Category: testing

Race Denial Incoherence

And other news.

Denier:  There is no such thing as race!  It is merely a social construct with no biological basis!

Realist: Then how do you distinguish those nasty privileged White racists from those nice and humble oppressed Blacks, whose lives, as we are told, matter ever so much?

Denier: Look, there are some people who happen to have dark skin and others who happen to have light skin – and that’s the only difference between them – and the former are placed in a “Black” socially constructed group that is victimized, and the former band together as a socially constructed privileged “White” oppressor group.

Realist: So the only difference is the skin color of these groups, a mere superficial element?  No other similarities within and differences between the groups?

Denier: That’s right.

Realist:  But there are people from, say, South Asia, who have skin as dark or darker than many Black Americans, and there are some people from, say, Northeast Asia, who have skin as light or lighter than many White Americans. So are Koreans and Japanese privileged Whites who are oppressing Black Indians and Bangladeshis?

Denier: No!  When I talk about “Whites” I mean, you know, Whites, and “Blacks” mean Blacks.  You know what I mean.

Realist: No, I don’t know what you mean.  Please explain.

Denier:  I mean that “Whites” are relatively lighter-skinned people of European descent who look like Europeans, while Blacks are relatively darker-skinned people who have African ancestry and look like people from sub-Saharan Africa.

Realist: So these “socially constructed” groups are based on people who look somewhat similar to each other and who derive from particular continents – continental population groups?

Denier: They are ethnicities, not races!

Realist: Putting aside that your “ethnicities” are based on continent of origin and physical appearance that goes beyond mere skin color, I ask – are English, Germans, Italians, Greeks, and Russians all the same ethnic group?

Denier: Whatever. Those are socially constructed groups – part of the “White” social construct.

Realist:  Again – are they all the same ethnic group?

Denier: No.

Realist:  So, we have different ethnic groups that are binned together because they look approximately similar and originate from the same continent.  Population genetics will show similarities at that level as well, in a global context.  Obviously then, this group of “Whites” – which we can call a race – has a biological basis and is not merely some sort of social construct.

Denier:  You’re a racist!  You should get elbowed in the face just like Richard Spencer!

This demonstrates the problem with ancestry testing companies.  Assume European ethny “X” that has some Siberian/East Asian admixture.  A testing company has “X” as one of its parental populations, well represented in their database, and as part of their “European” category.  A person of “X” ancestry – someone who has the same Siberian/East Asian admixture – gets tested, and since they match the “X” parentals, they get a result of “100% X,” which the company interprets as “100% European.” In this manner, the Siberian/East Asian admixture is hidden, because it is part of “X” ancestry and “X” is a “European parental population.” The individual, who may well look like they should be eating with chopsticks, goes on Amren comments threads to pontificate on their “racial purity.”

Now, you may argue that if “X” is an indigenous European ethny, and if the admixture took place long ago as part of the ethnogenesis of “X,” then it is fair to call all “X” ancestry as “European.”  Very well, but then you have to accord the same status to the ethnogenesis of other European ethnies, including the cringing subhumans from the South.

Just in time to fool the rubes in 2020.  The Republican playbook: Campaign Right, Govern Left.

So much winning!  Never fear!  Trump is monitoring the situation, monitoring very closely

It is staggering that all of the heroes of Der Movement (with a few exceptions) did not realize early on that Trump was a fraud and a buffoon.  With respect to being a fraud, we have all of the evidence: His Jewish family connections, his fondness for Negroes, his socially liberal “New York values,” and his past support for leftist Democrats. As for being a buffoon, his debate performances were clear indication of that; for example, his clownish ignorance when asked about America’s nuclear triad strategic deterrent (of which he clearly knew nothing), compared to his great interest in talking about the size of his hands.  Why did anyone take this fat retard seriously?

He won the election because many White Americans were desperately hungry for red meat right-wing populism, and were heartily tired of the GOP Establishment and the non-choice of elections. They took Trumpian rhetoric at face value. I supported his election because it was obvious that Trumpsim was accelerating the breakdown of America and disrupting the multicultural consensus. I also stupidly (or naively) thought that Der Movement would be able to take advantage of Trumpism to further the promotion of explicitly White interests. I should have known better; that foolishness is to my eternal shame.

