Some White Supremacists Are Finding Their DNA Test Results Disappointing




I’ve been interested in ancestral research ever since my maternal grandfather and his brothers did some genealogical research years ago. So a few years ago, when Ancestry.com began offering their DNA testing, I couldn’t wait to try it.

My test confirmed much of what I knew about my family, but it offered some surprises as well. For instance, we had known that my grandfather on my mom’s side came from Welsh ancestors, and the test proved that my largest percentage of ancestry is from Great Britain. My grandfather and his brothers had always told us that their grandmother was full-blooded Cherokee, yet there’s no Native American DNA in my profile, so I’ve wondered if they were mistaken.



It’s pretty natural to assume that white supremacists would be chomping at the bit to test their DNA to prove their, um, purity. And now research from UCLA has demonstrated just how much these alt-right cretins talk about their heritage at sites like Stormfront – and just how disappointed some of them are when the test results come in.

…many are disappointed to find out that their ancestry is not as “white” as they’d hoped. In a new study, sociologists Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan examined years’ worth of posts on Stormfront to see how members dealt with the news.

It’s striking, they say, that white nationalists would post these results online at all. After all, as Panofsky put it, “they will basically say if you want to be a member of Stormfront you have to be 100 percent white European, not Jewish.”

Naturally, the ones whose DNA fits the profile described above – about a third of the posters on Stormfront’s discussion boards – brag heartily aboug their “pure blood.” Those who don’t? Well, let’s say that they turn denial into an art form.

Some rejected the tests entirely, saying that an individual’s knowledge about his or her own genealogy is better than whatever a genetic test can reveal. “They will talk about the mirror test,” said Panofsky, who is a sociologist of science at UCLA’s Institute for Society and Genetics. “They will say things like, ‘If you see a Jew in the mirror looking back at you, that’s a problem; if you don’t, you’re fine.’” Others, he said, responded to unwanted genetic results by saying that those kinds of tests don’t matter if you are truly committed to being a white nationalist. Yet others tried to discredit the genetic tests as a Jewish conspiracy “that is trying to confuse true white Americans about their ancestry,” Panofsky said.

But some took a more scientific angle in their critiques, calling into doubt the method by which these companies determine ancestry — specifically how companies pick those people whose genetic material will be considered the reference for a particular geographical group.

The authors of the study noted that this particular online community shifted their definitions of who counted as “white.” Those who had been a member of the community for longer periods of time found that they received a pass when their DNA tests turned out different from what they hoped, while newer members weren’t treated with as much favor.

Here’s the thing, and I’ve said it so many times before: this is what happens – on both the right and the left – when people derive their entire identity and worth from what they are rather than who they are. The level of disappointment, along with the constant moving of goalposts, must be pretty exhausting.

Man, these people need Jesus. But they probably don’t care to give their lives over to a Man with Jewish heritage.

Sen. Tim Scott: We Want Clarity and Moral Authority From Our President




Sen. Tim Scott,  the Senate’s only African-American Republican, during an interview with VICE News on Thursday, condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists and joined the beat down on President Donald J. Trump’s comments on last weekend’s “alt-right”/”alt-left” hate riot at Charlottesville saying, what we want to see from our President is clarity and moral authority and that moral authority is compromised:

SEN. SCOTT: I am not going to defend the indefensible. I’m not here to do that. I’m here to be clear, and to be concise and succinct. His comments on Monday were strong. His comments on Tuesday started erasing the comments that were strong. What we want to see from our president is clarity and moral authority. And that moral authority is compromised when Tuesday happens. There’s no question about that. We should all call that on the carpet. I certainly have.

INTERVIEWER: So does the president have moral authority now?

SEN. SCOTT: I think he has it. He’s losing a part of it.

INTERVIEWER: He has it? You think so?



SEN. SCOTT: Also — he’s, we elected him as President so there’s no question that we gave him moral authority. The problem is that in this situation, in the last three or four days, what we’ve seen is that moral authority being compromised by the lack of clarity, by what we have seen as the, a pivot backwards, which is very unsettling for many Americans, to include me.

Scott also said that he would continue to work with Trump when they agree and speak out when he disagrees with the President.

