Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Saturday, February 15, 2014

The Science of Race as Clusters Rooted in a Biological Continuum

The Science of Race as Clusters Rooted in a Biological Continuum

Tracing Ancestry, Researchers Produce a Genetic Atlas of Human Mixing Events, by Nicholas Wade, New York Times, 13 Feb 2014:

Having sampled genomes from around the world, they found they could detect about 95 distinguishable populations.

Though all humans have the same set of genes, their genomes are studded with mutations, which are differences in the sequence of DNA units in the genome. These mutations occur in patterns because whole sets of mutations are passed down from parent to child and hence will be common in a particular population. Based on these patterns, geneticists can scan a person’s genome and assign the ancestry of each segment to a particular race or population.

The Myers group has posted its results on a web page that records the degree of admixture in each population. The English, however, known to be a rich medley of Celts with invaders such as the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes and Norwegians, carry the notation “No strong evidence of admixture.” Dr. Myers said his method cannot yet detect genetic mixing between very similar populations, as was the case with the English and their invaders from Scandinavia and Northern Germany. He said he hoped to distinguish all these groups in a separate project on British ancestry.

The semitically correct emphasis is on admixture/mixing, though a closer look reveals the reality of race.

A genetic atlas of human admixture history, "Companion website for "A genetic atlas of human admixture history", Hellenthal et al, Science (2014)", lists the 95 "target populations" they distinguished:

Adygei, Armenian, Balochi, BantuKenya, BantuSouthAfrica, Basque, Bedouin, Belorussian, BiakaPygmy, Brahui, Bulgarian, Burusho, Cambodian, Chuvash, Colombian, Cypriot, Dai, Daur, Druze, EastSicilian, Egyptian, English, Ethiopian, EthiopianJew, Finnish, French, Georgian, GermanyAustria, Greek, Hadza, Han, HanNchina, Hazara, Hezhen, Hungarian, Indian, IndianJew, Iranian, Ireland, Japanese, Jordanian, Kalash, Karitiana, Lahu, Lezgin, Lithuanian, Makrani, Mandenka, Maya, MbutiPygmy, Melanesian, Miao, Mongola, Moroccan, Mozabite, Myanmar, Naxi, NorthItalian, Norwegian, Orcadian, Oroqen, Palestinian, Papuan, Pathan, Pima, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Sandawe, SanKhomani, SanNamibia, Sardinian, Saudi, Scottish, She, Sindhi, SouthItalian, Spanish, Surui, Syrian, Tu, Tujia, Tunisian, Turkish, Tuscan, UAE, Uygur, Uzbekistani, Welsh, WestSicilian, Xibo, Yakut, Yemeni, Yi, Yoruba

"Population genetics" research like this is a form of race science, with "population" serving as a rough euphemism for "race", because in a broad sense a race is a cluster of relatively closely-related people. The clusters at the coarsest, continental scale are the ones most commonly associated with the word race today - the White, black, yellow and red races. But at the ethnic/national scale there are more clusters, like the 95 groups identified by this atlas. An even closer examination of the DNA would tease apart even finer distinctions, resolving larger clusters into sub-ethnic, clan and family strands, right on down to positively identifying an individual's parents or siblings.

The propaganda that race is a social construct based on superficial attributes such as skin color, is a big lie. Race and racial distinctions are deeply rooted in biology. Though there are many clusters, at different scales, and the boundaries of those clusters are fuzzy, they are not arbitrary. As the article notes, "geneticists can scan a person’s genome and assign the ancestry of each segment to a particular race or population". The same clusters people can distinguish with their senses alone correspond to the distinctions determinable by DNA alone.

Wade's remark about the English reflects the clash between the jewish "nation of immigrants" narrative and the reality of Northwestern European genetic homogeniety.

Curiously, the atlas includes EthiopianJew and IndianJew but not the more numerous Ashkenazi and Sephardic clusters. Wade reported on the clustering of jews in June 2010, Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity:

The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City, Dr. Atzmon said.

Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find. The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long.

