Category: testing

The Once and Future Year: 2019-2020

Looking back and ahead.

Questions/predictions for 2019 made here a year ago. Let’s review some of them.

Is the new focal point of the American “movement” in 2019 going to be the Alt Wrong?  Is the new focus the emerging Counter-Currents-Amren-VDARE-TOO-HBD axis?  How much damage will that do to the “movement” before it collapses as did its Alt Right predecessor?

Essentially, this has continued with Counter-Currents continuing to shill for HBD.

Question: Will the Silkers make peace with the Alt Wrong, and look the other way as regards Jewish influence, as long as Asian interests are being served?

No, not yet.

Question: Will the Alt Wrong be so clumsy – and not quite as optics-friendly as I wrote above – that they’ll let Jews and Asians play a more direct and public role in White racial activism?

Well, not really, although Unz is still lurking behind the scenes.

Who is going to be the “mainstream movement” opposition to the Alt Wrong? Will Strom finally – finally! – speak out against Jew/Asian worshipping HBD?  

No, he has not yet done so.

Or will the Alt Wrongers try to appease the WN 1.0 by appealing to their vanity and ethnic fetishism?  

Well, yes, they always do this. Particularly, Durocher writing for Unz with his warmed over hyper-Nordicism is the perfect example here.  Devlin in Counter-Currents writing about HBD is another clear example of this.

Who will Greg Johnson feud with next?  

Pilleater. I also note that Polignano vanished from an overt association with Counter-Currents after Friberg’s revelations about Polignano’s comments about Johnson.

Will the Alt Wrong alliance last through the end of 2019?

Yes, it did.

Who is the next prominent HBDer to either die and/or be exposed as was Rushton?  Will 2019 be the year of Lynn?

No, unfortunately not.

What will be the next sex scandal in Der Movement?  Will it happen in 2019? Heterosexual?  Homosexual? Bisexual?  Transgender?  Inter-racial?  Adultery/cuckoldry?  Pedophilia? S and M?  Bestiality?  Necrophilia? Some combination thereof?

Which Way Trumpian Man?  Will 2019 lead to impeachment?  


What outrageous errors will the Quota Queens make in 2019?  What leftist will they label an “alpha shitlord” (trust the phyzz!)?  

All the errors were documented here throughout the year.  As far as leftist “alpha shitlords” – leftist Hubert Humphrey, essentially – we need more men like him, according to Counter-Currents.

What leftist academic or movie director will they label “a man of the Right?” 

No one – not that I noticed.  This didn’t happen.

One can imagine some Old Kingdom Egyptian mummies getting gene-tested as 85% Middle Eastern and 15% sub-Saharan African, and the peanut gallery will declare – “Arthur Kemp was right!”  The mind boggles!  Possibilities, possibilities!

We had the Rome paper  That has been so far essentially ignored by Der Movement, for reasons that should be obvious reading my summary of the findings.

Prediction: White women will continue acting badly in 2019, and Johnson will continue to mumble about “Joan of Arc.”  It’s sort of like Whites and Blacks – the men who defend women the most are the ones who have the least experience and interactions with them.

Greta Thunberg – the heroine of Counter-Currents (and of Durocher). Then we had O’Meara lecturing heterosexual men about their attitudes toward women at Counter-Currents.

Also, we saw that the testing companies continued to be exposed as shilling a majestically flawed product.

Looking ahead:

I am not going to make predictions about the 2020 Presidential election after the error I made back in 2016.  I will say that I expect Trump will continue to be a fraud and he may shift right in his campaign rhetoric in order to fire up his dispirited base.

I expect that Counter-Currents will continue its sad decline with respect to content – we’ll be seeing more of the likes of Jeelvy in the year to come. Johnson will continue to be Gaslighting Greg.  Johnson will – especially if Trump wins – pretend he never wrote that “Trump is toast in 2020 no matter what.”

The HBDers – both the Jeurasian and Nordicist factions – will continue to lie about race and racial science.

Spencer disavowing the Far Right in 2020 – 50:50 chance.  

I predict that one of the following – Johnson, Spencer, AIM – will suffer some sort of major defeat or embarrassment or failure in 2020.

I predict that attempts will be made to revive the Alt Right – in spirit if not in name – due to the Trump campaign, but that it’ll be a farce.

I predict that there is some sort of ongoing, significant infiltration of the Far Right going on right now, but whether it’ll be overtly discovered in 2020 is unknown.  A (unlikely, in my opinion) possibility is that the infiltration will be announced at such a time and in such a manner to attempt to harm Trump’s re-election chances, although this is just pure speculation (I’m not confident about the timing. I am confident that something is going on, but when the other shoe will drop, it is hard to say).  

Given the upcoming election, we can expect more embarrassing endorsements, obsessions, and disavowals from the candidates concerning people such as Princess Tulsi Coconut and Andy Eggroll.  At the same time, the Quota Queens, moving forward past the election, will pretend that they never endorsed a non-White woman who supports reparations for Negroes (Duke with Coconut) and promoted both Coconut as well as a White-hating Chinaman who wants to buy off White acceptance of their racial dispossession with $100 per month (Spencer and Johnson with Eggroll).