Just like Derbyshire – someone with a sense of entitlement who believes that their entire social milieu should change to accommodate their (wrong) life choices.

It is also amusing to see stereotypes conformed – the huge White whale has a Black “husband.”  White fatties and Negroes – who would have ever guessed?  All that’s missing from this picture is a bucket of fried chicken and Captain Ahab.


PopGen June 2019

Two papers.

The first:

In many species a fundamental feature of genetic diversity is that genetic similarity decays with geographic distance; however, this relationship is often complex, and may vary across space and time. Methods to uncover and visualize such relationships have widespread use for analyses in molecular ecology, conservation genetics, evolutionary genetics, and human genetics. While several frameworks exist, a promising approach is to infer maps of how migration rates vary across geographic space. Such maps could, in principle, be estimated across time to reveal the full complexity of population histories. Here, we take a step in this direction: we present a method to infer maps of population sizes and migration rates associated with different time periods from a matrix of genetic similarity between every pair of individuals. Specifically, genetic similarity is measured by counting the number of long segments of haplotype sharing (also known as identity-by-descent tracts). By varying the length of these segments we obtain parameter estimates associated with different time periods. Using simulations, we show that the method can reveal time-varying migration rates and population sizes, including changes that are not detectable when using a similar method that ignores haplotypic structure. We apply the method to a dataset of contemporary European individuals (POPRES), and provide an integrated analysis of recent population structure and growth over the last ∼3,000 years in Europe.

That’s interesting, I suppose, but what is really needed from population genetics is two things.  First, global assays of genetic kinship.  Second, application of genetic structure and genetic integration (e.g., Gillet and Gregorious) to human genetic data. These things are consistently not being done. Is it because they are viewed as uninteresting to the field, or is it because the findings would be politically unpalatable to the field?

Author summary
We introduce a novel statistical method to infer migration rates and population sizes across space in recent time periods. Our approach builds upon the previously developed EEMS method, which infers effective migration rates under a dense lattice. Similarly, we infer demographic parameters under a lattice and use a (Voronoi) prior to regularize parameters of the model. However, our method differs from EEMS in a few key respects. First, we use the coalescent model parameterized by migration rates and population sizes while EEMS uses a resistance model. As another key difference, our method uses haplotype data while EEMS uses the average genetic distance. A consequence of using haplotype data is that our method can separately estimate migration rates and population sizes, which in essence is done by using a recombination rate map to calibrate the decay of haplotypes over time. An additional useful feature of haplotype data is that, by varying the lengths analyzed, we can infer demography associated with different recent time periods. We call our method MAPS for estimating Migration And Population-size Surfaces. To illustrate MAPS on real data, we analyze a genome-wide SNP dataset on 2224 individuals of European ancestry.

I’m not going to judge the validity of this approach without more data; however, any cursory look at current population genetic studies illustrates how the “testing companies” are behind the cutting edge of methodology.

Largely speaking, the spatial variation in inferred dispersal rates and population densities is remarkably consistent across the different time scales (Fig 4). In the MAPS dispersal surfaces, several regions with consistently low estimated dispersal rates coincide with geographic features that would be expected to reduce gene flow, including the English Channel, Adriatic Sea and the Alps. 

In general, geographic barriers have historically impeded (but obviously not abrogated) gene flow.

In addition we see consistently high dispersal across the region between the UK and Norway, which may reflect the known genetic effects of the Viking expansion [22]. 

See more on this below.

These features are consistent with visual inspection of the raw lPSC sharing data (S4b Fig). The MAPS population density surfaces consistently show lowest density in Ireland, Switzerland, Iberia, and the southwest region of the Balkans. This is consistent with samples within each of these areas having among the highest PSC segment sharing (S4a Fig). The MAPS inferred country population sizes are also highly correlated with estimated current census population sizes from [36] and [37] (S5 Fig) which can be mainly attributed to the fact that lPSC segments are highly informative of current census population sizes (Fig 5).

And then:

We do note the lower estimated dispersal rates between Portugal and Spain compared to the rest of Europe in the analyses of longer PSC segments (5-10 and > 10cM), and the higher estimated dispersal rates through the Baltic Sea (> 10cM segments), possibly reflecting changing gene flow in these regions in recent history.

