New Genetic Analysis Identifies Ancestry, Reduces False Positives in Pinpointing Disease

Laurel Thomas Gnagey, Medical Xpress, March 18, 2014

Ancestral background has much to do with our likelihood of developing or staving off disease. But separating the associations between who we are and where we come from, and genetic variations that cause disease, can be difficult and often result in false genetic study leads.

A new statistical method, developed by researchers at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, can help those who study the human genome better identifyancestry as they go about isolating the genes that cause disease.

The LASER (Locating Ancestry from SEquence Reads) software can establish ancestry using very small amounts of sequence data, scattered across 1-10 percent of the genome and adding only a few dollars to the cost of a genetic analysis.

“You can use our method to describe the ancestry of an individual very precisely, even separating individuals from different parts of Finland,” said Goncalo Abecasis, the Felix E. Moore Collegiate Professor of Biostatistics at U-M. “In studies of genetic diseases, this information helps separate changes that cause disease from more numerous changes that specify ancestry.”

A study explaining how the new software program was developed and tested is published online in Nature Genetics.

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • sbuffalonative

    I came across a fascinating article today.

    Google this CNN report: “Artist creates faces from DNA left in public”.

    “From [DNA taken from] a cigarette butt, I can learn where someone’s ancestors likely came from, their gender, eye color, hair color, complexion, freckles, their tendency to be overweight and a handful of dimensions of the face as well with a certain likelihood,” she said.

  • JohnEngelman

    Why is it that when people say, “9 x 9 = 81” they do not say so with an angry tone of voice, but when they say, “Race is only a social construct,” they do?

    • Martel

      Probably the same reason why you repeat a flawed, obviously incorrect theory about anti-Semitism despite all evidence to the contrary. The problem is these people never want to read anything outside of their comfort zone, like the works of Kevin Macdonald, which Byron Roth referred to as “groundbreaking”. Byron Roth has delighted his audience at the American Renaissance Conference 2013 and is Professor Emeritus of Psychology of Dowling college.

      • LovelyNordicHeidi

        Hieronder kun je een paar opmerkingen vinden over “race denialism”. Zie Einsatzgrenadier’s opmerking hieronder. Olorin vertelde wat interessants, and ik heb hem een verslag gestuurd van mijn gesprek met een “race denialist” op International Business Times. Zie dat verslag hieronder. Misschien zie jij er nog wat interessants in of misschien kun je een interessante opmerking maken.

        • Martel

          Ik zal eens kijken. In mijn ogen zijn alle argumenten er om dergelijke discussies overtuigend te winnen, het is soms alleen lastig het juiste argument voor de juiste situatie te vinden. Maar zelf geloof ik niet meer dat er nog goede argumenten bestaan voor “race denialism”.

          • LovelyNordicHeidi

            Maar zelf geloof ik niet meer dat er nog goede argumenten bestaan voor “race denialism”.

            Daar geloof ik zelf ook al lang niet meer in. Maar tegenover “race denialists” neem ik een neutrale houding aan. Waarom? Ik vind het dan makkelijker om ze te overtuigen.

            In mijn ogen zijn alle argumenten er om dergelijke discussies overtuigend te winnen, het is soms alleen lastig het juiste argument voor de juiste situatie te vinden.

            Goed advies! Er zijn inderdaad veel feiten die voor ons spreken, maar je moet maar net weten wanneer je welke moet gebruiken.

    • APaige

      If race is a social construct then ‘ancestry’, genetics and DNA must be social constructs. Just the labels are social constructs. There are individuals in the U.S that have been officially called Negros, Colored, Black and African American. Genetically they are sub-Saharan Africans. Race is a biologically constructed, socially defined term.

  • Einsatzgrenadier

    Race denialism is difficult to refute because it’s a religious belief. Arguing with these multicult extremists is like arguing with evangelical Christians over the absurdity of trinitarian doctrine or the resurrection of the dead. Because most white people are sheep who only listen to what the government tells them, the best way to end race denialism is to infiltrate liberal institutions and undermine them from within.

    • LovelyNordicHeidi

      Have you seen my recent debate on International Business Times?

      What you say exactly applies to that debate.

      It is really difficult to argue with our radical opponents.

      I try to be as kind as possible, but all the ad hominem attacks are typical.

      I think that your solution is correct, but how do you suppose that we do that?

