DNA Testing – How White Are You?

By Max Musson:

DNA 2Today one of our readers posted a comment enquiring about the efficacy of DNA testing as a means of determining his genetic heritage, or as he also put it, “how white” he actually is.

He asked, “As a white nationalist I’ve always been intrigued by getting a DNA test done to see what my heritage really is, and how white I actually am. Has anyone else had this done?”

This is a question that is often asked as it is appears that scientists now have the technology to conduct tests of this type with some degree of accuracy.

In the field of medicine, doctors are able to carry out genetic testing in order to ascertain the likelihood that one might develop certain hereditary diseases and in order to determine whether or not transplant organs are of a compatible tissue type.

Furthermore, in the field of forensic investigation, DNA testing is used to determine the identities of bodies that have been rendered unrecognizable and to establish whether or not individuals have been to specific sites or have handled specific objects based on a DNA analysis of the traces of tissue and body fluids they leave behind.

In the field of paleoanthropology, anthropologists have extensively used mitochondrial DNA  testing to establish the relationships between fossil hominid specimens that they have discovered in various places around the world and famously to provide the basis for the ‘Out of Africa’ hypothesis’ (OAH), according to which all human beings are relatively recently descended from the first anatomically modern humans, who allegedly originated in Africa.

As a consequence of the popular fascination people have for tracing their origins, a number of companies have emerged in recent years, offering a DNA testing service to determine the genetic genealogy individuals.

Notice here that I have in the preceding sentence used the term ‘genetic genealogy’, and this is a form of ‘genealogy’ based upon genetic information as opposed to traditional forms of genealogy based upon the records composing family histories.

Genealogy relates to what are termed ‘blood lines’ or ‘ancestral lines’ among livestock breeders, i.e. the information that is used to compose an animal’s pedigree, rather than it’s genetic composition, which relates to the actual genetic information inherited from previous generations.

DNA TestingThe form of DNA testing that most readily indicates ancestral lines, i.e. genetic genealogy’ involves analysis of an individual’s mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and in the case of males their ‘Y’ chromosome also. However ‘genetic genealogy’, just as traditional forms of genealogy, is not the same thing as ‘genetic composition’ in assessing someone’s racial character, with regard to how White or otherwise they are.

To illustrate my point we must first appreciate that an individual inherits their mtDNA from their mother and in the case of males, they inherit their ‘Y’ chromosome from their father. Furthermore, because our DNA is ‘diploid’ this means that apart from the mtDNA and the ‘Y’ chromosome, we inherit half of our DNA from one parent and half from the other.

Let us now consider two couples each composed of one White person and one black, who for whatever reason, decide to miscegenate.

The first couple is composed of a black man and a White woman, and they have a son. This son will have half White genes and half black genes, but he will be black in character and appearance because black genes are dominant and White genes are recessive, and his ‘Y’ chromosome will show only black ancestry, because he inherited it from his black father.

The second couple are composed of a White man and a black woman and they have a daughter. This daughter will also have half White genes and half black genes and she will be black in character and appearance because, as I have already stated, black genes are dominant and White genes are recessive, and her mtDNA will show only black ancestry, because she inherited it from her black mother.

Now let us suppose that the son and the daughter produced by the two original couples decide to have children.

There are three possibilities:

The first and statistically by far most common possibility is that they will have mixed race children, inheriting a mixture of black and White genes, but who will in character and appearance be more black than White, because black genes are dominant, and whose mtDNA and ‘Y’ chromosome DNA in the males will indicate only black ancestry, because these genetic elements will have been inherited entirely from the black grandparents. In terms of their genetic composition however, they will on average have 50% black genes and 50% White genes.

A second and very rare possibility is that a child will inherit only the black genes from each of their parents and will have an entirely black genome. They will be both black in character and appearance and their mtDNA and their ‘Y’ chromosome if they are male, will indicate entirely black ancestry, because these genetic elements will similarly have been inherited entirely from the black grandparents.

The third and very rare possibility is that a child will inherit only the White genes from each of their parents and will be White in both character and appearance. Their mtDNA and their ‘Y’ chromosome however will misleadingly indicate entirely black ancestry.

Despite the fact that from mtDNA and ‘Y’ chromosome testing, the grandchildren above will be designated as having 100% black ancestry, they will all from a genealogical record in fact have two White grandparents each, and in the case of children in the third category, they will be entirely White in character and appearance.

Black & White TwinsThis example shows clearly that DNA testing based upon mtDNA and ‘Y’ chromosome analysis can be highly misleading, especially when one considers that if of the two original couples had produced children the other way around, such that it was the first couple that had a daughter and the second couple a son, then despite the fact that the grandchildren concerned, would in terms of character and appearance have been no different, all three possibilities would have indicated entirely White ancestry based upon mtDNA or ‘Y’ chromosamal analysis.

There are companies offering DNA testing in which they also test more than just the mtDNA and ‘Y’ chromosome, these tests are called ‘autosomal DNA tests’ and they examine up to 900,000 of the 3.2 billion base nucleotide pairs that make up the entire genome. DNA analysis of this type will help avoid the pitfalls described above, but the accuracy of their analysis will depend very much upon the base pairs they have chosen to examine.

DNA 1When one considers that most geneticists today are induced into denying the existence of race and that many of them retain their academic positions only by perpetuating the nonsensical proposition that race is a social construct, can we actually trust such people to make sensible choices in terms of the base pairs they examine for markers indicating racial characteristics?

