Category: genetic variation

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.).  

Advertisements

We Are Not All the Same

Genes, Race, IQ, and disease.

One refutation of Lynn, and three papers with emphasis added.

Refuting Lynn, refuting the Alt Wrong/Alt Yellow.  Amren weeps.

Read here.

BACKGROUND:
Although cell lines are an essential resource for studying cancer biology, many are of unknown ancestral origin, and their use may not be optimal for evaluating the biology of all patient populations.
METHODS:
An admixture analysis was performed using genome-wide chip data from the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) Cell Lines Project to calculate genetic ancestry estimates for 1018 cancer cell lines. After stratifying the analyses by tissue and histology types, linear models were used to evaluate the influence of ancestry on gene expression and somatic mutation frequency.
RESULTS:
For the 701 cell lines with unreported ancestry, 215 were of East Asian origin, 30 were of African or African American origin, and 453 were of European origin. Notable imbalances were observed in ancestral representation across tissue type, with the majority of analyzed tissue types having few cell lines of African American ancestral origin, and with Hispanic and South Asian ancestry being almost entirely absent across all cell lines. In evaluating gene expression across these cell lines, expression levels of the genes neurobeachin line 1 (NBEAL1), solute carrier family 6 member 19 (SLC6A19), HEAT repeat containing 6 (HEATR6), and epithelial cell transforming 2 like (ECT2L) were associated with ancestry. Significant differences were also observed in the proportions of somatic mutation types across cell lines with varying ancestral proportions.
CONCLUSIONS:
By estimating genetic ancestry for 1018 cancer cell lines, the authors have produced a resource that cancer researchers can use to ensure that their cell lines are ancestrally representative of the populations they intend to affect. Furthermore, the novel ancestry-specific signal identified underscores the importance of ancestral awareness when studying cancer.

Racial genetic differences mean that results obtained with cancer cell lines from one race may very well be NOT applicable to other races.  There are indeed racial differences in gene sequences and gene expression, with clinically significant implications for patients.

Read here.

BACKGROUND:
We examined racial differences in the expression of eight genes and their associations with risk of recurrence among 478 white and 495 black women who participated in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase 3.
METHODS:
Breast tumor samples were analyzed for PAM50 subtype and for eight genes previously found to be differentially expressed by race and associated with breast cancer survival: ACOX2, MUC1, FAM177A1, GSTT2, PSPH, PSPHL, SQLE, and TYMS. The expression of these genes according to race was assessed using linear regression and each gene was evaluated in association with recurrence using Cox regression.
RESULTS:
Compared to white women, black women had lower expression of MUC1, a suspected good prognosis gene, and higher expression of GSTT2, PSPHL, SQLE, and TYMS, suspected poor prognosis genes, after adjustment for age and PAM50 subtype. High expression (greater than median versus less than or equal to median) of FAM177A1 and PSPH was associated with a 63% increase (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.09-2.46) and 76% increase (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.15-2.68), respectively, in risk of recurrence after adjustment for age, race, PAM50 subtype, and ROR-PT score. Log2-transformed SQLE expression was associated with a 20% increase (HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.03-1.41) in recurrence risk after adjustment. A continuous multi-gene score comprised of eight genes was also associated with increased risk of recurrence among all women (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.04-1.19) and among white (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03-1.27) and black (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.02-1.20) women.
CONCLUSIONS:
Racial differences in gene expression may contribute to the survival disparity observed between black and white women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Health disparity differences in outcome for breast cancer in White vs. Black women have a genetic basis.

Read this.

Age at menarche (AM) and age at natural menopause (ANM) define the boundaries of the reproductive lifespan in women. Their timing is associated with various diseases, including cancer and cardiovascular disease. Genome-wide association studies have identified several genetic variants associated with either AM or ANM in populations of largely European or Asian descent women. The extent to which these associations generalize to diverse populations remains unknown. Therefore, we sought to replicate previously reported AM and ANM findings and to identify novel AM and ANM variants using the Metabochip (n = 161,098 SNPs) in 4,159 and 1,860 African American women, respectively, in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) studies, as part of the Population Architecture using Genomics and Epidemiology (PAGE) Study. We replicated or generalized one previously identified variant for AM, rs1361108/CENPW, and two variants for ANM, rs897798/BRSK1 and rs769450/APOE, to our African American cohort. Overall, generalization of the majority of previously-identified variants for AM and ANM, including LIN28B and MCM8, was not observed in this African American sample. We identified three novel loci associated with ANM that reached significance after multiple testing correction (LDLR rs189596789, p = 5×10⁻⁰⁸; KCNQ1 rs79972789, p = 1.9×10⁻⁰⁷; COL4A3BP rs181686584, p = 2.9×10⁻⁰⁷). Our most significant AM association was upstream of RSF1, a gene implicated in ovarian and breast cancers (rs11604207, p = 1.6×10⁻⁰⁶). While most associations were identified in either AM or ANM, we did identify genes suggestively associated with both: PHACTR1 and ARHGAP42. The lack of generalization coupled with the potentially novel associations identified here emphasize the need for additional genetic discovery efforts for AM and ANM in diverse populations.

There seems to be genetic differences underlying reproductive lifespan in women of different races.  I hypothesize that Negro females would tend to possess variants promoting earlier reproduction.  Blacks and Hispanics have earlier puberty than Whites.

Ancestral Graphics

A more visual explanation.

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

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


xxXxxxXxxxxXxxx—-xxxxxXxxxXxxxx—xxxxxxXxxxxxxXxx

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

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


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

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

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

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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


Default reporting of such low confidence levels is ludicrous.

Grading the Testers

Best and worst of the worst: A survey of some ancestry testing companies. Introducing the term “parental privilege.”  In all cases, emphasis added.

This is an opinion piece on some examples of the “state-of-the-art” (such as it is) in commercially available ancestry testing; this is not meant to be comprehensive.  I’m not going to discuss online accusations that the companies fudge results to “stick it to racists.”  For the most part I’ll discuss the actual product, with a few words here and there about certain other issues.

Before we begin, let’s take a look at “movement” Type I droolcup commentary:

Tostig 

I think that it is weird how some people clutch at microscopic bits of DNA and pretend that they are something they are not. My DNA is 90% Southern England, 5% German and 5% Norwegian. The two 5%s, is due to those Vikings raping and pillaging everywhere. Actually, at least 30% is down to the hunter gatherers who followed the retreat of the ice. I do not desire any exotic mixture

Alfred the Great Tostig

Your DNA is very similar to mine. The admixture that we have is from kindred, white races. So we are pure.

Yeah, Alfred.  How about this instead – you derive from ethnies well represented in your testing company’s parental population database, ancestral components labeled as “European.”  You are essentially being compared to yourself.  Congratulations.

The perfect “historical” example of this was DNAPrint Genomics using Hapmap CEU – essentially Anglo-Mormons from Utah – as the parental population for “European,” followed by Pennsylvania German-Americans getting significant levels of “East Asian admixture.”  By those standards, Mitt Romney was undoubtedly a pureblood.  So, tell me, Alfie – if the PA Germans had been used to define “European” instead of Utah Mormons, what do you think would have happened to all that “East Asian admixture?”

I’m sure the Type I peanut gallery response to that question would be: (((((crickets)))))

For information aimed at Normies see the following:

Also, see Dienekes’ criticism of these tests and their use of parental reference populations for “training data.”  Note that many companies include customer data as part of their parental populations, and that data is not verifiable to the extent data derived from academic publications are.  Are customers’ reported ancestries accurate?

Please keep in mind I am focusing here on ancestry, not health data, and I am focusing on autosomal ancestry data, not NRY or mitochondrial DNA, single locus markers that I have zero interest in. If you are into health data, 23andMe provides some of that, although people have complained about the accuracy of such data (stories about that are found online), and several companies provide NRY and Mito data that seem reasonably accurate.

The following comments are based on my reading about, and analyzing, the tests and some online results, based on my own scientific knowledge, the population genetics literature, what is known about human population history, as well as logic and common sense.  The viewpoint is informed by a concern for politically relevant EGI, rather “movement” obsessions about “purity.”

