Kazbech's Autosomal DNA

[Kazbolat]

Hi. I have uploaded my raw data to gedmatch


MDLP K16
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 49.70
2 Steppe 16.54
3 Neolithic 8.18
4 Indian 7.11
5 Siberian 5.62
6 NorthEastEuropean 5.20
7 SouthEastAsian 3.21
8 NearEast 2.63
9 Amerindian 1.24


Finished reading population data. 516 populations found.
16 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Circassian @ 3.800465
2 Ossetian @ 4.186050
3 Kabardin @ 4.726020
4 Kumyk @ 5.939414
5 Abkhazian_Lykhny @ 8.004207
6 Azerbaijani @ 8.060529
7 Avar @ 8.124865
8 Balkar @ 8.274980
9 Azerbaijani_Dagestan @ 8.799630
10 Azerbaijani_Khachmaz @ 8.982803
11 Azerbaijani_Agdzhabedi @ 9.045592
12 Lezgin @ 9.449274
13 Adygei @ 9.804237
14 Turk @ 9.924262
15 Azerbaijani_Dagestan @ 10.134899
16 Adjar @ 10.253854
17 Turk @ 10.374846
18 Kumyk @ 10.692669
19 Lak @ 10.701091
20 Chechen @ 10.937592

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Georgian +50% Nogai @ 2.448097


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Abkhazian_Lykhny +25% Kabardin +25% Nogai @ 1.392158


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Avar + Balkar + Georgian + Nogai @ 1.278399
2 Circassian + Georgian + Kumyk + Nogai @ 1.303605
3 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Georgian + Kabardin + Nogai @ 1.346200
4 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Abkhazian_Lykhny + Kabardin + Nogai @ 1.392158
5 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Circassian + Georgian + Nogai @ 1.412142
6 Georgian + Kabardin + Kumyk + Nogai @ 1.438231
7 Circassian + Georgian + Kumyk + Nogai @ 1.438864
8 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Georgian + Kabardin + Nogai @ 1.450845
9 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Georgian + Kabardin + Nogai @ 1.465886
10 Georgian + Kabardin + Nogai + Ossetian @ 1.497063
11 Armenian + Avar + Balkar + Nogai @ 1.497675
12 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Adygei + Azerbaijani_Agdzhabedi + Nogai @ 1.501825
13 Georgian + Kabardin + Kumyk + Nogai @ 1.502932
14 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Circassian + Georgian + Nogai @ 1.522289
15 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Georgians + Kabardin + Nogai @ 1.542812
16 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Abkhazian_Lykhny + Circassian + Nogai @ 1.543933
17 Circassian + Georgian + Nogai + Ossetian @ 1.546723
18 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Adygei + Azeri + Nogai @ 1.551531
19 Abkhazian_Lykhny + Circassian + Georgian + Nogai @ 1.561395
20 Adygei + Georgian + Kabardin + Nogai @ 1.564589



Eurasia k9
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucausus_Hunter_Gatherer 31.88
2 Early_Neolithic_Farmers 20.20
3 SW_Asian 16.10
4 WHG 11.24
5 Eastern_Hunter_Gatherer 8.67
6 Siberian_E_Asian 6.96
7 SE_Asian 3.52
8 Ancestral_South_Indian 1.43


Finished reading population data. 118 populations found.
9 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Kumyk @ 6.738466
2 Adygei @ 7.670324
3 Turkish @ 8.601156
4 Chechen @ 9.826360
5 Azeri @ 11.018217
6 Azeri_Dagestan @ 11.521988
7 Lezgin @ 12.820853
8 Iranian @ 15.134977
9 Kurd_N @ 15.851862
10 Abkhasian @ 15.924297
11 Georgian @ 16.410007
12 Armenian @ 17.759377
13 Turkmen @ 17.986931
14 Uzbek_Afghan @ 18.078753
15 Georgian_Jew @ 19.090483
16 Kurd_C @ 19.822395
17 Tajik_Afghan @ 20.173523
18 Turkmen_Afghan @ 20.301367
19 Iranian_Jew @ 21.574503
20 Tajik_Pomiri @ 21.915945

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Kumyk +50% Turkish @ 4.570849


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Chechen +25% Cypriot +25% Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.574169


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Chechen + Cypriot + Kumyk + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.494653
2 Adygei + Chechen + Cypriot + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.566533
3 Chechen + Chechen + Cypriot + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.574169
4 Cypriot + Kumyk + Lezgin + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.621547
5 Adygei + Cypriot + Lezgin + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.648597
6 Chechen + Chechen + Cypriot + Uzbek @ 1.849957
7 Adygei + Cypriot + Kumyk + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.861061
8 Adygei + Chechen + Cypriot + Uzbek @ 1.861439
9 Cypriot + Kumyk + Kumyk + Turkmen_Afghan @ 1.864321
10 Adygei + Cypriot + Lezgin + Uzbek @ 1.919230
11 Chechen + Cypriot + Kumyk + Uzbek @ 2.004525
12 Adygei + Adygei + Cypriot + Turkmen_Afghan @ 2.024240
13 Azeri_Dagestan + Cypriot + Kumyk + Turkmen_Afghan @ 2.045160
14 Chechen + Cypriot + Lezgin + Turkmen_Afghan @ 2.074196
15 Cypriot + Kumyk + Lezgin + Uzbek @ 2.087577
16 Azeri_Dagestan + Chechen + Cypriot + Uzbek @ 2.131501
17 Azeri_Dagestan + Chechen + Cypriot + Turkmen_Afghan @ 2.165610
18 Azeri_Dagestan + Azeri_Dagestan + Maltese + Turkmen_Afghan @ 2.170180
19 Armenian + Kurd_C + RISE_irAltai + Sicilian @ 2.204168
20 Azeri_Dagestan + Cypriot + Kumyk + Uzbek @ 2.222892





Harappa
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 47.65
2 Baloch 18.99
3 NE-Euro 12.80
4 Siberian 5.26
5 Mediterranean 4.83
6 SW-Asian 3.72
7 NE-Asian 3.39
8 American 1.24
9 Papuan 1.11


Finished reading population data. 377 populations found.
16 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 north-ossetian @ 3.032522
2 kumyk @ 4.971316
3 azeri @ 9.036681
4 balkar @ 9.476743
5 turk-istanbul @ 9.492123
6 turk @ 9.679803
7 north-ossetian @ 10.509875
8 chechen @ 10.983766
9 adygei @ 11.290410
10 turk-kayseri @ 11.316952
11 stalskoe @ 12.325159
12 turkish @ 12.402270
13 lezgin @ 13.826177
14 kurd @ 15.258821
15 armenian @ 15.680740
16 turk-aydin @ 15.835860
17 iranian @ 16.120018
18 nogai @ 16.480440
19 armenian @ 16.504221
20 kurd @ 16.788641

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% north-ossetian +50% north-ossetian @ 3.032522


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% north-ossetian +25% north-ossetian +25% turk-istanbul @ 1.713157


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++
1 north-ossetian + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk-istanbul @ 1.713157
2 abhkasian + nogai + stalskoe + turkish @ 1.716560
3 north-ossetian + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk @ 1.738798
4 north-ossetian + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk-kayseri @ 1.759559
5 georgian + nogai + stalskoe + turkish @ 1.760617
6 north-ossetian + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turkish @ 1.871471
7 azeri + balkar + north-ossetian + north-ossetian @ 1.877672
8 balkar + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk @ 1.885946
9 armenian + chechen + nogai + north-ossetian @ 1.919486
10 azeri + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + north-ossetian @ 1.948306
11 balkar + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turkish @ 1.950781
12 balkar + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk-kayseri @ 1.982495
13 balkar + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk-istanbul @ 2.033057
14 georgian + nogai + north-ossetian + north-ossetian @ 2.063082
15 kumyk + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turk-kayseri @ 2.084349
16 armenian + kumyk + nogai + north-ossetian @ 2.094133
17 balkar + kumyk + north-ossetian + turkish @ 2.118816
18 abhkasian + armenian + nogai + stalskoe @ 2.132477
19 georgian + lezgin + nogai + turk-kayseri @ 2.141258
20 kumyk + north-ossetian + north-ossetian + turkish @ 2.143002

[Hadouken]

whats your ethnicity ? and can you also post eurogenes k13 ?

[Kazbolat]

puntdnal k12
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus_HG 40.90
2 Anatolian_NF 24.14
3 European_HG 12.53
4 Near_East 5.76
5 East_Asian 4.85
6 Siberian 3.96
7 Beringian 2.75
8 South_Asian 1.91
9 Oceanian 1.70
10 Amerindian 1.38


Finished reading population data. 135 populations found.
12 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Kumyk @ 7.814143
2 Balkar @ 8.711151
3 Turkish @ 10.014295
4 Adygei @ 10.460303
5 Chechen @ 10.902493
6 Nogai @ 11.283339
7 Turkish_Aydin @ 11.566219
8 Kurdish @ 12.394129
9 North_Ossetian @ 12.590894
10 Turkish_Kayseri @ 13.436493
11 Laz @ 15.364171
12 Lezgin @ 16.704384
13 Iranian @ 16.878431
14 Turkish_Trabzon @ 17.018833
15 Armenian @ 18.214186
16 Georgian @ 19.322659
17 Assyrian @ 19.395798
18 Georgian_Jew @ 19.776369
19 Abkhasian @ 19.977594
20 Iranian_Jew @ 21.119944

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% North_Ossetian +50% Turkish_Aydin @ 3.745533


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% North_Ossetian +25% Sicilian_East +25% Uzbek @ 2.801711


Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 North_Ossetian + North_Ossetian + Sicilian_East + Uzbek @ 2.801711
2 Druze + Lezgin + Nogai + Nogai @ 2.906905
3 Kurdish + Nogai + North_Ossetian + Turkish_Aydin @ 2.926759
4 Ashkenazi_Jew + North_Ossetian + North_Ossetian + Uzbek @ 2.945146
5 Armenian + Chechen + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.023166
6 Adygei + Iranian_Jew + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.091082
7 Nogai + North_Ossetian + Turkish + Turkish_Aydin @ 3.115598
8 Assyrian + Nogai + Nogai + North_Ossetian @ 3.128367
9 Georgian + Nogai + Nogai + Turkish @ 3.129385
10 Abkhasian + North_Ossetian + Sicilian_West + Uzbek @ 3.131166
11 Armenian + Kumyk + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.180056
12 Kumyk + Nogai + North_Ossetian + Turkish_Aydin @ 3.215334
13 Adygei + Assyrian + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.235203
14 Adygei + Georgian_Jew + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.241579
15 North_Ossetian + North_Ossetian + Sicilian_West + Uzbek @ 3.258299
16 Georgian + Kurdish + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.259787
17 Adygei + Armenian + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.263853
18 Armenian + Nogai + Nogai + North_Ossetian @ 3.266085
19 Kumyk + Laz + Nogai + Nogai @ 3.267555
20 Iranian_Jew + Nogai + Nogai + North_Ossetian @ 3.272377

[Kazbolat]

whats your ethnicity ? and can you also post eurogenes k13 ?

