Category: population genetics

More on DNA Testing

DNA testing.

Putting aside the issue of companies intentionally altering results for sociopolitical reasons – for which they should be sued by customers – I think these tests are reasonably good at determining majority ancestry at the continental level and also good at determining high (10-15+ %) “admixture” at the continental level as well.  23andme, with all the SNPs they use, will most likely be reasonably accurate for intra-continental majority ancestry – whether someone is of British Isles descent or more generally Northern European or Eastern European or Southern European, etc. Some other information may be more or less accurate as well, but there are limits.  As I’ve said before, I would have a healthy skepticism for any minor ancestry under 10%, definitely skeptical under 5%, and once you get below the 1-2% range it’s laughable to believe that’s realistically statistically different from zero.  The possibility that these companies screw around with customers is real; it may be more likely though that they make the significance levels so broad that they virtually guarantee some “exotic admixture” for many people, particularly those not people derived from parental populations from which gene frequencies were determined (*).

The tests are more useful than some of the more extreme detractors claim; they do work in the broad sense stated above.  But they do not work to the extent that they are advertised by the companies, and they certainly cannot be used to definitively determine ancestry in the Nutzi fashion of obsessing over “purity” – even the most stringent confidence intervals used by these companies is not at the levels commonly accepted in the literature, and these companies have already admitted that genetic distance from parental populations can create artefactual admixture.  Tools are useful when used properly and when you understand their limitations, and these tests are tools that can be used or misused.

The one good thing about these tests is the accumulation of raw autosomal DNA data, which could be used in the future for genetic kinship assays or genetic structure analyses.  Years ago, Decodeme allowed 23andme users to upload their raw data and gave back a ranked list of ethnic groups most genetically similar to the uploaded profile.  That was a form of genetic kinship analysis (crude and qualitative) that was useful, generating findings that refuted both the crazed race-deniers of the Left and the crazed ethnic fetishists of the Right.

I’d like to finish by answering certain fundamentally dishonest population geneticists, interviewed by leftist journalists, who make comments such as “there’s no thing as a White European group” and “there are no single gene variants that distinguish one group from another; we all share such variants.”

As regards the first comment, your own data refute your statement, a continental European group (which can of course be further subdivided as one gets ever more fine-grained in the analysis) clearly falls out of the data, and the fact that the group – depending on how things are studied – may be slightly fuzzy around its edges does in no way suggest it does not exist.

As far as your second comment goes, I do notice the word “single” in there, you misleading, mendacious bastards – who says single gene variants define any population group?  Isn’t that why you study hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of SNPs, you dishonest scum?

Fat chance any of these people ever doing genetic kinship assays or DifferInt analyses on large-scale human data.  It’s not “paranoia” to say they have political agendas, it is just plain fact.  Anyone who doubts that should meet some of these folks at scientific conferences, go up to them at their poster presentations, and delicately bring up the implications of their work with respect to race.  You will get a hysterical SJW tirade in response; for these people anti-racist politics are more important than scientific integrity, by at least one order of magnitude.  Still doubt it?  Read this, particularly the last paragraph.

*Consider the category “unassigned” in these test results, which for customers of certain ethnies can reach very high percentages when the most conservative confidence intervals are used (and even those confidence intervals are too “liberal” by scientific standards).  So, what does it mean?  That these people are part-Martian?  No, what is actually does mean is that these companies have very poor ethnic coverage, and when one approaches reasonable confidence intervals large fractions of these people’s genomes are left undetermined.  That also raises the question of how accurate the assigned determinations of the genome for these people are, for minority “admixture,” as noted above.


Genetic Engineering Humans for Ethnoracial Preservation

Also, a note about weaponized CRISPR.

Some relevant excerpts:

There are at least three semi-successful techniques for de-extinction so far.  1) Selective back-breeding of existing descendents to recreate a primordial ancestor is being used for the revival of the European aurochs, among others.  2) Cloning with cells from cryopreserved tissue of a recently extinct animal can generate viable eggs.  If the eggs are implanted in a closely related surrogate mother, some pregnancies produce living offspring of the extinct species. 3) Allele replacement for precisely hybridizing a living species into an extinct species is the new genome-editing technique developed by George Church.  If the technique proves successful (such as with the passenger pigeon), it might be applied to the many other extinct species that have left their ancient DNA in museum specimens and fossils up to 500,000 years old.