I have long criticized 23andMe, which is an absolutely terrible test – it seems like the most popular such test among both Normies and Nutzis, it has majestic flaws, it is constantly misinterpreted, and in my opinion the company’s lack of transparency about certain realities borders on fundamental dishonesty.  As one example of the latter, consider: 

23andMe amusingly explains “unassigned” this way:

It is also possible to see a percentage of your DNA listed as “Unassigned.” There are two reasons why a piece of DNA might have unassigned ancestry:

The piece of DNA matches many different populations from around the world.

The piece of DNA does not match any of the reference populations very well.

That’s amusing because obviously the second explanation is what makes sense; the first is absurd.  The whole purpose of the test is to identify and distinguish ancestral components. Since humans share 99+% of their DNA, excuse #1 should in theory apply to everyone equally.  If the riposte is that we are talking about specific haplotypes stretching across chromosomal fragments, and those are not so widely shared, then how could it be possible for a stretch of DNA (chosen for examination for its value in assigning ancestry) to be so widely shared as to be “unassigned” to begin with?  And why would most of this “unassigned” show up only at the highest, most conservative, confidence level?  How come this “matches many populations” fragment is assigned to specific populations at the 50% interval?  And why is it that the “unassigned” just so happens to show up for those individuals for whom parental population coverage is relatively lacking?  Coincidence?

It’s obviously point #2 – the fragment doesn’t match the limited reference populations. At the most conservative setting they admit this is “unassigned,” but at the lower settings they just pick whatever population samples they have available at the time that may be slightly more similar to the fragment than are others. To say that 30% or 40% or 50% or whatever of someone’s genome, which is being used to distinguish ancestry in the first place, is common to many populations is ludicrous if you think about it – it is just coming from a population that may be more intermediate in the clinal genetic range than the parental populations they use.  If the DNA fragment is one that is similar between “many populations” than how can they distinguish it in some people and not others?  Simple answer – the “privilege” of being a member of a population well represented as a parental population. This is what I term “parental privilege” in ancestry testing – some people derive from ethnies well represented as parental populations, so those individuals get good matches and relatively “pure” results. For these lucky people, suddenly the “shared by many populations” (faux) problem no longer exists. This company makes it sound (for point 1) that, hey, it’s just a generalized piece of DNA, but then they ignore that it just so happens – a coincidence no doubt! – that people who derive from certain parental populations can have that fragment very easily assigned. It is “common to many populations” only when no matching parental population can be found in their database. “Parental privilege” is analogous to a form of affirmative action in ancestry testing. 

perfect example of parental privilege can be read here.  Note that, with the most conservative confidence level for 23andMe this person was getting only 0.3% unassigned ancestry. 0.3%!  Meanwhile, other people, at the same confidence level, get in the range of 30-50% – two orders of magnitude higher!  How can you compare the accuracy of those sets of results?  It is absurdity.  Someone who at the highest, most stringent, confidence level offered by the company, has only 0.3% of their ancestry unassigned is obviously getting much more dependable results than someone who has 30% or 40% or 50% or whatever high level of their ancestry as unassigned.  Amusingly, this person is still not satisfied by the fact that they are essentially being compared to themselves; thus:

The lack of defined reference samples from specific countries within the British Isles also sometimes gives confusing results. I have one project member with seven of his eight great-grandparents born in Wales and one great-grandparent born in Devon. At AncestryDNA he comes out as 64% Irish and 12% Great Britain, 12% Scandinavia and 11% Trace Regions. At Family Tree DNA his ancestry is reported as being 97% from the British Isles and 3% from Finland and Siberia.

Well, others have it worse.  And then read this, an excerpt:

One could thus reasonably infer that, rather than ancestry, commercial DNA test results represent current geographic distribution of various population groups living wherever they happened to be living when the companies collected their samples. A customer’s DNA matches inform them of not where their ancestors might have come from in the past, i.e., their ancestry, but rather current geographic distribution of similar patterns of DNA bits that each company happens to probe for. Is that DNA-based heritage or ancestry, i.e., hints of ancestral people customers may have descended from? Sounds far from it.

I agree and that is one of the points I make in this post; one flaw in these tests is using extant populations to model past “admixture” events, and this is particularly comical since even “pure” extant populations are mixtures of earlier groups.  Further, to use extant populations in a fair manner you need broad parental populations, which as we have seen, and will see more below, do not exist.

Getting back to the “unassigned” issue, online comments by customers speculating that “unassigned” regions may be due to “admixed regions” also fails as a logical excuse.  First, it doesn’t consistently fit with the idea of a fragment being read as shared by groups (excuse 1) – being shared by different groups is not necessarily the same as being a mixture of those groups. Second, on an even more fundamental logical level, it fails because all extant ethnies are mixtures of past groups, but are being definitively assigned as a specific ethny if that ethny is well represented as a parental population today. If an ethny is a parental population, then a similar fragment is assigned to that ethny, regardless of the ethnic history that created that stretch of gene sequences. So, this excuse basically conflates with the more realistic excuse 2 – insufficient coverage of parental populations. It’s not a mysterious piece of DNA widely shared but yet distinct for any group represented in the parental populations, and it cannot be shrugged off at the same time as admixture. It is poor coverage. Adding more parental populations will create matches to those regions even at a 90% (“conservative”) confidence level, and make all the results more accurate and realistic.

As stated above, using extant ethnies to estimate deep ancestry is not going to give consistent results, as we in fact observe. Then there is the problem that people take seriously the labels companies give to particular ancestral components – as if a name is more than just a convenient label and instead carries some deep and objective meaning about the underlying objective ancestry. If a company decided to label some type of ancestry “Martian” does that mean people with that ancestry are descended from little green men?  True enough, the labels do have some meaning on the broad scale.  No company is going to label Sino-Japanese ancestry as “European.”  They have some standards.  But as we dig deeper, the correlation between names and objective meaning starts to fall apart.

An example of the labeling problem is that some of these companies label Ashkenazi ancestry as “European” while ancestral components that are part of the European genepool (e.g., enriched in Southern Europe), entering from the Neolithic to Bronze Age to Classical Age (and to some extent possibly from more modern intrusive invasions and migrations) are labeled “Western Asian” or “Southwest Asian” or “Middle Eastern” or “North African” or “Turkish/Caucasus” due to similarity to gene sequences found in modern populations from that region.  Greg Johnson’s admixture component, if real and not an artifact, is likely from such an ancient source. 

Thus, a problem here is that Jewish genes are labelled “European” while parts of the European genepool are labeled as something else. Again, labels are not the things themselves; dependent on the biases and parent populations of a given company, a given ancestry can be assigned to different continental population groups.  For example, why not label Ashkenazi as Middle Eastern? Why not invent a “Neolithic” or “Mediterranean” label (instead of “West Asian” or “Southwest Asian”) for component autosomal ancestries enriched in those regions where J2 NRY is common?  One labeling scheme is as justified as the other.  If the idea is “we label based on where the ancestries are most enriched in modern times,” then great – last time I looked Israel is not in Europe.  Inconsistent much?

Also, if we were to assume some, any, or all, of this purported admixture is real (and only at the highest confidence levels should it really be possibly so considered), and if we note that current populations are being used as the parental populations, the it is clear that “Western Asian” or “Southwest Asian” almost certainly tracks with the dispersal of J2 NRY and would most likely be ancient Neolithic, Bronze Age, and perhaps Classical population movements. Later invasions would be Berber-Arab and would track with North African/Arabian ancestral components – although some of these can be ancient as well, particularly with contacts between Southern Europe (particularly Iberia) and North Africa in ancient times (as well as the modern Moorish intrusive elements).  We should not conflate “West Asian” with “North African” – these are not the same racially or historically. Consistently with these tests, ancestral components like Anatolian genetics seem to track with J2 NRY, so it appears it is an ancient component, and showing up in European populations because of poor parental population coverage

And again we come back to the issue of parental populations.  European ethny “X” – not a parental population – is characterized by a test as having some degree of “admixture” compared to the parental populations available. However, if “X” itself is used as a parental population, then individuals from “X” will see most (and in some cases all) of the “admixture” disappear, since they are being compared to the consensus of their own ethny.  

