Category: 23andme

Odds and Ends, 12/24/19

Various issues.

Compare my analysis of Trump and his effect on White American EGI to this typically superficial Counter-Currents analysis:

Itʼs time to stop quibbling and rally behind our President again. Warts and all, heʼs what weʼve got and he scares our enemies, not because heʼs effective, but because his bluster is motivation to make us, as a people, more determined. Heʼs the anti-nihilism pill that they fear the most.

Dumb ideas!    Hey Zman, the entire “movement” is full of dumb ideas.  As regards, UBI, I’ve commented on this before.  In the current situation in America, UBI is a bad idea.  However, in a future more homogeneous society, one in which much employment is made superfluous by automation and artificial intelligence, some form of a citizen’s dividend will be necessary. The productivity of the future economy will need to be distributed to the populace to maintain that economy and maintain the populace itself.

More on ancestry testing; complaints on updates:

Posted byu/inspirationsensation
Anyone else’s ancestry dna update way off???
It says I’m nearly 1/2 English but there’s no way I’m more than a quarter. My last name is English but there is hardly any English on my moms side and my paternal grandmother was Irish, German and, French. My other grandmother was 1/2 Portuguese (her mom was from sao Miguel) and, her father was a mayflower descendant and Irish. They also got rid of many other things that they originally had given me. My Iberian, Scandinavian, Europe south, caucus, European Jewish, Finnish and, North African are all gone. They even said that I have a 4th cousin in Portugal and some matches in Brazil. On my heritage I have 15 matches from Brazil and, 4 in Portugal and, even 9 in Spain. They said I’m 28.6% Iberian. thinks I’m 10% Iberian. What happened with ancestry???? I tried explaining it to them but they insisted that there was no mix up.
Mine is very off since the update (similar to you, with all of my documented ancestries from 2-5% disappearing into England, including Asian and Jewish categories), and many, many other people have reported the same. From the anecdata collected at places like DNA Detectives on Facebook and the initial responses to the update on the AncestryDNA sub, it seems like English ancestry is the main problem for users with European heritage. If you have anything more than about 8-10 percent, it overestimates it, and it tends to:
Underestimate or disappear French or German ancestry
Turn large amounts of Spanish and Italian ancestry into French or Portuguese, or small (5% or less) into Irish or disappear it altogether
Mess up analysis of and shrink other southern European ancestry
Shrink Scandinavian ancestry
There are some other problems where it seems like Ancestry just took a leap and went too specific without the tech to support it. A lot of people get Portuguese when they should have Spanish or Greek when they should have Italian, for example. The populations are too close for the algorithm to assign them correctly.
One woman on DNA Detectives posted her grandmother’s results, her mother’s and her own. Her grandmother was 100% Italian, her mother was 16% Italian and had mystery French, and she had no Italian at all but a LOT of mystery French. Both she and her mother had more English than they should, and they had no French ancestry that she knew of.

From a testing site:

While not common, some customers may also lose a small percentage region as a result of this update. One way this can happen is if that ethnicity has been re-assigned to a nearby region. This is because people from neighboring areas tend to look similar genetically.

You don’t say!

Read this.

This is a somewhat simplistic explanation for the layman, but nevertheless is useful:

This is similar to what clients are experiencing when they observe differing results in their proportion of ancestral regions between different companies, and among internal updates to reference panels that all companies will do from time to time. The fundamental genetic definitions for each of the geographies is different. Each company has its own proprietary collection of reference samples for the populations they support with samples that are probably largely unique to the company, and the numbers that support each population can vary widely.

And with these varying reference panel definitions, not unexpectedly come results that can also vary…

More Testing Follies and Other News

More 23andMe fails and other news.

As background, read this.  Also read this.

Prepare for an unexpected shock – Sallis is proven right once again.

Over the last year or two, companies such as 23andMe have been updating their customers’ ancestry results; in almost all cases that has been as a direct result of expanding their parental (reference) population sample database with all sorts of non-European samples. They do this (concentrating on the expansion of samples from outside Europe) even though they have grossly insufficient coverage from various parts of Europe (particularly the South and East) and even though most of their customers are of European descent. 

In the months since I posted the above linked criticisms, I’ve been studying online forums in which customers discuss their results, including the more recent updates, as well as looking at statements by the companies themselves, and also material forwarded to me by correspondents.  

The problems accompanying these updates, combined with the pre-existing problems of the tests, essentially completely confirm my previous criticisms and interpretations of these ancestry tests, particularly with respect to the issue of “parental privilege.”

In these updates, in general, the changes in ancestral proportions perfectly mirror the additions of parental population samples that are likely inappropriate for the customers in question (based on their actual, proven genealogical ancestry). Thus, customers who have poor parental population coverage of their actual ancestry exhibit increased ancestral proportions for precisely those (genealogically non-ancestral) parental reference populations that had their numbers increased in companies’ databases.

Therefore, and 100% consistent with my past criticisms, the results are completely dependent upon the choice of parental populations, and the degree to which particular parental populations are represented in the databases. More of a certain parental population shifts ancestral proportions precisely in that direction, causing customer results to fluctuate wildly dependent on the parental population choices.

