Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

The Genetic Explanation Behind White Passing People

N

Neutraliy

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2021
Posts
8,037
Maternal and Paternal line rule


The question of who is White passing (still have non white dna) and who is not White in regards to predominately White people with some non-White ancestry rages on. People’s opinions on this topic can range from very liberal to a one drop rule going back 10 generations. I have crystallized a method of determining who is White passing (still have non white dna) and who is not White. This method is realistic, yet at the same time very strict. Here are the details.

If you're 3/4 White, 1/4 non-white (Indian, Arab, north Asian or high cast East Indian) you LOOK White, and it's your father's mother or mother's father who is the non-white grandparent, thus having both a White mtDNA and or White Y-haplogroup, you're either mixed or white passing.

If you're 3/4 White, 1/4 non-White and a female who's mother's mother is non-White, thus a non-White mtDNA haplogroup, you're NOT White

If you're 3/4 White, 1/4 non-White and a male who's father's father is non-white, thus a non-White Y-haplogroup, you're NOT White.

If you're 3/4 White, 1/4 non-White and a male who's mother's mother is non-white, or a female who's father's father is non-white, you’re mixed kalergi mongrel as opposed to out and out non-White. Reason why is that a male will not pass on their mtDNA and a female does not have a Y-haplogroup.

If you're 1/8th non-white, and 7/8th White, in most cases you're not White given the PCA map. The exceptions to this would be a male whose great grandfather along the direct paternal line was non-white, or a female whose great grandmother along the direct maternal line was non-white. In fact a female who is 1/16th, 1/32nd or 1/64th non-White along the direct maternal line may still be considered mixed because of the non-White mtDNA haplogroup. Their male children would be considered non-White assuming their spouse is White. The same principle applies to males who are 1/16th, 1/32nd or 1/64 non-White along the direct paternal line. They also may be considered mixed because of their non-White Y-haplogroup. However, their female children would be considered non-White assuming their spouse is White.

The rules set fourth for 1/4 and 1/8th non-white people, in many cases, do NOT apply if the non-white ancestor is Black. The Black genome is so radically different from the White genome. Such a distinction must be made.
1724729366652

Why the Emphasis on Maternal and Paternal lines?

The reason we must put emphasis on direct maternal and paternal lines is because of mt DNA and Y chromosomes. A person's mt DNA is only passed from mother to child. Y chromosomes are only passed from father to child. Women can only pass on their mt DNA. Men can only pass on their Y chromosome. Y chromosomes and mt DNA are carried on for countless generations.

When examining one’s ancestry, you got to keep in mind the numbers of ancestors you have when you go back generations. Three generations back you have 8 ancestors. Easy to trace and account for all eight ancestors. Five generations back you have 32 ancestors. Not quit as easy to account for all 32 ancestors, although not impossible. When you go 6, 7, 8 or 9 generations back, you find 64, 128, 256 and 512 ancestors respectively. It would be very tough to account for all 64 ancestors going back just 6 generations. Trying to account for all 128, 256 and 512 ancestors would be nearly impossible.

HOWEVER, thanks to mt DNA and Y DNA haplogroups, you can trace your ancestry along direct maternal and paternal lines going back countless generations indefinitely. This makes a person’s ancestry along maternal and paternal lines most important with the direct paternal line being especially important to males and the direct maternal line being especially important to females.

I prefer that mt DNA and Y haplogroups are consistent with the race that the individual appears to be.


Where do Bi-racial people stand in the equation?

If you're a 1/2 White, 1/2 non-white, and a male with a non-white mother and a White father, thus a White Y-haplogroup, you're kalergi mongrel.

If you're a 1/2 White, 1/2 non-white, and a male with a non-white father and a White mother, thus a non-White Y-haplogroup, you're completely NON-WHITE.

If you're a 1/2 White, 1/2 non-white, and a female with a non-white father and a White mother, thus a White mtDNA haplogroup, you're kalergi mongrel.

If you're a 1/2 White, 1/2 non-white, and a female with a non-white mother and a White father, thus a non-White mtDNA haplogroup, you're completely NON-WHITE.


Why the distinction between mixed and non-White Biracial people?

I’ll use two hypothetical, fictitious and very similar examples to demonstrate why this is important.