    • wildfirexx

      It must be like a psychological mantra they keep repeating to themselves in the back of their mind. If they subconsciously repeat it to themselves enough , eventually they begin to believe it as the truth…a form of self hypnotic brainwashing.
      Like Out of the Wizard of Oz…
      (there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home)
      There’s no white race, there’s no white race, there’s no white race!

    • Fr. John+

      As you are neither God, nor omniscient, your vulgar comment about absurdity of trinitarian doctrines is neither correct, nor germane to the discussion. Peddle your Christophobia somewhere else.

  • Jim

    The trait that gives some black people sickle cell anemia also provides resistance to malaria. True, according to Steve Pinker. So it’s not an entirely bad gene to have, at least for folks who live in equatorial climates. The continents and environments of our ancestors are part of who we are.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    If one can awaken one person or sow a seed or learn something new about how race denialists argue, then the debate has been worth it. But chances are very low that a race denialist will actually awaken during the debate. Therefore it seems very tedious and unrewarding to debate race denialists. The guy whom I was debating on International Business Times was unwilling to think deeper about what I said and about what he himself claimed. I asked him honest questions about his own claims, and urged him to explain his own claims in order to establish whether those claims were true or false, but he refused this rational challenge by responding: “I don’t have to explain a thing to you a holes.”

    In the beginning of the debate the guy claimed that the mantra “anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White” is “absolutely ridiculous and illogical“. Being interested in how this race denialist had arrived at his resolute conclusion, I asked him the honest question: “Why is it absolutely ridiculous and illogical? Explain to me how you come to that conclusion.” He failed to explain how he had arrived at that conclusion, hence he did not establish the truth of his claim. Thus I had to ask him again: “Use arguments to explain why it is ridiculous and illogical. Show me in small steps how you come to the conclusions that it is ridiculous and illogical without already assuming that it is ridiculous and illogical.” He failed to answer my question again. This is typical, because he evaded my questions during the whole debate as if his life depended on it.

    The guy made an appeal to common sense when he said “Seriously, I have to explain this to you?”, so I politely explained to him why he had to explain his claims: “You have to explain all your claims when you are having a rational debate. Being able to explain your own claims is a mark of intelligence.” His response was negative, and he clearly stated that he was unwilling to explain his own claims. As the debate continued, my opponent’s responses became increasingly belligerent. Throughout the debate my opponent made many ad hominem attacks and committed various other logical fallacies. I thought that it would be best to ask him honest questions to follow his line of thought a little to make him think about his own claims and I also thought that pointing out the logical fallacies of my opponent would only make him angry and make him more inclined to drop out of the debate. My opponent did not want to explain his own claims, as I have stated above, so at some point I had to resort to pointing out logical fallacies to him, and then it did not take long before he dropped out of the debate.

    New race realists might not yet know how to respond to certain typical arguments that our radical opponents are apt to bring up, so they might have to learn how to respond appropriately to arguments like these:

    I don’t have to explain a thing to you a holes. You lost in 1945, remember? [non sequitur, guilt by assocation and poisoning the well]

    Why do you keep pretending you’re not one of these anti-Semitic freaks crawling around Disqus? [loaded question, guilt by association and poisoning the well]

    You’re one of those nasty ol’ white nationalist, racist, anti-Semites. Therefore you crawled out from under a rock. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem]

    I like how you follow all the BUGS “mantra” rules, but say you’re not one. [poisoning the well and guilt by association]

    I want to know why your “swarm” friend below thinks I’m Jewish (I’m not). It’s interesting that you d bags call anyone Jewish who calls you out. Adolf is still dead. [guilt by assocation, poisoning the well, and ad hominem]

    Now go pick up your “sheets” from Ma’s laundry room. [ad hominem]

    Because Adolf and his beliefs are important to you slugs. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem]

    I have engaged with a number of your kind who use that “code” nonsense. Eventually, once they get flustered, they let their anti-Semitic bile spill out.

