned.  Again we assume blue = European, and yellow is some non-European group.  That’s crudely shown here:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The default setting is at 50% confidence for the company to report their results and the Nutzis start their heavy breathing excitement.  Admixture!

But what if the parental populations were purple, green, and yellow?  Then all of the above would hold, but substituting green for blue, and purple for yellow.  Here, green = European, and purple and yellow = non-European, the green individual would now be 98-100% green and 0-2% yellow. 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


This green individual would have little unassigned even at 90%, while the blue individual would now exhibit the same problems the green individual had before (albeit with different color combinations).  So, at 50% we would have the following for a blue individual:


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Now, at this point, the Nutzis will be screaming about how “crazy” and “wrong” the test is.  


By the way, if there is any question about the validity of the haplotype discussion in this post, see these admissions from the heroes at 23andMe (spun in a manner to make them look less culpable).  The highlights:

Each prediction is also linked to our confidence that the call is correct. By default, Ancestry Composition requires that our confidence in a prediction be greater than 50%.

Two points.  First, “greater than 50%” could be 51% or 50.1% or 52.25% or whatever measure (e.g., “55%” – see their Japanese example immediately below) slightly greater than the probability of a coin flip.  Second, even with that, the “calls” are based on what their parental population database is.  The “correct call” here does not really mean matching biological reality; instead, it merely means “correct” within the confines of the test’s parameters.

For example, if a segment of your DNA has a 55 percent chance of being Japanese, then that segment will be painted as Japanese at the 50 percent confidence level, but it will be painted with a more broad ancestry…at the 60 to 90 percent confidence levels.

Exactly what I have been writing all along about this.  And, of course, the individual in question might not be Japanese or part Japanese.  Perhaps this is someone of an Asian ethny not part of their parental population database, so the company is trying to assign chromosomal fragments based on the fragments’ relative similarity to that of ethnies that are part of their database.  If the actual population was included as a reference, then this would not be necessary (at least not to this extent).


And this also demonstrates why the haplotype/chromosome block (“chromosome painting”) method is even more sensitive to test parameters than is the more general SNP frequency method, particularly at low confidence levels.  A shift in probability from 49% to 51% can result in an entire chunk of the genome being reassigned to a different ancestry at the 50% confidence level, and that subtle shift could result from differential representation of parental populations.


Default reporting of such low confidence levels is ludicrous.