Let’s say in 1908, there were two half Indian/ half White baby girls born named Mary and Jane. The only real difference between Mary and Jane is that Mary had a White father and an Indian mother, whereas Jane had a White mother and Indian father. Let’s say both Mary and Jane married White men and had quarter breed daughters. Then both quarter breed daughters had daughters, then grand daughters, then great grand daughters. Each generation, these women mate with White men.

Let’s speed ahead to 2008 were we have two 20 year old women named Emily and Lisa. Now Emily’s great, great grandmother was Jane, the woman with a White mother and Indian father. And Lisa’s great, great grandmother was Mary, the woman with a White father and Indian mother. Both Emily and Lisa look White with no visible traces of non-White ancestry. Both Emily and Lisa have the same small amount of non-White ancestry. There is just one major difference between Emily and Lisa. Emily goes for a genetic test and has a White mt DNA haplogroup H, consistent to how White she looks. White, European mt DNA that she will pass on to her children. At the same time, Lisa goes for a genetic test and has an alien, non-White mt DNA haplogroup B, that does not reflect at all how White she looks. Non-White mt DNA that she will pass on to her children, regardless of how White her husband may be. Thus, these half breed are in fact pose as a trojan horse because of how white passing they really are.

Again, Let’s say in 1908, there were two half Asian, half White baby boys born named Bob and Joe. The only real difference between Bob and Joe is that Bob had a White father and an Asian mother, whereas Joe had a White mother and Asian father. Let’s say both Bob and Joe married White women and had quarter breed sons. Then both quarter breed sons had sons then grandsons then great grandsons. Each generation, these men mate with White women.

Let’s speed ahead to 2008 were we have two 20 year old men named Dean and Tyler. Now Tyler's’s great, great grandfather was Bob, the man with a White father and Asian mother. And Dean's’s great, great grandfather was Joe, the man with a White mother and Asian father. Both Tyler and Dean look White with no visible traces of non-White ancestry. Both Tyler and Dean have the same small amount of non-White ancestry. In this case, there are 2 major differences between Tyler and Dean. Tyler goes for a genetic test and has a White Y-haplogroup R1b, consistent to how White he looks. A White, European Y-chromosome that he will pass on to his sons. Tyler also has a White sounding surname. At the same time, Dean goes for a genetic test and has an alien, non-White Y-haplogroup C and a non-White surname of Chong that does not reflect at all how White he looks. Non-White surname that he will pass on to her children and a non-White Y-haplogroup he will pass on to his sons, regardless of how White his wife may be.


Looking back 100 years, the fact that Jane had a White mother, Mary had an Indian mother, Bob had a White father and Joe had an Asian father made a big difference. This is why I make a distinction between biracial females with a White mother compared to biracial females with a non-White mother and make a distinction between Biracial males with a White father compared with biracial males with a non-White father. This is why I say that Jane and Bob were mixed (only white passing), whereas Mary and Joe were straight out NON-White. If you test both of their autosomal dna then you will find the non-white dna among them totally distinct from the untainted whites.



If a Black American male has a White Y haplogroup, does this make them any less Black?

Yes, it does make them less Black. I'll explain how.
Let's say for example you have 2 afro American men, Joe and Leroy.
Both are 80% Black and 20% White.
Both are married to White women with mulatto offspring.
The only real difference is that Joe's Y haplogroup is Rb1a1a, were as Leroy's Y haplogroup is E1b1a. This means that Joe's mulatto offspring have both a European Y haplogroup and mtDNA. Were as Leroy's mulatto offspring have a European mtDNA, but an African Y haplogroup.

Joe's mulatto offspring are by NO means even close to being White. However, with each generation, the African autosomal DNA can be cut in half. Within 4 to 5 generations, the African autosomal DNA would be minimal, with European Y and mtDNA haplogroups.

On the other hand, Leroy's mulatto offspring will have the African Y haplogroup that could be pass down indefinitely to future generations as long as the sons keep having sons.

This makes Joe (Rb1a1a) less objectionable or the lesser of 2 evils in terms of borderline assimilation, than Leroy (E1b1a) So Joe, who's Y haplogroup is Rb1a1a is indeed less Black that Leroy who's Y haplogroup is E1b1a but still a kalergi mongrel who act as trojan horse bringing non-white dna to the untainted population.

