Category: Jews are not White

Genes and Health in Der News

In all cases, emphasis added.

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

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

Comparing admixed Latin Americans to the Finnish population isolate: 

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

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

Alcohol consumption, SNPs, and ancestry:

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

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

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


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.

Common Sense Fetishist and Other News

More “movement” stupidity (redundancy).  In all cases, emphasis added.

“Common Sense Counselor” – another deranged fetishist. Good sense from “Cascadia Patriot” answered by the usual fossilized dogma by Der Flabby Irishman:

Cascadia Patriot
Ashkenazi Jews are not a “European tribe”. They are a mixed-Race people with varying degrees of White-European admixture. For a large percentage, and for many, the admixture is likely to be mostly from the last 300 to 400 years or so. Prior to that they were a much more insulated and separated community throughout Europe (minor exceptions are usually the case though). They still have varying degrees of descent from ancient Near Eastern and Middle Eastern peoples who came into Europe over the last 2000 years or so.
Common Sense Counselor
I do not want to quibble, but can the same be said for Italians and Slavs?

No, you stupid bastard.  And Slavs, for christssakes?  That’s what you get when an ex-libertarian flabby retard imbibes “movement” dogma.

See this, ignorant moron. The Ashkenazim are a mix of Middle Eastern, Southern European (mostly Italian), and Eastern European (Slavic).  So, if “Italians and Slavs” are mixed race mongrels according to your Irish racial purity (so admired by Der Movement, no doubt, Anglocentric American racialism historically being known for being pro-Irish), then I suppose that makes the Ashkenazim doubly-mixed mongrels, eh?

The fetishist is answered by the original poster:

Cascadia Patriot

@Common Sense Counselor No. Neither have widespread and significant admixture from the Near East and Middle East. Both are indigenous to Europe, unlike the origins of Ashkenazi Jews, and have a very similar 7,000 to 10,000 year history in their genetics, again, which the Ashkenazi only have due to relatively recent admixture (last 400 years or so) from Europeans. It’s been shown in studies that a fairly low percentage have a fairly low amount of admixture from non-European non-Whites (some Italians and some Slavs). Also, if you look up 3 dimensional PCA diagrams on Racial genetics they all cluster close in the White-European family.  

Southern and Eastern Europeans are on the peripheries so obviously there will be more outliers and ancient “frontier” and borderline mixtures. But the same can be said for others and all of this is the argument the anti-Whites use to say that the White-European sub-Race doesn’t exist. Which is nonsense and we just have to do our best to maintain what we’ve had for many thousands of years now.

See this.

The only thing that is permanent is the mark that one makes on the world with one’s deeds. Everyone wants to live well, of course, but it is better to live effectively: to live so that one is remembered for what one has accomplished.

And to put a little finer edge on the concept, it is not just fame in itself which is important. What counts also is the type of fame, the type of renown. The goal was to be remembered not just for being able to throw a spear farther than others or to swing a battle-ax harder or to use a sword more skillfully; it was to be remembered for having lived a meaningful life, a significant life. For some that meant a life of accomplishment, of changing the world; for others it meant a life lived as closely as possible in accord with the ideals of personal honor and of service to one’s people, so that one’s life could be held up as a model and remembered as such.

Superiority is not a birthright; superiority must be earned.

Burger King is an international terrorist organization.  That is not sarcasm. It is a logical extrapolation of their call to use their products for political violence. Why doesn’t anyone on the British Right sue them for godssakes?

Close down Burger King. Arrest their CEO and Board of Directors for promoting international terrorism.

A Purebred Son of Europe

As much an Aryan as the good and great Professor Hart, no doubt.

So, here we see a Jew named Letzter complaining about ancestry testing variability, even though, as we shall see, he is benefiting from parental privilege.

The thing I find interesting is the 23andMe results – he tests as 100% Ashkenazi Jewish, which the company labels as “100% European.”  A purebred son of Europe!  More of a purebred than Spencer and Johnson, eh?

Now, the alert reader is probably wondering – if the Ashkenazi genepool is ~ 50% (modern) Middle Eastern, how can someone who is 100% Ashkenazi be 100% European?

Well, let’s trace the “logic” of 23andMe here, and the “logic” of those that take such test results seriously while onanistically and breathlessly discussing the data on Amren comments threads.

First, we have a specific narrow ethnic group being well represented among the parental (or reference) samples used to determine genetic affiliation.

Second, a member of that group gets tested, and since he is essentially being compared to himself, he gets a result of 100% membership in that group (*).