As someone concerned with actual genetic fidelity, and not just “form and function” I am not enthusiastic about approach 1, which does not actually reproduce the original creature but merely a functional analog of it. Approach 2 is certainly sound from my perspective; approach 3 in theory could be equally sound if the “precisely hybridizing” means a full and complete allele to allele replacement so that the original creature is actualized with full genetic fidelity.  But note the following:

Even with exponential advances in bio-technology, de-extinction projects will not produce species that are 100% genetically identical to the extinct species, due to the constraints of working with incomplete ancient DNA.  It is expected that the revived species will be nearly identical genetically, and “functionally identical” ecologically.

I’m not thrilled with that, obviously.  In some cases, if that is the best that can be done, fine, but if it is possible to produce a ~100% identical reproduction, then that should be pursued, and not just a “quick-and-dirty” “functionally identical” analog. Now, I’ve read that, for example, the Woolly Mammoth genome has been fully sequenced, with multiple reads, so I don’t see why in that case an attempt for ~100% fidelity can’t be attempted.  I say ~100% rather than 100% because there’s always a possibility of some error or artifact, but at some point, if we approach 100% to a degree within methodological error, then we can assume the goal is achieved.  

But, that’s ancient samples.  If we want to “de-extinct” or re-populate (to increase numbers and/or genetic diversity) of extant, endangered species, then we have the full genomes available and these data must be carefully compiled and curated. There’s no excuse for not being able to reproduce with 100% genetic fidelity currently existing organisms.

Now, we get to the meat of the issue: human ethnoracial preservationism.  European ethnic stocks are endangered, all eventually if current trends continue, but some faster than others.  These are extant, currently existing subspecies, and there is no excuse to not being able to reproduce these in the future – we can get the genetic data, accurately, today.  The genetics of extant European ethnies need to be compiled and curated, in the event it should be necessary and possible to “de-extinct” or re-populate particular types.  Am I talking about genetic engineering humans?  Yes, I am, and I am not interested in hysterical fainting fits over “ethics” or “morals.”  Euro-genocide is not ethical or moral, yet it is occurring, so leveraging science in the service of ethnic and racial preservation is highly ethical and moral.  And we need full genome sequencing of many, many, many representatives of different ethnic groups, to cover a range of sub-types, and to recreate a reasonable amount of genetic diversity for each curated ethny.

Getting back to ancient samples – could we reproduce ancient human stocks, it necessary?  People talk about Neanderthals, and that’s all well and good, but if we have autosomal genetic data with full, or close to full, coverage, can we reproduce, say, Ancient Egyptians?  Spartans?  Vikings?  Romans?  Can we recreate Medieval or Renaissance man?  Or certain prominent individuals?  Assuming the DNA is available?

Getting back to modern humans – can we also curate certain Euro ethnic hybrids?  Yes, we should.  And the data could be used to devise Euro hybrids of our own choosing, or, conversely, could be used to “clean up” ethnic genomes of low-level admixture (if such is desired).  Again, let us have no qualms about genetic engineering of humans for ethnoracial preservation and/or to expand the scope of European ethnic stocks.  We should view this ONLY as a methodological problem, not a “moral” or “ethical” one.  Whose morals and ethics do we appeal to, anyway?

De-extinction is not a “quick fix” science.  Most species revival projects will take many decades.  First, extensive research about a candidate species is conducted before moving into a lab setting for genomic work to revive the species.  Then, once the initial revival is completed, the species will be bred in captivity, preferably with genetic variability introduced from the genomes of a range of specimens or fossils.  The growing population will be studied and then eventually moved to quarantine areas for further observation and analysis.  Getting the okay from regulatory agencies will be required before the animals are ultimately re-introduced to the wild.

Passenger pigeons, for example, will initially be bred in captivity by zoos, then placed into netted woods, and then finally re-introduced to portions of   their original habitat—America’s eastern deciduous forest.  Before that happens, The US Fish and Wildlife Service and regulatory agencies in the relevant states will have to agree to welcome the resurgent birds.

he same basic principles can apply to humans as well.


On a related note, consider the following. Of one remembers all the talk of years past about ethnic-targeted weapons, the possibility of weaponized CRISPR should be grounds for careful reflection.