You can watch a video of the interview below (the excerpted passage begins about 1:20 mark):

Tim Scott is an inspiring genuine Conservative. He was the seventh African-American ever elected to the Senate, and the first from the South since Reconstruction. He speaks with great authority and clarity about modern racism.

Ted Cruz Weighs in on Texas A&M Saying No to the Alt-Right




In case you haven’t heard, Texas A&M put the brakes on a planned “White Lives Matter” rally organized by an A&M alum. The event had Richard Spencer on the schedule to speak, and of course, plenty of ridiculousness to follow. Can’t you picture the chaos when Antifa thugs show up to counter-protest the alt-right lunatics – think of Charlottesville 2.0.

Naturally Texas A&M was concerned about the threat to safety as well as the bad press, but they did have an easy out in that regulations prohibit events not sanctioned by an on-campus organization, which this one was not. Even if a campus group had sponsored the event, clearly the school doesn’t want racists fools messing with Texas.



As execrable as the beliefs of these racist losers is – and as horrific as the Antifa response would surely be – questions about free speech and censorship pop up in moments like this. Senator Ted Cruz weighed in, and naturally he laid out the tension between free speech and public safety like a boss:

When people do choose to use their free speech rights to advocate hatred and evil, the rest of us are obliged to counter it. Now I don’t think you counter it with censorship. I agree with John Stuart Mill, who talked about the marketplace of ideas, and the best cure for bad speech, for bad ideas, is more speech and better ideas. And so I think that’s the approach we want to have. I will say I’m glad that Spencer and the White Supremacists are not coming to A&M. … I think Texas doesn’t need to listen to their garbage.

Masterfully said. It’s easy to understand why Texas A&M wants to protect their student body, the campus, and College Station, but where do we draw the line between censorship and public safety? I’m not sure there are easy answers.

No matter how awful their ideas are, and no matter how badly we believe they don’t deserve to be heard, groups like these are protected under the First Amendment.

We need to be able to defeat terrible ideas like those of the alt-right – and Antifa, for that matter – with nonviolence. We need to be able to overcome lies like these in the arena of ideas. It’s the only real way to shut them up for good.

In the meantime, good for Texas A&M for protecting themselves and the surrounding area. But it looks like the debate over free speech will continue to rage on.

Anatomy Of Political Violence: Charlottesville Police Chief Cites ‘Mutually Engaged Combatants’




Charlottesville Police Chief Al Thomas unpacked the events leading to violence and tragedy last weekend, providing a forensic anatomy of political violence. In his press statement, the words “mutually engaged combatants” seem to stand out.

It’s now obvious that both the “alt-right” and the counter-protesters (antifa and others) expected and welcomed violence. They did everything they could to subvert the careful plan police constructed to keep the groups apart and maintain the peace.

They didn’t want peace. They wanted headlines.

Let’s consider something for a moment here, that the leftist press would never, ever think or allow to be spoken or printed.



What if the ill-named “Unite the Right” (aka “J Crew Nazis,” “Tiki Cosplay Brigade,” “David Duke Dorks,” “Basement Brony Racists,” etc.) jackasses showed up, and nobody was there to counter-protest? What would have happened?

Would the Pepe-loving Trumpkins have suddenly gained national acceptance, added tens of thousands to their numbers, and consigned the works of William F. Buckley, Martin Luther King, Alexis de Tocqueville, Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and  John Stuart Mill to Fahrenheit 451, to be replaced with Ann Coulter, Milo Yiannopoulos, Jared Taylor and Matthew Heibback? (Not to mention Ayn Rand and the Mother of All Struggles: Mein Kampf.)

Does anyone really think these misled sheep are anything but the fringiest of the conspiracy-loving fringe? Yet, like moths drawn to a flame, the far-left conspiracy-loving fringe showed up with violence in its heart.

The two groups probably have more in common than they care to admit if they sat down with a bottle of cheap bumwine long enough to discuss it. For example, they probably share a despicable belief that 9/11 was either a Bush-led or Israeli conspiracy. They probably agree with the blood libel that Jews and Zionists are a pox upon the earth. They likely agree that large corporations and banks are conspiring to keep the “little people” down and broke.