The riposte to that would be that “that is an unfair obfuscation of the underlying genetic realities.”  Perhaps.  But why can’t the same be said about other groups used as parental populations?  As noted above, when DNAPrint Genomics was using CEU Utah residents as the European parental population – basically using Anglo-American Mitt Romney types as the reference population for “European” – some German-Americans (*) were getting “East Asian admixture.”  Most tests today have Germans as one of the parental populations, so few if any Germans are getting any such admixture. So, groups used as parental populations are “privileged” (see above) in the sense that members of such groups, or genetically closely related groups, are going to get minimal to no “admixture,” as they are being compared to their own ethny.  The riposte to that would be that “well, we ‘know’ from ‘racial history’ that some groups are more admixed than others, so the choices of parental populations makes sense.”  Perhaps, but that is mostly subjective, and when based on genetics data it is circular reasoning.

Objectively, we could just use raw genetics data for genetic kinship analysis – by its nature kinship analysis includes all sources of autosomal genetic variation, including admixture – but people seem not to want that and/or companies refuse to offer it. In any case, the companies can’t be so stupid as to not know that the choice of parental populations directly affects the results.  They (with the one exception below) just don’t want to admit it.  

One point I’d like to make is that although 23andMe’s “chromosome painting” has some advantages if done correctly – identifying chromosome blocks and the timing of putative admixture events – the key point is “if done correctly.”  In most cases, just looking at SNP frequency data is going to be much more dependable, because the higher-level analyses are increasingly dependent on proper parental population samples (as well as an overall proper methodology).  If you misidentify several SNPs out of the many used, well, that’s not good but not “fatal” to reasonably accurate results, as long as the rest of the SNPs are more or less correctly characterized. But if you misidentify an entire chunk of someone’s chromosomes, then you are going to markedly alter their ancestral composition.  I trust it is clear why this is so – it is the difference between misidentifying individual alleles vs. misidentifying haplotypes that cover significant portions of the genome.  The latter situation amplifies the error because the error constitutes such a large percentage of the ancestral calculation, while the former error is relatively minuscule.

So, I’d trust the data based on SNP frequencies more given equal parental population representation.  That doesn’t mean the SNP frequency data are correct – the company may have made errors in that as well – but we are talking about relative probabilities here.

In summary, 23andMe gets a C for people who have good parental population coverage, they good a F for those who do not, so the overall grade for 23andMe is a D.  And that’s not good. It’s terrible in fact. By comparison, evaluating DNAPrint’s test by today’s standards, it would be a D- or F, while by the standards of its own day it was maybe a C+ or B-. In a relative sense, 23andMe is far worse, and in a gross sense, it is at best only marginally better. It’s a disaster. I’m not impressed by DNATribes either – parental population coverage there is relatively good, but…STR analysis? An F for them.  They’ve announced they are going out of business – should they be upgraded to an A for that?  In my opinion, DNATribes is/was even worse than 23andMe, and we can only hope 23andMe follows DNATribes’ lead in closing up shop.. And, I’ll give FamilyTree DNA an F – F for FBI.  Genetic privacy matters. Enough said about that.  What about other tests?

We can consider AncestryDNA, yet another substandard test.  If you look at their website, they make it sound like they have a really large number of parental populations, for example “see all regions” at their website. However, when the customers get their results, it is the same old story with the standard reference populations. True enough, the company will tell customers, in a qualitative sense, where the more specific place of origin of their majority ancestry most likely is, but that’s it.  The more specific subregions are not being used as reference (parental) populations, and they are not directly used in a quantitative sense to give the ancestry proportions.  The company’s website is therefore in my opinion highly misleading.

As a positive, they give errors bars, which is a plus; however, the range they give is sometimes extremely broad.  Results can vary over a range of 10-20%, etc. That’s not very precise, and demonstrates why these tests cannot be used to determine exact cut-offs. A person “100% pure” may actually be, say, 85%, and a person “85%” may actually be 100%.

From an online forum about this company’s test:

thednageek says:

September 13, 2018 at 10:00 am

Thank you for the kind words. I’d love to hear how your new results compare to your tree. Northern Europeans seem to be quite happy with the new estimates; southern Europeans less so.

I can’t say I’m surprised.  Look at the reference populations. In general, the sample sizes for Southern Europe are less than that of Northern or Eastern Europe. Italy has the most at 1000, but that is less than France, “Germanic Europe,” England/Wales/”Northwestern Europe,” as well as “Eastern Europe”/Russia.  Population genetics studies have shown greater genetic heterogeneity in Southern Europe than the North. So, good coverage is particularly important in the South. Consider that the “movement” likes to tell us how Northern and Southern Italy are radically different, racially speaking. If that is so, then those regions should have their own separate reference populations. Or are they really similar? You can’t have it both ways. If Lombards and Sicilians are less similar than are Norwegians and Swedes to each other (the company has Norwegians and Swedes as separate reference populations), then the different Italian subgroups should have their own reference (parental) populations. On the other hand, if those Italian groups are so similar that a general “Italy” category is sufficient, then all the fetishists should stop foaming at the mouth over intra-Italian differences. Again, you can’t have it both ways. In general though, a test that distinguishes Norway from Sweden, and England from Scotland, should probably break apart places like Italy into subregions – which would be more honest given how they advertise the test on their website.

Actually, even some of those well represented regions have problems.  What is “Germanic Europe?” Why not Germany alone?  Why not separate North and South Germany?  Different regions of France?  Separate Russia from other Eastern European nations?  England vs. Wales vs. “Northwestern Europe?”  And Ireland and Scotland combined?  Why?  Now, as I have said, areas with greater genetic heterogeneity require more coverage, but, still, e,g., the English and Welsh are not identical and should not be lumped together as such.

I also read where the newest version of the test (like 23andMe) uses haplotypes rather individual SNPs. If you do that, you MUST have excellent coverage for your reference (parental) populations.  An error is misidentifying an entire chromosome block is going to be a lot more damaging than getting scattered SNPs incorrect  That amplifies the problem of insufficient reference population coverage and is another explanation why Southern European results have gotten worse after the change.

So, AncestryDNA gets a D/D+ for overall results, which would have been upgraded to D+ for giving error bars (however broad), but because they are (in my opinion) misleading customers as to what the reference base actually is and how detailed it is for subregions, they get downgraded to a D.

Now we will consider another terribly flawed and incompetent test – the National Geographic Geno 2.0 (Helix) test, which uses Next Generation Sequencing, is purported to be designed to look at “deep ancestry,” but that make the error, consistent with other companies, of using extant, narrow, parental populations as proxies for “deep” ancestry, which is a major flaw.  Their “reference populations” are extremely limited (as usual – the typical “parental privilege”), the labels they give ancestral components are strange, and the website is reported by some customers to be difficult to use.  We will consider the various versions of the Geno tests, of which Helix is one.

Putting aside this person’s (somewhat dated) opinions of the tests (keeping in mind she derives from populations that may have better parental coverage – even at that time – than others), I find it interesting that a person who is predominantly of Northern European heritage has a substantial contribution of “Mediterranean” and “Southwest Asian” ancestral components as measured by one (older?) version of the National Geographic “deep ancestry” test.  Granted that there is an unknown component in her genealogical ancestry, still, I believe that these data – to the extent they are in any way meaningful – likely represent Neolithic (and perhaps Bronze Age) influences.  In other words, these components – including “Southwest Asian” – are a natural part of the European genepool, albeit represented to different degrees in different parts of Europe. Of course, I disagree with their “Mediterranean” category that lumps together genetically and historically disparate groups; however, in that case, it may represent a common thread (Neolithic?) of these groups, with the rest of the total ancestry of these groups being different. In any case, once again, we see the danger of taking labels literally, and also the problem of using current extant parental populations to represent ancient ancestral components.  