After the Greta Thunberg and Hubert Humphrey comedies, who will be the next “Nordish” leftist to be praised by the likes of Counter-Currents (‘we need more people like them”) or Durocher (“a great benefit to all humanity”)?  John Lindsay?  George McGovern?  Bill Clinton?  

We will likely see more evidence, more surface manifestations, of the “movement” version of “the deep state” – the intersection between the homosexual cabal, the HBDers, the Nordicists, etc. Every once in a while some sign emerges of this, like a flash of lightning in a dark stormy sky, illuminating the hidden realities.

And of course we end the year much as we started it,with the usual “movement” nonsense, with a few breaks of sanity mixed in.  Thus:

Derbyshire weeps.  From a sane Counter-Currents commentator:

Posted December 29, 2019 at 6:24 am | Permalink
I have lived in China. It’s an ecological disaster zone, a pollution nightmare denuded of all wild animals. They routinely torture animals. For example, feeding pigs strychnine in order to cause weight gain before selling for human consumption. They use the body parts of various animals in teas. An example would be tiger parts to give them courage. They are behind the poaching throughout the 3rd world.

Because of their routine abuse of dogs there was an outbreak of rabies in one province. The Chinese authorities had men clubbing any dog they found and throwing its half-dead body in a truck bed. They killed 50,000 dogs this way. In one town the Chinese hung two dogs in the public square.

Yes, let’s emulate the Chinese.

Hey!  Watch it now (from the same source thread:

Victor Henderson
Posted December 28, 2019 at 5:23 pm | Permalink
Dont be too ethousiatic…..i feel like many white ethno-nationalist are really underestimating non-whites and especially the whole notion of black people having a low IQ which based on my own observations are far from the truth. The poverty in africa is also been made bigger then it really is, as France is one the major factors to african poverty in its formor colonies. The jews are succesful as group because they have religous comminality and majority come from german-jewish backgrounds which is aslo a factor…Spielberg, Zuckenberg, Weinstein etc all Germans. Here in western Europe i see many groups of west african orgin/heritage doing extremly well and scoring high on academic levels higher then the natives whites and east asians and exeeding well. . I also feel we are to focused on black this and that….while east asians have taken over population wise places like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and parts of west coast america and Europe. The chinese are making major moves behind the scenes. At the same time muslims from middle east, north africa and asia are getting babies left and right in Europe. These things have to be discussed more in essence. Many muslims are focused on dominanting the west and the same with asians and in particular the Chinese diaspora community.

Posted December 29, 2019 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
Best comment. Please, someone must write an article about this, or a series of them. Especially about asians and their developments. It’s so underestimated, but they should be feared for a reason. It does not look well at all. We are so few.

Some people are not getting the HBD and Silker memo.  East Asians taking over is the WHOLE POINT of HBD.  Chinese diaspora community?  The Silkers openly declared that they want colonies of East Asians living in the “West,” with black-booted Chinese girls with guns as “the border guards of the West.”  

Thus, the lead Silker expressed himself thus:

Sacrosanct European territories in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand will likely need to become smaller at any rate in order to be maintained and defended. But with the increased manageability of defense will come an opportunity to offer cooperation to Asians to have some sacrosanct territories of their own in these places.  

We already have Chinatowns. Now there could be some intermittently disbursed along the borders of the Mediterranean and among European cities with border and migrant control an explicit part of their mandate.

They not only OPENLY STATED that, but provided photos of what they perceive their Asian masters (dominatrices?) to be. Long time readers of this blog will remember and know of what I write.  

There are factions of Der Movement that have the fairly open goal of subordinating Whites to Asians (and/or Jews). So what’s the surprise about any of it now?

Sounds like a description of Der Movement.

Here’s a very easy prediction for 2020: Expect more outrageous hypocrisy from Counter-Currents.

Counter-Currents: The absolute worst, most outrageously hypocritical Far Right site on the Internet. Oh yes, let’s preach the wonders of “ethnonationalism” and “petty nationalism” while engaging in ethnosupremacist ethnoimperialism, living in the nations of other peoples and taking their women.

What is it about Counter-Currents that attracts all of the ethnoimperialist hypocrites in Der Movement?

I’m at the airport right now. Being in Eastern Europe for the past two years, I’ve spent a lot of time at various European airports. In regards to my personal life, I’ve found myself in a revolving cycle of meeting Eastern European women on Tinder, taking them on dates to the local IKEA, and then breaking up and saying goodbye to them at the airport…Without divulging too much personal information, I’ll simply focus on some relationships I had with women that I dated in Ukraine, Latvia, and Hungary.

Yeah…should we take bets whether this person is of Ukrainian or Latvian or Hungarian ancestry?  Even if he is of one of these ancestries, what about the others?  If he’s mixed, that’s not the original stock as per petty nationalist purity. Therefore, it is 100% certain that he violated the ethnic homogeneity of at least two of those nations.

In summary, Counter-Currents is Ground Zero of ethnoimperialist violation of the ethnoracial sovereignty of European nations.

Odds and Ends, 12/24/19

Various issues.

Compare my analysis of Trump and his effect on White American EGI to this typically superficial Counter-Currents analysis:

Itʼs time to stop quibbling and rally behind our President again. Warts and all, heʼs what weʼve got and he scares our enemies, not because heʼs effective, but because his bluster is motivation to make us, as a people, more determined. Heʼs the anti-nihilism pill that they fear the most.