And they agree that violence is the path to a new order.

The groups needed each other to supply the “them” for violence–since killing little old ladies at Walmart doesn’t win sympathy from a sympathetic press or Steve Bannon. Just like ISIS needs to behead soldiers on the streets of London and Toronto and on factory floors in Oklahoma City, both the left and right fringe need to play to their deranged base.

The left fringe shows up to incite violence even at genuinely peaceful events like campus speeches by Ben Shapiro (who could not, ever, be called “alt-right”). When they show up at an event where “mutually engaged combatants” have arrived hell-bent-for-violence, violence will erupt.

Yet the press continues to call the left fringe’s incitement “protest,” and the right fringe’s incitement “hate.” They conveniently forget about James Hodgkinson, or the litany of violent incitements and attacks Ben Domenech compiled.





Both sides are guilty–on that one point, President Trump is right. However, Trump’s refusal to disavow the support of his right fringe worshippers, and his condemnation of the press as “bad people” has destroyed the credibility of his public statement. Every time Trump condemns the right fringe, he always follows with a wink and a nod on Twitter.

 

The man simply can’t condemn people who love him so much, even if they are truly bad people.

And we know that they are: Truly. Bad. People.

If the leftist press really wants to end the growth of the “alt-right” cancer, they must first tell their favorite pet left fringe to stop showing up. Occam’s Razor: Not having “mutually engaged combatants” on both sides does tend to decrease the chance of violence happening.

Southern Baptists Issue Resolution Condemning The Alt-Right…But Why Did They Have To?

On Wednesday, 5,000 members of the Southern Baptist Convention approved a resolution condemning the alt-right, a measure that wasn’t as easy as it sounds on the surface.

After the convention passed resolutions condemning Planned Parenthood, denouncing gambling, and advocating “consistent moral character” (including “those leaders who choose not to meet privately with members of the opposite sex who are not their spouse”), Dwight McKissic, a black Baptist pastor from Texas, introduced a resolution against the alt-right.

Seems like it would be an easy resolution to adopt, right? Not so fast, as the Washington Post reports:

…when the resolution on the alt-right failed to move forward because of objections to some of the wording, many younger members and evangelicals of color became upset. “I thought it would be a slam dunk, but I misread Southern Baptists apparently,” McKissic said.

Barrett Duke, chairman of the SBC’s resolutions committee, told Religion News Service that the committee’s decision to not bring the resolution forward for a vote on Tuesday was “not an endorsement of the alt-right.” He said the initial resolution did not clearly define who the alt-right is.

And then, on Wednesday:

Just before the proposal was passed, one member asked Southern Baptist leaders whether a study of the “alt right and the alt left” could be done this year. But then several Southern Baptists stood before the convention urging the convention to adopt the resolution before it passed.

In the end, the resolution did pass:

“Racism and white supremacy are, sadly, not extinct but present all over the world in various white supremacist movements, sometimes known as ‘white nationalism’ or ‘alt-right,’ ” the resolution states. Southern Baptists “decry every form of racism, including alt-right white supremacy, as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ” and “we denounce and repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as of the devil.”

But I can’t help but wonder something: if so many prominent Southern Baptists (and other evangelicals, to be perfectly honest) hadn’t gone all in for Donald Trump throughout the election season, would a resolution condemning the alt-right be necessary? Or would it at least have been a no-brainer the first time around?

To be fair, the alt-right was but a tiny fringe of Trump’s supporters, but his candidacy brought them to light. And – fairly or not – the Trump candidacy wound up walking around with the stink of white nationalism stuck to its shoes because of the alt-right’s . Unfortunately, that odor haunts Christians who hopped on the “Trump Train” to some extent.

Let’s face it: would it have been necessary to go on record condemning an execrable philosophy that so few people adhere to had men like Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell, Jr. not supported Trump so vocally? The American church has dealt with the specter of racism for generations – often admirably – but this fight could’ve been unnecessary had Christians approached the 2016 election a little differently.

It’s Time For Trump To Renounce the ‘Alt-Right’

If Donald Trump really means what he said in his victory speech, that “it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together.” If he really wants Republicans, Democrats and independents to “come together as one united people,” he needs to recognize one sad reality.