As the degenerate West collapses into a multiracial morass, rest assured the more homogeneous Orient will pursue technologies for warfare that the decadent Occident would have SJW fainting fits over.  One can envision a CRISPR-type system targeting European-specific gene sequences, delivered by a transmissible virus.  And, there is, insofar as we know, no stockpiles of anti-CRISPR therapeutics (e.g., CRISPR inhibitors in an efficiently deliverable form).  We may be headed towards a genetics weapons arms race, one that is actively pursued by cunning Yellows and inanely eschewed by milksop Whites.

Yet Even More DifferInt

More DifferInt model results.

Note that genepool is exactly the same between both populations, but rearranging genotype combinations gives some differentiation at single and multiple locus measurements even when including elementary genic differences, and there is complete differentiation at the level of multiple locus genotypes neglecting elementary genic differences, even though the genepools are identical and there is not a very large number of genotype rearrangements between the populations. This shows how rapidly complete differentiation is achieved when considering discrete genotype combinations.

(A = 1, T = 2, C = 3, G = 4, first number = number of individuals per genotype)


1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  4 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  4 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  3 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  3 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4


1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  3 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  3 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1 2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  4 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  4 4

Genepool: 0.0000

Single locus including elementary genic differences: 0.0167

Single locus neglecting elementary genic differences: 0.0333

Multiple locus including elementary genic differences: 0.0410

Multiple locus neglecting genic differences: 1.0000

Yet More DifferInt

More on genetic integration.

Some interesting quotes from this paper; emphasis added:

The elementary genic difference does not distinguish homologous from non-homologous genes. Hence, the homologous and non-homologous gene arrangements within the objects affect the elementary genic differences between them only through their sum. For example, in the case of diploid individuals scored at two gene loci A and B, say, the genotypes A1A1/B1B2 and A1A2/B1B3 represent three (A1, B1, B2) and four (A1, A2, B1, B3), respectively, of the total of five gene-types. A1 is represented by two copies in the first genotype and by one copy in the second, and the remaining four gene-types are represented by at most one copy in each of the two genotypes. The sum of copy number differences between the two genotypes thus equals four. After division by twice the number of individual genes in a genotype (i.e. 2·4), this yields 0.5

as the elementary genic difference. The same result is obtained for the two genotypes A1A2/B1B2 and A1A2/B3B3, even though all genic differences are now due to the alleles at a single locus (B).

Proceeding from lower to higher levels of integration, one expects an increase in differentiation among populations simply because of the larger varietal potential inherent in more complex structures. Since differentiation is based on distances, the distance between two populations should therefore also increase, or at least not decrease, with integration level.

…it appears that differentiation among populations with respect to their forms of gene association may be a normal occurrence. This insight questions the common practice of restricting the measurement of population differentiation to the allelic level (e.g. FST), thereby ignoring the considerable effects of gene association on population differentiation.

One major finding of the paper is that model data routinely give no increase in differentiation (measured including elementary genic differences) with increasing genetic integration, but real data does show increases.  One wonders if large scale human SNP data would demonstrate such differences, as opposed to the limited SNP data or model systems I have used, which demonstrate increased differentiation only when elementary genic differences are neglected.  On the other hand, as I’ve previously written, neglecting elementary genic differences is, I believe, more compatible with my idea of genetic structure.

That said, one can, if they choose allele structure carefully, produce models that do the exact opposite, have equality at the lower levels of genetic integration, but differentiation at the highest level.

Here is an interesting population model I devised and tested with DifferInt; the differences between the two populations are highlighted.  Note that total numbers of each allele are the same, and the total numbers of single locus genotypes are the same as well.  Thus, genepool differentiation is zero (0.000), as is single locus genotype differentiation, also zero (0.000).  The arrangement of the first and ninth single locus genotypes, together, were changed in six of ten individuals between the two populations, thus producing differentiation specifically at the level of multilocus genotypes. 

(A = 1, T = 2, C= 3, G = 4; first number = number of individuals) 

MLG with EGD: 0.0246

MLG w/o EGD: 0.6000 (6/10 individuals per population altered)


1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

 1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4


1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  3 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 2  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1 2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

1  1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4 1 1  2 2  2 3  3 3  1 1  1 4

More Genetic Structure and DifferInt Analysis

An important topic.

