Category: admixture

Racial Purity and EGI

The following was posted on a Maltese discussion site.

Please read this.

Leftists and other critics of racialism typically like to make the argument that past admixture in a group is a reason why it is “silly” and “unreasonable” for that group to wish to maintain its existence as a distinct biological and cultural unit, eschewing immigration and admixture with alien peoples today and in the future.

In the essay linked to above I explain why racial purity is a myth and why it is wrong to claim that a group purported to have past “admixture” cannot avoid immigrant influxes and further admixture. That claim is nonsense; every group, whatever its origins, has a right to defend its interests, has a right to repel unwanted outsiders, and has the right to determine its ethnic future. The possibility of past admixture – real or imagined – does not obligate any group to open its borders to any comers, and does not obligate a group to let itself become dispossessed by foreigners and admixed out of existence.

Every group – going back in the mists of time – is composed of other past groups, mixtures of ancient tribes and more recent incursions – that does not alter the fact of the existence of these different current groups, each with their own histories, their own characteristics, and their own interests.  These past mixtures are part and parcel of what today’s groups are and this past cannot be changed even if we wanted to.  But groups can determine their future.  Ethnic genetic interests are thus always forward-looking, groups today have their genetic interests based upon what they are today, looking forward to their posterity in the future.  Past admixture, to the extent it occurred, was a concern for the peoples of those times.  The people of today have their own concerns, for the present and the future. 
Ultimately, what is important is not a non-existent purity but the existence of difference and distinctiveness.  That groups are different and distinct from each other is sufficient reason to wish to preserve those differences and to safeguard that distinctiveness; purity has nothing to do with it.  A family unit that strives to pursue its interests does so because it is a family, not because someone has labeled that family as “pure” or “impure.”  It is enough that the family exists, different from others.  As for families, so similarly for nations and races.

Consider a nation like the Dominican Republic. Genetic studies suggest that ~ 40% of the Dominican gene pool is derived from sub-Saharan Africans (with about 52% European and 8% Amerindian).  The typical Dominican, on average, is therefore a mulatto with some Amerindian mixed in as well.  What does this mean politically?  Should Dominicans then welcome an invasion of millions of, say, Nigerians or Haitians?  No.  Does it obligate them to further admixture? No, it does not. The Dominican people have the right to control the ethnic and racial makeup of their nation and decide what they want for their racial and cultural future.  Past admixture does not obligate future admixture nor does it obligate for or against any type of immigration policy.

Now, if that holds for a nation that exhibits a large degree of admixture, then it certainly holds for the nations of Europe where any admixture is going to be at least an order of magnitude less and most typically of ancient origin.  

In any case, the Maltese are a European people.  In PCA analyses (for whatever they are worth), Maltese are found in the same general genetic location as Southern Italians and Greeks.  The Maltese, like all other peoples, have the right to safeguard their biological and cultural uniqueness and to determine the future direction of their ethnic evolution. 

Moronic suggestions that “you are already admixed, so why not mix more” are thus revealed as empty sophistry.  Indeed, by that logic, humans should take no pains to prevent microbial infection or even to practice basic hygiene – after all, aren’t our bodies already infested with various microbes and mites?  We have intestinal bacteria – so why not the bubonic plague as well?

Tomahotep?

And other news.
This is really moronic:

We have characterized the Y chromosome carried by President Thomas Jefferson, the general rarity of which supported the idea that he, or a patrilineal relative, fathered the last son of his slave Sally Hemings. It belongs to haplogroup K2, a lineage representing only ∼1% of chromosomes worldwide, and most common in East Africa and the Middle East. Phylogenetic network analysis of its Y‐STR (short tandem repeat) haplotype shows that it is most closely related to an Egyptian K2 haplotype, but the presence of scattered and diverse European haplotypes within the network is nonetheless consistent with Jefferson’s patrilineage belonging to an ancient and rare indigenous European type. This is supported by the observation that two of 85 unrelated British men sharing the surname Jefferson also share the President’s Y‐STR haplotype within haplogroup K2. Our findings represent a cautionary tale in showing the difficulty of assigning individual ancestry based on a Y‐chromosome haplotype, particularly for rare lineages where population data are scarce. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2007. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Any “movement” fetishist couldn’t do “better.”  Jefferson’s NRY is “most common in East Africa and the Middle East. Phylogenetic network analysis of its Y‐STR (short tandem repeat) haplotype shows that it is most closely related to an Egyptian K2 haplotype” but it is also at the same time “an ancient and rare indigenous European type” because “two of 85 unrelated British men sharing the surname Jefferson also share the President’s Y‐STR haplotype within haplogroup K2.”  Err, why isn’t that simply low level admixture?  If this was in Southern (or Eastern) Europe you damn well know the presence of K2 would be ascribed to admixture and not, mysteriously, to “an ancient and rare indigenous European type” that just so happens to “most closely related to an Egyptian K2 haplotype.”  Occam’s Butterknife!  

The only thing here of worth is the obvious – ” a cautionary tale in showing the difficulty of assigning individual ancestry based on a Y‐chromosome haplotype, particularly for rare lineages where population data are scarce.”
Notice that Jobling changes his tune a bit here:

The fact that K2 is common in the Middle East, however, raises the possibility that Jefferson had a Jewish ancestor, Dr. Jobling said. Jewish Y chromosomes resemble those of Middle Eastern peoples, and the Jewish Diaspora is one way Middle Eastern chromosomes entered Europe.

Population genetics is, by far, the most politicized branch of science there is.  Most such papers, in my opinion, some sort of discernible bias (in some cases, likely covert and subconscious, but in other cases, very overt and intentional).

In any case, what’s good for the Nordish goose is good for the Swarthoid gander.  From now on, any genetic indications of non-European admixture in any European individuals or populations should simply be ascribed to “an ancient and rare indigenous European type.” QED.

Duchesne is drinking the HBD-Nordicism Kool-Aid.  Does Duchesne really believe this:

A fair criticism, which I am sure MacDonald would welcome, is that much research is still required in support of the thesis…

Does he really believe that HBDers welcome criticism, or want research on their theses?  
We can ask how real is that fundamental thesis?  The Y axis here calls that into question.
Even if the overall thesis has some validity, is it really genetic?  Are the traits stable in particular ethnies, generation after generation in a novel environment such as America?
Why are the Irish – who in their basic ancestral components are not very significantly different than other Northwestern European peoples – “Outer Hajnal” while their neighbors in Northwest Europe, of similar WHG-Steppe-Farmer proportions, are “Inner Hajnal?”  
Is asking these questions akin to blasphemy?

Are there any alternative explanations?

Any, anyway, if these guys really believe this thesis, then shouldn’t we have some of  those “moderately collectivist” swarthoids managing European interests? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue that Northern Europeans are uniquely evolved to hyper-individualism that is harming White interests and then, at the same time, support an affirmative action program that has only those people as leaders of pro-White activism.

Odds and Ends, 6/21/20

In der news. In all cases, emphasis added.
Another example of how ethnonationalists ruin everything they touch:

1999, a manifesto of a second ‘European Liberation Front’ was published in Paris, but there is apparently no more active organisation of that name now. The manifesto takes its ideological inspiration from Yockey, and from Otto Strasser, who was expelled from the Nazi Party by Adolf Hitler in 1930.

Despite the pan-European style of its title, the ideology of the manifesto is ethnic and racial nationalism

Take over the name of Yockey’s organization and then promote an opposing ideology.  Very good!  Hail Der Movement!

Authentic pan-Europeanism does not exist in any organization of which I am aware over the last 50 years or more, except Lowell’s in Malta.