I’m not sure what to make of that Iberian data.  I’m not aware of any significant geographical barrier there, so is that an example of political barriers affecting gene flow?  The data of this paper call into question “testing companies” using generalized “Iberian” or “British/Irish” ancestral categories.

Our estimates of dispersal distances and population density from the POPRES data are among the first such estimates using a spatial model for Europe (though see [30]). The features observed in the dispersal and population density surfaces are in principle discernible by careful inspection of the numbers of shared PSC segments between pairs of countries (e.g. using average pairwise numbers of shared segments, S4b Fig, as in [20]). For example, high connectivity across the North Sea is reflected in the raw PSC calls: samples from the British Isles share a relatively high number of PSC segments with those from Sweden (S4b Fig). 

This is consistent with what is mentioned above, compatible with the historically known gene flow from Scandinavia to the British Isles, particularly England, during the Viking age.

Also the low estimated dispersal between Switzerland and Italy is consistent with Swiss samples sharing relatively few PSC segments with Italians given their close proximity (S4b Fig). 

The Alps being one of the geographical barriers mentioned above.  This of course is not compatible with Der Movement dogma of Northern Italians being “Celto-Germanic Nordics.”

However, identifying interesting patterns directly from the PSC segment sharing data is not straightforward, and one goal of MAPS (and EEMS) is to produce visualizations that point to patterns in the data that suggest deviations from simple isolation by distance.

The inferred population size surfaces for the POPRES data show a general increase in sizes through time, with small fluctuations across geography; In our results, the smallest inferred population sizes are in the Balkans and Eastern Europe more generally. This is in agreement with the signal seen previously [20]; however, taken at face value, our results suggest that high PSC sharing in these regions may be due more to consistently low population densities than to historical expansions (such as the Slavic or Hunnic expansions).

Relative population density may be a driver of genetic history, and one ignored by Der Movement in lieu of more colorful stories about expansions and admixture.

Second paper:

The roles of migration, admixture and acculturation in the European transition to farming have been debated for over 100 years. Genome-wide ancient DNA studies indicate predominantly Aegean ancestry for continental Neolithic farmers, but also variable admixture with local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Neolithic cultures first appear in Britain circa 4000 BC, a millennium after they appeared in adjacent areas of continental Europe. The pattern and process of this delayed British Neolithic transition remain unclear. We assembled genome-wide data from 6 Mesolithic and 67 Neolithic individuals found in Britain, dating 8500-2500 BC. Our analyses reveal persistent genetic affinities between Mesolithic British and Western European hunter-gatherers. We find overwhelming support for agriculture being introduced to Britain by incoming continental farmers, with small, geographically structured levels of hunter-gatherer ancestry. Unlike other European Neolithic populations, we detect no resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry at any time during the Neolithic in Britain. Genetic affinities with Iberian Neolithic individuals indicate that British Neolithic people were mostly descended from Aegean farmers who followed the Mediterranean route of dispersal. We also infer considerable variation in pigmentation levels in Europe by circa 6000 BC.

Contra Duchesne, ancestry deriving from Neolithic farmers is not restricted to Southern Europe; it is just much more concentrated there.

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.

Against the Arctic Alliance

Amren once again giving Yellow Supremacism a forum.

Well-known novelist and cultural commentator John Derbyshire explained his concept of an “Arctic Alliance” between Asians and whites. He said these groups have in common a high mean IQ and low fertility rates, which could lead to a common strategy against the “demographic” and “dysgenic” threat posed by mass immigration. Mr. Derbyshire raised and then refuted several objections to his plan. These ranged from questions of terminology and feasibility to larger issues about whether Asians will follow whites down the path of self-hatred. He wondered whether ethnomasochism is unique to whites or is “the inevitable result of post-industrial society.” He argued that the purpose of groups like American Renaissance is to resist dispossession and to build a defensive strategy of “Arctic peoples” that can ensure the survival of civilization.

Err, excuse me, you lousy despicable wad of shit Derbyshire, you who had no problem with agreeing with the description of Amren attendees as “latrine flies” before your defenestration from National Review, but Asians are part of the demographic mass immigration threat to the West.  How about stopping the Asian influx, and repatriating the aliens, including your family, and then we can take another look at this alliance, hmmm?   In fact, Asians are part of the Colored Alliance against Whites, and Yellow Supremacists like Amren are part of the HBD political movement to enslave Whites to Asian interests. 