I have seen two videos where people who are racially conscious have undergone some form of DNA analysis with the results announced on camera and in both cases the individuals showed no outward signs of mixed racial heritage and yet were embarrassed to be told that they had a significant non-White genetic composition. I seriously doubt the accuracy of the tests conducted, as at some point, whether it be by the TV presenter, the TV programme director, their technical assistants, the proprietors of the DNA analysis company used, or the technicians within that company, many of which will have been non-White and/or pro-multiracialist, and therefore have a vested interest in corrupting the test, it is likely that the results were ‘fixed’ in order to embarrass the individuals concerned.

If anyone wishes to undertake a DNA test in order to determine their genetic ancestry, then I would not try to prevent them, other then to say that they should treat the results rather like one would treat one’s horoscope – if the result is pleasing to you them all well and good, but if the test produces a result that suggests something improbable, take the result with a ‘pinch of salt’ and regard it as a bit of meaningless nonsense.

Diversity 3At the end of the day, if someone looks entirely White, acts entirely White and there is nothing about them to suggest otherwise, I would assume that they are White.

By Max Musson © 2013

# # # #

54 thoughts on “DNA Testing – How White Are You?

  1. Apparently on one of those white trash reality shows recently, a supposed white supremacist got outed as part African or some such thing.
    This seems to happen at regular intervals, I suppose to “prove” that whites don’t exist or we’re all mongrels.
    They don’t do this to Asians or Africans, any famous person like Obama or Tiger is held up as something to aspire to.

    1. Hi Steve, the instance you refer to was when Craig Cobb the White nationalist who declared recently that he wanted to buy up Leith in North Dakota in order to create a consciously White community appeared on the ‘Trisha’ show.
      This was also one of the instances I referred to in the article where a racially aware White was almost certainly the victim of a rigged result intended to embarrass and discredit him. Mind you, I don’t think Craig Cobb is a particularly good advocate for the White nationalist cause and he should have anticipated that the programme would be a fix.

      1. No-one who goes on kosher Commie tv is very bright least of all if white and if to advocate for whiteness…it’s an own goal like playing cards with a card sharp with a gun under the table.

        1. I wouldn’t be quite so damning of the idea of appearing on mainstream TV, after all Ben Raymond recently did well with the Victoria Derbyshire programme, but under current circumstances one certainly needs to be prepared and on one’s guard for dirty tricks.

  2. I still think the hyacinth or cupboard test is the simplest. Stand in a very dark place out of the sunshine for at least two weeks. If you come out white you have passed the test.

    1. The old test I was taught as a child was that if the veins on the underside of your wrist look blue through your skin then you are a White person of ‘blue blood’.
      Skin colour isn’t the only factor to take into consideration of course as I have seen people of mixed racial heritage who have blond hair, blue eyes, and skin as white as alabaster, but none-the-less entirely negro features in every other respect.

      1. That’s the Daz test Max. Where the blue makes whites brilliant.
        Blanching colours proves reliable but bleach works miracles.

  3. Taking a DNA test to find out how white you are is risky because it might well throw up something that you really don’t want to know. For example, white Americans have been shown to be on average1% African by ancestry, but as two thirds of them have no such ancestry, the others are about 3% African and these are old stock (i.e. largely British) Americans. Afrikaners in South Africa are around 7% African and Asian by descent. Here in Britain more than a few Anglo Indians have disappeared into our bloodstream over the past several decades leaving no trace except – perhaps – Dravidian mitochondrial DNA .

    As racial nationalists we believe in preserving our race from contamination by non-European elements, but would we really regard a white American or an Afrikaner as an unsuitable spouse for our children, or indeed for ourselves? Surely not, this has to be applied sensibly, i.e. if a person looks white, thinks white, and has no recent non-white ancestry, he IS white (whatever his DNA might say!).

    1. I agree with frederickdixon here. Nationalists who are white, much like Heathens, honour our ancestors. Yet we must also accept that some of our kinsmen’s ancestors may have made bad choices. Usually we’d have no knowledge of these (rare) bad choices as they are so distant, yet all we can do is forge ahead in the right direction.

      There was a time when genetic testing wasn’t necessary. You were of your community – your tribe – your nation. You were an ‘Englishman’ (for example), not a ‘white man’, and that was all that need be said. You knew your family tree and that was your assurance. That’s how it should be. In a sense it was regardless of appearance – for Europe has long birthed ‘darker’ looking individuals and nowadays it is not uncommon for recently-mixed children to be born lightly pigmented. So of the 3 methods of classifying someone’s ‘whiteness’ (1. Appearance, 2. DNA testing, 3. Ancestry) only ancestry is sufficiently reliable.

      My personal belief is that race is a spiritual as well as physical component in one’s identity. We can be 100% European in spirit even if we are 97% European by blood. There are actually theories – such as that of Varg Vikernes and his wife – that all of Europe is impure due to a very ancient admixture of African blood. So with that in mind, let’s not demand ‘purity’ from our past, but strive for it in future.

    2. I have to strongly question those statistics Frederickdixon. It makes little sense to me how, in the USA of all countries, with its history of racial segregation and slavery, would somehow end up with the entire White population having some degree of African ancestry, unless the whole population was somehow colluding with Africans at the same time they were doing as much as possible to keep themselves separate from them?

