Category: population genetics

Sallis Agrees With the Alt Right on Something

Some good sense.

I essentially agree with and endorse this article, with some caveats, and it should be read together with this piece I wrote several years ago.

The AltRight.com article is reasonably sound, although one caveat is that if one approaches these tests with a sense of realism with respect to their limitations – limitations spelled out in my Counter-Currents piece – then getting tested may not be a bad idea.  Having the raw data could be useful if you can find someone who can do a genetic kinship analysis with it. But taking the details of the data literally – thinking that there’s a real difference between 100% A, 0% B vs. 99.3% A, 0.7% B, for example – is ludicrous. I would take even the 90% confidence readings with a large grain of salt, and the 50% confidence readings are so absurd that the salt grain needs to be the size of the iceberg that sunk the Titanic.

The other caveat to the article is that the comments section is mixed; some comments are useful, some are asinine, so caveat emptor.

There are two basic questions here.

1. Is 23andMe a good test?

2. Assuming an ancestry test is good, is it worthwhile?

To which I answer: 1) No and 2) Maybe, depending on context.

In an absolute sense, 23andMe is superior to DNAPrint’s tests from ~15 years ago; in a relative sense – comparing each test to the “state of  the art” available at the time – it really isn’t better at all.  With the level of understanding and methodology we have today, coupled with a prudent interpretation of the data, one could do much better.

What if a test was sound?  Well, sure, it can be interesting, but I’ll repeat something I’ve been hammering home here over the past few years – the only biopolitically relevant genetic metric is genetic kinship (at all levels of genetic integration).  If one can measure that, then it is useful. All else can be interesting, but not directly important from an EGI standpoint.

And if people are going to hysterically obsess over sub-fractional admixture percentages then this is missing the forest for the trees.

A Brief Definition of Race

Just off the top of my head, more or less.

Race: A branch of humanity that is, in general, more genetically similar to each other (more genetic kinship) than with other groups, and that have, in general, a greater number of most common recent ancestors with each other than with other groups. Races also, in general, tend to share a constellation of phenotypic characteristics than, in toto, distinguish them from other groups. Layered upon these biological characteristics (biological race) are the historical and cultural components that contribute to racial identity and which influence, and are influenced by, the aforementioned biological characteristics.

Der Testing in Der News, 5/11/17

Genes, genes, genes…

In the past, I was accused of taking DNAPrint too seriously; today, people in and out of the “movement” take today’s testing even more “too seriously.”

That’s laughable. 23andme is just as laughable.

And now for academic population genetics.

Lies!

More Medish lies!

See this.

And this.

No, no, a thousand times, no!

No matter how those greaseballs shuck and jive, we all know that this is a Negress, a 100% pure sub-Saharan African, racially perfectly akin to, say, a Nigerian.

A Brief Popgen Comment

Unpicked fruit.

I have previously discussed reasons why I rarely discuss population genetics anymore, the most important of which is that much of it is biopolitically irrelevant – only genetic kinship really matters. A secondary reason is that there isn’t much going on these days of great interest, particularly in fields of study such as European and Jewish population genetics. Virtually all of the “low hanging fruit” has been picked with respect to the kinds of things (politically motivated) population geneticists want to study.  Some interesting new papers may come out, but we can all notice that those sorts of things are much less frequent now than they were, say, 10 years or so ago.

Of course there are important things – higher hanging fruit to be picked – that can be studied; for example, global assays of genetic kinship or the application of genetic integration analysis to human data, to ascertain how genetic distance is changed when genetic structure is taken into account.

But population geneticists show no inclination to study that, likely because it is virtually certain the findings would support and reinforce “racist” White nationalist narratives. And as we know, leftist academics are allergic to the truth.   They won’t make the effort to reach up and pick that higher hanging fruit.

Punchgate, Spencer, and NECis

Punchgate and related matters.

The System has been crowing about the attack on Spencer, praising the attack, saying it was great, making musical memes about it, and publicly discussing such action as appropriate and “American” (like slavery and segregation, eh?). It has been truly disgusting, but, in the long run, from the balkanization standpoint, the Left’s action may backfire on them.