If you're White and mate with non-Whites then your offspring are less related to you than the average White person walking down the street in your neighborhood.
1724728625780

Conclusion

A common view in the White Nationalist community regarding the question of "who is White?" is the 1/16th rule. Given the large percentage of 1/4 and 1/8th non-whites that some white people have today, is the 1/16th rule reasonable under these conditions? This would exclude a lot of people who look White, who pose trojan horse threat to the race, and are ingrained in white people society. It just makes more sense for white nationalist to exclude them all through genetic testing.

 
Last edited:
my dad was white and my mum was a filipina. What am I?
 
Interesting stuff if true
 
Too bad none of this is correct.

Race doesn't exist. It's a social construct. Humans are 99.5-99.9% similar. Skin colour doesn't determine "race".

Should be worth noting that "white skin" in "Middle Eastern" peoples are due to the same genes as "white skin" in "Europeans".

If "race" had a merit, then you'd have to accept "North Africans" and "Middle Easterners" as part of the same "race" as "Europeans".

PS: Haplogroups don't determine skin colour or "race"; they are tiny proportion of your DNA and just refer to people sharing a common ancestor.

Also, "white skin" didn't evolve in what we call "Europe". Ironically enough, the genes that cause white skin in "Europeans" came from Anatolian Farmers and that's shared between "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners" (in varying proportions). The ancestral component that most Middle Easterners lack that most Europeans have (in varying proportions) is derived from Western Hunter Gatherers who were dark skinned.
 
Last edited:
Too bad none of this is correct.

Race doesn't exist. It's a social construct. Humans are 99.5-99.9% similar. Skin colour doesn't determine "race".

Should be worth noting that "white skin" in "Middle Eastern" peoples are due to the same genes as "white skin" in "Europeans".

If "race" had a merit, then you'd have to accept "North Africans" and "Middle Easterners" as part of the same "race" as "Europeans".

PS: Haplogroups don't determine skin colour or "race"; they are tiny proportion of your DNA and just refer to people sharing a common ancestor.

Also, "white skin" didn't evolve in what we call "Europe". Ironically enough, the genes that cause white skin in "Europeans" came from Anatolian Farmers and that's shared between "Europeans" and "Middle Easterners" (in varying proportions). The ancestral component that most Middle Easterners lack that most Europeans have (in varying proportions) is derived from Western Hunter Gatherers who were dark skinned.
Is this sarcasm or you are being genuine?
 
Is this sarcasm or you are being genuine?
With a name like "Racial-Identitarian" I wouldn't expect truth or evidence to be your guiding light.

I expect vague racial labels, special pleading fallacies and misuse and abuse of studies to be your "guiding light".

Why would I not be genuine about what I said? It is a FACT that "race" is a social construct and not a biological reality. It is a FACT skin colour does NOT and can NOT denote "race". It is FACT that Haplogroups don't determine "race" or "skin colour". It is a FACT the Farmers from Anatolia were light skinned but Western Hunter Gatherers were not. It is a FACT that Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans share alleles as well as the same SPECIFIC genes for light skin (which isn't shared with "light-skinned" East Asians). It is a FACT that Middle Easterners and Europeans form a "Western Eurasian" cluster in global population studies.

Here's another FACT that I will mention. The genetic distance between some Europeans and others can be and has been SHOWN to be larger than the distance between some Europeans and some non-Europeans. Only a moron would equate a Saami to a Calabrian; the former has almost no Southern European or Middle Eastern ancestry and has notable Eastern Eurasian ancestry (to a lesser extent this applies to Finns and Northern Russians; why haven't you excluded them out of the "white race" like you do European Jews?) whilst the latter has low Northern European ancestry, substantial Southern European ancestry and SUBSTANTIAL Middle Eastern ancestry (which clusters them with European Jews by the way).

It's not up to me to do the basic research. It's up to you to not spread factual errors.
 
With a name like "Racial-Identitarian" I wouldn't expect truth or evidence to be your guiding light.

I expect vague racial labels, special pleading fallacies and misuse and abuse of studies to be your "guiding light".

