Alt Right: Embracing Evil

It’s the Alt Wrong.

Let’s see:

Is involved in an inter-racial marriage, and supports miscegenation.

Is a despicable HBDer who worships at the feet of Jews and Asians.

An idiot who ignores the demographic facts on the ground and states that there is no existential threat to Whites.

A multiculturalist who supports a multi-racial “stew” society.

A lickspittle philosemite.

Who wants to associate with an Alt Right that includes execrable trash like Derbyshire?  Now, I’m sure that Alt Right defenders will state that the Alt Right cannot control who does or does not identify with this “movement.”  However, the faction had no problem disavowing the Alt Lite, so why can’t they do the same to Derbyshire and the rest of the Alt Wrong?  Is it because they agree with the Alt Wrong? With all the hate toward “boomers” coming from Alt Right Millennials, why do they grovel to a decrepit race-mixing boomer like Derbyshire?  And before I was “banned” from Counter-Currents, that site censored my criticism of Derbyshire’s comments about child porn – criticism that was nothing more than just citing Derbyshire’s own words on that subject!  So it is disingenuous of the Alt Right to just shrug and say that they have no control over Derbyshire and his identification with the Alt Right.

We can contrast all the financial support and meeting invitations and protection given to Derbyshire compared to how a good man like Robert Griffin is essentially ignored (except by TOO; I give credit to MacDonald for giving Griffin a forum).  Contrast Griffin’s wise words with Derbyshire’s self-interested pro-miscegenation rambling.

That VDARE is getting the lion’s share of “movement” donations, and that some of that goes to Derbyshire, is absolutely disgusted.  Not surprising tough.  Not surprising at all.

Let’s delve deeper into this; this is important.  

Let’s consider Derbyshire some more.  Not only is all written above true, and documented in his own writing, but let us not forget: for years, Derbyshire was openly hostile to White nationalism.  He wrote an insulting “hit piece” against Kevin MacDonald (it was when I wrote a riposte defending MacDonald that Derbyshire first came to my attention).  He openly mocked WN’s as “crazy” and “nutty” and “obsessed with racial purity.”  He publicly agreed with the assessment of Amren conference attendees as “latrine flies.”  He challenged critics of his marriage to come to his home so he could greet them “in the appropriate manner” (i.e., an elderly fist in their face, I suppose).  He sided with GNXP against WNs, and had one of the GNXPers at his home (welcomed, not attacked).  He praised the likes of the anti-WN and anti-Salter “Jayman.”  

But what happened when National Review kicked Derbyshire to the curb over his “the talk” article? Guess who it was who eagerly embraced Derbyshire and gave him new life – and money! – to spread his repellent views?  You guessed it – the “movement.”  The same “movement” Derbyshire attacked with relish for years now fell all over themselves to rescue him, including inviting him to address all those “latrine flies” he previously mocked in (digital) print. And, of course, he gets money and more money, supported via VDARE, etc.  And he is praised by “movement” commentators on blog threads.  This anti-WN race-mixer is propped up by the same WNs he’s always despised.

On the other hand, let’s look at how genuine WNs are treated.  Let’s consider this Sallis fellow – a WN for over twenty years, someone who made a major contribution in popularizing Salter’s EGI concept in the “movement” (and defending it against critics), among many other contributions.  Ted has essentially been “blacklisted” by Der Movement for the “crime” of questioning “movement” dogma and for criticizing “movement” leaders and for asserting that these “leaders” should be held accountable for their actions.  The anti-WN Derbyshire embraced; the WN Sallis is persona non grata.

Explanation?  I put forth two explanations, both of which are undoubtedly true.

First, many in Der Movement consider White nationalism as a money-making enterprise, as a way of earning a living (and living well).  They may well be genuine activists, sincere in their beliefs, but they want their money.  Derbyshire was never a threat to that – his attacks could easily be explained away by his Chinese wife and half-Chinese children.  Criticism coming from a twenty plus year veteran of WN is a whole other story, potentially far more damaging.  Let’s quarantine that “infection” before folks start getting the wrong ideas and the shekels stop pouring in.  Yes, there is also the issue of bruised egos among the thin-skinned, but I would think the money is more of a factor here.