See this.  We note several things here.  There isn’t a good range of parental populations. We note that all European populations – including Northern European populations – are bring represented as being composed of different ratios of Northern European, Mediterranean, and Southwest Asian ancestral components (with some populations having low levels of other ancestries).  Thus, different ethnies are represented as diagnostic ancestral components.  Also, some of these populations are considered by 23andMe as distinct, discrete “pure” populations but are here represented as mixes of various ancient ancestral components.  

Here is yet another (“next generation”) characterization of reference populations with their respective ancestral components.  We notice three crucially important things.  First, many of the populations are the same as in the original list (discussed above) but the ancestral components are different. The same populations, with the same gene sequences, are being represented differently with alternate sets of ancestral components (each component given descriptive labels by the company). Thus, how a population’s ancestral components are represented, and how those components are labeled, can change over time; differing between various versions of a test and of course varying between different company’s tests. Second, again we see that European populations are composed of different components, they are all “admixed” to some degree based on the ancient components identified by the test. Third – and this applies to both versions of the National Geographic reference populations – what is considered mixes here would be considered “pure” in 23andMe, demonstrating how concepts of “purity” differ with what reference populations are used, how companies decide how to represent those populations, and what labels are used for description. Thus, in 23andMe, “European” includes “Greek/Balkan” as a category, as that is represented as part of their parental population base.  In theory, someone genetically similar to 23andMe’s Greek/Balkan reference population could be “100% Greek/Balkan” and hence “100% European” – while that same ancestry in the National Geographic test will be shown as a mix of different ancestries, mostly European but some non-European.  It’s the same gene sequences, the same ancestry, but interpreted in widely divergent ways by the companies and the tests. What one company labels “pure” another company – digging deeper in the ancestral mix – considers to be “admixed.”  It’s all relative, not something definitive and set in stone. There’s nuance and interpretation, shades of gray, not black and white.  And both Nutzi fetishists and Normie ignoramuses cannot understand this.

Ancestry results are not something that can be interpreted as absolutes, they are dependent upon methodology, parental populations, labels given to ancestral components, all leading to whether the company is assaying more recent ancestry, or “deeper” ancient ancestry.  The “purity” myth is on display here, since “100% pure” ancestries in one test will be represented as mixtures of components in a different test. Labels and interpretations are not the same as objective reality. And this is a crucially important point. The ancestral components themselves are certainly made up of mixtures of earlier population groups.  For example, with respect to the “Eastern European” component, which most possibly reflects Slavic ancestry, the company states (emphasis added):

The large Eastern European component is typical for the region, and is itself a genetic composite of years of migration through the region.

So, again, this is something “movement” fetishists don’t understand – the ancestral components that they perceive as “pure” are themselves mixtures from earlier times, mixtures containing components that may well trace from outside of Europe.  That is the nature of human biological reality.  There is no “purity.”  Instead, there are greater or lesser degrees of genetic similarity and difference.

If “Eastern European” does in fact reflect a basic Slavic ancestry, and if these results can be trusted, then it is interesting that Balkan South Slavs like the Bulgarians are heavily Slavic, only a few percentage points less than Russians and Poles, and more than the Czechs, all groups typically considered “more Slavic” than are Balkan groups.  So, there may well be evidence for a common Slavic ethnoracial foundation for all these groups. Also note that Romanians are more “Southern European” than are Bulgarians, despite the fact that Romania is just to the north of Bulgaria, and based on simple gene flow you’d expect the results to be the opposite.  Maybe there is something to the idea that there is a significant “Latin” “Roman” component to the Romanian ethny in addition to Slavic and other elements.  What about “Diaspora Jewish?”  Described as a distinct category here (and in 23andMe more specifically as “Ashkenazi Jewish”), academic population genetics suggest that this is in actuality a combination of Middle Eastern and European genetics.  Once again we see a category that is either a single distinct “pure” ancestral component, or a mixed component, dependent on how it is analyzed and interpreted.  

What about statistical significance?  Confidence levels?  Error bars? And, more fundamentally, what was the reason for changing the ancestral components between the different versions of the tests?  Whatever the reasons, there’s no explanation that I find satisfactory; the overall attitude of all these companies tends to be “trust us, we’re the experts,” and the customer base accepts that, with some grumbling from those more skeptical and better informed.  None of these companies provide the nuanced interpretations and more detailed explanations that I am providing with this post.

The National Geographic test does tell customers the two groups they are most similar to.  Fine, but not enough.  There needs to be a complete list, with quantitative measurements of genetic kinship.

In summary, although some of the ideas behind the National Geographic test are interesting, the test itself is as bad as 23andMe (or worse).  The basic problems are the same – lack of sufficient reference populations, lack of nuanced understanding of the meaning of the ancestral components, lack of real statistics, and the subjective labels given to ancestral components.  If we couple this to a bad website, lack of explanation, and changes between all the different versions of the test (without sufficient explanation), this test is lucky to get a D, and not a D-.

Then we have LivingDNA, which has a leftist anti-racist narrative behind its founding, and which has received some criticism from customers online (but, then, of course, all these companies have their share of dissatisfied customers).  The results from this company seem to be slightly more plausible than that generated from 23andMe, which isn’t saying much, but suffers from the same basic problem – individuals from ethnies likely not well represented in their parental database get skewed results.  I say “likely” because the company provides remarkably little information (that I can find) on their methodology and parental population database, but given the results they generate and given the general history of companies having weak representation of certain ethnies, it’s a fair bet that this company also exemplifies “parental privilege” for certain ethnies. So, basically, it is a real bad test, only slightly better (if that) than 23andMe and National Geographic.

They also exhibit the curious results that a person of 100% genealogical ancestry X turns out to be a mix of X, Y and Z – despite the fact that, e.g., Y and Z are known to be components of X. This is the same problem with all of these companies.  It may well be that X is not represented well in their parental database; hence, the problem.  That is more likely that the X person is really so much Y and Z that it presents in addition to the Y and Z inherent in X.  Of course, the companies of course explain none of this nuance to their customers.

Indeed, a major weakness of this company (besides their politics and the questionable results) is the relative lack of information they provide about the test itself, and about the results, to their customers.  On the one hand, it’s a weakness, but then, given that much of the information provided by other companies is questionable at best and bogus at worst, maybe being reticent is a positive.  Addition by subtraction, so to speak.

No surprise of course that results from this test can very markedly differ from that obtained from, for example, 23andMe. Who expects consistency, what with different methodologies, parental population databases, gaps in those databases, labels given to ancestral components, etc.?  Don’t expect careful statistical analysis either. We certainly can’t have that!

I note that they say results can be “refined” in the future as their database expand, a tacit admission that they do not presently have good coverage of certain ethnies.  That also emphasizes the impossibility of utilizing precise cut-offs as the always-fuzzy boundaries are ever-shifting.

So, with all these weaknesses, balanced out by (possibly) marginally more plausible results than 23andMe, this company gets a “healthy” D+ for their efforts.  Really, I could have given them a D, but they seem to be relatively new, so I’ll be generous for now, and we’ll see if they improve or get worse (more likely).  I do not like their politics, but I’m not grading them on that.  I’ll expect them to ruin their test with “upgrades” the same as every other company; in that case, they would then get the D (or D-) they likely really deserve.

Getting back to inconsistency of results – as we can read in various online articles and blog posts, people who use multiple companies typically get markedly divergent results.  The main ancestry is usually similar but after that it all falls apart. Now, if the tests and their interpretations were all sound and consistent, how could that be possible?  The answer of course is that with different sets of narrowly defined parental populations with insufficient coverage and different ways of breaking down ancestral components and different approaches to labeling those components, of course the results will be different.  And, lacking sufficient information, as well as statistical information, how can we say one result is more accurate than another?  The only thing we can go on is how well the results match what academic population genetics data say about the ethny or ethnies making up a person’s genealogical ancestry.  If that’s the case, then why take the tests?  Just go to the published papers. And, laughably, the companies do not even give customers remotely similar calculations for percentages of Neanderthal ancestry. What is it?  Do they use different caveman reference populations?  One company uses Fred Flintstone and the other uses Barney Rubble?