      Also, if Afrikaners are 7% African or Asian, which I actually think could be true since, having met some White South Africans in my time, I was shocked at how a few of these supposed descendants of the Dutch were so Indian in appearance, I wouldn’t consider them White, not in the same way I would a Northern European. It also seems odd to me, however, that this would be the case in a country that for centuries upheld laws of apartheid and White racial superiority compared to non-White races in South Africa, were they doing this whilst also climbing into bed with Africans and Asians?

      Sensible, to me, would be a period of quite a number of centuries, any less and the idea of White racial preservation becomes a complete joke. I have long said that I despise the idea that the White race will become like Black race in America, who see those with massive amounts of non-African ancestry as ‘black’, it makes a joke of their racial purity, and it will make a joke out of ours if we do the same.

      This isn’t a popular view, but I’m not going to pretend otherwise, yes, I would have reservations about my daughter marrying a White South African, a Russian (particularly from the north), or indeed a White American, if these claims of their on average DNA is true.

        1. Hi Steed, the article you provide a link to mentions a number of South African cases which tend to suggest that there is a more widespread infusion of black genes into the Afrikaner population than I believe to be the case.
          White genes are recessive and this means that whenever black and White genes are present in one person, it will be the black genes that will determine the appearance and characteristics of the individual concerned. As I have explained in the article above, while this means that two parents who are of mixed race can in rare cases have an entirely White child, it also means that it is impossible for two White parents to have a black child.
          In such cases the incidence of a White couple having a black child is the result of the White woman concerned having sexual relations with a black man without her White husband’s knowledge.
          In such situations the White woman will often swear that she has been faithful to her husband and in order to avoid an embarrassing row and the break up of a marriage, her doctor invent the idea of a ‘throw-back’, but this is a lie told in the hope of keeping the peace.
          It is genetically impossible for two White parents to have a black child and I would therefore suggest that there are no black genes hidden within the Afrikaner population that cannot be seen in the faces of the individuals concerned. There is no danger that in marrying an Afrikaner we will produce black ‘throw-backs’. If an Afrikaner shows no outward signs of black ancestry, we can be confident that they are genetically 100% White.

          1. I tend to agree for the most part Max. Though the article puts forward a fairly comprehensive case and I thought it was worth sharing.
            However, as controversial a view as this is going to be, I’m not sure that we can be certain of any white person being 100% white – even if the admixture is so ancient that it only comprises 0.15%, or as much as %6. Note: I’m not saying we’re impure, just that we might be wise not to claim 100% purity all the way back to the gods who birthed us. I know some Nordicists will say that non-blue eyes and non-blonde hair are the remnants of ancient non-white admixture.
            Either way I don’t think it’s anything to be concerned about. As I said before, I believe we need to expect purity from our future, not from our past. And the soul, mind and morals of a pure white man are more important than the aesthetics of a pure white man… for now.

      1. I don’t know whether these statistics are right or wrong, only that I have seen them – but they do make sense of a sort.

        In South Africa there is a large “coloured” population of very mixed descent (Dutch/Hottentot/Xhosa/Indian) the beginnings of which date back to the earliest days of Dutch settlement at the Cape. Indian and Indonesian women were brought in as wives for the overwhelmingly male first settlers. There was interbreeding with local Hottentots and black slaves. It’s quite likely that the white population would have become entirely coloured had it not been for later waves of European settlers.Under apartheid the Race Classification Board had the job of defining – in cases of doubt – the race to which a person belonged and every year several hundred individuals with two coloured parents were reclassified as “white” because with a bit of a lick and a polish and in a dim light they could just about pass as, well, sort of ..er…”white”. Crazy.

        The American situation is easily understood. Enslaved Negresses had no choice but to have sex with their white owners and overseers if the latter had a taste for that sort of woman (the same applied to the once even more numerous white indentured servants, but there were no racial consequences). The female offspring of such unions were themselves slaves and subject to the same abuse; the resulting quadroons could sometimes pass as white, and naturally chose to do so as soon as they could get away to places where they were not known, and their descendants passed into the white bloodstream. The end of slavery put an end to miscegenation for a century i.e. until the civil rights era in the 1960s.It’s impossible to find anything good to say about slavery, but this enforced miscegenation and the race defilement which resulted was perhaps its vilest aspect.

        But,all of the above notwithstanding,I still believe that white people who have an invisible trace of dark blood should not be shut out of our ranks if they look like us and think like us.

        1. ‘Under apartheid the Race Classification Board had the job of defining – in cases of doubt – the race to which a person belonged and every year several hundred individuals with two coloured parents were reclassified as “white” because with a bit of a lick and a polish and in a dim light they could just about pass as, well, sort of ..er…”white”. Crazy.’

          God, for a country like South Africa at the time, supposedly focussed on racial separation and purity (miscegenation was illegal from what I’m aware) this is the most ridiculous and infuriating policy, it’s like they treated racial preservation like a game.


          Then again, it’s beaten by the, frankly, insane policies of certain Australians who thought the key to the issue of Aborigines was to interbreed and mix them into the White population….what in the hell were they thinking!? Not to draw too much of a comparison, but that’s sort of like Hitler despising Jews, so his solution is to try and bring about mass racial mixing between Germans and Jews, and mix them into the German gene pool…utterly bizarre.

      2. I agree with you. I’m a firm believer in the one-drop rule. I suspect many people care little about purity because they believe in the BS “Out of Africa” theory. I believe in the multi-regional theory, therefore really want to protect whatever remains of the original white population. Until we know for sure the truth about human history, we shouldn’t take risks. For this reason, it’s a very good idea for the various European races to stick within their own people, rather than thinking that anyone European, or anyone white-looking is an appropriate partner. This will reduce remnants of the Moorish and Ottoman Empires from dispersing within purer parts of Europe, and keep any local problems of miscegenation (eg Anglo Indian mixing in Aberdeenshire) contained within that area.