In addition, with these updates, the “unassigned” percentages for the conservative estimate (90% confidence) markedly increased for these same customers (in these cases specifically 23andMe, which provides confidence levels and “unassigned” portions of the genome – other companies do not generally do so), clearly demonstrating that the updated results are less accurate than the preceding. 

As a model of this, look at the first example here. Consider a scenario in which  the testing company refuses to add (more, if they have any) “green” parental population samples, but significantly increases the representation of “yellow” (but not “blue”) samples in their database. What happens? “Green” individuals are suddenly shown to exhibit a much greater percentage of “yellow” ancestry – which is purely a consequence of the shifting representation of different groups in the parental population database.  What if the number of “yellow” was decreased, and “blue” increased?  Then the “greens” would be more “blue.” But, here’s the rub – if significant numbers of “green” were introduced, then the “blue-yellow”” “greens” would – presto! – be represented as mostly “green.”

Again, my criticisms have been 100% confirmed as legitimate by the direct correspondence between expansion of certain parental populations in the databases and the increased ancestral proportions for those same populations among customers who lack proper parental population representation.

An equally valid conformation of my criticisms is that for many of these customers, the updated ancestral proportions have been accompanied by an ever-increasing “unassigned ancestry” percentage when considering results at the (more proper) “conservative” (“90% confidence”- which itself is a bit too low) estimate levels – often increasing to ludicrous levels. If “updates” markedly increase the amount of unknown ancestry at reasonable confidence levels, then this is strong evidence that the updates are providing ancestry estimates that are less accurate than those preceding.  How could it be otherwise? By introducing parental populations that are more distant from customers’ actual ancestral backgrounds, in the context of refusing to increase the appropriate parental population representation for those customers, of course the results will be less accurate, with less of the genome being reliably assigned at higher levels of confidence. The more the parental populations are unrepresentative of the customer, the less likely they will fit the data at the highest confidence level – hence, “unassigned ancestry.”

Anyone getting over 20-25% “unassigned” at the 90% level should view their results with extreme skepticism.  What if it is over 40%?  That is in my opinion essentially useless.  And what about levels exceeding 50% (!) – and some of them (believe it or not) do?  That is in my opinion a tragicomic embarrassment. That’s what one could expect if one tried to represent, say, Russians using some English reference samples and an increasing Japanese reference database. That the company actually releases data with such high “unassigned” levels is shocking.  If person A has an “unassigned” (at 90% confidence) of, say, 5-15% (or less) and someone else has 40-55% (or more) – how can you possibly equate the validity of those two sets of data?  In some cases, the differences are at the level of an order of magnitude.  

Note to testing companies: More references samples from Europe. Many, many more, covering ALL areas.  Most of your customers are of European origins.  You need high level coverage from throughout Europe, all of Europe, before you do your SJW sampling of other areas to satisfy the diversity-mongers.  Get all of Europe covered before you handle those Egyptians, Tibetans, Nepalese, Martians, Neptunians, or whatever. Your customers are your customers, not SJWs screeching about “diversity” in reference populations. You want “diversity?”  First start with Europe.

ALL of your customers should have “unassigned” in the low range at 90% confidence – not just those with “parental privilege.” And even for those latter customers, who are much better off than the others, the results are still suboptimal.  Consider Derbyshire’s data, which is not fully matching his actual ethnic ancestry; however, at least Northwest Europeans fall within the correct sub-region, even if national-ethnic affiliations are not always on target. The swarthoids and slavoids often do not get even that.

For now, 23andMe may be useful for the raw data (that can in theory be used for kinship analysis, which is biopolitically relevant) as well as the health data. The ancestry testing is laughable.  And, by the way, the “timeline” feature is a bad joke, based as it is on the flawed “chromosome painting” and consequent ancestry estimates. Note to company geniuses: Just because you model someone’s ancestry with your limited and inappropriate reference parental samples, does NOT mean their actual ancestry derives from those sources, so that you can “time” when that non-existent ancestry entered their ancestral line (shown to be ludicrously – and objectively mistaken – recently).

Going back to the Russian (23andMe) customer scenario, let’s model it differently for the sake of illustration. In one scenario, there are no Russian reference (parental) samples, only Germans and Central Asians.  At 50% confidence, the Russian would likely be represented as mostly German but with a significant Central Asian ancestral component.  At the low level of 50% (!) confidence, some chromosome fragments would seem slightly more Central Asian than German and would be assigned thus – it’s only at the coin-flip level of confidence, remember.  At 90% confidence, likely 40-50+% of the chromosome fragments, and hence the ancestry, would be “unassigned” – since at that more reasonable level of confidence, many of the chromosome fragments do not at all match either German or Central Asian. Of the remainder, most would be German, with a small minority of Central Asian. What if the Central Asian reference population was suddenly increased with more samples – increasing the chances that at 50% confidence a match was more likely with some new Central Asian sample than with the original German parental samples?  The Central Asian proportion of the Russian customer’s “results” would be increased at 50% confidence, and the “unassigned” would increase at 90% confidence – the latter occurring because these new results are actually less accurate than the preceding. Thus, at 90% confidence, the chromosomal fragments are not matching these new Central Asian samples. What if the parental populations were Sardinian and Central Asian? Likely the Central Asian component would be larger at 50% confidence than with the German and Central Asian parentals, since Russians are more genetically distant from Sardinians than they are to Germans. And here, with Sardinian parentals, the “unassigned” at 90% confidence would be even larger than with the German parentals.