But that first explanation does not explain the extent of the discrepancy; it does not explain the fervor with which Derbyshire been embraced, and the alacrity by which Sallis has been, in contrast, blacklisted.  Thus, second, I must invoke the “movement’s” affirmative action program.  Derbyshire – even with his Chinese family connections – is “one of the boys” so years of extreme anti-WN activism is breezily dismissed; Sallis, on the other hand, is an “outsider,” so decades of contributions are flushed down the memory hole before you can even say the words “latrine flies.”

The “rock stars” may not want to hear any of this, but it’s true.  And it’s a damning indictment of their poor character.


Another Alt Right Infiltration

More extreme vetting I suppose.

Read this.  Excerpts, emphasis added:

Back in January, I e-mailed Dr. Greg Johnson, organizer of Northwest Forum, Seattle’s hottest closed-door white nationalist convention, asking for an interview on the latest in regional racism. He turned me down….Also thanks to the internet, it only took me about an hour to change my identity from David Lewis, Seattle historian, to Dave Lewis, Neo-Nazi film editor and aspiring book critic from Charlottesville, currently living in Los Angeles. This Dave Lewis has never been to Seattle, but has always wanted to attend Northwest Forum.
My film editor persona dangled a giant chunk of cheese in front of Dr. Johnson. In addition to being a racist, Johnson is also a huge cinephile who has published two books of “pro-white” movie reviews wherein he rants against Zootopia as “pure evil” but surprisingly enjoyed 8 Mile. The role of film editor also worked to my advantage because, despite a recent fundraising spike, the white nationalist movement still has a hard time attracting people with artistic or technical talent.
Dr. Johnson bit the cheese. 

If I wrote this as parody, I would be accused of taking cheap shots with juvenile mockery.  Unfortunately, this is not parody; it is reality.

Entry into Northwest Forum typically requires “extreme vetting,” which means meeting in person and getting a beer with one of the Northwest’s white separatist organizations like True Cascadia. But I didn’t even have to send in a photo after mentioning that, as a Charlottesville native (actually from Ballard), I was writing an essay titled Tear Down Lee and Put Up Lincoln: Abraham Lincoln, World’s Greatest White Nationalist. 

Another transparently flimsy “resume.”  And he got in without being Swedish: Good work, David.

Just to scrub out any doubt, I was also carrying a copy of the 1958 Neo-Nazi classic The Lightning and the Sun. 

Worse and worse…

Upon entering, a woman who looked like a grizzled waitress from a black and white movie hit me up for a $40 admission fee (not mentioned in my invitation). 

More panhandling.

Virtually every time I use the word “Nazi” I’m using it as an insult. In the world of millennial white nationalism, there aren’t a ton of people who actually self-identify as Nazis. Despite usually agreeing with everything the Nazis did and believing the Holocaust is just “anti-white propaganda,” they always claim a technical reason for why they aren’t “National Socialists.” 

No, they’re “ethnonationalists” and “HBD race realists,” you see.

When not fighting for the white ethno-state, Dr. Johnson lives an extremely NPR lifestyle filled with world travel, visits to art galleries, and opera. 

As I’ve previously written, most of the “movement” leaders live better than do their donors.  Keep on sending the money!

People attend the forum to meet the visiting blue chip racists that Dr. Johnson flies in. Notable guests have included Identity Evropa founder Nathan Damigo and anti-semitic professor Kevin MacDonald. The forum I attended featured Jared Taylor, founder and editor of the online white nationalist magazine American Renaissance, fresh from his VICE interview with Eddie Huang. One of the world’s leading advocates for scientific racism…

HBD is not “scientific racism.”

Taylor is unique among white nationalists in that he believes East Asians to be objectively superior to whites. 

It’s interesting that an anti-racist infiltrator noticed something that Far Right activists get criticized for mentioning.

Speaking of Hitler, while at the bar getting coffee and Top Pot donuts, I noticed Seattle’s Hitler tea-pot guy, Charles Krafft…He has become a staple at Northwest Forum, known for holding before-parties at his house, which he rents from a Chinese-American landlord.

Don’t forget: that’s an objectively superior Chinese American landlord.

The only local voice for white separatism was the laughably uncharismatic Harold Covington of Northwest Front, who according to Krafft, asks people for money immediately upon meeting them. 

Now, that’s a genuine “movement” activist.  The new symbol of American White nationalism: a tin cup.