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 West_Asian 47.58
2 East_Med 13.15
3 West_Med 12.35
4 Baltic 9.81
5 Siberian 6.98
6 East_Asian 2.56
7 Red_Sea 1.62
8 North_Atlantic 1.6
9 South_Asian 1.48
10 Oceanian 1.47
11 Amerindian 1.39

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Balkar 6.19
2 North_Ossetian 7.33
3 Ossetian 7.63
4 Kabardin 7.68
5 Adygei 8.71
6 Kumyk 11.13
7 Georgian 12.2
8 Chechen 12.79
9 Abhkasian 13.02
10 Lezgin 15.32
11 Tabassaran 17.24
12 Kurdish 20.01
13 Nogay 20.06
14 Azeri 20.18
15 Turkmen 20.4
16 Turkish 21.69
17 Iranian 22.04
18 Afghan_Tadjik 22.69
19 Tadjik 22.97
20 Armenian 23.16

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 85.9% Balkar + 14.1% Abhkasian @ 5.89
2 88.8% Balkar + 11.2% Georgian @ 6.04
3 99.4% Balkar + 0.6% Papuan @ 6.14
4 99.2% Balkar + 0.8% Evens @ 6.15
5 99.2% Balkar + 0.8% Evenki @ 6.15
6 99.2% Balkar + 0.8% Chukchi @ 6.16
7 99.2% Balkar + 0.8% Koryak @ 6.16
8 99.3% Balkar + 0.7% Yakut @ 6.16
9 89.2% Balkar + 10.8% Ossetian @ 6.16
10 99.4% Balkar + 0.6% Dolgan @ 6.16
11 99.4% Balkar + 0.6% East_Greenlander @ 6.17
12 98.7% Balkar + 1.3% Brahui @ 6.17
13 99.5% Balkar + 0.5% Oroqen @ 6.18
14 99.7% Balkar + 0.3% NAN_Melanesian @ 6.18
15 99.7% Balkar + 0.3% North_Amerindian @ 6.18
16 99.6% Balkar + 0.4% Buryat @ 6.18
17 99.6% Balkar + 0.4% Selkup @ 6.18
18 99.7% Balkar + 0.3% Ket @ 6.18
19 99.4% Balkar + 0.6% Balochi @ 6.18
20 99.8% Balkar + 0.2% Mayan @ 6.18

[Hadouken]

are you balkar ? what are you :)

[Rethel]

Kazbech,

normal results.
The same as everyone in your area.
You knew this without testing.

What is your hg?


are you balkar ? what are you :)

United Cavcasian Emirate :laugh:

[Kazbolat]

are you balkar ? what are you :)

i will reveal after classification thread

[Leto]

Kazbech,

normal results.
The same as everyone in your area.
You knew this without testing.

What is your hg?



United Kaukasian Emorate :laugh:
10+% mong is possible only for Turkic-speaking Caucasians.

[Leto]

i will reveal after classification thread
Give me a link, I would like to have a look at you.

[Rethel]

10+% mong is possible only for Turkic-speaking Caucasians.

They are all admixed.
Chechens have even this strange para-turkic identity crisis :)

[Kazbolat]

Kazbech,

normal results.
The same as everyone in your area.
You knew this without testing.

What is your hg?


i dont know yet

[Rethel]

Give me a link, I would like to have a look at you.

So look: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Mkinvarcveri.jpg :)

Osetyniec? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kazbek

But I think he is a reincarnation of some Chechen aka Ingush here.

[Kazbolat]

I'm not Chechen

[Leto]

They are all admixed.
10+% would be too much for non-Turkic ones.

[Rethel]

I'm not Chechen

So Ingush? :p

[Rethel]

10+% would be too much for non-Turkic ones.

Maybe mother is from different area, not a problem.

[Hadouken]

Maybe mother is from different area, not a problem.

lol

[Rethel]

lol

:confused:

[user_]

You should be Osetian north.

[Böri]

You should be Osetian north.

He is Anatolian Turk or sort of Karachai or Tatar İ guess.

[Profileid]

sandnigger

[Kazbolat]

sandnigger

you look sandnigger in your photos even though you are octoracial

[Kazbolat]

MDLP K23b

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 45.13
2 South_Central_Asian 18.13
3 European_Hunters_Gatherers 10.76
4 Tungus-Altaic 6.53
5 Ancestral_Altaic 4.73
6 Near_East 4.19
7 European_Early_Farmers 3.52
8 Amerindian 1.65
9 South_East_Asian 1.43
10 East_Siberian 1.23
11 Australoid 1.12


Finished reading population data. 620 populations found.
23 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Kumyk @ 7.017959
2 Kabardin @ 7.289525
3 Cirkassian @ 7.921638
4 Adygei @ 8.427399
5 North_Ossetian @ 8.641277
6 Balkar @ 8.792843
7 Chechen @ 9.351008
8 Circassian @ 9.767993
9 Ossetian @ 9.831257
10 Stalskoe_Kumyk @ 11.171146
11 Turk @ 11.211745
12 Azeri_Dagestan @ 11.870858
13 Turk_Istanbul @ 12.126227
14 Lezgin @ 13.173640
15 Tabassaran @ 13.318791
16 Turk_Kayseri @ 13.472784
17 Uzbek_Tashkent @ 13.507515
18 Turk_Aydin @ 13.765005
19 Avar @ 13.898581
20 Lak @ 14.251092

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Kakheti +50% Nogai @ 4.546819


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Adygei +25% Nogai +25% Uzbek_Tashkent @ 3.151115

[Profileid]

you look sandnigger in your photos even though you are octoracial

:confused:

[Kazbolat]

PUNTDNAL K15

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasian 45.53
2 Mediterranean 22.67
3 NE_European 14.48
4 E_Asian 4.81
5 Siberian 4.58
6 SW_Asian 3.46
7 Amerindian 1.66
8 Oceanian 1.04


Finished reading population data. 157 populations found.
15 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Kumyk @ 5.909574
2 Balkar @ 6.313890
3 North_Ossetian @ 7.299535
4 Turk_Istanbul @ 8.762960
5 Chechen @ 9.816667
6 Azerbaijani @ 12.243775
7 Turk_Kayseri @ 12.364287
8 Kurdish @ 12.901393
9 Lezgin @ 13.522158
10 Iranian @ 14.004152
11 Nogai @ 14.553338
12 Armenian @ 15.652202
13 Abkhasian @ 17.993910
14 Assyrian @ 18.503925
15 Turkmen @ 18.720209
16 Turk_Trabzon @ 19.597141
17 Tadjik @ 20.238682
18 Lebanese @ 23.908854
19 Georgian @ 23.964903
20 Pashtun @ 25.610281

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nogai +50% Abkhasian @ 4.376040


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Chechen +25% Nogai +25% Turk_Trabzon @ 3.182106

[Leto]

Could you post Gedrosia K3?

[Kazbolat]

Could you post Gedrosia K3?

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 W_Eurasian 84.38
2 E_Eurasian 15.24


Finished reading population data. 129 populations found.
3 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Balkar @ 3.998575
2 Turkish @ 4.860094
3 Russian @ 5.944564
4 Tajik_Pomiri @ 6.248185
5 Finnish @ 6.419997
6 Iranian @ 6.561772
7 Mordovian @ 6.662458
8 Brahui @ 7.251300
9 Balochi @ 7.533420
10 Makrani @ 7.940558
11 Adygei @ 8.543717
12 Kurd_C @ 9.365088
13 Chechen @ 10.336010
14 Kalash @ 11.024723
15 Kurd_N @ 11.773772
16 Pashtun_Afghan @ 12.505452
17 Loschbour @ 13.170222
18 Abkhasian @ 13.699641
19 Pathan @ 13.847345
20 Estonian @ 14.189544

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Belarusian +50% Tajik @ 0.000000
2 50% Estonian +50% Pathan @ 0.000000
3 50% Finnish +50% Tajik_Pomiri @ 0.000000
4 50% Loschbour +50% Pashtun_Afghan @ 0.000000
5 50% Loschbour +50% Pathan @ 0.000000
6 50% Russian +50% Tajik_Pomiri @ 0.000000
7 50% GujaratiA +50% Stuttgart @ 0.257839
8 50% Mordovian +50% Tajik_Pomiri @ 0.260887
9 50% Tajik +50% Ukrainian @ 0.278481
10 50% Abkhasian +50% Pathan @ 0.302161
11 50% Chechen +50% Kalash @ 0.336411
12 50% Belarusian +50% Pathan @ 0.504167
13 50% Estonian +50% Tajik @ 0.512343
14 50% Kashmiri_Pandit +50% Stuttgart @ 0.522053
15 50% Kshatriya +50% Stuttgart @ 0.579307
16 50% Stuttgart +50% Uzbek_Afghan @ 0.605091
17 50% Bergamo +50% GujaratiA @ 0.620740
18 50% Georgian +50% Tajik @ 0.655687
19 50% Abkhasian +50% Pashtun_Afghan @ 0.688738
20 50% Czech +50% Sindhi @ 0.692963


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Abkhasian +25% Belarusian +25% Uzbek @ 0.000000

[Rethel]

How many jewishness?

[Kazbolat]

How many jewishness?

i don't know. which calculator tells it?

[Rethel]

i don't know. which calculator tells it?

I am not familiar with these things.

[Lucas]

Try Eurogenes Jtest for Jewish %.

[Kazbolat]

Try Eurogenes Jtest for Jewish %.

Population
SOUTH_BALTIC 9.37
EAST_EURO 1.38
NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 7.50
ATLANTIC 0.91
WEST_MED 4.01
ASHKENAZI 3.78
EAST_MED 10.18
WEST_ASIAN 49.19
MIDDLE_EASTERN 2.02
SOUTH_ASIAN 1.87
EAST_AFRICAN -
EAST_ASIAN 1.88
SIBERIAN 7.90
WEST_AFRICAN -

[Rethel]

ASHKENAZI 3.78

Interesting, if this is from Jews, or maybe from common source, like Khazars? :confused:

[Leto]

Interesting, if this is from Jews, or maybe from common source, like Khazars? :confused:
Come one. These are mine and I have no Jewish in me at all.
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 EAST_EURO 29.56
2 SOUTH_BALTIC 25.48
3 NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 18.58
4 ATLANTIC 9.09
5 WEST_ASIAN 4.73
6 WEST_MED 4.2
7 SIBERIAN 3.48
8 ASHKENAZI 3.05
9 EAST_MED 1.11
10 MIDDLE_EASTERN 0.46
11 SOUTH_ASIAN 0.25

[Rethel]

no Jewish in me at all.

Yea, sure, Belarussian with ~13% of Med = babushka Jewrejka :laugh:

[Kazbolat]

Yea, sure, Belarussian with 12% of Med = babushka Jewrejka :laugh:

edit: here it is even something about 14%.

man you should check population averages.

[Rethel]

man you should check population averages.

It is not possible, especially, that he does not know
about any turkic, greek or italian (great)granny of his :)

[Leto]

It is not possible, especially, that he does not know
about any turkic, greek or italian (great)granny of his :)
We have no Turks, Greeks and Italians in our family. These groups were literally absent in the areas where my grandparents were born.

[Seya]

Interesting, if this is from Jews, or maybe from common source, like Khazars? :confused:

3.78 is actually very few

[Rethel]

We have no Turks, Greeks and Italians in our family. These groups were literally absent in the areas where my grandparents were born.

So it has to be Jews - especially that Belarus has the most jewest density ever :)



3.78 is actually very few

Greatgreatgreatgrand, not even whole.
But it is probably only a part of aschkenazi spectrum.

[knowledge is king]

Show us your picture finally! You draw our interest.

[Seya]

Greatgreatgreatgrand, not even whole.
But it is probably only a part of aschkenazi spectrum.

i got 5 on Jtest and i didn't get that anywhere else...so it must be a common thing

[Kazbolat]

Show us your picture finally!

im gonna create classify + guess thread tomorrow bro

[Kazbolat]

3.78 is actually very few

Can you post your j test results darling

[knowledge is king]

Can you post your j test results darling

These are mine for instance. I definitelly have not any Jews in my ancestry.