Dumb ideas!    Hey Zman, the entire “movement” is full of dumb ideas.  As regards, UBI, I’ve commented on this before.  In the current situation in America, UBI is a bad idea.  However, in a future more homogeneous society, one in which much employment is made superfluous by automation and artificial intelligence, some form of a citizen’s dividend will be necessary. The productivity of the future economy will need to be distributed to the populace to maintain that economy and maintain the populace itself.

More on ancestry testing; complaints on updates:

Posted byu/inspirationsensation
Anyone else’s ancestry dna update way off???
It says I’m nearly 1/2 English but there’s no way I’m more than a quarter. My last name is English but there is hardly any English on my moms side and my paternal grandmother was Irish, German and, French. My other grandmother was 1/2 Portuguese (her mom was from sao Miguel) and, her father was a mayflower descendant and Irish. They also got rid of many other things that they originally had given me. My Iberian, Scandinavian, Europe south, caucus, European Jewish, Finnish and, North African are all gone. They even said that I have a 4th cousin in Portugal and some matches in Brazil. On my heritage I have 15 matches from Brazil and, 4 in Portugal and, even 9 in Spain. They said I’m 28.6% Iberian. thinks I’m 10% Iberian. What happened with ancestry???? I tried explaining it to them but they insisted that there was no mix up.
Mine is very off since the update (similar to you, with all of my documented ancestries from 2-5% disappearing into England, including Asian and Jewish categories), and many, many other people have reported the same. From the anecdata collected at places like DNA Detectives on Facebook and the initial responses to the update on the AncestryDNA sub, it seems like English ancestry is the main problem for users with European heritage. If you have anything more than about 8-10 percent, it overestimates it, and it tends to:
Underestimate or disappear French or German ancestry
Turn large amounts of Spanish and Italian ancestry into French or Portuguese, or small (5% or less) into Irish or disappear it altogether
Mess up analysis of and shrink other southern European ancestry
Shrink Scandinavian ancestry
There are some other problems where it seems like Ancestry just took a leap and went too specific without the tech to support it. A lot of people get Portuguese when they should have Spanish or Greek when they should have Italian, for example. The populations are too close for the algorithm to assign them correctly.
One woman on DNA Detectives posted her grandmother’s results, her mother’s and her own. Her grandmother was 100% Italian, her mother was 16% Italian and had mystery French, and she had no Italian at all but a LOT of mystery French. Both she and her mother had more English than they should, and they had no French ancestry that she knew of.

From a testing site:

While not common, some customers may also lose a small percentage region as a result of this update. One way this can happen is if that ethnicity has been re-assigned to a nearby region. This is because people from neighboring areas tend to look similar genetically.

You don’t say!

Read this.

This is a somewhat simplistic explanation for the layman, but nevertheless is useful:

This is similar to what clients are experiencing when they observe differing results in their proportion of ancestral regions between different companies, and among internal updates to reference panels that all companies will do from time to time. The fundamental genetic definitions for each of the geographies is different. Each company has its own proprietary collection of reference samples for the populations they support with samples that are probably largely unique to the company, and the numbers that support each population can vary widely.

And with these varying reference panel definitions, not unexpectedly come results that can also vary…

Odds and Ends, 12/15/19

Various issues.

But, but, but…they’re HuWhite.  And high IQ too!  As long as Strom doesn’t openly critique the HBD cult, is he really a foe of Jewish power?

Onanism material for Der Movement.

This idiot takes these ancestry testing results seriously, even at the level of adding up the percentages as if they’re exact.  See all the posts here.  Hint to idiot: The tests as currently constituted are not accurate; at best, they can give a very rough approximation in comparison to other people tested, but without proper reference (parental) populations,and without presenting data at high confidence levels (with statistical significance and/or error bars provided), it cannot be taken seriously the way you are doing. Also interesting how this mestizo conflates Southern European with non-White and Jewish.  Mixed-race Latinos really have an agenda to muddy the waters (no pun intended) on race, don’t they?

By the way, yes, I am aware of Salter’s continuation of his analysis of Kaufmann and will respond when I am ready.  I do not expect to really say anything new from my last response, but certain points can be re-emphasized.

Odds and Ends, 12/4/19

Various issues.

Greg Johnson describes how he attacks those on the Right:

principled intellectual disagreement vs. personal invective (It is not “divisive” to sincerely disagree with someone.)
defending oneself from attacks vs. launching attacks on others
calling out people for harming the movement vs. pointless personal vendettas

The problem is that this is exactly what Ted Sallis does, but when Ted does it, he’s “crazy and bitter” and to be “banned.”

Type Is on the march.

Zaremski was an emergency medical technician who frequented white supremacist forums online and had a trove of neo-Nazi literature. He was caught only because he sent a photo of his ex-girlfriend wearing parts of a Nazi uniform to her employer, officials said…He also affixed a “Right Wing Death Squad” patch to his EMT jacket.

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Look at this naïve buffoon presenting ancestry testing results to the decimal point for Gabbard, including percentages of 3.8, 1.1, and 0.8.  Depending on the test and the parental populations used, I would question even the percentages in the 20s.