The deCODEme site used to have a free, good (albeit qualitative) kinship comparison based on 23anedMe data – ranking relatedness to a global ethnic groups, arraigned by continent, and those results seemed reasonable, but it seems no longer offered. The original 23andMe site used to have a more quantitative estimate of relatedness at the continental and sub-continental (e.g., Northern vs. Southern European) level, as well as a PCA plot, but unfortunately they did away with that in favor of material less politically relevant (or not relevant at all).

I suppose if someone has the money to try every testing service they could look into it, and try all the companies, for personal interest. Again, this essay is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of every company; I may have missed a test that is particularly good or bad. This post is instead meant as a brief and cursory survey of some of the main current competitors in the field, coupled with some general commentary on the tests themselves.

In any case, I agree with Johnson here.  Past “Old World” admixture is part of the European genepool.  Certainly, we can always strive to improve the genetic situation (e.g., eugenics), but we are what we are. We have to look to the future, not the past.

Grades for (autosomal) ancestry testing companies:

23andMe: D

FamilyTree: F 

AncestryDNA: D

National Geographic: D

LivingDNA: D+

DNA Tribes: F

Others are not worth mentioning or I have insufficient data.

The patterns is of very low grades, reflective of the reality that the overall state of current commercially available ancestry testing is poor.  And just as the companies claim that the data they present to their customers may change and become more “refined” with more parental population coverage, so may the grades I give these companies change (likely for the worse, given their poor performance heretofore) and become more refined with more data as well.  So,expect grade updates in the future.  Also, new companies may come into existence and  those may be evaluated as well.

The most urgent need is proper parental (or “reference”) population coverage.  Nor more “parental privilege” affirmative action for some groups and not for others.  Either add more parental population coverage or have the integrity only to offer the tests to customers who match the reference profiles.  Otherwise, it is all a misleading fraud.

In addition, these tests need to be interpreted in a relative (e.g., greater or lesser degrees of different ancestral components comparatively speaking) rather than an absolute e.g., definitive results with hard cutoffs, concerns about “purity”) fashion.  Given the realities of uncertainty and methodology, even a good test would need to be interpreted in such a fashion, much less the mediocrity we have to deal with. Of course, Nutzis will remain incapable of understanding any of this.

Really, what is needed is genetic kinship assays on all populations, comparing individuals and populations to each other, but I suppose such a biopolitically relevant metric is nothing we should expect any time soon (or ever).

One could argue that ancestry testing as it exists today could be, at best, an amusing personal hobby for individuals, if it wasn’t being politicized by actors on both the Retard Right (see quotes at the beginning of this post) and the Loony Left (LivingDNA’s anti-racialist agenda, deCODES’s “gotcha” of Watson, and the Cobb setup debacle).  But we live in an age where everything is politicized, for better or worse. In that case, we had better focus on genetic kinship, which is politically relevant with respect to EGI.

But instead we’ll have more juvenile ignorant blustering from entitled Nutzis basking in their “parental privilege” affirmative action ancestry results.

Needless to say, I was very, very surprised with the results of my DNAPrint “geographic ancestry” test results when I received it, and it showed a 21% East Asian content and 79% European instead of a 100% European which I had expected. In discussing this with AncestrybyDNA lab personnel I have learned that surprisingly to them some other PA Germans tested have had similar significant high teen, low 20’s% East Asian content results. At present they have no clear explanation as to why.

The “clear explanation” seems obvious in retrospect. Compared to the Romenyite parental population for “European,” some Germans would appear to be 4/5 Romney and 1/5 Chairman Mao.  If the parental population had been “PA Germans” then all those folks would have been “100% European.”

I’ll say it again for the mentally slow: The results of ancestral component testing is going to absolutely and directly depend on the choice of parental populations.

I need to summarize the whole “parental privilege” problem for the Nutzi crowd.  I’ll try to make it as simple as possible.  Let’s consider it first in outline form.

1. A company defines a particular ancestral component as “European.”

2. The reason for that label is that the ancestral component is defined by a parental (or reference) population (or populations) that is European.

3. But why does the company label a particular parental/reference population as European?  Well, it is because the population is historically tied to Europe, it derives from a nation or region within the boundaries of Europe, the population came into existence as a distinct group within Europe.  All of which essentially matches much of what I define as an indigenous population.

4. Very good.  So an ancestral component is European if it is derived from, or defined by, or represented by, a population that is European. European populations tend to possess ancestral components that are “European” because those components are defined from an analysis of European populations.

This is saved from being circular reasoning by the fact that the initial definition of a population as European is not based on the ancestral components (that are themselves defined as European because they come from populations labeled as European), but instead because of the historical existence of the population within Europe, as an indigenous population of Europe, so defined.

5. OK.  But, if population groups A,B,C, and D are all historically European ethnies, if they all historically exist and existed within specific regions of Europe, then why should A and B be among the parental populations that define European ancestral components, and not C and D?  There is no reason to privilege A and B over C and D.  The only practical reason is that the company simply doesn’t have any, or enough, samples from C and D, while they have many samples from A and B.

6. Because of this deficit of C and D, and presence of A and B, individuals of ethnic background A and B, or ethnies very similar to A and B, are essentially being compared to themselves in the test.  If A and B define the ancestral components of “European,” and your ancestry is A and/or B (or something similar), it stands to reason you will test out as being close to, or at, “100% European,” with the subpopulation being A and/or B. Again, you are essentially being compared to yourself.  

On the other hand, individuals from C and D are being compared against a standard defined by A and B.  So, individuals from C and D will be represented as “mostly A and/or B” but with some “E and F”- with “E and F” being ancestral components labeled as from other, non-European, populations that happen to be well-defined in the parental population database.

7. On the other hand, if C and D were included as parental populations, then their ancestral components would be included as “European” and results for individuals of C and D ancestry would be similarly “European” as for A and B, with the subpopulations in this case being C and/or D.

And in the rare cases in which testing companies decide to be honest, they admit the reality of “parental privilege” – although of course they do not term it as such.  Thus, we read:

On the old Decodeme site (login was required, so no URL available), the following was admitted (emphasis added): 

The reference population samples were obtained from the HapMap project – they are:

1) European Americans from Utah – who most likely have a majority of north European ancestry

2) Yoruban Nigerians

3) Chinese from Beijing and Japanese from Tokyo.

The characteristics of these reference population samples and the clinal nature of human genetic variation (i.e. the fact that people typically become gradually more different as you travel further from your country) have several minor implications for the interpretation of the results. For example, a deCODEme user with a majority of ancestors (during the past >2 generations) from south-east Europe, will typically see higher percentages of African and Asian ancestry than a deCODEme user whose ancestry is mainly from north-west Europe. The difference will be small, but present.

So, deCODEme at least had the honesty that populations not represented in the parentals would exhibit artefactual “admixture” due to clinal differences in gene frequencies.  As to what level of difference is “small” they do not say, but keep in mind that another company was stating that close to 9% “admixture” was close to the levels of statistical significance. 

Here’s the response from our scientist who developed the algorithm underlying ancestry painting: “There’s no case that I’ve seen where 9% Asian ancestry does not indicate genuine East Asian or Native American ancestry. I’ve looked at order thousands of individuals of known ancestry, that approximately cover the gamut of human diversity. Thus I would regard 9% as a reliable indication of East Asian or Native American ancestry. That said, 9% is close to the threshold above which the following statement can be made, so it is still theoretically possible, albeit very unlikely, that the prediction is not true.

If that is so, and then you add to that the extra uncertainty due to “parental privilege” what are we talking about here as potential error for non-privileged populations?  10%?  15%? More?  In some cases that falls with the errors bars provided by companies like AncestryDNA!