I have been looking a bit more at the DifferInt program (currently unable to find anything better), testing some model genotypes to better understand the relationship between different levels of integration with respect to the amount of differentiation.  One finding which is clear that it is when genetic differentiation – at the lowest genepool level – between groups is shallow is when the program is scalable at the level of the highest level of integration.

A test model was devised with two populations of eleven individuals each.  Six loci were considered.  Initially, the two populations were constructed to be genetically identical. Four individuals of the second population had alleles at one lock rearranged so that four heterozygotes were made into four homozygotes (two of each type), without changing the total number of each allele type for that locus in that population.  After this change, the genepool differentiation was 0.0303, but the multilocus genotype neglecting elementary genic differences (MGNEGD) was 0.3636 – a twelve-fold increase in differentiation.  In this simple model of shallow genetic difference, a discrete representation of genetic structure (MGNEGD) is seen to exhibit sharply increased (and quantitatively scalable) differentiation with even a small change in allele structuring in genetically similar (model) populations.

However, when differentiation at the genepool level is already fairly high, then MGNEGD rises to complete differentiation quickly, and the ability to evaluate genetic structure becomes non-scalable using this program.  It could be that the SNP database I utilized for my initial human study was enriched in SNPs that sharply differentiate between ethnies and so all levels of differentiation were high in the analysis; perhaps completely random SNPs would be better? On the other hand, we are most concerned about the distinctive genome (with respect to EGI).  

In a more realistic model of human genetic differentiation, two populations were set up, each consisting of ten individuals, each assayed over 100 loci.  90 of these loci were absolutely identical between the two populations and 10 loci differed between the populations with respect to the frequencies of alleles at the loci.  In some cases, it was 100%  of one allele pair compared to 100% of another; in other cases it was more subtle – for example one population having 20% AA, 60% AT, and 20% TT while the other population was 20% AA, 50% AT, and 30% TT for the same locus.  The genepool differentiation between the two populations was 0.0370; the MGNEGD was 1.000 – complete differentiation.  This again shows that with enough loci studied and differentiated populations, analysis of discrete sets of multilocus genotypes (see my definition of genetic structure below) will reach complete differentiation.  The implications for genetic interests should be obvious.

It might be a good idea to review my idea of genetic structure again here.

Genetic structure as per my definition can be viewed as a form of linkage disequilibrium of alleles over all the loci in the genome, or this distinctive genome, of at least whatever number of loci that were assayed.  Each specific permutation of multilocus genotypes is a discrete entity, so that one would expect, of course, district genetic structures between any set of individuals who are not identical twins; there would be differences in genetic structure within families, never mind within ethnies.

However – and this is the key point that separates my idea from the run-of-the mill evaluations of genetic structure – I envision genetic structure to be defined by specific ranges of multilocus genotypes.  Therefore, while there is going to be, naturally, individual variation of discrete multilocus genotypes within families, there will be a family-specific range of multilocus genotypes, a range within which all the individual genotypes, of that family will fall within.  Likewise, there will be ethny-specific ranges of multilocus genotypes, so that members of an ethny will exhibit genotypes that – while they differ on an individual level – will fall within a range, a set, of genotypes characteristic of that ethny.  

It then follows, that while multilocus genotypes will be differentiated from each other, the extent of that differentiation will differ.  Different families will exhibit different ranges, or sets, of possible multilocus genotypes, but families belonging to the same ethny will exhibit ranges that are more similar to each other than that of families of different ethnies (the same goes for individuals of course, across families or across ethnies).  Ethnies belonging to the same continental population group (i.e., intra-racial) will exhibit more similar ranges of possibilities of multilocus genotypes than that of inter-racial comparisons.  One could think of it also as frequency distributions of multilocus genotypes, of all the alleles possibilities at all the relevant loci considered together as a discrete entity, and one can compare how similar the frequency distributions are, with more overlap from those more similar.  

One would also expect a solid correlation, or association, between the differentiation as measured by an allele-by-allele genepool/beanbag approach, single locus genotypes, and multilocus genotypes. The relative extent of differences should correlate in at least a qualitative sense between these levels of “genetic integration.”  Hence, as previously noted at this blog, “complete differentiation” at the multilocus genotype level should differ in extent dependent upon how similar or different the genotypes are from each other.  One should in theory be able to quantitate this in a continuous fashion, rather than just having a binary yes/no undifferentiated/completely differentiated choice.