JTest

1 SIBERIAN 31.02
2 EAST_ASIAN 28.02
3 EAST_EURO 12.87
4 WEST_ASIAN 8.42
5 SOUTH_BALTIC 6.35
6 EAST_MED 5.17
7 SOUTH_ASIAN 3.78
8 NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 3.59
9 MIDDLE_EASTERN 0.36
10 ASHKENAZI 0.28
11 ATLANTIC 0.16

[Kazbolat]

These are mine for instance. I definitelly have not any Jews in my ancestry.

JTest

1 SIBERIAN 31.02
2 EAST_ASIAN 28.02
3 EAST_EURO 12.87
4 WEST_ASIAN 8.42
5 SOUTH_BALTIC 6.35
6 EAST_MED 5.17
7 SOUTH_ASIAN 3.78
8 NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 3.59
9 MIDDLE_EASTERN 0.36
10 ASHKENAZI 0.28
11 ATLANTIC 0.16

what's your ethnicity? you don't seem to be ethnic russian

[Rethel]

I definitelly have not any Jews in my ancestry.





10 ASHKENAZI 0.28




4 WEST_ASIAN 8.42
6 EAST_MED 5.17
7 SOUTH_ASIAN 3.78
9 MIDDLE_EASTERN 0.36

[Smitty]

Come one. These are mine and I have no Jewish in me at all.
Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 EAST_EURO 29.56
2 SOUTH_BALTIC 25.48
3 NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 18.58
4 ATLANTIC 9.09
5 WEST_ASIAN 4.73
6 WEST_MED 4.2
7 SIBERIAN 3.48
8 ASHKENAZI 3.05
9 EAST_MED 1.11
10 MIDDLE_EASTERN 0.46
11 SOUTH_ASIAN 0.25

Well, if your haplogroup is clean, Rethel shouldn't care.

[Rethel]

Well, if your haplogroup is clean

Then you should see the quickest conversion on haplogroupism ever... :laugh:

[knowledge is king]

what's your ethnicity? you don't seem to be ethnic russian

Presumably a foreign people think basically in Soviet Russia only russian people could live exclusively alongside with bears.

But this is essentially ethnically diverse country and I am one of turkic minorities who honorably populates it.

[Smitty]

Then you should see the quickest conversion on haplogroupism ever... :laugh:

Maybe. But it wouldn't change reality. :) I wouldn't be able to convert, no matter what I found.

[Deniz]

# Population Percent
1 EAST_MED 17.91
2 SOUTH_BALTIC 14.68
3 WEST_ASIAN 13.07
4 ATLANTIC 12.52
5 NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 11.51
6 WEST_MED 10.16
7 EAST_EURO 9.76
8 SIBERIAN 3.87
9 MIDDLE_EASTERN 3.28
10 ASHKENAZI 1.96
11 EAST_ASIAN 0.92
12 EAST_AFRICAN 0.27
13 SOUTH_ASIAN 0.08


# Population Percent
1 EAST_MED 20.6
2 SOUTH_BALTIC 13.83
3 EAST_EURO 12.95
4 WEST_ASIAN 12.31
5 ATLANTIC 9.6
6 NORTH-CENTRAL_EURO 9.22
7 WEST_MED 8.49
8 SIBERIAN 4.74
9 ASHKENAZI 4.36
10 MIDDLE_EASTERN 3.15
11 SOUTH_ASIAN 0.33
12 EAST_ASIAN 0.29
13 WEST_AFRICAN 0.13

My father must to apply İsrael consulate for citizenship.:jewish::lol:

[Rethel]

I wouldn't be able to convert, no matter what I found.

You should convert, no matter what you found.
The best - before you'll find anything.

[Smitty]

You should convert, no matter what you found.
The best - before you'll find anything.

It just doesn't make sense to me, man. What can I say?

[Rethel]

What can I say?

You can say: I will work on that thing hard :)

Of course, you don't have to,
but it would be for your own good.

[Smitty]

You can say: I will work on that thing hard :)

Of course, you don't have to,
but it would be for your own good.

What could it possibly give me, though?

[Rethel]

What could it possibly give me, though?

The feeling of the sticking to the right principle,
and true identity passing since the forgotten past
into bright new future :)

Seriously - the same as your family's or implied ethnicity gives you,
which both, you like it or not, are based on the same principle. Btw,
you should know this from home or school, if you couldn;t figure it
out on your own... if you jave not family belonging feelings ot tribal,
I cannot help you - you should feel it on your own, and have the
drival need to the real provenance and truth, in which hg is quite
helpfull to achive, is the final evidence (not the goal itself).

[wvwvw]

Subhuman admixture fitting a mentally deranged person

And Turk is stonk in you.

Your idol Hitler would have put you in the crematorium without second thought.

[wvwvw]

whats your ethnicity ? and can you also post eurogenes k13 ?

This LOWLIFE is the same person who was claiming to be a Chechen (and he is) and autistically was repeating that Chechens "have nothing to do with the Turks".

He can shove his gedmatch results (50% Turk) up his ass now.

[Shah-Jehan]

This LOWLIFE is the same person who was claiming to be a Chechen (and he is) and autistically was repeating that Chechens "have nothing to do with the Turks".

He can shove his gedmatch results (50% Turk) up his ass now.

He's not Chechen and he's not Nolchestoy.

[Smitty]

The feeling of the sticking to the right principle,
and true identity passing since the forgotten past
into bright new future :)

Seriously - the same as your family's or implied ethnicity gives you,
which both, you like it or not, are based on the same principle. Btw,
you should know this from home or school, if you couldn;t figure it
out on your own... if you jave not family belonging feelings ot tribal,
I cannot help you - you should feel it on your own, and have the
drival need to the real provenance and truth, in which hg is quite
helpfull to achive, is the final evidence (not the goal itself).

But I do have family and tribal feelings...very much so. I just feel more for white people with a different yDNA from me than for mulattos who happen to share mine, whatever it is.

[Rethel]

Subhuman admixture fitting a mentally deranged person

And Turk is stonk in you.

Your idol Hitler would have put you in the crematorium without second thought.

:confused:

[Rethel]

But I do have family and tribal feelings...very much so. I just feel more for white people with a different yDNA from me than for mulattos who happen to share mine, whatever it is.

Race is here not on the first scence, but if you did touch it, then:

Would you prefer a white foreign neighbour's children than your brother's mulatto children?
Would you prefer your wife to have babies with white guy, than you with a japanese woman?

[Полковник 95]

This LOWLIFE is the same person who was claiming to be a Chechen (and he is) and autistically was repeating that Chechens "have nothing to do with the Turks".

He can shove his gedmatch results (50% Turk) up his ass now.

LOL this guy is a Turkish sockpuppet to feed this forum with their pan-Turkic propaganda etc. Some mad people here ))

[Smitty]

Race is here not on the first scence, but if you did touch it, then:

Would you prefer a white foreign neighbour's children than your brother's mulatto children?
Would you prefer your wife to have babies with white guy, than you with a japanese woman?

I would feel more kinship with a white non-relative, yes. Of course, I would be technically more related to my mulatto nephew, but he would be of another "tribe," another people. That seems obvious to me.

The second question is an odd one. You're asking if I'd prefer being cuckolded to miscegenating? Perhaps not. But both are extremely undesirable situations. Even if I preferred miscegenation, that doesn't prove that the paternal line is the only one that matters.

[Rethel]

I would feel more kinship with a white non-relative, yes. Of course, I would be technically more related to my mulatto nephew, but he would be of another "tribe," another people. That seems obvious to me.

So it's very bad...
It only shows, that you don;t know, what means
to be tribal, and that you are not a family faithfull guy.


The second question is an odd one. You're asking if I'd prefer being cuckolded to miscegenating? Perhaps not. But both are extremely undesirable situations. Even if I preferred miscegenation,

So think deeper about your statement.


that doesn't prove that the paternal line is the only one that matters.

Such statement is maybe wrongly formulated, but if you insist, then it is.
Your father gave you the sex, the family and the larger gourp to which you belong.
This is the rule, and as such, as principle, is not discussable.

But, btw, you are just already in one group with balcks, not even related with you.
Is called Americans (or inhabitants of your state, town, neighbourhood, club, church
whatever). So, I prefer to be in one group with blacks, who are related to me, than
with those who are not. Race is changeable, and if my family would decide, that we
will change it, for example on mongoloidic, all 3000 people, then we would, but our
identity would remain the same. We still would be Rethelites. Even 1st-grader can get
it. I can't get why you don't. Its first thing which European drinks with mother's milk.

Another group who in majority changed her race are Jews. Becasue they bacame white,
it didn;t changed their identity. More than that, the same descendancy claims a nordic
Jew as the ethiopian one, and they still are Jews, descendands of Judah (theoretically
at least), becasue a principle is the creating factor, not the look.

[Smitty]

So it's very bad...
It only shows, that you don;t know, what means to be tribal.



So think deeper about your statement.



Such stetement is maybe wrongly formulated, but if you insist, then it is.
You father gave you the sex, the family and the larger gourp to which you belong.
This is the rule, and as such, as principle, is not discussable.

But, btw, you are just already in one group with balcks, not even related with you.
Is called Americans (or inhabitants of your state, town, neighbourhood, club, church
whatever). So, I prefer to be in one group with blacks, who are related to me, than
with those who are not. Race is changeable, and if my family would decide, that we
will change it, for example on mongoloidic, all 3000 people, then we would, but our
identity would remain the same. We still would be Rethelites. Even 1st-grader can get
it. I can't get why you don't. Its first thing which European drinks with mother's milk.

Another group who in majority changed her race are Jews. Becasue they bacame white,
it didn;t changed their identity. More than that, the same descendancy claims a nordic
Jew as the ethiopian one, and they still are Jews, descendands of Judah (theoretically
at least), becasue a principle is the creating factor, not the look.

The Jewish model works for them, but I wouldn't want it myself. They're a cohesive people, but not a stable one. The fact that there are black Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Chinese Jews, and more besides, shows the transformations that ethnic group has undergone over the last 2,000 years. One could argue (and some do) that they're not even the same people as their forefathers. If a people group keeps only its name and a common paternal lineage, but changes the other 99% of their collective DNA, they can be said to be another people entirely. (Keep in mind, I don't think this necessarily applies to the Jews; it's an example.) Genetics is possibly the single greatest contributor to who we are. It does matter.

I'll grant you that paternity matters - moreso even than maternity and at least in the West. That's why we carry our fathers' surnames. But it is not the only aspect of one's ancestry that matters. The day that the Poles become 99% Yoruba is the day they are no longer Poles, even if they're all R1a.

[Rethel]

The Jewish model works for them, but I wouldn't want it myself. They're a cohesive people, but not a stable one. The fact that there are black Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Chinese Jews, and more besides, shows the transformations that ethnic group has undergone over the last 2,000 years.

And what? Still are Jews, still are in one group, and now in Israel they are mixed again.


One could argue (and some do) that they're not even the same people as their forefathers.

I not only argue, but I contend, and they unfortunaly are not,
exept less than 1/5 of them (maybe even only some 6%). But
this is known since year-ten, and previously all thought as I
said, so implicitly they where, but what is more important, it
was showing what are the right values.


If a people groups keeps only its name and a common paternal lineage,

Then it is exactly the same group of people.


but changes the other 99% of their collective DNA,

So, do you want to convinst me, that His Majesty,
Phillip the VIth of Spain is not a Capetean becasue
he has not 100% of the DNA of Hugo the Capet??? :picard2:


they can be said to be another people entirely.