Third, 23andMe decides to label that group as “European;” hence, the individual is “100% European”- obviously nonsense from a genetic-historical perspective.

This tells us two things about ancestry testing as offered by the various companies:

1. The results obtained are exquisitely sensitive to, and dependent upon, the available parental populations – the choices of the reference samples used.

2. The superficial interpretation of the results, particularly for normie and Nutzi nitwits, is going to be influenced by the choice of labels that a company decides to use for given ancestral components.

Considering the second point, 23andMe could have just as easily labelled Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as “Middle Eastern,” or perhaps (and most accurately) given it its own category separate from both European and Middle Eastern.

More importantly, consider the first point.  A thought experiment – what if there were no Jewish parental population samples, and Ashkenazi Jews had to be analyzed using non-Jewish parental populations?  Then, instead of being “100% Ashkenazi Jewish,” such Jews would get results indicating they are a mix of Middle Eastern, Southern European, and Eastern European.

I trust that people with a triple digit IQ see the underlying problem here, and why parental privilege is such a big issue with these tests.  A person’s fundamental results, and the public perception of “purity,” is going to drastically differ dependent upon whether their narrow ethny (or ethnies) is included as a parental population or not. When Ashkenazi Jews are included as parentals, people of such ancestry will get results such as “100% Ashkenazi Jewish” (*) – labeled as “100% European” – but if the Ashkenazim were not included as a parental population, then those same people, with their same genomes, would now be interpreted as mixtures of various other groups.

Thus, the outcome of the measurement is fully dependent upon how the measurement is conducted – Bohr and Heisenberg could have fit in well with 23andMe and the other testing companies.

And idiots who take the companies’ reporting of results at face value, without considering all of these points, are just that – idiots.

*Yes, the first iteration of Letzter’s results had his Ashkenazi percent in the “low 90s.” That is still remarkably good and indicative of someone with parental privilege, a person deriving from a specific ethny well represented in the parental population base. Consider that for the somewhat broader British/Irish category, also well represented as parentals, Derbyshire got only ~ 70%, although the strong representation of other Northwestern European samples covered him very well at the regional level. If 23andMe had a well-represented specific English category, Derbyshire’s main ancestry percentage would have been higher.  

The bottom line is that “low 90s” for a single ethnic group is a great match, and 100% obviously cannot be improved upon.  Derbyshire’s results are not as good from the single group perspective, but from a regional/subracial basis, he’s also a parental privilege beneficiary – his entire ancestry is covered by groups represented as parentals and labeled in the “European” category.  

As an extremely important aside, I would strongly suspect that both Derbyshire as well as Letzter would have a very low “unassigned” percentage at the highest (90%) confidence level of the 23andMe test. Such a low percentage would indicate that there is excellent parental population coverage for the person’s entire ancestry. The difference between, Letzter and Derbyshire is that the good parental population coverage for Letzter is highly specific (Ashkenazi Jewish) while for Derbyshire is its more diffuse with broader groups (British/Irish and other closely related Northern and Western European ethnies). The relatively greater advantage for Letzter is indicative of both the obsession with Jewish genetics (and thus the availability of Ashkenazi parentals) and the high level of distinctiveness of the Ashkenazi genepool.  

Even apart from the issue of how the company decides to label ancestral components, the validity of 23andMe results at the lower confidence levels is, in my opinion and consistent with logic, going to be correlated to the amount of “unassigned”  ancestry at the highest confidence level.  Indeed, for those people with low  “unassigned” at 90% confidence, it is very likely that their 50% and 90% confidence results will be quite similar – an obvious impossibility for those people getting in the range of ~ 30-50% “unassigned”  at the 90% level.

A Message for Eric Kaufmann

A brief message.

Following up on this, we read this:

Eric Kaufmann was born in Hong Kong and raised in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. His ancestry is mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent…

So, the person advising on how to ease the anxiety of Whites so that they can be more easily (slowly) dispossessed and, eventually, race-replaced by mixed-race individuals, is himself mixed-race and half-Jewish. I’m shocked, shocked, I say.

So, here is a brief message for Kaufmann:

Dear Sir,

I do not know your level of sincerity concerning your work on White interests. Regardless, taken to its logical conclusion, and from your own words, the ultimate outcome of Whites following your advice is their slow but inevitable demographic eclipse and their race replacement by a mixed-race population.

I note that your own ancestry is described as “mixed with a quarter Chinese and a quarter Latino. His father is of Jewish descent.”  Even if we were to assume that the “Latino” is Euro-Iberian, then that still leaves 75% of your ancestry of non-European descent. Therefore, by the standards of those who most closely exemplify the pursuit of White interests you pontificate about, you are not “White.”