        Saying that anyone from Europe (especially the south) is white, or anyone who looks white is white, is wishful thinking. Once a people starts accepting anyone with only partial heritage as members, it’s curtains for that race.

        We should fully support all people of European heritage for what they are now, but that doesn’t mean approving of “mostly whites” mating with original whites.

  4. I still think that appearance and character are better ways to establish the race of an individual, genetic testing is still foggy on the subject for the reasons mentioned in the article. I’m an extremely pale example of the Keltic Nordid phenotype, that combined with my sense of honour and fairness convinced me that I am entirely white.
    I wouldn’t waste my money on a DNA test to establish your race. Any racially conscious person already knows who they are and where they fit. I fit in the tribe I was born into, the one my ancestors have been in since the English emerged from the joining of the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons. My place, like the majority of its members is secured by thousands of years of isolation in Northern Europe since the last ice age.

    1. …And if race does not exist and is –according to the fantastical infantile utopian Reds– merely a “social construct”, then surely by following that ‘logic’ there is no such thing as a “racist” (whatever that cliche means). They can’t have it both ways.

  5. DNA testing may be rather more useful for assesing non-whites when a homeland needs to be determined for repatriation purposes.

  6. The other problem is we have is whites who definitely are white but who actively, for whatever reasons, want to destroy us as a race.
    We don’t want them with us or at least not in any position of power & influence.

  7. The stunt pulled on Craig Cobb reminds me of a truly awful piece of television propaganda called “100% British” from several years ago. I believe it was broadcast on Channel Four.
    The sole purpose of the programme was to try and ridicule some ‘run of the mill’ ‘patriotic’ individuals (including some eccentrics they had chosen for effect) into submitting to the denial of there being any such thing as “ethnically British” or “100% British” – and therefore coerce them (and the viewers) into more readily accepting the radically changing composition of Britain.
    Out of all the participants tested in the show, I think just one, Norman Tebbit, came out as being near “100%” British (or rather, European) – with half of his DNA reportedly stemming from Northern Europe and half from Southern Europe. (Unsurprisingly, I seem to remember that he has quite a high IQ too).
    In a different case of the same kind, I think they found some people from Yorkshire and claimed they had some ‘African ancestry’ from ‘the Roman times’. Whilst this may have been true for all I know, I do have a bone to pick with the premise being given by these kinds of examples.
    The main problem I have with these kinds of arguments is that the situation we are now presented with is vastly different from what had come to shape this Yorkshireman and his family for the last 1600 years (in a near homogeneous and rather isolated landmass)!
    White people clearly exist, just like any other notoriously distinct people, therefore what is happening to white people is not right nor acceptable. That is the bottom line for me.
    Seeing as we supposedly have “White privilege” and that we seem to accrue a “white identity” whenever there is mention of slavery and colonialism (or just being too dominant in something), I suppose we must exist – or the opposition would have nowhere to hang their labels on!. They do want it both ways, and it is always to our disadvantage.
    For these people to try and suggest that because some people here might have traces of a different ancestry from hundreds (or even a thousands!) years ago, we should, as a whole, just accept flinging open the borders to allow Europeans to be consumed by and submerged away via the arrival of other races is ludicrous. But that is the essence of what they are trying to suggest.
    I cannot see them testing Maori or “Aboriginal Australians” in these kinds of programmes, suggesting to them that they do not really exist and that they have no rights to survive and no rights for “recompense” for perceived ills against them……but this is probably because the guilt trips, the ‘racism’ and ethnocidal intent (or excuse) is only really applied to whites.
    If there is anything to be said about the ‘out of Africa’ theory (which is just that, a theory, like the multi-regional theory)….. then it is regarding how we are now therefore being subjected to a regressive process.
    This is where an unnatural process is being imposed upon us (comprising of a sheer volume of unwanted demographic change) which, when mixed, will lead the population of Europe to head backwards “to Africa” in terms of genetics and traits – and thus undoing 1000’s of years of separate mutation and evolution. This is instead of going forwards in terms of evolution and destiny as distinct peoples.
    I am not an expert in mtDNA, nor am I really some sort of purist (beyond what is obviously regarded as being white and acceptable to our ranks). I think there will always be some shades of grey that crop up from time to time within a great mass of people – a mass who would not even be dented by such rare cases of departure over hundreds if not thousands of years, like that so called ‘black Roman’ Yorkshireman. I think we can cope with that, and always had done prior to the advent of mass non-white immigration.
    I doubt that Craig Cobb will be 14% ‘Sub Saharan African’ (as is being claimed), but even if he was, contrary to the whooping and hollering by the opposition, it does not really undermine what he is saying or standing for.
    Statistically, he is going to be in the category of around 0.1% of European/White Americans who have such a historic trait – and I believe 14% is very unusual within that 0.1%. Likewise, I may not pass a “pure” European racial test, but I would have to accept that. There is nothing I could do about it. Whether it is true or false does not really alter the rights and wrongs of what is afoot in this country and in wider Europe or the Occident.
    Rather than making such a people hypocrites (for announcing their advocacy to the survival of the indigenous/white peoples of the British Isles and the wider world), I think it only strengthens their hand and their argument.
    If nothing else, it shows that they will have come to understand the gravity of the situation that white people now face – and thus what is ultimately at stake. It shows that they have decided to stand up for those people, who they have always considered as being their own tribe, and who in return have been accepted and become indistinguishable from that tribe.
    When 60% of London and Birmingham and such are Black and Asian, as they are today, with Leicester, Manchester, Blackburn, and others shortly following suit, there is little chance that in another 1600 years time that the said ‘African Roman’ Yorkshire man’s descendants will still be white (of any kind of description).
    That is the difference for me. That is why non-white immigration has to be resisted, why mixed race promotion has to be shunned and why tough stances have to be taken, because quite simply, if things carry on as they are doing, we are not going to be able to survive what has already been sown in our lands.