No, you totally confuse identity with features.
Inheritable identity is stable, but wifes, language,
race, place of living, religion aso can change.


Genetics is possibly the single greatest contributor to who we are. It does matter.

Absolutly not, becasue until genetic companies did not
started to spread their au-bullshit, noone never care.
Pushkin or Dumas were the same Pushkin and Russian
Dumas and French as they would be, if they would be
totally autosomaly "volganian" or "seinenian" white.


I'll grant you that paternity matters - moreso even than maternity and at least in the West. That's why we carry our fathers' surnames.

Uff, at least :)


The day that the Poles become 99% Yoruba is the day they are no longer Poles, even if they're all R1a.

No, you are wrong, they would be still Poles, speaking polish, living in Poland,
being members of the same families as their medieval ancestors, aso, aso.
The only thing, which would be changes it would be color of skin. Who cares.
BUT if we care, and value whitness as one of our feature, we can ban mix
marriages (for example if they contain more than some small percentage),
exactly the same, as we can ban speaking in kazakh to protect traditional
language of this people, or ban Islam, i we want to protect religious feature.

I gave you an example. Lets say, in XVIth century, all in Poland were redheads.
100%. Now ity is bearly 1%. Are we different people? Cannot we be called Poles? :confused:

[Smitty]

And what? Still are Jews, still are in one group, and now in Israel they are mixed again.



I not only argue, but I contend, and they unfortunaly are not,
exept less than 1/5 of them (maybe even only some 6%). But
this is known since year-ten, and previously all thought as I
said, so implicitly they where, but what is more important, it
was showing what are the right values.



Then it is exactly the same group of people.



So, do you want to convinst me, that His Majesty,
Phillip the VIth of Spain is not a Capetean becasue
he has not 100% of the DNA of Hugo the Capet??? :picard2:



No, you totally confuse identity with features.
Inheritable identity is stable, but wifes, language,
race, place of living, religion aso can change.



Absolutly not, becasue until genetic companies did not
started to spread their au-bullshit, noone never care.
Pushkin or Dumas were the same Pushkin and Russian
Dumas and French as they would be, if they would be
totally autosomaly "volganian" or "seinenian" white.



Uff, at least :)



No, you are wrong, they would be still Poles, speaking polish, living in Poland,
being members of the same families as their medieval ancestors, aso, aso.
The only thing, which would be changes it would be color of skin. Who cares.
BUT if we care, and value whitness as one of our feature, we can ban mix
marriages (for example if they contain more than some small percentage),
exactly the same, as we can ban speaking in kazakh to protect traditional
language of this people, or ban Islam, i we want to protect religious feature.

I gave you an example. Lets say, in XVIth century, all in Poland were redheads.
100%. Now ity is bearly 1%. Are we different people? Cannot we be called Poles? :confused:

You can call yourselves whatever you want. But if your DNA has changed in its (near) entirety, you are a different people. It's deeper than features. It's your bones, your brains, your personalities. And I daresay your culture, and therefore your identity, would change as a result of that.

It's interesting that you make mention of racial preservationism within your paternalist ideology. This is exactly what was done in colonial America. The mixed-race offspring of whites were excluded from white society, as were those who did the mixing. They weren't considered part of their greater "family," despite sharing a paternal bloodline. Is this a reasonable application of preservationism, or did those people not understand tribalism either?

[Rethel]

You can call yourselves whatever you want. But if your DNA has changed in its (near) entirety, you are a different people.

Nope. You simply are making it backwards.
The realted group X is not X becasue has soemthing, but has something, becasue is X. NOT otherwise.


It's deeper than features.

The more meaningless. My tripe is not decide who am I. :)


It's your bones, your brains, your personalities.

Personality is changing with every single member of the group. So, irrelevant.


And I daresay your culture, and therefore your identity, would change as a result of that.

Poles change the culture 1000 years ago.
Still are Poles. Still are Slavs. The same other people.


It's interesting that you make mention of racial preservationism within your paternalist ideology.

It is not impossible, but not necessary.


This is exactly what was done in colonial America.
The mixed-race offspring of whites were excluded from white society, as were those who did the mixing.

No, werent so much, but people could
"return", like descendants of Jefferson did.


They weren't considered part of their greater "family," despite sharing a paternal bloodline.

They were the same family, but their social status was different.
It is like with one family, where you have noble, non-noble and ex-noble branches.
Their status in bigger society is different, but it is still the same group.


Is this a reasonable application of preservationism, or did those people not understand tribalism either?

I do not say, that America was a perfect example of whatever.
It can be organized differently, but it not necessarly means, that
pronciple is undermined or that on singular level, people are not the
descendnats and part of the families which they were, as I did say
above, so I will not repeat. Also, the general principle doesn;t
exclude the fact, that new groups cannot emerged, of course
theyr can, but their provenance will be as it is dictate the rule.
And the difference between you are colonial America is that,
that you do not live under this laws, and the colonial America
did not changed the general rules, because state has not such
power. For example, I, as a state, can decide, that every first
born will be exclude from the society, but does it mean, that
I did chnage his real bonds between his parents, siblings and
rest of the family? And when state is gone, you are returning
to the basic rule, becasue there is no state, which would be
a deciding factor ONLY ON HIS TERRITORY who is WuhagIan,
IndoeuRopean or FarmerGian, becasue this are natural entities
which emerged, when no state existed, and were naturaly
patrilineal, as it is btw visible from the genetic record.

[Kazbolat]

This LOWLIFE is the same person who was claiming to be a Chechen (and he is) and autistically was repeating that Chechens "have nothing to do with the Turks".



I m not Chechen, how many times do I have to repeat it?

Are you mad because i said greeks are christian arabs?

[adsız]

I m not Chechen, how many times do I have to repeat it?

Are you mad because i said greeks are christian arabs?

Just ignore her as i do. She has mental problems.

[Smitty]

Nope. You simply are making it backwards.
The realted group X is not X becasue has soemthing, but has something, becasue is X. NOT otherwise.



The more meaningless. My tripe is not decide who am I. :)



Personality is changing with every single member of the group. So, irrelevant.



Poles change the culture 1000 years ago.
Still are Poles. Still are Slavs. The same other people.



It is not impossible, but not necessary.



No, werent so much, but people could
"return", like descendants of Jefferson did.



They were the same family, but their social status was different.
It is like with one family, where you have noble, non-noble and ex-noble branches.
Their status in bigger society is different, but it is still the same group.



I do not say, that America was a perfect example of whatever.
It can be organized differently, but it not necessarly means, that
pronciple is undermined or that on singular level, people are not the
descendnats and part of the families which they were, as I did say
above, so I will not repeat. Also, the general principle doesn;t
exclude the fact, that new groups cannot emerged, of course
theyr can, but their provenance will be as it is dictate the rule.
And the difference between you are colonial America is that,
that you do not live under this laws, and the colonial America
did not changed the general rules, because state has not such
power. For example, I, as a state, can decide, that every first
born will be exclude from the society, but does it mean, that
I did chnage his real bonds between his parents, siblings and
rest of the family? And when state is gone, you are returning
to the basic rule, becasue there is no state, which would be
a deciding factor ONLY ON HIS TERRITORY who is WuhagIan,
IndoeuRopean or FarmerGian, becasue this are natural entities
which emerged, when no state existed, and were naturaly
patrilineal, as it is btw visible from the genetic record.

The rules were social before they were political, so it had nothing to do with government proscription. Clearly, the populace did not consider these people "family" in any sense of the word. And their blood relatives didn't either. Patrilineality was not the be-all and end-all. Race, and to a lesser degree ethnicity, was. Maybe, this is a New World adaptation; I don't know. But I suspect it was brought over from Europe. Incidentally, Spaniards applied the same rules in their colonies and in Iberia with the Moors.

Another thing: If haplogroups and what they represent are so important to you, you don't really identify as a Pole, am I right? You consider yourself an R1. So your "tribe" is not restricted to any nation, correct? You consider yourself more related to an R1 Irishman, an R1 Fulani, or an R1 Kalash than to an I1 Pole?

[Полковник 95]

Funny how some delusional Greek or Polish guys here see Chechen ghosts and think they would have relevance for people like Chechens )) This other Albanian or Hungarian freak was not bad either who came into my thread to claim hysterically I would be Azeri and not Chechen because he was saddened and somehow coping that I told him he looks Greek and not Chechen ))

[wvwvw]

I m not Chechen, how many times do I have to repeat it?

Are you mad because i said greeks are christian arabs?

No clown bunny faggot, I can only be amused when a sandniggerish faggot is calling other people arabs when himself looks like those femimine boy dancers in Afganistan. It is your autism and compulsive repeats that I found annoying.

In all honesty how much is your height!? Based on the picture you posted it can't be over 1.65.

I had a great laugh seeing your faggot face. Although your faggotish childish avatar should have been a clue.

[Kazbolat]

No clown bunny faggot, I can only be amused when a sandniggerish faggot is calling other people arabs when himself looks like those femimine boy dancers in Afganistan. It is your autism and compulsive repeats that I found annoying.

In all honesty how much is your height!? Based on the picture you posted it can't be over 1.65.

I had a great laugh seeing your faggot face. Although your faggotish childish avatar should have been a clue.

Im 181. I have sense of humor and I will keep that bunny photo forever. you creeepy little arab.

Brave words for someone who is a christian arab (aka greek) and pretends to be female, we all know you have hairy dark balls. you are probably attracted to males though as many greek men are. why are so obsessed with me by the way? i dont give a fcyuk about greeks. why do you attack everyone?

[Rethel]

The rules were social before they were political,

Say it to colonial Spaniards :)
Btw, you are too much focus on colonial
america, which has a little to do with the thing.

But, if there would be a war between Canada and USA, would
you fight on the side of Canada, becasue they almost do not
have blacks??? I guess, they are should be more close to you,
than your black american commerades :laugh:

Or maybe would you together with blacks, fight whites? :icon_ask:


And their blood relatives didn't either.

We allready know, that you would be disgust by
your own family. You do not have to reapeat.


Patrilineality was not the be-all and end-all.

Don't look for local exeptions (which you partially
dont understand) to undermine more general thing.
Especially, when you ignore majority of problems and questions.


Another thing: If haplogroups and what they represent are so important to you,

I repeat 1000th time: haplogroups arent
important, the same as is not important
a paper, on which is written certificate.
It is only an evidence of something.


you don't really identify as a Pole, am I right?

By provenance? Of course not. Territoriarly - yes.
But ironically, my hg is quite common in Poland.


You consider yourself an R1.

I do not consider myself R1. I have R1 and am IE.


So your "tribe" is not restricted to any nation, correct?

So called nation - of course not, but some nations are part
of that tribe, you like it or not, every WASP will tell you that.


You consider yourself more related to an R1 Irishman, an R1 Fulani, or an R1 Kalash than to an I1 Pole?

This is nonsense.
You can't consider yourself a grandson of you grandfather.
You are a grandson, or you are not. This, what you consider is irrelevant.
If you consider - you allready are saying, that you are wannabe.

I am related closer to R1 Irishman than too I1 Pole, becasue with R1
Irishman I am a part of the same genealogical tree, and our common
ancestor is closer to us both, than common ancestor with I1, which
is separate and different line anyway - more than that, long time ago
descendants of R1 were made a different tribe than the descendants
of I1, spoke different languages, lived in different places, even looked
differently aso - i.e. were representants of two different entities, from
which R1 me, the same as I1-guy, are descendent. The I1man is not a
descendant of R1 group the same as I am not and cannot be from a I1
group, even if I would want to. It is just a fact, no need for consideration.