Very well, you have the right to express your opinion.  So do I.  And my opinion, expressed here, is the same that I have expressed toward other non-Whites attempting to interfere with the expression of White interests by Whites.  

Whites have their own internal debates, their own conflicts (ethnicity, sub-race, religion, etc.), their own consideration of different strategies, and their own concerns. These are OUR affairs, not yours.  These are OUR conflicts, not yours. These are OUR debates, not yours.  And these are OUR interests, not yours.

How Whites relate to each other, how Whites decide to work together (or not), how Whites decide to strategize (or not) in defense of their own interests, that is something for US to do, not you.  Ultimately, WE have to be the arbiters of OUR fate. OURSELVES ALONE.

And, no, we do not need, or want, non-Whites with their every “helpful” advice, telling us that our best option is to slow down our displacement, replacement, and destruction; that we are “dying of Whiteness;” promoting intra-White division; that we need alliances with Asians in which Whites must grovel before their Yellow and Brown masters; that we must have a multiracial “White separatist state;” that we are akin to child molesters and are “latrine flies;” that we must accept the “racial status quo;” that racial preservation for its own sake is “insane;” that we must have a “Red State nation” that accepts “conservative Blacks;” etc. 

Maybe, sir, you can take your advice to Israel, and suggest to the Jews there how they can accommodate their eventual race replacement by Arabs through an increased short-term focus on Jewish interests (hard to say how they can go beyond what they already have), or you can go to China and spread a similar message there – although, contra Frost and the “Arctic Alliance” crowd, the Chinese are hardly in any danger of race replacement.  But, wherever you go and whatever you do, we can do without your proffered chalice, dripping as it is with carefully concealed poison.

Whatever the outcome of the White racial problem, I do not believe the outcome is going to be pleasant for the likes of you. If you are wrong, and Whites quietly go to extinction without any expression of self-interest, then the resulting Colored dystopia will ultimately not be of benefit for the Coloreds themselves.

What if you are correct about the situation? That you are correct that it is untenable to suppress the expression of self-interest by a group whose demographic majority is disappearing? Let’s say I agree with you – even the White omega race may well become ever more demanding of their racial self-interest.  Where I disagree with you is with the idea that this discontent can be effectively managed through a safety valve release of controlled, moderate expression of racial self-interest. 

As Suvorov wrote – revolutions do not occur during the time of greatest repression, but when that repression is suddenly relaxed.  Louis XVI learned that, as did Gorbachev. Once the expression of White racial interests is legitimized, once the pent-up fury of a wronged people begins to be released, how can it be safely controlled? Once the genie is out of the bottle, and the toothpaste is out of the tube, can everything be safely be put away again once things begin to spiral out of control?

The future is chaos. And your stage-managed attempt at orderly White extinction will only add to that chaos. Enjoy.

Best regards,

Ted Sallis

Thursday News

More stupidity.

Not bad, Ann, not bad.  What?  It only took you 3.5 years to realize the same thing I was saying back in mid-2015.  A one, a one, a one-two-three….

23andMe retardation – if Jews are distinct from Europeans, then why does your company list Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry as “European?”  You admit that they’re distinct yet you still place them there.  This is proof positive that (1) labels given by testing companies have no connection to objective reality; and (2) they know that what they are doing is wrong, but they still do it.

At this point, I think the companies should just label ancestral components with neutral labels – e.g., “A,B, C, D, E, etc.” and then we can observe what combination of components are diagnostic of different ethnies.  But, alas, while that would be more objective, it wouldn’t be good for sales now, would it?

Have fun!  After all, why shouldn’t the Strzok types have access to “hater” DNA?  What could go wrong?

In an email to its users on Sunday, the company’s president, Bennett Greenspan, defended the agreement with the F.B.I. but apologized for not revealing it sooner.

Another thing I’ve noticed is the following.  Say that Population A is one of the categories listed on a company’s ancestral breakdowns.  Population A we know is composed of individual ethnic groups U,V, X, X,Y,Z.  So, A is a regional or sub-racial group.  Then, the company will state that ancestry from Population C is a component of the ancestry of Population A, but then show individuals of A ancestry represented as composites of A and C.

Here we see the problem.  If C is part of the genepool of A, and A is a separate category with its own designation, then how can members of A be A+C if C is already considered part of A?  You can wave hands around and say that some people have more C than is the average of A, but if you follow the logic of the company’s designation that doesn’t seem like the fundamental explanation.  After all, if they say that C is a component of A and is typically seen with A and if A is its own category, then any C that is part of A should simply be part of the identity of A and should not be reported separately.  The C cannot be at the same time part of, and separate from, A.

