Category: Jewish identity

New Fst and Kinship Estimators

And a statement on Identity.

In all cases, emphasis added.

The abstract:

Kinship coefficients and FST, which measure genetic relatedness and the overall population structure, respectively, have important biomedical applications. However, existing estimators are only accurate under restrictive conditions that most natural population structures do not satisfy. We recently derived new kinship and FST estimators for arbitrary population structures [1, 2]. Our estimates on human datasets reveal a complex population structure driven by founder effects due to dispersal from Africa and admixture. Notably, our new approach estimates larger FST values of 26% for native worldwide human populations and 23% for admixed Hispanic individuals, whereas the existing approach estimates 9.8% and 2.6%, respectively. While previous work correctly measured FST between subpopulation pairs, our generalized FST measures genetic distances among all individuals and their most recent common ancestor (MRCA) population, revealing that genetic differentiation is greater than previously appreciated. This analysis demonstrates that estimating kinship and FST under more realistic assumptions is important for modern population genetic analysis.

I’m not a fan of Fst for genetic distance estimates for reasons discussed at this blog, and based on peer-reviewed literature, but it is used for that by many, so let’s see what this paper says.

From the main text:

However, the most commonly-used standard kinship estimator [9, 10, 13–19] is accurate only in the absence of population structure [2, 20]. Likewise, current FST estimators assume that individuals are partitioned into statistically-independent subpopulations [4, 5, 21–23], which does not hold for human and other complex population structures.

About Hispanics:

In particular, since differentiation increases from AFR to EUR to AMR (Fig. 3), the greatest kinship is between individuals with higher AMR ancestry, and the lowest kinship is between individuals with higher AFR ancestry (Fig. 4B and C).

So, it would seem that Hispanics like Mexicans and Peruvians have greater kinship among them than do the Caribbean-type Hispanics who stress Negro admixture to a greater extent.  Genetic differentiation (and kinship) seems highest among Amerindians and Pacific Islanders.

Fst between populations may be “substantially larger” than previously determined:

Remarkably, our estimated FST of 0.260 is substantially larger than estimates around 0.098 from existing approaches (Fig. 3) and previous measurements based on FST [30, 45] or related variance component models [31, 46, 47] — except for some AMOVA  ST estimates [48] (pairwise FST estimates [23, 49– 52] are not generally comparable to our estimate). Existing approaches underestimate FST because they assume zero kinship between subpopulations, clearly incorrect as seen in Fig. 1C, whereas our new approach models arbitrary kinship between individuals and leverages kinship to estimate FST.

Consistent with the “genes follow geography” paradigm, with genetic variation being both clinal and discontinuous.

We typically see that each ancestry cluster is concentrated in a certain geographical region, and this ancestry is also present to a lesser extent in neighboring regions and diminishes with geographical distance from its point of greatest concentration. This again argues for a complex population structure where relatedness at the population level falls on a continuum rather than taking on discrete values. The most notable geographic discontinuities in ancestry were observed for cluster 3, which is roughly West Eurasian ancestry.

And within West Eurasians?

Among West Eurasians, kinship is higher within Europe, reflecting another bottleneck.

So much for those that have denied any differences among West Eurasians.

It would be useful to use the new kinship estimator to get quantitative data for groups and transform those into child equivalents as well. That would be important for biopolitical considerations, an important component, but not the only component, of biopolitical identity. Identity – particularly from the general Yockeyian perspective I espouse – has multiple components.

Interestingly, he authors of this paper take a similar perspective; thus:

This partition into subpopulation is based on geography, history, language families, and our kinship estimates.

If “history” includes cultural/civilizational components, which are the major proximate interests, then this tracks well with my idea of Identity, composed both from the key ultimate interest (genetic kinship) and the major proximate interests. These different sets of interests synergize to form sharp discontinuities which are not present when only one interest is considered in isolation.

Now, I do not agree with the authors including the Ashkenazim in the European subpopulation, but that does not mean their approach is wrong – they are simply following the same simplistic mindset reflected by the testing companies that “they are found in Europe so they are European,” ignoring the history of the Ashkenazim as a Diaspora group akin to the Roma.

But, that’s a minor detail. The major approach of synergistic Identity is sound.


Implications of the Marcus Case

Jews are an ethnic group.

First, read my definition of “indigenous,” which I believe is reasonable and captures the essence of the essential meaning of the term in a manner that can be fairly applied to all peoples, including Whites.

Very well.  Now read this, emphasis added:

The move by Kenneth L. Marcus, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights and a longtime opponent of Palestinian rights causes, signaled a significant policy shift on civil rights enforcement — and injected federal authority in the contentious fights over Israel that have divided campuses across the country. It also put the weight of the federal government behind a definition of anti-Semitism that targets opponents of Zionism, and it explicitly defines Judaism as not only a religion but also an ethnic origin.