  8. I have vague memories of Ainsley Harriet or some other celebrity black doing the ancestry program where they don their solemn faces as they hope to find proof of forefathers being enslaved only to find his ancestor was a white plantation owner.

    His face was a picture as he tried to reconcile his mythical persecuted past with the truth of having some white genes.

  9. Yes, if you look White, act White and think White you are White. We can all look back into our DNA and find something if we look hard enough.

    For example, I am half English and half Scottish; but, if I want to split hair, I can say my grandmother in England is half Irish! Also, I can say my grandmother in Scotland is a quarter Native American! All this is true!

    If you saw me, however, you wouldn’t think I am a half Scottish, half English, 1 eighth Irish male with a smidgen of Native American blood — no, you would see a White man. I

    I have more faith in the eye test than the DNA test.

    1. Hi Shaun, I wonder if you have actually checked out whether your Scottish grandmother really is a quarter native American? I say this because it was fashionable in certain circles and at certain times during the 20th Century to claim some small degree of exotic ancestry as a means of making oneself seem more ‘interesting’. It was quite common in such instances for people to claim a small amount of Native American, or Red Indian ancestry as it was referred to then, but in my experience this was in the vast majority of cases a complete fiction, passed down from an aged great-grandparent who was going slightly senile.
      One has to ask oneself just how likely it was that one of your great-great-grandparents, who would probably have been born around 1890 would have travelled to North America to encounter and marry a Native American and then return to the UK to live? Alternatively, how likely is it that a Native American would have travelled to Scotland in say 1910 to meet and marry one of your great-great-grandparents?
      Until the 1970s, most British people never went abroad, and it would have been very unusual for anyone to make the journey across the Atlantic from America. Until WW1 most British people grew up, married, raised a family and died without ever venturing more than 10 miles from their birth place. It was the Great War and WW2 that caused the majority of mainly men to break this custom for the first time.

      1. This is true. And also, it seems that for British people it was quite common to claim a somewhat distant ‘Spanish’ (or other Mediterranean) ancestor for the same reason – to seem more exotic (though not as exotic as Native American). Myths on both my English and Dutch sides claim Spanish ancestry yet the family tree shows nothing of the sort.

    2. I agree, a quarter Native American? In Scotland? Come on…

      Personally if I found that out in a person then I wouldn’t consider them white myself, but I know I’m probably in a minority in that way of thinking, but my beliefs are my own at the end of the day.

  10. Yes, you could be right! I haven’t seen my family tree, but I have one piece of evidence that the Native American story might be true: my grandmother looks like one! Honest! She could play a leading part in an ol’ Western.

    You have given me food for thought — I will look into it. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong — either way, thanks for a fresh perspective!!

    1. When cartoonists wish to make a person look appealing they give them features that are reminiscent of an infant child; rounded proportions; disproportionately large eyes; small noses; and high foreheads. This is called paedomorphism, i.e. having a childlike form. Conversely, when they wish to make someone look unattractive, they give them the features of old age; angular proportions; small deep-set, heavy lidded eyes; large noses and large ears.
      Certain races are described by physical anthropologists as being paedomorphic, in that they tend to have relatively child-like physical features, while others are described as gerontomorhic, i.e. having relatively aged features. The North American Indians are designated gerontomorphic and therefore there is a tendency for people to look more like North American Indians as they get older, not because they have Indian admixture, but simply as a result of the aging process making their appearance increasingly gerontomorphic.
      Therefore your grandmother’s appearance may not be indicative of any American Indian admixture at all.

  11. I have met many people who for some reason claim to have romany gypsy in their family (although quite possible). The conclusion I have come to is that with the majority they romanticize of picturesque horse drawn caravans, and not the reality that they origanate from the Punjab and have been the scourge of many countries.
    Are there really that many historical roma in the UK?
    If that is the case, I would of thought that they would be of diluted stock in the majority?

    1. They idea of being racially pure has been denigrated so much over the last 75 years and the notion that it is rather exciting and interesting to have a dab of something exotic in one’s ancestry has been promoted to such an extent that many families now have some kind of fictitious ‘folk memory’ of typically, a Gypsie, Red Indian, Spanish or Jewish ancestor, lurking several generations back.
      As I have written earlier, these invariably turn out to be fantasies, fictitious stories told to gullible children by their slightly senile grandparents, who tell such stories for the reasons I have stated and because it adds yet another ‘interesting’ facet to an otherwise dull bedtime story.
      In the same way, dotty grandparents have told similarly improbable stories; of encounters with ghosts; of previous lives from which they have been reincarnated; that their family is descended from a famous, long-dead king or queen of England; that they can foretell the future; and all manner of other nonsense, virtually none of which is ever found to be true.
      Until the advent of the M1 motorway, the main arterial road from London to Scotland was the ‘Great North Road’, otherwise known as the A1, which was until sections of it were turned into dual carriageway in the latter half of the last century, a single carriage way road. This gives us some indication of just how little travel there was around the UK until within the last 50 years, and again, as I have stated earlier, until the 1950s, most people in Britain who had travelled abroad, were men who had served in the British Army in the Raj or who had gone to fight during the two World Wars. The vast majority of other people were born, grew up, married, raised a family, grew old and died, without ever going more than 10 or 20 miles from their place of birth. Therefore, other than in the dockland slums of major port towns, the scope for them to encounter people of exotic extraction was vanishingly small.