This essay summarizes the reality of leftists who call us “fascists” but who believe that political violence against their enemies is justified.  But this is nothing new.  Back in the 1930s, there were a number of major street brawls in American cities between the Right (Silver Shirts, Bund) and the Left (Jews, anarchists, communists).  The basic total outcome of those brawls was a victory for the Left (the more things change, the more they stay the same) – there’s a reason why Oliver was talking about 50 years of “movement” failure back in 1969.  Joyce’s essay on “anti-fascism” is mostly true, but it skips over the reality that the Left still rules the streets, as they’ve done in America for nearly a century. And while European nationalist parties may come to power in such circumstance, America for now seems different.  If we cannot break out of the digital sandbox and go analog, it’s not going to work out.  Triumphalist essays about how “anti-fa is dead” while Spencer can’t stand in DC without being punched in the face doesn’t cut it. Sorry.  And even the European nationalists hold meetings, have street demonstrations, etc. – so Joyce’s arguments don’t hold there either. Would the European nationalists have achieved their level of accomplishments (such as they are) if they and their leaders were unable to go out in the street without being punched in the face?  Let’s have triumphalism after real triumphs, not after mocking defeats.

Praise Kek!  Spencer seems to have learned something from Punchgate. First, he admits he is worthy of criticism for his naiveté and lack of preparation and security.  Second, and more importantly, he seems to understand things must be different going forward. WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD MORE INCIDENTS LIKE THIS.  IT MUST STOP.  WE MUST DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND.  That requires proper operational security and planning. Now, if after this, these incidents keep on occurring, that proves all my comments about “quota queens” are correct.

Also, despite my problems with Spencer (*), he is presently the best and most well-known public spokesman for the American Far-Right.  We can’t afford to have him as a subject of physical attack and subsequent Internet mockery.

*Besides the latest incident, there was Hailgate (not so much a big deal in my view), the Hungarian meeting fiasco, and, sadly enough, the serious inherent problems with the AltRight.com project. Shockingly enough, I have to agree with Silver again (yegads – my worldview is crumbling) – I don’t understand why Spencer is associating with a half-Iranian NECist, whose moronic ramblings has brought out other NECists on the comments threads at AltRight, posting Cavalli-Sforza charts from more than 20 years ago as if they were still relevant given the march of population genetics.  NECism keeps on popping up, and misuse of scientific data contributes to this. While I await a global assay of genetic kinship (the only genetic metric that is politically relevant), based on all the data I’ve seen, there’s no doubt that “Persians” will have the greatest kinship with other “Asian Caucasians” and not with Europeans. What outliers “look like” doesn’t matter.  Grasping comments about “artificial boundaries” doesn’t cut it – the European boundary is biologically relevant. Even a no-good low-IQ knuckle-dragging Euro-Swarthoid like myself had “Iceland” as one of my top hits in a company’s kinship measure of raw genetic data.  Would a “Persian” rate the same?  Let’s say I doubt that very much.  Morons talking about “artificial boundaries” don’t get that (1) Identity has culture-historical elements as well as biological, and (2) more relevant to all the racial heavy breathers, race and culture influence each other.  Populations that share foundational cultural/civilizational bases – such as “Western Christendom” – will tend to genetically align over historic time, while others that share “Eastern Islam” will align as well. Populations tend to be genetically similar to geographically close populations, except where there are reasonable boundaries to inhibit gene flow. These boundaries have never been perfect and do not need to have been, as long as gene flow has been repressed over historic time. Mountain ranges, bodies of water, these are geographical boundaries to gene flow – not perfect, but over time, they have serious impacts. Cultural/civilizational boundaries also have very serious impacts on gene flow.  True enough, Persian antipathy to Arabs may have reduced the extent of gene flow there, but the flow was even more markedly reduced between “The West” and “The Rest.” And it is doubtful that Persians were ever genetically similar to modern Europeans.  Prediction: genetic kinship assays will show “Persians” as closer to Iraqis and Afghans than to Europeans.

Why is the Right always taken in by this sort of thing?  The whole subjective Nazi-Larping nonsense about “Aryans” or “Indo-Europeans” gives an opening to NECists to get a foot in the door.  [Note: ironically and inconsistently, the “racial purity” Larping crowd overlaps the “big tent” “Aryan” crowd – as if Iranians or Hindu Indians are “more pure” than wops and hunkies!] Even “White” is subjective.  Then there is the cherry-picking of population genetics to favor particular agendas, even to the point of dusting off studies a generation old.  The same flaw that leads to conspiracy theorizing and breathless interest in gnostic traditionalist esotericism also leads to “gosh-isn’t-that-brilliant” acceptance of pseudo-intellectual faux-erudite claptrap of “parapsychology” and so forth that further entraps ECs into the NEC web.  