And Derbyshire is such a breathtakingly dishonest fraud it is stunning.

He completely ignores the two biggest objections, actually completely distorting the first objection, which is that as radically different races and civilizations, Whites and Asians are natural enemies, with conflicting interests; they are not, and can never be, allies.  Derbyshire laughs in our face by talking about “similarities” between the two groups, as if the only objection was a “narcissism of small differences,” while East Asians are approximately as genetically distant from Europeans as are sub-Saharan Africans.

Second, as alluded to above, Asians are part of the problem, they are part of the Rising Tide of Color, and they are part of the demographic tidal wave swamping the West.  And Asians in America are anti-White political leftists, proving the point.  In the long term, if Whites survive the current threat (which Asians are mightily contributing to), then Asians, particularly East Asians, will constitute our most formidable competitors, our most serious threat. Do you make an alliance with your greatest long-term enemy, particularly when that enemy is currently actively trying to destroy you?

Even apart from all of that, practically speaking, the “Arctic Alliance” idea is absurd.  An alliance is predicated on the two sides assisting each other against a threat.  How would this occur in this case? If Asians wanted to help Whites then they could simply stop invading our nations – and take back the invaders already here, including “Rosie and the kids.”  Or are we to accept the Silk Road White nationalism solution – colonies and armed garrisons of Asians patrolling the borders of the West, guarding against the Global South immigration threat (that the Asians are actually part of), with Chinese girls with guns running the show? That’s great.  Depending on “allies” for your own defense really worked out well for latter-day Rome, didn’t it?  And why would Asians defend the West?  What’s in it for them – apart from conquest?  And Whites, who cannot even defend their own nations, are not fit allies for anyone.  Indeed, if Whites became fit allies, then they would no longer need the alliance to begin with. The practical application of the alliance undermines its own justification.

No, the whole thing is merely Derbyshire trying to obfuscate the divide of race, civilization, and hatred that separates Occident from Orient, White from Yellow, West from East, Europeans from Asians, so as to make White America safe for his mixed-race family.  Sorry Derb, we are not obligated to sacrifice our own interests because of your life choices.  Just crawl back home and do some more “measure groveling” (and who knows what else) for “Rosie.”

Counter-Currents commentator gets it right:

Ambrose Kane

 “John Derbyshire explained his concept of an “Arctic Alliance” between Asians and whites” – This doesn’t surprise me, especially when one considers that Derbyshire has an Asian wife and half-Asian children. I know he will deny that this has influenced him, but I find it hard to believe that his own act of miscegenation hasn’t motivated him in some sense to hope for an ‘Arctic Alliance’ between Asians and Whites.

I find the notion of an ‘Arctic Alliance’ less than convincing. Although the Asians, generally, have some admirable qualities and traits, they are very much different than Whites. They are conniving and deeply committed to their own. Their ethical framework differs greatly from the western one, especially one that might be influenced by Christian values.

Moreover, such an ‘Arctic Alliance’ will inevitably lead to greater miscegenation between Asians and Whites. How can it not when such an alliance and cooperation is encouraged as something good for us? This is probably last thing we should want or promote since our birthrates are already greatly dwindling.

I don’t know if Derbyshire has an ‘Asian fetish’ as some have maintained. However, it’s become clear to me having listened to him on several occasions that he is far too pro-Asian for my tastes. At a time when our numbers are dwindling and when anti-White propaganda is spreading at fever pitch throughout the world, the last thing Whites should be encouraging is ‘alliances’ with Asians or any other racial group. We ought to be suspicious when such calls come from one who is himself married to an Asian and has produced half-Asian children.

Actually, Derbyshire does not deny the influence of his home situation, he just claims that it does not matter since he is right about the Arctic Alliance.  But he is not right, for the reasons stated above.  If anything, Whites should be forming an alliance among themselves against Asians, not an alliance with Asians.

Ethnoracial nepotism on display.  Where are all the leftists screeching that it is not adaptive? Or is that only for White folks?

Notice the Israeli connection.  Mazel Tov!

What standards of accuracy for the ancestry testing?