      1. I feel that my last point was slightly confusing: I wasn’t suggesting that the majority could have roma in them, just that after travelling through Egypt and Europe, and finally when the roma hit our shores in 1530, they would of been diluted before hand, thus be insignificant amount of Punjab left in their dna.

        I may be misinformed but Henry VIII expelled them from our land, this continued for approx 100 years with death penalties imposed through different periods, if they refused to leave.
        Scotland apparently were foolish and allowed some integration, which gave a few the opportunity to travel to Ireland, and is where we get the fable of Irish Roma heritage from.
        Although your second and third paragraphs would explain away the majority of cases I was wondering if their were some truths, or have I got my facts totally wrong .

        I have only been actively reading up on nationalist movements since W.S was formed, and have found it a great site that has educated me in many ways, not just the articles, but also the comments left can be just as informative and well written., which is why I apologize if my language can come across as confused or misled. Thanks

        1. I think it is obvious that some Roma DNA will have filtered through into the European gene pool and vice versa, however the article that I wrote a while back [http://www.westernspring.co.uk/another-clash-of-cultures-heading-this-way/] includes several photographs which would tend to indicate that among genuine Roma gypsies, there is still a predominance of genetic inheritance from the Indian sub-continent.
          As far as Irish ‘travellers’ are concerned I would suggest that they retain very little of what original Roma DNA they may have had. The ones I have seen have predominantly been racially indistinguishable from the general Irish population.

          1. I didn’t know, perhaps I should have guessed if it is the case, that Irish gypsies were descended from Roma gypsies? I always assumed that they were simply ethnic Irish people who had adopted a gypsy travelling lifestyle at some point in history.


            Like I said, perhaps I should have put two and two together…. *sigh*

            Sometimes it feels like White groups who are more or less pure are getting harder and harder to think of, the more I look into them and learn about their history.


            I’ve read weird claims, like Turkish influence in Poland, and apparently Lithuania was a hot bed for Jews throughout the last century, until the 1940s obviously, with the Lithuanian capital being about 40-45% Jewish at one point in time, and Poland itself was known as the paradise for Jews, so I find it hard to believe that there wasn’t significant racial mixing throughout the centuries there, insular religious attitudes or not, in fact I think Jewish mixing in White populations is worryingly underestimated and ignored by nationalists, at our peril.

          2. You may be right about Jewish admixture Nimble. Not to sound antagonistic, but do you – for example – know for sure that you don’t have a Jewish ancestor 10 generations back? Do any of us?
            I think there are always going to be vague question marks – both individually, as a nation, and as a race. But each of us, and our kin, can’t be expected to be blessed with perfect family trees. To expect as much kills our cause and dismisses all hope.

            1. Steed, speculation about ‘skeletons in the closet’ from an ancestral point of view is pointless. The fact is that the vast majority of people who consider themselves of untainted White ancestry are correct in that assumption. For a small minority there may be a non-White ancestor somewhere in their family tree, but for the majority of this small minority, that non-White ancestor will be, as you suggest, several generations back, following which any genetic contribution from that person will have been massively diluted, to the point of insignificance.
              Family trees, do not reveal genetic inheritance, they show ‘genealogy’. In the same way, analysis of someone’s mtDNA or their ‘Y’ chromosomal DNA, reveals only ‘genealogy’, not genetic inheritance. Only an analysis of someone’s complete genome will reveal their genetic inheritance, but even then, whether or not a particular gene is of relevance or not depends upon how it manifests in them physically, intellectually, or psychologically, and if it produces no discernible non-White characteristics, it is irrelevant.
              As I keep telling people, because of the recessive nature of White genes, anything more than a truly insignificant level of non-White genetic inheritance will be visible in someone’s physical make-up. Therefore, if someone looks White, with no detectable non-White features, they have nothing to worry about in this respect, irrespective of what their family tree might otherwise suggest.

          3. Yeah I agree Max. But I do think that particularly with Jews there is a complex history and dynamic in our lands. Many Jews have absconded from the tribe, other atheistic Jews had no problem marrying out and others did so deliberately (the ‘Protocols’ encourages bringing gentiles under their wing). No non-Aryan race has lived in our lands longer, looks as similar to us and changed their names and overt cultural tendencies so willingly to blend in.
            Of course, it is a minority of people who have these skeletons in their closet, and I absolutely agree that there’s no point in raking it up. But for curiosity’s sake I think Nimble has something of a point. One Jew 10 generations back would have potentially hundreds of descendents alive today. Does that matter? I don’t think so – no point in crying over spilt milk. What matters is the overall aesthetic, allegiance and intention of those who are white today.