Let it not be said that the “movement’s” affirmative action “leadership” does not come up with brilliant ideas – this is one!  Heil Der Movement!  Heil!  

No, actually the Alt Right should just continue on the glorious path already established.

Andrew Fraser wanna-be and “Wilmot” lover Morris the Liar is back again with the same old shtick. Question – wasn’t it the grand old WASP foreign policy establishment that gave us American involvement in WWI and WWII (and don’t start braying about “Pearl Harbor” with respect to the latter, with all the grand work Der Movement has done over the years uncovering the FDR administration’s perfidy regarding that)?

Oh you’ll say – the Jews were manipulating there.  If that is the case, as far back as WWI, then when did the USA have an authentically Humphrey Irelandish foreign policy apparatus?  The Spanish American War perhaps, brought to us by grand fellows like Hearst (journalism leading foreign policy) and the reason we have so many Puerto Ricans and Filipinos in American today.  What?  Do we gave to go back to Polk and the Mexican American War?  Or perhaps Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase?  Or Washington’s Farewell Address?

Der Movement likes to pontificate, but cannot back up all of the hot air with historical reality.

If you believe that in the past that American foreign policy was run by the “Majority,” then this is relevant.  Fiction mirroring reality. After all, if Der Movement loves the Pesci scene so much, they can also consider the content of the remainder of the movie as well.

Now, I did state:

A case can be made that folks like the Wilsons founded and built America and so they have the right to pull the strings…

Very well.  But if so, at least have the honesty to admit when the Wilsons screw things up, instead of pretending those were halcyon days – the Golden Age of foreign affairs from which we’ve sadly fallen to the Yogi Bear (“Kali Yuga”). But then, the concept of accountability is not very well accepted by Der Movement and its “leadership,” is it?

My response to this nonsense is this EGI Notes post.  Fact is, Rushton was exposed as a fraud and a personal hypocrite by a fellow HBDer.  That Johnson blithely ignores the facts about his hero and continues to peddle him as some sort of admirable figure is unfortunate but not (to me) surprising.

More Testing Follies and Other News

More 23andMe fails and other news.

As background, read this.  Also read this.

Prepare for an unexpected shock – Sallis is proven right once again.

Over the last year or two, companies such as 23andMe have been updating their customers’ ancestry results; in almost all cases that has been as a direct result of expanding their parental (reference) population sample database with all sorts of non-European samples. They do this (concentrating on the expansion of samples from outside Europe) even though they have grossly insufficient coverage from various parts of Europe (particularly the South and East) and even though most of their customers are of European descent. 

In the months since I posted the above linked criticisms, I’ve been studying online forums in which customers discuss their results, including the more recent updates, as well as looking at statements by the companies themselves, and also material forwarded to me by correspondents.  

The problems accompanying these updates, combined with the pre-existing problems of the tests, essentially completely confirm my previous criticisms and interpretations of these ancestry tests, particularly with respect to the issue of “parental privilege.”

In these updates, in general, the changes in ancestral proportions perfectly mirror the additions of parental population samples that are likely inappropriate for the customers in question (based on their actual, proven genealogical ancestry). Thus, customers who have poor parental population coverage of their actual ancestry exhibit increased ancestral proportions for precisely those (genealogically non-ancestral) parental reference populations that had their numbers increased in companies’ databases.

Therefore, and 100% consistent with my past criticisms, the results are completely dependent upon the choice of parental populations, and the degree to which particular parental populations are represented in the databases. More of a certain parental population shifts ancestral proportions precisely in that direction, causing customer results to fluctuate wildly dependent on the parental population choices.

In addition, with these updates, the “unassigned” percentages for the conservative estimate (90% confidence) markedly increased for these same customers (in these cases specifically 23andMe, which provides confidence levels and “unassigned” portions of the genome – other companies do not generally do so), clearly demonstrating that the updated results are less accurate than the preceding. 

As a model of this, look at the first example here. Consider a scenario in which  the testing company refuses to add (more, if they have any) “green” parental population samples, but significantly increases the representation of “yellow” (but not “blue”) samples in their database. What happens? “Green” individuals are suddenly shown to exhibit a much greater percentage of “yellow” ancestry – which is purely a consequence of the shifting representation of different groups in the parental population database.  What if the number of “yellow” was decreased, and “blue” increased?  Then the “greens” would be more “blue.” But, here’s the rub – if significant numbers of “green” were introduced, then the “blue-yellow”” “greens” would – presto! – be represented as mostly “green.”

Again, my criticisms have been 100% confirmed as legitimate by the direct correspondence between expansion of certain parental populations in the databases and the increased ancestral proportions for those same populations among customers who lack proper parental population representation.

An equally valid conformation of my criticisms is that for many of these customers, the updated ancestral proportions have been accompanied by an ever-increasing “unassigned ancestry” percentage when considering results at the (more proper) “conservative” (“90% confidence”- which itself is a bit too low) estimate levels – often increasing to ludicrous levels. If “updates” markedly increase the amount of unknown ancestry at reasonable confidence levels, then this is strong evidence that the updates are providing ancestry estimates that are less accurate than those preceding.  How could it be otherwise? By introducing parental populations that are more distant from customers’ actual ancestral backgrounds, in the context of refusing to increase the appropriate parental population representation for those customers, of course the results will be less accurate, with less of the genome being reliably assigned at higher levels of confidence. The more the parental populations are unrepresentative of the customer, the less likely they will fit the data at the highest confidence level – hence, “unassigned ancestry.”