Enough mingling! It was time for the speeches on the second floor. Dr. Johnson announced that everything we were about to hear was totally off the record and not to be shared with anybody outside our circle of racists. Did this mean I would have to turn off the tape recorder that had been running in my backpack for the last 3 hours? Better not ask.

I mean, you just can’t make this stuff up.  By the way, all you donors are paying for this.

Speakers encouraged followers to take the Gandhi approach and continue getting punched in the face a la Richard Spencer. The media will have no choice but to turn to its side, their reasoning went. Taylor, Dr. Johnson, and the other speakers are all pretty married to this strategy.

That’s grand strategy on a world historical scale.

I was never more aware that I was dealing with Seattle racists than when it came time for questions and people were asking the same kind of self-righteous, rambling, statement-questions you encounter at Town Hall. One of the questions came from an East Indian-Canadian. 

Hey!  That’s an Indo-European Aryan.  Didn’t the good and great Savitri Davi marry one?  The Lightning and the Sun, indeed.

My interest picked up when Dr. Johnson, seated on a Masonic throne, announced that we would all be going to dinner at Buca di Beppo. When I called one of my emergency contact friends about the change of location she said, “Buca di Beppo? Do Nazis need to carbo load?”
He’d reserved two large tables and a smaller one for the duds. Showing up late, I got stuck at the dud table along with the Wise Old Man, a 91-year-old Holocaust denier who went to Hollywood back in 1952 for a songwriting career. When that didn’t work out, he started waving anti-Israel signs at the Oscars for the next 40 years. Krafft was really wowed by him, but nobody else cared.

Remember, dear reader, when your “leaders” pontificated about the need to eschew defectives?

“That movie Hidden Figures was bullshit,” a guy dressed like John Goodman in The Big Lebowski said out of nowhere. “We never went to the moon, Stanley Kubrick faked all of it.” 

And there you go: rampant freakishness, conspiracy theorizing, the flotsam and jetsam of an alienated society embraced.  All these Alt Right types like to compare their superior White Nationalism 2.0 to the old White Nationalism 1.0; I can tell them that their meetings today exhibit no better quality of attendees than the ones we were doing twenty years ago.

John Goodman then continued with a whole range of conspiracy theories from Waco, to the Bible, to how TV broadcasts were designed to give him anger issues.
Twenty minutes after we finished eating, it was time to go and the Wise Old Man looked around confused. “When is the food coming?” He can remember all kinds of Zionist conspiracies, but he can’t remember that he ate 15 minutes ago.

No comment.

At the time, I didn’t realize I wasn’t the only undercover reporter at Northwest Forum. 

A tipping point eventually will be reached: there will be more infiltrators at these meetings than genuine activists.

At the June forum they’d let in a much better looking, better funded, Antifa activist all the way from Sweden, equipped with James Bond-quality cameras and sound equipment.
…white nationalists who want to take over America but can’t screen out reporters…

And with that, we end analysis of this fiasco.

Der Movement marches on.  Remember dear reader: you are paying for this; you are supporting this.  In the last analysis it is your fault. You can end this nightmare overnight.  You choose not to do so.  


Turnabout Is Fair Play

Oil drillers and mustard dippers should be ostracized as well.

Issues of miscegenation are important for EGI, as well as for parental and familial kinship.  Dissuading relationships across wide racial lines is therefore a good thing.  I note that Roissy is celebrating an example of “shark shaming” – White women who date Coloreds (“mudsharks”)* being ostracized by White men.

Now, such “shark shaming” is a good thing, so why not extend it to the opposite sex direction as well?   Shouldn’t White women ostracize White men who date (or marry) Colored women?  The outrageous hypocrite Roissy joyfully discusses his Negro and Oriental sex partners, and indeed claims that White men can “increase their SMV” by miscegenation; yet he supports “shark shaming.”  

True enough, since women are the rate limiting step in reproduction, White female miscegenation is worse than that of White males.  But “worse” implies degree, not a Manichean good/bad distinction.  In other words, just because White male miscegenation is “not as bad” as that of White females, it doesn’t mean that White male miscegenation is good.  It’s bad as well, and the “oil drillers” and “mustard dippers” should be ostracized as well.

Can we expect anything else from Roissy?  This is the same liar who peddled the ludicrous idea that Trump won Pennsylvania, and hence the election, because of the endless caravans of Amish horse and buggies descending upon voting centers, while the reality was (and was pointed out here, with evidence cited) that the difference in Pennsylvania was all of the rust belt Micks, Wops, and Polacks from Joe Biden country who eagerly flocked to a candidate portrayed in the media as a “racist” and a “fascist.”

