Sunday in Der Movement

In der news.

All together now: Cuckadoodledoo!

Didn’t I warn you that this guy is a buffoon and a fraud?

The last chance for White America!  The God Emperor!

Spencer is correct: Trump as any sort of “change agent” is finished.  I could have told you that (and did) three and more years ago, but, hey, better late than never.

Hey, Ann, I could have told you all of that back in 2015.

Once again, Sallis is right.  Mainstreaming always fails because your more centrist position can always be co-opted by the System and/or by other, more moderate, populists.  If you stake out a radical position that truly represents what you are (or should be) about, then one of two things happen – either you distinguish yourself from the opposition and thus stand alone or you force the opposition to shift toward you, moving the so-called “Overton Window” in the proper direction.  As to the cries – “oh, you won’t’ win” – please tell me about the success of President Le Pen.  You should win or lose standing on principle, rather than lose as a compromised fraud.  At the very least, if you stand your ground, you know that any success is authentic and due to shifting people toward you, rather than vice versa.

Note to micks who still identify as “liberal Democrats” and who spite WASPs by identifying as “oppressed Hibernians in solidarity with People of Color.”

Watch this.  Of course, Greg Johnson was telling us it was really a “win” for Trump (and, implicitly, I suppose, for all of us), because those wonderful Republican “didn’t lose as badly as they could have.”

Reality here – not delusional debate about “when we will win our victory.” Things are bad and getting worse.  I assume the mindset of the “optimism crowd” – if we assume that they are sincere and not merely boosting their egos and cash flows – is that despair will lead to inaction and surrender, so we have to give people hope. Unfortunately, constant disappointment, and constantly dashed hopes, leads to disgust, and, yes, despair and inaction; falsely inflated hope that "all will be well” also can lead to inaction as people believe that “it’ll all work out in the end regardless of what I do or don’t do.”  Reality is best.

Kevin, if you are going to talk about gravity, it is churlish not to mention Einstein and General Relativity.

I’m no fan of Einstein or his ethny, but fair is fair.

Big surprise.

Sallis right again:

“I’m not surprised you’ll get different results from different companies,” Dr. Jennifer Raff, Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas told TechCrunch back in September. “They have their own proprietary info based on those samples. If one of them has lots of individuals from a particular region and the other company does not, you’re more likely to show up as having ancestry from that region whereas if the other company doesn’t have that data represented in their database, it’s going to show up as a different population.”

What the parental populations are is going to significantly affect the results.

This reminds me of a personal anecdote. A family I know – normies not Nutzis – asked me to take a look at some confusing ancestry data they got from a company that shall remain nameless.  No problem with paternity – child has 50% chromosome match with father as well as mother, etc.  The ancestry percentages for the child are very crudely plausible based on the parents. So far, fine as well as it goes.  But the chromosomal fragments do not match.  Thus, for example, the child inherits some percentage of ancestry “X” from the mother and not the father (who lacks it, according to the test). But, the mother’s “X” is on, say, chromosomes 3, 5,and 6 (I don’t remember the exact details) and the child’s “X “is on, say, chromosomes 10 and 16. That of course is at the lower confidence levels.  At the highest confidence level, all of those chromosome fragments are “unassigned.”  So, putting aside a historically novel medical finding of mass chromosomal translocations resulting in a normal child (a probability roughly equal to picking one specific atom out of all those in the observable universe), we are left with the reality that the chromosome fragment identifies at the low confidence intervals are being assigned with the precision of a coin flip.  A fragment may be “X” but very likely could be “Y.”  Or maybe the father actually has “X” – and this is where the child is getting it – but the father’s chromosome fragment is instead labeled “Y” at the low confidence interval and “unassigned” at the higher.  Thus, maybe it is really the father who has “X” at the chromosome fragments that would match the child but the test is assigning those fragments to a different ancestry, while perhaps the mother has little or no “X” at all. If you take the low confidence level data at face value, then this all makes no biological sense at all. Recombination normally takes place between homologous chromosomes, not between non-homologous ones.

These companies would be better served to just estimate ancestry from SNP frequency data and/or genome-wide correlations of SNP frequencies (genetic integration) rather than making low probability guestimates of chromosome fragment identity.  However, the latter method is I suppose better for telling crazed cat ladies that they are descended from Pocahontas, so there’s that.

In addition, the companies' "timeline" estimates are ludicrous, and cannot be used to "time" admixture, even if the admixture is real and not artefactual.  Putting aside the question as to whether the chromosome fragments are properly identified to begin with, and whether the boundaries between purported different ancestral fragments are also properly identified, an important point is being missed (many academic population geneticists make the same possibly incorrect assumptions).  In a large panmictic population, certainly over time you'll have sufficient scrambling of ancestries so that in an individuals there will be sufficient possibility for meiotic recombination to mix fragments between homologous chromosomes and this breaks up ancestral blocs over time, allowing for an estimation of the arrival of the intrusive elements. But if a small population was interbreeding in isolated communities, then it is possible to have individuals with very high ancestral proportions of the original intrusive stocks, and given mating over time between such individuals any exchanges of chromosome fragments would likely be between fragments of like ancestry.  So large blocs of a given ancestry can be maintained over time, and only start degrading in size relatively recently, given increased human movement.  But let's not have real life possibilities interfere with the business model.  Send in the shekels!  Pocahontas awaits!

Also see this.

And this.

And this.

How any of this is any better than DNAPrint (was flawed as well) is unclear to me.