Anyone getting over 20-25% “unassigned” at the 90% level should view their results with extreme skepticism.  What if it is over 40%?  That is in my opinion essentially useless.  And what about levels exceeding 50% (!) – and some of them (believe it or not) do?  That is in my opinion a tragicomic embarrassment. That’s what one could expect if one tried to represent, say, Russians using some English reference samples and an increasing Japanese reference database. That the company actually releases data with such high “unassigned” levels is shocking.  If person A has an “unassigned” (at 90% confidence) of, say, 5-15% (or less) and someone else has 40-55% (or more) – how can you possibly equate the validity of those two sets of data?  In some cases, the differences are at the level of an order of magnitude.  

Note to testing companies: More references samples from Europe. Many, many more, covering ALL areas.  Most of your customers are of European origins.  You need high level coverage from throughout Europe, all of Europe, before you do your SJW sampling of other areas to satisfy the diversity-mongers.  Get all of Europe covered before you handle those Egyptians, Tibetans, Nepalese, Martians, Neptunians, or whatever. Your customers are your customers, not SJWs screeching about “diversity” in reference populations. You want “diversity?”  First start with Europe.

ALL of your customers should have “unassigned” in the low range at 90% confidence – not just those with “parental privilege.” And even for those latter customers, who are much better off than the others, the results are still suboptimal.  Consider Derbyshire’s data, which is not fully matching his actual ethnic ancestry; however, at least Northwest Europeans fall within the correct sub-region, even if national-ethnic affiliations are not always on target. The swarthoids and slavoids often do not get even that.

For now, 23andMe may be useful for the raw data (that can in theory be used for kinship analysis, which is biopolitically relevant) as well as the health data. The ancestry testing is laughable.  And, by the way, the “timeline” feature is a bad joke, based as it is on the flawed “chromosome painting” and consequent ancestry estimates. Note to company geniuses: Just because you model someone’s ancestry with your limited and inappropriate reference parental samples, does NOT mean their actual ancestry derives from those sources, so that you can “time” when that non-existent ancestry entered their ancestral line (shown to be ludicrously – and objectively mistaken – recently).

Going back to the Russian (23andMe) customer scenario, let’s model it differently for the sake of illustration. In one scenario, there are no Russian reference (parental) samples, only Germans and Central Asians.  At 50% confidence, the Russian would likely be represented as mostly German but with a significant Central Asian ancestral component.  At the low level of 50% (!) confidence, some chromosome fragments would seem slightly more Central Asian than German and would be assigned thus – it’s only at the coin-flip level of confidence, remember.  At 90% confidence, likely 40-50+% of the chromosome fragments, and hence the ancestry, would be “unassigned” – since at that more reasonable level of confidence, many of the chromosome fragments do not at all match either German or Central Asian. Of the remainder, most would be German, with a small minority of Central Asian. What if the Central Asian reference population was suddenly increased with more samples – increasing the chances that at 50% confidence a match was more likely with some new Central Asian sample than with the original German parental samples?  The Central Asian proportion of the Russian customer’s “results” would be increased at 50% confidence, and the “unassigned” would increase at 90% confidence – the latter occurring because these new results are actually less accurate than the preceding. Thus, at 90% confidence, the chromosomal fragments are not matching these new Central Asian samples. What if the parental populations were Sardinian and Central Asian? Likely the Central Asian component would be larger at 50% confidence than with the German and Central Asian parentals, since Russians are more genetically distant from Sardinians than they are to Germans. And here, with Sardinian parentals, the “unassigned” at 90% confidence would be even larger than with the German parentals.

Now, let’s do another scenario.  Here, there is a large and very comprehensive Russian parental population – many reference samples from ethnic Russians from all parts of Russia. What happens then? This same Russian customer – the same individual with the same genome – is now represented as being overwhelmingly Russian (and since Russian would be considered “European” by the company labeling, the customer would be so labeled), with only smaller amounts of other ancestries (since the customer may not be an exact fit to the co-ethnic reference samples). Note that the results from the two scenarios would be completely, utterly different. Also, in the latter scenario, at 90% confidence, the “unassigned” percentage would be low, since there would be a good fit between the Russian customer’s chromosome fragments and a large and comprehensive Russian reference population.

Consider another scenario.  Imagine if “German” was defined only by samples from North Germany. A Bavarian at 50% confidence might be mostly German but with a strong minority of other ancestries, with a hefty “unassigned” at 90% confidence. If “German” was subsequently redefined to also include many South German/Bavarian samples, then the Bavarian would see his German results greatly increase and his “unassigned” decrease.  

This isn’t rocket science or nuclear physics.  When you identify ancestral components by comparison to reference samples, then the composition of those references will of course determine the outcome of the ancestry determination. The accuracy of that determination can be ascertained by how much of the ancestry is “unassigned” at higher levels of confidence.