And it comes after the Trump administration moved the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, moved to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority and announced the closing of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s office in Washington.

In a letter to the Zionist Organization of America, obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Marcus said he would vacate a 2014 decision by the Obama administration and re-examine the conservative Jewish group’s cause not as a case of religious freedom but as possible discrimination against an ethnic group.

There is much in support of Marcus’ contention that Jews are an ethnic group: population genetics studies that show that the bulk of Jewry (excluding some numerically small outliers), and especially the Ashkenazim (but others like the Sephardim are genetically close to the Ashkenazim as well, so they all can be viewed as one large group), do constitute a biologically distinct population group; history; culture; certain physical and behavioral traits; a sense of shared destiny and peoplehood – the totality of Identity. The fact is that genetic testing can identify Jews and even one-half and one-quarter Jews.

In this sense, Marcus agrees not only with the verdict of science and history, but with what White nationalists and other racial activists have been saying for a long time: Jews are a distinct ethnic group.

Now, a question.  If Jews are an ethnic group, where is their homeland?  In other words, to what territory are they indigenous to?  Is it in Europe?

After all, the English are indigenous to England, Germans to Germany, Italians to Italy, Russians to Russia, Irish to Ireland, Swedes to Sweden, Greeks to Greece, etc. Even at the level of “regions,” this still holds: Saxons and Bavarians, Padanians and Sicilians, Flemish and Walloons, Basques and Catalonians and Andalusians, Bretons, etc. are all indigenous to their particular areas of Europe.

Where in Europe – specifically where – is the Jewish ethnic group indigenous?   Re-read the definition if you need help answering that question.

Answer: Nowhere.  They are not indigenous to any nation or region of Europe for the simple fact that they are not European.  Like the Roma, the Jews are an intrusive group that entered Europe in historical times, settled into nations and regions already populated by indigenous groups still extant today, and to an extent interbred with the natives (although there are still large pockets of essentially pure Roma and there is variation among Jews in their ancestral proportions).  

Now, no one on the Far Right – and most people otherwise in fact – consider the Roma to be European, to be White.  They are considered a racial minority group within Europe.

The same applies to the Jews, and that derives not only from facts, history, and logic, but from the views of Jews themselves – the refutation of the Alt Wrong “they look White to me” attitude in fact directly can be derived from the arguments of Marcus.

If Jews are an ethnic group – and they are – then they cannot be one that is indigenous to Europe; there is no “blood and soil” tie between Jews and any specific nation or region of Europe. They are a Diaspora group scattered across Europe, and across Asia and North Africa as well.  They have chosen Israel as their homeland, properly reflecting their modern historical origins in the Levant, in the Middle East.

They can’t have it both ways – on the one hand claiming (truthfully) to be an ethnic group, but at the same time claiming to be “White” and “European.”  

Who is Marcus?  Great to see that the “God Emperor” is taking good care of people – the Jews – who did NOT vote for him, who despite him, and are part of the “resistance” against him.  Meanwhile, his supporters are ignored, shunned, or he signs legislation bringing the force of the federal government to combat them.  In other words, Trump punishes his friends and rewards his enemies.  A “cuck nagger” if I ever saw one.

The JQ In A Nutshell

Brief and to the point.

Read here.  Emphasis added:

For Jews living in Western societies, however, the migrants aren’t the only outgroup. Western peoples and cultures themselves are an outgroup— see my book Separation and Its Discontents. Hence one would expect Jewish negative attitudes toward both immigrants and the host white culture. 

So Jewish attitudes could be analyzed as simply whichever outgroup summons up the greater hostility. And Jewish attitudes are primarily determined by their hostility towards whites.

Thus, to Jews, Whites are (outgroup) enemy number one.  Here we see Identity in its totality, a combination of genes, phenotypes, religion and other aspects of culture, history, and self-conception.  One cannot conflate Jewish Identity to any one of these things, it is all of them in combination.  Those who focus on one and try to ask “are Jews White?” miss the point entirely.  In the last analysis, Jews themselves view themselves as a separate people, and that is how they should be viewed by us.

Jews in the News, 4/13/15

All to be expected.
Jews in Hungary get rowdy, march, denounce Jobbik – to which I reply with two words: Bela Kun.
Thus, the Jewish mentality: countless Eastern Europeans (*) murdered by Jewish (**) commissars is just “something that happened,” but let a political party represent the interests of the native European majority, make Jews feel slightly uncomfortable by Jobbik, and it is a tragedy requiring international news reporting.  Note to marchers: there’s a reason why you are universally disliked, guys.
*Mostly in Russia and Ukraine, but to a lesser extent in every nation tainted by communism.
**Regardless of his matrilineage, Kun’s Jewish patrilineage would have made him eligible under Israel’s “law of return.”  Also please note the ancestry of the other architects of Hungary’s “Red Terror.”  Question: have the Jews ever admitted, much less apologized for, the crimes they committed under communism?