What else do expect from a HBD gamester but lies and hypocrisy?

*Does this include Ann Coulter?  If not, why not?

More Problems With Fst

More Fst follies.

Commonly used measures such as FST and its derivatives based on gene identity probabilities do not reliably reflect difference, as they can be maximal when almost all populations are identical and very small when populations are completely distinct.

I’ve been saying this for years, citing other papers, noting the stupidity of people like J Richards of Majority Rights, who was breathlessly pontificating about minute differences in Fst values – a metric that cannot reliably determine genetic differentiation, since it is dependent upon the genetic variation within groups; it essentially is more about the apportioning of genetic variation within and between groups.

But all of this won’t stop Der Movement “activists” from using discredited metrics when it serves their purposes.

Preliminary Quantitation of Genetic Structure

Genetic differentiation increases with higher levels of genetic integration.

Ted Sallis


I have finally performed some preliminary analyses of genetic structure – which I (predominantly) define as the association of alleles at different loci, an association that differs between individuals, between families, and between ethnies. The lack of genetic structure calculations is one of the two major genetics-based weaknesses of On Genetic Interests, the other being the reliance on Fst – which is not a real measure of genetic differentiation – rather than on genetic kinship data.  I’m not going to directly get into genetic kinship here (but note that the “genepool” level of analysis of DifferInt does give sort of a measure of genetic kinship, if the numbers are “crunched” appropriately), but since I’ve been discussing genetic structure for so long, here I present a minimal proof-of-principle of genetic structure quantitation with some human SNP data. This is not an optimal study, which needs to be performed by those with the time, expertise, databases, and computational resources do it well and efficiently (the same goes for global genetic kinship assays). Also, the methodology itself is not optimal and doesn’t cover the entirety of the genetic structure concept, but it does at least cover the underlying core principle.  


The DifferInt program dealing with genetic integration (1-3) – based on the work of Gillet and Gregorius on “genetic integration” (2) – was utilized, as well as some lists of human SNPs and publicly available HapMap population SNP frequency data. Thus, HapMap populations were analyzed. Europeans (EURO) included CEU (Utah residents of Northern and Western European ancestry) and TSI Tuscans, East Asians (EASIA) included CHB and CHD Chinese and JPT Japanese as well as a separate set of Chinese samples previously named HCB (instead of CHB), South Asians (SOUTH ASIAN) included GIH Gujarati Indians, Negroes (AFRICA) includes YRI Nigerians and ASW SE USA African ancestry and LKK and MKK Kenyans, and there also was Mex (MEXICAN: Mexican ancestry). I also produced a CEU-YRI hybrid by taking ~ ½ the alleles from CEU and ~ ½ from YRI – obviously, this is NOT how real admixture would take place (there would be mixing of both alleles at single loci as well as multiple loci, as well as other important differences consequent to sexual reproduction) – this is merely a very crude proof-of-principle.

Ideally, DifferInt populations would be ethnic groups and within each population there would be the individuals of that population, each with their distinct genotypes.  Due to the limitations of this study, the design was somewhat different and at a broader level of analysis. Here, the populations are continental population groups (races) and the “individuals’ within the populations are the ethnic groups themselves – actually the consensus genotypes at each locus for that ethnic group.  Therefore, the entire set of consensus genotypes for an ethnic group is what is being called a single “individual” here.  The consensus genotypes are such that for each gene locus, the most frequent genotype at that locus for the ethnic group was chosen.  So, for example, if a locus has AA – 0.2, AG – 0.3, GG – 0.5, then GG was the genotype chosen in this case.  This results in a “model” individual of a consensus ethnic genotype set.  This is sub-optimal for three related reasons: it doesn’t cover the intra-ethnic group variation; it doesn’t cover the frequency distributions of genotype per locus that are, of course, very important; and there are cases where the most frequent genotype is only slightly more frequent than the second most frequent genotype.  SNPs used are those for which I found genotype data for all twelve ethnic groups evaluated; the SNPs were taken from publicly available information sources.  51 SNPs of my initial list fit the requirements.