[Smitty]

Say it to colonial Spaniards :)
Btw, you are too much focus on colonial
america, which has a little to do with the thing.

I'm not. This is an example - and one I'm familiar with.


But there would be a war between Canada and USA, would
you fight on the side of Canada, becasue they almost do not
have blacks??? I guess, they are should be more close to you,
than your black american commerades :laugh:

Or maybe would you together with blacks, fight whites? :icon_ask:
This seems irrelevant, since a Canadian-American war would not be a racial one, and there are plenty of white Americans for whom to fight.





By provenance? Of course not. Territoriarly - yes.
But ironically, my hg is quite common in Poland.



I do not consider myself R1. I have R1 and am IE.



So called nation - of course not, but some nations are part
of that tribe, you like it or not, every WASP will tell you that.



This is nonsense.
You can't consider yourself a grandson of you grandfather.
You are a grandson, or you are not. This is what you consider is irrelevant.
If you consider - you allready are saying, that you are wannabe.

I am related closer to R1 Irishman than too I1 Pole, becasue with
R1 Irishman I am a member of the same tree, and our common ancestor
is closer to us both, than common ancestor with I1. More than that, long
time ago descendants of R1 were made a different tribe than descendants
of I1, spoke different languages, lived in dofferent places, look differently
aso - i.e. were a representants of two different entities. from which R1 I,
the same as I1 are descendent. I1 is not a descendant of R1 group the
same as I am, and cannot be from I1 group, even if I would want to.

It is just a fact, no need for consideration.

And yet, without haplogroups, you would know none of this. You say it's nonsense, but then you turn around and say that, yes, an R1 Irishman (and therefore, an R1 Fulani, as well) is closer to you than an I1 Pole. Without haplogroups, apparently you wouldn't know your own family. That's one reason why ethnicity and race are more important than patrilineality.

And it is a matter of opinion and self-identification. There is no natural law in this regard, so far as I can see it. Most Poles, I daresay, care more about other Poles than their haplogroup brothers in other countries.

[Rethel]

This seems irrelevant, since a Canadian-American war would not be a racial one, and there are plenty of white Americans for whom to fight.

I am only trying to show you, that you are in one group with black
people, with which, you would act against other whites - so obviously,
these Blacks are closer to you, even if they are not related.

It was your main argument at the beginning. Similar situation is with
R1 Blacks and R1 whites. But in addition, R1 Blacks are related and
descendant from R1 whites. So, if you are with non related Blaks in
one group, there more, you shouldn;t have probalmes with relatives.


And yet, without haplogroups, you would know none of this.

Yes, of course, this is why HG is such great tool!
BUT without hg principles were the same. Before
the hg were invented I have theoretical german
"hg" - becasue it was my oldest known ancestor.
Ad every ethnicity, legendarly, was also realted
patrilinearly. But circumstances where different
of course, and since I bacame aware, that in the
Europe were earlier different people, I was very
curious, as many other people, who I am. It was
for me even quite exating, that I can be OE, or
UF, not IE, but I landed as IE. I even "invented"
such possiblity as Y genetic testing, i.e. I think
about such possiblity, that one day it will happen.
And when after many years I heard about such
possibility, I didn;t hesitate one day, but I found
the laboratoty and made a test. Im probably the
(or one of) oldest tested person on this forum...


You say it's nonsense,

And I explained it. You didn;t got it.
The nonsense was about "to consider self" someone or related to.
You can;t consider relation or provenance, becasue it is a fact.


but then you turn around and say that, yes, an R1 Irishman (and therefore, an R1 Fulani, as well) is closer to you than an I1 Pole.

Yes.


Without haplogroups, apparently you wouldn't know your own family.

Yes, I wouldn't, not becasue we would not
realted, but becasue we losted our pedegrees.

If you would find out, that you have a five year old son,
and in addition, the mother would go to the court to make
you a father, do you think, that judge would agree with such
statement of yours: oh, but I didn;t know this without genetic
testing, so becasue I lived in ingnorance so long, he is not my son...

Man, we live in different epoche, than yet 20 years ago!
It is like day and night in history and genealogy.
But the principle is still the same as it was.
Only METHODS OF PROOVING are better.


That's one reason why ethnicity and race are more important than patrilineality.

Maybe if you are colectivist, but I am not,
and tradictional christian, european and IE
values were not either.

Blind collectivism is a way of thinking of weak people,
commes, bastards and jews, who suffer on something
similar to OWD. Quite childlish attitude, based mainly on
this, what was told to the guy in childhood by ignorant
or foreign people (for example in kindergarten).


And it is a matter of opinion and self-identification.

So, now I will be a Chinese, can I??? :fcrazy:


There is no natural law in this regard,

99,5% of people and 99,9999999999999999999999999999999% of cultures are wrong?

[Smitty]

I am only trying to show you, that you are in one group with black
people, with which, you would act against other whites - so obviously,
these Blacks are closer to you, even if they are not related.

It was your main argument at the beginning. Similar situation is with
R1 Blacks and R1 whites. But in addition, R1 Blacks are related and
descendant from R1 whites. So, if you are with non related Blaks in
one group, there more, you shouldn;t have probalmes with relatives.


This would be true if there were no whites in America. But at that point, I would realign myself with Canada or Britain. Ultimately, I'm much more similar to a white Canadian than a black American.

I'm not saying I would feel nothing for a mulatto nephew...only that he would be an outsider on some level.



Yes, of course, this is why HG is such great tool!
BUT without hg principles were the same. Before
the hg were invented I have theoretical german
"hg" - becasue it was my oldest known ancestor.
Ad every ethnicity, legendarly, was also realted
patrilinearly. But circumstances where different
of course, and since I bacame aware, that in the
Europe were earlier different people, I was very
curious, as many other people, who I am. It was
for me even quite exating, that I can be OE, or
UF, not IE, but I landed as IE. I even "invented"
such possiblity as Y genetic testing, i.e. I think
about such possiblity, that one day it will happen.
And when after many years I heard about such
possibility, I didn;t hesitate one day, but I found
the laboratoty and made a test. Im probably the
(or one of) oldest tested person on this forum...

In that case, haplogroups have reinvented nations? Because 50 years ago, a Pole would have called all Poles his nearest kin. And now that we're finding out that each nation has a range of haplogroups, you're saying these nations don't exist and, really, Europe is a heterogeneous mass of very intermingled tribes, many of which extend into other racial groups.





And I explained it. You didn;t got it.
The nonsense was about "to consider self" someone or related to.
You can;t consider relation or provenance, becasue it is a fact.

Okay. Of course, one's descent is a fact. But whether one chooses to identify with one's ethnicity as opposed to one's yDNA is a choice.




Yes.



Yes, I wouldn't, not becasue we would not
realted, but becasue we losted our pedegrees.

If you would find out, that you have a five year old son,
and in addition, the mother would go to the court to make
you a father, do you think, that judge would agree with such
statement of yours: oh, but I didn;t know this without genetic
testing, so becasue I lived in ingnorance so long, he is not my son...

Man, we live in different epoche, than yet 20 years ago!
It is like day and night in history and genealogy.
But the principle is still the same as it was.
Only METHODS OF PROOVING are better.
And these genetic revelations are upending everything we've believed about who we and our countrymen are? The vast majority of R1s will not consider themselves more similar to R1 Africans than people of their ethnicity based on haplogroup science.





Maybe if you are colectivist, but I am not,
and tradictional christian, european and IE
values were not either.

Blind collectivism is a way of thinking of weak people,
commes, bastards and jews, who suffer on something
similar to OWD. Quite childlish attitude, based mainly on
this, what was told to the guy in childhood by ignorant
or foreign people (for example in kindergarten).



So, now I will be a Chinese, can I??? :fcrazy:



99,5% of people and 99,9999999999999999999999999999999% of cultures are wrong?

You can't be Chinese, but you can decide whether you identify with your haplogroup or your ethnicity. Yours happen to align (although even that is debatable), but if I were 99% Chinese and raised in China, I would identify as Chinese before identifying with my European yDNA.

And it seems to me that most cultures (at least Western ones, with which I'm more familiar) take a mixed approach like myself. We emphasize paternity over maternity, but not to the dismissal of ethnicity. I don't see how this makes me collectivist. I'm not sure what you mean by collectivism here.

[Rethel]

This would be true if there were no whites in America. But at that point, I would realign myself with Canada or Britain. Ultimately, I'm much more similar to a white Canadian than a black American.

But still, you are in one national group
with Blacks, as I am with other Poles :)


I'm not saying I would feel nothing for a mulatto nephew...only that he would be an outsider on some level.

Only, if you would convinst yourself.

Btw, every single person is some kind of outsider, depending what thing is taken unto account.
If yur white nephew would be born in Soviet Russia, beliving in Communism, he also would be
kind of outsider, even being white, but he would be still a part of Smitty group.

The only difference between race and other factors is, that you see this.
If he would be autosomally in 98% negro, but with white ouside look, you
would not see this difference... so, it is only ostensible factor.


In that case, haplogroups have reinvented nations?

It depends what you mean as a nation.
But certainly remake personal roots.


Because 50 years ago, a Pole would have called all Poles his nearest kin.

On the same lavel as today. Rather nothing changed here, exapt better evidence method.
Among Poles is a lot of Germans, Lithuanians, Russians, Prussians, Tatars, Jews, Armenians,
Latvians, Greeks, Karaims, Czechs, Swedes, aso. and they were - every one separatly - Pole
in different meaning, with their own roots. The thing which changed is rather on big level.

For example, someone thought, that he is Slav, IE, becasue his oldest ancestor lived in
Poland 500 years ago. He discovered, that he has hg N, so obviously he discovered, that
he is not Slav and IE, so, he is of different background as he thought previously.

On the other hand, someone who thought, that is a Tatar, becasue his oldest ancestor
was a Tatar 300 years ago, discovered, that he is actually a IE, so it made him closer
to his polishness, becasue he discovered, that he is not Altaic, as he thiought previously,
but IE. It is quite suimilar as in America, but we have smaller number of concious people.

So the difference is really not so big. If you have people of Finnish, Tatar, Baltic, Germanic,
Turkish, Jewish, even Amerindian (sic!) aso provenance, and now you have inhabitants of
Poland of deeper roots, like IE, OE, Altaic, Anatolian, Hamitic aso provenance - so what's
the general difference? Principle the same, awarness of people bigger. I see only pluses.


nearest kin.

No, it is false subconciouss assumption, that people who look similarly or speak the
same language (rather this second factor) are kins, descendants of the same guy.
It is enaugh to read old chronicles, to see, that it was understand like that.


Because 50 years ago, a Pole would have called all Poles his nearest kin.

Pole?! No!!! Especially not a Pole! :)
Even yet in times which I remamber, when
communism falled, would not be like that.
Probably still you can find whole villages or areas,
where people speaking polish, do not consider people
from neighbouring village as kins. I in my childhood
would not all consider as kins, now, it doesn;t matter
so much, becasue I have better thing to worry about
(like religion or my IEness), but Pole and Pole - these
are not equal things.

Exept of normal ethnicities, which were a part of polish nation,
which I enumerate earlier, we had much more important division.

One part was a descendants of Japheth, and
second part of people - descendants of Ham.

I am according to this division from Japheth, many of my
colleagues in scholl were from ham. And they were not my
kins. But it doesn;t mean, that we hate each other, don;t
talk or something like that. But in other parts of the state,
on the country, the such things did happen. 50 years ago,
which you are saying about, Hamites were called niggaz,
(not verbaly, but it is good equivalent). And they did not
consider each other kins - exactly, becasue they thought
that they are descendants of different guys.