Can you believe this petty, puerile, and utterly childish attack on Spencer, coming from – surprise! – the obsessives of Counter-Currents.  That’s an embarrassment.  I suppose though it is a useful distraction from the real criticisms of Spencer and of the Alt Right that would hit too close to home to those currently attacking Spencer for talking about hamburgers.  After all, those screaming “Kek” (figuratively and/or literally) three years ago would like to pretend it never happened.

Comments on the comments: 

Ivan White
Posted November 26, 2019 at 11:17 am | Permalink

Spencer might not be a great leader…

Better: “Spencer might not be a leader…”

…but he is certainly a brave man that has risked his money and personal safety for Our People. He deserves some recognition for that.

I agree.  I have never questioned his physical courage. As far as money goes, I don’t know his personal circumstances – indications are that he is from a very wealthy family, but who knows what he has personally.

I do not know the writer of this piece…

All you have to do is click on his name on the side-bar.  Is that so difficult?

…but I get the feeling he has a personal grudge against Spencer.

Welcome to Counter-Currents.

Maybe the writer is a Groyper…

Groper maybe…for all those young lads in “rainbow thongs?”

…which is ironic considering Greg Johnson is one of the few people in the movement that uses the term “White Nationalist”. Isn’t that bad optics?

Ah…he’s a “white advocate” now.

John Wilkinson
Posted November 26, 2019 at 3:45 am | Permalink

I’ll have a Faustian burger with a side of pan-European fried potatoes, please.

No, I’ll have a Traditionalist burger with a side of ethnonationalist fried potatoes, please – in Hungary, even though I’m not Hungarian.  Chow down! (Morgan salivates)

Samuel Nock
Posted November 25, 2019 at 11:43 pm | Permalink

It appears to have been flushed down the Internet memory hole, but a few years back there was a quite funny meme consisting of the below-linked photograph with thought bubbles above each person as follows:
Brimelow thought bubble: image of Ronald Reagan
Derbyshire thought bubble: image of a young Asian woman
Taylor thought bubble: ‘they look Hwhite to me’
Sam Dickson thought bubble: image of a frosted donut
Richard Spencer thought bubble: image picturing himself as Bond in tuxedo with gun

That’s about right…but Brimelow would be more appropriately thinking about depositing money into a Happy Penguins account.

See this.  Emphasis added:

…universities threw open the gates, admitting Jews, women, blacks, other races, cripples, and sexual deviants. Since these people do not belong at university…He goes out of his way to bemoan the fact that as women become professors, the profession becomes devalued. He notes that there’s a general pattern that as women are pushed into jobs previously done by men, the market devalues those same jobs – almost as if the market were correcting for falling standards.

But, but, but…Joan of Arc!

Real professors ascend through a hierarchy and are eligible for tenure, which means job security for life. 

Actually, real tenure is becoming increasingly scarce in academia.  It may exist in some tangible form at some of the top universities, no doubt, as well as at some lower level institutions desperate to attract and retain anyone, but, in general, it’s becoming more and more an empty honorific, and in those cases certainly does not mean “job security for life.”

See this.  But it is not only about adjuncts. Full time faculty either are being not offered tenure track or the “tenure” offered is the equivalent of “job well done, here’s another title for you” but has zero practical meaning.

Once again: Wrong, wrong, they’re always wrong.

Political PopGen

And other news.

More mendacity.  I like how they are trying to surprise us with “you see, the Ancient World was really diverse” (shilling for modern mass alien immigration), while the fact that Rome itself (the city and immediately surrounding regions, specifically) became a cosmopolitan city has always been well known. In fact, if I recall correctly, some of the early work from the Cavalli-Sforza lab identified Rome and Naples (and areas immediately surrounding) as being somewhat genetically different from the rest of Italy, with the suggestion that it was because of the cosmopolitan aspects of these large cities throughout history. What about Alexandria?  It has always been known that it had a variety of ethnic groups.  What about the metics of Athens? Again, it was ALWAYS known that these large cities of ancient big states/empires, civilizational units, etc. were not purely homogeneous.  Why lie?  Why set up a strawman so you can knock it down with breathless accounts of the “surprising diversity?”  If for what other reason than to convince Whites to open their borders to the other today, and to cheerfully accept their demographic displacement and replacement?

Again, it depends what you mean by “Rome.”  If by that you mean the city itself, I don’t know of anyone who ever claimed the city did not attract migrants and take slaves. However, if by “Rome” you mean the entire Empire, including the mass of the area of current-day Italy, that’s a different story. Migrants (non-European) were not settling, in any substantial number,  in “backwaters.” There were slaves working farms, but those were hardly settled people who were reproducing (and were unlikely to have been spindly, flabby easterners in any case).

The city of Rome – no surprise. The entirety of “Rome” is not, obviously, going to reflect the same “diversity.”  By the way, population changes in Rome thousands of years ago do not obligate Italy – or any other nation – to accept immigrants today.  And, also, Ancient Rome itself was under no obligation to accept newcomers from its empire. They stupidly had slaves, yes, but as regards voluntary migrants – why accept them?  Just because you rule over various peoples does not obligate you to accept them as migrants. Even when universal citizenship was granted, it could have been enjoyed in place. There was no need or obligation to accept any influx into the city of Rome itself.