Now, let’s do another scenario.  Here, there is a large and very comprehensive Russian parental population – many reference samples from ethnic Russians from all parts of Russia. What happens then? This same Russian customer – the same individual with the same genome – is now represented as being overwhelmingly Russian (and since Russian would be considered “European” by the company labeling, the customer would be so labeled), with only smaller amounts of other ancestries (since the customer may not be an exact fit to the co-ethnic reference samples). Note that the results from the two scenarios would be completely, utterly different. Also, in the latter scenario, at 90% confidence, the “unassigned” percentage would be low, since there would be a good fit between the Russian customer’s chromosome fragments and a large and comprehensive Russian reference population.

Consider another scenario.  Imagine if “German” was defined only by samples from North Germany. A Bavarian at 50% confidence might be mostly German but with a strong minority of other ancestries, with a hefty “unassigned” at 90% confidence. If “German” was subsequently redefined to also include many South German/Bavarian samples, then the Bavarian would see his German results greatly increase and his “unassigned” decrease.  

This isn’t rocket science or nuclear physics.  When you identify ancestral components by comparison to reference samples, then the composition of those references will of course determine the outcome of the ancestry determination. The accuracy of that determination can be ascertained by how much of the ancestry is “unassigned” at higher levels of confidence.

Can you believe this petty, puerile, and utterly childish attack on Spencer, coming from – surprise! – the obsessives of Counter-Currents.  That’s an embarrassment.  I suppose though it is a useful distraction from the real criticisms of Spencer and of the Alt Right that would hit too close to home to those currently attacking Spencer for talking about hamburgers.  After all, those screaming “Kek” (figuratively and/or literally) three years ago would like to pretend it never happened.

Comments on the comments: 

Ivan White
Posted November 26, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

Spencer might not be a great leader…

Better: “Spencer might not be a leader…”

…but he is certainly a brave man that has risked his money and personal safety for Our People. He deserves some recognition for that.

I agree.  I have never questioned his physical courage. As far as money goes, I don’t know his personal circumstances – indications are that he is from a very wealthy family, but who knows what he has personally.

I do not know the writer of this piece…

All you have to do is click on his name on the side-bar.  Is that so difficult?

…but I get the feeling he has a personal grudge against Spencer.

Welcome to Counter-Currents.

Maybe the writer is a Groyper…

Groper maybe…for all those young lads in “rainbow thongs?”

…which is ironic considering Greg Johnson is one of the few people in the movement that uses the term “White Nationalist”. Isn’t that bad optics?

Ah…he’s a “white advocate” now.

John Wilkinson
Posted November 26, 2019 at 3:45 am | Permalink

I’ll have a Faustian burger with a side of pan-European fried potatoes, please.

No, I’ll have a Traditionalist burger with a side of ethnonationalist fried potatoes, please – in Hungary, even though I’m not Hungarian.  Chow down! (Morgan salivates)

Samuel Nock
Posted November 25, 2019 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

It appears to have been flushed down the Internet memory hole, but a few years back there was a quite funny meme consisting of the below-linked photograph with thought bubbles above each person as follows:
Brimelow thought bubble: image of Ronald Reagan
Derbyshire thought bubble: image of a young Asian woman
Taylor thought bubble: ‘they look Hwhite to me’
Sam Dickson thought bubble: image of a frosted donut
Richard Spencer thought bubble: image picturing himself as Bond in tuxedo with gun

That’s about right…but Brimelow would be more appropriately thinking about depositing money into a Happy Penguins account.

See this.  Emphasis added:

…universities threw open the gates, admitting Jews, women, blacks, other races, cripples, and sexual deviants. Since these people do not belong at university…He goes out of his way to bemoan the fact that as women become professors, the profession becomes devalued. He notes that there’s a general pattern that as women are pushed into jobs previously done by men, the market devalues those same jobs – almost as if the market were correcting for falling standards.

But, but, but…Joan of Arc!

Real professors ascend through a hierarchy and are eligible for tenure, which means job security for life. 

Actually, real tenure is becoming increasingly scarce in academia.  It may exist in some tangible form at some of the top universities, no doubt, as well as at some lower level institutions desperate to attract and retain anyone, but, in general, it’s becoming more and more an empty honorific, and in those cases certainly does not mean “job security for life.”

See this.  But it is not only about adjuncts. Full time faculty either are being not offered tenure track or the “tenure” offered is the equivalent of “job well done, here’s another title for you” but has zero practical meaning.

Once again: Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

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,, 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.).