Thank you, for suggesting me, to make that point. :)


And now that we're finding out that each nation has a range of haplogroups,

We did also find, that each hg corelate with different distinguish group of people,
which have different language - what exactly fits to tradition, history and principles.
It is huge, and can;t be meaningless.


you're saying these nations don't exist and,

Did you see me talking about modern, so called nations?
BUT, you can fit to the nation (language, tradition) or not so much.
Example: R1 Scott fits, becasue Scots are IE, but I2 Scott not so much.
N1 Finn fits, because Finns are Uralic, but R1 - not so much. Aso.


really, Europe is a heterogeneous mass of very intermingled tribes, many of which extend into other racial groups.

Yes, exactly it is as you said here.
Regardless, what you will take unto
account; racially, it is one big mix too.



But whether one chooses to identify with one's ethnicity as opposed to one's yDNA is a choice.

Only, if ethnicity is a choice at all. With time, it is going not so well.

If it is - i do not care, becasue I am interested only in inheritable entities,
and I do not care how you will name it. Unfortunatly, english is so stupid
language (or it's useres, idk who more) that has no proper vocabulary for
it as far as I know, and if has some borrowed proper words then is making
a mass with the meaning. So, you must feel the context on your own.


And these genetic revelations are upending everything we've believed about who we and our countrymen are?

What if anthropologist, archeologist, historian would tell you different thing
'as you, and all until now knew? Would you reject it, becasue earlier you
didn;t know? In Poland historians were talking us, once, that we are Valndals,
another time, that we are Slavs, another time - thet Iranians... should we
stick to the oldest idea?

More than that, not so long ago it was taught, that IEs are from Scandinavia
in USA as well as in Europe or that are from India. Should we stick to which
theory? Only, becasue you used to something, it doesn't mean it is correct,
and that everything what contradict to it, you should automatically reject.
It would be very childlish or villagish - choose, what you prefer :)


The vast majority of R1s will not consider themselves more similar to R1
Africans than people of their ethnicity based on haplogroup science.

It depends, what you suggest them and if they were properly raised.


You can't be Chinese,

You said, you can choose, why I cannot? :pout:


but you can decide whether you identify with your haplogroup or your ethnicity.

You see - you are confused, and you can;t get the clear answer :)

Either, I can choose ethnicity, becaseu it is only matter of chioce,
either, I cannot, becasue such and such proofs, are proving, that I belong here or here.

Basically you sad something like that: you can choose: unchoisable or choicable. :)
What in practic means, that both are matter of choice, what means also, that
there is no unchoicable option. Unchioceable means - unchiceable for me and
you in the same circumctances, according to the same rules.

And this is why you can chose citizenship, but
you can't choose the tribe which are you from,
the same as you can;t chose, who made you.


Yours happen to align (although even that is debatable),

I dont get it.


but if I were 99% Chinese and raised in China, I would identify as Chinese before identifying with my European yDNA.

But 99% of what?

If I (or my parents) would move to America, I would
identyfying as American, but still would be from Poland,
and of German provenance. Actual place of living has
nothing to do with inheritable identity. There are also
whites in China, who identify with China. Of course,
there is some dissagreement when you think about it,
so if you feel that, you should also understand, why
Semite, claiming that is an Aryan is something strange.
Unfortunatly, you don;t - but it is exatly the same, as
whites identifying with china. You must see it by the
principal and spiritual eyes, not material.


And it seems to me that most cultures (at least Western ones, with which I'm more familiar) take a mixed approach like myself. We emphasize paternity over maternity, but not to the dismissal of ethnicity.

I gave you many examples, which you ignored,
like Pushkin and Dumas, redhead Poles, aso.


I don't see how this makes me collectivist.

If for you I1 and R1 guys are the same, only becasue
they look similarly and were taught, that they are X,
not knowng, that they are not, and after discovering,
that they are not, you still stick to the first option, it
means, that you are collectivist, becasue you want to
stick to the collective, not to the individual features of
yours. I could claim, that I am the poliest Pole ever, as
some people do, and prettend, that I have nonoe, any
individual distingtion, the same as people, who actually
are in the same situation as I, BUT DO NOT KNOW THIS.
But not knowing, doesn;t change the fact, and the main
test for you came, when you are becoming aware or the
fact (becasue for example genealogiest find it for you, or
maybe you, on your own). You can absorbe this - as you
should - or deny it, pretending, that you don;t want know.


I'm not sure what you mean by collectivism here.

As above. Shortly: If collective decide who you are,
not your own singular situation, individual history,
family, tradition of that family, own provenance.

[Smitty]

But still, you are in one national group
with Blacks, as I am with other Poles :)

But why should we care about national groups? American blacks are tangential to my loyalty to America, which is really loyalty to a white America. I don't see why you should feel any special loyalty to Poland when half of your erstwhile countrymen have a different haplogroup to yours and many of your extended "family" live elsewhere.




Only, if you would convinst yourself.

Btw, every single person is some kind of outsider, depending what thing is taken unto account.
If yur white nephew would be born in Soviet Russia, beliving in Communism, he also would be
kind of outsider, even being white, but he would be still a part of Smitty group.

The only difference between race and other factors is, that you see this.
If he would be autosomally in 98% negro, but with white ouside look, you
would not see this difference... so, it is only ostensible factor.

Again, it's more than visible. There's precious little that isn't influenced by our genes. Nonetheless, I recognize that my exclusion (if it can be called that) of mixed relatives is a personal preference. I think it is a sensible one and has great precedent, but it is a preference. Some would make no such differentiation.


It depends what you mean as a nation.
But certainly remake personal roots.



On the same lavel as today. Rather nothing changed here, exapt better evidence method.
Among Poles is a lot of Germans, Lithuanians, Russians, Prussians, Tatars, Jews, Armenians,
Latvians, Greeks, Karaims, Czechs, Swedes, aso. and they were - every one separatly - Pole
in different meaning, with their own roots. The thing which changed is rather on big level.

For example, someone thought, that he is Slav, IE, becasue his oldest ancestor lived in
Poland 500 years ago. He discovered, that he has hg N, so obviously he discovered, that
he is not Slav and IE, so, he is of different background as he thought previously.

On the other hand, someone who thought, that is a Tatar, becasue his oldest ancestor
was a Tatar 300 years ago, discovered, that he is actually a IE, so it made him closer
to his polishness, becasue he discovered, that he is not Altaic, as he thiought previously,
but IE. It is quite suimilar as in America, but we have smaller number of concious people.

So the difference is really not so big. If you have people of Finnish, Tatar, Baltic, Germanic,
Turkish, Jewish, even Amerindian (sic!) aso provenance, and now you have inhabitants of
Poland of deeper roots, like IE, OE, Altaic, Anatolian, Hamitic aso provenance - so what's
the general difference? Principle the same, awarness of people bigger. I see only pluses.

All of this, only if one cares more about his paternal line than the rest of his ancestry. And as I posited above, why consider all these people your countrymen if they are of different "families"?




No, it is false subconciouss assumption, that people who look similarly or speak the
same language (rather this second factor) are kins, descendants of the same guy.
It is enaugh to read old chronicles, to see, that it was understand like that.



Pole?! No!!! Especially not a Pole! :)
Even yet in times which I remamber, when
communism falled, would not be like that.
Probably still you can find whole villages or areas,
where people speaking polish, do not consider people
from neighbouring village as kins. I in my childhood
would not all consider as kins, now, it doesn;t matter
so much, becasue I have better thing to worry about
(like religion or my IEness), but Pole and Pole - these
are not equal things.

Exept of normal ethnicities, which were a part of polish nation,
which I enumerate earlier, we had much more important division.

One part was a descendants of Japheth, and
second part of people - descendants of Ham.

I am according to this division from Japheth, many of my
colleagues in scholl were from ham. And they were not my
kins. But it doesn;t mean, that we hate each other, don;t
talk or something like that. But in other parts of the state,
on the country, the such things did happen. 50 years ago,
which you are saying about, Hamites were called niggaz,
(not verbaly, but it is good equivalent). And they did not
consider each other kins - exactly, becasue they thought
that they are descendants of different guys.

Thank you, for suggesting me, to make that point. :)

Ok, Poland isn't a great example. But given that there is haplogroup variation in every (?) ethnic group, my point is that people you would have considered your broader kin prior to the advent of haplogroup science are now no longer so, if you give haplogroups so much weight. You're essentially saying that the ethnic nations of Europe of the past 2,000 years were a fraud, and we're discovering only now the truth about who we are.


We did also find, that each hg corelate with different distinguish group of people,
which have different language - what exactly fits to tradition, history and principles.
It is huge, and can;t be meaningless.



Did you see me talking about modern, so called nations?
BUT, you can fit to the nation (language, tradition) or not so much.
Example: R1 Scott fits, becasue Scots are IE, but I2 Scott not so much.
N1 Finn fits, because Finns are Uralic, but R1 - not so much. Aso.



Yes, exactly it is as you said here.
Regardless, what you will take unto
account; racially, it is one big mix too.


My point is, what's the point in defining family paternally, if you can't even know who that family is; if that family is so broad and estranged that its members have literally nothing more in common than a haplogroup, which itself was unknown throughout history? It seems a very weak plank on which to build an idea of family.


Only, if ethnicity is a choice at all. With time, it is going not so well.

If it is - i do not care, becasue I am interested only in inheritable entities,
and I do not care how you will name it. Unfortunatly, english is so stupid
language (or it's useres, idk who more) that has no proper vocabulary for
it as far as I know, and if has some borrowed proper words then is making
a mass with the meaning. So, you must feel the context on your own.



What if anthropologist, archeologist, historian would tell you different thing
'as you, and all until now knew? Would you reject it, becasue earlier you
didn;t know? In Poland historians were talking us, once, that we are Valndals,
another time, that we are Slavs, another time - thet Iranians... should we
stick to the oldest idea?

More than that, not so long ago it was taught, that IEs are from Scandinavia
in USA as well as in Europe or that are from India. Should we stick to which
theory? Only, becasue you used to something, it doesn't mean it is correct,
and that everything what contradict to it, you should automatically reject.
It would be very childlish or villagish - choose, what you prefer :)

I'm not stuck on tradition. But I see no reason to change it just because we've found out that a German and a Pakistani could presumably descend from a common ancestor.


It depends, what you suggest them and if they were properly raised.



You said, you can choose, why I cannot? :pout:



You see - you are confused, and you can;t get the clear answer :)

Either, I can choose ethnicity, becaseu it is only matter of chioce,
either, I cannot, becasue such and such proofs, are proving, that I belong here or here.

Basically you sad something like that: you can choose: unchoisable or choicable. :)
What in practic means, that both are matter of choice, what means also, that
there is no unchoicable option. Unchioceable means - unchiceable for me and
you in the same circumctances, according to the same rules.

And this is why you can chose citizenship, but
you can't choose the tribe which are you from,
the same as you can;t chose, who made you.

You can't choose your genetic makeup. You can choose whether you value that autosomal makeup more or less than your haplogroup. You talk as if our haplogroups (which are unchangeable, biological fact) are the indisputable definer of our identity. That is what I disagree with. Whether you identify with your 99% Chinese genes or your 1% European haplogroup is a choice.



I dont get it.



But 99% of what?