The research this NYT report discusses, Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry, concludes:

This study touches upon an issue that was raised over a century ago by Maurice Fishberg, Joseph Jacobs, and others about whether the Jews constitute a race, a religious group, or something else.29,30 In this study, Jewish populations from the major Jewish Diaspora groups—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, and Mizrahi—formed a distinctive population cluster by PCA analysis, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern, non-Jewish populations. Within the study, each of the Jewish populations formed its own cluster as part of the larger Jewish cluster. Each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and variable admixture with European populations.

Whatever you want to call them, the point is that jews can be distinguished by their DNA. In fact, though neither Wade nor Hellenthal et al mention any jews in the "rich medley" of England, it's not because finer analysis is required to detect them there, or anywhere else in Northwestern Europe. Finding "Lithuanian" and "Palestinian" admixture in the English, as illustrated by the attached image, seems to be a way of detecting the jews without noticing them.

Labels: ,

white

16 Comments:

Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Human admixture common in human history (Hellenthal et al. 2014):

The case of Northwestern Europe appears especially striking as none of the populations from the region show evidence of admixture. This may be because the mixtures taking place there (e.g., between "Celts" and "Anglo-Saxons" in Great Britain) involved populations that were not strongly differentiated. Alternatively, population admixture history may have preceded the last few thousand years and is thus beyond the temporal scope of this method.

See also the image Dienekes attaches.

The upshot is that there is a genetic homogeneity underpinning European/White comparable to or greater than anything under African/black or Asian/yeleow, and that mixture, on the continental scale, is more a characteristic of the peopling of the ancient crossroads in between.

2/17/2014 12:58:00 PM  
Anonymous hanktheheretic said...

Nothing annoys me more when the dupes are sent around in circles when Jews use the "peoplehood" card when they want to play the ethnic game, and the "we're just a religion," when they want to deflect criticism that comes from their ethnic nepotism and jockeying. (i.e., pursuing their genetic interests)

Its these semantic games that keep the more naive gentiles occupied in holier-than-thou conflicts with their less philo-semitic peers, oblivious to the fact that Jews, for all their complex propaganda, are conducting the same centuries long parasitic warfare.

2/18/2014 07:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tan,

An unrelated comment here.

Hope you take regular back-up of your blog.

The blog by Vanishing American has disappeared. The material you put is valuable and should not be lost.

Thanks

2/24/2014 01:11:00 AM  
Blogger Bigmo said...

I am not White anyways but I do support the causes of many White Nationalists like Kevin Macdonald, Matt Parrott, and Richard Spencer, David Duke etc especially concerning mass immigration and White displacement. However I detected that they make some serious strategic mistakes and they will most likely lose or create chaos in America (race warfare and secessionist movements). We know that once 2016 hits many Whites will realize that they have been displaced as the dominant cultural and political force in America and there will be probably some reactions and even mass rebellion could take place. But we need to understand how this has taken place. To do that we need to revisit Abraham Lincoln and the civil war. Its my belief that Whites rejection of America as a bi national society is the reason why multiculturalism won and took control. Its my belief white rejection of the outcome of the civil war is the reason why external forces (especially Jews) have been successful in turning America to a third world like country. Many Whites simply couldn’t intellectual defend America’s uni nationalism and refused to accept bi nationalism (European majority, west African minority) and so the only player left was multi nationalism.

There is a karma in this. If you don’t appreciate what you have you could lose it all. Whites were 90% in 1965 and Blacks were about 10%. Today Whites are only about 65% and will expect to be 55% maybe in 15 years to 20 years if not less. Blacks are not even the largest minority anymore. But many Whites simply refused to accept Blacks as a component of American identity and spent a lot of their energy fighting equality and integration and complaining about welfare and crime. Now they are losing the whole country and would sell their homes if they can get the 1960 demographic back. They need to unify an reconcile with the Blacks of the country and create an alliance rejecting the 1965 immigration act as an act of war by an alien elite and revoke the citizenship of all who have gotten citizenship from that law.

What I am trying to say i that Whites did not establish a definition of America they can defend and I have not seen any Nationalist able to do so. America is a European majority nation with a West African minority and its immigration laws should reflect that to protect and maintain that demographic. That is a definition that is historically supported and expresses the reality of America. But would White Nationalist accept that? I doubt it.

