Category: admixture

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.

More Durocher, 8/4/19

Further exposing the dishonest fraud.

 

Following up on my earlier post from today, let’s consider more about Durocher.  Laughably, Durocher is so excited about admixture in Southern Europe that he cannot even write a coherent English sentence:

This is in line with other studies finding their Europeans in the far south tend to be closer genetically to their North African or Middle-Eastern neighbors.

That can be interpreted in two different ways.  First, it can mean that if one were to compare Northern, Eastern, and Southern Europeans to North Africans and Middle Easterners, then the Southern Europeans are going to be “closer genetically” to North Africans and Middle Easterners than Northern or Eastern Europeans are. That’s of course true and expected given clines of gene frequencies (we will for the moment ignore what the results would be if we were to substitute “Siberians and East Asians” for “North Africans and Middle Easterners”).   Second, it can mean that Southern Europeans are “closer genetically to their North African or Middle-Eastern neighbors” than they are to other Europeans, which is of course false, and Durocher must know it is false.  Genetic kinship analysis – unfortunately only performed at this time by private entities because population geneticists ignore such studies – shows it be false, and Fst, which is performed by population geneticists, shows the same.  Unless Durocher believes that Southern Europeans are predominantly North African and Middle Eastern (and I do not believe that even he would have the temerity to push that lie), then obviously it is false.

But there’s more.  The study that Durocher cites was already discussed at this blog, see here (emphasis added).

Note that Germans are being used as the European component representative for the admixture analysis, and despite that, Northern and Central European populations are still getting percentages ascribed to “Saharawi” and “Qatari” components.  Given clinal gene frequencies, it is not surprising that Southern European populations are modeled as having North African and Near Eastern ancestral components compared to Germans, but what to make of, for example, such ancestry in Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, and the Irish?  I presume that Der Movement does not believe that such populations have any modern admixture from North African or Near Eastern sources. Therefore, the findings for those populations are artifacts from the modeling, ancient admixture, or both.  If that is so, then any “real” modern admixture in the Southern European populations has to be whatever small percentages in excess of that found in Northern and Central Europe, and even there, the clinal gene frequency issue has to be considered.  The same principles hold for the modeling in the preprint discussed above.

Durocher is aware of my work and of this blog, and yet he continues to promote his lies.  That tells you what you need to know about his character, or the lack thereof.

See this.The relevant table from the paper was put up as a comment on his own post, but Durocher ignores it. 100% dishonest fraud.

By the way, this blog has already discussed, years ago, the possible political and social implications of greater genetic heterogeneity in Southern Europe; so Durocher trying to imply that such insights are novel on his part is another lie.

The Wile E Coyote Theory of Racial Admixture in Europe

No line drawn on the European continent.

The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe, with one ancestral population related to present-day Basques and Sardinians and the other related to present-day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas.

Me Chinese, me make joke, me draw runes on my can of coke.

Some more.  Less in the Northwest than the Northeast, but there’s still some.

Now, no doubt there’s going to be a bit more non-European admixture – and here I refer to real admixture, not artefactual admixture resulting from limited choices of parental populations in ancestry testing – in the South and East of Europe than in the more isolated Northwest of Europe.  But it is a matter of degree (and of kind), not of a binary yes/no.

The fetishists envision racial admixture in Europe sort of like Wile E Coyote painting a line on a road. They imagine some sort of magical, mysterious line drawn through the European continent, so that on one side of the line you have absolute racial purity going back through the mists of time, and on the other side, the populations are all heavily-mixed cringing colored subhumans. However, racial and genetic reality doesn’t work that way. There are qualitative and quantitative differences in admixture, but not absolutes of zero vs. large. It’s relatively low throughout Europe, with a bit more in some areas, and of different types.

Particularly this – if for no other reason – demonstrates the impossibility of absolute purity.  And there are other reasons – various influxes shown by population genetics – that result in low levels of real admixture.  But this is not all found on only one side of Wile E Coyote’s line.

 

That devil Forrest!  Read this. 

At a Chinese Labor Convention held in Memphis, Tennessee in 1869, Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest pledged $5000 to bring in 1,000 Chinese workers.

An HBDer? Or maybe he was a Silker – he wanted some black-booted Chinese girls with guns guarding the borders of his plantation.

Or maybe he thought they were relatives, who knows?  Ethnic nepotism!

No, no, a thousand times no!  Too many carbs there!  Eat instead dem dere Big Macs and bacon-wrapped beefsteaks, washed down by gallons of full-fat milk!  What’s a little bariatric surgery and Da Vinci prostate surgery between friends?

 

The South Asian-Hispanic alliance.  Brown is a brown does.

Remember the EGI Notes paradigm: The existential meaning of Asians is hatred of Whites and of the West.  Would Sallis ever steer you wrong?  

Mote and Beam

In der news.

Nordicists think alike:

Durocher – “Individual and ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.”

Ash Donaldson – “I seem to have struck an emotional nerve with you and a few others.”