There are a not-insignificant number of hateful, evil racists who support him. The so-called “alt-right,” which has become a fetid hive of anti-Semites, white supremacists, American “Nativists” and other social dysfunctionals, seeks to become legitimized through the most powerful office in the world. They must not be.

Racists and neo-Nazis are celebrating.

In Wellsville, N.Y., a massive swastika is scrawled on a park wall: “Make America White Again.”

In Maple Grove, Minn., messages in a high school bathroom include “#gobacktoafrica,” “#whitesonly” and “#whiteamerica” — along with “Trump Train.”

At the University of Vermont, students found a Donald Trump campaign sign painted with a swastika three doors down from the campus Hillel.

Experts and educators say an alarming succession of racist behavior, graffiti and crime since Election Day can be linked to Trump’s victory. And they say the Republican president-elect could play a crucial role in curbing the disquieting conduct.

Trump must reject them.

President Obama sat under a racist pastor for 20 years, and invited known race-baiters like Al Sharpton to the White House on many occasions. But he abandoned Jeremiah Wright once he became president. Obama, in his public comments, does not stand up and concur with the methods used by Black Lives Matter and other extremist racist groups.

Obama did much to create this witches brew of racial division in the last eight years, and now if Trump really wants to be a healer, he has to take the step of renouncing the “alt-right.” Appointing Stephen Bannon to the powerful chief of staff position is, in my opinion, the wrong move. Breitbart News has curried favor and encouraged the worst of Trump’s supporters for over a year. Bannon sends the wrong signal.

Trump should publicly and unequivocally say that racism is not welcome in the America he wants to govern and lead. Otherwise, this will not get better. It will in fact get much, much worse.

Trump Supporters: What Happens If Your Man Wins…Or Doesn’t…

Yesterday I wrote an open letter to Never Trumpers, a hypothetical–but very possible–scenario in which Donald Trump wins the presidency. I took the (no doubt controversial) position that Never Vote Trumpers should not become Never President Trumpers. I suggested that it’s better to hold Trump to some standards of policy and practice we expect from a Republican in office.

Now I want to address Trump’s supporters. As my colleague here at The Resurgent, the estimable Josh Hammer, has noted, there are three kinds of Trump supporters.

  • Type 1: The reluctant voter who is concerned about SCOTUS or convinced Trump is less bad than Hillary Clinton. This is the majority of GOP voters who are likely to vote for Trump.
  • Type 2: Rational and reasonable “paleoconservatives” with perhaps an appetite for populism and a great tolerance for every possible character flaw to be found in a presidential hopeful. This category is in grave danger of extinction, as most who hold to it have been pushed beyond their limit for scum. At least the ones I know. The public figures in this type are more or less trapped there, whether they really believe in Trump or not. Some are there because of loyalty, longtime friendship, or blatant self-interest in supporting Trump. With him their fortunes lie, or at least swapping sides right now would result in difficulty.
  • Type 3: The actual “alt-right.” The obscene blood & soil racists, Pepe meme users, Jew-haters, Muslim-baiters, and tinfoil-hat conspiracists. These are the original Branch Trumpidians: Birthers, 9/11 truthers, and other nuts (I wouldn’t be surprised if “Flat Earthers for Trump” or Bart Sibrel‘s Apollo-was-faked club wasn’t part of this group). These people are actually a smaller group than their media footprint would suggest, mostly because they are augmented by a Twitter bot army, with strong evidence it’s run by a Kremlin-controlled disinformation agency.

The message is somewhat different for each type of Trump voter, so I’ll dispense with Type 3 right here. You are unacceptable as Americans, and if there were a Constitutional way to strip you of citizenship, I’d advocate it. But part of the First Amendment gives you the right to be despicable.

You think Trump is going to give you what you want, because you’ve convinced yourself he’s your man. He isn’t. He doesn’t want your respect because he already owns you. He had you at “hello” and now he’s conquered you. Like all Trump’s conquests, you are being used, and will continue to be used until you’re not useful. In the White House, Trump may very well find you a liability, and then you’ll see exactly what your loyalty gets you (a visit from the FBI).