            1. The important distinction to make here is the difference between genetic inheritance and genealogy. Look at the three examples I give in the above article showing how children with identical genealogy can have three different outcomes in terms of genetic inheritance and therefore individual genetic composition; in the first and by far the most common outcome, the grandchildren of the original multiracial couples will be mixed in terms of their genetic composition; whereas in the second and third outcomes, the grandchildren would be either entirely black or entirely White.
              Genealogy, i.e. a record of someone’s ancestry, gives us a clue to their genetic composition, but genealogy is not the whole story and it does not always provide an accurate indication of what to expect when assessing an individual.
              If we now focus on someone with Jewish ancestry, the first mistake that a genealogist can make is to assume that the Jew in question is a full blooded hereditary Jew and not a Gentile who converted to Judaism, or the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father. If we apply the same principles to someone of partially Jewish genealogy, as we did with the mixed race examples involving blacks and Whites above, we can see how someone with a single Jewish ancestor just two generations back might not have inherited any Jewish genes at all. For someone with a single Jewish ancestor ten generations back, the likelihood that they will have any appreciable genetic inheritance from that one ancestor is most unlikely.
              In the case of Ashkenazi Jews, most of them have resulted from the conversion of the Khazars, who originated from southern Russia just north of the Caucasus Mountains, and then spent several hundred years travelling across Europe with significant intermixture with European populations along the way, before arriving at our shores. The chances of an Ashkenazi Jew found in one’s genealogical record being 100% of Semitic origin is therefore extremely remote.
              Jews in Britain, despite what they might wish to believe, are in fact a mixed race group with ancestry from Semites, Turks, Slavs, Germans, and Anglo-Saxons. Jews are not a race of people. There is a racial aspect to their character, in that they have strong Semitic and Turkic influences that distinguish them significantly from other European peoples, and Jewishness in the Halachic sense is hereditary through the mother, but they are in fact a matrilineal, hereditary, masonic community. Therefore, much of any genetic inheritance from a remote Jewish ancestor will be White European in origin, coming from one of the many White European ancestors that Jewish ancestor will have had in his/her ancestral line.

  12. In the case of Sandra Laing: It states that her father underwent tests, it doesn’t say anything about her ‘white mother’ undergoing any tests!! Her father might have had a relationship with their maid and the ‘white mother’ adopted the children as her own. The two children have no resemblance to the ‘white’ mother. Also, when I look at the photo of her brother I can’t believe that he would have been classified ‘white’, even if he has a light skin! His hair is just to frizzy, unless it was shaved (but it will show in the gums – blue/speckled gums).

    Web identification is dangerous with no actual research of all possibilities. I have come across a page on the web that makes out that only 18 white woman of European decent contributed to the gene pool of the Afrikaner but it is a fact that there is no record of all the people (especially woman) that settled in the Cape! And yet church record show there were hundreds more. By the way church record also show the names of baptisms, marriages & deaths…

    I have also come across a few South Africans abroad, pretending to be white but I can tell they are not (I’m a South African/Afrikaner myself).

    1. On a South African website it said it was illegal to differentiate.

      I just couldn’t help my self, and had to comment it was a good job the fruit department of a super market didn’t hold the same constraints.

      1. Yes, and I imagine the Maths departments of South African schools are somewhat hamstrung when it comes to teaching calculus! 😉

  13. This is quite the question for “whites” of the Southern United States. My mother is from the deep south Alabama, her lineage is directly descendant of the Pollard family and many other southern families that owned plantations and many slaves until the civil war. My father is of German and other mixed Wested European heritage, and is 1st generation German American through his father. We can trace both family trees to mostly Germany and Ireland.
    However there is much mixture we can never account for really in the United States. So I have always considered myself a European mutt.
    I have always wanted to trace my ethnic lineage, and so have done 4 of the most prominent DNA tests available- AncestryDNA, 23andMe, Family Tree DNA, and GEDmatch.
    My results have been surprising. Especially my very specific 2% link to Mali and other varying degrees of West Africa and my varying degrees of Ashkenazi European Jew in all of my tests.
    My parents, myself and sister are blonde, with blue, grey and brown eyes.
    I had a teacher in elementary school who was quite fond of early to mid 20th century German history and made an example of me to my history class that I was the perfect German ideal in terms of looks.
    He would be shocked to find out I am partly West African and even more so Jewish. Not sure he would be able to take the news.
    Here are my results from the various companies:
    Western Europe 47%
    Ireland 19%
    Great Britain 9%
    Jewish Ashkenazi 7%
    Eastern European 7%
    Finland and Northern Siberia 4%
    Iberian 2%
    West Africa- Mali 2%
    West Asia- Middle East & Caucasus 1%
    Scandinavia <1%
    Italy/Greece <1%
    Family Tree DNA
    Western and Central Europe 41%
    British Isles 24%
    Scandinavia 16%
    Jewish Ashkenazi 12%
    Finland and Northern Siberia 6%
    African 1%
    British & Irish 34.6%
    Broadly Northern European 34.2%
    French & German 10.2%
    Broadly European 7.9%
    Jewish Ashkenazi 5.4%
    Scandinavian 3.9%
    Eastern European 2.4%
    Iberian 0.2%
    Finland 0.1%
    Broadly Southern European 0.1%
    West African 1%
    And the 4th test from GEDMatch:
    North_Atlantic Europe 44.45%
    Baltic States 23.62%
    West Mediterranean 12.54%
    East Mediterranean- Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon 9.77%
    West Asian 5.51%
    West African 1.73%
    Amerindian 1.16%
    West African 1.73%
    East Asian 0.72%
    South Asian 0.40%
    How does a purist deal with such admixture?