This is obviously an important topic.  If we are to make decisions based on genetic interests, don’t we need to have a better understanding about what those interests actually are, quantitatively speaking?

It’s true that we know enough right now to justify taking action in defense of genetic interests; even at the lowest levels of genetic integration, and even with estimates of child equivalents based on Fst, we already know that mass migration of alien peoples is genocide.

So, yes, I’m sympathetic to the argument that in general, qualitatively speaking, it is more important to actualize a defense of the interests we already know about than to fine-tune our understanding of these interests. But why not both?  Nothing stops us from both organizing on a political and metapolitical level while at the same time continuing to refine our understanding of this topic.  While most of my work now concerns the political and metapolitical implications of defending EGI and of actualizing a High Culture, surely there is also a place for a better understanding of EGI and for a better understanding of Spenglerian cycles and how to control them foe civilizational benefit.

Meet Shah Jorjani


Let’s take a look at some “movement” stupidity from several weeks ago.  I’ve been busy with the DifferInt analyses over the past few weeks, but will get around to evaluating Der Movement’ s more recent antics when I have the time.

We can start with the following.

Since Greg Johnson quoted excerpts from Jorjani to, I presume, take another swipe at Spencer, let’s take a closer look at some other points Jorjani has to make.  When you read this, please remember that Jorjani has been taken seriously by BOTH Johnson and Spencer; he’s spoken at Counter-Currents events, and he was high in the councils of the Alt Right corporation (never mind Arktos).

….Croatia is a part of Iranian civilization. During Tito’s rule, which imposed a Slavic identity on all of Yugoslavia, scholars were actually prosecuted, imprisoned, and even tortured for researching and writing about the Iranian origin of the Croatian people. Specifically, they are part of the Scythian branch of Iranians – cousins of the Persians who rode deep into Europe.

Yes sir, Croatians are actually Iranians with a dastardly fake Slavic identity.  No doubt – no doubt whatsoever! – population genetics studies will place Croatians right there with Iranians and distant from those alien Balkan Slavs!  And if such studies don’t yield that result, then, by golly, it’s the ghost of Tito imposing an anti-Promethean contamination, falsifying the genetics!

Steve Bannon was known to be a reader of Arktos books and Michael’s plan was to send me into the White House to cultivate a relationship with Bannon, and through him, to influence President Trump. My main reason for wanting to have such influence was to help determine Iran policy.

As the Iron Sheik used to say, “Iran number one!”

…the funding for a capital investment that would have established me as the majority shareholder of the Alt-Right Corporation…

Very, very, very carefully consider the ramifications of this delusional Persian supremacist intimately involved with the Alt Right, a “movement” ostensibly representing the interests of indigenous Europeans.

This is about the reorientation of the trajectory of geopolitics in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. It is about aborting a Renaissance of the Persian Empire…

And at the heart of this world historical mission is…Jorjani.

Except that we are not Germans. 

No, you’re not.

Through the Scythians (i.e. the Saxons) and the Alans, we lent the Germans and Goths our Faustian (i.e. Zoroastrian) genius and chivalric spirit but those northern Barbarians never understood the essence of our cosmopolitan humanism.

Err…isn’t “cosmopolitan humanism” the very thing all the grand “traditionalists” of the Alt Right allegedly oppose?  Cosmopolitan humanism?  What would Evola think? Savitri Devi?  Oh, the Kali Yuga of it all!  The men who can’t tell time!  The Age of Iron!  Oh Guenon, where are thou?

Al-Ahwaz and a Kurdish nation have nothing but Sunni fundamentalism and barbaric tribalism to offer the world, whereas our Persian civilizational heritage has not only held Iran together for centuries it has, repeatedly, offered all of humanity the best chance at forming a world order based on innovation, compassion, and social justice.

Social justice?  I guess that goes along with all of the “cosmopolitan humanism.”  How about multiculturalism?  The wonderfully cosmopolitan Persian Empire was multicultural, no?  Let’s have the Alt Right fight for multicultural cosmopolitan humanist social justice!  

We know that you do not really have a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” You are oppressed by a rogue dictatorship. Rest assured that after we liberate ourselves and secure our future, we will bring the ever-living fire of true freedom to your bountiful continent as we once brought it to Greece. Far be it from us to leave your resistance movement in the hands of the Alt-Right or comparable culturally impoverished and regressive reactionaries. We are coming to save you, America. So speaks the living spirit of Xerxes, King of Kings, Light of the Aryans…

Once again, both Johnson and Spencer think/have thought that this Jorjani is someone that needs to be seriously listened to, someone who needs to be high in WN councils.