    All the sites the espouse that “code” nonsense have anti-Semitic posts and comments. You racist a holes lost in 1865 and again in 1945. Adolf is dead an he ain’t coming back. [guilt by association, poisoning the well, and ad hominem]

    I’m using your “logic”. [appeal to logic and ad hominem]

    You use the exact same terminology. I have seen those sites. [guilt by assocation and poisoning the well]

    Oh, and don’t forget to post to your fellow BUGS that you posted here as I know you guys like to brag about it on that silly forum. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem

    The “mantra” is absolutely ridiculous and illogical. You ant-Semites are better off keeping it to yourselves. You lost in 1945 and Adolf ain’t coming back. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem]

    You can go back to your holocaust denying, racist, hateful, vermin friends in your little tree house. Repeat your absurd “mantra” over and over all you want. [poisoning the well, guilt by association and ad hominem]

    These logical fallacies were my opponent’s favourites:

    1. Poisoning the well

    2. Guilt by association

    3. Ad hominem

    This is what a website says about guilt by association:

    The current most common version of guilt by association attempts to link the target with Nazism or, more specifically, Adolf Hitler. This is reflected in the Examples and Counter-Examples given above. When guilt by association takes this form, the subfallacy of argumentum ad Nazium, also known as “the Hitler card”, is committed [www DOT fallacyfiles DOT org/guiltbya DOT html]

    One must be careful to avoid talking about anti-Semitism with these people, because that does not help with the debate when the main subject of the debate is not anti-Semitism. One must try to stay focused on the main subject of the debate. My opponent inserted many red herrings in order to distract me from the main subject, but I was not impressed with this logical fallacy. I kept on pushing my opponent to start thinking rationally, but it did not work, because my opponent was committing the invincible ignorance fallacy. I said that I was willing to convert to race denialism by sound arguments, because I thought that this would make my opponent more motivated to start thinking rationally, but it did not work. At the end of the debate I tried to motivate my opponent not to drop out of the debate, but that attempt was in vain. There was however one interesting fallacious argument that he used repeatedly before he dropped out. It was a combination of a loaded question> and a false dilemma.

    This is what my opponent said in response to different questions that he had not yet answered and never did:

    Is racism wrong? Yes or no. No long winded nonsense or asking me a reverse question. Yes or no.

    Again, is racism good or bad? It’s a binary question. Pick one.

    Is racism a bad thing? Yes or no.

    Yes or no?

    It might be tempting to answer this question with a “yes” or “no”, but that is what one should absolutely not do. My opponent threatened that he would leave if his question were not answered with a “yes” or “no”. I knew at this point that he was going to drop out, because he demanded that I answer a loaded question that was also a false dilemma. I really did not want him to drop out, but I knew that “the game of chess” would be over if I explained why his demand was illegitimate and gave him a rational reponse.

    If one’s opponent leaves during a game of chess, one wins the game because the opponent gives up. I wanted my opponent to play the game rather than give up and walk out, because I could achieve more by the former than the latter. I knew that my opponent had found an excuse to stifle the debate in three ways. If I said “yes” to his question, he would have said that my previous arguments were wrong, and if I said “no” to his question, he would have said that I was “one of those racist, Holocaust-denying, Hitler-admiring neo-Nazis“, and if I told the truth that his question was illegitimate, he would use it as an excuse to drop out. I think that I made the small mistake to not tell my opponent that I knew that that if I told the truth that his question was illegitimate, he would use it as an excuse to drop out. But would that have prevented him from dropping out and for how long?

    We can learn from this debate that our general tactic must be to try to prevent our opponents from dropping out of the debate and stifling the debate in other ways. I have done what I could during this debate, but if I could go back, I would have said briefly to my opponent what I already knew about my opponent’s trick question. I indicated to my opponent that his trick question was a combination of a “loaded question” and a “false dilemma“, and I took the time to explain why. I do not know whether my opponent perceive his own question as an honest question rather than a trick question. It seemed that he genuinely believed his question was honest, and that explains why he dropped out in anger and frustration. This is what he said:

    As you won’t answer, we are done. You can go back to your holocaust denying, racist, hateful, vermin friends in your little tree house. Repeat your absurd “mantra” over and over all you want.

    Do you have any suggestions how to argue with such race denialists? I would like to hear them if you have any.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    I posted a nice long response to your comment, but it was deleted for some weird reason. I will try posting it again, because maybe it was a mistake.

    • LovelyNordicHeidi

      If one can awaken one person or sow a seed or learn something new about how race denialists argue, then the debate has been worth it. But chances are very low that a race denialist will actually awaken during the debate. Therefore it seems very tedious and unrewarding to debate race denialists. The guy whom I was debating on International Business Times was unwilling to think deeper about what I said and about what he himself claimed. I asked him honest questions about his own claims, and urged him to explain his own claims in order to establish whether those claims were true or false, but he refused this rational challenge by responding: “I don’t have to explain a thing to you a holes.”