These no-character specimens love to use psychological projection. In fact, THEY are the ones who are so emotionally over-sensitive they avoid facts – including peer-reviewed published scientific papers – that absolutely refute their beliefs, and THEY are the ones who refuse to acknowledge similar published work indicating racial admixture in their favorite European ethnic groups.  They engage in the most unethical and fundamentally dishonest gaslighting imaginable – peddling lies as “truth,” mocking those who expose their lies as “emotionally sensitive,” while hysterically omitting any mention of published data that demonstrates the falsehood of their own doctrine.  

Perhaps Der Movement should stop agonizing so much over this picture, and start worrying more about this one.  Mote and beam, eh?  Let’s not strike any emotional nerves, shall we? After all, Siberian/East Asian-derived ethnic amour-propre is a powerful motivator in the face of emotionally hurtful facts and hypotheses.

See this.

THIS MONTH marks the 50th anniversary of the publication in The American Mercury of Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver’s After Fifty Years, in which he assesses the near-total failure, over the previous half-century, of White Americans to keep their freedoms and their country as of the year 1969. After Fifty Years was not only an article: It was also made into a short film narrated by Dr. Oliver, made to coincide with the launch of the National Youth Alliance, predecessor organization to the National Alliance, one of the sponsors of this program. Within the next month, too, it will be 25 years — a quarter century — since we lost this great man.

Over the next few weeks, we will be introducing you to the masterful works of Revilo Oliver, and then we will be re-assessing the situation facing our people, another half-century on, under the title After 100 Years.

I do not know whether it is a coincidence or not, but, in any case, I’m gratified that, after I challenged Strom about Revilo Oliver’s After Fifty Years and what Strom’s group proposes to do to end the endless cycle of “movement” failure, this series of works are planned. Let’s see what happens.

We should stop spending money on Colored parasites and wars for Israel, and spend more on our nuclear deterrent and on space exploration.

Instead of blaming health problems on “Big Pharma” vaccinations, perhaps you should pin more blame on “Big Food Companies” and the fatsos with no self-discipline to stop stuffing their faces and guzzling sugary drinks and beer.

The weakling fraud backs down again.  He’ll monitor the situation!

If women are naturally eugenic then how did Spencer reproduce?  Seriously though, I’d advise Richard to worry less about some micro-dwarf being tackled in a bagel shop and worry more about his own devastating failures of leadership. In that manner, we may observe some improvement as he moves through his 40s.

Race and Movement News, 7/13/19

In der news.

Another good Taylor video. I had to laugh about the “warpath” part.

Excerpts from another “emotional nerve” comment left at the HBD “West Coast White nationalist” Counter-Currents site,  emphasis added:

The problem is, aside from cattiness, that they always feel the need to bring up Greeks (ancient only, for they know not a thing about any other era, and really, they know very little of even the ancient ones), Italians (they are ESPECIALLY and GLEEFULLY brutal to Italians), Spaniards/Portuguese, etc. Why not just leave it out and just STFU about them? You cannot prove your point with repeating lies about meds (or slavs)???? Really, you can’t?

“……….Pan-Europeanism is our only way out.”

It can’t work BECAUSE of this BS.

@Ash
“I seem to have struck an emotional nerve with you and a few others.”

Typical response really. When a repeater of nordypoo nonsense is called out, always surprised that meds dare to take their own side in a fight, there is talk of “emotion.” But my dear, dear Ash, there was no need to repeat that lie. The whole post could’ve been done without that usual, tired, jealous jab. I understand that nordies feel put upon and cowed by non-whites and anti-white propaganda; but they always try to pump themselves up by ripping on meds and slavs, who played no part in that propaganda, do not attack nordies at all and are not anti-nordy….so WTF?????? Such catty swipes seem to be currency in these circles.

I agree with all of that, and it is good some folks have answered the original inane post. Certainly, the fetishists have a particular sweaty animus toward (Southern) Italians – to them, several rungs below Negroes and Australian Aboriginals on the racial scale.  And the indirect allusion to Sallis’ Law is always correct – Der Movement will always bring up their attacks against Southern (and Eastern) Europeans regardless of the context. If “Ash Donaldson” wrote an article about the weather, or the price of milk, or the design attributes of the Atlas ICBM, or whatever…there would have to be the obligatory mention of admixture in Southern (and/or Eastern) Europe. What self-respecting “movement” post would be without it?

And I agree, pan-Europeanism is not going to work as long as there are people who openly lie about racial history and population genetics to fuel their obsessive dogma, which they proselytize with all the fervor of a crazed priest of the Spanish Inquisition or a modern-day cultist.

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Larry Scott, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…..

We’ve certainly come a long way since the days of Christy Mathewson, eh?

Di, Di, Di…versiteeee…

Genes and Health in Der News

In all cases, emphasis added.