Forney on Spencer Part I.Part II.
Note that I do not agree on Forney on all his comments, but, nevertheless, the rank-and-file needs to understand where their affirmative action program leads.  I also find Forney’s glee at Spencer’s problems unseemly.  It is not funny, it is a tragedy.  I don’t care about Spencer himself, but we all need to realize that the White public – you know, the folks that your “movement” wants to recruit from – do not make fine distinctions between Spencer, Johnson, Forney, Taylor et al.  It’s all one.  Spencer’s downfall therefore reflects badly on the entirety of racial activism in the public “mind.”  
That downfall, ultimately, derives from the lack of judgment of “movement” “elites.”  Spencer should never have been allowed to be the head of NPI in the first place; that position should have gone to an older individual with more experience, maturity, and gravitas. Spencer should instead have been groomed for electoral politics, as the smiling young face of the Far Right, with mature adults as his behind-the-scenes handlers. 
The past cannot be changed. But going forward, the affirmative program needs to be eliminated.  That is step one.  It’s not a case of a single rotten apple that needs to be gotten rid of, it’s a whole case.  And as soon as one apple becomes so horribly decayed that it is thrown out, another one joins in. The entire crate needs to be thrown out, and the entire process of picking rotten apples changed.

A sincere man of genuine greatness.

Glad to see we got dem dere Republican conservative judges like “Earl Warren Jr.” Roberts there.

I’m no fan of Rushton, but the retraction of his hypothesis paper was unfair and disgusting, and I agree with this analysis, which is a refutation of leftist hysteria that helped get the paper unfairly retracted.  I also agree with the analysis in that the author of the leftist attack on Rushton-Templar doesn’t understand what pleiotropy is, possibly confusing it with epistasis (or who knows what).  I am also amused by the leftist critique of Rushton-Templar for having a “political bias.” Hoho!  What about the leftist critic’s bias?  Would he care to inform us on his views on say, race in America?  What’s his party affiliation?  Who did he vote for in 2016? What about, say, Lewontin’s biases?  Any comments on that?
If the Rushton-Templar paper was inherently flawed – even as a hypothesis – and this somehow escaped the notice of the reviewers at that time, then the appropriate response is to write a paper (for publication) refuting the Rushton-Templar logic and/or do studies that produce data refuting the Rushton-Templar hypothesis. Retracting the paper is politically motivated censorship, leading us to a scientific dark ages. The retraction is a disgrace.

Hey, it’s time for Trump to tweet LAW AND ORDER!  That’ll fix it.  Fat Don is like, you know, demonstrating his sincerity and his genuine greatness!

I was looking at Amazon reviews of Robert Griffin’s One Sheaf One Vine book, of interest to me since I am one of the people featured in it.  Two excerpts from the comments I found amusing:

1. Interesting anthropological study. Nothing really new here, but contains only interview available of Alex Linder. No other interviews with people who would go on to become personages. 

That’s a stinging rebuke of my lack of accomplishment I suppose.

2. Another observation I make, is that none of the people in the book, offer any solutions to the racial problems they criticize. In numerous cases, they simply flee those high-‘diversity’ problems by moving to other, whiter states. But none of them seem to envision the new domiciles undergoing future change.

Let’s see.  I spend a significant portion of my interview talking about practical things that should be done.  So it would seem that this individual lacks any reading comprehension skills whatsoever.  As well, with respect to the second half of the criticism, I’m not one of the “numerous cases” since that’s nowhere in my section.
Also interesting is that if you search on Amazon for a book like this, you get “suggested reading” consisting of a host of anti-White diatribes.  Like Google, Amazon is another company I am going to personally “deplatform” from any spending.

Thus in summary: Sallis right, Johnson wrong.

Kevin Strom:

The purpose of the race that is is to bring into being the race that is to come. Let’s concentrate on that. Let’s concentrate on being the ones who decide that.I have been in this cause of ours for nearly 40 years. I have seen and heard and read so much wasted verbiage about why Russians or eastern Europeans generally, or southern Europeans generally, or even other odd subracial or national combinations should be read out of the White race. I have heard it all, please don’t repeat it to me. I’m sick of it.
The group or groups which coalesce to save our endangered race will be the ones who determine its genetic future. Beyond the obvious aesthetic that we know White when we see it, and a future that can include (but not be totally ruled by) accurate genetic testing, that’s all we need to know. If the White future is primarily Russian or Hungarian, so be it. If the White future is primarily pan-European American with strong German, Anglo, and Irish components, so be it. If the White future is predominantly Greek or Italian or Bulgarian or Nordic, so be it. None of us are in a position to pick and choose right now, nor does such picking and choosing make sense during this crisis.
Let’s just admit that every single group and sub-group of Europeans has racially devolved — due to dysgenics, due to genetic drift, due to past mixtures. Let’s just admit that every single White nationality could be — and, if we have anything to say about it, will be — helped by a healthy dose of eugenics.
But never forget this: We are targeted and marked for death as Whites. It is as Whites — not as dolichocephalic Red Nordids, or Paleo-Atlantids, or western Europeans only — that we must become awakened and fight back.

