A recent genetics ancestry survey by 23andme found that White Americans (European Americans) on average are: “98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.” Wow, that’s pretty white. I’ll come back to that in a minute.
The survey also found that Latinos are “18 percent Native American, 65.1 percent European and 6.2 percent African.” There might be a little self-selection here, resulting from testing more upper-class Hispanics, who tend to be more white. For instance, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be: 59% Amerindian,
34% European, and 6% black.
Back to European Americans and their utter whiteness. The 98.6% figure, mind you, is an average. According to other studies, more than 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and the 5% who do seem to have very little, so it is probably this 5% of White Americans who might be adding the 1.4% admixture into the average.
Let that sink in: 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and those who do seem to have very little. Wow.
Nonetheless, this study puts African Americans at “73.2 percent African, 24 percent European and 0.8 percent Native American.” Other studies have estimated African Americans at around 80% African and 20% European.
What does this mean?
As I previously noted:
First, the USA historically has not been a hotbed of miscegenation as Cultural Marxists like to tell us. Your eyes and common sense should tell you that if there were widespread miscegenation, there would be hardly any white Americans but rather large mestizo/mulatto-like populations such as one finds in many Latin American countries (and even there, small white upper classes still exist).
Second, the people in USA tended to cross the color line in only one direction: white —> black. Mulatto people would identify as black and then reintegrate into the black gene pool.
Which brings us to another question, why do mulattoes almost always identify as black?
The standard Cultural Marxist answer to this question is because of culture, such as the one-drop rule. But the reality of the situation belies this half-truth.
The most straightforward answer is what Oxford zoologist Jonathan Kingdon suggested in 1996: black looks are dominant while other looks are recessive. Observation seems to bear this out. A person with only 1/16th black ancestry will still often have visible black characteristics, whereas a white person with 1/16th Japanese ancestry would probably pass for 100% white.
In other words, the reason why most mulattoes identify as black is at least in part biological. Perhaps the white phenotype really is recessive and is easily diminished.
As philosopher Nick Land succinctly formulated: White + Color = Color.
Razib Khan: “American Racial Boundaries Are Quite Distinct (For Now)”
Sailer: “the big surprise has been how white are American whites”
On only a semi-related note, you should read Peter Frost’s recent post on human biodiversity.
That amount of whiteness will be completely unacceptable to the Cultural Marxists. They’ll have to put the pro-miscegenation commercials into high gear.
The unbearable whiteness of being.
The problem is that demographic trends show that the primary miscegenation is between mostly-white Hispanics, producing children who are whiter and generally ironing out distinctions between Hispanics and whites and between whites and Asians, where children who are half-Asian such as comedian Tommy Chong can look entirely European
What cultural marxists primarily want- as should be seen from that national geographic article a year and a half ago on mixed race people who had a disproportionate number of black-white mixes is to have America become a black country
But I would estimate 10-20% of self identified black Americans lack any instantly noticeable black features owing to genetic roulette and extensive European ancestry
So in order for the black population of the United States to not be entirely subsumed by the white with certain residual features like dark skin, wide noses and faces or coarse hair occasionally popping up in some unlucky kids each generation (which would primarily resemble Europeans) would require a massive demographic increase in the pure-black population- which is impossible, because black births have been trending downwards for years while black death rates continue to increase (and will likely increase substantially in the next 20 years as black baby boomers die off and the black obesity rate reaches 50%, causing numerous health problems and likely resulting in black life expectancy decreasing overall)
What anti-whites want, simply isn’t happening
Pingback: Genetics: White Americans are VERY white | Reaction Times
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/01/21 | Free Northerner
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
This coverage is better than mine. *bows*
Pingback: Are White People Really White? | B'Man's Revolt
The problem with the assertion that it is only upper class Hispanics doing this test is that I browse a number of alt right websites in which many right-wing mestizos are eager to align themselves with white causes
I have seen them post 23andmes with extremely variable results, they will often pay the 100 dollars in the hope that they are substantially more European than their physical appearance would otherwise prove
Anecdotal evidence of Hispanics like George Lopez who is only 55% European versus Jessica Alba and the girl who played Rain in the movie Resident evil seems to suggest that while Lopez’s appearance is brown because of his low whiteness percentage, people in excess of 70% European tend to look mostly European with few recognizable non-European traits
Lopez’s daughter is something like 76% European and resembles her mother far more than her father in terms of skin tone
This is possibly because it is difficult to tell and in fact unfair to judge southern European peoples as being less white due to swarthier appearances- comedian Ray Romano is swarthy for example and Jewish commentator Ben Shapiro is also swarthy yet no one questions their whiteness because they are unlikely to have ancestries that are considered non-white
I would also note that labeling latin america as having “small white upper classes” is somewhat unfair
of the 200 million white latin americans a disproportionate number are concentrated in Venezuela and Colombia, Cuba and Puerto Rico and the nations which comprise the “southern cone”. 140 million of 220 million latin american whites live in Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile- the nations which have land in the southern cone region. Cuba and Puerto Rico may have as many as 10 million whites between them. Venezuela and Colombia may have another 30 million. Essentially white latin americans are heavily concentrated in just a few latin american nations, so while you can define the 1/3 of Venezuelans as a small elite I would note that they are three times as numerous as the white population of south africa in terms of percentage.
I would further note that the study in question likely under-represents whiteness among Hispanics, and that a disproportionate amount of the whites with American Indian ancestry are likely Hispanic.