Whenever there were two genotypes listed as being of equal frequency at a given locus for any group, I chose the genotype that was the same as to the majority of the other groups.  In other words, I was conservative, and when there was a choice, I always chose the option that minimized differences between the greatest number of groups. That serves two purposes: first, to ensure that whatever differences that are observed are definitive, and not merely in part the result of cherry picking of genotypes; second, to obviate claims of a “racist agenda” in attempting to maximize group differences.  

The three levels of analysis are the genepool (i.e., individual allele “bean-bag” genetics), single locus genotypes (association of alleles at one gene locus – i.e., from the two homologous chromosomes), and, most importantly and consistent with my general basic idea about genetic structure, the multilocus genotypes (the association of all the different single locus genotypes together, how genetic variants at multiple loci are associated with each other).  

Each of these levels can be analyzed with “elementary genic differences” or “neglecting elementary genic differences.”  Considering elementary genic differences is an analysis of the number of individual genes that differ in the types of alleles; from the DifferInt manual: “The genic difference between genetic types at the same level of integration is basically determined by the number of their individual genes that differ in allelic type.”

Neglecting elementary genic differences is a discrete differentiation in which 0 is identity of all alleles of all loci and 1.0 being if the types “differ by at least one allele at one locus” – also from the manual: “By replacing the elementary genic difference between genetic types by the discrete difference, the measures…are based only on relative frequencies of the genetic types of the individuals in the population.”  Differentiation is higher when measured with the second, discrete analysis as compared to the first one. Keep in mind that in my crude model the “individuals” are consensus genotypes based on SNP frequency data from ethnic data sets; thus it would make sense that measuring the “discrete difference” would work best for such coarse-grained, “single-point” distinct and discrete pooled samples. Just measuring the numbers of individual genes that differ by allelic type (elementary genic differences) is not measuring (in my opinion) genetic structure (as I define it) per se; measuring the relative frequencies (neglecting elementary genic differences) is somewhat closer to my conception, so I used that for my analysis.

Differentiation is at a scale of 0 (exactly alike, no differentiation) to 1.0 (completely differentiated).

A major flaw in my study is using consensus genotypes, as opposed to actually listing all the individual samples or being able to use allele frequency data (which DifferInt does not do) since, ultimately, we want a range of ethny-specific genotypes characteristic of each group; it would not be a single, fixed consensus genotype.  Using fixed consensus genotypes also makes it even more imperative to look at the discrete DifferInt metrics that neglect the “elementary genic differences.”


(w/o EGD = without [neglecting] elementary genic differences – see above)



Note that the relative differentiation between groups at the genepool level is consistent with what is expected from standard population genetics studies.

Single-locus (w/o EGD):


There is a considerable increase in differentiation considering association of alleles at single loci.  This makes sense, particularly since in many cases differences between ethnies are at the level of whether alleles at the relevant loci are homozygous or heterozygous (which would also have obvious implications for traits affected in a dominant/recessive fashion by the SNP differences, or by gene sequences linked to such differences).

Multiple-locus (w/o EGD):

Was 1.0000 for all comparisons: complete differentiation.

That is not surprising, as combinations of alleles are going to be relatively specific in an ethny-dependent fashion, and the more loci looked at the greater the proneness to distinctiveness.  Of course, with the relatively blunt instrument of combining DifferInt with consensus genotype data, one would expect complete differentiation (with enough loci looked at) at almost any level of genetic difference. The problem here is that while this is informative in a qualitative sense, it doesn’t help gauge relative differences in the degree of “complete differentiation.”  For example, the “complete differentiation” comparing Europeans and South Asians when considering multiple loci is expected to be less than that between, say, Europeans and Africans.  The closer two groups are at the genepool level, the less “complete differentiation” should be expected at the multiple-locus level.  Note that single-locus differences (above) track well with the genepool differences, so the same should be expected at the multiple-locus level if a more scalable metric could be designed.

This lack of scalability at the multiple-locus level may be due to DifferInt itself and/or the type of crude, consensus, discrete SNP data I am using  If it were possible to include allele frequency data – which could be done with this program by actually separately listing each individual with their own genotype rather than a consensus – that would likely help.  Or, if the program itself was changed so that one could just directly include the frequency data for each allelic type rather than having to actually enter each individual as such (although with the proper computational resources and programs I presume listing the individuals would be easy, but I formatted everything by hand, which was tedious).  Alternatively, one could look at relative genetic structure by looking at SNP permutations (not the same type of permutation analysis that DifferInt can do).  One could ask, to what degree are different permutations of allelic types more similar or different? That would be very informative for EGI purposes, if properly designed.