Very good; I obviously agree.  But then Strom has to admit that much of the work of Pierce and of the National Alliance was and is de facto opposed to that pan-European view. As regards Pierce accepting people with fractional Amerindian ancestry (and Pierce’s gibbering about “Caucasian” Amerindian tribes is nonsense – whatever their appearance, they are racial aliens from Asia), we must remember that the “Indian princess” stories – real or imagined – typically derive from “Nordish” Anglo-Americans. They’ve always gotten a “pass” for that – the “Pace Amendment” for example.

By the way, even Yockey himself wasn’t immune to a touch of Nordicism, with respect to his rhapsodizing about “Northern barbarians” in both Imperium and, more especially, Thoughts Personal and Superpersonal. I suppose we can forgive Yockey for that lapse, since the broader “movement” he derives from has always been marinated in Nordicism, but it is rather hypocritical of him given his pontifications about horizontal vs. vertical race.  And what would he think today, with all of the “Northern Barbarians” being the biggest race cucks of them all?

And by the way, Yockeyites past and present should know that The Doctrine of Fascism they so admire was really written by Giovanni Gentile, not Benito Mussolini.  But Gentile was one of those two foot tall superstitious Sicilians who so vexed Humphrey Ireland, so who cares about facts?

Newly discovered!  A film clip of Humphrey Ireland being overwhelmed by the scurrying Sicilian hordes.

Contra “Admixture” Testing Redux

Food for thought.

More evidence in support of Sallis’ critiques of “admixture” testing.

Hellenthal et al, 2014 estimated from data of 94 modern populations a couple of analyses on Bulgarians inferred from an admixture event in 1000-1600 YBP between a Slavic and a Cypriot donor group: to a Polish donor group Bulgarians are of an estimated 59% Polish-like and 41% Cypriot-like admixture; to a Belarusian, Bulgarians are of 46% Belorussian-like and 54% Cypriot-like admixture.

It should be clear to the triple digit IQ crowd that Bulgarians are not literally a mix of 59% Polish and 41% Cypriot or 46% Belorussian and 54% Cypriot. The weasel word “like” gives a clue here (e.g., “Polish-like” instead of “Polish”). These data merely suggest that Bulgarian genomes could in theory be modeled as such mixtures given those specific options as parental reference populations; if other reference populations were chosen, the results would of course be different (note here how the levels of the “Cypriot-like” component changes dependent upon whether “Polish-like” or “Belorussian-like” is chosen as the other component). This is merely modeling (what current “admixture testing” is for the most part); it is not meant as a literal reading of ethnic history. And if the authors of the paper did in fact have the intention of it being literal in the sense quoted above, then they are being absurd.

Also note how different studies give significantly varied results and interpretations – about the same studied genomes. This also clearly demonstrates that study methodology (foremost among which is the choice of reference populations), and bias with respect to interpretation, color the reported findings

Extend this to commercially available “testing.” If a Bulgarian reference population was used, then ethnic Bulgarians would test as, say, 95-100% “Bulgarian” (dependent upon how closely their genomes match that of their co-ethnics chosen as the parentals). If, however, Poles, Belorussians, and Cypriots were chosen as the parentals, then results would likely mirror the modeling of Hellental et al. Companies also interpret these data differently. 23andMe, for some bizarre reason, would place Cypriots as “West Asian” while at the same time labelling Ashkenazi Jews as “European;” in contrast Living DNA is labelling Cypriots as (Southern) European.
We can see the problems here. Unfortunately, semi-retarded simpletons who spontaneously ejaculate over “testing” results do not see the (quite obvious) problems.