This is because the study measured self-reported Hispanics and self-reported whites. The problem there is the same as the one in Texas where the Republican party is overwhelmingly dominant due to white Texans making up a disproportionate amount of the Texan electorate and Hispanic Texans being underrepresented drastically, which is extremely strange given the number of Hispanic Californians in the California electorate when Texas has a far larger “long settled” Hispanic population, historically dominant in South Texas in terms of numbers.
Liberals claim this is because of Texan racism, but the amount of Texans who voted in 2012 and Californians who voted in 2012 did not differ in terms of percentage of the total state population in any significant way. This is in spite of California being proven to have a much larger estimated illegal immigrant population as a percentage of the total Californian population and a much larger legal immigrant population than Texas owing partly to the sheer number of foreign students in the California university system. The self-identified white Hispanic population of California is a substantially smaller percentage of the total self-identified Hispanic population of California compared to the Texas self-identified whites- 63% of Hispanics in Texas identify as white compared to 49% of Californian Hispanics.
Hence my belief is that when given the option to identify as either white only or Hispanic only those white Hispanics tend to split on the issue of identifying as white or Hispanic exclusively, while Hispanics who are not white will always identify as Hispanic only.
Hence the European ancestry of Hispanic Americans as a whole would therefore be skewed downwards as a result, due to the division of white Hispanics between self-identified whites and self-identified Hispanics.
This division among white Hispanics when asked to identify as one or the other would also explain why Texan Hispanics are underrepresented and Texan whites are overrepresented among voters in Texas, and why even though Hispanic Texans are generally considered to be much more conservative than Hispanics nationally only 35% of Texan Hispanics were found to have voted for Romney- more than the national 27% but still strangely small when considering conservative leanings among Texan Hispanics.
There is a different demographic of hispanics in Texas than in California. California never had hispanics prior to mass immigration. Texas, however, had small pueblas. These communities do not identify has Mexican, but as American hispanics.
except for jews,nordics and wasps who are closer to neanderthals
Gerard ,you obviously know nothing about the history of California, and the Hispanic settlements starting in 1769-1782. Also California had the largest population of Native Americans, especially from central to southern California, All this before the mass migration of European American hordes from back east that illegally started squatting on private landgrants of the hispanic Californio population and native Amerrican lands. California was Native American, Then Mexican, and none of them left when eastern hordes .
Jesus fucking Christ… there is not such thing as a “white” gene or race. Russians, BTW, have more “yellow” genes than “white” and their are over 180 ethnic groups in her borders. Now who’s the melting pot…. While we’re at this no one from the Mediterranean is white. So, sorry Spaniards, Greeks, and Italians – too muddy and hairy to be lumped in with the pristine nodicks. PS…. Ash Can Nazi JOOS are WHITE Khazarains. They are the ones behind your programming. They want to muddy everyone up and be the white rulers. If white is this tragically important to you – you have far larger concerns..
Your marxist is showing
does obama look white to you
Too enthusiastic for being realy scientific,references needed.
Pingback: White Guilt | mykemusic
23andme is owned by Jews who say they’re not white. Any study that doesn’t include Jews is very suspicious.
Pingback: What is Cultural Marxism? – thepatriotmyke
“A person with only 1/16th black ancestry will still often have visible black characteristics,”
Is this actually true? I’m just curious – do you have an example?
The mother of the Nordic blond Maya Fahey is a dark mulatto like Obama, but the genes passed on to her are mostly white.
Pingback: Genetics: White Americans are VERY white | Master Race ✠ 14/88
Actually, this analysis of white + color=color, is VERY culturocentrically North American/European . My sister lived in Venezuela for the first 12 years of her ADULT life, and returned to the USA unable to distinguish between a black and a white the way “we” do! Differences in secondary physical characteristics are certainly real, but how you perceive a person’s ethnicity is very definitely learned.
Pingback: History Goes in Circles — White Genocide 101, from Smoloko – The Gas Mask Blog – Resistiendo al JWO/Resisting the JWO
genetic literacy project is a complete FAKE website. It is run by people in the pockets of Monsanto and what not.
On average Americans have .19% NA?
Absurd since only 1% really have any native admixture.
The US Right to Know, a group that obtains and publishes source materials and communications, raised concerns after the GLP ran a series of articles in 2014 supportive of crop biotechnology after the scientists had been encouraged to do so by Monsanto.
Genetic Literacy Project – Wikipedia
The united States received an enormous amount of non-Anglo-Saxon European immigrants beginning in the mid 1800’s and lasting for almost a century, including many of my ancestors. The vast majority wound up in the North. That would obviously skew the numbers heavily towards whites with no African or even Native American ancestry, since opportunities for intermarriage with a Native American was never all that much in the northern cities, and relatively small until the Great Wave of African-American migration to the north, which took place fairly recently (and a result of one of those marriages would likely identify as African-American anyhow). If only whites from the South, particularly those areas which had substantial African-Americans were included, the number would certainly be higher (there were anti-miscegenation laws, but those areas do tend to show higher rates of African ancestry among self described whites). The number wouldn’t be substantial, but there would be a much higher percentage of whites having at least some African ancestry. And keep in mind there is probably a bias toward upper class southerners, who might be less likely to have African ancestry. When all that is considered, the amount of African ancestry in whites isn’t overwhelming, but it’s less nonexistent than the post suggests. I think it’s right around what most would expect, maybe even slightly more.
Pingback: Neo-Nazi Leaders Are Largely Funded by the Zionist Mafia: It’s Divide and Rule..Ku Klux Klan Was a Satanic Creation – Brutal Proof
Pingback: English-Americans: last of the Mohicans? | The Old Inheritance
Wow. So you are implying that it is a bad thing that because a race does not have genetics from another race, that they are inferior? What a racist bigot. You should be ashamed of your bigoted statements.