This is amusing though:

Then, starting about 1,700 years ago, the empire entered a phase of gradual dissolution. The Roman empire split in two halves and the capital moved to Constantinople. Around this time, the inhabitants of Rome changed their trading habits — and the new trade routes seem to have brought a fresh influx of ancestry into the region, Pritchard says. “People aren’t just trading with the north and the west, but their population is being replaced by new people coming in from those places.”

Race replacement!  But alas for “movement” narratives, the “race replacement” coinciding with “a phase of gradual dissolution”- the decline and fall – was coming from “the north and west.”

Der Movement, Der Movement, Der Movement marches on.

Get this, from that same article; Pritchard describing the data:

…a pleasant surprise…


Value judgments about scientific data? That crosses the line separating science from politics. I’ve always said that population genetics is a highly politicized field and this article is yet more evidence. These guys can’t just report their results. They need to “interpret” the data to the great unwashed – pontificating about the wonderfully surprising “diversity” of ancient cities.  Population shifts and replacements – pleasant.  And of course Pritchard is not alone. Ever notice that papers stressing the Middle Eastern ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews, and the consequent asserted continuity of modern Jews to the Levant, tend to come from Israel? Papers that stress continuity between ancient and modern Greeks tend to have Greek authors?  Papers that stress differences between Northern vs. Southern Italy tend to have Northern Italian authors? Papers that stress admixture and population shifts are typically about Europe?  That Chinese population geneticists are not going out of their way to interpret data to delegitimize the Han Chinese ethnography of their nation?  Coincidence?

I’m not saying the data are false and/or fabricated. Instead, similarly to what I have written about ancestry testing companies, the types of samples used and the types of analyses performed can determine the direction of the findings. Choices of parental populations, choices of analytical methods, underlying assumptions, etc. can create marked differences in the data output.  Further, how these people choose to interpret the findings can be highly subjective.

Never mind that all these guys are allergic to genetic kinship assays.

In any case, how about this for an interpretation – the city of Rome was “diverse” and the Roman Empire collapsed, a “pleasant” correlation there.

Hey, here’s your “alpha” Supreme Court Justice, Alt Right retards. Maybe we can have more analysis from Roissy of Trump and Kavanaugh shaking hands or how each one stands up straight (or in the case of “big paunch” Trump, does not).  

This is a good Strom piece, but if he believes all of this, why doesn’t he openly and explicitly denounce the Jewish-Asian HBD cult?

Let’s rewrite some of it.

….what Sir John Harington said about treason in the 17th century. Harington was wondering why one hears so little about treason; he asked Why does treason not prosper? It must not be prospering, since we never hear about it — right? Wrong. Harington said: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Similarly, today, few dare call into question the promotion of open borders, racial mixing, mass immigration, and slavish support for Israel and all things anti-White by the supposed “American” media — and few dare mention the real ethnic loyalties and background of the billionaire media elite — because to do so would bring smears, economic repercussions, legal persecution and sometimes even physical violence down on the truth-teller.

….what Sir John Harington said about treason in the 17th century. Harington was wondering why one hears so little about treason; he asked Why does treason not prosper? It must not be prospering, since we never hear about it — right? Wrong. Harington said: “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Similarly, today, few dare call into question the promotion of slavish worship of “high Jewish and Asian IQ,” aracial cognitive elitism, intra-European division, “race realist” lies and fairy tales, Jeurasian mongrelization, outrageously transparent pseudoscience, and all things anti-White by the supposed “movement” HBD faction— and few dare mention the real ethnic loyalties and background of the HBD elite — because to do so would bring smears, “movement” repercussions, and labels of “crazy and bitter” on the truth-teller.

If you tune in and see some Republican or Democrat talking head promoting another war or promoting more immigration or pretending he opposes more immigration on the television, and you switch it off immediately and more importantly forever, that doesn’t make the traitors stop existing. But it does give you a chance to perceive the world primarily with your own eyes and ears, and to draw your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you.

If you go online and see some HBDer talking head promoting intra-European division or promoting Jew-Asian worship or pretending he opposes more Asian immigration, and you switch it off immediately and more importantly forever, that doesn’t make the traitors stop existing. But it does give you a chance to perceive the world primarily with your own eyes and ears, and to draw your own conclusions instead of having them spoon-fed to you.

See how easy it is, Kevin?

The System is Killing White Men

Some items.

The System is killing White men (emphasis added).

“What’s interesting is that Hispanics and blacks who started off at lower levels of life expectancy, they have continued to make progress. They’re not in the deaths of despair category for the most part,” Brookings Institution’s senior fellow Carol Graham told Yahoo Finance, adding that “The entire trend is driven by premature mortality among less-than-college-educated whites, mainly in the middle-aged years. That’s a pretty big marker that something’s really wrong.”

Wrong?  Hey!  I thought the destruction of the White man was a feature of the System, not a bug.  Shouldn’t the attitude of these types be “job well done, full steam ahead?”

Women and blacks became more optimistic over time, beginning in the 1970’s when gender and civil rights improved,” Graham wrote in the report. “The one group that experienced drops in optimism around the same time were less-than-college-educated white males, not coincidentally when the decline in manufacturing began.