Also talking about Muslims is a distraction. Their numbers in America is small and a third of them are Blacks anyways. In Europe their percentages are higher but no way near the demographic shift like America. Europe is still 90% whites and probably will remain so. Talking about Muslims is an admittance that religion is more important than ethnicity. White Nationalists separate between Latinos, Blacks and Whites even if they are all Christians but with Muslims they see them as a common religious community which is a mistake for them to do. I believe Jewish activists encourage that because they want people to see Jews as a religious community and not an ethnic one. In the end Muslims are not really a component of American history and therefore the non Blacks of them could be classified as aliens who entered from the 1965 law that is now null and void. To do that Whites have to accept the outcome of the civil war and the place Blacks have in America’s identity. If they don’t they will intellectually lose. Attacking Abraham Lincoln is defying destiny and what God has chosen and its a suicide.

2/28/2014 04:15:00 PM  
OpenID helvena said...

@ Bigmo
I have sympathy for your point of view. Blacks are starting to realize now that it wasn't so bad being the only minority in Whitey's world. But the cat is out of the bag and your cheers of '65 have turned to tear. The Mexicans don't like Blacks. Are the Mexicans going to treat Whites any worse than the Blacks have? It seems to me Black Americans are in a worse situation than Whites. Once the Mexicans are the majority will they support affirmative action for Blacks...NO. It was the Jew Emmanuel Celler that crafted the '65 immigration act. And it was Jews that promoted MLK and formed the NAACP. Read about Manning Johnson and know that he understood who the communist were.
I believe in race. There isn't a way for two races to live side by side as equals. One will always be dominating. Black men deserve to govern themselves as do White men. The American of pre '65 is long gone. We have a common enemy, one that wants to keep us fighting. Let’s unite to deal with it and then settle our differences like Men. Understand the only thing I owe you is the respect I owe any man. I owe you no apology and you will get none.

What is your feeling about the 14th & 15th Amendments? Had it not been for the disenfranchisement of Southerners, those amendments wouldn't have passed and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

3/02/2014 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger Bigmo said...

I am not Black American either so I am not sure why you think I am.

The issue is not what you want America to be but what America actually was. Nations do not control their destiny and sometimes nations evolve that way.

America was always bi racial since the early 17th century and onwards. That is a historic reality. Many Whites opposed that but the reasons you give are self inflicted. Its not that bi racial nations can never exist, its that many refused to accept it on the grounds that races can not be equal. Actually what they meant is races should not be equal therefore many opposed the 14th and 15th amendment. Those amendments were not designed for multi cultural America, it was designed for the Blacks in that country but now its been hijacked to include all non Whites. From bi racial it becamse multi racial.

Yes Jews supported the civil rights movements only to turn the debate to uni racial versus multi racial so they can not be excluded. The result is there for everyone to see.

Thomas Jefferson once said that slavery is like holding a wolf by the ears, you don't want to hold it but you dare not let go. The wolf ended up being a bug. The wolf he was talking about is coming from overseas and they number in the millions.

Just compare America back in the 1970s to what it is now. Case closed.

3/04/2014 04:53:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Its not that bi racial nations can never exist, its that many refused to accept it on the grounds that races can not be equal. Actually what they meant is races should not be equal

You don't have a very clear view of reality.

The term "bi-racial nation" is an oxymoron. The bond of any grouping worthy of the term "nation" is natal, a shared heritage.

To the extent any two races are distinct they are in a strict sense unequal. When it comes to White and black the inequality could hardly be more obvious even in the loosest sense.

Races are objectively real and unequal. That is what many refuse to accept.

3/04/2014 08:58:00 AM  
Blogger Bigmo said...


"Races are objectively real and unequal. That is what many refuse to accept."

So what is America to you and how do you define it? It seems you are not willing to accept what America always was. And it also seems you do so out of ideological reasons. Its not that races could not co exist to you but that you believe they should not co exist.

So this tells me that your argument is similar in logic to the anti abolitionist argument or the Jim Crow argument. But this argument is not that races can not co exist but they shouldn't be equal so laws need to be enacted and obstacles created by law to ensure this lack of inequality. Which in itself tells me that this logic is a manufactured one that can only be sustained by human intervention.