The company also emphasized “the distinction that [23andMe’s] ancestry testing is different from our health report testing, which is regulated by the FDA and meets the agency’s standards for accuracy and clinical validity.”

As I’ve been telling you. Emphasis added:

Companies like 23andMe,, and MyHeritage compare your set of SNPs to known reference groups (SNPs that tend to be found in people of, say, Greek origin). The tests are looking for evidence that you have common ancestors with people in the reference group.

But the reference group each company uses can be different.

Another limitation: These reference groups are largely based on people who are self-reporting their ancestry. These people may be pretty confident that they know where their families come from, but it’s not a perfect measure. 


Ancestry DNA companies can often track down European DNA to specific countries [Salis note: Only for those with parental privilege]. But if you’re a minority [Sallis note: Or a non-privileged European], your report might be vaguer. Prior to this past summer, 23andMe could only match people to just three broad regions in sub-Saharan Africa, which is an enormous area with a lot of geographic and ethnic diversity. And that’s just because there aren’t as many African people in these company’s reference data sets. 

“Imagine you’re from a small town in Spain,” Pickrell says. “If [the testing companies] have a bunch of people from that small town, they can match you against them really effectively.” But if they don’t have people from that specific small town, they might just determine you’re broadly Spanish, or European [Sallis note: Or “unassigned”].

More on Ethnogenesis in Southern Europe

Genes in der news.

A preprint, emphasis added:

A series of studies have documented how Steppe pastoralist-related ancestry reached central Europe by at least 2500 BCE, while Iranian farmer-related ancestry was present in Aegean Europe by at least 1900 BCE. However, the spread of these ancestries into the western Mediterranean where they have contributed to many populations living today remains poorly understood. We generated genome-wide ancient DNA from the Balearic Islands, Sicily, and Sardinia, increasing the number of individuals with reported data from these islands from 3 to 52. We obtained data from the oldest skeleton excavated from the Balearic islands (dating to ~2400 BCE), and show that this individual had substantial Steppe pastoralist-derived ancestry; however, later Balearic individuals had less Steppe heritage reflecting geographic heterogeneity or immigration from groups with more European first farmer-related ancestry. In Sicily, Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BCE and likely came at least in part from Spain as it was associated with Iberian-specific Y chromosomes. In Sicily, Iranian-related ancestry also arrived by the Middle Bronze Age, thus revealing that this ancestry type, which was ubiquitous in the Aegean by this time, also spread further west prior to the classical period of Greek expansion. In Sardinia, we find no evidence of either eastern ancestry type in the Nuragic Bronze Age, but show that Iranian-related ancestry arrived by at least ~300 BCE and Steppe ancestry arrived by ~300 CE, joined at that time or later by North African ancestry. These results falsify the view that the people of Sardinia are isolated descendants of Europe’s first farmers. Instead, our results show that the island’s admixture history since the Bronze Age is as complex as that in many other parts of Europe.

So, let’s assume this work is, at least in the broadest sense, accurate about Sardinia. Thus, the idea that Sardinians are merely unmixed Neolithic EEF farmers is false. This puts all the other work in the field showing Sardinians as of an unmixed ancestral component into question – or does it merely confirm what I have written, that the outcome of population genetics measurement depends on how it is performed?  Possibly the latter.  If you stop the analysis at one level, Sardinians are unmixed; however, if you dig deeper and look for more ancient ancestral components, with different reference samples (this is ALWAYS the key – it is always about the parentals), then different results are obtained.  One wonders though how long Der Movement will keep on mindlessly repeating – “Sardinians are pure EEF.”

More important perhaps is the “Iranian-related ancestry” – “which was ubiquitous in the Aegean”- being found in Sicily as far back as the Middle Bronze Age. Once again, my suppositions are supported, as I have suggested that the “Near Eastern/Middle Eastern, Southwest Asian, West Asian,” etc. ancestral components identified by the ancestry testing companies (and by some studies) in Mediterranean Europe, including the West Mediterranean islands, are for the most part of ancient origin, present in this part of Europe for thousands of years.  Hence, it is part of the ethnogenesis of various European ethnies, and should be considered indigenous European ancestry.  If the ancestry testing companies (and others) would properly include a broader range of populations as parentals, then results that cause spontaneous sweaty ejaculation among Nutzis would be presented quite differently.  Note the part of the abstract “many other parts of Europe” to describe ancient “admixture history.”  There are a variety of ancient ancestral components in Europe dating back thousands of years, if not by the Bronze Age then at least by the Classical Period. These are all elements contributing to the ethnogenesis of extant European ethnies.