If I (or my parents) would move to America, I would
identyfying as American, but still would be from Poland,
and of German provenance. Actual place of living has
nothing to do with inheritable identity. There are also
whites in China, who identify with China. Of course,
there is some dissagreement when you think about it,
so if you feel that, you should also understand, why
Semite, claiming that is an Aryan is something strange.
Unfortunatly, you don;t - but it is exatly the same, as
whites identifying with china. You must see it by the
principal and spiritual eyes, not material.



I gave you many examples, which you ignored,
like Pushkin and Dumas, redhead Poles, aso.
I thought the redheaded Poles was a hypothetical. Even so, I said that it's not about something as superficial as hair color. That's only one small reflection of one's genome. For all I know, a population's hair color could change over time due to natural selection, not a population change.



If for you I1 and R1 guys are the same, only becasue
they look similarly and were taught, that they are X,
not knowng, that they are not, and after discovering,
that they are not, you still stick to the first option, it
means, that you are collectivist, becasue you want to
stick to the collective, not to the individual features of
yours. I could claim, that I am the poliest Pole ever, as
some people do, and prettend, that I have nonoe, any
individual distingtion, the same as people, who actually
are in the same situation as I, BUT DO NOT KNOW THIS.
But not knowing, doesn;t change the fact, and the main
test for you came, when you are becoming aware or the
fact (becasue for example genealogiest find it for you, or
maybe you, on your own). You can absorbe this - as you
should - or deny it, pretending, that you don;t want know.



As above. Shortly: If collective decide who you are,
not your own singular situation, individual history,
family, tradition of that family, own provenance.

I consider the R1 Pole and the I1 Pole the same because their DNA, as a whole, is extraordinarily similar...likely more so than to anyone outside of the Polish ethnic group as it is commonly accepted to be. I don't think that makes me any more collectivist than you. You consider R1s a group, irrespective of their autosomal, linguistic, cultural differences, etc. I take those individual differences (primarily the first) into account when discussing a person's ethnic identity.

EDIT: By the way, we can call it quits and agree to disagree. :)

[Rethel]

But why should we care about national groups?

You suggested that it matters :p


American blacks are tangential to my loyalty to America, which is really loyalty to a white America.

You wish :p


I don't see why you should feel any special loyalty to Poland when half of your erstwhile countrymen have a different haplogroup

This is another example, when you are showing colectivistic thinking.
Imagine, yet 150 years ago, only 7-10% of inhabitants of Poland was
real Poles, theoretical kinsmen. According to your proposition, they
should hate Poland - but actually, they builed a local empire :)

And no half, but 15-35% depending on data.


to yours and many of your extended "family" live elsewhere.

It is always surprising me, that some people
cannot think otherwise, than: must be only
ours in that box. Collectivism again.

If you would be identify yourself individually,
you wouldn;t bother were you live, who does
live around you, and how do you look.


Again, it's more than visible. There's precious little that isn't influenced by our genes. Nonetheless, I recognize that my exclusion (if it can be called that) of mixed relatives is a personal preference. I think it is a sensible one and has great precedent, but it is a preference. Some would make no such differentiation.

When you will be a king of Indoeuropeans, you can legally divie them
on White IEs, black IEs, yellow IEs, and whatever you wish, giving
them gifferent rights. BUT they still will be IEs.

Imagine, that those nonR1 whites, are exactly the same "mutants" as non
white IEs, but in different direction, "corrupting" your precious white folk.
You see this collectlivelly - from the point of view of white collective, not
from the point of your view, becasue you allow a collective to define you.


All of this, only if one cares more about his paternal line than the rest of his ancestry.

Just you show, that you have wrong ideas, and it made you to make wrong conclusions.

1. Only patrilineal line = ancestry. Normal people do not even
use the term paternal line. I never did, until I join that forum.
2. Ascendants are not important in normal family - they
became "important too much" in disfuncional family.

3. Assuming, that "only if some cares" is also wrong, becasue it is not about anybody preferences.
The same you can say: I must do this and this, ONLY if a care about parents, children, country, aso,
if I choose not - then I have to not, and truly - noobody has too. If it would be about wishfull thinking,
then whole disscussion would be pointless. And the same would be in any other topic. Simply, there are
things which are not dependant on somebody's wishes.


And as I posited above, why consider all these people your countrymen if they are of different "families"?

Becasue, as the term is saying, they all live in one country?
Why do you considers people living in your town, cotownmen?
If your closest neighbour would be black, you would say, that
he is not neaighbour, just, becasue he is black? :)


Ok, Poland isn't a great example.

But the same was/is in every other european country or IE society.


But given that there is haplogroup variation in every (?) ethnic group,

Yes, there is, only, becasue so called ethnic groups
(from sometimes XIXth century) are made teritorrially,
vertically. But I am watching horizotarly.


my point is that people you would have considered your broader kin prior to the advent of haplogroup science are now no longer so, if you give haplogroups so much weight.

You mean, that earlier it was possible to consider them kins, but now don't?

Yes, because the "consideration" is always (has to be) made basing on possibilities of prooving something.
For example, before genetic era, you have to "consider" child born by you wife, as yours, but now, you do
not have to. earier, the only proof, that it was your child, was the fact, that she is your wife, but now, you
can check it, especially if you have doubts. Would you in obvious "wrong" situation say, that you will always
consider every child as yours becasue in pre genetic era, it was the only way of prooving and you were then
considering all children delivered by your wife, as yours? Probably not, becasue the methods of prooving did
many earlier necessary presumptions, useless. BUT then, they were needed.

And no sane person 20 years ago did not claim, that all Poles came from IE forefather, becasue it was known,
that some people are Old europeans, and some are Indoeuropeans, but we couldnt sday who is who. Now it is
possible, and if you would be told since the early childhood, that you are IE, and neighbour dont (becasue you
would have genealogical proof for example) it would be for you obvious. Now it can be obvious for your child.
Exactkly tyhe same, as earlier was obvious, that one is a Pole, and second a German.


You're essentially saying that the ethnic nations of Europe of the past 2,000 years were a fraud,

Yes and no.
Theoretically yes, but prectlically, they were true according to the time and methods of prooving.
And also, I never said, that every group of people, has to be from one ancestor, but if a group does
claim it, or identify herself, as of such and such provenance, then there are be people, who are true
and who are not. For example, Americans, do not claim, that they are one tribe, BUT if they are defying
themselves as IEs, then there will be people, who are IE, and who are not. If they define themselves, that
are germanic nation, and there will be R1 who are not germanic, then they will not fit in that group.

On the other hand, Jews are define per religion, so everybody can be.

BUT when they are starting claiming, that are children of Jacob - then only maybe even only 6% are true.

And as you can see on the ecample of these two groups, sooner or later, people
are going to feel their tribal identoty, even if founders did not think about it. You
are also an example of that, becasue you are making the americaness narrower to
whites; why? becasue founders where white and from Europe. It is natural, exactkly
the same is in "hg" sphere.


and we're discovering only now the truth about who we are.

Yes, now we are discovering, who we really are.
Exactly the same, as if you would not know your genealogy exapt your father and
gradfather (or maybe not even them as it is in the case of orfans or adopted children)
and you would searching, discovering, that your real surname is such and such (casue
bad people change it), that you are from such and such country, and that your primal
ancestor was a nobleman, and you did inherit this status. Would you reject it? Even if,
thousands of thousands of living examples witness, that it is not how people behave.


My point is, what's the point in defining family paternally, if you can't even know who that family is;

The minimum point is always the same in great scale as in small scale: thruth and principle.


if that family is so broad and estranged that its members have literally nothing more in common than a haplogroup,

Does 1.5 bln Chinese is meaningless, becasue they are so numerous?

would you prefer your descendants to recognize you as their forefather and themselves
as a members of your family, or would you be fine, if they would forget about you, and
become a parts of somebody else's families, becasue they would decide, that they like
them more, pretending, that they are descendants of another guy than you??

It would be ok, if your sons or grandsons would stick to your neighbours, not to you?


which itself was unknown throughout history?

As I said previously, many things were unknown in the past, and this is why it is so
fascinating to find the truth. Btw, this is probably also the reason, why you are here.

You like it or not, it is natural human instinct. He can be feed with truth or lies.
Every historian, adopted children searching for their parents and politicians, who
are making some kind of historical policy (everyone does) are prooving it. You can
do the same, giving something to the futuire about the past and truth, or not, actualy
becing overcome by those, who do, becasue there will be people who will do anyway.


It seems a very weak plank on which to build an idea of family.

It is the very good foundation to build, the only senseable, and actually, only existing.
Any other mishmash ideas are gone in history, the same as people who tried it. You can
search almost wereever and whenever you want to, and you will find the same principle,
the same model, easy and clear and working.


I'm not stuck on tradition. But I see no reason to change it just because we've found out that a German and a Pakistani could presumably descend from a common ancestor.

But it was allready found 300 years ago, and truly known since thousands of
yaers, even in Antiquity. Even the name of comon forefather is and was known.
It is nithung knew. We only didn;t know, how many of us and them is us.


You can't choose your genetic makeup. You can choose whether you value that autosomal makeup more or less than your haplogroup.

Sorry, but it has no sense.
If I have 2% of bantu autosomal, I can say, I am Bantuman? :laugh:


You talk as if our haplogroups (which are unchangeable, biological fact) are the indisputable definer of our identity.

No, i am not saying that. I am saying, that hg are a proof of descending from such and such guy.
And this is our ancestor who determine who we are, becasue when you was born, it was your closest
ancestor who decided who you are, and the same was with him aso aso, amnd whith whole family since
the beginning of her existing, and earlier, when some subtribe or previous clan existed and aso aso.

Also, it doesn;t mean, that there is no variates. Of course there are differences, even without hgs.
For example polish Germans are not the same as german Germans, and not the same as Volga Germans,
and not the same as namibian ones - but all are Germans. The same with Indoeuropeans - all are IEs,
but there are different groups: Slavs, Celts, Greeks, Whites, Blacks, R1a, R1bab8, europeans, americans,
australians, sibirians, redheads, blondes, brunettes, poor, rich, middle class, Christians, jews, muslims,
socialists, capitalists, monarchists, republicans, Poles, French, aso aso aso...

I can also claim, that true IE should be only a christian, monarchist and rich - but you would not agree to that..
The same is with negros among us. It would be nice, if all would remian in the original race, but reality is different.
Even at the very beginning IEs didn't care about race. Otherwise, they would not be buying caucasian concubines
on mass scale, they would decimated whole WGH and Farmerian population of Europe, not mixing with it.


That is what I disagree with. Whether you identify with your 99% Chinese genes or your 1% European haplogroup is a choice.

No, is not. You cannot change both.
You cannot choose to be white, the same, as you canjot chiise to be a Chinese-born O3 since ever.


I thought the redheaded Poles was a hypothetical.

Were hypothetical, but not unpossible, and it was anexample to rethink and answer. :)


Even so, I said that it's not about something as superficial as hair color. That's only one small reflection of one's genome.

Oh, come, one. It you would have two sepatraeted population,
one redheads and one brunettes, they would look at each other
like different races. Btwm nordicists do not even want people with
brown hair among them, and you are saying, that is meaningless. :)


For all I know, a population's hair color could change over time due to natural selection, not a population change.

The same with skin colour :)
In mixed population paler people or darker people can be selected.


I consider the R1 Pole and the I1 Pole the same because their DNA, as a whole, is extraordinarily similar...

One is IE second is not. What is so difficult here?

White bastard of your wife would be more genetically
similar than your own child with chinese woman. And what?
Would it really matter for you?


likely more so than to anyone outside of the Polish ethnic group as it is commonly accepted to be.

Polishness is more a matter of citizenship or provenance than race. Is not race at all.