The essential problem here, I believe, is the strong need, the strong desire, the strong craving, of the Far Right for affirmation and approval.  And when such affirmation and approval comes from someone with some sort of credentials, such as Jorjani’s academic status, then the craving becomes too intense to resist.  Caution is thrown to the winds, which is one major reason that the Far Right is so easily infiltrated, betrayed, hobbled by defectives, and infested with all sorts of bizarre flotsam and jetsam.  Further, since most in the Far Right lack any sort of formal scientific training whatsoever, they are unable to distinguish between what’s valuable and what’s not (hint: the HBD cult falls into the latter category).  Therefore, someone with a solid scientific background would have been less apt to become impressed with Jorjani’s esoteric techno-babble, and would have looked with prudent skepticism on taking anything else the fellow had to say seriously.

When oh when will the Alt Right darkness be dispelled from the land so that sane racial nationalism can come into the light?

Genetic Detection of Immigrants

Multilocus genotypes.

Detecting immigrants from the analysis of multilocus genotypes: paper here.  An old paper; of course, methodology has gone past this since; nevertheless, it deserves to be noted, for the idea that looking at multilocus genotypes allows for distinguishing genetic types even when “bean bag genetics” differentiation is low.  The basic premise; emphasis added:

Immigration is an important force shaping the social structure, evolution, and genetics of populations. A statistical method is presented that uses multilocus genotypes to identify individuals who are immigrants, or have recent immigrant ancestry. The method is appropriate for use with allozymes, microsatellites, or restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) and assumes linkage equilibrium among loci. Potential applications include studies of dispersal among natural populations of animals and plants, human evolutionary studies, and typing zoo animals of unknown origin (for use in captive breeding programs). The method is illustrated by analyzing RFLP genotypes in samples of humans from Australian, Japanese, New Guinean, and Senegalese populations. The test has power to detect immigrant ancestors, for these data, up to two generations in the past even though the overall differentiation of allele frequencies among populations is low.

Classical theory in population genetics has focused on the long term effects of immigration on allele frequency distributions in semi-isolated populations, concentrating on the stationary distribution resulting from a balance between forces of immigration, genetic drift, and mutation (1–4). Less theory exists addressing the effect of recent immigration among populations with low levels of genetic differentiation. A theory describing the effects of immigration on the genetic composition of individuals in populations that are not at genetic equilibrium is needed to interpret much of the data being generated using current genetic techniques.

In this paper we consider the multilocus genotypes that result when individuals are immigrants, or have recent immigrant ancestry. We propose a test that allows recent immigrants to be identified on the basis of their multilocus genotypes; the test has considerable power for detecting immigrant individuals even when the overall level of genetic differentiation among populations is low. Molecular genetic techniques that allow multilocus genotypes to be described from single individuals are relatively new, and much of the information contained in these types of data is not fully exploited by estimators of long term gene flow that are currently available (5–7). We provide an example of an application of the method to restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) genotypes from human populations; the method may also be applied to analyze multilocus allozyme and microsatellite data.


 At least three potentially misleading results may arise when applying the method considered here. First, the failure to reject the hypothesis that an individual was an immigrant, or descended from immigrants, may simply reflect the fact that the appropriate populations for comparison were not included in the analysis. Second, an individual might incorrectly appear to have originated in a particular population other than the one from which it was sampled. This might be due to similarities in allele frequencies, due to long-term gene flow, between that population and a third population from which the individual actually originated, but which was not included in the sample of populations. Third, the fact that many pairwise comparisons between populations are performed for each of a large number of individuals means that some individuals will appear to be immigrants purely by chance.

See this as well.  And also this.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was some work going on in population genetics concerning multilocus genotypes.  A lot of good could have come from that if it was continued.  By an interesting coincidence, work on this subject essentially ended around the same time Der Movement and the HBDers went online talking about, and dissecting, population genetics studies.  It could be a coincidence, but given how most population geneticists are hysterical SJWs, maybe some of them decided not to investigate areas of their field that would focus attention on the great degree of actual ethnoracial differentiation that exists when genetic structure is taken into account.