In any case, at least for the data used here, DifferInt was reasonably quantitatively scalable for genepool and single-locus analyses, while multiple-locus analyses were more qualitative.

Also let us look at the CEU/TSI intra-EURO comparison:

Genepool: 0.0392, Single-locus (w/o EGD): 0.0784, Multiple-locus (w/o EGD): 1.0000

Not surprisingly, the intra-European comparison exhibits little differentiation at the genepool level, which is doubled for single-locus integration.  Multiple-locus again shows complete differentiation.  On the one hand, this multiple-locus finding is expected, and makes sense, since the overall genetic structures of CEU and TSI are different.  However, we once again observe the problem of scalability.  EURO/AFRICAN and CEU/TSI both exhibit complete differentiation at the multiple-locus level, but the two are not obviously equivalent. The combinations of alleles at multiple loci for CEU vs TSI are going to be more similar than that for EURO vs. AFRICAN, even if both cases exhibit complete differentiation.  Again, this is a problem with the type of data I used as input, but I suspect as well it is a feature of the program itself. Consider that EURO/AFRICAN differentiation at the genepool level was already at the level of 0.4779 and the maximum possible is 1.0000.  So, it is obvious that the differences are not properly scalable, and likely would not be even with optimal data.  In a properly scalable analytical system, the maximal possible differentiation with multiple-locus analysis should be many-fold greater than that of genepool (and associated with the number of loci examined).  It is at the multiple-locus level that I find this program weakest, which is unfortunate since that is the most important level of analysis.

What the program considers is not perfectly aligned with my conception of genetic structure, but it is not orthogonal either.  There is considerable conceptual overlap; thus utilizing the program at least for a proof-of-principle demonstration is useful.  

The hybrid model (26 loci from CEU, 25 from YRI) is below.  This is, admittedly, highly artificial and not biologically realistic, but makes the general point (real admixture actually would be expected to cause even more differentiation than shown here):


CEU/YRI: 0.5090, CEU/Hybrid: 0.2640, YRI/Hybrid: 0.2450

As CEU would be expected to be a bit more differentiated from YRI (and other Africans) as are TSI, the CEU/YRI genepool differentiation is slightly higher than the more general EURO/AFRICA, although another possibility is that the non-YRI Africans are closer to Europeans than are YRI. Hybrid values are in between CEU and YRI.

Single-locus (w/o EGD): 

CEU/YRI: 0.8341, CEU/Hybrid: 0.4510, YRI/Hybrid: 0.3922

This increases as expected.

Multiple-locus (w/o EGD): 1.0000 for all comparisons.

Complete differentiation, as expected, but again flawed by lack of scale.  The “complete differentiation”: between CEU/YRI would be expected to be larger than that between CEU/Hybrid, bit that cannot be distinguished in this analysis.  Nevertheless, this shows that merely increasing production of hybrid offspring cannot compensate for foregone parental kinship at the multiple-locus level.


The findings (even with the limitations of the analysis) strongly support and extend the EGI concept; ethnies are more genetically differentiated at the level of higher genetic integration than at the mere “beanbag” genepool approach of individual alleles.

However, the gulf between family and ethny is also likely to be increased when genetic structure is taken into account, so one must be prudent in balancing investments.  However, keep in mind two things.  First, the typical ethny is larger than the typical extended family by five to eight orders of magnitude, so the ethny-ethny differences are of greater relative import than the family-ethny differences.  Second, differences will be expected to increase with genetic integration at every level of genetic interest – not only ethny-ethny and family-ethny, but also, for example, between self and family. But the family is needed for the self to have genetic continuity (although one can argue that the larger extended family could be dispensed with as long as the nuclear family is intact, or even that a human male just “spreads his seed” sans family structures), and one can argue that the family needs some sort of ethny, some sort of national culture, for secure familial genetic continuity.  Families mixed beyond wide racial lines are characterized by a deficit of genetic interests for the divergent members of such families, so the fact that those families are less dependent on national ethnies need not concern us, in any reasonable quest to maximize net genetic interests. So, in summary, when all is said and done, the findings here actually INCREASE the validity of ethnic genetic interests (with “ethnic” meaning ethny, which can include race). 