If that’s what you get, you deserve every hassle, legal action, and prosecution you earned. And if some of you end up in jail, I won’t miss you when you’re gone.

On the other hand, if Trump somehow sullies the office of POTUS by inviting your presence, influence, or advice, I will treat him like Barack Obama, who sat under the preaching of a known racist for 20 years, and regularly invites racists to join him at the White House and on the road. I will oppose Trump if he shows any inclination to pander to the “alt-right.”

I’ll let Forrest Gump finish my thought: “And that’s all I have to say about that.”

To the Type 2 Trump supporter, you’ve put a lot on the table, and expect a return. This is going to be a big disappointment. At best, you’re going to get the Republican version of Jimmy Carter. If that’s what a President Trump is like, I can live with it, although “stagflation,” capital flight, and international humiliation could be a problem for me. But at least we can agree on where we agree, on how to rebuilt the party.

At worst, you’re going to get the totally unfit person we Never Trumpers have been saying he is. This means an amateur, self-obsessed, thin-skinned, vengeful, clueless, and–worst of all–utterly predictable a-hole. It’ll be full-on Biff Tannen as president, and it will be ugly.

Many of you will go coyote-ugly on Trump and try to salvage some self-respect versus becoming permanent SNL cold-open stereotypes. Some of you will try to cash in with the Type 3 Trumpkins by selling Kool-Aid to them. May God help you. As Erick has noted, “What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

How will you treat Never Trumpers? Whoever is willing to stand on principle versus personal allegiance should be able to find common ground with us. But I will never give in to pressure to become someone’s personal lackey–president or not.

You can see how it worked out for all of Obama’s lickspittles and sycophants. The man has no coattails and left a party with no future other than two old white people, one an avowed communist and the other a kleptocrat. (As bad as it is for the Democrats, they’ll probably still win because Trump is that bad.) Those who stick with Trump out of personal loyalty will fare no better. Hold him accountable to conservative principles (liberty, small government, pro-life) and we can accomplish something.

And finally, for the Type 1 Trump voter, I believe we can see eye to eye, if you will give us the freedom of conscience that we didn’t vote for Trump because we believe him to be unfit and unacceptable.

He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the Lord require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?

(Micah 6:8)

As a Christian, humility and mercy are character traits to be admired and lived. If Trump wins, I am willing to show that mercy and give him the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to be humble and submit to him as my president. But I will also work tirelessly for justice. God is responsible for the outcome.

For Trump voters, “winning” has a price. Maybe God will touch Donald Trump and he will become a Godly man. Whether he wins or loses, I will pray for that. But it’s also possible that Trump will work to consolidate power in a most baleful way. There may be a temptation, especially for Christians who voted for Trump, to try to marginalize, purge, or otherwise set aside voters of conscience who opposed Trump.

I’m prepared to accept that. But I also caution Christians who would claim some kind of prophetic anointing, or divine mandate for Trump to (as he puts it) #DrainTheSwamp. Absolutely, Washington D.C. is the swamp. NeverTrump is not. The squishy establishment will do whatever their wet fingers in the wind tell them. Don’t bundle Never Trump with those Quislings.

If you voted for Trump, and he does win, know that at least some Never Trumpers have enough self-awareness to both stand with you and with conservative principle, if you realize the futility of “vengeance” against we who saw things the way we saw them and could do no other than cling to conscience.

But what if Trump loses?

Let’s face it, the likelihood of a Trump loss to Clinton, even if it’s close and “tightening,” is greater than the probability of him winning. As I write this, I’m watching the Chicago Cubs play the Cleveland Indians in a nail-biter, coming back from a 3-1 deficit. The odds of the Cubs winning it all, at the start of game 5, were less than the odds of Trump winning the presidency right now.

But Trump’s win depends on millions of voters going to the polls and overcoming Clinton’s advantage, and some Clinton voters staying home. The Cubs only have one adversary, and their own talent. In other words, no matter what Trump does at this point, he probably can’t help himself too much. The coin is in the slot and the wheels are spinning.

If Trump loses, he might go full “alt-right” and embarrass himself. He might challenge the election results. He might blame everyone but himself. In this case, I fully expect to be vilified as a Never Trumper. Somehow, we will be blamed for handing the election to Clinton, although Trump made his own bed.