      In the beginning of the debate the guy claimed that the mantra “anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White” is “absolutely ridiculous and illogical“. Being interested in how this race denialist had arrived at his resolute conclusion, I asked him the honest question: “Why is it absolutely ridiculous and illogical? Explain to me how you come to that conclusion.” He failed to explain how he had arrived at that conclusion, hence he did not establish the truth of his claim. Thus I had to ask him again: “Use arguments to explain why it is ridiculous and illogical. Show me in small steps how you come to the conclusions that it is ridiculous and illogical without already assuming that it is ridiculous and illogical.” He failed to answer my question again. This is typical, because he evaded my questions during the whole debate as if his life depended on it.

      The guy made an appeal to common sense when he said “Seriously, I have to explain this to you?”, so I politely explained to him why he had to explain his claims: “You have to explain all your claims when you are having a rational debate. Being able to explain your own claims is a mark of intelligence.” His response was negative, and he clearly stated that he was unwilling to explain his own claims. As the debate continued, my opponent’s responses became increasingly belligerent. Throughout the debate my opponent made many ad hominem attacks and committed various other logical fallacies. I thought that it would be best to ask him honest questions to follow his line of thought a little to make him think about his own claims and I also thought that pointing out the logical fallacies of my opponent would only make him angry and make him more inclined to drop out of the debate. My opponent did not want to explain his own claims, as I have stated above, so at some point I had to resort to pointing out logical fallacies to him, and then it did not take long before he dropped out of the debate.

      New race realists might not yet know how to respond to certain typical arguments that our radical opponents are apt to bring up, so they might have to learn how to respond appropriately to arguments like these:

      I don’t have to explain a thing to you a holes. You lost in 1945, remember? [non sequitur, guilt by assocation and poisoning the well]

      Why do you keep pretending you’re not one of these anti-Semitic freaks crawling around Disqus? [loaded question, guilt by association and poisoning the well]

      You’re one of those nasty ol’ white nationalist, racist, anti-Semites. Therefore you crawled out from under a rock. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem]

      I like how you follow all the BUGS “mantra” rules, but say you’re not one. [poisoning the well and guilt by association]

      I want to know why your “swarm” friend below thinks I’m Jewish (I’m not). It’s interesting that you d bags call anyone Jewish who calls you out. Adolf is still dead. [guilt by assocation, poisoning the well, and ad hominem]

      Now go pick up your “sheets” from Ma’s laundry room. [ad hominem]

      Because Adolf and his beliefs are important to you slugs. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem]

      I have engaged with a number of your kind who use that “code” nonsense. Eventually, once they get flustered, they let their anti-Semitic bile spill out.

      All the sites the espouse that “code” nonsense have anti-Semitic posts and comments. You racist a holes lost in 1865 and again in 1945. Adolf is dead an he ain’t coming back. [guilt by association, poisoning the well, and ad hominem]

      I’m using your “logic”. [appeal to logic and ad hominem]

      You use the exact same terminology. I have seen those sites. [guilt by assocation and poisoning the well]

      Oh, and don’t forget to post to your fellow BUGS that you posted here as I know you guys like to brag about it on that silly forum. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem

      The “mantra” is absolutely ridiculous and illogical. You ant-Semites are better off keeping it to yourselves. You lost in 1945 and Adolf ain’t coming back. [guilt by association, poisoning the well and ad hominem]

      You can go back to your holocaust denying, racist, hateful, vermin friends in your little tree house. Repeat your absurd “mantra” over and over all you want. [poisoning the well, guilt by association and ad hominem]

      These logical fallacies were my opponent’s favourites:

      1. Poisoning the well

      2. Guilt by association

      3. Ad hominem

      This is what a website says about guilt by association:

      The current most common version of guilt by association attempts to link the target with Nazism or, more specifically, Adolf Hitler. This is reflected in the Examples and Counter-Examples given above. When guilt by association takes this form, the subfallacy of argumentum ad Nazium, also known as “the Hitler card”, is committed [www DOT fallacyfiles DOT org/guiltbya DOT html]