In the future, I may perform some additional analyses with this program and with these (and other) data; but the main point has already been established. Or, better yet, if I can think of other methods of analyzing the data to yield more useful results that would be more optimal.  It would be helpful if others, with more time and computational resources (including better data sets, can generate additional DifferInt data as well as designing better methods for assaying genetic structure (or finding other existing programs; I will search for such as well).

This was a crude analysis, yet very useful I think to “break the ice” on the topic, especially since I can’t help but notice that no one else has been doing it (insofar as I know).  Do you have the time and resources to do better?  Great: Go to it.

Final Conclusions

1. Although the analysis has limitations, it demonstrates that human genetic differentiation increases as genetic structure is considered.

2. A considerable amount of this increase in genetic differentiation is at the single-locus level, which I had not previously considered as being that important.

3. Most importantly, the multiple-locus analysis shows complete differentiation.

4. A problem in this analysis is with the scalability of the multiple-locus determinations, and the program is unable to evaluate the entire genetic structure concept; better methods, analyzed with better data, are required.  In the meantime, it would be useful to even just have more in-depth analyses using DifferInt.

5. When all is said and done, this analysis, even with its limitations, extends the EGI concept.


2. Gillet, E.M., Gregorius, H.-R. (2008) Measuring differentiation among populations at different levels of genetic integration. BMC Genetics 9, 60.

3. Gillet, E.M. (2013) DifferInt: Compositional differentiation among populations at three levels of genetic integration. Molecular Ecology Resources 13, 953-964. 1111/1755-0998.12145

Roissy is a Bit Behind the Times


First, Roissy said that having Sessions as Attorney General alone would justify having Trump as President.

Now we have this:

Trump’s instincts about Sessions were right; he’s a Boomer cuckservative who will fold when the fight gets going.

Of course, some of us have been criticizing Sessions for months.

Note to reader: Leave Roissy to have his race traitor sexual relations with Negresses and Asiatrices and get the real news from sites like EGI Notes.

In Der News: 11/3/17

News, news, news.

So, how’s that ethnonationalism working out for you?  Emphasis added:

Pro-Brexit leaders like Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan have hinted that after free movement from Europe is stopped, they want to open the doors to the world, and they don’t just mean in terms of trade. Politicians like these two seem to be very enthusiastic in promoting immigration from the former Colonies of the British Empire like India. The reason for this is that they believe, quite stupidly, that Britain has more in common with its former third world Colonies than the White countries of eastern Europe.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of mass migration, whether it is from White countries or non-white countries. The mass movement of people has always had negative effects and has always disproportionately impacted the working class. However, I am slightly perplexed by the hatred shown towards eastern European immigrants by normie-white British people, who also seem to show a rather laissez-faire attitude to their non-white neighbors.
I guess they simply are the clearest example yet of why civic nationalism is such a joke.
It would be ironic then, that if by freeing themselves from the European Union, British nationalists may actually succeed in making their own people’s demographic situation worse.

Yockey was right.  Narrow ethnonationlism is race treason; it’s treason to the West and our High Culture.

Hey, Roissy, how’s your God Emperor doing?

Outstanding comment:

It appears that the Trump administration has appointed antifa the national arbiter of who gets free speech on gov’t property and who does not.
NPI has had 4 or 5 successful conferences in the Reagan Building since its first there in 2011. I attended three. There has NEVER been ANY violence from NPI attendees. On several occasions there was violence outside the building by antifa, but it was contained.
Before each conference, antifa has threatened to disrupt the event. Even under Obama, the federal gov’t would not allow the threat of violence to shut down the NPI conference. Under Trump, that’s no longer the case.

Trump is President and Sessions is Attorney General, while Antifa runs wild in the streets with impunity, and Trump signs documents pledging to fight “dem raciss.”

But oh boy, he really knows how to “neg” folks, what an alpha he is!

The Far Right needs its own private property.

Spencer is correct about “Americana” here.

Vanguard movement?  Yes.  Nazi imagery?  No. A place for uniforms?  Yes.  Spencer has been making good sense recently; jettisoning Jorjani may have helped.  Addition by subtraction. Get rid of the jackassery as well.  “The European uniform” – yes. A flag?  What about the Legion Europa symbol – a Greek “L” and a runic “E?”   Er…Pepe?  Please, no. Overdoing the meme war…dear god yes.  Please stop it.