Now, of course, there really is some (modern, historical) admixture in Europe, higher in some regions than in others.  But the amount of real admixture is much lower than what would suppose from looking at commercially available ancestry testing that inflates admixture for the reasons explained above – an inflation that, by some happy coincidence, just so happens to be compatible with the leftist political views of the companies, their founders, and their employees.

While single locus markers are absolutely useless on an individual basis, they do have some utility for populations, with results averaged out over large sample sizes. Such data suggest that real admixture in Europe tops out at about 5%.  And much of that is non-European Caucasian or Central Asian.  More divergent sub-Saharan African or East Asian admixture is going to be significantly less than 5%.

So, in the end, the real reason why something like the post linked here is essentially correct is that the typical “movement” activist is too stupid to understand all of the points made in my post that you are currently reading here at EGI Notes. Even when the companies themselves admit that “parental privilege” is real, even when the companies admit the fairly large statistical error, and even when confronted with the obvious logic that someone essentially compared to themselves is going to be, by necessity, ”pure,” the Nutzi retards still won’t get it.  Or, maybe it is not that they are too stupid, but that they lack the incentive. After all, those who benefit from affirmative action rarely criticize the program; the same applies to “parental privilege.”  Let some testing company start using, say, Sardinians as the reference population to define “European,” and all the Nutzis suddenly start getting “exotic mixture,” and I’m sure they’ll all cry bloody murder.  All of a sudden, everything written here, and all the open admissions of the companies themselves, will become crystal clear and acceptable.

Which Way 2019?

Questions.

Is the new focal point of the American “movement” in 2019 going to be the Alt Wrong?  Is the new focus the emerging Counter-Currents-Amren-VDARE-TOO-HBD axis?  How much damage will that do to the “movement” before it collapses as did its Alt Right predecessor?

This is actually a very serious threat, potentially more damaging to (American) racial activism than was the Alt Right.  The Alt Right did damage activism, but that was mostly through bad optics, public humiliation, and wasted opportunities. In “economic” terms, the opportunity cost of investing in Alt Right stupidity was such that it set back activism for years.  However, the damage was not ideological.  It could have been worse.  If the Alt Right took Johnson’s advice and followed a Big Tent-Alt Lite strategy, serious ideological damage could have occurred.  But, thankfully, that did not happen. The Alt Right collapsed under a pile of Pepes, Keks, and alcohol bottles, but did not become subsumed into civic nationalist mainstreaming right-wing populism.

On the other hand, domination of the “movement” by the Alt Wrong can do very serious and lasting ideological damage. Here, the threat is that White nationalism will become hijacked by HBD race realism, Judeophilia, and Yellow Supremacy.  While Spencer was tarred as a “tool of Moscow,” the Alt Wrong reality is that of “White nationalists” becoming tools of Tel Aviv/Jerusalem and Beijing.  Instead of pursuing the racial interests of Whites, we’ll just get puppets dancing on the strings of their Jewish puppeteers, as well as Derbyshirian “measured groveling” to Asians.  Hora-dancing Romanians will be out, while Hora-dancing Jews and inscrutable Orientals will be in.  Derbyshire’s “Arctic Alliance” will come to fruition, with a segment of the White population being the subaltern caste junior partners to their Jewish-Asian masters.  

Of course, it won’t be that blatant, but the end result will be the same. That’s where my critics fail with their talk of my “insanity” when I write about things like this in such stark terms.  They erect a strawman in which they assert that I am saying that we will literally see pro-White leaders on their knees before Jews and Asians and that these leaders will openly call for Jewish/Asian dominance.  Of course, they are not going to do that, and some of them may be so naïve that they don’t even realize how they are being manipulated.  But I am not talking about surface optics.  I am instead talking about the fundamental underlying reality, the ultimate consequences, of a course of action.  So, yes, the Alt Wrong will be more careful about optics than the Alt Right.  Yes, they will be careful so as to make their destructive memes palatable to Type I nitwits and sweaty ethnic fetishists. No, they will not be so blatant in that the ultimate outcome of their agenda is easily seen as a form of activism very palatable to Jewish and Asian interests. It does not matter. The final outcome will be the same, even if they don’t literally grovel before the Altar of Asia, even if they don’t literally worship a pile of yarmulkes.  Look behind the curtain, dear reader, and observe the sneering Levantines and grinning Orientals, all benefiting from activism ostensibly meant to benefit Whites.  Observe a “movement” hijacked to serve Asiatic interests. This is a danger far deadlier than Beavis-and-Butthead Alt Righters and their drunken podcasts.

If any WN 1.0 folks read EGI Notes, I hope they heed this warning, and prepare for the Alt Wrong (and Alt Yellow) assault against White nationalism. You guys still have some “pull” in the “movement” – I do not and never had.  It’s your responsibility and obligation to battle the Alt Wrong – doubly so, since you are in part responsible for the affirmative action program that results in EGI Notes having no “pull” in Der Movement.  You want to be leaders?  Then act the part.  Finally, speak out against HBD and the Alt Wrong.

Question: Will the Silkers make peace with the Alt Wrong, and look the other way as regards Jewish influence, as long as Asian interests are being served?

Question: Will the Alt Wrong be so clumsy – and not quite as optics-friendly as I wrote above – that they’ll let Jews and Asians play a more direct and public role in White racial activism?  I would predict that will eventually happen IF there is no pushback against the Alt Wrong, if they become over-confident, and if they believe that they have defeated the Ourselves Alone pro-White faction of the “movement.”  On the other hand, if they are more subtle and clever, they’ll only work behind the screen of Derbyshire and various other White HBDers.  In either case, expect Derbyshire – as long as his health allows – to play a larger role going forward. Amren and VDARE will also be expected to be proportionately more prominent.  HBD will be pushed and possibly we’ll see more articles similar to Munro’s “hit piece” against Romanians.  Never forget: pan-Europeanism is the deadly enemy of the Alt Wrong and vice versa, and the HBDers will continue to divide Europeans against each other, and attempt to set up the Jeurasian future with a subset of Whites. The Derbyshire family, in conjunction with the Hart-Weissberg crowd, is the future the Alt Wrongers want. More HBD, more Arctic Alliance, more ethnonationalism – no surprise that the Alt Wrongers wanted to subsume the ethnonationalists, anything to divide Whites – that’s what one can expect.

Who is going to be the “mainstream movement” opposition to the Alt Wrong? Will Strom finally – finally! – speak out against Jew/Asian worshipping HBD?  Or will we only have the tragicomedy of Parrott and his “Sieg Heil and pass the beer” crowd as opposition to the “Yellow Supremacy and pass the wine and cheese” crowd?

Or will the Alt Wrongers try to appease the WN 1.0 by appealing to their vanity and ethnic fetishism?  They’ll tell the WN 1.0ers that, don’t worry, you guys are so much better than those Hora-dancing Romanians.  Just throw the “outer Hajnal” crowd under the bus, get yourself a nice Asian girlfriend, and you’ll get invited to all the HBD conferences, where you can rub shoulders with that Aryan superman Professor Hart.  What’s not to like?    Better Hart than Codreanu, right?

Who will Greg Johnson feud with next?  Will the Alt Wrong alliance last through the end of 2019?

Who is the next prominent HBDer to either die and/or be exposed as was Rushton?  Will 2019 be the year of Lynn?

Johnson:

It is clear that the movement needs to do fine grained empirical studies and publish them to assess the impact of events, so we can prevent liars like you from claiming that “[Propaganda disaster X] was actually good for the movement.”

That costs money.  Which tin cupper will part with some of their proceeds to make this happen?

I’ll give Johnson credit for his online debating with Parrott.  Who’s going to be next on the comeback trail after Parrott and Heimbach?  Derek Black?  Who? Hal Turner? Patrik Hermansson?  The mind boggles.  Maybe the reincarnation of Dan Burros?  Getting back to “labor leader” Matt: For godssakes, Parrott, just go away.  JUST. GO. AWAY.

Maybe that will be a theme of 2019: Movement Zombies and Vampires – discredited and/or humiliated “movement leaders” and other personalities who rise from the activist dead to suck the blood and life out of what’s left of (American) racial nationalism.