      One must be careful to avoid talking about anti-Semitism with these people, because that does not help with the debate when the main subject of the debate is not anti-Semitism. One must try to stay focused on the main subject of the debate. My opponent inserted many red herrings in order to distract me from the main subject, but I was not impressed with this logical fallacy. I kept on pushing my opponent to start thinking rationally, but it did not work, because my opponent was committing the invincible ignorance fallacy. I said that I was willing to convert to race denialism by sound arguments, because I thought that this would make my opponent more motivated to start thinking rationally, but it did not work. At the end of the debate I tried to motivate my opponent not to drop out of the debate, but that attempt was in vain. There was however one interesting fallacious argument that he used repeatedly before he dropped out. It was a combination of a loaded question> and a false dilemma.

      This is what my opponent said in response to different questions that he had not yet answered and never did:

      Is racism wrong? Yes or no. No long winded nonsense or asking me a reverse question. Yes or no.

      Again, is racism good or bad? It’s a binary question. Pick one.

      Is racism a bad thing? Yes or no.

      Yes or no?

      It might be tempting to answer this question with a “yes” or “no”, but that is what one should absolutely not do. My opponent threatened that he would leave if his question were not answered with a “yes” or “no”. I knew at this point that he was going to drop out, because he demanded that I answer a loaded question that was also a false dilemma. I really did not want him to drop out, but I knew that “the game of chess” would be over if I explained why his demand was illegitimate and gave him a rational reponse.

      If one’s opponent leaves during a game of chess, one wins the game because the opponent gives up. I wanted my opponent to play the game rather than give up and walk out, because I could achieve more by the former than the latter. I knew that my opponent had found an excuse to stifle the debate in three ways. If I said “yes” to his question, he would have said that my previous arguments were wrong, and if I said “no” to his question, he would have said that I was “one of those racist, Holocaust-denying, Hitler-admiring neo-Nazis“, and if I told the truth that his question was illegitimate, he would use it as an excuse to drop out. I think that I made the small mistake to not tell my opponent that I knew that that if I told the truth that his question was illegitimate, he would use it as an excuse to drop out. But would that have prevented him from dropping out and for how long?

      We can learn from this debate that our general tactic must be to try to prevent our opponents from dropping out of the debate and stifling the debate in other ways. I have done what I could during this debate, but if I could go back, I would have said briefly to my opponent what I already knew about my opponent’s trick question. I indicated to my opponent that his trick question was a combination of a “loaded question” and a “false dilemma“, and I took the time to explain why. I do not know whether my opponent perceive his own question as an honest question rather than a trick question. It seemed that he genuinely believed his question was honest, and that explains why he dropped out in anger and frustration. This is what he said:

      As you won’t answer, we are done. You can go back to your holocaust denying, racist, hateful, vermin friends in your little tree house. Repeat your absurd “mantra” over and over all you want.

      Do you have any suggestions how to argue with such race denialists? I would like to hear them if you have any.

      • Too much bold text.

        • LovelyNordicHeidi

          I understand, sir. I will change it.

      • Martel

        “Therefore it seems very tedious and unrewarding to debate race denialists”

        Its in fact very rewarding. The first issue is, you don’t debate to convince this individual, you debate to expose his irrationality for readers. This is important.

        Two pieces of evidence may be of use to you when discussing “white genocide” a term I don’t like to use myself as its too controversial, al though I do “sponsor” it, i share my affection openly for those who use it by “wondering” on what issue they are correct. It puts me in an easier position.

        1.Youtube: Peter money money money Sutherland House
        Download it in case it is taken down.

        2.Black Authors and activists “fighting” clearly imaginary “black genocide”. Note the difference in reaction to these individuals and the attacks on activists against “White genocide”.

        Bill Cosby actually considered whether whites manufactured aids to hurt blacks. Which he got from Stasi Propaganda called Operation Infektion.

        Look up the source prior to using it in debate.

        • LovelyNordicHeidi

          Two pieces of evidence may be of use to you when discussing “white genocide” a term I don’t like to use myself as its too controversial, al though I do “sponsor” it, i share my affection openly for those who use it by “wondering” on what issue they are correct. It puts me in an easier position.