I don't think that makes me any more collectivist than you.

You compare a little different things, but nevermind. Individualist is looking
on his own past, which is independent from others, collectivust, firstky is
looking on others and his present state more that his own specifics.

If I would be a collectivist, I would be saying, that I am the truest, oldest
Pole ever, and I do not care about anything esle, becaseu I was told it in
scholl, I look similarly as such people, I speak as such people, and everybody
which I know is Pole, so am I too, because I want to.

As individualist, I am saying, that I am of german provenance (at least as
far as I know), a szlachtaman, an Indoeuropean, not becasue I want too,
not becaseu granny said so, or scholl said so, but because it was like that
in truth, my father, my grandfather, my greatgrandfather aso was such,
and I am, and my sons, and grandsons and every next generation would
be such also, regardless, where they will live, because they can;t change
the history, their family, and their tribe in which they are born.


You consider R1s a group, irrespective of their autosomal, linguistic, cultural differences, etc.

But respective of provenacne and ancestry of every single one of them separetly.


I take those individual differences (primarily the first) into account when discussing a person's ethnic identity.

But I am not saying, that turkish R1 is a Pole or that chineses R1 is a Frenchman, do I? :)


EDIT: By the way, we can call it quits and agree to disagree. :)

No, because I am right :p

[Leto]

Autosomal composition as well as culture (language, religion, etc.) is what matters the most. I won't start identifying as Aryan, Finn or Viking if I find out I'm R1, N1c or I1. That would not make any sense.

[knowledge is king]

Autosomal composition as well as culture (language, religion, etc.) is what matters the most. I won't start identifying as Aryan, Finn or Viking if I find out I'm R1, N1c or I1. That would not make any sense.

Rethel is quite an educated person, I doubt he is suggesting what he is saying openly.

From the beginning this conversation have no meaning. It may be originated and viable in some bizzare mind.

Identification is a social subject, this have no relation to genetics.

[Rethel]

Autosomal composition as well as culture (language, religion, etc.) is what matters the most.

As Łyssy (lastly on the top) would be saying: don't be butthurt little jewish brother :p


I won't start identifying as Aryan, Finn or Viking if I find out I'm R1, N1c or I1. That would not make any sense.

I1 is not only viking, probably very few I1 were vikings anyway.

N1c is not finnish only, but generally Ugrofinian. Identyfying as
IE having N1 has much, much less sense than as Finn (which I
did never sugested).

R1 as Aryan it is very disscussable, becasue this word has many
meanings, and if you would read me as I am writing, you would
see, that I probably never suggested that R1 = Aryan, but when
you would use that word as synonim of IE, then yes, but because
of the controversy in the meaning, I dont use it, and dont promote it.

Did you order the Y-test, as normal human being? :)

[wvwvw]

Im 181. I have sense of humor and I will keep that bunny photo forever. you creeepy little arab.

Brave words for someone who is a christian arab (aka greek) and pretends to be female, we all know you have hairy dark balls. you are probably attracted to males though as many greek men are. why are so obsessed with me by the way? i dont give a fcyuk about greeks. why do you attack everyone?

Look who's calling others arabs, the stocky midget that looks like a cross between an arab and a mongoloid sandnigger and who comes out genetically as 50% Turk :lol:

You are not an a centimetre taller than 1,65 midget, pictures don't lie. Go grow a dick because you are a disgrace to the male gender. You shouldn't even be called male little bunny faggot.

You'd be considered a sandnigger anywhere in Greece including Cyprus. Ironically, you're the epitomy of sandnigger.

[Kazbolat]

Look who's calling others arabs, the stocky midget that looks like a cross between an arab and a mongoloid sandnigger and who comes out genetically as 50% Turk :lol:

You are not an a centimetre taller than 1,65 midget, pictures don't lie. Go grow a dick because you are a disgrace to the male gender. You shouldn't even be called male little bunny faggot.

You'd be considered a sandnigger anywhere in Greece including Cyprus. Ironically, you're the epitomy of sandnigger.

Greeks are christian arabs PERIOD
http://www.greeksongs-greekmusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/crete-dancers.jpg

[Leto]

Did you order the Y-test, as normal human being? :)
No. I cannot afford a Y-DNA test for like $170. The MyOrigins test is enough for me for the moment, because race and ancestry matter more than haplogroups. Anyway, mine is either R1 or I1/2 or, less likely N1c, 'cause my paternal line is from Minsk oblast, Belarus.

[Rethel]

because race

So, did you start to grow payot? :rolleyes:


and ancestry matter more than haplogroups.

Hg is showing you your ancestry... :picard2:
Very precisly and direkt.


Anyway, mine is either R1 or I1/2 or, less likely N1c, 'cause my paternal line is from Minsk oblast, Belarus.

R1 or I1 or I2 or N1 or whatever... every one
can say something like that, but it has no sense.


No. I cannot afford a Y-DNA test for like $170.

And how much did you pay for au?

[Leto]

So, did you start to grow payot? :rolleyes:
Hg is showing you your ancestry... :picard2:
Very precisly and direkt.

R1 or I1 or I2 or N1 or whatever... every one
can say something like that, but it has no sense.

Okay, Tomorrow I would learn I'm _ or _. How would my perception of myself change thereafter? Would I become another person? Obviously not. I already have an identity and other people take me for what I am. Serisouly, man, you are extremely obsessed with Y-DNA. People have lived and died for thousands of years without having the slightest idea of what a haplogroup is. Even now most people would have to google the definition. How can such knowledge be of the essence to an individual's identity if most are still completely unaware of it?

And how much did you pay for au?
I paid $72 including shipping costs.

[Rethel]

Okay, Tomorrow I would learn I'm _ or _. How would my perception of myself change thereafter? Would I become another person? Obviously not. I already have an identity and other people take me for what I am. Serisouly, man, you are extremely obsessed with Y-DNA. People have lived and died for thousands of years without having the slightest idea of what a haplogroup is. Even now most people would have to google the definition. How can such knowledge be of the essence to an individual's identity if most are still completely unaware of it?

You obviously don;t understand the matter, and I really do not want explain
it 1002th time to a person, who do not want even listen what is really saying.

And you are wrong, about not knowing, they did, but this knowledge was limited.

[Rethel]

;)

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?50755-Members-of-the-Apricity-How-Do-You-Imagine-Them&p=4389738&viewfull=1#post4389738

[Leto]

You obviously don;t understand the matter, and I really do not want explain
it 1002th time to a person, who do not want even listen what is really saying.

And you are wrong, about not knowing, they did, but this knowledge was limited.
I remember most of your arguments. Let's agree to disagree. In short, I believe that is definitely interesting information, but not so important in everyday life.

[Rethel]

I remember most of your arguments. Let's agree to disagree.

No, you don;t remember. Hg is not a thing on her
own, but a means for evidence of something else.


In short, I believe that is definitely interesting information, but not so important in everyday life.

The much more it is true about au.

[knowledge is king]

No. I cannot afford a Y-DNA test for like $170. The MyOrigins test is enough for me for the moment, because race and ancestry matter more than haplogroups. Anyway, mine is either R1 or I1/2 or, less likely N1c, 'cause my paternal line is from Minsk oblast, Belarus.

Попробуйте дополнительно связаться с российскими учеными, которые специализируются на изучении аутосом.

Есть люди предметно изучающие генеалогию восточнославянских народов, которые вам могут написать профессиональную рецензию, касательно полученных вами ДНК-результатов. Они могут их сравнить со специально подготовленными выборками и сделать дополнительные тесты при помощи подготовленных профильных инструментов.

В общем, я знаю есть специалисты в России, которые занимаются обработкой частных запросов, вроде Дуга Макдональда, попробуйте поинтересоваться у Not a Cop по какому адресу следует писать.

Я в этом вопросе не разбираюсь, к сожалению, мои показатели их вряд ли заинтересуют.

[Rethel]

России, которые занимаются обработкой частных запросов, вроде Дуга Макдональда

Anglosax w Rossiji? :rolleyes:

[Leto]

Попробуйте дополнительно связаться с российскими учеными, которые специализируются на изучении аутосом.

Есть люди предметно изучающие генеалогию восточнославянских народов, которые вам могут написать профессиональную рецензию, касательно полученных вами ДНК-результатов. Они могут их сравнить со специально подготовленными выборками и сделать дополнительные тесты при помощи подготовленных профильных инструментов.

В общем, я знаю есть специалисты в России, которые занимаются обработкой частных запросов, вроде Дуга Макдональда, попробуйте поинтересоваться у Not a Cop по какому адресу следует писать.

Я в этом вопросе не разбираюсь, к сожалению, мои показатели их вряд ли заинтересуют.
А зачем? Мне, в целом, достаточно той информации, которую я имею. Разве что родителей тоже протестировать.

[knowledge is king]

Okay, Tomorrow I would learn I'm _ or _. How would my perception of myself change thereafter? Would I become another person? Obviously not. I already have an identity and other people take me for what I am. Serisouly, man, you are extremely obsessed with Y-DNA. People have lived and died for thousands of years without having the slightest idea of what a haplogroup is. Even now most people would have to google the definition. How can such knowledge be of the essence to an individual's identity if most are still completely unaware of it?


If you intend to study your genealogy professionally and to learn actually about your ancestry, then you should know your Y-haplogroup for certain.

Only Y haplogroup is essential in professional research.

While reading a responses from specialists I noticed they do not pay attention to admixtures at all basically. Personally they do not know even what exact autosomal distributions are common for specific people. They presumably regard it as not important information.

[knowledge is king]

Anglosax w Rossiji? :rolleyes:

Это ученый из университета Иллинойс в США, который занимается обработкой аутосом по частным запросам. У него есть специально разработанный инструментарий для этого.

Вероятно, это его страница http://www.chemistry.illinois.edu/faculty/Douglas_McDonald.html

[Rethel]

If you intend to study your genealogy professionally and to learn actually about your ancestry, then you should know your Y-haplogroup for certain.

Only Y haplogroup is essential in professional research.

While reading a responses from specialists I noticed they do not pay attention to admixtures at all basically. Personally they do not know even what exact autosomal distributions are common for specific people. They presumably regard it as not important information.

Did you have today some kind of revelation? :)

[knowledge is king]

Did you have today some kind of revelation? :)

I was amazed when I consult with people who actually perform a professional studies on genealogy. They think, that autosoms is not important essentially. They don't even know what autosomal distributions are common for certain types of people.

[Rethel]

I was amazed when I consult with people who actually perform a professional studies on genealogy. They think, that autosoms is not important essentially. They don't even know what autosomal distributions are common for certain types of people.

Nada było Rэtэlя słuszać...

[knowledge is king]

Nada było Rэtэlя słuszać...

Who knows maybe I will publish a paper on genealogy too one day.

By the way should I have a position at university for journal's editorial board would accepted my genealogy-paper? I am not employed currently.

Do acclaimed journals accept a publications from casual people in general? Another words, what are basic requirements and what is required in general in order to accomplish it?

[Rethel]

Another words, what are basic requirements and what is required in general in order to accomplish it?

Complete the data. Write with sense. And then you can publish.
Usually, genealogical researches are bublished in own edition, often
in 100 exemplars. If your research is really good and interesting
from some important point of view, then maybe you will find
some support from scholars. Firstly write it. :)

[knowledge is king]

Do acclaimed journals accept a publications from casual people who are not even employed in corresponding field or they accept it from the university staff only?

What should I write in my requisites then? That I am John Smith, the sale manager for instance? Would it be accepted by editorial board? Out of my curiosity.

[Rethel]

Ask them :)