What will be the next sex scandal in Der Movement?  Will it happen in 2019? Heterosexual?  Homosexual? Bisexual?  Transgender?  Inter-racial?  Adultery/cuckoldry?  Pedophilia? S and M?  Bestiality?  Necrophilia? Some combination thereof?

One possible scenario: A “movement leader” is accused of having S and M sex with male and female dead puppies and kittens.  These puppies and kittens were the sexual playthings of another “movement leader” (cuckoldry!) and now both “leaders” declare they are transgender and involved with Negro transgender lovers.  After several months both “leaders” re-emerge with tweets telling us everyone else in Der Movement, Inc. has it all wrong – only they, the disgraced “leaders,” are the fount of all activist wisdom.

Will Kessler organize Unite the Right III?  And will anyone show up if he does?

What are the chances that the various “movement” bigwigs will win the Unite the Right civil case?  Not good, I think.  If I had to bet, I’d bet on a loss.  That’s not because they are in the wrong; in this case they are not wrong – the case against them is ludicrous. But in Trump’s America, the rule of law is meaningless and the Left is triumphant. 

Which Way Trumpian Man?  Will 2019 lead to impeachment?  Resignation?  Or just more blowhard tweets with nothing at all getting done?  Will Roissy finally turn against his man-crush Trump?

How much of the “wall” will be built in 2019?  No, I mean the “fence.”  No, that’s not right, I mean the “metaphor.”  Yeah, yeah – “metaphor” – that’s the ticket.

Hey, Antifa Don – assuming you’re running for reelection in 2020, and won’t be in prison enjoying the attentions of DeShawn, then all those voted from your disillusioned and disgusted base will be a “metaphor” as well.  You’ll make Goldwater on 1964 look like a victory lap by comparison.

What failure of mainstreaming – and success of farstreaming – will European politics present to us in 2019?

Cue “movement” comments about Moops, Hora, and Mongols.  After all, when Whites turn on each other, the Alt Wrongers are waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.

What outrageous errors will the Quota Queens make in 2019?  What leftist will they label an “alpha shitlord” (trust the phyzz!)?  What leftist academic or movie director will they label “a man of the Right?”  One can imagine some Old Kingdom Egyptian mummies getting gene-tested as 85% Middle Eastern and 15% sub-Saharan African, and the peanut gallery will declare – “Arthur Kemp was right!”  The mind boggles!  Possibilities, possibilities!

Prediction: White women will continue acting badly in 2019, and Johnson will continue to mumble about “Joan of Arc.”  It’s sort of like Whites and Blacks – the men who defend women the most are the ones who have the least experience and interactions with them.

Bad news.  What happens when you reward bad behavior?  You get more of it.  Good going, all you Type I rank-and-file nitwits.

Epilogue – a retard looks back and makes predictions:

ZMan:

Because the Democrats will be shifting their focus to winning the White House in 2020, the censorship trend will take a different turn, as the tech giants begin to censor the Left. Look for the social media companies to begin cracking down on the BernieBro wing, in an effort to boost the standing of party approved candidates. Suddenly, groups like Antifa are going to find themselves without the protection they have enjoyed. They were always corporate tools, they just never knew it. In 2019, they find out who signs their checks.

We’ll see about that.  Frankly, I’m skeptical, but who knows?

This is the time of year when lazy writers post about the comings and goings of the previous year, usually in the form of a listicle. “The top-10 events of the past year” is column that used to turn up in every newspaper at least once. Then you have the predictions for the coming year, which no one ever mentions as part of their year in review posts. With technology being what it is, you would think a new genre of year-end post would be the review of futures past type of post, but that has not happened.

And so Zman essentially proceeds to do what he just criticized.

One thing I got very right is the continued growth of nationalist and populist parties in Europe. It is easy to forget that the smart people were all talking about the populist wave having crested last year, so going the other way was a bold prediction. Not only have the populists displayed staying power, new movements from the Left are turning up. The Yellow Vest thing in France is much more of a leftists cause, especially in Paris, than a right-wing phenomenon. That’s something to watch for next year.

Yellow Vests!  The new heroes!  The Yellow Vest on White Horse Syndrome!  At least Zman has more sense than some other idiots on the Right and correctly labels the Yellow Vesters as more leftist.  In contrast,one can imagine Roissy identifying “alpha shitlords” among some Marxist Yellow Vesters, or Johnson pontificating about the need for a big tent (a circus tent would be most appropriate) to include such people.

 

Summary: I think it’s a reasonable prediction that 2019 will be another year of “movement” failure, humiliation, and wasted opportunities.

The Year in Review: 2018

The year that was.

A brief outline of 2018, with an emphasis on Der Movement and the Sallis Groupuscule.

1. Sallis contra Lewontin. I finally got around to formally (preliminary) demonstrate that “Lewontin’s Fallacy” applies to any form of human population grouping, including random grouping, mixed-race grouping, etc.  That is, any human population, however chosen, will demonstrate “more variation within than between” – and this has nothing to do specifically with race, and retarded leftist “arguments” that assert that “within/between” somehow invalidates race, or worse, demonstrates that “Whites and Blacks are more genetically similar to each other than to members of their own racial group”, are absurd, and objectively and quantitatively absolutely wrong.

This was, in my opinion, by far my most important contribution in 2018 and, predictably, it was completely ignored by Der Movement.  Indeed, even among readers of this blog, based on page views, I notice that criticisms of Der Movement get much more attention than any of my genetics-based posts, or book reviews (here or at Western Destiny), or any other such analysis.

Whether that is because activists are “hungry” for alternative and critical viewpoints of the “movement,” or simply because people prefer to read about “movement gossip” and infighting, I do not know.

However, the fact that groups ostensibly interested in these genetics-based matters – racialists, HBDers, etc. – studiously ignored this (and other similar material produced here) should tell you something.  It’s “Who” and not “What.”  Material of utility for White racial interests, material of interest to “race realists”- all of that is ignored if it is produced by the “wrong” people.  Values get thrown out the window when personal and narrow ideological interests are at stake.  Remember that when all those types protest about how much they prioritize ethical activism and White racial interests and “the pursuit of the truth.”

2. Reviews. Speaking of things that have been ignored, Bolton’s important biography of Yockey was available, so I got a e-copy, read it, and reviewed it found here. I also did a review of the “Whither Judaism and the West?” book chapter, found here.

3. Alt Blight.  2018 is the year that the Alt Right definitely and obviously collapsed, the bubble burst, the Alt Right fever broke, much to my relief – and just as I predicted as far back as 2016 (when all the heroic “movement leaders” were jumping on the Alt Right bandwagon).  This has to be by far the single biggest “movement”-related story of 2018, at least on the American scene.  And both proponents and opponents (Left and Right) of the Alt Right admit and acknowledge the collapse.  Indeed, post mortems have been written from both sides of the political spectrum. It’s that obvious.

The problem is that the niche space of “movement” stupidity must be filled, like air rushing into a vacuum, and we are now seeing a resurgence of the Alt Wrong (see the Counter-Currents ethics issue below).

4.  They’re not proud, boys.  Concomitant with the collapse of the Alt Right, the Alt Lite has also degenerated, exemplified by the “Proud Boys” being chased out of LA bars by noodle-armed soyboys, and then essentially disowned by their creator.  Are these the types you want to get under the “big tent” with?

5. Deplatformimg, persecution, and the rule of Antifa.  One reason for the decline of the “Alts” and the “movement” as a whole, has been the inability to deal with a concerted effort by the System to target Far Right activists at various points of vulnerability.  Rightists have been deplatformed from social media and various online financial entities, they’ve been targeted by lawfare and social pricing, and the Far Left Trump administration has let Antifa essentially conquer the American Street, so we have scraggly wanna-be leftists acting as the running dog enforcers of the globalist-big business-anti-White alliance. Antifa is now the de facto police force of the government and of globalist big business interests.