I believe that the real solution to this problem is that Population A is being identified with a parental population that is mostly composed of U, or maybe U and V, and the other ethnic components of A are ignored as parental populations. If the ancestral origins of X has more C than does the origins of U, and if A is being defined as U, then X is going to equal some portion of U and some portion of C. However, the U is used to define A, so X becomes A+C, even though C is a component of A.

Solutions to this is could be to include all the components of A as parentals for A, or simply rename A as U and stop pretending that it is broader than U, or have X as a separate population label with its own parental population.  But to continue pretending that although A = U it is suitable for the totality of U-Z is inappropriate, and will lead to paradoxical results and interpretations.

My question at this point is whether the companies understand this (if they do not – that is frightening) or whether they simply do not want to confuse customers (and lose potential sales by being upfront about the important nuances of interpretation – which would be contemptible).

But, hey, it’s all good for folks with names like Greenspan, so what’s not to like?

Whither Jewish Genetics

Labels do not represent reality.

Gee…now that Amren has covered this, what about this (emphasis added):

Recent genomic studies that have identified a component of distinctive ancestry for Jewish individuals have largely focused on Ashkenazi Jews sampled in the United States in relation to the broader European-American population [7, 8, 9, 10], finding most recently that individuals with even partial Ashkenazi ancestry can be detected on the basis of principal components analysis [10]. Our study furthers the results of these studies by showing that a distinctive component of genomic ancestry extends to Jewish populations more broadly.

A simple explanation for the clustering of the Jewish populations is that this pattern is the consequence of shared ancestry with an ancestral Middle Eastern group…Bayesian clustering with Structure assigns the Jewish populations and the Palestinians to the same cluster (Figure 2), and by the relatively close placement of the Palestinians and the Jewish populations in MDS plots of individual distances (Figure 5). This genetic similarity, which is supported by several previous studies [12, 65, 66], is compatible with a similar Middle Eastern origin of the Jewish populations and the Palestinians.

I guess not.  More likely is perhaps an analysis of the hora-dancing genes of Romanians.  As I’ve said before, it is the inconsistency I find objectionable. If you want to talk about Iberian ancestry, all well and good, but then you should talk about Jewish ancestry as well.  If you focus on the former while always studiously ignoring the latter then people will justifiably question why.

Also, consider this – some ancestry testing companies, including 23andMe, label Ashkenazi Jewish genetics as “European;” thus, to them, 100% Ashkenazi Jewish = 100% European.  In other words, a Middle Eastern ethnic group that has some European admixture, a group with genetic similarity to Palestinians, is considered “European” (presumably because the most recent historical location of this ethny was scattered among the peoples of Europe, just as are the Roma).

On the other hand, authentic indigenous European ethnies that are not adequately represented by parental population samples are described as a mix of mostly European with some “admixture,” despite the fact that it would make more ethnic-historical sense to label the genepools of those ethnies as “100% European” than it would to label the Palestinian-like Ashkenazi genepool as “100% European.”

Thus, a company has adequate Ashkenazi parental population coverage (Jews are always analyzing their own genetics, so there’s plenty of data for Jewish genetic normalization) and decides, arbitrarily, to label this ethny as European, so – presto! – they are “European,” while other populations that are indigenous to Europe, and whose genepools should therefore be described as European, are instead represented as composites of whatever populations that happen to be in the company’s parental sample base.

It is a complete inversion of reality, absolute madness.

On the great Jack Vance – a thousand times better than Tolkien.

The God Emperor is kosher indeed. MIGA – Make Israel Great Again

This will, of course, do nothing but make the HBD Alt Wrong support Trump all the more.

Hey, Strom, do you still think that “Putin is playing a deep game?”

Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Sallis: Right, right, he’s always right.

But, ah, it really doesn’t matter, does it?

The thing that annoys me about all these fellows is that they can never admit being wrong.  That hints at some flaw of character.  Perhaps they believe that admitting error shows weakness, but I believe the opposite – a refusal to admit obvious error is what demonstrates weakness.

Speaking of the syndrome of grossly mistaken hero worship, here’s cuck nagger Steve King.

And speaking of always being wrong, the “movement” – having learned nothing from Nixon, Reagan, Ron Paul, Putin, and Trump – is now championing Tulsi – The Yeastbucket on Pacific Island Coconut Tree Syndrome.

Der Movement’s affirmative action program is real and it is destructive – thanks a lot readers for enabling it.