Of course after these laws were eliminated you have the Black and White situation you have in America now. So what extent is this inequality now? That Blacks have somewhat of a lower income, maybe higher crime rates, etc. And to what level is this inequality you have today problematic.? What i want to know is what are the reasons that made people fear abolishing slavery and eliminating segregation laws? Is the current reality in America between Whites and Blacks problematic for Whites? And why so.?

Meanwhile the current reality between Whites and immigrants to me is far more problematic but I don't think you can see the difference. But you will soon.

3/05/2014 01:19:00 AM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

"Races are objectively real and unequal."

Individuals are objectively real and unequal. The entire premise of society and nation is subjective.

The question is not the delineation of who can objectively be a part but who subjectively we choose to be a part.

3/05/2014 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

So what is America to you and how do you define it?

America was a White social construct, a noble experiment which has devolved into a farrago of lies. The more thoroughly judaized, the more blatant the lies.

What i want to know is what are the reasons that made people fear abolishing slavery and eliminating segregation laws? Is the current reality in America between Whites and Blacks problematic for Whites? And why so.?

Even blacks don't want to live around blacks. Like the other non-Whites who are flooding into what used to be America, they prefer "racists" to their own kind. Meanwhile, the judaized media and academia lecture "racists" that we are privileged to serve everyone's interests but our own.

Mass immigration and forced integration present an existential problem for Whites.

but I do support the causes of many White Nationalists like Kevin Macdonald, Matt Parrott, and Richard Spencer, David Duke etc especially concerning mass immigration and White displacement

Go fuck yourself.

3/05/2014 10:51:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

The entire premise of society and nation is subjective.

The parts are subjective (personal). Their sum, the collective, is objective (not personal).

The question is not the delineation of who can objectively be a part but who subjectively we choose to be a part.

Really? Try telling NASA you're an astronaut. More to the point, try telling the jews you're a jew.

3/05/2014 11:23:00 PM  
Blogger Bigmo said...

Mass immigration and forced integration present an existential problem for Whites

You are not being honest. You want to include blacksin the equation when you damn well there is no comparison. 90% to 50% and not even a single WASP in supreme court, no control of media, foreign wars and trillions spent and losing political power and you some how want to equate that with integration.

You deserve to be displaced.

3/05/2014 11:44:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

You want to include blacksin the equation

That's your fixation, not mine.

You deserve to be displaced.

Finally some honesty from the alien interloper.

3/06/2014 12:41:00 AM  
Blogger FlippityFloppity said...

"The parts are subjective (personal). Their sum, the collective, is objective (not personal)."

Group think is not objective.

"The question is not the delineation of who can objectively be a part but who subjectively we choose to be a part. - Really? Try telling NASA you're an astronaut. More to the point, try telling the jews you're a jew."

A group subjectively determines who will be a part of the group. To your point:

"Races are objectively real and unequal."

The act of delineation into groups is subjective. Jews are [with few exceptions] selectively subjective, as are most non-whites. Whites paraded around the idea of objective equality [is this a western/christian moral issue?] - its a farce, its completely subjective and suggesting you and i are equal because we are white is as ludicrous as saying you are equal to a Jew, black, asian or a left-handed Irish-German.

Suggesting we have a common interest, bloodline, birthright, heritage, etc. to delineate the extent of the group is forming a society by choice.

Ignoring our inequality is the current American "ideal" [note the quotes]. with the help of Judeo-Christian progressive thought and "morality", it has mutated into white-guilt with anti-American, anti-nationalist, pro-multiculturalist-globalist thought.

3/08/2014 07:01:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

E Pluribus Unum does not negate the distinction between subjective (personal) and objective (non-personal). The essence of race is as clusters rooted in a biological continuum - clusters which are visible to science, which by it's very nature is objective. These clusters and their inequality are objective in the sense that they cannot be willed into or out of existence by any pluribus or unum.

suggesting you and i are equal because we are white

Who suggested this?

3/09/2014 08:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you think of Doggerland?

It is probably the first ancient lost homeland.

3/18/2014 10:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home