You know, American WNs look longingly at European nationalists and say “it proves the value of ethnonationalism” – but they ignore the fact that successful European nationalists don’t obsess over “Aryans” or population genetics or cephalic indices or Kali Yuga or Beavis-and-Butthead trolling lulzing. Listen to a Europa Terra Nostra podcast and contrast that to an American podcast or website.

Race, Ethnicity, Culture, and Epigenetics

Interesting findings.

If we ignore the PC-oriented nonsense about “social constructs” as well as the confusion about ethnic identification and ancestry, there are some interesting points in this article.

Excerpts, emphasis added:

These researchers report that they have identified signatures of ethnicity in the genome that appear to reflect an ethnic group’s shared culture and environment, rather than their common genetic ancestry.

“We found that both self-identified ethnicity and genetically determined ancestry were each significantly associated with methylation levels at 916 and 194 CpGs, respectively, and that shared genomic ancestry accounted for a median of 75.7% of the variance in methylation associated with ethnicity,” wrote the article’s authors. “There was a significant enrichment…of ethnicity-associated sites amongst loci previously associated environmental exposures, particularly maternal smoking during pregnancy.”

Roughly one-quarter of the epigenetic difference between the two ethnic subgroups could not be accounted for by differences in the children’s genetic ancestry. This difference, the authors suggested, could reflect a biological stamp made by the different experiences, practices, and environmental exposures distinct to the two ethnic subgroups.

It demonstrates in a whole new way that race combines both genetics and environment.

Studies by the Burchard group and others have found that using genetic ancestry rather than ethnic self-identification significantly improves diagnostic accuracy for certain diseases.

But the new data showing that a large fraction of epigenetic signatures of ethnicity reflect something other than ancestry suggests that abandoning the idea of race and ethnicity altogether could sacrifice a lot of valuable information about the drivers of differences in health and disease between different communities.

The nonsense about distinguishing more accurate “genetic ancestry” from less accurate “ethnic self-identification” fails the smell test since the Risch lab a while back showed near-perfect correspondence between identify and ancestry.  True enough, there is a social component to these things, since humans give simple labels to complex categories.  Thus, both Colin Powell and a pure-bred Nigerian would both identify as “Black” although there is quite a difference in their ancestry.  But that does not mean that ethnicity/race and genetic ancestry are different things; it instead means that human beliefs about ethnicity/race may not always be the same as genetic ancestry.

In any case, the main point here is that about 75% of the epigenetic differences between “ethnic sub-groups” are associated with genetic ancestry and cultural/experience differences associated with ethnicity accounted for the other 25%.  

Therefore, there is a two-way interaction between the biological and the social/cultural. Biological differences inform the foundation of ethnic/racial identity (influenced socially by human beliefs about these groups), and cultural differences stemming from these identities can feed back and affect the biology.

“Back in the day” Ursus Major, affiliated with the EASU, talked about a “Race-Culture.”  He was more right then he knew.

Race in the News, 10/14/16

Two items.

As we know, the superior stocks of Northern Europe tend to be taller than the stubby subhuman swarthoid kebabs of Southern Europe.  A study concluded (emphasis added):

First, the Iberian Neolithic and Chalcolithic samples show selection for reduced height relative to both the Anatolian Neolithic (P = 0.042) and the central European Early and Middle Neolithic (P = 0.003). Second, we detect a signal for increased height in the steppe populations (P = 0.030 relative to the central European Early and Middle Neolithic). These results suggest that the modern South–North gradient in height across Europe is due to both increased steppe ancestry in northern populations, and selection for decreased height in Early Neolithic migrants to southern Europe.

Once again, we see that a genetic difference between North and South in Europe was most likely already in place by the Neolithic. That’s actually consistent with much of Der Movement’s heavy breathing about “high-trust” hunter gatherers, and is also consistent with other findings as well.  It is also consistent with the Ancient Romans (including those of earlier periods) noticing profound phenotypic differences between themselves and the Gauls and Germans (including differences in physical dimensions), and the Ancient Greeks noticing differences between themselves and other Europeans as well.  Of course, Der Movement doesn’t want to realize that the Neolithic preceded the Classical World and not the other way around. Can’t let anything disrupt the Narrative – that would be blasphemy.

Typical Negro behavior here.  Multiply incidents like this a million times, and throw in the usual addition of criminal violence, lazy stupidity, and an utter lack of any creativity, productivity, and achievement whatsoever and you have a recipe for complete civilizational collapse.