          Interesting what your stance is on White genocide. I did not yet know what my stance on this would be. I do acknowledge that the White race is definitely declining and moving towards extinction, but I do not yet know whether it is actually genocide. White genocide does not seem to be true to much people, esp. to those who are not race-aware, because it is non-violent. People imagine genocide to always be violent. Truth is that genocide does not need to be violent. It can be committed by non-violent means such as assimilation. In any case, White genocide does sound like an exaggeration for White decline. I do think that those who call it White genocide make good points, but I am not yet completely sure whether it can correctly be called “genocide.”

          This quote from Solomon Wong, an anti-racist blogger, might be of interest to you:

          Anti-racism is anti-white, and we should embrace that. As for the charge of genocide? Accept it. You can argue against it, but what’s the point? Any conscionable person should want the white race destroyed. Who cares if the definition of genocide is being twisted to make people feel bad about doing the right thing? The point is that anti-racism, multiculturalism, any attempt to equalize the races is a strike against the white race. And once equality is truly reached, it will be dead. WE ARE TRYING TO DESTROY IT.

          The white genocide is carried out through interracial sex, righting wrongs, and the consequences of the white race’s sins. It is the kindest, slowest, most consensual genocide ever to take place. It’s better than anything whites have afforded the people they stepped on to build their race, people they envy, for they have been afforded the right to their own identity and homeland. Because those people have a true national identity. They have a culture. The only culture all whites share is that of the destruction and subjugation of others. So good riddance.

          Martel, what do you think about this quote? And what does it tell us about White genocide?

          • Martel

            I do believe there are forces who hate whites to such a degree that they enjoy the decline, even the violent decline of whites. I consider this a fact but difficult to defend to the initiated in debate and therefore I do not push it. Peter Sutherland and Sarkozy with his demand for interracial marriage are greater proof then the words of a blogger, but again, I believe his ideas are not uncommon.

      • Romulus

        I applaud your efforts heidi. It is a daily hobby of mine to engage in robust debate with any and all wingnuts, whether left or right. I find it amusing. What I’ve observed, is that it is by far easier to reign in the flock on the “right” to a more logical approach to reality than the leftist zombies. Especially middle right folks.
        A strategem that I employ regularly, is to always carry physical media in my possession to counter arguements (i prefer face to face combat).
        I find that when a wingnut is presented evidence, they are more apt to keep the debate from escalating into aggression. Number two, is that i try not to hit them over the head with reasoning TOO deep, but rather start small and increase by degrees. Thirdly, I use Alynsky’s playbook right back at them, if necessary and finally, i’ve discovered that humor, appropriately injected into a debate can keep it movung along.
        Try it and see what results you obtain. GOOD LUCK!

        • Martel

          Humor is important indeed. Mostly to keep yourself happy in dealing with a problem as serious as this. What do you mean with physical media?

          • Romulus

            I search high and low for peer review publications,scientific articles,books, magazines,film,and periodicals. I keep current affair articles handy in my valise wherever I am.
            Part of my debate technique is to use behavior modification in conjunction with actualism. It isn’t just for geologists IMO. For example, when I discuss homosexuality with a leftist, I combine mock empathy, while simultaneously pointing out the finer points of evolutionary biology over it’s 3.5 billion year history. I make it appear that I’m sympathetic to their “feelings”, while getting them to inadvertently admit to concrete empirical evidence supporting my point of view. It works well with college age adults, yuppies and people that make an effort to think. It is admittedly a little harder on the committed fringe.
            Keeping my voice much like a long time pal and empathetic gives the impression that I “understand. Then I gently steer the conversation to science and reason. It’s quite literally a combination of behavioral psych, behavior mod, and evolutionary biology.
            The younger the audience, the better. The left knows this intuitively. Like their plan to indoctrinate our youth with common core. The right has been playing catch up for far to long. They have been handicapped ( I believe by their faith) because their model hasn’t been able to catch up to the magic of science from the left and their culture of instant gratification.( sex,drugs,rock,& roll) . I think a more realistic approach would help unite the denominations unify. If even Americas founding belief system is the way to go or not. I will support our people whether they were Christian or Pagan, North or South, German or Celt ! Whatever it takes to unite the Clans ( as Wallace would say).

            While reading miss Heidi’s excellent post, it becomes clear that we can use the left’s own tactics on them, but with our logic and reason.

          • Martel

            United All Clans is what it is all about. The right has failed to a large degree, although I’m thankful for all the research and history written by them in times when the mainstream left was as Radical as it is in Sweden still today. Using Political Correctness against the Left is very much rewarding. Why?