6. The Turd Emperor.  This blog correctly and presciently identified Trump as a fraud and a vulgar ignorant buffoon back in 2015. Three years later, and after two years of a failed Presidency, most (but not all) of the Trump cheerleaders have realized that they’ve been “had, “and the intra-“movement” consensus is that Trump is a pathetic failure.  However, the Quota Queens by and large take no personal responsibility for this fiasco of misplaced trust and enthusiasm; there will of course be NO accountability for the latest Man on White Horse Syndrome episode.  Expect it to happen again.

7.  Going counter to the ethical current. The ethical collapse of Counter-Currents is another story of 2018. That site has been in decline for several years, and the gaslighting of trying to blame the failures of WN 2.0 on WN 1.0 was one low point this year.  But, as bad as that was, it was merely an appetizer to the two shoes dropping

First, we observed Counter-Currents embracing Derbyshire, doubling down on the good old boys network, despite the fact that Johnson in the past strongly denounced Derbyshire as an anti-WN, race-mixing opportunist, and also denounced WNs who embraced Derbyshire.  Second, Johnson wrote that “Trevor Lynch” is going to be featured at the Jew Unz site.  That’s astonishing, and not in a good way.  It seems that with the death of the Alt Right, Counter-Currents is pivoting to the Alt Wrong.  

More evidence of the Counter-Currents shift is this excerpt of a recent Johnson comment:

The mature thing for the American movement is to invest in individuals and organizations that are changing minds and bringing people over to our side, as opposed to failures who only bring shame upon us. Here’s my short list:

1. Counter-Currents and me

2. American Renaissance and Jared Taylor

3. VDare and the Brimelows

4. The Occidental Observer and Kevin MacDonald

5. Identity Europa and Patrick Casey

6. Red Ice

Of the five non-CC entities listed, three (60%) are HBD/Alt Wrong, with two (40%) – Amren and VDARE – being the fundamental pillars of the Alt Wrong.  Johnson and Counter-Currents have thrown in their lot in with the Alt Wrong, and one can reasonably predict that  in the long term Counter-Currents as a vehicle for White racial nationalism is finished.  Also note that Johnson’s list is enriched in people and entities who “threw Spencer under the bus” after Hailgate.  Also note that there is solidarity there for both the affirmative action program as well as for tin cup panhandling.  This is the “movement” “amen corner” reinforcing each other’s biases and errors.

By the way, here is my comprehensive list of “individuals and organizations” that are of any use:

1. Ted Sallis and the Sallis Groupuscule (EGI Notes and Western Destiny)

List complete.

I have had my disagreements with the WN 1.0 folks, but at least those people are of a more sound character when it comes to not selling out.  I can’t imagine the likes of Duke, Strom, Roper, Linder (or Pierce when he was alive) writing for Unz, groveling to a race-mixer like Derbyshire, or anything else of that nature.  Leave that to all the WN 2.0 and 3.0 heroes. Despite ideological disagreements, as well as disagreements on strategy and “optics,” I’m much closer in basic character to WN 1.0 than I am to any of the later permutations.  All these guys keep on trying to reinvent the wheel, and they haven’t yet figured out that this won’t work.

Here’s Roissy on Unz:

Ron Unz lies a lot in an article about the Alt-Right which he penned last year but reposted yesterday. I think the strawman-per-word ratio in his id-shaped rant is higher than anything I’ve read outside of a feminist tumblrrhea screed.

His main contention is that the “alt-right” are being deplatformed and de-personed because representatives (whoever they are) exaggerate the criminal threat of latino immigration, and the Soylicunt Valley nerdos who have been thrust into the role of Speech Police can’t tolerate the lies.

This is an utter inversion of the reality, which is that the Big Tech Poindexters can’t tolerate the truths which dissident outposts daily level against the corrupt Globohomo worldview and nation-dissolving agenda.

The “alt-right” (really, a constellation of realtalkers who refuse to parrot neolibogisms) is silenced because they write truths that the masturbators of the universe don’t want to read.

Simple as that.

Censorship has historically been used as a tool by the powerful to suppress the views of the powerless who threaten the former’s hold on power. That Unz can’t or won’t grasp this ineluctable fact of no-holds-barred status jockeying between antagonistic groups says a lot about what kind of resentful agenda motivates him.

How about all Unz contributors being upfront as to whether they are being paid by Unz and if so how much?  And can any of us believe we’d see the day when Roissy makes more sense than Johnson?

8. Randy Phil. Rushton was exposed as a hypocrite, a race traitor, and a fraud – and by a fellow HBDer no less.  Rushton fathered a child with a Negress.  What’s next?  Pierce having had a secret love child with a Jewess?

And of course all the Rushton fanboys either ignored the revelations or started with ad hominem attacks against the messenger Dutton, as if those personal attacks could in any way alter the pathetic and disturbing facts of the case.  That’s HBD for you.  But let’s give Dutton credit for some honesty here.   Twilight of the Idols indeed.

9. Out of Africa. The Spencer and Johnson 23andMe results – emphasizing the absurdity of that test’s minor admixture estimates.

10. Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong. Typically wrong – Jack Nicholson as a prospective “alpha shitlord” – while any 30 second Google search can demonstrate that he’s a life-long liberal Democrat.  A “jacked” Bezos making a “hard turn right” politically – except he didn’t. Good going there, Roissy, on both counts.  “Shakin’ Stevens” and his Odinist perspectives – that is, when he’s not being a Red.  Good going, Rowsell.  Not to mention the “movement’s” humiliation about Trump, mentioned above.  In Trump We Trust – until “we” don’t.

11. Can’t keep it in the pants.  There was the Heimbach-Parrott and Spencer-Conte dramas. The lack of moral fiber and sexual self-control demonstrates a failure of leadership character.  To be fair, the Spencer-Conte issue is murky, and has not been definitively established.  The other incident is more definitive.

And, gee, Heimbach’s latest comeback attempt was short-lived.  Try, try again.  It must be great to have a “free pass” from Der Movement for having the appropriate ethnic ancestry.  After all, even Baby Daddy Rushton is still worshipped in some circles. 

Delenda Est Der Movement

The White race will be free only AFTER Der Movement, Inc. is destroyed.

More on Population Genetics

Let’s consider some ideas I’ve written about before.

A genetic testing company can in theory define a certain consensus genome as “Puerto Rican,” and it is therefore possible in that case for typical Puerto Ricans to test out as 100% (or 99% or 92 % or 90%.etc.) Puerto Rican.  But if the same genome is interpreted in light of the major continental population groups (races), then someone who is “100% Puerto Rican” would then be, e.g., 50% European, 40% sub-Saharan African, and 10% Amerindian. Same genome, different definition.

The gene frequencies that define “100% European” today would not be the same as, say, several thousand years ago.  Genetic ancestries which back then would have to be classified as non-European would today be part of the European genome, as intrusive elements have been assimilated.  A haplotype today defined by 23andMe as “British/Irish” or “French/German” or “Italian” or “Balkan” may be by the standards of, say, 2000 BC, mostly European (by 2000 BC standards) but with some non-European components (again by 2000 BC standards).  

All of this does NOT mean that ethnicity and race are “socially constructed;” those are biologically real and legitimate entities.  However, the labels used to describe those entities are defined by people and these labels, and these definitions, can change over time.  This also  NOT mean that we should blithely accept intrusive elements entering the European genepool today; genetic interests are future-oriented, and what happened in the past affected the genetic interests of the people at that time, not us today. We are what we are, just like they were what they were.  One set of changes does not in any way obligate or justify a different set of changes.  Everything must be considered in the light of the interests of the people that exist at that time.

The major point, that most “movement” nitwits do not understand, is that people cannot take the labels given to particular gene frequencies or haplotypes at face value in the sense of an absolute and precise entity whose specific definition has the exact same meaning over long periods of time.  The actual degrees of genetic kinship based on the raw genetic data are real and concrete and precisely meaningful – to the extent we take into account statistical error and the over-riding importance of parental populations (that is tied into the topic of this post…what is the parental population you use to define “100% X?”) – but the defining labels are not necessarily so.