Why would I not be genuine about what I said? It is a FACT that "race" is a social construct and not a biological reality. It is a FACT skin colour does NOT and can NOT denote "race". It is FACT that Haplogroups don't determine "race" or "skin colour". It is a FACT the Farmers from Anatolia were light skinned but Western Hunter Gatherers were not. It is a FACT that Europeans, Middle Easterners and North Africans share alleles as well as the same SPECIFIC genes for light skin (which isn't shared with "light-skinned" East Asians). It is a FACT that Middle Easterners and Europeans form a "Western Eurasian" cluster in global population studies.

Here's another FACT that I will mention. The genetic distance between some Europeans and others can be and has been SHOWN to be larger than the distance between some Europeans and some non-Europeans. Only a moron would equate a Saami to a Calabrian; the former has almost no Southern European or Middle Eastern ancestry and has notable Eastern Eurasian ancestry (to a lesser extent this applies to Finns and Northern Russians; why haven't you excluded them out of the "white race" like you do European Jews?) whilst the latter has low Northern European ancestry, substantial Southern European ancestry and SUBSTANTIAL Middle Eastern ancestry (which clusters them with European Jews by the way).

It's not up to me to do the basic research. It's up to you to not spread factual errors.
AI Slop
 
I read something like that on stormfront
 
I read your post, but why do you define whiteness based solely on paternal/maternal haplogroups? 2 people can share 99.9% of their autosomal DNA percentages yet have different haplogroups.

By that logic, that would mean some Southern Europeans, Slavs, and Northern Europeans wouldn’t be considered white, which doesn’t make sense. See here:
content-a-map-of-europe-based-on-haplogroups-1.png.webp
 
I read your post, but why do you define whiteness based solely on paternal/maternal haplogroups? 2 people can share 99.9% of their autosomal DNA percentages yet have different haplogroups.

By that logic, that would mean some Southern Europeans, Slavs, and Northern Europeans wouldn’t be considered white, which doesn’t make sense. See here:
content-a-map-of-europe-based-on-haplogroups-1.png.webp
I define it based on autsosomal admixture
 
Then why does your post give so much weight to mt/Y-DNA haplogroups?
Because it was my fucking stupid past do you understand
I request mod team to delete it but they didn't
Get it now
 
I read your post, but why do you define whiteness based solely on paternal/maternal haplogroups? 2 people can share 99.9% of their autosomal DNA percentages yet have different haplogroups.

By that logic, that would mean some Southern Europeans, Slavs, and Northern Europeans wouldn’t be considered white, which doesn’t make sense. See here:
content-a-map-of-europe-based-on-haplogroups-1.png.webp
"White" is an ill-defined Northern European (primarily Anglosphere) term. I've already told you this. If by "white" you mean "European" then it is absurd to equate a Finn to a Spaniard let alone a Sicilian, let ALONE a Cretan or Rhodian. In terms of physical features, all of these groups are easily distinguished. In terms of genetics, there are great differences between Finns and Spaniards, notable differences between Spaniards vs Sicilians, Rhodians and Cretans and low differences between Sicilians, Rhodians and Cretans.

How are we equating these peoples with different cultures, customs, physical appearances and genetic ancestries in various proportions? Just because they "share a continent" (which isn't even true for any of Rhodes or parts of Sicily). Finns have little to no Southern or Near Eastern ancestry whereas Spain has less Near Eastern ancestry than Northern Italy. I don't think I need to even bother explaining Rhodes or Crete and I already refuted you regarding Sicily and Southern Italy in general.

We know white supremacist ideology could NEVER accept Turks as "white"; not even the ones from Thrace even though all of Thrace is in Europe (although Thrace alone exposes the retardness of white supremacist ideology; we know Turks from Thrace aren't substantially different from Greek Thracians; how does crossing an artificial border into a place with genetically similar people "change your race" exactly?)

How are you accepting glorified Turks as "white" when you won't accept the real thing? I can guarantee you that Southern Italians are physically, culturally and genetically closer to Turks and EVEN Kurds than any Western or Eastern Slav.
 

Similar threads

undertaker77
Replies
19
Views
975
Uninvited
Uninvited
Zer0/∞
Replies
92
Views
3K
kevkon
kevkon
kevkon
Replies
26
Views
1K
RedReversal
RedReversal

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top