What mendacity. Note how they try to blame it all on economic reasons, even though they say that for Negroes and Yeastbuckets, they “became more optimistic over time, beginning in the 1970’s when gender and civil rights improved” – and that was precisely the time that optimism among White men declined.  That’s the key to “not coincidentally,” not the hand-waiving about “decline in manufacturing.” Economic concerns may play a factor, but not the major role.  As evidence that it is not all about economics, see the following form the same article:

“We uncovered those death patterns,” Graham says. “What struck me is that poor African-Americans were three times as likely to be optimistic about the future as poor whites,” Graham said. “The metric that really stands out is not sort of happy, unhappy. Happy today doesn’t matter a whole lot. It’s hope for the future or lack thereof that’s really linked with premature mortality.”

Gee, the lack of economic opportunities are not harming those “poor African-Americans” who see hope for a future in a System that literally worships them, while poor Whites, and all Whites, particularly men, view the future with despair, as they are the “devil” of the System. Indeed, opinion polls for Whites in general show they are more pessimistic than Coloreds about the future; even “highly educated Whites” are more pessimistic.

Don’t blame it all on the economy, liars.  It’s more about race and culture.

Read this excellent Hood piece.  Emphasis added:

In contrast to leftists, President Trump focuses on public opinion. He talks big but does little. He cites favorable polls to prove his greatness. His campaigning and governing styles are contradictory. He advocates policies he doesn’t implement, such as an executive order on birthright citizenship, a remittance tax, or a flag burning ban. Rather than legitimizing ideas, this discredits them. Instead of encouraging supporters, he betrays them.

But Trump is a sincere man of genuine greatness, right Greg?

It’s time to rethink the Overton Window. The truth is already on our side. Many people already agree with us on most issues. If that were enough, we’d have already won.

In general, yes. With respect to specifics, such as HBD and racial fetishistic dogma, no.

Instead of trying to shock public opinion, we should focus on demanding platform access, creating financial networks, and building institutions and communities the media can’t destroy. Instead of focusing on ideology, we should focus on logistics. We need to change conditions on the ground and make it easier for white advocates to organize. 

I agree on all, and this is very consistent with ideas I have proposed here previously.  There needs to be an emphasis on actually achieving concrete objectives, rather than nitpicking on the typical “movement” ideological and memetic obsessions. We need to fight social pricing, ensure access to the public square (both digital and analog), and real community building (which everyone talks about, but no one actually does anything about).

Otherwise, we risk ending up like Georgia Clark, pleading for help from leaders who have already abandoned us.

Leaders such as the sincere God Emperor of genuine greatness, Antifa Don Trump.

Now, I’ve already spent much time and effort here deconstructing the abysmal stupidity of extant ancestry testing, but it is worthwhile to read this, which in some ways compares favorably to some of the points I’ve made here in the past.

An amusing comment that I’ve found online (emphasis added): 

So basically the ancestry DNA test claims I’m 58% Great Britain! I am not even from Great Britain, I’m German I live in Great Britain though

Whew!  It’s good he doesn’t live in Uganda, imagine what results he would have gotten then!

In all seriousness, AncestryDNA may be the worst test out there…either that or 23andMe…both are borderline D/F grades in my opinion, absolutely horrid. AncestryDNA specializes in providing bizarre data points that overlap with zero. 23andMe isn’t much better. They’re competing for last place, putting a lot of effort there. Probably using the raw data for health-related issues may be the best use of that nonsense.

The lack of proper parental populations for Europe is a major problem.  I believe that this is a fundamental reason why the results for European-derived peoples seemingly get worse and more absurd every time that these companies “update” their tests. These companies seem to be going “PC” and adding reference populations from non-White, non-European populations; and since results are modeled based on the available reference population samples, the more non-White references you add, the greater the probability  of assigning ancestral components to those populations. Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between the politically-motivated stress on adding “diverse” parentals and increasingly absurd results. We need more parental populations from Europe – where most of the people using the rests derive their ancestry from. 

Let’s take an example. Imagine a testing company wants to determine the ancestral proportions of Iraqis. They model the “admixture” under four scenarios. One – a large reference population from Iraq; many Iraqi samples as parentals. Two – few samples from Iraq, but many samples from Jordan, Germany, and Ghana. Three – the same as two, but with the addition of a large number of reference samples from South Asia. Four – the same as two, but with the addition of a moderate number of samples from Turkey and a large expansion of the samples from sub-Saharan Africa. Now, under those four scenarios, will the results from a given set of Iraqis be the same, or even very similar? Hardly. They would be markedly different. Only when there is a significant number of reference samples from the specific population of the person or persons being tested will the results be reasonably accurate, and even then the results can be altered when there are significant changes in the types and numbers of other reference populations used to model the “admixture.” These are facts that cannot be responsibly evaded by the testing companies, although they’ll like to pretend that this is not a factor.
The current state of commercially available ancestry testing means that such testing is virtually useless for significant numbers of European-derived people. Actually, less than worthless, as the results are absolute incorrect. Again, the major advantage of this testing is using the data to make an “end run” around the paternalism of the medical community and getting a handle on health issues – assuming that the data are accurate, which is an issue that needs to be confirmed if something “bad” is discovered.