    1. That’s an easy one to answer and the answer is to be found in my article.
      DNA testing of the sort you describe should more correctly be described as mtDNA analysis, because it is an analysis of your Mitochondrial DNA. MtDNA is not an analysis of the nuclear DNA which goes to determine what your physical features will be, it is in simple terms a ‘bar code’ showing genealogy rather than genetics. You may have evidence of ostensibly non-White ancestry in your genealogical ‘bar code’, but that does not mean you have any of the nuclear DNA remaining from those distant ancestors.
      Furthermore, there is an assumption that the people who lived in parts of Western Asia and NW Africa many millennia ago were non-White, this is not necessarily the case.

      1. Many Europeans entertain the geographical fallacy of race and are unaware for instance of the Aryan origin of Buddhism which they think is oriental although by now more should be aware of the mummies of China.

    2. It is simple – most plantation owners and slave masters were Jewish, not white. And Sephardic Jews are 4.8% African on average, while Ashkenazi Jews are 2.8% African on average.

  14. It is not true that two non-whites with some white ancestry can have a white child. It is also false that white genes are recessive and black genes are dominant. There are many genes that come exclusively from Europe and many that come exclusively from Africa; each of these can either be dominant or recessive. The genes for a white (or at least fair-coloured) appearance are recessive, but it is not so simple for stereotypically European facial features, such as a bony nose and thinner lips. This is demonstrated in the above image of the mixed-race family, with the brown parents demonstrating both African and European features. Their fair child is genetically no whiter than her brown twin – it’s just that she happens to have inherited the recessive genes for fair colouring from both parents.

    1. You are only half right English girl. European features whether related to colouring or morphology are invariably recessive. The couple in the photograph accompanying this article are both of mixed race and both exhibit some recessive European morphological features, but that does no mean that the genes responsible for these features are not recessive. Furthermore, the fact that the fairer child has inherited such pale colouration demonstrates that she is Whiter than her brown twin. How much Whiter only time or a DNA test will tell. It may only be a matter of colouration, but it is just as likely to be more than that.

  15. Peter Rudolph

    - Edit

    I consider myself a Boer (the more conservative cousin of the ‘Afrikaner’). I am dark haired, swarthy of complexion. The only thing is … i am an adopted child born in Hamburg, Germany from german parents (I know their details but never bothered to make contact – I was a throw-away). My adoptive parents were a german /boer couple. They later moved down to South Africa in the 1970’s. As my adoptive mother was Afrikaans speaking I grew up afrikaans, went to an afrikaans school, and grew up and view myself as Boer. Considering germany’s history, that of South Africa, and my own experience as the only or one of the few swarthy children in my class … I was always very much aware of race and traits. In every class at school I was always aware that I stood out – and even if I must say … got quite a bit of attention from the Afrikaner /Boer girls as I was always the only dark haird kid in class. Of my classmates … they always were fair haired and tended to be tall guys. Same in the army. When pictures were taken I was always the dark haired italian looking kid in the front row (and i am not that short – I am 1.79 m). My feeling has always been the average boer sounds and looks more german, but with the height of the dutch. Charater-wise a german/dutch mix (stubborn, arrogant, loyal, generally honest) but with the difference that they tend to be short tempered and very aggressive.

    But to get back to point – the main point I want to get to is this … apart from me … the 100% pure german being the most ‘non-white’ in appearance … at least 6 of the boys in my class (of around 30) were also effectively 1 st or 2 nd generation immigrants. 2 german. 1 scottish, 1 italian, 1 hungarian, 1 dutch. Then there were a few with very english names – cases of anglo saxon south africans intermarried with afrikaner/boer women. They all eventually married afrikaners / boers. You do appreciate what this means …. there is no such thing as ‘the Afrikaner DNA profile’ l. … the Afrikaner / Boer genepool just changes too fast. It will look different every 25 years. But apart from that … .. there is no uniform definition of what an Afrikaner or boer is. There are many cape coloureds trying to sell themselves off as white ‘Afrikaners’ … and the Cape Dutch will do the politically correct thing and keep their peace … not the boers however.

    I personally do not attach any value to DNA testing. If i look at a dog and it looks like a german shephard and acts like a german shephard … and not like a bullterier … then i would suspect it to be a german shephard. If I find that he came from a line of dogs which also all appeared to be german shephards and if his offspring also appear and act like german shephards … then I dont care what any genetic test says … a genetic test that is based on assumptions of what races looked like and how populations drifted millenia ago … and this from the same ‘scientists’ who have now 50 times changed their tune as to what is better or worst for you … butter or margerine. So italians, spanish, greeks, hungarians, serbs, etc is said to have large percentages of what scientists say is non-white blood … I have seen figures as high as 20%. Will that … for me … mean an Italian to be ‘non-european’ …. no. The italians for me is central to europe as they are regardless. Genetics and DNA has become a handy tool in the hands of social engineers attempting to achieve the exact opposite of nazi germany’s eugenics. Sell the people the bullcrap of all being ‘the same’, or ‘family’ as a ploy to break down identity. Bulteriers and German shephards may both be dog species … but bulteriers are all stupid compulsive dogs of little use for me. And no DNA test is going to tell me the sub-sahara african with his 70 average IQ or the arab with his 81 average IQ is family of the german with his 108 average IQ. And if they were in the distant past … well the clue then lies in the “were”.

Comments are closed.