            They have been neurologically programmed to fear certain key words. You can punish them using these words, and reward them according to what they say. If they say something in the right direction, reward, if they say something politically correct, describe this as offensive to minorities. Quite easy in a world where there are such things as “Cultural appropriation”. The left has basically done my homework.

            Let me thank you for promoting the cause outside of the internet, this is the only way forward.

          • Romulus

            No thanks are necessary. It is my passion!
            When my commentary is on hiatus, I’m generally doing all I can to insure that certain indispensable rights that we still currently have privy to, remain intact.
            Good follow up. Yes, indeed!; positive reinforcement is an excellent tool. Critical thinking also works both ways.

          • Martel

            Its my passion as well. I try to tell people how important to is to have fun. Better plant a seed and have fun, then not convincing someone that his or her entire worldview(everything he heard his entire life) is incorrect in a single discussion and feel depressed. Also, I keep hectoring everybody, including the readers at Amren: Trust Evolution. Racial identity is a natural phenomenon.

  • Martel

    This approach is a bit too gloomy in my opinion. The key is to understand that everyone possesses an awareness of their own racial identity, and learn to work around their media-induced defense mechanisms.

  • David Ashton

    It is important to defeat them clearly in debate before otherwise uncommitted third parties. Also, to stick to decisive key points and not let the other side get away from them.

    • LovelyNordicHeidi

      In the post below I wrote about a debate that I had recently with a race denialist at International Business Times. Your remarks might be interesting, if you have the time to read and respond to it.

      • oddball1776

        May I just say a couple of things.

        Remember us noobies.

        By watching you guys go toe to toe with the opposition we learn.

        In that regard your dissection of cuppa was a masterclass.

        I have witnessed some drawn out and intense clashes on the UK Daily Telegraph website between Guessedworker of Majority Rights and an extreme left Oxford graduate/professor commenter called Fabian Solutions.

        Neither one backs down or gives an inch. My own theory is that this is largely due to a profound difference in character types/traits.

        What is of crucial importance to one is an utter irrelevance to the other, surely this goes beyond mere differences of opinion or ideological belief.

  • David Ashton

    Two fairly recent items:

    1. “Basal cell and squamous-cell carcinomas are not, for African albinos, the relatively harmless [sic] diseases of old age. In Africa, they kill – quickly. Presumably they would have done the same to any human forebear who had had the evolutionary temerity to shed his hairy coat without replacing it with a suitably dark undercoat of melanin-laden skin.” – The Economist, March 1, 2014.

    2. “The inhabitants of the Highland town of Inverhamman have long suspected that they are different to the villagers surrounding them. Nearly all have lived in the same spot farming sheep for nearly 1,000 years…. One of the villagers…[discovered that her] DNA was a 97 per cent match with a typical Ashkenazi profile. Of the 56 villagers who have since had their DNA tested, 52 have had a similar result…. ‘We are the only village around here which has the tradition of lighting candles on a Friday night…our tartan is a blue-and-white design…our kilts feature tassels or fringes, which is unusual in Scotland’.” – The Jewish Chronicle, March 14, 2014.

    • Romulus

      Long have I suspected tribe presence in the UK, particularly as the buffet that was the Roman empire collapsed. For example, the gentleman playing the dark haired lead in the movie “Waterhouse”. He looks far too eastern Mediterranean to be a Pict or Scot. Of course it is the WHEN” that “they” appear that is telling.

      • David Ashton

        Dark hair is not an automatic sign of “Jewish” (let alone Ashkenazi) ancestry in north-western Europe; far from it.

        • Romulus

          No, of course not, but it is the timing of their arrival in Britain that interests me.
          If Mr. Sykes is correct in his evolutionary profile of the Isles ,it matters not that Jews have been in Scotland for a thousand years. They still would not be Scots if indeed the barbarians tribes have been there for 12,500 yrs. All Jews originate from middle eastern caucasoids and not Northern whites. I would love for Mr. Sykes to publish exactly who’s DNA of the 50,000 he’s analyzed
          It is a theme of mine to illustrate the dispersal of the tribe and their impact over Europe for the past 2 millennia. I believe it to be of the utmost importance to understanding how they come to be the white man’s overlords for so long.