There will really be two paths going forward. Either the Type 1 and Type 2 Trump voters will wake up and find common ground to rebuild the GOP, but this time listening to the very real grievances  they’ve ignored for decades (read Erick’s piece on listening to Rush Limbaugh). Or the Type 2 supporters in the media and political spheres will overreact and pander to the Type 3 idiots.

This is what happened to the Democrats when so many progressives in the media, on university campuses, and in think tanks went full on for all kinds of pandering to BLM, La Raza, and other extreme–even racist–groups. Now we have a whole generation of pampered “safe space” seeking brats who feel it’s okay to ostracize Jews because they’re Jewish and re-implement segregation so African American students can avoid being around white people.

Post-election, if Trump loses, we will have an either-or situation. As I wrote in April, we cannot build a Frankenstein GOP. Either conservatism survives in some form, or the party goes the way of Trumpism.

The GOP has to find its soul and create a new, coherent and natural set of chromosomes from this mess. And it will be messy.

The nature of the process is that some genetic material will be discarded. Either conservative Christians and “movement conservatives” in the small-government, liberty crowd will be forcibly ejected from the GOP, or the nativist, America-first, trade protectionists will be gone. These two wings just won’t go along easily with each other.

To get specific, we can’t have a compassionate Christian response to a problem that includes killing the families of ISIS members. We can’t have a coherent answer to the abortion scourge that includes Planned Parenthood “doing good things.” We can’t have a party opposed to the Left’s P.C. culture that includes shutting down debate and curtailing the press’ First Amendment rights. We can’t have a solution to global trade that includes belittling and demonizing our trade partners, allies and rivals.

If Trumpism becomes the heart and soul of the GOP, count me out for good.

Believe it or not, I’d rather have Trump win and Trumpism die with him in office than for him to lose and it live on. Actually I’d rather have the race thrown into the House of Representatives and have Evan McMullin as president, but that’s a long shot. Trump winning and Trumpism dying is my second choice, but it’s also a long shot–maybe even a longer shot.

Should Trump win, he will have my support, right up to the point he betrays conservative values (which could be anywhere from 4 years to 12 hours). Should he lose, I would appreciate–but not expect–the same grace and mercy.

Is This Alt-Right Enough? One In 12 Germans Think ‘Naziism Had Its Good Side’

This will surely please the Sturm und Drang crowd who follow Donald Trump on Twitter, you know, the ones who put “((( )))” around the names of Jews.

From the Times of London, an almost unbelievable report.

One in ten Germans yearns for a new Führer to apply a firm hand for the common good, a poll suggests, exposing the depth of far-right tendencies seven decades after the downfall of the Nazis.

Eleven per cent said they thought that Jews had too much influence in society and 12 per cent thought that Germans were by nature superior to other people.

More than 8 per cent of Germans said they believed that Nazism had its good side, with almost 6 per cent believing that Hitler would have gone down in history as a great statesman were it not for the genocide of the Jews.

The current chancellor, Angela Merkel, opened Germany’s borders to hundreds of thousands of Muslim migrants (not refugees), who have assimilated about as well as DMX fans at a Donny Osmond concert.

And Trump sympathizes with those who believe Muslims should be banned from Germany, in what would be called in America the alt-right–in Germany it’s the Alternative for Germany party (AfD).

Trump said:

“You know, what Merkel has done is incredible, it’s actually mind boggling. Everyone thought she was a really great leader and now she’s turned out to be this catastrophic leader. And she’ll be out if they don’t have a revolution,” he continued.

The AfD would love to have that happen.

Oliver Decker, another co-author, said that right-wing extremists had found a new home in the AfD.

“Nazism and the extreme right are often considered to be at the margins of society,” he said. “But this is not true. The ideology of nationalist thinking is common.”

The AfD has said it is not a far-right party but represents the long-ignored views of many ordinary Germans.

Sounds familiar to me. I’m not sure where I heard that before–oh yes! From Trump supporters. America first, right? Blood and soil.

I can’t tell which is worse for America: President Obama’s obsession with being just like Europe, or Trump’s obsession with some of their former leaders.