The authors do state in the main text that population modeling demonstrates that some degree of North African ancestry was added on to these Western Mediterranean islands (e.g., Sardinia, Sicily) after the Bronze Age, some of which may be modern – although the authors talk of the “last two millennia.”  This minority ancestry – which is curiously absent from many ancestry testing company results and which therefore may be another artifact of population modeling – is, to the extent that it is real, part of the ethnogenesis of these European populations.   

However, the question of modeling influencing results, and the reality of those results, can be re-examined by taking another look at that table from Durocher’s latest onanism material.

Note that Germans are being used as the European component representative for the admixture analysis, and despite that, Northern and Central European populations are still getting percentages ascribed to “Saharawi” and “Qatari” components.  Given clinal gene frequencies, it is not surprising that Southern European populations are modeled as having North African and Near Eastern ancestral components compared to Germans, but what to make of, for example, such ancestry in Swedes, Norwegians, Scots, and the Irish? I presume that Der Movement does not believe that such populations have any modern admixture from North African or Near Eastern sources. Therefore, the findings for those populations are artifacts from the modeling, ancient admixture, or both.  If that is so, then any “real” modern admixture in the Southern European populations has to be whatever small percentages in excess of that found in Northern and Central Europe, and even there, the clinal gene frequency issue has to be considered.  The same principles hold for the modeling in the preprint discussed above.

Consider also the old saying – “if you look for something, you will find it.”  Some population geneticists seem to have an agenda of wanting to find admixture in Europeans deriving from sources akin to those groups currently constituting the migrant invasion of our home continent.  Thus, from the preprint, emphasis added:

Thus, rather than being an island sheltered from admixture and migration since the Neolithic, Sardinia, like almost all other regions in Europe has, been a site for major movement and mixtures of people.

You are all admixed!  Resistance is futile!  You will be assimilated!

Advice for Potential French Cuckolds

Frenchmen, free yourselves from feminist tyranny!

Respond to this by ordering this for you and your “offspring.”

There are of course possible problems here. If a Frenchman discovers cuckoldry through a 23andMe test, and acts upon it (demands a divorce, etc.), will he be subject to legal sanction? Or could he use those results to demand a court-ordered, legally sanctioned direct paternity test?  And how long would the 23andMe loophole exist once people start using it? Will France ban ancestry testing – or at least ban those tests that look at the chromosome level, instead of just at the SNP level?

Ultimately, the law needs to be overturned. What kind of madness is this that paternity testing is outlawed?  That’s the same wonderful Europe that bans free speech, so I suppose we cannot be surprised by any of it.

Methodological comment: True enough, the SNP-level tests that do not look at things from the chromosome level could in theory give some information about paternity – but what if the real biological father is the same ethny as the assumed legal “father” and would have similar ancestral percentages?  Then there is the matter of statistical error – you would really need to have the real father to be of a significantly different ethny than either mother or legal “father” for ancestry percentages to give useful data – and at that point, in some cases, the “eyeball test” might suffice to raise suspicion. Matching chromosome identity is obviously orders of magnitude better for paternity determination – although for ancestry testing such tests amplify errors due to parental population choice. But here we are talking about paternity, not ancestry, so 23andMe performs well.  

Absolutely correct.  What the fellow doesn’t quite get is that the flaws in the IQ argument is a feature and not a bug, from the HBD perspective. The HBDers want us to worship Asians and Jews and to subordinate White interests to that of Asians and Jews.  And, after all, it’s no coincidence that the “Ruv Squad” of Asiatrices sent out to influence WNs always mentions IQ. Get on your knees before the Altar of Asia!  You’ll find the HBDers already there.

The HBD future.  China in charge; scattered Whites are nothing but stepandfetchits.  Why do White HBDers support this?  Hey, maybe some “awkward squad” types will get sexual access to Asian “females.”  Do you have a better explanation?

We need a Far Right front against the HBD Yellow Supremacists.

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.