But, but, but….I thought we were all exactly the same:

The inclusion of diverse ancestries in the present meta-analyses allowed us to identify two loci that would have been missed in meta-analyses of European-ancestry individuals alone. In particular, the lead variant (rs141588480) in the SNTA1 locus is only polymorphic in African and Hispanic ancestries, and the lead variant (rs190748049) in the CNTNAP2 locus is four times more frequent in African-ancestry than in European-ancestry. Our findings highlight the importance of multi-ancestry investigations of gene-lifestyle interactions to identify novel loci.

Comparing admixed Latin Americans to the Finnish population isolate: 

Most population isolates examined to date were founded from a single ancestral population. Consequently, there is limited knowledge about the demographic history of admixed population isolates. Here we investigate genomic diversity of recently admixed population isolates from Costa Rica and Colombia and compare their diversity to a benchmark population isolate, the Finnish. These Latin American isolates originated during the 16th century from admixture between a few hundred European males and Amerindian females, with a limited contribution from African founders. We examine whole-genome sequence data from 449 individuals, ascertained as families to build mutigenerational pedigrees, with a mean sequencing depth of coverage of approximately 36×. We find that Latin American isolates have increased genetic diversity relative to the Finnish. However, there is an increase in the amount of identity by descent (IBD) segments in the Latin American isolates relative to the Finnish. The increase in IBD segments is likely a consequence of a very recent and severe population bottleneck during the founding of the admixed population isolates. Furthermore, the proportion of the genome that falls within a long run of homozygosity (ROH) in Costa Rican and Colombian individuals is significantly greater than that in the Finnish, suggesting more recent consanguinity in the Latin American isolates relative to that seen in the Finnish. Lastly, we find that recent consanguinity increased the number of deleterious variants found in the homozygous state, which is relevant if deleterious variants are recessive. Our study suggests that there is no single genetic signature of a population isolate.

Alon Ziv weeps.  In this case, the more admixed populations, with their bottlenecks and consanguinity, have significant stretches of homozygosity and more deleterious alleles than the more isolated Finns.  So, “increased genetic diversity” does not necessarily equate to fewer deleterious alleles.  And all of this doesn’t even consider outbreeding depression from breaking up coadapted gene complexes.

Alcohol consumption, SNPs, and ancestry:

Alcohol consumption is a complex trait determined by both genetic and environmental factors, and is correlated with the risk of alcohol use disorders. Although a small number of genetic loci have been reported to be associated with variation in alcohol consumption, genetic factors are estimated to explain about half of the variance in alcohol consumption, suggesting that additional loci remain to be discovered. We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of alcohol consumption in the large Genetic Epidemiology Research in Adult Health and Aging (GERA) cohort, in four race/ethnicity groups: non-Hispanic whites, Hispanic/Latinos, East Asians and African Americans. We examined two statistically independent phenotypes reflecting subjects’ alcohol consumption during the past year, based on self-reported information: any alcohol intake (drinker/non-drinker status) and the regular quantity of drinks consumed per week (drinks/week) among drinkers. We assessed these two alcohol consumption phenotypes in each race/ethnicity group, and in a combined trans-ethnic meta-analysis comprising a total of 86 627 individuals. We observed the strongest association between the previously reported single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs671 in ALDH2 and alcohol drinker status (odd ratio (OR)=0.40, P=2.28 × 10-72) in East Asians, and also an effect on drinks/week (beta=-0.17, P=5.42 × 10-4) in the same group. We also observed a genome-wide significant association in non-Hispanic whites between the previously reported SNP rs1229984 in ADH1B and both alcohol consumption phenotypes (OR=0.79, P=2.47 × 10-20 for drinker status and beta=-0.19, P=1.91 × 10-35 for drinks/week), which replicated in Hispanic/Latinos (OR=0.72, P=4.35 × 10-7 and beta=-0.21, P=2.58 × 10-6, respectively). Although prior studies reported effects of ADH1B and ALDH2 on lifetime measures, such as risk of alcohol dependence, our study adds further evidence of the effect of the same genes on a cross-sectional measure of average drinking. Our trans-ethnic meta-analysis confirmed recent findings implicating the KLB and GCKR loci in alcohol consumption, with strongest associations observed for rs7686419 (beta=-0.04, P=3.41 × 10-10 for drinks/week and OR=0.96, P=4.08 × 10-5 for drinker status), and rs4665985 (beta=0.04, P=2.26 × 10-8 for drinks/week and OR=1.04, P=5 × 10-4 for drinker status), respectively. Finally, we also obtained confirmatory results extending previous findings implicating AUTS2, SGOL1 and SERPINC1 genes in alcohol consumption traits in non-Hispanic whites.

Jews and Europeans have, apparently, been enemies from the very beginning.

As members of Der Movement agonize over those dastardly “Big Pharma products” violating our precious bodily fluids via injection (the horrors of vaccination!  Louis Pasteur the cryptic Jew!  Jew doctors!), the real threat to White health is that that the average White has a BMI rivalling that of a black hole singularity. That is why diseases like Type 2 Diabetes are increasing in frequency, including among the young. But, hey, those needles are real scary and all.  Big Pharma!  Big Pharma!  Pass another Big Mac, please.